herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/11/85)
tonight's topics:
i listened to vandersteen 2c's
stanley lipschitz on the Meridian CD player
portable electrostatic speakers
i bought hitachi cable
i have turntable problems
----------------------------------------
i had a chance a few days ago to have a listen to Vandersteen speakers.
the system was:
vandersteen 2c
grado am-8 cartridge
heybrook tt-2 with heybrook ht-1 arm
hafler dh-110 pre-amp and dh-220 power amp
nakimichi oms-5 CD player
temperature and relative humidity unknown
cabling unknown but $$$$
the room was small, but carefully prepared for listening with
damping material on walls, speakers on stands with
spikes into floor and speakers and carefully placed
the material i chose was mostly jazz guitar. i only had a very brief
session (half an hour) but it was enough to form initial impressions.
on solo guitar, the sound was well reproduced with no easily noticeable
frequency response anomalies. transient reproduction was excellent
with sharp attack from the guitar pick well defined. other jazz music
with lots of percussion was clear and imaging was precise and stable.
however, on flamenco guitar, with rapid shifts in range from bass to
treble, the vandersteen's suffered from sudden vertical shifts in
image. this is probably caused by the spacing of drivers and cannot be
corrected without physical re-design of the speakers.
the soundstage suffered from "hole-in-the-middle" effect where the
sound seemed to be coming from the two speakers and not from the center
even though the material was clearly miked and mixed that way. in my
experience, this is an amplifier effect rather than speaker, though
aiming the speakers so that their axis is toward the listener reduces
this. (i have no explanation of why amplifiers differ in this regard,
and the effect is poorly correlated with price above the $1000 range.)
however, the listening window then is much smaller. i am willing to live
with this, so my speakers are aimed for one spot.
under the conditions that i heard them, i feel that my speakers (B&W
DM7 Mk2, no longer made) provide superior imaging, but less bass
output. this could be because of poorer coupling of my speakers to the
room. at $2100 CAN, the vandersteen's deserve serious consideration
for the less budget restricted audiophile and are comparable in price
to the B&W DM3000's which i am more familiar with. i think that the
B&W's provide superior imaging so i personally would go for them,
although for me, i am looking a better speakers yet (unfortunately also
more $$$$).
this is second hand, but Stanley Lipschitz (frequent contributor to JAES),
spent some time listening and comparing the Meridian CD player with
Sony players (of which his audio lab has several). he supposedly said
that the Meridian sounded no different that almost any other CD player
and that unless you really want to own a Meridian, why not buy a Sony
for half the price. he was impressed with the Sony WM-CD5 though.
a while back, someone asked about electrostatic headphones for their
WM-CD5. well, it seems that Stax makes a portable battery powered
amplifier for their headphones (excuse me, earspeakers). the model
number is SRD-X and powers any of the Stax 'phones. a Stax dealer
should be able to order it in for you. it is portable in the sense
that the WM-CD5 is portable.
i went and bought a 3.5M pair of the Hitachi LC-OFC SSX-104 speaker
cable that has been the subject of controversy lately. there are two
versions of the cable: SSX-102 with two conductors, and SSX-104 with
for conductors. after careful preparation of the cable (dressing ends,
"tweek"ing all new contacts, etc.), i attached them and listened with
my tapedeck as a source. (my turntable in is for repair right now.
more on this later.) the first noticeable difference was less bass than
i'm used to. the hitachi cable is about 1/3 the effective diameter of
the cable i was using before (livewire BC-8) so this was probably the
cause. the difference wasn't all that subtle either. given this and
the fact that i was unable to use my turntable for a source, i am
unable to make any more conclusions about the cable. with the expected
small difference that in other areas that the cable should make, only
double blind testing should used to compare the two cables.
a claimed benefit of the hitachi cable is reduced microvibrations that
lead to muddying of the sound in the midrange. these vibrations are
supposed to be caused by the transients traveling through the cable to
the speaker. as unlikely as it sounds, there is some theoretical basis
for this. the effect can be most easily demonstrated with a high power
electronic flash unit. i used to use a Metz 202 professional handle
mount unit with separate battery pack and capacitors. when the flash
(rated at 200W/s for 1/500 s) is discharged, the connecting cable moves
visibly and can be easily felt. the range of voltages are vastly
different from audio and i am extremely skeptical of vibrations in the
wire having any audible effect, but the jacket of the hitachi cable is
especially wound to reduce all cable movement. hitachi is not the only
cable manufacturer who is doing this, but then high end audio is not
well known for its rationality. however, if the cable moves at all,
then electrical energy is being dissipated as mechanical energy in the
cable itself (including any heating effects due to resistance). how
significant this energy loss is unknown, but merely binding the cable
so that it moves less will not change the amount loss. since the loss
is highest with high energy transients, i suppose that some dulling of
transients occurs in cable. audibility is totally unknown, but reducing
impedance (resistance, inductance, and capacitance) will reduce the
amount lost by this mechanism.
my turntable is a Technics SL1400 Mk2 and has a hydraulic cueing
system. damping is superb for vertical arm motion using the cue, but i
managed first to get air in the system and then blow a gasket. has
anyone else had this problem? apparently, it's common in high end
Technics turntables.
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsugreg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (05/18/85)
Comment on part of Herb Chong's article: > tonight's topics: > > i listened to vandersteen 2c's ... > > however, on flamenco guitar, with rapid shifts in range from bass to > treble, the vandersteen's suffered from sudden vertical shifts in > image. this is probably caused by the spacing of drivers and cannot be > corrected without physical re-design of the speakers. > > the soundstage suffered from "hole-in-the-middle" effect where the > sound seemed to be coming from the two speakers and not from the center > even though the material was clearly miked and mixed that way. in my > experience, this is an amplifier effect rather than speaker, though > aiming the speakers so that their axis is toward the listener reduces > this. (i have no explanation of why amplifiers differ in this regard, > and the effect is poorly correlated with price above the $1000 range.) I own Vandersteen 2C's and the system used for Herb's demo was much like my home system, except that I use an Audioquest 404 mc cartridge and Magnavox 3040 CD player. Although I don't buy the Julian Hirsch idea that all amplifiers with comparable power output sound alike, I find it hard to believe that the amp would be responsible for the "hole-in-the-middle". Although the speakers may have been "carefully" placed for the demo, the placement still might not have been right. I've been able to move mine about a fair amount in my living room without having this problem, regardless of whether they are "toed in" toward the listener. In fact, the width of the field in which a good listening perspective can be had from these speakers is one of their points of superiority to some of the better British speakers (notably Kef and B&W), which suffer from a very narrow listening window. > under the conditions that i heard them, i feel that my speakers (B&W > DM7 Mk2, no longer made) provide superior imaging, but less bass > output. this could be because of poorer coupling of my speakers to the > room. at $2100 CAN, the vandersteen's deserve serious consideration > for the less budget restricted audiophile and are comparable in price > to the B&W DM3000's which i am more familiar with. i think that the > B&W's provide superior imaging so i personally would go for them, > although for me, i am looking a better speakers yet (unfortunately also > more $$$$). > Before I bought my Vandersteen's, I listened very carefully to the B&W DM7 Mk2 and found it difficult to choose (this was end of 1983). The Vandersteen's were cheaper (list price at the time US $960), but I felt they offered three major points of superiority: 1. The naturalness of their tonal balance. I attend a large number of live concerts and opera performances and try to use what I hear as a reference for home audio gear. Compared to the B&W, the treble seemed rather subdued at first on the Vandersteens, but I found that it more closely approximated what I heard live. The B&W seemed exaggerated by comparison. Although by no means unpleasant or harsh, I perceived their sound as a falsification of the actual timbres of voices and certain instruments. 2. Their ability to reproduce the spatial perspectives in a good classical recording. One of the best tests for this is an oldie-but-goodie, the 1959 John Culshaw production (on London records or imported Decca) of Verdi's "Aida", conducted by Herbert von Karajan. The recording attempted far more than more recent versions to reproduce the various planes of sound called for in the score, so that in the Act 2 Triumphal Scene you can, if the equipment is good enough, hear the orchestra in front, as it would be in an opera house (other than Bayreuth), solo singers behind it on stage, the chorus divided between "onstage" voices behind the soloists and "offstage" voices. Trumpets are also divided into "onstage" and "offstage" groups right and left. Another good example is another Culshaw production - the 1963 recording of Britten's "War Requiem", also on London. 3. The extended bass response. Whereas I found the B&W marvelous for early music and smaller scaled works, they simply didn't have the necessary impact for Wagner, Berlioz, or, particularly, the kettledrums in the Verdi "Requiem". I certainly don't mean to dismiss the B&W's - they are excellent speakers and it took me a long time and a number of extended listening sessions to come to these conclusions. There will be people who want to hear more detail when listening at home than they would in a concert hall, who may well prefer the B&W. I would maintain, though, that the Vandersteens offer a greater neutrality of sound and are, therefore, suitable for a wider range of musical applications. - Greg Paley
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/23/85)
In article <358@olivee.UUCP> greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) writes: talking about Vandersteen 2C's... >In fact, the width >of the field in which a good listening perspective can be had from >these speakers is one of their points of superiority to some of the >better British speakers (notably Kef and B&W), which suffer from a >very narrow listening window. i should point out that outside the listening window, imaging and detail are not bad with british speakers, just that they are not as good as some others such as the vandersteens. within the window, it is much better than outside. this is a deliberate design decision in order to reduce the effects of reflected sound energy from the walls in the midrange. >I certainly don't mean to dismiss the B&W's - they are excellent >speakers and it took me a long time and a number of extended listening >sessions to come to these conclusions. There will be people who >want to hear more detail when listening at home than they would in >a concert hall, who may well prefer the B&W. I would maintain, though, >that the Vandersteens offer a greater neutrality of sound and are, >therefore, suitable for a wider range of musical applications. as i have mentioned here and there in my previous postings, what Greg describes is certainly true of stock DM7's, but i don't have stock DM7's. much of the problems that Greg describes vis a vis the B&W speakers are due to the thin wire that is inside them (22 Ga). when I bought my DM7's, i knew that this was going to be a problem. i have a friend who used to own a pair and he said that i would have to work on my speakers before they would sound their best. so, i did a few things like rewiring mine with Fulton Brown, a 10 Ga silver-copper alloy wire and replacing the input connectors for better contacts. bass efficiency was considerably increased and the tonal balance improved. i keep telling myself that midrange detail is improved too, but it's probably psychological. the rewiring was done by myself, but at an authorized B&W dealer. this means that my warrantee is still valid (most important). right after we finished and checked out the phasing and stuff, we ABed my DM7's with another unmodified pair in the store. the speakers were positioned as close together as possible for each channel and the listening room was big enough to reduce bass resonance and cancellation effects to very low frequencies. the difference was staggering, to put it mildly. bass extension was much further, although i wasn't able to measure how much. imaging and other things were not materially affected. the test record i used was my Dark Side of the Moon UHQR. turntable was a Linn Sondek LP12 with Linn Itock LV15 arm, Linn Asak cartridge, and MacIntosh pre and power amps (i forget which models). the simulated heartbeat squeezed you and shook things all over the store without sounding exaggerated. so bass was longer a problem in a reasonable room placement. unfortunately, i don't have that at home 8-(. anyway, those are the DM7's that i compared with Vandersteens. i know what my DM7's are capable of in terms of bass response, but i'm not getting it because of room effects. because of the improvement in bass, the overall tonal balance improved because the midrange and highs are less dominating. by comparison, stock DM7's sound a little strident. i still hold to my opinion that my DM7's are better than the Vandersteens under the conditions that i listened to. the "hole-in-the-middle" effect is something that i have heard between amplifiers and i can't offer any explanations other than that it is most audible on material that shows superior imaging characteristics (such as Sheffield Labs "Growing Up in Hollywood Town") and can be best described as having sounds appearing to come from directly in the middle and the two speakers, with a space between where it's not possible to localise a sound. i attribute it to an amplifier effect because i have an amplifier that switches from pure Class A operation to Class AB operation via a front-panel switch. it stays in the mode of operation selected until the position of the switch is changed. about the only noticeable sonic effect between the two positions of the switch is the filling in of those areas between the speakers and the center. it is a repeatable and verifiable sonic effect but whether it is due to subtle frequency response differences, noise changes, or even phase responses is completely unknown. i have heard this in ABing other power amplifiers. interchannel cross-talk could even be the cause. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu