How Loud is 1 Watt?

[phusis]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Admitted, I said "the larger the ...", which is of course not true. My point would be that you'd still lose by far on the doppler and similar distortion because of the massive excursion the smaller woofer requires vs. the larger one. Anyway, I have 3x 15" in my speaker instead of 2x 18" because the 18"ers show more distortion on the mapped excursion (say to produce the same SPL ad 3x 15"). Somehow 21"ers perform better again.

 

Please notice that the (self-) design I use, was preceded by a 3x 12" incarnation, but this was not able to show the impact a kick drum has in real live (and thus at realistic levels), at the excursion allowed for distortion figures (per my own standards). So it would be quite foolish to re-design the lot into 3x 15" if that would have been useless.

Btw, the 3x 15" was calculated for displacement the kickdrum displaces too. But then without distortion (so to speak). I recall that at the calibrated 89dBSPL the excursion is 3mm one way (of the 3 in parallel connected drivers).

 

Anyway ... no way one 8"er can do what 3 15"ers allow for distortion-less sound (btw, open baffle in my case).

 

Exactly. Myself I use tapped horn subs; the B&C 15" driver fitted here, loaded on both sides of the cone for a summed out at the mouth area of the horn path, equates into ~2 x 18" direct radiating woofers. One of TH's interesting traits (re: excursion control) is that the driver has excursion minima at the tune, and so the driver is relieved via the enclosure that does the heavy lifting. This requires more motor force (since the tune "sits" on the cone), but that's just a matter of proper dimensioning finding the right driver. I've never seen the cones of the 15" B&C's in my TH's move more than 1 or barely 2mm at most (they can move 9mm, in both directions..), and that's with the air vibrating so forcefully at the LP that it feels like your voice (if spoken) is modulated. Powerful stuff, and totally effortless, smooth, enveloping and clean sounding. It's the most "musically natural" bass I've heard, but the downside is size; they take up 20 cu. ft. per cab. 

[phusis]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

It's never about "hammering to the max"- it's about, being effortless ... did you watch the video earlier I posted a link to,

 

Note precisely how he talks of the experience of listening to a Led Zep I track - this is what I got from bottom of the line bookshelves, over 30 years ago; I understand and know exactly what he heard.

 

Which if a 'mega speaker' can't deliver, means, that it's a fail ...

 

Of course it's about being effortless, that's my whole point as to the necessity of physics and how big horn (-hybrids or all-horn) speakers excel here (that you'd otherwise only believe to be able to play LOUD). The speakers you link to however no doubt shows their merits into sound reproduction also due to physics; horn mids/highs and 2 x 15" (open baffle loaded) woofers - sounds vaguely familiar to me (see pic of my set-up), and is quite something different to a small bookshelf speaker. Where're you at? Seems to me you're contradicting yourself bigtime and wanting to have your cake and eat it too. 

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

 

These ones,

 

 

Most physically small speakers do indeed sound small - which has a lot to do with their mass, and how they're stabilised. Which is the reason for the tower of paper I use, as a quick fix for testing the potential of the equipment. 

 

And you're saying?

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Incorrect. I've heard setups with "prodigious subs capacity" trying - and they were hopeless. Tell you what, I'll get my current Edifiers working nicely, and record that organ track on a smartphone - should convey what the sense of the reproduction is like, when small speakers are on top of it ...

 

Believing a church organ concert can be reproduced in a remotely natural fashion from small bookshelf speakers is futile. That's the way it is, and you would know it if you attended live organ concerts. 

 

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

 

Yes, that's what it's about - "coherent, lively, musical and natural" first, then scale it up. Except, you don't need to go big on the speakers - it may help, a lot of the time ... but there are other ways.

 

And the other ways are? 

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, phusis said:

 

Of course it's about being effortless, that's my whole point as to the necessity of physics and how big horn (-hybrids or all-horn) speakers excel here (that you'd otherwise only believe to be able to play LOUD). The speakers you link to however no doubt shows their merits into sound reproduction also due to physics; horn mids/highs and 2 x 15" (open baffle loaded) woofers - sounds vaguely familiar to me (see pic of my set-up), and is quite something different to a small bookshelf speaker. Where're you at? Seems to me you're contradicting yourself bigtime and wanting to have your cake and eat it too. 

 

What's constant is the recording - no matter what the style of the rig that is being asked to reproduce it, the waveform being processed is identical, more or less - so, is the "horn mids/highs and 2 x 15" (open baffle loaded) woofers", or what normally come out of "a small bookshelf speaker" more true to the actual content of the recording?

 

Quote

 

And you're saying?

 

Merely posting a pic of the speakers you queried ..

 

Quote

 

Believing a church organ concert can be reproduced in a remotely natural fashion from small bookshelf speakers is futile. That's the way it is, and you would know it if you attended live organ concerts. 

 

Which is where most people are coming from, of course - have heard plenty of live organ, and plenty of dismal reproduction of the same, from what theoretically should little problems nailing it ...

 

Quote

 

And the other ways are? 

 

Giving the small speakers very high effective mass, and locking them to their position in the room. Know those small bank vaults you get sitting in the open space, when you walk into a branch - trying pushing against the side of such a unit ... you're aiming to get as close as possible to that solidity, 😉.

 

The other step is to get the electronics super, super clean - that's hard; but worth the effort ... that will give you pipe organ dynamics, in the listening room ...

[acg]

53 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Giving the small speakers very high effective mass, and locking them to their position in the room.

 

Same with big speakers, but small speakers are really limited in terms of spl at bass frequencies...it's physics.  We band-aid the physical limitations of small size with high excursion transducers and loads of amplifier power but it is never the same as a well produced larger speaker...although the big ones can be messed up just as easily as the little fellows.

 

53 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Know those small bank vaults you get sitting in the open space, when you walk into a branch - trying pushing against the side of such a unit ... you're aiming to get as close as possible to that solidity, 😉.

 

My subs are 8 x 10" scanspeak paper cone drivers per side driven with a dedicated 9w SET amplifier.  They weigh 400kg per side (800kg total) and to the knuckle test are more inert than the best bookshelf speakers.  They go to 100Hz.  Upperbass is a 150kg 100Hz horn...circa 1m diameter...with an 8" high efficiency paper cone driver.  In between that I plan a pair of 15" alnico paper cone drivers per side to do 40Hz-100Hz, mainly to be able to moderate a room node without electronic DSP, but also because I think they will be better than the subs in the transition to the horn at 100Hz. 

 

That will be three bass channels, each independently amplified.  Before this I had really good bookshelves, some of the best you can get anywhere, and for many years I thought they sounded very good and very real, and in the crossover period with the new speakers they still sounded decent in the midrange and treble, but anything below say 1kHz was a tremendous compromise.  The difference in SQ is akin to going from inbuilt tv speakers to a decent dedicated home theatre setup...not close at all, and until you experience what competent fullscale loudspeakers are able to offer you just don't know what you are missing. 

 

Saying all that, most do not have the resources or commitment to put together a fullscale system so what I have said here is moot..sticking with small speakers and big amplifiers is easier, but it only ever gets you half way there.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, acg said:

 

Same with big speakers, but small speakers are really limited in terms of spl at bass frequencies...it's physics.  We band-aid the physical limitations of small size with high excursion transducers and loads of amplifier power but it is never the same as a well produced larger speaker...although the big ones can be messed up just as easily as the little fellows.

 

Well, the reality is that I have almost never come across a well sorted setup using lots of cone area, that has struck me as doing it properly - the most memorable was using a Goldmund Reference TT, and Infinity RS-2Bs, decades ago.

 

Quote

 

 

My subs are 8 x 10" scanspeak paper cone drivers per side driven with a dedicated 9w SET amplifier.  They weigh 400kg per side (800kg total) and to the knuckle test are more inert than the best bookshelf speakers.  They go to 100Hz.  Upperbass is a 150kg 100Hz horn...circa 1m diameter...with an 8" high efficiency paper cone driver.  In between that I plan a pair of 15" alnico paper cone drivers per side to do 40Hz-100Hz, mainly to be able to moderate a room node without electronic DSP, but also because I think they will be better than the subs in the transition to the horn at 100Hz. 

 

That will be three bass channels, each independently amplified.  Before this I had really good bookshelves, some of the best you can get anywhere, and for many years I thought they sounded very good and very real, and in the crossover period with the new speakers they still sounded decent in the midrange and treble, but anything below say 1kHz was a tremendous compromise.  The difference in SQ is akin to going from inbuilt tv speakers to a decent dedicated home theatre setup...not close at all, and until you experience what competent fullscale loudspeakers are able to offer you just don't know what you are missing. 

 

Below 1kHz?? That's a mighty far stretch ... 🙂

 

Below 100Hz is where I start to compromise - I would drive a speaker with a frequency sweep between 100Hz and 200Hz, and push the volume - if it stays clean until starting to get mighty loud, then I could live with it.

 

Talking about TV speakers ... we have a 65" set here, with the usual "compresses quickly!" sound - the difference between it, and the actives I'm using, is enormous - quite often we have both running, 🙃, and as Bev says, the sounds of each live in completely different spaces - the telly is a tiny, whimpering sound inside the screen; and the Edifiers are a monstrous backdrop, stretching way out behind ...

 

Quote

 

Saying all that, most do not have the resources or commitment to put together a fullscale system so what I have said here is moot..sticking with small speakers and big amplifiers is easier, but it only ever gets you half way there.

 

It's not easier, where I'm at! If large scale, fully competent sound can be done that readily with BIG stuff, I would be interested - but I never see anything else that delivers what I'm after - so, it's my way, 😉.

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Not correct ... as examples of what I'm after, the bottom end of a pipe organ has to be right, as does the bass line of a piano ...

 

Frank, shall we count the number of posts where you indeed explicitly tell not to be interested in under 100 Hz ? You are actually doing it here again, though less explicit:

 

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Well done. But the amount of work, and cost, to get the feeling in the stomach to precisely match - is this worth it, with the vast majority of recordings you have? ... That's the question I would have ...

 

That question is easily answered:

All where a kick drum plays (they ("hall") roll into 20Hz) if only the album wasn't high-passed for LP.

My "vast majority" of recordings is to be calculated from the 47K albums I have here.

 

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

Sorry, synthesizer 16Hz rumblings don't interest me in the slightest ...

 

Who was talking about that ? I did not. But organ pipes (of 3 organs or so in the world) would. Funny eh ?

Btw, my speakers don't do that really (17Hz 3dB down and 16Hz more dB down).

 

 

[PeterSt]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Below 100Hz is where I start to compromise - I would drive a speaker with a frequency sweep between 100Hz and 200Hz, and push the volume - if it stays clean until starting to get mighty loud, then I could live with it.

 

Hey, I counted another one. 😜

[PeterSt]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Well, the reality is that I have almost never come across a well sorted setup using lots of cone area, that has struck me as doing it properly - the most memorable was using a Goldmund Reference TT, and Infinity RS-2Bs, decades ago.

 

You must be going with the wrong people. Haha.
I know Australia is a bit large-ish, but already I can easily tell about quite some people who should be listening to gear I'd adhere myself (that could be because it will largely the gear I provide ;-). Btw acg is one of them. ... No wait, he should be one of the very few people with THE finest systems ever. You have no clue ...

 

Dear Frank, you are on the edge of scoffing those people. Think about that please and with that, don't make a fool of yourself (being a very kind person <- yep).

[acg]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Below 1kHz?? That's a mighty far stretch ... 🙂

 

Below 100Hz is where I start to compromise - I would drive a speaker with a frequency sweep between 100Hz and 200Hz, and push the volume - if it stays clean until starting to get mighty loud, then I could live with it.

 

Not a stretch at all.  The three octaves above 100Hz are the most important for setting the 'sound' of the loudspeakers.  This is partially in the range controlled by the room (below Schroder frequency) but most importantly is in the frequencies that give the sound the dynamics (i.e. punch, kick) and warmth.  With any decent SPL all bookshelves are struggling at 100Hz and really the issues start higher than this.  The sound of the speaker can be completely changed depending on how 100Hz-800Hz is handled...totally changed...it is the most important region and with bookshelves this is handled with a small woofer of high excursion getting more and more stressed lower in the range (this difference in 'stress' between 100Hz and 800Hz changes how things sound too).

 

[fas42]

54 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Frank, shall we count the number of posts where you indeed explicitly tell not to be interested in under 100 Hz ? You are actually doing it here again, though less explicit:

 

"Not interested" means, that if everything below 100Hz is steadilyly filtered away, then this doesn't bother me - if it is there, in correct form, then it's a bonus. And pipe organ music fits into that category, as much as anything else.

 

54 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

That question is easily answered:

All where a kick drum plays (they ("hall") roll into 20Hz) if only the album wasn't high-passed for LP.

My "vast majority" of recordings is to be calculated from the 47K albums I have here.

 

Okay, questions: how do classic Boney M. tracks come across? How does ZZ Top's Afterburner come across?

 

 

[fas42]

43 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

You must be going with the wrong people. Haha.
I know Australia is a bit large-ish, but already I can easily tell about quite some people who should be listening to gear I'd adhere myself (that could be because it will largely the gear I provide ;-). Btw acg is one of them. ... No wait, he should be one of the very few people with THE finest systems ever. You have no clue ...

 

What's the quality of acg's system to do with things? I'm talking of what I've experienced; and I used the word "almost" - there will rigs out there that are brilliant, because they have put the work into refining them, and acg could very well have one ... but I'm talking of the general standard of replay that one comes across ..

 

43 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Dear Frank, you are on the edge of scoffing those people. Think about that please and with that, don't make a fool of yourself (being a very kind person <- yep).

 

The point of the discussion are the general principles of what makes the SQ tick the boxes - not what a particular individual has achieved.

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, acg said:

 

Not a stretch at all.  The three octaves above 100Hz are the most important for setting the 'sound' of the loudspeakers.  This is partially in the range controlled by the room (below Schroder frequency) but most importantly is in the frequencies that give the sound the dynamics (i.e. punch, kick) and warmth.  With any decent SPL all bookshelves are struggling at 100Hz and really the issues start higher than this.  The sound of the speaker can be completely changed depending on how 100Hz-800Hz is handled...totally changed...it is the most important region and with bookshelves this is handled with a small woofer of high excursion getting more and more stressed lower in the range (this difference in 'stress' between 100Hz and 800Hz changes how things sound too).

 

 

I think you have misunderstood - I was commenting on you saying,

 

Quote

but anything below say 1kHz was a tremendous compromise

 

Which implied that the speaker was not good enough, below 1kHz ... which I disagree with.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

You must be going with the wrong people. Haha.
I know Australia is a bit large-ish, but already I can easily tell about quite some people who should be listening to gear I'd adhere myself (that could be because it will largely the gear I provide ;-). Btw acg is one of them. ... No wait, he should be one of the very few people with THE finest systems ever. You have no clue ...

 

Better not stand in a breeze Peter, or the tickets will blow off.😜

 

Neither do I accept that a SET setup is necessarily  the way to go, due to the S/N being quite a bit lower than what is achievable with the best of Solid State such as a certain extremely well measuring Benchmark amplifier.

However, a SS amplifier that took advantage of the very low output impedance of your DAC in it's design, and was used solely with it,  could be made even better in the S/N area by markedly reducing Input and feedback area resistor values.

[acg]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Neither do I accept that a SET setup is necessarily  the way to go, due to the S/N being quite a bit lower than what is achievable with the best of Solid State such as a certain extremely well measuring Benchmark amplifier.

 

Not your typical SET amps though Alex...six stereo pairs each individually matched to their task...certainly not a stick a stereo amp on it and see how it goes kind of affair.  Forget what you have heard with SET amps poorly matched to their speakers...that is not my system, and as far as SNR goes all channels are dead quiet with your head in 110dB/w/m horns...most of the SS amps I have had here were noisy into even 86dB bookshelfs!

 

Measuring well and sounding good are not directly related, at least not in terms of distortion and signal to noise ratios, good enough is good enough, but I do agree that decent measurements are required, just not a "chase to the bottom" in specmanship.  For instance Peters dac, I retain because it sounds fantastic, not because it measures wonderfully, and although Peter is more concerned about distortion that I, if it did not sound right to him I know he would not be making them.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Neither do I accept that a SET setup is necessarily  the way to go, due to the S/N being quite a bit lower than what is achievable with the best of Solid State such as a certain extremely well measuring Benchmark amplifier.

 

Alex, Yes, you mention this more often, lately. But how can it be a benchmark for someone (in some home) who consistently puts together a system, well-thought over and which should fail because SETs are used ?

Oh, I agree with you, and the same acg knows I am for several reasons and from several angles, but isn't audio about compromises ?

I recall that the very most effort for the (never finished) NOS2 went into the matching of (low) impedances internally and also towards the outside where the first struggle is about the weight off between current and voltage amplification. Do this and that does not work. Do that and 1, 2 and 3 are compromised. In the end I nailed it all right but really after a year of design struggle. And indeed, this was all about the lowest distortion or the highest S/N if you will.

 

Frank's approach: he never runs into performing systems under 100Hz and thus they don't exist for real and thus ha adjust his expectations. But if it comes handy he "obviously" likes to listen to 32' organ pipes. Make that 16' and it still won't work. And next up is bookshelfs ticking all the whaveter. Lastly it is us making the fault that near 20 Hz is a desire.

 

In the end, all what happens is the lacking of experience or maybe the possibility to arrange the lot like it could be done, and against only relative few $ on top.

 

SET indeed will be impossible in the highest sensitive speakers (like mine), unless you use an attenuator of some sort. A compromise in itself. And so acg may do exactly that, but for other reasons. Together it matches. SQ could theoretically be better, but is practically impossible.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

Alex, Yes, you mention this more often, lately. But how can it be a benchmark for someone (in some home) who consistently puts together a system, well-thought over and which should fail because SETs are used ?

Oh, I agree with you, and the same acg knows I am for several reasons and from several angles, but isn't audio about compromises ?

Peter

 You got the bite because of your tongue in cheek  comments about Anthony's system which you have never heard personally, and must be better than else's system Downunder because he is a proud owner of a DAC that you designed, which admittedly is world class,  as well as which, if Anthony's SET setup was as good as claimed, then you would also be using Vacuum Tubes. 😎

 Besides which, unless the vacuum tubes are being used in Grounded Grid configuration, there will almost certainly be a small surfeit of even order harmonics  (added warmth). Neither will any SET amplifier using transformers and coupling capacitors , which will also have some kind of audible signature, have the bandwidth and S/N  to do full justice to 24/192 and DSD.

Just because we are unable to hear any noise with our ears against the drivers , does NOT mean that a further increase in S/N is inaudible.😉  I used to think that too, until I used a CRO at max sensitivity with a very low noise battery operated 10 x Preamp to further reduce the barely recognisable noise in the trace of the CRO. Additional pairs of ears in the U.K. pushed me further in that area.

This is also why I prefer a D.C. coupled topology with a response to DC, and no capacitors in the signal or feedback path ,which to my ears has a more preciseness/impact  about the LF area, even  though the speakers don't go down that far.

As you are well aware, and have said so above , there are very few absolutes with Audio, and no universally accepted best method.

There are always compromises somewhere , but as pointed out  already, frequency response needs to go down further than bookshelf speakers are capable of.

Regards

Alex 

[PeterSt]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You got the bite because of your tongue in cheek  comments about Anthony's system which you have never heard personally, and must be better than else's system Downunder because he is a proud owner of a DAC that you designed, which admittedly is world class,  as well as which, if Anthony's SET setup was as good as claimed, then you would also be using Vacuum Tubes. 😎

 

Alex, Although your post deserves a thumbs up, this is by no means related to "my DAC". Not at all. I happen to know what Anthony (acg) is doing in years and years of time and what an enormous effort he puts into everything.

That is really all.

 

I don't need to hear people's systems. Knowing what interests them is sufficient. ... And that that coincidentally leads to purchasing some stuff from us over here is, well, no coincidence.

It is also about knowing people  a longer time (counts for you and me just the same). In the end (or half way) you pretty well know how things roll. I think this counts for almost all of my customers (which btw you are not, lol).

 

Thank you, Alex.

Peter

[sandyk]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

I think this counts for almost all of my customers (which btw you are not, lol).

This octogenarian Pensioner can no longer afford to indulge in gear like yours, so I  need to put my DIY skills to good use. 😉

 P.S. 

 Anthony's tube hiss is probably being drowned out by up to a month's worth of rain in one day around about now, unless he got lucky.

[Confused]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Incorrect. I've heard setups with "prodigious subs capacity" trying - and they were hopeless. Tell you what, I'll get my current Edifiers working nicely, and record that organ track on a smartphone - should convey what the sense of the reproduction is like, when small speakers are on top of it ...

I too have heard systems with big subs that sounded hopeless.

 

I have also heard some that sounded quite superb.

[acg]

I wish it would rain Alex... nothing yet...cows are easier to feed if you have grass and it has been a horrible few years in that regard.  Fingers crossed we do cop this system. 

 

Tube hiss, transformers,  capacitors...haha... where do you get this stuff Alex?  All are problems that can be overcome.   I could counter with problems in conventional systems regarding feedback and speaker level crossovers,  neither of which I use,  but each of us must pick our problems. 

[Confused]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

What's constant is the recording - no matter what the style of the rig that is being asked to reproduce it, the waveform being processed is identical, more or less - so, is the "horn mids/highs and 2 x 15" (open baffle loaded) woofers", or what normally come out of "a small bookshelf speaker" more true to the actual content of the recording?

I head set ups with bookshelf speakers and they were hopeless. 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, acg said:

Tube hiss, transformers,  capacitors...haha... where do you get this stuff Alex? 

Many years of Experience, young fella .😋

 In my earlier days with Telstra I would have replaced many 100s of Valves in Communications systems. 

IME, there can be marked differences in sound between even polypropylene input capacitors of the same values, with some types even needing a particular orientation for best results. They can even move the stereo image position a little compared with no input capacitors . There were >300 constructed worldwide of my highly modified version of a Silicon Chip designed headphone amplifier where they were used, with plenty of confirming  feedback in that area from forum members .

 Jaycar must have loved me , because most of the kits came from them, with most going to the U.K. 

For the highest quality results amplifiers should be direct coupled with no capacitors in the signal path and if you weren't using valves you wouldn't need impedance matching transformers with their phase shifts and LF and HF rolloffs . 

( The HA in the photo was sent to a member in Miami as a gift )

Attached are a couple of Square Wave tests between a similar one and a Graham Slee designed HA (Novo)

 

P.S. 

 I built my first Valve Amplifier in 1954 in a PMG Dept. Training school.

 We used to use portable monitoring amplifiers in Telephone Exchanges with the 50C5 tube in the earlier days.

[acg]

My amps are DC coupled Alex and are devoid of either transformer input or capacitor input... like I said,  you pick your problems and work around them if possible.   In this case an extra +ve power supply for the grid bias is used which negates the requirement for caps or transformers at input.

 

 

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

For the highest quality results amplifiers should be direct coupled with no capacitors in the signal path and if you weren't using valves you wouldn't need impedance matching transformers with their phase shifts and LF and HF rolloffs . 

 

What about the capacitors in the crossovers of passive speakers?  They are in the signal path.  My speaker drivers are direct coupled to their amplifier... nothing but wire.  The band-limiting (crossovers) is done at the input to the amplifiers which means much smaller value filter components and lesser sonic trade-off.  This also means my amps only amplify their allocated bandwidth and the output transformers are specially wound to exactly suit their task.  Again,  you pick your problems and you solve them if possible. 

 

You are thinking of SET amps in terms of a 'normal' audio system where their simplicity more often means a compromise on parts of the SQ.  I am using them in a situation where their technical shortcomings have been negated and I only have their positives to work with.  I even think that if/when Peter makes it to Aus he will find my system enjoyable even though it does not tick all his technical preconceptions... he may even like my vinyl collection too... hehehe.

 

 

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, acg said:

I even think that if/when Peter makes it to Aus he will find my system enjoyable even though it does not tick all his technical preconceptions... he may even like my vinyl collection too... hehehe.

 All you can do is minimise the use of additional L and C.

I gave away a modified Silicon Chip designed Valve Preamp because I didn't like the additional warmth, where even thunder didn't sound quite right on TV  .

I didn't much like the added warmth of a David Tillbrook ((Au.) designed 240W/Ch Mosfet PA with FET input either ,(AEM6000)  although I lived with it for a while .

David, who I met at a Jaycar store in Sydney , used some of my input about thermal drift and balancing with his previous ETI5000 when designing it.

A friend later used his for the low end only. 

 

To each his own.😉

[fas42]

9 hours ago, Confused said:

I too have heard systems with big subs that sounded hopeless.

 

I have also heard some that sounded quite superb.

 

One thing that should be mentioned, is the reason that sub fed rigs should do better - it's the division of labour; separate amplifiers are used for the very low frequencies that demand lots of power, and the critical midrange and treble amplifier largely only has to worry about that side of things. As soon as one relies on a single amplifier that has to do it all, the lack of capability of the electronics becomes very obvious. Here the solution is to use an amplifier which is working at the highest level - and then the SQ falls into place.

 

9 hours ago, Confused said:

I hea(r)d set ups with bookshelf speakers and they were hopeless. 

 

Number of reasons: small speakers are not tied down properly; and small amplifiers, to match the cost the cost of the speakers, are used, and are operating way out of their comfort zone. The big Perreaux I first used was what started to squeal when I applied some pressure, not the small B&Ws - redesigning the smoothing cap of the amp resolved that, and the bookshelves happily rose to the occasion 🙂.