What speakers are these? By LM line magnetic? The midbass below still doesn’t seem to be horn loaded thoughIn my case, however, I prefer really loud speakerswhether with a horn (LM Iconic) or without a horn (LaVoix).
What are the Top Horn Speakers in the World Today? Vox Olympian vs Avantgarde Trio vs ???
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Generally speaking, asking an SET to make bass is a bad idea if you want the most out of the amp in terms of sound quality. This is because the load line for the output tubes becomes non-linear as frequency goes down, if the output transformer has a cut core, which is present in most SETs (unless its a parafeed design).
Strange ,
I’m now assuming you have never heard a proper SET amp/Speaker setup Ralph , when done correctly its the bass which separates them apart from OTL’s and regular PP tubes..!
SET bass articulation Speed and jump makes it the business …!
I’m now assuming you have never heard a proper SET amp/Speaker setup Ralph , when done correctly its the bass which separates them apart from OTL’s and regular PP tubes..!
SET bass articulation Speed and jump makes it the business …!
I heard the Phasemation MA-5000 amplifiers in Tokyo.In this regard, the Phasemation MA 5000, which @dcc uses with the large Stenheim, could be interesting. 2 x 45 W from one pair of WE211 each. But is it enough for the Stenheim 5? I don't know.
Unfortunately, I've only heard Stenheim in Munich on Nagra and DartZeel – neither of which were good for me. But in a home or at a dealer's, with plenty of time to put together a system that has really grown, the result can be much better, I realise that.
In my case, however, I prefer really loud speakers
IMHO;
They’re powerful, but not as powerful as the Kondo Kaguras or AirTight 3211s. That said, I didn’t like the Stenheim–DartZeel pairing in Munich, but I don’t think that setup represents the true Stenheim sound.
I’ve heard maybe 5–6 different Stenheim Five setups with various amplifications, from solid-state to tubes—mostly with Kondo. I also listened to the Stenheim Reference 2 at a friend’s system and at a dealer’s showroom. The setup I liked most was with Kondo Gakuoh IIs at the showroom, and that sound was nothing like what I heard in Munich with the DartZeels.
Don’t get me wrong—I’m not a fan of Stenheim or saying it’s my dream sound, even though I’ve owned them. All I’m saying is: Stenheims demand extremely high-quality amplification with an exotic character, because the speakers themselves don’t have an exotic sound. They’re straight, monitor-like speakers. More importantly, they really start to sing with low-powered amps. For smaller alumine 3 and below probably more powerful amps are needed.
Hello everyone.
The people who have been lucky to experience a fully integrated Western Electric horn system has always been quite amazed. I heard some Avantgarde horns (I believe it was one of their "one"/"uno" models and I didn't like the coloration and artificial representation. I heard pieces with the viola da gamba and since I know one of three conservatory educated gamba players in Denmark, I very well know the exquisite sound of the instrument. Unfortunately the airy qualities was not natural and had a pretentious feel to it.
I do like the aesthetics of the Avantgarde Duo Mezzo with wood veneer. Perhaps one day I should try listening to those.
The people who have been lucky to experience a fully integrated Western Electric horn system has always been quite amazed. I heard some Avantgarde horns (I believe it was one of their "one"/"uno" models and I didn't like the coloration and artificial representation. I heard pieces with the viola da gamba and since I know one of three conservatory educated gamba players in Denmark, I very well know the exquisite sound of the instrument. Unfortunately the airy qualities was not natural and had a pretentious feel to it.
I do like the aesthetics of the Avantgarde Duo Mezzo with wood veneer. Perhaps one day I should try listening to those.
I’ve heard various Western Electric speakers, both with and without WE amplification. I used to like their sound, but not anymore—mainly because I don’t enjoy 3-meter-tall singers, 2-meter-long saxophones, and truck-sized pianos. They might sound “right” in a theater-sized room (200+ square meters), but not in typical listening spaces.
The smaller WE speakers are rare, but in my opinion, they sound better. As for the Sibatone room in Munich—it’s good for showing off and drawing attention, but the core issues remain.
YMMV.
The smaller WE speakers are rare, but in my opinion, they sound better. As for the Sibatone room in Munich—it’s good for showing off and drawing attention, but the core issues remain.
YMMV.
This is nonsense, starting with the idea that you think I've not had exposure to SETs in the last 50 years...SETs have the least low frequency bandwidth of any kind of amplifier. Its not logical or provable that they could actually play deeper and more articulate bass. In terms of speed, which is easily measured, they are also the slowest. 'Jump' simply arises from distortion caused by the user attempting to use the amp with a speaker that lacks the efficiency to really show off the amp. SETs make the most higher ordered harmonics of any kind of amplifier technology, and so at power levels above about 20% of full power those harmonics masquerade as 'jump'. But its really just distortion.
Its OK if you like that sort of thing.
The most successful SET setups I've seen, and the people most ardent about them that I know, have in common one thing: they prevent bass from entering the amplifier, to allow the amp to put its best foot forward.
So now I'm going to explain again why bass is such a big deal to SETs.
Inductance is required for any transformer to work. It is inductance that allows a couple hundred Ohms worth of wire to actually have an impedance of 3000 to 10,000 Ohms when in the output transformer. DHTs and pentodes usually require a load somewhere in that range. The inductance falls off at low frequencies, regardless of if the transformer is for PP or SET, until only the DC resistance of the wire is left. Because there is a gap in the core laminations of the output transformer of SET output transformers (there to prevent DC saturation), the low frequency inductance falls off much faster as frequency goes down. This causes the power tube to see a much lower impedance if driven at those frequencies. So with SETs this problem is profound and the bass frequencies in question are in the audio band. The bigger the amp, the more likely this problem exists well into the upper bass.
The reason we've seen a trend over the last 20 years to larger output transformers in SETs, such as a 35 Watt device meant for a single 300b that only makes 7 Watts, is to help get around this problem. If you know that the 35 Watt transformer is only going to see 7 Watts, you can make the gap in the core smaller, thus increasing low frequency inductance while still controlling DC saturation.
When I talk about technical things and the measurements surrounding them, its important to understand that this is engineering which makes the amps possible in the first place. They are not made from a magical conjuring. This low frequency problem is very real and every SET designer knows about it whether they care to admit or it not. Those that make SETs but really didn't design them might still be in the dark about this; there are a few of those in this industry... But talk to any designer of SET output transformers and you'll find out quite quickly how real this is.
When the tube of an SET is trying to drive a near short when playing a low bass drum, it simply has to make a lot of distortion since its non-linear at those frequencies. This is really easy to hear and really easy to measure and its hard on the tube. A sine wave put through an SET at full power at 20Hz doesn't look like a sine wave at the output; when distortion is so bad you can see it on a 'scope without having to use an analyzer, you know you have a problem.
Rather than attack me on this, you could try taking my advice (which isn't to dump the SET), which is simply to place a small capacitance upstream of the amp so as to limit bass entering it. I provided a formula to calculate the value of the cap on the thread about Ron's system. The result is similar to what happens to an ESL if you prevent bass from modulating its panel or what happens when you do the same with a 'full range' driver. In all cases you get cleaner sound which is easily heard as smoother with greater transparency. The downside is you have to come up with some kind of woofer or subwoofer system to make the bass.
SETs have the least low frequency bandwidth of any kind of amplifier. Its not logical or provable that they could actually play deeper and more articulate bass. In terms of speed, which is easily measured, they are also the slowest. 'Jump' simply arises from distortion caused by the user attempting to use the amp with a speaker that lacks the efficiency to really show off the amp. SETs make the most higher ordered harmonics of any kind of amplifier technology, and so at power levels above about 20% of full power those harmonics masquerade as 'jump'. But its really just distortion.
Its OK if you like that sort of thing.
The most successful SET setups I've seen, and the people most ardent about them that I know, have in common one thing: they prevent bass from entering the amplifier, to allow the amp to put its best foot forward.
So now I'm going to explain again why bass is such a big deal to SETs.
Inductance is required for any transformer to work. It is inductance that allows a couple hundred Ohms worth of wire to actually have an impedance of 3000 to 10,000 Ohms when in the output transformer. DHTs and pentodes usually require a load somewhere in that range. The inductance falls off at low frequencies, regardless of if the transformer is for PP or SET, until only the DC resistance of the wire is left. Because there is a gap in the core laminations of the output transformer of SET output transformers (there to prevent DC saturation), the low frequency inductance falls off much faster as frequency goes down. This causes the power tube to see a much lower impedance if driven at those frequencies. So with SETs this problem is profound and the bass frequencies in question are in the audio band. The bigger the amp, the more likely this problem exists well into the upper bass.
The reason we've seen a trend over the last 20 years to larger output transformers in SETs, such as a 35 Watt device meant for a single 300b that only makes 7 Watts, is to help get around this problem. If you know that the 35 Watt transformer is only going to see 7 Watts, you can make the gap in the core smaller, thus increasing low frequency inductance while still controlling DC saturation.
When I talk about technical things and the measurements surrounding them, its important to understand that this is engineering which makes the amps possible in the first place. They are not made from a magical conjuring. This low frequency problem is very real and every SET designer knows about it whether they care to admit or it not. Those that make SETs but really didn't design them might still be in the dark about this; there are a few of those in this industry... But talk to any designer of SET output transformers and you'll find out quite quickly how real this is.
When the tube of an SET is trying to drive a near short when playing a low bass drum, it simply has to make a lot of distortion since its non-linear at those frequencies. This is really easy to hear and really easy to measure and its hard on the tube. A sine wave put through an SET at full power at 20Hz doesn't look like a sine wave at the output; when distortion is so bad you can see it on a 'scope without having to use an analyzer, you know you have a problem.
Rather than attack me on this, you could try taking my advice (which isn't to dump the SET), which is simply to place a small capacitance upstream of the amp so as to limit bass entering it. I provided a formula to calculate the value of the cap on the thread about Ron's system. The result is similar to what happens to an ESL if you prevent bass from modulating its panel or what happens when you do the same with a 'full range' driver. In all cases you get cleaner sound which is easily heard as smoother with greater transparency. The downside is you have to come up with some kind of woofer or subwoofer system to make the bass.
I wonder if this is why David Karmeli’s Bionors sounds so good. They only go down to about 50 Hz. But then he does use another SET for the subwoofers. The integration is superb and the overall sound is extremely natural. The main speakers I think are 115 dB 16 ohm loads.
Ralph, are you suggesting that someone who has a two-way horn system like I do with a crossover at 500 Hz actually use an SET for the upper horn in a different amplifier for the lower horn with some kind of active or passive crossover?
David uses a pair of ML2 for his JBL subwoofers. I have a second pair and wonder what my speakers would be like if I used 2 amps per speaker. It would certainly get hot in the summer.
David uses a pair of ML2 for his JBL subwoofers. I have a second pair and wonder what my speakers would be like if I used 2 amps per speaker. It would certainly get hot in the summer.
That could be one way to do it. You might have some difficulty with the blend if two different kinds of amp technology are used, but if you get the gain right and the phase of the bass amp right it might go fairly well. Does your speaker allow you to bi-amplify?
But I had in mind to cross over at a lower frequency- 200Hz or less. If you had a sub set to run up to 70 Hz you could cut off at that frequency. Since many subs have their own crossovers this would be fairly easy to set up- all you'd have to do is calculate the cap value needed at the input of the amp.
Thanks, Ralph. I’ve got two pair of identical ML2 amplifiers. I do not want to mix amplifiers. I think my speakers do allow for biamping and they have an attenuation dial for the upper horn I think for the purpose of blending. I might try it this fall when the weather cools down.
The schematic of your speaker suggests its really only built for one amp, but it is designed so with minor modification it could easily be run by two if you split up the speaker connections properly. The reason for the level control on the horn is to allow the user to adjust the speaker to the power response of the amplifier to the load (rather than anything to do with bi-amplifying), since back in the day when this speaker was designed, the Voltage rules that are used in loudspeaker design now had not yet been defined.
Back in those days when tubes were King, amplifier power was quite expensive so you had to get the most out of the power you had, hence the 105dB efficiency of your speakers!
If you already have 4 speaker terminals on the speaker it is because it was modified.
IOW your speaker is what I call Power Paradigm technology (which is also true of most zero feedback tube amps) as opposed to the Voltage Paradigm, which came in during the 1960s and early 1970s. The speaker does not expect that the amp will behave as a Voltage source (as so many speakers do today); it expects an amplifier that performs with nearly constant power with respect to load instead (which is usually a zero feedback tube amp, although to be clear no zero feedback tube amp is completely capable of this, although there were tube amps did much better with a 'damping' control that balanced Voltage and current feedback equally to obtain this behavior, such as the EV C-20A amplifier). Since the output impedance of the amp was known to be 'high' by today's standards, the level control is provided so the horn could be set to the correct level since its impedance is different compared to that of the woofer.
If you want to know more about the Power Paradigm
I think Some cone speakers like living voice r25, Stenheim, old big wilsons (alexandria), Kaiser are better with tube amplification.
The best I ever heard from Wilson was the old X1 driven by KR Audio SET amps. This was actually pretty impressive.
I really liked our old X1s...after passing on the X2 Series 1 and 2, I found overall I preferred the XLF by a significant enough margin that we went for it after they were replaced by the new XVX. Big discount and with the trade-in of the original X1s at actually what we had paid for them 10 years prior...quite a nice overall trade.
In fact, I have PMd you for another piece of advice on that!
Yes, you've been quite consistent on that. The problem for me with the old X1 was despite its sense of freedom of expression, its cabinetry and other elements were not nearly as solid as its later generations and as a result, the signal never found its way all the out the other side without a lot of further work. There was a sense the signal could not travel straight thru the speaker...whereas for me, the XLF does that a lot better with greater solidity and resolve.
I feel like the XLF does not have as much as the absolute freedom of dynamics that the X1 does, BUT that said, it does have a much more solid delivery overall, more resolved, more confident...and net, net in comparisons over months, I definitely preferred the XLF and felt that DW had created a better version of his original vision.
Yes, it describes what I feel when I heard the X1...it seems to very easily accept musical signal and transfer it out. The key is that while that freedom of expression is clear, and 'breathes easily'...I also found 'not all the signal' might have actually come out. Somehow, the physical/electrical/whatever pathway seemed 'shaky' in comparison with later generations of big Wilsons so what came thru breathed easily but it seemed a slightly truncated version of what went into the signal from the sources/amps
Whereas with the XLF, despite perhaps not having that original sense of freedom...the XLFs DO seem to put the signal back out with greater resolve, solidity, and without as much of a 'loss of signal' which we seemed to get thru the X1s in comparison no matter how much we tried to ameliorate that. There was something in the transmission in the signal thru the X1s that always seemed to lose something along the transmission line internally in comparison with the XLF.
The XLF I feel is harder to drive, so that is something where those who love SETs/horns might object to that character, and I could see that and immediately sensed it when I first heard it. But when I went thru my own priorities...and the fact that I was very happy with pure Class A Solid State (Gryphon and now Robert Koda), that drive was something that I am less bothered by because our electronics can create that drive effortlessly.
Its all about priorities and preferences in the end.
Well, I still often listen to both. IMO there is no possible comparison - the XLF betters the Grand Slamm X1 in every aspect when you use a clean source, able to recreate a dynamic and transparent sound.
Surely if you need a 95 dB, gentle 8 ohm impedance speaker because powerful amplifiers sound nasty, you opinion will be different.
Did you ever listen to the XLF driven by a pair of Constellation Audio Hercule II monoblocks in a large room?
A much, much better version IMO. The XLF was not just incremental - at that time it redefined the concept of transparency of David WIlson designs.
About 30 years ago, the X1 was was an extraordinary achievement and still is a great speaker. But IMO the state of the art went on improving along time. Surely my preference, MO and YMMV.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |