advertisement


What to do to get my system sounding better at lower volumes

Jim Audiomisc said:
So far as I know there is no 'direct' relationship. However:

1) The smaller the speaker the lower the efficiency tends to be, and the less extended the bass. You can trade one off against the other, though. i.e. by making the speaker 'less efficient' at mid/hf you can bring that down to more like the bass level to get - overall - more extended LF response behavour.

2) The lower the level of the sound replay, the lower the bass may tend to sound compared with the mid. This is why altering the level tends to alter the sound balance you hear even when no other changes - e.g change in distortion - have occurred.

3) All affected by how those making the mastering of what your playing decided to set the tonal balance.
Click to expand...

I think, looked-at sideways, your shortlist explains much of why ESLs can work so very, very well at low/very-low levels.

The effective radiating area is huge, but displacement correspondingly small; and so - at low spl when requested - their already negligible-distortion falls-out of the perception. This works to advantage because -intrinsically - ESls of any flavour do not suffer the level vs tonal balance issue of moving coil speakers (which is is especially limited in 'lifestyle'sized boxes by by driver linear displacement - usually tiny! ; thermal compression effects esp. for small drivers in small boxes, box volume, or other relevant issues in crossover engineering)

But I'd freely admit ESLs, or any other tech, cannot do anything about the baked-in elephant - your third point!
 
Does this mean there might actually be a good reason for one of these, finally?

s-l1600.jpg
 
Curtis said:
The good old smiley faces for the boom and tizz generation.
Mine always had a sad face.
Click to expand...

There was a facebook thread - mainly american audio enthusiasts - and one member had a pair of units like this, one above the other. The top one was sad faced, the bottom happy faced. I accused him of making "equaliser titties" - it became a short-lived trend for a day or two. Murricans, I swear...
 
Thanks gents for all your posts. So it could be my amp and it’s lack of tone controls or it could be my speakers cos they’re big but not big enough or my room. Ah well, at least no one has said I should get rid of my fruit box, makes a change. I’m too old and lazy for swapping around so I’ll just use my trusty Creek OBH21se and my Beyers DT531 when necessary.
 
martin clark said:
I think, looked-at sideways, your shortlist explains much of why ESLs can work so very, very well at low/very-low levels.
Click to expand...

This is encouraging to hear, as it's not sth I've thought much about. However, despite a fair amount of hearing loss, I seem to be listening at lower volumes of late on my big Quads, with pleasing results (esp. for my wife sitting behind one speaker !)

It makes sense to me that the lower excursion you mention, coupled with the panels already being energised and therefore not needing signal volume ( to otherwise activate coil speakers) will facilitate perceived larger frequency range (loudness?) at a lower volume. I shall pay heed in future, but it still sounds better cranked up a bit, if not to headbanger levels (valved amplification), but I suppose that'll always be the case.
 
martin clark said:
I think, looked-at sideways, your shortlist explains much of why ESLs can work so very, very well at low/very-low levels.

The effective radiating area is huge, but displacement correspondingly small; and so - at low spl when requested - their already negligible-distortion falls-out of the perception. This works to advantage because -intrinsically - ESls of any flavour do not suffer the level vs tonal balance issue of moving coil speakers (which is is especially limited in 'lifestyle'sized boxes by by driver linear displacement - usually tiny! ; thermal compression effects esp. for small drivers in small boxes, box volume, or other relevant issues in crossover engineering)

But I'd freely admit ESLs, or any other tech, cannot do anything about the baked-in elephant - your third point!
Click to expand...
I am with you and Jim.

Contemplating a few years ago what it was I found displeasing about the system I had, I concluded that it died as I increased the volume. The very opposite of what the OP reported - but with words on a screen it's impossible to know if we are talking of the same experience.

I concluded that a candidate solution to test was that I needed a loudspeaker/amplifier combination that could play louder. Not in terms of annoying the neighbours but in terms of keeping distortion down at moderate sound levels. I already had enough power in theory, so it seemed likely that my then 6.5" mid-bass drivers were just not capable of doing low distortion at high volume. So that called for bigger drivers and better engineered too, although panels were not what I wanted in this room.

I had two models for my conclusion:
  • I have had occasional exposure to ESL-57s over many years; they will play perfectly loud enough and are very clean sounding at all levels.
  • I have IEMs that are specified to play very loud indeed and they produce the sort of clean sound I like.
Finding loudspeakers where the maker will actually disclose how loud they can go is difficult. I suspect this is something that they really don't want to talk about given the very modest-sized products that are currently common. However, I did make a short-list, arrange demos and found what I heard worked for me.

I now have somewhat larger loudspeakers of which it is often stated that they only come alive at high levels. That's not my experience (back to the meaning of words here). What happens for me is that I can now comfortably use the volume control over a much wider range. At high volume the performers appear closer and at low volume they appear further away. There's no "coming to life" about this and no dying either. It's just different presentations that match my experience of different seats in concert halls at different distances from the stage, and the ability to select how I want the soundstage presented.

And with high-volume low distortion capability has come the clear absence of changes in tonality with volume, more audible low-level detail at low and high volume, and better independence of instruments in a complex sound-stage.
 
It seems entirely possible to me that some of the reasons given in this thread behind what sounds "good" at low levels could be wrong...

To sound "good" at low levels you might want:
1) Distortion - makes it sound louder without actually being louder
2) Mid focussed sound - the ear/brain 'expects" not much bass or treble at low levels. Loudness contours work against this.
3) Compression - helps you hear the quiet bits at low listening levels

Maybe lower-fi actually works better at low levels than hi-fi?
 
FWIW back in the 70s a good friend of mine bought a QUAD system with 57s. (He had lots more money than me!) He loved them but wanted more bass impact. I'd seen an article in HFN about a simple 'bass lift' circuit so made one. Lets the user dial up how much lift they wanted, and have it the same for both channels.

Cheap op amps and run from a PP9. It made the sound *much* better because it contered the fall away of the 57's in his room. He loved the result on things like Berlioz 'Funeral Triumph' symphony and Tchakovsky! 8-]

This thread has made me think it is time I had another look at this. The advantage of such circuits is they are much easier to get matched for two channels than traditional Baxandall, and you can choose the turnovers at LF, not be saddled with 1 kHz as a pivot point.
 
S-Man said:
It seems entirely possible to me that some of the reasons given in this thread behind what sounds "good" at low levels could be wrong...

To sound "good" at low levels you might want:
1) Distortion - makes it sound louder without actually being louder
2) Mid focussed sound - the ear/brain 'expects" not much bass or treble at low levels. Loudness contours work against this.
3) Compression - helps you hear the quiet bits at low listening levels
Click to expand...


For me, the point is to have some tonal ajustment control *available* so the user can make up their own mind if they want to use it, or not, when playing any particular item of music. Having got and modified my 34's I'd not want to be without them.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
This thread has made me think it is time I had another look at this. The advantage of such circuits is they are much easier to get matched for two channels than traditional Baxandall, and you can choose the turnovers at LF, not be saddled with 1 kHz as a pivot point.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother. Jez has already designed and built one that is much better.
 
Jim, I for one , would be interested. A simple, switchable dooberry for use with my Suggie sounds just the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top