 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
My system (Krell KSA 250s, KRC2, KAV300 CD, Dunlavy SC-IV) sounds very, very bright, it's impossible to listen to it. Does anyone know if this is a particularly bad combo? I use MIT Terminator speaker cable and WireWorld balanced interconnects.You can see it on the attached URL but the Classe` preamp is now out and in went the Krell KRC. Go to "System"
For what it is worth, I had the same problem with my SCIs and a Krell 300i. My solution, sell the Krell and buy YBA. There may be others. By the way, i also had AQ midnight. Was that the propblem after all? Don't know?
I dumped my 300i with a set of Thiels , same problem , I think its the amp - had AQ midnights and Indigos - tried other cables with no solution to the "shouty" nature of the system
Rodney Gold , Cape Town
"The greatest thing about smacking your head against the wall is the feeling you get when you stop."
Just a final word Steve. If you follow the old saying, "God is in the details", you won't go far wrong.Also remember the rule: Equipment can never sound better than it is, but it can sure sound a whole lot worse. Thirty years in audio have taught me that it doesn't take much to screw things up.
Cheap components well set up will ALWAYS blow away better components where set-up has been neglected.
For a perfect illustration of what I mean, check out Greg Weaver's piece of setting up the Harm Tech room at CES 2000
Finally, if after several months you find yourself constantly changing and fiddling with your system and can never find a position that makes you happy, know that the basics are still wrong.
Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for
Steve
With first order designs like the Dunlavy and Thiels, the closer you sit to the speaker the brighter the frequency response. Inversely, the fursther you sit, the darker the treble. This is clearly shown in any nearfield measurments.
Try sitting further from the speaker (at least 10'). This will definitely reduce the brightness.
I confess I don't get it. I don't question your observations, just my understanding.As I understand, first order crossovers will lobe 15 degrees in the direction of the low pass driver (assuming equidistant driver acoustic centers), which could make them darker sounding as listening distance increases. But with the Dunlavy's vertically symmetrical geometry there will be lobing both above and below the tweeter axis which should sum to virtually flat across a rather substantial vertical window. This was demonstrated by Joseph D'Appolito in his original Speaker Builder articles. Now he used 3rd order crossovers, but the effect is essentially the same for all odd-order crossovers.
Perhaps I fail to grasp the mechanism and significance of this lobing in the crossover region of the Dunlavy's. Or perhaps there is something else going on. Could you elaborate?
I confess to not having heard this phenomenon, so this is pure speculation on my part and is not meant to call into question your ears-on experience.
Now, I could see this happening - as you move further from a speaker you increase the ratio of reverberant to first-arrival sound, and in most speakers the reverberant field has a duller tonal balance than the on-axis sound. Since the reverberant field influences percieved timbre, most speaker will sound brighter up close where the first-arrival sound dominates.
Anyway I agree with your suggestion to sit further away to decrease brightness. Whatever mechanism(s) are involved, that ought to help.
To see it in action look at the SCIVa review in stereophile Nov 1998. Or the Thiel 2.3 review also in Stereophile.
with SC-IVs were both Krell, the 250 and the FPB 300. Get rid of Krell if you want music. Just an SC-IV owner's opinion.
<> Actually, this is a very nice combination of equipment that should result in superb sound.
The likely culprit in your perception of brightness is either less than optimal speaker position or listening position position. As the Dunlavy SC-IVs have a very flat frequency versus amplitude response, very low energy storage, very low distortion and a very even in-room power response, they should not be responsible for an "excessively bright" sound, and have the potential for acheiving a very flat in-room response. (Contrary to some of the previous recommendations or responses to your initial post, the Dunlavys, even the big boys such as the SC-IV, SC-V or SC-VI will work quite well in smaller rooms due to the even power response from the forward firing vertical symmetrical driver array that is time aligned and phase coherent and the sealed enclosure, which allows you to position the speakers close to the rear wall - which can minimize boundary induced effects, resulting in a smoother overall in-room response.)
Most likely you are probably having some difficulties with standing waves, boundary artifacts, and the like at specific frequencies at the listening position, which can be readily remedied by repositioning the speakers and/or moving the listening position just a bit. (Rather than something more drastic and expensive as component changes, excessive or unneccesary "room treatments" (plants are extremely effective in breaking up standing waves), etc.) I haven't heard of the MIT cabling causing oscillation in the Krell amplifiers, although an electrically induced oscillation and subsequent resulting distortion cannot be totally ruled out.
No matter how good a loudspeaker is, if it is improperly setup, it’s going to have a difficult time sounding good. With DAL speakers there are several important items to consider:
1. That the loudspeakers are exactly equidistant from the listening position. This enables the sound waves from speaker A and B to arrive at the listening position at the same time, resulting in a much more focused soundstage and rock solid imaging.
2. That the loudspeakers are equi-angular from the listening position. Toe-in or angle of inclination of both speakers should be identical from the center listening position. (I would recommend a toe-in that basically has the loudspeakers firing directly towards the listening position. This enables an "on-axis" listening experience that removes any tweeter roll off that would happen as the speakers are toed-out, as the listener would be positioned "off-axis.")
3. An approximate distance of 10’ from the face of the loudspeaker to the listening position. Because of the utilization of the vertical symmetrical driver array in DAL loudspeakers, as well as the physical "time alignment" of the drivers, a distance of a minimum of approximately 10 feet is recommended for optimum sonic performance and seamless driver integration. (An exception would be the two-way DAL speakers - SC-I/AV, SM-I & SC-II, which can be effectively used in a nearfield listening situation.)
Don’t be afraid to try some other "unconventional" things in setting up your demonstration DAL speakers, such as:
Establish a large included angle (greater than 60 degrees) of the two loudspeakers from the listening position. This can result in a huge soundstage while still maintaining rock solid center imaging and precise soundstaging. (Try moving the speakers out so that there is 10 or more feet between the two stereo speakers.)
Close front wall placement. Because of the sealed enclosure, there are no rear firing sound waves, and as such, the speakers can be placed quite close to the rear wall with no ill-effects. Often, this can minimize boundary cancellation and reinforcement artifacts, which can result in a smoother in-room response, especially in the bass region. (The easiest method for such placement is to have the speakers closer to the front wall than the distance from the tweeter to the floor.) Try something like 6 to 10 inches initially.
Long wall loudspeaker placement. This enables a wider "spread" of the loudspeakers while minimizing reflections off the wall located behind the listening position. (Try dampening the general area behind the listening position with a tapestry/rug, or a dense open celled foam for best results.) If you can get a good spread through a short wall placement, say 10 to 15 feet between the speakers, that would work as well.
Different distances from side and rear walls. Make sure that the distance from the loudspeaker to side wall is non-divisible into the distance from loudspeaker from the rear wall. This will help minimize the possibility of standing waves at various frequencies.
Hopefully, these suggestions will help you to attain the amazing sound that your system is capable of achieving.
Sincerely,
Drew
While your there pick up a phonograph. Then stop by the dollar bin at the used record place on your way back and pick up a few of your favorites. Seriously.
- Dunlavy tweeters tend to sound quite unrefined with Krell or other SS amps. Generally tube amps work much better than SS with SC IVs.
- You're generating a lot of side wall reflection with your current set-up. This will be heard as glare.
- Having the speakers too close together is also causing overemphasis of the top end
- Siting your CD player on the table and amp on the floor is allowing both to pick up undue amounts of vibration, which will destroy detail and rob the sound of deep bass. The unresolved detail is superimposed on the balance of the signal, which is heard as grain and harshness, while the lack of bass reinforces the impression that the sound is too forward, in your face and unremitting.Given the size and shape of your room, large floor standing speakers like Dunlavys, which require lots of space are probably not the best choice.
You may not like to hear this but in your room I bet you'd get much better results with a pair of stand mounted monitors, a matching tube amp like a CJ Premier 11, a decent rack and some isolation devices for the CD Player. Also, I'm not a fan of the Krell CD Player which to my ears sounds anything but smooth, organic and flowing.
Steve
nt
Side walls reflect?
SC IVs need space?
Smaller speakers sound better than big floorstanders in moderately sized, difficult, asymetric rooms?
Tweeters placed too close together overload the top end?
Dunlavy SC IVs have unrefined tweeters?
Dunlavys sound better with tubes?
Floor borne vibration ruins the sound from amps and CDs?
Or was it my comments on the Krell CD player?Regards
Steve
<> Is this a question or an objective declaration?
<
> Actually, the Dunlavys sound like Dunlavys played through tubes. Dunlavys played through solid state will sound like Dunlavys played through solid state. In fact, since most amplifiers will exhibit slightly different measurable performance properties, and the Dunlavys, with their extremely low distortion figures and the ability to reproduce square waves (summation in a generalized sense: input equals output), they will basically give you the sound of whatever components are upstream. It basically comes down to personal preference at that point - the "euphonic" reproduction of the tubes or the "linear" reproduction of the solid state (and subsequently, the microphonics of each specific amplifier).
<
sized, difficult, asymetric rooms?> > A generalization. It really depends on the design of the individual speakers: in-room power response (even or uneven loading at various frequencies and planes), phase linearity, time alignment, frequency response, distortion, etc. Just because a speaker is a two-way mini-monitor doesn't necessarily mean that it's easier to place into a specific room (say, your example of the moderately sized, difficult, asymetric room).
<
> As much space as any other speaker, and maybe considerably less. Some people incorrectly assume that because the DAL speakers have a certain "verticality" to them that they need this huge room. However, the vertical symmetrical array of drivers actually provides a more linear or even power response into any room. In addition, because of the sealed enclosure with the forward firing radiators, the DAL speakers can be placed quite close to the front wall (say 6" or so) with no detrimental effect (and often this can be beneficial in helping to provide a flatter in-room frequency response).
<
> How? If you had two tweeters connected in parallel from a single voltage source, you would achieve a 6dB gain, but that's not what happens in a stereo application.
Sincerely,
Drew
"Actually, the Dunlavys sound like Dunlavys played through tubes. Dunlavys played through solid state will sound
like Dunlavys played through solid state. In fact, since most amplifiers will exhibit slightly different measurable
performance properties, and the Dunlavys, with their extremely low distortion figures and the ability to reproduce
square waves (summation in a generalized sense: input equals output)......."Andrew, How low of distortion are we talking about here? Most of the music's energy lies in the midbass and low midrange. What is a pair of SC IVa's linear amplitude distortion measurement numbers say between 60 and 300 cycles at say 95 db output measured at 10 feet away in a typical sized living room.. say 3000 cubic feet??? How about doppler and IM distortion across their operating range at 95 db/ 10 feet?
I really don't think the DAL's in real world conditions measure better than a typical decent quality amplifier. Good speakers but I think your claim is a bit stretched.
Mike Bates
< >Mike,
I think that you misconstrued the information or reference in my previous posting:
<
measurable performance properties, and the Dunlavys, with their extremely low distortion figures...> > This is not a comparision of the DAL speakers versus amplifiers in a distortion measurement, but rather a interaction of the two components as it relates to allowing the individual sonic characteristics of the electronics previous to the speakers to be audibly identifiable. I definitely don’t want to get into an apples versus oranges comparison.
<
energy lies in the midbass and low midrange. What is a pair of SC IVa's linear amplitude distortion measurement numbers say between 60 and 300 cycles at say 95 db output measured at 10 feet away in a typical sized living room.. say 3000 cubic feet??? > > At 91 dB, measured in a 20' x 16' x 24' anechoic chamber at a distance of 10', the SC-IV/A will exhibit the following harmonic distortion figures at the following frequencies (on average):
20Hz: Total: -33.5dB; Odd: -35.7dB; Even: -37.4dB
40Hz: Total: -37.5dB; Odd: -48.8dB; Even: -37.9dB
100Hz: Total: -47.4dB; Odd: -48.7dB; Even: -53.5dB
200Hz: Total: -56.0dB; Odd: -59.7dB; Even: -58.4dB
500Hz: Total: -65.7dB; Odd: -73.6dB; Even: -66.5dB
1kHz: Total: -49.6dB; Odd: -50.1dB; Even: -58.9dB
2kHz: Total: - 56.0dB; Odd: -61.2dB; Even: -57.5dB
5kHz: Total: -58.8dB; Odd: -72.7dB; Even: -59.0dB
10kHz: Total: -53.9dB; Odd: -69.6dB; Even: -54.1dBSincerely,
Drew
So the THD is between .03 and 3% in an anechoic chamber. Thanks, but you never answered my questions.I was trying to determine if your speakers are truly low distortion devices as you claim. AFAIK DAL can measure IM, linear response, and doppler distortion. Are those numbers available? How about in a typical room rather than your perfect chamber?
How about compared to a B&W 801N?
Mike Bates
< devices as you claim. AFAIK DAL can measure IM, linear response, and
doppler distortion. Are those numbers available?> >We can, but singular distortion measurements such as intermodulation and the like (harmonic) could be considered somewhat antiquated due to the fact that music itself is not a continuous single or double tone. (These were basically the only types of measurements that were available early on in the test game, and have basically become entrench as "standards" even though their overall relevance to measuring speaker performance is limited. A much more relevant distortion test for speakers would be something such as the Incoherency test possible through the MLSSA testing software which measures a combination of intermodulation distortion, harmonic distortion and noise, which is significantly more similar to real music than the single tone or two tone type distortion tests.)
As soon as one of our bench techs has the time, I'll run a new set of tests on a pair of SC-IV/As if you would like to see them.
<
> What's a typical room? (That's what makes the anechoic tests so important, because there is no such thing as a "typical room.") Anyway, in a "typical" or non-anechoic room, distortion measurements can become somewhat skewed as it generally requires nearfieled measurements to get the most accurate or correct distortion figures, which does not allow for proper integration of the drivers as a system. In addition, room noise (resulting from a myriad of things) can drastically effect the distortion measurements of a speaker in a "typical" room. (Again, the benefits of anechoic chamber testing.)
<
> We've never measured an 801N, so I don't have the ability to compare the DAL speakers to this particular speaker. If you've got one, and want to send it out here, I'd be more than happy to throw it in the chamber and put it through the paces.
Sincerely,
Drew
How about taking an orchestra recording, use a CD, and play a few movements through the speakers, at the same time record the speakers output with a top quality microphone (this would probably have to be done in mono) to a high resolution DAT recorder. Than compare the integrity of the speakers output to the original, in amplitude, phase, and time. Another way of analyzing it would be a null test, where you could have a program go in and match up the signal with the source and do a comparison, whatever you'd have left would be the noise. You could also just listen to it and compare the two I guess.BTW.. A typical room in my book is one that is outside of an anechoic chamber and has walls, ceiling and a floor : )
Mr. Dunlavay posted on RAHE or RAO a statement a couple of months ago that his company did indeed test the 801 speaker. Was this a false statement?
Mike Bates
<> We can do that. We've also done this in a real time comparison with a live string quartet.
<
statement?> > Perhaps one of the 801 Matrix models, but not the 801 Nautilus to the best of my knowledge.
Sincerely,
Drew
Follow this link:
I wonder if he were referring to the Matrix 801? There's no way any DAL will beat the N801 in waterfall measurements.
