 
|
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 |
23.24.137.117
In Reply to: RE: Perhaps right, definitely partially wrong. posted by Dale Clark on October 30, 2017 at 19:28:33
I met Julian Hirsch at a CES when I was with Avalon. We had carefully set up an excellent sounding system. When he came into the room he was clearly impressed with the sound we were achieving. He asked to hear a cut and was duly impressed. He complimented the speakers highly. I thanked him but told him that the rest of the system was also contributing to the sound. He was skeptical, but I think that he had heard that exact thing time enough that day that he was starting to be curious. I honestly believe that if he lived closer I would have been able to demonstrate to him, in in own house, with his own system, that electronics and cables make a difference. He was a very nice man, and very sincere, but simply misguided (in my judgment).
Follow Ups:
Now lets pick on JH.. Is there anybody that you respect in the industry other than your self
Alan
Who's JH? If you meant CH, it seems obvious from his posts that John Curl is one.
db
> > Who's JH? < <
Julian Hirsch.
The greatest solid-state circuit designer of all time (IMO) has been John Curl. A severely underrated designer (mostly of tube gear) was the late Allen Wright. Another great solid-state designer is Ed Feucht, but he designed circuits for Tektronix oscilloscopes. Earlier desighers of solid state who did at least a few original things were Marshall Leach of GIT, and Bart Locanthi of JBL. Bill Johnson did some amazingly interesting tube circuits, while almost everyone else has just copied things from the '50s (David Hafler, Frank McIntosh, and Sidney Smith of Marantz). Most of the really interesting tube circuits were done in the '30s and '40s and can be seen in a military handbook published by MIT (I think) towards the end of WW2.
For louspeakers, Laurance Dickie and Andrew Jones are interesting designers. (I'm unsure what Jones' philosophy is since leaving TAD, as his designs for Elac are universally praised but don't seem to offer any specific new technology.) The high-end wouldn't be where it is today without the contributions of Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen. I don't know the name of the RTR electrostatic designer, but he did the KLH 9, the Infinity Servo Statik panels, and many more. Richard (?) Janszen and Peter Walker were the first to commercialize the constant-charge push-pull ISL's described by Frederick V. Hunt in his 1954 book, Electro-Acoustics. I'm completely unimpressed by Walker's ESL-63 with the (resonant) delay lines used to create a simulated point source. MIT graduate student Charles Malme made a far more elegant design in 1958 that accomplished much the same thing is a simpler, better sounding technique. (Some say that was the real reason the ESL-63 took so long - Walker was trying to side-step Malme's patent. Unfortunately Malme is unknown today. The AES ignored him completely in the "Speaker Anthology" series, and Acoustat stole his idea when the patent expired for their swan song before going out of business in their "Spectra" model.
Then there were the earlier giants - Bart Locanthi, James B. Lansing and Harry Olson. And that is pretty much just the US high-end industry. There are many innovators from Japan especially of whom I know almost nothing. Most people have no idea who the real innovators are or were. They just buy the "latest" gear with the flashiest features.
I'm more interested not in a designer that made a few nice models, but people who actually changed the way other designers approach the subject. There are plenty of people who made a name for themselves by focusing on one aspect of design and taking that to and extreme, but that miss huge swaths of the overall picture. To me, they are not great designers. YMMV.
You forgot the late and great James Bonjiorno. He was a great designer and very humble. Notice the word humble.
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the
most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Roger Waters
Edits: 10/31/17
No I didn't forget about Bongiorno. He just didn't make my list.
'Some say that was the real reason the ESL-63 took so long - Walker was trying to side-step Malme's patent.'
Charlie we have had this discussion before. The only similarity between Malme's work and Walker's 63 is they are both round. Kind of. Malme's was actually round and Walker's was rectangular trying to be round to emulate a true point source. Both segmented the driver but Walker's was a series of concentric rings Malme's was not.
The delay line Walker implemented in the 63 was Kellogg's idea not Malme's. Refer to Kellogg's patent 1,983,377 issued in 1934. With some small changes this was Walker's delay line. Malme's approach was quite different. And Walker was talking about Kellogg's work in his original ESL patent well before anyone would have known about Malme's work.
The concentric ring idea was Shorter's patent from 1941 G.B. Patent 537,931. Shorter's was different in that his work had each concentric ring playing a specific frequency range like we see in the typical multi-driver system, i.e. tweeter, midrange, woofer, etc.
People can claim, for whatever reason, that Walker borrowed, or stole, Malme's work but this is simply not the case. One only needs to look at the relevant patent documents to see where Walker got his ideas and I see nothing of consequence in Walker's 63 that looks like Malme's other than the above mentioned round thing and they are both stats. Certainly nothing in Walker's work stepped on any part of Malme's patent. Walker was quite open about where he got his ideas. He never once claimed an idea as his own that was in fact another's. When discussing the ESL-63 he always referred to Kellogg's and Shorter's work.
From Walker's 1979 AES paper:
"So, finally, what is new about all this? Really, it is a lot of old ideas fitted together. Kellogg in 1929 proposed the connection of a series of electrostatic elements by inductors as a delay line. His idea was to improve efficiency and reduce the power requirement from amplifiers. Shorter of the BBC took out a patent in 1941 describing the connection of a series of annular rings using resistors and Janszen, in 1953, suggested variations on the same theme.
In effect therefore, all I have done is to collect these ideas and add a little work which says that if you can make the device acoustically transparent, then the performance can be predicted. We think this is very important since it enables correction to the performance to be made very easily and after simple laboratory measurements."
Which one sounds better? The world will never know. Malme's work never made it into production. I have done some experiments along the line of Malme's work and I will keep my conclusions private.
If one wishes to beat up on Walker OK but the Malme thing is way off the mark. Walker did claim the constant-charge approach in his original ESL patent when we all know this was Hunt's idea although I don't see where Hunt ever applied for a patent on the idea. I have heard stories that DNT Williamson was upset with Walker for making the constant-charge idea part of the patent but I don't know if this is true or not. I believe I read this comment in an interview with Baxendall. Walker could have been a complete dick with his competitors for using the constant-charge approach in their speakers, shut them down if you like, it was part of his ESL patent. But he didn't.
The reason it took so long for the ESL-63 to come to market? I will go with what Ross Walker had to say about the speaker it 'was the most diabolical bit of product engineering you've ever come across'. One only need read Kessler's book to see all the engineering issues Quad had with the design. It took years to sort out the problems. It had nothing to do with waiting for a patent to expire.
As someone that works on the 63 type speaker everyday I can state without reservation they are a bitch to work with. But this is the case with stats the reason why so few companies have succeeded with this technology.
My comments here are in no way an attempt to insult you or your work. I have the greatest respect for you personally and the work you have done in the industry. And I can say with a great deal of certainty that you have probably forgotten more about audio design in general, and speaker design in particular, than I will ever know. I am just a mechanic. But I do believe that any comments about Walker treading on Malme's work are specious as best.
You are correct, I had forgotten you already correcting me on this several years ago. Apologies if it sounded like my intent was to insult Walker. My point was that I most admire designers who have created a lasting impact on the way others think and approach their craft. There are hundreds of people who have made one or two popular designs - including Walker. But he was pretty much at the tail end of the "electrostatic craze" that began with Hunt's constant charge theory.
I am pretty sure that the Acoustat Spectra was a rectangular version of Malme's idea. I never heard one, but reports I read said it was the best sounding thing Acoustat had ever done. However, Acoustat became popular largely based on their relatively low-cost "Plus" series, especially the 1+1, for under $2000, while the Spectra was quite expensive for its day - I seem to recall $7000 or so. Too little, too late to save them.
One of the most interesting of all was Locanthi. He could do it all, from theoretical math to compression driver design to the world's first amp with a fully complementary output stage.
I knew you knew I just needed to kick in some old brain cells! I did not think you were insulting Walker.Malme's speaker is interesting but there is not a whole lot there honestly. The segmenting the driver with series resistors is interesting but Walker had done that in the original Quad. Not to the same extent but the same idea and Walker does not mention this aspect of the design in his patent. Making the thing round is not such a good idea. His patent claims he made it round to control panel resonance and if this was the only reason to make it round there are better ways to address panel resonance. You can't do that by making it round there will still be a panel resonance and he used a damping material on the back side to control the resonance.
Acoustat Spectra, Stax F-81, 83 they all used series resistors to segment the diaphragm in one fashion or another and for the same reason Malme proposed. And yes I agree the Spectra series was too little too late.
If you want to look at a stat that is essentially the Malme you need look no further than the AudioStatic the ES-500 in particular. Other than it not being round it is essentially Malme's speaker and a rather elegant speaker at that. I have a pair of the smaller ES-100. Segmented but not to the degree of the ES-500 or Malme's.
Edits: 10/31/17
Well, you are definitely the master of ESLs! I've never seen (let alone heard) any of the Stax loudspeakers. When I was a teenager I had a pair of Stax SR-X Mk. II headphones that I adored. I would lay in bed at night for hours listening to all kinds of music on my turntable. In many ways they set the standard for what I thought a loudspeaker should sound like.
I also experimented with some RTR tweeter panels. I lived in Virginia at the time, but the first summer I got my driver's license I worked for two months to save money and then took a month-long road trip across country. I stopped at the RTR factory and they sold me some cosmetic reject 5"x5" panels that were used in many, many OEM design of the day.
I connected them in place of the deflection plates of my oscilloscope. It had identical X-Y amplifiers and was therefore perfect for stereo. It was fully direct coupled (no capacitor colorations, 100% triode, zero feedback, fully (tube) regulated power supplies, fully differential (balanced) operation from input to output, and had a bandwidth of DC to 250kHz. They were too small to go much below 1kHz, but I had never heard anything like it in my life - absolutely incredible sound. It didn't play very loud with only 400 VDC bias, so it wasn't worth messing with - especially with a dozen feet of wire carrying 400 volts strung across my bedroom (still in high school). But it made an impression on me.
Years later I had my parents ship them to me to build a speaker. Unfortunately they packed them poorly the the screw terminals on one panel punctured the diaphragm on the other one. Never messed with ESLs after that, although I sold Acoustats for a while, the just didn't have the magic I was looking for.
Charles, you "would lie in bed", not "would lay in bed". Puhleeze!
Jeremy
Thank you for the kind words but I am master at nothing! Yes I have messed with a lot of stats and seem to be somewhat proficient with the things but it seems the longer I mess with them the less I know. Damn frustrating at times but so it goes.The first stat I heard was the original Quad and was instantly smitten. Then a stacked pair of Dayton-Wright XG-10. What did I do? Went out and bought a pair of Acoustats. Fell out of love pretty quickly. Back to the Quad. But I did take the Acoustat apart, stacked the panels one on top of the other, just two panels, and strung a bunch of RTR tweeters on the side for the HF. Ran the RTR down to about 1kHz, tri-amped the whole mess using Magnepan Tympani bass panels for the bottom.
It has been a down hill slide ever since.
If you had the Stax ear speakers you have a good idea what their loudspeakers sound like. Sweet, sweet, sweet! In some ways the most engaging speaker I have ever heard. But alas they are far form perfect.
Edits: 10/31/17
Of course now I have to look at the pertinent documents, patents, etc. again.Walker was certainly aware of Malme's work. His JAES article from November 1980, discussing the ESL-63, lists Malme's JAES article from Jan. 1959 in the Reference section. I would guess Walker would have been aware of any pertinent ideas or developments in the field of electrostats.
His Wire World article from May 1955 references Hunt's work with constant-charge. The benefits of the approach was a significant part of the article. The G.B. Patent claims a speaker using the constant-charge principle. Did that mean he could claim patent infringement if others used constant-charge? I don't know patent law is nothing I worry about. Not much new in my world!
Walker was always open about his ideas and how they were developed. Most things are bits and pieces of other's ideas that come together in a new perhaps novel way.
Edits: 10/31/17
A few questions.1. Do audio equipment reviewers get their hearing checked on a regular basis? I know some mastering engineers do. For obvious reasons, Pete Townshend would not be a good audio reviewer.
2. MQA seems too complicated. "You need this to unfold that, but you only have a partial unfold if you use this". Regular hi- rez I can plug, basically, any old and new dac and be up and running. Am I the only one who thinks MQA is way too complicated for what it needs to do?
3. Have any mastering/ recording engineers ever gone on record with any MQA thoughts or comments ( I know they make thier living remastering back catalogs as well as current)
4. Has there been a professional reviewer knock MQA?
5. In my opinion, a great recording will do the most wonders on ANY audio system. A great recording will still sound good even as an mp3 file. Why isn't their more focus in audio magazines on general recording quality? Im referring more to rock and pop here. So much is now being produced using virtual instruments, digital effects and non professional recording spaces that much product sounds lifeless and flat. Plus, the brickwall compression is alive and well.
6. When and why did equalizers become an audiophile "no no"? Back in the day, eq's were a plenty in high end systems
Dale Clark
www.arcpictures.com
Edits: 10/31/17 10/31/17
> > oDo audio equipment reviewers get their hearing checked on a regular basis? < <
Not that I know of. Many designers don't listen to their equipment. They either design by theory alone (and are proud of it), have others listen for them, or listen themselves.
I doubt hearing acuity has much to do with listening skill. If that were all it took, any child would be an excellent judge of sound quality. Instead it is more like learning to play a musical instrument - years of practice. And just as an elderly musician may not be able to hear as well as he did decades earlier, that does not mean that his a ability to play beautifully diminishes - usually the opposite - unless his fingers are riddled with arthritis or such.
> > Am I the only one who thinks MQA is way too complicated for what it needs to do? < <
No, the only reason it was made so deliberately complex was to obscure what it is really doing, which is not a lot. It's called "smoke and mirrors".
> > Have any mastering/ recording engineers ever gone on record with any MQA thoughts or comments < <
Almost all have gone on record as disliking it, usually greatly as MQA changes the sound that they have worked so hard to achieve. The exceptions are those who are paid to endorse it, the most famous of which is Bob Ludwig. To read what most think, including Brian Lucey, who has done many, many famous albums in the last decade and hes excellent ears and a fantastic monitoring system, refer to this thread:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1171365-mqa-discussion-denver-rmaf.html
> > Has there been a professional reviewer knock MQA? < <
Yes, the two most notable ones being Doug Schneider of SoundStage and Srajn Ebean of 6 Moons.
> > Why isn't their more focus in audio magazines on general recording quality? < <
There aren't many studios left. When the record labels falsely panicked because of Napster (the heaviest Napster users purchased the most CDs, and it largely acted as a way to attract interest to musical groups, just as radio used to), they gave away all their power to Apple. Apple got 30% of the profits and even worse made every single song available as a single for a flat 1/12th the price of the album. People could "cheery pick" the one or two or three best songs on an album for a very low price. In the days of vinyl, you could get one good song and one throwaway song for 1/4 the price of the whole album, and almost everybody bought the full albums.
> > Back in the day, eq's were a plenty in high end systems < <
No they were in a few semi-expensive systems. The only practical way to make a graphic EQ is to use an innput IC op-amp, one for each frequency band, and a summing IC op-amp. All of these dozens of op-amps degraded the sound significantly. Plus the darned things were far too complex. The only thing they were good for was correcting speaker response, but people didn't have the tools to do that.
Cello made a good sounding, fully discrete (no op-amps) unit in the '80s called the "Audio Palette" but it was $8000 and didn't sell well as it was not needed for a good pair of speakers. Instead it was advertised as being used to correct for poor recordings. But most people would rather listen than fiddle with dials for 20 minutes on each album, trying to get the best sound. EQs are best left in the recording studio.
Hope that helps.
I just told you that I found JH to be a very intelligent and curious man. I think he had heard enough stuff in that one day at the "high-end wing" (which I believe was the first time he'd ever attended) and was starting to question some of the things he had believed for decades. I then said that I was confident that if I spent some time with him that he would change his mind and no longer believe that all electronics and all wires sound the same.
And that is "picking on him"?
I thought it was complimenting him on having an open mind.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
