slavedata

Adding distortion to improve percieved sound

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, uzzy said:

My Gales provided that, so did my PRO9TLs, so does my mate's Timewindows (I now have a pair too I bought for my kids), so did the Acoustat 4x as did the larger IMFs,  so do most of the ATC range and PMC, I could go on and on.  Perhaps the most affordable in the 80s were the Wilmslow Audio Decca Volt kit. 

My Art Impressions do all the above do but do it even better.   The thing is we all have our own ideas of what is right and so we are drawn to certain designs that suit us better.   It does not stop us appreciating those loudspeakers that do a good job.   

Too often we listen to the equipment and not the music coming out of it, looking for faults and things we can improve on.  Yet when we go to a live concert do we spend two hours considering how the sound could be improved?  This could be an endless argument if we keep on trying to find a definitive answer because there isn't one :)

Well I suppose its a matter of opinion. I have owned most of these at some time except the Acoustat and Wilmslow audio. I would say some of these you could say were full range particularly the TL based designs but IMO they all fall short in one of these areas  of  bass slam, delicacy, glorious mid range, tone and timbre. I cant comment of the  Acoustat or Wilmslow audio as never heard them. 

IME the most difficult to achieve are glorious mid range, tone and timbre, you can often manage two of the three but seldom all. Those speakers I've found that can often achieve this are shall we say unconventional like electrostatics, horns, wide-banders  or open baffle, but obviously have compromises in other areas. Conventional cone/box speakers always seem to introduce colouration in those important areas even BI AMPED. EQd, DSP'd or what you will. Its only on side by side comparison do you realise how different they are. If you are a lover of electronically amplified instruments and music genre  you probably notice little difference but if you are a listener of non amplified genres where rich tone, timbre  and harmonics are a key part of the instrument the difference in sound is fairly obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, complin said:

Well I suppose its a matter of opinion. I have owned most of these at some time except the Acoustat and Wilmslow audio. I would say some of these you could say were full range particularly the TL based designs but IMO they all fall short in one of these areas  of  bass slam, delicacy, glorious mid range, tone and timbre. I cant comment of the  Acoustat or Wilmslow audio as never heard them. 

IME the most difficult to achieve are glorious mid range, tone and timbre, you can often manage two of the three but seldom all. Those speakers I've found that can often achieve this are shall we say unconventional like electrostatics, horns, wide-banders  or open baffle, but obviously have compromises in other areas. Conventional cone/box speakers always seem to introduce colouration in those important areas even BI AMPED. EQd, DSP'd or what you will. Its only on side by side comparison do you realise how different they are. If you are a lover of electronically amplified instruments and music genre  you probably notice little difference but if you are a listener of non amplified genres where rich tone, timbre  and harmonics are a key part of the instrument the difference in sound is fairly obvious.

Methinks perhaps it was the partnership of amps - the gales are a horrendous load .. but we will have to agree to disagree :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, uzzy said:

Methinks perhaps it was the partnership of amps - the gales are a horrendous load .. but we will have to agree to disagree :) 

Well the Gales were no worse in that respect than the Quad 57's, both required unconditionally stable amps. I always admired the Gales for both their super looks and great sound. They will always be sought after and admired for those reasons. Timeless classics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, complin said:

Well the Gales were no worse in that respect than the Quad 57's, both required unconditionally stable amps. I always admired the Gales for both their super looks and great sound. They will always be sought after and admired for those reasons. Timeless classics. 

Most people never heard them properly as to get slam you needed an amp that could deliver high current into less than 4 ohms - and not many amps could do thaat in the 70s.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.