2. analog
  3. 162540-132884

16 ohm speakers: any amp sounds better with more resolution. speaker cables less critical.

First,
  
Thanks to anyone who responds with whatever answers/opinions/advice comes from this. I'm retired, covid bound, Donna is taking care of everything holiday related, too much time, always curious.
..................................

I happened across this in an old thread started by Ralph (atmasphere)

"Sixteen ohms, BTW is a very simple means for getting more resolution out of your system, as nearly every amplifier made sounds better on 16 ohms than it will on 4 or 8 ohms. Speaker cables become far less critical too."

My speakers are 16 ohms (Electrovoice horn tweeter, horn mid, 15" woofer, crossover, rheostats, from 1958).
Extremely efficient, I have more than enough power. Amp, now and in the past all had 16 ohm taps.
Of course I can hook them up to my Cayin's 8 ohm taps now and listen, but facts, opinions, advice, to learn is good.
...........................


Lots of Questions? 

1. why/how do 16 ohm speakers make amps sound better, with more resolution? 

2. why speaker cables less critical? perhaps this is why I/we don't hear cable differences in my system?
I'm using my homemade twisted pair of cat 5 now (8 individually insulated small diameter solid core).

3.  to get exterior bias control: use 8 ohm tap for my 16 ohm speakers? (get alternate amp 4/8 no 16 tap,)

lose advantage(s)? 'sounds better'; 'more resolution'; 'speaker cables less critical'? 

this says slightly more mids:

http://blog.hughes-and-kettner.com/ohm-cooking-101-understanding-amps-speakers-and-impedance/

I can fine tune my speakers via their two rheostats: 'presence' and 'brilliance', so not really an issue for me.

4. Importance of Bias Control

how important is Bias? (I don't care about heat, power output, or tube life, just as bias affects sound). Frankly, using vintage tube receiver Fisher 500C, 800C and Fisher Mono Blocks 80Z, I have never checked or adjusted bias. I just put the control in the center position when cleaning insides/controls.

I have always used 16 ohm taps of various vintage tube and SS amps and newer current tube Cayin A88T. (original version, the only one with 16 ohm taps). It's bias control is internal, versions with safer external bias do not have 16 ohm taps.

5. replace their two rheostats? ('presence' and 'brilliance': copper wire-wound on ceramic body, mid/neutral position).
I have them in neutral position now, l/r frequency response equal.   

do I need to keep rheostats 16 ohms? use 8 ohm rheostat with 16 ohm drivers?

sales sheet says 16 ohm, but data sheet shows range 1.0 to 5k ohms. 

https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/303/controls_rheostats-1228697.pdf

does that mean, the drivers will draw whatever they draw (varies thru frequency range anyway), doesn't matter as long as rheostat range starts 1.0 ohm, extends past say 100.0 ohms?

https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/303/controls_rheostats-1228697.pdf

...........................................


thanks, Elliott











elliottbnewcombjr
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,677 posts
 
The diaphragms have a very limited Xmax. They get non linear easily creating distortion at higher frequencies never mind the doppler effect. The ESLs become even more effortless and higher sound pressure levels stay perfectly controlled and relaxed. Without subwoofers the ESLs will start sounding stressed at higher volumes. This is certainly the case with Acoustats. I can not see why it would be different with Sound Labs speakers.
Roger used to make the B1 subwoofer which was an ESL panel that, if you had a pair of them, sat between the A1s creating a wall of ESL from one side of the room to the other. Several of my customers have had this sort of setup, using an electronic crossover so there was no bass excursion on the mains. I seem to recall the crossover to be about 200Hz. By getting the bass off of the mains they got more transparent.


IMO there were tradeoffs- the problem being that the Sound Labs and MA-2s driving them were a pretty transparent system for which the crossover at the time was no match. Roger began to mess with the spacing on the sub, and the later versions seemed to get harder to drive on account of the spacing between the diaphragm and stator being increased (inverse square law...).


I like to play my system at some pretty high levels too. If you want the entrance of the gods into Valhalla to sound right, you can't pussyfoot around with the volume; Wagner scored a serious brass section at that point and its not the sort of thing you sleep to :)

Of course you understand that I spend far more time playing our own amps than I do most solid state amps, and by comparison my comments are correct. I concede there is a perspective issue afoot!


charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,239 posts
 
Hi Raul,
What caused me to respond  to your posts yesterday was what seem to be a rather dismissive and very broad brush assumptions.
1 "Low knowledge level audiophiles "
2 You referred to "Warm, sweet,relaxed" as ridiculous adjectives used to describe the sound of music in a listener’s audio system.
3 Your assertion that tube electronics are less capable of reproducing the true characteristics of near field music but solid state electronics are superior in this regard.

I feel you were insulting a number of members on this forum. Low knowledge level? How did you reach that conclusion? Is it because they may prefer tubes versus transistors (As is your preference)?

I wanted to point out that terms such as warm, sweet and relaxed do certainly represent useful and meaningful adjectives when describing what one can hear. Every bit as worthwhile as harsh, bright and aggressive. All these adjectives are relevant and accurate descriptors depending on context and circumstances.

I simply have a different perspective/opinion than you and wanted to express that based on my experiences. Raul I understand you re explaining and describing your near field listening impressions. But you wrote it with the implication that you have more of this type of exposure than others on this thread. Why would you make that assumption?
There are I suspect folks on this forum with similar live near field listening experiences, probably more than you realize. Nonetheless I appreciate your contributions and sharing of your thoughts on this open forum.
Charles

audio211's avatar
audio211
7 posts
 
I use Pure silver cable for my whole system, much cheaper , then the branded cable. As for speaker, change the capacitor on crossover to a good  one, I also change, the wire to pure silver. If you are interested, can go Youtube     Jolida 211.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,267 posts
 
Ralph, I have seen pictures of that system with the subwoofer panels between the main speakers. It was destined to failure for several reasons. First is dipole radiators make lousy subwoofers. The wavelengths are just too long and holding the panels perfectly rigid is very difficult. Second is the set up was wrong. He was using point source subwoofers under line source main speakers. They do not radiate the same way. In order to create line source subwoofers your array has to end at boundaries (walls) at both ends and the subwoofers have to be closer than the wavelength of the highest frequency the subs are to reproduce. He would have had to have a sub panel right up against both side walls and one in the center. The beauty of this is that you sharply reduce unwanted reflective energy. Third is analog subwoofer crossovers just do not work well especially with steeper slopes. You really have to have a digital bass management system to handle the crossovers and time alignment. The best are very flexible and you can make changes while listening which is very important. 
But, everyone noticed that the main speakers became more transparent which is major plus of using subwoofers with ESLs. When you push the volume the sound remains perfectly organized and pain free. They just get louder.  We listened to an Arctic Monkey's concert last night. Everybody had big smiles with 100 dB peaks. 
I cross over higher than most people as I have discovered that, at least with my system that it sounds better. I think it is easier to match things up at shorter wavelengths. But, 200 Hz is perhaps too high for dynamic subwoofers. I cross at 120 dB or so. I've never taken it up to 200 Hz. But if the set up is symmetrical It won't screw up the imaging. It might start interfering with the resolution of certain instruments like a double bass.
There is nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning:-)

Raul, I think the 80 Hz crossover is right for dynamic speakers when you are using one sub or a swarm system. 80 Hz is the highest you can go without disturbing the image. But, if you are using a symmetrical set up with all speakers in front of you it is fine to go higher. With an ESL like the Sound labs which is a "one way" speaker this makes a big difference but with a dynamic speaker were the woofer might only run up to 500 Hz the improvement in distortion won't be quite as noticeable although the headroom will improve. The point is that crossing higher probably won't get you much. 
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,677 posts
 
@mijostyn +1
The room that I heard that system in most recently was built to accommodate the stereo and specifically the Sound Labs. It really was a nice setup, and could play some impressive dynamic range. He was running 2 pair of our MA-2s and until Dr West started messing with the spacing on the B1 subs, you couldn't clip the amps. It would be interesting to hear what those speakers could do with modern room correction and crossovers. The B1 sub had a very nice impedance curve if you had tube amps; it was as high as 32 ohms and I don't think it got below 16 ohms anywhere in its range.
More to discover