The best component is no component at all - thinking aloud

uglymusicuglymusic
edited January 2012 in Systems
I'm very much enjoying my current pre-less state, in contradiction to some other members' experiences. I should say right away that I'm not seeking to set up an argument here, I'm just thinking aloud.

Listening this evening, I'm reminded of one of the basic principles by which the amps I use were designed - 'the best component' is no component at all'.

It works for me. The digital volume control in Audirvana+ is doing the business, even if it's a little clumsy.

All this has got me thinking some more about how to reduce that component count further, and I'm led into thinking some more about my currently stalled Open Baffle project. A wide-range OB without a cross-over or with a very simple one would seem to be the way to go.

Comments

  • Brain_DeadBrain_Dead
    edited February 2012
    Good morning David,

    I think in the early 1980 Etude in Belguim did some work on  OB and there is a Etude owner club.


    Maybe there hidden are some secret plans to build two.

    Also did Wireless World or something produce plan and I am sure Martin Column did a chapter or two on the subject.


    Have fun



  • DocfosterDocfoster
    I've got some memory of Einstein saying something like "make things as simple as you can. But no simpler". I don't know to what he was referring, or how it might relate to Hifi design, but it seemed like the kind of rhetorical sound bite that's called for these days.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Good morning David,

    I think in the early 1980 Etude in Belguim did some work on  OB and there is a Etude owner club.


    Maybe there hidden are some secret plans to build two.

    Also did Wireless World or something produce plan and I am sure Martin Column did a chapter or two on the subject.


    Have fun



    Thanks Col

    There is an enormous amount of theoretical and anecdotal stuff out there. 

    @Jim is helping me. He has some great-sounding OBs in his system at the moment.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    I've got some memory of Einstein saying something like "make things as simple as you can. But no simpler". I don't know to what he was referring, or how it might relate to Hifi design, but it seemed like the kind of rhetorical sound bite that's called for these days.
    Your memory is correct... Einstein said something along those lines.
  • AlanAlan
    edited February 2012
    I think it works too - if you can drop it, do.

    I would like to hear some big Magneplanar speakers, big electrostatic panel and a large cone driver for the bass. I imagine that must be pretty visceral, and it seems a simple way to incorporate the best of a well regarded technology with the strengths of another. Speakers will always be the variable with systems, however good sources get.

    Losing boxes also allows for consolidation with better quality. These Dynaudios are for studio use; they have amps and DACs built in.
    image

    These do 24/192 BTW.

    They now have a domestic version, which incorporates wireless streaming (at 16/48 IIRC):

    image
    Thing is, these solutions are not simple in the slightest, technologically they are pretty complex. As a result, some of us might not like their sound. But for the end user, this must be attractive. Perhaps the future will look a bit like this? - A different kind of 'simple'.

    Now, the issue is: How to reconcile this 'apple-esque' user experience with 'real' high quality audio?
  • AlanAlan
    BTW, those Royds already have a very simple crossover (as you well know). In fact I believe some of what might usually be achieved with electrical components has been done so by doping the speaker cone. Joe Ackroyd described his crossover as "modified 1st order", which I take to be as simple (-again!) as possible.

    Perhaps losing the speaker box, along with its interaction with the mechanical energy produced by the cone movement, is what yields the benefits?
  • PACPAC
    edited February 2012
    I agree with the principle David, the practice however never tends to be so simple.  My own loudspeakers consist of 4 separate drivers:  Twin Beyma 12" bass drivers, one Lowther DX4 (whizzer removed and damping cap fitted), and one Horning Lotus horn loaded tweeter.  The idea is that the bass handle all frequencies from 20Hz up to around a few hundred Hz, and the Lowther starts coming in at 150Hz and tails off at just over 6Khz where the tweeter than comes in.  It relies on each driver naturally rolling in and out with its frequency response +/- a few db's within that envelope with only the HF crossover being necessary.  In practice, the implementation is very complex, as each driver loads a central common horn cavity specially designed for phase alignment and reinforcing bass (bass units fire inwards, but face outwards, so 180 degrees out of phase).  Its a very heavy and complex cabinet, so whilst the electronics are minimal and the integration is seemless, the construction and design are very complex.  I've only ever heard one loudspeaker manage this properly, and that's the ones I have.

    I think there's sense in making the whole audio chain against the KISS principle though, albeit within reason, as simplistically, the shorter the signal path the better.  Allie this to high quality components and connections, and that's the way I like things.  Saying that, I've yet sort myself out with decent interconnects and shorten the runs!  (too busy doing it for other people!)
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    I think it works too - if you can drop it, do.

    I would like to hear some big Magneplanar speakers, big electrostatic panel and a large cone driver for the bass. I imagine that must be pretty visceral, and it seems a simple way to incorporate the best of a well regarded technology with the strengths of another. Speakers will always be the variable with systems, however good sources get.

    IME mixing driver technologies like that only brings the worst of both worlds, with lack of integration.

    Losing boxes also allows for consolidation with better quality. These Dynaudios are for studio use; they have amps and DACs built in.
    image

    These do 24/192 BTW.

    They now have a domestic version, which incorporates wireless streaming (at 16/48 IIRC):

    image
    Thing is, these solutions are not simple in the slightest, technologically they are pretty complex. As a result, some of us might not like their sound. But for the end user, this must be attractive. Perhaps the future will look a bit like this? - A different kind of 'simple'.

    Now, the issue is: How to reconcile this 'apple-esque' user experience with 'real' high quality audio?
    These still have the same building blocks as in a separates rig, but they're in the speaker box rather than on a rack. Indeed, the individual parts of the Dynaudios may not be designed with any eye to minimalism.

    It's early days yet, so we'll have to hope that simplicity and sound quality can both win through.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    BTW, those Royds already have a very simple crossover (as you well know). In fact I believe some of what might usually be achieved with electrical components has been done so by doping the speaker cone. Joe Ackroyd described his crossover as "modified 1st order", which I take to be as simple (-again!) as possible.

    Perhaps losing the speaker box, along with its interaction with the mechanical energy produced by the cone movement, is what yields the benefits?
    The answer of course is to buy a second pair of TDSs and a digital crossover, and cut the RR3s crossover out entirely by using the bi-amping set-up that comes with them.

    Anyone got a pair of TDSs they want to sell me for about a fiver? :-)
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    I agree with the principle David, the practice however never tends to be so simple.  My own loudspeakers consist of 4 separate drivers:  Twin Beyma 12" bass drivers, one Lowther DX4 (whizzer removed and damping cap fitted), and one Horning Lotus horn loaded tweeter.  The idea is that the bass handle all frequencies from 20Hz up to around a few hundred Hz, and the Lowther starts coming in at 150Hz and tails off at just over 6Khz where the tweeter than comes in.  It relies on each driver naturally rolling in and out with its frequency response +/- a few db's within that envelope with only the HF crossover being necessary.  In practice, the implementation is very complex, as each driver loads a central common horn cavity specially designed for phase alignment and reinforcing bass (bass units fire inwards, but face outwards, so 180 degrees out of phase).  Its a very heavy and complex cabinet, so whilst the electronics are minimal and the integration is seemless, the construction and design are very complex.  I've only ever heard one loudspeaker manage this properly, and that's the ones I have.

    I think there's sense in making the whole audio chain against the KISS principle though, albeit within reason, as simplistically, the shorter the signal path the better.  Allie this to high quality components and connections, and that's the way I like things.  Saying that, I've yet sort myself out with decent interconnects and shorten the runs!  (too busy doing it for other people!)
    I think you've answered the point yourself, Paul. What we're considering here is electronic simplicity rather than mechanical/physical simplicity. 

    Although OBs have the mechanical/physical simplicity as well, my thinking aloud was really about electronic simplicity being A Good Thing.
  • PACPAC
    I agree David.  RE OB speakers, yes, they are simple but it strikes me that there may be some drawbacks.  They require good amplification as the damping characteristics differ from loaded (there's a lot of inertia at higher SPL's/low frequencies) but any loudspeaker giving full range without the need for cross-overs has to be a good thing to aim for;  few seem to tick the boxes in that respect.  As for electronics, there's" keep it simple", but with regard for good design (eg omitting feedback to simplify an amps circuitry isn't a good means to an end since to reduce distortion, feedback is required), but leaving out superfluous tone controls probably is a good idea.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Maybe it's KIASAPSWFIU (keep it as simple as possible stupid without f'ing it up)?
  • DocfosterDocfoster
    Maybe it's KIASAPSWFIU (keep it as simple as possible stupid without f'ing it up)?
    Ah, is that the Einstein quote...?
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Maybe it's KIASAPSWFIU (keep it as simple as possible stupid without f'ing it up)?
    Ah, is that the Einstein quote...?
    I think you'll find it's Nils Bohr  \:D/
  • PACPAC
    Maybe it's KIASAPSWFIU (keep it as simple as possible stupid without f'ing it up)?
    I'd never remember that acronym, so probably would end up f'ing it up!  8-}
  • AlanAlan
    These still have the same building blocks as in a separates rig, but they're in the speaker box rather than on a rack. Indeed, the individual parts of the Dynaudios may not be designed with any eye to minimalism.

    It's early days yet, so we'll have to hope that simplicity and sound quality can both win through.
     

    Precisely - they are minimal to the user bit probably not inside. It would be great to see the two ways in one system.
  • DocfosterDocfoster
    I'm a big Dyn' fan. No idea what that lot sound like tho'.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    I'd love to hear the Dynaudio system.
  • uglymusicuglymusic
    Going back to the current state of my rig. There I go again, Mr Ugly-Centric...

    I'm finding that I've got to one of those stages where the system is really showing up faults in recordings. Normally, I find this situation passes after a while. The extreme detail becomes normal and I can refocus on the music.

    I'm just not there yet. 
Sign In or Register to comment.