How to fix my detailed, accurate but BRIGHT system

A few clarifications to remarks made by Blindjim about my suggestions.

First, my "well meaning but abbreviated listing of proposed areas" was not my personal list, but a combined list of suggestions proposed by contributors up to that point in this thread. It was done to illustrate the many viewpoints about the problem, and I closed that post by saying the solution likely rested in a combination of several, if not all the suggestions.

Second, my repeated recommendation of *trying* an amp that doubles down power output is not based on the massive amounts of watts per channel (as I have previously stated). It has nothing to do with being a power hound. The well regarded Portal Panache that I suggested has only 100wpc into 8 ohms and 200wpc into 4 ohms (and it's inexpensive on the used market at around $750). The other amps I mentioned do have a significant amount of power output, but that wasn't the criteria for their selection (which was their ability to double down power output, and the availability of a home trial period).

Third, I suggested the OP try an amp that doubles down power simply to hear if doing so made an improvement in his speaker's tonal balance. Bass volume in balance with treble volume will mitigate perceived brightness (but it won't make a revealing tweeter or midrange more forgiving of what's upstream...another issue all together).

Perhaps I should have been more specific, but the intention was for the OP to try the experiment first, and then use what he learned to seek an amp (or to *not* seek an amp if he perceived no difference in the speakers) with the sound characteristics he preferred. Without question, several of the amps I listed have variations in their sound. I wrote, "If you hear improvements, then you know you're headed in the right direction. You can always return the amp for a refund and look for another amp with similar power output capabilities." And I should have added "and different sonic characteristics".

Fourth, my list of is comprised only of those available with home trial periods, with the idea of keeping down the cost of the experiment to just the cost of shipping.

Finally, I don't claim that the amp solution is the only solution, or that it's the best solution, but in my experience it has proven to be a valid solution.

Having owned the Aerial 7B speakers, and having looked at the speaker's impedance test measurements from John Atkinson, and having looked at the output specs of the Butler 2250, I believe the amp/speaker combination is a worthwhile avenue to investigate, and I've attempted to offer some options to minimize the cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Almarg -
I'm not disagreeing with your discussion of low output impedance. However, in rereading Harley's discussion of power output into varying impedance loads, and the resulting loudspeakers' varying dbW (decibel watts) measurements, he makes no mention of low output impedance negating the effect. Perhaps this is an issue of voltage paradigm versus current paradigm?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Gregfisk, you might try tilting your speakers back a bit so the tweeters are firing slightly up rather than straight at your listening position. Also, you might try placing the speakers on platforms so the tweeters are above ear level.

Hey Greg,

One other area that I would like to address with you is, How loud do you listen to your music?...., because, that room of yours is fricking huge; 22' x 38' with 17' ceilings.

I see that your speakers go down to approximately 35Hz, and they're down -6dB at 30Hz, which would be a nice match for a small to medium sized room, however I feel that they are probably undersized for your room. I would venture to guess that you're probably playing your system louder than expected, in order to fill your room with sound, and as you're turning up the volume to increase the bass fullness, and sound pressure levels in your room, you're further accentuating your reflective brightness and forward sound, because the bass is not holding down it's end of the bargain (pun intended).

It's certainly possible that you could add a subwoofer or two to your to do list, as this would add more bass to your room, while allowing you to play your music at a more reasonable level, without over-driving the midrange and treble.

Keep in mind that I'm no longer discussing more powerful Amps, I'm actually talking about increasing your Sound Pressure Level (SPL) in your room, by adding a subwoofer or two, or for you to consider larger floor-standing speakers for your next speaker purchase, if you should be required to go that route.

Another option, is for you to move your Aerial Speakers to another smaller room in the house.

Here is a link to Devon's thread, who also had a huge room 17' x 35' with 12' high ceilings, and when he moved his speakers to a smaller room, he was thrilled with the sound.

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1247594481&openflup&1&4#1

A Smaller Room is Cheaper than Buying New Equipment.

Rich

Gregfisk

Re-reading throughout the thread I saw where you noted the Monster cables, and one other sort. Before I plunked down serious money to replace good items with other good items, I’d strongly suggest you check out just two power cords. A Voodoo Black Dragon, or a Shunyata Taipan helix VX… both of which if attached to that DAC will completely ease off the bite you are getting in the highs of your rig… both should run you under $375 or so. The VooDoo new should be a bit less.

If using the stock pc on your Butler, simply adding a sunami pc there will help too… about $170 or so.

If $$$ for ICs is an issue, the Audio Art ICs aren’t bad at $100 per pair, and for still less, the Micro pearls from Goertz are severe over achievers and were listed on Stereophile’s preferred cable list. The AA are a bit rounder sounding than the MPs. Used Pearls run around $50 or so per pair. Kimber hero might help too in the budget cable area at about $100 per pr. But I’ve not heard them.

I’d also spend $25 on some Vibra pods and put them under either the Capri or Link III.

The Cable Co. can give you more options and afford you a better perspective for a small investment, which you can recoup on any subsequent purchase.

Almarg

“… Interesting observation, Jim. I suppose that a reason for that is that it's hard "at a distance" to have a feel for the DEGREE of excess brightness, and if everyone had first-hand exposure to the sound, opinions would probably be more convergent.”

Definitely.

I so commiserated with the title:
“How to fix my detailed, accurate but BRIGHT system”
…having been in that exact spot previously, albeit with differing gear and room. Noteably gear which did not have any of those inherent characteristics, and a far smaller less reflective room!... yet the same or likewise end product was my own dilemma! It astounded me.

The ‘fix’ was some investigations into and acquisitions of, power cords, interconnects, racks, isolation, and devices which attended to signal integrity and it’s transmission, along with addressing power line artifacts and their control or suppression or elimination.

What I ultimately wound up with was the best sounding rig I’ve ever owned. One I promptly sold off a week later. lol. I did that so I could investigate another haunting auditory experience pertaining to an all tube set up. To that end, I’m not regretful… well, not much.

Personal experience has few peers. Yet my own experiences seldom emulate someone else’s identically.

My position on system formulating and tuning turns an eye towards those areas that affect the balance and voice of a rig with as much or nearly as much impact…. As do it’s major devices. Once, of course, the prime components are in place.

Another factor for me is operating without the resources that allow for wholesale interchangeability of the main parts.

So much of the gear made today is very very good, and only the flavor of it gives us possible consternation, as we go about mixing and mating a this .with a that. Barring outright poorly mixed scenarios and I don’t see this one as such; a finger pointing out causality might rest itself on those other contributing aspects of the systems entirety. Although there can be some preconceived notions which preclude thoughts pertaining to investigations of these areas, Iv’e found for a thing to be true, it doesn’t require my belief in it. It is true with or without me.

Some folks simply don’t believe accessories or peripherals amount to providing much if at all, any tangible influence to the sound or performance of their audio rig. Hanging it all onto the main players, sources, power train, and speakers.

Consequently, these non main stream areas roll along almost completely ignored by a good many. Developing technology has conjured some powerful magic into these areas since the 60s & 70s, and they all merit more thoughtfulness these days. Not to mention their costs remain usually well less than the owner’s main appliances.

I know, because I did exactly that… I ignored or devaluated the import of wiring, attendance to power line purity, acoustic treatments, and mechanical isolation. Only thru the ongoing nagging of a friend I met here did I even begin to consider all these items did I realize substantial gains, and the genie was then out of the bottle.

Hearing a lesser powerful Butler in my home recently on more stodgy and less benevolent speakers, given the 7Bs numbers, I’m pretty sure racing off after another amp might not be the most efficient move to bust right now. Nor would I suggest it as the initial one to take. Especially as the OP said he’d prefer not to as he likes the combo.

Richlane’s post made a lot of sense. Mentioning the addition of a sub or two. Great idea Richlane! AS well, moving things into a more conducive room… though I bet some thinking went into selecting it’s present location and that will likely precluding further relocation.

TVAD
It wasn’t an indictment, ya know. Sheesssh. Touch-eee!

My statement regarding your truncated list of options is quite valid, nonetheless. It didn’t contain all of the avenues listed herein to that point…. Merely those paths and people you felt were more appropriate to the mix. By so eliminating other as noteworthy and genuine efforts, you diminish them all as you confirm others. Nothing did you note about mechanical isolation, power conditioning, or possible electrical troubles being present either. You simply made up your mind as to what was or is prudent and listed it.

If you are going to preface a list of options by assigning positive accolades to those people whose options are on the list, you as well lessen those who are omitted from it.

Everyone here offers something compelling from time to time, albeit, personal exp, levity, technical expertise, or simple unforeseen or heretofore unimagined perspectives.

One other item which could be embarrassing to some, is your cavalier attitudes towards the in home trials of major components you offer as paths for solutions so regularly. It’s more than presumptuous. People who are buying, or have bought much if not all of there gear pre-owned, likely aren’t about to put up 2, 3, 4, or 5 thousand dollars for a look see in home trial which will likely include both shipping and restocking fees as well, if the item is rejected following the preview. Probably not just the $50 to $75 or more for shipping costs alone. Ask the folks at your Wyred 4 sound option if they will charge such fees…. and they do as I was recently told.

There is too the subjective position on sonic artifacts…. Is your own definition of bright, that of anothers? AS you prominately wrote you were in this thread the only other past owner of the aerial 7Bs… they weren’t owned with the same gear, or room and oh, yes, the same ears as the OP has. More importantly though, you might also indicate publicly far more often how easy you are to please, sonically speaking that is. Some might mistake the vast amounts of gear you’ve owned or previewed as mere curiosity otherwise.

There’s more than one way to build a mouse trap.

Another thing to remember about the so-called doubling down amps. Some of the manufacturers' amps don't exactly double down. The simply make the 8 ohm output higher than the advertised power. For example a 200/400 watt amp can have 300 watts at 8 ohms instead of 200 and the 4 ohm output is 400 wpc. In this way they get to claim it doubles down (all amps that double down must be better!) when in fact it doesn't. Nobody complains because the 8 ohm power is higher than rated but in this case it's a marketing choice - double down is better than the value of 8 ohm power. In the audiophile market this marketing technique is likely to hold more weight with buyers.

The Krell 400xi is a great example of this although they seem to take both marketing routes - advertising doubling down of power and not quite truthful specifications. Adverstised 200wpc 400 wpc. Actual: 290 wpc 350 wpc. It's a good amp if you like that sort of forward sound and have great sources.

Just realize that all this talk of doubling down the power to drive speakers has wrinkles. And frankly I don't see how it affects the speaker output as long as the amp isn't being driven hard. If the amp can deliver the current that's drawn across the impedance across the frequency range then what's the problem? Of course an amp has to deliver more at 4 ohms but up until the limit of the amp is reached it should do that without affecting the sound.

I'm not disagreeing with your discussion of low output impedance. However, in rereading Harley's discussion of power output into varying impedance loads, and the resulting loudspeakers' varying dbW (decibel watts) measurements, he makes no mention of low output impedance negating the effect. Perhaps this is an issue of voltage paradigm versus current paradigm?

I don't have Harley's book, and so I don't know exactly what he is saying, but yes the question can be considered in the context of the two paradigms of amplifier and speaker design. Those being the voltage paradigm, and the power paradigm, which is more accurate terminology than "current" paradigm, as explained in Ralph's (Atmasphere's) excellent paper on the two paradigms.

Consider the output stage of an amplifier to be a theoretically ideal voltage source (zero output impedance), the voltage being proportional to the amplifier's input voltage, in series with a resistor (equal to the amplifier's output impedance).

In a voltage paradigm amplifier, by definition, the value of that resistor approaches zero (i.e., it will be a small fraction of an ohm). The result is that the speaker will see a voltage proportional to the amplifier's input voltage, regardless of what the speaker's impedance may be at the frequency that is involved (as long as the amplifier is capable of supplying the required current, the required current being higher as the speaker's impedance decreases -- recall Ohm's Law). Nearly all amplifiers with solid state output stages work this way, and the majority of conventional box speakers are designed based on the assumption that they will be driven this way. Many tube amplifiers approach this model, although only approximately because their output impedance is typically higher. Other tube amplifier's, with even higher output impedances, fall into the power paradigm category.

As Ralph's paper mentions, a significant downside of voltage paradigm amplifiers is that they typically (but certainly not always) require more feedback than power paradigm amplifiers, increasing the well-known side-effects of feedback.

In a power paradigm amplifier, the output impedance is much higher, for instance 4 ohms or more in the case of many of Ralph's designs. That will cause both the voltage that is seen by the speaker and the current that is drawn by the speaker to depend on the impedance of the speaker at the particular frequency that is present. The higher the speaker's impedance at the particular frequency (or frequencies), the more voltage it will see (because it represents a greater fraction of the total impedance that is in the path, meaning its own impedance plus the amplifier's output impedance), but the less the current that will flow (because the total impedance in the path is greater). Since, if we neglect the effects of inductance and capacitance, power is equal to voltage times current, the power that is delivered to the speaker (as opposed to the voltage) will remain fairly constant as a function of variations in the speaker impedance.

As I said, most speakers, especially box-type speakers, are designed with the expectation that they will be driven with voltage-paradigm amplifiers. But Ralph's paper includes this statement:

Loudspeakers that operate under Power Paradigm rules are speakers that expect constant power, regardless of their impedance. Examples include nearly all horns, ESLs, magnetic planers, a good number of bass reflex and acoustic suspension designs. Horns, ESLs and magnetic planers do not get their impedance curve from system resonance and so benefit from a constant power characteristic and indeed, many of these speaker technologies are well-known to sound right with Power Paradigm amplifier designs.

So that is some background. Returning to the original question, I think all of this should make clear that a tonal imbalance can result from a paradigm mismatch between amplifier and speaker, such as the excessive brightness that would undoubtedly result from using a power paradigm amplifier (high output impedance) to drive this particular speaker (4 ohm impedance in the bass, 8 ohm impedance in the treble). But a voltage paradigm amplifier (near zero output impedance) would deliver essentially the same voltage into both the 4 ohm and 8 ohm impedances, which is presumably the expectation the speaker was designed based upon (or it would not sound right with just about any solid state amplifier). And the ability of the amplifier to deliver twice as much current into 4 ohms than into 8 ohms has no direct relevance to tonal balance; its main relevance is to maximum volume capability. Although, of course, for any of many other possible reasons one voltage paradigm amplifier may sound different with the particular speaker than another, and it stands to reason that an amplifier that can double current into 4 ohms will, everything else being equal (which of course they rarely are), be more comfortable dealing with a speaker like this.

I'll add in closing that although I haven't read Harley's book, I have read a lot of his writings over the years in TAS and Stereophile, and I suggest that you do not exclude the possibility that anything he says of a technical nature may be flat-out wrong.

Best,
-- Al