TheFrugalAudiophile
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TheFrugalAudiophile
-
-
On 1/30/2020 at 4:02 PM, Pete B said:
Note that there is a version with a tweeter level control and others without, I would always add the level
control because they sound best with about 3 ohms in series with the tweeter. Yes, they are bright without
the control but there is a simple solution get the correct version or add the level control.
Thanks, Pete, this explains a great deal. The Human Speaker 21st Century version of the EPI has no such level control so for that reason I'd avoid it. I see mostly engineer background on this site and I have none but I wonder if you check my comment on the Dynaco restoration whether you agree with Holt's remarks as a listener. Do you listen to Classic Speakers at home and what are you using?
Here's the link:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/whos-right-acccuracy-or-musicality
-
Pete, I think we're coming at this from two different perspectives. You're speaking with an engineering background and I'm just a listener. The Emotiva 7.1 processor did in fact in its EMO-EQ process make some adjustments in the areas (the drop at 1 KHZ, the crossover point) but I prefer manual EQ with less aggressive treble than the Emotiva's evaluation. There is more to human listening than adjusting to artificial, digital test tones.
QuoteThe A-25 has a 1.5" tweeter that has very limited output above 12 KHz. A-25s sound reasonably well
balanced even though there is no crossover on the woofer probably as a result of the high VC inducance
acting to shape the response. I've never bothered to measure the A-25 frequency response or seen one
published, but they sound so good that I've always been suspicious of a depression, perhaps large,
around 2 KHz. Sure enough, I found a magazine published response and it was there. It also showed
the steep roll-off in the bass around 75 Hz. I started a thread here with some history and links to the
articles on the A-25, one with frequency response curves:
There are 10 dB dips in the frequency response on axis but they go away slightly off axis, so if you
position your speakers right it is possible to get a much smoother response.
I found this article accidentally by J. Gordon Holt. Has anyone here ever heard of the speaker he mentions? The Fulton Musical Industries J speakers?
https://www.stereophile.com/content/whos-right-acccuracy-or-musicality
QuoteStereophile for example feels that, at a time in audio history when superb bass and treble and excellent detail are obtainable from many loudspeakers, the most important remaining consideration is freedom from coloration through the middle range (where, after all, the vast majority of musical activity takes place). We have continued to use and to recommend Fulton Musical Industries J speakers because, despite frequent modifications and manifest weaknesses (ie, low-end and and midrange detail easily bettered by some other systems), they offered what we feel to he the best set of performance compromises of any available speaker system. The FMI Js, in other words, while not quite the equal of some others in some respects, are so markedly superior in their reproduction of real musical timbres that they must be considered one of the most accurate reproducers of music around today.
In this respect I agree with him: I tend to like reproduced sound that to me is more "natural" and while I've never heard the Fulton with its huge cone tweeters to agree they're "better" than the A25s, since Holt recorded live music, is well respected, etc. his remarks are worth considering, but just as with the ELACs, I might not like how they sound in the acoustics of my room (were I to ever hear them and not doing this for a living it's unlikely I ever will) all the same.
In his review at this link, he compares them to the A25 and states why he thinks they're better. He publishes a frequency response curve of both speakers. There is the A25 dip you talk about and an elevation. I don't find my A25s bright; again, the Elac B6 2.0 (whatever) on paper had better stats than the A25, but far less "air", detail, transparency and musical realism to me. Has anyone here heard the modern speakers? Interestingly, SEAS fabricated I think cabinets for the ELAC Vela speaker that use a "Heil" or AMT tweeter, while the tweeters are made in Germany.
Here's the article: https://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/0973fulton/index.html
An excerpt:
QuoteFulton Musical Industries Model 80 & "J-Modular" loudspeakers
Against the Dyna A-25In view of the fact that we made that same statement about the Dyna A-25 speakers some time ago (in the issue dated "Summer 1968"), it is enlightening to compare them. They are not similar in sound, and in fact, do not even do best with the same kind of amplifiers. The FMIs were designed to be used with tube amps and they sound at their best when so used. The Dynas seem to do best with solid-state amps, so we made our comparisons with one of the best-sounding amplifiers of each variety that we had on hand: an Audio Research Dual 75 for the Fultons and a Citation 12 for the Dynas (footnote 1).
On direct comparisons, the differences between the speakers were immediately obvious. Overall balance was remarkably similar, but there the similarity ended The Dynas went somewhat lower, but did not seem to go out as far at the top. The Dynas sounded subtly zizzy at the high end, while the Fultons sounded smooth. The Dynas sounded somewhat rich, while the Fultons were raw when the music or the recording was that way. But the most noticeable difference was that, while the Dynas sounded very good, the Fultons sounded real. Our subjective response curves (fig.1) show how both systems sounded to us.
The 80s are not entirely without coloration, though. There is a very mild bump in the response at 300Hz, which adds a trace of drumminess to the sound when the speakers are off the floor, and causes a moderately heavy mid-bottom from some recordings when the speakers are on the floor near a wall. There is also what sounds like a broad response rise centered at around 1.5kHz from a lot of commercial recordings, but the fact that it was absent from others, as well as from tapes we made ourselves, suggested that the speaker was merely reproducing what was on the recordings themselves.
Stereo imaging from the 80s is good but only moderately so. Center-image specificity is rather vague, and the sound tends to hop from side to side as you move across the listening area. Imaging as well as specificity are best with the speaker axes parallel rather than converging, although parallel aiming tends to reduce the effective listening area. Best results, with optimum imaging, specificity, and listening area spread, are with the speakers slightly above or below ear height. This also produces the largest apparent source size, giving the impression of two truly vast systems, with some sounds seeming to emanate from beyond the "stage" width of the speakers.
At any rate, if anyone is interested or alive out there, please share your thoughts, especially if you've heard the Fultons. For what its worth, yes, I use subwoofers, a VMPS Smaller subwoofer with its Dayton Audio original driver replaced by a ScanSpeak 12 inch unit and Sunfire Subwoofers; so I do know what a strong 30 HZ tone sounds like but I have heard (it could be because they are on a bookshelf near a brick wall) credible lower bass from the A25s years ago using a recording of Zarathustra that was known to go (on the LP) to 30Hz; it was audible not really distorted, nothing like the Sunfire. I've heard real (small) pipe organs that are weaker than the better recordings bass output!
Oh, and I posted today on a new Dolby recording technology on my blog. Please comment below or on my blog if you have thoughts.
https://thefrugalaudiophile.blogspot.com/2020/02/will-dolby-atmos-music-revolutionize.html
-
On 2/2/2020 at 12:49 PM, Pete B said:
@TheFrugalAudiophile I've been building and designing speakers since I was a kid and I like to study the
classics to see if there are any "tricks" or design methods that are not mentioned in the literature. That is
my main reason for studying many of the vintage designs. My brother and I as teens read the stereo mags
and we debated with my dad about Dyna A-25 s, Large Advents, and we also heard KLH 6 s at the store.
We ended up with Advents because the store didn't have A-25 s and they seemed like the best deal.
I was given a pair of A-25 s in college in need of repair so I know them fairly well but I bought this pair
in order to measure an "Aperiodic" design which I have not yet done other than to read the literature on it.
My current view is that they wanted to "cram" that 10" woofer into the smallest box possible which if
sealed would have led to a high Fc and High Qtc. The lossy leak lowers the Q but does not really help
bass response. It is a non-optimal design IMO. What the A-25 really wants is a much larger box 2 -3 cu ft
tuned to 35 Hz with a moderate amount of internal damping. It also needs a modern tweeter.
The DeVore Orangutan supports this theory - note that they are tuned to 43 Hz for strong bass for
Low E on a bass guitar in the still too small box:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/devore-fidelity-orangutan-o96-loudspeaker
The A-25 is a very old design and it shows, as are many vintage speakers, both the woofer and tweeter
have paper voice coil formers providing very limited thermal capacity. The OLA in contrast has a strong
bronze former that will take massive power. Tweeters usually have paper thin aluminum VC formers.
The A-25XL has a newer version of the woofer with an aluminum former and a stronger ceramic magnet,
many say that they do not sound as good probably because the stronger magnet removes some of the
built in baffle step and some contouring of the woofer's response is needed to compensate.
The A-25 has a 1.5" tweeter that has very limited output above 12 KHz. A-25s sound reasonably well
balanced even though there is no crossover on the woofer probably as a result of the high VC inducance
acting to shape the response. I've never bothered to measure the A-25 frequency response or seen one
published, but they sound so good that I've always been suspicious of a depression, perhaps large,
around 2 KHz. Sure enough, I found a magazine published response and it was there. It also showed
the steep roll-off in the bass around 75 Hz. I started a thread here with some history and links to the
articles on the A-25, one with frequency response curves:
There are 10 dB dips in the frequency response on axis but they go away slightly off axis, so if you
position your speakers right it is possible to get a much smoother response.
Even with all the negatives about Dyna A-25 s you can get a really nice balanced sound due to them
having a tweeter level control and in the right position a smooth midrange. Leaving a bit of the
midrange notch can make them "magical" because it seems to match well with what is needed from
2 speakers producing stereo in a home listening room. Just do not expect to Rock out at party levels
for hours on end. Use them with a 50 to 100W max amp being very careful on the level and use the
power just for peaks.
I once started a thread on the Stereophile Forum "When Bad is Good" to discuss how sometimes
theoretically correct is not "best" in a home listening space.
Hello, Pete,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't have your technical expertise and don't disagree with your assessments. I'd be curious as to your take on the more current speakers, if you have heard them. Theoretically, the Elac B6 etc. that I didn't like measures better than the Dynaco for highs, etc. but I found their "musicality" far inferior. Andrew Jones (maybe my room, maybe not) seems to favor a sound that clearly appears "hollow", even his Pioneer Atmos has it.
Of all things, I think the Dayton (after I returned the Elacs to Amazon) does a much more musical, realistic job on voices than the Elac; I use as the height speakers. Do you get to listen to new units? The nice thing about inexpensive speakers the cost of a reasonable dinner is that one can have fun.
https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-mk402x-4-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-465
The high pressure sales of Fred Locke Stereo (I note someone here bought an AR 2AX though they were "pushing" another product) was a turn off; online sales is pretty nice, great support from Emotiva so far. My point about Locke is they pushed the "Heil" what was it ESS and it sounded bright and terrible to me. Have you experienced the "Heil" or AMT Tweeter and do you have thoughts? They pushed EPI but comparing that to the A25 it could be equalized to sound as bright, but again, more detail in music. They plugged an A25 into an Equalized Electrovoice unit, said it was the EPI and when I pointed out it was a Dyna they all but threw me out of the store (this was decades ago, most East Coast dealers were sadly Audio Ferengi) and so what, RIA is equalized; there's a lot of B.S. in high end, hype, etc. Again, Dyna A10s with SEAS 1.5 do so much better on vocals than the hyped Elacs; Steve the "Audiophillia" Guttenberg is eccentric but his test CD is great. But he loves the Elacs.
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Demonstration-Disc-Critical-Listening/dp/B019GRAD0E
I don't know if your analysis agrees with Holt's take that I cited in my blog, he's less critical than you; I was able to obtain useful bass though not high subwoofer quality strength down to 30HZ. They just do a wonderful job on voice.
https://thefrugalaudiophile.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-dynaco-a25-my-first-high-quality.html
Here's a link to the A26; pricey for me:
My A25s don't take much EQ per my Emotiva UMC-200 analysis; the quality of the recording matters. I wonder if there can be measurable "resolution" beyond frequency response, i.e. the amount of data produced; there was far more detail and vocal information in the A25 and even the Panda bear Chinese Dayton than the Elacs. I think the price now is too expensive unless you buy and return back to Amazon. I hadn't planned to return but I'm a voice in the wilderness with my opinions. I wrote about the A26, perhaps those are worthy of consideration in 2020. And the Emotiva did in fact see your dip and make a small adjustment but I use my own curve; some of Emo-Q's settings were just crazy.
I agree about the XLs, they are the rear speakers in my set up but their original tweeters that rang and blew up were replaced with Vifas that were made not as now in China but in somewhere in the Norse countries, like ScanSpeak. Sound like the A25s but a little better dispersion, really not a great difference with movies, music, etc.
Electronics now are much better. I had nothing but problems with Sony and later Carver units; the Emotivas are great for the money. A guy who fixes even multi-thousand units is skeptical of all the hype. I wonder your thoughts here (the Frugal Audiophile who turns up on search engines; you can't find me) about Mr. Rappaport's thoughts, if you have time? He praises Hafler, and I agree. I wish I used the Dyna Stereo 70 amps instead of my problematic Sony integrated. Moved on to Carver, "flat" sound, not much detail. Over forty years later, the A25s are really shining.
https://www.essenceelectrostatic.com/the-frugal-audiophile/
QuoteThe packaging of the products continues to grow in cost, the amplifier chassis’ (the most expensive part on all Class A/AB amps) grew huge in size to hold enough heat sink to dissipate the heat because audiophiles hate fan noise. Speaker cabinets grew larger, requiring expensive damping and resonance control to keep them from coloring the sound. The cost of labor and materials to make an inert speaker cabinet accounts for 80% of the total budget to build the biggest speakers. The real question comes down to this; can you actually hear the difference between a $50K system and a $3K system and if so, is it worth the difference? IMHO no, you cant. In fact, the listening room acoustics plays such a huge role in what we hear that throwing more money at the speaker system is foolish, a good system in a bad room will still sound bad. A decent system in a great room will always sound great, especially if you play the latest and best hi res audio content.
Thanks, Pete and keep up the great work. Let me know your thoughts on modern speakers. By the way SEAS fabricated some of ELAC's pricey "Vela" AMT Jet tweeter (cabinets, drivers were made in Germany).
-
In addition, SEAS makes this A26, available on Madisound. The two-way 6 inch market is over-saturated, but I hope they consider a two-way eight inch model.
People who have built them (reviews on Madisound) do like them.
I've attached the brochure from SEAS. One review states:
QuoteA True Dynaco A25 Clone
I own several pairs of original Dynaco A25s. This new kit is as close to the originals than any other clone I have evaluated. They have a much better high frequency extension than the Dynacos however. Because of the this the clarity is better with better imaging while still maintaining the mid-range warmth. Do not go cheap on the capacitor or resistor. I recommend the mundorf silver/oil as it is the best band for the buck in this kit. The enclosures provided by madisound are gorgeous. I absolutely love the original A25s but the Seas A26 takes them to an entire new level. -
On 6/6/2011 at 1:54 AM, Horswispr said:
I wrote this review of the A-10s a few years ago (for Epinions, a site not exclusively for audio nuts) and I still think it's accurate. A-25s usually go for somewhat more than A-10s on eBay (I always watch Dynaco speakers), but really minty A-10s can go for around $200/pr. I've had about 10 pairs of A-10s pass through here and all had the same complement of SEAS drivers. Don't know if there were ever any Scanspeak A-10s.
Of course, epinions on this date 01/23/2020 is dead but since it's not political, thank heavens the WayBack Machine preserved it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080719111926/http://www99.epinions.com/content_278745878148
QuoteHorswispr's Full Review: Dynaco A-10 Speakers
Dynaco A-10 loudspeakers were among the best really small loudspeakers of the early 1970s. Following the success of the famous Dynaco A-25, introduced in 1969, the smaller A-10 was introduced in 1971. Only 8.5" wide x 15" tall 8" deep, and weighing about 12 lbs each, the A-10 could fit anywhere and looked essentially like a smaller A-25, with its real walnut veneer cabinets and characteristic light grille cloths. It used the same tweeter as the A-25, coupled with a smaller 6 1/2" woofer (the A-25 used a 10" woofer).Vintage Dynaco A-10s are still popular today, and a really nice pair can command over $200 on Ebay though the retail price was only $100/pair in 1971.
I've been fixing up Dynaco A-25s lately, looking on with envy as I see pretty pairs of A-10s selling on Ebay for as much as Dynaco A-25s, so I knew I had to get me a pair.
Finally, a couple of months ago, I was able to snap up a pair of A-10s on Craigslist for under $100. As one would expect for that price, the screens were in horrible shape, and there were some small scratches in the veneer, but overall the speakers looked pretty good.
I set them up and gave a listen after cleaning up a surface or two. I wanted to see how the A-10 compared with the famous A-25.
First of all, I should mention that these speakers are cute as heck! Their small size means they can fit onto just about any bookshelf unobtrusively, and their walnut veneer is of extremely high quality: it's the same stuff as is found on the famous Dynaco A-25s. The grilles clean up nicely as well. If you can find a pair that has been skillfully restored, these are incredibly attractive little speakers.
Two things the Dynaco A-10s do NOT have: 1) there is no five-level tweeter control as there is on most A-25s. 2) The speaker wire terminals are just little screws. They do not accept banana plugs as the A-25s do, and getting speaker wire attached to the terminals can be a bit of a pain.
That said, how do they sound? Are they worth the $200 per pair some folks are paying on Ebay?
Overall, they sound like Dynaco A-25s but without the larger A-25's characteristic warmth. In other words, they sound tonally neutral, with good definition, and no real peaks or valleys in their frequency response. Music sounds like music through A-10s. But they roll off quickly in the bass, and the result is a brighter, crisper presentation than with the Dynaco A-25s.
Imaging is quite good with the Dynaco A-10s. Because they're small, they act almost like mini-monitors when placed on stands. Much of the music occurs behind the plane of the speakers, and the musicians are well-spread about the soundstage. The dynamics are also good. Individual notes start and stop quickly. If anything, micro-dynamics (very subtle dynamic contrasts within the music) might be a bit better than with the A-25s, perhaps due to the smaller woofer.
But I have to admit that I sometimes missed the warmer sound of the larger Dynaco A-25s and A-35s while I was listening to the A-10s. On Greg Brown's The Poet Game, Brown's dark, gravely voice sounded just a tad small through the A10s. To compensate for this effect, I turned on my Cambridge Soundworks Basscube 12 subwoofer, and set the sub-woofer's volume low and the crossover frequency high. Much better.
On bluegrass music, the A-10s sounded good, but I still missed the warmer sound of the A-25s. Guitars and mandolins sounded nice and crisp and were nicely suspended in space, but the upright bass that provides the rhythmic drive to bluegrass music was down in level. Again, subwoofer to the rescue.
On Govi's Seventh Heaven, a well-recorded CD of "new age" acoustic guitar with a Latin influence, the A-10s sounded really nice. In fact, I say it was with really small scale delicate music that the A-10s really shone for me. Fingers on strings sounded real, as did the tone of the acoustic guitar overall. Same with Alex DeGrassi's Slow Circle, another album of well-recorded acoustic guitar music.
On Miles Davis's jazz classic, Kind of Blue, the A-10s sounded quite good, though I again turned on the subwoofer to get the upright bass to come through with the heft I like. Miles's horn sounded crisp and clear, and individual instruments were well suspended in space.
On classical music from my local radio station, the A-10s sounded fine. The speakers sounded neutral on a wide variety of music, and announcers' voices sounded natural, not overly chesty.
Overall, I enjoyed the Dynaco A-10s. If I had enough space, I might opt for the larger Dynaco A-25 over the smaller and cuter A-10. The A-25s have more warmth, while not sacrificing much in the way of imaging. However, the A-25s are substantially larger and cannot as easily be "hidden" in a small bookshelf like the A-10 can.
Another positive about the Dynaco A-10 (and other Dynaco speakers): the woofer surrounds are made of rubber, which is extremely durable, meaning you won't need a "woofer refoam" every few years. Used pairs of Advents and ARs often need work on the woofers to make them work properly.
How do the Dynaco A-10s compare with the recently reviewed KLH Model Twenty-fours, another small speaker of the same era? That's a tough call. To me, the KLH Model Twenty-fours came off as a bit brighter, while the A-10s came off as a bit smoother in the upper midrange. Bass response was roughly comparable between the two. The KLH may be a better bargain, since it seems to be relatively unknown, and nice pairs are going on EBay and Craigslist for well under $100/pair. The A-10s are a bit more of a "cult" favorite, and a really nice pair can command over $200, almost as much as the larger and more common A-25.
If you are looking for a set of small speakers for your den or office, and aren't concerned with the bottom couple of octaves of music (deep bass), then I'd give the A-10s a listen. If you can find a pair on Craigslist for $75 or so, snap 'em up and see if you can find a local wood worker to pretty up the cabinets and screens. A nice looking refinished pair can sometimes be found in the $140 to $180 price range. You'll be rewarded with a really attractive and good sounding set of speakers, and a part of audio history as well.
Recommended:
YesAmount Paid (US$): 90
My own opinion is that oftentimes they do a better job on vocals than the A25, given the smaller size and dispersion characteristics. More similarities than differences. I'm using two as dual mono for the center channel in my home theater; and two with Vifva one inch domes (Scandanavian made, Scanspeak makes a model) tweeters with a more extended high end than the original SEAS, but very difficult to tell the difference with one side by side with the classic A10 (mint condition from Canada too!) with a Sunfire Super Junior handling the lows for my smaller living room TV setup. Great speakers.
-
16 hours ago, Martin said:
Well, I'm surprised you're surprised that I like the EPIs so much. Since their introduction, I always felt they gave the A25 a good, solid challenge. Over the years, I've owned two pairs, I think, as well as one bigger pair that had the equivalent of two 100s in each cabinet. All were first-rate, satisfying speakers. I will reread those old, priceless (some would say, "clueless"), CR 1970s speaker articles to refresh my memory.
OK, thanks for your reply Martin to the Poodle. To me, the characteristics were different, perhaps Dynaco tried to compete with EPI with the A25XL which never took off and the company, acquired by Tyco conglomerate, of course died. See my comment to Pete on the 21st iterations of Dynaco and EPI. If you've heard them, let me know.
-
Hello, again, have you heard Huw's Human speakers and what do you think? It's interesting, Pete, you enjoy/appreciate the classic Dynacos and the EPIs. Your thoughts on the differences?
https://www.humanspeakers.com/human/81.htm
A speaker designer for a high end firm was kind to reply to my questions via email:
QuoteI haven’t really spent any time with EPI or Human speakers, other than my friends dad having a pair. They did have a great tweeter for their era (similar construction to the Focal tweeter, where the dome isn’t driven at its periphery). However, there is a very non-flat response to the tweeter and there are now tons of fantastic domes available on the market, if you want to go that direction.
The problem with the Seas speaker that you mentioned [The A26] is that this approach, a 2-way a large midwoofer playing up rather high (2 kHz for a 10” woofer) causes a very non flat power response. The woofer is much narrower in coverage at the crossover than the tweeter. Also, the large 35 mm tweeter is much more directional at high frequency (and a 1” dome), which has the same issue (the tonality on vs off axis is critical).
I would check out this book (summarizing 30 years of research funded in part by the Canadian government) on the topic.
I'm not saying that it is bad, but it certainly far from optimal in a number of ways. I know that it is an improvement on a classic design and there is something to be said about simplicity in crossover design but that just doesn’t jive with the science of what factors contribute most to the best sound quality.I'd appreciate your thoughts and if you've no issues, I'll use on my blog:
https://thefrugalaudiophile.blogspot.com/
Thanks! You do great work, Pete. Congratulations.
T.F.A.
-
Hello, Pete, I just joined the forum. I learn a great deal here and I'm not handy like you so I don't build but we have replaced tweeters in our Dynacos with one inch units by ScanSpeak and Vivfa.
I see you like both the Dynaco A25 and EPI 100 classic loudspeakers; the EPI was always "brighter" to me and I hated the high pressure sales when I was younger and it was introduced; they had a wall with a switcher and made sure it sounded "better" than Dynacos, AR 2aX, Advents, etc. Tested at home, and with older electronics I didn't hear details like a harpsichord continuo in Bach, dispersion wasn't as good of highs to me as the A25, but much better sounding than most 21st century units.
There are successor speakers out there, the SEAS A26 and the Human Speaker.
Here are links:
https://www.humanspeakers.com/human/81.htm
Will you be discussing on this site or are you mostly interested in restorations? Glad to see you're still active here on this forum and a longtime member!
I've a blog here and I'm displeased with the much hyped B6 Elac (no offense if anyone hear likes it):
https://thefrugalaudiophile.blogspot.com/
Thanks and best wishes,
T.F.A.
Some History On Dynaco Founded by David Hafler and Ed Laurent in 1955
in Dynaco
Posted
For those of us with no engineering expertise, it's tough to follow. The question is, how does it sound? Natural, musical, etc. Well, at least that's my two cents.