Dear moderator, did I get it right this time?
Dear moderator, did I get it right this time?
We might not 'need' the super tweeter but it's output is clearly audible and it does wonderful things for the air and prescence in a good recording. Tape over it and hear the difference.
Alan here ... looks right to me.
BTW, it is an unavoidable fact in the same unavoidably factual way that my hair is now 30% white, that my upper hearing is not as extended as it was as a boy. When I was a teenager I could clearly hear the 19kHz stereo-FM carrier frequency (on headphones). Later I could just about hear the 15kHz line-scan frequency whistle of old CRT TVs. Now I'd be surprised if I can hear much above about 13kHz, and that's after a lifetime living and working in almost silence and avoiding loud music. It's a fact that as we age the top end of our hearing range diminishes. What can you do to minimise that inevitability? Don't listen to loud music. Does the restricted range mean I can't enjoy music? Not in the least because the % of music that is in those super-high harmonics is utterly negligible.
Alan A. Shaw
Harbeth Audio UK
I am confused by your post that follows Dave's, Alan. What are you saying? That a super-tweeter makes a difference, or it doesn't?
PS I have a few years on you and my hair is 70% white!
But I, at my age, wouldn't select a speaker solely because it has a super tweeter but for other reasons. If it so happenes to have a super tweeter that's a plus.
Alan A. Shaw
Harbeth Audio UK
OK, I'm an old git, far older than Alan and I can still hear that superb, Super Tweet. Either that or it's my fillings picking up RF !!!
Maybe it's my job. Listening to fine nuances of the best Hi-Fi systems for a few hours every day, might sharpen my hearing. It's definitely made me a fussy sod.
I'm 29 years old, have long brown hair ;-) and love the SHL5's super tweeter. I already gave my opinion on it in a previous post.
Sebastien, you're a lucky young man... somewhere around that age I formulated the Honman theory of hi-fi which was that by the time you can afford gear that does anything worthwhile beyond 15kHz, you can't hear the benefits.
We have previously discussed about effects of frequencies above human hearing range. (I can't locate the thread) .I still believe they have some benefits even though it may not be readily heard and not necessarily must be heard. Alan has written somewhere here that the super tweeter helps to smooth the higher frequencies which can be perceived to be irritating.
For the past 1 week, I have added another super tweeter to SHL5 which extend to 50kHz. I cannot tell if there's any effect for now. I am looking for fatigue factor which is going to be very difficult given that Harbeths are naturally less fatiguing than other speakers.
I also believe that age is not a factor to benefit from hypersonic. But in todays world belief alone is worthless without scientific explanation.
Has there been any serious research into the benefits of supertweeters?
I have previously posted Oohashi's research under "Hearing and Perception" thread. I am unable to find the the thread. Anyway, if my memory serves me correct, I think he used special speakers/tweeter which extended to 50kHz or 100kHz. Another interesting toy that I used was Corda Analoguer to check for myself if SACD and super tweeter really of any use.. I think I should start to play with it again.
Perhaps a Mod would move these super tweeter posts to a separate thread?
If a tweeter is radiating up to or above 50kHz but the source has no data above 20kHz if CD and lower for other sources, what is the tweeter outputting? Noise?
My simple mind is very confused.
After discovering the joys of an old Quad 33/303 (approx age 25) I've never been able to tolerate a fatiguing system - many times I was impressed by a system demonstrated by a dealer, but equally relieved to return home to the Quad/Sumo/small Maggie setup! The interesting thing about that rig is that the speakers were 3dB down at 18kHz... perhaps at least in my case a shortage of high treble was preferable to low-quality high treble.
To be honest, prior to the surprise enounter with Harbeths, I didn't know there was such a thing as a non-fatiguing "box" speaker... (I've subsequently discovered it's not the only one).
"Cables the diameter of your finger?..." as the thread subjet. It makes me wonder about "Cables the diameter of a toothpick." for exemple an Anti-Cable speaker's cable. Anyone have try these?
P.s.: to moderator: I realized that some thread are close. Any reason for that? Maybe I had miss an information about that. Please refer me to the link if there is any. Thank you.
(sorry all, on reviewing the post it is a bit of an essay)
For the past 2 years or so I've been using anti-cables belonging to a friend who discovered that he prefers a high-capacitance cable type.
They probably have about as much copper in them as any other quality cable - I think they're 12 AWG, which oddly enough corresponds to the optimum guage from the AES paper on the cable measurement thread. They are basically enamelled transformer wire (it's debatable whether the copper is any different from standard transformer wire... that's a test for another day) and work out just a little more expensive than buying the same guage wire from the likes of Maplins / Radio Shack.
The enamel insulation is very thin (most of the super-thick cables seem to get that extra thickness from insulation not conductor).
The anti-cables seem to work well - nothing to complain about - but for the moment I'm using a greater length of smaller guage transfromer wire to allow the equipment to be moved around the room (room integration is currently my biggest problem).
We don't have an ISO standard toothpick in the house to compare with, but [correction] the anti-cable does look like it's about thhthpick diameter.
Before changing from anti-cable to the other wire - similar construction but only 60% of the cross-sectional area - they were both measured - the resistance of 2m of anti-cable is about 0.1 ohm, the longer 3.5m run of thinner transformer wire is about 0.3 ohm
With the 25W NVA amp I was a little surprised to hear a difference (note no instant changeover box involved, so very subjective) - less bass (expected) and cleaner top-end (unexpected). However on reflection this is likely to be because the combination of cable and speaker presents an easier load to the amplifier - and less bass means less power-supply distress for a small amplifier.
Now that the DIY amp is up and running, I'm keen to repeat the comparison, and expect the subjective differences to be a lot smaller... which is why Alan's switchover box looks like an interesting "next project".
Last edited by honmanm; 14-11-2010 at 07:30 PM. Reason: correction - anti-cable diameter
Update... I've dug out the anti-cables and put them back in the system - I did one channel at a time.
I had expected that there would be little change, if any - similar cable construction and layout, different resistance but new amplifier has a very meaty power supply.
Immediately after changing the RH (long wire) channel from generic transformer wire to anti-cable there was a noticeable difference. There seemed to be more HF energy on that side, and the central image became diffuse. So thinking that the generic wire had more resistance, that speaker was moved further from the listening position - no effect.
Changed the LH channel from a shorter length of generic wire to anti-cable: no audible effect.
At this point confusion was reigning - the most likely possibility was that the contortions required to change cables had unbalanced my hearing. So the RH channel was changed back to the original wire, with the expectation that things would remain as they were, with the diffuse image. However the presentation returned to what it had been at the beginning, similar tonal balance from both speakers and a well-defined image (this is with anti-cable on LH channel and generic wire on RH channel).
Given that situation it's quite likely that the connectors on one of the anti-cables need attention. Will investigate further and (if it's not boring everyone to tears) report back.
With the 25W NVA amp I was a little surprised to hear a difference
I have certainly overlooked other important factors when we talk about cables and amplifiers. We need to make sure the room's influence is within acceptable level. And the amplifier's output should be adequate to meet your speakers and the volume you play.
Didin't Alan post a paper by Mr Harwood that amplifier and 100W for momentary requirement? I have to look for it again. I read it half way and thought it was important so I reserved for later reading but now can;t even remember where to look? Any help?