Are high quality monitors suitable for relaxed listening?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Active monitor speakers - putting the electronics in a pressure modulated enclosure - thats like having someone tap your valves with a biro in time with the music ???

The better (meaning more expensive!) active speaker designs house the electronics in a separate cabinet compartment which is not exposed to the massive pressure variations of the bass driver!

[Arpangel]

If that was typical for the many examples sold, NAD would have received many customer complaints within the warranty period, not to mention probably scathing reviews by the reputable HiFi press of the day. Did that occur?

The hi-fi world is very strange, and PR plays a big part.
Just by changing the colour, and removing a few knobs, can make an average unnoticed amplifier sell like hot cakes, and it imediatly gets a "Best Buy"
A friend worked for a top PR company, and he had the accounts for a couple of well known hi-fI companies, and he not only engineered this to happen, but witnessed its success.
Also, unfortunately a lot of people wouldn't know a good sound if it hit them in the face, and they don't care, all they really care about is the name and how it looks, but that's OK, it's their money.
There was a bit of a thing going on in the 80's, some people were saying that a Thorens 160 we'll set-up with a decent arm sounded better than a Linn Sondek, and a guy wrote to a magazine saying that, a month later he wrote in withdrawing his statement, I wonder what side his bread was buttered?
I'm not saying that certain well known brands aren't brilliant, they are, NAD aren't one of them though! I just think that sometimes people fall for the hype and convince themselves that some equipment is actually good when it obviously isn't.
Forget money, pretend it's not an issue, I wouldn't own a Linn turntable, or any British amplifiers, or speakers, I wouldn't say I was a hi-fI freak, I like a combination of looks and sound, a compromise, and I listen to most of my music on a John Lewis portable radio, rarely my stereo, but sometimes it's nice to hear "the big picture" like going to the cinema.
It may seem that I care more about hi-fI than I actually do, but sometimes it's easy to have the wool pulled over our eyes and our wallets emptied, for gear that is basically just not worth it.

[ef37a]

I mix on studio monitors but I've got an old NAD 3020 amp based setup in the living room that gives a definite colouration to the sound (I've tried the amp with a few different speaker / room combinations, and its definitely the amp that gives the colouration). Sounds absolutely nothing like my monitors, but is weirdly flattering to pretty much any material I throw at it, and with a beer I think I might prefer it to my monitors. Useless for mixing though.

Chump. I'm not a hi-fI freak, or an obsessive about this subject in any way, but that NAD is absolutely awful, god knows how it became a fave of the hi-fI community.
It's so bad, the top end is searing, a friend had one and he's almost deaf, and even he couldn't stand it. We used to laugh, it was so harsh and toppy. It wasn't a fault, they're all like it.
It will make the smoothest dullest speaker sound like an NS10 on steroids.
It was a product of that obsession with detail in the early 80's, they thought that just by emphasising the upper mid and top it was all you had to do, at the expense of everything else.

If that was typical for the many examples sold, NAD would have , or should have, received many customer complaints within the warranty period, not to mention probably scathing reviews by the reputable HiFi press of the day. Did that occur?

My thoughts exactly. I found a Stereophile review of that NAD and it looked pretty good. Certainly no respose gyrations that would cause any 'colour'.

The point that is alway missed/ignored in these debates it the term "competent design". If an amplifier is noisy it is either faulty or of bad design.
IIRC the Leak Stereo 30 was a very early Quasi complimentary design? These did not deliver good results and the setting for decently low crossover distortion required some skill and patience. Class A power amps are of course free of crossover distortion but rather impractical above about 20W per channel and that would not go far with low sensitivity speakers.

The beardy,tweaky audiophool world was and reamains fickle.

The Quad 303 was hailed as one of the best amplifiers ever made when it first arrived. Then the B.T.A's decided it was 'unmusical' and it was reviled for years. Now they can't get enough of 'em I seem to read?!!

Did Peter Walker ever have to stump up the 2 bags?

Dave.

[John Willett]

Active monitor speakers - putting the electronics in a pressure modulated enclosure - thats like having someone tap your valves with a biro in time with the music ???

Like the crossover in a passive loudspeaker

My own active loudspeaker has the electronics in a sealed compartment separate from the resonant chamber of the loudspeaker itself.

Also - some active loudspeakers have the electronics outside the box and connected by an umbilical.

I far prefer an active design with the amplifiers driving the drivers directly and with an electronic crossover before the amplifiers and the whole thing designed together - rather than having a passive crossover inside the loudspeaker with all the problems that come with a passive crossover.

[ef37a]

Active monitor speakers - putting the electronics in a pressure modulated enclosure - thats like having someone tap your valves with a biro in time with the music ???

The better (meaning more expensive!) active speaker designs house the electronics in a separate cabinet compartment which is not exposed to the massive pressure variations of the bass driver!

Even so, transistors, ICs and resistors are not microphonic. Capacitors are to some extent but the gain inside an active monitor is rarely more than 30dB* and the caps would not be a problem (if you tap the coupling caps in the first stage of a valve guitar amp you will hear a 'clunk' but we are talking MASSIVE gains there)

*Many budget 'monitors' do indeed have too much gain and that makes them noisy, a problem reported quite often in forums.

Dave.

[Arpangel]

The beardy,tweaky audiophool world was and reamains fickle.

Do you remember the Quad adverts, the guy with a beard, smoking a pipe, sitting in a comfy armchair......'The Closest Approach To The Original Sound"
I knew a few young people who wouldn't buy Quad products purely because of that advert, they didn't want to be perceived as that type of person. It didn't bother me though!

The Quad 303 was hailed as one of the best amplifiers ever made when it first arrived. Then the B.T.A's decided it was 'unmusical' and it was reviled for years. Now they can't get enough of 'em I seem to read?!!

Did Peter Walker ever have to stump up the 2 bags?

Dave.

I loved my Quad 33/303, but I think my friends Ferrograph amp sounded a bit better, even more coloured and creamy!
Now I have a Quad 405/33 combination, still sounds good.

[John Willett]

Now I have a Quad 405/33 combination, still sounds good.

I still have my Quad 44/405-2 - though not used much now as I have a Grace m903 driving active monitors.

[Hugh Robjohns]

My thoughts exactly. I found a Stereophile review of that NAD and it looked pretty good. Certainly no respose gyrations that would cause any 'colour'.

It was pretty good for its time, and especially so for its price. I think I paid £75 or so... It had comprehensively positive reviews, and I think deservedly so. I had one in the early 80s. Gave it to my Dad when I upgraded after a few years and re-inherited it after my Mum died five years ago. It's still in my man cave and still works well. Surprisingly dynamic and powerful for a 20W design. Best coupled with modest bookshelf speakers rather than anything beefy, but I'd say it had/has a slightly warm and laid-back character. Certainly not searing or shrill. Quite the opposite, in fact. I used it with Videotone GB3 speakers initially, and then some Heybrooks.

Having said that, I have a niggle in the back of my mind that there was a design flaw with the NFB in the earliest 3020s, but I don't know if that made it 'searing' or not. Mine was a later 3020A.

Regarding the Q303... it was/is a good, solid, well-engineered amp... but it's certainly not 'perfect'. If it was, Mr Walker and co wouldn't have felt the need to build the 405... which also wasn't perfect... or the 405-2 which was better... but still not perfect. I've got a (properly serviced and completely up to spec) original 405 and I'm really not very impressed with it. My Rotel 970BX II (rated at 60W) absolutely trounces it!

To be fair, Quad's power amps were all quite clever designs of their time... but their preamps were always terrible IMHO. The 33 is noisy, veiled-sounding and prone to unreliability. The 44 (and its 34 derivative) both have completely ludicrous internal gain structures, and variable sound quality (particularly crosstalk and HF response) depending on which inputs are selected. The Tilt filter was a genius idea, though, and I've always appreciated the flexibility of the various low-pass filter options intended for taming crappy records (especially 78s). The one thing going for them today is their modularity and lovely build quality which lends itself to some intelligent reworking, and there are myriad upgrades (both DIY and from professional upgrade companies) for all of those early Quads which really do make major improvements.

H

[Arpangel]

My thoughts exactly. I found a Stereophile review of that NAD and it looked pretty good. Certainly no respose gyrations that would cause any 'colour'.

It was pretty good for its time, and especially so for its price. Comprehensively positive reviews. I had one in the early 80s, too. Gave it to my Dad when I upgraded after a few years and re-inherited it after my Mum died five years ago. It's still in my man cave and still works well. Surprisingly dynamic and powerful for a 20W design. Best coupled with modest bookshelf speakers rather than anything beefy, but I'd say it had/has a slightly warm and laid-back character. Certainly not searing or shrill. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Having said that, I have a niggle in the back of my mind that there was a design flaw with the NFB in the earliest 3020s, but I don't know if that made it 'searing' or not. Mine was a later 3020A.

Regarding the Q303... it was/is a good, solid, well-engineered amp... but it's certainly not 'perfect'. If it was, Mr Walker and co. wouldn't have felt the need to build the 405... which also wasn't perfect... or the 405-2 which was better... but still not perfect. I've got a (properly serviced and completely up to spec) original 405 and I'm really not very impressed with it. My Rotel 970BX II (rated at 60W) absolutely trounces it!

H

When you talk about the Quads Hugh, some being better than others, do you mean better as in more neutral or more transparent?
If I had to admit it, I like a coloured sound, during the 80's there were a bunch of us that disliked the movement for more detail and less coloration, we'd have things like powerful Trio amplifiers, Michell turntables, and big American speakers. The other lot would have things like B&W speakers, Linn Turntables and Naim amplifiers,
We liked our stuff because not only did it sound amazing, but it also looked like a work of art!

[Hugh Robjohns]

When you talk about the Quads Hugh, some being better than others, do you mean better as in more neutral or more transparent?

Much more control, better dynamics, lower noise floor, lower distortion (or more transparent, if you prefer) ...

If I had to admit it, I like a coloured sound...

Yes, I'd already reached that conclusion from many of your other posts!

...during the 80's there were a bunch of us that disliked the movement for more detail and less coloration, we'd have things like powerful Trio amplifiers, Michell turntables, and big American speakers.

Less colouration was a good goal... the 'more detail' thing was a pain in the ear -- but it exploited the 'louder and brighter is better' response that all we humans suffer... I remember spending many hours in hi-fi shops through the 80s and 90s positively wincing at some of the stuff they were trying to tell me was good... Big American speakers of that time were pretty grim, too. Thankfully I'd already been heavily exposed to the really good stuff in the form of LS3/5As and LS5/8s and their ilk (I loved the Spendor BC1s, too!)

The other lot would have things like B&W speakers, Linn Turntables and Naim amplifiers...

Never got on with Naim stuff. Liked most B&Ws and Linn was okay, if overpriced. The Thorens it was based on was better IMHO...

We liked our stuff because not only did it sound amazing, but it also looked like a work of art!

As always, one person's 'amazing' is another's 'brash' and lacking fidelity! That word again...

[Arpangel]

When you talk about the Quads Hugh, some being better than others, do you mean better as in more neutral or more transparent?

Much more control, better dynamics, lower noise floor, lower distortion (or more transparent, if you prefer) ...

If I had to admit it, I like a coloured sound...

Yes, I'd already reached that conclusion from many of your other posts!

...during the 80's there were a bunch of us that disliked the movement for more detail and less coloration, we'd have things like powerful Trio amplifiers, Michell turntables, and big American speakers.

Less colouration was a good goal... the 'more detail' thing was a pain in the ear -- but it exploited the 'louder and brighter is better' response that all we humans suffer... I remember spending many hours in hi-fi shops through the 80s and 90s positively wincing at some of the stuff they were trying to tell me was good... Big American speakers of that time were pretty grim, too. Thankfully I'd already been heavily exposed to the really good stuff in the form of LS3/5As and LS5/8s and their ilk (I loved the Spendor BC1s, too!)

The other lot would have things like B&W speakers, Linn Turntables and Naim amplifiers...

Never got on with Naim stuff. Liked most B&Ws and Linn was okay, if overpriced. The Thorens it was based on was better IMHO...

We liked our stuff because not only did it sound amazing, but it also looked like a work of art!

As always, one person's 'amazing' is another's 'brash' and lacking fidelity! That word again...

A few of us were fans of KLH speakers, amazing, LS3/5A's and the like had a similar sound, I also had a pair of Spendor SP1's all of these sealers had the lovely rich velvety sound I liked, even though the LS3/5A etc were very natural sounding, they did it in a very pleasant, non-fatiguing way.

[John Willett]

Thankfully I'd already been heavily exposed to the really good stuff in the form of LS3/5As and LS5/8s and their ilk (I loved the Spendor BC1s, too!)

Back in the 1980's I worked for REW in London - I remember having a pair of Rogers LS3.5a on loudspeaker stands ansd no one believed that such a small loudspeaker cold give such a full and excellent sound - and alwars trhought that something much larger was playing.

Back then I think my favourite loudspeaker was the original Mission 770 - and I bought a pair.

[ef37a]

"Regarding the Q303... it was/is a good, solid, well-engineered amp... but it's certainly not 'perfect'. If it was, Mr Walker and co wouldn't have felt the need to build the 405."

As I remember the debates at the time Hugh (I have the Big Quad Book!) the 405 was developed to deliver the extra 3dB or so of power for the emerging compact speakers?

Then of course there was the Current Dumping which eliminated all pre sets for Iq and offset. I well recall the many letters bandied in Wireless World but I never quite understood if the amp was truly revolutionally or just another feedback amp with a clever name?

'Perfect' only means to the degree that an amplifier passes the 'wire with gain' test, i.e. that it could not be detected when inserted in an audio chain. Perfection would indicate zero noise (and by definition, zero THD) and infinite power! (which of course corrupts.....)

Of course, 'they' did not have the superb signal sources we enjoy today.

Dave.

[ef37a]

Thankfully I'd already been heavily exposed to the really good stuff in the form of LS3/5As and LS5/8s and their ilk (I loved the Spendor BC1s, too!)

Back in the 1980's I worked for REW in London - I remember having a pair of Rogers LS3.5a on loudspeaker stands ansd no one believed that such a small loudspeaker cold give such a full and excellent sound - and alwars trhought that something much larger was playing.

Back then I think my favourite loudspeaker was the original Mission 770 - and I bought a pair.

John, I have a pair of Mission 775s, are they similar to the 770s?

Mine are presently languishing, unused in a bedroom. Belonged to my daughter's husband who is saddly very ill and not with her any more. She did not want them or the rest of his very decent hi fi system.

One day! I shall have big clear up and get them installed in my living room and it will then be very interesting to compare them with the Result 6s which I hope to get...One day!

Dave.

[John Willett]

[
John, I have a pair of Mission 775s, are they similar to the 770s?

These are the original 770 that I had:



The 775 was very different.

The Mission 770 was Mission's idea to try and build a loudspeaker to compete with the Spendor BC1, but with a much lighter and responsive bass driver.

It used a polypropolene driver instead of the heavy Bextrene that that Spendor used.

[Hugh Robjohns]

As I remember the debates at the time Hugh (I have the Big Quad Book!) the 405 was developed to deliver the extra 3dB or so of power for the emerging compact speakers?

Yes... but the 303 technology could have been extended to give more power... Instead, they developed an entirely new technology which even they claimed was superior (and it was)... But in doing so they made a nonsense of their previous marketing campaigns.

It sounds like I'm Quad-bashing, but I'm really not. I have a lot of respect for them and their products... but they did regularly shoot themselves in the feet...

H

[ef37a]

[
John, I have a pair of Mission 775s, are they similar to the 770s?

These are the original 770 that I had:



The 775 was very different.

The Mission 770 was Mission's idea to try and build a loudspeaker to compete with the Spendor BC1, but with a much lighter and responsive bass driver.

It used a polypropolene driver instead of the heavy Bextrene that that Spendor used.

Ah, no! These are the 775s https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACY ... 66&bih=666

Twin bass drivers and around 1.12 mtrs tall. They go loud on just 50W (Arcam amp) and stupendous bass (but I am going to plug the ports) They sound fairly accurate and the stereo imaging is pin sharp. Son-in-law was a HM freak so these were bought for SPL I guess!

Dave.

[John Willett]

These are the 775s https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACY ... 66&bih=666

Twin bass drivers and around 1.12 mtrs tall. They go loud on just 50W (Arcam amp) and stupendous bass (but I am going to plug the ports) They sound fairly accurate and the stereo imaging is pin sharp. Son-in-law was a HM freak so these were bought for SPL I guess!

Dave.

I wouldn't as they are designed as bass reflex and it would change the sound.

Back in the day the solution was to fill the port with straws (of varied length) as this increased the back pressure slighly and makes it more controlled.

[MOF]

When I worked at AIR studios in the 1970s (nothing glamorous or technical) they had Tannoy speakers in three studios and JBLs in the fourth for American clients.
I thought they were very harsh (upper mids) and in retrospect don’t see why they wanted them since those frequencies would be lower in level on more neutral speakers, given that the objective was to sound punchier than the competition on the radio etc.
In answer to the OP I seem to remember reading that a lot of low/mid range hi-fi amplifiers had a ‘smile’ eq curve built in by default, so that would remove muddy low mids and harsh upper mids to give a more pleasing listening experience.

[Martin Walker]

A few of us were fans of KLH speakers, amazing, LS3/5A's and the like had a similar sound, I also had a pair of Spendor SP1's all of these sealers had the lovely rich velvety sound I liked, even though the LS3/5A etc were very natural sounding, they did it in a very pleasant, non-fatiguing way.

I had a pair of KLH 317's (if I've remembered correctly, they had sky blue cones), and then Rogers LS2a/2's which i still have in the summer house for 'outside listening', probably 30 years on from when I bought them.



Martin

[Arpangel]

A few of us were fans of KLH speakers, amazing, LS3/5A's and the like had a similar sound, I also had a pair of Spendor SP1's all of these sealers had the lovely rich velvety sound I liked, even though the LS3/5A etc were very natural sounding, they did it in a very pleasant, non-fatiguing way.

I had a pair of KLH 317's (if I've remembered correctly, they had sky blue cones), and then Rogers LS2a/2's which i still have in the summer house for 'outside listening', probably 30 years on from when I bought them.



Martin

I had a pair of KLH Model 41's, then a pair of Model 5's, possibly one of the best speakers of the time, at that price point.
I found a pair of Rogers LS3/5A's in a charity shop, but they didn't impress me enough to hold on to them for long, great on speach, amazing, but a bit boxy, I thought my RCL "Small Loudspeaker" was far less coloured, and had a much more rigid cabinet.
My partners brother still has, and uses his Mission 770's.

[Sam Spoons]

I have a pair of Wilmslow Audio LS3s, Rogers LS3/5A clones built from their kit. They are made from 19mm, what looks like high quality/density chipboard (MDF was not common back in the late '70s). Not boxy in the slightest, somewhat lacking in low end so you wouldn't want them for listening to EDM but detailed and neutral would be my description, and superb stereo imaging in the, fairly small, sweet spot.

[James Perrett]

I found a pair of Rogers LS3/5A's in a charity shop, but they didn't impress me enough to hold on to them for long, great on speach, amazing, but a bit boxy,

LS3/5A's have a slight hump in the high bass in order to give the impression that they go lower than they really do. To my ears this makes them sound slightly congested in the bass end but I guess this could be the reason for you finding them boxy. Sometimes when mastering I want to employ the same bass trick and this is difficult to do when listening through LS3/5a's as it is difficult to tell whether you are hearing the bass hump that you are trying to introduce or the speaker's inherent bass hump. However, I much prefer using them as nearfield monitors compared to the NS10's that they replaced and they work well provided you have something else on which you can judge the bass end.

[Arpangel]

I loved the mid range on the LS3/5A, I think that was due to the KEF B110 bass/mid driver, a fantastic unit, which is in my home built transmission lines today.
When I replaced the LS's with some RCL "Small Loudspeakers" the benefits were obvious, a much tighter sound, incredible on piano, frighteningly realistic, overall, much more controlled on complex music. I could never monitor complex music on the LS's, it just sounded bloated and congested.
I think the BBC made the LS3/5A as a monitor for speech programs (Hugh?) and the bigger ones in the LS series were supposed to be for music broadcasts.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think the BBC made the LS3/5A as a monitor for speech programs (Hugh?) and the bigger ones in the LS series were supposed to be for music broadcasts.

The Research department's report ( http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976-29.pdf ) says:

There is a need to monitor sound programme quality in circumstances where space is at a premium and where headphones are not considered satisfactory. Such circumstances include the production control section of a television mobile control-room, where the producer responsible for the overall production of the programme needs to monitor the output from the sound mixer but at levels lower than those used for mixing. Thus a small monitoring loudspeaker is required and, as no adequate commercial device was available, one was designed by BBC Research Department.

The BBC's output, both on Radio and TV, is obviously primarily speech, so accuracy through the midrange was clearly a priority in the design. It does a decent job on music, but it doesn't go loud, and it doesn't go deep... so expectations need to be managed somewhat. It was designed as a very good compromise for small rooms and where nearfield use was necessary.

It's also worth pointing out that this was designed in the very early 70s and it set a standard of reproduction which was easily a decade or more ahead of its time. Nothing else came anywhere near close at the time, and the fact that it is still revered in some quarters and can still be considered seriously alongside modern-day high-quality designs -- even though its technology has been surpassed now -- speaks volumes for the benchmark quality it set at the time.

H