[DerAlte]

That the genial giant has lost 80 lbs in 2 years, and did a good Awaaz lagana on TV looking slim & trim but so bashful that his Hindi accent was going for a toss! Yay, Ajay - keep up the shows, but next time please bang on some other part of the door to show that the 'ringing' has gone. (Both the places you knocked, damped and un-, sounded the same)

Hello, shuvc-dada, stop giving excuses and post some pics, tangled wires and all - make up baad mein kar lena.

BTW, what is Ajay doing in Kolkata? That also leaving dhanda and taking siesta in the afternoon.

[shuvc]

Originally Posted by low_bass_makker

So what new thing you learnt ?

Well, a couple of things.
- Illusions sound fantastic even when the volume is pumped up a lot. I had never dared take them to the level he did. And I have kept it nearabouts since !
- Overall it now sounds better with a relatively lower sub level and at higher volumes, than what I was listening to all these days. My guess is that it's punchier with more midrange clarity.
- That my parcel tray does rattle. Started when he played some house (??) music. Sorry if I got the genre wrong, since I don't listen to it much.
- That instruments should sound as natural as possible, and not the way I want them to sound

AND

B&T certainly does not resemble any Bhojpuri matinee idol !

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Hello, shuvc-dada, stop giving excuses and post some pics, tangled wires and all - make up baad mein kar lena.

Ok deal ! Once this thread title is modified

Hopefully some snaps will be taken during tomorrows meet.

[adityamunshi]

So in a good quality amp, the wattage will increase in proportion to the decrease in load. For eg, 4 ohms to 2 ohms, the output should double ?

Originally Posted by navin

Never rely on paper specs.

1. when driving inductive loads like a sub you need the ablity to dump gobs of current
2. an amp with a higher damping factor will work better

a better indicator is the relative change in wattage between the 4ohms, 2ohms and 1ohms specs and another informal indicator is the weight.

the place where most amp manufacturers compromise on is i the power supply. a well built power supply is costly and heacy (even if it is a SPMS).

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by shuvc

... B&T certainly does not resemble any Bhojpuri matinee idol !

Whaaaaat yar shuvc, bechara went for the weight loss program when everyone said he does. Why do you think he is in Kolkata? Rat ko he will chupke chupke go to the places where they sing Ram bhajans (with the dholakia and the chhankana going tadang tadang tan dhigi tak chhiki chhiki dhigi tak chhiki chhiki...) and the learn the dialect to perfect his dialog delivery. We were waiting to see him on the silver screen going "Ho ganga maiya tohe piyari chadhaibe, sajni se karde milanwa hai ram ..."

And now you are heartlessly saying he doesn't? I didn't know Kolkata guys were so insensitive!

BTW, according to a legend (no I am not fibbing), his forefathers came from somewhere in modern day 24-Parganas!

Originally Posted by adityamunshi

So in a good quality amp, the wattage will increase in proportion to the decrease in load. For eg, 4 ohms to 2 ohms, the output should double ?

Whether good quality or bad, the current pushed through the load will double if you halve the impedance, and hence power pushed through will also double. Assuming that the voltage across the load did not change, that is. Whether the amp will be able to sustain this situation or not is (one of) the differentiator of good and bad. That is why the term 4 ohm stable (or 2 ohms stable, or 1 ohm stable) is talked of. The specs usually mention X watts at Y ohms. If your speakers' impedance is not mentioned there, that amp will not be able to drive it for a long time.

[adityamunshi]

Consider Amp A and B

Amp A has a rating of 60 W RMS @ 4 ohm and 80 W RMS @ 2 ohm

Amp B has a rating of 60 W RMS @ 4 ohm and 120 W RMS @ 2 ohm

In amp B, the output doubles with decreasing the impedance which is not so with Amp A. Is this what one should look for in a good amp ?

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Whether good quality or bad, the current pushed through the load will double if you halve the impedance, and hence power pushed through will also double. Assuming that the voltage across the load did not change, that is. Whether the amp will be able to sustain this situation or not is (one of) the differentiator of good and bad. That is why the term 4 ohm stable (or 2 ohms stable, or 1 ohm stable) is talked of. The specs usually mention X watts at Y ohms. If your speakers' impedance is not mentioned there, that amp will not be able to drive it for a long time.

[Bass&Trouble]

@DerAlte:

A Mumbai based friend's brother has a dance academy in Kolkata. For which he had taken a few dozen of us from here to Kolkata's "Kaala Mondir". I was really scared about the venue until I actually got there and spotted the board reading "Kala Mandir". Maybe people from Kolkata would have heard the name "Vishal Kanoi". Excellent dancer, splendid show.

I'm not exactly the siesta types, but a very early morning flight that day, anticipation of very little sleep that night due to another early flight the next day, combined with Kolkata's searing heat got the better of me.

Originally Posted by shuvc

- Illusions sound fantastic even when the volume is pumped up a lot. I had never dared take them to the level he did. And I have kept it nearabouts since !

Turn it up. No worries. It was effortless all the way to about volume level 45 on your head unit.

Originally Posted by shuvc

- Overall it now sounds better with a relatively lower sub level and at higher volumes, than what I was listening to all these days. My guess is that it's punchier with more midrange clarity.

Subwoofer level is a personal thing. For certain types of music, its fine to have it higher and enjoy the extra bass. But for rock etc., the subwoofer level with your settings was resulting in the sub overpowering the rest of the bands and perhaps also causing you to sense insufficient midbass.

Originally Posted by shuvc

- That my parcel tray does rattle. Started when he played some house (??) music. Sorry if I got the genre wrong, since I don't listen to it much.

Yes, house music. Electro house to be precise. Good sounds to check the bass crossover band, to see whether the speakers and the sub blends perfectly.

Originally Posted by shuvc

- That instruments should sound as natural as possible, and not the way I want them to sound

Umm, unless you are the one playing the instruments. In which case you can get them to sound how you want. Otherwise we should just leave the likes of Knopfler, Clapton etc alone.

[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble

... Kolkata's "Kaala Mondir" ...

In the written form it eej always "Kala Mandir". The correct vernacular pronunciation should be "Kaw-la Moan-dir". "Kaala Mondir" would be either Black Temple (if appearing in a Hindi sentence) or Deaf Temple.

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble

... we should just leave the likes of Knopfler, Clapton etc alone.

I have had a problem with one particular Clapton number always (forget which one exactly). Whether original CD or mp3 (not from the same CD), the accompaniment overpowers Clapton's voice and acoustic guitar, whereas other numbers from the same source don't. This happens on any playback system: ICE, PC, HT, Portable. Couldn't figure out that one - can't be a bad recording, can it?!

Originally Posted by adityamunshi

...
In amp B, the output doubles with decreasing the impedance which is not so with Amp A. Is this what one should look for in a good amp ?

No, one has to look at other qualities of the amp to call it bad, like distortion figures, sound signature, protections provided, operating temperature etc. It could be that the designers honestly derated the o/p at lower impedance to be on the safe side. In many cases data provided is misleading / unsubstantiated / not verified.

[navin]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

The specs usually mention X watts at Y ohms. If your speakers' impedance is not mentioned there, that amp will not be able to drive it for a long time.

The specs should usually mention X watts at Y ohms from 20-20khz with Z% distorion (where Z < 0.1).

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble

Otherwise we should just leave the likes of Knopfler, Clapton etc alone.

Arey baba, the Sound engineers and Record Producer are usually responsible for this.

Originally Posted by DerAlte

I have had a problem with one particular Clapton number always (forget which one exactly). Whether original CD or mp3 (not from the same CD), the accompaniment overpowers Clapton's voice and acoustic guitar, whereas other numbers from the same source don't.

Is it The Core from Eric Clapton's SlowHand album?
1. the Guitar is an electric with big reverb
2. The song is a duet with Yvonne Elliman and pushing her vocals out was Eric's idea (see interview in Rolling Stone). You can also hear co-writer Marcy Levy (now with Chicago Blues Reunion) on backup vocals.
3. The Mix-down is normally not in the full control of the Artist (though in cases like this artists with Claption's stature can dictate the final sound).
BTW for me Mel Collins's soprano sax was the best part of this song.

[Bass&Trouble]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

I have had a problem with one particular Clapton number always (forget which one exactly). Whether original CD or mp3 (not from the same CD), the accompaniment overpowers Clapton's voice and acoustic guitar, whereas other numbers from the same source don't.

Sounds like what happens in some systems with U2's - With Or Without You when the bass kicks in. Not aware of the Clapton track. I have yet to find a cd with a very good quality version of Layla though, not the unplugged version.

[shuvd]

Got a chance to audition the setup yesterday. WOW! Amazing clarity. Tight, precise bass.

[shuvc]

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble

I have yet to find a cd with a very good quality version of Layla though, not the unplugged version.

That's reassuring. I have never liked listening to the version I had. It sounds somewhat 'dirty/jangling' to me. Not sure how to express it.

Felt the same for some Hendrix numbers.

How much of a difference would there be due to recording technology in the 60's/70's compared to say, 90's onwards?

For eg, the Black Album sounds super.
But some Doors numbers sound 'tinny/lack of body'. Were they meant to sound that way? Or was it a technology deficiency?

Originally Posted by Bass&Trouble

..the subwoofer level with your settings was resulting in the sub overpowering the rest of the bands and perhaps also causing you to sense insufficient midbass.

Incidentally, was listening to Bob Marley today. And am convinced now, that a negative setting of the sub is making a world of difference. It's very easy for the bass in his songs, to drown out the mids. So your theory is correct. QED.

Originally Posted by shuvd

Got a chance to audition the setup yesterday. WOW! Amazing clarity. Tight, precise bass.

Thanku thanku. But next time we meet, I want to show-off further with an extended non-Metallica listening session .

[navin]

Originally Posted by shuvc

How much of a difference would there be due to recording technology in the 60's/70's compared to say, 90's onwards?

For eg, the Black Album sounds super.
But some Doors numbers sound 'tinny/lack of body'. Were they meant to sound that way? Or was it a technology deficiency?

there has been a huge upgradation of technology between the 60s and 90s but what I believe made the biggest difference is the ATTITUDE of the recording engineers, record producers, etc..

In the 60s many in the studio were influenced by the same substances that the aritsts were using. Today most engineers are much more professional. In the 60s it was often hit and miss. A few musicians/producers (Alan Parsons, Phil Spector, etc..) who valued production even then however did produce very well made records.

[Mr_Bean]

shuvc,I checked your profile for the ICE part. How are the illusion speakers performance while playing heavy metal music?

Thank you..