NY Times visits Ojas

[Waxx]

The problem with the speakers he is building is that none of them follow the intent of the original Altec engineers when they developed the VOTT systems. Specifically, using a huge, very wide dispersion horn designed for huge movie theaters of the mid-century and before which is capable of covering way up into balconies and a driver which was designed to produce enough energy to accomplish that. That horn/driver combination mated to a small bass reflex cabinet which is nowhere capable of keeping up with the sensitivity of the HF components.

In other words, the HF and LF are grossly mismatched. On top of that, the original VOTT systems used a short LF horn so that time alignment between HF and LF was automatically accomplished by virtue of the driver's voice coils being on the same vertical plane. Below is the A-4 system which shows how these components were intended to be configured:

View attachment 221659


The smaller A-7 and A7-500 were designed for smaller theaters, motion picture studio preview rooms, and homes with a lot of space. Below is the A7-500 (mine actually).

View attachment 221660

Altec did make a couple systems which used the huge multi-cellular horn with non-LF horns, the A-9 and A-10, but these were designed for special circumstances of very shallow spaces behind the screen of the "shoebox" theaters of the 70s, and were frankly a severe compromise.

What this guy is making conforms to none of how the original designers intended these components be used. Now I'm sure someone here is going to bitch and say that I'm just being an old purist, and to some degree that is correct. But being an ex-Altec engineer and seeing the components be used more as pandering to style and in systems which are going to sound like the worst that the components are capable of - I need to call bullshit.

This guy will have his museum show and have his 15 minutes of fame, and then he'll go back to making skateboards or whatever he did before. And the people who build these systems for real will go on laboring behind the scenes.

I did not check the design in detail, but those woofer drivers can also be used without a horn. It's even better when using them for hifi i spaces that are small compared to the movie theaters where they where ment for. Many use Onken or Atec 620 cabinet and the smaller multicellhorns or newer JBL Horns for the top as they fit better in smaller spaces, even with the same drivers as the big VOTT systems. What he is using i don't know and i hardly care.

I would never buy his products as they are way overpriced and i can make the same for way less (and probally better engineered). My setup uses Faital and Beyma drivers and a JBL 2380 clone horn. Those are technically better fit for small pa (garden parties) like the future owner wants. I did already build a similar set (but all Faital drivers) for someone else.

 

[DonR]

Ok, then we are brothers-in-tubes, so I hope you'll take my disagreement kindly




"if he wants his system to be realistic, i.e. faithfully reproduce the source signal,"

As I've pointed out many times when these subjects come up, accuracy ("faithfully reproduce the source signal") does not entail "realism." They are entirely separable. Most recordings are not realistic. If you play them on an accurate system, you will not get realistic.

As for "natural" as a sonic description, I don't see why that concept would be mysterious or hard to understand. It means, in the case of audio, "sounding more like X sounds in nature, in real life" vs "sounding artificial."

For instance, if you take a balanced recording of a human voice played back on an accurate system, you can play with EQ in all sorts of ways to make it sound "less natural." You can emphasize the sibilant region so they sound utterly electronic and colored, you can scoop out the warmth region to make them sound too thin and lacking body, etc. "Natural" is of course a reference to how the human voice tends to sound "naturally" rather than after having been altered mechanically/electrically/acoustically in a recording and playback scenario. Dialogue editors and movie sound mixers are working all the time to ensure dialogue "sounds natural" - restoring 'natural sounding' warmth when needed, dialing back exaggerated sibiliance, etc.

And of course each time you have to "fix" a sound like that, you are deviating from the original signal, which is just another example for how "accurate" does not equate to "natural" or "realistic" and in fact manipulating the sound can actually enhance natural/realistic factors.

So there's nothing odd at all about the idea that a deviation from accuracy can, in principle, enhance the sense of "natural" or "realistic" sound.

When it happens, does it always happen is certainly up for debate. And since very, very few recordings and playback systems would sound truly "realistic," and most references to real life will show compromises, it's reasonable people will differ on which compromises they find to sound "more natural."

I find, in my system, that my tube amplification tends to make recordings sound more "natural" and "realistic," especially the human voice. Someone else may disagree. But though I haven't heard the Oja system, in principle I would not dismiss that certain tube amps with those speakers may sound more "natural/realistic" to my, and other people's ears.

Natural has no meaning in sound as all sound is natural, i.e. found in nature. A hi-fi has only one job: faithfully reproduce the material in the source. Anything else is going to produce a sound that is not true to the original material. Tubes do not do that. You are conflating the creation process with the reproduction process and that is where a lot of the issues lie.

 

[krabapple]

I did not check the design in detail, but those woofer drivers can also be used without a horn. It's even better when using them for hifi i spaces that are small compared to the movie theaters where they where ment for. Many use Onken or Atec 620 cabinet and the smaller multicellhorns or newer JBL Horns for the top as they fit better in smaller spaces, even with the same drivers as the big VOTT systems. What he is using i don't know and i hardly care.

Have any such frankenspeakers ever been measured in a Klippel?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I did not check the design in detail, but those woofer drivers can also be used without a horn. It's even better when using them for hifi i spaces that are small compared to the movie theaters where they where ment for. Many use Onken or Atec 620 cabinet and the smaller multicellhorns or newer JBL Horns for the top as they fit better in smaller spaces, even with the same drivers as the big VOTT systems. What he is using i don't know and i hardly care.

I would never buy his products as they are way overpriced and i can make the same for way less (and probally better engineered). My setup uses Faital and Beyma drivers and a JBL 2380 clone horn. Those are technically better fit for small pa (garden parties) like the future owner wants. I did already build a similar set (but all Faital drivers) for someone else.

Yes, certainly the Altec woofers can be used in LF enclosures which are not a horn. My point is that the Altec woofers in the VOTT series were intended to be used in a short horn enclosure. What he is doing is going for the cheap shot of style above substance. The A-7 and A-7-500 were the models made for smaller spaces, including domestic ones which are large.

Altec made home speakers (which helped drive them out of business, but that's another story) which used the 416/414 woofers in an acoustic reflex enclosure, but they used the 811 or 511 horns, not the huge multicell horns. The VOTT was all about controlled directivity - the multicells were created to get sound into even the far seats of a very large movie theater, up in the balcony near the projection booth. The 288 4" compression driver had extreme sensitivity to help accomplish this. But the 288 has problems in the highest frequency region due to the large 4" diaphragm. That's not what you want in a much smaller space like a home. The A-5 was kind of a bastard system which mated a multicell horn to the A-7 LF horn. I heard them at the factory; they sounded terrible, even with the HF padded down to match the lower efficiency of the LF horn.

The intent of the systems as designed was multicell horns/288 drivers for movie theaters with extreme dispersion demands, and 511/811 horns with 802 drivers for very small theaters, motion picture studio review rooms, studio monitors (out in the room where the musicians play, not in the control room) and large home space.

This is a picture of the A-7s in the studio at Gold Star.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Natural has no meaning in sound as all sound is natural, i.e. found in nature. A hi-fi has only one job: faithfully reproduce the material in the source. Anything else is going to produce a sound that is not true to the original material. Tubes do not do that. You are conflating the creation process with the reproduction process and that is where a lot of the issues lie.

No speaker in existence is going to do that either. They all are colored to some degree.

 

[Waxx]

Ok, then we are brothers-in-tubes, so I hope you'll take my disagreement kindly




"if he wants his system to be realistic, i.e. faithfully reproduce the source signal,"

As I've pointed out many times when these subjects come up, accuracy ("faithfully reproduce the source signal") does not entail "realism." They are entirely separable. Most recordings are not realistic. If you play them on an accurate system, you will not get realistic.

As for "natural" as a sonic description, I don't see why that concept would be mysterious or hard to understand. It means, in the case of audio, "sounding more like X sounds in nature, in real life" vs "sounding artificial."

For instance, if you take a balanced recording of a human voice played back on an accurate system, you can play with EQ in all sorts of ways to make it sound "less natural." You can emphasize the sibilant region so they sound utterly electronic and colored, you can scoop out the warmth region to make them sound too thin and lacking body, etc. "Natural" is of course a reference to how the human voice tends to sound "naturally" rather than after having been altered mechanically/electrically/acoustically in a recording and playback scenario. Dialogue editors and movie sound mixers are working all the time to ensure dialogue "sounds natural" - restoring 'natural sounding' warmth when needed, dialing back exaggerated sibiliance, etc.

And of course each time you have to "fix" a sound like that, you are deviating from the original signal, which is just another example for how "accurate" does not equate to "natural" or "realistic" and in fact manipulating the sound can actually enhance natural/realistic factors.

So there's nothing odd at all about the idea that a deviation from accuracy can, in principle, enhance the sense of "natural" or "realistic" sound.

When it happens, does it always happen is certainly up for debate. And since very, very few recordings and playback systems would sound truly "realistic," and most references to real life will show compromises, it's reasonable people will differ on which compromises they find to sound "more natural."

I find, in my system, that my tube amplification tends to make recordings sound more "natural" and "realistic," especially the human voice. Someone else may disagree. But though I haven't heard the Oja system, in principle I would not dismiss that certain tube amps with those speakers may sound more "natural/realistic" to my, and other people's ears.

btw, the best "hifi" implementations i heared of those old Altec drivers were a 416-8B in the japanese design onken cabinet for it, with the ports lightly damped with felt, crossed to the 511B horn with an 802 compression driver and a custom build active crossover (as he thought the altec crossovers were not good). Amps were SET tube amps with the 845 tubes and a 310 as driver tube also build by the owner (a retired electric engineer). It won't fit the hifi standards of this site at all, but it sounded so good to the ears for the music he played (classic music). And that guy is no retrogear fundamentalist, his source was a computer running winamp and a plextor cd writer as transport with a Lavry Gold (mastering) DAC, that at hat time (2005) was one of the best arround. That guy is a former Philips hifi ingeneer (from the factory in Dendermonde, Belgium where they made their most famous stuff) and knows his stuff... I doubt this NY hipster does.

 

[DonR]

No speaker in existence is going to do that either. They all are colored to some degree.

Absolutely agree. That is why speakers are the second most important part of the hi-fi chain, after the source material itself.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Have any such frankenspeakers ever been measured in a Klippel?

The original VOTT systems are far too large and unwieldy to measure with a Klippel, and I'm sure far too much effort to make it worthwhile. I am not even aware of anybody posting measurements of any VOTT system larger than the A-7 using REW or similar techniques. I've measured my A7-500s many times, just yesterday actually to test a variation on the voicing filter.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

btw, the best "hifi" implementations i heared of those old Altec drivers were a 416-8B in the japanese design onken cabinet for it, with the ports lightly damped with felt, crossed to the 511B horn with an 802 compression driver and a custom build active crossover (as he thought the altec crossovers were not good). Amps were SET tube amps with the 845 tubes and a 310 as driver tube also build by the owner (a retired electric engineer). It won't fit the hifi standards of this site at all, but it sounded so good to the ears for the music he played (classic music). And that guy is no retrogear fundamentalist, his source was a computer running winamp and a plextor cd writer as transport with a Lavry Gold (mastering) DAC, that at hat time (2005) was one of the best arround. That guy who is a former Philips hifi ingeneer (from the factory in Dendermonde, Belgium where they made their most famous stuff) and knows his stuff... I doubt this NY hipster does.

The Altec consumer model 19 is basically what you cite:

 

[Waxx]

The Altec consumer model 19 is basically what you cite:

View attachment 221675

It's close, but the bass cabinet is not a damped onken, where the damping makes it almost aperiodic instead of reflex by lowering the qms and so th group delay of the woofer. But the drivers are the same config, that is true. And that is also one of the great speakers (certainly for that time) that Altec made...

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

It's close, but the bass cabinet is not a damped onken, where the damping makes it almost aperiodic instead of reflex by lowering the qms and so th group delay of the woofer. But the drivers are the same config, that is true. And that is also one of the great speakers (certainly for that time) that Altec made...

They were contemporary with the time I worked there - I thought they sounded OK, but the passive crossovers were the weak point. I've always used active crossovers which open up a lot of possibilities to tailor the response to a particular recording, my preferences at the time, or the phase of the moon.

This was done yesterday, and shows the changes the voicing filter can make (measured at the listening position, 12' away).

 

[Jimster480]

They were contemporary with the time I worked there - I thought they sounded OK, but the passive crossovers were the weak point. I've always used active crossovers which open up a lot of possibilities to tailor the response to a particular recording, my preferences at the time, or the phase of the moon.

This was done yesterday, and shows the changes the voicing filter can make (measured at the listening position, 12' away).

View attachment 221677

So did you help to engineer these speakers during the time that you worked there? It seems you know quite a bit about them and also how this hipster has screwed up the design.
Not trying to jest, just wondering.

 

[MattHooper]

Natural has no meaning in sound as all sound is natural, i.e. found in nature.

No. Some sound is natural - e.g. a real human voice. Some sound is artificial - e.g. a robot voice made for a star wars movie or countless examples in recorded music. One is found in nature: the other is confected by humans - artificial.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Natural: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)

We have words for a reason. To make distinctions. I don't understand why you'd want to remove useful distinctions just in the case of audio.

The reference to "natural sounds" and getting something to "sound more natural" is used to communicate all the time. As I said: in the movie business, much effort goes to exactly those ends.

A hi-fi has only one job: faithfully reproduce the material in the source.

That is one goal, not the only one. In audio the concept of "hi-fidelity" actually arose as "fidelity to the sound of the Real Thing being recorded - that is fidelity to 'real sounds." They wanted to record and reproduce that piano, voice or violin such that it sounded like the real thing at the reproduction end. You can certainly define whatever goal you want for sound reproduction, but it doesn't entail it's the only goal.

Anything else is going to produce a sound that is not true to the original material. Tubes do not do that.

Remember: I had addressed the conflation you apparently made between "faithfully reproducing the source signal" and "sounding realistic."
If you want to talk strictly about one part of that "faithfully reproducing the source signal," that's fine, and yes some tube amplification won't do that. But it wasn't the point I was clearing up.

You are conflating the creation process with the reproduction process and that is where a lot of the issues lie.

I find this misunderstanding some people raise quite odd.

We can't reason in a bubble. Most claims invoke general principles. You had equated "faithfully reproducing the source signal" with "sounding realistic."

Any number of references shows that to be a false equivalence. There is no magical dividing line between talking about this in terms of what is done in professional sound, or in consumer sound reproduction. If you have a fairly natural sounding vocal recording in the studio, and you put a 6 dB rise in the right spot between 5-8kHz or so, you will have the sound of sibiliance stand out in an artificially sharp, exaggerated manner. If you take that same recording and reduce that peak by 6dB you will restore a more natural balance to the voice.

The SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO RECORDINGS IN ANY SOUND SYSTEM. If you put that vocal with the exaggerated sibilance on a recording, take it home and play it on your system, if you target the same peak, reducing it with EQ, you'll restore a more natural balance. Exactly the same principle as in the studio.

This is one reason why, for instance, "de-essing" in the studio is a thing:

What is de-essing? The dos and don’ts of using a de-esser

De-essing is useful for reducing harshness in vocals and other instruments. In this article, we’ll discuss what de-essing is and how to use a de-esser.

www.izotope.com

(Note the examples of how an artificially sibilant recording sounds more natural once the sibilance is manipulated, de-emphasized).

In fact that is the very POINT of people creating content - be it movie soundtracks or, say, a recording of a piano - where the concern is producing
"more natural sound." The idea is that, in principle, the manipulations to make something sound "more natural" translates in to what you hear on your Hi Fidelity system!

There. Is. No. Magic. Dividing. Line. Between. What. Happens. In. A. Studio. And. Any. Other. Sound. Reproduction separating this phenomena.
We are talking about the same principles.

So there are 3 issues:

1. Whether seeking accuracy automatically entails seeking realism. Answer: No. For the many reasons given.

2. Whether some sound can be manipulated to sound "more natural/realistic." The answer is clearly: Yes. It's done all the time, both in studios, and any consumer who plays with EQ in his system would have discovered this.

3. Can tube amps sometimes slightly alter the sound in a way some hear as more natural? I think so.

 

[DonR]

No. Some sound is natural - e.g. a real human voice. Some sound is artificial - e.g. a robot voice made for a star wars movie or countless examples in recorded music. One is found in nature: the other is confected by humans - artificial.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Natural: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)

We have words for a reason. To make distinctions. I don't understand why you'd want to remove useful distinctions just in the case of audio.

The reference to "natural sounds" and getting something to "sound more natural" is used to communicate all the time. As I said: in the movie business, much effort goes to exactly those ends.




That is one goal, not the only one. In audio the concept of "hi-fidelity" actually arose as "fidelity to the sound of the thing being recorded - that is fidelity to the sound of 'real sounds." You can certainly define whatever goal you want for sound reproduction, but it doesn't entail it's the only goal.



Remember: I had addressed the conflation you apparently made between "faithfully reproducing the source signal" and "sounding realistic."
If you want to talk strictly about one part of that "faithfully reproducing the source signal," that's fine, and yes some tube amplification won't do that. But it wasn't the point I was clearing up.



I find this misunderstanding some people raise quite odd.

We can't reason in a bubble. Most claims invoke general principles. You had equated "faithfully reproducing the source signal" with "sounding realistic."

Any number of references shows that to be a false equivalence. There is no magical dividing line between talking about this in terms of what is done in professional sound, or in consumer sound reproduction. If you have a fairly natural sounding vocal recording in the studio, and you put a 6 dB rise in the right spot between 5-8kHz or so, you will have the sound of sibiliance stand out in an artificially sharp, exaggerated manner. If you take that same recording and reduce that peak by 6dB you will restore a more natural balance to the voice.

The SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO RECORDINGS IN ANY SOUND SYSTEM. If you put that vocal with the exaggerated sibilance on a recording, take it home and play it on your system, if you target the same peak, reducing it with EQ, you'll restore a more natural balance.

This is one reason why, for instance, "de-essing" in the studio is a thing:

What is de-essing? The dos and don’ts of using a de-esser

De-essing is useful for reducing harshness in vocals and other instruments. In this article, we’ll discuss what de-essing is and how to use a de-esser.

www.izotope.com

(Note the examples of how an artificially sibilant recording sounds more natural once the sibilance is manipulated, de-emphasized).

In fact that is the very POINT of people creating content - be it movie soundtracks or, say, a recording of a piano - where the concern is producing
"more natural sound." The idea is that, in principle, the manipulations to make something sound "more natural" translates in to what you hear on your Hi Fidelity system!

There. Is. No. Magic. Dividing. Line. Between. What. Happens. In. A. Studio. And. Any. Other. Sound. Reproduction separating this phenomena.
We are talking about the same principles.

So there are 3 issues:

1. Whether seeking accuracy automatically entails seeking realism. Answer: No. For the many reasons given.

2. Whether some sound can be manipulated to sound "more natural/realistic." The answer is clearly: Yes. It's done all the time, both in studios, and any consumer who plays with EQ in his system would have discovered this.

3. Can tube amps sometimes slightly alter the sound in a way some hear as more natural? I think so.

By that definition every musical instrument is artificial.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

So did you help to engineer these speakers during the time that you worked there? It seems you know quite a bit about them and also how this hipster has screwed up the design.
Not trying to jest, just wondering.

I was an electronic engineer, but I worked very closely with the engineers in acoustics. I also hung out constantly with a couple old time acoustics engineers who were in on these designs. Frankly, I was more interested in the speakers aspect of Altec than the electronic aspect. I was very interested in the history of Altec, which made it a great job to have. They had me curate their archive of old speakers/electronics.

 

[mhardy6647]

I did not check the design in detail, but those woofer drivers can also be used without a horn. It's even better when using them for hifi i spaces that are small compared to the movie theaters where they where ment for. Many use Onken or Atec 620 cabinet and the smaller multicellhorns or newer JBL Horns for the top as they fit better in smaller spaces, even with the same drivers as the big VOTT systems. What he is using i don't know and i hardly care.

Well, it does depend on exactly which woofers he's using (and I am too lazy to check).
Altec themselves guilelessly put 416 woofers in various, but mostly undersized, bass reflex cabinets for years and sold 'em to consumers.
Do they produce bass as we know bass? Well, no, they sure don't... but what LF they produce is pleasant and sonorous.
Speaking of guileless -- I stuffed my 846A Valencias in the corners of our old living room.



The Conwalls that had been there previously did produce more, and deeper, LF -- but in every other respect the Valencias bettered them handily.

 

[Waxx]

By that definition every musical instrument is artificial.

off course it is, it's made by humans to have a certain sound. Natural sound is voices, wind, animal sounds. That is why the voice test (use a clean unaltered recording of a voice that you already know very well in real life) is something i rate high for judging speakers. It does not replace measurments, but it tells a lot already without the measurments and is easy to use on the go when measurements are not possible.

And again, measurments tell what speakers does, but does not tell you what everybody wants. The subjective part of the equation is something it can't tell. You have statistics that tell what most will like, but that does not tell what the individual will like. And many like coloured sound because it gives them the (fake) impression that they hear the real thing, and the neutral sound not. Others want neutral sound off course, and the measurements can tell you what fit your subjective taste, and if it does what it claims.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Well, it does depend on exactly which woofers he's using (and I am too lazy to check).
Altec themselves guilelessly put 416 woofers in various, but mostly undersized bass reflex cabinets for years and sold 'em to consumers.
Do they produce bass as we know bass? Well, no, they sure don't... but what LF they produce is pleasant and sonorous.
Speaking of guileless -- I stuffed my 846A Valencias in the corners of our old living room.



The Conwalls that had been there previously did produce more, and deeper, LF -- but in every other respect the Valencias bettered them handily.

None of the Altec systems were bass monsters. The A-7 bass horn drops off below a 60Hz hump.

 

[Waxx]

Well, it does depend on exactly which woofers he's using (and I am too lazy to check).
Altec themselves guilelessly put 416 woofers in various, but mostly undersized bass reflex cabinets for years and sold 'em to consumers.
Do they produce bass as we know bass? Well, no, they sure don't... but what LF they produce is pleasant and sonorous.
Speaking of guileless -- I stuffed my 846A Valencias in the corners of our old living room.



The Conwalls that had been there previously did produce more, and deeper, LF -- but in every other respect the Valencias bettered them handily.

Those japanese style dampend Onkens went very low for such old speakers. The owner claimed 30Hz (i could not measure speakers at that time) and i would not be surprised if that was close to reality. I've later seen the 416 doing 30Hz in a normal but very big reflex, so it could be.

But even the classic A7 with the 515 in the 828 cabinet sounds wonderfull on the bass, even if it onlty goes to +50Hz... JBL got that same kind of quality i think, but in a lesser degree. And no speakers of that time were bass monsters. The Philips and Warfdale speakers i grew up with were neighter, and those were among the top speakers in Belgium of that time when my father bought them (late 1960's).

 

[mhardy6647]

Those japanese style dampend Onkens went very low for such old speakers. The owner claimed 30Hz (i could not measure speakers at that time) and i would not be surprised if that was close to reality. I've later seen the 416 doing 30Hz in a normal but very big reflex, so it could be.

But even the classic A7 with the 515 in the 828 cabinet sounds wonderfull on the bass, even if it onlty goes to +50Hz... JBL got that same kind of quality i think, but in a lesser degree. And no speakers of that time were bass monsters. The Philips and Warfdale speakers i grew up with were neighter, and those were among the top speakers in Belgium of that time when my father bought them (late 1960's).

The Valencia runs out of steam around 70 Hz unless one cheats (as I did) ... and even then...
And yes, you're right on (as the hipsters used to say) re: the VOTs

Heck, I am not unhappy in the 515Bs I currenly have in, shall we say, rather large vented boxes designed for 604 Duplexes. They're kinda, sorta the same thing... kinda, sorta, woofer-wise.