Well, whaddaya know!

[E-Stat]

ralph, it wasnt YOU whom i felt didnt know about the 80 being the mid. it was the tube fan who stated: "Fulton Js sound much more realistic than the FMI 80s do".

No, I was just pointing out that apparently TF doesn't understand its design even after my first comment. It's got the same box and one or two Peerless tweeters depending upon age. Thanks for the corroboration.

Also, the Janszen designed tweeter built by RTR had response to 30 kHz like most modern stats, but I find that speakers with truly flat on axis response even to 20 kHz sound unnaturally bright. My speakers have a HF contour that I always use to roll off the top at bit.

did you ever meet mel schilling? he was coldly honest. he may still be running a shop in PA. my friend bought IMF monitor IIIs from him sound unheard before mel came to california.

Never did although the name was well known back in the day.

[tube fan]

A little hyperbole always works for some.


That is a somewhat mixed comparison. I really like the big Scaenas with the quad depth charge subs, but they do not have single driver coherence. When HP heard my system in Atlanta, his reaction was "these speakers are going to cost you a fortune". What he meant was they can reveal differences between the finest components and that I would need to upgrade other system components. On the other hand, I have no plans to drain my retirement funds to achieve that goal!

What I would really like to hear is a large Sound Lab (or array) driven by the incredible sources, amplification and cabling he has always had access to for the past thirty years. I regret not hearing Ray Kimber's huge array he showed at RMAF for a couple of years.


Yet, it has a definite sonic character and has nowhere near the resolution of what is possible today, much less the SP-10 or SP-15. Your preference is your preference. Better still exists.

To keep my comments in perspective, I would certainly make that statement about my amplification stages as well. They are eminently musical and have served me well for well over a decade, but simply not SOTA.

We all have our personal reality triggers, and mine are likely different from yours. I blind tested the SP8 to the SP10 over a month, and I consistently preferred the SP8 which was perfectly (yes, for me) balanced as it reproduced both the attack and decay of notes. The SP10 captured the attack SLIGHTLY better, but was SIGNIFICANTLY poorer on decay. Ditto for tonal purity. The SP 10, 11, and onward all sound too ss for my tastes. Right now I am listening mostly to my Mystere Ca 21 preamp which is even more tube-like and tonally pure than the SP8. One of my friends has the Sound Lab with a powered bass, and it produces extremely musical sound. Plus, it's not expensive!

[tube fan]

tube fan,

i am surprised that you don't know that the fmi 80 is part and parcel a main part of the jmod setup. the best part it turns out as alone they are excellent. mel schilling had a store in woodland hills and when i mentioned the jmod (he sold them) he suggested that there were much better speaker systems out there for much less. his disdain for the woofer section was obvious. maybe he just didnt like robert fulton.

DUH!!! Yes, I have known for thirty years that the FMI 80 is the midrange unit in the Fulton J MODULAR system. The bass unit is huge, and flat to 18hz, and TIGHT! The RTR high midrange/tweeter elestrostatic driver goes out to 40 hz. I just said that the Fulton J (with the HUGE, and fantastically accurate bass unit and the RTR tweeter) was much better than the Fulton 80 alone. DUH!!!

[tube fan]

As I mentioned earlier, it is the midrange. Exactly.

Agreed the J(unior) mod is better, but only because it extends the bandwidth of the small bookshelf at both ends.

Yes, NOTHING I posted indicated that I did not know that the Fulton J was the midrange unit of the Fulton J MODULAR system. And, yes, the addition of the huge, and hugely accurate bass unit and the never bettered RTR electrostatic tweeter "extended" the response of the Fulton 80 (to 18 hz and 40,000 hz!!!). GIT A GRIP!!!

[E-Stat]

Yes, NOTHING I posted indicated that I did not know that the Fulton J was the midrange unit of the Fulton J MODULAR system.

Well, congratulations then for stating the obvious.

(to 18 hz and 40,000 hz!!!). GIT A GRIP!!!

You're mistaken if you think the Janszen designed tweeter is "flat to 40 kHz".

[Feanor]

..., but I find that speakers with truly flat on axis response even to 20 kHz sound unnaturally bright. My speakers have a HF contour that I always use to roll off the top at bit....

Why do you suppose that is? I noticed the same thing since I acquired the means to actually measure response on my system.

My Magneplanar MG 1.6 don't measure flat to 20 kHz in my rooms, rolling off a little about 5 kHz and fairly sharply above 12 kHz. I can use the digital equalizer plug-in to my computer music player to flatten the response to 12 kHz and beyond, but the result is definitely too bright. What sounds best and most natural is a gradual roll-off above about 4 kHz. That is, I use the equalizer to produce a smooth the roll-off, not a flat response.

I recall Mike Anderson quite a while a good using a Behringer EQ to do the same sort of roll-off.

Is the reason poor recording practice? Or that much of the sound is room reflections rather than direct? Or something else?

[E-Stat]

Why do you suppose that is?

Here's commentary from an engineer whose opinion pretty much matches my experience. I've always found too bright sounding systems fatiguing to listen to.

One explanation

[Feanor]

Here's commentary from an engineer whose opinion pretty much matches my experience. I've always found too bright sounding systems fatiguing to listen to.

One explanation

Tony's explanation is basically that high frequencies roll-off in the concert hall, (depending on the concert hall, etc.). Personally I'm sure this is true. But it begs the question, why don't recording engineers aim for a more natural balance in their final recordings?

Less obvious questions would be does this typical imbalance affect audio enthusiasts choice of playback media (LP vs. digital) or component type (tube vs. solid state).

In any case it's confirmed for me that almost all recordings are too bright played back flat. This insight goes 'way back for me even before the digital era. So the aim of equalization, for those who choose to used it, is almost always going to be a smooth, gradual roll-off from somewhere in the mid-range. In my case I'm down about 5-6 dB at 10 kHz, (unfortunately the highest frequency I can hear at listening volumes).

[E-Stat]

But it begs the question, why don't recording engineers aim for a more natural balance in their final recordings?

A few do, Although Sir TtT won't get empirical *proof*, I find that is one the beneficial results of using a more distant, minimally miked setup as used by labels like Telarc, Reference Recordings, Windham Hill, Chesky, etc. Ever heard a bright sounding Telarc recording?

Less obvious questions would be does this typical imbalance affect audio enthusiasts choice of playback media (LP vs. digital) or component type (tube vs. solid state).

I am one of few "audiophiles" to likes to have a HF contour on the speaker to tame bright recordings. That's where having a treble control also works. I typically lower the HF control on the Sound Lab backplate by about 2 db for vinyl playback. That may, however, simply have to do with my particular front end combinations.

What also exacerbates the issue is that the sum of all noise, upper harmonic distortions and RFI/EMF gremlins congregates at the top. One of the biggest benefits to me of high performance cabling - of all flavors - and dedicated power lines / conditioning is a reduction of a false brightness caused by these factors. The typically extended response of SS gear can further exaggerate this grunge. Better is almost always less bright. Not dull - but clean. I have been nearly reduced to tears hearing the incredible amount of HF energy that HP's systems can generate while at the same time not sounding the least bit bright, hard or brittle. Bell trees and cymbals sound so naturally sweet.

Replacing the wall wart switching power supply for the Squeezebox Touch in the garage system with a stiff linear immediately made the sound there less bright, yet more detailed. Poster Boldeagle refers to this phenomena as "non-bright". I have to agree.

[Feanor]

...
What also exacerbates the issue is that the sum of all noise, upper harmonic distortions and RFI/EMF gremlins congregates at the top. One of the biggest benefits to me of high performance cabling - of all flavors - and dedicated power lines / conditioning is a reduction of a false brightness caused by these factors. The typically extended response of SS gear can further exaggerate this grunge. Better is almost always less bright. Not dull - but clean. I have been nearly reduced to tears hearing the incredible amount of HF energy that HP's systems can generate while at the same time not sounding the least bit bright, hard or brittle. Bell trees and cymbals sound so naturally sweet. ...

Excellent points. Although my experience is less in terms of equipment heard, it is the same. That is, get rid of the grunge and things sound a lot better. Records you thought were awful turn out to be not so bad.

I suspect that a great deal of the preference for tubes and vinyl can be attributed to their ability to hide or smooth over the "grunge" factors you mention. (This said, the greatest revelation I ever had was when I got rid of my old Phase Linear 400 which embodied every vice ever attributed to solid state.)

[E-Stat]

I suspect that a great deal of the preference for tubes and vinyl can be attributed to their ability to hide or smooth over the "grunge" factors you mention.

Yes and no. There are two separate issues here.

Remember that the quality of tube gear is as much a function of the output caps used as is the tubes. The type (and linearity) has greatly evolved over the years. My preamp underwent a factory upgrade that was largely an output capacitor and power supply change which profoundly affected the sound quality - using the same tubes. Cheap tube devices use cheap caps. Some 70s era receivers from Pioneer et. al. sounded "tube-like" because their outputs were capacitively coupled. Translation: run the signal through cheap caps to soften the output.

The benefits to analog over most digital has to do with a much wider effective word size and sample rate. Redbook is incapable of matching the best analog.

[tube fan]

Well, congratulations then for stating the obvious.


You're mistaken if you think the Janszen designed tweeter is "flat to 40 kHz".

OK, the RTR electrostatic speaker was listed as flat from 1500Hz to 30 KHz, with a sensitivity of 88 dBs @1 watt/1 meter. The units were 14.5 inches by 14.5 inches by 12 inches. Most of the source of bright sound occurs BELOW 10,000 Hz. Anything above say 12,000 reproduces the air you hear at live musical events.

[E-Stat]

OK, the RTR electrostatic speaker was listed as flat from 1500Hz to 30 KHz, with a sensitivity of 88 dBs @1 watt/1 meter.

Thank you for acknowledging the exaggeration. And the response of the Janszen designed driver is not flat to 30 khz. You continue to embellish the story. According to Infinity which used the same drivers in the Servo Statik, it is about 3 db down at the extremes. Don't get me wrong - those are great tweeters with about a 30 degree dispersion angle that were used by many a speaker. There is, however, a difference between a speaker's "response" and the degree to which it is truly flat.

The units were 14.5 inches by 14.5 inches by 12 inches.

Those are the dimensions of the box, not the panels. Apparently, you've never the seen the panels naked. Let me help you out. It is an array of six panels that are each approximately 3" x 5.75".

Tweeter array

[tube fan]

Thank you for acknowledging the exaggeration. And the response of the Janszen designed driver is not flat to 30 khz. You continue to embellish the story. According to Infinity which used the same drivers in the Servo Statik, it is about 3 db down at the extremes. Don't get me wrong - those are great tweeters with about a 30 degree dispersion angle that were used by many a speaker. There is, however, a difference between a speaker's "response" and the degree to which it is truly flat.


Those are the dimensions of the box, not the panels. Apparently, you've never the seen the panels naked. Let me help you out. It is an array of six panels that are each approximately 3" x 5.75".

Tweeter array

Of course, you are again talking nonsense: my RTR tweeters are naked, sitting on top of the 80 speaker. The size of the unit is as I stated. Your comment about the size of each driver is irrelevant, as are 95% of your "points". I've heard just about every tweeter ever made, and none beat the accuracy of the RTR ESR 6 (yes, OF COURSE, IMO). BTW, as I have said, I have always loved the sound of the Soundlab electrostatic speakers, and that they are at the apex of my speaker ratings. That translates, for those who don't know what "apex" means: the top or best in a class.

[E-Stat]

Your comment about the size of each driver is irrelevant

Sorry, but that's like saying the size of a dynamic speaker's cone is irrelevant - only the box in which its mounted matters. The size and configuration of the radiating area of electrostatic panels is everything! It determines bandwidth, output capability and imaging. And really best when not put in a deep box. The enclosure is important only to the extent of being non-resonant especially for full range designs. Which is why the U-1s are mounted in a 100 lb steel frame.

... as are 95% of your "points"

Kindly provide proof to your assertion about their performance. It is likely they are not run as low as 1500 hz either as that would limit their output. The Servo Statik had 30% more tweeter area (8 panels vs 6) and chose 2 kHz.

I've heard just about every tweeter ever made...

The Ghost of Melvin Returns.

, and none beat the accuracy of the RTR ESR 6 (yes, OF COURSE, IMO).

My point is that your comments will be more convincing without the exaggerations. It was a nice fish, but you need to bring your hands closer together.

BTW, as I have said, I have always loved the sound of the Soundlab electrostatic speakers, and that they are at the apex of my speaker ratings.

I certainly enjoy them, but they will not play as loudly as it seems you prefer unless you get a large array.

[tube fan]

Sorry, but that's like saying the size of a dynamic speaker's cone is irrelevant - only the box in which its mounted matters. The size and configuration of the radiating area of electrostatic panels is everything! It determines bandwidth, output capability and imaging. And really best when not put in a deep box. The enclosure is important only to the extent of being non-resonant especially for full range designs. Which is why the U-1s are mounted in a 100 lb steel frame.


Kindly provide proof to your assertion about their performance. It is likely they are not run as low as 1500 hz either as that would limit their output. The Servo Statik had 30% more tweeter area (8 panels vs 6) and chose 2 kHz.


The Ghost of Melvin Returns.


My point is that your comments will be more convincing without the exaggerations. It was a nice fish, but you need to bring your hands closer together.


I certainly enjoy them, but they will not play as loudly as it seems you prefer unless you get a large array.

I listen 90%+ of the time to old school jazz, and, even at live levels, the Soundlabs would do fine, as do the Fulton Js with a low power tube amp. Your other "points" are too picayune to merit a comment.

[E-Stat]

I listen 90%+ of the time to old school jazz, and, even at live levels, the Soundlabs would do fine, as do the Fulton Js with a low power tube amp.

Thanks for the response.

I rediscovered a multi-disc CD (gasp!) of Blue Note stuff the other day. Not my usual fare, but still enjoyable.

[hifitommy]

speakers voiced to be flat in an anechoic chamber WILL tend to sound bright. a fair number of studio monitors also sound bright as the engineers sometimes like to use them like microscopes on the sound.

it seems that the majority of speakers do not sound bright but music mixed bright will come through that way.

system building depends on component matching to avoid these anomalies as much as possible.

[tube fan]

Most of my listening levels are from 70 to 94 db. All out classical levels can hit 105+dbs, as can my wife's trance and house cds.

[Brian Beck]

The argument here about whether the RTR ESL tweeters go to 30KHz or 40KHz is missing a very important point. You have to first specify the "dB down" or dB limits. My car speakers will respond to 100KHz if you will allow a -60dB window. "Flat" to x-KHz is a meaningless concept to engineers because nothing is ever truly flat. You have to specify: -0.1dB, -1dB, -3dB or -6dB (all commonly used), or something else. And dBs compared to what? 1KHz? What if there is a narrow notch at 1KHz, or a peak? In what room, at what angle, at what setting? Manufacturers routinely ignore the dB limits (and they know better) so they can make their products look good, and also out of frustration with all these unknowns/uncontrollables. The RTR spec sheet simply says 30KHz. The little response chart looks to be hand drawn and shows maybe a -1dB droop at 20KHz compared to, say, 5Khz. So the specs simply give you some very vague notion of bandwidth, and little more.

Now, Fulton did in fact modify the RTR crossover point to roughly 6.5KHz (from 1.5KHz) and he also added a bypass path for the highest frequencies, so he did reshape the response. Because the roll-off of almost any speaker is gradual, with crossover pushing-and-prodding one can boost the bandwidth (essentially by reducing everything else). In any case, I must say that I agree with Tube Fan that the RTRs, as modded and used in the Fulton J Modular, are among the very best reproducers of the highs that I've ever heard. Airy, atmospheric, but lacking in etch and added texture.

And I could make a similar argument for the bass response spec limits, where room acoustics matter much more.