The Hegel soundengine explained

[mtrycrafts]

Hegel headquarter is "just around the corner" from where I work these days, would be interesting to see of it is possible to visit those guys and get some more information straight from the source



I auditioned quote many of the speakers in the Duntech range, which is what John Dunlavy did before he went back to US to make his Dunlavy range. I liked all of them and found they had no signature, just very transparent and good speakers. Although, they are bears to place in the room and a sweet spot that is 10 cm wide. Only one person at a time can be in the sweet spot....

Come to think of it, it had to be the setup , way too far apart for the seating distance.
The upper frequencies were either on one side or the other depending on where you sat horizontally. Just terrible setup.
But, friend didn't say a word as it was setup by a pro.

 

[Verdinut]

Hegel headquarter is "just around the corner" from where I work these days, would be interesting to see of it is possible to visit those guys and get some more information straight from the source



I auditioned quote many of the speakers in the Duntech range, which is what John Dunlavy did before he went back to US to make his Dunlavy range. I liked all of them and found they had no signature, just very transparent and good speakers. Although, they are bears to place in the room and a sweet spot that is 10 cm wide. Only one person at a time can be in the sweet spot....

They would make excellent speakers in a monophonic system!

 

[haraldo]

A tour of their facility would be nice. But remember their information to you will be biased. I see their products in many audiophile discussions in various forums and I really don’t know what all the fuss is about. At the end of the day it’s still just electrons.

I 100% disagree, If someone can get there, the Hegel guys explain the principles as to their designs, what people work there, what they do, those are facts and not biased.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I 100% disagree, If someone can get there, the Hegel guys explain the principles as to their designs, what people work there, what they do, those are facts and not biased.

The principles should be explained by electrical engineers from outside the company to prevent any subjective bias. Blind listening tests should also be performed.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Talking about Dunlavy speakers, a friend of mine, golden ear, has or had some tall Dunlavy speakers set up by a pro or the company, a while back. So far apart, that it was ridiculous and I am sure that is why it had terrible soundstage.

I got pretty serious about the SC-Vs about 15 years ago or so. Huge. IMO, awesome soundstage if you were sitting in the sweet spot, which was narrow. A friend back then called the Dunlavys the world's biggest headphones. I was just wasn't happy with how cymbals sounded, so I passed on them. I don't think it was a frequency response thing, it was more like there was an issue with ringing or distortion. I remember Dunlavy upgraded the tweeters some time later, which were supposedly a significant improvement, but I had already moved on. The best midrange I had heard from a box speaker up to that point, and sealed subwoofer class bass with a low Q. Too bad John passed away, because with modern drivers and software I think he'd produce real winners.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I got pretty serious about the SC-Vs about 15 years ago or so. Huge. IMO, awesome soundstage if you were sitting in the sweet spot, which was narrow. A friend back then called the Dunlavys the world's biggest headphones. I was just wasn't happy with how cymbals sounded, so I passed on them. I don't think it was a frequency response thing, it was more like there was an issue with ringing or distortion. I remember Dunlavy upgraded the tweeters some time later, which were supposedly a significant improvement, but I had already moved on. The best midrange I had heard from a box speaker up to that point, and sealed subwoofer class bass with a low Q. Too bad John passed away, because with modern drivers and software I think he'd produce real winners.

I am pretty sure the seating position was not in the sweet spot. The room was rectangular with the two giant speakers on each side of the long side and turned about 45 deg but still not properly setup. Not speaker issue but a room and setup.

 

[TLS Guy]

Well I did review the patents on that amp. It is a feed forward error correction system However he has lots of systems including one which is all digital in terms of this feed forward operation.

The point is the problem that Peter Walker had, especially driving his electrostatic loudspeakers. The problem is that amps are bench tested with resistive loads, but are NEVER used that way unless you have Maggies. The phase angles and impedance curves are all over the map. In the case of Quad and electrostatic loudspeakers the loads are highly reactive. Peter convinced me that the usual testing is not adequate. So I agree with Hagel that distortion is dynamic into a lot of loads, most, but the it varies greatly from speaker to speaker.

Peter's simple elegant solution actually does solve the problem to all intense and purposes.

I do try in my speaker designs to try and not have massive swings of impedance and phase angles. So did Raymond Cooke of KEF. It is no coincidence that he and Peter Walker were close personal friends and colleagues, and worked very closely together on a number of projects.

Now the Hegel solutions are very complex. Complexity tends in my experience to reliability problems.

We have had one very unhappy owner of Hegel amps wander onto this forum. One does not mean much.

The thing I wonder is whether this complex solution is any better then Peter's feed forward current dumpers.

I do honestly believe those amps are better then the customary A/B and I use nothing else and I'm not tempted to. That is a simple elegant solution to the issues raised by Hegel.

I guess if the Hegel is a better hole to go to, of you can afford it go for it. I certainly am not tempted to jettison my current dumpers.

 

[haraldo]

I got pretty serious about the SC-Vs about 15 years ago or so. Huge. IMO, awesome soundstage if you were sitting in the sweet spot, which was narrow. A friend back then called the Dunlavys the world's biggest headphones. I was just wasn't happy with how cymbals sounded, so I passed on them. I don't think it was a frequency response thing, it was more like there was an issue with ringing or distortion. I remember Dunlavy upgraded the tweeters some time later, which were supposedly a significant improvement, but I had already moved on. The best midrange I had heard from a box speaker up to that point, and sealed subwoofer class bass with a low Q. Too bad John passed away, because with modern drivers and software I think he'd produce real winners.

There are still guys alive, that worked forst hand with John Dunlavy in Australia, and that do their best to carry on the principles and employ new tech and new drivers !

You have Kiat Low, who keeps Duntech alive and upgrades with new pretty high rewarded speakers, they are very well regarded in Australia.... Check Duntech on facebook, the website seem to not have been updated for years.

Philip Vafiadis runs VAF Australia, http://www.vaf.com.au, and makes a series of speakers that are true MTM designs utilizing only first order crossovers, again very well regarded in Australia and they ship worldwide.... I thought seriously about some of their signature speakers but never pulled the trigger....

 

[haraldo]

Well I did review the patents on that amp. It is a feed forward error correction system However he has lots of systems including one which is all digital in terms of this feed forward operation.

The point is the problem that Peter Walker had, especially driving his electrostatic loudspeakers. The problem is that amps are bench tested with resistive loads, but are NEVER used that way unless you have Maggies. The phase angles and impedance curves are all over the map. In the case of Quad and electrostatic loudspeakers the loads are highly reactive. Peter convinced me that the usual testing is not adequate. So I agree with Hagel that distortion is dynamic into a lot of loads, most, but the it varies greatly from speaker to speaker.

Peter's simple elegant solution actually does solve the problem to all intense and purposes.

I do try in my speaker designs to try and not have massive swings of impedance and phase angles. So did Raymond Cooke of KEF. It is no coincidence that he and Peter Walker were close personal friends and colleagues, and worked very closely together on a number of projects.

Now the Hegel solutions are very complex. Complexity tends in my experience to reliability problems.

We have had one very unhappy owner of Hegel amps wander onto this forum. One does not mean much.

The thing I wonder is whether this complex solution is any better then Peter's feed forward current dumpers.

I do honestly believe those amps are better then the customary A/B and I use nothing else and I'm not tempted to. That is a simple elegant solution to the issues raised by Hegel.

I guess if the Hegel is a better hole to go to, of you can afford it go for it. I certainly am not tempted to jettison my current dumpers.

Thx a lot for this .... I agree very solidly with you on the complexity part.... Simple generally translates to better, so the thing here is if the complex part is outside of the signal path it may not be that bad. If there is that complex part that essentially drive a simple feed forward correction, maybe it's workable....

So is it the correction part that actually calculate how and how much to apply the feed forward signal that is complex, while the actual feed forward correction mechanism is simple?
Is that totally out of line?

I am still tempted to try out the H590 at home, to see how it fares towards a Krell KAV 400xi, but I do have some groundwork to do before I'm there (read: fix remaining things in new flat)

 

[haraldo]

The principles should be explained by electrical engineers from outside the company to prevent any subjective bias. Blind listening tests should also be performed.

Your idea of principles are very different form mine. According to my view, what you are saying is not really feasible. Principle has nothing to do with the design of a product but states the "rulebook" as to how a design is made.

A principle defines a general property that applies to any system in a certain context, a principle is motivated by some goal. The principle provides a means to realize its motivating goal, which is generally formulated as a guideline. This guideline constraints the design of all systems in a given context by stating the general properties that are required from any system in this context to realize the goal. Principles are intended to be more stable than requirements in the sense that they do not change as quickly as requirements may do. Organizational values, best practices, and design knowledge may be reflected and made applicable in terms of principles

Hence, the principle is generic requirements, stated by the chief architect or chief designer on how to reach the goals of the company, hence can only be properly explained by Bent Holter at Hegel.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Your idea of principles are very different form mine. According to my view, what you are saying is not really feasible. Principle has nothing to do with the design of a product but states the "rulebook" as to how a design is made.

A principle defines a general property that applies to any system in a certain context, a principle is motivated by some goal. The principle provides a means to realize its motivating goal, which is generally formulated as a guideline. This guideline constraints the design of all systems in a given context by stating the general properties that are required from any system in this context to realize the goal. Principles are intended to be more stable than requirements in the sense that they do not change as quickly as requirements may do. Organizational values, best practices, and design knowledge may be reflected and made applicable in terms of principles

Hence, the principle is generic requirements, stated by the chief architect or chief designer on how to reach the goals of the company, hence can only be properly explained by Bent Holter at Hegel.

haroldo, their products don't sound any better than anyone else. It doesn't matter what they tell you about their principles. Anything they say to you as a customer is biased and is presented to generate a sale. Save your money.

 

[haraldo]

haroldo, their products don't sound any better than anyone else. It doesn't matter what they tell you about their principles. Anything they say to you as a customer is biased and is presented to generate a sale. Save your money.

I don’t really care if something sounds better or worse.....
I care of there is genuine music, it feels real and it gives me genuine musical pleasure..... these are two different things

I can’t count the number of music systems I auditioned over the years , and that people raved about, that I find complete rubbish.... of course I will never buy then...

Out of 100 speaker pairs I audition, I may probably like two or three of them, what people say of this matter has no influence as to what I choose, I rely solely on my own opinion. If I test an amplifier at home, I may do something if it genuinely clearly gives me more musical pleasure. That’s the correct approach to me.

If some speakers create that incredible magic, I may go through fire to get them. But to me 97% of the products on the market is not made well enough....

Whatever people tell me is just talk, proof is in the pudding: Sit down and enjoy the music

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I don’t really care if something sounds better or worse.....
I care of there is genuine music, it feels real and it gives me genuine musical pleasure..... these are two different things

I can’t count the number of music systems I auditioned over the years , and that people raved about, that I find complete rubbish.... of course I will never buy then...

Out of 100 speaker pairs I audition, I may probably like two or three of them, what people say of this matter has no influence as to what I choose, I rely solely on my own opinion. If I test an amplifier at home, I may do something if it genuinely clearly gives me more musical pleasure. That’s the correct approach to me.

If some speakers create that incredible magic, I may go through fire to get them. But to me 97% of the products on the market is not made well enough....

Whatever people tell me is just talk, proof is in the pudding: Sit down and enjoy the music

You're picky.

 

[lovinthehd]

You're picky.

I think that's putting it mildly. Suum cuique in any case. Not my way of approaching gear nor my experience whatsoever. I really don't even understand this idea that the music itself is affected as mentioned, but that's me. YMMV of course.

 

[haraldo]

You're picky.

Yes, I am !

I think that's putting it mildly. Suum cuique in any case. Not my way of approaching gear nor my experience whatsoever. I really don't even understand this idea that the music itself is affected as mentioned, but that's me. YMMV of course.

IMHO, if equipment goes into the rig and it does not improve the musical experience it has no place... and should go. The only function for my system is to provide the best possible musical experience

 

[TLS Guy]

Yes, I am !


IMHO, if equipment goes into the rig and it does not improve the musical experience it has no place... and should go. The only function for my system is to provide the best possible musical experience

Well, I think that goes for all of us or should do. The question is how to do it. I suspect that those of us who have done this a long time, and don't just plug and play, develop our favored ways to that end. We have developed our favored methods of handling difficult issues of engineering. So in the end the illusion of the sound stage we create will become highly personal.

To that end I think there is room for far more DIY, and with it personal approaches than what actually occurs now. 40 to 50 years ago that was the rule. Now it is just connect the boxes. I strongly believe this is not the way to optimal results. I personally refuse to call that "building" a system.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Yes, I am !


IMHO, if equipment goes into the rig and it does not improve the musical experience it has no place... and should go. The only function for my system is to provide the best possible musical experience

Spoken like a true audiophile.

 

[haraldo]

The only function for my system is to provide the best possible musical experience

Oh, I forgot, there is one more thing, not so bad if people get very envyous when they see the amazing speakers , but that’s a secondary function....... LOL

I do my best for that not to be a criteria but it’s blee#ing difficult. Well, right now my speakers are just ugly black boxes!

Still some work to do, just moved in a month ago....
(My other speakers: Meadowlark Kestrel2 is in for repair / replacing tweeters)
Very simple system, but simple is often better
If you look at my signature, there is a lot of ”made in USA”
Actually, I never owned a Norwegian made product in my rig .... until half a year ago ....

One day, when all is done and works beautifully, the idea is to get a Hegel H590 into the rig and just see what happens.... I need to do something about room reflections and get my main speakers back before this. I should be able to borrow the H590 from a shop.

With respesct to previous post by TLS guy, at least there is some very slight DIY here with the granite plates for all the platforms where there is some custom soft rubber feet and then on top everything is spiked, very simple to do and makes a significant difference.... I made my own speakers many years ago, but products from John Dunlavy is 5 leagues above what I can do.

 

[haraldo]

Well, I think that goes for all of us or should do. The question is how to do it. I suspect that those of us who have done this a long time, and don't just plug and play, develop our favored ways to that end. We have developed our favored methods of handling difficult issues of engineering. So in the end the illusion of the sound stage we create will become highly personal.

To that end I think there is room for far more DIY, and with it personal approaches than what actually occurs now. 40 to 50 years ago that was the rule. Now it is just connect the boxes. I strongly believe this is not the way to optimal results. I personally refuse to call that "building" a system.

Very good post, and I agree wholeheartedly, but not everyone out here do have your skill set of making transmission line subwoofers

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Oh, I forgot, there is one more thing, not so bad if people get very envyous when they see the amazing speakers , but that’s a secondary function....... LOL

I do my best for that not to be a criteria but it’s blee#ing difficult. Well, right now my speakers are just ugly black boxes!

View attachment 26870

Still some work to do, just moved in a month ago....
(My other speakers: Meadowlark Kestrel2 is in for repair / replacing tweeters)
Very simple system, but simple is often better
If you look at my signature, there is a lot of ”made in USA”
Actually, I never owned a Norwegian made product in my rig .... until half a year ago ....
View attachment 26871

One day, when all is done and works beautifully, the idea is to get a Hegel H590 into the rig and just see what happens.... I need to do something about room reflections and get my main speakers back before this. I should be able to borrow the H590 from a shop.

With respesct to previous post by TLS guy, at least there is some very slight DIY here with the granite plates for all the platforms where there is some custom soft rubber feet and then on top everything is spiked, very simple to do and makes a significant difference.... I made my own speakers many years ago, but products from John Dunlavy is 5 leagues above what I can do.

I'm not envious of your components, I am envious of your beautiful view. Nice place.