RT4001 is the best bang for the bucks i know of. Can't argue with that. And i did not.
But this is the World's best tweeters thread, and i don't think the RT4001 can have a place on the podium.
So far, i think the Top 10 would be filled with all the RAALs, maybe one Scan-Speak, the Dynaudio Esotar, maybe one of the Beyma AMTs and maybe one of the Tlab.
Never heard any plasma, though. So maybe a plasma.
Heard the great Heil, very interesting driver but i'd rather go with a Beyma or one of the top domes for a similar ''soft'' feeling....
That being said, the REAL test would be to try to spot them in a ABX blind test. Mono front-facing test, for the tone/FR, then in stereo for the imaging/dispersion, etc...
Better bang for the buck is the Tianle AMT
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/air-motion-transformers-amt/tianle-amt65-4-3.5-amt-tweeter/
@ $10 less than the RT4k1
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/air-motion-transformers-amt/tianle-amt65-4-3.5-amt-tweeter/
@ $10 less than the RT4k1
Yes, absolutely
That is just my personnal opinion.
Worthless if i fail to spot them in an ABX test.
I cross mine at 2kHz, but I need a big *** horn for that. And even after getting a flat response, I am not sure it is the best idea. But at the same time I am not sure I want to anything heavier than a alu ribbon from 2kHz and up, after getting used to this setup over period of a year.
Jon, first I want to tank you again for all your work on this project. I also loved your work on the mid-range project thoroughly.
I can see you are very, very fond of the RAAL drivers as well as many other folks and this may be for good reason. However I would really love to see a blind test of a few other ribbon, planar and AMT type tweeters brought into this test or another dedicated test if need be.
I would be very interested to see how some of the following would stack up in a blind test against the "true RAAL reference".
Dayton PT2C
Dayton AMT4
Aurum Cantus G1
Heil AMT
Viawave GRT-145 (maybe reaching on this one)
If the super excellent RAAL stands out among the rest in a blind test I will be persuaded to go down that road myself. I'd like to know if it is head and shoulders above the rest or if it's one of those situations where much greater cost translates to minimal performance increase. Nothing wrong with that of course for a lot of people.
I hope I haven't misinterpreted what you have said regarding the RAAL. I'm just very partial to these types of tweeter and would really like to know how they stack up.
-Rob
Last edited:
I would like to see the Viawave vs RAAL as well.
The Viawave is likely a heavier foil and a more rigid construction overall, however the Viawave will likley measure lower distortion, at least below about 3 khz where it may not matter much in this test?
The rather "highish" measured distortion of the RAAL is fundamental to ALL similar smaller free swing ribbons diaphragms.
The Viawave is likely a heavier foil and a more rigid construction overall, however the Viawave will likley measure lower distortion, at least below about 3 khz where it may not matter much in this test?
The rather "highish" measured distortion of the RAAL is fundamental to ALL similar smaller free swing ribbons diaphragms.
Yes larger surface area foil which is necessary for any reliability when using foils as thin as used in RAAL.
I dont know how the 70-20XR is different than the other RAALs but the Viawave has design particulars that can lead to lower distortion in a smaller ribbon compared to a more traditional free swinging ribbon of same size.
I dont know how the 70-20XR is different than the other RAALs but the Viawave has design particulars that can lead to lower distortion in a smaller ribbon compared to a more traditional free swinging ribbon of same size.
can u give link to that info?
my guess is that the Viawave foil is about 2X the RAAL foil thickness
OK did a little searching, looks like the Viawave is actually more like 3X foil thickness over RAAL.
Viawave says .018grams for 700 square mm area, RAAL says .018grams for 2100 square mm area.
This is what I expected based on looking at Viawaves construction and years of prototyping similar constructions as both Via and RAAL.
Last edited:
Hmmm so I look at RAAL 140-15D wich I believe uses same foil as all RAAL ribbons, about 4 micron.
It says in their spec that a 140mm long by 14mm wide is .022 grams
Viawave says .018 grams for ribbon 15mm wide by 50mm long
Thats a 3x difference in mass per unit area
Ive built literally hundreds of similar designs to both RAAL and VIa and I have never seen the 4 micron foil in any configuration last at 1.5 k crossover if it was smaller than the RAAL 140-15D
Last edited:
on the cheap a K-tube and good compression driver can be nice - a 5.3" long section of 1"ID pipe can be used for the tube. Initial gap 1/8" half-ellipse slot. Transylvania used a 2 degree sidewall taper in their tube, partly in conjunction with Karlson's first Acoustic Transducers patent.
http://i.imgur.com/6NMl2KB.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6NMl2KB.jpg
That number for the Via looks right. MY experience tells me you need foils about that thick to be reliable in a construction like the Via, however the .012 for the RAAL does not look right. It should be more like .004. where did you get the number for the RAAL?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.