Most importantly, we need some listening impressions to see if this is even going to be worthwhile. I have been following diligently with high hopes. I am excited you have decided to try out some super high-end drivers. This will either show how good the old ones are or how much room there was to upgrade. Hopefully the latter.
I feel like ULD is more appropriate. Maybe PTT since that is in the model name.
Have you given any thought to doing a Purifi Hamlet? that may let some people get the ULD factor while not diving too deep.
I feel like ULD is more appropriate. Maybe PTT since that is in the model name.
Have you given any thought to doing a Purifi Hamlet? that may let some people get the ULD factor while not diving too deep.
Way to early, but since that the impedance is slightly higher than the SB driver, it does lend to the thought. Soon there is a next year and who is to say?
Ok, put me on list 2 for now!
OK.
That's fair enough.
Last edited:
About the tweeter, I just want to pre-empt another suggestion. This is not to say that there are other drivers out there that are seemingly more expensive.
But ask yourself, if Scan-Speak were to bring out a tweeter with the quality of the waveguide added to the cost, it would not be a cheap tweeter. Indeed it is already for political reasons that the HDS/Scan-Speak/Discovery D2608 tweeter is not a much higher price.
I simply do not know a better tweeter with just the right characteristics that also make it special to use with a waveguide, almost regardless of any price.
Madisound sells it for USD $93.50 each. You are paying $75.00 each for the waveguide and that makes it USD $168.50 and now it looks a bit more premium - and yet it is a bargain.
How have done extensive tests on the Scan-Speak D3004/6600 tweeter and compared it to our HDS/D2608 tweeter and you can read my tests here:
Tweeter Distortion Tests
The D30004/6600 is USD $220 and I prefer the HDS/D2608/913000 based on those tests. Not just because of distortion but the HDS is 8 Ohm, the D30 is not. And yet it is 1.5dB higher in rated voltage sensitivity.
Now you add the waveguide!
And now it is not even close. Now our tweeter has massively lower distortion than either tweeter. And can you hear it? Oh yes! Then you have a crossover that is first-order and down -6dB @ 3KHz and yet below 1500 Hertz down at an extreme rate due to a null LC filter. This prevents almost any amplitude motion at the tweeter's resonance. And it is all about chasing the lowest distorttion.
I do not know any tweeter that I want to substitute it with!
So yes, this is the "Ultra-Low Distortion" tweeter we are going to use!
So there, I have put it as plainly as I can, OK!
But ask yourself, if Scan-Speak were to bring out a tweeter with the quality of the waveguide added to the cost, it would not be a cheap tweeter. Indeed it is already for political reasons that the HDS/Scan-Speak/Discovery D2608 tweeter is not a much higher price.
I simply do not know a better tweeter with just the right characteristics that also make it special to use with a waveguide, almost regardless of any price.
Madisound sells it for USD $93.50 each. You are paying $75.00 each for the waveguide and that makes it USD $168.50 and now it looks a bit more premium - and yet it is a bargain.
How have done extensive tests on the Scan-Speak D3004/6600 tweeter and compared it to our HDS/D2608 tweeter and you can read my tests here:
Tweeter Distortion Tests
The D30004/6600 is USD $220 and I prefer the HDS/D2608/913000 based on those tests. Not just because of distortion but the HDS is 8 Ohm, the D30 is not. And yet it is 1.5dB higher in rated voltage sensitivity.
Now you add the waveguide!
And now it is not even close. Now our tweeter has massively lower distortion than either tweeter. And can you hear it? Oh yes! Then you have a crossover that is first-order and down -6dB @ 3KHz and yet below 1500 Hertz down at an extreme rate due to a null LC filter. This prevents almost any amplitude motion at the tweeter's resonance. And it is all about chasing the lowest distorttion.
I do not know any tweeter that I want to substitute it with!
So yes, this is the "Ultra-Low Distortion" tweeter we are going to use!
So there, I have put it as plainly as I can, OK!
Last edited:
That is actually a good question and one that I have looked at. Look at the attachment (which I should be able to link into the text here), the drawing I have made, both drivers are very close to same scale:
As you can see that the centre of the voice, find the centre of the from plate where the gap is, and we can see that it is a bit deeper on the Purifi than on the SB17 driver. If you flush mount them, they are almost the same. So your answer is yes, there should not be a problem with that. It does simplify making the box front panel not have to to the rebating. It might also make it easier to convert a current EL-6 to Purifi, if some want to do that. You can make a simple (even slightly rough) filler that makes it flat and is hidden by the flange of the driver. It should not be beyond too many of the guys here.
What if we choose to rebate the Purifi drivers? The difference is still small enough not to make any real difference. So it is an individual choice.
OK, I have put you there. The Hamlet will be considered when we get the EL-6 "ULD" up and running. See the post above, how current EL-6 "MFC" and "NRX" boxes should be able to be converted to ULD without too much trouble. The length of the port might change, more likely shorter but maybe not, and some not too radical changes to the crossover.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yeah, I always try meticulously to cut it down unless it is very short.
I have not yet come across anything on Purifi's website, but it seems people have just seen pictures?
There is a guy called Carsten and he used to be with Peerless and the Peerless drivers we used earlier, they could also be mounted both ways. So maybe that is his influence talking? There is part of the venting behind the dustcap where Purifi does not use the vented pole piece like SB, where you can see a hole behind the magnet structure, the Purifi drivers use a different method and is the same as used by Peerless - and here Carsten's influence in the design is noted by Lars Risbo in a YouTube video. Sorry if this does not interest you, but it's more for nerds like me.
______
On another matter, this week also talking to a company that will build three pairs of cabinets and how long. The first pair I get will be used for finalising the design. I think these will be rebated as it will be professionally done.
Hi Steff
Sorry I didn't reply right away, so many distractions. I have no problem with the width of the Elsinores be 28cm and then going back 45° backwards rather that a 90° normal right angle. Does this answer your question?
No, a potential nightmare to design. Besides, for complex (not immediately obvious) reasons, one should not shrimp on the bottom two drivers. In order to keep sensitivity high, the bottom driver does augment well into the midrange and are almost as important as the top two drivers. Then you also have alignment issues unless you make two deparate internal enclosures/volumes. Not desirable.
But I understand the question had to be asked by someone, so that's OK.
Yes, thanks for the input.
Last edited:
The latter, just stay in touch. So I guess you are interested or committed. I am trying to give Purifi an idea of the interest and maybe they will return with a favourable deal.