re: diamond drivers
My understanding is that the reason that the diamond drivers are so expensive is that there's a very high failure rate in production of the diaphragms (sp?). Seems like B&W has worked that out. There diamond editions don't seem to come at such a dear cost as the Accutons.
My understanding is that the reason that the diamond drivers are so expensive is that there's a very high failure rate in production of the diaphragms (sp?). Seems like B&W has worked that out. There diamond editions don't seem to come at such a dear cost as the Accutons.
re: accuton drivers
Hermanv,
Yes, I've noticed the dynamic limitations you speak of. More on the low end of the dynamic scale than on the upper end. I think the C95 is a lot easier to work with than the other midrange drivers. Yes, you give up some resolution to some of the smaller drivers, but it's not exactly lacking in that department compared to the majority of drivers on the market.
And yes, the drivers will tell you if you've mucked something up upstream. Wire, crossover component quality and placement, resonances in the system etc.
I'm hoping that these new underhung/effecient (relatively speaking) drivers are going to have better dynamic qualities. We shall see.
Cheers
Hermanv,
Yes, I've noticed the dynamic limitations you speak of. More on the low end of the dynamic scale than on the upper end. I think the C95 is a lot easier to work with than the other midrange drivers. Yes, you give up some resolution to some of the smaller drivers, but it's not exactly lacking in that department compared to the majority of drivers on the market.
And yes, the drivers will tell you if you've mucked something up upstream. Wire, crossover component quality and placement, resonances in the system etc.
I'm hoping that these new underhung/effecient (relatively speaking) drivers are going to have better dynamic qualities. We shall see.
Cheers
dsrviola:
I'm pretty sure virtually all audiophiles wish you luck in your development. I am currently using the electrostatic M-L ReQuests. The problem with ESL speakers in general is the monsterous size required for them to do a truly good job and the accompanying large room then required to hold the monsters.
If a cone driver could achieve that breathtaking clarity, magically coupled with the complete lack of strain that ESL do so well, we have something. The ESL of course only performs this magical behavior over the midband. To acheive the same for bass they need to be huge and in a way the same problem exisits for the upper registers, a portion of the total area must be dedicated to treble thereby subtracting from the area available for bass or midrange.
I'm inventing a rule, we'll call it Herman's rule for now. It only applies to passive crossovers. "The price of the crossover components for one driver should equal or exceed the price of the driver". It's a little silly, I know but my friend and I wasted quite a lot of time fixing problems that were eventually traced to inadequate capacitors and coils. Looking back there are cases where we could still improve our design by upgrading a couple of capacitors to well beyond the driver cost.
Please let us know how your experiments turn out.
I'm pretty sure virtually all audiophiles wish you luck in your development. I am currently using the electrostatic M-L ReQuests. The problem with ESL speakers in general is the monsterous size required for them to do a truly good job and the accompanying large room then required to hold the monsters.
If a cone driver could achieve that breathtaking clarity, magically coupled with the complete lack of strain that ESL do so well, we have something. The ESL of course only performs this magical behavior over the midband. To acheive the same for bass they need to be huge and in a way the same problem exisits for the upper registers, a portion of the total area must be dedicated to treble thereby subtracting from the area available for bass or midrange.
I'm inventing a rule, we'll call it Herman's rule for now. It only applies to passive crossovers. "The price of the crossover components for one driver should equal or exceed the price of the driver". It's a little silly, I know but my friend and I wasted quite a lot of time fixing problems that were eventually traced to inadequate capacitors and coils. Looking back there are cases where we could still improve our design by upgrading a couple of capacitors to well beyond the driver cost.
Please let us know how your experiments turn out.
While Estats (I've only heard Martin Logans) can do some truly magical things, I've never been able to get past certain limitations: the very top of the treble range, and their off axis response (especially in my current listening room.) I could never live with a dipole in my current digs. I also find the plastic character of the ESL panels distracting at times.
As for crossover parts, I'm right there with you. I'm using foil inductors, mills resistors (sound much better than the Caddocks I've tried with the exception of an unobtainium line that they only manufaturer on special order), and I've been using AudioCap Theta's. And the wiring is important too! I've also played with different materials for the driver baffles. Unfortunately, it all makes a difference, and with the Accutons in the loop, it's almost always a __significant__ difference.
As for tubes, I'll be getting some eventually. (why oh why did I sell my VAC amp?) But first, to get the speaker design nailed down a bit.
Cheers
As for crossover parts, I'm right there with you. I'm using foil inductors, mills resistors (sound much better than the Caddocks I've tried with the exception of an unobtainium line that they only manufaturer on special order), and I've been using AudioCap Theta's. And the wiring is important too! I've also played with different materials for the driver baffles. Unfortunately, it all makes a difference, and with the Accutons in the loop, it's almost always a __significant__ difference.
As for tubes, I'll be getting some eventually. (why oh why did I sell my VAC amp?) But first, to get the speaker design nailed down a bit.
Cheers
Dipoles
To my ears the plastic panel issue is inversely proportional to the ESL panel size, that is, the bigger the ESL panels the less the effect (smaller excursion?).
My room is actually too small for the Requests. While drooling over the SoundLabs A1 speakers on line, I noticed they sold a back wave absorber panel.
Having found that wool felt seemed to be the best material to line the inside of speaker cabinets, I found a place that sold only natural carpets. I ended up buying felt underlayment. I think it was 50% wool, 30% camel hair and the rest a mixture that included some synthetics. It was inexpensive, at least by audiophile standards.
I hung 8 X 8 foot sheets so they wrapped around the corner behind my speakers. Floor to ceiling and more or less 4 feet behind and 4 feet along the side walls. My speakers sit about 4 feet out from the back wall and are toed in a tad so the underlayment catches most all of the rear energy, especially the treble where the time differential of the first reflection was most objectionable. I was lucky, the walls were paneled with a walnut paneling so the base color made the felt unobtrusive.
The end result was a very clean sound. Dipoles are different and require different techniques for best results. Becasue my room is also narrow the ESL avoided many sidewall issues, an advantage over conventional speakers.
This confirmed for me that room treatment is most important and further that the room treatment may be different depending on the kind of speakers you use.
To my ears the plastic panel issue is inversely proportional to the ESL panel size, that is, the bigger the ESL panels the less the effect (smaller excursion?).
My room is actually too small for the Requests. While drooling over the SoundLabs A1 speakers on line, I noticed they sold a back wave absorber panel.
Having found that wool felt seemed to be the best material to line the inside of speaker cabinets, I found a place that sold only natural carpets. I ended up buying felt underlayment. I think it was 50% wool, 30% camel hair and the rest a mixture that included some synthetics. It was inexpensive, at least by audiophile standards.
I hung 8 X 8 foot sheets so they wrapped around the corner behind my speakers. Floor to ceiling and more or less 4 feet behind and 4 feet along the side walls. My speakers sit about 4 feet out from the back wall and are toed in a tad so the underlayment catches most all of the rear energy, especially the treble where the time differential of the first reflection was most objectionable. I was lucky, the walls were paneled with a walnut paneling so the base color made the felt unobtrusive.
The end result was a very clean sound. Dipoles are different and require different techniques for best results. Becasue my room is also narrow the ESL avoided many sidewall issues, an advantage over conventional speakers.
This confirmed for me that room treatment is most important and further that the room treatment may be different depending on the kind of speakers you use.
If I had a long listening room with a listening position at one end, I'd more than consider a dipole speaker. A good box is no box! However my room is quite odd: it's T shaped. (I was going to attach a pic, but the file is too large. Anyone know how to compress photo files?)
Unfortunately, in my listening environment, a good portion of my listening is done way WAY off axis, so dispersion is important for proper tonal balance. In my previous room, the speakers were at one end, and listening (whether listening in the sweet spot or in the kitchen) was done at the other. Perfect for dipoles. Oh well.
Unfortunately, in my listening environment, a good portion of my listening is done way WAY off axis, so dispersion is important for proper tonal balance. In my previous room, the speakers were at one end, and listening (whether listening in the sweet spot or in the kitchen) was done at the other. Perfect for dipoles. Oh well.
Two more...
...companies using the C90 in their flagships:
http://www.isophon.de/pages/isophon.pages.php?id=de_800
http://www.shows.soundstagelive.com/shows/avtour2005/frk_showstoppers_3.shtml
...companies using the C90 in their flagships:
http://www.isophon.de/pages/isophon.pages.php?id=de_800
http://www.shows.soundstagelive.com/shows/avtour2005/frk_showstoppers_3.shtml
C13 + C90 + C220 ?
Hi Tony,
looking at your site i noticed tour SOUP-design. Simply great...and i heared from people that they sound even better then they look !
And till now i heared a lot of Accuton's that i liked. So i'm planning to make a similar loudspeaker.
Although i'm quite familiar with tube amplifiers (even made a 833 amp) crossover and the likes are new to me.
For my tube amps i'm looking for the last dB of efficiency; and the new drivers of Accuton seems a logical step in my direction.
The combination of C13 + C90 + C220NT6 does seems in the same order of efficacy. But crossover-wise ??
Do you have hints of this driver set-up for me ? Do you have experience with the new Accuton-units ?
Looking forward to your reply,
Regards, Reinout
(also from the Netherlands....and looking forward to the next DDIY-meeting)
Hi Tony,
looking at your site i noticed tour SOUP-design. Simply great...and i heared from people that they sound even better then they look !
And till now i heared a lot of Accuton's that i liked. So i'm planning to make a similar loudspeaker.
Although i'm quite familiar with tube amplifiers (even made a 833 amp) crossover and the likes are new to me.
For my tube amps i'm looking for the last dB of efficiency; and the new drivers of Accuton seems a logical step in my direction.
The combination of C13 + C90 + C220NT6 does seems in the same order of efficacy. But crossover-wise ??
Do you have hints of this driver set-up for me ? Do you have experience with the new Accuton-units ?
Looking forward to your reply,
Regards, Reinout
(also from the Netherlands....and looking forward to the next DDIY-meeting)
The cost for these drivers actually most likely has less to do with the parts and more with production costs. They have to allocate the costs of production into the sale price to actually make a product. Things like manufacturing overhead, salaries, insurance, rent, allocation for failures, allowance for doubtful accounts, etc. all get placed into the price of the product.
In the end, I think they may be making a much smaller margin even with an $800 driver, if their production quantity is pretty low...higher volume drivers may help with the cost allocation though, but the less of something you make the more it will cost you. Economies of scale, really.
B&W may have a lower price on their daimond drivers because they just make so many of them. Accuton might not get that benefit from a lower volume of production.
Oh, 5th, I did have a single accuton midrange I got from a friend to toy with a few years ago. A friend took off the grille, poked it and put a hole in the cone. Cut his finger too. No more accuton for me, that's for sure (too many curious fingers in my family).
Ceramic driver costs
The ceramic cone is so fragile that even touching it with your finger can shatter it. (No they won't break if you play them loud)
Many break during assembly and some probably come out of the oven already broken. You can guess that the production yield is therefore small driving the cost sky high.
The ceramic cone is so fragile that even touching it with your finger can shatter it. (No they won't break if you play them loud)
Many break during assembly and some probably come out of the oven already broken. You can guess that the production yield is therefore small driving the cost sky high.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.