Hi,
Did somebody still use:
mid/bass: C 220-T6-220 / c² 220NT6
tweeter: C 25N-6-13 / C² 13/6
I'm planing to use them as satellites in a three way with the C² 79/6 mid to complete my subwoofer (two Speaker HiFi 15SP300ti in 190 liters sealed lowpass 65Hz 24db).
Any feedback appreciated notably about power capabilities, x-over fr and slopes, loading.
Thanks.
Did somebody still use:
mid/bass: C 220-T6-220 / c² 220NT6
tweeter: C 25N-6-13 / C² 13/6
I'm planing to use them as satellites in a three way with the C² 79/6 mid to complete my subwoofer (two Speaker HiFi 15SP300ti in 190 liters sealed lowpass 65Hz 24db).
Any feedback appreciated notably about power capabilities, x-over fr and slopes, loading.
Thanks.
Here you have a similar design:
http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/milestones/index.html
The latest crossover:
http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?topic=32492.500
http://homepage.mac.com/marc.heijligers/audio/milestones/index.html
The latest crossover:
http://www.htforum.nl/yabbse/index.php?topic=32492.500
Guys,
Thanks for your links about the Soup and Milestones. In fact I builded the filter for the Soup of a friend of mine and also had the opportunity to listen to the Milestones in Holland.
But, aside the C2-79/6, my question was about the underhung neodym drivers that are different from the "classical" C220 and C2-12/6:
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/C220-NT6.pdf
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/C13-6.pdf
Thanks for your links about the Soup and Milestones. In fact I builded the filter for the Soup of a friend of mine and also had the opportunity to listen to the Milestones in Holland.
But, aside the C2-79/6, my question was about the underhung neodym drivers that are different from the "classical" C220 and C2-12/6:
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/C220-NT6.pdf
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/C13-6.pdf
Haha
War still continue. Shin, floppy cones indeed damp their resonances all over the spectrum; instead of pure tones you get damped resonances. With rigid cones, once you electrically damp their (high fr) main resonance you get ONE low harmonic allready fully damped and all the other fr remain clean and unaffected.
Cross the channel and go to Tony's or Marc's homes to really understand the issue of well designed accuton speakers!
War still continue. Shin, floppy cones indeed damp their resonances all over the spectrum; instead of pure tones you get damped resonances. With rigid cones, once you electrically damp their (high fr) main resonance you get ONE low harmonic allready fully damped and all the other fr remain clean and unaffected.
Cross the channel and go to Tony's or Marc's homes to really understand the issue of well designed accuton speakers!
crazyhub said:
With rigid cones, once you electrically damp their (high fr) main resonance you get ONE low harmonic allready fully damped and all the other fr remain clean and unaffected.
It not quite that simple. You can notch out the cone breakup but the fact remains that its still excited by the signal and it doesn't become a non issue, its part of the sound and colouration of rigid cones. Also you cannot damp a resonance electronically, your just lowering its initial level, the harmonics and the decays are exactly the same.
Your trading one set of problems for another, lets make that clear. Rigid cones, as they are now, aren't a step forward just another set of compromises. It pretty easy to buy into that whole true piston thing as the one true path. A quick look at bending wave, electrostatics, ribbons, planars and plasma tweeters will tell you that the path isn't so clear and simple.
IMO paper has been around since the very first loudspeaker and its still the best cone material. It just has the right balance of life and tonality when used correctly.
Cross the channel and go to Tony's or Marc's homes to really understand the issue of well designed accuton speakers!
Nah, I'll scratch my finger nails down this chalk board instead.
Shin,
Look at the dampening principles with more attention: dampening is reducing the energy whatever the way you make it, mechanicaly or electricaly, the result is a reduced energy. At the moment a resonance sees its amount of energy reduced, its harmonics or sub-harmonics will see their energy reduced in the same ratio. Indeed paper and other floppy materials have good dampening properties but because of their poor stifffness they inherently create several resonances at lower frequencies than rigid materials. Pure piston motion on the full spectrum IS the key of pure sound. Ask any good mechanical engeener: how could a rigid VC/former moving back and forth hundred or thousand times a second accurately transfer its energy to the air without a rigid material at the liaison of the cone and without a rigid cone? Accuton ceramic material is closer to this target than any other available material except diamond. Evidently all other parts of the driver have to be well designed: it's the case on the underhung/neodym range of Accuton...as well as the AT.
And please don't speak about other drivers principles, we are discussing about conventional electro-dynamic ones.
Look at the dampening principles with more attention: dampening is reducing the energy whatever the way you make it, mechanicaly or electricaly, the result is a reduced energy. At the moment a resonance sees its amount of energy reduced, its harmonics or sub-harmonics will see their energy reduced in the same ratio. Indeed paper and other floppy materials have good dampening properties but because of their poor stifffness they inherently create several resonances at lower frequencies than rigid materials. Pure piston motion on the full spectrum IS the key of pure sound. Ask any good mechanical engeener: how could a rigid VC/former moving back and forth hundred or thousand times a second accurately transfer its energy to the air without a rigid material at the liaison of the cone and without a rigid cone? Accuton ceramic material is closer to this target than any other available material except diamond. Evidently all other parts of the driver have to be well designed: it's the case on the underhung/neodym range of Accuton...as well as the AT.
And please don't speak about other drivers principles, we are discussing about conventional electro-dynamic ones.
crazyhub said:
That's just attenuating not damping.
A resonance is a time smearing of the original signal. By definition it extends in time relative to other frequencies around it. Notching out a resonance will attenuate it but does nothing to damp the signature of the time smear/decay.
So no, electronic means do not fix this problem as you suggest. Examples always work better in this sort of situation so here's one; I use digital room correction, which is very similar to notching out a driver resonance. It doesn't fix the room problems, they're still there. Only physical treatments will damp the room. You can no more influence a room mode EQ as you could a driver resonance.
You seem to place great faith in Accuton and engineering in general. Mechanical reproduction of sound is just that. What you say makes perfect sense but why doesn't it meet with reality and more importantly, music?
I'm suggesting some subjectivity here. I think we all start out wanting technically perfect but as you get further into this hobby you realise this route is a dead end and stops right where the recording limitations come in.
The best systems I've heard all have idiosyncrasis, these are the truly impressive ones. Coloured? Yes in comparison to the source but closer to the true nature of music for me.
IMO Accuton are the worst kind of high end driver for creating music. Great for producing sound though. Once you get fed up of that sound, come listen to some floppy cones and be moved rather than merely impressed.
And please don't speak about other drivers principles, we are discussing about conventional electro-dynamic ones.
Some transducer technologies positively embrace the antithesis of this ideal and yet still offer compelling experiences.
Its not as black and white as you believe.
ShinOBIWAN said:
My bad! Do I have to pay to watch?
I friend of mine that I visited last night has remade his 3' ribbons. Previously they were backed with some sort of plastic (mylar or somesuch). Now he's gone to doped paper (doped with hair-spray, that is). They're definitely stiffer, but he can't decide whether they're better or just the same as the previous design. From 500Hz up they're about the best I've ever heard.
Like Theil&Partner ceramics, they are very 'revealing' of flaws in the rest of the show - but they don't break when you play them too loud (or if they do, it costs about $0.50 to make a new pair). I liked the sound of the c12 tweeters when I heard them. But I also saw a pair that had disliked being attached to a 1st order crossover (lovely pieces of crunchy ceramic). All the other stuff you guys are talking about is a bit over my head...
Ramblings
Actually if it's a straightforward transfer function, where phase/frequency response are simply related, then the equivalent notch will have the same but opposite characteristics as the offending resonance in both the time and frequency domains.
When we were evaluating the Accutons about 4 (?) years ago, we got rid of the hf breakup, but didn't have good enough xo parts quality to hear them at their best. What discouraged us (besides the mid that mysteriously broke) was the poor dynamics. We decided that we had no solution for that issue, and gave up on them. At demos of speakers that use them, we hear them shown with chamber music and small group jazz, but no Mahler. Coincidence?
From there we went to the Audio Technology/Skaaning mid, filled polypropylene cone I believe, and it did it all. To my ears, the best poly/filled cones (Dynaudio & AT/Skaaning) seem to do a bit better in the stiffness/damping/breakup tradeoff than the best paper I've heard.
Actually if it's a straightforward transfer function, where phase/frequency response are simply related, then the equivalent notch will have the same but opposite characteristics as the offending resonance in both the time and frequency domains.
When we were evaluating the Accutons about 4 (?) years ago, we got rid of the hf breakup, but didn't have good enough xo parts quality to hear them at their best. What discouraged us (besides the mid that mysteriously broke) was the poor dynamics. We decided that we had no solution for that issue, and gave up on them. At demos of speakers that use them, we hear them shown with chamber music and small group jazz, but no Mahler. Coincidence?
From there we went to the Audio Technology/Skaaning mid, filled polypropylene cone I believe, and it did it all. To my ears, the best poly/filled cones (Dynaudio & AT/Skaaning) seem to do a bit better in the stiffness/damping/breakup tradeoff than the best paper I've heard.
Re: Ramblings
Hi Curmudgeon
Your talking about the electrical characteristics of a driver and yes these can be attended to with electronic means. Cone resonance is a physical characteristic of the driver and this cannot be fixed with filtering.
Pretty much my thoughts too - dynamically retarded. I don't think they even do sparse music justice either. Its all quite small in tonality and feeling. I've heard a number of Accuton based commercial systems this year and each time its always thin, sharp, precise and light. Bass from them just sounds wrong with seemingly incorrect decay that doesn't generate scale or space correctly. There's just some fundamentally wrong with the sound for my tastes.
I'm biased towards 'floppy' cones. Virtually all my projects and my favourite commercial speakers feature well damped materials ie. fabric domes, paper and polypropylene.
Curmudgeon said:
Hi Curmudgeon
Your talking about the electrical characteristics of a driver and yes these can be attended to with electronic means. Cone resonance is a physical characteristic of the driver and this cannot be fixed with filtering.
Pretty much my thoughts too - dynamically retarded. I don't think they even do sparse music justice either. Its all quite small in tonality and feeling. I've heard a number of Accuton based commercial systems this year and each time its always thin, sharp, precise and light. Bass from them just sounds wrong with seemingly incorrect decay that doesn't generate scale or space correctly. There's just some fundamentally wrong with the sound for my tastes.
I'm biased towards 'floppy' cones. Virtually all my projects and my favourite commercial speakers feature well damped materials ie. fabric domes, paper and polypropylene.
Shin,
When you make a comparison between cone break-up and room modes you are wrong. Room modes are standing waves (boncies on walls/floor...) with peaks and dips. They are hugely phase related because of the huge wave lenghts comparing to the area of a drivers cone. You can electronicaly reduce the peaks but you can never fill the dips.
As you said cone break-up have a mechanical origin mainly do to in-material wave propagation interfering alltogether and with the surrounding. Phase smearing doesn't cause audible time problems because of the small area of the cone and thus small wave lenghts.
I never spoke about cancelling the cause of these break-up but dampening the energy caused by the mechanical effect. And this you can make it electricaly or mechanicaly. The result is even better electricaly (evidently with a good notch) because no dampening material does accurately act on all the concerned frequencies.
Last but not least: dynamics!
If a driver is physicaly able to reproduce relatively linearly a given fr range and if its motor is well designed, you will get exactly the same (real) dynamics than with a similarly designed driver WHATEVER the cone material used. The "perceived" dynamic has to do with a lot of reasons but not with a type of membrane...and in my experience maily with the quality of the amp that control (or not) the driver motion.
When you make a comparison between cone break-up and room modes you are wrong. Room modes are standing waves (boncies on walls/floor...) with peaks and dips. They are hugely phase related because of the huge wave lenghts comparing to the area of a drivers cone. You can electronicaly reduce the peaks but you can never fill the dips.
As you said cone break-up have a mechanical origin mainly do to in-material wave propagation interfering alltogether and with the surrounding. Phase smearing doesn't cause audible time problems because of the small area of the cone and thus small wave lenghts.
I never spoke about cancelling the cause of these break-up but dampening the energy caused by the mechanical effect. And this you can make it electricaly or mechanicaly. The result is even better electricaly (evidently with a good notch) because no dampening material does accurately act on all the concerned frequencies.
Last but not least: dynamics!
If a driver is physicaly able to reproduce relatively linearly a given fr range and if its motor is well designed, you will get exactly the same (real) dynamics than with a similarly designed driver WHATEVER the cone material used. The "perceived" dynamic has to do with a lot of reasons but not with a type of membrane...and in my experience maily with the quality of the amp that control (or not) the driver motion.
tinitus wrote:
Yes sure but too efficient, too large cone area for what I want. I choosed the C2-220NT6 to get enough efficiency in the upper-bass low-mid ranges to mate the C79...and the C79 to mate the C2-13/6. The C2-90/T6 would need more bass output (I want substential BSC) and would not mate the C2-13/6 as the C79. And my subwoofer gives the low-bass I need.
crazyhub said:
They're quite comparable for the sake of the particulars of this debate.
Looking back I have to conclude that this tail chasing of posts circling the pan is because I'm not articulate enough to get across what I'm thinking up stairs. I seem to be looking at finding different ways to make the same points I've already brought up. It makes for a very boring read.
I'll have one last go and then leave it at that, simply because I know I'm right
Going back to the room comparison I made earlier. If you employ digital room correction(electronic) you can indeed lower these problems to create a more even response but the mode and resonance is still there albeit lowered in level. Correction experts such as Denis(DRC) and Uli(Acourate) agree that you can improve absolute in-room performance using such electronic correction methods by upto a maximum of around 30%.
Using such EQ tames the modes but never does it do anything to damp the resonance signatures associated it with them. Your simply shifting the influences lower down in level but they're audible all the same.
Now consider a cone resonance. You apply EQ (the notch filter) but does it damp the resonance as you suggested and I subsequently contested? Absolutely not. It attentuates and simply shifts the level down. If you took a CSD before and after a notch application then you'd see this. No damping occurs and just like the room, the problem is still there, its still part of the colouration but is made more manageable. This is the point I'm trying to get across, if you don't like my room analogy then fine but don't confuse that with my main point and that is you can't electronic damp a cone resonance.
Yes whichever direction you choose its a band aid at best. The drivers are still coloured just in a different manner to floppy cones. I don't like Accuton myself but plenty do.
PS. Please stop saying you can damp the cone resonance in the XO. You can attenuate it and its associated harmonics and thats it. This has been pretty much my whole point regardless of other symantics, well that and bashing Accuton
Last but not least: dynamics!
If a driver is physicaly able to reproduce relatively linearly a given fr range and if its motor is well designed, you will get exactly the same (real) dynamics than with a similarly designed driver WHATEVER the cone material used. The "perceived" dynamic has to do with a lot of reasons but not with a type of membrane...and in my experience maily with the quality of the amp that control (or not) the driver motion.
I'm no where near smart enough to know exactly why different drivers are perceived as more dynamic so I won't try to guess at the reasons and then state them as fact. Take a look at the Earl Geddes 'Dynamics in loudspeakers' thread for some interesting discussion in that direction. A quick gut feeling I have because I don't understand the principles at work:
Distortion components added over the original signal will add to the perceived volume level. Do these floppy cones distort more and does that distortion add to the dynamics and scale? At what point does this become objectionable?
The amplifier point is interesting though. BTW I heard the accuton's on the end of well respected amps - Boulder, ML and Analogue Research.
Peace out.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.