Hitsware, what are "those" ?
GM , you said :
"Yeah, the B20 needs the usual tweaks all cheap drivers need, but your 7 ft long pipe is too long for the driver's specs and it needs a ~3x greater CSA for it to 'breathe', so little wonder it had no 'snap' and no doubt very unbalanced presentation through the mids, especially with the bipole's ~6x too small CSA."
How is 7' too long , doesn't 7' correlate to 40hz unstuffed ?
Perhaps I am being too quick to judge them , but I was mightily UN-impressed with them.
I only used them in the 7' folded line, but I did play with stuffing and wall damping materials.
I forget the exact dimensions, but they were 7' long and the CSA was about 48" sq. (6"x8" or so). I did end up using them with a single driver as Monopoles , as they had too much air movement at the terminus when run Bipolar .
I built them about 10 years ago, so I know a lil bit more now then I did then. Perhaps things would be different if I tried a set now.
They ended up as a set of replacements for a friends pair of Blose 301 drivers. IIRC , I ended up cutting the whizzers off completely in that setup.
Bass still doesn't have the "snap" or attack that I like.
Although I guess even my beloved 'Rads fall a lil short in that area , too. Wrong baffle dimensions , or driver shortcomings ?
I did use a tweet at a later date, it was a Motorola direct radiator Piezo, I think an 1138 ? No crossover, sounded like terrible transistor noise. Too bad, as it measured excellent from 4k to 40k. I should have tried a x-over, but didn't . I dunno what even happened to those tweets ......
..........................Blake
GM , you said :
"Yeah, the B20 needs the usual tweaks all cheap drivers need, but your 7 ft long pipe is too long for the driver's specs and it needs a ~3x greater CSA for it to 'breathe', so little wonder it had no 'snap' and no doubt very unbalanced presentation through the mids, especially with the bipole's ~6x too small CSA."
How is 7' too long , doesn't 7' correlate to 40hz unstuffed ?
Perhaps I am being too quick to judge them , but I was mightily UN-impressed with them.
I only used them in the 7' folded line, but I did play with stuffing and wall damping materials.
I forget the exact dimensions, but they were 7' long and the CSA was about 48" sq. (6"x8" or so). I did end up using them with a single driver as Monopoles , as they had too much air movement at the terminus when run Bipolar .
I built them about 10 years ago, so I know a lil bit more now then I did then. Perhaps things would be different if I tried a set now.
They ended up as a set of replacements for a friends pair of Blose 301 drivers. IIRC , I ended up cutting the whizzers off completely in that setup.
Bass still doesn't have the "snap" or attack that I like.
Although I guess even my beloved 'Rads fall a lil short in that area , too. Wrong baffle dimensions , or driver shortcomings ?
I did use a tweet at a later date, it was a Motorola direct radiator Piezo, I think an 1138 ? No crossover, sounded like terrible transistor noise. Too bad, as it measured excellent from 4k to 40k. I should have tried a x-over, but didn't . I dunno what even happened to those tweets ......
..........................Blake
http://www.howhy.net/HARTLEY-LUTH-Loudspeakers-1950s,i220246606560,c132.html
I think they are still in very limited production.
I think they are still in very limited production.
Nihilist said:
Close enough, but there's the pipe's end correction to factor in that will shorten its length, but more importantly is that once you stuff it enough to smooth its response out it will dramatically lower Fp if its CSA isn't large enough. Your pipe is probably tuned closer to 20 Hz depending on the amount/type of damping material used.
Anyway, they're probably so over-damped it wouldn't surprise me if its acoustic mass was deforming the B20's rather flacid diaphragm, not only killing any transient 'snap', but possibly causing more audible harmonic distortion than it already does. Consequently these drivers need a big box to 'breathe'.
Bottom line, these drivers are never going to be 'HIFI', but considering all the tweaking you did they should be quite entertaining in a 'toe tapping', DJ party sort of way.
Don't have a clue about Calrads, I seem to have missed these in my 'travels' through the entry level drivers.
The Motorola KSN1138 was a very good piezo if properly XO'd and its body damped with modeling clay, something few folks knew how to do and/or bothered since the XO cost more than it.
GM
I tried the B20's in the Lines with and without closed cell foam on the walls, and Polyfil behind the driver(s).
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8752/b20linescq5.png
Never could get rid of that cupped , congested mid/vocal range.
They played pretty high volumes without stressing. Why would they need more CSA than the driver's area ? Qts ?
Never had any treble to speak of. As Hitsware said, I've heard woofers with better upper range response.
As I said , I had these some time ago. The cabs were discarded some years ago, and the drivers are doing service in a friends set of Blose 301's.
They never had any driver tweaks, and I'm sure if I had some now, things would be different. I just don't see how people seem to find them so great, especially stock.
FWIW, I would HARDLY call the CalRads "entry level" . Perhaps some of their drivers could be called such , but I would put mine up against any current driver in a heartbeat.
One thing is for sure, they SMOKE the B20's , without question, in EVERY way.
.......................................Blake
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8752/b20linescq5.png
Never could get rid of that cupped , congested mid/vocal range.
They played pretty high volumes without stressing. Why would they need more CSA than the driver's area ? Qts ?
Never had any treble to speak of. As Hitsware said, I've heard woofers with better upper range response.
As I said , I had these some time ago. The cabs were discarded some years ago, and the drivers are doing service in a friends set of Blose 301's.
They never had any driver tweaks, and I'm sure if I had some now, things would be different. I just don't see how people seem to find them so great, especially stock.
FWIW, I would HARDLY call the CalRads "entry level" . Perhaps some of their drivers could be called such , but I would put mine up against any current driver in a heartbeat.
One thing is for sure, they SMOKE the B20's , without question, in EVERY way.
.......................................Blake
If foam is used it should only be open cell. Closed cell will actually further reduce pipe Vb.
Pipe Vb calcs are more complex than sealed or vented alignments due to how the stuffing affects it, but I found that using basic T/S to calc a +3 dB peaking at Fb for whatever alignment I was interested in, then dividing the pipe length into it yielded a large enough CSA to get good performance. One of these days I need to compare my rule of thumb to MJK's Classic TL math to see how I fared.
From what you've told us though, you 'strangled' them pretty good, so I've no doubt they sounded cupped/congested regardless of the configuration and as has been repeatedly posted and shown in measurements, they drop like a stone above ~7 kHz and if you cut off the whizzer it's more like ~3.5 kHz.
Well, I've only seen the Calrad name as comparable to LaFayette, Olson, etc., which I consider entry level, though in today's $$ they would be at least 3-4x more than the B20, so I imagine the Calrads would be too, so hardly a fair comparison.
So you think the Calrads can compete with Lowthers or AERs, eh?
GM
Pipe Vb calcs are more complex than sealed or vented alignments due to how the stuffing affects it, but I found that using basic T/S to calc a +3 dB peaking at Fb for whatever alignment I was interested in, then dividing the pipe length into it yielded a large enough CSA to get good performance. One of these days I need to compare my rule of thumb to MJK's Classic TL math to see how I fared.
From what you've told us though, you 'strangled' them pretty good, so I've no doubt they sounded cupped/congested regardless of the configuration and as has been repeatedly posted and shown in measurements, they drop like a stone above ~7 kHz and if you cut off the whizzer it's more like ~3.5 kHz.
Well, I've only seen the Calrad name as comparable to LaFayette, Olson, etc., which I consider entry level, though in today's $$ they would be at least 3-4x more than the B20, so I imagine the Calrads would be too, so hardly a fair comparison.
So you think the Calrads can compete with Lowthers or AERs, eh?
GM
"So you think the Calrads can compete with Lowthers or AERs, eh? "
Never heard any. By the looks of their response and construction, sure.
My Rads don't need any circuitry to sound nice, they were designed that way. Shouty ? Not here.
Know anyone near Chicago that would be interested in a comparison ?
..........................Blake
Never heard any. By the looks of their response and construction, sure.
My Rads don't need any circuitry to sound nice, they were designed that way. Shouty ? Not here.
Know anyone near Chicago that would be interested in a comparison ?
..........................Blake
No, though I'd be surprised if there aren't some Lowther owners. If you're serious, I imagine these folks can hook you up with a local or two: http://www.lowtherspeakers.com/contact.html
Looks are deceiving, it's like looking at an old car that's been 'stealth' hotrodded.
No need for filters normally implies either low efficiency and/or limited useful BW, so I don't find the need for response shaping a big deal since a wide BW, high eff. driver gives me some tuning options.
Anyway, for whatever reason Calrads are rarely spoken of on the forums I've browsed and never in terms of high SQ that I've read beyond being competent, so while I have no doubt it probably 'smokes' a stock B20, pardon me for being highly skeptical it can compete with drivers known for their clarity, inner detail.
GM
Looks are deceiving, it's like looking at an old car that's been 'stealth' hotrodded.
No need for filters normally implies either low efficiency and/or limited useful BW, so I don't find the need for response shaping a big deal since a wide BW, high eff. driver gives me some tuning options.
Anyway, for whatever reason Calrads are rarely spoken of on the forums I've browsed and never in terms of high SQ that I've read beyond being competent, so while I have no doubt it probably 'smokes' a stock B20, pardon me for being highly skeptical it can compete with drivers known for their clarity, inner detail.
GM
I'll have to look into that link.
The frames look good. Just can't see how a driver that is so peaky and has such a rising response is considered the "creme of the crop" .
AER's and Lowther's are completely different animals than my Rads. As far as I know , the AER's and Lowthers require a BLH of some sort for any bass output/extension. My 'Rads are at home pumpin out the bass on an OB .
I would imagine the cabinets will impart much different sonics , and a straight up comparo with same style cabinets will obviously benefit one driver or the other.
No, I'm not backpedaling. I would like to hear the difference between them. I may have heard some Lowther's at the Chicago HiFi show, but that was nearly 10 years ago. Can't seem to remember any Lowther based cabs though......
I would say the Rads are lower efficiency than the AER's/Lowthers, but are much smoother (no circuits needed) and have VERY good BW. Mind you , this is only a 28"Wx 46"T baffle , no wings, sides, top, or bottom.
(generalisation)Can you really call them 100+ db when they need 8db of attenuation from a BSC or notch filter ? Or both ?
How efficient is a typical Lowther/AER setup once the circuits are in place ?
Perhaps I'm showing some ignorance here, but I couldn't help but say something when you commented on the Rads being "entry level". They certainly aren't .
...........................Blake
The frames look good. Just can't see how a driver that is so peaky and has such a rising response is considered the "creme of the crop" .
AER's and Lowther's are completely different animals than my Rads. As far as I know , the AER's and Lowthers require a BLH of some sort for any bass output/extension. My 'Rads are at home pumpin out the bass on an OB .
I would imagine the cabinets will impart much different sonics , and a straight up comparo with same style cabinets will obviously benefit one driver or the other.
No, I'm not backpedaling. I would like to hear the difference between them. I may have heard some Lowther's at the Chicago HiFi show, but that was nearly 10 years ago. Can't seem to remember any Lowther based cabs though......
I would say the Rads are lower efficiency than the AER's/Lowthers, but are much smoother (no circuits needed) and have VERY good BW. Mind you , this is only a 28"Wx 46"T baffle , no wings, sides, top, or bottom.
(generalisation)Can you really call them 100+ db when they need 8db of attenuation from a BSC or notch filter ? Or both ?
How efficient is a typical Lowther/AER setup once the circuits are in place ?
Perhaps I'm showing some ignorance here, but I couldn't help but say something when you commented on the Rads being "entry level". They certainly aren't .
...........................Blake
Nihilist said:
Sure they are. At the risk of putting words into his mouth, it depends on what one regards as a minimum standard of quality -GM's is stringent, for what he would regard as hifi, rather than background, apps.
Nihilist said:
Easy. a) there's more to life than a perfectly flat FR -it's a primary goal to be sure, but the ways of achieving as close to it as possible in this life are many, and not everyone is all that bothered by some fluctuations. And b) Lowthers are intended for horn loading (you can use them in other ways, but horns are the primary intent). Ergo, they are designed that way for a reason -lowish Q & rising response to help counter the damping provided by the horn etc.
Step loss is inherent to any and every speaker system. It's nothing to do with the driver -it's an effect of the baffle size. The Calrads would require the same level of correction for a given baffle size.
>Step loss is inherent to any and every speaker system.
>It's nothing to do with the driver -it's an effect of the baffle size. >The Calrads would require the same level of correction for a >given baffle size.
Not so. The Calrads would require less (or perhaps no)
correction due to the built in correction afforded by the
higher Q.
>It's nothing to do with the driver -it's an effect of the baffle size. >The Calrads would require the same level of correction for a >given baffle size.
Not so. The Calrads would require less (or perhaps no)
correction due to the built in correction afforded by the
higher Q.
"Sure they are. At the risk of putting words into his mouth, it depends on what one regards as a minimum standard of quality -GM's is stringent, for what he would regard as hifi, rather than background, apps. "
GM has said he hasn't ever heard any himself, and his comment was based on others saying CalRads are "entry level". I agreed that there certainly are CalRads in that category , however, I believe that the particular model I speak of is far beyond entry level.
"Easy. a) there's more to life than a perfectly flat FR -it's a primary goal to be sure, but the ways of achieving as close to it as possible in this life are many, and not everyone is all that bothered by some fluctuations."
I understand that flat response is not the end all be all of loudspeakers. I am of the belief that simplicity is the key , and that is why I find it so important that a driver doesn't need corrective circuitry or cabinet augmentation to make it's performance acceptable.
" And b) Lowthers are intended for horn loading (you can use them in other ways, but horns are the primary intent). Ergo, they are designed that way for a reason -lowish Q & rising response to help counter the damping provided by the horn etc. "
Then they are very limited in their applications, wouldn't you say ? They can be used in other applications, with corrective circuitry , but their performance really falls short without the use of a horn and/or filters. Without the use of a horn, they are hardly what one would call "full range".
It could be argued that a horn is itself a detractor of detail, lending it's own voice to the reproduction. There are MANY reflections through the horn passage that can cause all kinds of frequency and phase related problems.
This is getting far beyond the initial intent of my previous post. I only contended that the CR-12A's were above entry level, and that I thought they could stand up to any scrutiny/comparison.
"Step loss is inherent to any and every speaker system. It's nothing to do with the driver -it's an effect of the baffle size. The Calrads would require the same level of correction for a given baffle size."
I think Hitsware covered this pretty well. An increase in the baffle size will certainly reduce step loss for any speaker , although it will affect some speakers more or less than others due to the construction of the driver .
.............................Blake
GM has said he hasn't ever heard any himself, and his comment was based on others saying CalRads are "entry level". I agreed that there certainly are CalRads in that category , however, I believe that the particular model I speak of is far beyond entry level.
"Easy. a) there's more to life than a perfectly flat FR -it's a primary goal to be sure, but the ways of achieving as close to it as possible in this life are many, and not everyone is all that bothered by some fluctuations."
I understand that flat response is not the end all be all of loudspeakers. I am of the belief that simplicity is the key , and that is why I find it so important that a driver doesn't need corrective circuitry or cabinet augmentation to make it's performance acceptable.
" And b) Lowthers are intended for horn loading (you can use them in other ways, but horns are the primary intent). Ergo, they are designed that way for a reason -lowish Q & rising response to help counter the damping provided by the horn etc. "
Then they are very limited in their applications, wouldn't you say ? They can be used in other applications, with corrective circuitry , but their performance really falls short without the use of a horn and/or filters. Without the use of a horn, they are hardly what one would call "full range".
It could be argued that a horn is itself a detractor of detail, lending it's own voice to the reproduction. There are MANY reflections through the horn passage that can cause all kinds of frequency and phase related problems.
This is getting far beyond the initial intent of my previous post. I only contended that the CR-12A's were above entry level, and that I thought they could stand up to any scrutiny/comparison.
"Step loss is inherent to any and every speaker system. It's nothing to do with the driver -it's an effect of the baffle size. The Calrads would require the same level of correction for a given baffle size."
I think Hitsware covered this pretty well. An increase in the baffle size will certainly reduce step loss for any speaker , although it will affect some speakers more or less than others due to the construction of the driver .
.............................Blake
hitsware said:
Ah, we're talking OBs here are we? I wasn't aware. Well, I've no idea about these thing's Qt, & haven't the time or inclination to go hunting for them, but assuming it's high, so they're nominally underdamped, then they'll produce more usable energy at a lower frequency than a more highly damped driver / one with a more powerful motor.
That said, FR drivers sans LF support on OBs are not exactly what I'd call ideal when it comes to wide BW hifi, so as far as I'm concerned the Q of the wideband unit is a moot point -I'd take a better damped unit with a more powerful motor & cross to a decent LF unit any day of the week rather than keeping things 'pure' (as some say) & trying to make do with just the one.
To each their own, but I'm with GM on this. If you like them of course, great.
In principle I'd agree that simplicity is a laudible goal. However, to paraphrase Einstein, everything in life should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. We all have our different definitions of what is acceptable.
Assuming that was the case, is that supposed to be a problem? I wouldn't take a Bentley across a ploughed field, but does that mean it's suddenly become a bad car? In reality, it's not the case -as you observe, they can by used in other apps. Depending on what it is, you can run them with LF support, with some form of Eq should it be required by the design etc. I'm not certain why this means their performance has fallen short?
To be honest, I don't regard any FR driver irrespective of the way it's loaded to be genuinely full range, and an unsupported FR driver run OB will almost certainly have the worst usable frequency & dynamic BW of them all. However, if it's not required to play demanding material, some people may find it adequate for their needs. Not a compromise I could ever accept, but YMMV as usual.
Doesn't that depend on the horn?
Oddly enough, I do know something about horn design. Which is one of the reasons I'm not personally all that fussed about what most people regard as BLHs, although given that they are operating where our hearing is mediocre at best, it's less of a problem there than elsewhere in the FR range. Front horns, properly designed, OTOH, are much more like it, although naturally, they will require LF support. In reality, for proper wide BW use, all FR drivers, irrespective of how they're loaded, require LF support. And HF support. And... Put it this way: anyone who thinks a single FR unit can properly handle, say, Pink Floyd in Pompii, or some of Bach's organ pieces, is sadly mistaken. You need multiple HE woofers per channel to even get near those kind of SPL & dynamic requirements, plus support at the top end too. We're back to which compromises people find acceptable again.
See my post above. Actually, it won't reduce the step loss of a speaker system; it will merely push it to a lower frequency. Of course, if you can push it low enough, you might be able to cancel it out with room-gain, although that depends on both room & the nature of the speaker system. OB's for example, tend to pick up less gain from the room as less energy is expended on activating resonant modes (about 30% less, per Linkwitz)
Based on your last post, it seems you don't think a FR driver is a reasonable means of reproduction without a tweeter or woofer.
Guess were talking about a wide bandwidth midrange in a 3 way system then ?
No thanks. Multiway speakers can sound quite good, but my focus , concerning this post and my own current listening , revolves around single driver wide bandwidth/full range devices.
I thought that's what we were talking about ?
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific . Stock raw driver against any other stock raw driver, I think I would be hard pressed to find something that sounded better than what I am currently running.
..............................Blake
Guess were talking about a wide bandwidth midrange in a 3 way system then ?
No thanks. Multiway speakers can sound quite good, but my focus , concerning this post and my own current listening , revolves around single driver wide bandwidth/full range devices.
I thought that's what we were talking about ?
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific . Stock raw driver against any other stock raw driver, I think I would be hard pressed to find something that sounded better than what I am currently running.
..............................Blake
rjbond3rd,
They DO have pretty nice frames. Where did you get the pic ?
Those are 16 ohm versions, and also (I believe) older versions. The newer versions have a larger vent in the dustcap, and the particular ones I have are 8 ohm.
The older models have the smaller dustcap vent, and are gold frames, while the newer models have a larger vent and dark blue/grey frames.
..........................Blake
They DO have pretty nice frames. Where did you get the pic ?
Those are 16 ohm versions, and also (I believe) older versions. The newer versions have a larger vent in the dustcap, and the particular ones I have are 8 ohm.
The older models have the smaller dustcap vent, and are gold frames, while the newer models have a larger vent and dark blue/grey frames.
..........................Blake
Not exactly. FR units, solo, are superb for smaller rooms / material that's relatively undemanding at the frequency extremes. Larger rooms and / or more demanding material (like the examples I mentioned above)? They can't hack it. Possibly still fun if you can ignore the many problems, such as severe compression, but hifi they ain't.
We are. Kind of. If I had to go with a single unit, I wouldn't be going with a high Q driver on a baffle unless I was prepared to let the BW & transient handling go hang. Give me a better damped unit any day in a properly designed cabinet, but YMMV as always of course.
Actually, FWIW the kind of multiway designs I like are very much in line with FR driver philosophy. Very WB midrange covering the majority of the telephone band 200Hz - 4KHz, with supporing woofers & supertweeters at either end. Actually, I'm willing to sacrifice a little of the lower BW of the midrange & let the woofers run up to ~500Hz as they have a far greater dynamic range, and if the midrange unit can run up higher to a decent standard, so much the better. That way, the majority of our most sensitive hearing BW is covered by one driver, XO's are pushed to less obvious regions, and you gain transient handling etc.
Well, possibly.
Whatever, so long as you like them, that's the point. I doubt, from my POV, unit against unit, they'd get near a Lowther / AER, but then, I suspect I have rather different criteria.Howdy Blake, I found them here: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/196870
I wonder are these vintage drivers, or is the company still making them (or both?)
Nihilist said:
No, that's not what I said! I stated it's my opinion that they are probably what I deem 'entry level' based on other folks considering them comparable to some drivers that I am familiar with, a big difference:
Later concluding from long time forum experience and doing a bit of 'Googling' that they were probably merely 'competent' by my standards and nothing anyone has posted since then has changed my opinion other than to reinforce it:
Getting back to my original Q:
Most of what's been posted since then is about personal preferences WRT driver/speaker design trade-offs over the ~audible BW which in the scheme of things has very little to do with my Q in that what IMO defines a PA app or entry/mid/hi/ultra 'HIFI' level driver is its ability to reproduce the 'critical' human speech BW from 'timber' through 'sibilence' (~128 - 8192 Hz) as life-like as practical and once all drivers are EQ'd flat and level matched to 'x' average SPL that the Calrads will be like the B20, i.e. great 'bank/buck' drivers (though higher level), but clearly outclassed by any designed specifically to excel in this BW such as the Lowther, AER.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.