What's happening Earl? It's not a long time ago I read that you were going to quit selling speakers.
Now I see a new Summa with a bigger waveguide, new drivers and a new cabinet as well as a replacing Abbey on the way.
Is there a difference with the new coming Abbey vs the old apart from weight?
Now I see a new Summa with a bigger waveguide, new drivers and a new cabinet as well as a replacing Abbey on the way.
Is there a difference with the new coming Abbey vs the old apart from weight?
Last edited:
I looked at my business model and found that the lower end products just didn't make sense for me so I cancelled them (once I had run through the inventory.) The "new" designs are a little better than the older ones as you can see from the data for the NS15. The NA12 will have the new B&C neo magnet drivers, the same waveguide as the NS15 and a new cabinet construction which is more rigid. These are not monumental increases in performance, but they are notable. Down the road the Abbey may go away as well - meaning no more kits. These changes will cut back on the work load at my end by a significant amount to something more in line with what I am willing to do.
If I am going to continue I only want to make the very best. As the data for the NS15 shows, this speaker simply has no rivals.
If I am going to continue I only want to make the very best. As the data for the NS15 shows, this speaker simply has no rivals.
With the NA12 having a 15" waveguide, it will end up being very close in size to the NS15. Both the driver cost as well as the degree of difficulty in building the cabinets will be very close for both models. In essence, the NA12 will be the NS15 with a smaller woofer and your production cost will end up being similar for both speakers. I am just wondering what the benefit will be here. The smaller woofer will be giving up a bit of sensitivity, low end extension and thermal capability as well as exhibit worse pattern control lower in the range. This is just my opinion, but I would accept a further small compromise in performance with a 12" waveguide, while gaining the benefits of a considerably smaller size speaker.
Last edited:
I think the Abbey will be staying around the same size it's always been, but maybe I'm mistaken. How he's fitting a Summa size waveguide into that form factor is the question I've always been a little curious about.
There's this tidbit from a few months back. Earl is referring to the New Summa in the first sentence:
"There is still a slight dip in the response ( a slight bump in DI) at about 1500 Hz. This is because the woofer narrows too soon. This is why I think that a 12" woofer may be the better choice."
There's this tidbit from a few months back. Earl is referring to the New Summa in the first sentence:
"There is still a slight dip in the response ( a slight bump in DI) at about 1500 Hz. This is because the woofer narrows too soon. This is why I think that a 12" woofer may be the better choice."
Kindhornman,
I'm a bit puzzled here; the 15" will have better directivity control starting lower in frequency than the 12", assuming the stiffness of both cones are similar. By "better" directivity, I really mean narrower, reaching the desired 90 degrees earlier and thus facilitating a lower crossover point. Maybe you misunderstood what I said, or I wasn't clear enough. In either case, I hope this clarifies what I was saying.
I'm a bit puzzled here; the 15" will have better directivity control starting lower in frequency than the 12", assuming the stiffness of both cones are similar. By "better" directivity, I really mean narrower, reaching the desired 90 degrees earlier and thus facilitating a lower crossover point. Maybe you misunderstood what I said, or I wasn't clear enough. In either case, I hope this clarifies what I was saying.
The NA12 size will be its biggest advantage. I do not expect it to be quite as good as the NS15 because of the way I have to shoehorn the waveguide into the smaller cabinet. The current Abbey will remain unchanged.
By the way, I was able to fix the early problem in the MS15 at crossover in later development. You can see this at NS15
A 1" driver is just fine even down to 800 Hz as in the NS15 simply because this is for a home and the SPLs are just not so high as to cause a problem with excursion. I have been using a 1" driver in the Summa for more than ten years and never saw a problem as long as they were used in a home.
Back in the AI days we did see problems with the 1" drivers when used in clubs, but that was full power for hours on end.
By the way, I was able to fix the early problem in the MS15 at crossover in later development. You can see this at NS15
A 1" driver is just fine even down to 800 Hz as in the NS15 simply because this is for a home and the SPLs are just not so high as to cause a problem with excursion. I have been using a 1" driver in the Summa for more than ten years and never saw a problem as long as they were used in a home.
Back in the AI days we did see problems with the 1" drivers when used in clubs, but that was full power for hours on end.
Musical Noise,
I think we are talking past each other here. A larger cone will always have breakup modes at a lower frequency than a smaller cone given equal quality and design. So the crossover point of a larger device will normally need to be at a lower frequency to stay closer to the pistonic range of operation. The pattern control of a larger cone will by nature be worse than a smaller device.
On the choice of a 1" driver as used by Earl I am in agreement with him that there is nothing wrong with those devices. They will have a higher mass roll off point and have cleaner and extended high frequency response. Only when trying to move the crossover point lower does the larger diaphragm device have any real advantage. For dispersion reasons in the majority of cases with the way the compression drivers have traditionally been designed with a larger exit size the throat angle is smaller and will have an inferior dispersion compared to a smaller 1" driver. Others can fight over the practicality of trying to use a compression driver lower in frequency but I will stay away from that argument.
I think we are talking past each other here. A larger cone will always have breakup modes at a lower frequency than a smaller cone given equal quality and design. So the crossover point of a larger device will normally need to be at a lower frequency to stay closer to the pistonic range of operation. The pattern control of a larger cone will by nature be worse than a smaller device.
On the choice of a 1" driver as used by Earl I am in agreement with him that there is nothing wrong with those devices. They will have a higher mass roll off point and have cleaner and extended high frequency response. Only when trying to move the crossover point lower does the larger diaphragm device have any real advantage. For dispersion reasons in the majority of cases with the way the compression drivers have traditionally been designed with a larger exit size the throat angle is smaller and will have an inferior dispersion compared to a smaller 1" driver. Others can fight over the practicality of trying to use a compression driver lower in frequency but I will stay away from that argument.
Larger throat compression drivers will always need a second driver to get up to 15 kHz. The 1" just gets there. Going to a 1.5" but having to add another HF driver is simply not a good trade off unless, because of power handling requirements, one has no other choice. The DIY community always believes that bigger is better and sometimes it is, but not always.
Earl,
I couldn't agree more with your last statement that the 1" compression drivers are better on the top end and if you are only going with a two way system there is no reason to use a 1.4, 1.5 or 2" driver. Bigger is better if you are only after spl from a limited number of devices and trying to get to an extremely low frequency with high output. My only issue with your designs would be if you were trying to use a third component to cover the top octave the round waveguides force the center to center distance fairly far apart. If the TAD EA driver wasn't so prohibitively expensive now that would cover the top range very well. I may look at some of the smaller drivers I have seen you talk about in the past and see how they would work in substitution for that great sounding TAD driver.
I couldn't agree more with your last statement that the 1" compression drivers are better on the top end and if you are only going with a two way system there is no reason to use a 1.4, 1.5 or 2" driver. Bigger is better if you are only after spl from a limited number of devices and trying to get to an extremely low frequency with high output. My only issue with your designs would be if you were trying to use a third component to cover the top octave the round waveguides force the center to center distance fairly far apart. If the TAD EA driver wasn't so prohibitively expensive now that would cover the top range very well. I may look at some of the smaller drivers I have seen you talk about in the past and see how they would work in substitution for that great sounding TAD driver.
Carl
I don't have NS15s here. I only have the older Summa. Since speakers are made to order - the only way that I can make them - I virtually never have models other than my own. But you are welcome to hear those.
When buying my speakers you pretty much have to accept the performance data. The guy who bought the first NS15s had Abbeys. He liked them so much that he wanted to get something better if that was possible. He completely bought into "If it measures better, it will sound better." It had worked well for him thus far.
But I am not "trying to use a third component to cover the top octave ..." that is exactly the point, it wouldn't work.
We did a blind subjective comparison of the TAD drivers to the B&C and they were a wash - slight preference for the B&C. I am not sure that "great sounding TAD driver" stands up to scrutiny. Mostly it is a visual preference not an audible one.
Earl,
It was the B&C driver you were talking about. That is great that you say it stands up to the TAD driver, it is a very nice driver at a stupid price. I think I got my first pair for about $450.00 and so there is no justification for any of the prices today except for the fact that Pioneer tried to kill the line long ago and this was the only way they would keep it going. I am in agreement that besides the use of Be that there was nothing special about any of the TAD drivers, they were actually a knockoff of earlier JBL designs and so are all the cone drivers. I guess that would go without question seeing that the designer was originally from JBL.
It was the B&C driver you were talking about. That is great that you say it stands up to the TAD driver, it is a very nice driver at a stupid price. I think I got my first pair for about $450.00 and so there is no justification for any of the prices today except for the fact that Pioneer tried to kill the line long ago and this was the only way they would keep it going. I am in agreement that besides the use of Be that there was nothing special about any of the TAD drivers, they were actually a knockoff of earlier JBL designs and so are all the cone drivers. I guess that would go without question seeing that the designer was originally from JBL.
The designer was Bart Locanthi and yes they were knockoffs of JBL designs. They are gorgeous drivers, but hey times change. When TAD first did those drivers B&C was nobody. But they invested in R&D and now it is paying off big time. The best loudspeaker designer that I know is now head of R&D at B&C. He has been offered many other jobs (I know this for a fact!) but he likes B&C. You just can't buy loyalty like that. The owner is a really great guy. The original owner, the Senior Coppini, was also a very nice man (dead now).
Look at JBL and the other competitors today. JBL can't keep people for anything - they just drive away anyone that is any good. The company is no longer one that I would recommend anyone work for. And nobody that I knew there still does!
Look at JBL and the other competitors today. JBL can't keep people for anything - they just drive away anyone that is any good. The company is no longer one that I would recommend anyone work for. And nobody that I knew there still does!
Harmon International has become nothing but a commodity trader these days. The golden days for all those divisions are long gone. A corporate giant with no soul. I have done work for JBL in the past and this is not the same company The EON speaker is a knockoff of a proposal I presented to them long ago.