Linesource:
With these ribbons already paid for and probably no chance of returning them if the results aren't as expected I would say even if the performance wasn't as good as a Seas dome, forget it. They look cool enough and were expensive enough that I'd use them anyway. They have a cool factor for 3 reasons regardless of performance:
1) They are a true ribbon.
2) They are a rare brand name.
3) They just look cool.
So even if performance was sub-par (which it doesn't seem like it is) I wouldn't bother.
Shin:
How many teeth does the blade on that saw have? I've always understood that for cutting MDF you should use a blade with a very high tooth count, much higher than that one appears to have.
With these ribbons already paid for and probably no chance of returning them if the results aren't as expected I would say even if the performance wasn't as good as a Seas dome, forget it. They look cool enough and were expensive enough that I'd use them anyway. They have a cool factor for 3 reasons regardless of performance:
1) They are a true ribbon.
2) They are a rare brand name.
3) They just look cool.
So even if performance was sub-par (which it doesn't seem like it is) I wouldn't bother.
Shin:
How many teeth does the blade on that saw have? I've always understood that for cutting MDF you should use a blade with a very high tooth count, much higher than that one appears to have.
That's an 80 tooth. I use my alu blade (80 teeth negative rake) for MDF and birch ply.
Looking good Shin.
Did I hear you say veneer somewhere? 
And if for whatever reason that ribbon isn't up to scratch he'll probably start the whole thing over with Tarantism v2! 'Living with it' is not his style AFAIK.
Looking good Shin.
Did I hear you say veneer somewhere? And if for whatever reason that ribbon isn't up to scratch he'll probably start the whole thing over with Tarantism v2! 'Living with it' is not his style AFAIK.
LineSource said:
I'm pretty speedy nowadays with all the experience I have under my belt. There was a time when it would have taken a couple of months to get this far, as it stands I've only been working on the construction since the 6th Feb or just over two weeks now. Having all the wood cut roughly to size prior to building was a big shot in the arm, if a bit of a luxury. Probably saved a week doing that though.
I think the problem with most folks is just a lack of motivation or other more important things than DIY audio to attend to. I've got relatively little going on right now so whatever free time I have I spend doing the speakers, its sort of like my quiet time away from the rest of the world. Very peaceful and centering plus it beats the hell of watching TV. I'm on a music famine at the moment so when these do get up and running they'll be that bit sweeter.
The option is there for relatively little work. I'll think about that somemore after they're finished and if I'm not happy with the performance or curiosity gets the better of me.
Yo! Shin. Just so you know. I now have a DEQX 2.6P. It has been extensively rebuilt, (still partially in the process, not...done..yet..) with all OPA 627AU opamps, at the least. So far, at retail pricing, and massive quanity purchasing at the parts level as a point of estimation..the facelift alone would add $6-7K to the DEQX's US $ MSRP.
So no..as I said, I ain't against digital. I'm just against bad digital. I'm used to the finest in musical subulties, as that's where the truth in the music resides. The part that makes you get out of your chair, scream your lungs out along with the singer..run for the fridge for another beer..turn all the dials up to 11, and swing your butt, dancing away....
....analog is STILL king.
Digital still makes a mess out of that. Modifying the DEQX has done wonders for it, BTW. Outside of the crossover range, passive (crossovers) still walk(s) all over it. Still.
And notably so.
What I'm saying is..like I said before. It is not an unqualified remark. I've put in the time, effort, and the money. Same as before I did all that. So, it's in the upper range of 'OK'. It des some things that a passive crossover cannot do.
But it does not retain the essence of true subulty of fine detail, where the music itself resides. It gets...'bluured' ever so slightly.
I haven't messed with the clocking system yet, but plan to do so. That might make a big difference.
So no..as I said, I ain't against digital. I'm just against bad digital. I'm used to the finest in musical subulties, as that's where the truth in the music resides. The part that makes you get out of your chair, scream your lungs out along with the singer..run for the fridge for another beer..turn all the dials up to 11, and swing your butt, dancing away....
....analog is STILL king.
Digital still makes a mess out of that. Modifying the DEQX has done wonders for it, BTW. Outside of the crossover range, passive (crossovers) still walk(s) all over it. Still.
And notably so.
What I'm saying is..like I said before. It is not an unqualified remark. I've put in the time, effort, and the money. Same as before I did all that. So, it's in the upper range of 'OK'. It des some things that a passive crossover cannot do.
But it does not retain the essence of true subulty of fine detail, where the music itself resides. It gets...'bluured' ever so slightly.
I haven't messed with the clocking system yet, but plan to do so. That might make a big difference.
m0tion said:
geoffstgermaine said:
Vikash said:
I have a few blades some for corse cuts/ripping, alu/plastic and one for fine cuts. The one in this shot is brand new (only bought the other day when I got the drills):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Its a Bosch type and only 1.5mm thick, it really slices through the material like butter with such a small contact area. My other blades are all around 3mm thick so twice as much contact area!
Can't remember how many teeth it has but its not as many as 80, this is my 80 tooth blade (there's also a course cut/ripping blade in the background to the right):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Its not just the number of teeth in a blade that determines the finish but also the tooth profile and the saw's ability to keep a good a constant load speed.
Anyone else notice that MDF knocks the hell out of blades?
Vikash said:Looking good Shin.
Cheers buddy.
Its business as usual. The veneer is just to stick over the slices I took out the baffles to form the angular sections. The aim is to put a stop to the dreaded 'joint creep back' on a sprayed finish once and for all. Think I used about 2ltrs of primer just on the baffles of the Perceives and even then it still showed through very slightly after a couple of months! Sodding things.
And if for whatever reason that ribbon isn't up to scratch he'll probably start the whole thing over with Tarantism v2! 'Living with it' is not his style AFAIK.
Ah Vik, you know me to well!
All good points
But...I'm almost certain you'll find the Seas will measure better on distortion terms. Well upto a certain point anyway because the RAAL scales extremely well with increasing SPL. Even at 113dB (64w/1m) 2nd order is between 0.35-1.8% in the range of 2.5Khz-20Khz. And from 2.5Khz to 5Khz its within 0.35-0.9% indicating excellent useability low down. 3rd Order is between 0.1% and 3.2% within 2.5-20Khz with no harmonics above 9Khz and a gently increasing slope as frequency drops.
Alex is pretty proud of the fact that his ribbons are finding their way into pro audio gear because they're just so robust.
The Seas in comparison would be a real mess at 113dB, infact you'd likely damage it running at that SPL for any length of time let alone get decent sound out of it.
Another area the RAAL will stomp is in the waterfall which frankly are the best I've seen. Ribbons are nearly always good here but the RAAL, through new perspective on an old idea, sets even higher standards. Transparency, dynamics and immediacy of sound promise to be very good.
Finally you have power compression are rather the lack of it on the RAAL. A dome will easily store heat when driven at higher SPL's its just got so much baggage with its wound coil in an enclosed air gap - where does the heat have to go? In comparison the RAAL cools down far more efficiently and therefor maintains its mechanical and electrical parameters much more closely to the ideal. Again this benefits power compression so expect more consistency at high SPL's - no chopping of transients and dynamics scale well with overall volume instead of becoming rounded and blurred.
About the only area the dome has the RAAL beat is THD down low and dispertion. Although I do have some polished looking polar dispertion data(done using megabucks equipment) from RAAL(I really wish I could post it but I've been asked not to as Alex isn't the copyright holder and it was simply done as a favour from one of his professional clients and not to be used as a marketting tool). From this data I can say that horizontal dispertion is very wide and even. The foam lenses do a great job in widening and eliminating offaxis HF combing artifacts in the vertical.
Alex very quietly promotes his products. He has a ton of data which could be put to good marketting use but instead simply prefers to undersell his products and let customer opinion do the talking. This has become very clear to me during my emails conversations with him - no BS, straight to the point and revelations in the form of unpublished data.
The RAAL really isn't like anything else out there. All this is why it was my first choice.
KBK said:Yo! Shin. Just so you know. I now have a DEQX 2.6P. It has been extensively rebuilt, (still partially in the process, not...done..yet..) with all OPA 627AU opamps, at the least. So far, at retail pricing, and massive quanity purchasing at the parts level as a point of estimation..the facelift alone would add $6-7K to the DEQX's US $ MSRP.
So no..as I said, I ain't against digital. I'm just against bad digital. I'm used to the finest in musical subulties, as that's where the truth in the music resides. The part that makes you get out of your chair, scream your lungs out along with the singer..run for the fridge for another beer..turn all the dials up to 11, and swing your butt, dancing away....
....analog is STILL king.
Digital still makes a mess out of that. Modifying the DEQX has done wonders for it, BTW. Outside of the crossover range, passive (crossovers) still walk(s) all over it. Still.
And notably so.
What I'm saying is..like I said before. It is not an unqualified remark. I've put in the time, effort, and the money. Same as before I did all that. So, it's in the upper range of 'OK'. It des some things that a passive crossover cannot do.
But it does not retain the essence of true subulty of fine detail, where the music itself resides. It gets...'bluured' ever so slightly.
I haven't messed with the clocking system yet, but plan to do so. That might make a big difference.
You should have saved yourself the trouble and gone for the Overkill full monty DEQX with I2S transport, external and custom PSU, external multi-bit parallel DAC's and a masterclock.
If you look in the PCXO thread I commented that I was getting better sound through Thanau's Frequency Allocator package - about $100...
I was using an EMU 1820m soundcard and directly compared it to the DEQX. So things do change and improve or maybe perspectives change... I don't know.What makes me chuckle at all this is the fact that most of the stuff your listening to will at some point have been digitally processed. For you its not a big deal that this occured in some other time and place but when the moment comes to playback it suddenly makes all the difference.
I still think your talking more about prejudices and subconscious than anything that will make a difference to my opinion or others. I'd like to think I'm more balanced in that I'll agree both analogue and digital can sound every bit as good as the other given the right circumstances. I guess we could go around forever in circles and still not agree, I suspect the middleground is where we both just agree to disagree on this and lay it to rest.
I respectfully ask that you continue this conversation in the PC XO or some other thread since this is about a loudspeaker construction and I'd rather this not turn into another analogue vs. digital debate.
ShinOBIWAN: You've got a driver budget I just can't touch -- RAAL ribbons are seriously expensive products (at least here in Canada).
Unfortunately, looking at their published data on their website (www.raalribbon.com) I'd not sure why they are attractive. They appear to have high distortion at lower frequencies. They have relatvely poor vertical off-axis response and won't pass the "stand up sit down test" (frequency response of the completed speaker changes significantly with small changes in the listener's height). How are you overcoming these drawbacks in your design?
Unfortunately, looking at their published data on their website (www.raalribbon.com) I'd not sure why they are attractive. They appear to have high distortion at lower frequencies. They have relatvely poor vertical off-axis response and won't pass the "stand up sit down test" (frequency response of the completed speaker changes significantly with small changes in the listener's height). How are you overcoming these drawbacks in your design?
holdent said:
See my post at the end of the page before this one. It contains reasons as to why the RAAL is different and better. Also try dealing direct with RAAL, I got a good saving over what Solen was asking.
Also note that the RAAL has been modified since those initial data's where introduced on the website. Alex makes a point of continual improvement based on feedback and new understanding as and when he feels its necessary.
And some shots of my drivers that Alex kindly took. Note the new faceplate finish, improved vertical dispertion lenses, cork baffle interface and solder tabs instead of the old binding posts. Apparently I'll be one of the first to get this updated design
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The man is an artiiist!
I read your post #350 prior to my post. Again these are seriously expensive products and they have some limitations which are apparent in their published data. I having a difficult time buying the "new & improved" line without seeing the specs or an independent review. They are very pretty ribbons though.
holdent said:
Did you ever own ribbons, or spend some good time listening to them? How relevant is "stand up sit down test" Do you really stand up and sit down while you listening - continuously?
I like it more like having a glass of vine, turned down lights and my better half with me comfortably glued to the sofa while we play some Art Pepper or Coltrane.
Yes, ribbons are with some limitations, particularly vertical dispersion. That is the fact and I believe you could try to do a lots of things to improve some, but still it will be their weakest point. Their benefits greatly outnumbers that weakness. Their biggest problem is that is hard to find lower speakers as good and as fast as they are.
Having a speaker with over 100 dB sensitivity will do many things for you, the main one you could use small amp. Small amp always sounds better than more powerful one.
The character of their sound is so intimate, deep and airy that you do not get tired of listening to them ever. Couple them with small SE tube amp, or with small Class A and you would not ever want to stand up. At normal distance between speaker and listener the height of the listener while seated doesn't make any difference, while it is noticeable if you stand up.
As for distortion at lower fq, if you really noticed that pair them with another driver and cross them up higher.
I do not own RAALs, neither I had a chance to listen to them yet, but they appear to be better than big Aurum Cantums that I have. I am very curious to hear Shin's opinion. I am still to hear any dome that even come close to the ribbon, but obviously that is just my taste. Just like with ups and downs... When I'm up to that I do not think that I would care much about sound.
holdent said:
Gott'a be new to Shin's projects.
- the raal's are the CHEAP part of his project (..well, cheap as in in-expensive when compared to other parts of this build).
I suggest you look at his recent post on the cost of 4 8" drivers, and then plug that number into a currency converter (british pound vs. Canadian). All I can say is:
Exceedingly few can match Shin's budget - thats part of what makes his project posts here so interesting, a chance to DIY vicariously (..without lifting a finger..
) Moreover, few can construct and finish a speaker like he can.So just enjoy the ride and try not to think about what you can't afford (..or are unwilling to afford).
holdent said:
Take a look at the wider perspective.
Consider distortions as a series of interrelated phenomena which each have a cumulative effect on both objective and subjective quality.
What am I talking about? People fixating on just THD as *the* guide to driver performance, its simply not true. That's not to say that particular data set isn't useful because it is. But take the RAAL as an example and consider that harmonics (distortion) also extend in time based on the decay behavior of the driver. Now look at the RAAL which can stop and start like nothing else. The generated harmonic distortion also follows a similar time based profile.
Now tell me which is better - the driver which has very low THD and average CSD or the driver which has below average THD and near perfect CSD? I don't think its possible to answer that but I do believe its one of the reason why folks become so enamored by ribbons despite apparent deficiencies from common wisdom gleamed from current testing methodology.
There are allsorts of these mechanisms at work and this was just one of the more obvious examples.
ScottG said:
Gott'a be new to Shin's projects.
- the raal's are the CHEAP part of his project (..well, cheap as in in-expensive when compared to other parts of this build).
I suggest you look at his recent post on the cost of 4 8" drivers, and then plug that number into a currency converter (british pound vs. Canadian). All I can say is:
Exceedingly few can match Shin's budget - thats part of what makes his project posts here so interesting, a chance to DIY vicariously (..without lifting a finger..
So just enjoy the ride and try not to think about what you can't afford (..or are unwilling to afford).
You hit the nail right on the head Scott and again your way too kind with your praise but thanks.
My projects aren't about value for money nor are they technically flawless or even approaching that. What they are is unique and different with an eye towards trying things that I haven't done before. So its really more about feeling good about the whole thing than common sensibilities, which is pretty important when you consider that in order to follow an ambitious project through to its conclusion and also do it to a high standard requires good motivation and this, for me, comes from the choices I make.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.