badman said:
Thanks.
Haven't heard the AMT's and this is the first true ribbon I've used but have heard the AC G1 in a commercial speaker - RAAL is easily better though IMO.
I'm sat here typing and listening to Imogen Heap and damn these sound so good. I haven't grinned this much since that time I dreamt about a packet of cake mix, a spoon and the under 25 female cast of Hollyoaks. I just want to grab all you guys, bring you round here and let you take a listen, its stunning. Beg, steal, borrow, lie to the wife or whatever but everyone should try RAAL with AT. For me its what I've been searching for.
And I'm not even messing with the XO every 30 seconds of a track which is extremely rare.
sqlkev said:Wow, such praise for the RAAL, it's on my want-list now
BTW, specifically, what do you like most about it? What is it to you that defines its character? The high sensitivity? Effortless sound at high spl? a bit of distortion smoothness? wide dispersions?
Hi Kev, sorry but rant alert approaching.
Its not particularly high sensitivity being rated at 94dB and I didn't have to lower level much at all to mate up with the AT.
The horizontal dispertion is very wide and even, I've seen the directivity sonograms so expected this but until you move your head around you don't realise quite how much. I feel you loose nothing even 30 degrees off axis and even at extremes such as 60 degress you've got a nice sense of air there so clearly the stuff above 10Khz is intact. This is better than any dome I've swang my head around checking for this.
Verticle is still limited but the pads do make a differences. When I had the tweeters out of the baffle I stuck them together on a box, one with foam and the other without. I stood up over them about 15-20degrees off axis and then switched back and forth between the two. An easily heared and definite difference in favour of the foam from that crude test. But was it enough? I'd like it to be comparable to a dome in that regard but the simple truth is even with the foam its not a patch in that regard. However given all the gush-tastic words I have stored up right now its an absolute non issue in the biggest way. For me that is the ONLY thing that a dome has over this.
I say look at those measurements comparing domes and ribbons all you like, I know I did and I'm still scratching my head over that one. The RAAL is so much better than my previous Scanspeak ring radiator that I feel guilty even mentioning the two in the same sentence. The stark contrast comes from the dynamics up high, in hindsight the ring radiator just had nothing. Flat, boring and dull. If that's accurate, then keep it thanks. Stange that RAAL can be considered less accurate in some ways but paradoxically, is closer to the real thing than I've heard.
With the RAAL expect a very clean nature, you feel everything is present nothing forced and for the first time(for me) dynamics in the highs that add life like contrast to the sound without ever sounding mechanical, restrained or otherwise. And as well as the transients I can't get over how well they portray the airy decay of a sound, they really do paint a great picture of space and placement.
There's always an element of taste here but I fail to see how anyone would rate the RAAL anything less than one of the best they've heard. Its just such an obvious choice having now heard it.
DaveM said:
I couldn't say Dave. The AC G1 has been compared favourably with the R2 if thats any help. But Orca/Raven, like all good manufacturers, has continually improved the product.
I've heard the G1 and thought it sounded detailed and the rest of what you get with a ribbon but at the same time a tiny bit thin and lacking proper weight to the sound but that could have been other factors.
The better comparison to the 140-15d is the Raven R3.2MMX rather than the R2.1 though because both can handle low XO points well.
This is where "I told you so".. Nah, thats petty.
I really don't see how anyone can compare a good true ribbon to ANY dome tweeter (..if used properly). And yet, there are any number of people that don't hear a significant difference. I don't understand it. To me the only descriptor I can ascribe is "special" because there is such a vast difference. Perhaps a better description would be for the dome tweeter - i.e. broken.
Just wait until you get a good dht set on the things.. then you'll feel a similar mind-numbing experience.
Maybe now you'll get around to trying out some higher eff. lower mass drivers for the midbass? The Supravox 215 GMF still awaits..
I really don't see how anyone can compare a good true ribbon to ANY dome tweeter (..if used properly). And yet, there are any number of people that don't hear a significant difference. I don't understand it. To me the only descriptor I can ascribe is "special" because there is such a vast difference. Perhaps a better description would be for the dome tweeter - i.e. broken.
Just wait until you get a good dht set on the things.. then you'll feel a similar mind-numbing experience.
Maybe now you'll get around to trying out some higher eff. lower mass drivers for the midbass? The Supravox 215 GMF still awaits..
ScottG said:
They really do sound wrong. I bought a pair of NOS Morel MDT44 tweeters off an ebay seller a couple of weeks ago since I thought the small form factor might be nice to try out a closed down MTM spacing and they were the right price:
http://www.oregondv.com/Morel_Speaker_MDT44.htm
These are the only domes I have in the house at the moment and whilst they aren't the best they're good enough. After wiring them up for a comparison I have to say they're poor. Really bad, how could I listen to this junk? They just sound so wrong, no life, no body, no holography, no nothing just sound. The performance disappeared out of the room and back towards the drivers.
Just wait until you get a good dht set on the things.. then you'll feel a similar mind-numbing experience.
I'm still intrigued by all that and was looking back in the v2 thread where you discussed it at length. I might try out the Susan Parker design at some point.
Maybe now you'll get around to trying out some higher eff. lower mass drivers for the midbass? The Supravox 215 GMF still awaits..
Scott, even they gave the magnitude of improvement over sealed that I experienced today with RAAL vs. dome then I'd come back and tell you they were just average just to spite you
I should have listened to you 3 years back and I would have saved a lot of money! It seems my approach is try what I think is good, realise that I want more and then do what Scott says.
On another note, I had a mate round this evening listening to the RAAL - I rang him up and begged him to come over and experience this
We spent around 15 minutes listening before I found myself emailing Alex on his behalf to order a pair of 70-10d. Now that's what I call a marketing tool. He's building some small standmount cabinets to be used with C-Quenze 15H 52 06 13 SDK on midbass duties crossed to the baby RAAL at 2.5Khz. He has plans to do a seperate woofer enclosure and stand the small bookshelf on top, effectively becoming a 3-way, at a later date. I'll be interested to hear the baby RAAL too.
LineSource said:
What your saying makes perfect sense but this is just something that can't happen yet. Meddlings will take me there at some point though but likely when I have more room for large footprint and wide baffles.
My camera is loan to parents who are in Tunisia for the week so I can't take a photo but two 80cm x 130cm baffles are looking a bit off in the room. The drivers look lost.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Scott, even they gave the magnitude of improvement over sealed that I experienced today with RAAL vs. dome then I'd come back and tell you they were just average just to spite you
I should have listened to you 3 years back and I would have saved a lot of money! It seems my approach is try what I think is good, realise that I want more and then do what Scott says.
Hey.. I'm just as prone to making mistakes.
Lets not forget the B&C power compression debacle of 2006! The nice thing is.. I've already made more than a few mistakes.. so occasionally I can come off looking like a freak'n genius.
BTW, what did you charge your friend for the invaluable advice?
And no, I prob. wouldn't have saved you squat.. Hmm, seems I bound and determined to vicariously spend you into a blackhole.
So, about that compound config. ..............................
ScottG said:Hey.. I'm just as prone to making mistakes.
But that B&C would have been good as the woofer section in a loudspeaker. It just wasn't daft enough for HT that's all. Quality wise it was pretty impressive if you remember.
The nice thing is.. I've already made more than a few mistakes.. so occasionally I can come off looking like a freak'n genius.
I guess my woodworking is your loudspeaker theory. With no constraints about room size, budget etc. I bet we could come up with something immense. Possible future colaboration?
BTW, what did you charge your friend for the invaluable advice?
A copy of Razzle and packet of king size Rizla's.
And no, I prob. wouldn't have saved you squat.. Hmm, seems I bound and determined to vicariously spend you into a blackhole.
Bah, keeps me clean and off the streets.
Have been listening to these for about 10 hours now
Its just after 
. Don't worry I'll have calmed down about the whole thing tomorrow ScottG said:This is where "I told you so".. Nah, thats petty.
To me the only descriptor I can ascribe is "special" because there is such a vast difference.
Er... here's petty "I told you so" #2. I can still remember being told off by Shin for using the same word "special" to describe RAALs.
And Kenny G ??? Not even RAALs can make him sound good
Bratislav said:
Will you ever forgive me?
And Kenny G ??? Not even RAALs can make him sound good
It does test on those rather thin sax notes though.
If your after a good example of that sort of sound then check out Robert Miles & Trilok Gurtu's "Golden Rust". Now that is one great track, on the RAAL is drips with realism especially the cymbals and strings.
Oh and over 12 hours now
Bratislav said:
Er... here's petty "I told you so" #2. I can still remember being told off by Shin for using the same word "special" to describe RAALs.
And Kenny G ??? Not even RAALs can make him sound good
Indeed!
On both counts.. I used to play sax (tenor not soprano - what can I say.. I grew up on Foreigner's "Urgent"), and even I can't stand most of the Kenny G I've heard.
ShinOBIWAN said:
If your after a good example of that sort of sound then check out Robert Miles & Trilok Gurtu's "Golden Rust". Now that is one great track, on the RAAL is drips with realism especially the cymbals and strings.
Oh and over 12 hours now
Ahhh, that's better.
If you prefer your sax long, sustained and full of ambience try Jan Garbarek. He'll pack more emotion in two notes than Kenny G recorded in lifetime.
I did spell 'sax' correctly, didn't I ?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.