Well it was a bit of exageration to point to J1 as they are really huge, but there is other ways to have point source (or close to them) behavior: Full range or coax comes to mind ( 15" is already large) but mtm d'appolito is a way to do it too ( not easy but still if low enough in frequency...).
Danley is distributed in Europe. Never seen one used in France ( that doesn't say they don't exist...) but there have been report of system used in Netherland and Belgium. I suppose you could find in Germany too...
Danley is distributed in Europe. Never seen one used in France ( that doesn't say they don't exist...) but there have been report of system used in Netherland and Belgium. I suppose you could find in Germany too...
Last edited:
Hi thanks for the advice and i agree completely with your words.
But from what i have understood the better points of this speaker are the power amp and the cabinet.
Given the asking price the drivers, commonly the most important and decisive part in a speaker for the sound, must be less than bad.
the performance of this tweeter looks suspicious ... a smoother tweeter could not show those peaks for instance.
50-60 USD could buy a pair of very nice 1" domes ...
The woofer then has to cope with the range up to 2kHz ... a very large band ...
I had a look at the woofer cone ... it looks like untreated PP ... probably the worst material for cones ?
I am pretty sure that this speaker with the right drivers complement could be good enough for a mixing engineer I am sure of this 100%
Maybe i will have to throw aways that shining waveguide ...
but i usually judge more from the sound that from the look also because i listen in the darkness.
P.S. an idea P22WO03-08 – Tymphany
good tweeters are everywhere ... only woofers are an issue ... the good ones are very expensive
Last edited:
that would put expensive/esotic drivers out of the market if the performance are equal why spend this much
AS250-8-552 CELL 11" Woofer
i still think that drivers make the sound. My biggest effort is to find units with an excellent Q/P ratio. Even cannibalizing some old speakers.
Here the problem is that the woofer must cover the range up to 2kHz ... it is very challenging for a 8" unit to get to 2kHz.
Maybe a more sensible option would be to made a thick adapter ring and mount a smaller woofer ? less bass for sure but better midrange ?
I listen to these speakers now stored away in my cellar.
The bass was flabby ... i like the bass from paper cones ...
Thanks again for the very kind and valuable advice.
Last edited:
Well, most dont for this very reason. The drivers you posted are a great example. super expensive, lots of big claims, but their own measurements don't really show a driver which is capable of covering a very wide range.
Hi ! sadly i have no clue about the actual sound quality and performance of this driver. I just guess that the very high price is driven by its particular construction process ?
Interesting the shape of the diaphragm ... even if i love inverted dome (i.e. Revel like). For me the perfect shape ... wonderful.
But looking at the graph of freq response and distortion i get the evidence that linearity and distortion are not correlated, differently from what i thought.
The distortion is so low that is astonishing ...
And also i do not understand how a driver with a coil and magnet this big can have that +10dB peak just above 1 kHz ...
Last edited:
The entire diaphragm will ring like a bell, which means you get lots of sound for relatively little energy input. ie, very high sensitivity over a narrow bandwidth.
My Seas H1252 are similar, but at 4.5kHz.
Chris
Hi thanks a lot for the explanation. It seems that to make a really flat response driver is challenging.
It is a very fascinating field that of transducers in general. I still think that drivers play a key role in sound generation ...
This transducer really seems different from the other.
I do not understand a little why they departed from the inverted dome shape for the diaphragm ...
anyway from 50 to 3000 Hz is almost flat, that peak aside
It seems a brand's signature ...
Accuton S280-6-282 11" Sandwich Cone Woofer
Another one:
The littler the diameter of the VC, the better the 'control' of high frequencies.
Why? Because the very high frequency motion is mantained in the vicinity of the VC. See the presence of different dustcaps or even the whizzer cone that is attached directly to the VC's former, that make some improvement in the treble response.
What happens when you are not near the VC former? The membrane flaps- but that might apply to ol' paper cones, as better materials nowaday flex a lot less.
That is actually not true.
Most loudspeakers are optimized for a certain marketing group and optimized in the production process. Second to that, is that price very rarely has something to de with quality, but more with aesthetics.
A nice looking gasket or frame is not really (significantly) improving the acoustic performance of a loudspeaker, but it makes it a lot more expensive to manufacture.
Same for like a aluminum faceplate, or that nice round looking front side of a woofer.
Seas tweeters are an extremely good example to this.
They all use the same magnet, faceplate en motor structure, but just a small few things are being changed.
Especially the DXT tweeter is a good example of how marketing works.
The waveguide that is being manufactured isn't proportional to how much more expensive it is.
But a simple marketing 101 rule tells us that it's not a smart idea to do something extra with your cheaper products, because not only makes that your more expensive products obsolete, you can also sell the more expensive product with more profit.
If you have been into the OEM market all these things are very clear. Similar or even better performing loudspeakers with all the nice extra options are a fraction of the price.
Extra's like copper rings, waveguides and what not, can mostly being added to default products with very minimal and sometimes without any additional costs. Nowadays even available in quantities <100 pieces
The main difference? Like I said before aesthetics.
Most OEM frames are really bare bones. That's why they all use plastic rings or mount them behind the baffle to cover it up. Very good example are woofers from B&W.
Another one: The littler the diameter of the VC, the better the 'control' of high frequencies. Why? Because the very high frequency motion is mantained in the vicinity of the VC. See the presence of different dustcaps or even the whizzer cone that is attached directly to the VC's former, that make some improvement in the treble response.
What happens when you are not near the VC former? The membrane flaps- but that might apply to ol' paper cones, as better materials nowaday flex a lot less.
Thank you very much indeed for the very technical explanation.
I can only say that i am a big fan of huge coils for woofers.
Dynaudio is famous for that and their production 3 and 4" coils for woofers are not rare at all.
I think a pair of Dynaudio Core 7's is what you want. That should check all the boxes for you.
Dave.
Hi gorgeous for sure. Of course this is intended for professionals.
To be more clear i have already some drivers to try out ... a pair of Visaton, Monacor and even two Dynaudio D28 that i can take out from an old speaker.
I will give up with the waveguide ... i feel like it is there more for beauty than everything else.
Before committing myself to a serious and hopefully definitive investment i really would like to get the best from these speakers discussed here.
During Christmas vacations i will try something.
Anyway thanks a lot for the great advice. They must be really excellent monitors indeed.
To be more clear i have already some drivers to try out ... a pair of Visaton, Monacor and even two Dynaudio D28 that i can take out from an old speaker.
I will give up with the waveguide ... i feel like it is there more for beauty than everything else.
Before committing myself to a serious and hopefully definitive investment i really would like to get the best from these speakers discussed here.
During Christmas vacations i will try something.
Anyway thanks a lot for the great advice. They must be really excellent monitors indeed.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110124093836/http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/SLReport10.05.pdf
Here's a copy of the PDF from page one, which doesn't require creating an account on scribd (the original link is no more)
If you're so inclined, consider throwing a few bucks at web dot archive dot org , a fantastic resource
Here's a copy of the PDF from page one, which doesn't require creating an account on scribd (the original link is no more)
If you're so inclined, consider throwing a few bucks at web dot archive dot org , a fantastic resource
Patrick, thank you for linking the paper. I've just read through it (again) and I have some concerns.
I'm a little confused at the title description where it says 'masking of real sources', and whether this was a special goal or perhaps a misunderstanding.
In any case it seems that Linkwitz was not there to verify the performance of the Orions.
The careful DIY kind of set up that Linkwitz has applied can make them vulnerable to being used in another's implementation.. but this vulnerability is necessary to allow them to be what Linkwitz says they are. It's clear that the reviewers have taken a lot of care but I'd like to know it was all in the right areas.
On the other hand commercial speakers benefit from certain protections which ensure they will sound OK wherever they are used. It may be something like a dominant voicing character, or an inherent diffraction charater.. and more rarely it could be a staff member that comes to your house and sets them up. DIY speakers can also find themselves with a dominant character which lifts them up... but in both cases it is ultimately a limitation.
The one thing I gleaned from reading this paper is the potential for a dipole system to sound right if it's given the attention a speaker system needs for it to do that.
I'm a little confused at the title description where it says 'masking of real sources', and whether this was a special goal or perhaps a misunderstanding.
In any case it seems that Linkwitz was not there to verify the performance of the Orions.
The careful DIY kind of set up that Linkwitz has applied can make them vulnerable to being used in another's implementation.. but this vulnerability is necessary to allow them to be what Linkwitz says they are. It's clear that the reviewers have taken a lot of care but I'd like to know it was all in the right areas.
On the other hand commercial speakers benefit from certain protections which ensure they will sound OK wherever they are used. It may be something like a dominant voicing character, or an inherent diffraction charater.. and more rarely it could be a staff member that comes to your house and sets them up. DIY speakers can also find themselves with a dominant character which lifts them up... but in both cases it is ultimately a limitation.
The one thing I gleaned from reading this paper is the potential for a dipole system to sound right if it's given the attention a speaker system needs for it to do that.
Linkwitz Orion is outdated design with some very obvious flaws. LX521.4 was his best speaker
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/LX521_4.htm
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/LX521_4.htm
I was originally asked to participate in this study using my speakers. But after I reviewed the proposed test design I declined. I didn't like what the subjects were being asked to evaluate. It was heavily weighted towards creating ambiance and spaciousness. Nothing even remotely concerned with imaging.