Hi rjbond3rd,
Happy 4th!!
My previous 5.1 system actually included two Totem Dreamcatcher left/right subs. I still have the Arro fronts but I sold everything else to be able to go into hot pursuit of my described objective.
Those little subs were very fast but left me with one reason I'm interested in using "large." They had F3's of 30Hz but as should be expected for tiny woofers never gave me a relaxed physical presence. And imparted little body to action or instruments higher up the freq scale. They were from a time when the only requirement in our sound was neutrality and speed in a small package.
I never saw the fullrange-speakers.com version but those 3 systems there represent one direction I've considered. However with my 11x15 room these currently involve both the risk of bass cancellation and needing more space behind (for the open baffle.) Definitely designs that will top my list when I move to a larger space.
One of the remaining 2 requirements for this project that I have not mentioned so far is to keep risk down a bit. I need things to work out sort of reliably if not spectacularly. Mainly because I've put us through too exhaustive an effort swapping amps, speakers etc: basically bringing me to the edge of 2-way despair
...The effect of trying out a recent 2-way loudspeaker manufacturer's design that did an excellent job of trying to achieve a singularity and a transparency of enclosure and cross-over became the tipping point that brought me here.
The other requirement is to achieve the essence of current day HT, which to me requires clarity, dynamics and extension to 15 Hz (I suppose due to my middle age and the desire to keep whatever is left of my hearing I can happily do without the remainder of this essence: Dolby or THX ref level SPL's.)
I'm one of those that believes the biological science that indicates our natural hearing, through the mind as processor, uses the inaudible infrasonic and ultrasonic to inform what is heard in the audible range.
I specifically chose to go with the single Rythmik sealed direct servo 12 with the lighter GR paper driver to be able to affordably go flat to the low teens at a speed that I could just about count on to be able to keep up with whatever speaker directions I pursue. Eventually, I planned on using them just for 10 - 40 Hz so that I could some day be free to have something large and OB do the rest.
Happy 4th!!
My previous 5.1 system actually included two Totem Dreamcatcher left/right subs. I still have the Arro fronts but I sold everything else to be able to go into hot pursuit of my described objective.
Those little subs were very fast but left me with one reason I'm interested in using "large." They had F3's of 30Hz but as should be expected for tiny woofers never gave me a relaxed physical presence. And imparted little body to action or instruments higher up the freq scale. They were from a time when the only requirement in our sound was neutrality and speed in a small package.
I never saw the fullrange-speakers.com version but those 3 systems there represent one direction I've considered. However with my 11x15 room these currently involve both the risk of bass cancellation and needing more space behind (for the open baffle.) Definitely designs that will top my list when I move to a larger space.
One of the remaining 2 requirements for this project that I have not mentioned so far is to keep risk down a bit. I need things to work out sort of reliably if not spectacularly. Mainly because I've put us through too exhaustive an effort swapping amps, speakers etc: basically bringing me to the edge of 2-way despair
...The effect of trying out a recent 2-way loudspeaker manufacturer's design that did an excellent job of trying to achieve a singularity and a transparency of enclosure and cross-over became the tipping point that brought me here.The other requirement is to achieve the essence of current day HT, which to me requires clarity, dynamics and extension to 15 Hz (I suppose due to my middle age and the desire to keep whatever is left of my hearing I can happily do without the remainder of this essence: Dolby or THX ref level SPL's.)
I'm one of those that believes the biological science that indicates our natural hearing, through the mind as processor, uses the inaudible infrasonic and ultrasonic to inform what is heard in the audible range.
I specifically chose to go with the single Rythmik sealed direct servo 12 with the lighter GR paper driver to be able to affordably go flat to the low teens at a speed that I could just about count on to be able to keep up with whatever speaker directions I pursue. Eventually, I planned on using them just for 10 - 40 Hz so that I could some day be free to have something large and OB do the rest.
Hi VanJerry,
And a happy 5th to you, sir!
Aha, I'm starting to get the picture. You've already tried and eliminated nearly all of the typical permutations -- gotcha! That's where I'm at, though I ended up in horn/SET country with a side-order of Fostex / woofer OB.
Does your sub amp let you adjust the slope? I think that would be a good thing to have for blending, especially where a sealed is being considered (first order). My sub has no such flexibility and does not blend well no matter what.
Regarding how much space you need for OB, I'm using some small ones in a 12x12 foot room, and I think it works despite the conventional wisdom, depending on your listening position, since every room is different.
Sorry I'm not more helpful -- I think you're much further along in the quest than I am. But I'm really interested in what you end up doing, especially if you do the sealed cabs. I think a lot of people are waiting to see systems using the AN12, especially the cast version.
edit: add the word "see" in last para, and also added this line you're reading right now.
And a happy 5th to you, sir!
Aha, I'm starting to get the picture. You've already tried and eliminated nearly all of the typical permutations -- gotcha! That's where I'm at, though I ended up in horn/SET country with a side-order of Fostex / woofer OB.
Does your sub amp let you adjust the slope? I think that would be a good thing to have for blending, especially where a sealed is being considered (first order). My sub has no such flexibility and does not blend well no matter what.
Regarding how much space you need for OB, I'm using some small ones in a 12x12 foot room, and I think it works despite the conventional wisdom, depending on your listening position, since every room is different.
Sorry I'm not more helpful -- I think you're much further along in the quest than I am. But I'm really interested in what you end up doing, especially if you do the sealed cabs. I think a lot of people are waiting to see systems using the AN12, especially the cast version.
edit: add the word "see" in last para, and also added this line you're reading right now.
Yes, the Rythmik 370's allows diff slopes. I chose the A370-PEQ with a defeatable 1 band parametric EQ:
http://www.rythmikaudio.com/amplifiers.html
And yes, small driver OB's just might squeeze in. I did eventually want to get some EnABLed FR125SR's from Planet10 to play with...
A Question:
One other thing that's got me perplexed is a single full range driver center. The issue is beaming vs dispersion. Centers need some decent dispersion. But larger drivers, less dispersion. For its dispersion one would normally settle on Nirvana's Super Cast 8 but piecing together all the user information avail the midrange (and vocal) quality goes up a little bit with larger size.
My question to anyone theoretically or from experience: Would I actually get as wide or wider HF sweetspot using a 10" or 12" by angling it slightly higher or lower than ear level than an 8" aim straight on?
http://www.rythmikaudio.com/amplifiers.html
And yes, small driver OB's just might squeeze in. I did eventually want to get some EnABLed FR125SR's from Planet10 to play with...
A Question:
One other thing that's got me perplexed is a single full range driver center. The issue is beaming vs dispersion. Centers need some decent dispersion. But larger drivers, less dispersion. For its dispersion one would normally settle on Nirvana's Super Cast 8 but piecing together all the user information avail the midrange (and vocal) quality goes up a little bit with larger size.
My question to anyone theoretically or from experience: Would I actually get as wide or wider HF sweetspot using a 10" or 12" by angling it slightly higher or lower than ear level than an 8" aim straight on?
I've been on a bit of a low volume mission the last few years after developing a mild case of hyperacusis in one ear.
Getting rid of my Dynaudios was the first worthwhile thing I did. Zu's were a definite improvement as were B200 with sealed DIY sub. What I've found a lot of love with at the moment is a Hawthorne's 15" coaxial (Sterling) and Augie bass driver in open baffle.
What I've learned it firstly, that high sensitivity drivers excel, especially full rangers as they have more sprightly microdynamic at low voumes (the Sterling has an XO being a coaxial but the compromise is worth it int his case). Secondly, a sub or biamped bass driver is a boon as it lets you tailor the bass for low vol listening. Assume youre familiar with the Fletcher Munson curves? I also run DEQ2496 on the Augie bass driver which allows different setting for however loud you want to listen. The Dynamic EQ feature will let you set slopes such that the lower you turn the volume the more the bass is automatically boosted, so you can theoretically have the same bass, subjectively experienced, at every volume.
Have also found tubes to be better at low volumes than SS, but that could have just been my luck.
cheers
Bevan
nearfield is best at low volumes, and full rangers and coaxials often better than conventional 2-ways in the near field as drivers dont need the distancwe to integrate. Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled
Getting rid of my Dynaudios was the first worthwhile thing I did. Zu's were a definite improvement as were B200 with sealed DIY sub. What I've found a lot of love with at the moment is a Hawthorne's 15" coaxial (Sterling) and Augie bass driver in open baffle.
What I've learned it firstly, that high sensitivity drivers excel, especially full rangers as they have more sprightly microdynamic at low voumes (the Sterling has an XO being a coaxial but the compromise is worth it int his case). Secondly, a sub or biamped bass driver is a boon as it lets you tailor the bass for low vol listening. Assume youre familiar with the Fletcher Munson curves? I also run DEQ2496 on the Augie bass driver which allows different setting for however loud you want to listen. The Dynamic EQ feature will let you set slopes such that the lower you turn the volume the more the bass is automatically boosted, so you can theoretically have the same bass, subjectively experienced, at every volume.
Have also found tubes to be better at low volumes than SS, but that could have just been my luck.
cheers
Bevan
nearfield is best at low volumes, and full rangers and coaxials often better than conventional 2-ways in the near field as drivers dont need the distancwe to integrate. Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled
Bravo Bvan on your low volume mission!
Checked out the TNT-Audio reviews Parts I and II on your OB's. Pretty nifty... at low volumes and otherwise. Effect of 15" size suggests to me the Nirvana 12's would be better at low volumes than 10's. Do you suppose the regular Duet config with non Sterling drivers would have anything like the same tactile and visceral quality? The combination of Silver and Augie is affordable while the Sterling and Augie is out of my budget. Though I do not have the minimal 3 feet from any wall. My room is 11 x 15 in area only. Unfortunately it zigzags for an effective width that's mostly only about 8.5' - Yikes! I've got to move. I can't breath! - [cough].
Reassured to know my going with full rangers is in the neighborhood of the right track what with their microdynamics at low volume and such...
That DEQ2496 is pretty cool. I like how it allows you to isolate your intervention to just a portion of the sound leaving the rest untouched. I've long known and used the loudness concept. But those one dimensional executions from the 70's onwards don't hold a candle to that DEQ... The idea of variable volume matching of subjective bass offers a great failsafe solution should I ultimately become frustrated achieving my own low volume mission using just organic means. I didn't notice, but could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?
Checked out the TNT-Audio reviews Parts I and II on your OB's. Pretty nifty... at low volumes and otherwise. Effect of 15" size suggests to me the Nirvana 12's would be better at low volumes than 10's. Do you suppose the regular Duet config with non Sterling drivers would have anything like the same tactile and visceral quality? The combination of Silver and Augie is affordable while the Sterling and Augie is out of my budget. Though I do not have the minimal 3 feet from any wall. My room is 11 x 15 in area only. Unfortunately it zigzags for an effective width that's mostly only about 8.5' - Yikes! I've got to move. I can't breath! - [cough].
Reassured to know my going with full rangers is in the neighborhood of the right track what with their microdynamics at low volume and such...
That DEQ2496 is pretty cool. I like how it allows you to isolate your intervention to just a portion of the sound leaving the rest untouched. I've long known and used the loudness concept. But those one dimensional executions from the 70's onwards don't hold a candle to that DEQ... The idea of variable volume matching of subjective bass offers a great failsafe solution should I ultimately become frustrated achieving my own low volume mission using just organic means. I didn't notice, but could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?
Couldn't quite follow this last sentence...
"Do you suppose the regular Duet config with non Sterling drivers would have anything like the same tactile and visceral quality?"
I think so, from what I've read. But I havent heard the stock silver Iris. It's mainly the tweeters which are different so I suspect so. Ask at the Hawthorne forum, they're pretty strait shooters there.
"could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?"
It's got two sets of analogue outputs, in fact I use the second pair to a sealed sub for sub 25hz movie content.
"Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled"
Sorry, should have read "suck". Thinking big horns like Avantgardes where the drivers are pretty far from one another.
cheers
Bevan
I think so, from what I've read. But I havent heard the stock silver Iris. It's mainly the tweeters which are different so I suspect so. Ask at the Hawthorne forum, they're pretty strait shooters there.
"could it be used simultaneously and independently with a servo sub in addition to bass augmenting drivers?"
It's got two sets of analogue outputs, in fact I use the second pair to a sealed sub for sub 25hz movie content.
"Horns probably the best for low vol listening but often such in the nearfiled"
Sorry, should have read "suck". Thinking big horns like Avantgardes where the drivers are pretty far from one another.
cheers
Bevan
Hi all,
Your advice combined with further email discussions with experts in the field has encouraged me to better align my ambitions with my constraints - such as having a small room and, for the time being, using a Denon SS receiver.
I want to thank everyone for your help on this thread. And I'll try to use this experience to conduct future threads with the kind of focus that befits the time and effort of the generous forum members here.
Your advice combined with further email discussions with experts in the field has encouraged me to better align my ambitions with my constraints - such as having a small room and, for the time being, using a Denon SS receiver.
I want to thank everyone for your help on this thread. And I'll try to use this experience to conduct future threads with the kind of focus that befits the time and effort of the generous forum members here.
Oh. Of course. It's just that I was going to start a new thread real soon and didn't want to risk overlap. But sure...
So... very large full rangers would do a good job at providing low volume presence. What put the fear in me was that Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible. Now... I'm new to full rangers, and insecure... I thought it'd be tricky enough picking one that didn't have this or that "thing" that some liked and other's found unlivable. Those bigger AN's were a hedge. Their curves seemed to get better and better the larger they went. Anyway, somehow I knew going into this full range world the Denon would be my weakest link. But the prospect of not knowing which driver was going to fizzle on it was too much. Keeping risk down was always one of the factors on this project. I need this sound for restorative purposes, not the adventure! That can come later
That, linked with what I learned researching the ramifications of your innocent remark about how for 80Hz the larger AN might be "overkill." Overkill? I had never really worried about downsides to big. Beyond WAF. I know you didn't mean it that way but I got busy looking into the dangers of large drivers: bass overloading, cancelation, beaming etc. Risk again - especially in a small room. Plus perhaps an uncomfortably small sweet spot for 2 listeners what with the combination of beaming and virtually being in the near-field. So, I would have liked a few extra feet to feel OK about all this. But then I would have been free to open baffle... Besides, I came across a post where Dave counseled a small driver for a small room.
...Like the CSS FR125SR.
And so that's why I thought I'd start a new thread. Still about weight, presence and lower volumes, but no longer on topic for a thread about whether a 12" could deliver. In fact, more like: "Low level body/weight presence wanted: Can 4.5" FR125SR deliver?"
It'll have comedy, tragedy and all that stuff... I'll start it up as soon as I've done a little more research to pose the right scenario.
So... very large full rangers would do a good job at providing low volume presence. What put the fear in me was that Dave of Planet10 told me to be careful which full rangers I attempted to power with the SS Denon. In fact, he only vouched that it would be the one's from CSS that were certain to be compatible. Now... I'm new to full rangers, and insecure... I thought it'd be tricky enough picking one that didn't have this or that "thing" that some liked and other's found unlivable. Those bigger AN's were a hedge. Their curves seemed to get better and better the larger they went. Anyway, somehow I knew going into this full range world the Denon would be my weakest link. But the prospect of not knowing which driver was going to fizzle on it was too much. Keeping risk down was always one of the factors on this project. I need this sound for restorative purposes, not the adventure! That can come later
That, linked with what I learned researching the ramifications of your innocent remark about how for 80Hz the larger AN might be "overkill." Overkill? I had never really worried about downsides to big. Beyond WAF. I know you didn't mean it that way but I got busy looking into the dangers of large drivers: bass overloading, cancelation, beaming etc. Risk again - especially in a small room. Plus perhaps an uncomfortably small sweet spot for 2 listeners what with the combination of beaming and virtually being in the near-field. So, I would have liked a few extra feet to feel OK about all this. But then I would have been free to open baffle... Besides, I came across a post where Dave counseled a small driver for a small room.
...Like the CSS FR125SR.
And so that's why I thought I'd start a new thread. Still about weight, presence and lower volumes, but no longer on topic for a thread about whether a 12" could deliver. In fact, more like: "Low level body/weight presence wanted: Can 4.5" FR125SR deliver?"
It'll have comedy, tragedy and all that stuff... I'll start it up as soon as I've done a little more research to pose the right scenario.
Don't worry about your Denon SS amp, all full range drivers will work just as well with SS amps as with tube amps. You just have to make sure you design your speaker for the type of amp you want to use. I use 200 watts of SS with all of my full range drivers without any issues. In my opinion, going with a tube amp backs you into a corner and limits the number of options you have for the design of a full range speaker system.
The one piece of the puzzle I have not seen mentioned above is baffle step compensation, you will definitely need to address this issue if you want decent balanced SPL performance.
The one piece of the puzzle I have not seen mentioned above is baffle step compensation, you will definitely need to address this issue if you want decent balanced SPL performance.
Hi MJK,
My research indicated a high efficiency driver would provide the better low level performance. The thing with the Denon, I was told, was that it would be the very portion of it's power that would be used by a high efficiency driver that would also be it's poorest quality. I haven't researched power issues yet as I have a mounting backlog just keeping up with the speaker side of things. However, though I did not follow it adequately to be able to properly describe the phenomenon here, Dave was pretty adamant about it.
Maybe this is a matter of something that may not be very noticeable to most normal people, but I defer to Dave on it, as I have never been very normal at anything
As for baffle step, I've included a preliminary dimensionless sketch of my current contender for a crossover-less low level HT speaker system. Twin SDX7's when situated at opposite sides handle each other in this regard, no? And the front firing FR125SR is at 90 degrees to the bass from either SDX7 and though it is not paired I've located it on the wide dimension of the (likely aperiodic) boxes. To me this emulates the Calhoun, which is the other contending design and the one Dave recommended for my room, the Denon and my desire for low level performance. I'm willing to make this front facing baffle as wide as necessary to duplicate the Calhoun's ability to handle baffle step.
My research indicated a high efficiency driver would provide the better low level performance. The thing with the Denon, I was told, was that it would be the very portion of it's power that would be used by a high efficiency driver that would also be it's poorest quality. I haven't researched power issues yet as I have a mounting backlog just keeping up with the speaker side of things. However, though I did not follow it adequately to be able to properly describe the phenomenon here, Dave was pretty adamant about it.
Maybe this is a matter of something that may not be very noticeable to most normal people, but I defer to Dave on it, as I have never been very normal at anything
As for baffle step, I've included a preliminary dimensionless sketch of my current contender for a crossover-less low level HT speaker system. Twin SDX7's when situated at opposite sides handle each other in this regard, no? And the front firing FR125SR is at 90 degrees to the bass from either SDX7 and though it is not paired I've located it on the wide dimension of the (likely aperiodic) boxes. To me this emulates the Calhoun, which is the other contending design and the one Dave recommended for my room, the Denon and my desire for low level performance. I'm willing to make this front facing baffle as wide as necessary to duplicate the Calhoun's ability to handle baffle step.
Attachments
I should explain crossover-less.
When I started this thread I was only strongly leaning towards full range single driver. In doing my research to keep up with all the related concepts and designs I have become an intense convert.
It pains me to deviate from single (point) source. But here I am proposing three drivers per box! And likely my design could use some caps or resistors to refine it to boot. But it's only in attempting a dual purpose system, that could satisfy in HT and at low levels, that I feel I must use multiple drivers. However, despite the obvious crassness of my proposed design I've got to at least keep crossovers out of it. So it ain't got no crossover and it ain't gittin' one either no how!
(After this one my next project will be a no holds barred best music pair and it will be single driver - with or without a tube amp.)
When I started this thread I was only strongly leaning towards full range single driver. In doing my research to keep up with all the related concepts and designs I have become an intense convert.
It pains me to deviate from single (point) source. But here I am proposing three drivers per box! And likely my design could use some caps or resistors to refine it to boot. But it's only in attempting a dual purpose system, that could satisfy in HT and at low levels, that I feel I must use multiple drivers. However, despite the obvious crassness of my proposed design I've got to at least keep crossovers out of it. So it ain't got no crossover and it ain't gittin' one either no how!
(After this one my next project will be a no holds barred best music pair and it will be single driver - with or without a tube amp.)
Thank you MJK,
And actually, I appreciate your ammunition. I need it to initiate any fair challenge of Dave's opinion. I feel like I'm in a logic loop. And if I defer it is only out of exhaustion from all the research but also from attempting to reconcile contradictory opinions.
I have a science background and blind agreement does not agree with me. So, I guess I'll have to add even more on my pressing research pile before I can say I've decided and not fallen upon a path. Is it common not to sleep much while you go through this newbie phase?
Do you suppose I shouldn't be worrying about a 10 or 12 inch Audio Nirvana either? Arghh...
And actually, I appreciate your ammunition. I need it to initiate any fair challenge of Dave's opinion. I feel like I'm in a logic loop. And if I defer it is only out of exhaustion from all the research but also from attempting to reconcile contradictory opinions.
I have a science background and blind agreement does not agree with me. So, I guess I'll have to add even more on my pressing research pile before I can say I've decided and not fallen upon a path. Is it common not to sleep much while you go through this newbie phase?
Do you suppose I shouldn't be worrying about a 10 or 12 inch Audio Nirvana either? Arghh...
Perhaps you might try mounting the SDX7's down low on the sides. This would help them have better floor coupling and help remove some floor bounce (which causes frequency response deviations).
It may also help reduce the comb filtering caused as they blend with the FR125SR.
Not saying anything bad about the CSS stuff, as it looks killer and I haven't heard any, but perhaps you should look into where you got your info and why they recommended the CSS product line.
Somebody told me once: "If you wanna know the truth, follow the trail of money".
Of the drivers you said you were interested in, I'd go with the AN's. 12"s if you aren't gonna use a sub, or 10" if you are. Simple sealed design.
Without researching your exact Denon, typically an amps low powered output is it's BEST portion, as it is running in class A.
A high efficiency speaker would exploit this better than a lower efficiency speaker.
Also, if you were planning on running the SDX7's in parallel, you would be running a 4 ohm load to your reciever. Not your best option , IMO.
Just my $0.02 .
...................................Blake
It may also help reduce the comb filtering caused as they blend with the FR125SR.
Not saying anything bad about the CSS stuff, as it looks killer and I haven't heard any, but perhaps you should look into where you got your info and why they recommended the CSS product line.
Somebody told me once: "If you wanna know the truth, follow the trail of money".
Of the drivers you said you were interested in, I'd go with the AN's. 12"s if you aren't gonna use a sub, or 10" if you are. Simple sealed design.
Without researching your exact Denon, typically an amps low powered output is it's BEST portion, as it is running in class A.
A high efficiency speaker would exploit this better than a lower efficiency speaker.
Also, if you were planning on running the SDX7's in parallel, you would be running a 4 ohm load to your reciever. Not your best option , IMO.
Just my $0.02 .
...................................Blake
Yes Nihilist,
I've noticed that "down low" for the SDX7's since first seeing them on the RAW Acoustics HT3. It may be naively ludicrous, but I was hoping to minimize time smearing by keeping things as closely grouped as factors like comb and baffle step would allow. Go for some kind of trade off?
Do you really think comb filtering will be an issue if the front baffle is even wider than I drew? I could make that baffle up to 18" wide. I also considered making the tower an equilateral triangle in cross section allowing maximum directional separation as well as good internal reflection properties. Just didn't want to bounce at walls behind them too much so I can get closer to them.
I want to make it clear Dave has never promoted CSS products to me. That was my own wording.
When Dave first mentioned the characteristic that made the Denon problematic in his opinion it was I who attempted to pull from him the names of some solutions and he included some Fostex models. I'm the one who seized upon the FR125 because it had the greatest xmax and I was still hung up on how close I could get to the air movement of a 1 mm xmax 12" driver if constrained to a smaller one. The only other CSS related volunteering was in response to my pestering him with ideas I had for some combinations of 125's and SDX7's. It was only after a few days of this that he came out with the recommendation for the Calhoun which uses the WR125. Of all the Spawns only it, the Shadow and the Harvey are cleared for CSS. Dave never even specifically said the SDX7 would be preferable for the Denon. It was my own extrapolation based on it's also being XBL and having nearly identical electrical specs as the 125.
Also, now that I think about it: was it running high "sensitivity" or "efficiency" that was the issue with Denons. It was during a phone call - I'll have to check my info.
I've noticed that "down low" for the SDX7's since first seeing them on the RAW Acoustics HT3. It may be naively ludicrous, but I was hoping to minimize time smearing by keeping things as closely grouped as factors like comb and baffle step would allow. Go for some kind of trade off?
Do you really think comb filtering will be an issue if the front baffle is even wider than I drew? I could make that baffle up to 18" wide. I also considered making the tower an equilateral triangle in cross section allowing maximum directional separation as well as good internal reflection properties. Just didn't want to bounce at walls behind them too much so I can get closer to them.
I want to make it clear Dave has never promoted CSS products to me. That was my own wording.
When Dave first mentioned the characteristic that made the Denon problematic in his opinion it was I who attempted to pull from him the names of some solutions and he included some Fostex models. I'm the one who seized upon the FR125 because it had the greatest xmax and I was still hung up on how close I could get to the air movement of a 1 mm xmax 12" driver if constrained to a smaller one. The only other CSS related volunteering was in response to my pestering him with ideas I had for some combinations of 125's and SDX7's. It was only after a few days of this that he came out with the recommendation for the Calhoun which uses the WR125. Of all the Spawns only it, the Shadow and the Harvey are cleared for CSS. Dave never even specifically said the SDX7 would be preferable for the Denon. It was my own extrapolation based on it's also being XBL and having nearly identical electrical specs as the 125.
Also, now that I think about it: was it running high "sensitivity" or "efficiency" that was the issue with Denons. It was during a phone call - I'll have to check my info.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.