Still, to call this your "Flagship speaker"?
(According to Erin's video).
If people want to buy this, which I wouldn't recommend, the first thing I would do, is to overhaul the crossover to get it decent.
Better is to use a DSP with it, to get full potential. But in that case it's a really big missed change that the design only has one woofer.
Response from the original designer
Copied from pinned comment Erin's video (publicly available)
All righty, then; to clarify, my vague reference was to Eric Alexander, whose exchange with Erin was not the only well respected YT reviewer with whom he (EA) has had testy exchanges. If you know, you know.
Among other things, Eric proclaimed Erin’s measurements were somehow defective, without - as far as I’m aware, but am happy to be proven wrong - providing his own. A rather interesting soap opera if you’re into that kinda thing.
What I enjoy about Erin’s reviews is that he listens and provides his subjective impressions of any speaker before diving into an analysis of his very thorough Klippel measurements, pointing out how the two relate.
Last edited:
That is not just only enjoyable, but that's what it's all about.
Especially for the things he doesn't mention in his listening test.
For me he does a much better job of relating the spinorama graphics to his listening impressions than the much longer winded explanation that Amir gave in his over hour long “understanding speaker measurements” - but I guess that’s just my short attention span at work.
Squirrel
Squirrel
No it's not, it's lack of fundamental understanding by some reviewers as well as lack of understanding how to connect with a wider audience.
Besides the fact that subjective statements about how stupid or dumb certain things are, don't belong in a technical objective review.
Leave that up to the viewer.
It was very nice reading the designer’s comments on the video review. I’ll paste them here.
The thing I find missing from these anechoic reviews is testing the effects of listening positions on “alternative” frequency responses and dispersion patterns. Plenty of DIY people have measured their setups at different positions, but I doubt that the average listener has even bothered.
The thing I find missing from these anechoic reviews is testing the effects of listening positions on “alternative” frequency responses and dispersion patterns. Plenty of DIY people have measured their setups at different positions, but I doubt that the average listener has even bothered.
I have used the silk dome Dayton 1-1/8" tweeter and its very detailed with a smooth response. With the dome being larger than a typical 1", it can be crossed down to 2,000 Hz (which I did), her Dayton crossed it at 2,200. The tweeter is very efficient at about 93 dB so when paired with the woofer selected, it needs to be "turned" way down. The 5 1/2" woofer looks intriguing but not very efficient, and not sure how the midrange will sound. I would think it will pack a good bass punch though.
The German Physik in that video really are not that great. I heard their flagship at Axpona one year, and the treble rolled off at about 5-7kHz region. Granted there were 2 of those drivers in that model, so comb filtering could have been the root cause.
I'd really like to hear a set of Duevels at some point....
I'd really like to hear a set of Duevels at some point....
In my opinion, this speakers screams DSP with class D power amp as another poster might have mentioned. The whole idea of going for X-max of 14mm is to basically let you drive the hell out of the woofer. With this speaker, other than the correction at 400Hz, I would give it a 10db boost at 35Hz and a rapid roll of after that. The idea is to give the sound of a big floorstander.
Yes but much more elaborated , they tested many cone materials , carbon fiber seem to be the latest trick but I've seen no measurements ... I have built myself a few 360deg radiators and they are funtastic to get a smooth background illumination sound! Well worth the effort!
But don't expect to get good localisation(s) (of phantom sources)! (in small to medium sized rooms)
That is a complete different sound experience , some like it (hot) some need it (hot) some will kill for it
As soon as I have seen , none of these DDD alterations had a linear freq. resp. (FR) , quite some ripple by small resonances but overall smooth and gently!
Tech Fact : The acoustical output depends of the effectiv radiation surface , which in this case is NOT the (large) face you see but the minor face you see from the top , which is a ring surface shape!
At higher frequency the radiation converts to 90deg angle to the true surface area , you need some physics to understand whats going on ...
The truth is , the DDD and the Walsh are in priciple no different and both are ordinary transducers , just mounted on the top plus radiating with their back side to the outside!
They claimed in the past to offer even more acoustic output using the "full" surface area but it's not true , just a sales trick! Similar as I stated above but the output is even lower if you need to use a steep cone because of getting a higher cutoff frequency! (complex interaction)
nuff said these are audio "dinosours"
ps .. yes 6kHz is the typical transition frequency where the stiff cone goes from pistonic movement to distributed resonances with ring modes dominating! (you need laser detectors and imaging software for visualisation)
Last edited:
I have seen plenty, a Seas one was very recently tested in Voice Coil magazine.
The results were not something to be proud of.
Besides that I think it looks ultra kitsch.
But that's totally subjective taste obviously.
Btw, it's also nothing new.
Back in the late 80s and 90s they already started with carbon fiber cones.
Yes but much more elaborated , they tested many cone materials , carbon fiber seem to be the latest trick but I've seen no measurements ... I have built myself a few 360deg radiators and they are funtastic to get a smooth background illumination sound! Well worth the effort!
But don't expect to get good localisation(s) (of phantom sources)! (in small to medium sized rooms)
That is a complete different sound experience , some like it (hot) some need it (hot) some will kill for it
As soon as I have seen , none of these DDD alterations had a linear freq. resp. (FR) , quite some ripple by small resonances but overall smooth and gently!
Tech Fact : The acoustical output depends of the effectiv radiation surface , which in this case is NOT the (large) face you see but the minor face you see from the top , which is a ring surface shape!
At higher frequency the radiation converts to 90deg angle to the true surface area , you need some physics to understand whats going on ...
The truth is , the DDD and the Walsh are in priciple no different and both are ordinary transducers , just mounted on the top plus radiating with their back side to the outside!
They claimed in the past to offer even more acoustic output using the "full" surface area but it's not true , just a sales trick! Similar as I stated above but the output is even lower if you need to use a steep cone because of getting a higher cutoff frequency! (complex interaction)
nuff said these are audio "dinosours"
ps .. yes 6kHz is the typical transition frequency where the stiff cone goes from pistonic movement to distributed resonances with ring modes dominating! (you need laser detectors and imaging software for visualisation)
Go here for more in-depth knowledge , some PDF's for download , related to loudspeakers : https://www.polytec.com/us/vibromet...rasonics/loudspeakers-and-musical-instruments