The Sound & Final Thoughts
I did not achieve the flat frequency response that Troels designed for this product in my room/ listening environment. Therefore, I can only comment on the modified speaker I ended up with.
When I first powered on the Ekta’s, I thought they sounded good overall but a little edgy on some recordings. I shared my SPL measurements with Troels thinking I might NOT have assembled the crossovers right. He was sure that I assembled them wrong. He made a number of suggestions but there is a limit to what you can do from afar. It is very difficult to match acoustic metrology remotely - different rooms, microphones, measuring procedures, ears, etc. A flat anechoic response doesn’t necessarily stay flat in a furnished room. In the end, I couldn’t explain the difference between “as designed” vs. “as built”. I’m not a huge fan of a ruler flat frequency response anyway. I then chatted with @AllenB about what could be done and he suggested a minor adjustment to the mid-range crossover based on my preferences. I’m more than happy with the results of this change. See SPL graph.
I’ll compare the modified 3-way Ekta 7741’s to my current 2-way speakers, the Sonus Faber Cremona Auditor M’s, doing my best audio reviewer imitation.
The 7741’s are the same height and width as the 6+1 Auditor M’s but instead of a stand, it’s a cabinet with the center filled-in with two 7” mid-woofers. Clearly, you would expect the 7741’s to have more impactful bass and they do. A lot more.
The lowest region of the SPL graphs looks quite similar between the Auditor and the Ekta’s - low 40’s. However, the Ekta’s have much more content in the 60 – 200 Hz region. Two songs that highlight the difference would be the opening bass guitar notes on Macy Gray’s Annabelle and the drum backbeat anchoring Plant & Krauss’ Polly Come Home. The Auditors just can’t reproduce that sound realistically. Some may counter that ANY speaker larger than a 6+1 would show a similar improvement in bass. I wouldn’t disagree.
The Auditors have a more vocal forward presentation and are a little warmer in tone. The vocals in the Ekta 7741’s are positioned more in-line with the other instruments and are a little clearer. Striking the right balance between clean and overly analytical is both difficult and to personal taste.
On this forum, I’ve read two contradictory criticisms of how Troels voices his loudspeakers. In one case, they are too flat and in the other case, they have a downward slope and are not flat. Troels design goal for these speakers was to have a pretty flat frequency response. I prefer a downward sloping frequency response. B&K discuss loudspeaker preferences in their paper “Relevant Loudspeaker Tests in Studios, in Hi-Fi Dealers' Demo Rooms, in the Home etc. using 1/3 Octave, Pink-weighted, Random Noise”. Presented at the 47th Audio Engineering Society Convention 1974-02-26/29 Copenhagen Denmark. I’m not sure why they call this the Harmon Curve.
Listening to the usual selection of “audiophile” recordings of women’s vocals (Eva Cassidy, Dianna Krall, Kari, etc.) they all sound very good. Walking around or sitting off-axis, voices and instruments still sound realistic. The clarity of the Ekta’s allow you to hear deeper into the recording. They give you a front row seat to Yo-Yo Ma’s performance of Dona Nobis Pacem (Sony Classical) breath control and all. On live recordings, I hear more ambient noise from the venue. These spatial cues provide a “you are there” sensation that I like. I remember commenting on how the Auditors bettered my then previous speakers in a similar manner.
The top end driven by the Scanspeak D3004/660 is both articulate and smooth.
The Ekta 7741’s are more efficient on paper as well as on the volume dial.
Are the Ekta’s better than the Auditor’s in every way? No. The Auditors look better. The 2-way on a stand visually takes up less space. As an amateur furniture maker, I’m a fan of Sonus Faber cabinet making and so are the many others who copy Sonus Faber’s lute design. The second difference, which may or may not be a positive, is that the Auditors have a warmer presentation that is more tolerant of recording quality – some might say more musical.
If I could walk into a Troels Gravesen show room and actually listen to his 70+ designs, I might have made a different choice. Comparing different kit options on paper is not the same thing as hearing them and this, in my opinion, is the biggest barrier to buying expensive DIY kits. I took a chance. Even acknowledging a little confirmation bias, I like the Ekta-7741’s a lot and can easily recommend them. Since there is only room for one set of speakers in my home, the Auditor M’s are up for sale.
Grade: Design by TG _ B+. Fabrication by MW _ B+. Engineering help by AB_A+.
I did not achieve the flat frequency response that Troels designed for this product in my room/ listening environment. Therefore, I can only comment on the modified speaker I ended up with.
When I first powered on the Ekta’s, I thought they sounded good overall but a little edgy on some recordings. I shared my SPL measurements with Troels thinking I might NOT have assembled the crossovers right. He was sure that I assembled them wrong. He made a number of suggestions but there is a limit to what you can do from afar. It is very difficult to match acoustic metrology remotely - different rooms, microphones, measuring procedures, ears, etc. A flat anechoic response doesn’t necessarily stay flat in a furnished room. In the end, I couldn’t explain the difference between “as designed” vs. “as built”. I’m not a huge fan of a ruler flat frequency response anyway. I then chatted with @AllenB about what could be done and he suggested a minor adjustment to the mid-range crossover based on my preferences. I’m more than happy with the results of this change. See SPL graph.
I’ll compare the modified 3-way Ekta 7741’s to my current 2-way speakers, the Sonus Faber Cremona Auditor M’s, doing my best audio reviewer imitation.
The 7741’s are the same height and width as the 6+1 Auditor M’s but instead of a stand, it’s a cabinet with the center filled-in with two 7” mid-woofers. Clearly, you would expect the 7741’s to have more impactful bass and they do. A lot more.
The lowest region of the SPL graphs looks quite similar between the Auditor and the Ekta’s - low 40’s. However, the Ekta’s have much more content in the 60 – 200 Hz region. Two songs that highlight the difference would be the opening bass guitar notes on Macy Gray’s Annabelle and the drum backbeat anchoring Plant & Krauss’ Polly Come Home. The Auditors just can’t reproduce that sound realistically. Some may counter that ANY speaker larger than a 6+1 would show a similar improvement in bass. I wouldn’t disagree.
The Auditors have a more vocal forward presentation and are a little warmer in tone. The vocals in the Ekta 7741’s are positioned more in-line with the other instruments and are a little clearer. Striking the right balance between clean and overly analytical is both difficult and to personal taste.
On this forum, I’ve read two contradictory criticisms of how Troels voices his loudspeakers. In one case, they are too flat and in the other case, they have a downward slope and are not flat. Troels design goal for these speakers was to have a pretty flat frequency response. I prefer a downward sloping frequency response. B&K discuss loudspeaker preferences in their paper “Relevant Loudspeaker Tests in Studios, in Hi-Fi Dealers' Demo Rooms, in the Home etc. using 1/3 Octave, Pink-weighted, Random Noise”. Presented at the 47th Audio Engineering Society Convention 1974-02-26/29 Copenhagen Denmark. I’m not sure why they call this the Harmon Curve.
Listening to the usual selection of “audiophile” recordings of women’s vocals (Eva Cassidy, Dianna Krall, Kari, etc.) they all sound very good. Walking around or sitting off-axis, voices and instruments still sound realistic. The clarity of the Ekta’s allow you to hear deeper into the recording. They give you a front row seat to Yo-Yo Ma’s performance of Dona Nobis Pacem (Sony Classical) breath control and all. On live recordings, I hear more ambient noise from the venue. These spatial cues provide a “you are there” sensation that I like. I remember commenting on how the Auditors bettered my then previous speakers in a similar manner.
The top end driven by the Scanspeak D3004/660 is both articulate and smooth.
The Ekta 7741’s are more efficient on paper as well as on the volume dial.
Are the Ekta’s better than the Auditor’s in every way? No. The Auditors look better. The 2-way on a stand visually takes up less space. As an amateur furniture maker, I’m a fan of Sonus Faber cabinet making and so are the many others who copy Sonus Faber’s lute design. The second difference, which may or may not be a positive, is that the Auditors have a warmer presentation that is more tolerant of recording quality – some might say more musical.
If I could walk into a Troels Gravesen show room and actually listen to his 70+ designs, I might have made a different choice. Comparing different kit options on paper is not the same thing as hearing them and this, in my opinion, is the biggest barrier to buying expensive DIY kits. I took a chance. Even acknowledging a little confirmation bias, I like the Ekta-7741’s a lot and can easily recommend them. Since there is only room for one set of speakers in my home, the Auditor M’s are up for sale.
Grade: Design by TG _ B+. Fabrication by MW _ B+. Engineering help by AB_A+.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
mikewxyz,
Congratulations on your build - the speakers look good.
Also thanks for sharing the listening impressions. Unsurprisingly the 2 x Illuminator drivers provide better bass impact and detail for your new DIY build. Good to know that you are liking the overall sound and presentation.
Do you have a picture of you Auditor M that you can share?
Congratulations on your build - the speakers look good.
Also thanks for sharing the listening impressions. Unsurprisingly the 2 x Illuminator drivers provide better bass impact and detail for your new DIY build. Good to know that you are liking the overall sound and presentation.
Do you have a picture of you Auditor M that you can share?
mikewxyz,
Beautiful speakers... but if you are addicted to DIY, you tend to build and not buy...
I once got to listen to a pair of Cremona Auditor; I really liked the sound and looked for something similar in DIY. I found Paul Carmody's "Carrera" design that uses a similar (not the same) 5.25" ScanSpeak Revelator mid-bass driver, and Hiquphon tweeters. I got a kit, built the Carreras and enjoyed them for a few years.
Eventually moved on to a 3 way (own design) using the SS 15W8530K and Hiquphon tweeters; but probably will use the Revelators in a compact 2 way project in the coming months.
Beautiful speakers... but if you are addicted to DIY, you tend to build and not buy...
I once got to listen to a pair of Cremona Auditor; I really liked the sound and looked for something similar in DIY. I found Paul Carmody's "Carrera" design that uses a similar (not the same) 5.25" ScanSpeak Revelator mid-bass driver, and Hiquphon tweeters. I got a kit, built the Carreras and enjoyed them for a few years.
Eventually moved on to a 3 way (own design) using the SS 15W8530K and Hiquphon tweeters; but probably will use the Revelators in a compact 2 way project in the coming months.
Great 7741 build! I was considering the Revelator 851 too, but felt it would be redundant since I already have a Scan-Speak Classic 2.5-way, series-fed 21W/8555 + 18W/8545 + 98000. I think your 7741 was a good choice.
Are you sure that the 851 would have more bass than the 7741?… (2) 18WU woofers has a cone area of 308 cm^2, equivalent to a 10” woofer. I was hoping that the Ekta 7741 would have more bass than the Revelator 851…
Are you sure that the 851 would have more bass than the 7741?… (2) 18WU woofers has a cone area of 308 cm^2, equivalent to a 10” woofer. I was hoping that the Ekta 7741 would have more bass than the Revelator 851…
Thanks 88man. It's hard to know how much difference there is between these product sku's. Early on in this thread, someone was asking the difference between the 7741 and 7751 sound wise. Troels told me that he thinks the 7741 is pretty great but it's one of his newer offerings - maybe still infatuated.
Jason at Arke Audio has built the 851's for a friend and his frequency graph is under 30Hz with room reinforcement. The fs in the spec sheet for the Scanspeak 22W is 21Hz. For the the 18WU, used in the 7741 it's 35Hz. Two of the 18WU gives higher efficiency but not lower bass.
Jason at Arke Audio has built the 851's for a friend and his frequency graph is under 30Hz with room reinforcement. The fs in the spec sheet for the Scanspeak 22W is 21Hz. For the the 18WU, used in the 7741 it's 35Hz. Two of the 18WU gives higher efficiency but not lower bass.
Thanks @mikewxyz! The F -3dB of the Ekta 7741 is 38Hz. I’m not sure what the F -3dB is for the Revelator 851?
The 22W is a great driver, but it’s still a single 8” woofer. My single 21W/8555 gets lost in a large room. In a small room, I think either one should do fine with either kit. I’d still need a sub below 40Hz.
The 22W is a great driver, but it’s still a single 8” woofer. My single 21W/8555 gets lost in a large room. In a small room, I think either one should do fine with either kit. I’d still need a sub below 40Hz.
@AuEars - I gave my initial impressions of the sound above. Of course, I’ve been going through my music collection in the mean while. I would add that the 7741’s image better and are less fussy about placement. The highs and mids are very clear. The biggest difference is the amount of bass compared to my SF Auditor’s and I’m not use to it. For piano or classical, it’s perfect – much more realistic. For some vocals and pop songs, it can be somewhat distracting. I want to hear her voice not the drums banging away. I guess these songs were mixed with ear buds or car radio in mind.
Harry Connick Jr playing now. The horns sound great.
Harry Connick Jr playing now. The horns sound great.
Encouraging sonic impressions on the 7741, Mike! You did an amazing job with the cabs!
I have the SBA MTM-16 D’Appolito, where the hard cones produce an excellent, clear, and transparent speaker, but no bass. That’s why I’d like to build the 7741. I’m electing to go with Amber Z for the 664000 Be tweeter for more smoothness and less grain. The difference between the Alumen and Amber Z is very slight. I’m going with the 7741 instead of the 7751 is because going from 7-4-1 might be a better transition than 7-5-1. Also, the 7741 has the 664000 Be option with a R1 and C1 change. In my case, the Be dome is smoother on tube gear than solid state. I’m familiar with the sonic signatures of both the 660000 and various Be tweeters. I’d like to experiment with both types of tweeters, and with solid state, and tube gear.
As an aside, there are many single-woofer “851” projects, and not enough high-end double-woofer “8851” or “8861” projects. That would solve the bass issue we’re talking about. Needless to say, the double-woofer concept has been very successful and desirable in commercial designs, like the Von Schweikert VR-4, Sony SS-AR1, Wilson Watt Puppy, Joseph Audio Pearl 20/20, B&W 802D, etc. The FR, bass, dynamics are phenomenal, shy of using horns. I’ve asked repeatedly, but the DIY gurus don’t want to offer 8861 or 101061 projects.
I decided to commission my own SBA Satori 9961 using (2) 9.5” WO24P-8 bottom cab with MW16P-8 and TW29B-N on a sloped top cab.
Or, a Scan-Speak Revelator 8861 using (2) 22W/8851T-00 (90L) bottom cab with 18M/8631T-00 + D2908/714000 on a sloped top cab.
No subs needed for most music! The above speakers would have a smaller footprint than a 7741 or 7751 with stereo subs.
I have the SBA MTM-16 D’Appolito, where the hard cones produce an excellent, clear, and transparent speaker, but no bass. That’s why I’d like to build the 7741. I’m electing to go with Amber Z for the 664000 Be tweeter for more smoothness and less grain. The difference between the Alumen and Amber Z is very slight. I’m going with the 7741 instead of the 7751 is because going from 7-4-1 might be a better transition than 7-5-1. Also, the 7741 has the 664000 Be option with a R1 and C1 change. In my case, the Be dome is smoother on tube gear than solid state. I’m familiar with the sonic signatures of both the 660000 and various Be tweeters. I’d like to experiment with both types of tweeters, and with solid state, and tube gear.
As an aside, there are many single-woofer “851” projects, and not enough high-end double-woofer “8851” or “8861” projects. That would solve the bass issue we’re talking about. Needless to say, the double-woofer concept has been very successful and desirable in commercial designs, like the Von Schweikert VR-4, Sony SS-AR1, Wilson Watt Puppy, Joseph Audio Pearl 20/20, B&W 802D, etc. The FR, bass, dynamics are phenomenal, shy of using horns. I’ve asked repeatedly, but the DIY gurus don’t want to offer 8861 or 101061 projects.
I decided to commission my own SBA Satori 9961 using (2) 9.5” WO24P-8 bottom cab with MW16P-8 and TW29B-N on a sloped top cab.
Or, a Scan-Speak Revelator 8861 using (2) 22W/8851T-00 (90L) bottom cab with 18M/8631T-00 + D2908/714000 on a sloped top cab.
No subs needed for most music! The above speakers would have a smaller footprint than a 7741 or 7751 with stereo subs.
@88man: You have considered a number of options in greater detail and understanding than I have. Most of what you say is over my head. My decision criteria were more simplistic.
The 9961 sounds interesting. I couldn't comment on the pros or cons of such a design but more knowledgeable people on this forum could. @AllenB is a wealth of knowledge.
The 9961 sounds interesting. I couldn't comment on the pros or cons of such a design but more knowledgeable people on this forum could. @AllenB is a wealth of knowledge.
That is strange. Perhaps it would make sense to seek advice from the designer himself. His testimony is quite the opposite.
2 of a kind drivers do not make bass any deeper or more precise, tuned exactly the same. They are just louder,
capable of dissipating more heat.
I find underwhelming dealing with different cap types, yet leaving the vertical air resonance very much alive.
@Lojzek, Honestly, my 15W/8530K + 980000 Ellam D’Appo produces deeper bass extension than the MTM-16 D’Appolito in an A/B test. The MW16P has a very rigid cone compared to the sliced paper 5.25” speaker. The MW16P is very clear, transparent, revealing, and “audiophile” like. Whereas, the Scan-Speak, and even perhaps the Illuminator mid in my 13” 3-way, are more “musical” and smoother in my system. After listening to SBA speakers, I find myself switching to Scan-Speak for a more coherent sound without sacrificing detail.
In any case, both the SBA and Scan-Speak give a diverse palate of sound to suit varied tastes and genres. For my taste, the MW16P seems to make a better mid than a woofer. That’s why I’d like to build my own Satori 9961 with (2) WO24P-8 + MW16P-8 + TW29B-N with either a parallel or series-fed crossover. This way I won’t have to fuss about integrating stereo subs.
In any case, both the SBA and Scan-Speak give a diverse palate of sound to suit varied tastes and genres. For my taste, the MW16P seems to make a better mid than a woofer. That’s why I’d like to build my own Satori 9961 with (2) WO24P-8 + MW16P-8 + TW29B-N with either a parallel or series-fed crossover. This way I won’t have to fuss about integrating stereo subs.
How big is your room?
I can agree on transparency, but can't say that it doesn't have bass....it has a lot considering the Sd of the drivers...and it can play amazingly loud for the size.
MW16P is exactly between smaller and bigger ScanSpeaks - 95 vs 120 vs 150 cm2 of surface....
I think it is one of the best units ever no matter the price...
I can agree on transparency, but can't say that it doesn't have bass....it has a lot considering the Sd of the drivers...and it can play amazingly loud for the size.
MW16P is exactly between smaller and bigger ScanSpeaks - 95 vs 120 vs 150 cm2 of surface....
I think it is one of the best units ever no matter the price...