Put it that way: If you buy a replacement diaphragm for tulip tweeters you get the tulip wg with it. In the US it costs around $110 while the diaphragm for a pepperpot without the pot goes for $140.
They feel cheap and weigh nothing which is probably why some declare the pepperpots as superior.
A bit like buying a swiss watch: A Casio is the better watch but it looks and feels cheap compared to a swiss chronometer.
They feel cheap and weigh nothing which is probably why some declare the pepperpots as superior.
A bit like buying a swiss watch: A Casio is the better watch but it looks and feels cheap compared to a swiss chronometer.
Charles,
So you are saying based on the mass of the Tulip it just feels cheap? I can't say I have any first hand knowledge of the Tulip, I am only talking about the acoustical design of the different devices. It sounds like the Tulip is plastic, not a die cast metal part. That may give it a cheap feel, but as long as we don't have a resonance problem then that shouldn't be a problem, but if you do have that problem that would be a concern. But if we compared a metal Tulip to a metal Pepper-pot, which would you chose, apples to apples then?
So you are saying based on the mass of the Tulip it just feels cheap? I can't say I have any first hand knowledge of the Tulip, I am only talking about the acoustical design of the different devices. It sounds like the Tulip is plastic, not a die cast metal part. That may give it a cheap feel, but as long as we don't have a resonance problem then that shouldn't be a problem, but if you do have that problem that would be a concern. But if we compared a metal Tulip to a metal Pepper-pot, which would you chose, apples to apples then?
Hmm 'forgotten' that the Tannoy 10's used a 2 1/2" Cone voice coil.
But the HF diameter remained at 2". No matter, Just Odd. However I've found the 10" to be erm.. lesser, and not really up to their larger brothers.
Not enough Cone area perhaps? They were definitely 'less' to hear.
IMO the tulip waveguide was a cost saving exercise. There is reason that the premium Tannoy DC's revisited the venerable pepperpot.
Albeit I've heard DMT IIs (Twin 15's fitted with the hated tulip things and even Ferrite magnets) that after some small tweaking and using serious source components, sounding simply outstanding.
Sadly Tannoy production and quality during the 'Harmon years' was imo their low water mark.
Bit amazed at the 'pricings' for a HF diaphragm though.
I bought one in '87 direct from Coatbridge, costing me $125. Current price is ~$300 for a 'genuine' Gold series HF diaphragm, and ~$1200 for the same LF cone.
Yes.. there are cheap *** clone parts (as always)
IF foolish enough .
Beyond all that Buy a pair ?.. ending the constant search/wondering if there might be a 'better' driver out there
But the HF diameter remained at 2". No matter, Just Odd. However I've found the 10" to be erm.. lesser, and not really up to their larger brothers.
Not enough Cone area perhaps? They were definitely 'less' to hear.
IMO the tulip waveguide was a cost saving exercise. There is reason that the premium Tannoy DC's revisited the venerable pepperpot.
Albeit I've heard DMT IIs (Twin 15's fitted with the hated tulip things and even Ferrite magnets) that after some small tweaking and using serious source components, sounding simply outstanding.
Sadly Tannoy production and quality during the 'Harmon years' was imo their low water mark.
Bit amazed at the 'pricings' for a HF diaphragm though.
I bought one in '87 direct from Coatbridge, costing me $125. Current price is ~$300 for a 'genuine' Gold series HF diaphragm, and ~$1200 for the same LF cone.
Yes.. there are cheap *** clone parts (as always)
IF foolish enough .
Beyond all that Buy a pair ?.. ending the constant search/wondering if there might be a 'better' driver out there
Last edited:
Bare,
The problem with 10" Tannoy DCs is that usual 10B style cabinet is just too small to achieve good bottom end. They should use 60-100 litre cabinets and there will be plenty of bass. Real problem is that 10 incher is driven with too strong motor for its surface area. Q total is 0,25 and Force factor is whoping 20! Such superlative driver motors, no matter what diameter (12, 15, 18 inches) give subjective impression of lacking in bottom end department. They are too fast. Sometimes designer needs to add resistence in series with woofer to restore subjective balance, actually to worsen Thiele Small parameters! Or, to wind inductors with thinner wire so that resistence of coil adds with resistence of driver.
The problem with 10" Tannoy DCs is that usual 10B style cabinet is just too small to achieve good bottom end. They should use 60-100 litre cabinets and there will be plenty of bass. Real problem is that 10 incher is driven with too strong motor for its surface area. Q total is 0,25 and Force factor is whoping 20! Such superlative driver motors, no matter what diameter (12, 15, 18 inches) give subjective impression of lacking in bottom end department. They are too fast. Sometimes designer needs to add resistence in series with woofer to restore subjective balance, actually to worsen Thiele Small parameters! Or, to wind inductors with thinner wire so that resistence of coil adds with resistence of driver.
ivanlukic,
I would think that if the motor was so out of proportion that you would probably have to add mass to the cone. I would try taping some quarters to the edges of the cone and see if you couldn't lower the fs of the driver and produce the bass you would be looking for. another method that can work if you had drivers to sacrifice would be to cut out portions of the spider to increase the compliance, but this isn't something you would want to do if you didn't have multiple drivers that you could afford to trash.
I would think that if the motor was so out of proportion that you would probably have to add mass to the cone. I would try taping some quarters to the edges of the cone and see if you couldn't lower the fs of the driver and produce the bass you would be looking for. another method that can work if you had drivers to sacrifice would be to cut out portions of the spider to increase the compliance, but this isn't something you would want to do if you didn't have multiple drivers that you could afford to trash.
That assertion keeps being made, but never with any actual, you know, evidence to support it.
But it's quite irrelevant. the Tulip annular phase plug is the superior device from a performance standpoint.
Do you really think that has more to do with performance, or relative cost, or anything else, than with the rise of the Asian retro-fetishist audio niche? Have well-known obsolete design, for a while at least, could get megabucks for it.
Exposure to a strong electromagnetic pulse. The following anecdote told by our own "speaker dave" is illustrative:
"I distinctly recall Greg Timbers having fun with modifying the parameters of Alnico woofers at will during development: 'I think the Q is a little low on this one. Maybe a 2 dB drop in sensitivity would be about right. Lets give it full output for a second from the Crown DC600....Brrrapp. Curve it again and, yes, that's about right.'" Source.
What, you mean obsolete NOS replacement parts cost more than in-production modern parts? Shock! Horror!
The fact that replacement parts for old collector's items cost more than modern equivalents doesn't speak in the slightest to their relative cost of production, of course. It only speaks to the comparative scarcity of supply relative to demand.
I wonder how much of that is real and how much of that is psychoacoustic. Last year I did (and reported on PE's Tech Talk forum) a blind test with two concentric-driver speakers (small eggs from KEF and Tannoy, KHT-3005SE and Arena), a waveguide-loaded speaker Behringer B2031P, a well-excuted variant of a basically flawed design (Usher Tiny Dancer, a 7" 2-way with flush tweeter), and a wide-dispersion budget mini-monitor by John Krutke, the Bargain Mini 4 or something like that. All were supported by subwoofers running fairly high. While one of the concentrics came out on top, the primary reason for that, I think, was treble voicing and not concentricity. Krutke's design and the Behringer beat the Tannoys, which as it happens were the speakers I brought to the comparison. As one would expect, the 7" 2-way was the clear laggard in performance, and had an obvious "tell" in the form of excess upper midrange spittiness that I suppose some audiophiles call "detail." (I should also note that I stayed stationary during the test. Perhaps standing up would've changed things. Or not.)
That said, when I personally look at a speaker that covers everything above the bass from a concentric driver, I'm psychologically more predisposed to "believe" the sonic illusion. I fully expect that that same test, rendered blind, would've probably still ranked the KEF eggs first, because they are clearly excellent little speakers and are voiced to my preferences for a small speaker designed for close listening. But I likely would've vaulted my little Tannoys to a close second just because all of a sudden I would be able to "hear" the difference between coincident and non-coincident drivers. I do not, however, expect others to share in my own psychoacoustic delusions. Some people seem to hear things the way I do (and you seem to, from your comments) when they can see what's playing. Others don't.
Oh really? In what way? Please point me to the Harman white paper pointing out that "bigger diaphragms 'sound better' than small[er] ones."
I think here you're more likely than not taking something wildly out of context, or accepting marketing propaganda as gospel.
Last edited:
If you actually look at the items in question it becomes blatantly obvious that tulips are substantially cheaper to produce.
The tulip consists of an outer ring made from pressed sheet metal, the inner part is plastic while the pepperpot is machined from solid billet.
I never said that tulips are in any way inferior in function, if anything I stated the opposite.
Not sure anybody in their right mind would put the full output of a Crown DC600, an amp for which I cannot find any documentation at all but given Crowns usual designations I'll assume an output of 600W/8Ohm, into an expensive driver which is rated at 65Wrms for HPDs less for Monitor Golds and Reds.
Lastly Tannoy diaphragms are not NOS as they never went out of production.
The only Tannoy item which did go out of production so far are the autoformers they used in their xovers. Everything else like cones, foam surrounds for HPDs, voice coils etc is readily available new from the shelf and officially distributed/sold by Lockwood Audio.
PS: Personally I never look at speakers when I listen to them, I look up, down or most likely close my eyes as seeing the speakers pretty much destroys the stereo effect for me. I make speakers as unobtrusive as possible and given half a chance would soffit mount and cover them with acoustically transparent material so they are practically invisible.
A couple of comments
Interesting thread....
After working with Altec 605A, 604E & 8K's, P.Audio BM18CX38, Selenium 15CO1P, Vifa A20CN-21-04 and a host of other coax designs, I wish to make the following observations.
I have utilized (experimented with) sealed, ported and OB configurations with all of the above. And produced quite a number of traditional multi-way (individual drivers vertically mounted) systems to boot.
As has been pointed out, all designs have their respective limitations.
Coax drivers, in general, seem to be considered suspect, odd if you will. They rarely sell well, save the Altec and Tannoy duplexes. Hifi versions over, say, 8" are rare. Ceiling and pro sound reinforcement have been the primary markets for the majority of coax designs, save Altec and Tannoy high output, near field monitors. (OK, Stephens, Jensen and others too!)
I think the real issue revolves around crossover, as usual. Most Pro crossovers supplied with or recommended for coax drivers are geared around max power handling, projection and very limited bass extension. This makes perfect sense in a sound reinforcement application.
In a residential Hifi application, output capacity is way down on the list of priorities. Bass extension, LF & HF near field integration and near field power response are primary. Most larger coax drivers can be molded and shaped to work well in a hifi role with the proper cabinet (or open baffle) with a correct crossover. Not having to deal with vertical separation, and having a fairly limited horizontal separation are real pluses. However, integrating a large diameter, high mass woofer and a compression driver with a very short horn (or large wave guide woofer cone) is not easy. The two drivers have very different harmonic structures and the designer has to utilize the woofer into the upper mid range. Even with the P.Audio BM18 which provides a 16" wave guide (cone), the lowest you can work the HF driver is around 800 Hz. And in the world of traditional hifi multi-way systems, it is considered foolish to run an 18" much above 250 Hz.
I have found the best of the coax designs offer woofers that work well, as in flat in the frequency domain up to at least 2K. Yes they will beam, but some of that is offset by the lower end of the HF drivers band pass. Which gets to the nut of things, what you normally have is a woofer that can reach up fairly high with a modest rising response, but you need to mate it with an HF section that has a sharp cut off on the low end of its band pass. And there are the inherent efficiency and dispersion profile differences to deal with. Effective crossover solutions look very odd as compared to a typical (vertically separated driver array) two way. Oh yeah, the crossover frequency is in the the upper mid range, a sensitive area in the audio spectrum containing a lot of content.
Some of the best commentary and work concerning large coax crossovers intended for hifi applications is offered by Jeff Markwart in his excellent Altec duplex site here: Jeff Markwart's Corner - Phase Corrected Crossovers
One thing that stands out with my coax work is the crossover has to be spot on. In most cases you can get away with a less than perfect crossover solution with traditional vertical driver layouts. There is a bit of forgiveness if you will. There is usually a bit of usable over lap with basic roll offs similar enough in shape you can blend a bit. Yes, no substitute for getting it as right as you can, but, you do get to a point of diminishing returns. Not so with the coax. Either it's right on, or it's disappointing. REAL disappointing!! Ragged, edgy, not at all coherent. Part of this I believe is the parts of the spectrum that are so right on point out the short coming in the crossover region.
Interesting thread....
After working with Altec 605A, 604E & 8K's, P.Audio BM18CX38, Selenium 15CO1P, Vifa A20CN-21-04 and a host of other coax designs, I wish to make the following observations.
I have utilized (experimented with) sealed, ported and OB configurations with all of the above. And produced quite a number of traditional multi-way (individual drivers vertically mounted) systems to boot.
As has been pointed out, all designs have their respective limitations.
Coax drivers, in general, seem to be considered suspect, odd if you will. They rarely sell well, save the Altec and Tannoy duplexes. Hifi versions over, say, 8" are rare. Ceiling and pro sound reinforcement have been the primary markets for the majority of coax designs, save Altec and Tannoy high output, near field monitors. (OK, Stephens, Jensen and others too!)
I think the real issue revolves around crossover, as usual. Most Pro crossovers supplied with or recommended for coax drivers are geared around max power handling, projection and very limited bass extension. This makes perfect sense in a sound reinforcement application.
In a residential Hifi application, output capacity is way down on the list of priorities. Bass extension, LF & HF near field integration and near field power response are primary. Most larger coax drivers can be molded and shaped to work well in a hifi role with the proper cabinet (or open baffle) with a correct crossover. Not having to deal with vertical separation, and having a fairly limited horizontal separation are real pluses. However, integrating a large diameter, high mass woofer and a compression driver with a very short horn (or large wave guide woofer cone) is not easy. The two drivers have very different harmonic structures and the designer has to utilize the woofer into the upper mid range. Even with the P.Audio BM18 which provides a 16" wave guide (cone), the lowest you can work the HF driver is around 800 Hz. And in the world of traditional hifi multi-way systems, it is considered foolish to run an 18" much above 250 Hz.
I have found the best of the coax designs offer woofers that work well, as in flat in the frequency domain up to at least 2K. Yes they will beam, but some of that is offset by the lower end of the HF drivers band pass. Which gets to the nut of things, what you normally have is a woofer that can reach up fairly high with a modest rising response, but you need to mate it with an HF section that has a sharp cut off on the low end of its band pass. And there are the inherent efficiency and dispersion profile differences to deal with. Effective crossover solutions look very odd as compared to a typical (vertically separated driver array) two way. Oh yeah, the crossover frequency is in the the upper mid range, a sensitive area in the audio spectrum containing a lot of content.
Some of the best commentary and work concerning large coax crossovers intended for hifi applications is offered by Jeff Markwart in his excellent Altec duplex site here: Jeff Markwart's Corner - Phase Corrected Crossovers
One thing that stands out with my coax work is the crossover has to be spot on. In most cases you can get away with a less than perfect crossover solution with traditional vertical driver layouts. There is a bit of forgiveness if you will. There is usually a bit of usable over lap with basic roll offs similar enough in shape you can blend a bit. Yes, no substitute for getting it as right as you can, but, you do get to a point of diminishing returns. Not so with the coax. Either it's right on, or it's disappointing. REAL disappointing!! Ragged, edgy, not at all coherent. Part of this I believe is the parts of the spectrum that are so right on point out the short coming in the crossover region.
Thank you, John B, for your very interesting comments.
For those who, like myself, don't have the knowledge (nor the money) needed to create a high quality passive crossover, the option exists to build an active one, but little mention about it (if my memory is still good) has circulated in this thread. I am interested in your (and/or other knowledgeable people) opinion about this, lets say, important part of the speaker...
Thanks in advance,
M.
For those who, like myself, don't have the knowledge (nor the money) needed to create a high quality passive crossover, the option exists to build an active one, but little mention about it (if my memory is still good) has circulated in this thread. I am interested in your (and/or other knowledgeable people) opinion about this, lets say, important part of the speaker...
Thanks in advance,
M.
I have two pairs of PAudio BM15CX38s whose enclosures I am agonising over at the moment. I have bought another MiniDSP (my favourite toy) and am intending to implement an active crossover. The MiniDSP offers some delay adjustment which I hope will be able to handle any acoustic centre issues.
My previous work with Coaxs has mainly been with smaller 6 1/2" and 8" types where the crossover frequency can go a little higher. As John B said, oddball, asymmetrical crossovers are the order of the day.
I don't really know what to expect but I am prepared to fiddle with the crossover as much as necessary. Doing it actively has the advantage that you can (up to a point - it is a 15" cone after all) concentrate on smooth driver integration and smallest possible directivity collapse, and then EQ out the worst FR anomolies.
I agree with everything John B said, especially the bit about Coaxs needing to be finely fettled to deliver on their sonic promise.
Rgds,
blakk
My previous work with Coaxs has mainly been with smaller 6 1/2" and 8" types where the crossover frequency can go a little higher. As John B said, oddball, asymmetrical crossovers are the order of the day.
I don't really know what to expect but I am prepared to fiddle with the crossover as much as necessary. Doing it actively has the advantage that you can (up to a point - it is a 15" cone after all) concentrate on smooth driver integration and smallest possible directivity collapse, and then EQ out the worst FR anomolies.
I agree with everything John B said, especially the bit about Coaxs needing to be finely fettled to deliver on their sonic promise.
Rgds,
blakk
Max,
My opinion is that anything that you can do with a passive crossover you can do better with a properly designed active crossover. It would be much easier and you have more options with an active device than you can do with a passive crossover. The cost of good inductors alone will match the cost of most of the components of the active crossover and then you have to add the cost of good high voltage film capacitors on top of this. Now if you add in corrective slope that is another few elements in the passive crossover. Then don't even think about time alignment in a passive device. It just is a very expensive proposition to build a great passive crossover for these coaxial speakers, and take care of all the different aspects you need to consider. It can be done, it just isn't easy to say the least. The other thing that I did not touch on is the power loss from all the inductors needed in a 4th order L-R crossover, that is worth plenty in the cost of extra amplification you will need to make up for all those passive components.
Steven
My opinion is that anything that you can do with a passive crossover you can do better with a properly designed active crossover. It would be much easier and you have more options with an active device than you can do with a passive crossover. The cost of good inductors alone will match the cost of most of the components of the active crossover and then you have to add the cost of good high voltage film capacitors on top of this. Now if you add in corrective slope that is another few elements in the passive crossover. Then don't even think about time alignment in a passive device. It just is a very expensive proposition to build a great passive crossover for these coaxial speakers, and take care of all the different aspects you need to consider. It can be done, it just isn't easy to say the least. The other thing that I did not touch on is the power loss from all the inductors needed in a 4th order L-R crossover, that is worth plenty in the cost of extra amplification you will need to make up for all those passive components.
Steven
Thank you Steven. That's what I thought.
My worries ended when I built an active XO based on Pass' B1 buffer.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/SI2pA6woXM_1a_-IJcIdbtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Recommended for people who want a good an relativelly easy discrete active solution (usual disclaims apply ). As big coaxials have high sensitivity, a buffer suits them well to play as XO and volume level...maybe it does not have all possible bells and whistles but satisfactory anyway.
This is the original thread by Jaques Merde:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/156094-b1-active-crossover.html
Cheers,
M.
My worries ended when I built an active XO based on Pass' B1 buffer.
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/SI2pA6woXM_1a_-IJcIdbtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
Recommended for people who want a good an relativelly easy discrete active solution (usual disclaims apply
). As big coaxials have high sensitivity, a buffer suits them well to play as XO and volume level...maybe it does not have all possible bells and whistles but satisfactory anyway.This is the original thread by Jaques Merde:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/156094-b1-active-crossover.html
Cheers,
M.
Choosing the right xover point for Tannoys isn't really that hard at all as the tweeter has a conical 90deg dispersion so the obvious point to cross is where the woofer beams at 90deg and this is roughly where wavelength equals cone diameter.
Indeed this has been confirmed by Tannoy themselves (although not to myself but to another member of the Tannoy Yahoo group), they also recommended a standard 24dB L-R slope.
Dead easy to implement except that pepperpot drivers need additional eq on the tweeter. I use a parametric equalizer which with the small delay it produces may well take care of the time alignment. Having measured the distance between the coils the tweeter should be delayed by about 6 microseconds.
For my 12" drivers I use 1.2kHz and frankly the transition is practically inaudible.
A neat effect is that, unlike with vertically arranged drivers, the sound never changes regardless where I am in the room provided I am at least a few inches in front of them.
Right between them it gets a tiny bit dull due to the 90deg dispersion.
Indeed this has been confirmed by Tannoy themselves (although not to myself but to another member of the Tannoy Yahoo group), they also recommended a standard 24dB L-R slope.
Dead easy to implement except that pepperpot drivers need additional eq on the tweeter. I use a parametric equalizer which with the small delay it produces may well take care of the time alignment. Having measured the distance between the coils the tweeter should be delayed by about 6 microseconds.
For my 12" drivers I use 1.2kHz and frankly the transition is practically inaudible.
A neat effect is that, unlike with vertically arranged drivers, the sound never changes regardless where I am in the room provided I am at least a few inches in front of them.
Right between them it gets a tiny bit dull due to the 90deg dispersion.
Charles that is the same way I look at most crossover situation along with frequency response on separate devices. Is the cone really a conic 90 degrees on the Tannoy or is that approximate. I use a curvilinear cone shape when I am designing a cone. That is really the advantage over the Altecs and all the other coaxials with small horns, the two devices just don't sum very well without both devices working outside there optimum frequencies.It may seem sacrilegious but I would add a 5" or 6" midrange with those designs to get the midrange vocals to sound right, but that goes against the whole coaxial idea. Just saying there is always that midrange hole with the Altec, Urei and others with a small horn lens.
The woofer cone is slightly curved but every polar response plot I've ever seen shows the tweeter dispersion to be conical.
The midrange cleaned up a fair bit since I added a separate woofer and thus removed everything below 175Hz from the DC.
I suspect that the cone movement added some modulation to the tweeter output.
The midrange cleaned up a fair bit since I added a separate woofer and thus removed everything below 175Hz from the DC.
I suspect that the cone movement added some modulation to the tweeter output.
Last edited:
It is interesting that polar response for 10" Tannoy DC with pepperpot that I have is more uniform than for 12 and 15 inchers.
Charles,
Is Tannoy recommendation for 24dB LR xover for active or passive? I intend to build active 24dB LR xover to try it with my 10" K2558. I think that curvature in both pepper pot and cone is exponential.
SyncSource passive delay module in my Tannoy "introduces a frequency invariant time delay to the high frequency compression horn driver to align the acoustic centres of the two sections of the drive unit to a single point source on axis, 20mm behind the high frequency unit".
Charles,
Is Tannoy recommendation for 24dB LR xover for active or passive? I intend to build active 24dB LR xover to try it with my 10" K2558. I think that curvature in both pepper pot and cone is exponential.
SyncSource passive delay module in my Tannoy "introduces a frequency invariant time delay to the high frequency compression horn driver to align the acoustic centres of the two sections of the drive unit to a single point source on axis, 20mm behind the high frequency unit".
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.