I don't understand why I can't enjoy both. *AND* I can ride a whizzer without a helmet.
All I'm saying is that I'm not a whizzer-cone guy. I don't like the sound, and don't like the measurements.
Which means my opinion on the AudioNirvana, or Lowther, or Fostex, counts for very little. I've heard the notch-filtered Lowthers from Nelson Pass, nope, not for me.
The speakers I keep wanting to love are the famous coaxes, like the Altec/GPA 604 Duplex or the classic paper-cone Tannoys. But the response of the woofer is a horrendous mess, thanks to the horn smack-dab in the middle, and really falls outside the scope of what crossover EQ or even DSP can do. And the poor horn is not quite large enough, and is pushed right to the edge of its operating range.
One kinky suggestion, which might be worth a try, is using the horn of the 604 Duplex as a supertweeter, and use a MF horn like the AH425. In other words, cross over to the MF horn at 700 Hz, avoid the trouble region between 1~2 kHz, and return to the center horn at a comfortable 5~7 kHz. However, I'm not too sure the center horn of the 604 Duplex has such amazing response between 10~20 kHz, which kind of defeats the purpose of using it as a supertweeter.
Which means my opinion on the AudioNirvana, or Lowther, or Fostex, counts for very little. I've heard the notch-filtered Lowthers from Nelson Pass, nope, not for me.
The speakers I keep wanting to love are the famous coaxes, like the Altec/GPA 604 Duplex or the classic paper-cone Tannoys. But the response of the woofer is a horrendous mess, thanks to the horn smack-dab in the middle, and really falls outside the scope of what crossover EQ or even DSP can do. And the poor horn is not quite large enough, and is pushed right to the edge of its operating range.
One kinky suggestion, which might be worth a try, is using the horn of the 604 Duplex as a supertweeter, and use a MF horn like the AH425. In other words, cross over to the MF horn at 700 Hz, avoid the trouble region between 1~2 kHz, and return to the center horn at a comfortable 5~7 kHz. However, I'm not too sure the center horn of the 604 Duplex has such amazing response between 10~20 kHz, which kind of defeats the purpose of using it as a supertweeter.
Been there. Done that. Bought the aluminum breakup.
I do wish Materion would make a diaphragm that fit.
Thanks, Lynn.
It looks to me like the greatest difficulty is finding Hi-Rez files which are recorded very well.
Few years ago I mounted a very good sound card on my PC. Recoding some vinyl records to the PC and playing them back, the playback was indistinguishable from the original. This is for me the best a digital system can get. So I purchased some Hi-Rez files with my favorite symphonies. I was greatly disappointed, since the recordings were awful to my ears. That is, technically the recordings were superb, only the microphones placement/mixing/mastering sounded unnatural. In this, most LPs I have excel.
Does anyone have any idea as to how to locate well recorded Hi-Rez files prior to purchasing them?
It looks to me like the greatest difficulty is finding Hi-Rez files which are recorded very well.
Few years ago I mounted a very good sound card on my PC. Recoding some vinyl records to the PC and playing them back, the playback was indistinguishable from the original. This is for me the best a digital system can get. So I purchased some Hi-Rez files with my favorite symphonies. I was greatly disappointed, since the recordings were awful to my ears. That is, technically the recordings were superb, only the microphones placement/mixing/mastering sounded unnatural. In this, most LPs I have excel.
Does anyone have any idea as to how to locate well recorded Hi-Rez files prior to purchasing them?
While of course I agree with the rest of your post, as it is absolutely and objectively correct, there is in fact one alternative solution, if you are willing to put up with a very large infinite-baffle enclosure: a very large Sd.
www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/.../fw800hs.pdf
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-31-woofers/fostex-fw800hs-31.5-super-woofer/
While the maximum SPL obtainable may in fact fail to match that of a modern high-excursion 15" sub, the advantage is subtle but real: vanishingly low excursion, even in that first octave, which results in lower IMD and better transient response than any of the comparatively puny "low-efficiency, heavy-cone subwoofers" out there.
Cheers,
Marco
I don't really get any of the super single sub solutions. I think we have learned now that spatial averaging addresses room modes much better and results in better quality bass. Whether you are a proponent of Toole, Geddes or the double bass array approach, the point is to smooth out in room response. I'll take multiple so-so subs over any super sub anyday.
I for one am not putting 3-4 of those fostex in my room.
I for one am not putting 3-4 of those fostex in my room.
Maybe for some it is. Not for me, though.
I totally get why multiple distributed subs are a better solution for domestic rooms than a single one. And of course, if you have N 15" subs lying around, then their total cumulative Sd also ends up being very large, which is a good thing.
That does not change the fact, though, that I also get why a single 80cm Fostex woofer is better than a single 15" (or 18") heavy-cone sub, regardless of how long-excursion the latter may be. (My original post was in response to Lynn Olson's suggestion that using a (as in one) 15" low-efficiency heavy-cone sub was the only practical possibility. I just pointed out that there is in fact another, better, way to reproduce that first octave.)
Marco
Thanks, Mr Olson.
Perhaps one day I will build one, though it's a more of a theoretical interest for me now.
I have to agree with Dr. Geddes on this one. Remember, the more subs you have, the smaller each one can be, since radiated power is shared amongst the array. I don't see any reason N * 10" drivers in equalized closed boxes can't be a very useful solution.
More importantly, you're not wasting power (and valuable driver excursion) in a futile attempt to equalize room nulls, which are most severe with a single driver. Both the peaks and nulls get smaller when more emitters are scattered around the room.
The choice between mono bass (all drivers driven with L+R sub-bass) and stereo bass (drivers on the left side driven with L sub-bass, and drivers on the right side driven with R sub-bass) can selected with a switch, depending on personal preference and program material.
You can even have a variable bass blend if that's your thing; just turn a knob so the result is to your taste. Label it "VLF Width" if you like. In practical terms, I don't you'll find many recordings with 20 Hz on one channel only; most likely, it will panned fairly close to the center, so turning the VLF Width knob may have little effect. Try it and see. It'll probably depend on the recording technique; spaced mikes, as used in vintage classical recordings, probably have the most out-of-phase VLF content, but not if the source is an LP record (nearly all have VLF blended below 60 Hz).
The problems of VLF are very different than the problems of midbass, and I think it requires a different approach. Things that would be anathema to purists ... wireless transmission of audio, Class D power, room EQ, DSP processing ... make a lot of sense in the sub-60 Hz region.
Returning to the concerns of triode enthusiasts, there's something to be said for not asking transformer-coupled vacuum-tube amplifiers to carry significant power below 30 Hz. Transformers hit a brick wall in the 15 to 25 Hz region, and that creates IM distortion that splatters throughout the whole audio range. Better to keep VLF out of the amplifier altogether. Again, vintage sources didn't have much VLF content, so it wasn't a problem back then.
More importantly, you're not wasting power (and valuable driver excursion) in a futile attempt to equalize room nulls, which are most severe with a single driver. Both the peaks and nulls get smaller when more emitters are scattered around the room.
The choice between mono bass (all drivers driven with L+R sub-bass) and stereo bass (drivers on the left side driven with L sub-bass, and drivers on the right side driven with R sub-bass) can selected with a switch, depending on personal preference and program material.
You can even have a variable bass blend if that's your thing; just turn a knob so the result is to your taste. Label it "VLF Width" if you like. In practical terms, I don't you'll find many recordings with 20 Hz on one channel only; most likely, it will panned fairly close to the center, so turning the VLF Width knob may have little effect. Try it and see. It'll probably depend on the recording technique; spaced mikes, as used in vintage classical recordings, probably have the most out-of-phase VLF content, but not if the source is an LP record (nearly all have VLF blended below 60 Hz).
The problems of VLF are very different than the problems of midbass, and I think it requires a different approach. Things that would be anathema to purists ... wireless transmission of audio, Class D power, room EQ, DSP processing ... make a lot of sense in the sub-60 Hz region.
Returning to the concerns of triode enthusiasts, there's something to be said for not asking transformer-coupled vacuum-tube amplifiers to carry significant power below 30 Hz. Transformers hit a brick wall in the 15 to 25 Hz region, and that creates IM distortion that splatters throughout the whole audio range. Better to keep VLF out of the amplifier altogether. Again, vintage sources didn't have much VLF content, so it wasn't a problem back then.
Last edited:
Yeah, I've been wondering about that. Does the folded-aluminum tangential surround of the 802 diaphragm throw "dirt" on the pristine beryllium sound, or not? Or does it just add a little bit of spurious sparkle (that's not really there in the recording)?
Does the 802 and the little multicell (or the modern quadratic-throat, if that's what it is) horn add a bit of extra dispersion at HF? I would expect it would, and maybe act as a localizer for apparent image sources. If it improves the image quality, that's of interest.
The drawback of an additional supertweeter is the difficulty of finding a useful location for it; either way above the MF horn (where it looks a little ridiculous), or spaced between the MF horn and the bass driver (which then raises the MF horn higher than I would like).
There's certainly an emotional pull to the Altec 604 Duplex. It was the monitor of choice in all those wonderful recordings from the Fifties and Sixties. You see three 604's lurking in the background of the studio pictures, above the Ampex 350 multitrack recorder, and the crew-cut engineer making magic at the mix desk.
Last edited:
I have very limited experiance with the altec 604's - i have a pair that i could never get to sound right and went to the 15" biflex with the longest aurum cantis ribbon on an open baffle - low bass was folded corner horns. The biflex and ribbon was quite a bit better in my room.
The Tannoys are another story and much better in my experience. The 12" has the edge over the 15 (crossover can be seamless with 10/12") and with a nicely tuned crossover and matching direct radiator bass (like twin 15's) it can make you forget horns all together. Sure it lacks the ultimate in presence, life and dynamics but the Tannoy can be set up where it will satisfy virtually anybody. The pairs I've had could be driven with 30 watt tube amps no problem.
The Tannoys are another story and much better in my experience. The 12" has the edge over the 15 (crossover can be seamless with 10/12") and with a nicely tuned crossover and matching direct radiator bass (like twin 15's) it can make you forget horns all together. Sure it lacks the ultimate in presence, life and dynamics but the Tannoy can be set up where it will satisfy virtually anybody. The pairs I've had could be driven with 30 watt tube amps no problem.
I really wonder if anyone has ever gotten those things to sound right. I sure haven't, and I claim to love them.
I spent quite a bit of time working with a pair of 604-8G's and couldn't get them to sound right either. They could make certain recordings sound wonderful, but I didn't want to spend the rest of my life listening to those same pieces again and again.
The biggest problem with the 604's was especially obvious when listening from the next room. With the on-axis response made as flat as I could manage, the sound when heard from down the hall had a prominent peak just above crossover and a dip just below. Because of this abrupt discontinuity in the dispersion, it was a catch 22. Correcting the power response would mess up the on-axis response, and vice versa. Most speakers suffer this same effect to some extent, but the problem seemed larger than usual with the 604's.
Several years ago I heard a friend's pair of Tannoy System 15 DMT speakers. I found them to be much more even-handed than the 604's. I don't doubt what Pooh says about the smaller Tannoys. Arthur Loesch told me that he preferred the 12-inchers as well.
Today I learned that a well-heeled audiophile who lives in my community has a set of Tannoy Westminster Royals. Of course, I'm hoping that I will get an opportunity to hear them!
Gary Dahl
The biggest problem with the 604's was especially obvious when listening from the next room. With the on-axis response made as flat as I could manage, the sound when heard from down the hall had a prominent peak just above crossover and a dip just below. Because of this abrupt discontinuity in the dispersion, it was a catch 22. Correcting the power response would mess up the on-axis response, and vice versa. Most speakers suffer this same effect to some extent, but the problem seemed larger than usual with the 604's.
Several years ago I heard a friend's pair of Tannoy System 15 DMT speakers. I found them to be much more even-handed than the 604's. I don't doubt what Pooh says about the smaller Tannoys. Arthur Loesch told me that he preferred the 12-inchers as well.
Today I learned that a well-heeled audiophile who lives in my community has a set of Tannoy Westminster Royals. Of course, I'm hoping that I will get an opportunity to hear them!
Gary Dahl
Jeff Markwart's measurements of a 604-16X isn't too encouraging. On a similar note, I haven't had any success locating a supplier of Tannoy raw drivers, even for replacement purposes. Back to the original plan.
Thom and I are looking around in the Denver, Boulder, Lafayette, Longmont, and Fort Collins area for NC-equipped woodshops that can handle MDF, Baltic Birch, and bentwood.
Thom and I are looking around in the Denver, Boulder, Lafayette, Longmont, and Fort Collins area for NC-equipped woodshops that can handle MDF, Baltic Birch, and bentwood.
Last edited:
I don't know what you have in mind regarding Tannoy's dual concentrics, but you might want to take a look at these replacement drivers for their pro speakers
Tannoy 7900 0644 Tannoy Woofer, 7900 0644 | Full Compass
Tannoy 7900 1289 Combo Driver For VXP12HP, 7900 1289 | Full Compass
Tannoy 8001 0220 Tannoy Coaxial Speaker, 8001 0220 | Full Compass
Hmm. Arthur wasn't wrong. When it comes to Tannoy, and with the exception of the Yorkminster, I've always preferred the 10" for vocals and the 15" for everything else. Somehow, though, I've listened to more 10" and 15" models. From my perspective, the 12" drivers are generally neither too hot nor too cold, but just too boringly competent at everything. There's simply not enough to complain about, which ruins half the fun.