Hi Paco ,
thanks for ideas . you are probably right , i need to try other amps for sure . DAC stage is very good , probably the best what I can get at the moment (even at very big $$) and there is no jitter isues or something similar .
Also I am using linear phase xover - computer based design + 3 stereo dac's and mid frequency sounds just amaizing .
thanks for ideas . you are probably right , i need to try other amps for sure . DAC stage is very good , probably the best what I can get at the moment (even at very big $$) and there is no jitter isues or something similar .
Also I am using linear phase xover - computer based design + 3 stereo dac's and mid frequency sounds just amaizing .
I still think this will run with the PHL or ATC for my money, unless you need 130dB in your listening room....looks fine to me out to 3khz if need be.
but I have never heard either of them, just going off FR plots. what woofer did you use again? to get anywhere near the sensitivity of the PHL and your diy tweeter
but I have never heard either of them, just going off FR plots. what woofer did you use again? to get anywhere near the sensitivity of the PHL and your diy tweeter
Gavin_mi said:
FR plots only take you so far...
Look at the M15 at Mark K's... 3khz is fine... but I would do a steep slope... and it's pretty inefficent in comparison....
the REAL FR of the M15 doesn't look anywhere near Seas' plots
and the M15 doesn't really have anything over the PHL in distortion... in fact the main midrange area the PHL has less than it does
can't give away all my secrets in one post
the woofers I use are hand built drivers. and are 98db/w with faraday rings.... very very low distortion and very very very transparent.
ask thylantar about his side by side tests with the Seas Excel, PHL, Audax PR17, and Focal audicom (or w/e it's called).... blind tests behind a grill cloth with a bunch of his friends
The problem I and everyone who heard all those speakers had with the Seas is that it really didn't sound better than the PHL, even though the FR is slightly prettier....
our minds are trained persay to feel that dynamics and such are more in line with actual music (a guitar with no amps is like 95db efficent)
the difference in SQ is staggeringly small between the two... the problem I HAVE with the Seas is that when you buy it (more expensive I might add also) you're limiting the rest of your system... you will have to level down the best sounding midbass and a beautiful sounding ribbon to match it's inefficency.... this is rather wasteful in my opinion and a lot of the dynamics and transparency are lot
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Audiophilenoob,
I appreciate your argument for the importance of achieving high SPL and dynamics, but you are confouding the issue by using sensitivity as an argument for sound quality.
I could give you 101 examples of high SPL speakers designed for the great outdoors and stage/PA use that would run circles around any hifi driver.
But what's the critical difference here. In home use, we're willing to give up a little SPL for lower linear (FR) distortion and non-linear (harmonic) distortion.
Because SPL depends on listening distance. And in the home, we're listening at typically <5 metres, not >10 or even 20-50metres.
Ok, so if you like valve amplifiers then fair enough, I can see a reason to use high efficiency drivers. But as long as we have have enough power to drive our speakers to life-like levels we're happy.
It doesn't really matter how we achieve high SPL or dynamics eg.
Low power amps and high sensitivity speakers, or high power amps and low sensitivity speakers. Or high power amps and high sensitivity speakers.
What's really important is the bigger picture: the distortions at any given SPL level
Suppose that at 1m and 100dB, driver A plays cleaner than driver B.
Driver A needs 20W to reach that level because it's sensitivity is 87dB/W/m. Driver B has higher sensitivity- 97dB/W/m, and only needs 2Watts.
But driver B has higher 3rd and higher order distortion.
And in terms of distortion, please have a closer look at Mark K's test. Apart from that excellent (and inexplicable) performance at 850Hz, the PHL has higher 3rd and higher order harmonic distortion. The audibility of higher order distortion is well documented.
The linear distortion (start-stop time) is also slightly poorer, although this is rather close, and can be improved by equalizing for flat FR. (FR and linear distortion are related)
Finally, Mark K concludes himself that the PHL 1120 is NOT better than the SEAS M15, contrary to your interpretation of his tests.
He says:
"[the PHL 1120 is] Not as good as the M15, but as good as, or maybe better than the SS8545. Where the PHL excels is sensitivity. I measured a sensitivity of ~95 dB for the PHL. Certainly, if you need the sensitivity, this is a respectable driver. If you don't need the sensitivity, there are other drivers that test better."
If you're running low powered amplifiers it's a good choice.
I appreciate your argument for the importance of achieving high SPL and dynamics, but you are confouding the issue by using sensitivity as an argument for sound quality.
I could give you 101 examples of high SPL speakers designed for the great outdoors and stage/PA use that would run circles around any hifi driver.
But what's the critical difference here. In home use, we're willing to give up a little SPL for lower linear (FR) distortion and non-linear (harmonic) distortion.
Because SPL depends on listening distance. And in the home, we're listening at typically <5 metres, not >10 or even 20-50metres.
Ok, so if you like valve amplifiers then fair enough, I can see a reason to use high efficiency drivers. But as long as we have have enough power to drive our speakers to life-like levels we're happy.
It doesn't really matter how we achieve high SPL or dynamics eg.
Low power amps and high sensitivity speakers, or high power amps and low sensitivity speakers. Or high power amps and high sensitivity speakers.
What's really important is the bigger picture: the distortions at any given SPL level
Suppose that at 1m and 100dB, driver A plays cleaner than driver B.
Driver A needs 20W to reach that level because it's sensitivity is 87dB/W/m. Driver B has higher sensitivity- 97dB/W/m, and only needs 2Watts.
But driver B has higher 3rd and higher order distortion.
And in terms of distortion, please have a closer look at Mark K's test. Apart from that excellent (and inexplicable) performance at 850Hz, the PHL has higher 3rd and higher order harmonic distortion. The audibility of higher order distortion is well documented.
The linear distortion (start-stop time) is also slightly poorer, although this is rather close, and can be improved by equalizing for flat FR. (FR and linear distortion are related)
Finally, Mark K concludes himself that the PHL 1120 is NOT better than the SEAS M15, contrary to your interpretation of his tests.
He says:
"[the PHL 1120 is] Not as good as the M15, but as good as, or maybe better than the SS8545. Where the PHL excels is sensitivity. I measured a sensitivity of ~95 dB for the PHL. Certainly, if you need the sensitivity, this is a respectable driver. If you don't need the sensitivity, there are other drivers that test better."
If you're running low powered amplifiers it's a good choice.
tktran said:
non-linear at 850hz is the lowest on the PHL of any speakers tested
Mark K says that simply because the M15 for the midrange area does do the best low and fairly high (2khz) .... well 2nd best to the W15
I really don't need Mark K to tell me what's correct here
it's quite obvious what drivers perform best in the ACTUAL midrange from 500-2.5khz... or higher...
the M15 is good... but so comparable to the PHL that it's not even worth mentioning any differences (non-linear given to the PHL from the looks of it)...
the M15 is better lower... the PHL is better higher....
and it just so happens that even people with years and years of experience still pick the PHL in blind tests.... It simply for some reason sounds more natural
I really don't even understand why this is troublesome to you... the numbers speak for themselves... and the FR that the PHL is supposed to be used in 400-5khz.... It really does very well...
In fact it IS the lowest non-linear distortion speaker right around 700-1khz
Hi Tktran,
I've also seen that distortion chart for the ATC mid. But I think it's nonsense. The 2nd harmonic distortion at about 1.5kHz shows 1%. At 1kHz it's heading up to about 10%! And that's at the 80dB level!
ATC and others cross it at 380Hz. I can't believe that they would use that x-over frequency if the driver was producing more distortion than signal!
Something's fishy here...
Cheers, Ralph
I've also seen that distortion chart for the ATC mid. But I think it's nonsense. The 2nd harmonic distortion at about 1.5kHz shows 1%. At 1kHz it's heading up to about 10%! And that's at the 80dB level!
ATC and others cross it at 380Hz. I can't believe that they would use that x-over frequency if the driver was producing more distortion than signal!
Something's fishy here...
Cheers, Ralph
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Graphs and measurement interpretation
Audiophilenoob:
With any kind of measurements it is important to know what we are measuring, whether it is a valid test ie. does it actually measure what we want it to measure, how to interpret the results, and finally, what conclusions can we draw from our interpretations.
I don't agree with your conclusion of Mark K's PHL1120 vs SEAS M15.
While I agree with the uncanny performance of the PHL 1120 at 850Hz, how can we dismiss the other results? Even if it's limited to a few other frequencies, they are just as much "midrange" as 850Hz.
Let me be clear of what I'm talking about. What musicians call Middle C is 262Hz, and the first A above this is 440Hz.
In the studio, the commonly accepted definition of midrange is 160Hz to 1280Hz.
Freq, Pitch
20-40, Low bass
40-80, Mid bass
80-160, Upper bass
160-320, Lower midrange
320-640, Middle midrange
640-1280, Upper mids
1.28-2.56K, Low treble
2.56-5.12K, Middle treble
5.12-10.24K, Upper treble
10-20K, Top octave.
Ralph:
Please look at the graph again. The THD levels has been raised by 20dB for clarity. At ~1.5Khz, the 2f is 60dB, not 80dB.
The ATC is probably a good driver. Probably up there with the best of them.
I'd think the ATC it would be a very nice driver. But is it the best? Not sure.
What I am sure of is this. It's very expensive, has a rather large frame and hard to find.
Being such are large tweeter, it's main advantage would be down low. I'd like to see how if it measures up to other large "mid-domes" like the Morel MDM-55 2" mid-dome, SS 1.5" D3806/8200, or other 1" tweeters that perform well down low (SEAS T25-25CF002, ?Dayton RS-28A)
Just my 2c
Audiophilenoob:
With any kind of measurements it is important to know what we are measuring, whether it is a valid test ie. does it actually measure what we want it to measure, how to interpret the results, and finally, what conclusions can we draw from our interpretations.
I don't agree with your conclusion of Mark K's PHL1120 vs SEAS M15.
While I agree with the uncanny performance of the PHL 1120 at 850Hz, how can we dismiss the other results? Even if it's limited to a few other frequencies, they are just as much "midrange" as 850Hz.
Let me be clear of what I'm talking about. What musicians call Middle C is 262Hz, and the first A above this is 440Hz.
In the studio, the commonly accepted definition of midrange is 160Hz to 1280Hz.
Freq, Pitch
20-40, Low bass
40-80, Mid bass
80-160, Upper bass
160-320, Lower midrange
320-640, Middle midrange
640-1280, Upper mids
1.28-2.56K, Low treble
2.56-5.12K, Middle treble
5.12-10.24K, Upper treble
10-20K, Top octave.
Ralph:
Please look at the graph again. The THD levels has been raised by 20dB for clarity. At ~1.5Khz, the 2f is 60dB, not 80dB.
The ATC is probably a good driver. Probably up there with the best of them.
I'd think the ATC it would be a very nice driver. But is it the best? Not sure.
What I am sure of is this. It's very expensive, has a rather large frame and hard to find.
Being such are large tweeter, it's main advantage would be down low. I'd like to see how if it measures up to other large "mid-domes" like the Morel MDM-55 2" mid-dome, SS 1.5" D3806/8200, or other 1" tweeters that perform well down low (SEAS T25-25CF002, ?Dayton RS-28A)
Just my 2c
Re: Graphs and measurement interpretation
this is ludicrous IMO
the PHL was neither designed to do this or ever MEANT For this type of play
Like I said.... it's application based... both the ATC and PHL will have more SQL than the M15 or w15 and that's a fact
both can be crossed higher with superior results
if you need 160hz play.... why even consider the PHL? unless you do a dual 1120 setup it's not even meant below 400hz!
I can easily "throw" out the only frequencies that show the M15's superiority because the PHL wasn't MEANT to play them at all
you need to look to better midbasses to mate with it... or go with the IMO inferior seas products.... there's nothing wrong with using a 15" midbass like I am (best available in any size for the purpose IMO and quite a few others) and having it play to 400-500hz...
it certianly SOUNDS fantastic... better than having the midrange play lower frequencies! even if they play them well
in the frequencies that the PHL was MEANT to play... it does so better than the M15... AND it's a more dynamic speaker
try to find a ribbon to mate at 1200hz to a midrange.... you won't like what kind of distortion it has there.... AND it generally sounds LESS NATURAL than a 2-3khz xover
a dome like the Seas millenium could do it... but again you would probably cry if you saw distortion specs at that frequency... and it DRASTICALLY reduces dynamic capabilites and SPL from my experience with the Seas Millenium
tktran said:
this is ludicrous IMO
the PHL was neither designed to do this or ever MEANT For this type of play
Like I said.... it's application based... both the ATC and PHL will have more SQL than the M15 or w15 and that's a fact
both can be crossed higher with superior results
if you need 160hz play.... why even consider the PHL? unless you do a dual 1120 setup it's not even meant below 400hz!
I can easily "throw" out the only frequencies that show the M15's superiority because the PHL wasn't MEANT to play them at all
you need to look to better midbasses to mate with it... or go with the IMO inferior seas products.... there's nothing wrong with using a 15" midbass like I am (best available in any size for the purpose IMO and quite a few others) and having it play to 400-500hz...
it certianly SOUNDS fantastic... better than having the midrange play lower frequencies! even if they play them well
in the frequencies that the PHL was MEANT to play... it does so better than the M15... AND it's a more dynamic speaker
try to find a ribbon to mate at 1200hz to a midrange.... you won't like what kind of distortion it has there.... AND it generally sounds LESS NATURAL than a 2-3khz xover
a dome like the Seas millenium could do it... but again you would probably cry if you saw distortion specs at that frequency... and it DRASTICALLY reduces dynamic capabilites and SPL from my experience with the Seas Millenium
tktran said:
Aside from Vil, I'm probably the only one who's posted in this thread so far that's owned and extensively listened to the ATC mid in a variety of XO setups.
I've found the best XO point for ATC is actually around 400hz, this was confirmed to me when I found out ATC use 380hz 4th order in all their designs with this driver.
You needn't worry about crossing below 2khz, this is claimed to be a mid afterall and not a tweeter
If I let my enthusiasm for this driver get the better of me its likely it will end in daft arguments where people place specs over actually listening to a driver and that isn't what I'd want.
For me the most important part of a speaker is the music reproduction aspect. Hear the ATC with a very good tweeter and suitable bass driver and all you hear is some of the best sounds you'll likely have heard or at the very least up in that region.
Its easy to fall into spec talk since its all you have to go on before first hand experience. And then when you talk about the costs of high end drivers its easy to pick apart any argument for superior SQ especially in the face of an argument that implies a less expensive option would yield equal or better results based on spec evalution alone.
The ATC has a presence and realism that is simply undeniable. Sound flows out of a rather huge soundstage in a completely natural manner. I've caught myself goose bumping and that shooting of excitement that causes the hairs on the back of head and neck to stand on end on more than one occassion with this driver. Quite simply its wonderful to listen to.
Its really tough to describe this stuff in words but listen and you understand just why you spent $1200 on a pair of pure mids.
One of the reasons why I think it sounds so good and different IMO is simply because of all the little details. Things like the no rear wave that could potentially muddy the sound if not dealt with correctly, wave guide, wide and even dispersion, massive motor structure for a 3" dome, high BL, low Mms and so on.
What it does is concentrate very much on the small details whilst at the same time never losing view of the larger and more dynamic overview of music. Its effortless, very ordered and structured in sound, realistic and most important of all presents music in an entirely natural and believable manner without missing any detail or soundstage cue. To listen to it is to almost be at the venue and in some cases with the right recording its very easy to close your eyes and be there, it never feels like speakers doing the work.
To my ears haven't heard another driver like it yet.
Well said Shin.
It's very easy to "dis" speakers that one has never heard and it's always a problem that measurements and statistics are often all we have to go on.
Thats why, I personally, have only ever commented on drivers that I have heard properly, so you'll never see me posting on Peerless, Seas, Adire, Fostex etc. But if you want opinions on various pro drivers, Audax or Morel, then I'm your man!
It's very easy to "dis" speakers that one has never heard and it's always a problem that measurements and statistics are often all we have to go on.
Thats why, I personally, have only ever commented on drivers that I have heard properly, so you'll never see me posting on Peerless, Seas, Adire, Fostex etc. But if you want opinions on various pro drivers, Audax or Morel, then I'm your man!
Shin ,
thanks for your commnents .
I am always trying to avoid discusion like "particular one is the best (because I own it )" and do not reply to sentences like "then use good electronics" but at this time I will add my 2 cents .
During my life I had possibility to hear a lot of speakers including very expencive custom made studio ones and I am sure there is no perfect , but at the mid position ATC dome sounds very good . At the moment I will not change it for anything . By the way I know how phl 1120 sounds , thats very good and dinamic driver .
But question of the topic is " ATC dome + ribbon tweeter " not the "ATC the best mid" . There is a lot of systems with that mid + dome tweeters (I heard Quested $20.000 studio monitors and ATC active 3 way system) but I never saw ATC + ribbon design . So I started this topic to ask about such expierence .
thanks for your commnents .
I am always trying to avoid discusion like "particular one is the best (because I own it )" and do not reply to sentences like "then use good electronics" but at this time I will add my 2 cents .
During my life I had possibility to hear a lot of speakers including very expencive custom made studio ones and I am sure there is no perfect , but at the mid position ATC dome sounds very good . At the moment I will not change it for anything . By the way I know how phl 1120 sounds , thats very good and dinamic driver .
But question of the topic is " ATC dome + ribbon tweeter " not the "ATC the best mid" . There is a lot of systems with that mid + dome tweeters (I heard Quested $20.000 studio monitors and ATC active 3 way system) but I never saw ATC + ribbon design . So I started this topic to ask about such expierence .
Sorry to have taken a detour but that reply was really a self encapsulated rant about the false hood of specs believe it or not
I think a lot of misinformation comes from assumed performance from specs. So I totally agree with you and pinkmouse. If you talk about what you've heard 90% of the BS disappears.
I haven't heard the ATC alongside a ribbon but my fave ribbon that I have heard would be the AC G1.
Its an expensive risk for something unknown and throwing two great drivers together never means guaranteed perfection but its hard to argue with the points for a positive match.
I know you didn't ask for suggestions on dome or similar tweets but as far as I'm concerned the Scanspeak R2904-7000 is a perfect match for the ATC. This I do have experience with and can say with certainty.
If you speak to ATC they always recommend that you pair with a dome tweeter of the highest quality.
I spent the better part of my teenage years listening every day to my fathers set up Nelson Reed's 804 on an older Threshold amp..and I will say to this day, it was and still is the most dynamic setup I have ever listend to...Including Wilsons Alexandria's, the big CATs which can be played at brutal levels...the ATC is an incredible driver and plan on using it in my next pair of loudspeakers...
>>>But question of the topic is " ATC dome + ribbon tweeter " not the "ATC the best mid" .
>>>Sorry to have taken a detour but that reply was really a self encapsulated rant about the false hood of specs believe it or not
Shin , thats genuinely not about you , so don't take it personally ...
V.
>>>Sorry to have taken a detour but that reply was really a self encapsulated rant about the false hood of specs believe it or not
Shin , thats genuinely not about you , so don't take it personally ...
V.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
The ear and associated neural networks is very interesting, and all kinds of psychoacoustic phenomena can occur. It is just one of our other senses, and as we may have experienced, our senses can play tricks on us.
Just because it sounds increbily detailed or airy or beautiful or whathever, yeah that's great.
But why is this so? Is it a trick or actually getting closer to true fidelity?
This is why valid measurements are so important. As a driver designer it important as part of the onging R&D process for continual improvement.
As a DIYer, it gives me some onsight into the optimal operating range of any driver. The pros and cons of the drivers. The engineering tradeoffs that need to be made.
I've heard the "Trust your ears" or "I heard it, and it was incredible" argument many times, as well as all the other kinds of audiophile verbage. I read hundreds of magazine reviews and they're very good and sometimes wonderful. After a while, you start to wonder- Why do I even even bother?
So testimonials are just that- testimonials. Take it with a grain of salt, maybe tablespoon.
There is an interesting discussion over at Madisound regarding the availability of detailed spec sheets by manufacturers.
Without reliable measurements all we'd be doing is shooting fish in the dark with blindfolds on.
I'm not saying measurements are everything, but I'm not going to dismiss or throw out measurement interpretations because they conflict with my own experiences.
The reason why Mark K doesn't get to test "high end" drivers more often is that people don't want to find out that their darlings don't measure up. eg. the Dynaudio 8" he recently tested.
I knew I shouldn't have got myself involved in discussions about people's darling drivers.
Just because it sounds increbily detailed or airy or beautiful or whathever, yeah that's great.
But why is this so? Is it a trick or actually getting closer to true fidelity?
This is why valid measurements are so important. As a driver designer it important as part of the onging R&D process for continual improvement.
As a DIYer, it gives me some onsight into the optimal operating range of any driver. The pros and cons of the drivers. The engineering tradeoffs that need to be made.
I've heard the "Trust your ears" or "I heard it, and it was incredible" argument many times, as well as all the other kinds of audiophile verbage. I read hundreds of magazine reviews and they're very good and sometimes wonderful. After a while, you start to wonder- Why do I even even bother?
So testimonials are just that- testimonials. Take it with a grain of salt, maybe tablespoon.
There is an interesting discussion over at Madisound regarding the availability of detailed spec sheets by manufacturers.
Without reliable measurements all we'd be doing is shooting fish in the dark with blindfolds on.
I'm not saying measurements are everything, but I'm not going to dismiss or throw out measurement interpretations because they conflict with my own experiences.
The reason why Mark K doesn't get to test "high end" drivers more often is that people don't want to find out that their darlings don't measure up. eg. the Dynaudio 8" he recently tested.
I knew I shouldn't have got myself involved in discussions about people's darling drivers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.