I've mentioned the need for surround speakers and have been slowly working on ideas in between other things. This what's shown is the chosen design out a couple of attempts.
Some of you might be thinking why the hell would he go for the RAAL 140-15d in a surround speaker. Truth is I'm having Alex build me those new super duper ribbons for the LGT's and the existing ones will become redundant so they'll be recycled into the surrounds. Mid/bass driver will be Audiotechnology 15H 52 06 13 SD in a ported enclosure of 13ltrs. Since they're smallish surrounds they only need to reach 80hz. Crossover with be 2.5Khz as with the LGT and I'll give them the Acourate treatment just as the mains.
I'm still toying around with the idea of integrating the two amps into them and these would likely be the very compact Aussieamp NXV200 with an equally small shared toroid and PSU. Space is tight though and I don't want a huge monstrosity hanging off the wall. Will consider it some more.
PS. The design naturally lends itself to inverting so as to lower the tweeter slightly.
I'll start up another build thread once things begin moving along.
Some of you might be thinking why the hell would he go for the RAAL 140-15d in a surround speaker. Truth is I'm having Alex build me those new super duper ribbons for the LGT's and the existing ones will become redundant so they'll be recycled into the surrounds. Mid/bass driver will be Audiotechnology 15H 52 06 13 SD in a ported enclosure of 13ltrs. Since they're smallish surrounds they only need to reach 80hz. Crossover with be 2.5Khz as with the LGT and I'll give them the Acourate treatment just as the mains.
I'm still toying around with the idea of integrating the two amps into them and these would likely be the very compact Aussieamp NXV200 with an equally small shared toroid and PSU. Space is tight though and I don't want a huge monstrosity hanging off the wall. Will consider it some more.
PS. The design naturally lends itself to inverting so as to lower the tweeter slightly.
I'll start up another build thread once things begin moving along.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Richard Carpenter asked
Hi Shin. Not to change the subject but what made you chose Raal tweeter over other tweeter. At the price that Raal sell, there are other high end tweeters available. I would think that a silk dome gives you a better of axis response in this particular case. So, I guess the question is, what are the benefits and drawbacks for this particular arrangement? Could you elaborate on it if you have time?
I must be an odd one out, but my taste disagrees with Shin on this one. I was lucky to be lent a pair of these RAALs to audition by a mate, so I threw it into my system, remeasured and calibrated and gave it a whirl.
I run Cabasse Dom 40 domes, so this was a direct comparo (I also run PHL mids and bass driver). Anyway, to cut a long story short, I realised they weren't for me when one day during the week I had them I remembered I had only listened to music for about three hours that week. It (the listening session) always started out just fine, but halfway through an album I 'suddenly remembered' that the lawn needed mowing, or the garbage taken out. You know what I mean.
Maybe ribbons are simply not for me? I've heard Ravens too, never recalled being super impressed.
Simply shows that (as always) try and audition expensive drivers eh? It's great that Shin took the risk and was amply rewarded, I would have been a tad upset.
Funnily enough, the biggest drawback (apart from losing the will to listen, hang on that's a reasonably big drawback!! ha ha) to my soundstage was the characteristic (of ribbons generally I think) that Shin mentioned, the loss of soundstage height presumably due to the dispersion characteristics.
The visual analogy I can give was like on TV where the top and bottom of the picture is replaced by the black bands, in other words the soundstage was now just a horizontal band across the front. To put things into perspective however, my listening room has a ceiling height of 17 feet, so a) no worries about ceiling reflections and b) that my cabasse is crossed to at 1600 hz (steepish slopes) well the dispersion is very big indeed, and my soundstage floats off up past twelve feet into the 'vastness of space'. The ribbons really lost that aspect.
Still, the weakness of that in my room could very well be an advantage in other rooms, so as always it's best (if you can) to suck it and see.
Hi Shin. Not to change the subject but what made you chose Raal tweeter over other tweeter. At the price that Raal sell, there are other high end tweeters available. I would think that a silk dome gives you a better of axis response in this particular case. So, I guess the question is, what are the benefits and drawbacks for this particular arrangement? Could you elaborate on it if you have time?
I must be an odd one out, but my taste disagrees with Shin on this one. I was lucky to be lent a pair of these RAALs to audition by a mate, so I threw it into my system, remeasured and calibrated and gave it a whirl.
I run Cabasse Dom 40 domes, so this was a direct comparo (I also run PHL mids and bass driver). Anyway, to cut a long story short, I realised they weren't for me when one day during the week I had them I remembered I had only listened to music for about three hours that week. It (the listening session) always started out just fine, but halfway through an album I 'suddenly remembered' that the lawn needed mowing, or the garbage taken out. You know what I mean.
Maybe ribbons are simply not for me? I've heard Ravens too, never recalled being super impressed.
Simply shows that (as always) try and audition expensive drivers eh? It's great that Shin took the risk and was amply rewarded, I would have been a tad upset.
Funnily enough, the biggest drawback (apart from losing the will to listen, hang on that's a reasonably big drawback!! ha ha) to my soundstage was the characteristic (of ribbons generally I think) that Shin mentioned, the loss of soundstage height presumably due to the dispersion characteristics.
The visual analogy I can give was like on TV where the top and bottom of the picture is replaced by the black bands, in other words the soundstage was now just a horizontal band across the front. To put things into perspective however, my listening room has a ceiling height of 17 feet, so a) no worries about ceiling reflections and b) that my cabasse is crossed to at 1600 hz (steepish slopes) well the dispersion is very big indeed, and my soundstage floats off up past twelve feet into the 'vastness of space'. The ribbons really lost that aspect.
Still, the weakness of that in my room could very well be an advantage in other rooms, so as always it's best (if you can) to suck it and see.
Hi Terry
Do you have any measurements? Most likely the crossover wasn't worked correctly. I understand you use the DEQX? I presume you did a manual setup rather than the less than useful auto setup?
On the note of sound stage height, yours is counter to what I and others who've heard the LGT would say. Another forum member, Iain, visited in October last year before the speakers were complete and even in this early development stage it was noted about the height of the sound. I therefore have to think something went wrong for you. A sound that doesn't envelope or is small won't keep you listening for long.
Do you have any measurements? Most likely the crossover wasn't worked correctly. I understand you use the DEQX? I presume you did a manual setup rather than the less than useful auto setup?
On the note of sound stage height, yours is counter to what I and others who've heard the LGT would say. Another forum member, Iain, visited in October last year before the speakers were complete and even in this early development stage it was noted about the height of the sound. I therefore have to think something went wrong for you. A sound that doesn't envelope or is small won't keep you listening for long.
Hi Shin
it was a pure bit of luck for me actually, I happened to have Alan from deqx out here for a blast, and it was he that did the measurements and calibrations for me. So, if the measurements and calibration were not optimum, I'm pretty sure I couldn't have done better heh heh.
The initial reaction from Alan was the same, at first he was certain the driver was a 'keeper', but on listening the next day he'd also gone off it. I of course had the luxury of longer term listening over the week, and, well, came to the conclusions above.
I must have misread your earlier post (not going back to check), I thought you had commented on the lack of vertical dispersion. Maybe you didn't perceive that lack of heighth (made that word up) when sitting, but it was pretty obvious for me.
Of course, in most rooms with more normal ceiling heights that aspect may even be an advantage?
Or maybe it's just my ears and how they react to ribbons.
Is just further proof for me that it is always best to audition in your own system if at all possible, and of course that we all have different tastes and preferences.
it was a pure bit of luck for me actually, I happened to have Alan from deqx out here for a blast, and it was he that did the measurements and calibrations for me. So, if the measurements and calibration were not optimum, I'm pretty sure I couldn't have done better heh heh.
The initial reaction from Alan was the same, at first he was certain the driver was a 'keeper', but on listening the next day he'd also gone off it. I of course had the luxury of longer term listening over the week, and, well, came to the conclusions above.
I must have misread your earlier post (not going back to check), I thought you had commented on the lack of vertical dispersion. Maybe you didn't perceive that lack of heighth (made that word up) when sitting, but it was pretty obvious for me.
Of course, in most rooms with more normal ceiling heights that aspect may even be an advantage?
Or maybe it's just my ears and how they react to ribbons.
Is just further proof for me that it is always best to audition in your own system if at all possible, and of course that we all have different tastes and preferences.
Hey again Terry,
Without measurements or hearing the system for myself its hard to say what, if anything, went wrong.
But I'll just reiterate that what you've said is counter to my own experiences and the feedback I've had from others when listening to my speakers. A few have visited and most specifically commented on hearing for the first time height in the soundstage.
I said to Arthur above that I've been very much inclined towards domes in the past and have tried many. None give the same values as the RAAL incorporated into the LGT. Which brings up a good point. I think its worth bearing in mind that a loudspeaker is a system and isolating drivers for evaluation when used in a particular loudspeaker system means that such conclusion can only be viewed in context of that implementation.
The same driver when integrated into variety of different loudspeaker systems will, when considering the system as a whole, give a different sound each time. A number of factors figure into why this is so.
You quite rightly say that the room is important too. The loudspeaker and room can be considered a system too.
BTW Terry I'm not trying to sway your opinion, why wouldn't I believe you when you say the RAAL wasn't for you, but what I am doing is highlighting that more factors are at work than just good, bad or average.
Without measurements or hearing the system for myself its hard to say what, if anything, went wrong.
But I'll just reiterate that what you've said is counter to my own experiences and the feedback I've had from others when listening to my speakers. A few have visited and most specifically commented on hearing for the first time height in the soundstage.
I said to Arthur above that I've been very much inclined towards domes in the past and have tried many. None give the same values as the RAAL incorporated into the LGT. Which brings up a good point. I think its worth bearing in mind that a loudspeaker is a system and isolating drivers for evaluation when used in a particular loudspeaker system means that such conclusion can only be viewed in context of that implementation.
The same driver when integrated into variety of different loudspeaker systems will, when considering the system as a whole, give a different sound each time. A number of factors figure into why this is so.
You quite rightly say that the room is important too. The loudspeaker and room can be considered a system too.
BTW Terry I'm not trying to sway your opinion, why wouldn't I believe you when you say the RAAL wasn't for you, but what I am doing is highlighting that more factors are at work than just good, bad or average.
It's a good point. We can only generalize and describe over all tendencies of the driver. A lot of times people describe speaker sound and in the nutshell they are describing room nods. Too much depends on the crossover and over all design. I am however now very bi curious (silk dome vs ribbon) xaxaxaxa after Shins description of the sound.
yeah I got no worries that I feel people are trying to sway me, it's more like each of us have different ears that respond differently to exactly the same system.
I will admit i didn't play too much with it, at the asking (around $700 or so in Aus) ie well over four times the price of what I use it really was on a hiding to nothing I spose, it had to REALLY knock my socks off to even be in the running, not simply a little better, or better, but majorly better.
All that meant was that I didn't really bother doing a lot of x-over point comparisons, from very vague memory I crossed them somewhere around 1800 or so. I mainly did that cause I feel the mid works nicely at that x-over point, so preferable that the tweeter also worked well there.
Shin has touched on a very important point I feel, that maybe at times gets overlooked on some forums, we listen to systems! , and it's well nigh impossible to tease out the contribution of one factor alone (which I see all the time on other forums. Someone goes in and hears a system they've NEVER heard before and somehow think they're in a position to comment on how wonderful THE AMP sounded???!!! Or the wonderful cables ha ha). So that any particular driver sounds great (or bad) in any one system cannot be extrapolated generally as applying in a totally different setup.
Which kinda only leaves us majority opinion I spose, there can never be definitive statements about any piece of gear ever. After all Bose do sell systems don't they? Someone must like them!
Come to think of it, some people like Wilson Watt speakers too ha ha ha.
Anyway, I'm completely certain that Shins wonderful creation sounds bloomin marvellous, wish I was on hol in the old country and could hear them.
Which I will if I ever get over there Shin, just givin ya fair warning is all.
I will admit i didn't play too much with it, at the asking (around $700 or so in Aus) ie well over four times the price of what I use it really was on a hiding to nothing I spose, it had to REALLY knock my socks off to even be in the running, not simply a little better, or better, but majorly better.
All that meant was that I didn't really bother doing a lot of x-over point comparisons, from very vague memory I crossed them somewhere around 1800 or so. I mainly did that cause I feel the mid works nicely at that x-over point, so preferable that the tweeter also worked well there.
Shin has touched on a very important point I feel, that maybe at times gets overlooked on some forums, we listen to systems! , and it's well nigh impossible to tease out the contribution of one factor alone (which I see all the time on other forums. Someone goes in and hears a system they've NEVER heard before and somehow think they're in a position to comment on how wonderful THE AMP sounded???!!! Or the wonderful cables ha ha). So that any particular driver sounds great (or bad) in any one system cannot be extrapolated generally as applying in a totally different setup.
Which kinda only leaves us majority opinion I spose, there can never be definitive statements about any piece of gear ever. After all Bose do sell systems don't they? Someone must like them!
Come to think of it, some people like Wilson Watt speakers too ha ha ha.
Anyway, I'm completely certain that Shins wonderful creation sounds bloomin marvellous, wish I was on hol in the old country and could hear them.
Which I will if I ever get over there Shin, just givin ya fair warning is all.
One thing that I found in my playing with Ravens (1&2) is that when they are pushed to the bottom of their potential range, they tend to suck. I found them thin and un-involving when they are pushed. I won't try and justify why since the bigger ribbons do have the ability to do lower frequencies. My Ravens 2' s are crossed at 2200 hz and they are quite nice there. The Raven 1's I don't like crossed anywhere south of 3-3500 hz.
As you both said before though, they sound good to me, in my system, in my room etc. To each their own
As you both said before though, they sound good to me, in my system, in my room etc. To each their own
DaveM said:
The 'thin' and 'flat' tone is due to the strong rise of 3rd order distortion when a ribbon is pushed for excursion. Ribbons are mating well with 4 inch light moving mass midrange units, so the cut off can go over 3kHz and there is still enough smooth off axis horizontal dispersion from the cone not to experience strong discontinuity in power response transition to the line source (ribbon). Also good mating is done with dome midrange units. Although large domes are in controlled breakup almost all over their bandwidth, and their distortion is generally higher than competent cones, its their dispersion characteristics that make them subjectively dear to many. If they are heroically engineered like the ATC one, then they can really be something. When on dispersion topic, remember that one thing integral to the ribbon quality is the 16:9 like window they present, avoiding some room reflections. Also their non resonant nature and no mass to speak of gives extra insight to sonics. Yet, mate them badly, cross them low, and you get only negatives. Metallic buzz with antisocial vertical dispersion is all that is left in that way.
The point that I was trying to make was perfectly supported by Shin and Salas. If Alan from Deqx came out and simply set the crossover for the existing points you would be driving them down to 1800 hz. I would guess that somewhere well north of 2000 would be best. Without a doubt, ribbon tweeters are far less forgiving of baffle location, crossover point, and source noise than domes are. They tell you about everything that you may have done wrong in front of them. That can be good and bad. At one point my integrated died and I sent it off for repair. A buddy lent me his older Hafler amp/pre to use while it was gone. I stopped listening all together. Background music was all I could use it for. It gave me a headache to have on any louder than background levels. It really opened my eyes as to how resolving those speakers are. I since moved on and improved the crossovers from Solen/air core to Soniccap/Goertz. Big improvements. I know you guys are into active crossovers, but the point is that when a better signal was fed to them, they pass it along. With that there are plenty of great domes out there, but after living with ribbons for a number of years, it is hard to go back. Most domes simply don't resolve the details the way that ribbons do. On the flip side of that, I've heard plenty of ribbon systems that lack soul and musicality, while domes tend to do those things with much greater ease.
That could be a large part of my conclusions I suppose, the x-over point used.
I previously had my PHLs running up to 3000 hz, applying the 'well known audio priciple' that it's best to have no x-over point in the 'critical midband' heh heh.
But bringing them down to 1650 crossing to the cabasse, BOY what a marvellous transformation! Some part of the change no doubt was due to the tweeter coming lower and some sort of change in the dispersion as well, but (in my mind, so it's not necessarily so!) most of the benefits gained I attributed to crossing the mid lower, ie the mid praps don't go that high nicely.
so (if that were true) it meant any tweeter that goes in had to go that low nicely. Does the RAAL go that low nicely? Guess that indeed is the question. As I say I didn't do a lot of experimenting, tho pretty sure I had at least one x-over point at 2500 loaded. Either way I didn't do much listening.
BUT I made very sure by checking with Alex that the Raals would do OK at those x-over points, and he was totally fine with them and reckoned they were suitable that low. (mainly 'cause they were not my drivers so I made as sure as I could that how I would use them would cause no damage).
So it is entirely possible that longer term listening at a higher x-over point may have helped, but in any case the 'wow' factor needed to justify the extra expense was not there. BTW I'm like that with ALL audio gear, it can't simply be better, or different, it HAS to be WOW! to justify the cost. I'm a bit of a stinge I guess.
Still, the 16 by 9 mentioned by Salas (which was what I was trying to describe, only I didn't manage it with such clarity or brevity!) is/was the overriding memory I have of the presentation.
Which of course is probably an advantage in most listening rooms, I must say I'm extremely lucky to have a room the size of mine.
So. like all things audio, the only arbiter is your own ears.
I previously had my PHLs running up to 3000 hz, applying the 'well known audio priciple' that it's best to have no x-over point in the 'critical midband' heh heh.
But bringing them down to 1650 crossing to the cabasse, BOY what a marvellous transformation! Some part of the change no doubt was due to the tweeter coming lower and some sort of change in the dispersion as well, but (in my mind, so it's not necessarily so!) most of the benefits gained I attributed to crossing the mid lower, ie the mid praps don't go that high nicely.
so (if that were true) it meant any tweeter that goes in had to go that low nicely. Does the RAAL go that low nicely? Guess that indeed is the question. As I say I didn't do a lot of experimenting, tho pretty sure I had at least one x-over point at 2500 loaded. Either way I didn't do much listening.
BUT I made very sure by checking with Alex that the Raals would do OK at those x-over points, and he was totally fine with them and reckoned they were suitable that low. (mainly 'cause they were not my drivers so I made as sure as I could that how I would use them would cause no damage).
So it is entirely possible that longer term listening at a higher x-over point may have helped, but in any case the 'wow' factor needed to justify the extra expense was not there. BTW I'm like that with ALL audio gear, it can't simply be better, or different, it HAS to be WOW! to justify the cost. I'm a bit of a stinge I guess.
Still, the 16 by 9 mentioned by Salas (which was what I was trying to describe, only I didn't manage it with such clarity or brevity!) is/was the overriding memory I have of the presentation.
Which of course is probably an advantage in most listening rooms, I must say I'm extremely lucky to have a room the size of mine.
So. like all things audio, the only arbiter is your own ears.
salas said:
The PHL 1660's, supposedly (according to the website if that's to be trusted) their 'no holds barred' dedicated/no compromise mid driver. It's got a pretty ragged response from about 5k from memory, but in my initial setup I figured having a steep slope at 3k should handle that, and for all I know it did handle that aspect. Now dropping the mids down to 1650 well, the soundstage just opened up dramatically, and seeing as how it's the size and scale of a system which floats my personal boat it was exactly what the doctor ordered.
Its in a smallish sealed enclosure within the main box.
Had a relook at Zaphs measurements/comments on ribbons today, and he is pretty adamant that ribbons don't do well crossed low. Of course that does not necessarily mean that the Raals don't (and as I say Alex was fine on me crossing them that low) but it does tend to back up a few of the comments here about my using them that low and how that might have meant they didn't show their full potential.
Still, it seems he is not all that keen on ribbons in any case, so just how all that fits in is beyond my limited understanding!
1660 is in the blood line of revered Audax PR170. PHL director did the Audax as well in the past as technical director of Audax. The foam strip surround and low mass cone in strong magnetic field force gives clean efficient response higher than average for 6.5'' with good edge termination. But there is a thing. Those drivers are intended to drive wideband midrange waveguides as used in professional cabinets for mids. The waveguides shape the dispersion and mate with HF waveguides of similar projection windows. If used as direct radiators, their overall diameter for dispersion limits must be respected and they must not be used over 2.5kHz for smooth power response in a system IMHO. Its their controlled higher than average extension and low moving mass that gives a better impulse response that will make them sound open and fast and natural. When the manufacturer quotes 5k, he means low distortion and extension, not open dispersion.
Me I use the 1220 which is just a tad less transparent but has 50hz resonance and I implement it widely from 80Hz to 2.2kHz. So I get seamless orchestral power range from one source. Very good for voices this approach. Its all in the planing. With 1660 I would need to cut the 200Hz - 800Hz music's power range in half. The additional efficiency of the 1660 I would have to burn, for my system is 94-95dB overall.
Quote
''Still, it seems he is not all that keen on ribbons in any case, so just how all that fits in is beyond my limited understanding!''
Ribbons are appreciated better in very efficient 3 or 4 way systems with excellent sources. Zaph is into budget 2 ways. He does very well not to like them. They will never mate well there. Not for low cross distortion, not for smooth power response, not for budget limits. They just sound odd in such implementations. And if for experiment someone mates an $700 big Raven or RAAL in a small 2 way with an $80 Seas 6.5'' for example, the distortion will be acceptable at 2,5kHz cross, but the vertical dispersion of the tall line source will seem very antisocial for the casual small two way user. Ribbons are for dedicated listeners that sit down for hours.
Me I use the 1220 which is just a tad less transparent but has 50hz resonance and I implement it widely from 80Hz to 2.2kHz. So I get seamless orchestral power range from one source. Very good for voices this approach. Its all in the planing. With 1660 I would need to cut the 200Hz - 800Hz music's power range in half. The additional efficiency of the 1660 I would have to burn, for my system is 94-95dB overall.
Quote
''Still, it seems he is not all that keen on ribbons in any case, so just how all that fits in is beyond my limited understanding!''
Ribbons are appreciated better in very efficient 3 or 4 way systems with excellent sources. Zaph is into budget 2 ways. He does very well not to like them. They will never mate well there. Not for low cross distortion, not for smooth power response, not for budget limits. They just sound odd in such implementations. And if for experiment someone mates an $700 big Raven or RAAL in a small 2 way with an $80 Seas 6.5'' for example, the distortion will be acceptable at 2,5kHz cross, but the vertical dispersion of the tall line source will seem very antisocial for the casual small two way user. Ribbons are for dedicated listeners that sit down for hours.
Hi Salas, thankyou very much for your last post, it's always good to get the 'background skinny' that helps explain what I found to be very true.
It explains why I found what I did when the x-over point on the mid was dropped.
As the 'upper limit' on the mids was kinda set, as explained by you, it also then helps explain why perhaps the Raal was not, in fact, the right type of driver for my system (if I intended to keep the midrange that is) and further, just shows that speaker design is not just a 'throw any old thing in and it will work'.
Someone with the knowledge of most on this site already know that, me well, I'm just a lucky guy I guess who ended up (by pure blind luck) a system that just happens to work very well.
Still, to be honest, it feel the '16 by 9' presentation of the ribbons might not suit my ears or my room, unless of course crossing them as low as I did accentuated unfairly that aspect of presentation.
Always learning, always learning.
It explains why I found what I did when the x-over point on the mid was dropped.
As the 'upper limit' on the mids was kinda set, as explained by you, it also then helps explain why perhaps the Raal was not, in fact, the right type of driver for my system (if I intended to keep the midrange that is) and further, just shows that speaker design is not just a 'throw any old thing in and it will work'.
Someone with the knowledge of most on this site already know that, me well, I'm just a lucky guy I guess who ended up (by pure blind luck) a system that just happens to work very well.
Still, to be honest, it feel the '16 by 9' presentation of the ribbons might not suit my ears or my room, unless of course crossing them as low as I did accentuated unfairly that aspect of presentation.
Always learning, always learning.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.