To be honest, we only did few tests before making these monsters. I wouldnt call them ''hifi'' or ''audiophile'' my no means, especially because the room's acoustic is next to non-existant (parallel concrete walls)... it's only used for background music and the bass sections are underpowered (2x 700ASC). Still, it pushes some very interesting SPL and all the way from 20hz to 20khz. All ICE powered + miniDSP 4X10HD. I guess a NanoDIGI + Forssell MDAC8 would do some magic
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
One bass section module
According to the Zaph audio website, the Fountek ribbon tweeters are almost as good as the Raals, and profoundly cheaper ($60 rather than $600+?). If only used above 7kHZ in a 3 way system, I have to wonder if anyone would really hear the difference. Plus, Fountek makes a pretty good 1.5 inch ribbon, which will have substantially less of the vertical directivity issue, which may be the main argument against the high end Raal ribbons and many others.
I'm using cheapest possible Fountek as helper tweet , crossed at 20K/6db and , yes , I believe I couldn't hear difference between that and best ribbon in the world
however , octave down ...... whole different story , even with my pretty old hearing apparatus , that one not being always in consensus with Zaph's creations
however , octave down ...... whole different story , even with my pretty old hearing apparatus , that one not being always in consensus with Zaph's creations
Well, the point of all things is to use them if and where they make a difference.
I can't stress enough that system integration makes a world of difference.
You can't just slap two drivers together and hope for the best...
As for the ribbons, the use of full DSP capability doesn't fit them well. Actually, that doesn't fit any tweeter, but much larger surface area (AMTs) or stiff suspension (dome tweeters) will cope better with that problem. I'll explain.
With DSP, people usually go for high order slopes, like 48db/oct or even brickwall.
Let's say we have a 2-way with 7" bassmid and a 140-15D ribbon. The crossover point is at 3k and we use a brickwall filter.
In that situation, what SPL this 7" will put out at 2999Hz, the tweeter will have to do same at 3001Hz.
We are talking here of 6:1 or 5:1 surface area ratios in favor of the bassmid, which also has much greater directivity at the same frequency.
Asking that system to behave as you would wish is simply not possible. If you want something to match something, without blending in the crossover region, those two somethings will have to be the same.
If they are not, then the smaller one of the two (in this match made in digital heaven) will produce proportionally more distortion.
The power of musical signal drops with rising frequency and this fact is used for decades in loudspeaker system integration with great success, for alleviating tweeters from excessive stress and reducing the overall distortion at and around the crossover frequency.
Using sharp slopes in DSP based systems negate this.
Let's take the same 7" bassmid and a 140-15D ribbon system, but now with 2nd order Bessel or Linkwitz-Riley at 3k.
These filter types will have -5 and -6dB at the crossover point, respectively, and a very gentle slope between the crossover point and zero (maximum) level, stretching to about 10k.
If you use that kind of filtering at 3k, you have halved the tweeter excursion at the crossover point and you're counteracting the musical power response with a gentle rise from -5-6dB at 3k to zero at 10k.
There is catch, though. You should have a very flat and far-reaching bass-mid and you'll have increased between 2k and 5k. Therefore, a physical time alignment is necessary, so you would have the crossover region beaming to propagate horizontally through the space (very important stuff).
In practice, bass-mids are not that good, have garbage above 4k, nor the RAAL are flat all the way down, so I use filters that are closer to Butterworth than to Bessel or L-R, to get what I want in acoustical domain.
The goal is to get the best impulse response possible, that looks like it's coming from a single speaker. That means that phase tracking and time alignment are accurate, so the blending is accurate. Combined impulse response has to measure good, if you're going to move to the next step - voicing it by ear.
Attached here is how a S-S Illuminator 7" 4Ohm + RAAL 140-15D look like in response together, nothing but 2nd order, with Zobel network on S-S:
Now, if isn't done right down to the detail (and that usually takes time), all talk of realistic sound of this or that, or micro-macro dynamics is pointless...Especially if you don't have your own recordings to use as a reference point. I do and people that I design the speakers for, do also, and telling here what they think of the monitors would feel like tasteless bragging.
Simply, the sound is made by the complete interaction between components.
For some anomalies, you compensate, some are sorted out on the own, some you will never solve, whatever you speaker integration approach is.
In the end, once you do everything right with the crossover, baffle size, time-alignment, dampening, voicing, positioning in the room...you're left with inherent quality of the drivers used to define the sound.
While RAALs are not ideal, nothing is, they will do 2.5-3k with no problems whatsoever, regarding dynamics and distortion, when used in accordance to long established good practices in speaker integration, and from that point on, it will be very, very hard to match that performance. Sounds stupid when I say it, but I'm not the only one, so I'm not blushing when saying it.
As you can see, I reverted back to 2nd order filters (in both 2-way and 3-way) as I get the best combined impulse response with them. While the cleanup of bass-mid's upper-end garbage is not as effective as with higher orders, the sound is better than if the impulse response does not look like this.
When the project allows for it, in 3-way, I do not use a single 6-7" cone driver for the mid range, but a group of 6 x 3" Aluminum cone full-range drivers. Those have the first problem at 11k (a 3dB high peak), so they allow the above explained approach to bloom to it's full potential. And they will surpass any single cone driver in dynamics and clarity, no matter the kind.
And so on and so forth...thank you for the attention!
I can't stress enough that system integration makes a world of difference.
You can't just slap two drivers together and hope for the best...
As for the ribbons, the use of full DSP capability doesn't fit them well. Actually, that doesn't fit any tweeter, but much larger surface area (AMTs) or stiff suspension (dome tweeters) will cope better with that problem. I'll explain.
With DSP, people usually go for high order slopes, like 48db/oct or even brickwall.
Let's say we have a 2-way with 7" bassmid and a 140-15D ribbon. The crossover point is at 3k and we use a brickwall filter.
In that situation, what SPL this 7" will put out at 2999Hz, the tweeter will have to do same at 3001Hz.
We are talking here of 6:1 or 5:1 surface area ratios in favor of the bassmid, which also has much greater directivity at the same frequency.
Asking that system to behave as you would wish is simply not possible. If you want something to match something, without blending in the crossover region, those two somethings will have to be the same.
If they are not, then the smaller one of the two (in this match made in digital heaven) will produce proportionally more distortion.
The power of musical signal drops with rising frequency and this fact is used for decades in loudspeaker system integration with great success, for alleviating tweeters from excessive stress and reducing the overall distortion at and around the crossover frequency.
Using sharp slopes in DSP based systems negate this.
Let's take the same 7" bassmid and a 140-15D ribbon system, but now with 2nd order Bessel or Linkwitz-Riley at 3k.
These filter types will have -5 and -6dB at the crossover point, respectively, and a very gentle slope between the crossover point and zero (maximum) level, stretching to about 10k.
If you use that kind of filtering at 3k, you have halved the tweeter excursion at the crossover point and you're counteracting the musical power response with a gentle rise from -5-6dB at 3k to zero at 10k.
There is catch, though. You should have a very flat and far-reaching bass-mid and you'll have increased between 2k and 5k. Therefore, a physical time alignment is necessary, so you would have the crossover region beaming to propagate horizontally through the space (very important stuff).
In practice, bass-mids are not that good, have garbage above 4k, nor the RAAL are flat all the way down, so I use filters that are closer to Butterworth than to Bessel or L-R, to get what I want in acoustical domain.
The goal is to get the best impulse response possible, that looks like it's coming from a single speaker. That means that phase tracking and time alignment are accurate, so the blending is accurate. Combined impulse response has to measure good, if you're going to move to the next step - voicing it by ear.
Attached here is how a S-S Illuminator 7" 4Ohm + RAAL 140-15D look like in response together, nothing but 2nd order, with Zobel network on S-S:
Now, if isn't done right down to the detail (and that usually takes time), all talk of realistic sound of this or that, or micro-macro dynamics is pointless...Especially if you don't have your own recordings to use as a reference point. I do and people that I design the speakers for, do also, and telling here what they think of the monitors would feel like tasteless bragging.
Simply, the sound is made by the complete interaction between components.
For some anomalies, you compensate, some are sorted out on the own, some you will never solve, whatever you speaker integration approach is.
In the end, once you do everything right with the crossover, baffle size, time-alignment, dampening, voicing, positioning in the room...you're left with inherent quality of the drivers used to define the sound.
While RAALs are not ideal, nothing is, they will do 2.5-3k with no problems whatsoever, regarding dynamics and distortion, when used in accordance to long established good practices in speaker integration, and from that point on, it will be very, very hard to match that performance. Sounds stupid when I say it, but I'm not the only one, so I'm not blushing when saying it.
As you can see, I reverted back to 2nd order filters (in both 2-way and 3-way) as I get the best combined impulse response with them. While the cleanup of bass-mid's upper-end garbage is not as effective as with higher orders, the sound is better than if the impulse response does not look like this.
When the project allows for it, in 3-way, I do not use a single 6-7" cone driver for the mid range, but a group of 6 x 3" Aluminum cone full-range drivers. Those have the first problem at 11k (a 3dB high peak), so they allow the above explained approach to bloom to it's full potential. And they will surpass any single cone driver in dynamics and clarity, no matter the kind.
And so on and so forth...thank you for the attention!
Attachments
Few months ago i had the chance to hear the top dog from Fountek:
http://solen.ca/wp-content/uploads/neopro5i.pdf
Neo Pro 5i
Was not impressed, especially for the price, and it was outclassed by the Beyma TPL 150 tried in that very system later.
Got a pair of neoCD 3.5H here: i wouldnt say it's completely bad, but i would use a RT-4001 over that on any budget project, without a doubt.
Fountek = Subaru
RAAL = Porsche
Are the RAALs really the best tweeter in the world? Alot of people rave about the ribbon tweeter in the Raidho D1.1, saying it's the best in the world, way better than B&W Diamond, Brushwellman Revel/Focal beryllium, or the Dynaudio Esotar2. I wonder if anyone here has heard or compared the ribbon in the Raidho D series with the RAALs?
I have a couple of speakers with Esotar2 and 70-20XR RAALs and don't really personally feel there's a huge gap between them, RAAL might be more resolving but much less dynamic and poor vertical dispersion (normal for ribbons). But I'm really wondering if the RAALs are actually that good, or DIYers just haven't heard some of the top drivers ?
For example, David Fabrikant of Ascend Acoustics, majority of his speakers use RAAL 70-20XR or 70-10s, says the SEAS T29D001 diamond dome measures and performs better than any RAAL driver.
Last edited:
RAAL's natural frequency response may not be as flat as a high-end dome such Tlab, Seas or Scan but once you EQ it, they're just unbeatable.
Please. Please. If you ever find one that is truly better... LET ME KNOW.
Some pleated Ribbons can offer more low-level detail, as can a few ESL's.
Of course both almost always have more noise, and almost certainly do NOT have the sort of quality transformer that RAAL's can have (..even Ravens).
Moreover these drivers are usually even less "dynamic" than the RAAL's (..with lower mass diaphragms and it's the near complete lack of suspension and low mass that provides greater detail ..and unfortunately noise).
At the top of the "heap" though is *plasma. (..though getting it to work (safely) in it's *best* format: omni, has been proven to be very difficult as spl's increase - and it usually means limited to upper freq.s, usually 5kHz or higher, ONLY.)
*anyone ever remember the cheesy sales line for Plasma TV's in the late '90's?
GET THE PLASMA!
(..RAAL's actually sound similar to the more directive commercial plasma drivers, though they do drop-out low-level effects soon after a fundamental where the Plasma keeps going. In other words: extended decay isn't as good as a Plasma driver.)
Of course both almost always have more noise, and almost certainly do NOT have the sort of quality transformer that RAAL's can have (..even Ravens).
Moreover these drivers are usually even less "dynamic" than the RAAL's (..with lower mass diaphragms and it's the near complete lack of suspension and low mass that provides greater detail ..and unfortunately noise).
At the top of the "heap" though is *plasma. (..though getting it to work (safely) in it's *best* format: omni, has been proven to be very difficult as spl's increase - and it usually means limited to upper freq.s, usually 5kHz or higher, ONLY.)
*anyone ever remember the cheesy sales line for Plasma TV's in the late '90's?
GET THE PLASMA!
(..RAAL's actually sound similar to the more directive commercial plasma drivers, though they do drop-out low-level effects soon after a fundamental where the Plasma keeps going. In other words: extended decay isn't as good as a Plasma driver.)
Last edited:
RAAL's natural frequency response may not be as flat as a high-end dome such Tlab, Seas or Scan but once you EQ it, they're just unbeatable.
Please. Please. If you ever find one that is truly better... LET ME KNOW.
It's all about system synergy. If you want to use ribbon tweeters your whole system has to be designed around them. Yes Raal's are good, had them for a while and I could have build a really good system with them but they just didn't match the system back then so I went back to air motion transformers. Just a little less air and micro detail but better integration, more dynamics, better vertical displacement and therefore better room integration, more lifelike sound, better intelligibility. Just better overall. Raal's measured better though FWIW and in another system they might sound better as well but just not allways.
Well, maybe briefly.
The original Plasma loudspeakers required a constant supply of an ionizing inert gas (Helium). Unfortunately, the gas caused lung problems for listeners if they stayed in a closed room for any reasonable length of time.
There was a guy ... I wish I could remember his name but I can't ... based in Mexico, who developed a full range plasma system in the late 1970's. Apparently it was shockingly good, but he developed COPD and died at a relatively young age.
If you ever come across, or have, any of the old-school Absolute Sound magazines (the ad-free iteration) they talk about them in some issues. I don't know where my 70's copies are ... I was a subscriber starting in 1977 to about 1981, and bought back issues going back to Vol1 No1 ... so I can't help you with what specific issues of the magazine to check out, unfortunately.
Last edited:
FYI: we are adjusting the laser-beam-like directivity of the 210-10D by using the metal chains on the walls, so the angle of those 4 meters heights speakers is modified as we need.
Works for us as a feature, in fact, because it's a showroom and we can control the high frequencies so they are not annoying for the passing customers. Works like a charm!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
You need safety chains on those individual cabinets (something that will support each cabinet from falling should your rigging fail. For public spaces I believe it's mandatory by regulation).
Quite impressive otherwise.
You mean as if they were modular units, such as PA cabinets ?
They're not. It's permanent, each one is supporting the other with (6 total) 28mm diameter solid stainless rods cylinder and bolted from inside the enclosure, which is made from birch and 16ga steel. Greenish brackets that links everything are laser-cut 3/8'' thick steel.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.