Hey Scott its the old compromise thing
In speakers, give up something to gain another.
Let me rephrase
I have a hunch, intuitive guess, nada mas, the W6 in both labs is really what I;m after in mid voicing. As You correctly point out, a guess + $2 will only buy a $2 Starbucks coffee.
So have to agree.
I could be wrong.
But can you agree that with a lower bass response in the W6, the cone is more controled, = allowing more energy for cleaner mids.
Bass across a cone produces resonances in midrange, especially in complex big orchestra flourishes.
Like 100 instruments all going off ina crescendo, big bangs of kettle drums.
With slightly less bass energy floating over the cone , MIGHT mean better fq response in some lower mids.
I would guess the 2 W6's have something of the signature sound of the 2 W8;s.
But not exactly the same.
I like the W8,, but I'm willing to experiement and see if the W6 delivers the mids more to my preference.
Just some ideas, UNTESTED as you point out, floating over my mind.
Others may chime in, who know both Fostex drivers in midrange delivery.
Chris wanted to know why I so much liike the fact FR has a higher sensitiity.
When I hear the Thors at a certain SPL and a FR same SPL
Amp gain needs a bit more push on vol pot to acheive same SPL.
Listening to the any genre of music. the Thor's seemsed pushed out the speaker , as if forced.
Vs the
FR experience which has this nice free flow of musical energy.
Due to the fact now the FR is carrying more of the load.
FR is much more engaging, intimate, the music has more vivid colors, dynamics.
I had no idea the Seas Excel sounded mid-fi, til I heard a FR next to the low sens Thor.
In speakers, give up something to gain another.
Let me rephrase
I have a hunch, intuitive guess, nada mas, the W6 in both labs is really what I;m after in mid voicing. As You correctly point out, a guess + $2 will only buy a $2 Starbucks coffee.
So have to agree.
I could be wrong.
But can you agree that with a lower bass response in the W6, the cone is more controled, = allowing more energy for cleaner mids.
Bass across a cone produces resonances in midrange, especially in complex big orchestra flourishes.
Like 100 instruments all going off ina crescendo, big bangs of kettle drums.
With slightly less bass energy floating over the cone , MIGHT mean better fq response in some lower mids.
I would guess the 2 W6's have something of the signature sound of the 2 W8;s.
But not exactly the same.
I like the W8,, but I'm willing to experiement and see if the W6 delivers the mids more to my preference.
Just some ideas, UNTESTED as you point out, floating over my mind.
Others may chime in, who know both Fostex drivers in midrange delivery.
Chris wanted to know why I so much liike the fact FR has a higher sensitiity.
When I hear the Thors at a certain SPL and a FR same SPL
Amp gain needs a bit more push on vol pot to acheive same SPL.
Listening to the any genre of music. the Thor's seemsed pushed out the speaker , as if forced.
Vs the
FR experience which has this nice free flow of musical energy.
Due to the fact now the FR is carrying more of the load.
FR is much more engaging, intimate, the music has more vivid colors, dynamics.
I had no idea the Seas Excel sounded mid-fi, til I heard a FR next to the low sens Thor.
OK, let's get a couple more things straight. And I'll try to be blunt now, because you're still not thinking straight.
Firstly, these are loudspeaker drive unit manufacturers, not 'labs'. They are not scientific research institutions nor university departments. A subtle distinction, but it's worth making, because, believe it or not, some manufacturers, notably the smaller ones, have little capacity for technical design or analysis of their own product. If that sounds ridiculous it is. It is also, unfortunately, true. Not what one would expect from a 'lab[oratory]'.
Your 'intutitive guesses' based on basically zero understanding is what's causing you to waste inordinate amounts of time and money as you flit about from one random brain discharge to the next. Just stop for a while. Read what people have said on this thread again, and try to learn from it.
No, I can't agree with that statement because it's completely wrong.
1/ Frequency response is frequency response -it doesn't suddenly become something different unless the drive unit is massively over-driven or over-loaded.
2/ 'Energy' (type unspecified) does not transfer from one frequency to another
3/ Bass does not 'float across a cone'
4/ You appear to be stating that the self-resonant frequency (Fs) of a drive unit determines the frequency response in the midrange. It doesn't. See points 1/ - 3/ above. While it is harder to design a large drive unit with good midrange & HF linearity than a smaller, these qualities are not in themselves directly related to their Fs. In point of fact, within the context you appear to be referring to, and assuming drivers of the same basic type, with equally good baseline frequency responses, motor and suspension design, the larger unit will have lower excursion for a given SPL, and therefore less, not more, non-linear distortion. It may have its own compromises elsewhere, such as a poorer off-axis response as frequency rises, but these are a different issue.
Firstly, these are loudspeaker drive unit manufacturers, not 'labs'. They are not scientific research institutions nor university departments. A subtle distinction, but it's worth making, because, believe it or not, some manufacturers, notably the smaller ones, have little capacity for technical design or analysis of their own product. If that sounds ridiculous it is. It is also, unfortunately, true. Not what one would expect from a 'lab[oratory]'.
Your 'intutitive guesses' based on basically zero understanding is what's causing you to waste inordinate amounts of time and money as you flit about from one random brain discharge to the next. Just stop for a while. Read what people have said on this thread again, and try to learn from it.
No, I can't agree with that statement because it's completely wrong.
1/ Frequency response is frequency response -it doesn't suddenly become something different unless the drive unit is massively over-driven or over-loaded.
2/ 'Energy' (type unspecified) does not transfer from one frequency to another
3/ Bass does not 'float across a cone'
4/ You appear to be stating that the self-resonant frequency (Fs) of a drive unit determines the frequency response in the midrange. It doesn't. See points 1/ - 3/ above. While it is harder to design a large drive unit with good midrange & HF linearity than a smaller, these qualities are not in themselves directly related to their Fs. In point of fact, within the context you appear to be referring to, and assuming drivers of the same basic type, with equally good baseline frequency responses, motor and suspension design, the larger unit will have lower excursion for a given SPL, and therefore less, not more, non-linear distortion. It may have its own compromises elsewhere, such as a poorer off-axis response as frequency rises, but these are a different issue.
Last edited:
I think I’ll be blunt as well. I agree with Scott that there is a ton of good information given so far that is science and fact based from people with a lot of patience. Yet, it seems that after 20 pages of this, none of this info has even been attempted to have been read and used by the OP to form the ideas for the next post. I think the excuse has been (and I am paraphrasing) “it’s too geeky and technical for me to understand so I won’t be bothered”. What we continue to get are ephemeral soliloquies of what is desired, hoped for, wished for, and exclamations of WOW that sounds great, and ignoring all the basic physics and relying on nothing more than the next YT darling recording.
That can work as long as you build exactly what was presented in the recording. But ignoring all the technical details and physics and “Frankensteining” your own DIY speaker with bits and pieces of the best YT videos will give you exactly that, a Frankenstein speaker.
We really are trying to help - but it seems none of the help offered is used or considered.
That can work as long as you build exactly what was presented in the recording. But ignoring all the technical details and physics and “Frankensteining” your own DIY speaker with bits and pieces of the best YT videos will give you exactly that, a Frankenstein speaker.
We really are trying to help - but it seems none of the help offered is used or considered.
Last edited:
WEll then I 'll start by cking out a few books on speakers and cking how the specs work out in a design.
I did gain some ideas of which driver may work best for my goal which is rich midrange.
All I am trying to do with the speakers is better the Seas Thors,
which as i say were lousey after the shootout with a low level FR, The Diatone, one of the worst.
Buildinga horn is out my budget and lack time anyway.
I will look at amazon books on speaker implimentation/design general info..
And read back over this thread.
Will report back on any new ideas , Q's.
Here's the Q for now.
If Wilson, Dali, Zu, Tekton, vandersteen are so popular and so the loudspeaker manufacturer drive unit, has made good on the science ofa high fidelity LOUD speaker,, why is it I find them all to sound like garbage in the midrange
Full of muddyness, coloration, resonances, just plain out distortion in the 120hz bass area and throughout lupper bass/low mids.
Yuck
Yet somehow people buy them,,at big prices.
I just never got it,. and never will.
I've found the Seas Excel the most neutral drivers, yet even their **perfection* can't match what i am hearing from a high end FR.
Maybe i am not applying good science in the Franky,,but i know for sure the speaker will beat any Wilson, Dali, Sonus Faber in midrange.
So i really feel wayyy ahead of this game.
w/o breaking the bank,,well , acutally the bank is low due to all the speaker experimentations past 2 years.
I'll keep in touch,
Glad I could chat things over with some FR fans.
Over at Audiogon I get snides and insults due to my fan-atics about the marvels of FR techology and performance.
I'll make some notes from this topic and chat with my tech friend.
FR as the 21 st C speaker for discerning audiophiles.
I did gain some ideas of which driver may work best for my goal which is rich midrange.
All I am trying to do with the speakers is better the Seas Thors,
which as i say were lousey after the shootout with a low level FR, The Diatone, one of the worst.
Buildinga horn is out my budget and lack time anyway.
I will look at amazon books on speaker implimentation/design general info..
And read back over this thread.
Will report back on any new ideas , Q's.
Here's the Q for now.
If Wilson, Dali, Zu, Tekton, vandersteen are so popular and so the loudspeaker manufacturer drive unit, has made good on the science ofa high fidelity LOUD speaker,, why is it I find them all to sound like garbage in the midrange
Full of muddyness, coloration, resonances, just plain out distortion in the 120hz bass area and throughout lupper bass/low mids.
Yuck
Yet somehow people buy them,,at big prices.
I just never got it,. and never will.
I've found the Seas Excel the most neutral drivers, yet even their **perfection* can't match what i am hearing from a high end FR.
Maybe i am not applying good science in the Franky,,but i know for sure the speaker will beat any Wilson, Dali, Sonus Faber in midrange.
So i really feel wayyy ahead of this game.
w/o breaking the bank,,well , acutally the bank is low due to all the speaker experimentations past 2 years.
I'll keep in touch,
Glad I could chat things over with some FR fans.
Over at Audiogon I get snides and insults due to my fan-atics about the marvels of FR techology and performance.
I'll make some notes from this topic and chat with my tech friend.
FR as the 21 st C speaker for discerning audiophiles.
I call those things crinkle cones.
To be clear, i have never heard them.
However, with headphone on youtube (i know, i know), fostex crinkle woofer/crinkle mid/can't remember tweeter, fostex speaker at a show playing star wars imperial march, it was all there, every instrument. Usually things mush together, but i was impressed.
So, there is something to the crinkle cone, probably less measurable harmonic distortion, maybe less intermod distortion, maybe less energy storage, whatever.
This is better than this, etc, all of this is subjective and subjectual.
Room, volume level, distance, music type, etc.
I enjoy your enthusiasm, this seems new discovery for you, and full range drivers can get you really far for enjoyment (until you want more full range, lol).
To me, you are leaving the full range area, going to a 2-way, or waw (wide band assisted woofer), and that is fine too. 900hz 6db passes here, even coaxials with 1-5khz crossover points.
I think 6db anywhere is a great option, but i am not as time aligned as i used to be (video comparing thiel 1cs to $300 4" 18db 2-way).
To be clear, i have never heard them.
However, with headphone on youtube (i know, i know), fostex crinkle woofer/crinkle mid/can't remember tweeter, fostex speaker at a show playing star wars imperial march, it was all there, every instrument. Usually things mush together, but i was impressed.
So, there is something to the crinkle cone, probably less measurable harmonic distortion, maybe less intermod distortion, maybe less energy storage, whatever.
This is better than this, etc, all of this is subjective and subjectual.
Room, volume level, distance, music type, etc.
I enjoy your enthusiasm, this seems new discovery for you, and full range drivers can get you really far for enjoyment (until you want more full range, lol).
To me, you are leaving the full range area, going to a 2-way, or waw (wide band assisted woofer), and that is fine too. 900hz 6db passes here, even coaxials with 1-5khz crossover points.
I think 6db anywhere is a great option, but i am not as time aligned as i used to be (video comparing thiel 1cs to $300 4" 18db 2-way).
Having auditioned a pair built by a Ga. Tech student to a SOTA looking cabinetry/finish, its [rising] frequency response was such that the only 'thing' my ears 'locked' on was its incredibly diaphanous/surreal HF!
Obviously needed some serious baffle step compensation [BSC], but being multi-way, didn't care why.
In short, any decently designed speaker would sound better in the mids in comparison and assume with its excellent drivers it's likely to match/'best' an 'FR' once in the far-field where the drivers 'gel' as one and especially at higher SPL [power] where the well done multi-ways excel.
Fast forward ??? years [for me] and it became a forum topic with some data, which made it obvious its TL design was much too small, so designed a new one to balance it out and maybe others did too, but don't recall at this late date if someone modded its XOs to suit for existing builds.
Last edited:
They did to a point, although as I recall, all the variations preserved the front baffle dimensions so there weren't major issues on that particular front.
Undersized TL aside, the Thor's big problem was that crossover, particularly the low pass. It shaped the stopband rolloff to the target (which in larger rooms probably could have done with a bit more compensation for step-loss) but it didn't provide anything like sufficient suppression of the main bell-mode & the distortion amplification it caused lower down. Those things really need an XO around 1.6KHz or lower, minimum 3rd order acoustic, preferably 4th order, with a bottomless stopband notch tuned to the primary bell-mode to break-circuit and stop it amplifiying the HD lower down the range. The altered filters were thought to be better than the original, though looking back I suspect they could still be improved upon. Not really worth it now though.
Undersized TL aside, the Thor's big problem was that crossover, particularly the low pass. It shaped the stopband rolloff to the target (which in larger rooms probably could have done with a bit more compensation for step-loss) but it didn't provide anything like sufficient suppression of the main bell-mode & the distortion amplification it caused lower down. Those things really need an XO around 1.6KHz or lower, minimum 3rd order acoustic, preferably 4th order, with a bottomless stopband notch tuned to the primary bell-mode to break-circuit and stop it amplifiying the HD lower down the range. The altered filters were thought to be better than the original, though looking back I suspect they could still be improved upon. Not really worth it now though.
Last edited:
Sorry. The first (and primary) uncontrolled breakup of the magnesium cone at 4.7KHz. SEAS Excel W18E-001 (E0018) 7" magnesium Cone Woofer
In short, any decently designed speaker would sound better in the mids in comparison and assume with its excellent drivers it's likely to match/'best' an 'FR' once in the far-field where the drivers 'gel' as one and especially at higher SPL [power] where the well done multi-ways excel.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes there is merit in this excellent well thought out post.
Well done
had I bought the 3 way 476 10 inch paper woofer + clear dome midrange a_+ clear dome tweet Pjilips instead of the 2 way 475 Philips ,, 1980,,and later on found another usedpair,, then doubled stack...agree would sound far superior to any new Wilson, Sonus Faber or any FR range stand alone single driver..
A well done tamed, no distortion/no coloration such as a Tyler Acoustics dual 8 + dual 6 + Millennium SEas Excel will destroy a single FR in SPL and depth, soundstage'
'
But there are issues with any vintage double stand suchas Philips 2 way's witha 10 inch paper woofer + Clean dome tweeter or any of Troal Gravesen massive 3 and 4 way designs
Expensive
Big/ugly
Heavy
Not intimate nor meant for near field listening
I have major issues with all low sens (below 90db sens) xover type speaker
2 ways
3 ways, Wilson;'s $950K towers, All Sonus fabers,, all Troels Gravesen designs.
There is not 1 xover type speaker than can matcha FR single driver in the magic of idrange for near field, low SPL,. Classical muisc.
Ner a 1.
All stink in some degree.
1st and foremost I must have 92 through 95db sens in a speaker as The main Event. Front and Center.
Absolute must have for my classical muisc enjoyment.
This one criteria sets apart a high end FR from all the xover types.
Some love their xover type speakers,,whereas in my exp, all xover type speakers will in one way or another grate my nerves on certain passages , certain classical recordings.
FR never grate my nerves.
Just pure enjoyment..
This is what i was trying to express.
We all have our own persoanl criteria as to what makes muisc magic and what not..
Most xover type fans would never ever even considera WAW, FR + assist.
Its not their cup of tea.
To me a FR is like a fine Bordeux.
If I hear any xover type speaker in certain recordings and I find issues, the xover fans can't hear any of the defects I can hear.
They just block the muddy, colored, fatigue out and pretend its not there at all.
Its my imagination.
I reject all other speaker designs as well.
IN my exp only FR has that magic which others fall short.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes there is merit in this excellent well thought out post.
Well done
had I bought the 3 way 476 10 inch paper woofer + clear dome midrange a_+ clear dome tweet Pjilips instead of the 2 way 475 Philips ,, 1980,,and later on found another usedpair,, then doubled stack...agree would sound far superior to any new Wilson, Sonus Faber or any FR range stand alone single driver..
A well done tamed, no distortion/no coloration such as a Tyler Acoustics dual 8 + dual 6 + Millennium SEas Excel will destroy a single FR in SPL and depth, soundstage'
'
But there are issues with any vintage double stand suchas Philips 2 way's witha 10 inch paper woofer + Clean dome tweeter or any of Troal Gravesen massive 3 and 4 way designs
Expensive
Big/ugly
Heavy
Not intimate nor meant for near field listening
I have major issues with all low sens (below 90db sens) xover type speaker
2 ways
3 ways, Wilson;'s $950K towers, All Sonus fabers,, all Troels Gravesen designs.
There is not 1 xover type speaker than can matcha FR single driver in the magic of idrange for near field, low SPL,. Classical muisc.
Ner a 1.
All stink in some degree.
1st and foremost I must have 92 through 95db sens in a speaker as The main Event. Front and Center.
Absolute must have for my classical muisc enjoyment.
This one criteria sets apart a high end FR from all the xover types.
Some love their xover type speakers,,whereas in my exp, all xover type speakers will in one way or another grate my nerves on certain passages , certain classical recordings.
FR never grate my nerves.
Just pure enjoyment..
This is what i was trying to express.
We all have our own persoanl criteria as to what makes muisc magic and what not..
Most xover type fans would never ever even considera WAW, FR + assist.
Its not their cup of tea.
To me a FR is like a fine Bordeux.
If I hear any xover type speaker in certain recordings and I find issues, the xover fans can't hear any of the defects I can hear.
They just block the muddy, colored, fatigue out and pretend its not there at all.
Its my imagination.
I reject all other speaker designs as well.
IN my exp only FR has that magic which others fall short.
A single FR can't do it all on its own
A FR needs support ofa good woofer + good tweeter.
btw I just pulled out the Kasun paper tweeter,,in certian classical recordings that are not too high fi,,I note the tweeter adds distortion at complex passages.
I will buy a Beryllium/Nd magnet tweeter from DavidLouis late march.
Clone of the expensive Scan Speaker Be/Nd tweeter.
A FR needs support ofa good woofer + good tweeter.
btw I just pulled out the Kasun paper tweeter,,in certian classical recordings that are not too high fi,,I note the tweeter adds distortion at complex passages.
I will buy a Beryllium/Nd magnet tweeter from DavidLouis late march.
Clone of the expensive Scan Speaker Be/Nd tweeter.
As a further note, the MeloDavid (aka 'DavidLouis') tweeters are in no way, shape or form a 'clone' of any Scan Speak tweeter. They have totally different faceplates, totally different grills, totally different motor structures / rear chambers, and different suspensions. Nor is there any evidence to say the dome is from the same supplier.
Thanks!
From the get-go, it became pretty obvious to me that it's not multi-way per se that gnaws at you or you couldn't stand the inherent errors of 'FR' drivers either, but the XO point and more importantly, its slope order same as me and no doubt [many?] others within the 'sound of my voice' and of course when the drivers aren't chosen primarily based on their 'timber'.
IME it for sure did, so believe I still can easily fool folks with a ~ octave spread based alignment using ~ 'timber' matched drivers and 1st order XOs to [mostly] preserve its PRaT [pace, rhythm & timing] response and if 'close, but no cigar', then believe I could make you a 'convert' if they're acoustically time aligned, though with the [now] superlative DSP systems at ~reasonable cost can just do it digitally.
As always though, there's a cost, so less power handling and pretty sure why the multi-way aficionados would dismiss it 'out of hand'.
Scott, I guess if one was to stretch their definition, all moving coil acoustic transducers are penultimately “clones” of the original Rice / Kellogg patent of ‘24?
Paul, y’all need to stop bouncing around so much; if you’re not careful you’re risking a concussion
Which is based on the original electrical solenoid patent, which I assume is based on the steam patent and somewhere back in the dim/dark past before patents, some form of water control.
Yeah, I can't keep up, so just respond with whatever's ~current and hope it's still relevant.
Last edited:
Yes yes
The seller only mentioned his tweets are something similiar to the Scan Be/Nd
At wayy less than 1/2 the price I am willing to try them out,
Will report back on the performance.
The tweet is supposed to be 92 db, if yes, then thats my kind of tweeter.
Seas Flagship Crescendo states 92db sens.
I bought a single off ebay and was actually not more than 82db sens, IF THAT.
Seas fudged its sens by a wopping 10 db. Shame on Seas
But you see the paper tweet was not bad in jazz recordings
But was not able to handle the load ofa full orch in full swing.
+ Teldec like all classical labels, are not hifi level recordings.
Jazz are always superior in fidelity vs a orch.
Due to the massive size ofa orch, not as easy to mic vs a small jazz ensemble.
Also considering there's not much in snare drums in classical, violins up to 7k hz range,,a tweeter is aonly for sheen and ambience.
I'm listening to classical and now tghats its pulled, I really don't miss it.
The Davidlouis (aka David Melo) has pretty good timber in highs.
But again, i hope the DavidLouis Be/Nd can bring in some sheen and still handle the complex full orch passages with ease and non stressed.
Going with a single Mundorf EVO Silvergold 8uf cap, thats it 1st order.
A pair is like $250 includes ship from HK.
maybe late April,,,,til then no tweeter.
The Nd magnet looks big and beefy.
Maybe not up to Scan's Be/Nd but a heck lot cheaper.
No super horns for me, please.
Sibilance.