Next up? How about the BlieSMa T25A-6?
To a point, at this drive level, you'd have to say swings & roundabouts. HD2 baseline is still higher for the 22, and the BlieSMa has the edge with higher orders largely thanks to lower HD3 -but within this context [& stressing that caveat] it's not exactly a walrus-slapping either, and the 22 is still doing a surprisingly good job. Is it the best tweeter in the world? No. Is it a giant-killer? No -although as far as axial FR and 2.83v nominal HD are concerned, it can punch above where you'd expect it to be.
To a point, at this drive level, you'd have to say swings & roundabouts. HD2 baseline is still higher for the 22, and the BlieSMa has the edge with higher orders largely thanks to lower HD3 -but within this context [& stressing that caveat] it's not exactly a walrus-slapping either, and the 22 is still doing a surprisingly good job. Is it the best tweeter in the world? No. Is it a giant-killer? No -although as far as axial FR and 2.83v nominal HD are concerned, it can punch above where you'd expect it to be.
Attachments
Last edited:
I agree that a few audiophiles rate them highly but this has nothing to do with objectivity. Objectively they have a modest technical performance and are unsuitable for use as mains in rooms for music due to a lack of clean SPL, lack of low frequency extension, uneven linear response, plus no doubt one or two other significant objective failings. They were designed to be what we would call today computer or desktop monitors. 50 years ago they reproduced speech respectably (at less than standard levels) but they have long been replaced by small monitors with superior technical performance for professional use.
I believe audiophiles started going googley eyed over them as mains for music a fair few years after they were initially released. I expect an interesting story exists about how small monitors for OB vans were turned into magical main speakers in the eyes of some nontechnical enthusiasts. Perhaps via gushing subjective reviews but possibly by other means since this would have been at the height of "subjective" enthusiasm in the UK. Is anyone familiar with the history of how the magic was attached?
Thank you. It is one octave from the Fs. Do you remember the slope you used in the DSP, please ?
@Scottmoose : At seeing HifiCompass (hope he is ok as he is living in Ukraine) measurement, with the price, the H5 was a motivation too, and the H3 is not that bad for an increased 22 mm, as good as some 26 mm. Above 3 k hz it is measuring good about disto. The relative high H2 is maybe what is giving it that good subjective ratting in the diy world ? Anyway, the rational was to purchase a SB26 cdc but I was curious about the 22 TAF/G, knowing it asks a way higher frequency cut-off ! (and also the hybrid surround nature in relation to what some call the early breakup with dome tweeter, the relative far break up at the end, and the good sensivity and BL. I don't know about the goodnes or not of the magnitude on and off axis. H5 seems to me more harmfull than H3.
All of those are certainly not important VS the way it is crossed by the user I assume. I wonder if some drillled a home to make a back chamber, knowing it is a difficult trade off design than back chamber and back wave tunnel.
Last edited:
@andy19191
I don't know where the magical stories started.
To me it sounds a lot like just some good music/mixing engineer who said something good about them.
From there it all blew up? Nothing wrong with that btw, happens all the time.
I know the drivers extremely well, since I have a pair here at home and made/built all kinds of projects with it over the last 20-25 years.
I also don't understand the whole vision about why they were made the way they are.
They sound miles better in either a regular closed box without the hump or in a BR system.
Going back in time, especially around the (late) 70s, they were quite different than most other systems as far as I know.
Especially when you want low-end from a little small cabinet.
They don't make any sense for just a closed system, the thick rubber surround does more harm than good.
This was even improved in the later model, which has a much better freq resp without an enormous surround dip.
The weakest link in the regular model is by far the tweeter.
Even back in the day there were tweeters around performing much better. (Scan Speak for example)
Especially with the weird early break-up from a 5 inch woofer, it was never a good marriage.
I don't know where the magical stories started.
To me it sounds a lot like just some good music/mixing engineer who said something good about them.
From there it all blew up? Nothing wrong with that btw, happens all the time.
I know the drivers extremely well, since I have a pair here at home and made/built all kinds of projects with it over the last 20-25 years.
I also don't understand the whole vision about why they were made the way they are.
They sound miles better in either a regular closed box without the hump or in a BR system.
Going back in time, especially around the (late) 70s, they were quite different than most other systems as far as I know.
Especially when you want low-end from a little small cabinet.
They don't make any sense for just a closed system, the thick rubber surround does more harm than good.
This was even improved in the later model, which has a much better freq resp without an enormous surround dip.
The weakest link in the regular model is by far the tweeter.
Even back in the day there were tweeters around performing much better. (Scan Speak for example)
Especially with the weird early break-up from a 5 inch woofer, it was never a good marriage.
Absolutely & my best wishes as ever to Yevgeniy and his family.
It should be. The 22TAF is usually called a 3/4in dome with an oversized surround -which is sort of true. What it also is, is a 'modern' 1in large surround tweeter that happens to use an alloy central dome rather than maintaining the same material. That oversized surround is responsible (just as it is with ring-radiators & basically all nominal domes with oversized surrounds) for the elevated HD2.
Pass, I've no way of knowing. Possibly, although I doubt it's any single reason, more likely a combination of its extremely linear axial response, decent off-axis, and probably some of that elevated HD2 with a bit of HD3 sharpening things up if you cross low enough. Joachim Gerhard crosses it < 2Hz (1.8KHz IIRC) in his Anima for instance, and since I haven't heard of any either exploding or too many complaints other than a slightly elevated HF output (which can be padded), it can evidently take it in that context, even if in theory you're going to have a rising distortion at the bottom end of its passband.
A superb tweeter.
That's the advantage of that smaller dome size. Not that the 26CDC dome is particularly large either, as these things go.
Within broad limits, pretty much.
That's why I wrote - the Bliesma T25A would be an upgrade but for a price hack. But radiation would be even wider and THD lower and SPL significant higer. And "sound signature" similar.
As you wrote, the driver is a half ring radiator. And these have higher H2. We are VERY unsensitive to H2, it needs pretty high levels with music to recognise it. It makes everything a little "softer", less "direct". I know this from my BMS PA drivers at very high levels - which is WAY better as the harsh sound older PA drivers get at high levels but sometimes can "put a curtain" in front of the music (e.g. hard hit metal snare doesn't cut through your head as much - but sometimes you want exactly THAT).
Also as I wrote, I was useing it in my old referece design and regardles of the price it's a VERY good sounding and working tweeter. I also used a lower crossover frequency, but active 4th order.
As you wrote, the driver is a half ring radiator. And these have higher H2. We are VERY unsensitive to H2, it needs pretty high levels with music to recognise it. It makes everything a little "softer", less "direct". I know this from my BMS PA drivers at very high levels - which is WAY better as the harsh sound older PA drivers get at high levels but sometimes can "put a curtain" in front of the music (e.g. hard hit metal snare doesn't cut through your head as much - but sometimes you want exactly THAT).
Also as I wrote, I was useing it in my old referece design and regardles of the price it's a VERY good sounding and working tweeter. I also used a lower crossover frequency, but active 4th order.
The 22TAF/G is a great tweeter and you'll be hard pressed to find anything comparable with that clean, extended sound signature, especially up top where many soft domes get fizzy and veiled. I like the Audav TW025A28 and TW025A20 for metal dome applications. These sound similar to the smaller Seas and can also do better dynamics thanks to a larger radiating area.
I was having a womble through the Canalis site at about 0230 local last night, and discovered that Joachim is actually crossing this thing at 1.4KHz in the larger systems, with it coming in in the little Anima around 1.9KHz.
Personally I'd have thought that a bit ambitious (fan of low crossover frequencies though I certainly am), but who am I to argue with what JG is doing? Either way though, it's clearly a bit of a tank in that regard. Interesting... methinks I may have to look at it for a new project I had planned.
Personally I'd have thought that a bit ambitious (fan of low crossover frequencies though I certainly am), but who am I to argue with what JG is doing? Either way though, it's clearly a bit of a tank in that regard. Interesting... methinks I may have to look at it for a new project I had planned.
I surmise he is talking about the electrical cut-off. Assuming the acoustical one is a little higher ? Anyway it is relativly low in relation to the two octaves from the Fs often seen rule.
It's possible but I think unlikely. It is hard to see any role for the LS3/5A in music production particularly at that time when most would tend to use large monitors as a reference with small speakers used as examples of domestic speakers. The LS3/5A is not suitable for the former (as mentioned in the first paragraph of the BBCs design paper) and is unrepresentative of the latter.
It must have been a fascinating time as those with an interest worked to replace high fidelity with audiophile in the mainstream of home audio. I have seen almost nothing written on the topic despite the very effective job that was done as can still be seen today. The only consumer sector where magic cables were embraced by the mainstream was the audiophile one despite significant efforts in all sectors given the profits to be made. That is a pretty remarkable achievement and one might have expected a few books on the topic. Perhaps I haven't looked in the right places.
Nope, that's the acoustic crossover frequency.
I've never paid attention to these 'rules' myself. They're not 'rules' at all; there's no real technical basis for them other than a few assumptions that primarily date from a time when tweeter power handling was more limited than is typically the case now, and there was less in the way of widespread access to measurement & modelling hardware / software. Partly also driven by the large commercial segment that for cost / margin considerations had to limit the number of filter components used.
I suspect more a consequence of home audio shifting [like a lot of other markets] progressively shifting away from an enthusiast & semi-DIY pastime to one dominated by consumer products. I don't think you can put a specific date on it, but 'mid-late 1960s & early 1970s' seems to have been the major transition, helped by the increasing presence of affordable solid-state amplifiers. As is usually the case when something like that happens, the original market had some degree, even if in many cases quite modest, of technical knowledge, and as it morphed into a consumer-product sector, the demographic changed and the majority no longer had any real idea about the technical side, because they didn't really need to. How many people service their own cars now? Same deal.
In the late 70s the change from high fidelity to audiophile of mainstream home audio (audiophile was always around in the small ads) was quite swift and dramatic as expressed in the content of the UK home audio press of the time. It moved the value of audio hardware away from engineering/technical performance/high fidelity and towards something created more by marketing (in it's broadest sense). For example in the UK the value of the Linn LP12 and the LS3/5A to audiophile enthusiasts was raised a lot quite suddenly a few years after release. It is the story behind how this was planned and executed that I have not seen told. Why were certain products adopted for promotion whereas others weren't? Looking back later from the outside it appeared to be a lottery but it likely wasn't to an informed insider at the time. Here is an example of an engineer discussing the way his hardware lost out in the audiophile lottery. But why?
Home audio is pretty much unique among consumer sectors of significant size in having the mainstream embrace and promote magic. Yes other consumer sectors like your example of cars have some magical gizmos to increase petrol consumption or make the car go faster but they are not accepted and promoted by the mainstream. They remain on the fringes in the small ads (or the web equivalent). This change to embrace magic by the home audio mainstream in the late 70s is, as far as I am aware, unique.
Home audio is pretty much unique among consumer sectors of significant size in having the mainstream embrace and promote magic. Yes other consumer sectors like your example of cars have some magical gizmos to increase petrol consumption or make the car go faster but they are not accepted and promoted by the mainstream. They remain on the fringes in the small ads (or the web equivalent). This change to embrace magic by the home audio mainstream in the late 70s is, as far as I am aware, unique.
Last edited:
The majority of stories don't go that way.
Very often it was an happy accident and everyone plays along with it.
After years not remembering the why and how anymore.
Either unintentionally or intentionally.
I also never said it was. I meant what I said in a more general context.
But it's also kind of ironic, because the whole general idea around people, is that they are actually "great" for audio/studio purposes. 😀
Here is the distortion at 90dB as well as the freq resp of the woofer.
Nothing to be proud of these days....
Even your totally generic no-name 5 inch woofer does (probably) better.
Anyway, I think we are going way offtopic now, lol
Sorry for that btw! 🙂
Ok, one more jump offtopic and down the nerdy rabbit hole.
Than I'll stop, lol! (we have to move to another topic! )
For reference, here is the original paper from BBC;
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976-29.pdf
And here is the freq resp traced and put next to your average freq resp you see everywhere (this case Hobby Hifi magazine).
Blue = BBC paper, Green = HH
Because of tracing, there are some artifacts.
Maybe you will notice a small little difference? lol
That blue curve totally makes sense as a compromise between kinda free standing and close to a wall.
That green curve doesn't make ANY sense for the purpose it was designed for at all!
Here some more explanation;
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ginal-v-diy-clones.347587/page-5#post-6049795
So I guess everyone wants the Roger variant, while the original (as well as the Audiomaster) version is indeed more "neutral".
Btw, also notice in the BBC paper, how high the distortion is.
Than I'll stop, lol! (we have to move to another topic! )
For reference, here is the original paper from BBC;
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976-29.pdf
And here is the freq resp traced and put next to your average freq resp you see everywhere (this case Hobby Hifi magazine).
Blue = BBC paper, Green = HH
Because of tracing, there are some artifacts.
Maybe you will notice a small little difference? lol
That blue curve totally makes sense as a compromise between kinda free standing and close to a wall.
That green curve doesn't make ANY sense for the purpose it was designed for at all!
Here some more explanation;
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ginal-v-diy-clones.347587/page-5#post-6049795
So I guess everyone wants the Roger variant, while the original (as well as the Audiomaster) version is indeed more "neutral".
Btw, also notice in the BBC paper, how high the distortion is.
Perhaps in some cases but without information from an informed insider it is nigh on impossible to know. Someone came up with PRaT but nobody seems to know who. Someone will have put together the "flat earth" movement. "Source first" likely came from someone marketing Linn products. Few seem to want to claim responsibility for adding value by creating effective audiophile marketing. Adding value via engineering features is rather different whether real or audiophile. Being open about it at the time may well have damaged the effectiveness particularly for journalists but decades later? And, as you point out, this is probably not a good place to ask the question. Interesting though.
I read the test of the Joachim Gerhard Anima in Stereophile and indeed saw the measurement was speaking of a 1k7 hz filter in opposition of what the notice of the speaker is showing : 2k7 hz! Quite a huge difference between what is measured by the review and what is advertised indeed !
At seing again Dibirama THD measurement of the Seas 22 TAF/G, https://www.dibirama.altervista.org/altoparlanti-hi-fi/tweeter/seas-22taf-g-detail.html I assume Joachim G. gambled than a little two ways will not be pushed often till 102 dB and maybe the woofer below distorss more before ! https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonics-anima-loudspeaker-measurements
At seing again Dibirama THD measurement of the Seas 22 TAF/G, https://www.dibirama.altervista.org/altoparlanti-hi-fi/tweeter/seas-22taf-g-detail.html I assume Joachim G. gambled than a little two ways will not be pushed often till 102 dB and maybe the woofer below distorss more before ! https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonics-anima-loudspeaker-measurements
Found em - I have 3 but one has a modified frontplate. Write me a message when you are interested then I will check them and clean the Gaffa traces. Not sure if it makes sense with shipping and customs but let's see.
