It did sound good, like all the Danley products. The trouble is that their big stuff is sooooo good and so big sounding, you tend to forget the medium size products. I do remember the coax being killer for its size, but that's about all. I did sound better with a sub, but was mostly OK without.
The 3" fullrange in a small box might have been the most memorable for me, just because it sounded so much bigger. 🙂
The 3" fullrange in a small box might have been the most memorable for me, just because it sounded so much bigger. 🙂
Cheers Pano!
I should really try both options but I also have to feed my family so at some point I will have to make a decision to go for one or the other.
I should really try both options but I also have to feed my family so at some point I will have to make a decision to go for one or the other.
Maybe the best small coax i have ran into was the Macrom 54.10 (later called i2.40) also sold as Xtant XIS4, These where made by Morel, who still makes a variant. All these where intended for car audio, but i would wouldn't be surprised if they would do well in a home setup.
But a 1kz high pass would in my opinion be a a Waste of their capabilities, 250-300hz might be more suitable and would move the x over out of the most difficult area (if I remember correctly 300-3khz are the ears least forgiving area to place a x over) outer diameter are 102mm
Attachments
still diffraction in such design can be effectively scattered to the point of vanishing, very easily - just put the speaker on it's back and voila
it really opens KEF's UniQs up
ps. not neccesarily on it's back - for an 8 inches UniQ around 45 degrees tilt of the baffle is enough to effectively spread diffraction and the speaker "disappears"
There are different problems here. With the 2" coaxial, the biggest HF problem is that of a larger exit. Nothing different than using a standard 2" driver on a 2" horn. (The 1.4" coaxial is much better in this regard in that it is coming from a smaller original aperture.)
Isn't the treble response of the SH50 A) just in more detail than most speaker manufacturers, and B) not really a coaxial, per se, but more a problem of the horn being designed for multiple uses, and not specifically the HF?
And isn't this last part the biggest problem of coaxial HF? In that in most of this discussion is about a HF on a cone, and the cone is quite a compromise for a horn.
I remember seeing a coaxial at a trade show where the cone had been formed for a horn shape, but the company folded before the product came out, as I remember it.
I think these two statements are at odds with each other, or at least depict different problems with coaxials.
It seems to me that the biggest image I have heard is from the smallest speakers/coaxials. This was a 5" coaxial at a trade show, with a subwoofer.
(I think of small coaxials as being 5"/6.5". )
I like the smaller speakers in this regard. It is hard for me to quantify, but the larger the coaxial speaker or horn, the more the sound seems to be coming from a specific point. The 5" coaxial that I heard had that "big spacious image" that I quote from Patrick.
For this reason I like the 5" coaxials with a subwoofer over the 15" coaxials.
(Of course maximum output must be taken into consideration.)
This is a separate issue than "point source". The 15" coaxial will still have the cohesiveness of point source, like the synergy has, but not the spaciousness.
This first sentence is I think key in the coax discussion.
The BTW is where I have the most disagreement with you. I think that the bridge arrangement gets away from the point source, even if there is smearing from the crossover topology. There is a disadvantage to the neck in that the throat is compromised by having to go through the pole piece of the woofer, and also it seems to me harder to get the physics right of the magnetic fields being so close together, (unless they share the same magnet), but the single point advantage works better to my way of thinking with the HF coming from inside the center of the cone, and not mounted in front of it.
The biggest advantage I see is that everyone is more likely to get the same sound experience. When designing speakers, crossovers, or tuning them, if you use time based measurement it becomes quite apparent how messy the crossover region can be. (I mostly use digital controllers.) With separate components it is easy to get the alignment right in any one spot, but as soon as you move, then it changes. This is not that big of a problem for home hi-fi that is only going to have one listener who is sitting only in one place and not moving, as you can make the timing correct in that one spot. (This will still not address that spaciousness that Patrick observed.) In a home theater there are usually more than one listener, and they will all get more of the same time reference, and less smear in the crossover region, if they are within the normal dispersion of the speaker.
Those seemingly contradicting points are - as you kinda state - not as much at odds but more completely different considerations. My point in using larger diaphragms comes to the movement of the low frequency diaphragm - also used as the waveguide - intermodulating the HF driver's output. This problem becomes worse with smaller diaphragms having to move more to achieve the same output. A 15" coaxial in a normal room at normal listening levels is doing bugger all, in comparison to a 6,5" unit moving visibly with low frequency content.
The pin-point vs. more diffuse image you also mention tends to be more a result of the directivity of larger drivers. And, as you also already stated, happens as much with more conventional separate drivers. A 15" coaxial driver will start to radiate directionally at much lower frequencies than a 6,5" one, say 500Hz vs. 2kHz approximately. This means the smaller driver will give you much more room reflections through the most sensitive band of hearing compared to the larger one. This same property also gives the larger drivers an edge over the smaller ones in the small details department; it's not that much an issue of the drivers being able to produce more or less detail, as it is an issue of how much of that detail will be masked by room reflections.
I often characterize this difference as the smaller drivers drawing an image of the recording in the space they're situated at, compared to the larger ones giving a window to the recording venue itself. One might argue, that the larger ones draw a more correct picture, but I'm OK with saying any preference between these two is a matter of personal opinion. I tend to prefer the more pin-point imaging of larger drivers, but I also know many people who think the complete opposite. And I can admit, that larger drivers can sound quite headphone-like.
But there is one quite nice - and at first seemingly contradictory - upside in using the larger drivers. And that is the size of the sweet spot. Now, as larger drivers tend to be more directional it might come as a surprise, that they also tend to give a wider sweet spot. This of course varies slightly between different drivers, and don't expect this from large wideband drivers. But for example the 15" B&C coaxials I mentioned are a good example. They exhibit near constant directivity above ~1200Hz, whereas a Seas 6,5" unit will have a more narrowing beamwidth as a function of frequency. This means two things: a) you'll have to balance/voice these two buggers differently and b) there's no need to hold your head in a vice with the larger ones to get the best sound. Just grab a cat at your lap and a cup of coffee and relax in your favorite listening chair in any position you can imagine.
Have you tried this one?
I suppose marginally over 50USD, but seems to get really good reviews in Europe. I think it would be fun to experiment with a standmount using one of those and two Exodus/DIYSoundGroup Anarchies in a closed box.
I've replaced the tweeter assembly on a 12" Dual Concentric. The "Tulip" phase plug assembly is plastic, with a metallic polished edge up front to make it look more posh.
Yes and no. He does something really cool with it, to get the spacing he wants between their outputs. The tweeter feeds the mouth of the horn, which I believe sticks into the coax. The midrange feeds bandpass ports further down the horn's mouth.
Why? Then you get diffraction off of the bridge, and no waveguide to match directivity at the crossover point.
It depends on how You use it.
In despite of my deficient hearing, my improper room and as a result my approximative speakers, I've done some acoustical funny tests.
"The" driver is an indonesian made 12" with a mega wizzer. It's filmsy coil and 39 g mms claim 15000 Hz. Its other great quality is it's price (33 euros for both).
As the goal of this game is only comparative, the configuration "naked driver" + digital equalisation will be enough. Of course, without EQ, it's a nightmare. They are also extremely directive in the HF.
Experience 1 :
Swinging drivers, 1 m high, equilateral triangle 4.5 meters. Drivers vertical, either full in my face, either toed in just in front of me.
Surprisingly good in tune (I'm not a FR fan normally), but the pattern is two sources + sometimes something in the middle. No envelopment, ambient, perspective, depth, whatever...
The test of the passing train is reduced to a brutal switch left to right. Test on pink noise, as always with this config : HF dichotomy.
For this reason, a strong toe out works better
Some will say that with such a primitive setting this failure is not a surprise. But wait for these primitive when disposed differently.
Experience 2 :
Same drivers, same EQ, this time simply put on the floor, as close as possible from the back boundary, 4.5 m from each other, 6 meters from the listener.
Since a while I wanted to verify this, to make sure that graaf or tinitus were not too sick.
Result : it's shocking when considering that it's the same drivers than 1 minute ago. All the claims of these gentlemen are real, with the drivers set up like a flower pot (but decoupled from the floor with thick rubber).
Not only the soundstage occupies all the wall (9 meters here) but there is eventually a strong center presence, it's ok for girl and guitar as for giant choruses or symphony. The trains circulate progressively. I insist it's not a mess up.
The Hf is not perceptually reduced (- 2 dB roll off at measure), and that's puzzling because the part over 2500 Hz stays in a 10° cone @ 0 dB. Even with one only running, the source is unlocalizable. Subs are not mandatory except for organ.
For me, adept of multi ways-multi amped systems, this is a double bottom kick : the flooder and the FR. Just the envelopment and perspective are not very good, all this is a kind of 2D image. But for 33 euros...
joined plots : > steady state of the flooder from 6 meters
> CDS with short gate (ok, it's 1/1 smoothed and has a lazy decay, but could be much worse)
> ETC with sub on (mistake), no floor bounce, the 9.33 ms peak is the side wall.
Experience 3 :
Same drivers, but now almost stuck by the magnet, back to back. You will all recognize a side firing, but it's also a linear quadrupole. The big novelty is that this time the drivers are only at 1 meter in front of the listener in the horizontal plane. But in the vertical plane they are 3 meters high, and still far from the ceiling. The test starts after a slightly adaptation of the EQ.
Result : baffling ! The flooder config was not localizable, but at least, the sound came from a logical direction : in front, where the drivers are.
Here, the sound still comes from the front, normal height, but the speakers are at 6 meters from this. So much that I had to call the wife to make it sure that I was not going mad. These speakers are only localizable when watching them or standing up and walking around. Extremely tricky ! It's really in the acoustical illusion domain.
The restitution style is globally close from the flooder but complementary : more envelopment, but missing the beautiful center presence.
A good idea could be a combination of both : flooder + glider(!), trivial, one for the center, one for the sides (envelopment), all this with some wood around the drivers and a DSP able to control their respective EQ and delay.
This one is also an interesting coax:
New Driver Technology from Fibona Acoustics
But I don't know how it actually performs. Together with an additional "real" woofer it might probably be quite good.
Regards
Charles
New Driver Technology from Fibona Acoustics
But I don't know how it actually performs. Together with an additional "real" woofer it might probably be quite good.
Regards
Charles
And amongst the best drivers are from Denmark. Why the concentration of driver production in Denmark?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.