paulspencer said:
No surface treatment, and it is two pieces totalling 1.25" thick.
Correct, it comes unattached.
The only thing left out is the cabinet parts. Foam and crossover are supplied.
I have not worked all this out yet, but thats my anticipation.
Last retail price was $3199 each. There are none anywhere outside of the US.
Earl, I think he means successful in volume of sales rather than performance.
I think it's a challenge to sell them because you are swimming against the tide. In my view, this is probably a good thing for performance, a bad thing for sales. We are talking about an industry where a large portion of the money is made on things which don't have a significant impact on sound quality.
Also, you are designing speakers which go against what most would seem to believe. And I think most of us find it hard to get past our experiences with efficient speakers, CD horns in particular. I have listened to them in the past hoping that I'd consider them an upgrade, only to be disappointed every time.
Some will act on faith based on the theory and some good reviews, but most will wait until there is more of a crowd. And most will also want to hear something before taking the plunge.
Now if some rave reviews were to hit the mainstream, then things could be quite different. A home theatre speaker that can actually hit cinema levels yet beat conventional hifi speakers on SQ? Now there's a thought!
I think it's a challenge to sell them because you are swimming against the tide. In my view, this is probably a good thing for performance, a bad thing for sales. We are talking about an industry where a large portion of the money is made on things which don't have a significant impact on sound quality.
Also, you are designing speakers which go against what most would seem to believe. And I think most of us find it hard to get past our experiences with efficient speakers, CD horns in particular. I have listened to them in the past hoping that I'd consider them an upgrade, only to be disappointed every time.
Some will act on faith based on the theory and some good reviews, but most will wait until there is more of a crowd. And most will also want to hear something before taking the plunge.
Now if some rave reviews were to hit the mainstream, then things could be quite different. A home theatre speaker that can actually hit cinema levels yet beat conventional hifi speakers on SQ? Now there's a thought!
paulspencer said:
Paul
Actually what I was responding to was the implication that sales volume was low because the technology was not attractive. I do think that this was what was implied, even if not stated directly. And I wanted to make it clear that there has been virtually no exposure of the designs in the marketplace, quite contrary to what was stated.
I am aware of all you say, this is the challenge and why nothing in the speaker business changes. From a marketing standpoint it is not viable to market something different. Hence nobody does it.
"A home theatre speaker that can actually hit cinema levels yet beat conventional hifi speakers on SQ? Now there's a thought!"
This was the original design goal and I am happy with the results.
I think I have some clues about sales, and I think the summas could be marketed without compromising the design. However that would mean an increase in price. But if that would also increase the volume sold, it would also affect the price in a good way. The problem is how to manage this start-up with a limited amount of money.
And regarding the exposure, well yes, the summa got none, at least not from a commercial point of view. Neither the AI products, although they are on a good track.
There are many, many marketable features around this design, and around it's designer, Dr. Geddes, so I don't think it can't be marketed.
As an advice, look at some not so WAF speakers like Emmerald physics and Zu (initially a cable company). These guys know a thing or two about sales. And advertising.
And regarding the exposure, well yes, the summa got none, at least not from a commercial point of view. Neither the AI products, although they are on a good track.
There are many, many marketable features around this design, and around it's designer, Dr. Geddes, so I don't think it can't be marketed.
As an advice, look at some not so WAF speakers like Emmerald physics and Zu (initially a cable company). These guys know a thing or two about sales. And advertising.
SunRa said:
I have always realized that sales and marketing were not areas where I had the expertise to be successful. Thats why I looked for partners who knew this side of things to develop them. Alas, for one reason or another, these partners did not get the job done.
The technology is solid, and basically I own it. I just need what I have always needed - a partner who is determined to sell the product. Not impossible, but not so easy either.
Kit update
I wanted to update everybody on the kits. There have been a lot of setbacks, but also a lot of forward motion.
First and formost I have gone through three waveguide molds. I have abandoned making my own as this is costing me more time that it is worth. I'm having aluminum molds professionally made which will solve the mold problems once and for all.
I broke the belt on my machine lathe which is not a readily available part. Its on order, but this cost me about a weeks worth of work.
I did designs fro the larger systems and now have a much more solid idea of how to do those. There will almost certainly be an Abbey+ with the larger waveguide. However, this waveguide is most likely too big to mold in the same way that the Nathan is done. I will most likely ave it done in glass. This WILL impact the cost as glass waveguides cost a lot more than the cast ones.
The Abbey+ will more than likely be $1300-1500 - more than double the cost of the Nathan. Thats how seriously size affect the price. With size comes better performance, but it also brings along a lot of costs.
Hope this helps.
I wanted to update everybody on the kits. There have been a lot of setbacks, but also a lot of forward motion.
First and formost I have gone through three waveguide molds. I have abandoned making my own as this is costing me more time that it is worth. I'm having aluminum molds professionally made which will solve the mold problems once and for all.
I broke the belt on my machine lathe which is not a readily available part. Its on order, but this cost me about a weeks worth of work.
I did designs fro the larger systems and now have a much more solid idea of how to do those. There will almost certainly be an Abbey+ with the larger waveguide. However, this waveguide is most likely too big to mold in the same way that the Nathan is done. I will most likely ave it done in glass. This WILL impact the cost as glass waveguides cost a lot more than the cast ones.
The Abbey+ will more than likely be $1300-1500 - more than double the cost of the Nathan. Thats how seriously size affect the price. With size comes better performance, but it also brings along a lot of costs.
Hope this helps.
salas said:
I have one pair of original Summa's left. They are used, but I'd sell the pair for $4200. They are red, ported. They can be repainted, which would be a good idea anyways, for a few hundred more - depending on finish. Polished is more, of course.
To make a new pair from scratch would be $6400 / pair.
Dr Geddes -
Someone at JBL was definitely paying attention, because their M Pro series is clearly inspired by your work. I've owned the 15inch variant for years. Today was the first chance I had to compare their 15in to the Summa. The first thing I noticed is that the Summa just KILLS the JBL in the imaging department.
For example, my Summas throw an image that is deep and wide, and the image extends to the left and the right of the Summas. This really shocked me, because there's a WALL there! I haven't heard many speakers which can create a soundstage that's BIGGER than the room. I can't even imagine how great the Summas would sound in a room which is bigger. The room that I have them in is far from perfect. On the other hand, the JBLs sound great *tonally*, but their imaging isn't even in the same ball park as the Summa. The image on the JBLs is confined between the two speakers, and has no depth.
I hope everyone understands I'm not trying to condemn the JBLs. For prosound speakers, they sound very good. But they just don't image. And the Summas DO - the Summas image in a way I've never seen with ANY high efficiency speakers.
I spent some time trying to understand why two designs which appear very similar physically image so differently. Here's what I came up with:
1 - the round-over on the cabinet
2 - Does the foam plug's reduction in HOMs improve imaging?
3 - Does the composite cabinet's reduction in panel flex improve imaging, by preventing the cabinet from radiating energy?
4 - Attention to phase and group delay in the xover could play a part; the JBLs crossover is incredibly simple, something like four components.
In your opinion, what is the reason that the Summa images so well? My hunch is that the most important factor is the extensive round-overs on the Summa cabinet. The Summa has a 2" round-over on all surfaces, while the JBL has no round-over whatsoever.
On the other hand, perhaps it has to do with the crossover?
Here's the M Pro Line, for the sake of reference.
Someone at JBL was definitely paying attention, because their M Pro series is clearly inspired by your work. I've owned the 15inch variant for years. Today was the first chance I had to compare their 15in to the Summa. The first thing I noticed is that the Summa just KILLS the JBL in the imaging department.
For example, my Summas throw an image that is deep and wide, and the image extends to the left and the right of the Summas. This really shocked me, because there's a WALL there! I haven't heard many speakers which can create a soundstage that's BIGGER than the room. I can't even imagine how great the Summas would sound in a room which is bigger. The room that I have them in is far from perfect. On the other hand, the JBLs sound great *tonally*, but their imaging isn't even in the same ball park as the Summa. The image on the JBLs is confined between the two speakers, and has no depth.
I hope everyone understands I'm not trying to condemn the JBLs. For prosound speakers, they sound very good. But they just don't image. And the Summas DO - the Summas image in a way I've never seen with ANY high efficiency speakers.
I spent some time trying to understand why two designs which appear very similar physically image so differently. Here's what I came up with:
1 - the round-over on the cabinet
2 - Does the foam plug's reduction in HOMs improve imaging?
3 - Does the composite cabinet's reduction in panel flex improve imaging, by preventing the cabinet from radiating energy?
4 - Attention to phase and group delay in the xover could play a part; the JBLs crossover is incredibly simple, something like four components.
In your opinion, what is the reason that the Summa images so well? My hunch is that the most important factor is the extensive round-overs on the Summa cabinet. The Summa has a 2" round-over on all surfaces, while the JBL has no round-over whatsoever.
On the other hand, perhaps it has to do with the crossover?
Here's the M Pro Line, for the sake of reference.
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.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
tomcat9 said:
I'm leaning towards the cabinet. When a soundwave hits the edge of a cabinet, it diffracts. That diffractions behaves like a 2nd source. Imagine if there was a mirror of the original speaker, but delayed in time, and emanating from a different point in space.
That's what happens when a wave diffracts, and it's bad stuff.
One of the reasons that audiophile mini-monitors image well is that the diffraction occurs mere milliseconds after the original source, and at a point in space which is only an inch or two away. That's why mini-monitors stop imaging when you get them near a wall.
If you want to hear this taken to an extreme, go to Magnolia Hi Fi and listen to the Anthony Gallo Acoustics speakers. They're completely spherical.
Just for laughs, I just wired the JBLs out-of-phase, to see if the image would change. It barely changed, which confirms my suspicion, that they're just hopelessly incapable of imaging.
I'd say that the crossover is only half of the difference. Diffraction, in all its various forms will be much greater with the JBL products than the Summa. In my room I even go out of the way to control diffraction from nearby objects, not just the speakers. This is a big benefit. Very few do much about diffraction because it does not show up strongly on a FR plot and virtually not at all on axis. The way I minimize diffraction, in ALL its aspects, with foam, with no sharp edges, etc. coupled with the way I do crossovers for the best "sound field" not just the best axial response, is, to me, where the differences come from.
My experince with cabinets is that they need to be solid, but as we backed off on cabinet rigidity, I did not sense any reduction in audible quality, certainly nothing substantial.
But every detail to the waveguide design and the crossover were substantial and notable. We could even hear, and measure, differences in foam suppliers!! We could compensate for them, but a different supplier required a different crossover. And throat matching, well I've talked about that before.
These are all things that are, for the most part, not even considered in most designs, much less taken to the details that I go to.
My experince with cabinets is that they need to be solid, but as we backed off on cabinet rigidity, I did not sense any reduction in audible quality, certainly nothing substantial.
But every detail to the waveguide design and the crossover were substantial and notable. We could even hear, and measure, differences in foam suppliers!! We could compensate for them, but a different supplier required a different crossover. And throat matching, well I've talked about that before.
These are all things that are, for the most part, not even considered in most designs, much less taken to the details that I go to.
tinitus said:
I've given up on "curing" the JBL. When I bought them, I'd hoped to "hotrod" them. But I didn't know where to start, since it's difficult to decide what to fix.
For example, the JBL uses drivers that are absolute junk compared to the Summa. The compression driver in the JBL is the crummiest compression driver that I've ever seen. But it doesn't sound too bad!
On the other hand, a lot of people on this thread have clamored to make their own cabinets. And I would have agreed with them a month ago, until I bought the Summas. Now that I actually own a pair, I'm starting to realize that a LOT of the magic is in those cabinets.
So I'm curious to hear what Dr Geddes has to say about imaging and the Summas.
Earl,
I have a few questions:
1. What do you consider to be ideal? If I understand correctly, you are saying the ideal is a 15" driver with an 18" waveguide. The larger driver as it has higher directivity down lower and the larger waveguide as it is a slight improvement on the 15" waveguide. Would that be correct?
2. What approach have you taken to "time alignment" of the two drivers? What effect does the foam insert have on this? Does it shift the acoustic centre? Is this aspect addressed in the crossover?
I have a few questions:
1. What do you consider to be ideal? If I understand correctly, you are saying the ideal is a 15" driver with an 18" waveguide. The larger driver as it has higher directivity down lower and the larger waveguide as it is a slight improvement on the 15" waveguide. Would that be correct?
2. What approach have you taken to "time alignment" of the two drivers? What effect does the foam insert have on this? Does it shift the acoustic centre? Is this aspect addressed in the crossover?
paulspencer said:
1) Ideal would be the best system at the most reasonable cost and size. The 15" with an 18" waveguide would likely be the "extreme" best (bestist) but its cost and size would be a real detriment. The 15" waveguide works very well and could be improved without a cost impact. This size appears to mate best with the 12" woofer, which is smaller and costs less. Thus for little performance degradation the 12" woofer with a 15" waveguide (which I will call the Abbey+) appears to be the best "compromise". It is the design that I would use in my theater should I ever repalce my Summas.
2) Time alignment comes naturally in these systems with the crossover delay. This can be readily seen in the impulse responses for the ESP15 and ESP12 where the woofer and tweeter are in time synch. Since the crossover is designed with all parts in place, they are all "accounted for". Time alignment is a requirement for smoothest polar response. If one only considers one axis, such as the axial, then this is not true, but to achieve the best total power/polar response, the woofer and tweeter must be aligned in time as close as possible or the polar response will suffer.
peufeu said:
This should be engraved in a little plate which should come with the kit
BTW how much to ship the Abbey+ to France ?
(probably more than me coming to your place to pick it up !)
I'm sorry, but I really can't estimate that - I have no experince in those matters. I wouldn't send the drivers of course, I'd get those sent out of Italy. So we are only talking wood and crossover parts. Shouldn't be too much, but certainly a significant jump in the total system cost.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.