Seas Excel T29D001, had anyone heard it?

mtoc

Banned
2015-12-28 4:57 pm
How is it? Of course we have to ignore the price here...

plus a little story someone told me before: the boss of Scan once got the news of Seas' T29D001, he immediately sinks into a world of unhappiness, and someone asked him about if Scan is gonna produce diamond tweeter, the boss answered: maybe.
 
Last edited:
Doubt anyone here has heard a $7000 tweeter :D

That said I know David F, owner of Ascend Acoustics, has a pair from Seas and says timbre wise they are very close to the RAAL 70-20XR, main difference he says is it has about +/- 5 degrees wider vertical dispersion and slightly better upper mids.

Even put it into one of his Sierra-2 speakers

RPe4Ypa.jpg


Definitely not a cosmetically appealing $8500 speaker though :D
 
Last edited:

Audiosys

Member
2016-06-18 7:06 am
Doubt anyone here has heard a $7000 tweeter :D

That said I know David F, owner of Ascend Acoustics, has a pair from Seas and says timbre wise they are very close to the RAAL 70-20XR, main difference he says is it has about +/- 5 degrees wider vertical dispersion and slightly better upper mids.

Even put it into one of his Sierra-2 speakers

RPe4Ypa.jpg


Definitely not a cosmetically appealing $8500 speaker though :D
Acapella plasma tweeter. the price is about the same
 
I also beleve the price is overinflated on Madisound. On European DIY sites its listed at closer to $5000.

In addiion I suspect the price that businesses get is well lower than a DIYer. Ascend Acoustics mentioned they could sell a bookshelf speaker with these tweeters fo about $5-6k and still make their normal profit. I suspect SEAs charges far less for these to their long term business partners.
 
Last edited:

eriksquires

Member
2013-05-10 4:11 pm
The tweeters are used in the Crystal Cable Arabesque Minissimo Diamond so if anyone has a chance to attend a show where they are exhibiting you can listen then.

Keep in mind the Madisound price is per pair. It may still be overinflated. :) So given normal markups, with a very good Scanspeak driver, expect to pay $74,000 a pair for a built speaker.

I have not been very tempted, but I would like to see/listen to the Jantzen diamond drivers. I wonder where they come from and what they sound like?

Best,


Erik
 

Lojzek

Member
2012-02-10 12:12 pm
Croatia
Sure it has Xmax of 1.4 mm, only peak to peak and the 240W of long term program power handling means that almost all of the power will be dissipated by other drive units, not the tweeter, additionally Seas recommends frequency range from 1.8 kHz and so forth.

Where is the catch? Perhaps there is a pair of diamond wedding rings that come as well? :boggled:
 
Little late.

The Siltech Symphony uses two of these. Together with a 34 mm Bliesma and two RAAL 140-15Ds. The fun part is that I've spent an evening talking with the designer Edwin Van Rijnveld. And that these speakers will be demonstrated at my local high end store whenever corona allows it. Saying I'm looking forward to that is an understatement.
 
It's super inpressive. As I said I've spent a day with the designer. It's a 6-way. 6 so that bo driver has to play more than two octaves, which optimizes a driver's performance he had found. It's the ultimate frankespeaker really. Two RAAL 150-14D, two diamond SEASs a BliesMa, three Illuminator 12MUs, an Ellipticor 21W(?) and it houses 4, yes 4 18" acoustic elegance woofers. It's all open baffle. Not all tweeters are used at all times. I think the domes are used in large rooms and the ribbons in smaller rooms.
It uses a special technique for the crossovers. I don't really remember what it was but I think he said they use resistors instead of inductors and it uses buffer amplifiers. I don't really understand how it works but he said it basically has no drawbacks. It's the ultimate crossover without any losses. And so it's also active so the system can be perfectly dailed in for any listening situation.
Where the Wilson Audio WAMM went wrong is the use of passive crossovers. This solves all the drawbacks he explained.
I'm quite sure this won't be just another expensive super speaker. This will really break new grounds. Because it's not just a huge speaker with lots of super fancy drivers. They actually studied how to truly replicate instruments in terms of radiating pattern. And they made a big speaker actually work together well with the special crossovers. I'm really excited about hearing them some day.
 

YSDR

Member
2013-11-24 8:13 pm
A crossover without any losses but utilizes resistors, haha. If they refer to active crossovers, that's okay, but nothing new here.
But it really they can replicate the radiating patterns of the instruments? Which instruments? A piccolo, a tuba, a triangle, a piano or all of them? What if these instruments are playing at the same time?

As with all multi-way speakers, you hear the combination of the drivers and crossovers, but with that Siltech speaker it's even more complicated to identify the character of the Seas T29D001 imo.

But please report it back how they sounded to you.
 
It's super inpressive. As I said I've spent a day with the designer. It's a 6-way. 6 so that bo driver has to play more than two octaves, which optimizes a driver's performance he had found.

In what way is 'optimises' being defined here?

It's the ultimate frankespeaker really. Two RAAL 150-14D, two diamond SEASs a BliesMa, three Illuminator 12MUs, an Ellipticor 21W(?) and it houses 4, yes 4 18" acoustic elegance woofers. It's all open baffle. Not all tweeters are used at all times. I think the domes are used in large rooms and the ribbons in smaller rooms.

In other words, a moderate number of re-mortgage-requiring drive units, some of which are included without necessity.

It uses a special technique for the crossovers.

Ah, one of those super-secret 'special techniques'.

It's an active filter that for some reason previously unbeknown to woman-born can be powered by an external power amplifier. Presumably so buyers with too much money can burn some more of it.

I don't really remember what it was but I think he said they use resistors instead of inductors and it uses buffer amplifiers. I don't really understand how it works but he said it basically has no drawbacks. It's the ultimate crossover without any losses.

Does it my round, rosy red jacksie. Whenever you hear somebody claim 'no drawbacks', 'the ultimate' and 'without loss' you know it's a lie. Because in this physical reality (rather than in some different universe where I'm married to Emilia Clarke) there is no such thing.

And so it's also active so the system can be perfectly dailed in for any listening situation.

My goodness, how unique. A loudspeaker with an active crossover. I feel my vapours coming on.

Where the Wilson Audio WAMM went wrong is the use of passive crossovers. This solves all the drawbacks he explained.

In what way did it 'go wrong', and exactly how are the speakers comparable, given that they are utterly different in concept? I'm afraid that's simply bad-taste marketing twaddle being peddled to the gullible. That a designer or company should resort to bad-mouthing products from another company which are not comparable is to put it mildly, poor form.

I'm quite sure this won't be just another expensive super speaker. This will really break new grounds. Because it's not just a huge speaker with lots of super fancy drivers. They actually studied how to truly replicate instruments in terms of radiating pattern. And they made a big speaker actually work together well with the special crossovers. I'm really excited about hearing them some day.

I'd advise tempering your excitement a little. They might be reasonable enough, but I'm seeing nothing to justify such hype. To avoid falling victim to such, you might want to try learning a little more about the operating physics of loudspeakers and sound reproduction from a neutral source rather than somebody promoting a hyper-expensive product with what amounts to marketing twaddle. Here's a clue: there are a lot of big speakers out there which actually work rather well, and don't use 'special crossovers'. Or '10mm rubies' for isolating the sub-enclosures, as I note is stated elsewhere on the web. I further note the same panting reporter remarked on that subject that 'the best would be diamonds, which are cost prohibitive, obviously', presumably being unaware that gem and industrial quality rubies are sometimes more costly than industrial diamond (year and production etc. dependent).
 
Last edited:
It optimises the drivers performance in terms of distortion. He found that drivers distort the least when the're not playing more than two octaves.

Correct, it's an active crossover but with external power amplifiers. Again, I don't remember all of it and didn't understand all of it. But it did have some advantages. And why would a lossles crossover be impossible? Of course it is with the right tech. That's what the buffer amplifiers are for.

Obviously you can't replicate the exact dispersion pattern of each instrument individually. You'd have to avarage that out. But he studied the radiating pattern of many instruments, he named the cello as an example. And the radiating pattern of the speaker is designed to mimik that of most instruments.

There was no marketing going on here. We were just purely talking about loudspeaker design, and what was going on inside of the Symphony. Like friends. Now I'm not saying that we're friends but we were just talking like two normal people. Not a business trying to sell things and a customer. And he wasn't mocking Wilson Audio. He was very much viewing the story from both sides. He said that in Hong Kong he had a show with his Symphony system and a Wilson WAMM system in the room across, and said that people were coming back to him and said his sounded much better. But then he also admittedly said the that the opposite was probably also true. So he wasn't saying the WAMM is bad all together, just that he thinks they should have done it differently.
 

YSDR

Member
2013-11-24 8:13 pm
Hey 3way, of course, the person you talked to, had to say something about the speaker. Sure, we don’t know exactly what he told you, but what you described here from it is nothing more than a marketing wording about an overpriced speaker that some of the most expensive tweeters in existence seem to have been randomly sprinkled on.
Oh, and external power amps or not, there is no exist of lossless crossover as mentioned earlier. The loss of an active crossover is at the line level or amplifier level and not in speaker level. Maybe(!) the active is more efficient but it's not lossless in any way.
 
It was the designer and founder of Siltech himself.
I understand that companies have to sell their products. But you people seem to think that literally every word anybody from the industry says is pure marketing. I think you're forgetting that all these people and all the companies are passion driven. If all these people thought about was earning as much money as possible, they quite probably wouldn't have chosen high end audio as their branche. They're music lovers, not oil drillers.
 
It optimises the drivers performance in terms of distortion. He found that drivers distort the least when the're not playing more than two octaves.

In what way, precisely? Given that distortion is not a fixed quantity but varies from unit to unit depending on motor design, suspension design, dome / ribbon / cone design... I'm don't like to say this, and I mean no offense, but what you were told, and are repeating here is meaningless nonsense.

Correct, it's an active crossover but with external power amplifiers. Again, I don't remember all of it and didn't understand all of it. But it did have some advantages. And why would a lossles crossover be impossible? Of course it is with the right tech. That's what the buffer amplifiers are for.

Wrong. Every single thing has losses, and compromises to varying extents. There is no such thing as perfection in this physical reality (other than Emilia Clarke, obviously ;) ). An active crossover which you can then power with your mega-price 'ordinary' Mark Levinson (or whatever) is a marketing vehicle. There is absolutely zero justification for it on performance grounds. What, exactly, is it supposed to bring to the party? I'll save you the effort: nothing. Zero. The square root of jack. And since it's Siltech, no doubt they will be most glad to sell you a 'special speaker cable' to connect them. No doubt the protest will be made 'oh, but it gets the amplifier away from the crossover components', despite the fact that everybody else manages just fine, and hifi amplifiers are not designed for use as linear power supplies.

Obviously you can't replicate the exact dispersion pattern of each instrument individually. You'd have to avarage that out. But he studied the radiating pattern of many instruments, he named the cello as an example. And the radiating pattern of the speaker is designed to mimik that of most instruments.

No, you can't. Since the radiating pattern of most instruments varies significantly, and this is not necessarily what is suitable for a loudspeaker in a reproduction system / room position where you would not normally play any of those instruments anyway. This old chestnut has been raised by the lunatic fringe on & off since the '50s. It didn't work then either. Because it's nonsense.

There was no marketing going on here. We were just purely talking about loudspeaker design, and what was going on inside of the Symphony. Like friends.

Sadly, what he was telling you is a load of marketing based twaddle. Not physics, or the operating characteristics of loudspeakers. If it had been, you would have been discussing in-depth the harmonic distortion profiles of individual drive units, crossover frequencies as related to frequency response, power-response / polar response, HD and IMD characteristics etc., low-frequency dynamic range with power / thermal compression, losses, drive unit spacing, panel / baffle resonant characteristics & profiles, damping coefficients, impulse & step responses... Those are (some of) the fundamentals of quality loudspeaker design. Not a load of tosh like 'distortion is best when not playing more than two octaves', or 'we've made active crossovers which you can power with an ordinary hi-fi power amp rather than a dedicated power supply'.

Now I'm not saying that we're friends but we were just talking like two normal people. Not a business trying to sell things and a customer. And he wasn't mocking Wilson Audio. He was very much viewing the story from both sides. He said that in Hong Kong he had a show with his Symphony system and a Wilson WAMM system in the room across, and said that people were coming back to him and said his sounded much better. But then he also admittedly said the that the opposite was probably also true. So he wasn't saying the WAMM is bad all together, just that he thinks they should have done it differently.

Which is simply a matter of opinion. Not fact. I simply call it as I see it. If I see an inaccurate statement made by a company, then it's incorrect. If I see meaningless statements made by them in their marketing, then it's marketing. The converse is true: if they make a factually correct statement: it's correct.
 
Last edited: