Thanks for posting the link. That price is basically 50% cheaper than some other sites.. v tempting but can't help wondering what's the catch [emoji848]
Yes, that might be interesting as well. Just don't have too much expectations against the Forssell..
Beyma has a plastic kind of sound, but can reach down to 2kHz with a strong signal. Raal will do 2kHz, but I use a 1000Hz horn to get a strong signal down to 2Khz. I loose a lot of top-end doing this. Cymbals and hi-hats are just not as articulate as they should be. Without a hirn, I prefer the Raal somewhere between 2.5 and 3kHz.
Almost. Yamaha Ja-6681B in a 220Hz horn crossed at 440Hz up to 2kHz, although now I am into electrostatics. Electrostatics sound a bit boring for midrange but overall things sound as they should. I am building an amp to use both types.
It dépends... ESL57
Maybe with some Logans you could have more efficienty than some other ESL (the borring side you'r talking about ?), but I'm asking myself if the RAAL you like a lot can be beaten by an ESL ?
I remember you rated some tweeters and than the RAAL was the first and an ESL second or third ex aqueo with a SCANSPEAK dome iirc. Is the ESL the Australian kit with few efficienty ?
Also it should have to see with the high pass filter with the bass unit and the ESL...
I'm forward to look at your conclusion near the ones of Jon : two very different approachs ! Low efficienty Large surface vs 2" efficient point source !
Soundstage ?
At the end I believe it's always the problem of marriage with the mid bass which need to push some air and the subjective dynamic and speed of the upper drivers, be it compression or planar ! The Quads sond fine but lack of bass and energy when you like more than chamber music !
Maybe with some Logans you could have more efficienty than some other ESL (the borring side you'r talking about ?), but I'm asking myself if the RAAL you like a lot can be beaten by an ESL ?
I remember you rated some tweeters and than the RAAL was the first and an ESL second or third ex aqueo with a SCANSPEAK dome iirc. Is the ESL the Australian kit with few efficienty ?
Also it should have to see with the high pass filter with the bass unit and the ESL...
I'm forward to look at your conclusion near the ones of Jon : two very different approachs ! Low efficienty Large surface vs 2" efficient point source !
Soundstage ?
At the end I believe it's always the problem of marriage with the mid bass which need to push some air and the subjective dynamic and speed of the upper drivers, be it compression or planar ! The Quads sond fine but lack of bass and energy when you like more than chamber music !
Last edited:
And the big winner of this face-off is.... The hornless Radian 950PBbe !
No, seriously, the compression driver (used as a Midrange, of course!) take so much of the show, it's difficult to focus on the higher frequencies. I'd say that anything below 3.5khz is Radian 950PBbe's territory. Both Beyma TPL150H and RAAL 140-15D were having a hard time competing with it in the different crossover points we tried from 2.2khz to 3.5khz.
That was particulary unfortunate for the Beyma since that bandwith was supposed to be his forte... and the last two octaves his weakness...
The 140-15D was, as expected, much more at ease in those last 2 octaves and, finally, the optimal crossover point seems to be somewhere between 3.7khz and 4.6khz when paired with that hornless 950PBbe.
So, unfortunately, this face-off is of little help for those who seek a lower crossover point, with a more ''normal'' midrange driver... That being said, i see no reason to use the Beyma TPL150H considering his price point over a RAAL, unless your crossover point is ½ octave lower than what the 140-15D is comfortable to do. But then again, you lose a lot of top-end resolution, energy and finesse.
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.
Now try the them in a horn.
I sure will not.
Heard them before in a short horn, heard TAD 4001 (similar) in JMLC horns, heard all types of horns, and wasnt convinced a single time.
Now that i see (hear) the result of hornless, and the benefit of openness, not to mention the WAF through the roof, i'll stick with the hornless config without the glimpse of a doubt.
Welcome in 2016 (2017 soon) where tons of DSP exists that allows to integrate transducers like we were not able to before.
There is three things that kept me away from compression drivers for so long:
1. Never spent much time with the 4-in. diaphragm ones, such as Radian 950 and TAD4001, which in my opinion are truly the ones that deserve attention.
2. Heard all the time compression drivers, of any sizes, crossed too high... and they are outperformed in the last 2 octaves by ribbons, and probably even by some cones and domes...
3. Heard them very often in configurations where the lack of low-end (especially 20-80hz) made the whole sonic result quite irritating or downright bad.
1. Never spent much time with the 4-in. diaphragm ones, such as Radian 950 and TAD4001, which in my opinion are truly the ones that deserve attention.
2. Heard all the time compression drivers, of any sizes, crossed too high... and they are outperformed in the last 2 octaves by ribbons, and probably even by some cones and domes...
3. Heard them very often in configurations where the lack of low-end (especially 20-80hz) made the whole sonic result quite irritating or downright bad.
Post #1 updated with the Beyma TPL150H subjective appreciation.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ce-off-subjective-comparison.html#post4454343
FYI: heard the hornless TPL150 version and i have pretty much the same appreciation as well. In fact, all AMT (Air Motion Transformer technology) seems to have a similar sonic signature: a bit on the dull side, with a (relative) lack of sparkle in the upper-end, but nonetheless still enjoyable. My personnal choice would be the hornless TPL 150 version, but i'd be curious to try the TPL 200, and even the little brother of the family, the TPL 75.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ce-off-subjective-comparison.html#post4454343
FYI: heard the hornless TPL150 version and i have pretty much the same appreciation as well. In fact, all AMT (Air Motion Transformer technology) seems to have a similar sonic signature: a bit on the dull side, with a (relative) lack of sparkle in the upper-end, but nonetheless still enjoyable. My personnal choice would be the hornless TPL 150 version, but i'd be curious to try the TPL 200, and even the little brother of the family, the TPL 75.
Last edited:
Jon, your EQ was not right. The TPL150H is pretty much flat within 2dB here. No extreme peak at 4khz as of yesterday. Certainly not the same impression here once equalized properly. A bottle of wine for a rematch
But OMG, the Forssell is in a class of it's own.
Last edited:
Agreed for the rematch in your system.
A bottle of 2010 Burgundy? Yes, please. ;-)
Yes, the Forssell DAC is becoming some kind of a problem... Once you try it (especially on the high frequencies -we have active speakers-) it's very, VERY, difficult to go back to anything else... You basically lose a big chunk of the tweeter's potential without it.
A bottle of 2010 Burgundy? Yes, please. ;-)
Yes, the Forssell DAC is becoming some kind of a problem... Once you try it (especially on the high frequencies -we have active speakers-) it's very, VERY, difficult to go back to anything else... You basically lose a big chunk of the tweeter's potential without it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.