Has anyone any experience of these drivers. I have read reviews but can't find anyone who has ever used them.
Web link Voxativ Loudspeakers
Web link Voxativ Loudspeakers
Reminds me of FERTIN,FEASTREX and all the other full rangers...like a mix of it.
It looks very nice and expensive
Why is it that the chassis have the mounting points like that? it makes them really hard to flush mount.Does it have any sonic preferences?
BTW, very nice driver, can you post links to reviews?
Danny
It looks very nice and expensive
Why is it that the chassis have the mounting points like that? it makes them really hard to flush mount.Does it have any sonic preferences?BTW, very nice driver, can you post links to reviews?
Danny
I believe Voxativ arose from the ashes of the company that lost in the AER debacle. If you haven't heard about that one, you don't want to know. Either way, new name, new products, so clearly moved on, which is good. YMMV though -I'd be wanting to see some response graphs before coughing up this kind of money though, although they're hardly alone on this score.
Last edited:
They do look interesting..
I'm wondering how much you can trust any published response graph for a FR driver, a lot of them seem to be heavily smoothed. Nearfield measurements I made of my unmodified Fostex FE-167 loosely resembled the manufacturer's FR response graphs when I applied 1/3 octave smoothing to them. (Oddly enough the modified driver response looks worse above 1kHz, but sounds a lot better in my recently built HCC boxes.)
I'm wondering how much you can trust any published response graph for a FR driver, a lot of them seem to be heavily smoothed. Nearfield measurements I made of my unmodified Fostex FE-167 loosely resembled the manufacturer's FR response graphs when I applied 1/3 octave smoothing to them. (Oddly enough the modified driver response looks worse above 1kHz, but sounds a lot better in my recently built HCC boxes.)
As soon as I saw the site I knew it was AER/fullrange-speakers. Almost everything matches the older sites. Some of the driver materials and design have changed a bit. I know what they are. They are some of the highest resolution drivers in the world, but are only acceptable for low to moderate volume use with only some program material (Lowther). I'll pass. I can get 85% the resolution, 5% the cost and 500% more fun with the Audio Nirvana drivers.
But if you want to hear things you didn't even know were on your music and cost is no object, get those Voxativ. Shipping to the US will be high.
(Why are the letters V and X so popular)?
But if you want to hear things you didn't even know were on your music and cost is no object, get those Voxativ. Shipping to the US will be high.
(Why are the letters V and X so popular)?
Yes, that is the case. Given their penchant for stealing others IP i wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole (even if i could come anywhere near to affording them).
dave
I think we should just stress that AER are still in business & cheerfully doing their thing. Judging from the name on their legal page (how ironic) Voxativ appear to be from the people who tried to swipe the AER name, got taken to court in Germany a little while back & lost.
Either way, I'm afraid I take a very short view with driver manufacturers these days. If they don't even supply a basic FR & impedance plot, then I don't want to know. It's not like they aren't able to. So assuming that it's not a case that they simply can't be bothered, we have to ask 'what are they trying to hide?' Are they a/ rubbish, or b/ catastrophically bad?
In fairness to Voxativ, at least they supply some T/S parameters, which is more than some do. But it's still not good enough.
Either way, I'm afraid I take a very short view with driver manufacturers these days. If they don't even supply a basic FR & impedance plot, then I don't want to know. It's not like they aren't able to. So assuming that it's not a case that they simply can't be bothered, we have to ask 'what are they trying to hide?' Are they a/ rubbish, or b/ catastrophically bad?
In fairness to Voxativ, at least they supply some T/S parameters, which is more than some do. But it's still not good enough.
Must admit, the drivers are very pretty.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
Agreed. I contacted Weber to get specs for their pro audio guitar drivers and they said they didn't have any. HUH?!?! How can you even manufacture loudspeakers without knowing everything?
I prefer Robin Tunney myself.
Yep, insofar as a driver can be pretty, they're not bad, but pretty looks doth not a good driver make. For a start, I see a whizzer cone. I don't like whizzer cones. They are not necessary.
So they rely on 3rd party magazine tests to provide their data? Oh deary me. Things are looking bleak.
That's just depressing, although what's really depressing is that they're far from alone.
I suppose it depends what they mean by specs. T/S parameters are largely mathematical constructs (albeit useful ones) and are not necessary to actually design & construct a driver. From that sense, they're pretty much irrelevant. However, given the fact that 99% of builders use them in designing enclosures, one would hope they had a ballpark set of specs. in mind, and subsequently measure & provide the things for that reason. It's generally in their own interests to do so. If a company doesn't even know what the FR & impedance of their drivers are, that's just laughable. There is little excuse for failing to provide T/S specs. for a driver nowadays, especially if it's extremely expensive. There is no excuse whatsoever for not providing a basic FR graph & impedance plot. And if that goes hand in hand with a load of chicken-shaking voodoo about materials, 'philosophy' and 'patent-pending' features, then I'd be running for the hills to hide my wallet until the madness passes. To paraphrase a comment about ludicrously pricy Pear wire a while back, 'shake, fools, shake.'
Last edited:
Hi Guys,
I won't comment on this makers drivers or the information they provide. Neither will I specifically comment on other makers test methods, standard of their test equipment etc.
I'd just like to say that from my perspective, both as a driver maker and a home builder, I believe it's best if driver makers give as much technical and performance data on drivers as possible. I also believe drivers should be tested to the best available accuracy. In our case, we have available an anechoic chamber running LMS (Linear X) together with lab class mics. While LMS is not perfect, its got a reasonable industry-wide reputation and delivers enough data to suit most applications.
Since many DIYer's, home system builders and OEM audio businesses rely on driver data when designing their systems, its seem right that makers should play their part by providing comprehensive data sets. Some makers may disagree with my position. Other makers may argue about exactly how much use T/S, frequency and Impedance data is when designing systems. But frankly speaking, for the majority of drivers built today, there's no practical reason that I can think of, for not publishing a comprehensive data set for an audio driver.
I think the members on this and other forums; And all buyers of audio drivers deserve to know the overall performance of the drivers they purchase.
Cheers
Mark.
I won't comment on this makers drivers or the information they provide. Neither will I specifically comment on other makers test methods, standard of their test equipment etc.
I'd just like to say that from my perspective, both as a driver maker and a home builder, I believe it's best if driver makers give as much technical and performance data on drivers as possible. I also believe drivers should be tested to the best available accuracy. In our case, we have available an anechoic chamber running LMS (Linear X) together with lab class mics. While LMS is not perfect, its got a reasonable industry-wide reputation and delivers enough data to suit most applications.
Since many DIYer's, home system builders and OEM audio businesses rely on driver data when designing their systems, its seem right that makers should play their part by providing comprehensive data sets. Some makers may disagree with my position. Other makers may argue about exactly how much use T/S, frequency and Impedance data is when designing systems. But frankly speaking, for the majority of drivers built today, there's no practical reason that I can think of, for not publishing a comprehensive data set for an audio driver.
I think the members on this and other forums; And all buyers of audio drivers deserve to know the overall performance of the drivers they purchase.
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
hi Mark
Good points all...but.... I was just musing that with the history behind this company there may be an agenda to not publishing results..
Its inconceivable? that a company that can produce drivers of this standard does not have the equipment to measure the finest gnats whisker, so I for one take it as read that they are fully aware of all the specs....but again, given the historic criticism/questions that their previous figures received on this, and other sites, and the laughter that is generated by their rival's published figures........perhaps they are leaving it to others to find and publish figures. Perhaps they will offer some responses in the fullness of time..
just some random thoughts
Ed
Good points all...but.... I was just musing that with the history behind this company there may be an agenda to not publishing results..
Its inconceivable? that a company that can produce drivers of this standard does not have the equipment to measure the finest gnats whisker, so I for one take it as read that they are fully aware of all the specs....but again, given the historic criticism/questions that their previous figures received on this, and other sites, and the laughter that is generated by their rival's published figures........perhaps they are leaving it to others to find and publish figures. Perhaps they will offer some responses in the fullness of time..
just some random thoughts
Ed
Last edited:
Hi Ed,
Interesting thoughts. One point I'd like to mention is the issue relating to the outlay cost of testing. To do a accurate job, an anechoic chamber and wide-frequency lab class mics are needed. Add in the cost of the measurement hardware/software and a budget of US$40,000 is easily spent. While I can't speak specifically about this company, I count myself lucky having access to industry chambers and their associated equipment.
As regards the "laughter" when some commercial driver data is assessed, this cuts both ways. I'm often tapped on the shoulder by 2 technicians in one particular factory I use, expressing their disbelief that some DIYer's so readily rely on cheap mics and non-standard measurement systems. I'm not one who subscribes as to who's right on this issue. I'm happy that I've been blessed by most independent tests on my drivers delivering close results to my data.
Cheers
Mark.
Interesting thoughts. One point I'd like to mention is the issue relating to the outlay cost of testing. To do a accurate job, an anechoic chamber and wide-frequency lab class mics are needed. Add in the cost of the measurement hardware/software and a budget of US$40,000 is easily spent. While I can't speak specifically about this company, I count myself lucky having access to industry chambers and their associated equipment.
As regards the "laughter" when some commercial driver data is assessed, this cuts both ways. I'm often tapped on the shoulder by 2 technicians in one particular factory I use, expressing their disbelief that some DIYer's so readily rely on cheap mics and non-standard measurement systems. I'm not one who subscribes as to who's right on this issue. I'm happy that I've been blessed by most independent tests on my drivers delivering close results to my data.
Cheers
Mark.
Hi Mark
thanks for the reply, it sort of reinforces what I was trying to say.......when any diy member here suggests that a reputable driver manufacturer's specs are fiction, it asks more questions than it answers, but usually they are not relevant questions.
Ed
Hi Ed,
The underlying problem is the lack of a universal and comprehensive standard. Given the relative diversity of audio driver production, I doubt we'll see a world-wide agreed test equipment standard, test procedure and standardisation of data presentation. All the same, it's nice to live in hope.
Cheers
Mark.
The underlying problem is the lack of a universal and comprehensive standard. Given the relative diversity of audio driver production, I doubt we'll see a world-wide agreed test equipment standard, test procedure and standardisation of data presentation. All the same, it's nice to live in hope.
Cheers
Mark.
Darn if that picture ediosh23 posted in post 11 looks a lot like
a driver I want to idenitfy. Look at the ribs on the cone. I think
both have 9 of those ribs. Wonder what the price is on that field
coil model with the goat leather surroud funny I think Lowther
has a driver a lot like that!
a driver I want to idenitfy. Look at the ribs on the cone. I think
both have 9 of those ribs. Wonder what the price is on that field
coil model with the goat leather surroud funny I think Lowther
has a driver a lot like that!
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.