This is the tweeter I favor the least from RAAL.
It's just over-damped, and doesn't provide the depth of their longer ribbons at lower freq.s despite having more output at lower freq.s..
It's still an excellent tweeter of course, but it's sound is closer to that of a really good conventional tweeter.
Technically speaking - it is the "best". (..it has fewer limitations and/or more "adaptibility" to any given design.)
That's probably why he likes it so much.
Above about 2.9 kHz the 140 just sounds more "3D", and I'm sure the dipole just add's to this. I'd expect the LAZY to be a bit more 3D a bit lower in freq. than the 140 by virtue of it's longer ribbon. (..of course this is all considering the driver's eq'ed flat.)
..and even without the dipole effect, the 70-10 is pretty much devastating above 6 kHz as long as it has a low-profile baffle.
That's probably why he likes it so much.
Above about 2.9 kHz the 140 just sounds more "3D", and I'm sure the dipole just add's to this. I'd expect the LAZY to be a bit more 3D a bit lower in freq. than the 140 by virtue of it's longer ribbon. (..of course this is all considering the driver's eq'ed flat.)
..and even without the dipole effect, the 70-10 is pretty much devastating above 6 kHz as long as it has a low-profile baffle.
I've only heard them in various loudspeakers, both commercial and DIY (..or in the case of Bohdan's speaker - both DIY and commercial).
The 70-10 might well be the best mono-pole super-tweeter available. Better than commercial plasma's - mostly due to being less directive, though otherwise exceedingly similar subjectively.
IF I was going to use a driver, it would probably be the 140 - and I'd do the crossover like Joe does for the Elsinore (..at around 3 kHz). And I'd likely do it with the vertical pads widely spaced (..though not removed). Oh, and have a nearly non-existent baffle for it - basically a cylinder shape.
Last edited:
BTW, this can sort of be thought as a poor-man's 140:
Products_Fountek Electronics Co.,Ltd
The real penalty here isn't the ribbon or the motor, it's the quality of the transformer. A fairly substantial part of what makes RAAL's really nice is directly attributed to their transformers.
Products_Fountek Electronics Co.,Ltd
The real penalty here isn't the ribbon or the motor, it's the quality of the transformer. A fairly substantial part of what makes RAAL's really nice is directly attributed to their transformers.
You can also give the russian Viawave a try: Viawave. ??????????????? ????????? ??????? RT850.
I have had the RAAL 140-15 for a while and really tried hard to like it but I didn't. First of all, like any other ribbon on the planet they can only be used as a super tweeter in my opinion. In the lower treble they are just too overdamped, too sterile. Many people call that uncoloured. I call that the inability to portray colours, that's a whole different story. This also makes them pretty hard to combine with a midrange unless the midrange driver is overdamped as well. But then you'll end up with a totally sterile system, not my cup of tea. Secondly, I hated the limited vertical dispersion, even with the foams on. I also have the large. ESS AMT and the old ESS small AMT. The Big AMT's also have way to limited vertical dispersion so I prefer the smaller one. The small ESS AMT also has much better top end then the big one, but that's mostly because of a better power response. They can only be used from 4kHz on up though. The RAAL has better top end above 10kHz, but when I switched from the RAAL ribbons to the AMT it was inmedialty more relaxed, voices where much better defined and had a lot more body. Tone colours where better (no not colouration, tone colours). I would have kept the RAAL's if they didn't have that limited vertical dispersion because they are very good supertweeters. I bet they sound realy good in a floor to ceiling line array but for obvious reasons I'm not going to try. I have tried the RAAL in different systems (passive and active with DEQX) and anytime I thought it was a very good tweeter it started to annoy me after a while.
PS, I also had some small Dayton AMT but these are totally rubbish compared to the RAAL's or ESS AMT. Both the ESS AMT are about the worst build quality I have ever seen on any loudspeaker unit any time however, still they sound good.
PS, I also had some small Dayton AMT but these are totally rubbish compared to the RAAL's or ESS AMT. Both the ESS AMT are about the worst build quality I have ever seen on any loudspeaker unit any time however, still they sound good.
Last edited:
..and they lack some depth within that range as a result.
It should be noted however that this is "relative" within any given design. It's quite likely that the lower treble performance of the RAAL, even with it's limitations, is superior to many midrange drivers it might be coupled with.
-also, some are really disturbed by that limited vertical dispersion. It's best to know if you are one of those people BEFORE you make your purchase.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.