yes I understand
it is a good one for sure. The design is unique, well executed, and it does allow a lower crossover in a small ribbon.
I have however a design that pushes the crossover and the distortion numbers even lower in a similar size ribbon
1st pic is at 90 db, 2nd at 100 db, 3rd 100 db with wave guide, all at 1 meter
all with a 12db/oct crossover at 1 Khz
ribbon is a free swinging design ( no side suspension/termination) 16mm wide by 75 mm long
it is a good one for sure. The design is unique, well executed, and it does allow a lower crossover in a small ribbon.
I have however a design that pushes the crossover and the distortion numbers even lower in a similar size ribbon
1st pic is at 90 db, 2nd at 100 db, 3rd 100 db with wave guide, all at 1 meter
all with a 12db/oct crossover at 1 Khz
ribbon is a free swinging design ( no side suspension/termination) 16mm wide by 75 mm long
Attachments
Last edited:
Ah, i don't believe in comparing drivers measurements in different conditions and systems, and i really don't trust distortion measurements done with Omnimic software. Software wise, STEPS or REW are the ones i do believe give good aproximation of distortion profile.
Also, it is not similar size ribbon. SRT-7 has Sd=7cm^2 and your ribbon (16mm x 75mm) has Sd of 12cm^2. That is 70% increase of ribbon surface. So even if it has lower distortion than SRT-7, it should.
I'd love to see your ribbon tweeter in Yevgeniy's hands so we could really compare the two tweeters. Not just to compare distortion but sensitivity, linearity of frequency response, resonances and off axis performance. And i'm not saying this in any negative way. I'd really like to see more planar tweeters with good distortion profile because i think that principle was left behind for too long and now with better materials and software it can maybe even surpass the ubiquitous dome.
Also, it is not similar size ribbon. SRT-7 has Sd=7cm^2 and your ribbon (16mm x 75mm) has Sd of 12cm^2. That is 70% increase of ribbon surface. So even if it has lower distortion than SRT-7, it should.
I'd love to see your ribbon tweeter in Yevgeniy's hands so we could really compare the two tweeters. Not just to compare distortion but sensitivity, linearity of frequency response, resonances and off axis performance. And i'm not saying this in any negative way. I'd really like to see more planar tweeters with good distortion profile because i think that principle was left behind for too long and now with better materials and software it can maybe even surpass the ubiquitous dome.
Last edited:
yes, those are good points and I agree on the Omni mic and of course different systems and environments etc. Comparison is almost pointless. No negative taken.
Any confidence I have with my measurements come from measuring other commercial ribbons/ planers with this system, ( RAALs, Fountek, Arum Cantus,BG , then comparing to published reports and my own prototype work building copies of them all. While the Omni is not at the level of the systems you mention, I believe I’ve had enough comparative data over the development period to make useful conclusions. It’s not a high-end measurement system but you would be surprised at its usefulness if used this way.
Also, your right, the ribbon I posted data from is not exactly the same size as the STR-7, However my 16 x 50mm long version shows similar perf to the 75 mm long version. Not as good BUT surprisingly close. Also take note specifically of the distortion profile below 2 kHz. A significant reduction in distortion below this line. Above this freq. the distortion is no better than present offerings but the issue with most ribbons isn’t above 2K, its below that. This was the intent of the design, to reduce distortion below 2k and increase motional control/ reliability so can use a lower and less steep crossover than typical ribbons. And then of course as you rightly mention off axis perf tells much. One of the biggest hurdles was getting diaphragm behavior right so that off axis response was perfected. See pic 0-60 deg at 1 meter
some background...
This ribbon has been in development for some time. I was going to release it last spring, but was on the fence about writing a patent for it. The tech kills two birds with one stone without creating significant issues in the pass band. a rare thing. It reduces distortion below 2 Khz by an order of magnitude over typical free swing ribbon design AND makes the typically fragile structure much more resilient without adding significant mass. It seemed a bit too good to just throw it on market so I took the time to write a patent. While in that process some life issues crept in and all has been on hold. It is just now being picked back up and hopefully will move forward but I cannot give a time line. Development and proving is done. We need some more dust to settle before launch
In the future I plan to send some out to those with measurement cred.. for some validation before final release. Maybe Yevgeniy would be interested? I assume related to HiFiCompass? Not sure. I see some vids from Impulse Audio? They/ he seems like a straight shooter? Open to suggestions………
BTW I like your remark about wanting to see more planers. In fact, I spent many years developing them because of the potential and evidence that the present offerings could easily be bettered. There is potential here and I have protos in the wing for an interesting mid driver that overcomes the issue of difficult resonance problems at lower freq. and linearity of drive. It is quite different than what we are all used to seeing. However when it comes to wide band width tweeter duty, what was learned is that once you get a low enough resonant freq., and get the stronger diaphragm resonances of having terminations on all four sides taken care of, and have a truly wide bandwidth driver, you always run into the issues of poor horizontal dispersion or undesirably large overall size. Once I figured out how to overcome the fundamental distortion and reliability issues of the much more resonantly “benign” free swinging ribbon structure, I decided the ribbon was the better choice IF you want a driver that can do over 10Khz well.
Any confidence I have with my measurements come from measuring other commercial ribbons/ planers with this system, ( RAALs, Fountek, Arum Cantus,BG , then comparing to published reports and my own prototype work building copies of them all. While the Omni is not at the level of the systems you mention, I believe I’ve had enough comparative data over the development period to make useful conclusions. It’s not a high-end measurement system but you would be surprised at its usefulness if used this way.
Also, your right, the ribbon I posted data from is not exactly the same size as the STR-7, However my 16 x 50mm long version shows similar perf to the 75 mm long version. Not as good BUT surprisingly close. Also take note specifically of the distortion profile below 2 kHz. A significant reduction in distortion below this line. Above this freq. the distortion is no better than present offerings but the issue with most ribbons isn’t above 2K, its below that. This was the intent of the design, to reduce distortion below 2k and increase motional control/ reliability so can use a lower and less steep crossover than typical ribbons. And then of course as you rightly mention off axis perf tells much. One of the biggest hurdles was getting diaphragm behavior right so that off axis response was perfected. See pic 0-60 deg at 1 meter
some background...
This ribbon has been in development for some time. I was going to release it last spring, but was on the fence about writing a patent for it. The tech kills two birds with one stone without creating significant issues in the pass band. a rare thing. It reduces distortion below 2 Khz by an order of magnitude over typical free swing ribbon design AND makes the typically fragile structure much more resilient without adding significant mass. It seemed a bit too good to just throw it on market so I took the time to write a patent. While in that process some life issues crept in and all has been on hold. It is just now being picked back up and hopefully will move forward but I cannot give a time line. Development and proving is done. We need some more dust to settle before launch
In the future I plan to send some out to those with measurement cred.. for some validation before final release. Maybe Yevgeniy would be interested? I assume related to HiFiCompass? Not sure. I see some vids from Impulse Audio? They/ he seems like a straight shooter? Open to suggestions………
BTW I like your remark about wanting to see more planers. In fact, I spent many years developing them because of the potential and evidence that the present offerings could easily be bettered. There is potential here and I have protos in the wing for an interesting mid driver that overcomes the issue of difficult resonance problems at lower freq. and linearity of drive. It is quite different than what we are all used to seeing. However when it comes to wide band width tweeter duty, what was learned is that once you get a low enough resonant freq., and get the stronger diaphragm resonances of having terminations on all four sides taken care of, and have a truly wide bandwidth driver, you always run into the issues of poor horizontal dispersion or undesirably large overall size. Once I figured out how to overcome the fundamental distortion and reliability issues of the much more resonantly “benign” free swinging ribbon structure, I decided the ribbon was the better choice IF you want a driver that can do over 10Khz well.
Attachments
Last edited:
I know you work on ribbons. I've ran a couple of times on your posts about self made ribbons but the one that struck me most was your comment about ribbon you've made that distorts more but sounds "better" than the one with lower distortion.
Is that still the case ?
Regarding distortion down to 1kHz, i could use it of course but it is not neccessary to me. I'd use it with some 4" midrange/s so down to 2kHz works fine for me. But a waveguide loaded ribbon, that i could use
Is that still the case ?
Regarding distortion down to 1kHz, i could use it of course but it is not neccessary to me. I'd use it with some 4" midrange/s so down to 2kHz works fine for me. But a waveguide loaded ribbon, that i could use
Last edited:
I know you work on ribbons. I've ran a couple of times on your posts about self made ribbons but the one that struck me most was your comment about ribbon you've made that distorts more but sounds "better" than the one with lower distortion.
Is that still the case ?
Regarding distortion down to 1kHz, i could use it of course but it is not neccessary to me. I'd use it with some 4" midrange/s so down to 2kHz works fine for me. But a waveguide loaded ribbon, that i could use
Hmm well I hope I didn't say that ha. I did do a bunch of listening tests a while back to compare the design to standard free swing ribbon design in the listening seat. You can make two nearly identical ribbons, one with the lower distortion design and one standard.They will be identical in every way except small detail and they will measure nearly identical in sens., pulse, and FR, BUT the distortion very different below 2K. An order of magnitude different. These were mounted on opposite sides in their own box, able to rotate 180 deg.. That box sits on top of the woofer box. This allowing quick change from one to the other. Just rotate ribbon box, switch banana plug on positive lead over, and listen. Based on past experience I believe it necessary to be able to very quickly change, otherwise I just couldn't say for sure what exactly I am hearing. Heck just getting out of listening seat to go to bathroom can seem to alter your perception. Listening tests are a war of honesty in the mind if ya ask me. Eventually I would have someone actually do the switch and spin for me and not tell me what ribbon is on deck. This way I was blind and didn't even have to move. Anyway after the long war I was quite disappointed!! I really could not hear any difference at low to mid listening volumes.
Above around 90 ave. db at seat I could start to hear that the lower distortion ribbon was less confused sounding, more dynamic ( sorry best adj. I can come up with) , and maintained a stable image better, BUT at what I would call "normal" listening volumes, ( lower than 90 ave at seat) there simply was no discernible difference. At least up until the standard ribbon shreds itself. At high listening volume the lower distortion ribbon trounced the standard ribbon. The standard ribbon simply looses control at this point and within a short time mechanically fails.
Anyway as I said I was quite disappointed that I could not hear an order of magnitude less distortion, basically from 2 % on the standard ribbon , to 0.3 % on the lower distortion ribbon.
Then I think there was a thred somewhere where Dr. Geddies was being attacked about claims that these super low distortion numbers are not nearly as big a deal as we think they are. I think I got in on that one and brought this experience up. That may be the posts you speak of??
As far as the necessity of going to 1 kHz. I agree that for 3 way and up its not needed. My desire however has always been to make it easier for the average DIY guy to get good sound from a simpler setup. The 2 way is far easier than 3-4 way , AND I find that any practical woofer capable of reasonable bass needs a tweeter capable of going quite low to avoid the issues associated with the cone. The low cross simply makes it easy for the average person to achieve magic. You can use even a cheap cone and get surprisingly good results. That is really the purpose of the design.
Last edited:
Here it is:
Now you see what can putting out of context and selective memory do to a guy. I have remembered you wrote something somewhere though
I am curious what did you mean by "not convincing sound"?
Now you see what can putting out of context and selective memory do to a guy. I have remembered you wrote something somewhere though
I am curious what did you mean by "not convincing sound"?
Last edited:
Ah ok that one ha.
Yep context is everything for sure. Just to be clear the ribbons mentioned there were not the design I have mentioned here recently. And these were wide ribbon, about 20mm
There was one diaphragm construction among them that unfortunately was just too fragile BUT it sounded more real, less artificial than the rest. It was more “convincing”. For example symbols and strings had weight and body without artificial edginess. In comparison the foil only versions had a metallic edge that at first seemed real but extended listen proved otherwise. And the laminated foil/ plastic versions seemed sweet and had less metallic edginess, but extended listen always made me think they were a bit dull. This was all done with FR’s of each tailored to within a db across the board. However the one that everyone really liked measured a bit higher distortion. Interestingly its construction was very well damped compared to the others. The pulse was very clean. Just no hash in the CSD, quick even decay, AND no lumpiness in the decay tails at the lower end down around 500 hz where the decays are always much longer and often lumpy looking.
In the end I concluded, with a free swinging ribbon structure moving air anyways, that a great pulse/ CSD was far more important to the ear than a little extra distortion. It was that diaphragms measured behavior that I now use as a reference in developing the ribbon I talk about here recently. Eventually I came up with a construction that comes very close to it but doesn't tear itself apart in use.
At this point you may think, well you just liked the sound of the distortion. My testing sense then says that's not it. I have much lower distortion versions now that have a similar pulse/ CSD and they sound “convincing” just like the higher distortion one with the fragile diaphragm. BTW just a side note, that diaphragm is not an ultralight like the RAALs or the Ravens. Its higher mass than that type. IMO mass is not the enemy so long as the pulse is great, and that higher mass allows for more metal in a smaller diaphragm which plays dividends in power handling.
Yep context is everything for sure. Just to be clear the ribbons mentioned there were not the design I have mentioned here recently. And these were wide ribbon, about 20mm
There was one diaphragm construction among them that unfortunately was just too fragile BUT it sounded more real, less artificial than the rest. It was more “convincing”. For example symbols and strings had weight and body without artificial edginess. In comparison the foil only versions had a metallic edge that at first seemed real but extended listen proved otherwise. And the laminated foil/ plastic versions seemed sweet and had less metallic edginess, but extended listen always made me think they were a bit dull. This was all done with FR’s of each tailored to within a db across the board. However the one that everyone really liked measured a bit higher distortion. Interestingly its construction was very well damped compared to the others. The pulse was very clean. Just no hash in the CSD, quick even decay, AND no lumpiness in the decay tails at the lower end down around 500 hz where the decays are always much longer and often lumpy looking.
In the end I concluded, with a free swinging ribbon structure moving air anyways, that a great pulse/ CSD was far more important to the ear than a little extra distortion. It was that diaphragms measured behavior that I now use as a reference in developing the ribbon I talk about here recently. Eventually I came up with a construction that comes very close to it but doesn't tear itself apart in use.
At this point you may think, well you just liked the sound of the distortion. My testing sense then says that's not it. I have much lower distortion versions now that have a similar pulse/ CSD and they sound “convincing” just like the higher distortion one with the fragile diaphragm. BTW just a side note, that diaphragm is not an ultralight like the RAALs or the Ravens. Its higher mass than that type. IMO mass is not the enemy so long as the pulse is great, and that higher mass allows for more metal in a smaller diaphragm which plays dividends in power handling.
The measurements of the "entry level" ScanSpeak Ellipticor 18WE/4542T00 midwoofer:
ScanSpeak Ellipticor 18WE/4542T00 | HiFiCompass
ScanSpeak Ellipticor 18WE/4542T00 | HiFiCompass
I just don't see anything in these Ellipticor drivers that warrants the overblown prices .Scan must have made this range for Bloomberg and Bezos to play with!
I see SB Acoustic selling like hotcakes
It is a better driver than the Satori MW16 most notably in the bass where it has lower distortion, especially at higher outputs.
The Purifi woofer is hands down better than the scanspeak though. And if we're talking very expensive 6-7" drivers it would clearly be the driver of choice.
The Satori is a far less expensive close second place and heck SBs standard line a close third for much less outlay.
When it was first released the Satori was the one to beat. Some have just about done that and raised the bar again. But the original 6" Satori is a few years old. It's possible that SB will have further optimised the motor with the Textreme version and equal the small lead the scanspeak has.
The Purifi woofer is hands down better than the scanspeak though. And if we're talking very expensive 6-7" drivers it would clearly be the driver of choice.
The Satori is a far less expensive close second place and heck SBs standard line a close third for much less outlay.
When it was first released the Satori was the one to beat. Some have just about done that and raised the bar again. But the original 6" Satori is a few years old. It's possible that SB will have further optimised the motor with the Textreme version and equal the small lead the scanspeak has.
