I'm in need of some advice from persons who have heard these speakers. I'm using a NOS DAC (Derek Shek), a DIY Paradise Charlize (probably to be complemented by an Almarro 205 or Decware Taboo in the future) and (currently) a pair of Snell K original. Music: jazz, blues, classical and some classical rock.
I haven't heard any of the speakers I'm looking at. Of the open baffle alternatives I'm leaning towards the Iris because of it's (as I have understood) fuller frequency range, but I'm also very curious about the Hammer (at least with regard to the constructor's intentions: "The S-12 represents my efforts to create a loudspeaker that sounds like Quad ESL 57s with much greater dynamic range, sensitivity and another octave on the bass-end"). Budget is an issue.
Advice or opinions anyone?
Thanks!
Jolojl
I haven't heard any of the speakers I'm looking at. Of the open baffle alternatives I'm leaning towards the Iris because of it's (as I have understood) fuller frequency range, but I'm also very curious about the Hammer (at least with regard to the constructor's intentions: "The S-12 represents my efforts to create a loudspeaker that sounds like Quad ESL 57s with much greater dynamic range, sensitivity and another octave on the bass-end"). Budget is an issue.
Advice or opinions anyone?
Thanks!
Jolojl
I have the Silver Iris. Never heard the B200, but read much about it.
My impression of the difference between the two is this.
The Silver Iris is more forgiving with respect to a smaller baffle, it won't dominate your living room as badly.
The Silver Iris has a better low end, you are more likely to accept it without a subwoofer. I like it better with a sub, but I like my bass.
The B200 has no crossover. Even the best crossover is going to color the sound somewhat.
I mean to buy a pair of B200s someday, I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Open Baffle is where it's at.
My impression of the difference between the two is this.
The Silver Iris is more forgiving with respect to a smaller baffle, it won't dominate your living room as badly.
The Silver Iris has a better low end, you are more likely to accept it without a subwoofer. I like it better with a sub, but I like my bass.
The B200 has no crossover. Even the best crossover is going to color the sound somewhat.
I mean to buy a pair of B200s someday, I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Open Baffle is where it's at.
preiter said:
True -- larger bass driver with higher Q, you should actually use it on a specific size baffle to bring the Q down,
and it throws a huge -- as in big -- soundstage, a bit 2 dimensional but big -- this can be very appealing.
The deal killer for me is that the 15 just doesn't seem to be able to do the critical mids... there is a discontinuity right around where the woofer tries to get up to where the tweeter is. A lot of the music i listen to really stresses this area ....
Darryl suggests that i need to listen to the SI on a proper size baffle (the one i heard it on could be too big), and i have an open mind. And if when Bob gets that done and we get a chance to listen to it, that still doesn't do it, i have permission to go at the driver with my modification tricks.
BTW -- the B200, with phase plugs, has a better top end than the SI.
The Hammer -- asked about but not mentioned yet, is to my mind a non-starter.
dave
Well, on the few occasions that I've heard the SI, I think it's fair to say that while they don't approach the magical midrange of the Quad ESL57 (a daunting task, even 50 years later!), they certainly do dynamics, image size and bass very well indeed.
As to the Hammers, it's a bit of apples vs oranges comparing them to any OB. The SI15 and Visaton B200 have got to be the most affordable of current new production in this latter category to deliver great performance. If room considerations dictate a more conventional enclosure design, any of the Fostex 16X or 20X series in MLTL or BIB would be my recommendation over the Super12's.
As to the Hammers, it's a bit of apples vs oranges comparing them to any OB. The SI15 and Visaton B200 have got to be the most affordable of current new production in this latter category to deliver great performance. If room considerations dictate a more conventional enclosure design, any of the Fostex 16X or 20X series in MLTL or BIB would be my recommendation over the Super12's.
This is a great place to put a question. Thanks all for your input! 
I'm more and more leaning towards the Iris (both because of size and of frequency response) even though the Visaton and Hammers are very tempting (besides, in time one doesn't exclude the other...)
I've posted this question on other fora too, and someone on Audiogon mentioned that Hemp Acoustics are planning an OB baffle driver for the near future and that they also have other DIY options. Will have a further look at these.
planet10 -- I have seen your comparison (in AudioCircle?) between the Iris with old cross-overs and the Visaton (where you clearly prefer the Visaton). I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to listen to the Iris with the new cross-overs? You don't seem to like the Hammers, are they really so much worse than the OB alternatives?
ScottG -- thanks for the link. I've been contemplating that set-up for a while, but it's just too expensive
Preiter -- I've had e-mail contact with Darrel at Hawthorne on baffle design and he was very helpful. This might just be my next speaker.
ChrisB -- It's true about the apple and oranges, but I'm really still not fixed on a particular design for design's sake. I'm just looking for a good but not too expensive speaker. An MLTL or BIB is still an option and the Hemps provide yet another alternative to the Fostexes.
Jolojl
I'm more and more leaning towards the Iris (both because of size and of frequency response) even though the Visaton and Hammers are very tempting (besides, in time one doesn't exclude the other...)
I've posted this question on other fora too, and someone on Audiogon mentioned that Hemp Acoustics are planning an OB baffle driver for the near future and that they also have other DIY options. Will have a further look at these.
planet10 -- I have seen your comparison (in AudioCircle?) between the Iris with old cross-overs and the Visaton (where you clearly prefer the Visaton). I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to listen to the Iris with the new cross-overs? You don't seem to like the Hammers, are they really so much worse than the OB alternatives?
ScottG -- thanks for the link. I've been contemplating that set-up for a while, but it's just too expensive
Preiter -- I've had e-mail contact with Darrel at Hawthorne on baffle design and he was very helpful. This might just be my next speaker.
ChrisB -- It's true about the apple and oranges, but I'm really still not fixed on a particular design for design's sake. I'm just looking for a good but not too expensive speaker. An MLTL or BIB is still an option and the Hemps provide yet another alternative to the Fostexes.
Jolojl
Jolojl said:
ScottG -- thanks for the link. I've been contemplating that set-up for a while, but it's just too expensive
I just provided the link after Dave's suggestion. IMO this would be a *VERY* easy to "duplicate" pair of loudspeakers. A pair of piano hinges and 6 sheets of void free plywood with some veneer and a hole for the driver cut into two of those sheets. Not too expensive at all.
Jolojl said:
Bob, the local fellow with the SI here in town, also has a pair of B200s sitting downstairs having their prepratory run-in before i take the knife to them.
We have heard them with new XOs -- a good improvement, but not head-to-head with the B200 yet.
I burned the Hammer boxes (held onto them for a year -- no one wanted them). I'll let Chris & Frank comment on the sound, they had many more miles on them than me.
dave
ScottG said:IMO this would be a *VERY* easy to "duplicate" pair of loudspeakers. A pair of piano hinges and 6 sheets of void free plywood with some veneer and a hole for the driver cut into two of those sheets. Not too expensive at all.
Probably get away with 2 sheets of ply and a saw... i'll have to get a set of those baffles. They might make B200s habital in my room. The 1.2m x 1.1m flat baffles are of necessity only ever temporary.
dave
Jolojl:
I was trying to be polite about the Hammers, but if I was to let my guard down, I'd have to say that I more listening experience with them than Planet10 upon which to base my opinion; too "cinemascope" in scale and midrange coloration for my taste.
I built a pair of the recommended Hammer enclosures for a buddy a few years ago now, and shared some of his "enjoyment" (but not expense) in attempting to tailor them to his room and musical expectations. There was also at least one pair in demo at the VSAC2003 show in Silverdale. Same results for me, particularly with 300B amps - the lean yet articulate bass of a 45 triode might be more well suited here.
FWIW, I find it interesting that designers of both the SI15 and the Super12 make reference to the ESL57 as an inspiration.
During the past 30ys, I've personally owned a complete Quad system (FM3/33/303 ESL57), as well as Acoustat I's, and had opportunity to hear a fairly wide range of ESLs at trade shows, dealers showrooms and tweaked out DIYers'.
Whatever the shortcomings of fullrange dipole ESLs (no speaker is perfect), I have yet to hear any multiway dynamic driver based system, and most particularly 2-ways with crossover points in the 1800-3200 range, that come close to approaching the midrange transparency and overall coherency of well execute examples of the former.
The closest I've experienced has been a particular model of Rethm, with a single highly modified Lowther driver, in a BLH design.
Dave & I both listened to the SI15 on the same occassions; once with an fresh (not fully broken in) set of the newer crossovers, and at both sessions with the oversized baffles - so it's fair to say that final opinions are in reserve. That's definitely not the case for the Hammer
I was trying to be polite about the Hammers, but if I was to let my guard down, I'd have to say that I more listening experience with them than Planet10 upon which to base my opinion; too "cinemascope" in scale and midrange coloration for my taste.
I built a pair of the recommended Hammer enclosures for a buddy a few years ago now, and shared some of his "enjoyment" (but not expense) in attempting to tailor them to his room and musical expectations. There was also at least one pair in demo at the VSAC2003 show in Silverdale. Same results for me, particularly with 300B amps - the lean yet articulate bass of a 45 triode might be more well suited here.
FWIW, I find it interesting that designers of both the SI15 and the Super12 make reference to the ESL57 as an inspiration.
During the past 30ys, I've personally owned a complete Quad system (FM3/33/303 ESL57), as well as Acoustat I's, and had opportunity to hear a fairly wide range of ESLs at trade shows, dealers showrooms and tweaked out DIYers'.
Whatever the shortcomings of fullrange dipole ESLs (no speaker is perfect), I have yet to hear any multiway dynamic driver based system, and most particularly 2-ways with crossover points in the 1800-3200 range, that come close to approaching the midrange transparency and overall coherency of well execute examples of the former.
The closest I've experienced has been a particular model of Rethm, with a single highly modified Lowther driver, in a BLH design.
Dave & I both listened to the SI15 on the same occassions; once with an fresh (not fully broken in) set of the newer crossovers, and at both sessions with the oversized baffles - so it's fair to say that final opinions are in reserve. That's definitely not the case for the Hammer
Crossovers are something that are to be avoided. If you want truly full-range sound they can't be avoided -- at least with today's technology. Now, in some cases we can live without true full-range sound, and the benefits of no XO more than outweigh a bit missing at the top or bottom (or both). If an XO is going to be used, they need to be simple, and pushed out of the critical midrange. And at the bottom anyway, they should be active.
dave
I have both the B200 and SI coax, and they are an apples and oranges comparison. First, the B200 has an uptiltled response, so with no XO type components in the pathway, it sounds really good only with a small segment of music. You mention jazz and blues, so the forward presentation of the mids can make that type of music magical, but forget the full orchestra and classic rock because they will be fatiguing and lacking extension on both ends. Maybe Dave's phase plugs cures much of the hot top end of the B200's, but they still roll off early on both ends.
I have the SI's with the original XO, and while it's unfair to compare the mids of a 15 crossed to a compression tweet right in the critical range to a good fullrange driver, they are by far the easiest to listen to speaker I've owned. I listen to a wide variety of music and have mine set up as a 2-in-1 speaker. I have FE108EZ's on small OB's mounted right above the SI coax with switches. For dynamic or loud listening, I use the SI. For intimate music where vocals are where the magic is. I flip the switches, and run the 108's full range with the SI coax woofer as a bass augmenter using only a coil on the woofer, simple and very sweet.
This gives much of the best of 2 worlds. The B200 can't match the 108 in midrange detail, and it can't match the SI coax on music requiring dynamics. You can't, however, ignore pure single point source sound, where the B200 bests my 108/SI combo, along with power handling.
Very soon I'll be testing an active solution which includes time and phase correction, so I'll be testing all manner of combinations. B200's with super tweeter and bass augmenter help, as well as the SI in a time & phase perfect alignment, among other things. I have a sneaking suspicion that another alignment will be the OB winner, which will include a different and lower Q wide ranger with a super tweeter on top plus bass augmentation. This leaves the full critical range free of XO, has the extreme midrange detail of low Q fullrangers, along with bass in spades and full extension on top, and perfect phase and time alignment (essentially a full ranger used as a very wide range mid in an OB alignment) it should have great results.
I have the SI's with the original XO, and while it's unfair to compare the mids of a 15 crossed to a compression tweet right in the critical range to a good fullrange driver, they are by far the easiest to listen to speaker I've owned. I listen to a wide variety of music and have mine set up as a 2-in-1 speaker. I have FE108EZ's on small OB's mounted right above the SI coax with switches. For dynamic or loud listening, I use the SI. For intimate music where vocals are where the magic is. I flip the switches, and run the 108's full range with the SI coax woofer as a bass augmenter using only a coil on the woofer, simple and very sweet.
This gives much of the best of 2 worlds. The B200 can't match the 108 in midrange detail, and it can't match the SI coax on music requiring dynamics. You can't, however, ignore pure single point source sound, where the B200 bests my 108/SI combo, along with power handling.
Very soon I'll be testing an active solution which includes time and phase correction, so I'll be testing all manner of combinations. B200's with super tweeter and bass augmenter help, as well as the SI in a time & phase perfect alignment, among other things. I have a sneaking suspicion that another alignment will be the OB winner, which will include a different and lower Q wide ranger with a super tweeter on top plus bass augmentation. This leaves the full critical range free of XO, has the extreme midrange detail of low Q fullrangers, along with bass in spades and full extension on top, and perfect phase and time alignment (essentially a full ranger used as a very wide range mid in an OB alignment) it should have great results.
Hi!
ScottG -- Yes, the Omegas seem easy to clone but still takes a bit of space (I also had the idea of making a clone of the RWA Sig.30, but gave up when the cost still went up above 500 USD...).
planet10 and chrisb -- I've given up the Hammers. Maybe another time. Still, sorry to hear you burned the boxes, planet10: I could have bought them. I yet have to listen to ESLs, I'm sure I'll get the midrange magic everybody speaks of.
johninCR -- This is a very, very informative answer. I'll take the information with me. So even though there's magic with the Visaton B200 it seems as most single drivers in open baffle have some serious drawbacks (that's why there are horns and boxes I suppose, as well as drivers covering different frequencies and cross-overs...). Your project seems very interesting, hopefully we will hear more about it (and see pics?) when finalised?
Still curious about the new Hemp open baffle driver to come...
Thanks all!
Johan
ScottG -- Yes, the Omegas seem easy to clone but still takes a bit of space (I also had the idea of making a clone of the RWA Sig.30, but gave up when the cost still went up above 500 USD...).
planet10 and chrisb -- I've given up the Hammers. Maybe another time. Still, sorry to hear you burned the boxes, planet10: I could have bought them. I yet have to listen to ESLs, I'm sure I'll get the midrange magic everybody speaks of.
johninCR -- This is a very, very informative answer. I'll take the information with me. So even though there's magic with the Visaton B200 it seems as most single drivers in open baffle have some serious drawbacks (that's why there are horns and boxes I suppose, as well as drivers covering different frequencies and cross-overs...). Your project seems very interesting, hopefully we will hear more about it (and see pics?) when finalised?
Still curious about the new Hemp open baffle driver to come...
Thanks all!
Johan
Hey guys!
Thank you all for your input. Silver Iris ordered, think this will be a good starter. Also, Darrel is very helpful and very nice to have contact with.
Will try Visaton or other single driver later on, planet10 and chrisB.
Please let us know johninCR about your projects
Cheers!
Jolojl
Thank you all for your input. Silver Iris ordered, think this will be a good starter. Also, Darrel is very helpful and very nice to have contact with.
Will try Visaton or other single driver later on, planet10 and chrisB
. Please let us know johninCR about your projects
Cheers!
Jolojl
I think that everything that has been said about the b200 is true - to a point.
In my experience, let's qualify that right out of the gate, the b200 needs a certain type of amp, to be truly enjoyable, run full range.
I have run a broad number of amps, and found only 3 that I really like.
JVC EX-A1 - yes, it is an "executive" unit, so burn me at the stake - after you listen...
1956 Magnavox EL84 console pull - the value leader, and really surprisingly good with this driver.
MarkC (look him up on AudioCircle) and his monoblocks - hybrid tube/fet design, 300wpc. Phenomenal synergy...
The old Maggie, is a stunner - the bass fills out, the mids are preserved, and the treble is good. There could be more smoothness, but I am not one to look that horse in the mouth yet, and will continue to run the b200's (Thanks again Planet10 Dave!) full range, on 36x48 baffles, folded with piano hinge.
Done.
In my experience, let's qualify that right out of the gate, the b200 needs a certain type of amp, to be truly enjoyable, run full range.
I have run a broad number of amps, and found only 3 that I really like.
JVC EX-A1 - yes, it is an "executive" unit, so burn me at the stake - after you listen...
1956 Magnavox EL84 console pull - the value leader, and really surprisingly good with this driver.
MarkC (look him up on AudioCircle) and his monoblocks - hybrid tube/fet design, 300wpc. Phenomenal synergy...
The old Maggie, is a stunner - the bass fills out, the mids are preserved, and the treble is good. There could be more smoothness, but I am not one to look that horse in the mouth yet, and will continue to run the b200's (Thanks again Planet10 Dave!) full range, on 36x48 baffles, folded with piano hinge.
Done.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.