# Reference Home Speaker DIY



## poochieone

Hi,
I'm looking to build some nice, relative high-end home speakers with some Scan Speak 7" Revelators and someLCY 108 ribbon tweeters. All i have down right now is the speakers themselves. I would like to have someone design some nice X-overs but don't know where to go...
If you had the same drivers, what kind of speakers would you build? where would you get your X-overs designed?

any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
thanks,
Marco


----------



## coke

http://www.madisound.com/

Have the specs of your drivers ready and give them a call


----------



## bmaupin

I'd recommend Rick Craig at Selah Audio. I've never used him, but he does many custom designs, will create the design from measurements that he will take, and (I was told) the cost is only $125 (plus shipping - I imagine) for a 2-way.

http://www.selahaudio.com/

- Brad


----------



## DS-21

Do you have to use those drivers? I wouldn't call any 7" 2-way a reference setup. There just isn't enough cone area there to realistically reproduce lower midrange dynamics. Moreover, a tweeter mounted flush on the baffle will give you compromised midrange performance due to the inevitable directivity mismatch between the woofer at the top of its passband and the tweeter at the bottom of its passband.

Can you go bigger, for example the B&C 10" coax, or maybe a BMS compression driver on an 18Sound elliptical waveguide with a 10" or 12" Aura or B&C woofer under it? Or best of all, probably, spend about the same money (or less, when you factor in crossover parts cost!) and get a proven reference-caliber design in the form of Dr. Earl Geddes' "Nathan-10" kit. (If I were looking for new speakers today, that would be where my search began and ended. And even though I'm not looking for new speakers, I'm somewhat considering buying a trio to compare to my Tannoy 12 DMT II's anyway.)


----------



## poochieone

wow alot of good reading


----------



## DS-21

Here's another couple tomes worth of good reading, though there's quite a lot of idiocy and fluff in there, too: "Beyond the Ariel" thread.


----------



## Oliver

SSR = ribbon and a 7" ScanSpeak Revelator

http://www.selahaudio.com/id124.html


----------



## 60ndown

DS-21 said:


> Do you have to use those drivers? I wouldn't call any 7" 2-way a reference setup. There just isn't enough cone area there to realistically reproduce lower midrange dynamics. Moreover, a tweeter mounted flush on the baffle will give you compromised midrange performance due to the inevitable directivity mismatch between the woofer at the top of its passband and the tweeter at the bottom of its passband.
> 
> Can you go bigger, for example the B&C 10" coax, or maybe a BMS compression driver on an 18Sound elliptical waveguide with a 10" or 12" Aura or B&C woofer under it? Or best of all, probably, spend about the same money (or less, when you factor in crossover parts cost!) and get a proven reference-caliber design in the form of Dr. Earl Geddes' "Nathan-10" kit. (If I were looking for new speakers today, that would be where my search began and ended. And even though I'm not looking for new speakers, I'm somewhat considering buying a trio to compare to my Tannoy 12 DMT II's anyway.)


why dont you try and offer something positive , just once, doesnt being negative ALL THE TIME get old in your life?

there are multiple 2 way speakers that can be called reference. with multiple sized drivers and baffles, even 'fullrange' drivers.

the o.p asked for help with his current drivers, which are excellent, and you told him it wont work and sent him shopping.

your wrong.






a$$hole said:


> SSR = ribbon and a 7" ScanSpeak Revelator
> 
> http://www.selahaudio.com/id124.html


----------



## 60ndown

to the o.p.

will you be using a sub?

if yes your design goals are different to if your NOT using a sub.

decide exactly how and what you want these speakers to play

20-20,000

or

70-20,000

and then think about x overs.


----------



## MiniVanMan

60ndown said:


> why dont you try and offer something positive , just once, doesnt being negative ALL THE TIME get old in your life?
> 
> there are multiple 2 way speakers that can be called reference. with multiple sized drivers and baffles, even 'fullrange' drivers.
> 
> the o.p asked for help with his current drivers, which are excellent, and you told him it wont work and sent him shopping.
> 
> your wrong.


Are you saying that it's okay to top mount a tweeter?? Please explain. Do you think you can make a reference setup with a 7" driver coupled with a tweeter than needs to be crossed over in the 3k range?? Please explain.

There's a difference between "very good" and "reference". I'm sure Zaph's latest Scan design is excellent. That doesn't make it "reference". In fact, many and most "reference" speakers are pretty sterile. You're looking for no tonal coloration from the woofer cones, and as little distortion as possible. 

However, in this case, I would ask the same thing as DS-21 asked. Do you have to use those drivers? They won't match up well. The LCY-108 needs to be crossed over too high to be a viable match for a high end 2-way monitor or tower. They won't do the Revelators any justice. 

So, no 60ndown, "You're wrong". 






[/QUOTE]


----------



## DS-21

60ndown said:


> why dont you try and offer something positive , just once, doesnt being negative ALL THE TIME get old in your life?


I'm not negative all the time. Just realistic and honest. Sorry if you can't handle that. Well, not really but I suppose it's nice to say.



60ndown said:


> there are multiple 2 way speakers that can be called reference.


No ****. I happen to run three of them in front of my main system. 

Those 2-way speakers all have big cone area for the midrange, and a waveguide of some sort (be it a separate part or the midrange cone itself) to control the directivity of the tweeter at the bottom of its passband.



60ndown said:


> with multiple sized drivers and baffles, even 'fullrange' drivers.


Anything smaller than a 10 (or maybe twin 8's, though I prefer my mids to come from a single driver because that way the sound quality isn't so dependent on the vertical axis) for the lower mids and you've got a nearfield reference system at best. That is, of course, assuming one has put enough thought into things to consider accurate tracking of dynamics (i.e. low power compression) to be a necessary-but-not-sufficient component of "reference."



60ndown said:


> the o.p asked for help with his current drivers, which are excellent, and you told him it wont work and sent him shopping.


Though I was unclear on that point when he posted - I thought he had _picked them out_ but hadn't actually bought them - the sunny side is that his drivers have excellent resale value. So at worst he shouldn't lose much if he does have the drivers. And he will end up with a far superior system than would have been possible with those tiny little toys. A 7" driver is fine for car-fi, where bigger stuff typically doesn't fit and the listening room is tiny anyway, but why unduly restrict oneself in the home?



60ndown said:


> your wrong.


Sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I don't own a wrong, or even know what one is for that matter.


----------



## bmaupin

For what it is worth I agree that crossing the 7" Rev around 3k is not optimal because beaming like DS-21 said in his original post. But I also believe that it would not sound like crap and what would be most noticeable is how the sound changes when you stand up or move away from being directly in front of the speaker (in the sweet spot). 

Dennis Murphy has done some designing with LCY tweeters (not sure which model) and is another fairly well respected designer. I would try to ask both him and Rick what they think about your proposed design. That way you will hopefully get some feedback from someone who has actually tried to integrate the LCY.

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=main.html

- Brad


----------



## poochieone

thanks for every single response! 
I had some pre-set ideas of what i though it should be like and the purpose of this post was to get other insights into the design and hopefully improve on mine. that's already happened. DS-21, i will have to use the drivers i already have but i'm now leaning towards a 3-way set-up possibly with some 10's for sub bass (loved to see the SEELAH Galena), but more than likely with a single 12" high output SQ driver. that would give me the possibility of treating the mains as mini-towers (similar to the SSR above or the Zaph audio ZRT: http://zaphaudio.com/ZRT.html ) and then adding the sub for adequate low-end. i think this would go a long way towards keeping the drivers within their optimal operating bandwidth. 
that brings in the question of X-over points (will have to be passive for the towers) between the sub and towers...not sure where i can cut the midrange/midbass and still get the towers to sound good on their own without the added subwoofer output. i'm thinking about 50hz or so...
any thoughts?


----------



## bmaupin

bmaupin said:


> what would be most noticeable is how the sound changes when you stand up or move away from being directly in front of the speaker (in the sweet spot).


I forgot to say that this will be very similar to what happens when listening to every MTM design and somehow people still like them.



poochieone said:


> any thoughts?


Certainly the 7" Rev will be SPL limited when the bottom end is not unloaded, but you will not be missing much with a f3 in the 30's with a ported box. I'd first build some speakers and add on subs. 50 Hz is what I like to set a sub at, but 60 Hz or a little higher will help with power handling and with stereo subs you can probably go higher without much SQ change. I'd buy a pair of Dayron RSS315HF and a pair of the Dayton 240 watt sub amps. Sure there is better, but I am considering cost.

- Brad


----------



## 60ndown

MiniVanMan said:


> Are you saying that it's okay to top mount a tweeter?? Please explain. Do you think you can make a reference setup with a 7" driver coupled with a tweeter than needs to be crossed over in the 3k range?? Please explain.
> 
> There's a difference between "very good" and "reference". I'm sure Zaph's latest Scan design is excellent. That doesn't make it "reference". In fact, many and most "reference" speakers are pretty sterile. You're looking for no tonal coloration from the woofer cones, and as little distortion as possible.
> 
> However, in this case, I would ask the same thing as DS-21 asked. Do you have to use those drivers? They won't match up well. The LCY-108 needs to be crossed over too high to be a viable match for a high end 2-way monitor or tower. They won't do the Revelators any justice.
> 
> So, no 60ndown, "You're wrong".


[/QUOTE]



DS-21 said:


> I'm not negative all the time. Just realistic and honest. Sorry if you can't handle that. Well, not really but I suppose it's nice to say.
> 
> 
> 
> No ****. I happen to run three of them in front of my main system.
> 
> Those 2-way speakers all have big cone area for the midrange, and a waveguide of some sort (be it a separate part or the midrange cone itself) to control the directivity of the tweeter at the bottom of its passband.
> 
> 
> 
> Anything smaller than a 10 (or maybe twin 8's, though I prefer my mids to come from a single driver because that way the sound quality isn't so dependent on the vertical axis) for the lower mids and you've got a nearfield reference system at best. That is, of course, assuming one has put enough thought into things to consider accurate tracking of dynamics (i.e. low power compression) to be a necessary-but-not-sufficient component of "reference."
> 
> 
> 
> Though I was unclear on that point when he posted - I thought he had _picked them out_ but hadn't actually bought them - the sunny side is that his drivers have excellent resale value. So at worst he shouldn't lose much if he does have the drivers. And he will end up with a far superior system than would have been possible with those tiny little toys. A 7" driver is fine for car-fi, where bigger stuff typically doesn't fit and the listening room is tiny anyway, but why unduly restrict oneself in the home?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I don't own a wrong, or even know what one is for that matter.


i can enjoy music on a $30 radio (if you cant your missing the whole point of music), getting lost in the theory and science and technology makes it IMPOSSIBLE for SOME PEOPLE to enjoy MUSIC.

"oh noes, if the tweeter isnt flush mounted it cant sound any good, any my speakers are better than yourz because it sais so i this weeks "stereowanker" magazine"

howz mi englich skillz now? you feel (understand) me?


----------



## MiniVanMan

i can enjoy music on a $30 radio (if you cant your missing the whole point of music), getting lost in the theory and science and technology makes it IMPOSSIBLE for SOME PEOPLE to enjoy MUSIC.

"oh noes, if the tweeter isnt flush mounted it cant sound any good, any my speakers are better than yourz because it sais so i this weeks "stereowanker" magazine"

howz mi englich skillz now? you feel (understand) me?[/QUOTE]

Okay, you just showed your true colors. 

So, you'd rather attack us than back up your previous points? Good choice. I always prefer to make myself look like an idiot than have others do it for me. Takes the sting out a bit doesn't it?

Let me give you a bit of an education in planning a project. 

1. State your goals. This is what the OP did when he said "reference". If he wants "reference" there's a certain level of "attention to detail" that needs to be adhered to in order to achieve "reference" level. In fact, it takes a ton of attention to detail. Missing even a minor detail can cause an artifact that would be unacceptable for a "reference" level finished product.

Sorry you got your feelings hurt, but you presented yourself ignorantly, and got educated. 

See, I can present a verbal thrashing while using some proper grammar and not make myself look like an imbecile. Try it sometime. You might earn a little more respect. Oh, that, and possibly knowing what the hell you're talking about before running off at the mouth.


----------



## 60ndown

MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, you just showed your true colors.
> 
> So, you'd rather attack us than back up your previous points? Good choice. I always prefer to make myself look like an idiot than have others do it for me. Takes the sting out a bit doesn't it?
> 
> Let me give you a bit of an education in planning a project.
> 
> 1. State your goals. This is what the OP did when he said "reference". If he wants "reference" there's a certain level of "attention to detail" that needs to be adhered to in order to achieve "reference" level. In fact, it takes a ton of attention to detail. Missing even a minor detail can cause an artifact that would be unacceptable for a "reference" level finished product.
> 
> Sorry you got your feelings hurt, but you presented yourself ignorantly, and got educated.
> 
> See, I can present a verbal thrashing while using some proper grammar and not make myself look like an imbecile. Try it sometime. You might earn a little more respect. Oh, that, and possibly knowing what the hell you're talking about before running off at the mouth.


i love you too 

your right, your mutch cleverer than me

and your weiner is bigger too
and you have more frends

and you spell betta
and you no mor than me

an your mor mature

thankyou for the edumakashon.

refrence that .


----------



## MiniVanMan

60ndown said:


> i love you too
> 
> your right, your mutch cleverer than me
> 
> and your weiner is bigger too
> and you have more frends
> 
> and you spell betta
> and you no mor than me
> 
> an your mor mature
> 
> thankyou for the edumakashon.
> 
> refrence that .


Yeah, keep going. I have no idea how that is supposed to make me feel bad for you.

Let me clarify a little more.

Just because you can enjoy music on a $30.00 stereo doesn't mean people need to lower their standards on how they design their equipment. I can enjoy music on a set of $15.00 headphones from my computer playing an MP3, but that doesn't mean that I would use flawed design in designing a high level loudspeaker. If that's your attitude that you just do enough, I feel sorry for your employer, assuming you have one. 

So, if some knowledgeable people point out a design flaw, what is wrong with that? You can either be offended, which I can't understand why you would be seeing as it's not your design, or you learn something. Since you chose to be offended, and dig your heels in, you have since been knocked down a notch to the point where you feel your only recourse is to act like a child. 

I'm not here to pontificate on how great I am, or even say I'm a great designer. I originally came here to learn, and I have. To a great deal. I bring the knowledge that I've accumulated over the years to the table, and I share it. I've been corrected, and I still ask questions. I don't get offended if somebody says I'm incorrect about something, and then expounds on why. 

Unfortunately, you and many others have flooded this board with ignorant myths, and general fallacies that have knocked this board down a notch. Even since you arrived here, you've been trying to come off as an "expert", and continually you are shown the err of your ways. That tells me you did not come here to learn, but rather pontificate yourself on how great your car audio knowledge is. It's truly pathetic, and this board would be a much better place without it. 

So, what's your childish response now? 

To the OP, I'm truly sorry that this has gone off-topic. But the response that states you shouldn't bother with the "details" when designing a loudspeaker around your $800.00 worth of drivers absolutely pisses me off. It's a waste of all of our time, and is borderline insulting.


----------



## 60ndown

MiniVanMan said:


> Yeah, keep going. I have no idea how that is supposed to make me feel bad for you.
> 
> Let me clarify a little more.
> 
> Just because you can enjoy music on a $30.00 stereo doesn't mean people need to lower their standards on how they design their equipment. I can enjoy music on a set of $15.00 headphones from my computer playing an MP3, but that doesn't mean that I would use flawed design in designing a high level loudspeaker. If that's your attitude that you just do enough, I feel sorry for your employer, assuming you have one.
> 
> So, if some knowledgeable people point out a design flaw, what is wrong with that? You can either be offended, which I can't understand why you would be seeing as it's not your design, or you learn something. Since you chose to be offended, and dig your heels in, you have since been knocked down a notch to the point where you feel your only recourse is to act like a child.
> 
> I'm not here to pontificate on how great I am, or even say I'm a great designer. I originally came here to learn, and I have. To a great deal. I bring the knowledge that I've accumulated over the years to the table, and I share it. I've been corrected, and I still ask questions. I don't get offended if somebody says I'm incorrect about something, and then expounds on why.
> 
> Unfortunately, you and many others have flooded this board with ignorant myths, and general fallacies that have knocked this board down a notch. Even since you arrived here, you've been trying to come off as an "expert", and continually you are shown the err of your ways. That tells me you did not come here to learn, but rather pontificate yourself on how great your car audio knowledge is. It's truly pathetic, and this board would be a much better place without it.
> 
> So, what's your childish response now?
> 
> To the OP, I'm truly sorry that this has gone off-topic. But the response that states you shouldn't bother with the "details" when designing a loudspeaker around your $800.00 worth of drivers absolutely pisses me off. It's a waste of all of our time, and is borderline insulting.


good 1


----------



## DS-21

60ndown said:


> i can enjoy music on a $30 radio (if you cant your missing the whole point of music), getting lost in the theory and science and technology makes it IMPOSSIBLE for SOME PEOPLE to enjoy MUSIC.


You're making an unwarranted logical leap from "reference home speaker" to "enjoy music." Nobody ever claimed the former was required for the latter.



60ndown said:


> "oh noes, if the tweeter isnt flush mounted it cant sound any good, any my speakers are better than yourz because it sais so i this weeks "stereowanker" magazine"


Actually, no system good enough to be called "reference" would have the tweeter mounted on a 180deg waveguide (aka "flush mounted). Doing so will inevitably result in unacceptable power response in the midrange. One needs to use a proper waveguide that matches the directivity of the mid at the top of its passband to the tweeter at the bottom of its passband at the crossover to even start beginning to claim any sort of "reference" status.

And so far as I know, no audio magazine has ever reviewed my mains. Admittedly, Stereophile founder J. Gordon Holt did run the measurably and audibly inferior (but still outstanding) 10" variant of my mains (Tannoy System 10 DMT II) as his reference HT setup for over a decade. I almost bought his quintet of them when they were on Audiogon a year or so ago. But to my knowledge he never wrote about them. At least, never that I read.



bmaupin said:


> Certainly the 7" Rev will be SPL limited when the bottom end is not unloaded, but you will not be missing much with a f3 in the 30's with a ported box.


It's not the deep bass that's the issue, but only because of the inevitable power compression in the _midrange_ from such a small driver. The only way to avoid that problem is to use speakers that don't require much power to get loud, because then there's less power being thrown off as heat by the vc for a given SPL. In a domestic living room, 92-94dB/w/m is probably a useful target minimum sensitivity. More is better, but not at the expense of power response linearity.



poochieone said:


> DS-21, i will have to use the drivers i already have but i'm now leaning towards a 3-way set-up possibly with some 10's for sub bass (loved to see the SEELAH Galena), but more than likely with a single 12" high output SQ driver.


Honestly, you'd get results far and above anything you can possibly achieve with the most optimal implementation of those drivers by selling them off and buying something like the Geddes Nathan10 kit, supra, or building one of the designs using that 18Sound waveguide available at htguide.net. Net cost would actually be pretty similar, too, I would guess. May not be what you want to do, but sonically it is a far superior option to anything else presented here.


----------



## dtviewer

DS-21 said:


> Actually, no system good enough to be called "reference" would have the tweeter mounted on a 180deg waveguide (aka "flush mounted). Doing so will inevitably result in unacceptable power response in the midrange. One needs to use a proper waveguide that matches the directivity of the mid at the top of its passband to the tweeter at the bottom of its passband at the crossover to even start beginning to claim any sort of "reference" status.
> .



Im sorry-but 'you' are the one "making unwarranted logical leaps" here. There are many many speakers that are called 'reference', and many of them have the tweeter flush mounted. Who said that reference speakers cant have flush mounted tweets?
What definition are you using to define what is and isnt a reference speaker? Is this your own definition, or is there some well known barometer that is accepted by the audiophille community?
Any 2 way speaker (actually, any speaker at all) will have compromises somewhere. Ive never seen a list of compromises that would definitively exclude certain speakers from being considered reference.

Calling a speaker reference, or arguing over what is and isnt reference is futile without some accepted guage. 
Along those same lines, you telling the OP that he cant design a 'reference' speaker around the drivers he already has because they dont meet one of the standards you think all reference speakers should meet is ridiculous.

Reference is just a marketing term, kind of like 'pro', 'professional', 'signature', etc etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## 60ndown

dtviewer said:


> Im sorry-but 'you' are the one "making unwarranted logical leaps" here. There are many many speakers that are called 'reference', and many of them have the tweeter flush mounted. Who said that reference speakers cant have flush mounted tweets?
> What definition are you using to define what is and isnt a reference speaker? Is this your own definition, or is there some well known barometer that is accepted by the audiophille community?
> Any 2 way speaker (actually, any speaker at all) will have compromises somewhere. Ive never seen a list of compromises that would definitively exclude certain speakers from being considered reference.
> 
> Calling a speaker reference, or arguing over what is and isnt reference is futile without some accepted guage.
> Along those same lines, you telling the OP that he cant design a 'reference' speaker around the drivers he already has because they dont meet one of the standards you think all reference speakers should meet is ridiculous.
> 
> Reference is just a marketing term, kind of like 'pro', 'professional', 'signature', etc etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


nice


----------



## MiniVanMan

dtviewer said:


> Im sorry-but 'you' are the one "making unwarranted logical leaps" here. There are many many speakers that are called 'reference', and many of them have the tweeter flush mounted. Who said that reference speakers cant have flush mounted tweets?
> What definition are you using to define what is and isnt a reference speaker? Is this your own definition, or is there some well known barometer that is accepted by the audiophille community?
> Any 2 way speaker (actually, any speaker at all) will have compromises somewhere. Ive never seen a list of compromises that would definitively exclude certain speakers from being considered reference.
> 
> Calling a speaker reference, or arguing over what is and isnt reference is futile without some accepted guage.
> Along those same lines, you telling the OP that he cant design a 'reference' speaker around the drivers he already has because they dont meet one of the standards you think all reference speakers should meet is ridiculous.
> 
> Reference is just a marketing term, kind of like 'pro', 'professional', 'signature', etc etc. Nothing more, nothing less.


Unfortunately, in this case, the drivers in question have glaring incompatibility problems. So, it's not ridiculous in this case.

Every design is an exercise in compromise. However, with the drivers in question, the compromises are a bit much to expect anything close to a level of performance commensurate with the cost of the drivers themselves. 

Other than that, I agree with you on the nomenclature. However, I'm sure that the OP is more concerned with high end performance rather than Best Buy Insignia performance, even though Best Buy might call their stuff "reference". So, while "reference" may not be specifically defined within the audio industry. We can definitely assume that the OP did not buy the drivers in question looking to make compromises, and wants the best performance possible.


----------



## khail19

60ndown said:


> nice


Yes, it's nice that someone can carry on a debate without acting like a 6 year old.


----------



## 60ndown

khail19 said:


> Yes, it's nice that someone can carry on a debate without acting like a 6 year old.



poopie head.


----------



## the other hated guy

well... I prefer a 2way over multidriver setups.. and yes I would consider them REFERENCE... nothing wrong with adding a sub... NOTHING...


so I'm taking these wouldn't be considered reference? :

http://www.magico.net/?d=03_Products/02_Mini_II

because I shure as **** would....


----------



## Oliver

At that price, if they're not they should be !

quote>
Almost from go, the Mini was controversial, as any twoway priced at well over twenty thousand dollars (including its massive dedicated stands) would be. There were folks then— and there are folks now—who simply don’t understand why any sane person would pay this kind of dough for a speaker that only makes it down to about 45Hz in the bass. I can understand their point; for Mini money, you could buy any number of dynamic loudspeakers with substantial bass well below 45Hz.
end quote>


----------



## MiniVanMan

Well, I'm sure that most of us can agree that "reference" quality starts with design, and not necessarily cost. In order to achieve the ultimate in "reference" quality, of course cost will become a factor. That doesn't stop the fact that design will play a much bigger role. 

We can all pick out deficiencies in designs. It's much easier in 2-ways though, as that's where you'll make the most compromises. Regardless of cost, nobody out there is defying physics. There are just some fundamental problems a 2-way exhibits that precludes you from ever being able to attain the level of quality a multi-driver setup achieves. 

That is not to say that automatically a multi-driver setup is superior. They have their own problems, and when the design is flawed can have even more glaring problems than a compromised 2-way. 

There's no right answer, and in many ways comes down to personal preference. So, in the end, once again, I don't care what something costs. Cost has NEVER been an indicator of quality for me. Sure there are things out there that are very high quality, and with it comes the price tag. However, there are also a slew of "Monster Cable" type companies that have little to offer but a very high price tag, that hope you equate price with quality, instead of the other way around.

Learning to recognize the difference is what makes you an educated consumer. Because something looks pretty and has a high price tag doesn't necessarily mean it's a better product. 

This isn't an attack against the linked loudspeakers you posted TOHG. While generally, I do go after high priced equipment, that isn't the case in this instance. I'm just trying to prove a point. In fact the enclosures are something I would love to emulate for a project. They are gorgeous. 

In the end, it's no different than any other audio install. Install and design comes first. A great speaker in a bad install creates a bad "system". A mediocre speaker in a great install can sound great. 

Avoid shortcuts, and limit compromises and, minus the learning curve and mistakes, you'll end up with a better final product.


----------



## dtviewer

MiniVanMan said:


> .
> ---snipped---We can all pick out deficiencies in designs. It's much easier in 2-ways though, as that's where you'll make the most compromises. Regardless of cost, nobody out there is defying physics. There are just some fundamental problems a 2-way exhibits that precludes you from ever being able to attain the level of quality a multi-driver setup achieves.
> ---snipped---.



This was the crux of my problem with DS-21's responce to the OP's post. There are going to be MANY compromises with a 2 way system regardless of what drivers are used. To say that the compromise of having a flush mount tweeter precludes any design from being 'reference' is ridiculous. 
(I could have just as easily have jumped in and said that no two way 7" speaker will ever be reference because it wont extend to 20 hz. While it may be a valid statement to some, it doesnt help the discussion at all)
The OP has some fine drivers. While I personally would have chosen a different tweeter to match with that Mid, we dont know if there was a reason he chose to go that route. Maybe he received the tweets in trade? Maybe he has them left over from another project? Who knows.
I think a more helpfull way to answer his question would have been to explain that while the drivers he has can be used, and most certainly can sound very good, there will be compromises. If he knows that in advance and would like to still go forward, then thats his call.
I really take exception to the "what you have will never be 'reference' and the only way to go is sell that junk and buy what I suggest" post(s).

Remember, there is a big difference between 'perfect' and 'reference'.


----------



## DS-21

dtviewer said:


> Im sorry-but 'you' are the one "making unwarranted logical leaps" here. There are many many speakers that are called 'reference', and many of them have the tweeter flush mounted.


Unwarranted logical leap #2: "reference quality" is not the same as "called reference."



dtviewer said:


> Who said that reference speakers cant have flush mounted tweets?


A simple logical chain:
reference -> highest possible fidelity

highest possible fidelity -> even power response, especially through the midrange

even midrange power response -> controlled tweeter directivity at the 
bottom of its passband, such that the tweeter and woofer have the same coverage angle through the crossover region

Even that the last condition is _impossible_ with a 180deg wavegude (i.e. flush mounted tweeter), the whole chain falls apart. Just because most people are used to listening to speakers with flare-ups of midrange energy in the crossover region, that does not make such speakers qualitatively "reference" level.



dtviewer said:


> What definition are you using to define what is and isnt a reference speaker? Is this your own definition, or is there some well known barometer that is accepted by the audiophille community?


The "audiophile community" is as a whole pretty ignorant and stupid. Listening to them, one would think that wires matter, that there are vast sonic differences between amps or preamps, and so on.

My definition comes mostly from top-tier audio scientists: Geddes, Toole, etc.



dtviewer said:


> Any 2 way speaker (actually, any speaker at all) will have compromises somewhere. Ive never seen a list of compromises that would definitively exclude certain speakers from being considered reference.


Well, here are two: directivity mismatch at the crossover, insufficient cone area and sensitivity to avoid power compression.



the other hated guy said:


> well... I prefer a 2way over multidriver setups.. and yes I would consider them REFERENCE... nothing wrong with adding a sub... NOTHING...


I do, too, for the most part. I just prefer a more advanced form of two-way than the typical undersized woofer and uncontrolled tweeter plopped in a box.



the other hated guy said:


> so I'm taking these wouldn't be considered reference? :
> 
> http://www.magico.net/?d=03_Products/02_Mini_II


They're beautiful, but the quality of design is very poor. Also, that's a ****ty tweeter IMO. 



dtviewer said:


> (I could have just as easily have jumped in and said that no two way 7" speaker will ever be reference because it wont extend to 20 hz. While it may be a valid statement to some, it doesnt help the discussion at all)


The difference is, that is not a problem innate to the system. It can (and better be) fixed by adding a competent subwoofer. You can't, however, add another part to fix the power compression problems endemic to undersized woofers, or (unless it's a waveguide) another part to fix the tweeter's directivity at the bottom of its passband.



dtviewer said:


> I think a more helpfull way to answer his question would have been to explain that while the drivers he has can be used, and most certainly can sound very good, there will be compromises.


So you're in essence asking me to lie instead of to offer sound and logically-grounded advice, because _I don't think a system using those drivers will sound "very good."_ There are two compromises made in areas that are simply _necessary_ (but of course not sufficient) for a good sounding speaker, let alone a very good sounding speaker.


----------



## Spasticteapot

I happen to know a fellow who has built what I consider to be true reference speakers.

Here are the notable specs.

38hz-16hz +/- 0.5 db. Yes, half a decibel.
-30db THD+N from 50hz-20khz. 
+/- 2db 45 degrees off-axis.
Absolutely no measurable box resonance. And I mean none.

The speakers he built used a rather odd combination of drivers - a ScanSpeak woofer, a Kicker midbass built by Eton, and a Linaeum tweeter from an old RadioShack speaker. While not exactly popular choices for hi-fi equipment, when combined using a Behringer DCX2496, they worked brilliantly.

Perhaps more amazing were the boxes themselves. They employed numerous damping technologies, including vast amounts of cross-bracing, a mechanically isolated box-inside-a-box, a further mechanically isolated baffle, and huge amounts of reinforcement. As a result, they weighed over 1,000 lbs. Each.

To build a truly "reference" pair of speakers, superior to the B&W 805s or the best Genelec has to offer, one would need to spend large amounts of money and quite likely reinforce the floor. For most people - myself included - this is overkill.

I suppose I should put in a disclaimer: I'm not much of an audiophile. I'm still learning to design speakers myself, and am largely unable to perform the feat of "tuning by ear." I am, however, able to sit down in front of a pair of $50,000 McIntosh speakers tri-amplified by a further $30,000 of McIntosh amplifiers, and say "This sounds awful!" - I'm a big fan of low distortion and lower CSD, and currently use a pair of studio monitors as my main speakers. I'm still looking for "The Ultimate Speaker" myself, and have already progressed to the stage of lunacy where I'm looking at unusual concrete agglomerates to reduce cabinet resonance.

I personally am not a fan of ribbon tweeters, but your combination of drivers has potential. However, it will be difficult to design an appropriate box and crossover: those ScanSpeak drivers, with irregular response curves, are murderous to design with. The use of a DCX2496 for a bi-amped active crossover setup would ease this, allowing you to easily apply any EQ you desire and use incredibly steep crossover slopes.

I find that sound quality can be greatly improved by eliminating box resonance wherever possible, and as such would avoid using ported enclosures, which are harder to brace and cannot be entirely filled with fluff. Instead, sealed boxes with a separate subwoofer would work well, or perhaps you could use the Revelators open-baffle with some big woofers in sealed boxes dealing with the bass.



DS-21 said:


> Do you have to use those drivers? I wouldn't call any 7" 2-way a reference setup. There just isn't enough cone area there to realistically reproduce lower midrange dynamics. Moreover, a tweeter mounted flush on the baffle will give you compromised midrange performance due to the inevitable directivity mismatch between the woofer at the top of its passband and the tweeter at the bottom of its passband.


Not if designed properly. Most studio monitors use the exact configuration you listed above. You'd be quite frankly astonished at what you can get out of a well-designed 2-way speaker, like the Modula MTs or my KRK 6000 monitors. 

As a rule, dispersion problems are generally a question of design. A good 2-way monitor like the Modula MT or Cryolite will have relatively flat off-axis response to 30 degrees.



DS-21 said:


> Can you go bigger, for example the B&C 10" coax, or maybe a BMS compression driver on an 18Sound elliptical waveguide with a 10" or 12" Aura or B&C woofer under it? Or best of all, probably, spend about the same money (or less, when you factor in crossover parts cost!) and get a proven reference-caliber design in the form of )


While pro audio woofers can give terrific sound quality with great dynamic range, you do pay a price. Selenium, Eminence, and B&C woofers and horn tweeters may offer a wide frequency response and high efficiency, but they're very expensive, and are designed for high power handling and durability, not minimal distortion and CSD. Unless you're using a tube amplifier or want huge SPL, I would generally stick to more standard drivers and design.



MiniVanMan said:


> Are you saying that it's okay to top mount a tweeter??


B&W seems to be quite keen on it, and the Nautilus series is ten kinds of excellent. 




MiniVanMan said:


> Do you think you can make a reference setup with a 7" driver coupled with a tweeter than needs to be crossed over in the 3k range?? Please explain.


Yes. 

Some midwoofers - including, notably, the ScanSpeak indicated - can be used up to 3khz with no problems, though off-axis response will suffer. Furthermore, I would wager that the tweeter would work just fine with a 2700hz crossover using a 48db/octave crossover - the DCX2496.



MiniVanMan said:


> However, in this case, I would ask the same thing as DS-21 asked. Do you have to use those drivers? They won't match up well. The LCY-108 needs to be crossed over too high to be a viable match for a high end 2-way monitor or tower. They won't do the Revelators any justice.


[/QUOTE]

I once talked to the fellow who runs Selah in a chatroom. He seemed to be quite competent, and his speakers - including the SSRs - have received positive reviews. Until you own a successful independent speaker manufacturer, I'm liable to take his advice over yours.


----------



## 60ndown

i phukin love this thread


----------



## DS-21

Spasticteapot said:


> I happen to know a fellow who has built what I consider to be true reference speakers.
> 
> Here are the notable specs.
> 
> 38hz-16hz +/- 0.5 db. Yes, half a decibel.
> -30db THD+N from 50hz-20khz.
> +/- 2db 45 degrees off-axis.


That's certainly possible, with metric tons of EQ. Desirable, I'm not so sure. 



Spasticteapot said:


> The speakers he built used a rather odd combination of drivers - a ScanSpeak woofer, a Kicker midbass built by Eton, and a Linaeum tweeter from an old RadioShack speaker. While not exactly popular choices for hi-fi equipment, when combined using a Behringer DCX2496, they worked brilliantly.


The Lineaum tweeter is an interesting beast. Most relevant to this discussion, it does exactly what I'm claiming needs to be done: restricts the tweeter's directivity, at the passband and above.



Spasticteapot said:


> Perhaps more amazing were the boxes themselves. They employed numerous damping technologies, including vast amounts of cross-bracing, a mechanically isolated box-inside-a-box, a further mechanically isolated baffle, and huge amounts of reinforcement. As a result, they weighed over 1,000 lbs. Each.


That's not really necessary. According to Dr. Earl Geddes' latest studies, even super-high-tech cabinets with composite structures employing constrained-layer-damping and bracing up the wazoo don't provide audible benefits. In fact, lots of extra bracing actually _hurts_ things by providing more paths of reflection to the weakest part of the enclosure: the drive-unit diaphragm(s)!

What Dr. Geddes recommends is a constrained-layer-damped wood/MDF baffle, and regular wood/MDF enclosure sides, with bracing consisting of two oak dowels, located at the midpoint of the top/bottom panels and the L/R panels and joined together at their intersection. 

By contrast, one thing that makes a _huge_ audible difference is diffraction control. All cabinet edges should be heavily radiused.

Lucky for me, this work came out just as I was planning to commission cabinets to replace the ugly Tannoy ones in my living room! (Same drivers, same baffle dimensions, probably minor xover tweaks, but sealed and considerably thinner and/or curved.) Lighter, stiffer boxes are certainly easier to deal with, though finding someone who can do a 2" roundover isn't as easy!



Spasticteapot said:


> To build a truly "reference" pair of speakers, superior to the B&W 805s or the best Genelec has to offer, one would need to spend large amounts of money and quite likely reinforce the floor. For most people - myself included - this is overkill.


There's a vast difference between the rather mediocre B&W's and the superb Genelecs...



Spasticteapot said:


> Not if designed properly. Most studio monitors use the exact configuration you listed above.


No they don't. Most good studio _nearfield_ monitors that I've seen use an ~8" woofer with a coaxial or waveguide-loaded tweeters. Examples?
JBL LSR4328
Mackie HR824
Genelec 8050A
Tannoy Precision 8D
And so on.

Midfield monitors, which are more analogous to home systems, also pay attention to controlling directivity. Two quick examples of excellent ones:
JBL LSR6332L
Genelec 1037C



Spasticteapot said:


> As a rule, dispersion problems are generally a question of design. A good 2-way monitor...will have relatively flat off-axis response to 30 degrees, and anything further than that is liable to be caused by undesirable acoustic reflection off your walls.


Entirely correct, with the edits I've made above. And that's hardly an insult to Jon and Thomas; in fact, if you look at where they're going, you'll see lots of work on waveguide-loaded tweeters and other forms of directivity control.

In fact, the prime justification for waveguide/coaxial loading: get even coverage where it's helpful, and _restrict_ coverage where it is only going to hurt things! A tweeter mounted flush on a baffle will have _wide open dispersion_ in the midrange, which will lead to those undesirable acoustic reflections you mention. Such reflections have a profoundly deleterious effect on audio fidelity in real domestic living rooms.



Spasticteapot said:


> While pro audio woofers can give terrific sound quality with great dynamic range, you do pay a price. Selenium, Eminence, and B&C woofers and horn tweeters may offer a wide frequency response and high efficiency, but they're very expensive, and are designed for high power handling and durability, not minimal distortion and CSD.


Not really. Per measurements posted here, at least one of those (B&C) is at the very least the equal of top-tier "home" drivers such as the Seas Excel line in distortion, etc., and considerably better in basically everything else.



Spasticteapot said:


> Unless you're using a tube amplifier or want huge SPL, I would generally stick to more standard drivers and design.


If mediocrity is one's goal, then sure. If high-fidelity is one's goal, not so much.



Spasticteapot said:


> B&W seems to be quite keen on it, and the Nautilus series is ten kinds of excellent.


Not really, especially when compared to the top-end stuff from KEF or the Finnish company Gradient.

Some midwoofers - including, notably, the ScanSpeak indicated - can be used up to 3khz with no problems, though off-axis response will suffer. Furthermore, I would wager that the tweeter would work just fine with a 2700hz crossover using a 48db/octave crossover - the DCX2496.



Spasticteapot said:


> I once talked to the fellow who runs Selah in a chatroom. He seemed to be quite competent, and his speakers - including the SSRs - have received positive reviews. Until you own a successful independent speaker manufacturer, I'm liable to take his advice over yours.


Unfortunately, the quantum of people who have heard properly-designed speakers is low. Rick Craig's stuff is quite good for what it is, but it still suffers from all of the problems discussed on this thread. As for me, I'll listen to what the world's top audio researchers tell me, especially when it concurs entirely with what I hear on my own.


----------



## dtviewer

DS-21 said:


> Unwarranted logical leap #2: "reference quality" is not the same as "called reference."
> 
> *Um, the "called reference" were YOUR words, NOT mine.....
> 
> 
> A simple logical chain:
> reference -> highest possible fidelity
> 
> *Oopps-your chain fell apart already. What is "highest possible fidelity"? Who chooses what can be considered highest possible fidelity and what can not? Your whole argument is illogical because of statements like that one.
> 
> highest possible fidelity -> even power response, especially through the midrange
> 
> *Whos definition is that? Yours?
> 
> even midrange power response -> controlled tweeter directivity at the
> bottom of its passband, such that the tweeter and woofer have the same coverage angle through the crossover region
> 
> *again...your definition?
> 
> The "audiophile community" is as a whole pretty ignorant and stupid. Listening to them, one would think that wires matter, that there are vast sonic differences between amps or preamps, and so on.
> 
> *A pretty bold and somewhat confusing statement considering you go on to say......
> 
> My definition comes mostly from top-tier audio scientists: Geddes, Toole, etc.
> 
> *who most certainly are part of that 'audiophile community' you seem to feel you are superior to!
> 
> Well, here are two: directivity mismatch at the crossover, insufficient cone area and sensitivity to avoid power compression.
> 
> *And YOU have decided that no speaker can be considered 'reference' if it falls short in either of these two areas? Again, you repeatedly claim that these are necessary elements for a speaker to be considered reference, but have shown nothing to back up your claims of what reference is.


....


----------



## Spasticteapot

DS-21 said:


> That's certainly possible, with metric tons of EQ. Desirable, I'm not so sure.


What's wrong with EQ? It's what a crossover does anyway. 




DS-21 said:


> The Lineaum tweeter is an interesting beast. Most relevant to this discussion, it does exactly what I'm claiming needs to be done: restricts the tweeter's directivity, at the passband and above.


I'm not entirely sure what parallel universe you live in, but the Linaeum does the exact opposite: it has very good dispersion nearly 360 degrees around . Short of a plasma tweeter, it's as close to omnidirectional as it gets.




DS-21 said:


> That's not really necessary. According to Dr. Earl Geddes' latest studies, even super-high-tech cabinets with composite structures employing constrained-layer-damping and bracing up the wazoo don't provide audible benefits. In fact, lots of extra bracing actually _hurts_ things by providing more paths of reflection to the weakest part of the enclosure: the drive-unit diaphragm(s)!


If a speaker has problems with reflection, it was not built properly. Sealed-box speakers can be stuffed completely with fluff that severely damps any reflections, and non-rectangular speaker enclosures (say, the spheres that I'm trying to build) can help further reduce it.

There's also the issue of open-baffle speakers, which have no box resonance or box reflections. Were it not for the astronomical cost (seas excels = ouch) and requirement for appropriate acoustic room treatments, I'd just go build a pair of Linkwitz Orions. 





DS-21 said:


> By contrast, one thing that makes a _huge_ audible difference is diffraction control. All cabinet edges should be heavily radiused.


Hence the spheres.

That said, Linkwitz seems to have finagled some very good speakers with no baffles at all, although I've never listened to them nor pretend to understand them. I suppose the Orions make some sense, but the Plutos are just plain weird: they have no response whatsoever above 15khz, a mid-tweeter with very high distortion, an amplifier design with apparent faults, and a big PVC pipe perfectly sized to be a didgeridoo as the woofer enclosure. 




DS-21 said:


> Unfortunately, the quantum of people who have heard properly-designed speakers is low. Rick Craig's stuff is quite good for what it is, but it still suffers from all of the problems discussed on this thread. As for me, I'll listen to what the world's top audio researchers tell me, especially when it concurs entirely with what I hear on my own.



I find it somewhat odd, then, that the Summa speakers - Geddes' signature product - have very good off-axis performance. That said, regardless of design philosophy, I think you might be right about the Nathan10s - I can't find a [email protected]#[email protected]$#[email protected] picture of them anywhere, but they're very likely good value for money, especially if you like your speakers loud. (I don't.)

Also, I'd like to see those B&C measurements you mentioned.


----------



## DS-21

Spasticteapot said:


> What's wrong with EQ? It's what a crossover does anyway.


Oh, nothing, of course. It's just that I've found the extra effort to get a system to be what my friend Gordon Waters calls "anal retentive flat" is not really worth it. I don't worry about the response above 10kHz, so long as it's reasonably smooth with no huge peaks.



Spasticteapot said:


> I'm not entirely sure what parallel universe you live in, but the Linaeum does the exact opposite: it has very good dispersion nearly 360 degrees around . Short of a plasma tweeter, it's as close to omnidirectional as it gets.


Nope. It has a _very_ pronounced figure-8 radiation pattern, like a dipole. (And plasma tweeters need to be waveguide-loaded to sound good, too, a la the Acapella tweeter.)

A truly omni tweeter won't sound that good. I suppose the Gallo speakers have their adherents, and they do have (too) narrow horizontal disperson, but every time I've heard them I've found the treble from that 330deg piezo tweet to be awfully smeared-sounding.



Spasticteapot said:


> If a speaker has problems with reflection, it was not built properly.


I tend to agree. That applies to reflections from within the box, diffraction, as well as the inevitable early boundary reflections that so destroy a system's sound and are inevitable without controlled directivity in the midrange and treble.



Spasticteapot said:


> Sealed-box speakers can be stuffed completely with fluff that severely damps any reflections, and non-rectangular speaker enclosures (say, the spheres that I'm trying to build) can help further reduce it.


No argument here, though heavy bracing too close to a driver can still impact the sound.



Spasticteapot said:


> There's also the issue of open-baffle speakers, which have no box resonance or box reflections. Were it not for the astronomical cost (seas excels = ouch) and requirement for appropriate acoustic room treatments, I'd just go build a pair of Linkwitz Orions.


Astronomical cost (Excels + xover + 9-12 amp channels for an LCR set) plus placement rigidity. Another nice thing about speakers with controlled mid/treble directivity is that they can go right against the wall (or in the wall) without sonic penalty. In fact, they usually sound better there! I find the sonic illusion heightened when the speakers blend in to the background, rather than standing front and centre screaming "Look at me, I'm a great speaker!" But that's just a psychological thing.



Spasticteapot said:


> That said, Linkwitz seems to have finagled some very good speakers with no baffles at all, although I've never listened to them nor pretend to understand them. I suppose the Orions make some sense, but the Plutos are just plain weird: they have no response whatsoever above 15khz, a mid-tweeter with very high distortion, an amplifier design with apparent faults, and a big PVC pipe perfectly sized to be a didgeridoo as the woofer enclosure.


I've not heard the Orions, but one of SL's earlier dipole designs (the Audio Artistry Dvorak) sounds pretty good, except in the bass where four moderate-xmax 12" woofers in H-frames don't quite do the trick. I would like to hear a pair of Orions.

I've not heard the Plutos either, though I use the same upper driver (Aura Whisper) for 250Hz+ in my Miata and they're excellent drivers. A lot of the distortion stuff we measure doesn't matter that much, or at least matters much less than issues such as power compression. Used as Linkwitz does, the "honey toned" midrange I get with mine (due to using them so low and pushing them so hard) wouldn't happen. (It's pleasant in the car, fitting the retro wood-and-leather interior.) 

Likewise, response above 15kHz is highly overrated. I bet the Plutos are spectacular in very small rooms or as nearfield setups. Expensive and ugly, though.



Spasticteapot said:


> I find it somewhat odd, then, that the Summa speakers - Geddes' signature product - have very good off-axis performance. That said, regardless of design philosophy, I think you might be right about the Nathan10s - I can't find a [email protected]#[email protected]$#[email protected] picture of them anywhere, but they're very likely good value for money, especially if you like your speakers loud. (I don't.)


They do indeed. A solid ~90deg coverage angle, with the everything above ~300Hz falling off gracefully and linearly past that point. The way any "reference" speaker design should act, IOW. Moreoever, the virtues of the Geddes design will be present at any SPL. As for pictures of the Nathan10, I don't believe any have yet been built by customers. It's a brand-new offering. In their most basic form, they're going to look roughly like Geddes' Audio Intelligence ESP-10 speaker:












Spasticteapot said:


> Also, I'd like to see those B&C measurements you mentioned.


Search for NPDang's Klippel test of the 8NDL51 in the Reviews section.


----------



## Spasticteapot

DS-21 said:


> Oh, nothing, of course. It's just that I've found the extra effort to get a system to be what my friend Gordon Waters calls "anal retentive flat" is not really worth it. I don't worry about the response above 10kHz, so long as it's reasonably smooth with no huge peaks.


To each his own, I suppose. I like my studio monitors. 



DS-21 said:


> I tend to agree. That applies to reflections from within the box, diffraction, as well as the inevitable early boundary reflections that so destroy a system's sound and are inevitable without controlled directivity in the midrange and treble.
> 
> No argument here, though heavy bracing too close to a driver can still impact the sound.


This is why I like the idea of spheres. The non-parallel surfaces in the interior will reduce reflections, and spheres are immensely strong. Using concrete, it is possible to push the fundamental resonant frequency up to 10khz, making any box resonance minimal. 

Also, if I can make a trip to Ikea, I can build a pair a lot more easily and cheaply than I might build a pair of wood boxes. Then there's the matter of crossovers: I'm still a bit fuzzy on baffle step response.



DS-21 said:


> A truly omni tweeter won't sound that good. I suppose the Gallo speakers have their adherents, and they do have (too) narrow horizontal disperson, but every time I've heard them I've found the treble from that 330deg piezo tweet to be awfully smeared-sounding.


Hmm. I've noticed that Sigfried Linkwitz is a big proponent of wide off-axis dispersion - the Plutos are designed to be usable sixty degrees off-axis, and with their top-firing woofers, are claimed to be omnipolar to 2khz. 



DS-21 said:


> I've not heard the Plutos either, though I use the same upper driver (Aura Whisper) for 250Hz+ in my Miata and they're excellent drivers. A lot of the distortion stuff we measure doesn't matter that much, or at least matters much less than issues such as power compression. Used as Linkwitz does, the "honey toned" midrange I get with mine (due to using them so low and pushing them so hard) wouldn't happen. (It's pleasant in the car, fitting the retro wood-and-leather interior.)
> 
> Likewise, response above 15kHz is highly overrated. I bet the Plutos are spectacular in very small rooms or as nearfield setups. Expensive and ugly, though.


I'm currently in the "Would'nt it be awesome if..." stage of design for a pair of speakers. (I'm still working on a pair of Modula MTs - I suck at woodworking.) A fellow I know pointed out that the Dayton RS52 gives excellent off-axis performance, and when combined with the Hi-Vi RT1-II, barely even needs a crossover. The combination is reasonably flat to 15khz even 45 degrees off axis, has more than adequate dynamic range, and low distortion. All I need is a great big box with a big woofer in it to cross over at 600hz, and I'm set.




DS-21 said:


> They do indeed. A solid ~90deg coverage angle, with the everything above ~300Hz falling off gracefully and linearly past that point. The way any "reference" speaker design should act, IOW. Moreoever, the virtues of the Geddes design will be present at any SPL. As for pictures of the Nathan10, I don't believe any have yet been built by customers. It's a brand-new offering. In their most basic form, they're going to look roughly like Geddes' Audio Intelligence ESP-10 speaker:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I looked on his website, which was useless. he kit just contains the drivers, a baffle (?), and the waveguide. 

I must admit that so far I've put horn speakers in the same category as the Mustang or SET amplifiers - vintage throwbacks to the bad old days of frequency response that made the alps look smooth. The fact that the majority of their proponents are also major proponents of $500 interconnects and power cables braided by virgins under the full moon has done little to enhance their credibility. 

I do try to keep an open mind, however, and quite a lot of what you said has merit. The majority of the horn speakers I have heard were either designed for maximum-SPL PA use, or by the sort of people who insist on single-strand OFC silver wire and coat their drivers with unicorn's tears. I would very much like to hear a pair of hi-fi horns designed by someone who has his head screwed on straight.




DS-21 said:


> Search for NPDang's Klippel test of the 8NDL51 in the Reviews section.


I did. I, too, am a bit worried about energy storage - quite a lot of forum members have noted it sounds more "muddy" than the aluminum- or titanium-cone drivers they replaced. Then there are the issues of frequency response and cost - for $225, you get a woofer only usable from about 70hz to 800hz, and that's in a ported box! Certianly, it is efficient and very loud, but is it that much better than an RS225?


----------



## 60ndown

The better a speaker is the worse it is capable of sounding.

Speakers can be compared to telescopes in the sense that a given speaker will magnify the signal by a certain amount. Do you want to look at the moon or see the craters on it? There is a big difference in speakers. The mainstream speakers are designed with complex crossovers with higher power amplifiers in mind. What makes a great sounding one is it's ability to mask without being obvious about it. True high fidelity speakers tend to also be high efficiency speakers. (There are probably more high efficiency speakers with questionable fidelity than without, but that usually lies in the execution.) Assuming you have a good high efficiency speaker it's like going to high higher power lenses on the telescope. This higher level of detail makes hearing differences in components all that much easier. Often what happens to first time owners of high efficiency speakers is a rude awakening that reveals weaknesses in other components. Weaknesses that the lower resolution speakers did not let you hear.

Because high efficiency speakers are ultimately required to hit the top of the fidelity ladder it becomes practical to have the amp and source quality to back it up. The quality I'm talking about is the kind you have to hunt for. This is why it works to leave the speakers for last. I have a favorite, my HDT speaker that is so honest and so quick that your gear or the recording must be on it's game or the speakers can sound simply horrible. In the same moment you can hit the stop button, put in a well recorded disk and suddenly the speakers sound so right you get goose bumps!


----------



## 60ndown

OVERVIEW

The Radial Speaker was originally inspired by the Ohm Walsh bending wave speakers that radiate sound 360 degrees. Having listened to these many times, as well as the German speakers using bladders, and other 360 degree designs I observed that despite their flaws they all did something special.

To understand the Radials you have to understand some basics about listening room acoustics.

On conventional speakers the ultimate goal is to hear only the direct energy from the speaker itself and not the reflections of your room. If this can be achieved, a coherent and believably holographic soundstage will result.

In order for our brain to perceive a focused image there must be both a delay as well as a reduction in volume that distinguishes the direct energy from the reflected energy. If these reflections are not delayed by at least 50 milliseconds AND reduced in volume by at least 15 dB or more, the brain can't tell the difference between the two. This results in a poorly rendered sound stage with less focus.

In a conventional home listening space using conventional speakers these reflections are not delayed or reduced in volume enough. The direct energy passes you ear and hits the back wall of your room where it refracts to the side wall and then reflects off the front wall where it comes past your head a second time. To correct these reflection points properly, a series of quadratic diffusers must be installed on each of the four walls.

These diffusers work by taking a beam of energy such as that emitted by your loudspeaker and phase grating it out to a hemi-disk pattern. This busts the beam and reduces its energy. One second of sound will create over 500 reflections in your room so having diffusion on all four walls compounds (actually squares) the effect.

You can then see why conventional speakers including panel speakers and bipolar designs sound so unpredictable from room to room. We have developed serious room treatment products to correct these problems, and unlike little pillows and tube traps, these products add 2100 lbs of mass to a typical listening room. Believe it or not this is what it takes to completely correct a 15 x 13 room.

You will notice, or probably have already, that in untreated listening rooms the louder you play a system the more these room reflections screw up the imaging and focus, not to mention frequency balance changes caused by nodes of standing waves which result directly from these reflections.

This goes against the tendency for raised listening levels to add more weight, presence and detail to a recording. So you have two things working in direct contrast with each other when you raise the volume. Add to that the fact that nodes in your room are so numerous that moving your head as little as one inch can actually change the frequency balance. It's no wonder you system sounds different from time to time since all of these variables combine to determine the actual frequency balance.

In an untreated room using conventional speakers it is not uncommon to have nodes creates peaks and dips in the frequency balance that are as high as 12 or even 15 dB.

Using a speaker like the Walsh for example these problems are reduced from about 2000 cycles on down by the simple fact that the energy from the speaker is already diffused to a point where room reflections are only a minor problem. However, these and other 360 degree speakers have also been radiating the high frequencies at a 360 degree pattern.

I have found that for holographic imaging you do NOT want frequencies above 2000 cycles to be shot all over the room. Since high frequencies are much narrower and therefor beamy to begin with, they travel around the room with their original pattern or beam intact many times more than lower frequencies. This creates a new problem in untreated rooms that is actually more severe than a conventional speaker. The result from 2000 cycles on up is a soundstage with poor focus and a lack of consistency.

Bi-polar speakers or speakers with rear firing auxilary tweeters actually create an artificial ambience that many interpret as actual space in the recording. These types of speakers compound reflection issues.

The Radial speaker is designed with an inverted cone that has a tailored dispersion with a natural shelf in the response at 2000 cycles. Therefore it can be mated with a tweeter without the use of any crossover. This alone adds tremendous coherency and dynamics to its performance. Above 2000 cycles is a delicate blend of ambient reflected energy and direct energy from a single point source.

The dispersion pattern of the main driver is also designed to use the ceiling to double the size of radial wave fronts in the mid band frequencies. This projects an image centered between the top of the Radial speaker and the ceiling resulting in the correct image height.

The way these radial wave fronts react with the typical problem reflection points in a room is by eliminating the points. The energy is already diffused in wide hemi-disks when it leaves the walls in almost exactly the same pattern created by our quadratic diffusers.

The actual radial drivers used in this speaker utilize a top cone with less than 6 grams of mass and a very tight compliance. This lightweight cone has incredible speed and detail far exceeding conventional audiophile woofers with the exception of perhaps a Lowther driver. There is also a higher-mass cone working off the same motor assembly that gives the driver a useably low frequency response.

The cylindrical enclosure is diffraction-free making it completely invisible to the ear. Its small size of 30 inches high makes it easy to move. It uses an open bottom design that couples to the floor for enhanced low frequency response and can be fine tuned. Usually placed on carpeting, the weight of the enclosure against the height of the feet create a varo-vent for wide band damping. Adjusting the space between the carpet and the enclosure bottom will tailor the low frequency response to your room acoustics and taste.

The tweeter used is a very small Audax poly dome sputtered with titanium. It has a balanced 3/8" drive where the mass of the diaphragm and voice coil is evenly split. This particular tweeter has incredible spatial qualities and is perhaps the fastest dome tweeter I've ever heard so it mates well with the Radial driver.

Listening tests found these to be far and away the best imaging speakers with the most accurately rendered soundstage we've heard to date. Even placed only 4 feet apart they created a soundstage that exceeded the width of the room itself. Depth is seemingly boundless. The height is wonderful, but unlike some speakers with good height to the sound stage these were true to the recording. Instead of artificial height that works on everything, these speakers accurately portray the height of the original recording space.

By design, these speakers sound better when you're sitting down and at a reasonable distance back. Listening test confirmed this. Usually in smaller rooms standing up creates a more dimensional perspective on the soundstage adding to the depth. This is due in part to the comb filter effect of your floor. With the Radials there is almost zero comb filter effect. All of our other speakers including panel speakers are less than tolerant of the sitting position, and all give the best results when sitting nearfield on the edge of your seat... a less than relaxing posture. These speakers gave the same thrill of being "in the sweet spot" almost anywhere in the room at a distance of 6 feet or more.

Comparisons with our Magnepans found the Radials to have better detail, better top end extension and more spank at lower listening levels. They have none of the characteristic boxy sound of box speakers, so like the panels the frequency balance is very well behaved. Comparisons with our Acoustat Electrostatic Monitors and the RL-2's we find the frequency balance to be the same, with no apparent seam between woofer/tweeter. The imaging was actually better doing a better job of making the walls dissappear.

With our Zen Triode amplifiers, the Radial speakers resolve more information in the recordings than any other speaker we've tried to date.

Power handling on the motor assembly is very high, however the lightweight delicate cone used to create the radial wave fronts limits the power handling to sane listening levels. A stiffer cone with a more compliant suspension would eliminate this restriction but at the cost of linearity, speed, and intermodulated distortion. We feel strongly that the trade-off is MORE than justified. So remember, these speakers are delicate and dynamic but not meant for excessively loud playback levels in excess of 100 watts.

The end result seems to be a small speaker that is room-friendly and creates a very LARGE lifelike sound stage with about 3 watts.

The Radial project started in 1996 as part of our room acoustic tests that helped developed our Room Acoustic Products. I posted the initial prototype white papers in our "Wild D.I.Y. Projects" section of the web site. You may find more in-depth technical information on how these speakers work in a paper I wrote at that time called "


----------



## 60ndown

There is a good reason why most speakers sound like speakers. It's because most designers follow a specific sequence of mistakes that lead to mediocre sounding results.

Let's face it, if you're going to design a do-it-yourself speaker the first and obvious problem is going to be getting the woofer(s) and the cabinet tuned for flat extended frequency response. Some will choose a cabinet and then model different drivers in it, some will select a woofer and then model different cabinets for it. Both will then design the crossover based on the published specs of the drivers, choosing the best looking spot for the crossover frequencies and then design a network to these predetermined ideals.

They will then order the parts and assemble it. Some will be amazed at the best sounding speaker they've heard, some will be a little unhappy and start tweaking the design. This procedure for speaker design is a recipe for mediocrity. Anyone can do it, almost everyone falls into the trap. To reiterate, you can't design your speaker based on published specs. Some of them are usually never accurate, and others too complex to mean anything in your specific situation.

For example, considering polar dispersion plots of tweeters and midrange drivers as you decide what type of crossover and so on is futile. Drivers all have signatures that defy known specifications, but are in fact the sum of those specifications. You may have all known data from NASA grade test gear on a particular driver, but no accurate way to compile that data in your mind so as to hear what the driver will actually sound like. You actually have to listen to it.

Listening to it is the only accurate way to draw a subjective description of it's sound or signature. And of course the front baffle size, shape, material and angle will also change the signature of drivers, especially midranges and tweeters. So even if you have the drivers in your hand and have listened to several frequency sweeps, the signature you determine the driver to have is false because it's not yet in the cabinet. Once you have the driver in the cabinet, the new signature you determine the driver to have is also false because you haven't installed any crossover components yet. Suppose you installed a cap on the tweeter, and determine the drivers new signature, you still have no idea what the final signature will be because you haven't added the midrange, or woofer. Any drivers and crossover components you add to the circuit will effect every other part of the circuit in the way the current and frequencies divide. So in the end, all the math in the world will not predict accurately how a speaker will sound, and if it will image or not. Although if followed will get you close, but also become a limiting factor of how far you can go.

Added to these variables, as you try to first determine the signatures of each driver, is the room acoustics which will effect the perceived result by at least some 40%. And I've almost forgotten to make it clear that the proper way to design a speaker is by identifying the individual signatures of each component and combining them in a way that is complementary. This can only be done by human ears. A tweeter that has a signature you've determined to be a little sharp on the very top end may be less than ideal when measured against itself, however suppose your midrange drivers is a little bloomed out and overly warm sounding. Depending on the overlap and slope of your crossover, the two can create complementing signatures and actually sound great.

The way to design a mediocre speaker is to use all the math you can and model everything from the crossover to the cabinet to create a perfect result.

If you want a great sounding speaker, you can't design one this way, for several reasons. The first is that published specs on drivers are never accurate. You will have to pick the drivers with somewhat of a casual attitude and then buy them. Once you have them, you'll have to measure them yourself and see exactly what the specs actually are. Be prepared to repeat this process. That means you may be setting some of the drivers you've purchased on the shelf and purchasing new or different ones hoping for better luck.

Some basic steps are as follows:

Once you have the drivers in your hands, and after you've measured the Thiel&Small parameters of at least the woofers, you are ready to start designing a crossover. Now that you can plainly see the discrepancies between the published specs and actual measured specs, you can be glad you haven't built the crossovers yet. The first step in designing a crossover is becoming familiar with the characteristics and signatures of each driver. To do this, you simply hold it in your left hand and using a frequency generator, start sweeping the frequencies to extremes of each drivers bandwidth and LISTEN.

You will be listening for smoothness of frequency response. Use your ears, not measurement equipment because the signature of each driver will be superimposed on the frequency response yielding unique sonic results that can't be seen in computer modeled or measured plots.

For example, on the woofer, you will find it's FS just by feeling and looking at the woofer while you sweep it. As you sweep, pay close attention to the sound. Sweep very slowly and hunt for peaks and noises. This process should be documented on a piece of paper by listing the results. For example:


30Hz ~ 300 Hz - very nice

300Hz ~ 600Hz - good

600Hz ~ 2300Hz -good

This means that around 300Hz there was a change, either a peak, or a noise of some kind. Another one at 600Hz and a noticeable roll off after 2300Hz. Do the same test on your other drivers (mids and tweeters). Circle the Zone of response that had the sweetest sound. When you find a peak or noise, play with the driver by squeezing it, angling it, shaking it, tapping on it, anything you can do without damaging it. The objective simply to see if anything you do changes the characteristics of the peak or noise. This process usually leads to tweaking the drivers before they're ever installed in the cabinet. For example:

Most stamped frame speaker frames resonate or ring at certain frequencies that depending on size and mass hover between 200Hz and 1200Hz. Adding damping to the frame can reduce or eliminate these types of frequency response glitches.

If you're using dome tweeters and or midranges, you will have to install them in the cabinet and sweep them again. Expect large changes in frequency response based on the interactions of the baffle refraction's. The surface material, i.e.. wood, felt, can largely effect the signature of the dome drivers as well. Remember that signatures are not found in specs, polar response plots, or transient response tests. There is no way to tell from specs the sonic changes that occur between fabric domes and silk, poly, titanium, or phenolic domes.

From drawing notes on paper you can tell the sensitivity of each driver in relation to each other simply by selecting frequencies that overlap and swapping drivers. For example, the midrange may well go up to 10K and the tweeter may well drop down to 2K, so setting the frequency generator around 5K and A/B the mid and tweeter will tell you which one is louder. The armature trained ear can hear 3dB increments, so if you can tell one is louder, the gain was at least 3dB.

Draw yourself a crude response plot on your paper for each driver and as we said, circle the areas that sounded best. This will help you determine where the best crossover frequencies would ideally be. Once you've come up with a plan based on the real data you just measured with your ears taking into account both efficiency and signature, you can rough in a crossover network. Remember, the midrange and tweeter have a large overlap, and both can play the same frequencies, so in the area of overlap, which one has the most pleasant signature? A question only your ears can answer, and one that must be answered before designing the crossover.

Designing the crossover can be a successful experience provided you keep it simple, at least at first. Using your calculator or computer select the components for either a 6 or 12 dB network that approximately will hit the ideal crossover points you want. If your speaker is for high power applications use the 12dB networks, but if your using lower power amps and higher efficiency speakers you have the option of using either one. When your caps and coils arrive, start with the woofer by installing it in the cabinet and sweeping it several times. Now how smooth has the response become, what changes have taken place. If you like to measure things, you may be amazed at how the impedance curve changes once you have the woofer in the cabinet. Playing with temporarily sealed openings in the cabinet will make radical changes in the the impedance curve, as will the final tuning. Assuming your network is either 6 or 12 dB you will have a coil for the woofer. Once you are satisfied that the woofer is tuned to the cabinet you should sweep it several times with the inductor and without. Notice the signature of the woofer changes completely with an inductor in the circuit. If it makes it sound worse and you have unusually flat response you can and should consider throwing it away.

The following must be done with music, not test tones.

In most systems the mids and tweeters are higher sensitivity than woofers and will need to be padded. This can get complicated with a calculator so you're best bet is to assemble a variety of caps and ceramic resistors, and using alligator clips and test leads, clip together the 6 or 12 dB network that you purchased the parts for and hook up the speaker. Play it a low levels and use this first sound as a starting point. With respect to the polarity of the woofer, the midrange and tweeter (other drivers) can be either in phase or out of phase by 180 degrees. If you have more than one driver such as a midrange and tweeter, you should experiment with changing the polarity of each one at a time and listening to what happens. You will notice large shifts in frequency response and presence. The various combinations possible by doing this can yield either a forward or laid back sound. The reason this happens is timing, or phase angle. The phase angle of a speaker changes with frequency, and in the case of the woofer, effected dramatically by box design and tuning frequency.

Remember, at this point you have what looks like a pile of spaghetti on the floor and it's better if you do not know which way is theoretically correct as far as polarity goes. Just listen. Once you have determined which polarity combination sounds best it is time to start balancing the output of each driver in reference to the woofer. This usually involves padding or shifting of crossover points or both and can be quickly accomplished with a variety of 1 ohm to 10 ohm ceramic resistors. The resistors should be used in series with the drivers. (That's mids and highs only - not the woofer(s) This process should be done while listening to the speaker and simply involves swapping out values until you find something you like. Remember that padding a driver changes it's impedance and that means your pre-calculated crossover points will also change. This could be good or bad, so it's nice to have a variety of capacitor values to swap in and out of the circuit as well.

This process can take anywhere from a couple hours to a couple days and when finished, you'll have a really scary pile of test leads and parts connected together in front of your speaker. It may have been difficult to keep track of the circuit as you swap parts in and out, and that's okay. In fact if the audio gods favor you, you will find that when you try to draw the schematic you'll discover that you hooked things up wrong or at least differently then planned. If this happens and the sound is good, you can smile in the knowledge that you're probably on to something.

This brief paper is just an attempt to deprogram do-it-yourself speaker designers. Remember your ears are more expensive than the best test gear, and work better. The reason we favor this design process is because the actual number of real variables is overwhelming. Things like Signatures and coloration's in drivers will change your subjective interpretation of frequency response. A good example is the way a poly dustcap can superimpose a dryness in the midrange that is often missinterpreted as better transient response.

For more in depth information about this technique, you can visit the web page where using this process I design a do-it-yourself speaker that you can build and compare with other speakers to demonstrate the results. In fact, if you truly want to graduate to a level of understanding that yields superior results, try this: Design your crossover before you buy your drivers, like you normally would, based on the published specs and other people's comments. Then put it in a drawer somewhere and proceed with the above technique until your finished. When you build the second speaker, install your pre-designed crossover and compare the results. You should find the experience enlightening and if successful a little embarrassing.


----------



## Spasticteapot

60ndown said:


> There is a good reason why most speakers sound like speakers. It's because most designers follow a specific sequence of mistakes that lead to mediocre sounding results.=


I've heard speakers designed in this way, and never liked even one of them. Each driver does have something of a sonic signature, and some work together better than others, but you'll never get the most out of a given woofer or tweeter without quite a lot of work on a computer. 

Of course, I have weird tastes in speakers - most people consider studio monitors too "harsh". I think they're all mad.


----------



## NaamanF

Nice "ctrl-c" "ctrl-v"


----------



## 60ndown

Spasticteapot said:


> you'll never get the most out of a given woofer or tweeter without quite a lot of work on a computer.
> 
> .


altho i really understand very little about technology, 

im trusting my intuition when i say i would ALWAYS trust my ears over a computer calculation.


if the computer sais its 'right' but it sounds like poop, would you enjoy it?


----------



## MiniVanMan

NaamanF said:


> Nice "ctrl-c" "ctrl-v"


Yeah, no kidding. 60ndown, you might want to post the original link, or at least acknowledge the author of that. If not, it's plagiarism.


----------



## 60ndown

MiniVanMan said:


> Yeah, no kidding. 60ndown, you might want to post the original link, or at least acknowledge the author of that. If not, it's plagiarism.




www.decware.com


----------



## Spasticteapot

60ndown said:


> altho i really understand very little about technology,
> 
> im trusting my intuition when i say i would ALWAYS trust my ears over a computer calculation.
> 
> 
> if the computer sais its 'right' but it sounds like poop, would you enjoy it?


A speaker driver has four qualities: Frequency response, energy storage, distortion, and mechanical noise. All speaker drivers make compromises in one area to improve another, but only the first, frequency response, can be improved by external additions to the driver. A clever box design and crossover is needed to take a driver with an inconvenient impedance and irregular frequency response and make it flat throughout its whole range of use.

What you're saying is that the Chevrolet small-block V8 is a low quality, crude engine because it was used in so many horrible luxobarges. In fact, the small-block engine is an excellent design - it's just the rubbishy cars they were used in.


----------



## DS-21

Spasticteapot said:


> To each his own, I suppose. I like my studio monitors.


I like studio monitors, too. That's all I use any more. (The nearfield setup has three Tannoy System 8 NFM II's across the front.)



Spasticteapot said:


> This is why I like the idea of spheres. The non-parallel surfaces in the interior will reduce reflections, and spheres are immensely strong. Using concrete, it is possible to push the fundamental resonant frequency up to 10khz, making any box resonance minimal.


Well, it's not quite that easy. The problem with a sphere is that it focuses all of the resonant energy in the enclosure onto the driver membrane(s). Even with stuffing and such. But with some strategically placed "braces" (really more to break up internal waves that to strengthen it) can make things great after some iterative work.

And you don't need concrete. Cardboard would be fine. Note how strong sonosubs are, despite their low mass. Actually, a cardboard (or fiberglass, spun aluminum, etc.) sphere attached rigidly to a pole with some mass and a concrete or marble base might be the ideal use of the geometry.



Spasticteapot said:


> Also, if I can make a trip to Ikea, I can build a pair a lot more easily and cheaply than I might build a pair of wood boxes. Then there's the matter of crossovers: I'm still a bit fuzzy on baffle step response.


This bit is way off topic of the thread, but I'd be interested in how you're doing the spheres, being 15min from the nearest IKEA. 
Care to start a thread about your proposed design?



Spasticteapot said:


> Hmm. I've noticed that Sigfried Linkwitz is a big proponent of wide off-axis dispersion - the Plutos are designed to be usable sixty degrees off-axis, and with their top-firing woofers, are claimed to be omnipolar to 2khz.


Right. Note also that they're designed for nearfield use. Put them in a typical home audio system, with typical placement, and they won't sound so good.



Spasticteapot said:


> I'm currently in the "Would'nt it be awesome if..." stage of design for a pair of speakers. (I'm still working on a pair of Modula MTs - I suck at woodworking.)


Me, too. I do my woodworking with my wallet these days, because I realized I have to look at my projects and I'm not 20 any more.  



Spasticteapot said:


> A fellow I know pointed out that the Dayton RS52 gives excellent off-axis performance, and when combined with the Hi-Vi RT1-II, barely even needs a crossover. The combination is reasonably flat to 15khz even 45 degrees off axis, has more than adequate dynamic range, and low distortion. All I need is a great big box with a big woofer in it to cross over at 600hz, and I'm set.


Except that those tweeters are power compression city. Really, really awful. Not to mention that their restricted vertical dispersion would lead to a huge difference for sitting and standing listeners.



Spasticteapot said:


> I looked on his website, which was useless. he kit just contains the drivers, a baffle (?), and the waveguide.


As I understand it, it's a flat-pack with the whole box. But the important part is the waveguide (with foam plug) attached to the baffle, and crossover design. And considering the cost is roughly the retail cost of the drivers, it's a screaming deal. God damn it, every time I write or think about the Nathan10 I'm this close to whipping out the checkbook. I don't ****ing need new speakers!!!



Spasticteapot said:


> I must admit that so far I've put horn speakers in the same category as the Mustang or SET amplifiers - vintage throwbacks to the bad old days of frequency response that made the alps look smooth.


I did for a long time, too. It took what's still the best system I've ever heard (a DIY setup in a well-tuned room with BMS dual concentric coaxes on a 90x40 horn that was like 2' wide, 15" Beyma woofer, Cabasse 55ND subwoofer built into the stairwell, digital crossover/EQ with active drive) to make me rethink the notions that all those wretched-sounding Klipsch and Avantgarde speakers had planted in my head.



Spasticteapot said:


> The fact that the majority of their proponents are also major proponents of $500 interconnects and power cables braided by virgins under the full moon has done little to enhance their credibility.


I wouldn't have chuckled nearly so hard at that line were it not so true!



Spasticteapot said:


> I would very much like to hear a pair of hi-fi horns designed by someone who has his head screwed on straight.


Well, they're not strictly speaking horns - the modern Tannoy dual concentrics use conventional dome tweeters loaded into a waveguide bored through the polepiece rather than a compression driver on a horn - but I'd _highly_ recommend finding a pair of Tannoy Dual Concentrics to audition. I find the older ones (without the supertweeter, that I find only to muck up the response in the 4k-8kHz range when you're not dead on axis) to be better, though some of their bleeding high end models (e.g. the Glenair and Glenair 10) dispense with the stupid supertweeter and sound spectacular. The DMT series studio monitors, or the D700 home speaker. Or seek out what is probably the best current prefab commercial speaker I've heard, the Gradient Revolution.



Spasticteapot said:


> I did. I, too, am a bit worried about energy storage - quite a lot of forum members have noted it sounds more "muddy" than the aluminum- or titanium-cone drivers they replaced.


Well, I find the Seas Excels to be unnaturally "etched" sounding, so I guess that's a matter of taste. 



Spasticteapot said:


> Then there are the issues of frequency response and cost - for $225, you get a woofer only usable from about 70hz to 800hz, and that's in a ported box! Certianly, it is efficient and very loud, but is it that much better than an RS225?


The motor design is way better than the RS225, yes. In the midrange, the power compression that you will hear in that driver (at least using one of them per side, in a domestic living room) will be absent from the 8NDL51. And I happen to think that its FR is near perfect for a modern main speaker midbass. After all, bass should be handled by a sub, and you can run the 8NDL51 in "LFE+Main" mode without destroying them.

But $225 now? Damn! Last I checked, they were closer to $140. Guess that collapsing dollar is rearing its ugly head again.



60ndown said:


> The better a speaker is the worse it is capable of sounding.


Isn't that entirely the point? _Fidelity to the source._



60ndown said:


> This higher level of detail makes hearing differences in components all that much easier.


Whoever wrote that line is a ****ing idiot. There aren't differences in most components to hear!
(To be sure, more efficient speakers will make noisy pieces of gear sound worse, because they will reproduce the noise more loudly. But otherwise, someone needs to grow up.)



60ndown said:


> Because high efficiency speakers are ultimately required to hit the top of the fidelity ladder it becomes practical to have the amp and source quality to back it up.


Crock of ****. I used to run 99dB/w/m speakers off of a Pioneer Elite HTiB reciever. In a nearfield setup. For three years, I ran mains of between 92dB/w/m and 94dB/w/m off of a sub-$300 Panasonic receiver. (I recently upgraded to a big Denon receiver, but it was an upgrade only because of the Audyssey MultEQ XT room correction software. Otherwise, it sounds the same despite costing ~8x more than the Panny did.)

The primary source for the former was a Mac running OSX. For the latter, an AirPort Express streaming music encoded mostly in Apple Lossless format.

The bottom line is, spend money on speakers. Spend money on measurement gear, which you can use to direct you in spending money to fix your room. Spend money on quality room correction. Otherwise, you can scrimp with reckless abandon on gear and get sonically equivalent results.



60ndown said:


> OVERVIEW
> 
> The Radial Speaker was originally inspired by the Ohm Walsh bending wave speakers that radiate sound 360 degrees. Having listened to these many times, as well as the German speakers using bladders, and other 360 degree designs I observed that despite their flaws they all did something special.


They do? I've heard the mbl Radialstrahler line of speakers on a number of occasions, starting with the pair they used to have on the 5th floor of KaDeWe in Berlin. (Maybe they still do. Unfortunately, I haven't been to KaDeWe since 2006. And when I go, I usually spend my time on the 6th floor, which rivals Harrod's as a supermarket.) They're very interesting-looking conversation pieces in a room, but as reproducers of music, man, do they suck!


----------



## 60ndown

"This higher level of detail makes hearing differences in components all that much easier."



DS-21 said:


> Whoever wrote that line is a ****ing idiot.


im guessing you listen to only mp3s at 128 bits then?

'garbage in, garbage out'

EVERYONE knows that, 

except 'you' apparently.

you ****ing idiot.


----------



## MiniVanMan

60ndown said:


> "This higher level of detail makes hearing differences in components all that much easier."
> 
> 
> 
> im guessing you listen to only mp3s at 128 bits then?
> 
> 'garbage in, garbage out'
> 
> EVERYONE knows that,
> 
> except 'you' apparently.
> 
> you ****ing idiot.


Yeah, says the person that has no thought of his own, but rather attempts to plagiarize a writing made by a man that's sole purpose is to "sell" high dollar tube amps, and other equipment. Hmmmmm, I wonder if he's biased a bit? 

Here's a WONDERFUL little tidbit from his site again. Better upgrade those cables guys. You don't want them being the weak link in your system. Then you can find out your amplifier is the weak link and you can upgrade that, and so on, and so on. Yeah, this guy cares about his bottom line and nothing else. 



> Fidelity / a game of the weakest link!
> Nov 2007
> by Steve Deckert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to improve the sound of your audio system? Can it ever really be good enough? Being in the business of manufacturing audio gear I see the audiophile frenzy to upgrade components from a rather inside perspective. For some it is an never ending quest, for others it stops when the pocket book runs dry.
> 
> The weakest link game is about spending as little money as possible while getting the highest fidelity you can. And it starts with the fundamental understanding that a chain is never stronger than it's weakest link. The audio chain is no different. You absolutely will NOT hear anything sound better than the poorest sounding component in your chain.
> 
> The motivation for writing this paper comes from seeing people handicap their audio system on a daily basis. It's tragic to see someone purchase a great component and then handicap it with a weak link somewhere else in the chain so that they misjudge the new component. The weak link makes it hard to hear a justifiable improvement. A great amp might actually sound worse do to it's more detailed and revealing nature.
> 
> THE CHAIN
> 
> To the right are pictures of a typical audio chain. The chain starts with the recording or CD itself. This is one part where you have little control - other than the option of purchasing CD's that are well recorded.
> 
> SOURCE
> 
> The first real link in the chain that you do have complete control over is the source - in this example, the CD player. This is often the weakest link. Won't matter how good your cables and electronics are, they can only reproduce the signal your source gives them. If you are just putting together a system from scratch, spend the most money on the source. Then as time goes on you can gradually upgrade your amps and speakers, cables etc. With a good source you'll stand a better chance of hearing a justifiable difference between components. For example, you may have a $500 amplifier and have brought home a $1500 amplifier to compare with your own. Without a good source it is likely to sound perhaps 10% better than what you have making it hard to understand why it costs 3 times as much. With a good source you may perceive the difference to be huge and easily worth the upgrade.
> 
> CONNECTIONS
> 
> The second link in the chain to focus on is believe it or not, all of the electrical connections. This is THE most completely overlooked and underestimated link in the chain. Here is a great example:
> 
> You yourself probably have a pair of interconnects that cost a little bit of money. Yet you handicap them with dirt and oils that actually shave the performance down to around 50% of what it could be. Take your interconnects out of your source and take a cotton Q-Tip with some 99% alcohol and insert it into the RCA jack. Twist it around a few times and pull it out. The Q-Tip will be black.
> 
> You must have clean connections everywhere. Even clean and possibly sand the prongs on your AC power cords. Leave no stone un-turned.
> 
> COMPONENTS
> 
> This is where it gets tricky. Your preamp, amp, speakers, and each set of cables is considered a link. Which one is the weakest? Identifying the guilty one is largely a guessing game. If you are trying to decide between the preamp, amplifier or speakers you first need to set the stage to be able to recognize it when you hear it. To that end you should look closely at your cables. Both interconnects and speaker wires, even if they are not the weak link in your present system (not that you would know for sure) they need to be good so that when you do start auditioning different preamps or amplifiers you will be able to hear the most difference.
> 
> Assuming that you have purchased a source that is clearly the most expensive component or have gotten lucky enough to find an affordable sleeper that sounds far better than it should... and you have purchased or at least tried better cables the next link is likely to be either the amp or preamp. Even a pair of boom box speakers glued into a cardboard box can give you enough information about all the electronics upstream to make some comparisons. Since you likely have better speakers than that, focus on your electronics for now.
> 
> PREAMP
> 
> The easiest way to determine if your preamp is a weak link is to listen for clarity. To do this we need to simply remove it and listen to the amplifier hooked directly to the source. IF the amp has no gain (volume) control and the source has no variable output, you will have to insert a passive volume control between your source and amplifier. With the preamp out of the chain listen for improved focus, detail and overall clarity. If putting the preamp back in the chain reduces any of these in any detectible way then your preamp is a weaker link then your amplifier.
> 
> AMPLIFIERS
> 
> Amplifiers come in a wide range of transparency and power. Switching out amplifiers is often the biggest change to your system as a whole that you can make at this stage. Amplifier's are typically the link in the chain with the most potential for cracks. For example, the amplifier may have lots of negative feedback (most do) and therefore limit the depth of a sound stage to just a few feet. It would be impossible to evaluate the differences between two CD players or DACs if you were trying to pick the one with the best depth and imaging. The amp would make the soundstage almost the same on both. This is by the way why it's wise to start this venture with the best source you can afford.
> 
> Another example is how the amp relates to speakers. As a speaker designer who places great value on the speakers ability to disappear, I can recall many times when a given amplifier completely killed the disappearing act and you could hear sound coming directly from the speakers. I hate that. But think about it - suppose the guy who owns the amp at fault buys a pair of my speakers because he's looking for a more holographic 3D soundstage... you can see where I might be going with that.
> 
> The only way to tell if or how bad your amplifier is handicapping your system is to try different ones and compare. In my own systems I make the amplifier the strongest link in the chain by a factor of about four. That way I can focus on all the remaining links for the duration. I already know that regardless of what a person spends on a source, vinyl or CD, it is not going to sound as good as the original master tape played off the mastering deck. Because of that I know that there will never be enough money in this lifetime to have a perfect source and the source will always be a weaker link than my amplifier. Once I have the amp in place I can play with different sources, cables and speakers forever and always be in a position to hear the differences they bring.
> 
> SPEAKERS
> 
> The better a speaker is the worse it is capable of sounding.
> 
> Speakers can be compared to telescopes in the sense that a given speaker will magnify the signal by a certain amount. Do you want to look at the moon or see the craters on it? There is a big difference in speakers. The mainstream speakers are designed with complex crossovers with higher power amplifiers in mind. What makes a great sounding one is it's ability to mask without being obvious about it. True high fidelity speakers tend to also be high efficiency speakers. (There are probably more high efficiency speakers with questionable fidelity than without, but that usually lies in the execution.) Assuming you have a good high efficiency speaker it's like going to high higher power lenses on the telescope. This higher level of detail makes hearing differences in components all that much easier. Often what happens to first time owners of high efficiency speakers is a rude awakening that reveals weaknesses in other components. Weaknesses that the lower resolution speakers did not let you hear.
> 
> Because high efficiency speakers are ultimately required to hit the top of the fidelity ladder it becomes practical to have the amp and source quality to back it up. The quality I'm talking about is the kind you have to hunt for. This is why it works to leave the speakers for last. I have a favorite, my HDT speaker that is so honest and so quick that your gear or the recording must be on it's game or the speakers can sound simply horrible. In the same moment you can hit the stop button, put in a well recorded disk and suddenly the speakers sound so right you get goose bumps!
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, this is the basic audio chain - on the surface. It can be broken down into smaller but longer chains within each piece of electronics. This is commonly referred to as the internal signal path. How many links are in the internal chain of a particular amplifier or preamplifier... well on the one extreme end like our Zen amp, there are 4 components in the signal path; 1 capacitor and 2 resistors and a transformer. Each of these components in the signal path can have as great an effect as any of the other links we've talked about in this paper. Now on the other extreme end, say a solid state AV receiver, the signal path may have as many as 50 or more links. A chain with 50 links has a larger chance of one or more weak ones when compared to a chain with only 4.
> 
> Deeper still are the connecting nodes between each link in the amplifier, such as the solder and wire. Then there are the supporting elements which also become links, such as the power supply, sockets, connectors, tubes, IC's and so on. Below that are the layout, magnetic fields of each part and wire, the chassis and eddy currents.
> 
> Our sample pictures on the top right of the basic audio chain represent 8 links, but if you break it down to the internal links of each component the audio system has between 100 and 1000 links in the chain. Since the game of it all is in guessing what link is actually the weakest, having less links increases your odds.
> 
> And when does it end? Most people who chase fidelity perceive the ladder as the ladder of accumulation. The more it costs and the more of it you have the better your odds. The irony is that it's more like a pyramid. The higher you get to the top the less stones there are. The ideal chain would consist of a single gain stage connected to a single voice coil (per channel) targeted at a single listener.
> 
> 
> 
> -Steve Deckert


----------



## Spasticteapot

DS-21 said:


> Well, it's not quite that easy. The problem with a sphere is that it focuses all of the resonant energy in the enclosure onto the driver membrane(s). Even with stuffing and such. But with some strategically placed "braces" (really more to break up internal waves that to strengthen it) can make things great after some iterative work.


How does this effect work? Any suggestions or examples of said acoustic-deflection devices I can copy?



DS-21 said:


> This bit is way off topic of the thread, but I'd be interested in how you're doing the spheres, being 15min from the nearest IKEA.
> Care to start a thread about your proposed design?


It's pretty simple, really - it's just an evolution of someone else's idea. All you need to do is take two Ikea BLANDA bowls - which are nearly completely hemispherical - and make a hole in the bottom of one, in which the speaker is mounted.

However, I'll be taking this one step further. Both halves of the enclosure will be covered with Dynamat or something similar, then glued together with a styrofoam ball suspended inside. Concrete will then be poured around the styrofoam ball, which will be melted out with acetone.

Presto! An isolated-baffle spherical concrete enclosure for $25.

They also sell metal bowls, too; for those, I'd likely not bother with the dynamat and just pour the concrete.



DS-21 said:


> Right. Note also that they're designed for nearfield use. Put them in a typical home audio system, with typical placement, and they won't sound so good.


He recommends to leave 71" between himself and his speakers. That's not exactly nearfield. 




DS-21 said:


> Except that those tweeters are power compression city. Really, really awful. Not to mention that their restricted vertical dispersion would lead to a huge difference for sitting and standing listeners.


Really? Please explain. They're obviously limited in power, but they're reasonably efficient, and are often described as sounding quite good.

I suppose I should mention that I like to listen to speakers at very, very low levels. 




DS-21 said:


> The motor design is way better than the RS225, yes. In the midrange, the power compression that you will hear in that driver (at least using one of them per side, in a domestic living room) will be absent from the 8NDL51. And I happen to think that its FR is near perfect for a modern main speaker midbass. After all, bass should be handled by a sub, and you can run the 8NDL51 in "LFE+Main" mode without destroying them.


Aside from the issue of power compression (which won't really apply to me anyway), there are two nasty problems: High Fs, and energy storage. NPdang even mentioned their "warm" sound, which he attributed to the heavy treated paper cone; considering that the B&C is designed with a heavy-duty spider and voice coil, energy storage was likely a lower design priority than durability. Furthermore, they're completely useless without subwoofers if used in a sealed box.

There's also the issue of price. For that kind of money, I can buy ScanSpeaks.


----------



## 60ndown

MiniVanMan said:


> Yeah, says the person that has no thought of his own, but rather attempts to plagiarize a writing made by a man that's sole purpose is to "sell" high dollar tube amps, and other equipment. Hmmmmm, I wonder if he's biased a bit?
> 
> Here's a WONDERFUL little tidbit from his site again. Better upgrade those cables guys. You don't want them being the weak link in your system. Then you can find out your amplifier is the weak link and you can upgrade that, and so on, and so on. Yeah, this guy cares about his bottom line and nothing else.



keep looking around over there, lots of interesting stuff about audio.


----------



## Dougie085

I built some DIY speakers for my home setup and they are very nice, I've also built my DAC and the AMP thats powering it all. I can easily tell the difference between different amps and other components in my system. So yes with high end stuff it is easier to tell. By the way here's a pic of the speakers and amp. The DAC is not in a chassis yet.

























Don't mind the mess on the stand here.


----------



## DS-21

60ndown said:


> im guessing you listen to only mp3s at 128 bits then?


Please don't tell me that you really don't know the difference between a _lossy perceptive coding algorithm_ and an _electronic component_?

What I am saying is that your MP3-128 won't sound any different when decoded through any non-broken modern DAC, not that the MP3-128 won't sound different from the same file in Apple Lossless, the format in which I store my music. 



Spasticteapot said:


> How does this effect work? Any suggestions or examples of said acoustic-deflection devices I can copy?


I think Olson might have done some work on that, though I can't think of anything off the top of my head.



Spasticteapot said:


> It's pretty simple, really - it's just an evolution of someone else's idea. All you need to do is take two Ikea BLANDA bowls - which are nearly completely hemispherical - and make a hole in the bottom of one, in which the speaker is mounted.


Oh. Those are too small for me. If they had a, 18" one, that might be fun.



Spasticteapot said:


> He recommends to leave 71" between himself and his speakers. That's not exactly nearfield.


It's pretty close. The speakers I call "nearfield" in my bedroom/office are ~65" away from me when I'm seated.



Spasticteapot said:


> Really? Please explain. They're obviously limited in power, but they're reasonably efficient, and are often described as sounding quite good.


I've found them to be really compressed. And I'm not a loud average level guy, either. Hell, I do fine with a pair of Aura Whispers in an open car! But when the source has dynamics, I expect my (home) equipment to reproduce them and not round them off.



Spasticteapot said:


> Aside from the issue of power compression (which won't really apply to me anyway), there are two nasty problems: High Fs, and energy storage. NPdang even mentioned their "warm" sound, which he attributed to the heavy treated paper cone;


I guess that's a matter of taste. Yeah, they're warm to someone used to Seas Excels. I find the Seas Excels to err about the same amount, but in the opposite - and less enjoyable - direction. 



Spasticteapot said:


> Furthermore, they're completely useless without subwoofers if used in a sealed box.


True, but I don't really see that as a huge demerit. Rather, it's more of a sensible compromise given how modern home audio systems are designed.



Spasticteapot said:


> There's also the issue of price. For that kind of money, I can buy ScanSpeaks.


The 8NDL51 is far better-built and better-sounding than any ScanSpeak driver I've seen, though I've not seen their new superpremium one. But it seems someone's gouging on the price, because at www.usspeaker.com they're still ~$150ea shipped.


----------



## filtor1

Dougie085 said:


> I built some DIY speakers for my home setup and they are very nice, I've also built my DAC and the AMP thats powering it all. I can easily tell the difference between different amps and other components in my system. So yes with high end stuff it is easier to tell. By the way here's a pic of the speakers and amp. The DAC is not in a chassis yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't mind the mess on the stand here.


Those really look great. Do you mind sharing the cost? Total w/o labor. Thanks.


----------



## Dougie085

Well I built them so labor was free  I probably spent about 1k for the 2 speakers. The amp the kit is about 100 bucks, the transformer ~100? chassis was made by the guy that builds and sells those amps I think got it for around 250? You could use a different chassis and cheaper transformer no doubt. This amp isn't the greatest but I've put it up against upper model Rotels and its definitely better. Right now I have about 400 into my DAC but its an awesome DAC I still have to finish it up though. There are some other great speakers you can check out for DIY. Are we allowed to post links to other forums?


----------



## DS-21

Autiophile said:


> I can't help it. I just shot Earl an e-mail about sending him a deposit to get on the delivery list.


Sweet!


----------



## filtor1

Dougie085 said:


> Well I built them so labor was free  I probably spent about 1k for the 2 speakers. The amp the kit is about 100 bucks, the transformer ~100? chassis was made by the guy that builds and sells those amps I think got it for around 250? You could use a different chassis and cheaper transformer no doubt. This amp isn't the greatest but I've put it up against upper model Rotels and its definitely better. Right now I have about 400 into my DAC but its an awesome DAC I still have to finish it up though. There are some other great speakers you can check out for DIY. Are we allowed to post links to other forums?


Thanks for the info as well as the PM.


----------

