[marrduk24]

Jim,

I hope I don't raise a few eyebrows with the subject of this thread.

As they say, every speaker design requires a compromise. It seems while building Song 3.0 you had a specific goal of staying under $3000.

I was keen to know what drivers would you pick if that was not a constraint. I like many things about Song 3.0 that should remain unchanged
1. Slim footprint, driven by 7" woofer
2. F3 of under 35hz

[jsalk]

Jim,

I hope I don't raise a few eyebrows with the subject of this thread.

As they say, every speaker design requires a compromise. It seems while building Song 3.0 you had a specific goal of staying under $3000.

I was keen to know what drivers would you pick if that was not a constraint. I like many things about Song 3.0 that should remain unchanged
1. Slim footprint, driven by 7" woofer
2. F3 of under 35hz

We are currently working on a version with an AudioTechnology midrange and a beryllium tweeter. Of course, until it is finished, it is not a model.  But I don't see anything standing in our way at this point.

- Jim

[dtredwood]

What if you wanted the AT mid and the RAAL tweeter? Possible?

Ben

[jsalk]

What if you wanted the AT mid and the RAAL tweeter? Possible?

Ben

Perhaps.  We'll see how this combination works out first.  It would be a relatively minor change, although more expensive. 

- Jim

[johzel]

We are currently working on a version with an AudioTechnology midrange and a beryllium tweeter. Of course, until it is finished, it is not a model.  But I don't see anything standing in our way at this point.

- Jim

Gee  . . . I wonder who would want a pair of those??     

[DMurphy]

Gee  . . . I wonder who would want a pair of those??     

That's a real head scratcher alright.  I have the AT-Be version up and running now, and just in case the interested party is lurking nearby (no chance of that, I guess), it's a very clean machine.  I've worked with a couple of Be tweeters, and this one is a real winner.  It sounds like a ribbon, but can be crossed very low with negligible distortion.  And the AT woofer is flat as a pancake (that's a good thing).

[charmerci]

That's a real head scratcher alright.  I have the AT-Be version up and running now, and just in case the interested party is lurking nearby (no chance of that, I guess), it's a very clean machine.  I've worked with a couple of Be tweeters, and this one is a real winner.  It sounds like a ribbon, but can be crossed very low with negligible distortion.  And the AT woofer is flat as a pancake (that's a good thing).

So many good speakers, so little money...

[mresseguie]

I am not sure if this question is more appropriate in a PM, but I have a question for either Jim or Dennis.

I believe both versions of the Song3 have a single 7.5" Satori. Is there any benefit (or disadvantage) to using two 7.5" Satori drivers?

Regards,

Michael

[jsalk]

I am not sure if this question is more appropriate in a PM, but I have a question for either Jim or Dennis.

I believe both versions of the Song3 have a single 7.5" Satori. Is there any benefit (or disadvantage) to using two 7.5" Satori drivers?

Regards,

Michael

Michael -

Well, you'd have greater power handling capabilities, although this driver does quite well on its own in that department.  So not a lot to gain there.

In parallel it would be a 4 ohm design and you'd gain a few db in terms of sensitivity.  The problem is, the other drivers would not be sensitive enough to keep up.  So series is about the only possibility in this design.  In this case, you would end up with no increase in sensitivity, a 16-ohm woofer section and really wouldn't have gained much in the process.

But the biggest issue is that the cabinet would be HUGE (I've obviously explored this earlier).  This driver requires a lot of internal volume in order to generate bass to 33Hz at 88db sensitivity.

So while it is certainly possible, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense with this basic design.

- Jim

[marrduk24]

We are currently working on a version with an AudioTechnology midrange and a beryllium tweeter. Of course, until it is finished, it is not a model.  But I don't see anything standing in our way at this point.

- Jim

Jim, just to clarify, it would still use Satori woofer but use AT mid and beryllium tweeter? Is that because there isn't another 7" driver that gives you the characteristics of Satori - ability to go belo <35hz

[johzel]

That's a real head scratcher alright.  I have the AT-Be version up and running now, and just in case the interested party is lurking nearby (no chance of that, I guess), it's a very clean machine.  I've worked with a couple of Be tweeters, and this one is a real winner.  It sounds like a ribbon, but can be crossed very low with negligible distortion.  And the AT woofer is flat as a pancake (that's a good thing).

.

 

[jsalk]

Jim, just to clarify, it would still use Satori woofer but use AT mid and beryllium tweeter? Is that because there isn't another 7" driver that gives you the characteristics of Satori - ability to go belo <35hz

Yes, this is a very special driver.  There are lots of good 7" drivers that play deep.  But they are not as sensitive.  The combination of a 33Hz F3 and 88db sensitivity is quite rare.  No need to look farther.  You could always go with a pair of other 7" drivers and get the sensitivity, but the cost would be higher, the cabinet probably much larger and it would be a completely different design.  So it isn't a trade-off that is worth pursuing in terms of this design.

- Jim

[johzel]

I have the AT-Be version up and running now, and just in case the interested party is lurking nearby (no chance of that, I guess), it's a very clean machine.  I've worked with a couple of Be tweeters, and this one is a real winner.  It sounds like a ribbon, but can be crossed very low with negligible distortion.  And the AT woofer is flat as a pancake (that's a good thing).

Yes, this is a very special driver.  There are lots of good 7" drivers that play deep.  But they are not as sensitive.  The combination of a 33Hz F3 and 88db sensitivity is quite rare.  No need to look farther.

- Jim

Looking forward to taking possession of this newest design, Jim and Dennis.  Thanks!!  Was not an easy decision to sell the Silk AT's but these early reviews are certainly helping to relieve any remaining remorse!!   

[gnostalgick]

  Hope you had a great RMAF 2016!

  Any further info on AT/BE version at this point?  Though I can imagine a more focused & refined speaker, I personally wouldn't want to change the overall character of the sound; I really loved the detailed ease of the presentation at Axpona.  How does this version differ?

  Anyways, since this seems to be the bug Jim & Dennis thread, I hope its not too annoying to ask a couple more...

  There seems to be much praise for the Satori here, but if size wasn't a constraint of the design, are there any larger drivers that would perform better?  It may be only a sighted preference on my part, but I'm always most impressed with the bass performance of 10-12" drvers (15+ probably wouldn't work in my room). 

  And if not, would putting the drivers on the wide side cause too many issues?  It's probably a silly idea, but I find narrow towers in general a bit visually underwhelming; and in this instance it seems a shame not to show off such lovely finishes as much as possible.

  Thanks again for everyone's time.

[jsalk]

  Hope you had a great RMAF 2016!

Yes we did, thanks.

Any further info on AT/BE version at this point?  Though I can imagine a more focused & refined speaker, I personally wouldn't want to change the overall character of the sound; I really loved the detailed ease of the presentation at Axpona.  How does this version differ?

We are just starting to veneer the first pair today.  So it will be a few weeks before we have a chance to give them a listen.  Until then, it is hard to say.  I am anticipating the same overall sound quality with a bit more refinement.  But time will tell.

 

Anyways, since this seems to be the bug Jim & Dennis thread, I hope its not too annoying to ask a couple more...

There seems to be much praise for the Satori here, but if size wasn't a constraint of the design, are there any larger drivers that would perform better?  It may be only a sighted preference on my part, but I'm always most impressed with the bass performance of 10-12" drvers (15+ probably wouldn't work in my room).

I'm sure a version with a 10" or even 12" woofer would work just fine.  But it would likely be a much larger speaker.  And if you were moving in that direction, then I think you would want to look at the tweeter and midrange drivers as well.  In short, this would end up being an entirely new speaker design (and probably much more costly as a result).

The fact is, the Satori driver is actually quite incredible.  If you look at many drivers in that size range, you will see that they are mostly 84db sensitive.  As you move up in sensitivity, cabinet size requirements get quite a bit larger and you lose bass extension rather quickly.  The cabinet volume requirements for the Satori driver are reasonable.  The sensitivity is 88db and we were able to tune the design resulting in an F3 of 33Hz.  That is a pretty remarkable combination of attributes that basically makes the Song3 design possible. 

Again, it would certainly be possible to use a larger woofer.  But it would be a totally different design from the ground up.

  And if not, would putting the drivers on the wide side cause too many issues?  It's probably a silly idea, but I find narrow towers in general a bit visually underwhelming; and in this instance it seems a shame not to show off such lovely finishes as much as possible.

  Thanks again for everyone's time.

The crossover to the midrange in this design is too high to have side-firing woofers.  Generally, you would want to cross at about 150Hz or lower to make it viable.  Human hearing can localize sounds above that area and would know the woofer is not in the same plane as the midrange and tweeter.  Crossing low enough to pull this off, you might have to look for a new midrange driver and then you would also be dealing with the midrange performance high enough up to cross to the tweeter.  It is a balancing act to say the least.

I hope this all made sense.

- Jim

[gnostalgick]

  Thanks for indulging my curiosity--your responses definitely all made sense to me.

  At the end I guess I was myself a little unclear though.  I wasn't really thinking of side firing woofers; I was more interested in the possibility of what I suppose would best be described as a wide baffled version.  Again I admit its most likely just a visual preference more than anything else (though reinforced by listening to a few such speakers way out of budget).

  Anyways if I hadn't thought the balance was near perfect to begin with, I wouldn't be asking anything at all.

Thanks again,
Kirk