[Fenomeno]

Dsk

I see that you read my post well. Understanding that no speaker is perfect is, to me, essential to understanding what you desire most from your system or how to get the most from your system.

Now, a quick blurb about listening with vinyl...wow!

Some of my previous comments seem to be partially attributed to digital artifacts.   I stand by previous observations...but they become even less obvious. ..my vinyl setup not being the most transparent..I can not say much more about this.

as for your setup, here's a few comments:

your source will play an important part..but w/your ribbon experience you know that already

volume levels you desribe should be no problem

when making my ported or sealed decision with Rick, the thought was that i can plug the holes if subs were added... i am not adding...yet ...but this driver happens to work very well in a 1cu-ft enclosure for both approaches

I do not have deluxe units but the caps in the crossover i have are the same type as those in my CJ:wink:

your present speaker's crossover seems LOW...(Like a newform research approach)

is your amp dynamic? mosfet or bipolar? class A? capacitance and transformer sizes?  

I don't think any of the previous questions mean much.

Finally, when will someone else make the plunge into my kind of audio nirvana?

Good luck and keep me posted...one question:what lead you to the decision to stick w/ a 6.5" ribbon hybrid two way? what are you looking for from your system besides everything?

sorry if this posts twice...my pda (from the listening seat, how disgusting) seems to continually screw this up

[DSK]

Some of my previous comments seem to be partially attributed to digital artifacts.... your source will play an important part..but w/your ribbon experience you know that already

What front end are you using? I am currently using a Bolder modded SqueezeBox2, with Bolder Deluxe PS, directly into the AKSA amp .....Very nice! It blew away my Sony SCD-XA777ES SACD player, much less 'digital' sounding, more inner detail, body and PRaT.

when making my ported or sealed decision with Rick, the thought was that i can plug the holes if subs were added... i am not adding...yet ...but this driver happens to work very well in a 1cu-ft enclosure for both approaches

I won't know the box capacity details until I get the plans from Rick, but I have seen that the driver is recommended in approx 32L ported boxes and 12-15L sealed boxes. So, I'm not sure that plugging the port will provide an optimal sealed box size. However, if Rick's plans show the optimal box size to be the same for each then I may build it ported, try it, and then block (or not) the ports.

Good luck and keep me posted...one question:what lead you to the decision to stick w/ a 6.5" ribbon hybrid two way? what are you looking for from your system besides everything?... your present speaker's crossover seems LOW...(Like a newform research approach)

My current speaker is the Ambience Ultra 1600 from here in Australia (see http://www.ambiencespeakers.com.au/). It uses a 4' long ribbon that hands over to an upward firing 6.5" doped paper SEAS woofer at 420hz. This has been my speaker of choice for the last 5 years or so. True to the website blurb it does offer a huge soundstage, excellent imaging, clarity, resolution, lack of boxiness etc etc. It is great on voices, piano, sax, etc. I think they sell in the US for approx US$4k, not sure.

Together with my sub, the Ambiences bring me closer to the live performance than any speaker/system I have heard ...including some very expensive systems. I haven't heard the Maggies but a couple of people with experienced ears preferred the Ambiences overall to 1.6QR's, 3.6's, and Newforms.

Operating the ribbon down to 420hz produces excellent clarity in the mids but can not produce the sort of dynamics offered by a top quality cone driver. My reason for choosing the SS Ref (as opposed to a 2-way with the same midwoofer but using SS Ring Radiator for instance) is that I like the openness, air and spaciousness provided by good ribbon tweeters. I am used to it from my Ambiences and don't wish to give it up in the pursuit of greater midrange dynamics. I am not sure, but suspect that the 8531G may provide slightly superior performance to the custom SEAS doped paper driver in the Ambience. There is also the possibility that, because the 8531G is close to the NeoCD3 and mounted on the same baffle, that integration may be even better than the upward firing woofer behind the ribbon panel on the Ambience ...perhaps phasing is better matched etc ...or perhaps it less important on the Ambience given that the xo point is so low? Also, the specs on the Ambience's woofer are secret (I can understand why as the driver integrates much better than you would expect from a hybrid). This means that I don't know the optimal sealed box size for it ...I have simply plugged the ports and it seems to integrate even better with my sub ...but, perhaps it could be even better if the box size was further optimised. I'm also told that (short) ribbon tweeters outperform longer ribbons in the higher frequencies...

So, long answer to your short question, I am hoping the SS Refs will provide greater bass performance (dynamics, resolution, phasing), greater midrange dynamics and palpability, and perhaps slightly more extended and dynamic top end. My wife will simply love that they are not over 5' tall like my Ambiences.

Buying them unheard, there is always the risk that the SS Refs will not outperform the Ambiences (the Ambiences are a truly exceptional sounding speaker after all) in some or all areas. Perhaps the mids from the 8531G will not match the transparency and quickness of the Ambience ribbons, or the mids will harden at higher volumes (as same driver does mids and bass), perhaps I will have problems readjusting to the sound of a box speaker, etc etc. I already know that the little SS Refs will not produce the huge soundstage provided by the tall dipolar Ambiences, for example. However, after communicating with Rick and Fenomenal and doing lots of reading and investigation, I think the relatively low cost of the SS Ref kit suggests giving it a chance.

So yes, I guess I am moving from a 2-way ribbon/woofer to another 2-way ribbon/woofer, but I think they will be quite different in presentation and the midrange.

[Fenomeno]

More pics
Detail Front and Rear

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=720

[Fenomeno]

"Gentlemen, start your interconects..."

Thus the past several days have been.  Experimentation has been the buzz word of late.  RFI line/power cord treatments.  No power cord treatments.  Speaker tilt. No tilt.  Wide spacing.  Narrow spacing. Toe-in. No toe-in.  Solid core speaker cabling.  Stranded speaker cabling.  Which brings me to my present observations.

To begin, allow me to repeat the following adages so that you may keep them in mind during the course of my ramblings: "junk in, junk out" and "the more revealing the speaker, the more noticeable the front end."

Through the course of my listening (i.e. experimentation) I came to two conclusions: 1. My previous speakers were not the most revealing 2. My interconnects and cabling were coloring the sound.

How did I come to these conclusions:
1. When playing female vocals, SOME discs had me trying to reposition speakers to ameliorate some excessive midrange weight and forwardness characterized by a singer that came right up to your listening chair at the expense of hearing the remaining band along with a resonance or congestion in lower female registers.

2. Vivaldi violin concertos sometimes presented the vioilins (or is that violas) unevenly, pushing the upper registers to the sides (not to the tweeters, but not at the source of the lower registers of the instrument either).  

Both of these, actually, are not to the degree which would make this system unlistenable or overly forward.  In fact, there are those listeners who may actually favor this presentation.  I like my music presented evenly.  I like to read while listening and find myself interupted by something I hear IN the recording.  Not something FROM the recording.


A SMILE THEN A FROWN

My previous speakers had a recessed midrange (which, put another way, sounds like a treble lift)  You could say their frequency response, when exagerrated, looked like a 'smile.'  That system used solid core interconnects with foil shielding.  These ultimately have a sonic signature (like most solid core coax style cabling do) which, when visualized for comparative purposes, have a frequency response which looks like a 'frown.'  Together there was a flat line neutral countenance.  But there was one caveat, the sound seemed to lean to some congestion in complex classical music passages.

ENTER THE SSR

I listen to music mostly in evenings at lower volumes.  In fact, I do not 'crank' it up that often in general.  The 'frown' ultimately allowed me to hear more midrange detail thru my old speakers at lower volumes.  But with the SSR, these details, at lower volumes, on some discs, began to occupy my time.  Critically listening, moving, tweaking....and then it dawned on me, I need to check those interconnects.  I remembered the previous results with them when using my old speakers.  I remembered their character.  I remembered why I did not use them.  I remembered they sounded fantastic with a more revealing system owned by a friend who had the same cables.  And VOILA, their insertion was just the ticket.  For the record, they are a Kimber PBJ with WBT interconnects.  Simple.  Cheap. Old and balanced.  I also removed the solid core Audioquest Type 4 speaker cabling. The result? The mids fell back into the soundstage where they belong.  The speaker doesn't grab your attention to the same degree,  but listenability is improved.  Volume, at lower listening levels, must be turned slightly higher to hear the same details, but now they are presented MORE EVENLY over the entire spectrum within the soundstage.  In fact, the speakers disappear beautifully and the SSR sound even more balanced than I originally thought, most noticeable with driver integration and imaging.  Height information is better.  Decay and reverberation are part of the performance.  Everything sounds as it should, within the sound window and in its place.

I may just remove the binding posts and hard solder my speaker cables bare wire to bare wire.  (I have done this before with amazing results.)

So, consider your choice of cabling and interconnects well.  The results are very rewarding.  Now, if I can just replace the front end (and I can see this happening soon) to remove that last bit of.....the disease continues.

[Rick Craig]

Nominal impedance 6.8 ohm
sensitivity 87.5-88 db/1w/1m

Actually the sensitivity is 83db because of baffle step compensation and the DCR from the inductors in the crossover. Unlike many other speaker manufacturers we don't fudge our sensitivity ratings.

[Fenomeno]

Is anyone still interested in further listening experiences? Maybe from someone else?

I am using silver interconnects with a sacrifice in some bass heft, but the depth of soundstage is fantastic and differentiation between string instruments better portrayed.

there is some sibilance which is recording dependent but it seems it may be my source (as vinyl removes this) needless to say i will try to compare another digital source, if anyone is interested in an in depth and objective review, note it here as i think i have a handle on their strengths and weaknesses


f

[bhobba]

My current speaker is the Ambience Ultra 1600 from here in Australia (see http://www.ambiencespeakers.com.au/). It uses a 4' long ribbon that hands over to an upward firing 6.5" doped paper SEAS woofer at 420hz. This has been my speaker of choice for the last 5 years or so. True to the website blurb it does offer a huge soundstage, excellent imaging, clarity, resolution, lack of boxiness etc etc. It is great on voices, piano, sax, etc. I think they sell in the US for approx US$4k, not sure.

A lot of speakers I read about around here I have not heard - this however is one I know having listened to it extensively prior to purchasing my AXIS LS88's - a cone 3 way.  I have heard these two speakers side by side with electrostatics and here are my observations. The midrange transparency of all are very close and indeed both are close to electrostatics - but the electrostatics still win.  The comparison was done with Martin Logan electrostaics which I do not rate as good as Quad eletrostaics but I have not heard those three side by side - I have heard them separtely and can say it is still close.  The midrange of the Ambience is a smidgen better (meaning transparent) than the AXIS but it is very close.  The dynamics of the AXIS is better and indeed this makes the Ambience sound a bit dry to my ears - despite its clarity.  But I have come to the conclusion while the best cone drivers fall just a smidgen short of electrostatics and ribbons there is not much in it.  Caveat - this was about 10 years ago - obviously things have moved on since then.  The Ambience's I do not think have changed much so the improvement I suspect is in cone drivers favor - although the AXIS did use at that time what was reputed to be quite expensive and exotic midranges.

So yes, I guess I am moving from a 2-way ribbon/woofer to another 2-way ribbon/woofer, but I think they will be quite different in presentation and the midrange.

Yes - I found cones less dry than the Ambiences but I think you will be surprised how good the midrange can be on the best cones - and by reputation that SS driver is one of the best.  But it is still untreated paper so it may not be quite and uncolored as my AXIS speakers.

Thanks
Bill

[DSK]

Things are moving along slowly ...I did my back in again a couple  of weeks back and have been at the physio every other day since then  

I bought the SSR kit from Rick who I'm sure is somewhat relieved to receive e-mail questions from me every few days now, rather than at 5-minute intervals  

Although the sealed SSR box requires a smaller volume than the ported version, I went with the same height and width as the ported version as this allowed space in the bottom for a separate cavity for the crossovers. All panels and bracing are 1" MDF, baffle is 1.25" MDF. A full shelf brace runs across the middle, with a strut brace from the shelf brace to the back panel. The circular cutouts in the shelf brace are rounded over to remove sharp edges and the strut brace also has its edges rounded over. There is a trapdoor in the bottom of the box with matching routered recesses in the trapdoor and opening. The XO board mounts onto the inside of the trapdoor so that it lifts in and out for easy access. On the back of the XO cavity there is another small trapdoor in the back panel of the speaker. This allows me to access the inside of the binding posts (Eichmann CablePods) from outside the speaker as required.

I have 'dry assembled' both boxes to ensure a perfect fit (they would probably be air tight even without glue) and have disassembled them again ready for final assembly. There are just under 100 screws per box and I estimate that, with drivers and XO loaded, the speakers will weigh approx 50 pounds each. All screws near the XO are stainless steel to avoid any magnetic effects.  

I'm just sorting out the best airtight method of running the wires from the XO cavity into the main sealed cavity, then I'll glue and screw them together.

I haven't totally decided on the finish yet. A nice dark rosewood or walnut veneer would look great, but I can't find veneer sheets wide enough. I could run them edge to edge but I'm not sure how invisible I could make the join. The fall back would be to seal them with a couple of coats of MDF primer/filler, then paint them with a couple of coats of satin finish dark brown, and perhaps a clear sealer coat or two (not my area of expertise here). There will be no grilles on the speakers.

This has been a 'secret project' that my wife doesn't know about    However, if the SSR's outperform my current speakers, my wife will be rapt to have standmount speakers rather than the 5'+ tall current floorstanders ... even though I'll be retaining my subwoofer.

So, I'm probably still 2 or 3 weeks away from completing them but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel .... sure hope it's not a train  

[DSK]

Have made some progress, albeit slowly.

The boxes are now glued up, the roundover edges have been routered, the drivers have been recessed and test fitted, the XO trapdoors (in bottom panel) and binding post trapdoors (in back panel) have been cut, routered and test fitted, and everything is sanded ready for painting.

Though I build great bomb-proof boxes, final finishing or dressing is not my forte. I've abandoned the idea of veneer as I couldn't find suitable veneer in sufficiently wide sheets and didn't want to join sheets. Instead I have rounded over all box edges and will paint the boxes in a dark brown that will match the room decor (African theme) nicely.

My plan is: 2 coats of MDF primer/filler, 1 coat of undercoat, 2 enamel top coats, and possibly one or two clear coats (polyurethane?) for durability. I will go for a satin finish rather than a shiny gloss finish.

[stvnharr]

Darren,
You are beyond the point of no return now.  But since you've ordered lots from the US, why didn't you get some paper backed veneer from one of the US suppliers.  I realize that this is not available in Oz, and shipping is a fair bit.
Good luck with the paint!  I'm sure the boxes will look very nice.

[DSK]

Darren,
You are beyond the point of no return now.  But since you've ordered lots from the US, why didn't you get some paper backed veneer from one of the US suppliers.  I realize that this is not available in Oz, and shipping is a fair bit.
Good luck with the paint!  I'm sure the boxes will look very nice.

Good point. I didn't really look into this as I figured veneer sheets would be flat packed and shipping would be calculated on size rather than weight. Also, I wasn't sure how well the fragile veneer would travel.

I've decided to do even more sanding, as much as would be required if I was going after a piano gloss finish (which I won't do as I don't have spraying equipment and prefer the less reflective satin finish anyway). I'll probably do 3 MDF primer coats and 2 or 3 oil based top coats with a very fine brush for the smoothest finish possible with a brush. I'll sand with 400 paper between primer coats and 600/800 wet & dry between top coats. This should come up very well, but if not then I guess I can sand with up to 1200 wet & dry and get the final top coats professionally sprayed.

I'm dying to get them up and running so I can hear them, but keep telling myself to hurry up and slow down    as (if they outperform my current speakers) I plan to listen to them for some years and the extra time and effort for a good finish will be worth it.

[DSK]

Well, I ended up sanding the raw boxes with up to 400 grit. Then applied 2 coats of MDF Primer, sanding with 400 grit between. Applied the undercoat today, will sand that lightly with 400 grit then apply 2 top coats (3 if necessary) of premium enamel next week, sanding lightly with 600 grit between. The enamel (satin finish) is a very dark brown colour that will blend into our room decor (African theme) rather than grab attention themselves ... should satisfy WAF   ... and, I like my speakers to disappear visually as well as sonically  

[DSK]

Well, unfortunately it turns out that my painting skills suck!  Brush marks were visible through the top coat ... I think this was due to poor brushing technique and not sanding back far enough between coats. I used 400 grit between primer coats but probably should have used 240 grit first.

So, I've stripped them back almost bare, ready to start again.    

If I had the cash to spare I'd have them professionally sprayed, but it's not an option at the moment. So, I'll practise and persevere!

[jules]

Darren,

I'm not sure how you are equiped for the painting but it is possible  

You need a high quality brush, say 50mm, with a decent amount of bristle so that it will hold enough paint to make a long continuous stroke.

I suggest you put on three coats of anything before you start rubbing back. So maybe something like this ...

2 coats base coat followed by a light rubbing with 200 grit [oops, broke my rule already]. 3 coats of finishing coat [if you aren't using an intermediate coat] followed by progressive use of 200, 250, 300. Three more coats followed by the same process and if it's looking as though you've got a good thickness at that point, follow through to 400, 600, 800 and maybe 1,000. You'll find you need to be very careful with edges as they rub through easily.

It's best to make all the brush strokes in the one direction only. If it's cold it can help to keep the can of paint in some hot water for a while before use.

The frustrating thing about this process is that you need to apply many coats and you also need to be sure that they are dry before you sand them. The more coats you get, the slower the stuff dries.

There's probably more but I can't think of it for the moment. I once did a car this way and the result was a lot better than many spray jobs I've seen.

jules

[DSK]

Thanks Jules,
I'd love to blame the tools but in this case, after searching and reading up on brushing technique (why didn't I do this before   ), I think I was the tool    Picture the Marx brothers painting and you probably have a fair idea ...

After power sanding the box to perfection with 60, 120, 240, 320 & 400 grit, I applied 3 coats of MDF Primer, lightly sanding with 400 after each coat. It is touch dry in 30 minutes and ready to recoat in 4 hours, but I left each coat overnight or more. However, I think the first problem was that my brushing technique was crap. I found that each time I brushed to the edge of one panel, paint would build up on the exit of the rounded edge. So I would then try to smooth it out on the exit of the rounded edge but this left a build up on the entrance to the edge (at the edge of the panel already painted). So, next I tried to paint the top panel and continue around the edge and part way down the next panel. This was better at keeping the paint even through the rounded edge, but by the time I did  the top panel (and 1/3rd way down the 4 sides) and turned the box over, the paint was already drying so there was a horrible thick mess on each side panel where the new paint overlapped the semi-dry paint. In an attempt to smooth it, I added more paint and just made things worse. I probably kept brushing it too long as well, rather than get the paint on quickly, immediately doing the long blending strokes, then leaving it alone. Also, each time I dipped the brush in the tin, I would lightly wipe each side against the lip of the tin to prevent dripping. I think I did this too heavily and thus had insufficient paint on the brush, which made it take longer to get the paint onto each panel, and the paint had part dried before I got to unsuccessfully try to blend it to a smooth coat. I sanded back each coat but not completely smooth and flat, figuring that the next primer coat would fill in the brush lines. Even if it had, my poor technique on the next coat meant I had thicker primer coverage but still the overlap mess. If I'd sanded the last primer coat (I did 3 primer coats) until the surface was totally flat, I probably would have got away with it but would still have stuffed things up with poor technique on the top coats.

So, in short, I made all possible mistakes and probably even invented a few!

This time, I will do the bottom panel first and allow it to completely dry before flipping the box and doing one complete panel at a time (ie. no wet/semi-dry overlaps) with long, smooth strokes and light pressure from edge to edge.

I ran out of MDF Primer and went back to Bunnings to buy some more. The Bunnings guys recommended I use a 3-in-1 (MDF sealer/primer/undercoat) instead of the MDF Primer (they had both). They seemed quite surprised I was doing more than one coat of MDF Primer (it is pretty thick). I explained that I wanted to ensure that all joins and filled countersink holes were totally invisible before applying the first top coat but they still seemed surprised. They advised me to do one primer coat, sand with 220-280 grit, then apply 2 enamel top coats, sanding lightly with 400 grit in between. They recommended against any clear coats.

I mentioned that I'd read a website that talked of applying up to 6 primer coats, and 6 top coats (sanding with 600/800/1200/1500 wet & dry between) then some clear top coats (sanding with 1200/1500 between) but they said that this was only applicable to painting cars to a high gloss finish.

Jules, I take your point about not being necessary to sand back the primer coats until the last one (I guess we are just building up thickness and coverage until then) as long as we sand the last one back totally flat and smooth before applying the first top coat. But I'm not sure why so many top coats? The paint tin (satin finish enamel) says to apply 2 coats and on my failed first attempt I noted that even the first coat (very dark brown colour) gave almost complete and solid colour, despite the primer being white in colour. I stripped it all off at that point but thought that 3 coats looked like being slight overkill but worthwhile to ensure completely solid colour and add some extra thickness for durability. I can understand the need for 6 top coats when spraying light coats and chasing a super high gloss finish, but why 6 coats when brushing on satin finish?

Jules, do I understand your instructions correctly ...

Apply first primer coat.
Apply second primer coat & sand lightly with 200 grit.
Apply first top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300.
Apply second top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300.
Apply third top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300.
Apply fourth top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300, then 400, then 600, then 800, then 1000.
Apply fifth top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300, then 400, then 600, then 800, then 1000.
Apply sixth top coat & sand lightly with 200 grit, then 250, then 300, then 400, then 600, then 800, then 1000.

Do you sand the very last coat? And does all top coat sanding need to be done by hand, or can it be done gently on my 1/3rd sheet orbital sander (I realise that the rounded edges need to be done gently by hand)?  Also, I understand your point for all brush strokes to be in one direction, but is it worthwhile to apply alternate coats in alternate directions?

Thanks Jules!

[ooheadsoo]

For that "deeeeep" shine.  Don't you love cabinetry?

[Rocket]

Hi Darren,

Any chance you could locate an eager beaver electric spray gun you could use.  The finish can be quite good using this type of equipment.

Regards

Rod

[DSK]

ooheadsoo - I love working with wood (though rarely get the chance), I just lack experience in painting with anything other than a roller.

Rocket - ROTFLMAO ... I haven't yet mastered a scooter and you want me to drive a 21 wheeler?    Seriously though,  I have nothing to use as a booth. Plus, if I master the brush then I'll come out of this project with a new skill as well as a very nice set of speakers. That would be very satisfying.

[Rick Craig]

After several requests for information I've finally added the SSR page on our site. I would strongly advise anyone looking for a 2-way with a ribbon tweeter to consider this speaker - it's that good. I'll put it up against any similar 7" 2-way on the market; in fact, you could add a 10" AuraSound woofer and make an outstanding 3-way if desired.

[jules]

Ah the pain of it Darren   !

The thing is, a layer of paint applied by a brush is a pretty variable thing. The thickest bit might be 10 units where the thinnest bit might be one. This is unavoidable and it's also the reason you need to apply lots of coats [and more than the blokes at Bunnings would usually suggest]. That's the bad news.

The good news is that you don't need to sand each time you put a coat on. Refer back to my original post but the idea is that you build up a few layers of paint before you take to it with the paper. If you try to do it each time you apply a coat you get nowhere fast.

Think of it like this ... if you apply one coat and have to sand it back to even you take it back from 10 units to 1 unit. If you apply three coats, there's a cerain amount of averaging goes on so the minimum thickness might be 10 units rather than just 3. When you sand now, you are only taking off 2/3 of what you did rather than 90%   I'd suggest you don't do coats across because although it seems as though it might smooth things it seems to add another set of ridges that complicate the issue.

NO ... don't use an orbital, they make horrible little circles that never seem to disappear.

Corners are tricky but the closer you can get to going along them rather than up to them, the better it works. You might find you can do a sort of diagonal sweep starting from the edge but running into a vertical [straight up and down] on the face.

The other thing to be careful about is to make sure you get rid of the paint brush ridges with your first [200?] sanding. If the aint gone then, the won't go later with the finer grades. The same applies to each successive sanding. You need to make sure that you cover all the ground with the 300 grade that you covered with the 200 etc etc. You do not want to get to the end of the process to find that you still have either brush stroke marks or 200 grit scratches. To get those out, you have to go right back to the start.

Thanks for the space Rick ... they look like a great system  

edit ... You'll certainly need to sand the last coat [or last three coats]. It's going to be as irregular as the first. I haven't tried clear with this system but I imagine the same rules would apply.

I've only just looked back at this thread and in retrospect I probably shouldn't have posted my reply here ... I did try to reply initially in another "painting" thread that DSK started but for some reason my post kept being rejected ... system glitch I guess.

jules