[srb]

I'm only speculating, because I don't own a GR speaker with those drivers.  But as high or much better value as the drivers may be, I am doubtful that they are the very finest that can be had, particularly with respect to power handling, excursion and SPL.
 
Aside from specs and theory, in the end only a side-by-side comparison would be valid for each listener.
 
Steve

[Jonathon Janusz]

I had neos at my place - I liked them, but would like more resolution, more finesse and more bass ... also I think I am used to fabric dome tweeter ...

Just a question (for comparison's sake) - were the neos you had top-shelf everything internally, or were they one of the traveling pairs?  I'm only asking because it came up before the pruning of the other thread, and Danny had mentioned that the traveling pairs could be taken up a few notches with some of the advertised internal upgrades done.

I would really like a purpose built pair of ref monitors with matching pair of 8" subs voiced as such ... for music (would buy it for home theater but use it for music    )

The "X-Pro" Danny described earlier sounds like on paper getting close to the idea.  That with a pair of tiny servo subs using Brian/Rhythmik's sealed box paper cone 8" drivers sound about right?

I really like the looks, specs and what I read about Vapor audio ...
Now that looks like a ref speaker 

Me too!  I would like to check them out in person some time, and meet the maker, just to see exactly what kind of crazy (in a good way  ) it takes to cram that much awesome into that amount of money (and again, if some of the thoughts folks have been kicking around here is any indication, he should be charging a heck of a lot more!)

[saisunil]

Value is still the key in current economic environment ...
If I were after Vapor audio I would just go get Vapor but then why not? Price ...

In short I am just anxiously waiting for Danny best effort that may be too far out in the time horizon for this impatient hobby - end of the year!!!

[Danny Richie]

An interesting discussion. I would guess that there are so many ways of looking at it that it's next to impossible to get more than a couple of people to agree on whatever solution is presented.

Two way design featuring: The "finest tweeter", the "finest woofer", absulutely highest quality crossover parts and design, optimal cabinet that takes time alignment into considearation. Not sure on the binding post. Internal high quality wire. No rez or equivalent on the inside of the cabinet. xcellent quality control on each component. Designed for phase coherency. Solid wood for the enclosure.

Let's see; who determines what is "best" for any of this? What kind of frequency response on the bottom end is acceptable in a mini monitor? What is the best size for a mini monitor? A litltle bit bigger for more bottom end? A bit smaller for more placement ease? Material for each driver? Which caps/coil etc. is best for the crossover? Substrate material? Near-field design consideration? - opens up even more issues.

The list is long and open to different opinion at every step. Several manufacturers already claim to have the best drivers - there is no absolute concensus (contrary to the earlier discussion which gave that distinction to the RAAL)

Let's look at each of those aspects and discuss them individually.

Let's start this with a discussion on the cabinet design.

Lets look at examples of cabinet types and their merits. Feel free to name names and post picks and links to anything you want.

I would also like to state from the beginning that my sales and my products are DIY kits. I don't offer finished speakers. So I don't see companies like any of those mentioned previously as my competition. They simply don't offer what I offer or cater to the market that my products fall into.

So if any of the other manufacturers, like Turbo (Rynn from Vapor), AJ, or others want to contribute or share there experiences and reasons that they went the direction that they went, then that will be fine. So long as everything is kept on an informative level and sharing of experiences (just like the last thread was actually) and not salesmanship than all is fine here.

[Danny Richie]

Although it took an odd road to get here. . . (and if we really do get into a discussion on high-end mini monitors, maybe a thread title change is in order?)

Seeing as I'm potentially very interested in the idea of top-shelf small speakers, maybe the same question from a different angle, keeping on-topic and maybe a bit focused in Danny's circle:

Take the N2X.  Do it all-in: 

Sonicaps/platinums (or even more exotic if Danny were to have an all but unlimited budget to pick from and would go another direction)

stacked laminated cabinets with either isolated crossover chambers or separate external crossovers, fully lined in no-rez with 2" thick solid wood baffles

premium exotic veneer (or not if you're going for the stacked look) with a full mirror gloss piano finish by hand

only the best for internal wire and tube connectors (I know boutique binding posts would be more high-end jewelry to fawn over in a professional review, but we all know Danny's opinion on these, and we are talking about top shelf performance as well as build quality)

hand measured and individually matched values for drivers and crossover parts

Just to keep this an apples to apples comparison, professionally built out by someone like Ruben, Randall, Peter, Ron. . . and sold through a dealer network to really call it a "production" model speaker.

Then we need to give it a price of $$$$.  I have no idea what the math would really be, but just to hang in this kind of company, let's just say it needs to sit somewhere comfortably in four figures, if not sneaking up on five.


Now, the question asked that started this/the original thread, asked the other way, what in particular would cause the speaker described above NOT to hang in the same company as the other ultra high end speakers discussed?

Let's say for the sake of the discussion that the N2X is a top level "kit". While it can easily be taken to levels that make it comparable with many cost no object speakers, let's omit that aspect from the discussion.

And it was built or designed to get you 95% of the way there as far as the best of the best, but it was also designed to be bang for the buck and to hit a price point of affordability.

We can reference it or any of my other designs, but let's omit value based merits for now and really explore what it takes to reach the top levels.

[tabrink]

[
Awesome!!!
That's what I am talking about.
Vapor, SAM,  etc
 
quote author=Danny Richie link=topic=103720.msg1055217#msg1055217 date=1329843513]
Let's look at each of those aspects and discuss them individually.

Let's start this with a discussion on the cabinet design.

Lets look at examples of cabinet types and their merits. Feel free to name names and post picks and links to anything you want.

I would also like to state from the beginning that my sales and my products are DIY kits. I don't offer finished speakers. So I don't see companies like any of those mentioned previously as my competition. They simply don't offer what I offer or cater to the market that my products fall into.

So if any of the other manufacturers, like Turbo (Rynn from Vapor), AJ, or others want to contribute or share there experiences and reasons that they went the direction that they went, then that will be fine. So long as everything is kept on an informative level and sharing of experiences (just like the last thread was actually) and not salesmanship than all is fine here.
[/quote]

[Danny Richie]

Just a question (for comparison's sake) - were the neos you had top-shelf everything internally, or were they one of the traveling pairs?  I'm only asking because it came up before the pruning of the other thread, and Danny had mentioned that the traveling pairs could be taken up a few notches with some of the advertised internal upgrades done.

Yes, I can take them up several levels. What takes them, or any other speaker up to the next level will be some good focus points of the discussion.

And let's really look at the guts of what is available. Who is using what that really makes a difference verses just a pretty package on the outside.

[nickd]

A few years back at CES I heard a nice pair of stand mounted monitors using an ATD woofer and the "Super Revelator" tweeter in a nice box (stacked plywood aluminum baffle). Two drivers I never much cared for, but the sound floored me. The nice gentleman showing his tube gear said they were on loan and went for "25". I sought out a pair to buy, thinking I had found a great speaker for 2500 bucks a pair. When I found out they were $25,000.00 I felt more than a little stupid 

Not sure how he did it, but the "magic" was there. More than a sum of the parts I think. The price? Really? Not for me!

[SoCalWJS]

This could be fun and interesting. It should be educational as a minimum. My 2 cents comes strictly from being a fan of good audio since at least my freshman year in High School when I got serious and saved up/worked(and conned) my way into my first decent stereo about a year later. One of my first jobs was as a Stockboy in a stereo store, which turned into a sales position a bit later. I saw a whole bunch of gear.

I would say that given the DIY design as a basic rule to the whole thing makes a few concessions right off the bat. Exotic materials (or even metal frames) can be probleamtic. Most people are unwilling or unable to work with them.

If you are trying for a true high end mini monitor, it has to stand out from the pack in some way. Pride of ownership can be a strong factor, but this can be achieved in many ways. Appearance and performance are the two that I value, while others seem to focus on how much a piece costs. 

I would think that a truly unique shape , or something even similar to the Vapor Cirrus, is difficult for the average DIY'er to achieve. It would have to be uniquie in a different manner. Can a mini monitor be open baffle? I don't know. What about other designs such as electrostatic? I think that would also be tough to get good performance in a reasonably sized enclosure that  would still be considered a mini monitor.

I keep coming back to the idea of something similar to the Super V, with extremely high quality drivers, but in a smaller package.

Something that the new rumored drivers could be used in?

[HT cOz]

Double post

[Danny Richie]

I think we might all agree that a solid non-resonant cabinet is ideal. Which of the better ones come to mind? Stacked Baltic Birch and Aluminum models have been mentioned. How about really thick and well braced MDF? How much is enough to make them dead quiet?

Post pics of your favorites.

[jeffh]

And let's really look at the guts of what is available. Who is using what that really makes a difference verses just a pretty package on the outside.

Isn't it really all about picking the right drivers and then the ability of the speaker designer to design the optimal crossover?

[Danny Richie]

How about solid Granite:

[Danny Richie]

Isn't it really all about picking the right drivers and then the ability of the speaker designer to design the optimal crossover?

There is a lot more to it than that. What if the right drivers don't exists? Not to many of the more expensive models don't even use off the shelf drivers. Cabinet design makes a big difference too. Nothing destroys a speakers sound faster than a resonating box. 

[HT cOz]

I think we start by defining a monitor:
   1). Two way design
   2). Boxed for bass extension

Now we move onto the problem.  This pic illustrates what we are trying to cover with just two drivers.





I think OB is out because it seems to always take at least 3 drivers to be able to play low enough into the bass region.

So the two approaches seem to be:
1). Use high quality tweeter like a Raal or Neo with a nice mid bass and design a crossover that can blend the two together as well as possible
2). Use a wave guide with a dome tweeter to play as low as 1000hz and then cross over to a bass/mid driver to fill in the lower octaves.

The first approach has air and speed in the top region that approach two does not have and the second approach has a coherence that the first approach does not have.

Building a box comes down to mass and internal design.  I can't imagine anyone doing much better than Vapor in this regard.  They have a speaker for design 1 & 2.  SP Tech is built like design 2.  The other approach is using the box to resonate.  I can't think of any speakers that use this approach off the top of my head.

In diy, Dannys kit with the stacked laminate seems like the best way to go.  Danny might have some new kits coming that raise the bar.

My only question is what about a airy tweeter with a waveguide can you have it all?  None of these designs gets the ultimate in dynamics and sensitivity.   

Seems like a bunch of tradeoffs.

My view from the outside looking in,
Robert

[nickd]

Totem uses a "lively" box and uses no dampening (eg. foam or fiberfill) he uses borosilicate dampening (some kind of high tech undercoat like stuff) on veneered plywood. He gets darn good midrange out of the model ones and the new element series.

My self, I like a solid box and shape is important. I tend to like deeper boxes better. Less reflection coming back through the mid woofer??  Odd shapes tend to help break up standing waves too.

BTW Danny. Do you own a piano made out of granite? Looks nice I agree. Too HARD for me. I have been wanting to play with Phoenolic materials (like Wilson) but the cost and difficulty (like cutting steel) have stopped me thus far.

I haven't heard an aluminum enclosure I have liked so far. Maybe someday.

[nrenter]

I'll play...

I'm a big fan of this forum, even though I've never owned any of Danny's designs. I do own a pair of Green Mountain Audio Callisto speakers.



The Callistos sport an Aurasound-built 6-inch paper/carbon-fiber cone drivers with ultra-linear suspension, vented underhung Kapton voice coil and a shielded, radially magnetized neodymium-iron-boron magnet. The tweeters, sourced from Morel, are 28mm polymer-coated linen domes with a large rear chamber. The unit is encased in a cast marble chamber and mechanically damped. The crossover is, of course, a 1st order design electrically and acoustically and consists of a Sonicap film capacitor and Solen Litz inductor. The crossover point is 2850Hz.

I augment these monitors with a pair of small Martin Logan Dynamo subs. I really, really love these monitors. However, I am tempted to trade-up to the Eos HD speakers.

I wanted to bring the GMA designs to light as we're beginning the discussion with interesting approaches to cabinet design.

[Danny Richie]

I'll through another question at you guys.

What if the box goes all the way to the floor to do away with the need for a stand? Like this:



Still in the discussion or is it now a floor standing speaker?

I must admit I have designed a few like this myself. The X-LS and X-LS Encore that I designed for AV123 morphed into the X-SLS and X-SLS Encore to gain more low end extension.



This one comes to mind too:

2.  The other approach is using the box to resonate.  I can't think of any speakers that use this approach off the top of my head.

Unless I am mistaken I think Harbeth and Reference 3A fall into that category. Some deliberately create a little resonance right in the mid-range to give added bloom.

[Danny Richie]

BTW Danny. Do you own a piano made out of granite?

Nope, ours is an old upright made from resonating wood.    My mom and dad's baby grand is the same (wood). I think they all are aren't they. Then again they are musical instruments and not used for music reproduction.

[nrenter]

What if the box goes all the way to the floor to do away with the need for a stand?

I'd say it's out. IMHO, the 2-way floorstander is the worst of both worlds.  You're forcing the woofer to stroke enough to put out low end, and the low end isn't that great (again, IMHO).

I'm surprised there isn't a market for a 24" to 30" tall powered eq'd sub that could double as a speaker stand. But that's another topic all together.