Certainly an option, the main issues would be finding a small amp, you need to get power to your speakers now, and it adds costs.
-Paul
IMO there would be little benefit to add a speaker line/product that has the same or close to price point as what you already have. Keep it simple and less expensive
I agree, that is why I am hesitant. I want to keep the price reasonable with the same design foundations as the Ronin.
Now, to answer some of the questions:
In my experience this type of bass characteristic is easier to mate with a subwoofer and is easier to live with in the long run even if the low end extension is compromised.
I agree, however, the low end will not be very compromised in this situation, from rough prelim testing, I am getting F3's in the very low 40's. This is really quite good for a sealed box, with the much shallower roll-off compared to ported or PR designs, it will actually have some deep bass performance.
Sensitivity?
The downside to the above (a rather low F3 in a small-ish enclosure) will be lower sensitivity. If I stick with an 8 ohm design, the 2.83 V sensitivity will probably end up in the 84dB range, If go to a 4-ohm woofer, they will obviously require more current, but their 2.83V sensitivity will be back up to the 87dB range, but 1W sensitivity will remain at 84.
The large standmount design is represented by three great sounding speakers which I favor, the VMPS 626, Lipinsky 707 and the Earthworks (larger model). It once held a large place in the market and I feel with its inherant flexibility of use, is due for a big return. Perhaps with your coaxial approach they would work with a shorter stand? Great looking design!
Well, once they are on a stand, you can pick and choose whatever stand height you want!! I feel that they will always sound bet with the tweeters pretty close to ear level.
2. Would you use the same bamboo construction? Do you plan to offer hard wood/veneer options as with the Ronins?
Well, bamboo is very expensive (about 6x what maple or birch ply costs and about 9x what MDF costs), I am thinking about it, but it would be a good option. The first pair will be done up in some pretty nice maple 13-ply plywood. Much of the speaker is built with 'layers' so the whole back section you will actually be seeing the layers of wood stacked next to eachother, it makes the speaker incredibly strong.
As to veneer/solid woods, these will be killer to veneer with all of the faces, but anything can be done. We will see here, there are always alternatives with letting a little bit of the plywood peek through in the impossible spots etc. Maybe a tiered pricing/construction system with ply, bamboo, then veneer/hardwood.
1. Any estimates on the amp power required to drive these adequately? I assume it would be about the same as the Ronins. I think it would be great if you could come up with an option of an adjustable external active crossover box (or maybe use a Marchand crossover) and the further option to bi-amp with a separately powered woofer, so the mid and tweeter drivers could be driven together by a much smaller amp (like Vinnie's RWA Sig 30 or 70 monos ,or a tube amp of 20+ wpc). I personally would rather avoid the expense and extra A-D/D-A conversions of the 6-channel DEQX set-up. I probably would want to use a separate powered sub, so this active crossover box could handle that as well.
I am sure that for most listening environments, something like the RWA Sig 70 would work absolutely great without bi-amping. Someday I will buy myself a 20 watt tube amplifier to start playing with for testing. If anyone ever wants to do an active cross between the mid/tweet and woofer, I would have no problem designing the active crossover, I have designed circuits like this plenty of times.
As to the DEQX type system, It actually sounds WAY better than I thought doing A-D/D-A, but it does have digital inputs which get around this and then you are using your CDP / Squeezebox as a transport, it stays digital through the whole crossover then goes D-A at the end, single conversion just like always.
As to the whole external active crossover, it is certainly possible like all things, it simply adds a couple hundred bucks to the price and requires one to have 4 channels of amplification.
I really like this design for a smaller listening room, especially in near-field. Perhaps by moving the drivers closer together you'll be able to achieve even better imaging off-axis and integration of timing.
The Sentinel will definitely be better in the true nearfield. The Ronins require a listening distance of about 7 feet or more due to the driver separation. This is really true with most floor standers anyways. The Sentinel would allow true 3-4 foot nearfield listening. If you are listening from the nearfield I suspect 20 watts would be enough to make your ears bleed.
Well, let the designing begin.
Paul Hilgeman
