[Rick Craig]

As far as the rest I won't bother - time to let the speakers settle the issue 

You had the opportunity to do just that with your line arrays in front of thousands of people a few weeks ago, yet you didn't, which makes all this talk strictly academic.

I didn't bring any arrays this year because I wanted to show some other new designs.

Personally, I would have brought my flagship speakers to RMAF, but that's just me.

Cheers

Sure, some companies bring their $20K+ flagship speakers but how many people can afford that? In retrospect I do wish I had some arrays because several people asked about them. I can't afford to bring everything (you certainly know what large cabinets cost to build and ship) so I had to make a choice. Simple as that.

[Danny Richie]

If a lower crossover point is better then how come you didn't use the Neo8's in the Epiphany designs?

What makes you think a low crossover point wasn't used? And why would you even care?

Crossover points were 1kHz, 1.2kHz and 1.4kHz for those three models. It seamed to work pretty well. Two models were reviewed by the Absolute Sound. One was awarded an Editors Choice award and the other a Golden Ear award.

And yes they both have comb filtering in the top octave by virtue of the frequency's wavelength vs. the diaphragm length. Easy to measure.

It depends on distance and in this case is no different than the ribbons.

[Greggo]

Danny,

If you weren't designing to a price point, or considering margins required to sustain a business, would you still use the modified Neo8 or would you deal with the larger required number of Neo3.  I only ask because it looks like you were able to cross the Neo3 fairly low with Epiphany and I would expect a bit better high frequency performance from the 3 but maybe you would stay with the 8 due to upper mid performance...just wondering if you would  be willing to share your opinion there.

Also, I may be interested in the modified Neo8 you had made for your latest projects, is there any chance you will be making them available from your web site or is this just something you will consider on a case by case basis?

I am a big fan of Ricks designs but have also appreciated most of your posts that I have stumbled upon and also been interested in exploring the Neo planar options as well, I hope both of you guys feel comfortable that the marketplace will gladly support both of you and there is no need to clobber each other.... though I thoroughly enjoy such spirited debates  (this is not directed at you by the way, just posted as an open comment to all with differing opinions).

I was originally exploring the notion of Morel MDM-55 flanking each side of a Neo3 as each are the same height and together all three would only be 9.5 inches wide flange to flange (3.5 + 2.5 + 3.5), that would make for a hell of a radiating pattern and a lot of very fast moving cone area to cover from 600hz on up, but it would also mean close to 200 dollars per 3.5 inches of line height (x 16 for a 56 inch line is $3,200 per side, and then on to find a solution for the bass...)  but all those dome mids are probably complete overkill if you could cross on over to the Neo3 at 1,200 Hz or less.  I keep feeling that 2-way arrays are fairly compromised either in the bass or in the issues to cross to the tweeter so I am looking how to find any real benefit to going 3-way and then if it can be cost justifed (at DIY rates, defintely hard to justify at retail product rates). Anyways, just some thoughts.  Thinking very seriously about investing in a gigantic array project and then taking a year or two to afford the equipment to cross them over perfectly while I just cobble something together to protect the drivers adequately in the meantime.

Regards,

Greg Jensen

[Danny Richie]

If you weren't designing to a price point, or considering margins required to sustain a business, would you still use the modified Neo8 or would you deal with the larger required number of Neo3.  I only ask because it looks like you were able to cross the Neo3 fairly low with Epiphany and I would expect a bit better high frequency performance from the 3 but maybe you would stay with the 8 due to upper mid performance...just wondering if you would  be willing to share you opinion there.

Good question.

All money cost aside I would go with the Neo's over any other choices. But in a comparison with the Neo3's and 8's there are trade offs. The custom built Neo 8 dealt with everything and turned out really well. It cost less too.

However, I have already asked BG do a custom version of the Neo 3 as well. It still uses the same diaphragm (4 ohm) but I had them leave in all five rows of magnets (just like the standard version) but also add the dense felt material to the outer rows on the front side only. I just received 4 samples.

More drivers sharing the load and the use of the smaller and even lighter weight diaphragm should give lower distortion, and greater resolution. The top end is a little flatter and more extended as well.

Since they are capable of being crossed over near 1kHz in the line source application they still hit the target range very well.

The modified Neo 8's are not on my web site (I am not advertising them) but can be ordered by phone.