AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Salk Signature Sound => Topic started by: Rick Craig on 31 Aug 2005, 12:36 pm
-
I was reading Jim's reply to Marbles question about whether DEQX system beat Dennis Murphy's passive crossover system. In it he states that many woofers have rising response below 100Hz and that contributes to weakness in midbass if the upper/mids are matched to bass response below 100Hz.
Armed with this information, I changed my subwoofer low pass frequency to 80Hz from 50Hz and vice versa for the highpass on my RM40s. So, I am band passing the RM40 woofers between 80Hz to 300 Hz. All of this is wit ...
I read the original post and what Jim has observed is due to one of three things (or any combination of the following):
1) Poorly tuned cabinet - wrong volume and / or port length.
2) Wrong passive crossover - in particular the DCR of any series inductors used as well as the effects of shunt capacitors. This is one area where an active crossover is superior because it won't introduce these changes to the response curve.
3) A woofer with a large amount of voice coil inductance - especially when the inductance starts to increase at a fairly low frequency (common in subwoofer drivers with a long voice coil).
With proper design of the enclosure tuning and crossover there's no reason why such a peak cannot be eliminated. In some cases it would be better to switch to a different woofer. An example would be if you were trying to use a driver optimized for subwoofer use as a woofer in a 3-way design. I don't know if this applies to the VMPS speakers not having measured them. Hope this helps.
Rick
-
Rick, I guess no other speaker maker is as talented as you :roll:
It's my understanding that the FR of the woofer gradually decreases from about 100 hz to the approximate XO point of 250 where it is about 3db down.
The speaker is still + - 3 DB over the 29HZ - past hearing range.
At the 250hz and below range, room modes are more important to me than this slight dip in FR.
-
I am pretty sure the TC sound 10" driver that Jim is using employs a Faraday ring like the TC2+ does, and thereby does not have rising inductance with frequency. My guess is that 3 is not part of the problem if there is one.
-
Rick, I guess no other speaker maker is as talented as you :roll:
I think Rick is the least talented of the speaker designers that I have dealt with :-).
Looking at his offering, I realized a long time ago that he has no "gut" at all. His designs rarely stress any particular parts beyond their most linear range. Most designers would try their best to use the least amount of parts to cover the entire audio range to keep cost down (this is where a lot of creativity comes in) but not Rick. His phylosophy happens to coinside with my "chicken" view when purchase speaker unheard. I guess I got bit too many times in the past believing in some thing too good to be true and turn out not to be. In the end, it is all about trade off and value for my money so I takes the safest route now aday :-).
-
I am pretty sure the TC sound 10" driver that Jim is using employs a Faraday ring like the TC2+ does, and thereby does not have rising inductance with frequency. My guess is that 3 is not part of the problem if there is one.
Actually if you look at the rating for the TC 10" driver at the O Audio site you'll see that it's 2.8mh at 1K. Please note I'm not saying this is bad - it's just inherent with drivers of this type. I imagine the large amount of moving mass in these woofers is also responsible for some of the downward slope. Whatever the reason it could be factored in when optimizing the crossover points and slopes.
-
Actually if you look at the rating for the TC 10" driver at the O Audio site you'll see that it's 2.8mh at 1K. Please note I'm not saying this is bad - it's just inherent with drivers of this type. I imagine the large amount of moving mass in these woofers is also responsible for some of the downward slope. Whatever the reason it could be factored in when optimizing the crossover points and slopes.
Does any one know what version of TC10 Jim uses for the HT3?
It could be a customed made version of the typical TC10 which designed exclusively for Jim/DM to meet HT3 design goal. I would like to see a near field measurement of the HT3 and the data sheet of Salk Audio's TC10.
-
We can talk shop all day but the proof is in the sound. Anyone that wants to can come by for a listen is welcome.
If this is a flawed speaker I feel sorry for 99% of the other speakers out there.
Enough said :wink:
-
We can talk shop all day but the proof is in the sound. Anyone that wants to can come by for a listen is welcome.
If this is a flawed speaker I feel sorry for 99% of the other speakers out there.
Enough said :wink:
All speakers has flaws. It just a matter of how much and where the trade off are. I have not heard the HT3 so there is a possibility that I could be wrong :-).
-
Does any one know what version of TC10 Jim uses for the HT3?
It could be a customed made version of the typical TC10 which designed exclusively for Jim/DM to meet HT3 design goal. I would like to see a near field measurement of the HT3 and the data sheet of Salk Audio's TC10.
From the www.salksound.com website:
We matched the quality of the G2 and W18 by working closely with the engineers at TC Sounds to create the 989. This extremely low distortion driver plays authoritatively deep in a relatively small enclosure. The massive motor size and 21mm of XMAX are indicative of its excellent power-handling capabilities with minimal distortion. This design allows the HT3 to operate at a nominal 8-ohms.
I feel that these salk posts are in bad taste in the VMPS circle and should be split from the main posts to a seperate thread in either the 2 channel or Salk circle.....
-
Does any one know what version of TC10 Jim uses for the HT3?
It could be a customed made version of the typical TC10 which designed exclusively for Jim/DM to meet HT3 design goal. I would like to see a near field measurement of the HT3 and the data sheet of Salk Audio's TC10.
The woofer is already a custom model. Specifically, the Salk Sounds HT3 drivers are:
-Tweeter: Aurum Cantus G2 ribbon, 96 db sensitive into 8 ohms
- Midrange: Seas W18EX, 91 db sensitive into 8 ohms
- Woofer: TC Sounds 989 woofer (custom specified modification of the dual voice coil TC2+ 10" woofer), 86 db sensitive into 8 Ohms when the dual 4 Ohm voice coils are configured in series[/list:u]
This has been a pretty good discussion on speaker design tradeoffs so far, but it should probably be moved to a more general circle so that all of the manufacturing parties involved can contribute freely.
-
Rick, I guess no other speaker maker is as talented as you :roll:
It's my understanding that the FR of the woofer gradually decreases from about 100 hz to the approximate XO point of 250 where it is about 3db down.
The speaker is still + - 3 DB over the 29HZ - past hearing range.
At the 250hz and below range, room modes are more important to me than this slight dip in FR.
I never said the dip was a problem. I was trying to help someone that was trying to make a change to their VMPS speaker based on the wrong information.
Where are the response curves for the HT3? You're correct, room modes will tend to swamp out a small peak in this area. A single 10" driver placed that far off the ground will be more susceptible to room modes.
-
I think Mr. Salk and Mr. Craig would be better occupied addressing the flaws in their own designs, rather than speculating about mine.
High order filters and metal cone drivers are about as far from my way of doing things as they can possibly be. Suffice to say I cannot abide either approach. Consumers can listen and decide for themselves.
-
I think Mr. Salk and Mr. Craig would be better occupied addressing the flaws in their own designs, rather than speculating about mine.
High order filters and metal cone drivers are about as far from my way of doing things as they can possibly be. Suffice to say I cannot abide either approach. Consumers can listen and decide for themselves.
-
To be fair to Jim Salk, he (to my knowledge) has never commented publicly about any VMPS speaker.
He was comparing his passively XO'd HT3 with an actively XO'ed one using the DEQX.
Woodysi took the info Jim supplied from this comparison and applied it to his RM40/sub setup.
-
Consumers can listen and decide for themselves.
This is a very good advise.
I did listenned and decided for myself. In the end, what matter most is owners long term satisfaction. It is unfortunate that it will be very difficult to discuss the pros and cons of any speaker design in public without offending some one/s (ie...designers, current owners). Maybe a discustion of a generic woofer impedance and response curve and what trade offs could be make to get the most performance out of the woofer will be much easier an hopefully not upseting any one.
I would like to learn from the designers about the tradeoffs and how they decided on these trade-offs. I am hoping that the more educate I am in speaker design the better choice I will make for my next pair of speakers (Yes, I am looking for a third pair of speakers to anchor the last audio room in what will be my new house in December). I wish speaker design is a little bit simplier like electronic so I can relate a bit easier.
-
I normally do not respond to posts such as these, but I felt compelled to set the record straight with regard to two of the previous posts.
Brian Cheney:
I have not (and will never) comment publicly about VMPS (or any other manufacturer's) speakers. The fact is, VMPS has many satisfied and loyal owners who enjoy their speakers. In the end, that is the ONLY thing that is important.
The second comment I have relates to Rick Craig's earlier posts. When I talked about a rising response, I perhaps did not explain it well enough and caused some confusion.
There are no speakers in a world with a laser-flat frequency response. But with a good design, these peaks and valleys are maintained well within a +/- 3 db range. With the HT3's, they are typically within 1 1/2 db.
As any HT3 owner can attest, there are no problems with cabinet size, port tuning or crossover design. I was simply pointing out that DEQX can correct for even these small diviations and the results are audible.
- Jim
-
A while back I decided I'd build a world class speaker. Bought the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook and started talking to people on the Partsexpress diy forum. I'm no genius but far from stupid. Not considering the money involved I learned trying to design a speaker is a long way from simple. I got far enough into it that added up costs. Cost for a 3 way speaker that needs a sub would have been over 3k. That's over 3k on a bet more or less. Odds are high that doing this would have been a nightmare and expensive one at that.
The most important thing I learned is that it's a rare consumer indeed that really knows much when it comes to speaker design. I've noticed a few of us are fairly knowledgeable for consumers but that's it. If anybody would like the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook send me your address and you can have it. I'll ship for free.
I also suggest going on the Partsexpress or Madisound boards and asking people who've been building their own speakers for years how easy they think it is, at least to do well. A two way is the most I was recommended as a novice. That with the reality that I could spend a significant amount of money trying to get the crossover right. This after whoever I bought the drivers from plugged the info into their computer and gave the theoretical ideal. One guy said he must have spent five hundred bucks trying to get the crossover right on his first two way.
Best of luck to anybody who thinks they can do better than anyone who's been doing it for a living for years, or decades in Brian's case.
-
A while back I decided I'd build a world class speaker. Bought the Loudspeaker Design Cookbook and started talking to people on the Partsexpress diy forum. I'm no genius but far from stupid. Not considering the money involved I learned trying to design a speaker is a long way from simple. I got far enough into it that added up costs. Cost for a 3 way speaker that needs a sub would have been over 3k. That's over 3k on a bet more or less. Odds are high that doing this would have been a nightmare and expe ...
I couldn't have written my own thoughts any better than this! I agree completely. Previously I had romantic notions of thoroughly studying all the xo design info I could get my grubby little hands on, getting the best drivers and xo parts, and building a high-end speaker. However, the further I investigated it, the more questions I had. As I studied further to answer these questions, I came up with even more. It also became apparent that there are no texts, or even combinations of texts, with sufficiently comprehensive information to enable someone to design a high-end speaker.
Initially I thought the typical "build a kit" response on the speaker design forums was just a brush off or lazy response. Now, I have come to the realisation that it is probably almost impossible to design a high-end speaker (especially multi-way) without a great deal of study, practise, experience, and decent test equipment and the knowledge of how to use it properly. Cost aside, this would probably take years for anyone with a fulltime job.
However, the speaker design knowledge I have gained through this process enables me to more accurately select a pre-made speaker or speaker kit, designed and tested by an expert, that suits my requirements. So, I am less likely to make costly mistakes.
-
I wanted to comment on a few things outside the VMPS circle where I'm persona non grata...
I feel metal cone drivers are unlistenable, no matter how configured. They lack a crucial element for a good diaphragm material: self-damping. They ring at low frequencies and at harmonics of those frequencies. The high order filter slopes necessary to partially control said ringing have poor transient response and are a true ear strain over time. It matters nothing to me that some listeners aren't bothered by these massively intrusive problems.
I have personally heard several systems using metal cone woofers that were fantastic. This includes my current speakers, the main channels of which use four 8" Seas Excel W22EX magnesium cone drivers per side. They play from below 40hz to the lower midrange and do so superbly -- in fact the entire bass range is significantly more tight, weighty and tuneful compared to all my previous speakers, including two upper end VMPS models. And even though they are in individually sealed boxes, their extension (without the subs playing) approaches the big VMPS models running full range with their passive radiators.
I haven't heard the Salk speakers, but people whose ears I trust report they are not competitive sonically with any of our ribbon models, and I believe it.
Really ? Who would these people be ? Certainly none of the serious audiophiles who have recently migrated from VMPS to Salk, generally taking a big financial hit selling the VMPS. Presumably they felt otherwise, and some even had the VMPS and Salk in the same room with the same equipment and could have sent the Salk back for a refund.
Beyond sonics, there are some areas where there seems to be no comparison between these two brands, including overall construction technique, attention to detail, fit n' finish, and quality control. I suspect anyone who has owned both could elaborate if asked.
-
I normally do not respond to posts such as these, but I felt compelled to set the record straight with regard to two of the previous posts.
Brian Cheney:
I have not (and will never) comment publicly about VMPS (or any other manufacturer's) speakers. The fact is, VMPS has many satisfied and loyal owners who enjoy their speakers. In the end, that is the ONLY thing that is important.
The second comment I have relates to Rick Craig's earlier posts. When I talked about a rising response, I perhaps di ...
I apologize for this thread getting out of hand. It wasn't my place to help a VMPS owner and I should've left that to Brian. Please don't think Jim that I wanted to imply that this is a significant problem with your speaker; in fact, there are more important things to talk about and this pales in comparison. We have our families, food, water, and a house to sleep in tonight. Many people suffering from Katrina would love to trade places with us right now.
-
Well,
I feel partially (perhaps entirely) responsible for some of the development here. I did not start the thread to disparage anyone's speakers. I am, like so many here, am always fiddling with what I have to try new things to hopefully improve what I hear. I am very aware that I have no expertise on speaker building but I am trying to understand how mine and others work. Through it all I am not dissing anyones speakers. Only thing I want to know is to understand what choices were made in the building process so that I can appreciate the strong points and adjust my gear including my room acoustics to minimize or cover the weak points. Surely no speaker is perfect!
Cheers and happy listening!
-
DSK: I also got the "build a kit" response and also felt it was a blow off. Then you keep pushing and find out that these guys aren't kidding.
I was going to use a 72" BG Ribbon as I'd heard two designs that had used them and thought they would be a good driver. Also I knew of good speakers that used them. In both cases only the midrange sounded ok. Neither had a tweeter and the bass was AWFUL on both systems. What's funny is these guys had the opinion that buying speakers was stupid and that they could do a fine job themselves and save money. One of them was adamant on how stupid it is to not just buy the drivers and diy. I wonder why they both made apologies for their sound. :o
Both speakers were unlistenable they were so bad. I don't know the total cost but the 72" BG ribbons alone are about 1500 bucks. Those drivers definitely need a ribbon tweeter too imo and neither had one. The BG drivers sound rolled off in the highs on their own. So figure they both definitely had over 2k into their speakers, not to mention time and labor, that sounded awful. The main problem in both cases was the bass to ribbon transition. The value of either of those speaker systems is no more than the bare drivers because nobody after hearing them would pay a penny more, maybe less.
After all that I decided I will buy RM 40's. I'd heard them before deciding to try my world class speaker design. They sound no less than outstanding top to bottom and look great too. Those are the two most important aspects of speakers to me and the only sure way to get it is to buy them from someone who knows what they're doing. At this point my curiosity of speaker engineering has been put to rest.
-
While I don't think any speaker is perfect, I do have to say that I agree with Brian in that I've never heard a speaker with metal drivers that did not become unlistenable after a while. However, many people speak highly of the Salk systems, and I'd like to hear them myself and make my own decisions. As for Eric's comments, even though some people have had both VMPS and Salk in the same room and chose Salk, that still doesn't mean that Salk are good for everyone. When I heard zybar's system with the RM40s, I thought they were set up too aggressively and gratingly for my tastes, but zybar liked them that way (and ended up getting Salks). My RM40s are set up totally differently than zybar's -- I can't stand aggressive speakers, so I've done everything I can to get rid of any hint of brightness and aggressiveness. Marbles has Salks now, too and likes them better than RM40s. But because they like them better does not mean that everyone will. I've met many people who rave about B&Ws, yet I've never been able to listen to B&Ws -- in any system, regardless of components -- for any length of time. They just grate on me. Nonetheless, were anyone effusive about B&Ws, that's their perogative and while I wouldn't agree, I certainly wouldn't call them wrong.
There is no one correct speaker design. I personally am excited to be able to hear the Salks and hope to hear them soon. Metal drivers (assuming that the harmonics caused by such drivers can't be heard by a listener -- and I personally think that some people are more susceptible to this than others) certainly should add lightness and stiffness, which I think would be desirable in a driver. On the other hand, the ability to tune the VMPS speakers I think is highly desirable and one of the main reasons I bought the speakers. But then VMPS uses ribbons, which tend to be beamier and lack the "body" produced by cones. Nonetheless, properly designed ribbons can be extremely fast and articulate, if one likes that sound. Further, beamy can be good, as there's less interaction with the room (which is also a detriment - the sweetspot is smaller than cones). And we could argue for days about crossover design. (Though I tend more toward first order than higher order designs -- the speakers I like tend to have first order crossovers, like Thiel, Wilsons, etc.)
I think competition is good, and anyone would be happier with Salk, VMPS, or any of the speakers on this forum than with the generic, high end speakers sold elsewhere. When you consider that my Linn 5140s, which I really like by the way -- my friend and I listened to many speakers before he chose those (and then I purchased them from him), cost more than either the Salk or the VMPS RM40s (not upgraded), and yet are blown away by the RM40s (and probably are blown away by the Salks), then we have every right to be happy.
As for whether Brian is right, or Jim is right, or Rick is right, I personally do not have the knowledge (even with an MSEE) to judge. I can only hope that they each do the best job they can and continue to improve their products so that I, as a consumer of such products, will benefit.
-
While I don't think any speaker is perfect, I do have to say that I agree with Brian in that I've never heard a speaker with metal drivers that did not become unlistenable after a while
Try listening to Joseph Audio or the Salk Veracity standmounts or QW. A different sound but certainly not grating.
Jim
-
I think Rick is the least talented of the speaker designers that I have dealt with :-).
Looking at his offering, I realized a long time ago that he has no "gut" at all. His designs rarely stress any particular parts beyond their most linear range. Most designers would try their best to use the least amount of parts to cover the entire audio range to keep cost down (this is where a lot of creativity comes in) but not Rick. His phylosophy happens to coinside with my "chicken" view when purchase speake ...
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
i have a pair of rick's speakers and they are the best ive ever had-
and he was a good guy to deal with-
-
Personally, I would like to stop seeing the vmps vs. salk. vs whatever threads that have taken over since several members of the forum changed their speakers. I am happy for those that have changed and been satisified, but, the bashing needs to stop and stop now. You guys wonder why there are not more younger audiophiles in this world, and I, being "young" in this sense, can tell you this is a HUGE reason as to why.
-
CornellAlum,
Since the ones doing the bashing have actually owned either the TOTL, or the second from the top speakers from VMPS, I think that gives them the right to bash....and I currently own the second from the top model.
A better question to ask is why they (we?) feel the need to bash...
I haven't seen where they (we?) bashed previous speakers owned, so why pick on VMPS?
If you get the answer to that question, then maybe you'll understand...or not.
-
Well put Marbles.
-
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
i have a pair of rick's speakers and they are the best ive ever had-
and he was a good guy to deal with-
Some one is actually picked up my sense of humor.
I built the Incredarray and the RC4 from Selah Audio. They worth every penny and time I put into them. To me all speakers are flawed in one way or another. It just a matter of which flaws I can live with and which one I cannot.
Come to think of it, there was a speaker that I used to own which I now feel that was way ahead of my time. In another word, I think I might be worthy to own such a speakers in about 20 more years :rotflmao:.
-
Some one is actually picked up my sense of humor.
I built the Incredarray and the RC4 from Selah Audio. They worth every penny and time I put into them. To me all speakers are flawed in one way or another. It just a matter of which flaws I can live with and which one I cannot.
Come to think of it, there was a speaker that I used to own which I now feel that was way ahead of my time. In another word, I think I might be worthy to own such a speakers in about 20 more years :rotflmao:.
I must say your first post had be puzzled. I knew you had a couple of his speakers and like them very much.
-
CornellAlum,
Since the ones doing the bashing have actually owned either the TOTL, or the second from the top speakers from VMPS, I think that gives them the right to bash....and I currently own the second from the top model.
A better question to ask is why they (we?) feel the need to bash...
I haven't seen where they (we?) bashed previous speakers owned, so why pick on VMPS?
If you get the answer to that question, then maybe you'll understand...or not.
Bingo!!
George
-
CornellAlum,
Since the ones doing the bashing have actually owned either the TOTL, or the second from the top speakers from VMPS, I think that gives them the right to bash....and I currently own the second from the top model.
A better question to ask is why they (we?) feel the need to bash...
I haven't seen where they (we?) bashed previous speakers owned, so why pick on VMPS?
If you get the answer to that question, then maybe you'll understand...or not.
Well, then can someone kindly explain to me the entire reason for the bashing in the first place because I clearly do not get it.
-
CornellAlum,
In order for anyone to explain, please point to us where anyone is bashing VPMS. I did not see anything. The first post was Rich trying to explain what happed to the HT3 (active vs passive X0) and then everyone got excited.
-
CornellAlum,
In order for anyone to explain, please point to us where anyone is bashing VPMS. I did not see anything. The first post was Rich trying to explain what happed to the HT3 (active vs passive X0) and then everyone got excited.
I believe Rick was bashing VMPS in the first post of this thread. I may be wrong but I doubt it. Rick and Brian have a history of being very "competitive" with each other and have been unable to play nice in the past. It's unfortunate because otherwise great speakers get a lot of negative publicity as a result. Jim Salk has been a gentleman and should serve as an example to other designer/manufacturers.
-
I can see why Brian would be edgey based on
a) the title of the thread could easily be intrepreted as a slam
b) the fact that Rick, with their previous history, was one of those commenting
Nonetheless, the reaction was a bit over the top, but there were some mitigating factors there.
Fortunately, ribbons and metal cones each do things differently and each do some things that are the same. To say that metal cones are problematic and ribbons are not is kinda like Pam Anderson is a slut, but Paris Hilton is a virgin. :)
-
Rick and Brian have a history of being very "competitive" with each other
Now this explains alot. I did not know they went wayyyy back. If this is the case, one can view the first post as a indirectly way of bashing VPMS.
-
Rick and Brian have a history of being very "competitive" with each other
Now this explains alot. I did not know they went wayyyy back. If this is the case, one can view the first post as a indirectly way of bashing VPMS.
In no way was I intending to bash VMPS.
-
I believe Rick was bashing VMPS in the first post of this thread. I may be wrong but I doubt it. Rick and Brian have a history of being very "competitive" with each other and have been unable to play nice in the past. It's unfortunate because otherwise great speakers get a lot of negative publicity as a result. Jim Salk has been a gentleman and should serve as an example to other designer/manufacturers.
There was no intention to bash VMPS but to help Brian's customer. I think a few people around here are more interested in protecting their egos than telling the truth.
-
You know I was exited to find some thing about woofer behavior and was hell bent on trying out on my pair because I was in position to change filter poles with my active crossover. What Jim posted dovetailed with what I was reading and I was excited. I tested my understanding on my speakers and it worked for me in my room with my particular acoustics for my ears. Rick, if he was trying to point out my misunderstanding, sure didn't spell out what it was. I am still not sure of Rick's point. I was in no way implying that either VMPS or Salk speakers were misdesigned. Without having heard HT3s, I wouldn't know, but people whose opinion I respect like them, bought them and are enjoying them. Kudos for Jim. I like the music my RM40s put out. I will, however, continue to tinker with my gear to improve the sound for my ears. I will continue to post about what I do with my system and what the results are. I will continue to peruse other forums and learn from postings there. But I will try to be a little more savvy about titles and wording so as not to invite this kind of development. Now I am going to treat myself to a glass of Hennessy Paradis (I need it with the in-laws arriving for a week) and enjoy my speakers..............
-
Rick Craig and I get along fine. Occasionally we get together to bash an unidentified third party we both detest.
I've never heard Rick's speakers.
-
I can see why Brian would be edgey based on
a) the title of the thread could easily be intrepreted as a slam
b) the fact that Rick, with their previous history, was one of those commenting
Nonetheless, the reaction was a bit over the top, but there were some mitigating factors there.
Fortunately, ribbons and metal cones each do things differently and each do some things that are the same. To say that metal cones are problematic and ribbons are not is kinda like Pam Anderson is a slut, but Paris Hilton is a virgin. :)
Most of my history with Brian has been due to our differences in design approach. I have nothing personal against him.
-
There goes my hope to arrange a charity grudge match at the RMAF. :D
-
P.H. a virgin? Where??
-
My apologies to Mr. Salk for my overreacting to posts by others. He seems like a fine gentleman.
-
Brian -
My apologies to Mr. Salk for my overreacting to posts by others. He seems like a fine gentleman.
Accepted. Thanks. No problem.
I simply hate bashing of any kind on forums. It is a waste of bandwidth and adds nothing to our common pursuit of audio perfection. I especially do not want my name or products associated with it.
We are all just trying to do the best we possibly can. Our pihlosophies and methodologies may not be the same, but our goals certainly are. And as long as owners of our respective products are thrilled with the results of our efforts, that is all that matters.
See you at RMAF. I'll buy the first round...
- Jim
-
Just send flowers, I'll understand.
I won't be at RMAF.
-
To get a another perspective on perhaps why Brian objects to metal cone drivers and others seem to like them take a look a North Creek' s George Short's struggle with the Seas driver:
http://www.northcreekmusic.com/Pegasus/Pegasus.htmt
-
The Seas Excel drivers with magnesium cones are certainly a design challenge. I was well aware of this when we developed the initial Veracity HT1's and all the subsequent Veracity designs.
But the reward for dealing effectively with these driver's challenges is detail and accuracy few speaker drivers can match. It is well worth the effort involved and, having addressed these issues, I wouldn't settle for anything less in this series of speakers.
- Jim
-
Implemented properly, the Excels have distortion and spectral decay properties that are simply embarrassing to ever other driver I've ever seen measured. I saw a Joseph Audio waterfall plot that was just gorgeous. I've been living with said driver in the Xd for several months and the precision, resolution and naturalness is simply astonishing. It's no wonder it's all over the place in so many speakers, despire the fact that not everyone does a great job of implementation. I don't think there's a plastic, paper, carbon fiber and certainly not kevlar cone that can match the Excel in a good implementation.
Ribbons, on the other hand, often have their own little demons, such as huge resonance peaks that need notch filters of their own. In the end, as usual, it comes down to implementation, not one material vs another.
-
I'm most pleased with the 8" W22EX magnesium cone woofers. There is no question that this is one of the premier driver lines available, particularly at its price point. They obviously require careful implementation, which not all designers are willing or capable of doing.