High sensitivity, open baffle, single ended lovers dream speaker...

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #80 on:** 9 Dec 2008, 08:06 pm »

Danny:

Maybe I missed it, but could you give a run down of the sound of this speaker now that you have lived with it for a while. Like a side by side comparison with say the OB or LS series.

I know you have stated it's great dynamics, but you felt it was not as fast as the Neo tweet in releasing notes, etc.

Have to say the other speaker that has my attention is the Abbey from Gedlee. Makes me wonder how good the P Audio tweet is in comparison to DE250-8 used in the Abbey. Both look like high sensitivity powerhouses, but at this point I seem to favor Danny's design with the point source and woofs going to 20 hz. Let's see a real western shoot out on these two speakers. That would be fun.

Thanks,

Rocket_Ronny

TomS · « **Reply #81 on:** 9 Dec 2008, 08:49 pm »

Ronny,

If comparing, you need to consider the Nathan/Abbey is intended to be used with an asymmetrically distributed box sub approach (3-4 of them), so they're quite different in execution top to bottom. Then there is the waveguide, foam insert, etc...

Tom

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #82 on:** 9 Dec 2008, 09:21 pm »

Hi Tom:

Yes I know they are quite different approaches, but I think similar results.

For me, I can get around not have 3 subs by inserting a Behringer ultracurve into the mix to adjust any bass issues. I think a more accurate approach than using multi subs.

To have the subs at the speakers, like in Danny's design, and with them going up to 220 hz, makes more sense for giving that floor to ceiling of sound effect, verses having subs in different locations. The Gedlee Abbey's to me might not give what I am looking for in that area. I could be wrong and would love to hear to find out for myself. Hard to rely on what others say as they might not even be concerned with what I am looking for in a speaker.

Did you hear the Summa's? What did you think of them if so?

Rocket_Ronny

TomS · « **Reply #83 on:** 9 Dec 2008, 09:25 pm »

Quote from: Rocket_Ronny on 9 Dec 2008, 09:21 pm

<snip>

Did you hear the Summa's? What did you think of them if so?

Rocket_Ronny

Not yet, but I'm fairly close to there, so one of these days

Danny Richie · « **Reply #84 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 01:42 am »

.

Quote

Maybe I missed it, but could you give a run down of the sound of this speaker now that you have lived with it for a while. Like a side by side comparison with say the OB or LS series.

I still haven't set up a back to back comparison as I am having too much fun with these to even move them out of the room. In fact I am enjoying these more than any other speaker to date.

Quote

I know you have stated it's great dynamics, but you felt it was not as fast as the Neo tweet in releasing notes, etc.

Now that they have burned in for a while I don't notice that issue any longer.

I did set up a Neo-1 speaker and listened to it in mono as a reference for a new speaker that I was working on for another company. I choose the Neo-1 speaker because it was tonally neutral (perfectly flat response) and balanced across the board. The speaker that I was working on was a three way design. So I was really listening for balance in the 300Hz range and down on the new speaker.

While the Neo-1 speaker sounded great, and I did listen to a piano recording or two, listening in mono is like hearing the sound come straight out of a box. Flicking back to the open baffle speaker (whatever we name that thing), even in mono, was like hearing a piano playing in my room.

Quote

Have to say the other speaker that has my attention is the Abbey from Gedlee. Makes me wonder how good the P Audio tweet is in comparison to DE250-8 used in the Abbey.

Well, I really don't want to take anything away from Mr. Gedlee. I think he is a brilliant man, but my impression of the speaker wasn't real favorable.

I heard it at the RMAF last year, or was it the year before? It might have been the year before last.

I was crusing some of the rooms with a few colleagues. They had gotten ahead of my and were coming out of that room as I was going in. They all told me at the door not to waste my time with this one as it was horrible. Regardless, I still wanted to hear them. They were right. It did sound pretty bad. I hate to say it, and if it were great, I'd say they were great.

However, Mr. Gedlee was demonstrating that one didn't need all that high end gear and fancy cables to get great sound. He was using a cheap CD player and a receiver or something. All cables were generic Walmart type stuff. Unfortunately is sounded just like all the gear. It sounded like a radio from a car and the highs sounded like they were playing through a rolled up sock.

Quote

Let's see a real western shoot out on these two speakers.

I am sure those things can sound a lot better than what I heard, but from what I heard almost anything at the show would have gunned them down before they could get their guns out of the holster.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #85 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 05:36 am »

Thanks Danny:

What I like about you is you truly call it the way you see, er, hear it.

But do those crazy P Audio drivers image? I mean really image.

You also described them as good in the detail department and fantastic in dynamics. What does good mean? I know you are not wanting to overstate anything, but just want to quantify good. Would you call an OB 5 as good in detail, or great?

Thanks again.

Rocket_draw partner_Ronny

gedlee · « **Reply #86 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 02:05 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 10 Dec 2008, 01:42 am

Quote
Have to say the other speaker that has my attention is the Abbey from Gedlee. Makes me wonder how good the P Audio tweet is in comparison to DE250-8 used in the Abbey.

Well, I really don't want to take anything away from Mr. Gedlee. I think he is a brilliant man, but my impression of the speaker wasn't real favorable.

I heard it at the RMAF last year, or was it the year before? It might have been the year before last.

I was crusing some of the rooms with a few colleagues. They had gotten ahead of my and were coming out of that room as I was going in. They all told me at the door not to waste my time with this one as it was horrible. Regardless, I still wanted to hear them. They were right. It did sound pretty bad. I hate to say it, and if it were great, I'd say they were great.

However, Mr. Gedlee was demonstrating that one didn't need all that high end gear and fancy cables to get great sound. He was using a cheap CD player and a receiver or something. All cables were generic Walmart type stuff. Unfortunately is sounded just like all the gear. It sounded like a radio from a car and the highs sounded like they were playing through a rolled up sock.

This is a rather outlandish thing to say. In my defense let me just ask poeple to go to my web site www.gedlee.com and read the reviews posted there. They obviuosly don't agree with Danny and several other attendees at RMAF didn't agree either (See Patrick Bateman over at DIY Audio). This kind of biased reporting of competitirs products is very unprofessional.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #87 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 02:40 pm »

Sorry Sir.

I like your design work, your engineering, and have been impressed with your writings. I just wasn't impressed with what I heard at that show and with the system you were using. I have no doubt that those speakers can sound much better than they did and stated so. And I was actually predisposed to like these speakers before hearing them so I was not biased against them.

I would also strongly contend that the electronics, front end to amps, cabling, and at a hotel like that, power conditioning, can all make a big difference, and I would strongly recommend that you use the best gear that you can get your hands on for a show so your speakers will sound the best that they can. You only get one chance to make a first impressions.

BTW, I'd love to give you another chance to change my impression of them.

goskers · « **Reply #88 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 02:55 pm »

Danny,

While I did not hear the setup at RMAF, I have had the opportunity to listen to the Summa's and Nathan's a handful of times at Dr. Geddes (not GedLee) home. These are the real deal. He still uses what I think are the same $200 in electronics that made them sound horrible at RMAF.

Geddes system is the most scientifically proven that I have seen available to the DIY community. From the room to speakers to electronics, nothing has been left to chance. Some of his thoughts differ from what I would call the current mainstream on AC. These differences have come to be because of design objectives and goals all of which have been tested through proven scientific methods with audibility in mind. To actually have data to back up every portion of a design choice versus subjective thoughts is a breath of fresh air to me.

Though I don't feel making comments about other possible competitors very nice, you are just giving an opinion. It is good to hear that you are open to giving these another listen.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #89 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 03:07 pm »

Goskers, Thanks for posting your thoughts. They are always welcome as are you Mr. Geddes.

One should not allow the opinion of one person having only heard them briefly in the poor conditions of a show to sway them form giving them a listen if they are interested in them.

Rocket_Ronny · « **Reply #90 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 03:50 pm »

Exactly. The Summa's still deserve a listen to all interested.

I would rather listen to the opinion of someone who tells it like they see it, rather than someone who just covers over things to be politically correct.

You know, like if you have friends over to listen to your system and they all say it sounds great, only to find out later they did not like at all. Just tell me straight up what you think. At least I know your opinion then, rather than guessing.

If people felt that way about the Summa's, then it is in Gedlee's best interest to listen very carefully. I don't think Danny is out to bash the things. I have talked to him about the RMAF a couple of times and asked him what systems turned him on. He was straight up with his opinion. Did not matter who the competitor was. He gave some very positive reviews of several systems, not worried that I was not going to buy from him. I just see Danny as a straight up guy, who's opinion I trust.

Rocket_Ronny

Brown · « **Reply #91 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 04:43 pm »

Wow is all I can say. just read the entire thread and you certainly have my interest. I am interested in a kit with cabinets built. Since I'm new to this thread can you tell me what those beautifull looking amps are as well.
We listen to jazz, blues and classical mostly. Using line arrays now. room is appox 16x20 with low 7ft clg. To be honest I have not been this curious about a speaker for a long long time. Bravo.
When speaker is finalized and prices set we are very interested. Thanks and keep up the good work.

kyrill · « **Reply #92 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 05:26 pm »

hi mr. Brown

the amps are from Dodd audio? Custom made?

If they sound how they look..
i know a guy who would trade in his wife

Danny Richie · « **Reply #93 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 05:31 pm »

Yep, Dodd Audio mono-blocks. Custom built for me.

280 watts into 8 ohms. All milled Aluminum Chassis. Blue powder coat and Chrome (obviously). Each amp weighs about 275 lbs. All the best available parts inside... Yes they are massively over built and they sound great.

Brown · « **Reply #94 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 06:21 pm »

Thankyou gentleman. I'm lusting now. The nervosa is setting in. Will have to start sweet talking the wife. After 30+ years in this hobby its exciting again. THANKS

PMAT · « **Reply #95 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 07:09 pm »

Can we pleeeeese stop showing that amp!

kyrill · « **Reply #96 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 10:12 pm »

Hi Danny
I have seen yr wonderful aesthetic OB design, you will be pleased when Eargasm Eric has cut these enclosures ( as i understand) but a question
I understand the rationale of the reversed woofers in yr "W" design this way the drivers will cancel in a way their "pushing "motion to the cabinet. The cabinet will vibrate less this way

but on this structure ( A, woofers connected out of phase):

I dont see this cancellation happen. It is almost ( my feeble 2 cnts) ( mechanically) equal to the woofers like this ( B, woofers connected in phase):

so why did you reverse the woofers constructively? Or is it only for the the weight of the woofers, A keeps it more in equilibrium respectively to construct B?

2bigears · « **Reply #97 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 11:14 pm »

are the kits ready to go yet ???? be a nice X-Mass gift ....

SetterP · « **Reply #98 on:** 10 Dec 2008, 11:23 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 10 Dec 2008, 01:42 am

I did set up a Neo-1 speaker and listened to it in mono as a reference for a new speaker that I was working on for another company. I choose the Neo-1 speaker because it was tonally neutral (perfectly flat response) and balanced across the board. The speaker that I was working on was a three way design. So I was really listening for balance in the 300Hz range and down on the new speaker.

While the Neo-1 speaker sounded great, and I did listen to a piano recording or two, listening in mono is like hearing the sound come straight out of a box. Flicking back to the open baffle speaker (whatever we name that thing), even in mono, was like hearing a piano playing in my room.

This is a very telling remark Danny.

I've been watching this design closely, and have officially started stuffing the proverbial piggy bank.

Will be interested to get a close look at some enclosure dimensions when things have been ironed out. I am thinking that some hardwood front baffles would look pretty nice, and it just so happens that I have access to a nice slab of quilted maple that might just do the trick.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #99 on:** 11 Dec 2008, 12:02 am »

Quote

so why did you reverse the woofers constructively?

To balance out the weight mostly.

Quote

are the kits ready to go yet ????

They will be as soon as I get stock on the P-Audio driver. Everything else is ready to ship.