[Early B.]

Danny Ritchie's GR Research speakers have great bass with plate amps and are very high efficient.

Yep. The Rythmik Audio plate amps are of relatively high quality; they cost 2 or 3 times the typical price of a plate amp and are custom designed for the servo drivers used in Danny's subs. 

[Early B.]

I've been looking into this and the solution seems to be, again, DIY... I'm going to have a custom-programmed hi-rez DSP/electronic crossover mated to a nice digital amp module with a few different curves set to compliment the room and a programmable parametric EQ to tame bass peaks. These components will be built into the speaker cabinet like a plate amp or passive xo would, and would also have a simple 1st order passive xo for the mid/high section.

This sounds very intriguing. It would really be cool if the owner could connect his laptop or tablet directly to each of the amps to measure the room and program the EQ.

Are we looking at a 2016 launch date?

[Folsom]

Digital amp?

[Speedskater]

The Yamaha NS10 phenomenon was in no way confined to the 80s. It is still seen in most of the bigger studios, and not just because it has become a familiar standard.

The NS10 was/is used in recording studios, not because it's good (it's not good) but because it represented typical low budget home speakers.

[DaveC113]

This sounds very intriguing. It would really be cool if the owner could connect his laptop or tablet directly to each of the amps to measure the room and program the EQ.

Are we looking at a 2016 launch date?

I hope so!  And yes, I want to include that sort of functionality for those so inclined. Now that measurement systems are very affordable it makes sense.

[Russell Dawkins]

The NS10 was/is used in recording studios, not because it's good (it's not good) but because it represented typical low budget home speakers.

A popular, simplistic notion. There is more to it than that, otherwise any low budget speaker would suffice, but the NS10 is chosen. Why?

Enter this as a search term in Google: "yamaha ns10m 20 years newell", and click on the first result—a pdf entitled "the yamaha ns10m: twenty years a reference monitor. why?" for a really in depth analysis.

Then look at this:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm

[Freo-1]

A popular, simplistic notion. There is more to it than that, otherwise any low budget speaker would suffice, but the NS10 is chosen. Why?

Enter this as a search term in Google: "yamaha ns10m 20 years newell", and click on the first result—a pdf entitled "the yamaha ns10m: twenty years a reference monitor. why?" for a really in depth analysis.

Then look at this:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep08/articles/yamahans10.htm

Great stuff, Russell.  Thanks for the insight.  Looks like the NS-10 has some redeeming values after all.  I remember Danny Ritchie came up a modified crossover for the NS-10, and said that the results were pretty noteworthy.


Lots of good and interesting feedback so far.  There certainly are a lot of approaches to speaker designs.  The single driver approach has its ardent supporters.  Haven't heard one yet that I would consider owning, but remain open to the concept.  There certainly are advantages to having no crossover.  Realistically, using subs with single drivers has some appeal. 

This is one speaker that I am keen to audition:

http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html

Any thoughts?

[Quiet Earth]

It does seem pretty challenging to make a high efficiency speaker that performs as well as many of the better low efficiency models.

Hmmm.......  I think it seems more challenging to make a low efficiency speaker perform as well as a good high efficiency speaker. I guess it depends on which performance criteria matter the most to you. That's definitely something each person has to decide for himself.

I wonder if the average speaker efficiency/sensitivity has gone up, down, or stayed the same since the1980s. Anyone know?

[JLM]

Hmmm.......  I think it seems more challenging to make a low efficiency speaker perform as well as a good high efficiency speaker. I guess it depends on which performance criteria matter the most to you. That's definitely something each person has to decide for himself.

I wonder if the average speaker efficiency/sensitivity has gone up, down, or stayed the same since the1980s. Anyone know?

Seems like overall efficiency may have gone up 1 or 2 dB/w/m (pretty insignificant), probably due to better materials or slightly larger cabinets (every time an updated model it's bigger, to justify trading up).

[werd]

Over the years, it seems that the majority of the speakers considered as "reference" are of low to moderately low efficiency? 

This is one of the major factors that drive audiophiles to higher power amps.  These high end speakers need more watts to perform at there best. 

So, wanted to start a discussion as to the factors that drive this issue.   It does seem pretty challenging to make a high efficiency speaker that performs as well as many of the better low efficiency models.

It might be the entire system gain is taken into consideration. As high gain source gear or preamps/amps all run the risk of injecting more noise into sound. Including higher speaker efficiency ratings.  The lower efficiency rating takes demand off the upstream gear that may or may not be high gain. It's probably all about noise.

[Russell Dawkins]

Great stuff, Russell.  Thanks for the insight.  Looks like the NS-10 has some redeeming values after all.

This is one speaker that I am keen to audition:

http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html

Any thoughts?

Yes.
The speaker line lacks a certain coherent design concept to my eyes - a smorgasbord of different configurations (or a dog's breakfast) - and too much pseudo-technical hype for my taste. That, and I see some seemingly impossible performance figures; for example, see on the home page under "High End Estate Outdoor" the OD 8211. If you click on that you get this:
http://www.sourcespeaker.com/OD8211.html

Under specifications, you see 100 db/W/M (sic - should be "dB"), but on the next line you see Max Spl (should be spl!) 137db @500 w.
Where 1w yields 100 db, 10w = 110dB, 100w = 120dB, 1000w = 130dB and 10,000w = 140dB. 137dB would require 5,000w not 500. 10dB implies 10x the power; 3dB is doubling or halving; hence 137 dB for 5,000 watts. Obviously, they meant 127 dB for 500 watts, (I hope). I don't think that's a typo - that's an error, and a pretty bad one.

Finally, under "about us" on their home page I see this peculiar paragraph under "reviews":

Reviews? We've had many wonderful reviews from leading audio publications spanning from 1984 to 1992. The last 14 years however have been a "settling out" period where ambiguities surrounding multi-channel needed to be addressed. Single issues rather than system integration "dilute" focus. For these reasons Source Technologies has eschewed requests for product reviews. However consumer based web forums and diehard owner loyalty have provided a great deal of exposure. In 2006 there now seems to be a substantial platform for multi-channel. Look for Source Loudspeaker reviews in the near future..

Near future? This was apparently written in 2006. The enterprise looks to be moribund I'm afraid. I would run, not walk away.

I'm glad you liked the Yamaha NS10M information. It is an eye opener, isn't it?

[Freo-1]

Yes.
The speaker line lacks a certain coherent design concept to my eyes - a smorgasbord of different configurations (or a dog's breakfast) - and too much pseudo-technical hype for my taste. That, and I see some seemingly impossible performance figures; for example, see on the home page under "High End Estate Outdoor" the OD 8211. If you click on that you get this:
http://www.sourcespeaker.com/OD8211.html

Under specifications, you see 100 db/W/M (sic - should be "dB"), but on the next line you see Max Spl (should be spl!) 137db @500 w.
Where 1w yields 100 db, 10w = 110dB, 100w = 120dB, 1000w = 130dB and 10,000w = 140dB. 137dB would require 5,000w not 500. 10dB implies 10x the power; 3dB is doubling or halving; hence 137 dB for 5,000 watts. Obviously, they meant 127 dB for 500 watts, (I hope). I don't think that's a typo - that's an error, and a pretty bad one.

Finally, under "about us" on their home page I see this peculiar paragraph under "reviews":

Reviews? We've had many wonderful reviews from leading audio publications spanning from 1984 to 1992. The last 14 years however have been a "settling out" period where ambiguities surrounding multi-channel needed to be addressed. Single issues rather than system integration "dilute" focus. For these reasons Source Technologies has eschewed requests for product reviews. However consumer based web forums and diehard owner loyalty have provided a great deal of exposure. In 2006 there now seems to be a substantial platform for multi-channel. Look for Source Loudspeaker reviews in the near future..

Near future? This was apparently written in 2006. The enterprise looks to be moribund I'm afraid. I would run, not walk away.

I'm glad you liked the Yamaha NS10M information. It is an eye opener, isn't it?

  What?  You mean that the speaker hype is not accurate??   

I posted the link half tongue in cheek to point out an example of the hype one gets when trying to put together a system.  A part of me would like to hear them sometime, just to get perspective.  The guy who makes them was part of the JS infinite slope team back in the day.  I had a pair of his more modest speakers I got second hand years ago, and they were pretty good for the coin.

I really did enjoy the info on the Yamaha NS-10's.  I saw a pair of NS 1000's on A'Gon this week that look to be in good shape.  Haven't ever auditioned them, but it would be fun to give them a listen. 

JLM brought up a interesting point about hooking up a 4K amp to cheap speakers in a box.  I've noticed the the ATC's I currently own can sound brutal with some electronics, but, with higher powered tube amps, or high powered SS amps such as a McIntosh, they can sound incredible.  One of the very few speakers that reproduces the human voice in such a manner as to provide an illusion that it's a real person vice a recording.  Same goes for reproducing piano.   The point being is that there is a synergy between electronics and speakers that put the speaker in a more or less favorable light. 

Makes it a little harder to judge the speakers performance.  And then, there is the listening room........

[roymail]

My only comment after just reading through this thread is this.  If Daedalus Audio can make high efficiency, high quality speakers, using multiple drivers, why don't others do it, too?  I know of a few others, but most speaker companies seem content to remain in the 83-89 db sensitivity range.  Which is all right for many, but I choose a speaker with a bit higher sensitivity that requires less power for adequate output.

[opnly bafld]

I've noticed the the ATC's I currently own can sound brutal with some electronics

Sounds like you need the new version with the ATC made tweeter. 

[JLM]

My only comment after just reading through this thread is this.  If Daedalus Audio can make high efficiency, high quality speakers, using multiple drivers, why don't others do it, too?  I know of a few others, but most speaker companies seem content to remain in the 83-89 db sensitivity range.  Which is all right for many, but I choose a speaker with a bit higher sensitivity that requires less power for adequate output.

Higher efficiency speakers are usually mated with simpler amps (like SET's).  That same philosophy isn't well reflected in a complicated speaker design.  On a more practical basis I surmise that the Daedalus bass is too flat/extended to synergize well with tubes that often exhibit poor damping.

[Freo-1]

Sounds like you need the new version with the ATC made tweeter. 

You forgot the part of the post where it talks about how good the same speakers sound with good electronics.   

While I'm sure the .V2 version would sound slightly better, I don't think it would be very noticeable.  The original SCM19 tweeter is a damn fine unit, and the rest of the speaker is virtually the same.  The super linear woofer/mid is unchanged, and the crossover is as well.

What would further improve the performance is to take Danny Ritchie's advice, and re-do the crossover and internal wiring with higher quality parts.  That is a path that Danny has convinced me is worth the effort, and will start working to achieve. 

One item that gets overlooked is the spectral decay aspect of speakers, and THAT is where a lot of high efficiency speakers fall short.  This is also an area where speaker drivers like those used in ATC excel.

[opnly bafld]

Actually I was mostly pointing out to anyone reading this thread that might be interested in ATC speakers to buy the newer versions if worried about system matching (much easier with the definitely better new tweeter and crossover).

BTW I don't believe D.R. is the greatest designer ever and knows more than everyone else.

[poseidonsvoice]

One item that gets overlooked is the spectral decay aspect of speakers, and THAT is where a lot of high efficiency speakers fall short.  This is also an area where speaker drivers like those used in ATC excel.

Okay. Prove it

Best,

Anand.

[Freo-1]

Actually I was mostly pointing out to anyone reading this thread that might be interested in ATC speakers to buy the newer versions if worried about system matching (much easier with the definitely better new tweeter and crossover).

BTW I don't believe D.R. is the greatest designer ever and knows more than everyone else.

Nor do I.  Agree.

I just know they work pretty well. 

[FullRangeMan]

The NS10 was/is used in recording studios, not because it's good (it's not good) but because it represented typical low budget home speakers.

I though its used in studio why its a near field monitor modeled to studio mastering board job(transparent + near field monitor).