planar vs cone

rockdrummer · « **on:** 22 Dec 2011, 05:26 pm »

I was reading up on the neo drivers. I see in the info about the NEO 10 that, among other things, it will be superb for the human vocal range. I am really drawn to the v series loudspeakers because of the great vocal reproduction. I like the idea of warm, great sounding vocals. Not to mention the bass in the Super V.

How do planar and cone drivers compare, specifically in the vocal region?

Ben

LarryB · « **Reply #1 on:** 22 Dec 2011, 06:11 pm »

At the risk of sounding like a non-committal politician, there are good and bad examples of each.

To my ear, and with the right ancillary equipment, the two best reproducers of voice and strings are the Quad 57, and the Cogent field coil midrange compression driver. There are of course also very high quality midrange cones; the berylium coaxial driver in the new Andrew Jones-designed TAD speakers is nothing short of superb, as is the driver in the YG Acoustics line. In my opinion, the two latter speakers have significantly raised the bar for low distortion drivers. Both are of course, very expensive.

On the other hand, I have heard ribbons and planar magnetics whose distortions made me want to leave the room.

The bottom line is, the degree of variation within any type of driver renders any generalization pretty much meaningless. As such, you need to hear the drivers that intrigue you to decide for yourself which you like (keeping in mind that how they are implemented is critically important).

Larry

Edited for clarity.

rockdrummer · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 Dec 2011, 06:33 pm »

Well, you are totally right about trusting your own ear.

At first, I was planning on going with a GR OB series speaker. But after doing lots of research and watching this forum, I have shifted to the V series because of the reproduction of the vocals and bass. Of course the super V is number one, but that's another story.

Now reading that there is a three 8" servo sub, neo driver speaker that danny has in the works, I'm looking forward to the comparisons between that and the v series which uses cone drivers.

Thanks for the info.
Ben

LarryB · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 Dec 2011, 06:38 pm »

Ben:

I too am eagerly awaiting the new speaker with the 8" servo subs and Neo drivers. It is my hope that it will retain what is excellent about the Super V, and improve in those areas in which there is room for improvement (as there are in all speakers).

Larry

Remlab · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 Dec 2011, 11:18 pm »

If you start off with an ideal dipole transducers like the neo 10 and neo 3(identical front and rear frequency response) and implement the crossover correctly, it can't be beat. BG Radia corp just released their first dipole speaker using these drivers ($5,000 pair). It is an mtm with a very low crossover point to minimize vertical lobing( 1.5k)The designer of this speaker (same guy that invented the neo's) tells me he wished he had used these in a dipole sooner. They are coming out with a single neo 10 with 3 design in the coming months with a higher xo point...
When it comes to dipole applications, BG NEO'S ARE THE THEORETICAL IDEAL...PERIOD. Anything else is a compromise...

And when it comes to high value speakers and designs, Danny is a singular talent. I can't wait to see what he comes up with....

LarryB · « **Reply #5 on:** 22 Dec 2011, 11:29 pm »

Never mind.

nickd · « **Reply #6 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 12:04 am »

I too am looking forward to Danny's new designs using the neo drivers up top. I use Super V's right now for my reference 2 chanel rig. I am thinking the neo drivers might be a little cleaner on the mid bass / lower mids and way up top, but the Super V is still going to crush them with the 97 db efficient coax and 12" servo subs, superior time alignment, wave guided highs and........

But unlike almost any other loudspeaker (with out big shouty horns anyway), the super V will lay it down with 30 watts of Triode power. I'm talking legondary dynamics here

Remlab · « **Reply #7 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 12:21 am »

The neo's are amazingly dynamic and can handle a suprising amount of power. With all do respect, anyone can throw a pro driver into a design and have it "crush" it's normal high end counterpart when it comes to efficiency. I haven't heard the super v, but I bet it sounds amazing!
An unrelated but very important and often overlooked aspect of pure dipole designs is that (According to Linkwitz) you need to roll them off at 2 dbs per decade starting at about 100 hz. If you don't, they won't sound natural (psycho-acoustic phenomena). I'm sure Danny has an opinion on this subject...

LarryB · « **Reply #8 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 12:37 am »

Just for the record, my speakers with conical horns have virtually no honk.

LarryB · « **Reply #9 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 12:54 am »

Remlab:

Quote

A very important and often overlooked aspect of pure dipole designs is that you need to roll them off at 2 dbs per decade starting at about 100 hz (linkwitz). If you don't, they won't sound right.

Could you elaborate please?

Larry

Remlab · « **Reply #10 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 01:15 am »

Quote from: LarryB on 23 Dec 2011, 12:54 am

Remlab:

Could you please elaborate please.

Larry

Sorry, that was out of left field relative to the subject.. Two decibels per decade starting at 100hz means that the speaker is going to need about a (Quasi-anechoic) 4 db rolloff from 100hz to 20kh to sound "natural".

Remlab · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 01:25 am »

Quote from: LarryB on 23 Dec 2011, 12:37 am

Just for the record, my speakers with conical horns have virtually no honk.

"Honk" is a midrange coloration. Unless a conical horn tweeter is crossed over extremely low, it's not not capable of honking(it's more of a squawk than a honk).

LarryB · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 01:38 am »

remlab:

Have you heard any speaker using conical horns from Bill Woods (of AH! Horns). I have had numerous visitors - many of whom are quite experienced listeners - audition my system, and all have commented on the virtual absence of honk.

I have thus come to believe that honk is not a property of horns, but of poorly designed and/or implemented horns.

Remlab · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 01:54 am »

Quote from: LarryB on 23 Dec 2011, 01:38 am

remlab:

Have you heard any speaker using conical horns from Bill Woods (of AH! Horns). I have had numerous visitors - many of whom are quite experienced listeners - audition my system, and all have commented on the virtual absence of honk.

I have thus come to believe that honk is not a property of horns, but of poorly designed and/or implemented horns.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Super V tweeter waveguide...I totally agree with your horn comment. Avantgarde audio (Germany) is the ultimate example of concentric(same as conical??) horn technology. 110db 1w with very little coloration relative to conventional horns. I'll check out the AH HORNS website. sounds interesting..

LarryB · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 03:13 pm »

Actually, I do not care for Avantgarde horns, and think they did more harm than good for the horn comunity. They use cheap fiberglass horns, and crappy, non-compression drivers. Moreover, their woofers do not ingegrate at all with the horns. Admittedly, they have improved over the last decade, but are still nowhere near state of the art.

On the plus side, they are of course dynamic.

My two cents.

Larry

Remlab · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Dec 2011, 10:01 pm »

Larry, Actually, it's ABS injected into a mold with 40 tons of pressure. They say the reason they don't believe in the use of wood for horns is because humidity changes the character of the horn's sound and the natural variable densities from one piece of (similar wood) to the next means inconsistent sound from one horn to the next. I guess it comes down to German engineering precision vs old world craftsmanship. There are pro's & con's with both approaches...

Anyway, we are way off topic.

Chops · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Dec 2011, 01:37 pm »

Quote from: Remlab on 23 Dec 2011, 01:15 am

Sorry, that was out of left field relative to the subject.. Two decibels per decade starting at 100hz means that the speaker is going to need about a (Quasi-anechoic) 4 db rolloff from 100hz to 20kh to sound "natural".

This is very similar to how I had my huge, ugly open baffles tuned, and they sounded amazingly good and natural... Usher Audio 15HM, Altec 511B horns, Altec 902B drivers. Also, in my setup, there was absolutely no horn honk or squak. And the directivity of the horns matched great with the minimal side-wall interaction of the open baffles.

Remlab · « **Reply #17 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 01:08 am »

Wow! What a set-up! Whats the x-max on the usher units?
These dipoles look somewhat similar to usher's own horn based (mtm?)speakers...

Chops · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 01:35 am »

Quote from: Remlab on 26 Dec 2011, 01:08 am

Wow! What a set-up! Whats the x-max on the usher units?
These dipoles look somewhat similar to usher's own horn based (mtm?)speakers...

Thanks! The x-max on those drivers were 6mm. They went loud and low without any excursion issues. The only time I used the sub was for movies. With music, even pipe organ music, they reproduced very usable amounts of bass down to the low 20's.

You're referring to the Usher Audio D2's. Those are the speakers I was planning on building, until of course when I tried those 15HM driver's on open baffles just to break them in. After hearing what they were capable of, my plans changed direction.

Remlab · « **Reply #19 on:** 26 Dec 2011, 07:54 am »

Very smooth frequency response. Dsp?