[Rick Craig]

Named to honor the new owner's sister Jacquelyn who lost her life earlier this year to breast cancer.




Here's one of the initial measurements, the nearfield of the woofers which are 7" drivers in a sealed box. Very nice bass extension plus easily augmented with a subwoofer due to less phase shift than a ported or TL design. The upper end response is where the crossover is transitioning to the Morel Supreme carbon fiber midrange (titanium former version).

[GentleBender]

That is quite the measurement!

[Kenneth Patchen]

That's just more beautiful work from you Rick and a fine and special tribute to your sister. So very sorry to hear about your loss.

KP

[Phil A]

That's just more beautiful work from you Rick and a fine and special tribute to your sister. So very sorry to hear about your loss.

KP

+1 on that - great looking speakers too

[Rick Craig]

That is quite the measurement!

Also without any room gain included since it's taken about 1" from the woofer. 

[Rick Craig]

That's just more beautiful work from you Rick and a fine and special tribute to your sister. So very sorry to hear about your loss.

KP

Actually it's the sister of the gentleman that's receiving the speakers.

[Rick Craig]

I truly enjoyed delivering these in Atlanta yesterday but hated to see them go!

[maxboy00]

Very nice looking speaker!

What is the finish and can the speaker be this be ported as well?

[Rick Craig]

Very nice looking speaker!

What is the finish and can the speaker be this be ported as well?

This pair is finished in figured walnut with walnut hardwood trim. Inside it's quite different than anything else we've ever done with five different materials used for bracing and damping, including carbon fiber.

It can be ported if the cabinet depth is increased.

[loving_it]

Nice looking speaker nice job as always

[nocrapman]

Rick,

How does this compare to the Ottavo sound?

[Rick Craig]

Rick,

How does this compare to the Ottavo sound?

That's a tough question to answer as they are different in several ways. Tonality is pretty close - I designed them both to be neutral. In the bass section the Ottavo wins due to the deeper extension and greater output capability. The tradeoff of course is a larger cabinet so it depends if you have a preference for floor space. The larger Morel mid needs a lower crossover point which determined the use of the RAAL 70-20XR versus the 70-10D used in the Ottavo. With more surface area the Morel is more dynamic than the Accuton - not a huge difference but lower in distortion if pushed really hard. Both ribbons of course are very open and transparent with the 70-10 having wider top octave dispersion and greater frequency extension.

 A hybrid of the two designs is certainly possible, such as swapping out the mid / tweeter sections. The Morel might be a tad more forgiving; however, I don't think it gives up anything in terms of detail. What are your current speakers?

[nocrapman]

Rick,

These will displace a pair of DIYSG Fusion-12(tempest). A Rythmik 15"sub is in the mix to augment the low end.
The Fusions have been the most successful speakers in this space - a large living room 40x20' with 10' ceilings. Several other speakers - Quads/Salk ST etc have failed to adequately impress in this space.

While the compression driver and the horns are loud and dynamic and the bass/midbass is aplenty; I miss the resolution of the STs or my Maggies (1.7). I am hoping I can fix that with this next build.

I see the Ottavo kit on your website but have been curious about the Jacquelyn as well.

I have read that the 70-20XR is the superior of the 2 RAALS all other things being equal. Is this blanket statement true or is it to be taken with a grain of salt?

I look forward to your opinion.

[Rick Craig]

Rick,

These will displace a pair of DIYSG Fusion-12(tempest). A Rythmik 15"sub is in the mix to augment the low end.
The Fusions have been the most successful speakers in this space - a large living room 40x20' with 10' ceilings. Several other speakers - Quads/Salk ST etc have failed to adequately impress in this space.

While the compression driver and the horns are loud and dynamic and the bass/midbass is aplenty; I miss the resolution of the STs or my Maggies (1.7). I am hoping I can fix that with this next build.

I see the Ottavo kit on your website but have been curious about the Jacquelyn as well.

I have read that the 70-20XR is the superior of the 2 RAALS all other things being equal. Is this blanket statement true or is it to be taken with a grain of salt?

I look forward to your opinion.

Wow - you've had a wide range of speakers! Honestly, I've yet to hear a compression driver that I like as well as the best domes or ribbons. Running a 12" driver up high in frequency also falls short of the best midrange tonality from other smaller drivers. But that's the tradeoff for higher sensitivity.

I'm guessing that the room has a fair amount of hard surfaces and reflections which the Fusion 12 helped minimize, correct? What's your listening distance? Sometimes the listening space tends to dictate which speaker format is best for an optimal room interface.

My question to anyone claiming superiority of the 70-20XR to the other RAAL tweeters (140-15D, 70-10D, OEM variations) is what specifically makes it better. I read one company spokesman who implied the 70-20XR was better because it was more expensive than the 70-10D. True, it is a little more costly; however the marketing/sales guy conveniently avoided saying what made it more expensive. If we use his reasoning then the 140-15D should be the best because it's the most expensive and the OEM versions (Ascend, Philharmonic) the "worst" since they cost the least. Did they give any reasons why they think the 70-20XR is better?

 

[V-Fi]

My question to anyone claiming superiority of the 70-20XR to the other RAAL tweeters (140-15D, 70-10D, OEM variations) is what specifically makes it better. I read one company spokesman who implied the 70-20XR was better because it was more expensive than the 70-10D. True, it is a little more costly; however the marketing/sales guy conveniently avoided saying what made it more expensive. If we use his reasoning then the 140-15D should be the best because it's the most expensive and the OEM versions (Ascend, Philharmonic) the "worst" since they cost the least. Did they give any reasons why they think the 70-20XR is better?

You nailed it right there. That's the mindset of many people in our hobby.

[rajacat]

While the compression driver and the horns are loud and dynamic and the bass/midbass is aplenty; I miss the resolution of the STs or my Maggies (1.7). I am hoping I can fix that with this next build.

I see the Ottavo kit on your website but have been curious about the Jacquelyn as well.

Did you try tweaking the the Fusion 12? I bet that some better crossover parts and NoRez would help with any perceived weaknesses.

[c_note]

I think I can provide valuable insight here.  I co-designed the Jacquelyn speakers with Rick and purchased the commission.  I insisted on the Morel midrange, the RAAL tweeter, and a sealed box configuration, which mandated using the Wavecor aluminum subwoofer drivers, as no other 7 inch driver provides anywhere near this much bass in a sealed box enclosure.

My previous speakers are the Selah Audio RC-5G, which utilizes dual 5 inch Accuton mid-woofers in a D'Appolito configuration flanking a Scan-speak soft dome tweeter.  I still own these speakers (used in my basement "man cave"), and have used them for about seven years.  I know the sound of Accuton mid-range drivers very well.

I STRONGLY prefer the sound of the Morel Midrange to the Accutons.  One thing I've learned is that every cone material has a unique sound inherent to the material itself: paper sounds different than aluminum, which sounds different from magnesium, etc.  Frequency response and CSD charts give you clues how the driver sounds, but only present a partial picture.  I prefer hard drivers (preferably aluminum) for bass and midbass frequencies (below 250 Hz) and softer cones (preferably carbon fiber, but also treated paper, woven poly, etc.) for midrange frequencies (say 250 to roughly 1KHz).  The Accutons are high resolution, but to my ears they sound dry and "chalky" in the 250 to 1Khz range I reference. 

In my opinion the Morels simply have no sound of their own; they very neutrally re-create any signal input they receive, with no editorializing.  The Morels are outstanding at re-creating string harmonics--piano, guitar, string quartets, etc. sound amazing through the Morels.  Jazz and classical music is wonderful thru the Jacquelyn.  I don't think the Accuton drivers reproduce harmonics anywhere near as well as the Morels.  I think the Accutons are a little "in your face"; the Morels sound like you're sitting a little further back in the concert hall.  You still get all of the detail, it's just a more livable sound long-term.  The best quality of the Morel is that they very clearly illuminate all of the flaws in the recording, but even poor recordings are still listenable, they are never offensive/hurt your ears, etc.  I cannot say the same for magnesium and ceramic drivers.

Rick is incredibly modest, but the best part of the Jacquelyn speakers is how they utterly disappear.  We invested considerable time, effort, money, and numerous materials  to control cabinet resonances, and the work paid in spades.  The Jacquelyns disappear in a way the RC-5Gs never could.  Imaging/sound-staging extends far beyond the speaker enclosures.  At eleven inches wide and deep, the Jacquelyns occupy less floor space than a 2 way speaker on dedicated stands, but offer three times the driver surface area to reduce distortion and allow each driver to work in the frequency range it is best suited.

Rick is correct that it would be easy to replace the 7 inch woofers with larger drivers for greater bass output and extension.  This idea unfortunately requires increasing cabinet size, which minimizes the speakers ability to disappear.  I've never heard a large box speaker that didn't sound like a large box speaker--the enclosure mandates sound quality far more than drivers employed.  I think a far better idea is what I am currently doing, supplementing the Jacquelyns with a pair of top-shelf subwoofers, crossed over by a Classe CP-800 preamp at 50 Hz at 24 db per octave.  The Jacquelyns never receive low bass, and the transition between subwoofer/satellite is seamless.

Regarding RAAL tweeters, they are amazing, you'll never be content with soft dome tweeters again.  I doubt one RAAL driver is notably better than another; rather, the application cross-over point dictates which driver is optimal.  Trust Rick's judgment in this respect.

I'm obviously biased, but I think the Jacquelyns are stupendous speakers, they would embarrass many speakers selling for twice as much.  Rick did an amazing job bringing this project together. 

Good luck in your search, nocrapman. 

[AvFan]

My condolences on the loss of your sister.  I'm sure these speakers named in her honor are terrific and hopefully the music played through them remind you of all the wonderful times you shared with her.

I own the Ottavo and a pair of custom MTMs Rick designed for me a few years back.  The MTMs have the 70-20XR and as implemented by Rick they sound the same to me as the 70-10D in the Ottavo.  RAAL are absolutely great tweeters.  So much of the music is handled by mid-range and it is great that Rick can design a speaker around a person's preference.   I like the Accuton in the Ottavo but maybe my tube gear offsets some of that "chalky" sound.  I wanted to simplify my speaker system a bit since I had to run a sub with my MTMs.  The Ottavos fit that requirement and don't need a sub.  If the bass is there it will be reproduced. 

I'm interested in the additional cabinet bracing and how the different materials were used.  How did the bracing impact the sound?  Are there any pictures of this bracing system?

[c_note]

Re-reading my previous post makes me realize that it came across unduly harsh--that'll teach me to post to a bulletin board at 1 o'clock in the morning!   

I've lived with the RC-5Gs for seven years, so I clearly enjoy them and respect their capabilities.  The Accutons are among the best mid-range drivers made today, very high in resolution.  However, having lived with both speakers for some time, and having had numerous friends and family audition both, the unanimous choice is the Jacquelyn, that Morel midrange is just magic, a fantastic (albeit very expensive) driver. 

Rick can speak more thoroughly about all of the efforts made to control cabinet resonance, but I particularly remember the extensive use of carbon fiber rods throughout the enclosure interior.  I believe Rick used five materials in total for resonance control, each material resonating at a different frequency, with the intent of dampening resonances across as broad a spectrum of frequencies as possible.  The Jacquelyn speaker enclosures are relatively light, probably 70-plus pounds, but tap anywhere on them and all you will hear is a dead thud.  As stated, imaging and sound-staging extend several feet beyond the speakers, and I already have the speakers almost twelve feet apart in my large listening room, so you're talking about a soundstage that extends almost twenty feet across, left to right, if the recording permits it.

If someone were to modify this design, I would still keep them as sealed box speakers.   Ported speakers play lower in frequency, but sealed box speakers have better "texture" in the 50 to 100 Hz region.  Difficult to express in words, but audible.  There is a reason Magico speakers are sealed boxes.  I highly regard the Scan-speak 22W/8851 paper Revelators, and think they would match beautifully with the Morel midrange.  Should also provide an extra couple of dbs of sensitivity, too, always advantageous.

[Rick Craig]

Rick,

These will displace a pair of DIYSG Fusion-12(tempest). A Rythmik 15"sub is in the mix to augment the low end.
The Fusions have been the most successful speakers in this space - a large living room 40x20' with 10' ceilings. Several other speakers - Quads/Salk ST etc have failed to adequately impress in this space.

While the compression driver and the horns are loud and dynamic and the bass/midbass is aplenty; I miss the resolution of the STs or my Maggies (1.7). I am hoping I can fix that with this next build.

I see the Ottavo kit on your website but have been curious about the Jacquelyn as well.

Sorry - I forgot to answer some questions in my original response to you. The difference in cost between the RAAL models is mostly due to the magnets. The length and width of the ribbon dictates the field strength needed to have reasonable sensitivity, so the longer and / or wider ribbons are more costly to build. In general the lower the crossover point the greater surface area that's needed (also a few other factors are involved but the ribbon size is the most important one).

The OEM version (70-20XR) has a different transformer design which allows designers to omit the foam waveguides used on the 70-10D and 140-15D. The transformer shapes the response but the foam guides also help control the vertical directivity. In that respect the foam is an advantage but some of the early RAAL users wanted to leave it out for aesthetic reasons. The crossovers are also less complex with the 70-20XR, and it also has some extra transformer taps. It's a great tweeter but the differences don't make it superior to the other RAAL models.

The 70-10D has the best horizontal response of the three due to the 10mm width and lower mass of the ribbon but needs a higher crossover point due to the smaller ribbon element. The 140-15 is wider so the horizontal coverage isn't as extended as the 70-10 but it's better than the 20mm width of the 70-20. The 140-15D benefits the most from the foam pads as a longer ribbon has a greater tendency to "beam" with vertical coverage. The size and dispersion of the midrange or woofer in the design will dictate which ribbon is best to use - all three are excellent when used in the right application.
















I have read that the 70-20XR is the superior of the 2 RAALS all other things being equal. Is this blanket statement true or is it to be taken with a grain of salt?

I look forward to your opinion.