[Aether Audio]

Hi guys!

Don't have much time so this will be short.  Thought I'd take the time to tic-off a few members of the planer driver croud though.  Always have time for that!

http://www.mfk-projects.com/tweeter_data_1.htm#SS-9300

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=297-400&DID=7

The above data is anything but "all inclusive" but...since this is a small tweeter in comparison to the much larger panel systems worshiped by many, it should give you a little insight as to what might be going on with them.  As diaphrams get bigger, such problems virtually always get worse.  Yeah, some designs find ways to minimize the problem but it takes heroic feats of engineering to do so and in the end, most all of them only reduce the problem- not eliminate it.  I will reserve a special accomodation for the Quads - can't argue with a legend.

Have fun beating me up!
-Bob

[John Ashman]

Darn, where's Mac?  He was just telling me how much better his ribbon tweeters were than that "crappy" SEAS Excel aluminum one.

[flintstone]

Holy Cow...guess it's time to dump the Apogees!

Dave

[NealH]

When I hear the word "ribbon" then I ususlly associate this with full length ribbons as found on Magnepans.  I don't know much about the little ribbons other than dispersion usually suffers.  I wonder if a like graph exist for one of the full length ribbons?

Also, when taking measurements on a speaker I like to see a step, or sawtooth, wave input to a speaker then see it's output taken by a microphone.  You now see this in the Stereophile measurements of loudspeakers.  This is usually a good indication of the accuracy - what goes in come out.  I wonder if this plot exists for a Timepiece?

[Jon L]

I don't understand why some people feel the need to knock down "planar" speakers so much.  The graphs only apply to that one type of planar magnetic tweeter from one company, one that is not a true ribbon and is in the "affordable" category.  There's no data whatsoever to interpolate this data to speakers from Magnepans, Apogees, B-G, electrostats, not to mention numerous speakers that use ribbon tweeters like Raven, Aurum Cantus, etc, etc.

[Rick Craig]

Hi guys!

Don't have much time so this will be short.  Thought I'd take the time to tic-off a few members of the planer driver croud though.  Always have time for that!

http://www.mfk-projects.com/tweeter_data_1.htm#SS-9300

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=297-400&DID=7

The above data is anything but "all inclusive" but...since this is a small tweeter in comparison to the much larger panel systems worshiped by many, it should give you a little insight ...

I've met Monte and been around when he and his brother were doing some tests like this. One thing I've observed when doing 2nd/3rd harmonic tests is that planar drivers behave much better when a crossover is in place and their harmonic figures become as good  and sometimes even better than the domes. I'm not convinced that you can single out one test like this and generalize about the overall sound quality. There are many other performance factors involved - dispersion, top octave extension, flat response, etc. that influence what we hear.

[Brian Cheney]

The HiVi tweeters I've measured are considerably worse than this from a distortion standpoint and roll off about 10K at 12dB/oct.  Not my first, second or third choice.

[Aether Audio]

OK, Here we go!

Also, when taking measurements on a speaker I like to see a step, or sawtooth, wave input to a speaker then see it's output taken by a microphone. You now see this in the Stereophile measurements of loudspeakers. This is usually a good indication of the accuracy - what goes in come out. I wonder if this plot exists for a Timepiece?

I can do those measurements but I typically use the TEF system for my work.  The ETC curve will tell you most of what the above mentioned waveforms will in one simple measurement - if you know how to interpret it.  (I'm assuming you're talking Time-Domain study, the ETC won't tell you a thing about distortion).  If I want to know what the distortion is,  I just do a distortion measurement.  It tells you a lot more in one test than a single waveform measurement and it doesn't run the risk of reflected
energy from nearby boundaries corrupting the test.  Now that I'm finally getting my shop set up, it won't be long before there's more graphs than you care to look at being posted - both on our site and here on AC

I don't understand why some people feel the need to knock down "planar" speakers so much. The graphs only apply to that one type of planar magnetic tweeter from one company, one that is not a true ribbon and is in the "affordable" category.

The only "need" I have is to share information.  The "tic-off" comment was just a joke.  Sure glad I didn't make a "tube" comment - YIKES!   But if you read the info at Parts Express

The vibrating element of a planer tweeter is almost weightless in comparison to a dome tweeter. The element consists of Kapton film with a pattern of aluminium conductors which is placed precisely between two Neodymium bar magnets. It provides an immediate and precise response to any transients in the original signal. These drivers are magnetically shielded and feature a linear phase response which provides time coherent reproduction resulting in accurate musical rhythm and imaging. Unlike other conventional tweeters and electrostatic speakers, the RT1C and RT2a have an extremely wide sound dispersion in the horizontal plane. At the same time, they have a well controlled sound dispersion in the vertical plane. This helps to avoid disturbing floor and ceiling reflections in a home environment thus enhancing clarity and imaging accuracy.

Looks to me like they're belaboring the virtues of the planer tweeter over that of a dome to me.  Isn't that the mantra?  Granted, the thing may be an over-priced and over-hyped piece of crap, but the premise of their argument is the same.  Poor implementation of the technology?  Probably.  Characteristic of the better designs?  Unlikely.  Share an inherent weakness of other similar designs based on the same basic technology?  Undoubtedly.  It's all in the physics.  Drum heads ring and make odd sounds when whacked with a mallet.  The "mallet" can be made of wood or be an electro-magnetic or electro-static pulse induced by a current or voltage.  The tendency is there, the art is to subjugate it.  The spirit may be willing, but the flesh is weak.

I'm not convinced that you can single out one test like this and generalize about the overall sound quality. There are many other performance factors involved - dispersion, top octave extension, flat response, etc. that influence what we hear.

ABSOLUTELY!!!  We're not trying to shoot all the dogs just because one has fleas.  The issue here is "bang for the buck."  In most cases regarding technology, there is more than one way to achieve a goal.  The top several dominating types usually have their unique advantages and devoted advocates.  In the end though, one type usually wins out when cost is factored in.  If money is no object, any technological method or technique has the potential of providing excellent results.  It just that some methods cost more to refine and achieve the same level of performance as other, more efficient/elegant methods.  I propose that due to the inherent limitations of planer technology, they will ultimately cost more to achieve a certain level of performance attained by dynamic driver based systems. ESPECIALLY when the

many other performance factors involved - dispersion, top octave extension, flat response, etc. that influence what we hear

are factored into the total performance evaluation.

I have made the same statement about tube amplifiers in the past.  I have heard wonderful sound from tube amps but most of the time (NOT ALWAYS!) the really good ones, that equal or outperform a solid-state amp, will cost more per watt.  There's an exception to every rule though - like Bill Bakers modified Jolidas.  They sound fantastic and they don't cost  a lot, but you must remember - they're initially made in China which really drives down the initial cost of the unit.  Bill tweaks them to perfection but if he had to build them from scratch here in the good ol' USA, they'd probably cost 5 times more than what he charges.  Why? Because tube technology requires a lot of special treatment to maximize its virtues - transistors aren't as finicky.  Heck, look closely inside a tube sometime.  Just a single tube alone is an electro-mechanical work of art!  Many may argue that transistors have an inherent absolute upper limit with regards to ultimate fidelity, but there's no lack of Krells, Rolands and Levinsons out there because of those suggested limitations.

So my point is really about maximizing cost efficiency.  If you want the most performance for your money, the good old dynamic speaker just can't be beat.  The market itself is evidence enough for that.  If the truth were otherwise you'd see little planers everywhere - in cheap boomboxes, mid-fi, car audio, etc.  Instead they're in the minority...and they always will be

Peace
-Bob

[Christof]

Bob

I'll bring a pair 4-ways with Fountek JP 3.0 ribbons for measurements when I come to audition your Timepiece design.  I've been listening to this tweeter for about a month now and I can't complain about much other than the vertical dispersion (horizontally they are great).  I am curious to see how they measure up after being pushed a little.  

Chris

[doug s.]

obviously, implementation is key.  i owned a pair of swans m1.2's, which use the hi-vi research ribbon tweet.  easily one of the best - if not *the* best high frequency sounds i have ever heard reproduced.  i only sold those speakers cuz the mid-bass had a boost i dint care for.

i presently own a pair of coincident research victory's.  these speakers use a custom iteration of this same hi-vi research tweeter.  again, the treble is exemplary.  the *entire* speaker is exemplary in this case.  imo of course!    

this tweeter *does* have one weakness, imo - it is *extremely* directional in the wertical plane.  stand up, & ya lose a lot of the hi- frequency response.  

i'd *love* to hear a line source based upon the hi-vi drivers.  i don't care what all those charts say - i *know* it would sound fantastic.

ymmv,

doug s.

[_scotty_]

doug s. , Can you spell SLS, Check out their line sources.
Scotty

[Aether Audio]

Ooops!

I need to clarify something.  I said:

If you want the most performance for your money, the good old dynamic speaker just can't be beat.

 ... assuming the technology/design has been optimized.  The market is full of mediocre to lousy dynamic loudspeakers!  Although this sucks for the consumer because he is forced to wade through the multitude of options, it is a testamony to my fundamental point.  

The fact is... that if dynamic drivers weren't so inherently linear, even in their cheapest forms, then there wouldn't be nearly as many manufacturers offering their particular variations.  Essentially, dynamic drivers are so easy to work with (at least from an initial implementation standpoint) that even the average "schmoe" that  has just a tidbit of knowledge can build something that sounds half-way decent.  

Why do you think there are so many loudspeaker manufacturers?  Do you honestly think most of them were started by geniuses with PHD's?  The truth is, most of them are started by hackers that were little more than hobbyists experimenting (fooling around) with dynamic drivers in the beginning.  If they all were founded by true scientists, you sure wouldn't have so many crappy designs out there that are mostly knock-offs of every other design.  

Think about it.  How many designs have you seen with a woofer, a tweeter and maybe a midrange driver?  Hundreds?  Thousands?!  How much of it seems to be the same old re-hashed crap?  How much real inovation do you actually see being offered?  A very high percentage of high-end loudspeakers being offered by others are based on little more than tweak-o techniques.  Their superiority lies in expensive wire, binding-posts, capacitors, exotic cabinet materials/cabinet construction, etc.  Stuff any hack can manage with minimal effort.  Our stuff has tons more legitimate core engineering than a lot of the other designs out there and I sure ain't no PHD!  And yes, our designs are based on DYNAMIC DRIVERS.  Good thing for me - Huh?

I personally know a designer that uses a tweeter in his systems that costs him $1.50 each!  Now don't get me wrong, his stuff is really good, especially for the money. But this does help to prove my point.  Yeah, their price is majorly due to the low prices of goods coming from China (the source of that tweeter), but still...that's an incredibly low price for something that sounds that good.  It would only be possible if the truth of the matter is that dynamic drivers have an inherent superiority over every other technology.  Even from China, I doubt you'll ever see a planer driver with a performance level that comes even close to this guy's dome tweeter, being offered for $1.50.  It just ain't possible.  If it were, they'd already exist.  As complex as driver design can be, it's not rocket science.  

Let's put it this way, you sure don't see many displaced aerospace engineers fighting over loudspeaker driver design jobs - planer or otherwise!  If the situation with planer drivers was solely due to the fact that more brain power was needed to build units that equally compete with dynamic drivers from a cost/performance standpoint, what with all the really smart people out there the situation would have been corrected long ago - "IF" it were technologically possibe.  But it ain't, so their not.  I rest my case.

-Bob

[John Casler]

Let's put it this way, you sure don't see many displaced aerospace engineers fighting over loudspeaker driver design jobs - planer or otherwise!

What is a planer driver?   Aren't they made by Black&Decker?

[doug s.]

Ooops!

I need to clarify something. I said:

Quote:

"If you want the most performance for your money, the good old dynamic speaker just can't be beat."

... assuming the technology/design has been optimized. The market is full of mediocre to lousy dynamic loudspeakers! Although this sucks for the consumer because he is forced to wade through the multitude of options, it is a testamony to my fundamental point...

oh, so *that* explains your pricing - $5500 for a two-way monitor, $7000 for a two-way mtm monitor (stands another $1200), & $170000 for full-range floorstanders!  

doug s.

[John Ashman]

The tweeters are cheap, it's the waveguides that are expensive!

Can't wait for the line array versions

[Karsten]

When all comes to all, components and material costs are a fraction of the overall cost. Development and manufacturing will always be the major part. At least when produced in a country where people needs real money to live

Brg,
Karsten

[Aether Audio]

No Doug,

The prices you quote are a reflection of finishing costs here in the US.  Our black, mirror-finish front panel alone requires many coats of primer, base-coat and clear-coat lacquer.  Then they must be sanded and buffed with four grades of buffing compound until they look like a black mirror.  Then you must take into consideration we use real wood veneer (not cheap woodgrain vinyl wrap), which must be finished as well.

We could out-source this to China but then we’d be shipping out jobs (is that OK with you?).  We’d also run the risk of receiving a container full of cabinets that doesn’t meet our spec and have to wait for the slow boat from China to find out.  People hate waiting for months to get their product.

For some of greater means, the higher cost of such finishes is not a concern.  For others we sympathize and have found a solution.  If one’s concern is mostly that of performance, we offer a new “Studio Finish” in a black, soft textured look.  It’s not for many whose concern is fine furniture quality, but it does mate well with a more “modern” décor.  For the guy or gal that wants true high-end performance at a reasonable price this is just the ticket.  As far as prices go…(per pair)

Golden Ratio Stands - $695.00
Well, they're made to match the speakers and you can put a ton of sand or StarSound Micro-bearing Steel in them.

Timepiece 2.1 - $2995.00 – Shipping Included
The old Timepiece 2.0 with the old tweeter has been compared to M-Lark Blue H’s costing $12,000 per pair and claimed to “kick their ass”  

The Continuum A.D.MKII - $4,495.00 - Shipping Included
Again, the old Continuums have been claimed to out perform JM-L Grand U’s at something like $60,000.00 per pair    

The new Continuum 2.5 (floorstander) - $5,995.00
No reviews yet but you want to make a bet?

The Revelation MR-1 MKII - $9,995.00
Claimed by AC members attending the RMAF last October to be the “best of show” and “best I’ve ever heard anywhere” and to totally outperform the S-F Strad’s at $40,000.00 per pair.  The new Revelation MKII’s are getting acclaim all over Scandinavia since our show there last weekend as well.  Same story – “best of show” and “best I‘ve ever heard.”      

And just think, all those reviews except the ones from last weekend were based on the old $20.00 tweeter.  Got a lot of mileage out of that little sucker but alas…I had to lay him to rest.  If only all those folks had heard our stuff with the new tweeter.  Well, I guess they can as we offer it as an upgrade.  And we didn’t raise the price of the product line one penny because of it..  Yeah, I’d call that value.

You don’t think they’re worth it?   Well, maybe you don’t and that’s just fine.  Wouldn’t matter anyway ‘cause you wouldn’t buy our stuff no matter how much value it offers because you don’t like our stand on faith.  That’s cool.

But I am resting comfortably with the fact that A WHOLE LOT OF OTHERS DO!    The only problem has been answering all the e-mails and phone calls – and figuring out how best to invest the $$$. Maybe I’ll give some of it to a local evil Christian church group.  Best investment there is.

(Yeah, I’m boasting.  He started it though.   )

-Bob

[doug s.]

No Doug,

The prices you quote are a reflection of finishing costs here in the US.  Our black, mirror-finish front panel alone requires many coats of primer, base-coat and clear-coat lacquer.  Then they must be sanded and buffed with four grades of buffing compound until they look like a black mirror.  Then you must take into consideration we use real wood veneer (not cheap woodgrain vinyl wrap), which must be finished as well.

We could out-source this to China but then we’d be shipping out job ...

hey bob,

don't misunderestimate me!     sorry, i mean don't misunderstand me.  i am not saying yer speakers aren't worth it.  it yust struck me as supremely funny that you were alluding to speaker bargains when your speakers are actually quite expensive..  sure, they may be worth the money.  in fact, from all the comments i have heard about 'em, i am *positive* they're worth the money.  but, even your *bargain* speakers are way spendy, in my book...  which is why i had the "laughing" emoticon - i was yoking!  most folk *i* know think my "cheap" $300/pair speaker cables are ridiculously expensive, when ya can get a whole freaking sound system for $300!  

and, on a more serious note, when yure dealing w/expensive speakers, the cat's outta the bag, & there *are* a lot of other speaker technologies that are competitive - ribbons included.

regards,

doug s.

[brj]

The new Continuum 2.5 (floorstander) - $5,995.00

Hello, what?  Where did this guy come from, and where can we find more info?

Thanks!

[Aether Audio]

Doug,

OK, You're cool. No offense taken.  And you're correct, our speakers are not inexpensive.  But...and there's always a catch, there's a lot of technology crammed in those suckers.  Let's see...constrained-layer damping of the outer walls, transmission-line diffuser/damping chambers, internal damping foam & fiber-fill,  1.5 inch walls on all six sides, mitered corners and corner blocks, a very complex crossover assembly with many expensive parts, killer drivers AND our waveguide.  That baby alone is a small engineering feet.  It's milled out of solid MDF (or hardwoods of your choice coming soon!) and with the new tweeter, it's milled to a thickness of 3 inches in the waveguide area!  

Ever wonder why you don't see more people making waveguides that large?  Besides the fact they haven't figured it out yet (thank goodness)IT'S EXPENSIVE!!!  You can't just buy an "off the shelf" machine to make the thing. We had to engineer and build our own mill from scratch just to make it.  We work cheap (we paid ourselves nothing for the time to design and build it, and even used our own money to purchase all the parts), but if you had to have someone design and build a mill like that for you, you're talking big $$$!!!  And the waveguide mill doesn't spit out parts one after the other, it takes a while just to make one front panel.  That's a lot of material to carve out at one time.

Now, a much bigger company could spend the $100,000.00 or so that it would take to machine a die to injection mold the whole thing - and then they could pop 'em out one after another.  But then it would be just a cheap piece of plastic and I don't think most audiophiles would care for the result.  I prefer a nice solid mass to mount my drivers to.  I'll bet I won't get much disagreement there either.

And then there's the labor.  How much do you guys make an hour?  Here in the midwest you'll be hard pressed to find anybody that even gives a rip about their job unless you pay them at leat $10.00/hour.  And then we're expecting them to apply the kind of attention to detail that is required of a product of a relatively high level of technology, fit and finish?  Now personally, I'd starve on that level of income but with as much work as is involved in our designs, it doesn't take long to rack up some serious $$$ in labor at even those modest wage levels.  And $10.00/hr. is cheap by most American's standards!

I didn't mean to whine, I just thought it might help everybody to understand why our stuff costs as much as it does.  These ain't your garden variety cabinets with a few tweak-o parts thrown in to drive up the price.  I hate to boast (no, really), but there's a ton of solid engineering, parts & labor in even our little Timepiece (not so "little" - 21.5" H X 12.5" W X 15.75" D & 65 lbs. each!) as compared to most any other 8" two-way speaker.  This is true all the more so, of our larger models.

Also, I agree that there are some excellent planer (planar?, whatever) designs out there.  It's just that I believe the reason they get as much of a following as they do is because  a whole lot of dynamic driver based system designers really aren't all that sharp.  They just slap some drivers in a box (yeah, they do their little bit of "research" to pick them first, run their computer models and such), throw in a few expensive peripheral parts, use rediculously expensive cabinet materials (machined solid billets of aluminum? YIKES!)do some funky modifications or expensive assembly techniques (i.e.,"cold welding" the speaker wire to the driver voice-coil leads and such - DUH!) and BAM - you have a high-end dynamic loudspeaker.  Nothing really new, innovative, or particularly significant - except the price.  

Oh, I suppose machining a huge block of aluminum takes a bit of innovation, but why ???  And it seems if they don't go to such extremes then their product suffers for it.  C'mon, let's get real.  I guess the old saying that "common sense isn't common" is true in high-end speakers, if nowhere else.  If more of these guys did their homework, dynamic speakers would be a lot better and they wouldn't require a mortgage to buy them.  AND...planer designers would have a lot tougher time competing.  Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

PS. - Brian, the Continuum 2.5 is a floor standing version of the Continuum A.D.  It's in prototype stage right now but the crossover and drivers are the same as the Continuum A.D. (& the Revelation as well)  Computer models predict a -3dB down point of around 23 Hz.  Nothing definite yet though - I DON'T TRUST COMPUTER MODELS!!! Proof will be in the testing but that wont take long.  The height will be 54.5 inches with the width and depth the same as the Continuum A.D.  More specs to come.  It will be a "crossover" product bridging the gap between the Continuum A.D.'s bass performance and that of the Revelation's.  A ton of "bang for your buck" in this guy.  Stay tuned.

-Bob