[David Ellis]

Will you be benchmarking (or probably already have) other DIY 3-way designs.

What do you mean by "benchmarking"?

Dave

[smithsonga]

I mean listening to and comparing the competition to what you intend to design.  'Typically' business requires understanding the competition in order to design a new product and understand how this new product fits into the existing market.

That is unless someone designs a product differently (or their business intentions are different)...e.g for a speaker, to sound the best to them for a certain price point or....etc..you get the idea.

I know you had to recently re-look at your business model and I am curious on the strategy to expand the product line.

Thx

Jim

[David Ellis]

Yep, this is what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure.

Yes, this will happen, but you will never hear my comments about the comparisons.  I have always and will always leave ALL comments concerning subjective comparison's to other folks    .  I will occasionally venture into more objective criteria regarding loudspeaker driver units and such, but this is the limit of my marketing rhetoric.  Please indluge a small rant for a moment...

IMO, there are way too many folks who sell a "no compromise" loudspeaker.  I'll make a statement of fact herein:  These folks are stupid, or believe their listeners are stupid.  After some education about loudspeakers I have learned there are copious compromises - a varitable plethora of possibilities.  Yikes, the decisions are endless.  Yet, there are many folks selling a "no compromise product".  Such products have the ability to produce exquisite detail and a liquid midrange that puts YOU in the 10th row at the symphony.  This is obviously hogwash.  I chose to avoid this completely.

//

Some comparisons have already happened.  I feel some degree of comfort conveying that about 2 years ago Dennis Murphy already compared a prototype Ellis 3-way that compared... prefferably to to the other high-end DIY speakers available at this time.   This crowd did not include John K's NAO, but did include the 2 other superb loudspeakers available.  We did not proceed because the impedance was 4 ohms and I wanted to work with this issue myself.  I will NOT convey specifically what 2 other speaker's were used for comparison.  I will convey that Dennis's preference was only slightly in favor of the Ellis e-way.

I must admit the only other likely comparison with a 3-way that will happen when I finish is with Jim Salk's 3-way.  This is simply a matter of convenience.  I also believe that Jim's 3-way speaker represents @ the best product available at any price.  I will also get this speaker reviewed before several well-eared local folks before release.  // Another small rant...

I believe there are several fundamental mistakes "earned" in commercial hifi.

1.  Quality control and component consistency are poor.

2.  Crossover development is minimal.

3.  Changes in component (drivers primarily) do NOT result in crossover design changes.  

There are many more issues, but I think these 3 are very critical.  I also understand these 3 are VERY expensive with regard to labor cost.

[HChi]

There are many other great tweeters. The Accuton C12, C23, Dynaudio Esotar, Raven R1, Scanspeak Revelator come to mind immediately.

My current speaker uses Dyn Esotar T330. I personally like it much.  In term of treble frequency, do you find the 'newer' tweeters that extend into 40Khz or above to warrant 'sensable' improvements over the traditional tweeters that extend only to about 20-25Khz range.

The sad truth is these amplifiers are DESIGNED for a 4 ohm minimal load and higher current capacity. This limits their output to 60 watts. Obtaining 100 watts from those same general components in the same general configuration would require the designer to approximately double the amplifier component count.

I believe it's common for folks to desire a very minimal speaker crossover, but sadly uncommon for folks to desire a very minimal amplifier design.

Perhaps this is why many higher end amps while still output 200W, but due to its high current desing, it weights 100-150lbs. While the component counts increase, it also demands better matching for the parts and hence contradicts the purose of minimal amp design.

While I am still a novice in basic amp design concepts, but  I do learn from experience that 'more' properly built amps (often heavy and expensive, too) while output the same watt, it is capable of rendering an open and relax 3-D soundstage with much ease than the others.   This type of difference is even much more noticable for musicphiles who are into large scale orchestral work.  My impression is that more 'headroom' an (high-current) amp has, better transient, dynamic, stable/robust soudstage, flow of music an amp can convery.  Obviously if a pair of more 'efficient' speakers are used, these strengths may not be as apparent; in contrast, a pair of efficient speakers may often reveal the flaws of amp due to the electrical noise generated by the large amount of component parts used.  

As you siad, "The most effective amplifier for a given speaker is an amplifier designed for the impedance load of that speaker." May be that's also why many friends of mine have multiple pairs of speakers paired with various brands of (dedicated) amps.   However, for ordinary people like us, a dedicated and specially selected amp for a given pair of speaker is great as long as ones are not bitten by the upgrade bugs.    Since this is meant-to-be the ultimate 3-way speaker, that is truly the least of the concerns.  

This speaker will be BIG, but will not grow larger than 5 cubic feet.

Is there any preliminary speculation of the dimension yet?   How big of a room is this 3-way speaker designed to perform in?

Thanks.

[HChi]

Repeated Post --- deleted

[David Ellis]

My current speaker uses Dyn Esotar T330.

This is a very good tweeter.  The only thing that might be supererior are the newer underhung Accuton tweeters (I haven't heard them yet) and the Accuton Diamond tweeter.  However, I suspect that while some other tweeters might be better than the Dyn Esotar, you should NOT spend the $$ to replace your Dyn Esotar tweeters.  Arguably, these tweeters will be "among the best" for many years to come.

do you find the 'newer' tweeters that extend into 40Khz or above to warrant 'sensable' improvements over the traditional tweeters that extend only to about 20-25Khz range.

No, and I don't think this extended response has any significant impact.  There is some valid argument viable for aluminum dome teeters at higher hz, but I really don't hear the problem.  Further, most folks physical hearing drops-off around 17khz.  They can't hear anything above 20khz.  I think the primary reason for the extended response among some tweeters is marketing.  I am a bit more practical regarding my opinion of tweeter sound quality.  I'd rather comment subjectively about what I can hear than what I cannot hear.  Those extended response tweeters obviously fall into the latter category.

While I am still a novice in basic amp design concepts, but I do learn from experience that 'more' properly built amps (often heavy and expensive, too) while output the same watt, it is capable of rendering an open and relax 3-D soundstage with much ease than the others.

Yep, I have heard this too.  However, can you explain why the 200wpc amp sounds better than the 35wpc push pull when the peak consumption is 30 watts?  I believe the answer lies in the ability for an amplifier to push a GOOD 30-40wpc with most speakers.  I beleve most amplifiers fail in this regard.  

I am a rookie too, but there are other explanations for pushing GOOD power.  I can throw some concepts, but there are other folks who KNOW these things much better than me.  

May be that's also why many friends of mine have multiple pairs of speakers paired with various brands of (dedicated) amps.

Ouch!  That's expensive.

Since this is meant-to-be the ultimate 3-way speaker, that is truly the least of the concerns.  

Well... it'll be the best speaker I can build in about 5 cubic feet.  I don't know that it'll be the "ultimate" speakers.  Certainly there will still be folk seeking 100db/2.83v for their 300b SET amplifiers.  There will still be folks seeking big pro-audio monitors.  There will still be folks who want he warm sound of flexible cones.   There will still be folks wanting a smaller speaker for the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).  etc. etc.

Is there any preliminary speculation of the dimension yet?

It'll probably be about 13-14" wide, about 45", and very deep.  The depth will be the "fudge factor" for the cabinet volume.

How big of a room is this 3-way speaker designed to perform in?

This decision will most likely be determined by your wife     While there are some significant factors in room construction that DO effect bass response, a big 3-way speaker can be used in a very modest room.  I heard this at CES, and I didn't think the larger 3-way speakers suffered in the hotel room suites.   I think either of the larger rooms in my home will accomodate them just fine.  They are @36'x15'x10' and 28'x23'x9 .  

I just sent my Golden Tube SE40SE to Soniccraft for the "full Glowacki" upgrade.  I think this amp might be the real deal after Jeff's work.  I have grown to increasingly trust everything Jeff convey's.  Intially I was hesitant, but his words keep coming true.  Jeff said this amp will be "IT", when finished.  I will certainly convey these findings when I hear them.

[David Ellis]

There is a query above regarding magnet degredation and Neodymium and mangnet degredation.  I have learned some information that is worth sharing.

Yesterday I spoke with TC sounds regarding magnet degredation.  They said the primary reason is one of conflicting electrical fields.  The magnet can be considered a DC electrical field.  The operating motor will generate inductance.  This inductance creates an AC field.  Over time, the AC field will travel across the DC magnet and slowly deplete the DC field.  

The solution for this is simple - copper shorting rings.  This application is equally effective with Neo and Ceramic magnets.  This also explains why I haven't encounted any measured depletion of the 1801 magnets.  They have shorting rings.

With specific regard to Neodymium magnets, in the past weeks 2 more drivers came up with Neo motors and underhung voice coils - Accuton tweeters.  There is also an Accuton 7" driver with high sensitivity, a Neo Magnet, and underhung motor.  This will make a profoundly expensive speaker.  However, it'll be a first in many regards.  All drivers will have underhung motors, stiff cones, neo magnets, and high sensitivity.  Unless there something goes awry, this will be the configuration.

[David Ellis]

There is a query above regarding magnet degredation and Neodymium and mangnet degredation.  I have learned some information that is worth sharing.

Yesterday I spoke with TC sounds regarding magnet degredation.  They said the primary reason is one of conflicting electrical fields.  The magnet can be considered a DC electrical field.  The operating motor will generate inductance.  This inductance creates an AC field.  Over time, the AC field will travel across the DC magnet and slowly deplete the DC field.  

The solution for this is simple - copper shorting rings.  This application is equally effective with Neo and Ceramic magnets.  This also explains why I haven't encounted any measured depletion of the 1801 magnets.  They have shorting rings.

I cannot comment on the effect of motor inductance on magnets with no shorting rings in place.   I have no experience in this realm.  I have a hunch there are differences in magnet composition.

With specific regard to Neodymium magnets, in the past weeks 2 more drivers arrived in the marketplace with Neo motors and underhung voice coils - Accuton tweeters.  There is also an Accuton 7" driver with high sensitivity, a Neo Magnet, and underhung motor.  This will make a profoundly expensive speaker.  However, it'll be a first in many regards.  All drivers will have underhung motors, stiff cones, neo magnets, and high sensitivity.  Unless there something goes awry, this will be the configuration.

[HChi]

However, can you explain why the 200wpc amp sounds better than the 35wpc push pull when the peak consumption is 30 watts? I believe the answer lies in the ability for an amplifier to push a GOOD 30-40wpc with most speakers. I beleve most amplifiers fail in this regard.

Indeed, being able to push a good 30-40wpc is the most crucial. I guess that's also the reason why more and more vendors are switching from Class A to ClassAB with only the first 15-50wpc working in ClassA.  I think it can be safely assumed that for any given vendor (comparing to the vendor itself only), its Class A implementation is going to sound better than its Class B.  From personal experince again in my rig , using large scale orchestral CDs or (24+ inches) drum intensive tracks, the highest registration of amp draw I have seen is about 5 amp.  Assume that reading is somewhat accurate and my speakers operating around 6 ohms averagely speaking, I2R tells us it is about 150W. Since mines are Class A, taking Class A efficiency (40-50%) into account, 60W is what the speakers demend of the eacho mono amp at the moment of the highest current draws. (I hope I am not too far off in this simplistic example).   I completely agree that under the regular situation, good 30-40wpc would be sufficient.  But during the demanding moments,  amps with more headroom may be useful.

While there are some significant factors in room construction that DO effect bass response, a big 3-way speaker can be used in a very modest room.

A big 3-way speaker often prefers to perform in a bigger room.  As you already point out, the room dimension will affect bass response.   In a small room, which can't reproduce the bottem end, it will most likely to create bass booming problems. What will be the minimal dimension that the speaker needs in order to 'breath' comfortably as its design intended?

I just sent my Golden Tube SE40SE to Soniccraft for the "full Glowacki" upgrade. I think this amp might be the real deal after Jeff's work.

Please keep us posted regarding the impression on this newly modded toy of yours.

However, it'll be a first in many regards. All drivers will have underhung motors, stiff cones, neo magnets, and high sensitivity. Unless there something goes awry, this will be the configuration.

Does this mean the accuton underhung drivers are the top candidates for now?

Dave, this is looking more and more interesting. Perhaps I can swing by Dennis place again to audition the prototype when it is ready!

[David Ellis]

A big 3-way speaker often prefers to perform in a bigger room. As you already point out, the room dimension will affect bass response. In a small room, which can't reproduce the bottem end, it will most likely to create bass booming problems. What will be the minimal dimension that the speaker needs in order to 'breath' comfortably as its design intended?

Generally yes, but this depends on the intent of the woofer system design.  I heard one very prime example of bass boom when I auditioned the PSB Stratus Gold several years ago. This speaker is allegedly flat to the low 20hz zone anechoic.  The result in-room was massive boom due the room lift occuring @30hz.  This lift is common in most rooms and beigins somewhere below @40hz.  I thought the Hales Revelation 3 (Sealed F3 @31hz) was a also a bit too low, and boomed slightly.  The 2nd best bass in-room bass balance I have heard was from the Hales Revelation 2 (Sealed F3@35hz).  The best in-room response I heard was from the SCC300 woofer (F3@38hz).  My woofer will have low Q sealed F3 of about 40hz.  

I'll made a statement of opinion at this point, "The general room lift in most rooms is significantly better matched to the @12db sealed woofer rolloff than the @24db ported woofer rolloff. ?

A big cabinet woofer system can result in deep bass.  A big cabinet woofer system can result in high sensitivity.  My orientation is toward the latter.  I don't really think bass boom will be an issue.

But during the demanding moments, amps with more headroom may be useful.

Yes, but the only time I need this is to dance with my boys.  

This speaker will be capable of cleanly reproducing the power from a @200wpc amp.  As such, using a smaller amp might make an owner feel less masculine.  However, given normal listening, the very best system amp has just enough power, and no more (my 2 cents).

Does this mean the accuton underhung drivers are the top candidates for now?

Yes, but they are expensive.  However, like the 1801, I am building this speaker for me.  If somebody else wants one... okay  

Dave, this is looking more and more interesting. Perhaps I can swing by Dennis place again to audition the prototype when it is ready!

Dennis probably will not be living in DC by the time this is completed.  He is retiring and moving to Arizona.   Further, Dennis may not have this prototype.  It'll also require a different cabinet than what you saw (bigger and a backward leaner).  Initially this speaker will arrive in Chicago in October of next year.  

However, if you are interested in arguably the very best speaker currently made, I suggest you visit Jim Salk in Detroit www.salksound.com.

Dave

[David Ellis]

A big 3-way speaker often prefers to perform in a bigger room. As you already point out, the room dimension will affect bass response. In a small room, which can't reproduce the bottem end, it will most likely to create bass booming problems. What will be the minimal dimension that the speaker needs in order to 'breath' comfortably as its design intended?

Generally yes, but this depends on the intent of the woofer system design.  I heard one very prime example of bass boom when I auditioned the PSB Stratus Gold several years ago. This speaker is allegedly flat to the low 20hz zone anechoic.  The result in-room was massive boom due the room lift occuring @30hz.  This lift is common in most rooms and beigins somewhere below @40hz.  I thought the Hales Revelation 3 (Sealed F3 @31hz) was a also a bit too low, and boomed slightly.  The 2nd best bass in-room bass balance I have heard was from the Hales Revelation 2 (Sealed F3@35hz).  The best in-room response I heard was from the SCC300 woofer (F3@38hz).  My woofer will have low Q sealed F3 of about 40hz.  

I'll made a statement of opinion at this point, "The general room lift in most rooms is significantly better matched to the @12db sealed woofer rolloff than the @24db ported woofer rolloff. ?

A big cabinet woofer system can result in deep bass.  A big cabinet woofer system can result in high sensitivity.  My orientation is toward the latter.  I don't really think bass boom will be an issue.

But during the demanding moments, amps with more headroom may be useful.

Yes, but the only time I need this is to dance with my boys.  

This speaker will be capable of cleanly reproducing the power from a @200wpc amp.  As such, using a smaller amp might make an owner feel less masculine.  However, given normal listening, the very best system amp has just enough power, and no more (my 2 cents).

Does this mean the accuton underhung drivers are the top candidates for now?

Yes, but they are expensive.  However, like the 1801, I am building this speaker for me.  If somebody else wants one... okay  

Dave, this is looking more and more interesting. Perhaps I can swing by Dennis place again to audition the prototype when it is ready!

Dennis probably will not be living in DC by the time this is completed.  He is retiring and moving to Arizona.   Further, Dennis may not have this prototype.  It'll also require a different cabinet than what you saw (bigger and a backward leaner).  Initially this speaker will arrive in Chicago during October of next year.  

However, if you are interested in arguably the very best speaker currently made, I suggest you visit Jim Salk in Detroit www.salksound.com.

Dave

[TomW16]

Hi Dave,

Keep experimenting with the 3-way until you get it right and I bet that others will want one too; me included.  

I have a question about the mid range woofer.  One of the advantages of a 3-way is that, if designed properly, the mid-range woofer can handle the whole vocal range from approximately 300 Hz to 3 KHz without any crossover in that critical region.   Accuton has a number of woofers that could fit the bill (3.5" woofers all the way up to 7" woofers).  My basic understanding is that larger woofers will handle the low frequencies well but may "beam" (become very directional) with the higher frequencies.  Smaller woofers will have wider dispersion characteristics with higher frequencies but sacrifice the low frequency reach of a larger woofer.  Have you experimented with different size woofers for the mid range and do you have a preference regarding sound?  (I have not heard any Accuton woofers but the C79-6 seems ideally suited).

I also noted that you are designing a "backward leaner".  Is this to time align the drivers or is this only for asthetics?

Thanks for all of the update information and keep up the great work!

Tom

[DSK]

...I have not heard any Accuton woofers but the C79-6 seems ideally suited ...

The Accuton C90-T6 6.5" midrange driver looks pretty good with an even flatter FR (+/-2db 120hz-7khz & smooth rolloffs), wider recommended bandwidth (120hz-6khz vs C79's 200hz-4khz), neodymium magnet, titanium voice coil former... It's 93db claimed sensitivity would not suit the Accuton tweeters but would go very nicely with other high end tweeters (most ribbons).

[awm]

However, if you are interested in arguably the very best speaker currently made, I suggest you visit Jim Salk in Detroit www.salksound.com.

Umm, Dave, have you heard the Orions, lately?  

Still lovin' my 1801's, though.  They're now in the master b-room being driven by a Panny 45.  Very nice.

Andy

[Al Garay]

There needs to be a HT3 versus SL Orion shootout and I'll be glad to have it at my house... well the wife may not approve. So, we'll host it at Andy's house while he is gone.

Then we can throw in the Eton 11.2s which are a bargain 3-way in comparison.

[zybar]

However, if you are interested in arguably the very best speaker currently made, I suggest you visit Jim Salk in Detroit www.salksound.com.

Dave

Dave,

I am not sure if they are the "best" out there, but I am very willing to say that they are one of the "best" out there in terms of sound, quality, and value.

Also wanted to say "kudos" to you for recognizing a peer of yours and not starting some flame war or feeling the need to start a turf battle.

I wish you continued success.

George

[David Ellis]

There are several things above for commentary.  I hope this response will address all of them.

I have experienced the midrange from many respectable drivers, Focal Kevlar, Accuton C95, Zellaton, Scanspeak (many), Seas 7"-8", and some other paper cone drivers 5"-8".  My summary is as follows.

1.  As frequency rises, a larger cone will beam, and the in-room response will generally decrease.  If this is avoided, using a larger cone in the midrange is a non-factor.

2.  As frequeny rises, a larger cone experiences different physical stress at the same spl production.  The larger cone will have less movement/acceleration.  The larger cone has a greater distance between the voice coil and edge to firmly support/hold rigid.  I found little/no difference in midrange sound quality between the W18 and W22 Seas drivers.  The only real difference between these 2 drivers is the cone size.

3.  IMO, the primary factors for an effective midrange driver and implementation are.

a.  A rigid cone
b.  Avoiding cone resonance
c.  Avoiding thermal compression
d.  Flat response on & off axis
e.  Low motor distortion

In these regards there are many midranges that appear good.  The best appears to be the new Accuton C90 on paper.

As a side note, I developed a very good crossover for the Accuton C95 and OW1.  It sounds good, very good, but not really better than the Seas W18 and OW1.  I think the bass from the C95 is better, and midrange from the C95 is more... natural.  However, the impact is not significant enough to warrant another product.  The same was true with the SEAS W22 and OW1F experiment.

I am not sure if they are the "best" out there, but I am very willing to say that they are one of the "best" out there in terms of sound, quality, and value.

I agree, that's why I used the word "arguably" in my initial statement.  Certainly there are other speakers on par with the Salk 3-way.  The Joseph Audio Pearl, John K's NAO, and S.L. Orion are in the same league.  The Burmester B99 might be better than the Salk 3-way, but I'd really have to hear the speakers in the same room.  There was also a big Kharma speaker on par with the Salk 3-way.

Umm, Dave, have you heard the Orions, lately?

 

Nope, but I am comfortable conveying that any of the bigger 3-way speakers via the DIY guys will sound better.  For most, spending the extra $3k is very unwise.  However, 3 of my customers have upgraded over the years, and appear pleased.

1.  S.L. Orion
2.  John K's NAO
3.  Jim Salk's 3-way

Also wanted to say "kudos" to you for recognizing a peer of yours and not starting some flame war or feeling the need to start a turf battle.

Well, that's because Jim and I completely understand the relative "turf".  We both have a relatively solid financial foundation that has nothing to do with building speakers.  We also both realize there is no real possibility of developing a solid financial foundation through building speakers     There is no sense arguing over financial turf when there is no real financial turf to obtain.

And... Jim does very good work.  Jim is good, good, good for the hobby of speaker building.

Dave

[Marbles]

Well, to add to what Zybar mentioned....I heard the 1801's almost exactly 3 years ago and never forgot them.

Jackman brought his down to the Marblefest that had Peter Thompson from the Netherlands meeting Klaus from Indy.

The 1801's did EVERYTHING better than my nOrh marble 9.0's except deep bass.

That session was one of the reasons why I went up to listen to Jim Salks HT3's at his house early this year.  Jim has mentioned that the HT1's were based on the 1801's, but used a different tweeter.  So by extension, the HT3 came from the 1801 as well.  The XO's of the Ellis and Salks were all done by Dennis Murphy.

Anyway, the HT3 is a wonderful speaker.  I'm sure whatever 3 way Dave comes up with will be an amazing speaker as well.

Certainly one I'm looking forward to hearing.

As to the best speaker in the world, I'll leave that up to people that have heard every speaker in the world.  As for me, everytime I walk past my speakers, or listen to them, I get a smile on my face, or tears in my eyes (in a good way).

[HChi]

Yes, but they are expensive. However, like the 1801, I am building this speaker for me. If somebody else wants one... okay icon_smile.gif

If these accuton drivers are really all that, I actually would seriously consider dropping extra dough.  Just keep me posted once you gotta prototype some of these drivers.

I have been paying some attention to Jim Salk's wonderful HT3(a).  Too bad I haven't found anyone has one in Baltimore/DC area, otherwise I would love to audition it.  They look pretty sweet and I believe they should sound at least pretty good too, especially if they are comparable to Kharma speakers.

Thinking of xover, will the 3-way have a passive and/or active oxver?

In term of cabinet, have you had much time to experince with different materials? Are MDF and hardwood still being used as the primary material for cabinet?

By the way, thanks for the willingness to discuss and share much of design concepts in public.  May you have a wonderful weekend!

[David Ellis]

If these accuton drivers are really all that, I actually would seriously consider dropping extra dough

These are my thoughts too.

Too bad I haven't found anyone has one in Baltimore/DC area, otherwise I would love to audition it.

If you manage to wander through Detroit, I recommend you stop at Jim's home for a listen.

Thinking of xover, will the 3-way have a passive and/or active oxver?

... probably passive

In term of cabinet, have you had much time to experince with different materials? Are MDF and hardwood still being used as the primary material for cabinet?

Frankly, if the cabinet is solid, fancy/different materials really don't matter much IMO.  Sure, there are many THEORETICAL issues extant, but they really aren't very important.  Concrete, Granite & Corian might look pretty slick, but many extremely good speakers were made and will be made with MDF.  If the cabinet is solid, the material really doesn't matter.

Given the broad spans of lumber on this cabinet, there will be very little/no hardwood.  This is simply because hardwood expands & contracts across the grain significantly.  If this "across" distance is too great, the lumber will split.  

Also, I suspect this speaker will sound slightly better than many others.  However, when compared to the very best speakers extant the difference may be minimal.  I really don't know the audible impact of a good underhung motor completely integrated into a speaker system.  However, many subwoofer guys rave about these motors.  Other folks rave about ATC and Skanning and  and everyone seems to agree that underhung is theoretically the best.  They are surely the most expensive.