Phast Est vs. RCR3 or Tanzanite

Greg V · « **on:** 20 Oct 2005, 09:18 pm »

Greetings,

I'm looking at DIY kits and the Selah products look very attractive. Has anyone heard all three of these models (or any of them) who would be able to give me an opinion as to which would be best, built as a floorstander? My room is 17' x 30' x vaulted ceiling. I'll buy moderate source gear, built around the speakers, and listen to most everything except hip-hop and electronic music, at background to moderate levels. I like the idea of the Phast Est, but looking at the specs, it wouldn't seem to offer a lot of benefit over either of the monitors.

Thanks in advance,
Greg

tkp · « **Reply #1 on:** 21 Oct 2005, 03:32 pm »

For DIY kit, IMHO, the Peridot is closer to fullrange speakers than the three you mentioned and not to mention a better value.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #2 on:** 23 Oct 2005, 12:31 am »

Quote from: Greg V

Greetings,

I'm looking at DIY kits and the Selah products look very attractive. Has anyone heard all three of these models (or any of them) who would be able to give me an opinion as to which would be best, built as a floorstander? My room is 17' x 30' x vaulted ceiling. I'll buy moderate source gear, built around the speakers, and listen to most everything except hip-hop and electronic music, at background to moderate levels. I like the idea of the Phast Est, but looking at the specs, it wouldn't seem to offer a lot of benefit over either of the monitors.

Thanks in advance,
Greg

How far away is your listening position? With a room that size and a vaulted ceiling the Phast Est will offer more output capability with the dual woofers. As TKP noted, the Peridot kit would be ideal and it costs less than the Phast Est kit.

Greg V · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 02:06 am »

I like the idea of the Peridot too, but the SAF is likely going to be greater with the smaller footprint of the Phast Est. My listening position is about 8-9' from the speakers.

Greg

Rick Craig · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 03:16 am »

Quote from: Greg V

I like the idea of the Peridot too, but the SAF is likely going to be greater with the smaller footprint of the Phast Est. My listening position is about 8-9' from the speakers.

Greg

At that distance the Phast Est would be excellent. The second woofer really makes a difference in terms of dynamic capability and also increases the sensitivity.

smithsonga · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 04:14 pm »

For a room that doubles as a theater....is it best to get the Peridot with seperate subs (we talked about this with the Tanzanites) or combine it all into the RC4?

I am trying to justify to myself that two subs are really needed for the best bass coverage...and the peridots + 2 subs are very close to the RC4 total price....

Even if the RC4 is a bit more, what are its benefits vs. the Peridots plus subs?
Dynamics?
Jim

Rick Craig · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 05:01 pm »

Quote from: smithsonga

For a room that doubles as a theater....is it best to get the Peridot with seperate subs (we talked about this with the Tanzanites) or combine it all into the RC4?

I am trying to justify to myself that two subs are really needed for the best bass coverage...and the peridots + 2 subs are very close to the RC4 total price....

Even if the RC4 is a bit more, what are its benefits vs. the Peridots plus subs?
Dynamics?
Jim

It really depends on your room. The RC4 was specifically designed for situations where listeners don't want separate subwoofers. This could be due to room constraints and / or aesthetics plus cost considerations. I usually suggest that if you can locate separate subwoofers in the front corners that will load the room the best. This also gives you an additional 6db of output capability.

The RC4 vs. the Peridot w/subs is a close call. The area covered by the 8" drivers will be a little better defined with the RC4 because of the Excel woofers. From the midrange on up they sound pretty much the same.

tkp · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 07:41 pm »

Quote from: smithsonga

For a room that doubles as a theater....is it best to get the Peridot with seperate subs (we talked about this with the Tanzanites) or combine it all into the RC4?

I am trying to justify to myself that two subs are really needed for the best bass coverage...and the peridots + 2 subs are very close to the RC4 total price....

Even if the RC4 is a bit more, what are its benefits vs. the Peridots plus subs?
Dynamics?
Jim

Since I own the RC4, I can tell you that for me the subs needed to be integrated into the speakers due to lack of space for seperate subs and also for WAF.

IMHO, if you have the room then go with seperate sub woofers (whether a single one or a pair) because this will allow more flexible placement. If money is tight, then a Peridot Kit and a single large power sub should work well for both music and HT. For music, the Peridot should play deep enough without the need for subwoofer and a single large subwoofer can be used for HT purpose.

As Rick mention, the W22s might give the RC4 a bit more refine sound in the low end but I am not sure if it is audible. I think for this application (ie...3 way designs), the L22s should be very close if not the same in performance to the W22s.

smithsonga · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 08:18 pm »

Great input.

I will verify space...which is a big concern.

so if I use the sub for HT only, 1 is plenty? no localization issues? I have heard both arguements.

I wired a line level output into the same wall plate as both my front channels...so I can do either.....I would not want a large sub box is my main concern.

I also like the integration of the RC4, plus 2 boxes to make, not 3 or 4.

thanks
Jim

Rick Craig · « **Reply #9 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 08:46 pm »

Quote from: smithsonga

Great input.

I will verify space...which is a big concern.

so if I use the sub for HT only, 1 is plenty? no localization issues? I have heard both arguements.

I wired a line level output into the same wall plate as both my front channels...so I can do either.....I would not want a large sub box is my main concern.

I also like the integration of the RC4, plus 2 boxes to make, not 3 or 4.

thanks
Jim

Depending on which subwoofer you use one may be all that you need. The Aquamarine can be crossed in the 55-60hz area @24db/octave so localization isn't a problem.

tkp · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 08:48 pm »

> so if I use the sub for HT only, 1 is plenty? no localization issues? I > have heard both arguements.

If cross low enough, localization is not an issue. Since the Peridot goes fairly low (F3 = 38 hz, F10 = 17 hz) and depending on how stiff of a crossover point for the active subwoofer (Rick can recommend on the slop of the crossover for the sub to work well with the Peridot), the sub will probably be cross around 40 hz to 60 hz. This is very low and is not localizable.

> I wired a line level output into the same wall plate as both my front
> channels...so I can do either.....I would not want a large sub box is my > main concern.

> I also like the integration of the RC4, plus 2 boxes to make, not 3 or 4.

My sitituation was exactly the same. My wife hates subwoofer boxes and so do I. This was one of the reasons I went with the RC4.

smithsonga · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 08:50 pm »

I noticed your RC4 doesnt have the tapered top (however you want to describe it). Was this a previous design? Any reason other than aesthetics that Rick changed to the way it is now?

tkp · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Oct 2005, 08:53 pm »

Quote from: smithsonga

I noticed your RC4 doesnt have the tapered top (however you want to describe it). Was this a previous design? Any reason other than aesthetics that Rick changed to the way it is now?

It was for aesthetics reason that Rick changed the cabinet to taper top after I built my pair of RC4. I like the taper top look but the cabinet of my pair of RC4 is not bad either. If I do it all over again, I probably would still go with rectangular shape to keep the cabinet cost down.