A picture of the Ridge Street Sason speaker

brj · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:45 pm »

My understanding is that much of a speaker's ability to image well is the result of how closely matched the drivers are between left and right channels. I note that the Sasons are purported to have their drivers matched within 0.5 dB.

Is this done at 1 specific frequency, multiple frequencies, or a max allowable delta over the entire frequency range?

Marbles · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 07:48 pm »

I'll have to defer to Robert and Steve....I don't know how they do it....but they do it

ctviggen · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 08:05 pm »

Supposedly Wilson matches his drivers this way, too. But couldn't something like digital crossovers do the same thing (assuming the impedance of each driver was known/tested)?

brj · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 Dec 2005, 08:15 pm »

Quote from: ctviggen

But couldn't something like digital crossovers do the same thing (assuming the impedance of each driver was known/tested)?

Based on what I've read about units like the DEQ/X and Tact, yes. Reports of improved imaging seem relatively consistant across speaker models when driven this way, and it is usually attributed to the driver correction (which may be lumped in with room correction). Of course, this does depend on good measurements, which may or may not be accomplished easily.

If you really can match drivers across the entire frequency range, I can understand the benefit. I don't imagine that this would be simple, however, and I wonder how many pairs of drivers you would need on hand to accomplish it! (Unless you can tweak them into agreement, of course.)

Marbles · « **Reply #24 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 02:00 am »

My nOrh 9.0's image well.

My VMPS RM40's imaged well.

My Salk HT3's image well.

The speakers are well set up, and the room is acoustically treated.

Associated equipment is pretty darn good and the cables have been extensively compared and the winners have been bought.

Judging from what Jim Salk said about the difference in using the DEQX and the stock DM XO, and the slight increase in imaging, and what he said about the brief time he heard my upgraded HT3's, I can clearly state that the Sason is in another league completely than the before mentioned speakers.

Why do they image better? I have no idea...in fact if I find out, I will try to mod all my speakers so they try to do the same thing.

When I heard them the first time they sounded full and imaged great..that was at RSA's World Headqurters.

When I heard them in my house, they sounded a bit thin, but imaged great. Very little time was spent getting the port tuned right for my size room.

Eric Hider has them in his large room, and after Steve spent 4-5 hours getting the ports tuned right, they sound full.

I have no doubt that they will be able to sound right when I get the extended demo. With me having an electronic XO and subs to use with them, and the layering and imaging they possess, I'm excited to listen to these speakers again.

No one should buy these speakers on what I'm saying....but they should definately go on a short list of speakers to demo if they are in the market and can afford them.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #25 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 06:37 am »

Hey Rob,

Chris[/list:u]

ctviggen · « **Reply #26 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:31 am »

Marbles and BRJ, I think what I'm talking about is different. What I mean is that you run separate amps to each driver system handling certain frequency ranges. So, for the RM40s/Salks, you'd have three two-channel amps and three sets of digital crossovers. For each set of crossovers, you'd tune the set to the drivers being used (and even better, you'd tune each crossover for a driver -- right or left -- separately). Do you have your system set up this way? A detriment to this is that cheap digital crossovers only provide an output that does not take into account the effects of the driver itself. Some people say they can design better passive crossovers because they can then take into account the driver. A day will soon come, though, when digital crossovers do take into account the driver itself, and perhaps even measure the driver for you. When that day comes, I'm first in line for the device. Until then, I'd rather let the designer develop their own crossovers, unless I'm going to build my own speakers.

As for what images better, I can only go by your word, having never heard 3 of the 4 speakers you mentioned. On the other hand, I'm not as much as an audiophile as you, so I don't plan on replacing my RM40s; I'm content with them for now, and my interests are running more toward building my own power supplies (for a SB2 and an Ack Dack 1.2d) and amps and room acoustics (I still need more low bass trapping, more trapping at certain points, and lots more diffusion). After that, I might thing about speakers again.

Marbles · « **Reply #27 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 01:20 pm »

CT, that's exactly what Dennis Murphy and Jim Salk did when they tested the DEQX and Jims HT3a's ("a" for active). They had switches on the back for all three drivers that they could flip to go from DEQX/6 channels of amplification, to the passive XO and stereo amplification. I beleive they just were concerned about the XO function and not room control.

Chris, the first thing is toneality..a piano has to sound like a piano.

cohesiveness- seemless driver integration
Dynamics
imaging/layering/soundstage
PRAT

The above constraints all have to be together in the same package. IF one is lacking then I'm not too interested in the speaker.

Other constraints...

load- that is I'm not interested in a .5ohm load that is 80 DB 1W 1M effecient - 84 DB + and 2+ Ohm rating is what I look for..
Looks and size....I don't have room for Epiphony 21/20 7'4" tall speakers
I'm not currently interested in single driver speakers either.

Some speakers do things better than others.

All of the speakers I mentioned above do those things well. Some do one or another better than the others, but they are all very nice speakers.

If I had my druthers on what one quality I would like to have elevated once the other criteria are met, it is imaging/layering. No doubt on why I like these speakers.

Some other things of note on my tastes. I prefer point source to line source speakers. I prefer true full range speakers to not full range, but I have some pretty good equipment to integrate my subs into my system if needed, so it's not a big deal to me.

The bass in the Salks is integrated WELL, it will be tough to match how good it is.

I have bass peaks of 20 and 40 hz in my room and can be happy with speakers that go down to 36hz (f-3) very easily.

Pretty much all of my upgrades have been to get a more realistic playback of the recorded event, or what my brain tells me of the recorded event. A big part of that is imaging/layering...having my brain see a holographic image of the musicians as they play.

All of the speakers mentioned above have been able to do it fairly well, these just take it to another level that I have not experienced with any other speaker in any setup.

audiojerry · « **Reply #28 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 01:52 pm »

Very good comments, Marbles - especially about the piano - thanks for asking the question, Lonewolf

I'm on the same page with a lot of what you said. I've auditioned a few speakers myself (

), and even though some excelled in those areas, I still ended up not caring for them because they caused listener fatigue. If I can't listen to a speaker as long as I want, I have to reject it despite its having some outstanding characteristics.

I will keep a speaker even though it may not excel in some areas like bass extension or power handling simply because it's enjoyable to listen to for extended periods.

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #29 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 07:38 pm »

Marbles and brj,

In keeping with our FreeEnergy concept, any design challenges need to be addressed up front so corrections are not required further on down the line, where other design parameters may be affected by a band aid approach to correct the original source of the deviation.

What we really have are two issues: proper driver matching and tight tolerances in the crossover components (0.1% in the case of the Sason Ltd).

The holographic imaging we achieve is accomplished by attacking the source first - matching the drivers. Only then will the crossover function properly. Less demands are placed on crossover adjustments if the drivers are well matched.

The drivers are matched +/- 0.5 dB across the most critical region between, in this case, 375 Hz to 5625 Hz. So, the largest variance is 1.0 dB total, over very short frequency band widths.

I have attached some scans of the raw driver frequency responses to illustrate. What you see are the two midwoofers followed by the two tweeters, below. Note the vertical increments of 5 dB per division. This is outstanding driver matching, especially between the tweeters. Note also, the lack of a chaotic breakup on the top end of the Kevlar midwoofers - they are predictable and very smooth throughout their band pass.

Keep in mind the crossover frequency is 1,700 Hz, 18 dB per octave symmetrical. At an octave higher (approx. 3,400 Hz) the on-axis response is 18 dB lower, and given that the midwoofers are becoming directional at that frequency, the in-room power response is attenuated even further.

Steve Rothermel
Ridge Street Audio Designs
www.RidgeStreetAudioDesigns.com

Steve · « **Reply #30 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 09:15 pm »

I agree with Marbles, AudioJerry, and Robert in the sound they like. I don't want the kettle drum where the conductor is. I like the sound to be precise and to visualize the orchestra accurately. I like an accurate front to back ratio, less sonic signature in my opinion.

I have a couple of Test CDs, one of which a "tester" walks back some 60 feet from the mic, in a church (Stereophile CD 2 and 3). I don't want him only sounding 10 feet back. That is the depth. But I also want him at the mic when he actually walks up to it.

Sounds like you have a very nice speaker Robert.

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #31 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:42 pm »

Thanks Steve.

I hear you've been doing some very good things too!

I have to agree...Steve and I's collaboration has yielded what we consider a very special loudspeaker. Now if we can just get more folks to believe what we and others are saying...

As I look through the market of what's available, there are certainly more than a few speakers available that capture our attention. Unfortunately, in my experience, to many of those offerings impress with hi-fi spectaculars and I've always found that presentation, which can show up many ways, to be fatiguing with over an hour of focused listening where I just want to enjoy music. Shoot, as much as I enjoy much in my modded Ref.3A De Capo-i, they just don't have the magic I've grown accustomed to in the Sason Ltd. Neither do much more ambitious efforts I've been able to hear.

Cheers!

Marbles · « **Reply #32 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:48 pm »

edited post: disregard....

Nick B · « **Reply #33 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 11:58 pm »

Will this speaker be at CES and if so where? Thanks

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #34 on:** 15 Dec 2005, 01:16 am »

Hi Nick.

No, we won't be at CES. RMAF 2006 yes. I haven't had time or enough help to network with other Mfgr's to make CES feasible for us. The only way a smaller specialty company like us can afford to do CES's is to network and share a space with other manufacturers. Sigh...

Meanwhile, Ya'll are welcome here at RSAD World Headquarters anytime!:drums:

Cheese!

Nick B · « **Reply #35 on:** 15 Dec 2005, 01:39 am »

Hi Robert Too bad I won't be able to hear it. If ever I should be in that area (when the weather is more hospitable), I'll take you up on your offer
Regards, Nick

Bill Baker · « **Reply #36 on:** 15 Dec 2005, 01:52 am »

Quote

Unfortunately, in my experience, to many of those offerings impress with hi-fi spectaculars and I've always found that presentation, which can show up many ways, to be fatiguing with over an hour of focused listening where I just want to enjoy music

NOt to invade on this thread but I was thrilled to see this statement. I too look at a more radical path when voicing a speaker (and our modifications). As I have mentioned in the past, I am looking for a more magical sense of realism rather than the typical "Hi-Fi'ish" presentation that measure perfectly. To take a quote from the latest issue of TAS, "...favoring musical directness over Hi-Fi fireworks".

The speakers that "impress with hi-fi spectaculars" wear thin after a short period if you are one simply looking for pure musical enjoyment.

drphoto · « **Reply #37 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 12:00 am »

Here's a side view of the Sasson. Do these pix look dark on your monitors?

I use a high-end calibrated monitor that is set up for print work and when I looked at this site on a typical monitor at a friends house, the images looked dark. (I don't do much web based stuff)

Robert C. Schult · « **Reply #38 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 12:37 am »

Ugh...hideous loudspeakers.

Steve Rothermel
Ridge Street Audio Designs

audiojerry · « **Reply #39 on:** 16 Dec 2005, 12:59 am »

Great photo, Drphoto, and of course an extremely impressive looking speaker. This is one speaker that convinces me it will sound impressive just by the looks. Extraordinary cabinets.

If they were at CES, I'm sure they'd draw a lot of attention just because of their looks alone, and all the rags would be writing about them.

Congrats again Steve and Robert!