OW4???

Jed · « **on:** 11 Dec 2005, 02:38 pm »

Any details on the new Hiquphon, Dave?

David Ellis · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Dec 2005, 01:22 am »

...I really don't know anything more than other what is published on the webpage. However, I placed an order in early November and yesterday asked for a pair of OW4s with this order. I don't know if this will matriculate.

I can provide some history herein.

A couple years ago I asked Oskar to make a slightly different tweeter. His kind feedback was twofold.

1. This would cost about $50k.

2. The OW3 was ordained by a gent who thought they would sell well in car audio applications in SE Asia. He was right.

Sooo, maybe if I'm lucky, this tweeter will have an underhung voice coil. This is about the only area were Oskar's tweeters MIGHT improve. His manufacturing tolerance and coating techniquies are already maximally refined.

Dave

Jed · « **Reply #2 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 04:49 pm »

Hi Dave,

I got an email back from Oskar about the OW4.

To summarize, he said the OW4 can be thought of as an updated OW3. He said the specs will be similar to the OW3 too. However, the OW4 gets a new dome with a very special coating process with a useable FR from 2K on upwards. Basically a more sensitive OW1 with very similar musicality compared to the OW1. He didn't answer my question about the underhung voice coil, but he seemed very excited about this new product.

Jed

David Ellis · « **Reply #3 on:** 7 Jan 2006, 05:10 pm »

This seems reasonable, and thanks for posting.

In my correspondence and conversations with Oskar these past few years, I have grown to believe the coating process IS extremely critical. I also am very aware that at least 1 larger manufacturer is very unwilling to follow Oskar in this regard. Hand coating is a very tedious and labor intenstive practice - artesian in nature. Oskar did convey his belief that the Dynaudio Esotar and Scanspeak 9900 are also hand coated.

Regarding the OW1 and OW4 similar sound (i.e. very musical). I have long believed that the flaw of many tweeters is their lack of mechanical dampening. Sure, the electrical dampenining tends to be very good, but mechanical dampening (i.e. proprietary hand-coating) is also very important. I continue to believe that poor mechanical dampening is the reason why many tweeters sound harsh. In this regard, mechanical dampening is commonly heavy. Creating a lighter yet well-damped dome for the OW3 was probably the design goal for the OW4.

Oskar is a very bright gentlemen with a very heathly mind. It's pleasant to see that his mind remains active in matters benefitting guys like us.

Also, I think... something is broken with my email. I think my spam settings are too restrictive. I believe I am missing correspondence from some folks (i.e. Oskar).

David Ellis · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 Feb 2006, 04:19 am »

Today Oskar sent this via email:

Quote

Dear Dave,

As you may have seen on my website or heard from customers, the OW4 is released now. I start this new version up very slowly. In the beginning I prefer to let them go direct from Hiquphon to end user, simply to keep a close feedback chain for the first production batch, in order to make regulations if anything unforeseen should come up (which I don't expect though).

I expect you will get some questions about this new OW4 and the most important to tell, is the color: Platinum like and in my opinion very nice! Sound quality close to OWIII although a new cone and a different coating is involved and in the detail there will be a more soft clean bottom and Fs a bit lower like 850 Hz. Sensitivity would be fair to set to 90dB.

Please se the website for an pdf brochure (click the round Platinum dome). Also see a picture of a version with foam ring simply by clicking the picture of 1/4 OW4 to the right in the row of tweeters.

As also is indicated on my website, the OWIII will have a minor update coming, ending up to be just like the new OW4 only with a very beautiful new more sort of warm-gold coating which is nice looking in my opinion. When updated I will change the name from OWIII to OW3 indicating this change and small update difference.

Best regards
Oskar Wrønding
HIQUPHON
to music with love...

skrivis · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 Feb 2006, 09:36 pm »

Quote from: David Ellis

Today Oskar sent this via email:

I had someone tell me yesterday that the new tweets are really spectacular. I don't know any details yet though.

David,

You could certainly be an end user. Get a pair for your personal speakers.

David Ellis · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Feb 2006, 10:24 pm »

Quote

I had someone tell me yesterday that the new tweets are really spectacular. I don't know any details yet though.

When the details are conveyed, please do post them here. I haven't heard them yet, and cannot convey any insight. I think Oskar's tweeters are all very good, and am sure the OW4 is no exception.

Dave

Toka · « **Reply #7 on:** 29 Jun 2008, 04:21 am »

Hi David (and gang),

Sorry to dredge up such an old thread, but I'm interested in these OW4 tweets and figured this was as good a place as any to get some impressions on it...especially when compared to the OWII. I found one such writeup (I think on diyaudio) that seemed to favor the OWII (the '4 was said to be too bright/forward), but I don't know under what conditions this test was made. Wish I could find that post but at the moment I'm coming up empty. Anyway, any newer info would be greatly appreciated!

evan1 · « **Reply #8 on:** 29 Jun 2008, 10:53 am »

I do not know if this will help but I just got my Salk Sound Towers with the OW 4 because Jim was out of th Ow2. I do not think it is bright and forward but I never heard the ow2. I think it is really clean

David Ellis · « **Reply #9 on:** 30 Jun 2008, 02:10 pm »

Comparing the OW tweeters is somewhat difficult. While there are subtle differences among them, the differences are extremely minimal. I suppose it would be like comparing two tube amps at $10k each. Sure, there would be minor differences, but they would both sound extremely good.

I will convey a few snippets regarding the OW3 (gold) and OW4 (platinum) dome tweeters. My explanation will be somewhat circuitous, but should suffice. These tweeters were ordained because folks in S.E. Asia really wanted gold and platinum COLOR domes. Following this growing need, Oskar consumed a few years in the workshop/lab refining the coating process in his domes so these colors could be obtained with no adverse effects. Oskar is very tedious in these regards. While the previous process was good, his latest process is... well... perfect. Other manufacturers simply coat the fabric, press the dome, and ... it's done. This is the complete antithesis of Oskar's methods. He is extremely tedious when hand coating his tweeters - using refined compounds in the places where needed. AND, oh by the way, he measures EVERY tweeter and culls those that don't measure within spec.

I am going to take a tangent and get on my soap box for a short period herein and convey something in-print that I have conveyed verbally on many occasions. Quality control in loudspeaker driver manufacture is an immense issue and can be extremely problematic. It has "bit" me on a few occasions, but my problems were VERY minor compared to the stories I have heard from others. It would appear to the consumer that loudspeaker drivers are all the same, and that they all should perform the same from on production run to the next. It would also appear that loudspeaker drivers all should perform the same within the same production run. In almost ALL cases, these are are very poor assumptions. And, in almost all cases, the results are audible by the educated listener. Most listeners, without time at the measurement bench, won't be able to isolate the problem to a specific frequency anomaly. The listener can simply sense that something is... hmmm... wrong. And, indeed there is often something... wrong.

However, there are VERY few documented cases of... the other guy's loudspeaker Q.C. problem rooted in poor driver Q.C. . This is simply because the guy revealing the other guy's loudspeaker Q.C. problem could result in a lawsuit for the conveyor of the problem. Almost nobody in the business can afford one of these. There is 1 guy, Dennis Murphy, who is essentially immune to this and has revised several crossovers to accommodate what I believe are driver changes across production runs. http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=marble.html . I also suggest reading this article, and perusing the measurements too http://www.stereomojo.com/Small%20Speaker%20Shootout%202007/SmallSpeakerShootout2007Part1.htm .

I would like to take a moment herein to convey a few solid praises for one of my brethren in the DIY hifi endeavor - Danny Richie. I wish to illustrate that good Q.C. is extremely important - even when using modest quality drivers. Danny Richie purchases huge quantities of modest quality drivers, then Q.C.'s the snot out of these drivers and only uses/sells those that Q.C. correctly and measure good. The primary reason for Danny Richie's success is that EVERYTHING he sells works well. The secondary reason for Danny's success is that he performs excellent design work. I have recommended Danny Richie to potential customers on many occasions and have NEVER read or heard of any negative customer feedback regarding Danny's products.

I am... going to stay on my soap box just a few more minutes regarding a related issue. It is my belief that marketing departments and consumers agree that there must a synergistic engineering magic necessary to create a good/great loudspeaker. Perhaps there is some degree of luck involved. There are a myriad of factors present in written material that are apparently very critical to the design of any respectable speaker. Candidly, this I find this rhetoric abhorrant.

In summary, it is my assertion that tedious quality control for loudspeaker drivers and completed loudspeakers is extremely important and sadly absent from loudspeaker rhetoric.

I should be VERY clear that I will not support my assertions with a plethora of data. I can not and will not risk a lawsuit. As such, you will have to trust these assertions based on my reputation. And, I am "from the government and here to help". aa

Okay, back to the correct topic...

In all of this, I will offer a summary of characteristics based on my own experience and the feedback I have received over the years. First, all of the OW tweeters sound VERY similar. I could live with any of them in my living room. The differences presented among them are profoundly minimal. However, the very minor differences lean towards the following suggestions.

1. If you are unsure which OW tweeter you want, choose the OW1. Most folks (@ 85%) in most settings have found this tweeter most pleasing to the ear.

2. If you need 90db sensitivity or prefer a slightly ribbon-like air/edge, choose the OW2.

3. If you want a fancy colored tweeter, choose the OW3 or OW4. Also, the recent revision in Oskar's coating process and fabric revision was intended to create a sonic signature more like the OW1.

4. If you want to cross the tweeter low (i.e. @1650hz 4th order), use the OW1FS (with ferrofluid). I crossed this tweeter to the SEAS W22 driver several years ago and the tweeter did NOT distort/suffer when pushed hard.

Hopefully these comments are helpful, and I apologize of my soap-box commentary was a distraction.

Sincerely,

Dave

Toka · « **Reply #10 on:** 30 Jun 2008, 07:21 pm »

No distraction at all, and most helpful. Thanks Dave!

TF1216 · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 Jun 2008, 07:26 pm »

I can say one thing about my experience with the Hiquphon tweeters. I originally tried the OW2 in kickpanels in my car. I could never tame its sibilance my 30 band graphic EQ. I sold those guys and tried the OW1 instead. I will be the first to admit that the location is not optimal but the OW1 was significantly less harsh. I have never confirmed with Oskar or Dave but my hypothesis is that the OW2 may have difference dispersion patterns.

David Ellis · « **Reply #12 on:** 30 Jun 2008, 07:59 pm »

Quote

I sold those guys and tried the OW1 instead. I will be the first to admit that the location is not optimal but the OW1 was significantly less harsh.

Yep, this is the general sentiment. Thanks very much for the input. Some folks like the "zing". Most folks (me included) don't.

Quote

I have never confirmed with Oskar or Dave but my hypothesis is that the OW2 may have difference dispersion patterns.

This is also true, but... I don't think the harshness is rooted in the dispersion patterns. Oskar might be able to explain the reasons why. I have some guesses, but they are only guesses.

Dave

goldlizsts · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Jun 2008, 08:16 pm »

Quote from: David Ellis on 30 Jun 2008, 02:10 pm

Comparing the OW tweeters is somewhat difficult.............................. .

1. If you are unsure which OW tweeter you want, choose the OW1. Most folks (@ 85%) in most settings have found this tweeter most pleasing to the ear.............................

When I was smitten the first time I heard a friend's speaker with the OW1, I wanted a speaker with a Hiquphon. I liked the musicality of my friend's boxes. Somehow, I ended up with the OW3. I got sold on it just because it was the latest, and also slightly (?) more sensitive (don't remember anymore). I never heard again the OW1 quality from my speaker, built by the fine gentlemanly Dennis. The OW3 is in no way inferior to the OW1. It's just that the OW1 may be a slightly more musical (to me) driver. From my limited audio exposure, I am of the opinion that every little piece of hardware in the sound chain impacts the ultimate sound that goes into one's ears. So, I kept telling myself that my electronics are different from my friend's, so I won't ever get the same sound that my friend does.

Toka · « **Reply #14 on:** 11 Jul 2008, 04:06 am »

One more question...any thoughts on the optional foam ring as shown on the Hiquphon website? Beyond cosmetics, that is.

David Ellis · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 Jul 2008, 12:41 am »

Quote

One more question...any thoughts on the optional foam ring as shown on the Hiquphon website? Beyond cosmetics, that is.

I think that it looks very nice

, but over time I am sure that lint would collect on the foam. Lint doesn't look very nice

Many years ago I read some very good commentary regarding the use of foam on loudspeaker baffles. I also believe the John Dunlavy used foam in the recess mounting for his drivers. Following this, I layered a perfect thickness of 1/8" felt foam around the flush mounted tweeter on the baffle on my speakers. Based on the written commentary, this SHOULD have provide some audible impact. Unfortunately I couldn't hear it.

The gent with the great commentary on foam suggested that concentric ring of foam would actually create a ripple in the response from the tweeter. Since, I couldn't hear the impact in the "ideal" situation, I decided not to experiment further with a known problem creator.

The only theoretical reason I can understand the use of a thin layer of concentric foam, or strategically placed foam on the baffle is to create a dip in the tweeter response for the tweeter. Unfortunately, the application can be somewhat ugly.

Dave

Telstar · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 Jul 2009, 11:10 am »

What about a little waveguide to raise the sensitivity of the OW1?
Anybody tried something like this?

TF1216 · « **Reply #17 on:** 10 Jul 2009, 11:23 am »

Quote from: Telstar on 10 Jul 2009, 11:10 am

What about a little waveguide to raise the sensitivity of the OW1?
Anybody tried something like this?

Something like this? (Sorry for not producing a finished picture)

There is a OW4 behind the tape.

Telstar · « **Reply #18 on:** 10 Jul 2009, 12:31 pm »

Quote from: tf121682 on 10 Jul 2009, 11:23 am

Something like this?

Yes! exactly. How much dB did you gain? Other benefits as well?

TF1216 · « **Reply #19 on:** 10 Jul 2009, 12:47 pm »

The crossover point is at 1.8 kHz which I believe is a bit lower than what Dave used. Eventhough the crossover point is low the crossover still has many components to account for other downfalls. On the plus side, the resonance of the magnesium driver is way, way down.

The tweeter does become more directive because of the waveguide. I wish I had a chance to hear Dave's 1801b to determine if my approach produced the same luxurious sound.