[PaulHilgeman]

After about 2 weeks of tweaking, the all digital Ronin 1.0d is complete. 

Some background: the Ronin 1.0d is identical to the Ronins that you have been seeing around here and that are touring the country, except the passive crossover is replaced by a active, digital crossover.  This has several advantages that play along well with the Ronin's basic design, which I will go into later.

The crossover is the quite amazing DEQX made by ClarityEQ in Australia, it has incredible capabilities and has overall outstanding sound quality as it does it D/A conversion.  The crossover points are much the same as the traditional Ronin, however the slopes are steeper.  Normally, going much beyond a 4th order slope in a traditional design can bring on some negative effects in terms of time coherence.  However the DEQX allows me to use far steeper slopes with no penalty in the time domain, in other words, an 8th order crossover with the DEQX has lower overall 'time smear' 'phase delay' or whatever you would like to call it than even a perfect first order design done using traditional crossover methods.  The impulse response is very good, with all midrange and tweeter frequencies arriving at the same time regardless of mic position (this is due to the coaxial driver arrangement).  As a whole, the various frequency response curves of the Ronin stay much the same as with the passive crossover version.  The main benefit comes in the time domain.

The overall excellent power response stays the same, as that is largely based on the waveguide loading of the tweeter and dipole radiation of the midrange. 

All design and evaluation was done using my Ayre CX-7e CD Player, feeding the DEQX using it's AES/EBU input.  The outputs of the DEQX in my situation feed a 6 channel passive attenuator (welborne labs), which then in turn feeds one of my Niagara Amplifiers for each the bass and midrange, and then a lower powered version of the Niagara (using UcD 180 module and a single power supply as opposed to dual mono).  I have also used the balanced inputs to evaluate the analog to digital conversion process, and it is very good, suprising actually.  Most will want to use the version of the DEQX that has a built in analog volume control as it will provide a greater range and much simpler system than mine.

Ronins posing with their new stablemate:



My listening room:



I should be getting the tri-wiring rear plates on Monday, so I will be sure to post updated pictures of the rear of the cabinet when they are installed.

To compliment this, I will be doing a separate, outboard crossover so that it is easy to switch between the two systems, I should have pictures of this up next week sometime.

Paul Hilgeman
Nomad Audio

[PaulHilgeman]

As a semi-partner product to the Ronin 1.0d, I would like to offer a 6 channel amplifier.  This would be of course using modified Hypex UcD, Class D modules.  The look will be complimentary to the 2 channel amplifiers currently in production.  It will obviously have 6 status lights on the front and the enclosure will be taller and deeper.

I'd like to offer a special to the first person interested in doing the whole combo.  The price will be fantastic on the first 6 channel amplifier produced.  Contact me for details.

Regards,
Paul Hilgeman
Nomad Audio

[zybar]

Paul,

How about describing some of the benfits/improvements that you heard by going active?

George

[brj]

Hi Paul.

I like this direction a great deal - I've been waiting for DEQ/X solutions to come down in price for a while now!

As a semi-partner product to the Ronin 1.0d, I would like to offer a 6 channel amplifier.  This would be of course using modified Hypex UcD, Class D modules.  The look will be complimentary to the 2 channel amplifiers currently in production.  It will obviously have 6 status lights on the front and the enclosure will be taller and deeper.

A few questions and thoughts....

1) What about two 3 channel amps, so that you can place each near a speaker and reduce cable cost (due to length) and clutter?  This also means that you could have the same length cables from the passive outboard crossover located near the speaker and 3 channel amp in the active configuration.  (No cable replacement.)

2) It might be worth looking at something like an 8 pole Neutrik Speakon connection (using 6 of the 8 poles) to further simplify the system.

3) What power levels are you considering for each of the woofer/mid-range/tweeter amps?

I'd like to offer a special to the first person interested in doing the whole combo.  The price will be fantastic on the first 6 channel amplifier produced.  Contact me for details.

Tempting...

Thanks!


[Edit: Added question 3]

[PaulHilgeman]

Paul,

How about describing some of the benfits/improvements that you heard by going active?

George

The biggest improvements are in terms of soundstaging and imaging.  The depth reproduction ability has improved as has the resolution within the depth, it is easier to tell the position within the depth if you know what I mean.  The overall imaging is slightly more precise, but the consistancy with which images are created with lifelike size across the soundstage is bar none the best I have heard.  Things that should sound small do, things that should sound big do, no matter if they are center, left or right.  Things are not only more three dimensional, they are more clearly and properly (IMO) placed within the 3D stage.

An already dynamic speaker became even more dynamic.  The efforless sound spans the frequency spectrum and can really startle you when the recording calls for it.

They are less amplifier dependant.  Driving the Ronin 1.0c (Passive version 'c' is for ClarityCaps used in the crossover) with an ATI 1506, vs. my Niagara (Hypex UcD400 dual mono) amplifier, there was a fairly large difference in that the Niagara was more open and had a better attack.  With 6 Channels of the 1506 vs. 6 channels of the Niagara, the difference was far smaller.

Lastly, and most obviously, the ability to smooth out the bass response below 100Hz or so is very nice, when properly done, the bass just snaps right into place, it becomes almost holographic if that makes sense.  This might sound really odd, but it is so un-pronounced that you almost don't realize how right it sounds.  Though I am not sure how well it works on tougher rooms, my listening room only required minor tweaks.

Hope this helps,
Paul Hilgeman
Nomad Audio

[PaulHilgeman]

Hi Paul.

I like this direction a great deal - I've been waiting for DEQ/X solutions to come down in price for a while now!

As a semi-partner product to the Ronin 1.0d, I would like to offer a 6 channel amplifier.  This would be of course using modified Hypex UcD, Class D modules.  The look will be complimentary to the 2 channel amplifiers currently in production.  It will obviously have 6 status lights on the front and the enclosure will be taller and deeper.

A few questions and thoughts....

1) What about two 3 channel amps, so that you can place each near a speaker and reduce cable cost (due to length) and clutter?  This also means that you could have the same length cables from the passive outboard crossover located near the speaker and 3 channel amp in the active configuration.  (No cable replacement.)

2) It might be worth looking at something like an 8 pole Neutrik Speakon connection (using 6 of the 8 poles) to further simplify the system.

3) What power levels are you considering for each of the woofer/mid-range/tweeter amps?

I'd like to offer a special to the first person interested in doing the whole combo.  The price will be fantastic on the first 6 channel amplifier produced.  Contact me for details.

Tempting...

Thanks!


[Edit: Added question 3]

Thanks, let me know if you are interested.

1)  Perfectly acceptable, great idea.  I prefer to do things custom anyways.  To go really crazy, why not put the AC and the line inputs on on the rear of the enclosure, binding posts on the front.  You think Transparent Cable's network boxes look cool???     You would still need 3 long-ish XLR or RCA connections from the DEQX to each amplifier, but then VERY short speaker cables.

2)  Absolutely, easy to do.  Since I do a custom machined binding post plate for every customer, going with Speakon, is really no more difficult, it could get around the increased binding post cost of tri-wiring as well.  Even better, do Speakon on both ends of the cable, amp side and speaker side, that way mis-wiring is not possible after the amp, but always possible before the amp.  I'd prefer this, but it makes swapping amplifiers much more difficult.

3)   All UcD400 modules, The cost difference is almost negligable between the UcD400 and UcD180 module.  They both require a big (IMO) transformer, diode bridge, caps, connectors etc, so at that point, the percentage difference in cost is very very small.

Hope this helps,
Paul Hilgeman
Nomad Audio

[JoshK]

I built my own UcD based amps and am using a DEQX.  I just thought I'd chime in and say that Brian's idea of doing 2 3ch amps for the reason he says makes a lot of sense and is something I've thought of and others have done as well.   It might be a good consideration. 

I also like Speakon's, but as Paul says you pretty much need a customized solution this way and then switching amps to try other stuff out is out of the question.

[zybar]

Thanks Paul.

As BRJ stated...very tempting.

George