[KevinW]

I would think it would be a better value if an additional woofer was incorporated so it could properly play the bottom octaves by itself. You're going to need a crossover of SOME kind no matter what with this setup.

I disagree on this point.  Some people may not ever need a subwoofer with this speaker.  For jazz, it's totally unnecessary, because it handles the acoustic bass just fine (even in a largish room).  Adding a sub fleshes it out a little bit, but is not at all necessary for enjoyment.

Now where a sub comes in handy is for rock, electronica, reggae, and home theater use.  However all those applications typically require slightly different levels.  So with the subwoofer, you can adjust it to match the bass levels for each application.  So this method is actually the most flexible available.  

If I made the speaker bigger, and added a bass driver with XO, then more compromises are added to the musical sound quality. And for HT applications, most people would still want to add a subwoofer anyway.  But then there's a problem with blending the subwoofer with the bass driver of the speaker.  This can be a big problem, and is the reason why all the multichannel systems need to have bass management.  My system eliminates the problem while saving money.

[sica]

Kevin, I think you are doing a good job with marketing.  You are sincere and knowledgeable when answering our questions, especially nathamn's

[KevinW]

Thanks!! I really am trying to sell from knowledge and education, because my goal is to be able to open a "new" market for audiophile equipment through my environmental angle.  But to sell what will be considered expensive gear, I'll have to be very good at education.  Especially when consider how much time and energy we have to spend just to get decent sound quality  

Nathan keeps me honest.  He's done that since I first started selling equipment on the side in Dec 2002.  Keep it coming Nathan!  I think you might be losing your touch.  The quality of your skepticism isn't what it used to be.  

FYI, I am REALLY looking forward to Aug 15th, which is my last day of working for someone else.  I have some really interesting educational ideas to debut on my website.

[nathanm]

Losing my touch eh?  Ha!  Actually I've been holding back from criticizing your overpriced, drab-looking debut offering out of kindness on this being your new Circle and all.  Ahh, but thanks for the open invitation, Kevin!   Muwhahaha!

Kevin, I think you are doing a good job with marketing.  You are sincere and knowledgeable when answering our questions, especially nathamn's

Yes well, doing a good job with marketing is the whole problem with this industry in the first place!

For jazz, it's totally unnecessary, because it handles the acoustic bass just fine (even in a largish room). Adding a sub fleshes it out a little bit, but is not at all necessary for enjoyment.

Fair enough, if you like this sound it that's fine, but to suggest there is no musical information in jazz below 60Hz is a bit silly I think.  By your claim this speaker craps out at 60Hz, so it is missing about 2.5 octaves of the musical spectrum!  To say it needs a SUBwoofer isn't quite right, as it actually needs some woofing period!  String bass, kick drums, guitar - all these sounds have plenty of energy beyond the Solar's drop off.  Truncating the frequency balance whilst calling it "more musical" seems rather odd.

My system eliminates the problem while saving money.

It does not eliminate the problem it ignores it!  The only way it saves you money is if you don't like hearing bass!  So you're $950 in the hole for the main speaker.  Now you'll need a subwoofer and amp (another $400 or so) to fill in that rolled off bottom.  Gee, maybe now you'll need a supertweeter so you can hear the cymbals...you call this saving money?  That's marketing for you; they offer something which needs a dozen extra accessories to actually do what you want and they tell you they're saving you money!  Feh!

But to sell what will be considered expensive gear, I'll have to be very good at education.  

I think the word you're looking for is "PR" not "education".    Let's not sugar coat things here, this is a business for selling products, not educating people! Sheesh!  Hey, I think the ecological stuff is great, but let's not kid ourselves about the goal here!  And a thousand dollars IS expensive.  Then again, there's plenty of bass-shy, overpriced minimonitors out there which can be even more expensive.  Still doesn't change the fact that a grand is a big chunk to spend on speakers for most folks.

The Hornshoppe Horn,  Omegas, Norh, and many more I am probably forgetting - all these offer single drivers with similar or superior frequency balance and for much less money.  And also better looking, subjectively speaking.  No offense but the Solar looks like a DIY project done over with black spray paint.  It doesn't exactly say "I'm worth a thousand bucks!" to me.  Hopefully the bamboo will have a more interesting patina.  A Tiki-themed speaker would be cool!  

Well, you asked for it Kevin!  Heh heh!  Criticism aside, I wish you luck with your company.  Hell, I'd gladly audition this skinny little ponce of a speaker any time and compare it with my alarm clock, as both have similar bass response!  

[WerTicus]

I think its obvious the solar 1.0 is a speaker aimed at a niche market....

There isnt going to be any testosterone filled 15 to 20yr olds buying them
This is a refined speaker designed with different compromises to most speakers out there.

Its compromising range for quality - its the full range 'idea'.  Basically its doing the best it can to produce 'awesome' (i have never heard but im sure it is) quality in a limited spectrum...

Im not sure if its a good idea to do this.... i can however think of a pretty good use for these speakers...

They would reside nicely in my bed room, so i can put on some really transparent anolgue background music with a low powered single ended tube amp and a garade record player.  whilst seducing the ladies.

[JohnR]

The Hornshoppe Horn, Omegas, Norh, and many more I am probably forgetting - all these offer single drivers with similar or superior frequency balance and for much less money.

Only if you're enough of a sucker to believe whatever numbers people dream up. You can't seriously believe that a 3-inch Tangband driver is superior to the Jordan, in *any* respect?

No four or five inch driver is going to produce thundering bass, but the sub option is viable for many people. Hell, *you* have a sub, don't you? After following your misadventures with various crap speakers, I find it hard to believe that you can take yourself seriously in what you've been posting above.

No offence, really, but this is ridiculous...

JohnR

[nathanm]

Well first of all John I'm NOT taking this completely seriously as my post illustrated.

Who said anything about "thundering bass"?  It never fails that when you discuss frequency response it is assumed the listener wants to play subsonic gansta rap at 150db.  That's not the issue at all.  I just think it's misleading to think that you only need a certain range of the spectrum to be "musically satisfying" for specific genres of music.  Jazz bass is bass as is rock bass, folk bass, orchestral bass...all music has it and there's plenty of it below 60Hz (which is also not considered SUB bass).  To me the main cabinets need more a bit extention to blend well with a subwoofer and the higher the XO point the more troublesome it can be.

The main point I am bringing up is that the speaker seems to be awfully pricey for what it does.  Not saying any other brand of driver is superior or anything like that.  I never said anything like that.  Perhaps Kevin's measurements are far more truthful than those others.  Entirely possible!  Perhaps it does sounds really great.  Also entirely possible.  I would just desire a bit more flesh on the bottom for that kind of money, that's all.

So what non-CRAP speakers would you suggest I try, John?

[KevinW]

Hey Nathan,
Thanks for your post above!  Great fun, indeed.  I really appreciate the help in finding the "holes" in my marketing schtick

JohnR... I did ask Nathan to be overly critical on purpose.  It's good practice for me, and controversy is good for discussion too  

The main point I am bringing up is that the speaker seems to be awfully pricey for what it does. Not saying any other brand of driver is superior or anything like that. I never said anything like that. Perhaps Kevin's measurements are far more truthful than those others. Entirely possible! Perhaps it does sounds really great. Also entirely possible. I would just desire a bit more flesh on the bottom for that kind of money, that's all.

Well Nathan, it is NOT pricey for what it does.  It has the most beautiful midrange, vocals, and microdynamics I have heard in a speaker under $1k.  Really there is no comparison to anything in its class.  However, if a customer told me they like "thundering bass and screeching treble" I would say this isn't a speaker for you.  I've got no problem steering people away from my product for something they will actually like based on their listening preferences.  But I think that at least 2/3rds of the audiophile market will be mightily impressed from the sound of this speaker once they have actually heard it.

Regarding my measurements as being more truthful... well I am simply not interested in "inflating" the performance of my speaker, as this shortchanges the customer. If I said the Jordan TL plays down to 47 Hz, as the official driver manufacturer specs say, would you suddenly be impressed with the low end performance?  Who knows, if you then bought it, maybe would convince yourself that the bass is really good.

But one thing I don't get, Nathan... and this is something JohnR already measured.  If you really really care about bass, you want a subwoofer, which you already have.  My speaker is DESIGNED to blend well with a sub.  Why bother wasting money on a speaker that is designed to duplicate the function of a subwoofer, especially if that means compromising midrange quality. Blending a sub in at 60Hz is a really good place to do it!  The wavelength of a 60Hz sound wave is about 19 feet, so it is very omnidirectional, but also not such a large wavelength that room resonances will dominate the transition.

Nathan, what frequency is your sub XO?

[nathanm]

If I said the Jordan TL plays down to 47 Hz, as the official driver manufacturer specs say, would you suddenly be impressed with the low end performance? Who knows, if you then bought it, maybe would convince yourself that the bass is really good.  

I wish! I've never been able to convince myself anything sounds better than it is on a consistent basis, unfortunately.

How did you arrive at the frequency response?  Was it via math calculations or acoustic measurement?  In a normal room or in an anechoic chamber?  It would be cool if there some sort of pragmatic measurements like:

1. room size
2. generic description of walls and objects in room
3. speaker position
4. microphone position

Run a full spectrum pink noise measurement and see what you get.  Publish 3 or 4 rooms of average real world sizes and then a user could look at that and say, "okay, well the 14x17' room is closest to mine, and it looks the bass dies off at 53Hz" or whatever. (just a made up example)  Of course it's not completely ideal, but it would be a step in the right direction.  I am not saying Solar HiFi has an obligation to do this, I'm just saying in a general sense speaker makers might do well to have the performance figures of a small assortment of "stock room sizes".  Anechoic chambers are wonderful for pure science, but nobody I know plays tunes in one on a daily basis!

My sub is XOed at 45Hz, which is as low as my crossover goes.  I was really amazed at how "unsteep" 24db per octave actually sounds in real life.  Plenty of upper bass still comes through.  granted, much of that is masked by the mains.  If I go any higher than that the sub calls attention to itself.  In my experience going higher would necessitate stereo subs. In my room with my equipment, 60Hz is too high.  There's an incongruity between the two speakers.  Hey, maybe your speaker does blend better.  If so, great!  I just feel subs should only give you the bottom most octave, ideally and not be used to pick up the slack from the mains.  But as I said, if you had two subs in stereo higher XO point would probably be fine.

[JohnR]

So what non-CRAP speakers would you suggest I try, John?

Based on what you've said in the past, I would look into speakers with large cone area, not just in the bass but in the mids as well, and high-ish sensitivity. Of course, you can never get more of one quality without giving up some of some other quality.

[JLM]

This design promotes the right priorities (mid-bass through mid treble frequency response, no cross-over, and a reasonable price).  No speaker will address everyone's wants, but this does fit nicely into a market niche for coherent sound.


Much of the rest of the 20 - 20,000 Hz audio spectrum is filled with hype and inherent problems than most would like to admit.  Please allow me to explain.

1. Precious little useful audible information or energy is available above 8,000 Hz.  And the Jordan 92S does produce above that anyway.  Break up and off axis roll off occurs with many designs.  Adding a crossover would cause more harm than than a super tweeter could help IMO.

2. The transmission line bass loading provides for a slow frequency response roll off.  Psychoacoustically this will make the speaker sound as if it has a more extended bass response than the numbers/graphs would suggest.  This loading also helps to reduce the impedance rise at the drivers rated bass cut off.  Honestly it seems that the speaker could have been rated to produce lower bass than what has been specified.  As stated above, a 4 inch driver will not produce window rattling at 20 Hz.  IMO transmission lines provide the best of all practical options for true, fast, musical bass response in the home.

3. In small rooms the amount of bass provided would be adequate for most musical forms.  A powered subwoofer can to taylored to the room, taste, and source materials while being located in the room to maximum effect.  I've had 8 inch stereo transmission lines and they overpowered any sized room I could afford (but sounded so good in a 20,000 cu. ft. chapel that I donated them to the church).  Excess standing waves and excitation of room objects can turn the best bass production into one note booming.


The ideal source for accuracy in sound reproduction is a point source.  Imaging cannot be improved by any other means.  Multiple drivers will exhibit comb affects around the crossover frequencies (or at all reproduced frequencies if multiple full range drivers are used).  Different size, type of drivers will respond differently (delays, off axis response, voicing, and speed) as they try to reproduce the same signal at the crossover frequencies.  Use of multiple different drivers with crossovers can only add distortions in an attempt to extend a speaker's frequency response into ranges of questionable value.

The Jordan 92S is a remarkable driver.  It's an aluminum foil that is designed to flex, versus providing pure pistonic action so often heralded.  Ted Jordan has spent 40+ years improving the concept in which the center only responses to higher frequencies.  The waterfall plot is extremely impressive.  It is promoted as providing 9 octave range response (this is pushing things a bit IMO).  The cone is very light weight.  However it is not an inexpensive driver, about $120 each delivered to the U.S.


I'm very cheap, but appreciate the value in this speaker.  First, you can spend more for monitors and still need stands.  Second, you can spend more far less on drivers for $1,000 speakers.  Third, you can spend twice as much for the very similar Konus speakers.


jeff