SongTowers First Impression

fsimms · « **on:** 25 Jul 2007, 01:40 pm »

The first thing that I noticed was how well they are packed! The next things were how well they were made and how good they looked. They are larger than I was expecting. They go up to about mid chest height.

After hooking them up, I put on Tierney Suttons’s What’l I Do. The bass fiddle intro was vastly better than my HT1’s and the voice had a lot of the magic that my HT1’s have. I knew I was in for a treat! Jim said that transmission line speakers can work better with room modes. I think this one of the reasons why the base is so good.

Comparing the SongTower speakers, they don’t have the laser like clarity of the HT1’s but they are very clear. They sound more relaxed and musical than the HT1’s. Voices in the midrange sound as natural as the HT1’s. Dennis, what a great job you have done!

As to the limitations, the SongTowers can’t keep up when I throw on my mighty SVS sub with my HT1’s. That leaves the SongTowers gasping for air.

Am I thinking of selling my HT1’s? I think not. I would miss the magical mystery tour that is the listening experience with the HT1’s. I can see how some people might actually prefer the SongTowers though.

PS. Please remember that these comments are just first impressions.

DMurphy · « **Reply #1 on:** 26 Jul 2007, 01:33 pm »

Hi Hope the initial impressions hold up. I'm pleased that you prefer the bass of the ST to the unassisted HT1, and, of course, not surprised that a dedicated sub will still run circles around 2 5" drivers. As for the overall sound, I suspect you may just prefer the sound of a ribbon. There's no real difference in the driver integration per se from an engineering standpoint-- probably just a difference in the inherent characteristics of the drivers, and perhaps differences due to the radiation pattern of an MTM vs. an MT. Please keep us posted.

fsimms · « **Reply #2 on:** 26 Jul 2007, 11:43 pm »

Quote

There's no real difference in the driver integration per se from an engineering standpoint-- probably just a difference in the inherent characteristics of the drivers, and perhaps differences due to the radiation pattern of an MTM vs. an MT.

I was thinking that the characteristics of a doped paper cone versus the magnesium cone was the main difference. I have no basis for this opinion, just a gut feel. Wouldn't the magnesium cone have a much greater transient response? The main difference that I can hear is on sharp percussive instruments. Is that just due to the ribbon tweeter?

Quote

Please keep us posted.

Will do.

DMurphy · « **Reply #3 on:** 27 Jul 2007, 12:25 am »

"The main difference that I can hear is on sharp percussive instruments. Is that just due to the ribbon tweeter?"

That's hard to say. It depends on whether the perceived superiority is coming from the fundamentals or the higher overtones. In any event, I'm having a house guest this weekend who's bringing a pair of 1801's I built for him several years ago. They use the W18 and the 0W1. I'll be able to compare it with the towers using my volume compensated A-B switch box. If the difference is in the woofer, I should be able to hear it. I'll give you my candid opinion.

fsimms · « **Reply #4 on:** 27 Jul 2007, 01:20 am »

Quote

In any event, I'm having a house guest this weekend who's bringing a pair of 1801's I built for him several years ago. They use the W18 and the 0W1. I'll be able to compare it with the towers using my volume compensated A-B switch box. If the difference is in the woofer, I should be able to hear it. I'll give you my candid opinion.

That should be an interesting experiment! I will be looking forward to hearing your results.

jsalk · « **Reply #5 on:** 27 Jul 2007, 06:56 pm »

It will be interesting to get Dennis' take on this when he compares the 1801's to the SongTowers. I think that would be a good comparison since they pretty much use the same tweeter.

My bet is that if you notice more detail with the HT1's, it is the W18 that is responsible. If you experience greater "transparency," that would be the G2 ribbon tweeter.

But after spending quite a bit of time with the SongTowers, I must say that what they do they certainly do well.

- Jim

DMurphy · « **Reply #6 on:** 29 Jul 2007, 10:36 pm »

[

Quote

In any event, I'm having a house guest this weekend who's bringing a pair of 1801's I built for him several years ago. They use the W18 and the 0W1. I'll be able to compare it with the towers using my volume compensated A-B switch box. If the difference is in the woofer, I should be able to hear it. I'll give you my candid opinion.

That should be an interesting experiment! I will be looking forward to hearing your results.
[/quote]

Well, I did make that comparison, and some others over the weekend. The 1801's I was using were the original "a" version that had less baffle step compensation and a little hotter treble than the current "b" version. And they did sound a little lighter and brighter than the MTM's. Two things I would have to say I Didn't hear: I didn't really hear more detail out of the 1801's. And I didn't hear a wider soundstage out of the MTM's. If anything, the 1801's seemed to throw a little wider image, but that could easily be the hotter tweeter setting. What I did hear was a greater sense of focus and depth to the soundstage with the MTM's. When you sit exactly in the middle, everything locks in like a vice. My guess is that the MTM radiation pattern is partially responsible, with a lower level of floor and ceiling delayed reflections in the critical upper midrange. In the deep bass department, the MTM's could take more power below 40 Hz and didn't suffer from port noise, but in normal use I'm not sure there would be a big difference in bass. My best guess after boring the hell out of my guest is that any added detail you're hearing from the HT series is due to the ribbon.

rlee8394 · « **Reply #7 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 02:21 am »

I'd like to be bored to hell like that!!!!

fsimms · « **Reply #8 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 01:05 pm »

Quote

I didn't really hear more detail out of the 1801's.

That is very interesting! When I had Jim build my HT1's I asked Jim the difference between the HT1's and 1801's. I sure am glad I had Jim build the HT1 versions. I really love the ribbons. For me that isn't conclusive about the transient responce or slam of the HT1's W18. Since the crossover network will slow the accelerations of the midrange, I can see how I could be wrong. I guess I am just hard to convince.

Quote

And I didn't hear a wider soundstage out of the MTM's. If anything, the 1801's seemed to throw a little wider image, but that could easily be the hotter tweeter setting. What I did hear was a greater sense of focus and depth to the soundstage with the MTM's. When you sit exactly in the middle, everything locks in like a vice. My guess is that the MTM radiation pattern is partially responsible, with a lower level of floor and ceiling delayed reflections in the critical upper midrange.

I too have noticed how great the SongTowers image. I would definitely give a big nod to the Songs, but the HT1's do a great job too.

Quote

In the deep bass department, the MTM's could take more power below 40 Hz and didn't suffer from port noise, but in normal use I'm not sure there would be a big difference in bass.

That is one point that I didn't find. I measured the bass with my Tact 2.2X. The SongTowers didn't have the dips in the base response that the HT1's had. The SongTowers didn't excite the room resonances. This gave a vastly better sound to the bass fiddle. I think that movies would be better too since they often have lower sounds. I haven't verified that yet though.

Dennis, thanks for a very interesting comparison. You have given me a lot to think about.

DMurphy · « **Reply #9 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 02:10 pm »

AS Brian points out, these A-B comparisons are hard to keep in perspective. the more material question is whether you would notice the differences if you just walked into the room and didn't know which speakers were playing. It's also a little tricky for me to comment, since I designed all four speakers under discussion (1801 a and b, HT1, and the MTM-- in fact, the HT1 and 1801 b use the same low pass filter. Only the tweeter sections are different.) I'm not likely to think any one of them is seriously deficient in any category. I can't comment on the 1801 C, about which I know nothing. But just to bottom line this, I'm only sure about two things. One, the MTM has a more sharply defined and deeper center image than other speakers I've heard recently. And two, the bass response below 100 hz is smoother in the room than traditional ported designs using 5" - 7" woofers, and can take more juice in the 40 hz region.

DMurphy · « **Reply #10 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 02:16 pm »

"I really love the ribbons. For me that isn't conclusive about the transient responce or slam of the HT1's W18. Since the crossover network will slow the accelerations of the midrange, I can see how I could be wrong. I guess I am just hard to convince."

Hi--could you clarify this a little. I'm not quite sure where we might be disagreeing. Or how the crossover network comment applies. Both speakers use a 4th order acoustic low pass (and both are very simple and at the same frequency), so the resulting phase shift shouldn't have any differential impact on the sound of the two speakers.

jsalk · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 06:19 pm »

Quote from: BrianM on 30 Jul 2007, 05:42 pm

Well, if they basically outperform the Ellis 1801s, even if maybe only slightly, then for $1500 they sound like an incredible deal!!!

That they are. Everyone who has heard them to date has been amazed at the quality of sound coming from a $1500 speaker.

Quote

I expect they'll sell like pancakes.

I expect if people have a chance to hear them, they will indeed! So spread the word.

As to whether or not they are superior to the other speakers mentioned, that is a matter of personal taste, listening habits, etc. For me, it is not necessary to pick favorites.

While I have always preferred the transparency of ribbons, if any of these speakers were the only ones I had, you would not hear me complaining. I would be very content living with any of them. I feel each is at the very top of its class or we wouldn't build them.

- Jim

DMurphy · « **Reply #12 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 06:44 pm »

"As to whether or not they are superior to the other speakers mentioned, that is a matter of personal taste, listening habits, etc. For me, it is not necessary to pick favorites."

Exactly. And also bear in mind that one of the motivations for the MTM was to create a standless and very small footprint cabinet that would fade away in the room and stand a chance of passing the WAF test. So it's not just about sound.

fsimms · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 08:28 pm »

Quote

Hi--could you clarify this a little. I'm not quite sure where we might be disagreeing. Or how the crossover network comment applies. Both speakers use a 4th order acoustic low pass (and both are very simple and at the same frequency), so the resulting phase shift shouldn't have any differential impact on the sound of the two speakers.

What I was thinking is that since the songs have a treated paper cone and the HT1's have a magnesium cone that the paper cone might have a little more flexibility in the frequency ranges used. If it does have more flexibility then the phase relationships of the higher frequencies might be delayed and cause a slight loss of clarity of sharp transients.

A low pass crossover would remove high frequencies from the cone so that could give the paper cone more of a chance to not flex. All this is just guessing and not actual fact! This is just a suspicion of mine that I would like to check out if I had a chance. I doubt that I will have the opportunity to check this out though.

I do hear a loss of transient response for the SongTowers versus the HT1's. From what I understand, you think that the improvement is probably due to the ribbon tweeter alone. You convinced me that most of the improvement is due to the ribbon, but I am not yet convinced that all of the improvement is only due to the ribbon. As stated above I suspect that some improvement might be the HT1's magnesium cone.

rlee8394 · « **Reply #14 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 08:49 pm »

BrianM,
Nice AVA electronics in the background! What stands are you using for the speakers and equipment?

Carl V · « **Reply #15 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 09:46 pm »

one more question about Brian's 1801 speakers...
what wood (s) were used on those 1801s?

as to the sound of the speakers
I've heard & contrasted a Northcreek Pegaus, 1801, HT1 & W18/Millenium tweeter.
I have an older Borealis & an older Merlin VSM. Tweeters have an effect on the sonics.
"air" sparkle...presence...imaging.
Not to mention the Seas W18- VS SS 8545 woofers. It always comes down to
personal taste. Not unlike choosing reeds, strings or pianos. If you're very
familar with the material you hear variations in Tone/timbre.

DMurphy · « **Reply #16 on:** 30 Jul 2007, 11:49 pm »

"A low pass crossover would remove high frequencies from the cone so that could give the paper cone more of a chance to not flex. All this is just guessing and not actual fact! This is just a suspicion of mine that I would like to check out if I had a chance. I doubt that I will have the opportunity to check this out though."

I'm sure there are plenty of flex modes below the crossover point that in theory would be lower on the magnesium W18--that's pretty much why they used the material. To me, the main difference is not really detail, but a leaner sound in the midbass. You have to be careful about that, though--I had to experiment with baffle step compensation before I thought I struck the right balance between the midbass and the highs. Anyhow, Jim and I obviously love the W18. The Seas CA15, on the other hand, has TS parameters ideally suited for a transmission line, and the extremely smooth response (almost to 10 kHz on axis), allowed me to shape the roll-off very precisely to optimize phase tracking with the tweeter. I think that's one reason the MTM images so well.

jsalk · « **Reply #17 on:** 31 Jul 2007, 12:17 am »

One other difference between these models has nothing to do with sound, but is probably worth noting.

One of the factors that allow us to market these speakers at $1500 is that, in its standard configuration, it will only be available in a limited number of finishes (maple, cherry, walnut, black satin and, for a limited time, honey locust). This will allow us to produce numerous cabinets at the same time and, thus, be more efficient.

The other speakers are built one-at-a-time in your choice of finishes.

Of course, if you wanted SongTowers in bubinga, that would certainly be doable. We'd never say no. They would just cost more.

- Jim

rlee8394 · « **Reply #18 on:** 31 Jul 2007, 04:00 pm »

Not meaning to stir the pot but, what if the SongTower's were designed with the Seas W15CY drivers and the G2 or G2Si tweeter? I only pose this question because there seems to be comparisions going on here regarding the magnesium driver and the ribbon tweeter. Of course it would increase the price in drivers alone by about $300 or more, but still a far cry from the Veracity QW model in price. Although maybe the magnesium driver's parameters are not conducive to the SongTower's design principles. I don't know but I'm sure curious!

DMurphy · « **Reply #19 on:** 31 Jul 2007, 05:43 pm »

Well, I think you would want to go with the LCY ribbon to allow as low a crossover point as possible, and the lower QTs of the W15 isn't as conducive to TL optimization as the CA15 (which also has greater maximum cone excursion). But the real point here is price. We hope to be offering a complete HT package with matching center and surrounds fairly soon (I've finished all the crossover work). If you start throwing in ribbons and shiny magnesium woofers, you just don't have an affordable system. Also, if we had gone with shiny drivers all around, I would bet today's salary that one of the first reviews would complain about "false detail" and brightness. It's hard to get a win-win scenario when it comes to choosing drivers.