[lakerblue]

Hello Dave,I am a speaker fan from China,I love your product of 1801,but maybe a little difficult for me to purchase overseas ,have you heard of the Capriccio Continuo Admonitor?which uses HIQUPHON OW2 or OW4 tweeter(reference version),and a 130mm Ariacell/Gti Zellaton woofer,could you kindly tell me what is the mainly difference between the two if you have some ideas? ?thank you~

[David Ellis]

Yes, shipping overseas is risky and expensive.  I always worry about shipping speakers, and this is especially true when shipping overseas.  I have shipped a few pair of speakers overseas with good results, but the shipping cost was about $500.  Because of this, most of my overseas customers order kits.

I haven't heard the Capricco Continuo speaker, but am intimately familiar with the tweeter.   The Zellaton midwoofer has a very good reputation but I have not heard it. 

I recall some correspondence several years ago with a gentlemen form S.E. Asia.  His name was Dr. Wu.  He never posted on line, but we exchanged several emails.  He maintained that the ATD and Zellaton Woofers were on par with the SEAS W18.  He also maintained that a well engineered paper cone SEAS 18cm driver was also in this same league with regard to the midrange.  I was skeptical about this last conveyance, and he was kind enough to send me the prototype SEAS paper coned 18cm driver.   He was indeed correct.  The SEAS 18cm paper cone driver sounded very good in the midrange - on par with the W18 IMO.  Unfortunately it had little/no bass so it was only suitable for a midrange driver.  Dr. Wu also mentioned a gentlemen by the name of Joseph Szal ( the last name spelling is marginally incorrect ) during our correspondence, and commented that the Zellaton and ATD drivers were very well regarded.  Anyhow, I suppose this is a long method to convey that I see no problems with the woofer used in this speaker. 

I read the manufacturers webpage.  It's filled with a very pleasant and honest quantity of rhetoric.  It laked the common sales-pitch junk found on 95% of hifi web pages.  I must convey this is a pleasant surprise and I applaud the manufacturer  .

The only thing I found potentially misleading was the conveyance of sensitivity and bass extension.  It appears the cabinet is about 12 liters.  Given this volume 87db and an F3 (3db down) bass extension of 39hz is totally and completely impossible without an electrical boost circuit for the bass region.  This is a common "lie" in loudspeaker specifications that is not regulated, or enforced .  The only saving grace is these folks don't specify that the 39hz is an f3 (i.e. 3db down in the bass region), F10 (i.e. 10 db down in the bass region) or something else.  In this case, the 39hz  is probably the F10.

I have taken the liberty of providing a modeled bass response graph for the SEAS L15. This is a 87db 8 ohm driver and models well in a 12 liter cabinet.



Yes, I do know this is not the Zellaton driver, but the physics CAN'T be cheated.  The T/S parameters cannot magically create more bass extension in the same size cabinet.  Compromises must be made.  The sensitivity must drop or the cabinet must become larger to produce deeper bass.  Many, many, many manufacturers use the lack of regulation and enforcement to extract the most from their marketing departments in this regard.  An uneducated consumer with no understanding of driver design, T/S parameters, and their implementation is truly helpless in this regard.  Reality is the Zellaton 13cm driver will have an F3 somewhere in the mid 50hz range.  For many people this is enough of bass reach.  I find the 40hz F3 bass reach of the 1801 is very pleasant and am really not willing to live with less.

One of the most frequent comments I received at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, was " Wow, these speakers only have 40hz of bass reach?  They sound much deeper than that!".   This is simply because most loudspeaker manufacturers abuse the numbers and advertise their F10 (10db down) frequency for the bass region of their speakers.  Or, they don't specify F3, F10 and offer some ludicrous frequency at the lowest possible frequency where the bass can be measured  .

This has been and will continue to be a point of irritation for me .  I suppose that I will eventually become callous to the issue or convey the 28hz F10 from the 1801 .

Back on the subject... The only problem I see with that the Zellaton/Hiquphon monitor is the lack of bass extension.  Otherwise, it should sound very good.  I applaud the manufacturer for the very small amount of junk rhetoric present on their web page  .

Dave

[lakerblue]

hi Dave,thanks for the post ,I have noticed the figuration of bass extension,but I think it is a common strategy used by many manufacturers,especially for bookshelves,but I do not know why ,honestly,I am planning to DIY a pair for myself,I have bought tweeters directly from Mr.Oskar Wrønding and now I am considering a suitable woofer,I know it is not a DIY forum,but these posts help me a lot,thanks again.
referring to Dr.Wu,I am not quite sure it is the same gentle I know but may it is one of his designs

[David Ellis]

Do you want to build a smaller monitor?  Is this your goal?

And, which tweeters did you purchase?

[lakerblue]

no,now your 1801 is my goal
I bought the ow1,ow3 and ow4-fs

[David Ellis]

Well,

If you are seeking a smaller monitor, I highly suggest either of these projects:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=CAOW1.html

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=MBOW1.html

I agree with other comments on these speakers.  They do sound very similar.  Depending on the source for parts overseas, it might be easiest for you to obtain the woofer, crossover, and accessories from Danny Richie http://www.gr-research.com/ . 

On simple music (i.e. not complex classical), the sound quality from the CAOW1 or MBOW1 is VERY similar to the 1801.

Dave

[lakerblue]

Thanks,I have checked the links above and had a e-mail correspondence with Dennis,and another question is:why THE W18(I see C95 is another selection for 1801c) is your choice to match the ow1?why not take a woofer from AudioTechnology,ScanSpeak,Morel or Eton?I saw  comments from AT website regarding to the cone material as follows:
"There are always advantages and disadvantages when choosing a material for a product. In the world of transferring electrical signal into acoustic signal one must choose carefully. All materials have their own sound. Some at high frequencies and some at lower, some with a high Q breakup and other with lower. Polypropylene is the material we find with the most neutral sound, among the materials known in the business. Paper cones, liked by many serious audiophiles, have a “crispy” sound with a lot of “edge”. But this “crispy” sound is really the sound of paper adding to the sound. All materials add to the sound. One of the worst is a magnesium cone. The break-up is very pronounced and the Q of the break-up is among the highest. The faults can naturally be annulled using notch filters, but these have to be with an equal high Q and therefore far from ideal. P/P adds little to the sound and with a low Q and therefore sound natural. Some companies add a coating to paper cones, which helps damping of the high-Q break-ups and approaches the qualities of the P/P cone. Why not use a P/P cone then? Building and establishing the cone geometry and making a moving system with a good balance takes time. In house we have all the machinery for producing the tools for P/P cones. A nice tool for production costs around 7000 to 10000 US$. A paper cone tool costs almost 10 times the amount. If you do not hit the right geometry within the first couple of times, it will very fast become a costly affair. The P/P tools can be adjusted into hitting the right geometry and you therefore have much more attempts with a relative low cost. It is quite seldom one comes across a driver with paper cone and a nice useable frequency response. We believe P/P cones, all things taken into consideration, are the best."
what is your opinion to that?

[David Ellis]

I started composing this commentary about drivers a few months as an addendum to my previous comments about loudspeaker drivers.  I haven't given it a good proof-read, but my commentary is thus:

***

Later today I will post a link to updated commentary on this issue.  My commentary exceeds 10,000 characters and I couldn't post it here.   

For now, there is a decent short answer at the beginning of this page:

http://www.ellisaudio.com/1801.htm

***

The folks at Morel, Audio Technology and Scanspeak folks chose a flexible cone.  This certainly makes the crossover design easier  .

The ETON woofers are decent, but I chose the SEAS several years ago because more bass reach and X-Max was present from the SEAS 7" midwoofers.  I recall the Fs of the Eton 7" being about 10hz higher.

Please understand that I don't believe that soft cones are the perfect fit for many speakers and listeners.  Indeed many people have grown accustomed to their distortions and genuinely appreciate this acoustic warmth.  And, with simple recordings, the sound from a soft cone can sound very good.  

I have chosen stiff cones because I prefer a sound that lacks this element of distortion.

One of the worst is a magnesium cone.

I encourage you to find the conveyance of the "worst" cone material revealed in my reviews at www.audioreview.com .

Building and establishing the cone geometry and making a moving system with a good balance takes time. In house we have all the machinery for producing the tools for P/P cones. A nice tool for production costs around 7000 to 10000 US$.

The very clear truth conveyed by the Audio Technology rhetoric is that creating and engineering a good cone is very expensive and they chose the least expensive method.  My best friend from childhood has a Ph.D. in Physics with an emphasis in Ceramics.  We have discussed the cost of building a cone.  It's NOT $7000-$10000 USD   .

While I am somewhat interested in maintaining value, I believe there are far too many negative compromises when using soft cone drivers.  

Dave

[TF1216]

It is not my intention to start an argument or get in a debate with you Dave.  You are truly genuine individual and one of the sweetest guys I have ever had the opportunity to speak with.  You are also much more intelligent and informed than I about speaker design.  But I think it is important for me to add my $.02.

I have had the oppurtunity to build a few pairs of 2-ways because I was curious what different midranges had to offer.  Coming up here shortly, I plan on having a shootout between a few sets of 2-ways.  I will be the first one to admit that I did not take the time, like Dave, did to find the optimum cabinet volume and port tuning for my speakers but I followed others in similar designs so I am confident the speakers are sounding close to their best.  Two of the speakers in the shootout will be a W18EX paired with an OW4 and another speaker has an AudioTechnology 18H driver paired with the AirCirc 6600 tweeter.  To my ears, I prefer the AT driver and 6600 tweeter.  There is a more natural and smooth sound that grabs my attention more.  I am not a trained musician, nor have I spent countless hours listening to live concerts like many of the members on this forum, so take my words with a grain of salt.  IMO Dave is right, it all depends on the listener's preference in midrange.  He knows his preference and I am still learning mine. 

[BrianM]

Hi,

I'm a trained musician and would say that the magnesium W18, as implemented in the 1801s, definitely presents among the most realistic, natural & lowest distorting midranges I've heard in a speaker.  IMO there is, in general, too much bandying of materials and parts going around, and not enough talk about how the materials and parts are utilized.  Too much anatomy, not enough physiology.  Whatever a magnesium cone's inherent challenges they have been successfully overcome in the 1801, IMO.

Cheers...

[BrianM]

And, although it's been said many times many ways, the most reliable way to judge this is by listening to unamplified acoustic music  - the more complex & varied the texture the better.  As Dave implied, lots of drivers can sound more or less the same, or more or less "smooth," on simpler music, especially when part of the equation is the added studio effects one might be hearing in the recording.

[TF1216]

Brian,

Do you live in the New England area?  You have an open invitation to our shootout.  It should make for a nice day.

[BrianM]

Nope, I'm in Ohio. Would love to be there, though!     (And don't take my comments as a challenge to your hearing or anything.  I haven't listened to the drivers you favor, and there's more than one way to get her done.)

[David Ellis]

There is a more natural and smooth sound [ from the Skaaning that grabs my attention more.

I think that Brian generally conveyed the sentiment that I expressed earlier.  Perhaps some extension of this might be helpful.  These thoughts will be conveyed in no specific order.  I will also convey some additional snippets.

1. The father and son team of Ejvind & Per Skaaning have a immense knowledge base with regard to driver design and a history of success in the business.  I do have immense respect for them and the work they have accomplished over the years.

2.  I have only heard good things about the more recent drivers from Per Skaaning and his business practice.  It appears he delivers products on a reasonable timeline and will actually build an underhung (the best motor IMO) midwoofer.  I am reasonably certain that all of the drivers shipped from his workshop are tested and have good quality control.  This is very important, and also very rare.

3.  I have tried returning to soft cones for their "romantic" sound after several years with stiff cones, but am emotionally unable to do this.  The soft cone drivers DO have a marginally more "romantic" sound, but the depth of information lost during a decent classical recording is significant.  And, while the soft cones tend to emphasise the melody, the low level backround information is lost in varying degrees.  This presentation is very acceptable with simple recordings (aka - jazz).

4.  My first good set of stereo speakers were a very competent combination of the SS8545 and the SEAS T25-001.  It was called the STS and was a conglomeration from Rick Craig and Dennis Murphy.  The STS had wonderful bass, solid sound pressure ability, and a very respectable midrange quality when compared to many expensive commercial offerings.  I constructed 5-6 pair of these speakers for local friends.  During the course of this, I lived with these speakers for 2 years before building the 1801.  I was willing to sacrifice some spl for better midrange transparency and detail.  I was hoping for better high frequency performance too.  It happened.

5.  I am keenly aware that the very best (and most expensive) motor structure is an underhung motor.  I believe there are 2 midwoofers on the planet available with underhung motors.  Per Skaaning makes one.  I believe the 8" ATC is an underhung. 

6.  I believe the reason I didn't use a Skaaning driver intially was the cost.  I believe they cost about $300 back then and remain fairly expensive. 

7.  I am somewhat confused about a comment in the on the Audio Technology page regarding notch filters.  I surfed a bit looking for the history of Mr. Skaaning and found this snippet on this web page:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue26/max_lowthers.htm

By the by, Ejvind Skaaning freely admits using notch filters in crossovers in the FAQs section of his website. See http://www.audiotechnology.dk. But, in the end it turned out alright, as in "Awwll Raaght!" Maybe "AAWWLL RAAGHT!!!" 

Yet, their comment from above reads:

The faults can naturally be annulled using notch filters, but these have to be with an equal high Q and therefore far from ideal.

8.  I started proof reading my paper loudspeaker drivers and realized there is a good amount of work to accomplish before it becomes final form test.  I hope to get this accomplished in the next few days and will post a link in my initial response when this happens.

9.  Perhaps I am selfish, but I build speakers that I want to use in my living room.  There is some degree of budget involved, but in the last few years my system and speakers have become more expensive and slightly better.  I could buy a 7" midwoofer with a stiff cone and underhung motor for $400, I would do it.

10.  The current production run of W18 drivers has a higher inductance.  These drivers also have a surround that creates a very different response contour above 2500hz.  For this reason, the current run of the 1801B will "expire" when my current supply of drivers are gone.  I have about 20 remaining.  I will eventually develop something else of a less expensive nature to compensate for the the 1801C is almost finished.  I realize the cost of the 1801 has grown considerably over time.  It would be nice to sell a product for about $500. 

Dave

[hubert]

5.  I am keenly aware that the very best (and most expensive) motor structure is an underhung motor.  I believe there are 2 midwoofers on the planet available with underhung motors.  Per Skaaning makes one.  I believe the 8" ATC is an underhung. 

and the 8" Accuton C2-220/NT6. aa

[David Ellis]

and the 8" Accuton C2-220/NT6. 

Ooooh, that's new .  I didn't know this was present.  Thanks hubert.  This driver is appealing.  With some resistance added to increase the Qes, reasonable bass reach would be possible.  The Vas is very high too  .  But... again... the underhung motor is expensive. 

Several years ago I learned the higher cost of the underhung motor is rooted in higher manufacturing cost.  In high quantity, the cost of an underhung motor from TC Sounds was almost double the cost of an overhung motor.  This cost differential is also present in the Accuton drivers.

Dave

[hubert]

Ooooh, that's new  .  I didn't know this was present.  Thanks hubert.

At least since one year available; problem is that the accuton site isn't updated anymore, their staff has other priorities, but an update is programed in the (immediate?) futur.

This driver is appealing.  With some resistance added to increase the Qes, reasonable bass reach would be possible.  The Vas is very high too

Instead of some resistance, I will simply add...my subwoofer

But... again... the underhung motor is expensive.

yes indeed...that's why I purchased a second-hand pair aa

[David Ellis]

I have noticed the Accuton website is a very low priority.

I... am fairly certain this driver hasn't been available for 1 year.  This is simply because I spoke with Mr. Bankewitz in January 2007 about developing an underhung 7" midwoofer for me.  He didn't mention having such a driver and I don't think he would lie to me.  He was initially very motivated, to develop such a driver then stopped returning my calls and answering my email messages.  He also refused to allow me to send him $$ for development.  Despite this... apparently there were other folks asking too.  I am glad for this, and the new 8" driver looks VERY good on paper.  I believe this is very good news.  I believe the 8" Accuton underhung is expensive, but will become the next great/popular driver for those willing to spend commensurate money on good loudspeaker drivers.

I have generally failed to obtain perfection with an off-center subwoofer.  And... my living room doesn't permit a centered subwoofer or dual subwoofers.  So... monitors with bass reach are the best option for me.

I also must admit the Chinese made Dayton aluminum cone woofers from P.E. are strikingly good for the $$.  They are quite a bargain.  Someone from P.E. must have invested considerable time managing the development of these drivers.

Dave

[hubert]

Hi Dave,

New type numbers for accuton/thiel drivers since september 2006, all the neodymium/underhung 17cm mid (c2/90t6) and mid-bass (c2/173nt6) and 20cm mid-bass (c2/220nt6) available since januar 2007 notably at the nederlander importer Clofis:
http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/thiel.htm
Could it be that Mr. Bankewitz wasn't aware of that, haha?...astonishing marketing...
BTW, if I were to build a full range stereo speaker nowaday I would really consider an active (integrated dsp/amp) subdriver inside each main speaker (why not down firing to get a bit more efficiency) completed with (for ex) a C2/173NT6 after 100hz, thus an active/passive 2.5-way. This configuration has double advantage: it does exist a lot of very good sub drivers that can be loaded in small volume (Dayton ones are good examples) and very good dsp/amp reasonably priced nowaday...and as you know it does no more exist a lot of good 12" hifi bass drivers on the present market. The second advantage is that the low efficiency of the sub driver is really compensated by the powerfull amp. Last but not least, no more need for high priced trafo selfs and huge caps, no more need for high current amps, even single ended tubes afficionados would purchase such a speaker, haha.

[David Ellis]

http://www.clofis.nl/nl/thiel/thiel.htm

Yep, there it is... and it has been there since 2006? 

I have thought about an active bass system, but there is another issue present that remains fairly significant in my opinion.  The input impedance for plate amps is terrible - about 10k ohms.   This requires a very robust preamp that would add at least $1500 to any decent system.  And the preamp would have to have output cables for the plate amp. 

I tried an okay quality (Tweaked Foreplay) preamp several years ago and ran the cables through the plate amp and used the high-pass for the monitors.  It completely ruined the midrange quality.  It became very gritty and grainy - with no dynamics.

I really don't think there is a clear "winner" in this situation - unless there is a high quality plate amplifier with a high input impedance and very high quality active crossover circuit for the high-pass.  This would necessitate mono-block amps, or more RCA cable, but this is a minor concern in the grand scheme of things.  Do you know of a plate amp having at least 50k ohms of input impedance AND some degree of quality discrete components (i.e. no op amps) for a high pass?

Dave