Accuton Monitor

Rick Craig · « **on:** 2 Mar 2009, 08:51 pm »

Enjoy...

BlkNotes · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Mar 2009, 09:19 pm »

Hello Rick;

Can you describe the sound of these speakers. I have read variable reports on the sound of accuton drivers. They range from smooth, laid back presentation, to an opposite opinion of fast clean electrostatic like with tons of details. Further one is suppose to be able to play the at low volume and retail all the charcteristic.

How do they do on palpability, 3D soundstage micro/macro dynamics?

What ribbon are you using? look like either an Aurum cantus or Raven?

Thanks
BN

Rick Craig · « **Reply #2 on:** 2 Mar 2009, 09:44 pm »

Quote from: BlkNotes on 2 Mar 2009, 09:19 pm

Hello Rick;

Can you describe the sound of these speakers. I have read variable reports on the sound of accuton drivers. They range from smooth, laid back presentation, to an opposite opinion of fast clean electrostatic like with tons of details. Further one is suppose to be able to play the at low volume and retail all the charcteristic.

How do they do on palpability, 3D soundstage micro/macro dynamics?

What ribbon are you using? look like either an Aurum cantus or Raven?

Thanks
BN

This is based on a previous design except with a different Accuton woofer and Fountek ribbon tweeter. The Accuton drivers tend to be more detailed and have good transient capability. I tend to favor their woofers and mids over the tweeters which is why I use a ribbon with the dome mid. Musically they give you an honest presentation though not as forgiving as a paper-based driver. Some of the commercial designs using them IMHO fall short and are way too expensive. That's why I enjoy bringing them to a wider audience.

Zero the Hero · « **Reply #3 on:** 2 Mar 2009, 11:38 pm »

hey those drivers look familiar... i think i got their sisters delivered today

AvFan · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 01:36 pm »

Rick,

Those look like impressive speakers. I'm not sure where to post this question, but can you tell me the major advantages and disadvantages of three way design such as this one and the MTM configuration when using similar drivers? I see the MTM configuration (along with a couple of woofers) in a number of your floorstanders and bookshelf size such as the Garnet. I had the chance to audition the Tanzanites a while back and your site shows several "bookshelf" and floorstander three way designs. You've produced so many choices within each of these speaker categories (and I've drooled over many of them) I ought to step back and understand why I'd want to choose one configuration over the other. Thanks!

TF1216 · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 01:58 pm »

AvFan,

I think your question is a great one. I have had similar questions to yours when previewing Rick's work. Do you guys think a sticky, in the Selah Audio forum, dedicated to helping a potential customer choose which of Rick's speakers would be suitable for them?

Rick Craig · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 04:54 pm »

Quote from: AvFan on 3 Mar 2009, 01:36 pm

Rick,

Those look like impressive speakers. I'm not sure where to post this question, but can you tell me the major advantages and disadvantages of three way design such as this one and the MTM configuration when using similar drivers? I see the MTM configuration (along with a couple of woofers) in a number of your floorstanders and bookshelf size such as the Garnet. I had the chance to audition the Tanzanites a while back and your site shows several "bookshelf" and floorstander three way designs. You've produced so many choices within each of these speaker categories (and I've drooled over many of them) I ought to step back and understand why I'd want to choose one configuration over the other. Thanks!

As slow as I type this would be better to answer in a phone call.

The best approach is to first determine your priorities in terms of performance then look for a design that meets your criteria and is within your budget range. A 3-way tends to have lower distortion and better dispersion because the drivers are operated more conservatively. A MTM typically has the two mids in parallel so it will give you higher sensitivity and output capability.

MT's and MTM's have a different vertical coverage pattern with MTM's being more restricted. There are ways to increase the coverage for a MTM if the woofer / mid and tweeter combination is optimal. Larger woofers (7" or greater) in my opinion are too compromised for a MTM unless the crossover point is really low. Most tweeters cannot handle this and a 5-6" woofer is a much better choice. The reason for this is that the spacing of the woofers becomes too great at higher frequencies and that screws up the vertical response. The tweeters also can distort if pushed too low and headroom is limited. With a MT a 7" isn't a problem and many different combinations are possible. The 3-ways offer even more flexibility because the drivers are covering more restricted ranges.

If you want bass extension for a monitor and don't use a subwoofer then a 7" is going to be your best choice. There are also some 5.5"-6" drivers that will give you good extension but if you want the full bottom octave (20-40hz) then a subwoofer or floorstander with larger woofers is the best option. The best case scenario for a 5"-6" is a -3db point in the mid 40's to upper 40's. With a 7" typically low 40's to mid 40's. These are anechoic / nearfield numbers (the most reliable) and don't include any room gain. The loading of the woofer makes no difference either so beware of specs that state a woofer will go much lower with a transmission line versus a standard ported cabinet. If the manufacturer doesn't provide a nearfield or anechoic measurement to back up their claims then it's probably BS.

The next step is deciding on a subwoofer / satellite system or floorstander. The 3-way or 4-way floorstanders are going to give you the most performance in terms of tonality / smooth response and dynamic capability. If your budget is more limited then a sub-sat combination can be really good and offers plenty of output for most listening rooms. Your room may dictate which one is best for your system and we can advise you as well. There are some driver options within both formats and the different cone materials come into play. Given my experience with many different drivers I can help you choose what is going to be optimal for your system. Hope this helps - feel free to ask questions.

Rick Craig · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 06:43 pm »

Quote from: tf121682 on 3 Mar 2009, 01:58 pm

AvFan,

I think your question is a great one. I have had similar questions to yours when previewing Rick's work. Do you guys think a sticky, in the Selah Audio forum, dedicated to helping a potential customer choose which of Rick's speakers would be suitable for them?

Thanks for the idea. I tried to sum it all up (or as much as possible) in my last post.

richidoo · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 06:49 pm »

Nice explanation Rick, Thanks!

Do you find it challenging to match the acceleration of a dynamic cone/dome driver to a ribbon tweeter? Is a lower order xo more helpful in that case?

Rick Craig · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 07:14 pm »

Quote from: richidoo on 3 Mar 2009, 06:49 pm

Nice explanation Rick, Thanks!

Do you find it challenging to match the acceleration of a dynamic cone/dome driver to a ribbon tweeter? Is a lower order xo more helpful in that case?

Not really a problem as long as the cone or dome has good transient capability and detail. The crossover can vary according to what I need for a smooth transition and even response. I'm not a minimalist but neither do I see how many parts I can use to make the load really difficult. If you've never seen a true first order acoustic filter you would be amazed as to how many components it actually takes!

BTW, I haven't forgotten you and the other local guys. I have three pairs of speakers in progress so I should have something to listen to fairly soon. I'm also thinking of doing a speaker clinic where you can bring your speakers over for free testing.

richidoo · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Mar 2009, 08:39 pm »

Thanks Rick. The 1st order speakers that I have heard did not impress - but I believe that the truth is in the implementation not the dogma. I was just thinking that whatever transient loss you might have from the cone, might be replaced with shallower rolloff from the ribbon, but I guess non-symmetrical xo would pose its own challenges. Speaker design is definitely the pointy end of the audio engineering stick.

Clinic sounds fun! and warmer weather on the horizon will make it more enjoyable.
Rich

AvFan · « **Reply #11 on:** 4 Mar 2009, 04:42 am »

Rick,

Sorry to test your typing skills, but thanks for your detailed answer.

When I listen to music it is generally a solitary event as my wife and I have much different tastes in music. I want a separate stereo set up in a spare bedroom for those times when I want to decompress and enjoy some of my music. In my case it sounds like the MTM would work because I'd be in the sweet spot and wouldn't have to worry about anyone else in the room. I wouldn't have a problem adding a sub if the MTM had small woofers. I have listened to a MTM with a ribbon tweeter. While I thought the speakers lacked some mid-range capabilities they imaged like crazy and the ribbon tweeter was amazing. I had the same reaction when listening to the Tanzanites; amazing tweeters!! So, did I get the MTM capabilities correct based upon your answer? Conversely, if I was using the speakers for a home theater I would expect the three ways to be a preferred solution due to their better dispersion? This is probably an oversimplification of how to select a speaker configuration given the complex set of variables. Is there another way to look at the selection of speaker type?

I can start a new thread if this one has legs since this started out as a thread on the Accuton Monitor which looks amazing. Any chance this speaker might make a west coast demo tour for fans on the "other" coast?

Rick Craig · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Mar 2009, 06:00 pm »

Quote from: AvFan on 4 Mar 2009, 04:42 am

Rick,

Sorry to test your typing skills, but thanks for your detailed answer. When I listen to music it is generally a solitary event as my wife and I have much different tastes in music. I want a separate stereo set up in a spare bedroom for those times when I want to decompress and enjoy some of my music. In my case it sounds like the MTM would work because I'd be in the sweet spot and wouldn't have to worry about anyone else in the room. I wouldn't have a problem adding a sub if the MTM had small woofers. I have listened to a MTM with a ribbon tweeter. While I thought the speakers lacked some mid-range capabilities they imaged like crazy and the ribbon tweeter was amazing. I had the same reaction when listening to the Tanzanites; amazing tweeters!! So, did I get the MTM capabilities correct based upon your answer? Conversely, if I was using the speakers for a home theater I would expect the three ways to be a preferred solution due to their better dispersion? This is probably an oversimplification of how to select a speaker configuration given the complex set of variables. Is there another way to look at the selection of speaker type?

I can start a new thread if this one has legs since this started out as a thread on the Accuton Monitor which looks amazing. Any chance this speaker might make a west coast demo tour for fans on the "other" coast?

If you have the RAAL MTM with a 5-6" woofer then there won't be much difference between the MTM's horizontal coverage and the 3-way. Because of the MTM's radiation pattern you tend to hear more direct sound versus the reflections from the room. This can give you really good imaging but it also is dependent on the crossover execution and driver combination.

I would be open to sending a pair of MTM's out for demo.

chrismercurio · « **Reply #13 on:** 5 Mar 2009, 02:16 am »

I gander at a Thiel or Vandersteen crossover confirms what Rick was saying above about a true 1st order design. It sounds minimalist, but since few (if any) drivers conform to the requirements, many components are required.

cadobhuk · « **Reply #14 on:** 5 Mar 2009, 02:33 am »

What kind of fountek is that, doesn't look like neo cd3.0 since the flange is square. What's the pricing? How does it sound compared to Tanzanite?

kip_ · « **Reply #15 on:** 5 Mar 2009, 12:03 pm »

Quote from: cadobhuk on 5 Mar 2009, 02:33 am

What kind of fountek is that, doesn't look like neo cd3.0 since the flange is square. What's the pricing? How does it sound compared to Tanzanite?

Looks like a Neo Pro5i

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=132&products_id=1557

Rick Craig · « **Reply #16 on:** 5 Mar 2009, 02:05 pm »

Quote from: kip_ on 5 Mar 2009, 12:03 pm

Quote from: cadobhuk on 5 Mar 2009, 02:33 am
What kind of fountek is that, doesn't look like neo cd3.0 since the flange is square. What's the pricing? How does it sound compared to Tanzanite?

Looks like a Neo Pro5i

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=132&products_id=1557

CD3 with a rectangular flange.

Zero the Hero · « **Reply #17 on:** 6 Mar 2009, 02:51 pm »

Rick,

Please don't ever let me order a speaker with a non-round driver, ever again... omg what a pain cutting that baffle!!

Rick Craig · « **Reply #18 on:** 6 Mar 2009, 04:17 pm »

Quote from: Zero the Hero on 6 Mar 2009, 02:51 pm

Rick,

Please don't ever let me order a speaker with a non-round driver, ever again... omg what a pain cutting that baffle!!

What we do is make a jig that fits over the baffle. The jig has a rectangular cutout and a bearing-guided bit cuts the baffle. BTW, the crossover parts are on the way to us and final tweaking will be done next week.

Zero the Hero · « **Reply #19 on:** 6 Mar 2009, 04:23 pm »

sweet! It'll prob take another 2 weeks to finish the second baffle lol