[bryede]

Since the Song Surrounds are actually excellent mini-monitors (and provide one of the most cost-effective introductions to Salk quality), it seems to me that the name is somewhat unfortunate and keeps then from being presented in a 2-channel friendly way.

Might I suggest the title of SongSonnets?

From Wikipedia:

The term "sonnet" derives from the Occitan word sonet and the Italian word sonetto, both meaning "little song" or "little sound".

Just an idea.

[Kinger]

I like the suggestion.

[Big Red Machine]

I like the suggestion.

Seconded.  We have a quorum.  Well, that was easy! 

[mathgeek97]

I also like the suggestion.
However, Jim needs to make it obvious to the casual user, browsing the SalkSound Web site, that the "SongSonnets" are the recommended surround speaker for the Song series.  And/or add a new section to the site, under the "speakers" menu heading, for suggested home theater setups, ordered by budget/series.
Remember, we already own Jim's speakers and take the time to hang out on AC.  Jim's got to be able to sell to everybody else.  Just my $0.02. 

[charmerci]

Under "Other Speakers" he has the CAOW1's which -

"were designed by Dennis Murphy. They are essentially the same speaker as our SongSurround I’s, but the crossover features 2nd order slopes for an extremely smooth transition between the drivers."

[J Fallows]

Hey Hey, Anybody up for a ribbon version.

[bryede]

Under "Other Speakers" he has the CAOW1's which -

"were designed by Dennis Murphy. They are essentially the same speaker as our SongSurround I’s, but the crossover features 2nd order slopes for an extremely smooth transition between the drivers."

Interesting... I also found this on Dennis' site (under MBOW1):

I have also provided a traditional fourth order Linkwitz-Riley that may prove more suitable if the speaker is used as part of a home theater system, perhaps with larger satellites (such as the 1801) that use fourth order slopes.  In any event, the difference in sound is not great.  But I do prefer the second order version.

So, perhaps a better "SongSonnet" would be a 2nd order version of the Surround I? (CAOW1 in a Surround cab). I guess I would just like to see a dedicated mini-monitor in the Song series.

[martyo]

Seems to me I remember someone bringing this up awhile back but don't remember if Jim responded.

[DMurphy]

I have also provided a traditional fourth order Linkwitz-Riley that may prove more suitable if the speaker is used as part of a home theater system, perhaps with larger satellites (such as the 1801) that use fourth order slopes.  In any event, the difference in sound is not great.  But I do prefer the second order version.
So, perhaps a better "SongSonnet" would be a 2nd order version of the Surround I? (CAOW1 in a Surround cab). I guess I would just like to see a dedicated mini-monitor in the Song series.

I don't know how much sense promoting a dedicated monitor makes given the SongBird--I'm sure there wouldn't be much profit in it for Jim.  But he can speak to that.  The CA0W1 does have 2nd order slopes, but at a price (not monetary).  The more gentle slopes require the woofer to be surface mounted, with the upper edge of the frame overlapping the bottom of the flush mounted tweeter.  Some people think that's unsightly.   I'm currently designing a modified CA0W1 with the ER15 woofer (already used on the SongSurround I and II), and I'll see how it compares.  I suspect there won't be enough difference to justify substituting it for the SongSurround I if Jim decides to promote a dedicated monitor, but we'll see. 

[bryede]

The more gentle slopes require the woofer to be surface mounted, with the upper edge of the frame overlapping the bottom of the flush mounted tweeter.

Hi Dennis,

So, the 2nd order xover requires that the drivers be closer? Is that to prevent more driver interaction? Does the 4th order xover require different driver positions or simply allow it?

[DMurphy]

Hi Dennis,
So, the 2nd order xover requires that the drivers be closer? Is that to prevent more driver interaction? Does the 4th order xover require different driver positions or simply allow it?

The vertical spacing isn't critical for a second order slope.  But with the woofer surface mounted, it's possible to get the two drivers closer together, and that's always a good idea.  It's much harder to get the phase tracking lined up with 2nd order slopes, because there's more overlap between the drivers in terms of frequency response.   And it's close to impossible if both drivers are flush mounted, because the acoustic center of the woofer will be much further back than the acoustic center of the tweeter--the woofer's voice coil is further back.  Surface mounting the woofer brings the acoustic centers closer in line and reduces the amount of electrical delay you have to build into the tweeter circuit.  The alternative solution is to use a sloped from panel, but that raises costs and introduces some other problems.  Is that snoring I hear out there?

[Meicheng]

Hey Dennis, how bout an updated puppy picture.  Your dog must be growing fast. 

[DMurphy]

Hey Dennis, how bout an updated puppy picture.  Your dog must be growing fast.

Well, Big Ben is definitely bigger.  I'll see what I can do tomorrow.  I'm probably going to need Big Red Machine's help in posting it, though.   

[bryede]

It's much harder to get the phase tracking lined up with 2nd order slopes, because there's more overlap between the drivers in terms of frequency response.   And it's close to impossible if both drivers are flush mounted, because the acoustic center of the woofer will be much further back than the acoustic center of the tweeter--the woofer's voice coil is further back.

Ah, got it. Remember the good old days of a cap on the tweeter and perhaps a coil on the woofer if someone was feeling generous?

[bummrush]

Jim. Quick question.  Are you aware of Clements speakers.

[Saturn94]

The vertical spacing isn't critical for a second order slope.  But with the woofer surface mounted, it's possible to get the two drivers closer together, and that's always a good idea.  It's much harder to get the phase tracking lined up with 2nd order slopes, because there's more overlap between the drivers in terms of frequency response.   And it's close to impossible if both drivers are flush mounted, because the acoustic center of the woofer will be much further back than the acoustic center of the tweeter--the woofer's voice coil is further back.  Surface mounting the woofer brings the acoustic centers closer in line and reduces the amount of electrical delay you have to build into the tweeter circuit.  The alternative solution is to use a sloped from panel, but that raises costs and introduces some other problems.  Is that snoring I hear out there?

   On the contrary.  I enjoy reading your posts and always learn something.

PS - I also would like to see an updated picture of Ben.  How's the training going?

[woodsart]

+1