RAAL tweeter

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 16122 times.

Vulcan00

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 405
  • SEM Micrograph of Dendritic Structure
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #20 on: 3 Jan 2011, 08:47 pm »
I  hope I dont step on any feelings but my opinion is i would like to see a complete redesign of the HT3 cabinet, something with a little more rage , on the edge, with the leader in high quality wood finishing.

For me, upgrading to a new improved HT3, would be affordable.



jsalk

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #21 on: 3 Jan 2011, 10:05 pm »
I  hope I dont step on any feelings but my opinion is i would like to see a complete redesign of the HT3 cabinet, something with a little more rage , on the edge, with the leader in high quality wood finishing.

For me, upgrading to a new improved HT3, would be affordable.




Any idea of what that might look like?

- Jim

fsimms

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #22 on: 3 Jan 2011, 11:22 pm »



Quote
Any idea of what that might look like?

You got that new fancy saw although how one would veneer that sucker to your standards, I don't know.   :lol:

Bob

Nuance

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #23 on: 3 Jan 2011, 11:24 pm »
Jim,

I don't mind the look of the HT3's at all, but would something more like this be doable by chance?  A lot of folks (myself included) love the slender width but longer sides.  A side-mounted woofer like the SoundScape's would be necessary, though.






Jim, you're the master of this trade IMO, so no matter what you chose for future designs I have no doubt the sound quality will be top notch.  I truly look forward to what Salk Sound produces in the future.




DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1486
    • SalkSound
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #24 on: 3 Jan 2011, 11:52 pm »
As for Dennis' idea of using Jeff Bagby's radiator version of the woofer section, it is considerably deeper than the current HT3 woofer section.  So building it this way would require changing to a two-piece design and it would end up costing only slightly less than the SoundScapes.  I'm not sure people would opt for the HT3's under this scenario since the SoundScapes would only cost a bit more.  But we are certainly open to doing it.
- Jim

I thought the cabinet would be a problem, but I wasn't really thinking of plumbing the depths all the way to 18 Hz.  I was wondering whether you could use smaller slaves--10"--and still have enough cabinet volume to reach the high 20's.  It's more the quality of Jeff's bass I'm interested in than the sheer extension.  Paul K might also want to take a crack at a folded transmission line. 

Big Red Machine

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #25 on: 4 Jan 2011, 12:11 am »
Well the HT3 is a great speaker but it is already close to the cost of a basic SS10.  It would seem the real trick is to try and see what can be done in the single cabinet design w/o edging up into SS10 market.

I've always like the angled fronts of the Avalons but would think a nice bookshelf with that sort of shape would be a very hot seller.  But then the added labor and fixturing to do a small speaker may not make sense.

So who's gonna step up and get some RAAL HT3's?

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1486
    • SalkSound
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #26 on: 4 Jan 2011, 12:46 am »
Well the HT3 is a great speaker but it is already close to the cost of a basic SS10.  It would seem the real trick is to try and see what can be done in the single cabinet design w/o edging up into SS10 market.

I've always like the angled fronts of the Avalons but would think a nice bookshelf with that sort of shape would be a very hot seller.  But then the added labor and fixturing to do a small speaker may not make sense.

The basic HT3 is $4,000 cheaper than the basic SS10.  That's not close for someone on a government pension. 
Jim sent me a cabinet a few years ago that was constructed almost identically to the Avalon shown.  It was full of diffraction effects and just didn't work out.  It may work better with the Avalon drivers, but I don't think Jim would be anxious to revisit that approach.  If you want the mdf prototype--it's ready for pick up in Bethesda.  I'll leave it out front. 

ratso

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #27 on: 4 Jan 2011, 12:48 am »
Well the HT3 is a great speaker but it is already close to the cost of a basic SS10.

unless prices have changed, isn't the SS10 almost twice the cost of a HT3 (5995 vs. 9999)?

**edit damn that dennis guy is quick. beat me to it!

K Shep

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #28 on: 4 Jan 2011, 01:56 am »
Be careful Robin I sense  :kiss: :kiss: coming on.  :nono:

Bill, don't injure your arm stirring up sh*t.   :roll:

catastrofe

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 885
  • "That's what credit cards are for. . ."
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #29 on: 4 Jan 2011, 02:12 am »
unless prices have changed, isn't the SS10 almost twice the cost of a HT3 (5995 vs. 9999)?

**edit damn that dennis guy is quick. beat me to it!

And who ever orders the "basic" version?!!   :green:

Big Red Machine

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #30 on: 4 Jan 2011, 02:13 am »
If you buy some HT3's there is a pretty good chance you'll spend more than $6k.  So when it hits $7k you're close enough to SS territory for me.  Why do you guys argue with my Spock-like superior logic? 

vintagebob

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #31 on: 4 Jan 2011, 02:18 am »
Live long and prosper...
« Last Edit: 4 Jan 2011, 04:28 pm by vintagebob »

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1486
    • SalkSound
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #32 on: 4 Jan 2011, 02:21 am »
If you buy some HT3's there is a pretty good chance you'll spend more than $6k.  So when it hits $7k you're close enough to SS territory for me.  Why do you guys argue with my Spock-like superior logic?

Spock Shmock.  And who orders a base SS10?  And why is that Avalon prototype still in front of my house? 

jsalk

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #33 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:18 pm »
Just a note...

A side-firing woofer is not in the cards for the current HT3 design.  You would have to cross to the woofer below about 150Hz in order to make this work.  Since the HT3 woofer/midrange cross is quite a bit higher than this, it has to be front-firing.  So a 12" wide front baffle is pretty much a requirement.

- Jim

jsalk

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #34 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:20 pm »
I thought the cabinet would be a problem, but I wasn't really thinking of plumbing the depths all the way to 18 Hz.  I was wondering whether you could use smaller slaves--10"--and still have enough cabinet volume to reach the high 20's.  It's more the quality of Jeff's bass I'm interested in than the sheer extension.  Paul K might also want to take a crack at a folded transmission line. 

The TL is probably not all that workable in that the air velocity at the terminus would be quite high.  That is the problem we encountered with the SoundScape cabinet.  But using 10" passives and a tuning in the high 20's would probably be workable in a cabinet about the size of the current HT3 cabinet.

- Jim

jsalk

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #35 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:23 pm »
Another note...

As to the price differential of the HT3 vs. the SoundScape 10's, keep in mind that the current SoundScape prices are "introductory."  The SoundScape prices will most likely increase about 15 - 20% in the very near future. The top sections turned out to require FAR more labor than we had originally estimated and we had set the introductory prices a little on the low side to begin with.  So the price differential will be greater in the not-too-distant future.

- Jim

Nuance

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #36 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:30 pm »
Just a note...

A side-firing woofer is not in the cards for the current HT3 design.  You would have to cross to the woofer below about 150Hz in order to make this work.  Since the HT3 woofer/midrange cross is quite a bit higher than this, it has to be front-firing.  So a 12" wide front baffle is pretty much a requirement.

- Jim

Ah, I see; that makes sense.  Thanks for the explanation sir.

So who's gonna step up and get some RAAL HT3's?

I will.  Who's going to buy them for me? :D

Paul K.

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #37 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:41 pm »
The main reasons the terminus air velocity ended up way too high in the SoundScape 12 were because, one, I didn't verify what it would reach with the driver hitting its Xmax of 1" and, two, I had to make the taper ratio quite aggressive and use a pretty short folded line to fit into the bass module cabinet in order to make the line's 1/4-wave resonant frequency optimum for the woofer.  The first was simply an error on my part :oops: which has and will not ever happen again!  If that very same woofer were placed in a cabinet about 45" tall, the folded line would end up at ~90" long, not need nearly as much taper and would work just fine, terminus air velocity included (I know because I modeled it that way later).  While no one will ever know unless it's tried (modeled) it's not necessarily true a TL would not be viable for the HT3 woofer and I sure would like a shot at it.
Paul

The TL is probably not all that workable in that the air velocity at the terminus would be quite high.  That is the problem we encountered with the SoundScape cabinet.  But using 10" passives and a tuning in the high 20's would probably be workable in a cabinet about the size of the current HT3 cabinet.

- Jim

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1486
    • SalkSound
Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #38 on: 4 Jan 2011, 03:54 pm »
45" would probably be a no-go.  The SS10 stands 43" (outside measurement) without a plinth or spikes, and with spikes and plinth, the tweeter is already above a normal listening position. The taller MTM designs you've done have the the tweeter placed much lower between the woofers, so that hasn't been an issue.   

Paul K.

Re: RAAL tweeter
« Reply #39 on: 4 Jan 2011, 04:05 pm »
The 45" height was just used as an example of how a tapered, single-fold line would allow the terminus air velocity to become a moot issue, not suggesting that it would necessarily fit into the existing HT3 cabinet.  A folded line can easily have more than one fold, thus allowing a pretty long line to fit into a not so tall cabinet, assuming there's enough cabinet volume to begin with.  You took my comments a bit too literally.
Paul

45" would probably be a no-go.  The SS10 stands 43" (outside measurement) without a plinth or spikes, and with spikes and plinth, the tweeter is already above a normal listening position. The taller MTM designs you've done have the the tweeter placed much lower between the woofers, so that hasn't been an issue.