New CDWG's NOW available

pmcneil · « **Reply #40 on:** 6 Apr 2011, 02:37 am »

No pricing on the web site, yet...

satfrat · « **Reply #41 on:** 6 Apr 2011, 02:54 am »

Quote from: pmcneil on 6 Apr 2011, 02:37 am

No pricing on the web site, yet...

The pricing was listed in the very 1st post of this thread.

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #42 on:** 6 Apr 2011, 04:18 pm »

Since the dispersion pattern changes with the CDWG's attached, you should experiment with toe-in. I did not change my speaker position in my home system, but I have extensive room treatment.

John Casler · « **Reply #43 on:** 6 Apr 2011, 09:17 pm »

Quote from: pmcneil on 6 Apr 2011, 02:37 am

No pricing on the web site, yet...

To Keep it simple they are $20 per driver.

This is for Neopanel or Tweeter.

So if you have a 626, that equals 2 Neopanels and 2 tweeters or 4 drivers

4 drivers X $20 = $80.

You must denote however, how many are for Neopanels and how many for Tweeters.

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #44 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 05:24 pm »

I had opportunity this week to install the new CDWG's on my demo RM30 and RM 2 speakers. Previously I had only heard them on the RM40, where the improvements were substantial. With the smaller systems, the improvements were even more impressive.

With waveguides on all planar drivers, the sound stage widened, deepened, and became much more specific. There was little impression of "loudspeaker sound", just natural music. If there is a better illustration of the sonic benefits of constant directivity with frequency (very much the way live instruments disperse their sound), I can't imagine it.

The years of experimentation and huge expense of the patent filing/granting process are justified. I trust other early adopters will post their impressions here and be as pleased as I am.

wywires · « **Reply #45 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 06:09 pm »

Quote from: Brian Cheney on 16 Apr 2011, 05:24 pm

I had opportunity this week to install the new CDWG's on my demo RM30 and RM 2 speakers. Previously I had only heard them on the RM40, where the improvements were substantial. With the smaller systems, the improvements were even more impressive.

With waveguides on all planar drivers, the sound stage widened, deepened, and became much more specific. There was little impression of "loudspeaker sound", just natural music. If there is a better illustration of the sonic benefits of constant directivity with frequency (very much the way live instruments disperse their sound), I can't imagine it.

The years of experimentation and huge expense of the patent filing/granting process are justified. I trust other early adopters will post their impressions here and be as pleased as I am.

Hi Brian, how would you describe the visual look of the new CDWG compared to the original? Are they available in ebony to match my RM 30's?

Thanks,

Alex

John Casler · « **Reply #46 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 06:12 pm »

Quote from: wywires on 16 Apr 2011, 06:09 pm

Hi Brian, how would you describe the visual look of the new CDWG compared to the original? Are they available in ebony to match my RM 30's?

Thanks,

Alex

Hi Alex,

Look here for visual

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #47 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 06:16 pm »

The reflective part of the CDWG can be made of hardwood instead of plastic, as we are using now. Macassar ebony is a very expensive material, but if you can round some up, we can use it. Each part requires a piece of material 3 1/2"W x 1 1/2" deep and 1/8" thick. Twelve pieces of those dimensions would be required for a pair of RM30.

rbbert · « **Reply #48 on:** 19 Apr 2011, 03:15 am »

Quote from: wywires on 16 Apr 2011, 06:09 pm

Hi Brian, how would you describe the visual look of the new CDWG compared to the original? Are they available in ebony to match my RM 30's?

Thanks,

Alex

These are quite ugly, but in my first couple of hours of closer listening I find all the sonic advantages of the older CDWG's with none of the disadvantages. Also, they seem to attach adequately with double-sided tape if you want to more easily remove them for experimentation, modfication (did I mention they are visually unattractive?

) or comparison.

Roc · « **Reply #49 on:** 22 Apr 2011, 05:32 pm »

Brian,

Got the new wave guides yesterday. Thanks!
They look like disc brake pads.
Already have 4 hrs. on them.
Will hold back on my comments for a couple of days.

How are the semi-circular guides attached at the FS tweeter ???
The FS foil/driver is only 3/8" wide, as is the opening/spacing btw. magnets.
Placing the guides at 1" wide opening makes no sense. They're not restricting or guiding anything.
What am I missing ???

How critical is a snug fit, of foam to grill on mid's ???
I too have used double faced tape, at outer edges only, as a temporary attachment method.

Dave

Doublej · « **Reply #50 on:** 22 Apr 2011, 06:12 pm »

What's the break in period for these?

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #51 on:** 22 Apr 2011, 06:32 pm »

There is no breakin period.

The FST is already narrow enough for good directivity to 20kHz. The CDWG will act primarily as antidiffraction, which is sonically beneficial. You can experiment with making the slot narrower than 1" or so, up to the width of the diaphragm by placing the parts closer together.

rbbert · « **Reply #52 on:** 22 Apr 2011, 09:26 pm »

This has to be the best $100-$200 a VMPS owner can spend on his/her stereo system.

I would also look carefully at your tweeter to see whether or not it is dehorned. My RM40's were made just about a year ago and shipped with the old-stye CDWG's, but the tweeter is horned. I'm not using any other waveguides on my tweeters.

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #53 on:** 23 Apr 2011, 05:31 pm »

I agree. The improvement is substantial and cannot be achieved any other way. This is not a tweak, just good physics.

tbrooke · « **Reply #54 on:** 26 Apr 2011, 12:40 pm »

This may have been mentioned but I didn't see it. With the RM30 would I put these on and remove the existing CDWG? Or if they are used without the existing CDWG will they fit under the old CDWG so that I can keep on the old CDWG when not listening

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #55 on:** 26 Apr 2011, 05:38 pm »

You can use the old CDWG as a grill if you remove the foam from inside it. Remove the old CDWG for listening.

monsterbill · « **Reply #56 on:** 14 May 2011, 07:31 am »

Quote from: Pez on 1 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm

How does the sound differ from the previous iteration?

+1 to this question.

Also are there any plans, or is it even possible, to make the new CDWG as fitted grills, like the old one?

Will I need to retune the hi/mid pots from the settings with the old CDWG?

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #57 on:** 14 May 2011, 05:23 pm »

The sound is now perfectly dispersed (wide sweet spot) over 180 degrees, with little to no loss of trebles. It is easy to adjust tonal balance by pointing the speakers, rather than adjusting level controls, which should usually be at the 12 o'clock setting for the mids and 1 o'clock for the trebles. The old solid baffle CDWG did not work as well as the new ones and I would not try to make something that looks like it again.

Scottdazzle · « **Reply #58 on:** 14 May 2011, 05:59 pm »

Quote from: Brian Cheney on 26 Apr 2011, 05:38 pm

You can use the old CDWG as a grill if you remove the foam from inside it. Remove the old CDWG for listening.

Brian, what does removing the foam from the old CDWG do to the sound?

Brian Cheney · « **Reply #59 on:** 14 May 2011, 07:00 pm »

Removing the foam from the old CDWG reflects most of the energy back into the driver, generating large amounts of IM distortion. It sounds awful.