Zaph's tests of the Titanium TB

[Pete Schumacher ®]

I just looked at the posted plots for the TB titanium . . . and I'm not real impressed by them other than the smooth and extended response.

When you stack the HD plot of the TB against the RS125, the winner is clear, and the RS125 stomps all over it.

I'll grant that the TB can cross higher, but when it comes to use as a midrange, the RS125 sure looks like a better choice when crossing below 3KHz.

Once more, gotta hand it to PE for putting out such a bargain in the RS125.

Here's the HD plot for the TB
<A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif</A>

And the RS125:
<A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif</A>

It's real tough to argue with those. H3 is similar, but H2 on the RS125 is a lot lower from 300Hz on up. H4 and H5 are both significantly higher for the TB vs. the RS125.

[tedwilt]

Provided Link: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&amp;DID=7&amp;Partnumber=296-616 (http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=296-616)


> I just looked at the posted plots for the TB
> titanium . . . and I'm not real impressed by
> them other than the smooth and extended
> response.

> When you stack the HD plot of the TB against
> the RS125, the winner is clear, and the
> RS125 stomps all over it.

> I'll grant that the TB can cross higher, but
> when it comes to use as a midrange, the
> RS125 sure looks like a better choice when
> crossing below 3KHz.

I too was unimpressed with all of the tests I have seen of the TB. The Ascendant Audio 6.5 should be available again soon if their July 4 anouncement takes place on schedule. I am designing a short array of these using the transmission line, dipole idea with a 30 degree angled wall baffle to reduce baffle step loss. This will give the prefered equilateral triangle listening arrangement prefered by many. Until then, this 8" Usher is a pretty good buy with excellent distortion according to their graphs. Not tested by Zaph but we know from Zaph's tests of the 7" Ushers that they are quite good although the frequency response is not as nice as the AA.

[dlneubec]

Provided Link: Augerpro's driver tests (http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q288/augerpro/)


Hi Pete,

Here's another guy who has been doing some testing, in case you haven't seen these.

Looking over these and Zaphs, I think the RS150 may be better than the RS125, at least for a two-way or MTM or a 3way if you need to cross lower to the woofer. The RS150-4 may be a smidge better than the RS150-8 in a dual driver configuration where the low impedance is not an issue.

Dan

[Jim Holtz]

> I just looked at the posted plots for the TB
> titanium . . . and I'm not real impressed by
> them other than the smooth and extended
> response.

> When you stack the HD plot of the TB against
> the RS125, the winner is clear, and the
> RS125 stomps all over it.

> I'll grant that the TB can cross higher, but
> when it comes to use as a midrange, the
> RS125 sure looks like a better choice when
> crossing below 3KHz.

> Once more, gotta hand it to PE for putting
> out such a bargain in the RS125.

> Here's the HD plot for the TB
>
> <A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif</A>
> And the RS125:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif</A>
> It's real tough to argue with those. H3 is
> similar, but H2 on the RS125 is a lot lower
> from 300Hz on up. H4 and H5 are both
> significantly higher for the TB vs. the
> RS125.

Hi Pete,

As always, the proof is in the sound quality. The RS line are fine drivers and I've built several very successful designs created by people I consider to be crossover professionals. I really like the RS driver line and I'll continue to use them.

However, the TB W4-1337SA has the same ultra detailed, vivid and holographic imaging capability we heard out of the Visiton Ti100 last fall in John Pastuk's Mini design that I have yet to hear from any RS driver in any design. Extremely smooth, refined and detailed would be perfect descriptors of the W4.

There comes a time when listening is the preferred tool over comparing slight differences in distortion measurements. What is the audible difference in 2nd order distortion between .3% and .1%? What is the audibility of less than a .1% variation in 3rd order distortion? When you're working with drivers this low in distortion, wouldn't other factors such as cone design and material, not to mention crossover design be far more important than minute differences in distortion measurements? :-) How do Accuton and Seas Excel drivers measure? There are lots of factors to consider when evaluating drivers but ultimately, it comes down to, what do they sound like? :-)

Here is some feedback on the W4's.

<A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120</A>

<A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161</A>

See you at the Iowa event this fall! :-)

Jim

[dlneubec]

Hi Jim,

This is something that is missing from the tests that everyone does. What does it sound like? Unfortunately, there may be no way to measure this since it will likely change from user to user and with each different driver application. How would quantify that at the driver testing level? You probably can't. That makes it very dependent on the application of the driver in the particular design and the crossover design.

I'm convinced that the TB's in your Statements project sound great, based solely on the reviews. What I would wonder, however, is how much does that have to do with the open back mid application and the crossover design as compared to the driver's inherent sound quality, materials, etc. It's not out of the question that the RS drivers might sound as good or better than the TB's in a Statements-like design application and crossover. There is no way to be sure short of building it and comparison testing it.

For example, I know that I very much prefer the sound of the omni applications in which I've used the RS180 and RS150 than any of the standard front firing box applciations I've experienced from these drivers. In some respects this is even measureable, for example, the breakup modes of the RS drivers are way down in spl when measuring 90º off axis (as in my up and down firing omni appilcations) than when measuring on axis, direct firing. I have not measureed it, but it is logical to extrapolate that harmonic distortion could also be down when measured 90º off axis as well. If this were true, then one might conclude that the same RS drivers could sound better in one application than the next.

Anyway, it seems to me the application of the driver, especially when it changes the soundstage dramatically; as would dipoles, open back mids, and omni's, is perhaps the most important thing that distinguishes their sound in those particular cases. Certainly, we all know that the crossover design also makes a HUGE difference, as does the integration of all the other drivers in the system.

Dan

> Hi Pete,

> As always, the proof is in the sound
> quality. The RS line are fine drivers and
> I've built several very successful designs
> created by people I consider to be crossover
> professionals. I really like the RS driver
> line and I'll continue to use them.

> However, the TB W4-1337SA has the same ultra
> detailed, vivid and holographic imaging
> capability we heard out of the Visiton Ti100
> last fall in John Pastuk's Mini design that
> I have yet to hear from any RS driver in any
> design. Extremely smooth, refined and
> detailed would be perfect descriptors of the
> W4.

> There comes a time when listening is the
> preferred tool over comparing slight
> differences in distortion measurements. What
> is the audible difference in 2nd order
> distortion between .3% and .1%? What is the
> audibility of less than a .1% variation in
> 3rd order distortion? When you're working
> with drivers this low in distortion,
> wouldn't other factors such as cone design
> and material, not to mention crossover
> design be far more important than minute
> differences in distortion measurements? :-)
> How do Accuton and Seas Excel drivers
> measure? There are lots of factors to
> consider when evaluating drivers but
> ultimately, it comes down to, what do they
> sound like? :-)

> Here is some feedback on the W4's.

>
> <A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120</A>
>
> <A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161</A>
> See you at the Iowa event this fall! :-)

> Jim

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Hi Pete,

> As always, the proof is in the sound
> quality. The RS line are fine drivers and
> I've built several very successful designs
> created by people I consider to be crossover
> professionals. I really like the RS driver
> line and I'll continue to use them.

> However, the TB W4-1337SA has the same ultra
> detailed, vivid and holographic imaging
> capability we heard out of the Visiton Ti100
> last fall in John Pastuk's Mini design that
> I have yet to hear from any RS driver in any
> design. Extremely smooth, refined and
> detailed would be perfect descriptors of the
> W4.

If we're talking "likes" and not accuracy, we're into the realm of ribbon vs. dome again. And for those who like the inaccuracy of ribbons for their shimmer and sparkle, I can't fault them. We like what we like.

But from an accuracy standpoint, the TB isn't in the same league as the RS125, at least from a distortion standpoint. And over the range up to 3KHz, the RS gives nothing away from a linearity standpoint in flatness of response.

We also heard a complete system with the Visaton, not just the Visaton. The seamless sound and detail was a result of a good design, not just the driver.

> There comes a time when listening is the
> preferred tool over comparing slight
> differences in distortion measurements. What
> is the audible difference in 2nd order
> distortion between .3% and .1%? What is the
> audibility of less than a .1% variation in
> 3rd order distortion? When you're working
> with drivers this low in distortion,
> wouldn't other factors such as cone design
> and material, not to mention crossover
> design be far more important than minute
> differences in distortion measurements? :-)
> How do Accuton and Seas Excel drivers
> measure? There are lots of factors to
> consider when evaluating drivers but
> ultimately, it comes down to, what do they
> sound like? :-)

There's quite a bit more H4 and H5 in the TB over the RS125 too, and that could be an audible signature, perhaps as "false detail"

[Jim Holtz]

> But from an accuracy standpoint, the TB
> isn't in the same league as the RS125, at
> least from a distortion standpoint. And over
> the range up to 3KHz, the RS gives nothing
> away from a linearity standpoint in flatness
> of response.

> We also heard a complete system with the
> Visaton, not just the Visaton. The seamless
> sound and detail was a result of a good
> design, not just the driver.

> There's quite a bit more H4 and H5 in the TB
> over the RS125 too, and that could be an
> audible signature, perhaps as "false
> detail"

Pete,

I was going to make a comment in my original post and move on but your bold statement of the TB's not being in the same class just couldn't be ignored. :-)

My question is, what amount of distortion is audible and since audible is subjective how will you back up your opinion?

Also, since several of the RS drivers test better than Seas Excel and Accuton drivers, do you consider the RS drivers to be superior in sound quality?

How do you define accuracy? Measurements or the ability to recreate music that sounds real?

To be clear, I like the RS drivers but they have a sonic signature just like every other driver. I find them to have a similar sonic signature to the L series Seas drivers. No surprise to me since they both use aluminium cones. Darn nice drivers at a great price but there's more to it than that. Jeff B. stated that he felt the RS line lacked ultimate transparency and I agree with that statement. Darn good but not the top of the heap.

I'm looking forward to hearing your answers. :-)

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

> Hi Jim,

> This is something that is missing from the
> tests that everyone does. What does it sound
> like? Unfortunately, there may be no way to
> measure this since it will likely change
> from user to user and with each different
> driver application. How would quantify that
> at the driver testing level? You probably
> can't. That makes it very dependent on the
> application of the driver in the particular
> design and the crossover design.

> I'm convinced that the TB's in your
> Statements project sound great, based solely
> on the reviews. What I would wonder,
> however, is how much does that have to do
> with the open back mid application and the
> crossover design as compared to the driver's
> inherent sound quality, materials, etc. It's
> not out of the question that the RS drivers
> might sound as good or better than the TB's
> in a Statements-like design application and
> crossover. There is no way to be sure short
> of building it and comparison testing it.

> For example, I know that I very much prefer
> the sound of the omni applications in which
> I've used the RS180 and RS150 than any of
> the standard front firing box applciations
> I've experienced from these drivers. In some
> respects this is even measureable, for
> example, the breakup modes of the RS drivers
> are way down in spl when measuring 90º off
> axis (as in my up and down firing omni
> appilcations) than when measuring on axis,
> direct firing. I have not measureed it, but
> it is logical to extrapolate that harmonic
> distortion could also be down when measured
> 90º off axis as well. If this were true,
> then one might conclude that the same RS
> drivers could sound better in one
> application than the next.

> Anyway, it seems to me the application of
> the driver, especially when it changes the
> soundstage dramatically; as would dipoles,
> open back mids, and omni's, is perhaps the
> most important thing that distinguishes
> their sound in those particular cases.
> Certainly, we all know that the crossover
> design also makes a HUGE difference, as does
> the integration of all the other drivers in
> the system.

> Dan

Hi Dan,

All good points. I don't want this to be a discussion of the Statements. They just happen to be the only speaker that I know of that uses the TB W4 Titanium cone drivers, hence the links.

Obviously implementation will make a huge difference, no question about it. My point was simply that writing off a driver for .1% distortion difference isn't logical. There are many other factors to consider in driver selection and distortion measurements are only one of the things to consider.

Different drivers seem to have different sonic signatures, or as Jeff B. put it, the RS drivers aren't the ultimate in transparency. I agree and I would go so far as to say it's an artifact of the cone material. I find Seas Excel and Accuton drivers to be more revealing and transparent sounding even though they don't test as well in many cases.

Regarding the open back design and how would a RS based design sound, I think someone should most certainly build exactly that and bring it to Iowa DIY this fall. I'd love to hear a side by side comparision. Any takers? 'Lets run what ya brung" and see what happens... :-)

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

BTW, here is a explanation of Zaph's distortion measurements in percentages which is easier to put things in perspective.

-10 = 30%
-20= 20%
-30= 3%
-40= 1%
-50= 0.3%
-60= 0.1%

Here's a link to Zaph's tests...

<A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/compare.html">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/compare.html</A>

Jim

[dlneubec]

> Hi Dan,

> All good points. I don't want this to be a
> discussion of the Statements. They just
> happen to be the only speaker that I know of
> that uses the TB W4 Titanium cone drivers,
> hence the links.

> Obviously implementation will make a huge
> difference, no question about it. My point
> was simply that writing off a driver for .1%
> distortion difference isn't logical. There
> are many other factors to consider in driver
> selection and distortion measurements are
> only one of the things to consider.

> Different drivers seem to have different
> sonic signatures, or as Jeff B. put it, the
> RS drivers aren't the ultimate in
> transparency. I agree and I would go so far
> as to say it's an artifact of the cone
> material. I find Seas Excel and Accuton
> drivers to be more revealing and transparent
> sounding even though they don't test as well
> in many cases.

> Regarding the open back design and how would
> a RS based design sound, I think someone
> should most certainly build exactly that and
> bring it to Iowa DIY this fall. I'd love to
> hear a side by side comparision. Any takers?
> 'Lets run what ya brung" and see what
> happens... :-)

> Jim

JIm,

I think we pretty much agree here. I would not automatically right off a driver based on small distortion differences, nor would I right it off based on it's "sonic signature" as described by others. Especially if they have not tried in the application I will be using it in.

All of these things would be an important consideration. I'm suggesting that how the driver is applied in the design may be more important than the driver itself, especially when you have something with a vastly different soundstage, like an open back mid, dipole, or omni system compared to a traditional front firing box application.

I bet if you plugged up the open back of the mids one of your speakers and compared it with the other side that remains open, they would sound like completely different drivers were being used.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Pete,

> I was going to make a comment in my original
> post and move on but your bold statement of
> the TB's not being in the same class just
> couldn't be ignored. :-)

> My question is, what amount of distortion is
> audible and since audible is subjective how
> will you back up your opinion?

Of course it's audible. That's what creates the driver's sonic signature.

> Also, since several of the RS drivers test
> better than Seas Excel and Accuton drivers,
> do you consider the RS drivers to be
> superior in sound quality?

Sure, why not? What determines final quality? Price? A lot depends on what you define as "quality sound". If that is what is pleasant to you, then there is no definition that can be universally applied, since only you have your experience. If the RS drivers have lower distortion than the SEAS Excels, that is a non subjective evaluation and one that is very tough to argue with.

> How do you define accuracy? Measurements or
> the ability to recreate music that sounds
> real?

Accuracy is self explanatory. If one driver reproduces the input stimulus with less distortion than another, it's more accurate. And as for "sounding real," that again is up to the listener to decide.

> To be clear, I like the RS drivers but they
> have a sonic signature just like every other
> driver. I find them to have a similar sonic
> signature to the L series Seas drivers. No
> surprise to me since they both use aluminium
> cones. Darn nice drivers at a great price
> but there's more to it than that. Jeff B.
> stated that he felt the RS line lacked
> ultimate transparency and I agree with that
> statement. Darn good but not the top of the
> heap.

I'd like to see the old AB/X here. When I heard the Accuton system in Iowa last year, I still was more impressed by the Revelator than the Accuton, regardless of the supposed superiority of the Accuton drivers and their exhorbitant price.

Similarly, I've never been impressed that much by ribbon tweeters, regardless of make or model. I've heard some nice sounding systems that use them for sure, I just don't understand all the hype. I'll take a nice dome tweeter any time (MDT33, TBFC, RS28).

[Jim Holtz]

> JIm,

> I think we pretty much agree here. I would
> not automatically right off a driver based
> on small distortion differences, nor would I
> right it off based on it's "sonic
> signature" as described by others.
> Especially if they have not tried in the
> application I will be using it in.

> All of these things would be an important
> consideration. I'm suggesting that how the
> driver is applied in the design may be more
> important than the driver itself, especially
> when you have something with a vastly
> different soundstage, like an open back mid,
> dipole, or omni system compared to a
> traditional front firing box application.

> I bet if you plugged up the open back of the
> mids one of your speakers and compared it
> with the other side that remains open, they
> would sound like completely different
> drivers were being used.

Hi Dan,

I agree completely. Crossover and implementation will play a bigger role in the sound quality than minute differences in distortion measurements.

Actually, Curt and I both have plugged the back and listened to the Statements. The di-pole like sound stage collapses and they sound very similar as I recall to John's Mini design with the Ti100, only with lots of bass and authority, but the detail, smoothness and "you are there" imaging doesn't go away. It just sounds like a "box" speaker at that point. The open back does enhance the vividness of the imaging, however. No surprises there either.

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

[Pete Schumacher ®]

[dennismurphy]

>If we're talking "likes" and not accuracy, we're into the realm of ribbon vs. dome again. And for those who like the inaccuracy of ribbons for their shimmer and sparkle, I can't fault them. We like what we like.

I've got to chime in here, because I suspect I've designed more systems with ribbons than 99.99% of DIY'ers. When properly crossed and voiced, there is no "false" sparkle or shimmer that I can detect. Indeed, when I switch from one of my ribbon designs to a dome, it's the dome that takes on a kind of sssssssssss quality, and that's happened over and over again. What I do hear on a good ribbon design is a sense of more space and relaxation, as if the sound is just coming from a larger source. The difference is most apparent in mono with an A-B. In stereo, and just walking into the room--I can easily live with either approach. As for the Visaton, it's a bear to work with, particularly in a 3-way. If the TB is similar, you've got to voice it down. Maybe it's distortion, maybe its broader dispersion, but this is by no means a god send of a driver.

[Jim Holtz]

Hi Dennis,

Thanks for chiming in. I couldn't have said it better my self.

I don't consider the TB W4-1337SA or the Visiton Ti100 to be the ultimate drivers nor a God send, but based on the implementations I've heard, they are both fine sounding drivers that put many more expensive drivers to shame.

The W4-1337SA has a smoother and more extended FR than the Ti100. The Fr of a W4 is closer to a mid dome that can be crossed low than it is a conventional cone driver.

My $.02 worth....

Enjoy your trip!

jim

> I've got to chime in here, because I suspect
> I've designed more systems with ribbons than
> 99.99% of DIY'ers. When properly crossed and
> voiced, there is no "false"
> sparkle or shimmer that I can detect.
> Indeed, when I switch from one of my ribbon
> designs to a dome, it's the dome that takes
> on a kind of sssssssssss quality, and that's
> happened over and over again. What I do hear
> on a good ribbon design is a sense of more
> space and relaxation, as if the sound is
> just coming from a larger source. The
> difference is most apparent in mono with an
> A-B. In stereo, and just walking into the
> room--I can easily live with either
> approach. As for the Visaton, it's a bear to
> work with, particularly in a 3-way. If the
> TB is similar, you've got to voice it down.
> Maybe it's distortion, maybe its broader
> dispersion, but this is by no means a god
> send of a driver.

[jkrutke]

Hi Pete,

Yeah, in comparison the RS125 is a real nice performer in the non-linear distortion dept below 2khz. I do like the TB titanium however as it does well in other ways. These are completely different drivers. I will occasionally let some non-linear distortion slide to get some other benefits.

I'm due for some comments on these tests and I should get something posted in a day or two.

> I just looked at the posted plots for the TB
> titanium . . . and I'm not real impressed by
> them other than the smooth and extended
> response.

> When you stack the HD plot of the TB against
> the RS125, the winner is clear, and the
> RS125 stomps all over it.

> I'll grant that the TB can cross higher, but
> when it comes to use as a midrange, the
> RS125 sure looks like a better choice when
> crossing below 3KHz.

> Once more, gotta hand it to PE for putting
> out such a bargain in the RS125.

> Here's the HD plot for the TB
>
> <A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Tangband-W4-1337SA-HD.gif</A>
> And the RS125:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Dayton-RS125-HD.gif</A>
> It's real tough to argue with those. H3 is
> similar, but H2 on the RS125 is a lot lower
> from 300Hz on up. H4 and H5 are both
> significantly higher for the TB vs. the
> RS125.



(Originally posted by: jkrutke)

[audioamateur]

> And for those who like the
> inaccuracy of ribbons for their shimmer and
> sparkle, I can't fault them. We like what we
> like.

Before blaming the sound of ribbons on distortion shouldn't we also consider an other hypothesis, namely that there are some aspects of sound that we do not know yet how to measure? I would think that if the "ribbon sound" is due to distortion, other non-ribbon drivers that have similar distortion patterns to ribbons should sound like ribbons. Furthermore when ribbons are used in a range where these distortion patterns are less prevalent, the "ribbon sound" should disappear. Only then could we consistently conclude that distortion is the culprit.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

Provided Link: Battle of the non-domes (http://www.zaphaudio.com/nondomes/)


> Before blaming the sound of ribbons on
> distortion shouldn't we also consider an
> other hypothesis, namely that there are some
> aspects of sound that we do not know yet how
> to measure? I would think that if the
> "ribbon sound" is due to
> distortion, other non-ribbon drivers that
> have similar distortion patterns to ribbons
> should sound like ribbons. Furthermore when
> ribbons are used in a range where these
> distortion patterns are less prevalent, the
> "ribbon sound" should disappear.
> Only then could we consistently conclude
> that distortion is the culprit.

Have you seen the distortion levels that some ribbons produce? Most should never be used below 4KHz due to the very high THD levels. There's no way such levels can be "inaudible".

As I said before, I've heard some admirable designs using ribbons with great sound. But they have definite limitations. Jim's Statements cross to a ribbon high enough to be quite acceptable, and stay that way with high drive levels. But those designs using similar quality drivers that cross lower, say 2000Hz or 2500Hz, may sound fine, as long as you don't turn them up.

[johnpastuck]

> If we're talking "likes" and not
> accuracy, we're into the realm of ribbon vs.
> dome again. And for those who like the
> inaccuracy of ribbons for their shimmer and
> sparkle, I can't fault them. We like what we
> like.

> But from an accuracy standpoint, the TB
> isn't in the same league as the RS125, at
> least from a distortion standpoint. And over
> the range up to 3KHz, the RS gives nothing
> away from a linearity standpoint in flatness
> of response.

> We also heard a complete system with the
> Visaton, not just the Visaton. The seamless
> sound and detail was a result of a good
> design, not just the driver.

> There's quite a bit more H4 and H5 in the TB
> over the RS125 too, and that could be an
> audible signature, perhaps as "false
> detail"
A little side note.
I'm one of those people that think that the cabinet accounts for a good percentage of the overall sound. When I put the ti100 in an mdf box it does not sound nearly as good as the stacked baltic birtch mini cabinet. Put your ear on a wilson when it's playing sometime and you will hear what I'm talking about.
But even more critical (to me ) is how the speaker sounds when the room is considered. If I measure at 3' but listen at 9, there is a big difference.
I'm working on something that takes a different approach to this problem, increasing the D/R ratio, and no its not a di-pole.It is based on science and does have a John K designed bottom end. Hopefully I will be able to bring it to Iowa.

John

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> A little side note.
> I'm one of those people that think that the
> cabinet accounts for a good percentage of
> the overall sound. When I put the ti100 in
> an mdf box it does not sound nearly as good
> as the stacked baltic birtch mini cabinet.
> Put your ear on a wilson when it's playing
> sometime and you will hear what I'm talking
> about.
> But even more critical (to me ) is how the
> speaker sounds when the room is considered.
> If I measure at 3' but listen at 9, there is
> a big difference.
> I'm working on something that takes a
> different approach to this problem,
> increasing the D/R ratio, and no its not a
> di-pole.It is based on science and does have
> a John K designed bottom end. Hopefully I
> will be able to bring it to Iowa.

> John

Amen John. The cabinet plays a HUGE role in the overall sound. And while I didn't specifically mention that part, I did comment that what we heard was a well designed "system" and that certainly includes the cabinet (not only solid, but GORGEOUS by the way).

[audioamateur]

> Have you seen the distortion levels that
> some ribbons produce? Most should never be
> used below 4KHz due to the very high THD
> levels. There's no way such levels can be
> "inaudible".

> As I said before, I've heard some admirable
> designs using ribbons with great sound. But
> they have definite limitations. Jim's
> Statements cross to a ribbon high enough to
> be quite acceptable, and stay that way with
> high drive levels. But those designs using
> similar quality drivers that cross lower,
> say 2000Hz or 2500Hz, may sound fine, as
> long as you don't turn them up.

Pete,

I am not arguing that the distortion in ribbon is not audible. In fact I accept that it is. I am merely questioning whether distortion is responsible for the pleasant qualities that are generally associated with ribbons. Let me put my argument another way: I have never heard a high distortion tweeter that sounded like a ribbon. Furthermore, even when ribbons are crossed high enough to minimize distortion, their pleasant sonic qualities still remain. So why is distortion responsible for these qualities?

Furthermore, blaming the sonic qualities of ribbons on distortion suggests that as ribbon technology improves and distortion levels are decreased, ribbons will end up sounding like domes. However, one could also argue the exact opposite that is, lowering distortion levels in ribbons will accentuate their pleasant qualities and make them sound even more different from domes.

It seems to me that we have some way to go before we can make a definitive pronouncement on this issue.

[Jed K.]

The TB seems to do just as well at $50 a pop! Bottom line, you have to listen and make a design that does the driver justice before looking at data to make final judgement about a particular driver. Although, I must say they are both good for various applications. JonMarsh's measurements of the TB show a very well behaved driver as well.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Pete,

> I am not arguing that the distortion in
> ribbon is not audible. In fact I accept that
> it is. I am merely questioning whether
> distortion is responsible for the pleasant
> qualities that are generally associated with
> ribbons. Let me put my argument another way:
> I have never heard a high distortion tweeter
> that sounded like a ribbon. Furthermore,
> even when ribbons are crossed high enough to
> minimize distortion, their pleasant sonic
> qualities still remain. So why is distortion
> responsible for these qualities?

As I said before, if you cross them high enough, the distortion levels drop dramatically, and the products are higher in frequency and thus harder to perceive. Does a ribbon crossed at 4KHz really sound that much different than a small dome crossed at the same frequency? Maybe off axis, but I'm not so sure that tweeters with similar distortion profiles and linearity would sound so different on-axis.

Some of the sound of ribbons may be due to the narrow vertical directivity, reducing floor and ceiling reflections, which can be controlled with proper room treatment, and in such rooms, would there really be audible differences?

> Furthermore, blaming the sonic qualities of
> ribbons on distortion suggests that as
> ribbon technology improves and distortion
> levels are decreased, ribbons will end up
> sounding like domes. However, one could also
> argue the exact opposite that is, lowering
> distortion levels in ribbons will accentuate
> their pleasant qualities and make them sound
> even more different from domes.

Exactly. Lower the distortion and they begin to sound more natural. But I don't know how to quantify "pleasant" since that's purely subjective.

> It seems to me that we have some way to go
> before we can make a definitive
> pronouncement on this issue.

There's no way we'll ever do that. This discussion is just one of many that have passed this way, and I'm sure will again. I'm not anti ribbon in any way. They're just WAY TOO EXPENSIVE for what you get in return. If I'm going to spend $100+ per tweeter, I'll start with the Morel MDT-33. Then the Scan Revelators.

But if you need a high sensitivity supertweeter above 4KHz, it's real tough to beat a good ribbon.

Of course, that's just this one man's opinion.

[johnpastuck]

[Jim Holtz]

> The TB seems to do just as well at $50 a
> pop! Bottom line, you have to listen and
> make a design that does the driver justice
> before looking at data to make final
> judgement about a particular driver.
> Although, I must say they are both good for
> various applications. JonMarsh's
> measurements of the TB show a very well
> behaved driver as well.

Hi Jed,

You just said what I so poorly tried to say. There are many fine drivers that will work better in different applications. The point I've been trying to make is, .3% (that is dot 3, BTW) vs. .1% of 2nd order distortion is not a show stopper and for all practical purposes is most likely inaudible.

Thanks for jumping in and yes, I'm glad I didn't spring for the 12M's. :-) They do look like a superb driver, however.

Jim

[Jed K.]

Actually, now that I've looked at the comparison of RS125s vs the TB a bit closer, I think the TB would be the more musical driver because it is very clean from 2-5K where the RS has a bit of peaking odd order harmonics. I'd use the RS up to 2.5k but the TB can play much higher and work well with ribbons etc, and the low end isn't too bad either. A versatile driver, where the RS125 will require a steeper slope crossover and lower crossover point.

I've used the RS125s in a few designs and like it very much and think it is a good value as everyone has stated here. Haven't heard the TB yet, but I've got my eye on RS52s at the moment, which is a whole different story (budget HT speaker).

[tktran]

I understand the sentiment that "measurements don't tell the whole story", however over the years, I have noticed a few patterns from pouring over John and Mark's websites.

On the whole, when compared to domes, ribbons seem to have a few things in common:

Lower vertical dispersion.
Lower linear distortion.
Higher horizontal dispersion.
Higher non-linear distortion.

On the other hand, domes, as a group, have

Moderate (and equal) vertical and horizontal dispersion.
Higher linear distortion, but
Lower non-linear distortion.

Is it certainly plausible, IMHO, that the favoured characteristics of ribbons (or domes) is a due to one, some or all of these factors.

Personally, if I had to put a bet on it, I would say that it's the ribbons excellent FR linearity and wide dispersion that makes it sound the way it does.

Certainly the Hiquphon OW1, a favourite dome amongst many DIYers, also has low linear distortion and wide dispersion, whilst only being in the middle of the dome group when it comes to non-linear distortion, but comparable to ribbons.

Is this why it is loved by those who also love ribbons?

[tktran]

Jim,

The question of audibility is a good one, and probably something few can answer.

Certainly John and Mark, who have done these tests and have had to put up with listening to all the harmonics during a HD sweep, will probably tell you that it's definitely audible. Whether the difference between the -45dB H3 of 1Khz tone vs -55dB is subtle or stark (or "harsh" or "detail"), well that depends on the end listener.

I haven't heard it myself, but have no reason to doubt Mark statement that most harmonics above
-60dB is audible.

All things considered, I'd take -96dB if I could get it, but unfortunately we have no such reference device.

In the context of a complete system, with well design crossover and cabinet, listening to real music, how low is low enough?

Again I wish I had John's full range HD sweep of his W15CY001 / T25CF001 2-way.

Maybe John can help me here. But I'll describe the graph to you.

Imagine a graph with a series of roughly horizontal lines (each representing H2, H3, H4, H5 etc). Now going from left to right, all lines slope downwards, and the lines are lowest above 2Khz (XO point). So what this shows is that, in relative absolute terms, the midwoofer has substantially higher HD than the tweeter.

So, if the W15CY001, is paired with a "high distortion" ribbon like a Fountek JP3, is the ribbon's non-linear distortion really all that high?

Or are they just equally matched?

> BTW, here is a explanation of Zaph's
> distortion measurements in percentages which
> is easier to put things in perspective.

> -10 = 30%
> -20= 20%
> -30= 3%
> -40= 1%
> -50= 0.3%
> -60= 0.1%

> Here's a link to Zaph's tests...

>
> <A HREF="http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/compare.html">http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/compare.html</A>
> Jim

[Jim Holtz]

Hi Tktran,

All very good points. I also wouldn't question Mark or John's wisdom and leadership in this area. I would however, raise the question of, how significant these extremely small differences in distortion measurements are when you consider the crossover, overall speaker design, electronics and recording quality. I'm afraid my ears couldn't detect .2% difference in 2nd order distortion when I'm kicked back listening to some great jazz or blues. On a harmonic sweep with repeated back to back comparisons, perhaps but I strongly doubt that it could be heard in real world conditions.

I too would like to have a zero distorton driver but that isn't going to happen. I'd recommend picking the driver that best fits the goals of the overall design and then concentrating on the best crossover to get them all working together.

Ribbon distortion is always a "lightning rod" issue. No question ribbons generally work better at higher frequencies, but to say they're unusable below 4K Hz. simply says to me that you should spend some time listening to some of the superb speakers from Salk Sound or Selah Audio. Do an A/B in front of a group of people with the "killer" low distortion domes and see how they stack up. Ribbons designs are very frequently considered some of the best there are for sound quality.

I don't know about anyone else but I listen to me music system daily. Isn't that what it's all about? :-)

Jim

> Jim,

> The question of audibility is a good one,
> and probably something few can answer.

> Certainly John and Mark, who have done these
> tests and have had to put up with listening
> to all the harmonics during a HD sweep, will
> probably tell you that it's definitely
> audible. Whether the difference between the
> -45dB H3 of 1Khz tone vs -55dB is subtle or
> stark (or "harsh" or
> "detail"), well that depends on
> the end listener.

> I haven't heard it myself, but have no
> reason to doubt Mark statement that most
> harmonics above
> -60dB is audible.

> All things considered, I'd take -96dB if I
> could get it, but unfortunately we have no
> such reference device.

> In the context of a complete system, with
> well design crossover and cabinet, listening
> to real music, how low is low enough?

> Again I wish I had John's full range HD
> sweep of his W15CY001 / T25CF001 2-way.

> Maybe John can help me here. But I'll
> describe the graph to you.

> Imagine a graph with a series of roughly
> horizontal lines (each representing H2, H3,
> H4, H5 etc). Now going from left to right,
> all lines slope downwards, and the lines are
> lowest above 2Khz (XO point). So what this
> shows is that, in relative absolute terms,
> the midwoofer has substantially higher HD
> than the tweeter.

> So, if the W15CY001, is paired with a
> "high distortion" ribbon like a
> Fountek JP3, is the ribbon's non-linear
> distortion really all that high?

> Or are they just equally matched?

[markk]

I would argue that the RS135 is better below 1k.

1-2k, it's a wash, and above 2k the TB starts pulling away. So I do think they are two different drivers. As an extended response driver-used as a mid crossed high with a gentle slope- the TB may very well be better. Crossed lower and steeper plays into the RS's strengths.

As an aside, I think folks are reading a bit too much into some of the very small differences in the results.

Here's a quote from SL on one of the orion forums. It's a thread about tweeters, but the point is more general. Note my point of emphasis. (Also note I'm not recommending or not recommending the pluto or orion.)

"I have looked at the T29CF002 at least on paper and discussed it with the Seas folks, but see no good reason why I should use it when the Millennium does the job just fine. Changing a driver would mean lengthy investigation to determine whether it really brings an audible improvement in accuracy. Just sounding different, or sweeter, or some other audiophile attribute is not enough for me.

Actually, as Davey hinted at, I am of the opinion these days that (***emphasis by me here!!!-->)once a driver delivers a certain level of performance in terms of non-linear and linear distortion, then other speaker parameters become more important than further reduction of that distortion. (stop emphasis...) For me, PLUTO is an example of that. It uses relatively inexpensive, though well designed drivers, which - when properly applied - can compete performance wise with much more exotic drivers. The audible loss becomes much more subtle and disproportionate to the decrease in price. There is a point where drivers are “good enough” so that real improvements in sound reproduction have to come from somewhere else. I consider the ORION to be at that point. As far as driver design is concerned, I only see tweaking, nothing fundamentally new. But who knows?

SL "

[Jim Holtz]

Hi Mark,

Excellent response and one I generally agree with. I find SL's comments particularly interesting regarding at what point does the rest of the design become a more determining factor than the driver.

Thanks for jumping in.

Jim

> I would argue that the RS135 is better below
> 1k.

> 1-2k, it's a wash, and above 2k the TB
> starts pulling away. So I do think they are
> two different drivers. As an extended
> response driver-used as a mid crossed high
> with a gentle slope- the TB may very well be
> better. Crossed lower and steeper plays into
> the RS's strengths.

> As an aside, I think folks are reading a bit
> too much into some of the very small
> differences in the results.

> Here's a quote from SL on one of the orion
> forums. It's a thread about tweeters, but
> the point is more general. Note my point of
> emphasis. (Also note I'm not recommending or
> not recommending the pluto or orion.)

> "I have looked at the T29CF002 at least
> on paper and discussed it with the Seas
> folks, but see no good reason why I should
> use it when the Millennium does the job just
> fine. Changing a driver would mean lengthy
> investigation to determine whether it really
> brings an audible improvement in accuracy.
> Just sounding different, or sweeter, or some
> other audiophile attribute is not enough for
> me.

> Actually, as Davey hinted at, I am of the
> opinion these days that (***emphasis by me
> here!!!-->)once a driver delivers a
> certain level of performance in terms of
> non-linear and linear distortion, then other
> speaker parameters become more important
> than further reduction of that distortion.
> (stop emphasis...) For me, PLUTO is an
> example of that. It uses relatively
> inexpensive, though well designed drivers,
> which - when properly applied - can compete
> performance wise with much more exotic
> drivers. The audible loss becomes much more
> subtle and disproportionate to the decrease
> in price. There is a point where drivers are
> “good enough” so that real improvements in
> sound reproduction have to come from
> somewhere else. I consider the ORION to be
> at that point. As far as driver design is
> concerned, I only see tweaking, nothing
> fundamentally new. But who knows?

> SL "

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Hi Tktran,

> All very good points. I also wouldn't
> question Mark or John's wisdom and
> leadership in this area. I would however,
> raise the question of, how significant these
> extremely small differences in distortion
> measurements are when you consider the
> crossover, overall speaker design,
> electronics and recording quality. I'm
> afraid my ears couldn't detect .2%
> difference in 2nd order distortion when I'm
> kicked back listening to some great jazz or
> blues. On a harmonic sweep with repeated
> back to back comparisons, perhaps but I
> strongly doubt that it could be heard in
> real world conditions.

> I too would like to have a zero distorton
> driver but that isn't going to happen. I'd
> recommend picking the driver that best fits
> the goals of the overall design and then
> concentrating on the best crossover to get
> them all working together.

> Ribbon distortion is always a
> "lightning rod" issue. No question
> ribbons generally work better at higher
> frequencies, but to say they're unusable
> below 4K Hz. simply says to me that you
> should spend some time listening to some of
> the superb speakers from Salk Sound or Selah
> Audio. Do an A/B in front of a group of
> people with the "killer" low
> distortion domes and see how they stack up.
> Ribbons designs are very frequently
> considered some of the best there are for
> sound quality.

> I don't know about anyone else but I listen
> to me music system daily. Isn't that what
> it's all about? :-)

> Jim

I hate to do this Jim, but most people choose Bose too. People will pick the "louder" of two speakers. If they "see" what they're listening to, they may pick the prettier enclosure as sounding better. So many factors . . . especially when you throw psychology into the mix.

I heard Salk's Veracity and QW version in Iowa in 2003. Quite fine. But so were the Hiquphon 3-ways. Between the two, I liked the Hiq. It just had "more" going for it.

Again, it all comes down to personal taste when deciding what you like. But how do you describe the taste of a banana to someone? You can however, describe the performance of systems objectively (distortion, bandwidth, phase shift, response).

[tktran]

Good point Pete,

It's hard to argue with the objective measurements, but it's easier to argue with subjective preferences.

Here's another one subjective preference. In terms of vocal/midrange performance, some people swear by small/er midranges (3-4"), whilst some people tend to use larger ones (6-8").

Objectively I'm not sure completely why some people prefer one or the other, but there are definite measurable differences. All things considered, almost always the larger cones tend to have lower non-linear distortion, but the smaller ones have better dispersion.

Hmmm...

[Jim Holtz]

Pete,

Bringing up Bose is the easy classical argument that people can't hear the difference. Trust me on this, most people who buy Bose aren't into high end audio and they are not prospective buyers of Salk Sound or Selah Audio speakers. If they did, they'd have a revelation but they don't care. We do... :-)

No issues with differences in taste. But then again, the folks that prefer ribbons don't talk about how domes sound ssss'y, yada, yada, yada in comparison. See my point?

Any budget project I do will have a Seas 27TBFC/G or the 3/4" Seas counterpart. But, if my tweeter budget goes over $50 and the project will allow it, I'll take a Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbon any day. I "like" the sound better of the ribbon than I do a dome.

My $.02 worth...

Jim

> I hate to do this Jim, but most people
> choose Bose too. People will pick the
> "louder" of two speakers. If they
> "see" what they're listening to,
> they may pick the prettier enclosure as
> sounding better. So many factors . . .
> especially when you throw psychology into
> the mix.

> I heard Salk's Veracity and QW version in
> Iowa in 2003. Quite fine. But so were the
> Hiquphon 3-ways. Between the two, I liked
> the Hiq. It just had "more" going
> for it.

> Again, it all comes down to personal taste
> when deciding what you like. But how do you
> describe the taste of a banana to someone?
> You can however, describe the performance of
> systems objectively (distortion, bandwidth,
> phase shift, response).

[dlr]

> Here's another one subjective preference. In
> terms of vocal/midrange performance, some
> people swear by small/er midranges
> (3-4"), whilst some people tend to use
> larger ones (6-8").

Count me in the former category. A 4-5" midrange beats anything larger. It's closer to my old Apogee Centaur Major ribbons. Oops, sorry, I'm not supposed to think that a ribbon can outperform a dynamic driver. My ears must be bad.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any dynamic driver that has bettered the (subjective) performance of those ribbons, the only thing that really counts in the end. But they weren't the tiny ribbons used as tweeters today. They crossed at 200Hz. The primary issue with them was with the very top end due to the length, but for midrange clarity and purity, I'd stack them up against most systems of today.

dlr

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Good point Pete,

> It's hard to argue with the objective
> measurements, but it's easier to argue with
> subjective preferences.

> Here's another one subjective preference. In
> terms of vocal/midrange performance, some
> people swear by small/er midranges
> (3-4"), whilst some people tend to use
> larger ones (6-8").

> Objectively I'm not sure completely why some
> people prefer one or the other, but there
> are definite measurable differences. All
> things considered, almost always the larger
> cones tend to have lower non-linear
> distortion, but the smaller ones have better
> dispersion.

I can definitely see how the off-axis differences would impact overall listening, especially with rooms that are a bit more lively. The ribbons with their narrower vertical directivity, will have a definite advantage when it comes to floor and ceiling interaction, and that could be a major plus.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Count me in the former category. A 4-5"
> midrange beats anything larger. It's closer
> to my old Apogee Centaur Major ribbons.
> Oops, sorry, I'm not supposed to think that
> a ribbon can outperform a dynamic driver. My
> ears must be bad.

> Unfortunately, I haven't found any dynamic
> driver that has bettered the (subjective)
> performance of those ribbons, the only thing
> that really counts in the end. But they
> weren't the tiny ribbons used as tweeters
> today. They crossed at 200Hz. The primary
> issue with them was with the very top end
> due to the length, but for midrange clarity
> and purity, I'd stack them up against most
> systems of today.

> dlr

I don't recall hearing the Apogees, but I do remember pictures of them.

I did audition a few electrostatic systems though, and when you were in the "right" spot, the sound field was quite stunning. But the "right" spot was indeed a spot, tiny, confined, not of much use for multiple listeners.

[dlr]

> I don't recall hearing the Apogees, but I do
> remember pictures of them.

Superbly natural sounding. Having had the Centaur hybrid for a while, I auditioned a used set of the older, small full-range versions (can't recall the name). Extremely limited bass and it sounded like it came from the floor, but outside of that they were probably the best systems I'd ever heard.

> I did audition a few electrostatic systems
> though, and when you were in the
> "right" spot, the sound field was
> quite stunning. But the "right"
> spot was indeed a spot, tiny, confined, not
> of much use for multiple listeners.

That's the old "head in a vise" syndrome that takes hold, so to speak, when you are want that sweet spot. Since I was usually the only one listening, it wasn't an issue. Not much, anyway. It does get old having to stay relatively planted to the spot. But that was primarily for the imaging. That's what collapsed first and it did so quickly.

dlr

[romanbednarek]

> Actually, now that I've looked at the
> comparison of RS125s vs the TB a bit closer,
> I think the TB would be the more musical
> driver because it is very clean from 2-5K
> where the RS has a bit of peaking odd order
> harmonics. I'd use the RS up to 2.5k but the
> TB can play much higher and work well with
> ribbons etc, and the low end isn't too bad
> either. A versatile driver, where the RS125
> will require a steeper slope crossover and
> lower crossover point.

> I've used the RS125s in a few designs and
> like it very much and think it is a good
> value as everyone has stated here. Haven't
> heard the TB yet, but I've got my eye on
> RS52s at the moment, which is a whole
> different story (budget HT speaker).

I almost bought a pair of RS52s for my current project but didn't like how many crossover components were needed for the mid. I guess the problem is that it needs to be filtered steep and the response is flat in the filter region so a higher order filter is required.

I'm just about done with my three ways. These are the ones that I messed up the cabinets on the first attempt. The new cabinets are floorstanders and they sound a lot better. The drivers are RS180, GR M-130 and XT19. They sound a lot better than I expected them to but still have a certain character to them (as with any speaker). They have a real smoothness in the midrange but are still fairly detailed. I hope to post the project on my site soon.

[Jed K.]

Looking forward to seeing your latest speaker design Roman. How do you like the bass of the RS180s, and is it a lot less extended than the RS225?

[waynew]

Gentlemen,

I just finished the scimitars, and Curt and I spent some time listening to them. I used the AC G3Si ribbon and found it to be a delightful tweeter. The sweet spot was small, but in that area, it was superb. That being said, I prefer the Hiq's overall...but I do agree with Jim...on a ribbon, cymbals do sound exactly like cymbals. I believe that we can all realize that the ribbon vs. dome is nothing more than the classic Ford vs. Chevy argument, and in reality, they will both get you to your destination.

[romanbednarek]

> Looking forward to seeing your latest
> speaker design Roman. How do you like the
> bass of the RS180s, and is it a lot less
> extended than the RS225?

The RS180s aren't bad. In a 26L vented enclosure I'm getting an f3 in the mid 30s. The problem is that the sensitivity is low. I tuned these on the warm side based on my friend's preference in music. You can feel the bass but it isn't quite as authoritative as what I remember from the RS225s.

The M-130 was a pleasant surprise at its price. I already knew that I liked the XT19 but I hope they are available again soon.

I'm probably going to take those HiVi F5s that I had and make a larger version of the Microbe using the HiVi Sd1.1 tweeter. I should be able to cross low enough with that tweeter to avoid some of the nasty stuff at the top of the F5's response. They'll only be a few liters larger than the Microbes but should have an f3 around 50 Hz and a similar sensitivity.

[blair]

Unless its a FORD!

Just kidding of course, but had to say something. I was looking at those Hiq.. tweeters for my next project, but I am still addicted to my most recent open baffles. They are just too nice!

Blair

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Pete,

> Bringing up Bose is the easy classical
> argument that people can't hear the
> difference. Trust me on this, most people
> who buy Bose aren't into high end audio and
> they are not prospective buyers of Salk
> Sound or Selah Audio speakers. If they did,
> they'd have a revelation but they don't
> care. We do... :-)

I'm not saying they can't hear the difference, but that many things can factor in to the final choice.

> No issues with differences in taste. But
> then again, the folks that prefer ribbons
> don't talk about how domes sound ssss'y,
> yada, yada, yada in comparison. See my
> point?

Hmmmm . . . I do recall this being posted by Dennis earlier in this thread: "Indeed, when I switch from one of my ribbon designs to a dome, it's the dome that takes on a kind of sssssssssss quality, and that's happened over and over again." Maybe you see my point?

I also hear the ribbon aficionados claim superior "air" and "transparency" and "sparkle" of ribbons over domes. I've never described the sound of a ribbon in any other way than what is objectively measured; higher distortion vs. their domed brethren.

> Any budget project I do will have a Seas
> 27TBFC/G or the 3/4" Seas counterpart.
> But, if my tweeter budget goes over $50 and
> the project will allow it, I'll take a
> Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbon any day. I
> "like" the sound better of the
> ribbon than I do a dome.

Have you ever heard the MDT-33? Why not use the measurably better Neo3PDR from BG? And if the choice of a measurably higher distortion driver routinely beats the lower distortion driver, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the consumer prefers the higher distortion for the final sound it presents.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a203/pete_schumacher/RS52XO.gif


> I almost bought a pair of RS52s for my
> current project but didn't like how many
> crossover components were needed for the
> mid. I guess the problem is that it needs to
> be filtered steep and the response is flat
> in the filter region so a higher order
> filter is required.

Is 6 components too many? This topology gets LR4 on both the HP and LP sections as well as taking care of that nasty resonance at 13KHz.

[Jim Holtz]

> I'm not saying they can't hear the
> difference, but that many things can factor
> in to the final choice.

> Hmmmm . . . I do recall this being posted by
> Dennis earlier in this thread: "Indeed,
> when I switch from one of my ribbon designs
> to a dome, it's the dome that takes on a
> kind of sssssssssss quality, and that's
> happened over and over again." Maybe
> you see my point?

> I also hear the ribbon aficionados claim
> superior "air" and
> "transparency" and
> "sparkle" of ribbons over domes.
> I've never described the sound of a ribbon
> in any other way than what is objectively
> measured; higher distortion vs. their domed
> brethren.

> Have you ever heard the MDT-33? Why not use
> the measurably better Neo3PDR from BG? And
> if the choice of a measurably higher
> distortion driver routinely beats the lower
> distortion driver, the only conclusion that
> I can draw is that the consumer prefers the
> higher distortion for the final sound it
> presents.

Hi Pete,

I just thought I'd give a good rousing alternate view point. No fist fights in the alley over this. :-)

I like ribbons and you like domes. Wayne likes domes and I'll be darned if i can figure out what whether he's a Ford or a Chevy fan. :-) However your description of ribbons sound qualities is what I hear. My goal has and probably always will be to get the sound that is closest to real to *my* ears. Ribbons take me closer than domes and I've used a heck'va lot of different domes.

Yes, I've heard MDT-33. It's a very nice tweeter and was once highly regarded for it's ability to cross low. However, given the many much lower cost domes that will cross as low and sound at least as good, I would never spend that kind of money for a dome tweeter. Again, my opinion.

I had a pair of Neo3's in the back room for close to two years before I sold them. Honestly, I just don't care for the sound of planar drivers. I bought those on a deal and wanted to use them because I'd read the measurements etc. before I thought about why I really didn't want them. I had planar tweeters in my commercial speakers for 6 years before getting into DIY so I'm very, very familiar with the sound. A lot of people like them but they're not my cup of tea. When I listen to planar tweeters, I don't hear real, I hear hi-fi.

Enough of this! Lets build speakers!

Have a happy 4th of July.

Jim

[romanbednarek]

> Is 6 components too many? This topology gets
> LR4 on both the HP and LP sections as well
> as taking care of that nasty resonance at
> 13KHz.

That looks like it works pretty well. The passband is a bit wider than what I was working with but the slopes look pretty good. My rough attempt used 8 components on the midrange, a 4th order electrical LPF on the woofer and a 3rd order electrical HPF with a series resistor on the tweeter for a grand total of 16 parts. My M-130 based design uses 12 parts but 3 of them are resistors.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> That looks like it works pretty well. The
> passband is a bit wider than what I was
> working with but the slopes look pretty
> good. My rough attempt used 8 components on
> the midrange, a 4th order electrical LPF on
> the woofer and a 3rd order electrical HPF
> with a series resistor on the tweeter for a
> grand total of 16 parts. My M-130 based
> design uses 12 parts but 3 of them are
> resistors.

That topology is what I'll be using for the TMWWWW using the Quad DA175 array, the RS52 and ND20-6. The XO looks like it'll have a total of 12 parts. L-C for the Quad, that layout above for the RS52, and a third order HP with padding resistor on the ND20. I may have to add a zobel on the tweet to tame the rising top, but I'll let my ears make the final decision. I'm attempting to design for about 15 deg off-axis listening anyway, and that bit of last octave rise (~2dB) may be just right.

[romanbednarek]

> That topology is what I'll be using for the
> TMWWWW using the Quad DA175 array, the RS52
> and ND20-6. The XO looks like it'll have a
> total of 12 parts. L-C for the Quad, that
> layout above for the RS52, and a third order
> HP with padding resistor on the ND20. I may
> have to add a zobel on the tweet to tame the
> rising top, but I'll let my ears make the
> final decision. I'm attempting to design for
> about 15 deg off-axis listening anyway, and
> that bit of last octave rise (~2dB) may be
> just right.

That sounds like a nice combination of drivers and a pretty low-count crossover. I'm surprised that a 2nd order electrical filter provides steep enough slopes though because that is what I'm using with the RS180 to get 2nd order slopes.

I have a few designs where I left the top octave peak there and recommend listening slightly off axis. In some ways this actually leads to a flatter power response.

I had issues with that tweeter though. It sounds good but I had to attenuate one more than the other to get a matched response.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> That sounds like a nice combination of
> drivers and a pretty low-count crossover.
> I'm surprised that a 2nd order electrical
> filter provides steep enough slopes though
> because that is what I'm using with the
> RS180 to get 2nd order slopes.

I think the RS180 has a more extended response than the DA175. The acoustic slopes of the DA175 on a 9" baffle with a 2nd order filter at 600Hz presents an LR4 target slope over the XO region.

> I have a few designs where I left the top
> octave peak there and recommend listening
> slightly off axis. In some ways this
> actually leads to a flatter power response.

> I had issues with that tweeter though. It
> sounds good but I had to attenuate one more
> than the other to get a matched response.

I'll keep an eye out for that for sure.

[neildavis]

http://home.comcast.net/~neilandbarbaradavis/temp/drivers.jpg


> I would argue that the RS135 is better below
> 1k.

> 1-2k, it's a wash, and above 2k the TB
> starts pulling away.

Right, and that's why I disagree with the original post that said: "When you stack the HD plot of the TB against the RS125, the winner is clear, and the RS125 stomps all over it"

These drivers are probably going to find a lot of use as mids in a 3-way, and the area between 1K and 4K is critical for this application. The relatively high 3rd harmonic distortion of the RS125 between 2K and 4K should be a serious concern for someone trying to use this as a mid. And as Mark pointed out, this is where the TB shines.

These tests were done at 96db. It would be interesting to see how this performance looks at somewhat higher output levels. I've used the TB W4-1337 at high levels and I was impressed at the lack of "compression", or whatever you want to call it when the driver sounds good at moderate levels yet falls apart at higher levels. Also, the well-behaved frequency response of this driver belies good "linear distortion" characteristics (actually, both drivers look impressive in this respect). If Linkwitz is correct, it's very important to factor in the linear distortion characterics in evaluating a driver, so any conclusions about the quality of these drivers from HD plots alone are probably inappropriate.

Dang...I've got a pair of 3-way active speakers with the TB's that I could use as a reference, and I have a set of RS125's that I could try. However, I haven't had time to even open the boxes for the RS125's...*sigh* This would be fun to do as a DCDIY2007 project: driver evalution using a volume-compensated switch-box with steep-sloped filters to isolate driver response. Wait a minute--that's what I wanted to do for DCDIY2005, but I didn't have the volume-compensated switch-box. But I've got that now--and Dennis Murphy has the same capability. I still have as least on active speaker with the 8-pole crossovers (it's the big box at the bottom) and I still have all of those midrange drivers, plus some more. Most of these boxes have connectors to get at the drivers, so it wouldn't be that hard to have a midrange (or tweeter) "bake-off". I just don't have time. Anyone want to help out?

[romanbednarek]

> Hi Pete,

> As always, the proof is in the sound
> quality. The RS line are fine drivers and
> I've built several very successful designs
> created by people I consider to be crossover
> professionals. I really like the RS driver
> line and I'll continue to use them.

> However, the TB W4-1337SA has the same ultra
> detailed, vivid and holographic imaging
> capability we heard out of the Visiton Ti100
> last fall in John Pastuk's Mini design that
> I have yet to hear from any RS driver in any
> design. Extremely smooth, refined and
> detailed would be perfect descriptors of the
> W4.

> There comes a time when listening is the
> preferred tool over comparing slight
> differences in distortion measurements. What
> is the audible difference in 2nd order
> distortion between .3% and .1%? What is the
> audibility of less than a .1% variation in
> 3rd order distortion? When you're working
> with drivers this low in distortion,
> wouldn't other factors such as cone design
> and material, not to mention crossover
> design be far more important than minute
> differences in distortion measurements? :-)
> How do Accuton and Seas Excel drivers
> measure? There are lots of factors to
> consider when evaluating drivers but
> ultimately, it comes down to, what do they
> sound like? :-)

> Here is some feedback on the W4's.

>
> <A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=340277&postcount=120</A>
>
> <A HREF="http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161">http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=342896&postcount=161</A>
> See you at the Iowa event this fall! :-)

> Jim

I've used the RS125 in many different applications and admit that it is a great value but does have a certain character to its sound. In my Microbe 2 way design there is an emphasis in the lower midrange that makes them sound smooth considering they are a metal cone driver.

I still think that if you take all of the available measurements for a driver it can still only define a fraction of the sound that your ears can pick out. If measurements completely defined a driver's performance then it would be a LOT easier to pick out drivers.

I recently had a pleasant surprise when using the GR M-130 for the first time (as a midrange). For its price it really sounds great and in my opinion better than the RS125 when used as a midrange driver despite the probably better distortion performance of the RS125. The nice thing with the M-130 is that it is very flat and uncolored.

A similar comparison is the XT19 vs. the OW1. The XT19 measures with less distortion but the OW1 has more life and depth to it.

You made a comment about the importance of the crossover and I would have to agree with you. It takes the right crossover to get the most out of a set of drivers and in the end there is only so much you can do with the crossover before you are limited by the drivers' natural characteristics.

The neat thing about speakers is that they all sound completely different. That is what makes it so fun to build a new set and hear what those drivers are capable of for the first time.

[neildavis]

> A similar comparison is the XT19 vs. the
> OW1. The XT19 measures with less distortion
> but the OW1 has more life and depth to it.

I've tried comparing drivers using very steep active crossovers (8-pole), and I'm amazed at the difference. You are right. When using a 3400Hz 8-pole active crossover, the OW1 sounds very much different from the XT19. Something that surprised me is that I couldn't tell any difference between the XT19 and the Fostex FT28T, a driver that is very good but very much different in construction. The OW1 sounded much more "dynamic" and "interesting" for lack of better terms, but however you want to characterize the sound, it was clearly "different".

I'm still an advocate of using steep active crossover to evaluate drivers. With a good speaker selection fixture and enough scotch, this can be a very revealing and interesting experience (although too much scotch can introduce new variables). The key to driver evaluation, in my opinion, is to remove the crossover as a variable. You can do this with steep slopes--at least 8 poles. After DCDIY2005 I started to work on a test fixture that would allow us to compare drivers on an even keel, but after 2 years I still don't have what I was hoping to achieve. Damn, I need to retire and start having fun! Shortly afterward, the wife comes by and reminds me that we need to pay off that....

[dlr]

> I've used the RS125 in many different
> applications and admit that it is a great
> value but does have a certain character to
> its sound. In my Microbe 2 way design there
> is an emphasis in the lower midrange that
> makes them sound smooth considering they are
> a metal cone driver.

Add to that the requirements that may be required, such as lower XO Fc, steeper slopes and more limited tweeter choice due to the XO Fc and there's no clear "best" driver in any category.

> I still think that if you take all of the
> available measurements for a driver it can
> still only define a fraction of the sound
> that your ears can pick out. If measurements
> completely defined a driver's performance
> then it would be a LOT easier to pick out
> drivers.

As strongly as I am into the empirical measurement side, it is still not possible to pick out the best driver for an application by specs. It takes ears to make the final decision.

> I recently had a pleasant surprise when
> using the GR M-130 for the first time (as a
> midrange). For its price it really sounds
> great and in my opinion better than the
> RS125 when used as a midrange driver despite
> the probably better distortion performance
> of the RS125. The nice thing with the M-130
> is that it is very flat and uncolored.

I have been using the RS125/SS9300 for a few months now in place of the 12m4631/XT19 M/T in my 3-way. As nice as this sounds, the difference between the two is significant with the stomping all over the RS125 in the midrange. It's not the distortion differences, either, all drivers in these two combos have excellent, low distortion.

The 12m allows me to run a 3K LR2 whereas the RS125 and many other drivers used as midrange require an LR4 or similar. That difference makes the price of the 12m worth it, but you have to use your ears in a final system design to make a reasoned judgment based on experience. $220 apiece made me think long and carefully, but I was looking for the best midrange for my application, regardless of cost. The 12m4631 was it. If someone wants the best band-for-the-buck, the RS125 is probably the one. But it's not up to par against the 12m overall.

Comparing measurements is also only the beginning, as I'm sure you know. You can eliminate drivers due to easily determined limitations such as Sd and distortion levels to minimize that influence, but in the end it's the final application that provides the basis for a decision as to sound quality. Those who eschew the 12m4631 due to the cost most likely have never heard it, much less in comparison to other drivers.

> A similar comparison is the XT19 vs. the
> OW1. The XT19 measures with less distortion
> but the OW1 has more life and depth to it.

I'll be putting the OW1 back in for the XT19 and it may be arguable that the OW1 is more open sounding due to distortion, but I don't accept that at this point. I believe it to be the dispersion primarily.

> You made a comment about the importance of
> the crossover and I would have to agree with
> you. It takes the right crossover to get the
> most out of a set of drivers and in the end
> there is only so much you can do with the
> crossover before you are limited by the
> drivers' natural characteristics.

True, but there is a myriad of crossover possibilities. It's often the fine details that turn a good crossover into an excellent one. I think that too many folks judge drivers based on a single application that they've heard.

> The neat thing about speakers is that they
> all sound completely different. That is what
> makes it so fun to build a new set and hear
> what those drivers are capable of for the
> first time.

Yes, just how different two similar seeming systems can sound is what makes this fun. Otherwise we'd be just doing cookbook mix-n-match.

dlr

[tktran]

I dunno Dave,

To my ears, the better they get, the more they start to sound the same.

Of course user-preferences cannot be denied.

John Kreskovsky onced asked me rhetorical question- What is better- a Steinway or Baldwin?

He made his point perfectly clear.

> Yes, just how different two similar seeming
> systems can sound is what makes this fun.
> Otherwise we'd be just doing cookbook
> mix-n-match.

> dlr

[dlr]

> I dunno Dave,

> To my ears, the better they get, the more
> they start to sound the same.

It kinda depends on what one calls "better". :)

The RS125 is better than many others, but to my ears the 12m surpasses it clearly.

What some may consider "better" I may call "shrill". However, they're still different. The goal is, usually, as close to "live" as possible, though not always. Some live venues and the sound engineers (for amplified performances) selections just don't sound good as can be the case for the mastering. Some acoustics spaces for unamplified performances are also not very good or at least not for much of the seating. So I go for the "most natural" sounding reproduction. The 12m does a better job the RS125, but I still call the latter very good.

> Of course user-preferences cannot be denied.

> John Kreskovsky onced asked me rhetorical
> question- What is better- a Steinway or
> Baldwin?

They still sound different. The preference is varied, but the fact that they sound different, especially to the trained or at least attentive ear, remains.

> He made his point perfectly clear.

Yep, both excellent, both acceptable to most folks. But to those who hear a difference one is "better" than the other because they sound different. They'll be closer to each other than for some lesser ones, of course, but they are different nevertheless. The importance of the difference is the issue.

I have always had strong preferences for the strings I used on a guitar or banjo. They were all good, but to me certain strings are significantly better. Lots of folks wouldn't have a clue as to the difference without having two side-by-side. But a trained ear can easily detect the difference.

dlr

[romanbednarek]

> I've tried comparing drivers using very
> steep active crossovers (8-pole), and I'm
> amazed at the difference. You are right.
> When using a 3400Hz 8-pole active crossover,
> the OW1 sounds very much different from the
> XT19. Something that surprised me is that I
> couldn't tell any difference between the
> XT19 and the Fostex FT28T, a driver that is
> very good but very much different in
> construction. The OW1 sounded much more
> "dynamic" and
> "interesting" for lack of better
> terms, but however you want to characterize
> the sound, it was clearly
> "different".

> I'm still an advocate of using steep active
> crossover to evaluate drivers. With a good
> speaker selection fixture and enough scotch,
> this can be a very revealing and interesting
> experience (although too much scotch can
> introduce new variables). The key to driver
> evaluation, in my opinion, is to remove the
> crossover as a variable. You can do this
> with steep slopes--at least 8 poles. After
> DCDIY2005 I started to work on a test
> fixture that would allow us to compare
> drivers on an even keel, but after 2 years I
> still don't have what I was hoping to
> achieve. Damn, I need to retire and start
> having fun! Shortly afterward, the wife
> comes by and reminds me that we need to pay
> off that....

Sorry about the late reply. I agree that steep slopes help when comparing drivers but you must also consider the range of application for each driver. I guess I'm just saying that in some cases there is an advantage of a driver that can handle shallower slopes.

However, like you said the best way to eliminate as many variables as possible is to use steep filters. Digital equalization would help to provide identical frequency responses.

I think the best comparison would use Seas drivers because they have several models that share the same motor but just have different cones. A similar comparison could be made between the 27TDFC and 27TBFC/G.