A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

[RBG]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

It would be great if they make them with a small flange as well... Smaller than 1" version I mean :-) dreams...

[Face]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

It would be great if they make them with a small flange as well... Smaller than 1" version I mean :-) dreams...

If you need a small flange, these guys are very capable: https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.co...weeter-4-ohms/

[147JK]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

I ran across this:

http://www.sbacoustics.com/index.php/products/tweeters/sb19st-c000-4/

There doesn't appear to be anyone selling it at this time, but the preliminary data looks nicely comparable to a Hiquphon, I suspect at a much lower price.

Jeff I've been wanting to build the CAOW1 but have held off due to the cost of the drivers. Do you see this as a potential "drop-in" replacement for the OW1?

[craigk]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

Jeff I've been wanting to build the CAOW1 but have held off due to the cost of the drivers. Do you see this as a potential "drop-in" replacement for the OW1?

I can almost say with 100 % certainty that it will not be a drop in replacement. you can not make a 250.00 pair of speakers for 40.00. there is also more to sound than looking at a graph or two.

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

I can almost say with 100 % certainty that it will not be a drop in replacement. you can not make a 250.00 pair of speakers for 40.00. there is also more to sound than looking at a graph or two.

It most likely won't be a drop in, but if not it won't be based on the price differential. The Hiquphon is getting long in the tooth. I know, I have them. My favorite system for some years used the Hiquphon. But when the pair were accidentally blown while testing an early version of SoundEasy, I substituted the XT19 I had on hand. A small padding change was all that was required. The difference was very, very slight and the argument can be made that the difference has more to do with the OW1's lack of copper in the gap that is in the XT19 with the latter having better distortion characteristics. I remained as pleased with the XT19 as I had been with the OW1. Those had quite a price differential as well. Price is not an absolute determinant as it appears you are making.

dlr

[craigk]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

It most likely won't be a drop in, but if not it won't be based on the price differential. The Hiquphon is getting long in the tooth. I know, I have them. My favorite system for some years used the Hiquphon. But when the pair were accidentally blown while testing an early version of SoundEasy, I substituted the XT19 I had on hand. A small padding change was all that was required. The difference was very, very slight and the argument can be made that the difference has more to do with the OW1's lack of copper in the gap that is in the XT19 with the latter having better distortion characteristics. I remained as pleased with the XT19 as I had been with the OW1. Those had quite a price differential as well. Price is not an absolute determinant as it appears you are making.

dlr

I have the OWIII, the OW1 and the OW2s in speakers right now. I have not listened to any other 3/4 inch dome tweeter that comes remotely close to the sound quality of the Hiquphons. price is not the ultimate determinate in anything, but the saying "you get what you pay for" did not come about for no reason either. maybe your implementation of the Hiquphon was the issue. also considering the length of time Salk Audio, along with several other high end speaker manufacturers, used the Hiquphon I think there is a little more to the quality of the driver than you are giving it credit for. I am also a big fan of Vifa tweeters, so it is not a Vifa bashing.

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

I have the OWIII, the OW1 and the OW2s in speakers right now. I have not listened to any other 3/4 inch dome tweeter that comes remotely close to the sound quality of the Hiquphons. price is not the ultimate determinate in anything, but the saying "you get what you pay for" did not come about for no reason either. maybe your implementation of the Hiquphon was the issue. also considering the length of time Salk Audio, along with several other high end speaker manufacturers, used the Hiquphon I think there is a little more to the quality of the driver than you are giving it credit for. I am also a big fan of Vifa tweeters, so it is not a Vifa bashing.

The OW1 and XT19 were essentially identical in the system response after the XT level was adjusted. The implementation was not the issue, I'll state that unequivocally. The XT19 is essentially as good as the OW1. There is no more quality in the OW1 than there is in the XT19. The XT19 has the better motor. That some manufacturers use any specific driver for any length of time really carries no weight insofar as any indication of absolute quality. The OW1 is over-priced considering the quality of the current competition.

dlr

[Pete Basel]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

I can't read the face plate diameter (even zooming in) for the SB19, anyone know what it is?

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

The link Jeff provided in the OP indicates 88mm. The pdf shows 88mm.

dlr

[craigk]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

The OW1 and XT19 were essentially identical in the system response after the XT level was adjusted. The implementation was not the issue, I'll state that unequivocally. The XT19 is essentially as good as the OW1. There is no more quality in the OW1 than there is in the XT19. The XT19 has the better motor. That some manufacturers use any specific driver for any length of time really carries no weight insofar as any indication of absolute quality. I can also stateThe OW1 is over-priced considering the quality of the current competition.

dlr

A hand made, sold in .5db matched pair tweeter is no higher quality than a factory line assembled tweeter. I hope you really do not believe, or seriously mean this. any time you want to bring your design to a diy event we will do a double blind listening session and see what the results are. the XT is just not as good of tweeter. it does not reproduce cymbals or sustain nearly as well as the Hiqs. it has a slight metal/tin sound on brass. I have listen to the gemme audio tantos for several years, a friend has them, and while the treble is nice, it is a far cry from the Hiqs. I can also unequivocally state that if you measured the two drivers and there response was that close, you did something wrong or did not measure them. there raw responses look nothing alike. as far as over priced, I think that the Hiquphons are one of the truly great deals in the tweeter market.

so if a company uses a driver for an extended period what does it mean ? that they prefer to use inferior products in the speakers. not sure where that statement came from, but if you believe that you are pretty naïve or are just trolling.

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

A hand made, sold in .5db matched pair tweeter is no higher quality than a factory line assembled tweeter. I hope you really do not believe, or seriously mean this.

Very possibly can be. Seriously. But I didn't actually say nor imply that earlier, though I will now.

Matched pairs is not a superiority when comparing individual drivers. Hiquphon cannot simply take any two drivers and have them be matched pairs. They measure them first, then match them, manufacturing tolerances alone are not sufficient. This actually says a lot about the process, the fact that they must mix-n-match so-to-speak. I'm not knocking them, just pointing out the issue. Hand made drivers often have more unit to unit variation. That Hiquphon must measure, then match is proof enough that they must take it into account. Pair matching the XT19 could probably be done as well. But that is not an indicator of absolute quality of any individual driver. Even cheap, crappy drivers might possibly be pair matched, what would that prove?

I can also unequivocally state that if you measured the two drivers and there response was that close, you did something wrong or did not measure them.

And I can unequivocally state you're wrong. So we're at an impasse.

as far as over priced, I think that the Hiquphons are one of the truly great deals in the tweeter market.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion of them, as am I to mine. The Hiquphons are simply not as advanced in design compared to many newer drivers, not even to the XT19 that has been out for years. It usually comes down to preference. At one time I preferred the OW1.That is no longer the case, especially when comparing price to performance.I still like it, but I wouldn't spend money on new ones given the current competition.

so if a company uses a driver for an extended period what does it mean ?

Not much more than that they prefer it. It does not confer any sort of superiority.

dlr

[craigk]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

[QUOTE=dlr;2034554]Matched pairs is not a superiority when comparing individual drivers. Hiquphon cannot simply take any two drivers and have them be matched pairs. They measure them first, then match them, manufacturing tolerances alone are not sufficient. This actually says a lot about the process, the fact that they must mix-n-match so-to-speak. QUOTE]

I am looking at this from the point that you know that you are getting two tweeters that will be with in 0,5 db of each other. I think you should ask dave ellis about how close the tweeters actually are from the factory. they are all with in 1 db. as far as the measuring goes to get matched pairs, it goes back to quality assurance. how do you think any company that sales matched pairs of speakers match them ? they measure the drivers.


[[QUOTE You're certainly entitled to your opinion of them, as am I to mine. The Hiquphons are simply not as advanced in design compared to many newer drivers, not even to the XT19 that has been out for years. It usually comes down to preference. At one time I preferred the OW1.That is no longer the case, especially when comparing price to performance.I still like it, but I wouldn't spend money on new ones given the current competition. QUOTE]

why do people in the DIY world instantly associate advanced with better. advanced can also be a nice way of saying made "cheaper."

[[QUOTE Not much more than that they prefer it. It does not confer any sort of superiority. QUOTE]

so you telling us that when a company builds a speaker that they declare is their flagship design they use inferior drivers because they prefer them. they are not interested in how the driver measures or sounds, as long as they prefer it. I wonder what the criteria for "preferring " one driver over another is ??? because it sounds better ?

maybe as you are getting older you just prefer the sound of a "bright" tweeter.

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

[[QUOTE You're certainly entitled to your opinion of them, as am I to mine. The Hiquphons are simply not as advanced in design compared to many newer drivers, not even to the XT19 that has been out for years. It usually comes down to preference. At one time I preferred the OW1.That is no longer the case, especially when comparing price to performance.I still like it, but I wouldn't spend money on new ones given the current competition. QUOTE]

why do people in the DIY world instantly associate advanced with better. advanced can also be a nice way of saying made "cheaper."

Why do you immediately make inferences that others have not said nor implied? I speak from experience with the drivers in question in what was my main system for some years. What I stated on the motor is simply fact. It doesn't guarantee that the driver is better, but it's one way that improvements are made in drivers.

so you telling us that when a company builds a speaker that they declare is their flagship design they use inferior drivers because they prefer them. they are not interested in how the driver measures or sounds, as long as they prefer it. I wonder what the criteria for "preferring " one driver over another is ??? because it sounds better ?

I'm telling you what I actually said, you infer. Maybe you should re-read my earlier comments without inferring. There are many aspects to "preferring" a driver. You should understand the many factors involved, but in no way does it demonstrate superiority over all other drivers in the class, which some might say is implied by your comments. You're starting to get argumentative.

maybe as you are getting older you just prefer the sound of a "bright" tweeter.

This doesn't merit a response. It's obvious that I'm wasting my time.

dlr

[Jeff B.]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

As a Manufacturing Engineer in Quality Control in a very sophisticated industry I won't buy into the idea that just because something is handmade or sorted it is of higher quality than mass-produced items. Automation has done a lot more than improve efficiency and lower costs, it is has dramatically improved quality (at least as Quality is defined in industry as reduced variation and tighter tolerancing).

The other side of quality improvements are in design. There has been such a push over the last decade to design in quality, well beyond anything we ever thought of doing twenty years ago. Design FMEA's and Process FMEA's with multifunctional teams have been around a long time, but these tools have evolved and are used more today than ever before to build-in quality at a new level.
As a result, many products today are manufactured at a much lower cost but at a much higher quality level than in the past.

There is no reason why this wouldn't apply to speaker design and manufacturing as well. There is no reason whatsoever why a tweeter couldn't be designed as a high-end design with copper caps and tuned chambers, and felt in the pole piece, and it still be mass produced with a very low level of variation at a low cost. This tweeter could easily out-perform many older style, but very expensive low volume production tweeters.

The Hiquphon is an excellent tweeter, but it is an old design, first developed in the early 80's. Despite its cost and the attention it gets in manufacturing, I would not be able to say that it's impossible for a mass produced tweeter to out-perform it at a much lower price, because performance and price carry a very loose relationship.

I'm not saying the SB19 is a tweeter on the same level as the Hiquphon, but it may do much better than its price indicates, especially if the performance of the SB26 tweeters are any indication.

[dlr]

Re: A Hiquphon Substitute on the horizon?

The other side of quality improvements are in design. There has been such a push over the last decade to design in quality, well beyond anything we ever thought of doing twenty years ago. Design FMEA's and Process FMEA's with multifunctional teams have been around a long time, but these tools have evolved and are used more today than ever before to build-in quality at a new level.
As a result, many products today are manufactured at a much lower cost but at a much higher quality level than in the past. .

I was a production engineer at Michelin for 15 years. When I started in 1980, Michelin measured the performance of every tire after manufacture. When tires were out of tolerance, they had a very large inventory between curing and test/inspection that often lead to large numbers of tires having to be scrapped (they don't sell "B" grade tires). During my time there they instituted QC based on Deming's principles with emphasis on #3, "Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality.". Michelin's costs for lack of QC were exceptionally high. They still measure, but QC sampling is the focus, rather than inspection of every tire. They also have more sampling of preliminary products at various stages of production. Their quality increased and costs dramatically decreased. They learned how to track trends indicating when quality was drifting, allowing for intervention that helped lower scrap costs as well as maintain quality of product.

A small shop might not be in position to take benefit of QC sampling rather than inspecting each item, but a large one should not do without it.

dlr