HIFICRITIC audio review magazine
HIFICRITIC FORUMS
Current Issue
HIFICRITIC
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

8 Pages<12345>»
Share
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Simon  
#41 Posted : 12 January 2009 09:13:41(UTC)
Simon


Rank: HIFI Novice

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 15
Location: Sheffield

The drivers in the Magico aren't all that expensive, nothing out of the ordinary.

I was always under the impression that compression drivers are expensive not for the technology they use but for the fact that the numbers sold are tiny so they are typically hand-made, and unable to gain any economies of scale whatsoever. If Focal only made a handful of drivers and had no one with production engineering experience i'm sure they would have to charge thousands for them as well. The quality wouldn't improve as a result though, would it?
User is suspended until 09/12/2283 19:47:11(UTC) zonepress  
#42 Posted : 12 January 2009 11:22:10(UTC)
zonepress

Rank: BANNED forever

Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,024
Location: Greece

Simon wrote:
The drivers in the Magico aren't all that expensive, nothing out of the ordinary
Goes to show you that even a company that can deliver the goods is not above making silly claims.
I read somewhere that Magico were claiming to have developed a woofer that is pistonic all the way to the high treble. Not true:
UserPostedImage
It looks like it starts misbehaving at around 2.7 kHz. Makes one wonder what they were thinking when they said this.
They have a good product in their hands, surely there is no need to use such absurd claims.
Sumer is icumen in!
User is suspended until 09/12/2283 19:47:11(UTC) zonepress  
#43 Posted : 12 January 2009 12:42:33(UTC)
zonepress

Rank: BANNED forever

Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,024
Location: Greece

darkmatter wrote:
zonepress wrote:
Hey, darkmatter, I was thinking about a high impedance speaker, one that would start with 16 Ohm drivers and go from there. Does it tickle your fancy at all?
This has always been of interest to have a sensible load. With the big project, which was completes some 5 years ago, I would of liked the drivers to of been 16 Ohm rated, though there are too few drivers that fit the bill. I will factor this into the project though.
I've been racking my brain to remember where I saw a 16 Ohm range, and here it is:
http://www.eighteensound...73&mainMenu=overview
18sound are an Italian company, and their range seems to be solidly engineered, with strong neodymium magnets, attention to detail, and several of their woofers, large and small, coming in 16 Ohm flavours. They also make 16 Ohm tweeters, albeit they are all compression drivers. The website makes for interesting reading, to say the least.

I was looking at Stereophile's CES coverage this morning, and I must say that the whole affair reminded me of what was said of the Bourbon dynasty when they were restored to the throne of France: that, through their ordeals, they forgot nothing and yet they learned nothing. A multitude of conmen out for a quick buck, selling fancy exorbitant cables at outrageous prices, and outlandish tube amps that could power a welding station. I understand why some people love tubes, either for subjective reasons or on principle, or both. Yet lateral thinking looks MIA. For example, one could build a speaker with 16 Ohm impedance, eg using drivers from the 18sound range, and triamp it with dedicated tube amplifiers, one per driver. This way the output tubes and transformers could be ideally matched to their respective working frequency ranges and driver demands, thus circumscribing many of the inherent limitations of tubes, minimizing cost and maximizing performance. Instead, manufacturers keep making pricey jacks-of-all-trades.
Sumer is icumen in!
Offline Nattt  
#44 Posted : 12 January 2009 12:45:12(UTC)
Nattt


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 22/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: Acton, Canada

Yes, the amount of press on silly cables was quite nauseating... Is it just me or are hifi cables the most boring products that exist?
Offline kengale  
#45 Posted : 12 January 2009 13:16:14(UTC)
kengale


Rank: HIFI God

Joined: 25/11/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,334
Location: UK

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Henry Cleo wrote:
What about the Jordan JX92S?

Over on the DIy audio boards, veteran designer Ted Jordan's JX92S has a keen following. It's a versatile 4 inch "full range" driver which can sound amazingly clear and fast, and can produce ridiculous bass for its size when in the right enclosure. I use a pair in transmission line cabinets and there is plenty of bass. It is also used in a number of commercial designs.
There are 3 problems:
They're aluminium and can get peaky at around 16K - but there are various recipes for calming the peaks. Then you have a single driver which can cover from below 50Hz to 20kHz
They're expensive - but many of the designs don't have any crossovers.
They're 5 Ohms - but someone has designed a Zobel
Personally - I love them, and I know a guy who sold his electrostatics when he heard them.


Actually it starts to break up around 9kHz, with a succession of resonant peaks up to 20kHz - see the plots on ejjordan's own website. And it's very directional at high frequencies. But still sounds pretty good. I don't really understand why the 5 ohm is quoted as a "problem" - this is its impedance minimum and in fact it is quite a kind load. Zobel networks are just about loading the amplifier correctly out of band, and have no relevance to the in-band impedance.

When the JXR6 HD is properly in production one should be able to make a real peach of a speaker with a JXR6 for the mid/treble and one or two JXR92's for bass/mid, with a single-pole linear-phase crossover.
Offline Simon Briggs  
#46 Posted : 12 January 2009 13:21:45(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
zonepress wrote:
darkmatter wrote:
zonepress wrote:
Hey, darkmatter, I was thinking about a high impedance speaker, one that would start with 16 Ohm drivers and go from there. Does it tickle your fancy at all?
This has always been of interest to have a sensible load. With the big project, which was completes some 5 years ago, I would of liked the drivers to of been 16 Ohm rated, though there are too few drivers that fit the bill. I will factor this into the project though.
I've been racking my brain to remember where I saw a 16 Ohm range, and here it is:
http://www.eighteensound...73&mainMenu=overview
18sound are an Italian company, and their range seems to be solidly engineered, with strong neodymium magnets, attention to detail, and several of their woofers, large and small, coming in 16 Ohm flavours. They also make 16 Ohm tweeters, albeit they are all compression drivers. The website makes for interesting reading, to say the least.

I was looking at Stereophile's CES coverage this morning, and I must say that the whole affair reminded me of what was said of the Bourbon dynasty when they were restored to the throne of France: that, through their ordeals, they forgot nothing and yet they learned nothing. A multitude of conmen out for a quick buck, selling fancy exorbitant cables at outrageous prices, and outlandish tube amps that could power a welding station. I understand why some people love tubes, either for subjective reasons or on principle, or both. Yet lateral thinking looks MIA. For example, one could build a speaker with 16 Ohm impedance, eg using drivers from the 18sound range, and triamp it with dedicated tube amplifiers, one per driver. This way the output tubes and transformers could be ideally matched to their respective working frequency ranges and driver demands, thus circumscribing many of the inherent limitations of tubes, minimizing cost and maximizing performance. Instead, manufacturers keep making pricey jacks-of-all-trades.


Thanks for that, I'll give them a look.

DM Smile
Offline hifi addict  
#47 Posted : 19 January 2009 02:46:33(UTC)
hifi addict


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 26/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 340
United Kingdom
Location: Hasting/Crete/London

Thanks: 1 times
Anyone had a go with the Manger Driver. I have heard them sound fantastic and I have also heard them sound awful. There is a lot involved with this semi full full range driver.
Offline Martin Colloms  
#48 Posted : 19 January 2009 12:45:19(UTC)
Martin Colloms


Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,051

Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 47 post(s)
I have heard Overkill do a good job with them, direct to an amplifier with sophisticated electronic crossovers, and a very fast bass system.

While Mangers are nominally full range, for low distortion stay above 300Hz. Their time response and time coherence is excellent going some way to justify the high cost. They are not perfectly flat in frequency response as some residual modes are impossible to fully suppress in this critically damped, flat flexural diaphragm.

Martin C
Offline hifi addict  
#49 Posted : 19 January 2009 15:00:44(UTC)
hifi addict


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 26/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 340
United Kingdom
Location: Hasting/Crete/London

Thanks: 1 times
I heard the overkill system I agree it was very good. But they use a modified DEQX which is very easy to use but IMHO it's just an overpriced behringer. I tried it with a pair judy spotheims line arrays. My next project is having a pair of 2 way using a tad compression and big bass driver with. Msb will build me some digital crossovers. I will let you know later on in the year. But I am very tempted to buy the new TAD compact monitors.
Offline Simon Briggs  
#50 Posted : 19 January 2009 15:35:31(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
hifi addict wrote:
I heard the overkill system I agree it was very good. But they use a modified DEQX which is very easy to use but IMHO it's just an overpriced behringer. I tried it with a pair judy spotheims line arrays. My next project is having a pair of 2 way using a tad compression and big bass driver with. Msb will build me some digital crossovers. I will let you know later on in the year. But I am very tempted to buy the new TAD compact monitors.


Keep us posted with this interesting project BigGrin

DM Smile
Offline Simon Briggs  
#51 Posted : 19 January 2009 15:38:51(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Ideas are starting to coalesce for my projects but I am still exploring a few other possibilities before I start on the paper design.

DM Smile
Offline Cemil  
#52 Posted : 21 January 2009 21:47:49(UTC)
Cemil


Rank: HIFI Guru

Joined: 22/12/2008(UTC)
Posts: 256
Location: Istanbul

At CES, Magico had the crossover from one of their speakers on show (I think it was the V3's crossover). The few components were absolutely HUGE! So that might be another (expensive) area for you tolook into :)
Offline Martin Colloms  
#53 Posted : 22 January 2009 16:33:25(UTC)
Martin Colloms


Rank: Moderator

Joined: 15/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3,051

Was thanked: 48 time(s) in 47 post(s)
Had an opportunity to assess a sealed box , 60l with two 220mm Excel mags in parallel

maximally flat to 40 Hz , -6 @ 33Hz , not a bad alignment, a low 4ohm Z total, about 90 dB per 8 ohm watt
Offline Simon Briggs  
#54 Posted : 22 January 2009 19:01:36(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Martin Colloms wrote:
DM will have to work hard to define the design and try to exclude the noise from all our suggestions.

Thiel and KEF have been working towards coincident, time aligned driver systems with proprietary drivers. The Quad gets there as of right.

Avalon is more time coherent than most with low diffraction narrow enclosure forms , tilted back to align the bass mid and treble start positions relative to the listener.

The resulting system CSD is particularly good, thanks to careful control of the effective driver working ranges. With these designs it is the attention to such detail which impresses.


My instinct for an enthusiast is a sealed box three way with a form narrowing with height, a true 8ohm impedance, , ie two of the '5ohm' bass drivers in series probably 220mm SEAS , .

probably the 160 mm Scan pulp cone wide range mid and a DXT soft dome tweeter.

We could try and firm up device type numbers from this broad suggestion.

Martin C


That noise is getting very hard to ignore!!

"60l with two 220mm Excel mags in parallel

maximally flat to 40 Hz , -6 @ 33Hz"

That is high class sub woofer performance!!

DM Smile
Offline kengale  
#55 Posted : 23 January 2009 17:29:04(UTC)
kengale


Rank: HIFI God

Joined: 25/11/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,334
Location: UK

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Martin Colloms wrote:
DM will have to work hard to define the design and try to exclude the noise from all our suggestions.

Thiel and KEF have been working towards coincident, time aligned driver systems with proprietary drivers. The Quad gets there as of right.

Avalon is more time coherent than most with low diffraction narrow enclosure forms , tilted back to align the bass mid and treble start positions relative to the listener.

The resulting system CSD is particularly good, thanks to careful control of the effective driver working ranges. With these designs it is the attention to such detail which impresses.


My instinct for an enthusiast is a sealed box three way with a form narrowing with height, a true 8ohm impedance, , ie two of the '5ohm' bass drivers in series probably 220mm SEAS , .

probably the 160 mm Scan pulp cone wide range mid and a DXT soft dome tweeter.

We could try and firm up device type numbers from this broad suggestion.

Martin C


I wouldn't go for two drivers in series with a common sealed box - it is quite easy to excite "rocking mode" resonances in such a system, where the two speakers go in and out in phase opposition to each other contributing nothing to the bass but using up cone excursion. I've ssen some quite alarming examples of this. If you do use two drivers in series you should partition the cabinet into two seperate sealed compartments.
User is suspended until 09/12/2283 19:47:11(UTC) zonepress  
#56 Posted : 23 January 2009 18:03:05(UTC)
zonepress

Rank: BANNED forever

Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,024
Location: Greece

darkmatter wrote:

"60l with two 220mm Excel mags in parallel
maximally flat to 40 Hz , -6 @ 33Hz"
That is high class sub woofer performance!!
Really? Blink I'd go for one or two high-impedance 12''ers in parallel, critically damped, and then equalise them according to what the room did to their response.

Edited by user 23 January 2009 18:04:46(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Sumer is icumen in!
Offline Simon Briggs  
#57 Posted : 24 January 2009 00:32:33(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
kengale wrote:
Martin Colloms wrote:
DM will have to work hard to define the design and try to exclude the noise from all our suggestions.

Thiel and KEF have been working towards coincident, time aligned driver systems with proprietary drivers. The Quad gets there as of right.

Avalon is more time coherent than most with low diffraction narrow enclosure forms , tilted back to align the bass mid and treble start positions relative to the listener.

The resulting system CSD is particularly good, thanks to careful control of the effective driver working ranges. With these designs it is the attention to such detail which impresses.


My instinct for an enthusiast is a sealed box three way with a form narrowing with height, a true 8ohm impedance, , ie two of the '5ohm' bass drivers in series probably 220mm SEAS , .
probably the 160 mm Scan pulp cone wide range mid and a DXT soft dome tweeter.

We could try and firm up device type numbers from this broad suggestion.

Martin C


I wouldn't go for two drivers in series with a common sealed box - it is quite easy to excite "rocking mode" resonances in such a system, where the two speakers go in and out in phase opposition to each other contributing nothing to the bass but using up cone excursion. I've ssen some quite alarming examples of this. If you do use two drivers in series you should partition the cabinet into two seperate sealed compartments.


They would work quite well in force cancellation mode i.e. side mounted opposed and quite low down on the bass encl.
Offline kengale  
#58 Posted : 24 January 2009 15:54:06(UTC)
kengale


Rank: HIFI God

Joined: 25/11/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,334
Location: UK

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 8 post(s)
darkmatter wrote:
kengale wrote:
Martin Colloms wrote:
DM will have to work hard to define the design and try to exclude the noise from all our suggestions.

Thiel and KEF have been working towards coincident, time aligned driver systems with proprietary drivers. The Quad gets there as of right.

Avalon is more time coherent than most with low diffraction narrow enclosure forms , tilted back to align the bass mid and treble start positions relative to the listener.

The resulting system CSD is particularly good, thanks to careful control of the effective driver working ranges. With these designs it is the attention to such detail which impresses.


My instinct for an enthusiast is a sealed box three way with a form narrowing with height, a true 8ohm impedance, , ie two of the '5ohm' bass drivers in series probably 220mm SEAS , .
probably the 160 mm Scan pulp cone wide range mid and a DXT soft dome tweeter.

We could try and firm up device type numbers from this broad suggestion.

Martin C


I wouldn't go for two drivers in series with a common sealed box - it is quite easy to excite "rocking mode" resonances in such a system, where the two speakers go in and out in phase opposition to each other contributing nothing to the bass but using up cone excursion. I've ssen some quite alarming examples of this. If you do use two drivers in series you should partition the cabinet into two seperate sealed compartments.


They would work quite well in force cancellation mode i.e. side mounted opposed and quite low down on the bass encl.


No it wouldn't make any difference to this particular problem - the coupling is via the enclosed air in the cabinet, not by direct transmission of forces. It's just a problem with series coupled speakers - once they are in parallel the problem goes away. If you've got a sealed-cabinet speaker to hand with two bass units you can demonstrate it quite well at very low frequencies - push one speaker in and the other comes out. With the speakers in series this rocking mode is not damped by anything except the mechanical hsyteresis of the cone surrounds.
Offline Simon Briggs  
#59 Posted : 24 January 2009 17:49:13(UTC)
Simon Briggs


Rank: Administrator

Joined: 19/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 2,323
United Kingdom
Location: UK

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 10 time(s) in 9 post(s)
Kengale how are you connecting the driver terminals to achieve this?

Show me a connection diagram for your method.
User is suspended until 09/12/2283 19:47:11(UTC) zonepress  
#60 Posted : 24 January 2009 18:39:27(UTC)
zonepress

Rank: BANNED forever

Joined: 18/09/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1,024
Location: Greece

kengale wrote:
With the speakers in series this rocking mode is not damped by anything except the mechanical hsyteresis of the cone surrounds.
So, it's all about properly shorting the back EMF? I did not know that this thing happened although, in all frankness, I am not aware of any commercial speakers using series bass drivers and have an innate aversion for all things in series, be they drivers or Xovers. They somehow run contrary to my sense of how the Universe should be arranged.
BigGrin
Sumer is icumen in!
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Similar Topics
Speaker projects What would you use and why? (General HIFI Discussion)
by Simon Briggs 26/12/2008 22:54:21(UTC)
8 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Follow HIFICRITIC Email HIFICRITIC follow HIFICRITIC on Twitter Follow HIFICRITIC on Facebook