2 RS225s vs. 2 RS270s per side... ideas?

[fjhuerta]

Hi all!

I'm planning my big WMTMW tower. And since I've already been doing so for the last year, I'm in no hurry to settle on a particular design / combination.

So far, I believe the midranges will definitely be the RS150s. The tweeter is almost surely the RS28 (the DXT driver from SEAS is too expensive - I'd need to mod it with the 27TBFC magnet to get the benefits I'd like).

And so far, the woofer is the RS225. I already have the 4 drivers I'd need. But somehow, the urge to upgrade hit me before I even started building the things. And I'm wondering how much better the RS270s are.

Apparently, from the simulations I've been running, a pair of 270s will have more sensitivity and have a higher impedance (plus I can tune the box lower).

The disadvantages are, quite obviously, box size (140L vs. 100L) and the price I'd have to pay to get the 270s here ($445!!!!). But, since I've waited enough time, I guess I can save a bit more money IF the RS270 is a real ste up.

Or maybe I should substitute the midranges for W4-1337s... agh. If you had the choice, which item would you substitute? Or, would you stick to RS225's - RS150's - RS28's?

[Jim Holtz]

Hi all!

I'm planning my big WMTMW tower. And since I've already been doing so for the last year, I'm in no hurry to settle on a particular design / combination.

So far, I believe the midranges will definitely be the RS150s. The tweeter is almost surely the RS28 (the DXT driver from SEAS is too expensive - I'd need to mod it with the 27TBFC magnet to get the benefits I'd like).

And so far, the woofer is the RS225. I already have the 4 drivers I'd need. But somehow, the urge to upgrade hit me before I even started building the things. And I'm wondering how much better the RS270s are.

Apparently, from the simulations I've been running, a pair of 270s will have more sensitivity and have a higher impedance (plus I can tune the box lower).

The disadvantages are, quite obviously, box size (140L vs. 100L) and the price I'd have to pay to get the 270s here ($445!!!!). But, since I've waited enough time, I guess I can save a bit more money IF the RS270 is a real ste up.

Or maybe I should substitute the midranges for W4-1337s... agh. If you had the choice, which item would you substitute? Or, would you stick to RS225's - RS150's - RS28's?

My *subjective opinion* is to use the W4-1337SA for the mids. I think they're a significant step up in sound quality Vs. the RS drivers. I also think you have to get into Excel, Accuton and Revelator drivers to equal the mid range sound quality.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion so let the flames begin... :f>


Jim

[fjhuerta]

My *subjective opinion* is to use the W4-1337SA for the mids. I think they're a significant step up in sound quality Vs. the RS drivers. I also think you have to get into Excel, Accuton and Revelator drivers to equal the mid range sound quality.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion so let the flames begin... :f>


Jim

... besides, the W4's are smaller, so I'd have better integration in an MTM design (I love the W4's, too - they are a bit expensive.)

(That was me trying to convince myself about paying $280 for the 4 W4's)

[ahaik]

My *subjective opinion* is to use the W4-1337SA for the mids. I think they're a significant step up in sound quality Vs. the RS drivers. I also think you have to get into Excel, Accuton and Revelator drivers to equal the mid range sound quality.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion so let the flames begin... :f>


Jim

One more vote for the W4-1337SA :T mids are quite better then the RS IMO too.
They are lighter and smaller then the RS-150, could save a little on shipping.

[Gir]

They are lighter and smaller then the RS-150, could save a little on shipping.

Just look at all that money you're saving! 8O

[---k---]

My *subjective opinion* is to use the W4-1337SA for the mids. I think they're a significant step up in sound quality Vs. the RS drivers.

Yes, this is a subjective opinion so let the flames begin... :f>


Jim

Hard to say with the differences between the Khans and the LineupD4, but I prefer the RS150. Likely, familiarity.

Javier,
Stupid question, you do realize that my Khanspires have are an RS225/RS150/RS28 WMTMW, right? And, CJD has also designed a WWMT with the RS270/RS180/RS28 than can be easily adapted to a WMTMW. I've pointed this out before, but I don't think you acknowledged it.

I know you like designing speakers, and may have different goals that CJD and I did. I'm not trying to talk you out of your project or into building mine. But, I would hate to see you walk down the same path only to find out later that our projects exist.

That said, obviously if you got the space I would go with the RS270 over the RS225. My dual sealed RS225 typically doesn't leave me desiring more with music (sub is turned on for movies). But, the difference in how deep CJD's will dig versus mine is impressive. It was profound the other day when we got together.

It comes down to space, baffle size and layout. The 270's take a wide baffle. You're going to get some funky reflections with a baffle that wide. Felt is going to be recommended.

[Brian Bunge]

Hard to say with the differences between the Khans and the LineupD4, but I prefer the RS150. Likely, familiarity.

Javier,
Stupid question, you do realize that my Khanspires have are an RS225/RS150/RS28 WMTMW, right? And, CJD has also designed a WWMT with the RS270/RS180/RS28 than can be easily adapted to a WMTMW. I've pointed this out before, but I don't think you acknowledged it.

Ummm...that's a WWMTM tower (or MTMWW )

[fjhuerta]

One more vote for the W4-1337SA :T mids are quite better then the RS IMO too.
They are lighter and smaller then the RS-150, could save a little on shipping.

I already have the RS150's.

Then again, I could build 2 more pairs of TM speakers with them! :T

[fjhuerta]

Hard to say with the differences between the Khans and the LineupD4, but I prefer the RS150. Likely, familiarity.

Javier,
Stupid question, you do realize that my Khanspires have are an RS225/RS150/RS28 WMTMW, right? And, CJD has also designed a WWMT with the RS270/RS180/RS28 than can be easily adapted to a WMTMW. I've pointed this out before, but I don't think you acknowledged it.

Hi K!

I'd be using your crossover design (so far, since I haven't built or measured aything!). The only difference is, I believe my speakers would be a bit taller, and maybe driver spacing would be a bit different (really, not much of a difference). At first the design was supposed to use a pair of RS125's, then I used those on a small MTM design. I think you did post on a thread where you said a pair of RS150's would be a better choice.

I specifically remember having some issues with the midrange, and then I remembered your design - and I saw that you had them wired in series, which made perfect sense!

I must agree with most of the people here - I do like the W4's mid a bit more than the RS's. But somehow, my wife does want me to build the huge speakers for the living room (how odd is that?), so I'll have to finalize my design in a short time. If I can't save enough money, then I'll definitely build your design!

[cjd]

The Khans are VERY flexible as far as height, and woofer spacing can be fiddled a little. I'd keep mid-tweet spacing fairly similar. The best results are achieved as designed of course, but hey.

The WWMTM's are NOT easily adapted to WMTMW despite Ryan's best intentions in suggesting so. Otherwise, that would have been done long ago for Kingpin. But they also use the RS180 as a mid.

If you want to go ported, go RS225. If you want to go sealed with sub, go RS225. If you just can't get the sub, are going sealed, and want the extra 10-15Hz, the 270's are the ticket. But, if you really want the down low my recommendation is to extend the Khan and toss a 12" (or 15") sub on either end of it. So SWMTMWS. Cross actively. Make the cabinets deeper to keep volume right for the RS225's.

I really like the sound I get out of the 270's but they're a little harder to work with: big volume on the box, little worse on the top end... And, I still want a sub with them. I also chase 8Hz though.

C

[---k---]

Javier,

As CJD has proven, the Khan's are really his design - they just live at my house.

So, what are your ultimate goals and what are you looking for? You've had a couple of different threads over the past year. If you openly ask about drivers on an open forum, you're likely going to get as many opinions as there are members. You'll be stuck in decision paralyzed.

I'm really really happy with my speakers. They do everything I ask of them. Maybe is I had a different room I might be doing a real dipole design (like CJD originally tried to get me to do) or an open back. But, that just wasn't in my goals.

I was really interested in the new DXT tweeter. When I started planning my speakers, I was thinking about waveguides. But at that time there wasn't much off-the-shelf available and proven yet. I had heard the RS28, and it was good enough so we went with it. The DXT looks interesting, but to my novice eyes it doesn't look like it gains _that_ much. Crossover point can't be pushed as low as the RS28.

C,
You going to leave me as the lone voice saying that they prefer the RS150? I know you like it better, too!

I think we've had the conversation about the CJD's WWMTM vs. a WMTMW before. I don't know why it isn't sinking in that you can't just move the bottom woofer around. Is it because you are taking advantage of the floor bounce?

[cjd]

I'm not sure my hearing of the W4 gave it fair consideration. With what I heard, I did prefer the RS150, but too many variables IMO.

As for moving woofers on the WWMTM, the crossover is just really picky about phase so a change like that could put a big null in no matter what. It *might* work perfectly, it's just not something I would want to try without re-measuring and verifying.

C

[Jim Holtz]

You going to leave me as the lone voice saying that they prefer the RS150? I know you like it better, too!

Hi Ryan,

No competition intended in my original remarks. However, wasn't there a crossover error on your Lineup speaker when everyone was listening to them? That wouldn't be a valid listening session, IMHO. Not to mention the bass differences between the single W4 Vs. (4) RS225's.

I've not heard Jed's design so I couldn't comment anyway but the crossover problem popped into my head when Chris responded.

Jim

[---k---]

Yeah. I was just stirring the pot.

[Jim Holtz]

Oh you pot stirrer, you! :rofl:

Jim

[cjd]

Oh you pot stirrer, you! :rofl:

Jim

Well, I figure you're wrong about the tweeters, so you probably are about the mid too. :twisted:

[Jim Holtz]

Well, I figure you're wrong about the tweeters, so you probably are about the mid too. :twisted:

Oh boy! That was cold...

Of course, I have to bring up that about 50 people selected speaker designs with ribbons as having the best sound in the mid and unlimited class at last years Iowa DIY event. Now, whose wrong??? :B

Jim

[Jed]

I'm not sure my hearing of the W4 gave it fair consideration. With what I heard, I did prefer the RS150, but too many variables IMO.

Since you brought it up. Here's the Lineup D4 midrange you heard with that miswire.


There is also a lot to be gained in the midrange by taking the bass off a tiny 2-way. Apples to Apples. Might be more fair to compare a LineupMaxxL16 midrange or Statement, which uses similar crossover points etc.

[---k---]

Yes, this is a subjective opinion so let the flames begin... :f>

Jim

Hey, I thought that meant Jim was supposed to get the flames.

[cjd]

Jed: yes, I know. That's why I don't think it's worth commenting. But, I was comparing more with Jeff B's Dreidel, so it would have (theoretically) been a closer comparison.

Jim: I was talking about which Seas tweeter you prefer. Isn't it fun when we split hairs as if they're the grand canyon?

[Jim Holtz]

Jim: I was talking about which Seas tweeter you prefer. Isn't it fun when we split hairs as if they're the grand canyon?

Chris,

Oh, that tweeter... :rofl:

Ya, I've got to agree that we argue and argue over things the majority of folks can't hear and wouldn't care if they could. It seems like a big issue to us but in reality it's just a slight difference in taste.

Welcome to the MP3/Ipod generation.

Jim

[fjhuerta]

Well, I've been drawing the cabinets lately and really, really considering whether to get the W4's, or stick with the 150's.

Or building an MTMWW or a WMTMW. So far, I'm liking the MTMWW design a bit more. It looks sleeker.

Hey, how about a MTMWW with both woofers firing sideways...?

No question about it - I have a bad case of "analysis paralysis". Very bad. I'm considering changing every driver in the design, and the design itself, when the drivers are boxed, waiting for me to have the enclosure built.

I think I'll end up building a WMTMW (because I love simmetry), with the RS150's (because I already have them). The W4s are very tempting, but spending $300+ (after taxes) while not being able to use them higher than 2K (because of the MTM design) doesn't make much sense.

[Jim Holtz]

while not being able to use them higher than 2K (because of the MTM design) doesn't make much sense.

The Statements cross from the W4's to the ribbon at 3.7K in a MTM configuration. It works extremely well. :T

Jim

[---k---]

You don't want sidefiring woofers if your crossover from the woofer to the mids is in the usual ~350hz range. Now, maybe you were thinking about doing a MTMWWSS with two built in sidefiring subwoofers. Now that would be cool! :twisted:

I just thought that I would add to the analysis paralysis.

Either the RS150 or the W4 would be a great driver. Not trying to start a big debate here. Just my opinion, and it is likely heavily influenced by the implementation I've heard them in -very different designs- but to me the W4 is clearer and more detailed, but I think it can somewhat ?hollow? The RS150 while being clear and detailed has a bit more depth, ?warmth? to it. I hate calling it warmth, but... ?? My decision would probably be highly affected by the $$.'

Jim (or anyone else who has heard both), would love to hear your opinions on the differences.

[Jim Holtz]

You don't want sidefiring woofers if your crossover from the woofer to the mids is in the usual ~350hz range. Now, maybe you were thinking about doing a MTMWWSS with two built in sidefiring subwoofers. Now that would be cool! :twisted:

I just thought that I would add to the analysis paralysis.

Either the RS150 or the W4 would be a great driver. Not trying to start a big debate here. Just my opinion, and it is likely heavily influenced by the implementation I've heard them in -very different designs- but to me the W4 is clearer and more detailed, but I think it can somewhat ?hollow? The RS150 while being clear and detailed has a bit more depth, ?warmth? to it. I hate calling it warmth, but... ?? My decision would probably be highly affected by the $$.'

Jim (or anyone else who has heard both), would love to hear your opinions on the differences.

Hi Ryan,

I think we're probably preaching to the choir with Javier since he's used both drivers in the past. I would agree that the W4 has a bit better clarity and detail than the RS drivers. You comment about the sound being somewhat hollow doesn't ring true with my experience however. That is something that is usually associated with having drivers wired out of phase. The hollow echoy sound almost always is a wiring issue.

Both are fine drivers and can result in an excellent sounding speaker with a good crossover.

Jim

[---k---]

I didn't realize that Javier had used the W4.

As for the hollow sounding, I hate describing stuff. It is subtle. Maybe hollow isn't the right word. Don't know. But, I can say for sure that my D4 is now wired correctly. I did start off by saying that it was likely the implementations I've heard them in. Ehhhh....

I saw the Vistion tha the W4 is based on selling for $184. Wow! Wish I knew more about the diffences between the two.

[fjhuerta]

The Statements cross from the W4's to the ribbon at 3.7K in a MTM configuration. It works extremely well. :T

Jim

Analysis paralysis strikes again!

I remember that you should cross an MTM as low as possible, IIRC it helps vertical dispersion. According to my calculations, 2 KHz would be the minimum frequency that should be used with the spacing provided by 2 4" woofers. am I wrong?

Yeah, I used the W4's before, and I can't seem to get them out of my mind. I do prefer them to the Daytons, if only because they are better behaved throughout their range. If I could use them up to 4 KHz on an MTM, I'd definitely get them - I simply loved their midrange.

[Jim Holtz]

Analysis paralysis strikes again!

I remember that you should cross an MTM as low as possible, IIRC it helps vertical dispersion. According to my calculations, 2 KHz would be the minimum frequency that should be used with the spacing provided by 2 4" woofers. am I wrong?

Yeah, I used the W4's before, and I can't seem to get them out of my mind. I do prefer them to the Daytons, if only because they are better behaved throughout their range. If I could use them up to 4 KHz on an MTM, I'd definitely get them - I simply loved their midrange.

Hi Javier,

In a perfect world, CTC spacing between the woofers should be equal to 1/2 wave length. In the real world, that doesn't work. Lets take a look at the Natalie P for example. CTC spacing between woofers is 11" and CTC from the tweeter to either woofer center is 6" per the cabinet layout Jon provided. It's also how I built mine. I believe they cross to the tweeter at about 1800 Hz. if memory serves me. Regardless, this is way over the "ideal" yet it works extremely well and has received praise for it's sound quality.

One of the benefits of using a ribbon is that it eases the CTC spacing issue somewhat. Sound emanates from the full ribbon length so the center for CTC calculations starts at the outer edge of the ribbon. That makes it the equivalent to a 2" faceplate dome tweeter. That plus tight spacing of the drivers helps the Statements cross in the frequencies that the ribbon and the W4's both work extremely well in. If I were to use a dome, I would select a very small face plate version and bring the crossover frequency down if possible. I believe Jed used 3.2K with the D26.

The W4's could also be moved closer together with the tweeter offset to help in this regard too. I chose not to offset the ribbon because I like to have my speaker pointed straight ahead rather than toed in. The vertical sound stage is unusually large on the Statements which surprised me. I expected some reduction because of the design decisions that I made, but my fears were unfounded. I don't know if it's because of the smaller cone of the W4 or what, but it has exceptional vertical off axis dispersion, IMHO.

There are always compromises but this one turned out not to be one. It could be Curt's "magic" crossover work too. :T

HTH

Jim

[Jed]

Depending on which Lineup speaker, I crossed around 2.2K for the MTMs that use the D26 with W4-1337. Not 3.2k as Jim suggested, since I think that is too high for an MTM with a dome tweeter.

[Jim Holtz]

Depending on which Lineup speaker, I crossed around 2.2K for the MTMs that use the D26 with W4-1337. Not 3.2k as Jim suggested, since I think that is too high for an MTM with a dome tweeter.

Hi Jed,

Thanks for the clarification. I had 3.2K stuck in my head for some reason. :roll:

Jim

[Jed]

Javier,

Have you looked at the Aurum Cantus 10" drivers? I wonder how they compare to the Dayton RS270S.

I'm thinking of picking up a pair of AC250F1s but they are kinda pricey if a Dayton RS270s is better.

Jed