What would be your next project?

[NPE]

Just curious, if you were to build a new set, which would it be? The Statement Monitors are great but I'm starting to get the bite again... I think 2/3 for the building rather than the result. I'm thinking maybe The Finalists even though they're quite 'similar' to the statement monitors, or maybe the Zaph ZD5 now that Madisound has the crossovers ($130 for each though! Just ordering crossover parts individually scares me...) or the maybe the Zaph ZRTs... Oh, but in the meanwhile, have a small 2 way cabinets to build (Sierra-1) for which I have spare parts & some stands.

[Face]

If you're going to build something else, make sure it's an upgrade. Unless you want to build out of boredom, why make a lateral move?

[Jim Holtz]

FWIW, The Finalists are much closer to the full sized Statements than the Monitors in performance with a nicer mid range. The Finalists are my reference music system now. That said, The Statements aren't going anywhere and sound great but I do have to acknowledge the smooth natural sound of the NE149 mid. It's just really good, IMHO. It has many of Revelator's best qualities but has it's own personality. Vocals are stunning with a you are there presence and detail. Curt really worked his magic on this design. :T

Todd Premo posted his thoughts on a listening session we had a while back over in the The Finalists thread in the PE Project Gallery with his latest Revelator design and The Finalists. He also has full sized Statements so he's very familiar with both.

Jim

[Jonasz]

FWIW, The Finalists are much closer to the full sized Statements than the Monitors in performance with a nicer mid range. The Finalists are my reference music system now. That said, The Statements aren't going anywhere and sound great but I do have to acknowledge the smooth natural sound of the NE149 mid. It's just really good, IMHO. It has many of Revelator's best qualities but has it's own personality. Vocals are stunning with a you are there presence and detail. Curt really worked his magic on this design. :T

So, are The Final Statements (Statements with NE149 mids) in the works yet? :B

Jim do you like the RS28F or the Ribbon best?

[Jim Holtz]

So, are The Final Statements (Statements with NE149 mids) in the works yet? :B

Jim do you like the RS28F or the Ribbon best?

Hi Jonasz,

Nope, the Statements are a closed design. The Finalists were conceived because I needed a smaller speaker in my 2nd system for the living room. I decided while we were at it, we might as well develop a speaker with a special focus on mid range quality while maintaining the level of performance the full sized Statements offer.

The only reason to develop a larger Finalist would be to achieve higher SPL. Curt had The Finalists cranked to 110 db when he was developing the crossover which is more than loud enough for me.

I love ribbons but they have to be used properly with a high crossover point. The Finalists design didn't lend itself to that criteria so I picked the best affordable dome I could find. The RS28F. I'm not a fan of the metal dome version but the soft dome is really nice. It's very hard to fault, IMHO.

Jim

[NPE]

Oh btw, while I was certainly looking forward to some interesting projects for myself, I was genuinely interested seeing what others are looking forward to building or would build if they wanted to build something! I was just giving mine as example and to get the ball rolling!

If you're going to build something else, make sure it's an upgrade. Unless you want to build out of boredom, why make a lateral move?

Yeah I guess simply because that's the projects which seem most interesting... I wouldn't go so far as I'd build them because of boredom, more for entertainment So as such, these projects would all come around 1k which while not being chump change doesn't really hurt the budget and doesn't seem to excessive... I guess I could spurt 5-10k and go for Orions or whatnot, but that would just seem very excessive to me... I'm more about bang for the buck.

Guess my criteria would be:
1) high price performance ratio; has to be great performers, hopefully not super expensive
2) not too large; either relatively small floorstanders like the ZRTs or bigger monitors like the Statements/Finalists
3) 'interesting' in some way... Statements had me for the ribbon, open back, and driver selection, basically everything about it appealed to me! Finalists mids & bass improvement seem interesting, price seems just about right, Jim Holtz & Curt design another +! :P :T Both ZD5 & ZRT use tweeters that seem 'interesting' (that appeal to me from comments/reviews) and both use SS Rev woofers which I've liked in the designs I've heard that used them.

All these designs also come in kits with built crossovers, I'm not too opposed to building crossovers, but in some designs like ZD5, crossovers can be quite complex and require a lot of parts, and ordering can be a hassle, especially if not all parts available from one source, so here with prebuilt, simpler is better... Although 260$ for ZD5 crossovers is expensive, plus they'd require their own cabinets because they can't fit in the ZD5s...

[NPE]

The Finalists weren't meant to replace the Statements Monitors. Every monitor sized 3-way will have similarities because of the size and design. My goal for this project was to challenge my full sized Statement performance in a smaller package with a special focus on the mid range. The NE149 is amazingly smooth yet extremely detailed. It exceeded my expectations and I like it a lot.

However, unless there is a specific aspect of the Statements Monitors that you don't care for, I think they are an excellent sounding speaker that is hard to beat SQ wise. The one big advantage The Finalists offer is placement flexibility. To be clear, they lose the expansive sound stage of the open back mids when the mid is sealed and the speaker is positioned close to the wall.

I'm sure there'll be much more feedback on the Finalists after the Iowa DIY event and as people build them.

Jim

FWIW, The Finalists are much closer to the full sized Statements than the Monitors in performance with a nicer mid range. The Finalists are my reference music system now. That said, The Statements aren't going anywhere and sound great but I do have to acknowledge the smooth natural sound of the NE149 mid. It's just really good, IMHO. It has many of Revelator's best qualities but has it's own personality. Vocals are stunning with a you are there presence and detail. Curt really worked his magic on this design. :T

Todd Premo posted his thoughts on a listening session we had a while back over in the The Finalists thread in the PE Project Gallery with his latest Revelator design and The Finalists. He also has full sized Statements so he's very familiar with both.

Jim

(https://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...0&page=2&pp=35) Thanks Jim, sounds good! :P

To answer previous comment "unless there is a specific aspect of the Statements Monitors that you don't care for", I wouldn't say it's really the case... Always hard to describe sound, but let me try... I guess the Monitor Statements would fit in the 'colored' category, some speakers seem to aim to have a 100% flat FR and not 'add' anything to a recording, the Monitors will sound quite a bit different to such a speaker I think...

[[[***But yeah, I guess the Statements I've been describing; 'colored', 'adding to the recording', isn't the "Official" Statements, or Statements as intended/designed... In my 'incorrect' configuration, without or with less foam in tunnels, they add a lot more rear wave which seems to 'artificially' increase the soundstage & skew the high/mid/bass balance. Something that shouldn't happen with correctly configured/placed Statements.***]]]

For example, I've compared yesterday (just 1 speaker switch) to Ascend Sierra-1 with NrT tweeter. It's a smaller 1000$ish 2 way with 5.25 or 5.5 inch woofer it is and a soft dome NrT tweeter & bamboo cabinet. Goes down to 40ish hz. Soundwise, it's pretty good! Fairly neutral (maybe with hint of upper trebble/mid tilt), good imaging, soundstage, etc., a very proficient 1000$ ID speaker.

Switching from the SMs to Sierras, the sound becomes a lot 'smaller', the Monitors sound just huge with a huge soundstage, imaging is great, detail, etc.. But, you can hear that the Sierras are more 'neutral'. It's almost like the Monitors are cheating with the open back & bass extension and just makes the music sound great/huge. It can definitely sound... Hmmm... Bland, unimpressive, boring, etc., going to the Sierras, but as I said, the Sierras might be more 'honest' there... They add less than the Monitors to the music...

Maybe it's like solid state vs tube... Solid state might seem to be more 'boring', but vs a tube which adds distortion and colors the sound with warmth & sparkle for instance, the SS might seem to sound worst yet be more accurate... (I'm on SS btw) It can show if for instance I use tube amplifier emulation and simulate 'tube' sound... If I do on Sierras, it'll add some bass, maybe some 'depth', it'll sound a bit more like the Statement Monitors, but if I do on the Statement Monitors, it becomes 'too much'. (maybe it's like saturation. Sierra = original image, Statement Monitors = added bit of saturation. Then if we add saturation, Sierra looks more like SM, but if we add saturation to SM, then it becomes over-saturated!)

But yeah, to go back to the Monitors, huge soundstage, but the mids seem a bit recessed vs bass & highs. *** Actually, that might have a lot more to do with my particular setup (room & placement), or maybe even my specific Monitor build (someone had mentioned the trim of mid/bass drivers, and I'm planning to add some trim to the mid front baffle, because looking from the rear although I did trim it some, could probably use more trimming, so maybe that affects the balance?). ***

But yeah, it's really not a lot, and not evident on all music, but going from one speaker to the other, or on certain tracks, bit of recessed mids can definitely be noticeable. (maybe has to do more with open mid rear tunnel???) But anyway, I'm not saying this as a bash, quite the contrary, on orchestral material it just sounds phenomenal, on pretty much everything it does sound fantastic, and in all honesty often surprised how good it sounds... But it definitely seems to plays music its own (gorgeous) way.

In this sense, I think a ZRT or a ZD5 might have a more similar sound or approach to the Sierras. Which isn't really better/worst, just a different design/approach. Of course like I said in another thread, I think the Monitors are just better pretty much in every way vs Sierras... which is weird because thinking about it, if it's soundstage is more 'realistic?' or hmmm... less 'huge', you do get a maybe not more accurate but maybe more faithful reproduction of the recording, and so it should be 'better', if it's more neutral and have a flatter FR, but I don't know even with that, or with detail, I can't help but give preference to the Statement Monitors... It's like a flaw that should sound worst but doesn't? (like adding a hint of bass & treble can sound better than 100% flat?)

Woa... I type too much... So yeah, I guess The Finalists, ZRT or ZD5 might be a step sideways, but that wouldn't matter? Unless I can find a more expensive design I should choose over them, just getting a very good sounding but differently sounding speaker wouldn't be such a bad thing per se. Guess I don't have any real complaint vs the Monitor Statements, maybe it's like wine, food, women, or anything else, you can find something which is absolutely great, yet sometimes different flavors can't hurt?

Haha, in truth, I'm not even really interested in upgrading speakers, I guess it's really more about working on another DIY project, maybe it's why I'm looking at other 1k designs, maybe it's not about finding something better but experiencing different designs?

[edit]Oh, and to emphasize what I said earlier... I said it might have been placement/build/room, for recessed mids... I've not really felt like moving them around to try to experiment if bringing them back closer to rear wall would change the balance, because imho, sounds great as is, not sure I'd even want to change them, I know for instance the trim of the inside front baffle of mid driver shouldn't hurt, but sounds great now so I've just not really had the motivation so far... lol

[oneplustwo]

Have you thought about the ZDT3.5? Similar size to the ZRT less expensive drivers, but utilizes a dome mid-range which fits your "interesting" criteria. To me, the build is also about 2/3 (if not more) of the fun and value is also a big deal for me which is why the ZDT appealed to me more so than the ZRT. Another thought is to try an open baffle design. Most are large though. However, the winner of the latest Zaph content has a pretty small footprint relatively speaking. That might be worth looking into.

Just some ideas to kick around...

[technodanvan]

I think a lot of us are new enough to really 'listening' to music on high quality speakers that simply listening to it on 'different' high quality speakers helps us decide what we like and what we don't like. This is particularly important if we all ever want to be able to voice our own designs as well as some of the other fine gentlemen here!

I also like trying very different designs. I absolutely think that both the Statement monitors and Finalists are worth trying side by side if you have the money and know what to do with them both afterwards. However, you could also try out a small high-end 2-way monitor, or even a full-range design. Heck, you could even just do a (relatively) inexpensive project just to see how far $100-150 can take you!

You could also use this as an opportunity to add a system in another room. My current projects include a 5.1 system for a desktop computer and a pair of full-range speakers with matching amp and preamp for my fiancee.

Then there's the shop speakers and a whole 7+ channel theater setup on the backburner...

You know, you could just build the full-size Statements and a center channel too.

Point is, right now I'm tending to build stuff because I have decided that I have an application that is currently lacking or is otherwise open. I have other stuff I want to do just to see what it sounds like. I don't think either of those reasons are bad since this appears to be my "go-to" hobby of sorts.

[PMazz]

I've been toying with the idea of building another center channel. Really for no other reason than to just build something again. Maybe something small for surrounds as well.

[Jim Holtz]

Hi NPE,

A couple thoughts about your post.

Accuracy is in the ear of the listener. Personally I've never heard a "small" image from a live performance. Even a single acoustic performer has the reflections from their voice and musical instrument that adds to your live listening experience. The description (often called boxiness) you've given of the Ascend you listened to is what we tried to avoid by opening up the mid tunnel for the open, accurate and realistic sound of a live performance.

The Monitors should not have recessed mids if they're assembled correctly (check the polarity on the mid drivers) and if they are set up as designed with 18" of clearance from the wall behind to the back of the speakers. The soundstage should begin at the back of the speakers and be layered, assuming its recorded that way, as deep as the original performance. You can also alter imaging with the amount and positioning of the foam in the mid tunnels. If you get noticeably recessed sound, #1 thing to do is check polarity on all the drivers but particularly on the mid and ribbon.

HTH

Jim

[Jonasz]

Nope, the Statements are a closed design.

I thought they were open back? :B Sorry couldn't resist! 8)

The Finalists must be one of the highest bang for the buck designs out there at the moment. If splashing most of the cash on one driver, it's got to be the mid, you and Curt made the right priorities here IMHO.

I've heard the Vifas bigger brother NE225 in the Vapor Audio Aurora design and if the 4" is anything like the eight its a really nice driver. I wonder how a high-end version of the Finalists with the NE225 and lets say an OW1 would sound? Hint hint... :T

[Jonasz]

My next/current project is a biiig three-(four with subs)way with fully active crossover. Parallell to that I'm working on an interesting design with a tapped horn 50-150Hz, an open backed mid (Seas W22) 150-1kHz and an RS28F in a waveguide from 1kHz and up. Never seen this combination before so it's going to be an interesting journey. :P

[Silver1omo]

I'm in the middle of a Statement center build and have the parts for a pair of Lou's Piccolata. It will be a challenge since I just moved to an apartment...

[Jim Holtz]

I've heard the Vifas bigger brother NE225 in the Vapor Audio Aurora design and if the 4" is anything like the eight its a really nice driver. I wonder how a high-end version of the Finalists with the NE225 and lets say an OW1 would sound? Hint hint... :T

Thanks Jonasz. High performance with high value was another one of my priorities in the design. The NE149 is a 5 1/2" driver rather than a 4" though. I also wanted to use a section of 6" PVC for the mid tunnel to see how it worked with the open back design. Curt loved it.

I have a project that has 1/2 the MDF cut for it and all the drivers except for a mid that I've been piddling with for over three years. It uses a SB Acoustics 10" woofer in a T/L cabinet with a separate mid/tweeter enclosure. The reason it's not done yet is because the bass bin has to be quite large and I really don't have a place for it. This driver has a paper cone with 11mm of xmax and superb build quality. It'll be a killer bottom end for a 3-way if I can find a place for them.

Some day.... 8O

Jim

[john trials]

I've read excellent things about Revelators, so if I build another set of speakers, I would have to go with Revelators. Unfortunately, I have no money or need for new speakers right now, unless I can unload some of the ones that are currently collecting dust.

Love them Spassvogels!!! https://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...1&page=1&pp=35

[cjd]

Well... one design in the works and shared (nebbiolo) and parts for three more ...

I guess the question is different for those of us that aren't building others'designs much.

Like, what is Jim's next?

C

[NPE]

oneplustwo: Nice builds! ZDT3.5, hmmm... I hadn't, yep... Could be interesting! How do you like yours in the end? Do you think it would be 'better' than the ZRT or ZD5? I don't play exceedingly loud, I somewhat 'guessed' both ZRT/ZD5 might have better mids/highs/imaging/etc.,... Hmmm... Dedicated mid though...

technodanvan: Yeah, I built a 230$ Madisound RB3 I think it was, it was not bad, if a little bass heavy, but definitely decent for the money! Also Fostex fullranges in TL enclosure, thing is, going sideways is one thing, going down is another...

Accuracy is in the ear of the listener. Personally I've never heard a "small" image from a live performance. Even a single acoustic performer has the reflections from their voice and musical instrument that adds to your live listening experience. The description (often called boxiness) you've given of the Ascend you listened to is what we tried to avoid by opening up the mid tunnel for the open, accurate and realistic sound of a live performance.

Agreed! I just think you can't match the soundstage with traditional front firing speakers... I wouldn't exactly describe the Sierras as sounding boxy, I guess it's just the regular soundstage type of box speakers, well ok maybe they all sound boxy then...


[[[***But yeah, I guess the Statements I've been describing; 'colored', 'adding to the recording', isn't the "Official" Statements, or Statements as intended/designed... In my 'incorrect' configuration, without or with less foam in tunnels, they add a lot more rear wave which seems to 'artificially' increase the soundstage & skew the high/mid/bass balance. Something that shouldn't happen with correctly configured/placed Statements.***]]]

If we were to take measurements of the output of say a Statement Monitor with a 2nd speaker with same drivers but without the rear tunnel, and then compared both their outputs at the listening position to the source material, wouldn't the one without the tunnel be closer to the source because it wouldn't get that delayed rear mid output? That's sort of what I meant, maybe we perceive it as a big soundstage, and maybe it does indeed sound less boxy, but that rear wave isn't on the recording... It's created by the speaker.

In theory, in an anechoic room, let's say you could get a perfect sound reproduction; could play a song on the speakers and then with a perfect mic record exactly the music, which would be exactly the same as the original record. If we put these speakers in a room, it would be less perfect because of all the reflections. It would create reverb, delays, echos & all that stuff, and would 'add' to the recording. But if the speaker were also rear firing, it would add even more reflections and so the sound becomes more dissimilar to the source. So sure, rear firing can give a better soundstage and sound less boxy, and in doing so more like real music, but, that's somewhat what I meant by 'cheating', speakers/room adding to the recording. Arguably, all speakers and all rooms do, so yeah, maybe the point is moot, but anyhow, cheating probably wasn't the correct term lol

I guess what I was trying to say, was that even if we had perfect front firing speakers, they would never match a speaker like the Statements in soundstage, because they'd just be front firing music exactly as on the recording. Whereas the Statements would also play it from the rear which adds to the soundstage... Cheating! (though yeah ok, real instruments would also 'throw' some sounds backwards, but in theory speakers play a recording and not 'instruments'...)

The Monitors should not have recessed mids if they're assembled correctly (check the polarity on the mid drivers) and if they are set up as designed with 18" of clearance from the wall behind to the back of the speakers.

Hmm... Well like I said could very well be the room, I know the room bumps up the low frequencies some (80hz?), maybe it reacts differently around 30/35 hz too, no other speakers I've had played that low. Maybe it's placement too... Anyhow, I'll double check the wiring but I somewhat doubt it, I think it wouldn't sound anywhere as good if they were, there would be big suckouts I think around the crossover points, and I think it would just sound odd... I'll double check eventually to be sure!

The soundstage should begin at the back of the speakers and be layered, assuming its recorded that way, as deep as the original performance.

But really the differences aren't too huge, the Sierras are a bit forward sounding speakers so the soundstage is about between/ever so slightly in front of the speakers. As you mentioned, the Monitor's soundstage starts behind the speakers, so right there it's a bit more 'recessed'... Maybe I worded/described it incorrectly, as I said, I have a hard time... sorry lol Also, they're slightly toed in, straight ahead I think would reduce a bit the high end... Also yeah, I'm using them with rear tunnels without foam, adding some foam on the bottom of the tunnel seems to strangely move the soundstage a bit forward... With foam as intended it might again change the balance. I'd have to reread what I wrote, but they definitely don't sound bright/fatiguing at all, like I said, I don't think it's something wrong with the setup/build, and I'm really not criticizing (sorry if it appears to be the case?? 8O ) because I absolutely love how they sound now! 8) I guess maybe I'm overemphasizing some things... Definitely a big thanks for your help! Ok enough typing for now, more listening!

"Spassvogel" 8O Not tackling that build yet!

[oneplustwo]

I've been really happy with my ZDT's. Mostly, because I'm a fan of the mid-range dome. It also goes plenty deep enough for me with the ported RS180's. They've been my primary speakers since I built them except for a swap out with my sunflowers for a little while after I first finished them.

The ZD5 won't go as deep, as you would expect given it's a smaller two-way (especially if built sealed). But it will go lower than you might expect from that size woofer.

Dollar for dollar, I think it would be really hard to beat the ZDT. That value benefit plus the "unique" mid-range dome factor could put it near the top of your list to consider.

[AdelaaR]

... but that rear wave isn't on the recording... It's created by the speaker.
In theory, in an anechoic room, let's say you could get a perfect sound reproduction; could play a song on the speakers and then with a perfect mic record exactly the music, which would be exactly the same as the original record.

I'm afraid it isn't that simple.
This'll be long but please bear with me

The thing is that the "original record" can not and probably never will capture the complete sound image of the original live peformance ... in the case of a live performance at least.
Why?
Simple: because live performances aren't captured by microphones in the same way as your ears would have captured them.
Live performances are played in a room and that room will have a certain effect on the sound ... which will be compensated and ammeliorated by the sound technicians in place to sound just right in that specific place and time.
Those guys will downmix the signal to something that they think is what it should sound like on the record.
The way the process works ... all actual directivity of the original sound and the reverb of the original room with it's specific directivities will have already been lost on the "original record".
The only way to truly capture it the way it should be captured ... is by placing special "directivity sensitive" stereo microphones in the preferred listening position at the event itself and then afterwards recreate that exact same soundfield with the exact same directivity in your living room ... possibly with an incredible amount of discrete channels and the same incredible amount of drivers all over the walls of your room.
This is possible in theory ... but not feasible on current systems.

In other words: stereo or current surround speakers playing "original recordings" of live events will always lack directivity information and thus soundstage ... simply by the way the recording and reproducing process takes place.

Is it, in that case, so wrong to "add" a bit of reverb and directivity to the reproduction process to try and emulate that big soundstage that us humans like?
Personally, I don't think so ... as long as it's done right.
You'll never get "the original sound of the actual event" anyway with current recording techniques ... not with any amp or any speaker ... so why not make it sound the way you like it best?

I've got a set of full Statements with center channel and quite a lot of diffusing panels and 4 surrounds to even add more directivity ... I'm sure that the artists themselves would agree that music was meant to sound like it does in my studio's sweet spot
Music is about live performances and stereo signals are just that ... a (lacking) "medium" to transport a musical experience.

Bottom line: listen to what you feel sounds the way you like it

On topic: I'm not planning on building any new speakers any time soon.
The plan is to properly finish my Statements and my studio this winter and to build my kitchen next summer.
Building a kitchen is, in a way, similar to building speakers

[Jim Holtz]

That was an excellent description. However. I would add that there are many directional "clues" picked up during the recording process that are in the music if the speakers can reproduce them. They add to the realism.

NPE, your comments were not taken as bashing etc. It just gave me more information so I could respond appropriately. A couple other points brought up. It sounds as if you're listening to the Monitors in a different state than how they were developed. All foam should be placed according to plan and they should not be toed in. They also require 18" of back and 18" or more side clearance without large objects between the speakers to block the back wave.

The discussion regarding flat response, inaccurate reproduction or adding a false sound stage tells me you don't understand the process used during crossover development. No offense intended. accomplished designers, like those that frequent this board, measure, measure and measure some more during the development process. That's why the designs are developed in a specific size cabinet with specific placement and specific stuffing indicated. It's also the basis of the recommendations every designer publishes with their designs.

Once the sound and measurements are close, the voicing process starts which weights the actual sound they hear vs. the measurements. Here's the big reason 2 designers using the same drivers end up with different sounding speakers. Everyone hears music different and it comes down to what type of sound the designer likes in the final product.

Anyway, the final speaker, whether conventional design, di-pole, open back mids is still designed to have the music blend together at the listener position. I've attached a frequency response graph that Todd Premo measured in his listening room with the Finalists positioned 18" from the back wall at his house. You'll note that they are pretty darn flat with a rise at the top end. They were tweaked to my taste and my ears are almost 65 years old so I like a bit more sparkle on the top end. 8O

Anyway, I'd suggest you finish building the Monitors as designed, place them properly and then see what you hear.

Good luck!

Jim

[JonMarsh]

My next/current project is a biiig three-(four with subs)way with fully active crossover. Parallell to that I'm working on an interesting design with a tapped horn 50-150Hz, an open backed mid (Seas W22) 150-1kHz and an RS28F in a waveguide from 1kHz and up. Never seen this combination before so it's going to be an interesting journey. :P

Taking the road less traveled! Will be interesting to see how that turns out for you!

[JonMarsh]

Next Project with a little recycling!

After taking apart the Modula Xtremes I've got a couple of 1 cu ft piano black PE sub cabinets left over that we're bing used like stands.



It strikes me that's the perfect start for a couple do small subs, either with the PE RS265HO or the HiVi SP-10, which apparently is the driver used in the Carver Sunfire sub.



Combine it with a Hypex DS series plate amp, with adjustable LF EQ and a very nice overall feature set, I think we’ll be in business for replacing GF's Sony sub. (Don't ask, don't tell, but she only paid $15 for it second hand... :W )

[cjd]

Why?
Simple: because live performances aren't captured by microphones in the same way as your ears would have captured them.

You might want to check binaural recordings.

MSO has a couple and they're kinda eerie (I was also at the live performances they happen to offer this way)

[sfdoddsy]

I'm planning on building the new Linkwitz LX521, but prior to that I may do something with some of the drivers I have hanging around.

I've got four Seas W22, four BG Neo10s, a pair of Neo3s and some AE IB12s.

I'm just playing with (open) baffle ideas.

[Bill Schneider]

I'm planning on building the new Linkwitz LX521...

Me too. I've begun.

Like a jack rabbit, I'm fast out of the gate, but I'll likely disappear from the shop for a while due to circumstances (cold weather, job).

[talladega]

Me too. I've begun.

Like a jack rabbit, I'm fast out of the gate, but I'll likely disappear from the shop for a while due to circumstances (cold weather, job).

What is that setup you got there?

[Bill Schneider]

It's a jig for my biscuit cutter. I can't hand hold those things with any precision, so this is a useful accessory for me.

For joining faces to edges (butt joints), one could use the surface of a table saw and its fence. Butt the work against the fence, and then just rest the cutter on the flat surface, press, and cut into the work.

Things get a little more complicated with real wood (not MDF) that is slightly bowed or warped. The jig has a means of convincing the warped boards to lie flat while being cut. (Not shown in the picture below. The following picture shows a "younger" jig.)

It also aligns biscuit slots in miter joint edges (for ~3/4" stock), which is nice. The 3/8" x 3/8" slot in front of the fence registers a mitered face to the cutter at the correct angle.

Here's a picture of a slot being cut into a mitered edge when the jig was in a simpler form..



I keep adding features to it as I run up against new challenges.

[AdelaaR]

You might want to check binaural recordings.

I know about these and they've been around for longer than I live and then some, but I haven't heard of any that capture the actual directivity of each frequency in the way it reaches the "ears".

[NPE]

I know about these and they've been around for longer than I live and then some, but I haven't heard of any that capture the actual directivity of each frequency in the way it reaches the "ears".

??? Binaural recording is basically mics placed inside fake ears, so that the recorded sound is actually altered by the ears the same way as if someone directly heard it. In other words, the sound is captured in a way which exactly "captures the directivity of each frequency in the way it reaches the "ears"" (basically what the fake ears are for)! That's why you can for instance hear an object flying around your head! Note: These only work with headphones, not really for speakers...

The thing is that the "original record" can not and probably never will capture the complete sound image of the original live peformance ... in the case of a live performance at least.
Why?
[SNIP]
In other words: stereo or current surround speakers playing "original recordings" of live events will always lack directivity information and thus soundstage ... simply by the way the recording and reproducing process takes place.

Not exactly true... Ok well it depends on the exact recording I guess, and what you mean exactly by lacking soundstage... There are many recording/engineering process which can place objects within a 3D space, obviously left to right but also front to back, check out QSound for instance. Pretty much all good recordings will be able to provide spatial Q's which will spatially locate sounds (depth, front rear, etc.). Pretty much all the engineering is done using the common front firing studio monitor or speaker. If you want to reproduce the intended sound of the record, hear what the engineer wanted you to hear, that's the way to play back the source. 2 speakers, front firing... If you add a 2nd pair of speakers to fire off the rear, or the sides, or whatever, then IMHO you're not being 'true' to the sound reproduction... For such setups to work, you'd have to have the info for the extra speakers, like 5.1 or whatnot.

Is it, in that case, so wrong to "add" a bit of reverb and directivity to the reproduction process to try and emulate that big soundstage that us humans like? Personally, I don't think so ... as long as it's done right. You'll never get "the original sound of the actual event" anyway with current recording techniques ... not with any amp or any speaker ... so why not make it sound the way you like it best?

Hehe well that's exactly what I've been saying, speakers adding! But to go back to what I said:

In theory, in an anechoic room, let's say you could get a perfect sound reproduction; could play a song on the speakers and then with a perfect mic record exactly the music, which would be exactly the same as the original record.

All you can hope to do is perfectly translate a source signal to soundwaves. If you can have a perfectly good stereo system, the most it'll be able to achieve is reproduce the recording to perfection. The 'live performance' is forever lost, all the info we have about it is the recording. So you'd never be able to go from a recording to the live performance... The best you can hope to achieve is reproduce the source material with high fidelity. In this sense, yes, it is wrong to add bass, reverb, distortion, etc... For the listener though, if adding such things make it seem more life like or more enjoyable, then it is a different matter and then it might not be so wrong, quite the contrary!

lol anyway, to go back to the Statements

NPE, your comments were not taken as bashing etc. It just gave me more information so I could respond appropriately. A couple other points brought up. It sounds as if you're listening to the Monitors in a different state than how they were developed. All foam should be placed according to plan and they should not be toed in. They also require 18" of back and 18" or more side clearance without large objects between the speakers to block the back wave.

Phew! Yep, some old posts on the subject from another thread:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthr...2&page=1&pp=35 foam discussion at #30 about

I've been using 0 foam because I didn't have any on hand and it was something that can be added at any time, and found some 1.5 inch foam which fit exactly the tunnel, but they're much too big even using two for the left and right side, I don't know... Seems to do much more harm than good. Even one foam placed on the bottom of the tunnel (which I've not tested extensively) didn't seem to improve at all, even maybe sound a little worst... My room has quite a bit of panels and even a cheap 'futon' made of foam which I've put on the back wall for absorption, and no foam in Monitor tunnels seems to work fantastic! But since these were voiced with the foam and tunnel, I'm wondering if I'm missing something? What would be the negatives of using no foam? And benefits of using foam?
...
So that said, I think the tunnel's foam might be dependent by the room and placement too... And as mentioned by AdelaaR, room treatment also probably affects it... With 2 foams per tunnel, it really reduced the large/deep soundstage... I actually pretty much love it with 0 foam, such a 'big' sound, as I was saying in the reference thread, maybe it's a bit excessive vs regular speakers, but I just love it and think it might have ruined me some But what I was wondering, maybe the wrong sized foam (1.5 inch), even with just 1 on the bottom, maybe was just plain worst than what I think is the recommended 1 inch all of the sides... Anyhow, don't think I'll go look for foam which is quite expensive, and will probably just leave it as is... IMHO, if one 1.5 inch seems detrimental, so would 4x1 inch foam as with the extra volume, probably even worst...

I took out the foam yesterday evening and did some listening. I specifically listened in stereo only using only the full Statements. At first impression there is indeed a more spacious feeling ... the sound seems to become even more "3D",which makes sense. There's a noticable augmentation of the midrange although it doesn't seem (much) louder ... just more expressed and more complex. It's amazing how just 2 of these speakers, with just stereo music, can sound like they're full surround material. The diffusers help a lot in this regard, too. My first feeling is that I like it, but in things as subjective as music, it'll take me at least a few days of listening with and without foam to come to a conclusion. I'll leave the foam out for a few weeks to get used to the sound without and then I'll add it again to see how I feel about it then.

So what is your verdict for the tunnels? I can't seem to settle on one... It seems to depends on what the listening material is, and also whether or not my projector screen is up and down... Though projector screen, maybe it's all in my mind and doesn't make much of a difference... When it's up (not there) there's some panels behind, but when it's down, maybe it reflects more? I think generally though I have the tunnels with no foam which compensates for absorbent treatment on rear wall. Last week I think it was I thought I had finally found something the Statements Monitors weren't great for; acoustic guitar... Sounded a bit weird, like the guitar was really big and I don't know why exactly just didn't sound as good as I thought it should... But then I hit the 'next' button and everything just snapped 'back' together and it sounded fantastic, as did pretty much every other track on the album... It was just that one song recording that was off, probably from the mic techniques used or mixing (using more the mic from the guitar instead of outside mics??). So again the Monitors are just fantastic for everything I throw at them...

I still have the tunnels free of foam at this time and I'm getting very used to the sound and I like it very much. I should put the foam back in one of these to compare. A screen does make a difference ... and my screen is a 9mm MDF screen that takes up nearly all the space between the Statements, so it matters quite a lot for the bacl reflections in the middle. For music I always pull my screen up.

...

So after two months of listening and getting used to my Statements without foam in the tunnels ... today I finally came around to replacing the foam.

My first impression was: "WOW!".
It just sounds more "neutral" and "real" suddenly.
The midrange is less expressed, which allows me to slightly turn up the volume just a bit more ... which results in better bass and high range.
Without foam it sounded great but maybe a bit too great ... too echo-ey and reverberated.
If I want delays and reverbs I can add 'em with digital effects, but speakers should be neutral.
My final verdict is that I definately prefer the "clean" sound of the Statements with foam in the tunnels.
I used specific foam that is 2 cm thick called "Bondum 800" and lined the tunnels to about 5 cm from the drivers.

I'm listening to some "Graceland" right now and I'm really liking it

That's weird, I've just had the exact opposite experience. Listening to Steve Vai's G9 For the love of God, with no faom in mid tunnel, maybe because there is more of the backwave if you can call it that, the guitar seems farther back in the mix. Probably because the backwave bouncing back on the rear wall creates a 2nd 'sound' which the brains interpret as being farther back and so moves the mid a bit backwards... And adding the foam (1.5 inch on bottom of tunnel) actually brought the mids a bit forward. My impression also was that the mids became more neutral (more forward compared to laid back mids with no foam) and overall sound seemed to become 'tighter'. Definitely more lively.

I wouldn't call it echoey and reverberated but definitely more laid back and further back in the mix compared to treble & bass. But it definitely adds a ton of soundstage depth. The soundstage really becomes huge, and for a lot of music/albums, that's a big plus! Classical/orchestral for instance it's really cool

I honestly can't make up my mind which is better. It really depends on the track/music/mix. And also it must depend on your particular setup. As I've said, I've got a lot of absorbing material in the rear and the Statements are a bit more than 3 feet from the rear wall. If I moved them back a foot or two I'm sure it would change the equation of the foam, same for room treatment on the rear wall...

So I think I'll just keep those two removable foam pieces and move/remove at will, best of both words! But IMHO definitely worth experimenting with the foam!

Phew! That's a lot of quoting... One last

The discussion regarding flat response, inaccurate reproduction or adding a false sound stage tells me you don't understand the process used during crossover development. No offense intended. accomplished designers, like those that frequent this board, measure, measure and measure some more during the development process. That's why the designs are developed in a specific size cabinet with specific placement and specific stuffing indicated. It's also the basis of the recommendations every designer publishes with their designs.

Once the sound and measurements are close, the voicing process starts which weights the actual sound they hear vs. the measurements. Here's the big reason 2 designers using the same drivers end up with different sounding speakers. Everyone hears music different and it comes down to what type of sound the designer likes in the final product.

Anyway, the final speaker, whether conventional design, di-pole, open back mids is still designed to have the music blend together at the listener position. I've attached a frequency response graph that Todd Premo measured in his listening room with the Finalists positioned 18" from the back wall at his house. You'll note that they are pretty darn flat with a rise at the top end. They were tweaked to my taste and my ears are almost 65 years old so I like a bit more sparkle on the top end.

Anyway, I'd suggest you finish building the Monitors as designed, place them properly and then see what you hear. Good luck! Jim

Thanks!! :P FWIW, yesterday I experimented a bit more, with the projector screen down (which covers absorbing panels), using two about 1 inch foam strips I think it was placed vertically on both sides of the tunnels, the sound definitely becomes more neutral and it brings back in front the mids, which reduces the soundstage, but as I said makes everything more neutral. Is it better/worst? I'm really not quite sure. Neutrality is great, but huge soundstage is really cool too!

I guess yeah discussing 'modified' or not 'built to spec' Statements can be... Confusing or just plain misleading... Guess that's why I had underlined that my comments were basically meant just for my particular build/room/placement/etc... Hmmm... Yeah I guess I should go shop to find the right sized foam, then I guess test it extensively with no toe in, exactly as intended... Either way I decide then, if I choose to use them in an unorthodox fashion, I can put really big warning tags not to mislead anyone. :P

But yeah, I guess the Statements I've been describing; 'colored', 'adding to the recording', isn't the "Official" Statements, or Statements as intended/designed... In my 'incorrect' configuration, without or with less foam in tunnels, they add a lot more rear wave which seems to 'artificially' increase the soundstage & skew the high/mid/bass balance. Something that shouldn't happen with correctly configured/placed Statements. I'll add this as a warning to my earlier posts! :T I think that what's clearer now is that the Statements, when built/positioned correctly, shouldn't be sounding colored nor should they seem to 'artificially' add to the soundstage, as this is more of a result of my lack of tunnel foam, and not an attribute of the 'real' Statements. :P

I still like them with no foam for that crazy soundstage though 8O :B (such a huge soundstage is addictive!) But yeah even with 2 foams per tunnel, I could definitely hear a 'new' speaker... Guess I'll give them more time with 2 foams! (while I shop and find correctly sized foam...) But yeah with 2, definitely less colored & more 'sane' soundstage

I think even placement is critical...

They also require 18" of back and 18" or more side clearance without large objects between the speakers to block the back wave.

Is 18'' from the back wall the ideal distance to the back wall or just the minimum? There's more than 3 feet between mine and the back wall, and the back wall is heavily treated...

[Face]

You may have too much absorption on your rear wall for a dipole speaker, try removing some.

[Jim Holtz]

Is 18'' from the back wall the ideal distance to the back wall or just the minimum? There's more than 3 feet between mine and the back wall, and the back wall is heavily treated...

Face nailed it. Curt's listening room has very light wall treatment and my room has none. The bottom line is, the crossovers were developed in a "normal" live room which matches my home and the majority of others. Heavily treated walls will alter the sound significantly. If you like it, go for it, but they were not designed under those conditions.

I consider 18" - 36" optimal for clearance behind the speakers. Will they work closer? Sure, but the sound stage collapses as you move them closer to the rear wall. For example, the close wall version of the Monitors does not have as expansive of sound stage as the far wall version does.

Try a hobby store in the upholstery section for 1" foam or one of the online foam merchants. PE of course also carries it. It's not hard to find. FYI, the driver end of the foam must be tapered at 45 degrees or it'll impact the sound too.The W4-1337 is a small enough driver that it's easy to "cup" the sound if the back wave is not allowed to escape the driver frame.

BTW, all of the discussion you quoted were subjective attempts to maximize sound quality in specific rooms and tastes of the the listeners. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that but it must be remembered that the speaker wasn't designed that way.

Since I'm on my soapbox, every speaker I've collaborated with crossover designers on have all been created and designed to fit "my tastes and room". They were just for me. If they fit other folks tastes, excellent! We're glad to share our efforts. But, at the end of the day, it is what I like and want that is the driving factor behind my speaker builds. I also select crossover designers that voice to my liking. As I tell my wife, it really is all about me. Then I duck and run. :rofl:

HTH

Jim

[Jonasz]

Taking the road less traveled! Will be interesting to see how that turns out for you!

Thanks, it's getting boring to do the same kind of boxed two- and threeways, life is too short not to try something exciting and FUN! :B

Well the boxes are built for both systems, now it's "only" the rest left to do! :T

[Jonasz]

Jim, I think you and Curt should take a stab at a dipole system that wont break the bank, JohnK and SL needs some competition. With the MiniDSP the eq part is not a big (or at least not expensive) deal anymore. :P

[DeathMonk]

After taking apart the Modula Xtremes I've got a couple of 1 cu ft piano black PE sub cabinets left over that we're bing used like stands.



It strikes me that's the perfect start for a couple do small subs, either with the PE RS265HO or the HiVi SP-10, which apparently is the driver used in the Carver Sunfire sub.



Combine it with a Hypex DS series plate amp, with adjustable LF EQ and a very nice overall feature set, I think we’ll be in business for replacing GF's Sony sub. (Don't ask, don't tell, but she only paid $15 for it second hand... :W )

Have you considered the new Dayton UM10-22?

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=295-510

I was thinking about building one myself.. Looks like it has a lot of potential.

[AdelaaR]

??? Binaural recording is basically mics placed inside fake ears, so that the recorded sound is actually altered by the ears the same way as if someone directly heard it. In other words, the sound is captured in a way which exactly "captures the directivity of each frequency in the way it reaches the "ears"" (basically what the fake ears are for)! That's why you can for instance hear an object flying around your head! Note: These only work with headphones, not really for speakers...

There are all kinds of techniques used to make stereo recordings sound like true 3D sound fields. These techniques have been around for quit a while now, but they are still just techniques or "tricks" to make the mind believe that it hears a true 3D sound field when in fact there isn't any actual true directivity in the sound, but merely "clues" as Jim described them.
That is vastly different from what I proposed as "ideal" where one would actually record with a directivity sensitive microphone and actually record each frequency and where it comes from when reaching the "ears".
The thing is, that with "conventional" speakers the sound will mostly radiate from one point (the speaker) whereas with dipoles, especially when paired with diffusers on the first reflection points, the sound will have a broader diffusion pattern and will reach the listener from more angles, depending on the diffusers (or walls) for various frequencies.
This is one of the reasons why people like the sound of dipoles and ESL's so much.
In the end it all comes down to personal preference, because even the mastering engineer in his studio is nothing more than a human being with his own personal taste.
You quoted some comments about the foam in my mid tunnels and I have in fact tweaked it a bit more since then. I removed about 25% of the foam from the driver's side in each tunnel and now finally it sounds just great for my taste. This could have to do with the exact type of foam I used compared to the foam in Jim's original Statements. May be my foam absorbs slightly more and so I compensated that by having a little less?
Whatever the case is ... my jaw still drops every time I play "Your latest trick"

[JonMarsh]

Have you considered the new Dayton UM10-22?

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=295-510

I was thinking about building one myself.. Looks like it has a lot of potential.

No, I wasn't aware of that part- thanks for the heads up! specs look pretty good, and the price is nice, that's for sure!

[DS-21]

Just curious, if you were to build a new set, which would it be?

If I could deal with the width, I'd be doing an SEOS-12 waveguide based project.

It just seems a shame not to use such a great part when it's available at such a reasonable price.

For an inexpensive and reasonably compact one, the Daniel (two vertical Aura NS6's under the WG) is really interesting.

[Riley212]

why not Curt's Invictus speakers? less cost than ZRT not a whole lot more than ZD5. These are what im building next. Trying to improve upon my Troels Gravesen 3 way classics.

[Hdale85]

It strikes me that's the perfect start for a couple do small subs, either with the PE RS265HO or the HiVi SP-10, which apparently is the driver used in the Carver Sunfire sub.

\

Hmm that's interesting, those Sunfire subs were incredibly clean. Even at full load had a hard time hearing any mechanical noise at all and what not.

Of course the new Daytons do look interesting as well.

Edit: Wow those SP10's are pricey, and only 15.5mm xmax. Certainly makes the new Daytons look even better.