It's time for a Statement announcing my latest project..

[ahaik]

Wow thanks Jim for the speedy reply.

So no full statement center. Oh well.

How doable would it be to add one more RS180 to each side to give the speaker the length I'm looking for? I guess I could just build the cabinet long, and stick extra speakers in and not even hook them up, but I'd rather have them doing more than a little passive radiation...

Could two more RS180's be worked into that crossover somehow?

Like Jim IMO using the Statements for HT only is a complete waste, they are absolutely stunning for music. You might be better of using the RS towers and center.
Jim, I'm just wondering how bad would it be to put a statement horizontally as a center ?

[Jim Holtz]

Jim, I'm just wondering how bad would it be to put a statement horizontally as a center ?

Hi Asi,

I can't definitively answer that question, however Curt could. My first thought would be no, due to how the dispersion patterns of MTM's are. I'm guessing since I'm not a crossover designer but I would expect poor horizontal off axis dispersion with a Statement on it's side due to the controlled directivity of MTM designs.

Jim

[Hdale85]

And the W4's apparently have a bad horizontal off axis so yeah I'd say its a bad idea.

[Jim Holtz]

And the W4's apparently have a bad horizontal off axis so yeah I'd say its a bad idea.

Hi Doug,

Actually, the W4's have great off axis dispersion. The smaller the cone, the broader the dispersion and the higher they can go in frequency before they beam. My limited dispersion comment is based solely on the MTM configuration and the crossover required for MTM's which limits vertical dispersion when the speaker is oriented correctly but also limits horizontal dispersion when oriented on it's side.

Subjectively, the W4 is very close to mid domes for off axis dispersion.

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

How much midrange is handled by the woofers Vs the mids?

In an effort to not hi-jack Jed's thread anymore, I'll post here in the Statements thread.

A discussion developed regarding how much of the midrange and vocals in particular were being handled by the RS225's Vs. the W4's in the Statements.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=352638&postcount=110

The consensus was that the RS225's are handling the majority of the vocals so it would not be open back. Well, I only partially agreed because I know what RS225's/RS150's sound like in a conventional speaker.

Here's what I did to test. It is not scientific and purely subjective but easy enough to determine where the majority of vocals are coming from. I used Bonny Raitt, Natalie Cole, Buddy Guy and the singer with the deep voice in the Fairfield Four as a test. In all but the deep voice singer, there was easily 2-4 times the sound coming from the mids Vs the woofers. The deep voice singer had at least 2 times as much energy coming from the mids. In all cases the mids dominated the sound output.

Not scientific but a good enough test to verify my thoughts. I know what RS drivers sound like in the mids and the Statements do *NOT* sound like RS drivers. The W4's have greater clarity, detail and are more open sounding.

If anyone that has built the Statements wants to try this yourself, please post the results and see if it's the same as what I'm hearing.

Enjoy the music!

Jim

[KorbenDallas]

The Statements will do home theater extremely well but they are also superb on music. If you're doing pure home theater, there are other designs that will cost less and do home theater just as well. There are a couple under development and others here in the Mission Accomplished section that you might want to check out. You also might want to check out line arrays. They rock for home theater.

Jim

Jim you have my confused with this statement (pun intended). The Statements have a low cost build sheet, no need for bass bins, and are receiver friendly because their easy load. Any 3 way design that I've seen using the 8" dayton woofers have higher cost build sheets and run 3-4ohm loads. Other 2-way designs would require bass-bins (active crossover, external amps) to get the same bass reproduction as the Statements which drives the cost up significantly.

As far as home theater audio is concerned, with the older codecs I can definitely see where people couldn't justify the ROI. However the industry's move toward "Hi-Def" lossless soundtracks justify having higher end speakers for home theater now. The Pirates of the Caribbean PCM Blu-Ray soundtrack is a perfect example of orchestral instruments, like strings and cymbals, sounding like the original presentation. Again, the older codecs can not provide enough clarity to represent the master soundtrack accurately.

Perhaps you were being humble?

[ahaik]

In an effort to not hi-jack Jed's thread anymore, I'll post here in the Statements thread.

A discussion developed regarding how much of the midrange and vocals in particular were being handled by the RS225's Vs. the W4's in the Statements.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=352638&postcount=110

The consensus was that the RS225's are handling the majority of the vocals so it would not be open back. Well, I only partially agreed because I know what RS225's/RS150's sound like in a conventional speaker.

Here's what I did to test. It is not scientific and purely subjective but easy enough to determine where the majority of vocals are coming from. I used Bonny Raitt, Natalie Cole, Buddy Guy and the singer with the deep voice in the Fairfield Four as a test. In all but the deep voice singer, there was easily 2-4 times the sound coming from the mids Vs the woofers. The deep voice singer had at least 2 times as much energy coming from the mids. In all cases the mids dominated the sound output.

Not scientific but a good enough test to verify my thoughts. I know what RS drivers sound like in the mids and the Statements do *NOT* sound like RS drivers. The W4's have greater clarity, detail and are more open sounding.

If anyone that has built the Statements wants to try this yourself, please post the results and see if it's the same as what I'm hearing.

Enjoy the music!

Jim

Impressed by the SQ my brother and I have tried this many times and we have been hearing the same thing Jim has been hearing. Most vocals and midrange come out of the W4's no doubt. I did not try this with deep male vocals though.

[Jim Holtz]

Jim you have my confused with this statement (pun intended). The Statements have a low cost build sheet, no need for bass bins, and are receiver friendly because their easy load. Any 3 way design that I've seen using the 8" dayton woofers have higher cost build sheets and run 3-4ohm loads. Other 2-way designs would require bass-bins (active crossover, external amps) to get the same bass reproduction as the Statements which drives the cost up significantly.

As far as home theater audio is concerned, with the older codecs I can definitely see where people couldn't justify the ROI. However the industry's move toward "Hi-Def" lossless soundtracks justify having higher end speakers for home theater now. The Pirates of the Caribbean PCM Blu-Ray soundtrack is a perfect example of orchestral instruments, like strings and cymbals, sounding like the original presentation. Again, the older codecs can not provide enough clarity to represent the master soundtrack accurately.

Perhaps you were being humble?

Hi Korben,

My wife would certainly disagree with your humble comment. :rofl: Actually, the comments I made were based more on some of Jon and Thomas's thoughts regarding home theater. Their suggestions are MTM's with a sub or bass bin.

I have been cruising AVS and AV123 a bit more often recently and the typical "high end" home theater speakers seem to be from the AV123 line of speakers, Axiom or Klipsch. After looking at them, I considered them all to be a bit mid-fi for serious music reproduction. That comment probably sounds a bit condescending and I really don't mean it that way. Its just that the speaker designs and drivers aren't of the same caliber as DIY designs offered here and from many other sources.

I can say with out a doubt, the Statements do home theater extremely well. The coming center will add to the experience a lot since it carries the majority of sound in a home theater system, particularly if you are currently using a MTM center design. A sub(s) will be required to assist the bottom octave for explosions etc. There's no benefit for music, IMHO, but movies definitely benefit from the addition of a sub(s).

I've been a staunch supporter of a 5.1 system with well designed speakers and a good processor instead of the receiver of the month with more channels added. The variations on 5.1 struck me as a lot more marketing than substance. I've not heard the new HD DVD or Blueray systems and wasn't aware that the sound was better. What has been done to make it better? You refer to new codecs. What are codecs and how do they make the sound better than DTS or DD?

I think the build cost of the Statements is a bargain considering the sound quality, so I agree with you. Curt did a superb job of integrating the drivers and maintaining an easy load for most electronics.

Our comments about being overkill for the average home theater buff may no longer be valid with the new HD formats if they also include higher quality audio too. I wish the format war would end and the current crop of HD/BR-DVD players would mature a bit more. I just bought a new Oppo 980 which should allow me to wait the war out and still enjoy high quality video.

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

Impressed by the SQ my brother and I have tried this many times and we have been hearing the same thing Jim has been hearing. Most vocals and midrange come out of the W4's no doubt. I did not try this with deep male vocals though.

Thanks Asi. My ears aren't failing me. :T

Jim

[cjd]

So, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're hearing the most from the W4's when it comes to vocals. Because they cover (almost) the entire range that we use to actually *understand* speech. This is why high(er) frequency comb filtering introduced by a horizontal MTM can destroy our ability to understand speech.

The only way to actually identify what is NOT from the W4's is to pull the 225's out of the mix. Properly integrated (and I believe they are - Curt does excellent work) you should not be able to identify the transition. The ONLY way would be a tonal shift, such as might exist moving from monopole to dipole (or from driver to driver where their distortion characteristics are not well matched). And I think these are sufficiently mono-polar in their response that this is not at all evident to even a critical listen - the phase lag should be sufficient to make any output from the rear wave be processed as "ambiance" rather than primary tone.

C

[Curt C]

It is true that in the Statements design, the fundamental frequencies of the human voice are partially within the passband of the woofers. I would say that in most popular music the human voice frequency range of the would probably be between 100 and 700 Hz. (This covering the range of a baritone to a contralto.) Fortunately for us, the human voice is rich in harmonics, and most of these harmonics will be reproduced in the passband of the mids where our ears are most sensitive.

An interesting aside is the ability of the human brain to 'fill in' missing fundamental frequencies. This is also called virtual pitch. The currently accepted theory is that the brain processes the information imbedded into the harmonics and derives the missing fundamental. I notice this phenomena often in low bass reproduction, and may explain why some of us find they can 'live' without the lowest octave or so, while others require it.

C

[Dennis H]

I've not heard the new HD DVD or Blueray systems and wasn't aware that the sound was better. What has been done to make it better?

They have so much room to store the audio tracks that they can do up to 7.1 channels of uncompressed 192/24 although most disks have fewer channels and/or a lower sampling rate. Anyway, it's better than CD quality and way better than DD or DTS which are compressed like MP3. That said, the question is how good is good enough? I think the average listener would have a hard time telling the difference between a good DD track and one of the new hi-rez formats if they were mastered the same. Of course they usually aren't mastered the same so you will hear glowing reports of 'night and day' differences.

[Jim Holtz]

Thanks Dennis,

That explains it. It also means sound quality with a very high resolution system *should* be much better. I really enjoy surround on movies but I dislike multi-channel music. I'm 2-channel when it comes to music.

Now, if they'd only get the format war over. I have vowed to not jump in until they bury one of the HD formats.

Thanks!

Jim

[KorbenDallas]

What has been done to make it better? You refer to new codecs. What are codecs and how do they make the sound better than DTS or DD?

.
.
.

Our comments about being overkill for the average home theater buff may no longer be valid with the new HD formats if they also include higher quality audio too. I wish the format war would end and the current crop of HD/BR-DVD players would mature a bit more. I just bought a new Oppo 980 which should allow me to wait the war out and still enjoy high quality video.

Jim

Many Blu-Ray soundtracks feature lossless, or close to lossless, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 soundtracks. These soundtracks typically are 16-24bit ranging anywhere from 2Mb/sec to 6-7Mb/sec. Dolby Digital TrueHD is used with both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and is a lossless codec; "unzipped", TrueHD is bit for bit lossless. Bitrates are lower due to the "zipped" codec, around 2-4Mb/sec, but resolution is normally in the 16bit range if my memory serves correctly. There isn't much to talk about with DTS-MA (Master Audio) since there isn't a player on the market that can pass or decode it yet. On paper DTS-MA should bring to the table a lossless codec, but so far it has been an anomaly among the new audio formats.

The new "lossy" codecs are somewhat of a mixed bag. Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD compress the audio, so bitrates typically around the 1.5-3Mb/sec range. I'm not certain of the resolution, but I would guess it would be 8-12bit or so.

All of this is compared to the legacy DD / DTS codecs that are 1.5mb/sec at the most. Typically bitrates don't exceed 764Kb/sec (.764Mb/sec) for DTS , and 640Kb/sec (.640Mb/sec) for DD. I'd have to look up the resolution of these, but I'm going to guess that they are 8bit at the most.

[cjd]

An interesting aside is the ability of the human brain to 'fill in' missing fundamental frequencies. This is also called virtual pitch. The currently accepted theory is that the brain processes the information imbedded into the harmonics and derives the missing fundamental. I notice this phenomena often in low bass reproduction, and may explain why some of us find they can 'live' without the lowest octave or so, while others require it.

Heh. Always nice to hear someone agreeing with me. Reminds me I'm only mostly off my rocker. With this design you get almost 2 octaves of that 100-700Hz in the woofers, only the last octave in the mids (not counting crossover and whatnot). And again, fundamentals don't tend to contribute to the environmental cues - that's all high(er) frequency stuff.

I wonder if this is really acting as a dipole (radiation patterns included) or if it's just the added reflected high(er) frequency content causing a sense (false or not) of environment. I suspect the latter.

I read a study somewhere about virtual pitch and musicians - IIRC the result was that the more hard-core your music training, the less likely you were to "confuse" harmonics with fundamentals, and the more likely you are to notice those missing octaves. Which my own experience backs up.

C

[KorbenDallas]

Heh. Always nice to hear someone agreeing with me. Reminds me I'm only mostly off my rocker. With this design you get almost 2 octaves of that 100-700Hz in the woofers, only the last octave in the mids (not counting crossover and whatnot). And again, fundamentals don't tend to contribute to the environmental cues - that's all high(er) frequency stuff.

I wonder if this is really acting as a dipole (radiation patterns included) or if it's just the added reflected high(er) frequency content causing a sense (false or not) of environment. I suspect the latter.

I read a study somewhere about virtual pitch and musicians - IIRC the result was that the more hard-core your music training, the less likely you were to "confuse" harmonics with fundamentals, and the more likely you are to notice those missing octaves. Which my own experience backs up.

C

Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is this conversation's scope? Are you saying there is a deficiency in the midrange design that it's not handling a large enough frequency range? Or the woofer section handling too much? Looking over the frequency response charts, the woofer / midrange intersect around the 350Hz mark. The Statements have been reported to have a warm, but "seductive" sound. Since Curt says a human voice ranges from 100-700Hz, the lower end of that spectrum would be handled by the woofer section.

I'm trying to translate this so I can understand it, and I'm confused whether the topic is anecdotal, negative, or positive in nature.

[KorbenDallas]

That said, the question is how good is good enough? I think the average listener would have a hard time telling the difference between a good DD track and one of the new hi-rez formats if they were mastered the same. Of course they usually aren't mastered the same so you will hear glowing reports of 'night and day' differences.

This is debatable and has been one of those ongoing debates over on the AVS forum. A lot of the soundtracks are ported from the masters into the higher bitrate of the new audio formats; this is somewhat supported by the "insiders thread" on AVS.

Not trying to bring the debate into this thread, but I have heard the best DTS / DD soundtracks and the best Blu-Ray / HD-DVD soundtracks and there is an obvious difference even with my modest system. The topic is so subjective due to everyone's different interpretation of what they are hearing. But, on paper, the resolution and bitrates are approaching SACD / DVD-A quality which is the upper end of recorded audio until now.

[Jim Holtz]

Chris: With this design you get almost 2 octaves of that 100-700Hz in the woofers, only the last octave in the mids (not counting crossover and whatnot). And again, fundamentals don't tend to contribute to the environmental cues - that's all high(er) frequency stuff.

I wonder if this is really acting as a dipole (radiation patterns included) or if it's just the added reflected high(er) frequency content causing a sense (false or not) of environment. I suspect the latter.

Hi Chris,

This is where I'm taking issue with your comment. BTW, this is not a confrontational response, so please don't take it that way. I actually covered the woofers and them covered the mids while playing the vocals I listed in my original response. There is only very low vocal frequencies coming out of the woofers with the majority of the vocals coming out of the mids. Even the extremely deep voiced singer of the Fairfield Four had the majority of his vocals coming from the mids. The woofer crossover order is higher than the 2nd order mids if that has anything to do with it.

My simple tests simply disagrees with your assertion. Fortunately Asi has verified what I'm hearing.

EDIT: I thought I'd add that if I were looking at the crossover points as you are, I'd agree with your assessment but actually listening to the speakers and performing the simple test verifies that it isn't the way the speaker is working in the real world so to speak. I don'tt know why unless the crossover points are actually lower than indicated. The original target was 250 Hz. Maybe Curt can add his thoughts.

Jim

[Dennis H]

Yeah, there's no question that the new formats have the potential to be better. Nobody but the recording engineer knows for sure what is going on the disk, even starting with the same original. For example, compare the CD and SACD stereo tracks on DSOTM and they are completely different even though they are on the same disk and from the same original tapes.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

[cjd]

Korben: The discussion is relating entirely to the "open back" or "TL" midrange transition to the monopole (bandpass) woofers, relating somewhat to discussions about how low (and high) you need to cover dipole vs monopole when going that route. This isn't dipole, but it started in such a conversation.

Jim: I understand what you're saying, but disagree with the test methodology. Of course, without knowing for sure what frequency ranges are actually being covered by the example music, it's only harder to really draw any conclusions. Given a 350Hz crossover point and a 2nd order slope, an average baritone male speaking voice will be about 12dB down (160-180Hz I believe it is). Perhaps 1/3 of the contribution at this frequency might be from the mids.

I also absolutely believe that the ear identifies this sound coming from the mids. I have this on my towers as well with the violin, since I cross higher than most would have and well into the violin's range. It's the harmonics that make it seem this way. That's what we really hear.

It is also possible that the crossover points are not what we think, of course.

C

[KorbenDallas]

Yeah, there's no question that the new formats have the potential to be better. Nobody but the recording engineer knows for sure what is going on the disk, even starting with the same original. For example, compare the CD and SACD stereo tracks on DSOTM and they are completely different even though they are on the same disk and from the same original tapes.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

Absolutely, aside from the engineer telling us exactly what the specs are from the original audio as far as we know we are getting 24bit / 6Mb/sec when the original could have been 1.5Mb/sec at 8 bit resolution! I meant to add this to my previous post, but I forgot to mention it. Hopefully the studios won't fail us and continue feeding us the low quality audio that has plagued the movie soundtracks for years.

[Jim Holtz]

Chris: I understand what you're saying, but disagree with the test methodology. Of course, without knowing for sure what frequency ranges are actually being covered by the example music, it's only harder to really draw any conclusions. Given a 350Hz crossover point and a 2nd order slope, an average baritone male speaking voice will be about 12dB down (160-180Hz I believe it is). Perhaps 1/3 of the contribution at this frequency might be from the mids.

I also absolutely believe that the ear identifies this sound coming from the mids. I have this on my towers as well with the violin, since I cross higher than most would have and well into the violin's range. It's the harmonics that make it seem this way. That's what we really hear.

It is also possible that the crossover points are not what we think, of course.

Hi Chris,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I again disconnected one speaker and blocked the woofers with slabs of left over MDF and listened to the vocalists I'd previously mentioned. I switched blocking the woofers to blocking the mids back and forth several times to make sure. The results are the same.

I don't understand how blocking the drivers and listening is any different than disconnecting the drivers other than it's less work. The frequency ranges I'm listening to are male and female vocalists. From extremely low to high singing voices. The extremely low voice had the most vocals coming from the woofers but the highest vocals had almost none coming from the woofers. The mids are very predominate in all cases.

So, I'll take my hands on tests as good enough verification for me. Come to Iowa this fall with Ryan so you can hear the Statements and many other speakers. Unlike Chicago in 2005, Iowa will have a sizable number of speakers in each group to listen to. We're bench racing here but the DIY events are where the rubber meets the road and you have a chance to get feedback from your peers. :T

Jim

[Curt C]

Heh. Always nice to hear someone agreeing with me. Reminds me I'm only mostly off my rocker. With this design you get almost 2 octaves of that 100-700Hz in the woofers, only the last octave in the mids (not counting crossover and whatnot). And again, fundamentals don't tend to contribute to the environmental cues - that's all high(er) frequency stuff.

C

I believe I've agreed with you often over the years Chris. Perhaps that should concern you... :roll: I agree here as well: Its the harmonics in the vocals we use for localization, and the human voice is rich with them. When you consider the harmonics, the mids are likely carrying the bulk of the vocals, even though the fundamentals may not fall into their pass band.

I wonder if this is really acting as a dipole (radiation patterns included) or if it's just the added reflected high(er) frequency content causing a sense (false or not) of environment. I suspect the latter.

C

By definition, I don't think anyone can classify this as a dipole design. I may be guilty of describing it as exhibiting a dipole-like sound, but that's a nod to my aural perception compared to dipole designs, and not to its physical properties. I suspect the horizontal polar plot of the mids would closer resemble a cardioid pattern.

I read a study somewhere about virtual pitch and musicians - IIRC the result was that the more hard-core your music training, the less likely you were to "confuse" harmonics with fundamentals, and the more likely you are to notice those missing octaves. Which my own experience backs up.

C

By 'notice' do you mean mentally fill in the missing fundamentals? If so, I can see that would be a possibility: The musically trained mind may better recognize the missing fundamental, and mentally insert it, knowing it should be there. It's been demonstrated that not all hear the virtual pitch, but I've not seen any definitive studies on whether it can be an acquired trait, or an inherited one.

Curt

[Jim Holtz]

Curt: Its the harmonics in the vocals we use for localization, and the human voice is rich with them. When you consider the harmonics, the mids are likely carrying the bulk of the vocals, even though the fundamentals may not fall into their pass band.

Hi Curt,

Thanks for explaining why I'm hearing what I'm hearing. It makes sense.... :T

Jim

[Sefferdog]

Jim,

I put in your test DVD and was going to try some of the tests you mentioned and see what I thought regarding the mid to low separation, but the first song I played was This Side of Nothing and I decided the heck with it, I'll just enjoy the music!

I don't think it really matters to me where they crossover at, I don't care if it is considered a dipole or variant of that, or whatever - I just enjoy them immensely, no matter what you call them! :T

Still an enjoyable thread though!

Wade

[Sefferdog]

On a related note the UPS driver just dropped off three Fountek NeoCD3.0 tweeters! :P

[cjd]

Hi Curt,

Thanks for explaining why I'm hearing what I'm hearing. It makes sense.... :T

Jim

My thanks too, since that's what I've been trying to say for a while.

whee

C

[sprtfan]

Hi Vic,

It's been my pleasure to help you guys. I'm really looking forward to seeing pictures of the finished speakers. I'll bet they're beautiful! :T

How did the crossover assembly go? Speaking from experience, double check the assembly. I've screwed up assembling crossovers many times. Also, remember the mids are reverse polarity.

I'm glad you're enjoying the Natalie P's and I hope Ryan is also enjoying the RS 3-ways.


Jim

I forgot my camera so I do not have pictures yet. We learned a lot along the way and I think the next project will go smoother. I think the crossover assembly was the easiest part, that is if we did it right lol. We double and triple checked everything and the finished project sounds right. I would guess if we messed something up something would sound distorted.
Ryan was enjoying the RS 3-ways but Traviss is keeping the Statements at Ryans house at the moment so those are hooked up instead. The RS 3-way are wonderful speakers but Ryan is thinking of building the Statements or possiable the mini statements once they are done. Thanks again for all the help.

[cjd]

What RS 3-ways - the WWMT's?

[---k---]

I'm guessing it is the DM rs wwmt. It's just more proof that you need to do some naming!

[sprtfan]

What RS 3-ways - the WWMT's?

My friend got them from Jim. They are the Dayton RS TMWW Mains in a sealed box. They have a very nice oak veneer on them too, not that how they look helps to tell what design they are

[Jim Holtz]

My friend got them from Jim. They are the Dayton RS TMWW Mains in a sealed box. They have a very nice oak veneer on them too, not that how they look helps to tell what design they are

Hi Vic,

Excellent! I'm pleased to hear that the Statements are playing beautiful music. I think you guys did extremely well. This is a very ambitious project for the 1st DIY speaker build. Most folks start out with a small 2-way and work themselves up. :T

Great job! I'm looking forward to seeing pictures of them.

(CJD) Chris: The RS 3-ways are W/W/M/T's with the Dennis Murphy crossover that I had at last years Iowa DIY event. http://home.mchsi.com/~dpeterson/Iowadiy.html

Jim

[Hdale85]

Hey Jim, Since you have the RS-3 Ways how do they compare to the statements? I know they are very different designs. But which do you prefer for movies? I'm sure the statements are much better for music.

[Jim Holtz]

Hey Jim, Since you have the RS-3 Ways how do they compare to the statements? I know they are very different designs. But which do you prefer for movies? I'm sure the statements are much better for music.

Hi Dougie,

I never used the RS 3-ways for anything except background music while entertaining in my 2nd system. Of course, I did listen to them a few times in my main system but only to music.

Here's my take on your question. The RS 3-ways would be excellent for home theater but so would the Natalie P's with a sub. Jon's new 3 -way will also be great. IMHO, the Statements are a fair step up in sound quality for music and they do great for home theater.

I suggest that you decide exactly what you're really going to use the speakers for and then pick the speaker that fills your need. I'm told that the new HD formats have much improved sound quality so they'll require better speakers to really appreciate their ability. However, that may not be readily apparent unless you watch concert DVD's.

For the immediate future watching current standard definition movies on DVD and not spending a lot of time critically listening to music, I think the Natalie P's are a great place to start. They're an excellent speaker that sounds great. Combine them with a sub and Modula M/T's for surrounds. You'll have a great sounding home theater system that plays music well too.

It's all about establish your goals for the system and filling the need.

I hope that helps.

Jim

[Hdale85]

Well the Nat P's aren't "Enough" better then my RF-62's for me to upgrade to them. They have slightly more bottom end and a are more detailed but if I'm going to replace my Klipsch speakers its gotta be a good bit better. The cabinets are going to be built by a cabinet maker and crossovers are easy to assemble. So I'm not so much looking for something easy. I've been thinking about Jon's new 3ways in a tower design. See these speakers are used for about 80% music 20% movies. While music is more important to me I want movies to sound awesome as well. I really think I will love the Statements but I'm just wondering if they would perform as well in movies as something like Jon's 3ways. I'm sure both are excellent designs. I also like the Statements because of the ribbon tweets! Heard a ribbon type design recently and really loved it a lot. So I know the Statements would be very much better then my RF-62's and I'm sure Jon's new 3 way will be as well. Just have to decide what direction I want to go.

[Jim Holtz]

Doufie085: See these speakers are used for about 80% music 20% movies.

If you use them 80% for music, you'd better listen to the Statements. :T Yes, they do home theater extremely well. Here is what the Statements replaced Omegarrays

I don't feel I'm missing anything watching movies.

Jim

[Hdale85]

Jim, Do you have any idea what the sensitivity of the Statements and Mini Statements is?

[ahaik]

Jim, Do you have any idea what the sensitivity of the Statements and Mini Statements is?

For the Statements sensitivity Post No. 197

[Hdale85]

Ok I remember seeing that now my bad.

[Jed]

Is there an impedance curve posted somewhere in this thread, Jim claims it doesn't dip below 4 ohms?

Edit: Never mind I found it on Curt's page:

http://www.geocities.com/cc00541/statementresponsesplots.JPG

[Curt C]

Mini Statement Progress Update...

The Mini's were fired up this weekend with the first iteration of the crossover. I'm sure the question that everyone has about these is: How do they sound compared to their big brother?

Well I'm here to tell you they sound:

well, ........smaller. 8)

Like we used to say in my motorhead days; "There aint no replacement for displacement." The RS 180's with only 60% of the surface area, just don't have the room filling tactile presence exhibited by a quartet of RS225's.

That said, the MIni's do exhibit the same spacious sound, and do have good bass response down into the mid 30's, which should satisfy most musical genres. For those smaller venue's, these should be just the ticket.

Circuit highlights: Due to the TMWW configuration, these are 3.5 ways. Whenever possible, the crossover topology echo's that used on the Statements.

We should hopefully have the design finalized in a couple of weeks. I haven't started the center channel yet, so that will be a few more weeks out...

C

[ahaik]

Thanks for the update Curt :T . I (like many others I'm sure) am following closely.

[Sefferdog]

Yep, thank you. I am looking foward to building the Mini's. Got the rest of my order in tonight for the drivers, port tubes, etc. Just waiting for the crossover to be posted and away we go.... Sounds like these will complement the Statements as surrounds wonderfully.

Thank you so much for sharing this design! ;x( ;x(

[Curt C]

Method for midrange foam placement:

Working on the Mini Statements, I realized there is the possibility for choking off the midrange from the foam lining the mid enclosure being too close to the driver(s). This causes the midrange to sound strained, or stifled, but may not be obvious to those not familiar with how they should sound. Consequently, I've come up with a short procedure and recommendation for the foam installation.

Also of prime importance is that the rear of the mid cutout be scalloped. The combination of the small driver and thick baffle could easily cause cavity resonances and other issues if not scalloped.

The foam should be cut off at the midrange end at a roughly a 45 degree angle. The angle is not critical, and an electric knife makes cutting the foam a breeze. Otherwise a shape utility knife, (like those cheap plastic throw away ones) works well. Cut 2 pieces 5" wide x the inside length of the enclosure less 1 inch, and 2 pieces 3.5" x the length –1”. Use the wide ones for the top and bottom and then install the 3.5" ones in. Once installed, they will hold themselves in place.

To adjust them, start with the foam pulled all the way to the back. As you slide them forward the ambient sound will diminish/become more rolled off. Adjust to your taste and room requirements.

C

[ahaik]

Working on the Mini Statements, I realized there is the possibility for choking off the midrange from the foam lining the mid enclosure being too close to the driver(s). This causes the midrange to sound strained, or stifled, but may not be obvious to those not familiar with how they should sound. Consequently, I've come up with a short procedure and recommendation for the foam installation.

Also of prime importance is that the rear of the mid cutout be scalloped. The combination of the small driver and thick baffle could easily cause cavity resonances and other issues if not scalloped.

The foam should be cut off at the midrange end at a roughly a 45 degree angle. The angle is not critical, and an electric knife makes cutting the foam a breeze. Otherwise a shape utility knife, (like those cheap plastic throw away ones) works well. Cut 2 pieces 5" wide x the inside length of the enclosure less 1 inch, and 2 pieces 3.5" x the length –1”. Use the wide ones for the top and bottom and then install the 3.5" ones in. Once installed, they will hold themselves in place.

To adjust them, start with the foam pulled all the way to the back. As you slide them forward the ambient sound will diminish/become more rolled off. Adjust to your taste and room requirements.

C

Thanks you for the tip Curt,
I actually did both, the 45 deg and 1" push back.
I had trouble cutting the angle on the PartsExpress foam with the utility knife, so I used versitile scisoors I got at home depot a while back (for cutting carpet), worked better fom me.