Three different types of drivers is not that uncommon.
And when someone adds an external subwoofer to a planar speaker you often have three different types of drivers in total, no?
Speaker Challenge . . .
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Three different types of drivers is not that uncommon.
And when someone adds an external subwoofer to a planar speaker you often have three different types of drivers in total, no?
3 is the most logical for reasons I stated. But he named 4 at first. I think I explained well why the number 4 is better served as a sub swarm, since the benefits are at a diminishing returns where they're not necessarily appreciable with music otherwise.
Used Magaline III are one of the best buys in the used market in Europe. If it was not for my love to the Soundlab's I would have got a pair a few years ago - I even got an Audio Research EC22 crossover to use on them!
Curiously, as far as I remember Albert Porter never tried subwoofers on them. As the Megaline's bass towers are crossed at 1200 Hz I would expect that releasing them from the very low bass frequencies would improve significantly their sound quality.
two kinds of ribbons, woofer panels, and dynamic woofers are all quite different and presumably will create much more complex crossovers. I also imagine more room issues will need to be addressed with the various dispersion patterns. then on top of this you want it to be very tube friendly.
said another way, ML has had issues integrating just a panel and woofer. it's also not easy to blend Maggies and traditional subs and some say they need to be crossed under 30hz.
why go through the muck of this complexity and likely require even more power to drive - but I prescribe more to the theory about simple speakers with simple crossovers that require simple amps.
I hear ya!
This is a "food for thought" and brainstorming thread.
I think it is easier to integrate dynamic woofers with ribbons than it is to integrate dynamic woofers with electrostatic panels.
This is a "food for thought" and brainstorming thread.
I think it is easier to integrate dynamic woofers with ribbons than it is to integrate dynamic woofers with electrostatic panels.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
I think that it is equally difficult. Without the servo-system to make the woofers apparently "massless" IMHO it would be impossible for me to make the large Genesis line-source speakers sound seamless between bass and midrange. I did attempt to put in a line of mid-bass couplers between the ribbon midrange and woofers, but still haven't cracked the problem of integration.
In my G-Force model, the toughest problem I had was exactly there - the integration between the ribbon midrange and the mid-bass. i could get it measuring right pretty easily, step response and all, but I could hear the hand-off distinctly.
I completely defer to you, Gary, of course, and I have zero experience actually trying to integrate dynamic woofers with electrostatic panels or ribbon panels. And I did not intend to suggest in any way that integrating woofer cones with ribbons was, itself, not very difficult.
Still, I cannot jettison the feeling that there is something about the electrostatic panels which would make them even more difficult to integrate with dynamic drivers than ribbons. The ribbon drivers in general have a bit more body and fullness than the electrostatic panels, which suggests to me that it should be a bit easier to integrate woofer cones with ribbons. But if I am wrong, then I am wrong!
It is very interesting that you experimented with a line of mid-bass couplers between the ribbon midrange and the woofers. That is exactly what Martin-Logan did with the Statement E2. In theory, I like that solution, because I like the additional impact from cones in the 100 Hz to 400 Hz or so range.
Still, I cannot jettison the feeling that there is something about the electrostatic panels which would make them even more difficult to integrate with dynamic drivers than ribbons. The ribbon drivers in general have a bit more body and fullness than the electrostatic panels, which suggests to me that it should be a bit easier to integrate woofer cones with ribbons. But if I am wrong, then I am wrong!
It is very interesting that you experimented with a line of mid-bass couplers between the ribbon midrange and the woofers. That is exactly what Martin-Logan did with the Statement E2. In theory, I like that solution, because I like the additional impact from cones in the 100 Hz to 400 Hz or so range.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
They must have done a better job than I could. It took me 2 years to get the G-Force sounding right so that the ribbon/planar midrange did not sound incongruous with the dynamic/cone mid-bass. I still haven't managed to achieve that with the line-source ribbon midrange with non-servo dynamic drivers.
I would LOVE to hear such a system! I'll bet that properly set up, it would be world class. Alternately, while there is much talk about Apogee FR and Grands, I think the real potential killer system would be Diva's plus JR subs using the JL-1 crossover. Anyone know where to get a good pair of Diva's?
What's wrong with the Neoliths? Seems like that would be your top choice according to the traits you value.
Yes - In the USA Rich at True Sound Works. I just spoke with him. He is very nice and friendly and very knowledgeable.
Honestly, I'd just forget about all your requirements and look at the total package. Drivers are getting better and better, imo regular dynamic drivers have surpassed panels/ribbons already... implementation is far more important than specific design considerations. I've heard amazing speakers of all types and if I was in your position I wouldn't want to limit myself by getting so specific on driver type.
Maybe some Geddes could even do it for Ron, who knows? He wouldn't be the first person to prefer them over $100k speakers. But point being preference is preference... I usually like planar tweeters the most. But it's not written in stone.
Marty, as a fan of your system, respectively disagree. The FR panels are giants and contribute way more to the bass - huge wide panels pushing air down a room like yours is an audiophile's wet dream. The debth and impact is so much more, and not below just 100. The mids ribbon is also superior to the Divas. For smaller rooms, yes, Divas will image better
Marty, my suggestion for you is to consider True Sound Works Full Ranges, with Graz ribbons, rebuilt frame, etc., crossed over very low to your Gothams. For me, I would want to use hybrid or pure tube amps. I would try to use my VTLs on the midrange/tweeter ribbons and Aesthetix Atlas hybrids on the woofer panels (if not VTLs on everything). Why not take a trip to Nevada and hear them?
I found the midrange and low-frequencies on the Grands to be at least equal to the best I have ever heard. This is what is driving this post. The Grand midrange was amazing (but so, to me, are all the ribbon and electrostatic midranges) but the low frequencies were literally the best I have ever heard. Bonzo was right about that. I did not believe him but the impact from the woofer panel was like cones -- but with greater articulation. It was the closest I have ever heard to the drums being in the room.
I assume the FRs are at least as good as the Grands (and, without all of that crazy and inexplicable Grand complexity, I suspect better). If I did not insist on a production item (Pendragon is still my favorite production speaker) this is exactly what I would get. Yes, there would be questions and experimentation about grafting the dynamic drivers onto the system (I agree with Mike L that, all else being equal, a coherent design from top to bottom by one manufacturer is best) but you like that painstaking work, Marty!
I found the midrange and low-frequencies on the Grands to be at least equal to the best I have ever heard. This is what is driving this post. The Grand midrange was amazing (but so, to me, are all the ribbon and electrostatic midranges) but the low frequencies were literally the best I have ever heard. Bonzo was right about that. I did not believe him but the impact from the woofer panel was like cones -- but with greater articulation. It was the closest I have ever heard to the drums being in the room.
I assume the FRs are at least as good as the Grands (and, without all of that crazy and inexplicable Grand complexity, I suspect better). If I did not insist on a production item (Pendragon is still my favorite production speaker) this is exactly what I would get. Yes, there would be questions and experimentation about grafting the dynamic drivers onto the system (I agree with Mike L that, all else being equal, a coherent design from top to bottom by one manufacturer is best) but you like that painstaking work, Marty!
It's quite possible that the unique horizontal and vertical dispersion patterns of the stats worked to form Ron's preferences and he became accustomed to that type of sound. Then, the differences in room interactions would certainly be "uncomfortable". I applaud his world-wide journey to sample the best of each technology. The true test will be hearing the finalist(s) in his own room.
Lee
Lee
Similar threads
