Roger Russell's new loudspeakers

S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
I love line source speakers and am using the Epiphany 20-21s myself. One thing I will say, is that as many small drivers asthey use, they will not be good for low frequencies, eq'ed or not. I use TACT coner load subs crossed at 200Hz in my setup, which really allows the line source speakers to shine in their optimal range. As far as mid and upper range goes, I have heard nothing better.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
j_garcia said:
..and I don't think they really need to get down to 20Hz convincingly to sound great for that. .

That's why there are so many great subs out there:D I am sure this speaker would not have the spl of a good sub.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
To the poster asking about phase issues and E.Q.: No, E.Q. does not introduce phase distortion issues with minimum phase behaviour(s), assuming the equalization is used to correct or linearize a pre-existing response anomaly. For example, correcting a -3dB dip, Q=4 with a +3dB peak E.Q. filter, at Q=4, would counter-act the original problem. However, introducing equalization into an otherwise linear response would behave exactly as if the driver had the inherent peak/dip, in frequency response and phase. Here is an actual measured example of parametric equalization, demonstrating the exact inverse behaviour(s) for each condition(if you combine the two they will null to flat):

http://www.linaeum.com/images/eq_inversedcompare.gif

As for the driver surface area issue: the drivers may equal a large subwoofer in raw surface area, but they have very little linear displacement(probably about +/- 1mm linear excursion, if they are very good 3" drivers) as compared to a good subwoofer which will have at least 8x the displacement(+/- 8mm linear is about the starting point of good subwoofers), given an equal surface area. Additionally, the system is operating the drivers substantially below their efficient bandwidth, related to the general T&S parameters, and using equalization to compensate. I find it unlikely that this system can have near the LF ability of even a mediocre 12" subwoofer pair, but fortunately, music is generally not demanding, and the system probably works fine for most purposes.

-Chris
 
Last edited:
Buckeyefan 1

Buckeyefan 1

Audioholic Ninja
The linear excursion may only be 1mm, but multiply that by 25, and you get Xmax as good or better than the best subwoofer drivers on the market.

Here's some more info taken from Mr. Russell's site regarding the drivers:

The IDS-25 is very directional vertically but the column extends from floor to ceiling. It means that floor and ceiling reflections that would normally interfere with the direct radiation are effectively eliminated over most of the frequency range. At the same time, horizontal dispersion provided by the very small drivers, ensures a wide radiation angle, even at higher frequencies. This enables you to always be directly in front of the coverage area, whether you are standing or sitting. It is a significant advantage over many systems that radiate as much vertically as horizontally.

The IDS-25 has another unique feature. All frequencies are radiated as a cylindrical surface. The sound level decreases only by 3 dB for every doubling of distance. It means that you can listen closer without being overwhelmed with loud sound and makes the system ideal for use even in smaller rooms.

Normally, for a single speaker, whether it is a woofer, mid or tweeter, the sound level decreases by 6 dB for every doubling of distance. This is because each frequency is radiated as a spherical surface.

Elimination of unwanted floor and ceiling reflections, as well as less attenuation with distance, extends the useful listening area further into the room than many other systems. This is sometimes referred to as the near field, where most of the sound comes directly from the speakers and not from room reflections. When the sound is mostly from reflections, this is referred to as the far field and is room dependent. The IDS-25 can project direct sound further and extend the useful near field of your listening room from top to bottom.

In addition, low frequency room resonances are greatly reduced. This is because the lows are being radiated all along the height of each column, exciting room resonances at low amplitude. In comparison, subwoofers located on the floor can build up some resonances at very high amplitude.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Buckeyefan 1 said:
The linear excursion may only be 1mm, but multiply that by 25, and you get Xmax as good or better than the best subwoofer drivers on the market.

Here's some more info taken from Mr. Russell's site regarding the drivers:
It is extremely improbable that the multitude of smaller drivers used can even compare to even mediocre subwoofer drivers due to reasons already listed. But as I stated, music is not demanding, and I'm sure the drivers are sufficient for normal LF of music. Realize that even a mediocre subwoofer pair is generally magnitudes more in SPL LF ability than is ever required for music, unless one uses equalization/tone controls to purposely boost the LF to a non-linear end transfer result.

-Chris
 
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
WmAx said:
It is extremely improbable that the multitude of smaller drivers used can even compare to even mediocre subwoofer drivers due to reasons already listed. But as I stated, music is not demanding, and I'm sure the drivers are sufficient for normal LF of music. Realize that even a mediocre subwoofer pair is generally magnitudes more in SPL LF ability than is ever required for music, unless one uses equalization/tone controls to purposely boost the LF to a non-linear end transfer result.

-Chris
I'm going to have to agree with you here. I've heard quite a few line array speakers using only small drivers and do not believe many small drivers are a substitute for a driver designed for those frequencies. That being said, coupling a great line array speaker with great subs and room correction has yielded me the perfect 2(.2) channel setup, capable of extending as low as I could possibly need.
 
Last edited:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I am very skeptical about this design as well. Boosting driver response to compensate for design inefficiencies is not a good thing to do IMO. I also never heard a mid woofer that can play highs as well as a dedicated dome tweeter. I won't even touch the bass issue with these 3" drivers :D

I am a huge fan of line array speakers but NOT when they only use 3" woofers and cost as much as a small car!
 
zildjian

zildjian

Audioholic Chief
I'm still wanting a pair of Roger's XR290's. Anybody ever hear those?
 
V

Vynilforlife

Audioholic Intern
zildjian said:
I'm still wanting a pair of Roger's XR290's. Anybody ever hear those?
Oh yes, they are an outstanding loudspeaker. Even used they fetch a rather large chunk o change.
 
V

Vynilforlife

Audioholic Intern
gene said:
I am very skeptical about this design as well. Boosting driver response to compensate for design inefficiencies is not a good thing to do IMO. I also never heard a mid woofer that can play highs as well as a dedicated dome tweeter. I won't even touch the bass issue with these 3" drivers :D

I am a huge fan of line array speakers but NOT when they only use 3" woofers and cost as much as a small car!
Roger IMO is a fine designer, and while these units are not conventional, I don't know that I would condemn them before giving them a listen. There are some very fine cone type drivers that sound very good up to 20kHz. As you know any driver will reproduce the entire sound spectrum, the question is how well each individual unit will do it? I have built slotted wave guide antennas in the past and the gain you can get out of this simple type of design is quite impressive. This in effect lessens the burden on the entire system substantially. I am willing to bet they sound quite good, the tonal balance and imaging should be superb.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Roger IMO is a fine designer, and while these units are not conventional, I don't know that I would condemn them before giving them a listen. There are some very fine cone type drivers that sound very good up to 20kHz. As you know any driver will reproduce the entire sound spectrum, the question is how well each individual unit will do it? I have built slotted wave guide antennas in the past and the gain you can get out of this simple type of design is quite impressive. This in effect lessens the burden on the entire system substantially. I am willing to bet they sound quite good, the tonal balance and imaging should be superb.
I am not concerned about achieving up to 20kHz response as much as issues of beaming and off axis performance.
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Vynilforlife said:
There are some very fine cone type drivers that sound very good up to 20kHz. As you know any driver will reproduce the entire sound spectrum, the question is how well each individual unit will do it? I have built slotted wave guide antennas in the past and the gain you can get out of this simple type of design is quite impressive. This in effect lessens the burden on the entire system substantially. I am willing to bet they sound quite good, the tonal balance and imaging should be superb.
I have seen evidence of exactly zero number of mid/tweeter dynamic cone drivers that can reproduce both midrange and treble bands with high-fidelity. The best examples may be drivers from Jordan, for example, which even these have substantial resonances once you enter the treble region. Off axis response is terrible also. The only examples of which I am aware that can reproduce both midrange and treble with high-fidelity would be non-conventional drivers, such as ESLs, bending-mode drivers and planars. However, other compromises(often in the form of off axis response, though the bending mode drivers can offset this) are then an issue. A wave guide/lens is a viable option to fix the off axis issue(s) of ELS and planar systems, but they are rarely used for whatever reason(s). However, a slot-type lens, for example, will reduce sensitivity. So will a variable resistance slot device(damps/blocks higher frequencies, but not lower ones, related to the co-efficient of the material). Therefor, there is no free lunch, and perhaps the degradation of sensitivity is why such systems are not commonly used. Maybe the cost of properly implementing such a system is also prohibitive in actual mass manufacturing conditions.

-Chris
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
So does anyone know if there's a post-equalization freq-response chart for on and off-axis for these speakers?

Given the designer's very lengthy rant on responant frequencies in aluminum drivers: I have trouble believing he would put out a speaker system that suffered from severe resonance.

Just to sum up what I understand from this thread the concerns are.
1) the speakers are too big to put out good quality high-frequency.
2) the speakers don't extrude out far enough to put out good quality bass.
3) Speakers of this size don't do either of the above well off-axis (they distort or put out a different sound-level off axis than on).

Is that about right for the concerns?
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
So does anyone know if there's a post-equalization freq-response chart for on and off-axis for these speakers?

Given the designer's very lengthy rant on responant frequencies in aluminum drivers: I have trouble believing he would put out a speaker system that suffered from severe resonance.

Just to sum up what I understand from this thread the concerns are.
1) the speakers are too big to put out good quality high-frequency.
2) the speakers don't extrude out far enough to put out good quality bass.
3) Speakers of this size don't do either of the above well off-axis (they distort or put out a different sound-level off axis than on).

Is that about right for the concerns?
feel free to email Roger, as he will be more than happy to discuss it with you;)

rogerr4@earthlink.net
 
Spkr_Bldr

Spkr_Bldr

Full Audioholic
I'd wager those are Vifa TG9's, which I personally have no experience with. But the Fs is 87hz, it doesn't matter how much surface area 100 of them adds up to, the Fs is still 87hz. In room they can certainly reproduce energy somewhat below 87hz, but there will be severe waveform distortion below and out to 1.4x the Fs.

I've heard full-rangers that produce good top end, good but definately not great. The expensive Lowthers and Feastrex drivers specifically. But the thing they all do is come way forward on female vocals, which can destroy your staging. Of course cymbals come right into your lap too, but they're usually mono signals which isn't as cocerning.

The wave-front behavior of a line source is completely different than point source loudspeakers, but those characteristics still exist as I found at last years RMAF while listening to the Audience full-range line source speaker.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
feel free to email Roger, as he will be more than happy to discuss it with you;)
A discussion requires two people with their own positions (nominally). I could email him, and he could answer, and I could find any obvious logical issue he put in (or ones that by analogy are vrey fishy).

Far more likely, he would tell me why none of what I listed is a concern, and I would not have the technical know-how to have any position on it, and the exercise would be fruitless.

My question was: "have I accurately summed up the criticisms of the design"

Actually I was wondering if he took visitors to his shop. He's only a couple hours away. Perhaps he'll be at the audioholics event at Disney. I've recently read most of his websight (decided not to buy a pair of Mac LS310s over his commentary on them) and would love to meet the man.
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
Actually I was wondering if he took visitors to his shop. He's only a couple hours away. Perhaps he'll be at the audioholics event at Disney. I've recently read most of his websight (decided not to buy a pair of Mac LS310s over his commentary on them) and would love to meet the man.
I stand by my post in regard to contacting him, he has always been receptive to questions, discussions, and walk throughs. I wasnt suggesting a debate or rebutal, just a chance to discuss philosophy and sound principals.
 
Last edited:
Spkr_Bldr

Spkr_Bldr

Full Audioholic
My question was: "have I accurately summed up the criticisms of the design"
Design based criticisms have no bearing if you enjoy the final result, that's the bottom line of audio. I have no doubt his design would do a lot of things right, just like a Lowther on an open baffle. But like everything it'll do things wrong too.

Analysis and critique is fine, judgment without first-hand experence is not. So talking about this design fairly and openly is harmless, it'll still sound great to a lot of people either way.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top