Perlisten’s THX Dominus In-Ceiling Speakers Great Sound for EVERY Seat!

[gene]

Does Perlisten have the cure for the common in-ceiling speaker?

Perlisten has launched its first in-ceiling speakers. The new S3ic ($3,495 each) is the flagship offering. Both the S3ic and the R3ic ($2,195 each) are three-way designs, and both are THX Certified Dominus Surround, Ultra LCR. The two-way R2ic ($1,295 each) is THX Certified Ultra Surround. The speakers use a new Directivity Pattern Control (DPC) waveguide to deliver staggeringly good frequency response across a wide listening area.

With the introduction of our new in-ceiling products, this truly makes us a ‘complete partner’ to the custom integration channel. Our offering is nearly as complete as possible and again we are taking the lead presenting something extraordinary with our new flagship in-ceiling model S3ic. It marks the first time a manufacturer is able to achieve THX Certified Dominus in an in-ceiling model, especially one designed for the largest private theaters of up to 6,500 cubic feet (184 cubic meters).
— Dan Roemer, Chief Executive Officer, Perlisten Audio

One thing I often hear repeated about in-ceiling speakers is that they’re a sonic compromise compared to on-ceiling speakers. After all, big cinemas have speakers mounted to the ceiling — not installed inside the ceiling. And most recording/mixing studios use active monitors for all channels, so if you look up, you’ll see box speakers with built-in amplification mounted to the ceiling for the height channels. In-ceiling speakers certainly offer an aesthetic advantage over on-ceiling speakers, but what are the advantages and disadvantages when it comes to sound?

According to Erik Wiederholtz, Chief Technical Officer, Perlisten Audio , in-ceiling speakers actually offer significant sonic advantages over on-ceilings. “Having a flat surface, i.e. an in-ceiling, is ideally the best acoustic situation you can ever have,” he explained. When the speakers are truly flush with the ceiling, “there’s no diffraction; there’s no reflections back off the wall/ceiling.” On-ceiling speakers can’t avoid reflections off the ceiling. “Once (sounds) are reflected, they’re out of phase with the direct wave coming out of the speaker,” he said. With in-ceiling speakers, “you solve all those problems,” he said. “An on-wall (or on-ceiling) will always have that problem… there’s always going to be some comb-filtering effects. That's the biggest problem you're actually solving with an in-ceiling speaker.”

Read: Perlisten’s Game-Changing, THX Dominus In-Ceiling Speakers

 

[Bobby Bass]

Does Perlisten have the cure for the common in-ceiling speaker?

Perlisten has launched its first in-ceiling speakers. The new S3ic ($3,495 each) is the flagship offering. Both the S3ic and the R3ic ($2,195 each) are three-way designs, and both are THX Certified Dominus Surround, Ultra LCR. The two-way R2ic ($1,295 each) is THX Certified Ultra Surround. The speakers use a new Directivity Pattern Control (DPC) waveguide to deliver staggeringly good frequency response across a wide listening area.

With the introduction of our new in-ceiling products, this truly makes us a ‘complete partner’ to the custom integration channel. Our offering is nearly as complete as possible and again we are taking the lead presenting something extraordinary with our new flagship in-ceiling model S3ic. It marks the first time a manufacturer is able to achieve THX Certified Dominus in an in-ceiling model, especially one designed for the largest private theaters of up to 6,500 cubic feet (184 cubic meters).
— Dan Roemer, Chief Executive Officer, Perlisten Audio

View attachment 63462

One thing I often hear repeated about in-ceiling speakers is that they’re a sonic compromise compared to on-ceiling speakers. After all, big cinemas have speakers mounted to the ceiling — not installed inside the ceiling. And most recording/mixing studios use active monitors for all channels, so if you look up, you’ll see box speakers with built-in amplification mounted to the ceiling for the height channels. In-ceiling speakers certainly offer an aesthetic advantage over on-ceiling speakers, but what are the advantages and disadvantages when it comes to sound?

View attachment 63463

According to Erik Wiederholtz, Chief Technical Officer, Perlisten Audio , in-ceiling speakers actually offer significant sonic advantages over on-ceilings. “Having a flat surface, i.e. an in-ceiling, is ideally the best acoustic situation you can ever have,” he explained. When the speakers are truly flush with the ceiling, “there’s no diffraction; there’s no reflections back off the wall/ceiling.” On-ceiling speakers can’t avoid reflections off the ceiling. “Once (sounds) are reflected, they’re out of phase with the direct wave coming out of the speaker,” he said. With in-ceiling speakers, “you solve all those problems,” he said. “An on-wall (or on-ceiling) will always have that problem… there’s always going to be some comb-filtering effects. That's the biggest problem you're actually solving with an in-ceiling speaker.”

Read: Perlisten’s Game-Changing, THX Dominus In-Ceiling Speakers

Thanks for the article. Looks like Perlisten is raising the bar for both 2 channel and home theater speakers. Hoping to buy a pair of their top of the line towers someday.

 

[TLS Guy]

Does Perlisten have the cure for the common in-ceiling speaker?

Perlisten has launched its first in-ceiling speakers. The new S3ic ($3,495 each) is the flagship offering. Both the S3ic and the R3ic ($2,195 each) are three-way designs, and both are THX Certified Dominus Surround, Ultra LCR. The two-way R2ic ($1,295 each) is THX Certified Ultra Surround. The speakers use a new Directivity Pattern Control (DPC) waveguide to deliver staggeringly good frequency response across a wide listening area.

With the introduction of our new in-ceiling products, this truly makes us a ‘complete partner’ to the custom integration channel. Our offering is nearly as complete as possible and again we are taking the lead presenting something extraordinary with our new flagship in-ceiling model S3ic. It marks the first time a manufacturer is able to achieve THX Certified Dominus in an in-ceiling model, especially one designed for the largest private theaters of up to 6,500 cubic feet (184 cubic meters).
— Dan Roemer, Chief Executive Officer, Perlisten Audio

View attachment 63462

One thing I often hear repeated about in-ceiling speakers is that they’re a sonic compromise compared to on-ceiling speakers. After all, big cinemas have speakers mounted to the ceiling — not installed inside the ceiling. And most recording/mixing studios use active monitors for all channels, so if you look up, you’ll see box speakers with built-in amplification mounted to the ceiling for the height channels. In-ceiling speakers certainly offer an aesthetic advantage over on-ceiling speakers, but what are the advantages and disadvantages when it comes to sound?

View attachment 63463

According to Erik Wiederholtz, Chief Technical Officer, Perlisten Audio , in-ceiling speakers actually offer significant sonic advantages over on-ceilings. “Having a flat surface, i.e. an in-ceiling, is ideally the best acoustic situation you can ever have,” he explained. When the speakers are truly flush with the ceiling, “there’s no diffraction; there’s no reflections back off the wall/ceiling.” On-ceiling speakers can’t avoid reflections off the ceiling. “Once (sounds) are reflected, they’re out of phase with the direct wave coming out of the speaker,” he said. With in-ceiling speakers, “you solve all those problems,” he said. “An on-wall (or on-ceiling) will always have that problem… there’s always going to be some comb-filtering effects. That's the biggest problem you're actually solving with an in-ceiling speaker.”

Read: Perlisten’s Game-Changing, THX Dominus In-Ceiling Speakers

Sorry, but that is an absurd product. I keep telling you guys, ceiling speakers are an ideal application for a good full range driver.

The Mark Audio CHN 110 costs $66.40. I will wager it is a better Atmos ceiling speaker than those ridiculously high priced drivers.

The above driver is one fiftieth of the cost of the highest priced Perlisten, one thirtieth of the cost of the mid priced and one twentieth the cost of the lowest priced one.

The make for a nice neat installation.

I agree in ceiling is the beat approach to Atmos speakers.

If those speakers can cut it in the above system they will cut anywhere. That is over a 3000 watt system, and has enough power to get anyone stone deaf.

In Atmos movies those speakers will allow bullets to sizzle across the room, helicopters, or anything you want. They also produce a very natural ambience to concert hall recordings.

I maintain without reservation that my design approach is better and far more rational than that Perlisten effort which are absurdly expensive. Guys, don't be taken for a ride, and get fleeced.

 

[Trebdp83]

A fool and his money…

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

A fool and his money…

Yeah the prices on these are definitely difficult to swallow.

 

[shadyJ]

Sorry, but that is an absurd product. I keep telling you guys, ceiling speakers are an ideal application for a good full range driver.

The Mark Audio CHN 110 costs $66.40. I will wager it is a better Atmos ceiling speaker than those ridiculously high priced drivers.

The above driver is one fiftieth of the cost of the highest priced Perlisten, one thirtieth of the cost of the mid priced and one twentieth the cost of the lowest priced one.

The make for a nice neat installation.

I agree in ceiling is the beat approach to Atmos speakers.

If those speakers can cut it in the above system they will cut anywhere. That is over a 3000 watt system, and has enough power to get anyone stone deaf.

In Atmos movies those speakers will allow bullets to sizzle across the room, helicopters, or anything you want. They also produce a very natural ambience to concert hall recordings.

I maintain without reservation that my design approach is better and far more rational than that Perlisten effort which are absurdly expensive. Guys, don't be taken for a ride, and get fleeced.

The MarkAudio drivers have nothing like the power-handling of the Perlisten speakers, nor will they have the directivity control or linear response. I am not saying the MarkAudio drivers are bad for in-ceiling applications, and I think they would be good for the cost, but they are not comparable. In a high-end or high-performance application, the Perlisten in-ceilings would be a massive upgrade. My guess is that there isn't a better in-ceiling speaker out there for home theater. I am not shilling for the brand, but I know something of the research and development that went into these in-ceilings, and I doubt that anyone else has put the same level of effort into an in-ceiling loudspeaker.

 

[highfigh]

Would be great to have a way to listen without traveling across the country. Any possibility of a demo at HQ?

 

[TLS Guy]

The MarkAudio drivers have nothing like the power-handling of the Perlisten speakers, nor will they have the directivity control or linear response. I am not saying the MarkAudio drivers are bad for in-ceiling applications, and I think they would be good for the cost, but they are not comparable. In a high-end or high-performance application, the Perlisten in-ceilings would be a massive upgrade. My guess is that there isn't a better in-ceiling speaker out there for home theater. I am not shilling for the brand, but I know something of the research and development that went into these in-ceilings, and I doubt that anyone else has put the same level of effort into an in-ceiling loudspeaker.

Well, you and I have legitimate and fundamental differences of opinion on sound design principles for loudspeakers.

The most fundamental is that if you can eliminate a crossover in a speaker and maintain excellent response it is a victory, whereas every crossover you add is an admission of defeat.

I think the other difference is the power resources devoted to the mid band. It has long appeared to me that this is a parameter deficient in the vast majority of speakers.
This always hits home to me when I go to live concerts as I did Sunday, and heard a large orchestra and the formidable Pipe organ in the Great Benson Hall. The mid range power is colossal, especially when that impressive bank of reads, En Chamade, blasted with the full orchestra. One small midrange per speaker will never cut the mustard.

The thing that never fails to please me about my rig, the its colossal power reserve across the audio spectrum, involving all speakers.

In terms of these ceiling speakers, it seem that any speaker with multiple drivers will not have the optimal polar response for that application, but a good full ranger will.

It seems to me a circular polar response is exactly what is required. In my view a good full range driver fits for the application far better then any other design I can think of.

I suppose a lot depends on our mentors. I was heavily influenced by Ted Jordan, Peter Walker and Donald Chave. I would also not Raymond Cooke who was of the opinion that loudspeakers presenting adverse loads were fundamentally compromised. This of course does not reveal itself with power amps measurements into resistive loads.

I strongly suspect that some amps likely do match some speakers better than others. This is especially true with rising source resistance. However predicting the match, or mismatch from the armchair is not possible. However I have always used Quad current dumpers for years, because they are a known quantity to me and have a very low source resistance. I also do not design speakers that present unduly difficult loads. In my reference speakers these have included some active crossovers for years, and always to the bass drivers.

So, from my perspective I fail to see how a speakers with a skewed polar response for an Atmos application is in anyway helpful or moves the state of the art forward.

In the next few days, I will try and get some good data on my ceiling Atmos speakers. Their one other advantage is that there are zero crossover losses so this adds greatly for a greater acoustic output per watt.

I would say these speakers have never shown any distress or drawn any unwanted attention to themselves. They seamlessly contribute to a realistic sound stage and add to that 'you are there' effect listening from concert venues around the world.

So in summary I honestly believe installing anyone of those Perlisten Atmos speakers would be a significant downgrade to my system. My experience and training lead me strongly to that opinion.

Anyhow Shady, it is high time you paid a visit here and got to experience this unusual one of a kind system.

 

[gene]

Sorry, but that is an absurd product. I keep telling you guys, ceiling speakers are an ideal application for a good full range driver.

The Mark Audio CHN 110 costs $66.40. I will wager it is a better Atmos ceiling speaker than those ridiculously high priced drivers.

The above driver is one fiftieth of the cost of the highest priced Perlisten, one thirtieth of the cost of the mid priced and one twentieth the cost of the lowest priced one.

The make for a nice neat installation.

I agree in ceiling is the beat approach to Atmos speakers.

If those speakers can cut it in the above system they will cut anywhere. That is over a 3000 watt system, and has enough power to get anyone stone deaf.

In Atmos movies those speakers will allow bullets to sizzle across the room, helicopters, or anything you want. They also produce a very natural ambience to concert hall recordings.

I maintain without reservation that my design approach is better and far more rational than that Perlisten effort which are absurdly expensive. Guys, don't be taken for a ride, and get fleeced.

You have to be joking. Mark Audio is one of the lowest rated speakers we've reviewed in Audioholics history. It's like comparing a Ford Pinto to an Audi R8. You can't get this level of directivty control or dynamic range from a single fullrange driver.

MarkAudio-SOTA Cesti T Tower Loudspeaker Review

MarkAudio-SOTA recently launched their Cesti T tower speakers and we gave them a run around our testing grounds to see how they performed. Read our review to see if they're right for you.

www.audioholics.com

I saw the measurements of these new Perlisten speakers and they are absolutely SOTA performance like every product they've designed prior. These products are designed to meet the strict CEDIA RP22 standard for good design practices. a fullrange driver won't cut it and hence why nobody uses them as a serious solution in virtually any case.

 

[Nondemo01]

You have to be joking. Mark Audio is one of the lowest rated speakers we've reviewed in Audioholics history. It's like comparing a Ford Pinto to an Audi R8. You can't get this level of directivty control or dynamic range from a single fullrange driver.

MarkAudio-SOTA Cesti T Tower Loudspeaker Review

MarkAudio-SOTA recently launched their Cesti T tower speakers and we gave them a run around our testing grounds to see how they performed. Read our review to see if they're right for you.

www.audioholics.com

I saw the measurements of these new Perlisten speakers and they are absolutely SOTA performance like every product they've designed prior. These products are designed to meet the strict CEDIA RP22 standard for good design practices. a fullrange driver won't cut it and hence why nobody uses them as a serious solution in virtually any case.

Sometimes Gene, people gotta climb their own mountains!

 

[TLS Guy]

You have to be joking. Mark Audio is one of the lowest rated speakers we've reviewed in Audioholics history. It's like comparing a Ford Pinto to an Audi R8. You can't get this level of directivty control or dynamic range from a single fullrange driver.

MarkAudio-SOTA Cesti T Tower Loudspeaker Review

MarkAudio-SOTA recently launched their Cesti T tower speakers and we gave them a run around our testing grounds to see how they performed. Read our review to see if they're right for you.

www.audioholics.com

I saw the measurements of these new Perlisten speakers and they are absolutely SOTA performance like every product they've designed prior. These products are designed to meet the strict CEDIA RP22 standard for good design practices. a fullrange driver won't cut it and hence why nobody uses them as a serious solution in virtually any case.

I have just done some careful measurements, of the ceiling speakers. I will upload them later. They are excellent. The problem with Mark Audio, is that they have produced so many drivers. Ted Jordan bequeathed his patents to the owners of Mark Audio prior to his death. I was intimately involved with Jordan Watts, and was largely responsible for the last iteration the Mark III. The CHN 110 is the one that most resembles the JW Mk III.

That is an excellent driver, and has an very flat response to 9 KHz, it is good enough after that to not have to use a tweeter as a ceiling speaker as you will see.

 

[shadyJ]

Well, you and I have legitimate and fundamental differences of opinion on sound design principles for loudspeakers.

The most fundamental is that if you can eliminate a crossover in a speaker and maintain excellent response it is a victory, whereas every crossover you add is an admission of defeat.

I think the other difference is the power resources devoted to the mid band. It has long appeared to me that this is a parameter deficient in the vast majority of speakers.
This always hits home to me when I go to live concerts as I did Sunday, and heard a large orchestra and the formidable Pipe organ in the Great Benson Hall. The mid range power is colossal, especially when that impressive bank of reads, En Chamade, blasted with the full orchestra. One small midrange per speaker will never cut the mustard.

The thing that never fails to please me about my rig, the its colossal power reserve across the audio spectrum, involving all speakers.

In terms of these ceiling speakers, it seem that any speaker with multiple drivers will not have the optimal polar response for that application, but a good full ranger will.

It seems to me a circular polar response is exactly what is required. In my view a good full range driver fits for the application far better then any other design I can think of.

I suppose a lot depends on our mentors. I was heavily influenced by Ted Jordan, Peter Walker and Donald Chave. I would also not Raymond Cooke who was of the opinion that loudspeakers presenting adverse loads were fundamentally compromised. This of course does not reveal itself with power amps measurements into resistive loads.

I strongly suspect that some amps likely do match some speakers better than others. This is especially true with rising source resistance. However predicting the match, or mismatch from the armchair is not possible. However I have always used Quad current dumpers for years, because they are a known quantity to me and have a very low source resistance. I also do not design speakers that present unduly difficult loads. In my reference speakers these have included some active crossovers for years, and always to the bass drivers.

So, from my perspective I fail to see how a speakers with a skewed polar response for an Atmos application is in anyway helpful or moves the state of the art forward.

In the next few days, I will try and get some good data on my ceiling Atmos speakers. Their one other advantage is that there are zero crossover losses so this adds greatly for a greater acoustic output per watt.

I would say these speakers have never shown any distress or drawn any unwanted attention to themselves. They seamlessly contribute to a realistic sound stage and add to that 'you are there' effect listening from concert venues around the world.

So in summary I honestly believe installing anyone of those Perlisten Atmos speakers would be a significant downgrade to my system. My experience and training lead me strongly to that opinion.

Anyhow Shady, it is high time you paid a visit here and got to experience this unusual one of a kind system.

Crossover circuits are not inherently a problem. All that really matters is how closely the compression waves of air follow the voltage signal over an area in front of the speaker. It doesn't really matter how you arrive at that goal, at least if your priority is fidelity.

If you want to talk about polar responses, what in-ceiling speaker is going to do that better than one that uses beamforming? The Perlisten speakers do not have the radiation pattern of typical two or three-way speakers, and I am sure you have seen the polar maps. A 5 1/4" full-range driver can not have a consistent polar response through the audible frequency range. It will narrow its dispersion, probably around 2kHz to 2.5kHz. You would be lucky not to have it beam like a laser by 5kHz. Now compare that to any polar map of any Perlisten loudspeaker.

I will concede that the simplicity of using a MarkAudio full-range driver is probably the better way to go for the majority of people on account of its cost. Not many people can or should spend $2k+ on an in-ceiling speaker, but if you really want high-performance, Perlisten is the way to go. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is worse. The only other one that looks like a good fit for that application is KEF's THX in-ceilings, but there is no way that the KEF speakers will have the dynamic range of the Perlistens.

 

[TLS Guy]

Crossover circuits are not inherently a problem. All that really matters is how closely the compression waves of air follow the voltage signal over an area in front of the speaker. It doesn't really matter how you arrive at that goal, at least if your priority is fidelity.

If you want to talk about polar responses, what in-ceiling speaker is going to do that better than one that uses beamforming? The Perlisten speakers do not have the radiation pattern of typical two or three-way speakers, and I am sure you have seen the polar maps. A 5 1/4" full-range driver can not have a consistent polar response through the audible frequency range. It will narrow its dispersion, probably around 2kHz to 2.5kHz. You would be lucky not to have it beam like a laser by 5kHz. Now compare that to any polar map of any Perlisten loudspeaker.

I will concede that the simplicity of using a MarkAudio full-range driver is probably the better way to go for the majority of people on account of its cost. Not many people can or should spend $2k+ on an in-ceiling speaker, but if you really want high-performance, Perlisten is the way to go. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it is worse. The only other one that looks like a good fit for that application is KEF's THX in-ceilings, but there is no way that the KEF speakers will have the dynamic range of the Perlistens.

Crossovers are inherently a problem. For two reasons. The first is that they do significantly tend to alter the polar response, which takes great skill to minimize. Secondly they cause inherent phase and therefore time discrepancies. The latter in the analog domain, which can now be ameliorated in the digital domain in active designs.
I know many have claimed that these time discrepancies are of no or little consequence. However many, and I include myself believe this is not true, and over time more are coming to our point of view.

In a design with spaced drivers and an analog crossover the polar response will always be skewed in some fashion. For a ceiling Atmos speaker, I maintain this is deleterious.

Now I agree that uncontrolled cone break up narrows the polar response drastically. However the work of Ted Jordan and the work we did on on the Jordan Watts module, changed that paradigm, with the unique design of the cone, that avoided uncontrolled break up. I feel highly privileged to have taken part in this development.
This was all covered in patents.

From the late fifties to the early seventies there was no other driver that had an FR anywhere close to as good as the JW driver. The problem was limited power handling and above all reliability.

Now the successor making use of these patents is in the hands of Mark Audio. and E.J. Jordan Designs.

The driver the CHN 110 is the closest successor to this technology.

Now I agree that an Atmos speaker has to have wide and even dispersion, and preferably a circular distribution and devoid of lobing issues that crossovers introduce.

I agree that most full range drivers have serious uncontrolled break up in the midband, that rule them out due to narrowing dispersion due to this break up and also a rising response.

This is not the case with the drivers I have selected.

This is the FR of my Atmos speakers.

The Blue line is 1 meter in axis, the orange line is 1 meter 30 degrees off axis.

The purple line is at the MLP!

Now I maintain that result is more than adequate for an Atmos speaker, and an excellent superior result.

I highly doubt those Perlisten speakers will be free of lobing issues, but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

I maintain the drivers I have selected are close to ideal in the ceiling Atmos application and at very reasonable cost.

In my view only a good full range driver or a good coaxial speaker can really perform well as a ceiling Atmos speaker.

Lastly I would point out, that I have around 70 years experience with speakers and their design, and I am not in the habit of developing or proposing anything other than optimally engineered designs.

 

[D Murphy]

I have just done some careful measurements, of the ceiling speakers. I will upload them later. They are excellent. The problem with Mark Audio, is that they have produced so many drivers. Ted Jordan bequeathed his patents to the owners of Mark Audio prior to his death. I was intimately involved with Jordan Watts, and was largely responsible for the last iteration the Mark III. The CHN 110 is the one that most resembles the JW Mk III.

That is an excellent driver, and has an very flat response to 9 KHz, it is good enough after that to not have to use a tweeter as a ceiling speaker as you will see.

I have no horse in this race. I'm just confused about the real importance of power handling in a surround application. I'm assuming the surrounds will be band-limited in the bass and for cinema will be producing mostly spatial effects. Is power handling really that important?

 

[TLS Guy]

I have no horse in this race. I'm just confused about the real importance of power handling in a surround application. I'm assuming the surrounds will be band-limited in the bass and for cinema will be producing mostly spatial effects. Is power handling really that important?

Your remarks are spot on. No, there is not a lot of power demands I do not believe. Those drivers are 40 watt and I have them crossed at 120 Hz. I'm driving the four speakers with two Quad 405-2 power amps, so that is 100 watts per speaker and so 400 watts for the four. That seems plenty of power and the drivers have held up well.
As far as I can tell those drivers in a 0.25 cu.ft. sealed boxes are ideal for that application.

I have really enjoyed the Henry Wood Promenade concerts this year, which finished the weekend before last. There were 84 concerts over two months. BBC engineering was really good this year. The upmixers do a wonderful job now on recordings with well preserved ambience. The broadcasts had a wonderful perspective and you could really sense the dome of the RAH from the Atmos speakers. Two concerts per week were in AV, the rest audio only.

 

[D Murphy]

I have really enjoyed the Henry Wood Promenade concerts this year, which finished the weekend before last. There were 84 concerts over two months. BBC engineering was really good this year. The upmixers do a wonderful job now on recordings with well preserved ambience. The broadcasts had a wonderful perspective and you could really sense the dome of the RAH from the Atmos speakers. Two concerts per week were in AV, the rest audio only.

Link?

 

[TLS Guy]

Link?

BBC Proms 2023.

I use a VPN link that connects to the Amazon London server. Both my HTPC and my DAW have the VPN link. Using this link gives me a UK IP address. Our downstairs great room system also has the VPN link on its HTPC.

 

[gene]

I have no horse in this race. I'm just confused about the real importance of power handling in a surround application. I'm assuming the surrounds will be band-limited in the bass and for cinema will be producing mostly spatial effects. Is power handling really that important?

Dennis;

The height and wide channels are far more important than just effects. The advantage these Perlisten speakers have aren't just dynamics but focused and even coverage across a wider listening area. You can't do this with a single fullrange driver as you know based on the laws of physics. The driver will beam like mad at high frequencies and it's one of the reasons why almost NOBODY makes high performance speakers like this anymore.

I suggest reading the CEDIA RP22 Guidelines for best practices in home theater: https://cedia.net/advocacy/rp22

The Perlisten in-ceiling speakers are probably one of the first in their class that can actually be used as in-ceiling LCRs with good results. I saw the measurements on these and they are the real deal.

 

[TLS Guy]

Dennis;

The height and wide channels are far more important than just effects. The advantage these Perlisten speakers have aren't just dynamics but focused and even coverage across a wider listening area. You can't do this with a single fullrange driver as you know based on the laws of physics. The driver will beam like mad at high frequencies and it's one of the reasons why almost NOBODY makes high performance speakers like this anymore.

I suggest reading the CEDIA RP22 Guidelines for best practices in home theater: https://cedia.net/advocacy/rp22

The Perlisten in-ceiling speakers are probably one of the first in their class that can actually be used as in-ceiling LCRs with good results. I saw the measurements on these and they are the real deal.

What you say Gene holds true for just about all drivers. However, it does not apply to drivers built using the math and patents of Ted Jordan. He was a brilliant mathematician.

The reason drivers beam at higher frequencies is because it gets to a point where pistonic motion is suddenly lost. Then cone motions become chaotic, and there is usually a peak and always beaming. The stiffer you make the cone, the higher the break up point, but the more violent it is, and the higher the magnitude of the break up modes.

So Ted, pondered this originally while chief of engineering at Goodmans.

Ted's solution was to make a light cone of spun aluminum, that had controlled and mathematically predicted break up that was highly controlled. So the whole cone moves at lower frequencies, but the radiating area decreases in a controlled and predictable manner as the frequency increases. This holds up perfectly until about 9 KHz. However there are still no catastrophic break up modes, and performance is respectable beyond 15KHz. The other design detail is that the surround had to be wide and very "lossy" so that there were no edge back reflections, to cause peaks and cancellations in the response.

Getting the manufacture of these light , and they are feather light, spun cones produced with consistency was a major challenge almost seventy years ago.
The result was the Jordan Watts module. His wife, who had been an engineer at Goodmans divorced him, and got the rights to his patents in the divorce settlement. She produced drivers using these patents, under the Bandor label. Ted also was in many ways difficult to deal with from a personal standpoint. After Goodman's was sold he was sacked and, so Ted formed Jordan Watts, with the Goodman's accountant, Leslie Watts. Fortunately development was well along, but that was the point where my father and I became involved. We had no financial involvement, it was R & D mainly to make the darn drivers actually work!

Anyhow, I have confirmed many times that these cones do behave exactly as Ted claims they do, and his theories predicted. So those points are the basis of Ted's patents.

Of course with all radical adventures, and this was and is radical, there are downsides. The cone behaviour required only holds up with a diaphragm diameter no greater than four inches. Since the cone is so light and thin, it is easily "oil canned" by overdriving in the lower frequencies. The compliance is high and so bass performance is much better than you might expect. The other problem in the early days, was finding adhesives that would keep the aluminum cones attached to the voice coil. I spent untold hours on adhesive research and had increasing success with the development of better adhesives.

Lastly I have confirmed many times that Ted's math and theories holds up to measurements. So speakers with this spun aluminum tractrix cones with highly controlled break up do NOT behave as other drivers do, and have very wide dispersion.

 

[D Murphy]

Dennis;

The height and wide channels are far more important than just effects. The advantage these Perlisten speakers have aren't just dynamics but focused and even coverage across a wider listening area. You can't do this with a single fullrange driver as you know based on the laws of physics. The driver will beam like mad at high frequencies and it's one of the reasons why almost NOBODY makes high performance speakers like this anymore.

I suggest reading the CEDIA RP22 Guidelines for best practices in home theater: https://cedia.net/advocacy/rp22

The Perlisten in-ceiling speakers are probably one of the first in their class that can actually be used as in-ceiling LCRs with good results. I saw the measurements on these and they are the real deal.

I've tried just about every full range driver, and your remarks are certainly true, with the possible exception of the Jordan full ranger, which I think was the best of the lot (it's been a very long time). However, the Jordan cone would amass dents and creases if you breathed too hard in the next room. I'm a little confused as to which version of this driver is currently available--TLS Guy seems to be saying that problem has been largely remedied.
Anyhow, my remarks only went to power handling, not radiation patterns. I'm sure Perlisten has done their homework in that regard.