Roger Russell's new loudspeakers

[Sheep]

You guys really should look at the date on these threads. Those speakers are a gimmick.

SheepStar

 

[bandphan]

Those speakers are a gimmick.

SheepStar

in what way? expensive yes, but i wouldnt consider them a gimmick

 

[TLS Guy]

in what way? expensive yes, but i wouldnt consider them a gimmick

Sheep is right. The thread is two years old. This is the driver. Since Tymphany bought Vifa, the driver in question has been in short supply. It is a most unimpressive driver.

http://www.tymphany.com/files/products/pdf/TG9FD-10-04.pdf

When available it can be bought for $29 each full retail. I would bet they can be had in quantity at about $20 or less. So there is about $800 worth of drivers in a pair of speakers. Those speakers will be quite impossible to EQ in the bass. You can drive them as hard as you want, all you will get will be distortion.

Either way you can't possibly justify a price of $17,000!

Basically you could go out and buy 48 car or TV speakers of the same size, build the cabinets and have the same result.

Unfortunately there have been few decent full range drivers. The best have been designed by Ted Jordan. He was responsible at least for the genesis of the Jordan Watts module, his drivers produced by EJ Jordan designs, and the Bandor range.

I have posted a copy of the Jordan Watts Sales brochure on my website.

http://www.drmarksays.com/

These are the two drivers from EJ Jordan.

http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/drivers/jxr6.html

http://www.ejjordan.co.uk/drivers/jx92.html

I'm very familiar with the Lowther units. With horn loading they produce results which produce a strong following of devotees. However I have found the 2Khz region peak objectionable, although current offerings are better than those from years past.

http://www.lowtherloudspeakers.com/homeindex.html

The Fostex range of full range drivers, I have never examined.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/index.php?manufacturers_id=131

SEAS have just introduced a full range driver, but I have not seen or heard it.

http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=187

I have built systems using vertical arrays of 8 Jordan Watts modules in high powered systems crossing over at 500 Hz, with active crossovers. The results were significantly superior to cellular compression horn systems in large auditoriums.

All of the drivers I have listed above are many grades above the driver selected by Mr Russel.

 

[Sheep]

in what way? expensive yes, but i wouldnt consider them a gimmick

A bunch of 1 driver = gimmick.

SheepStar

 

[fmw]

Actually this isn't as new as you might think. In the 1950's it was common to wire up an array of 4" speakers. It was called the "sweet sixteen." The advantage, of course, was that it was fairly full range without needing to have a crossover network. The disadvantage, as Mr Russell points out, is that the frequency response curve is anything but flat so some equalization is required. In those days, audiophiles embraced equalizers so that wasn't a problem.

Good to see that he's still designing speakers. He designed some fine ones for MacIntosh. I wish him well.

 

[TLS Guy]

Actually this isn't as new as you might think. In the 1950's it was common to wire up an array of 4" speakers. It was called the "sweet sixteen." The advantage, of course, was that it was fairly full range without needing to have a crossover network. The disadvantage, as Mr Russell points out, is that the frequency response curve is anything but flat so some equalization is required. In those days, audiophiles embraced equalizers so that wasn't a problem.

Good to see that he's still designing speakers. He designed some fine ones for MacIntosh. I wish him well.

The sweet 16!

http://www.roger-russell.com/columns/columns.htm#sweet

Gilbert Briggs had something similar in his Wharfedale range. He used different drivers to spread the resonances! I don't think it would cut it now, but I bet Russel's speaker is not much better.

 

[JerryLove]

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.

Personally, I lack the time and money to get extended (because first impressions and a week later are often not the same for me) auditions of every speaker ever made.

Also, no one here has listened to them.

So I'm attempting to engage in an exsiting discussion on their technical merits, and measured sound.

Besides, this would be a boaring website if every thread went.

A - "how does speaker X sound?"
B - "go listen"
A - "ok".

Not much point in a websight, neh?

 

[fmw]

There are good reasons why the majority of speaker systems are a two or 3 way arrangement with a crossover network. Not much point in fighting success. If it ain't broke, as they say................

 

[Spkr_Bldr]

Besides, this would be a boaring website if every thread went.

A - "how does speaker X sound?"
B - "go listen"
A - "ok".

Not much point in a websight, neh?

That's not quite what I said is it? I said critique till you're blue in the face, but drawing conclusions or passing judgement without any direct experience is just foolish.

 

[JerryLove]

There are good reasons why the majority of speaker systems are a two or 3 way arrangement with a crossover network. Not much point in fighting success. If it ain't broke, as they say................

There were good reasons why televisions were almost all CRTs at one point as well.

I suppose, if your assertion is accurate, we can also discount all planar speakers, omni-polar speakers, in fact almost anything in the "very expensive" range, like Genesis or MBL. Even my pair of Infinity RS3s (after all, cones are the majority of mids/tweeters, and "1" is the majority number of woofers per speaker).

Does this mean that tiny-cubes are becoming a success to not fight against?

I'm sorry. You may be right in your assertion that there are inherent and generally disadvantageous trade-offs in the speaker design being discussed; but an appeal to popularity is fallacious as support.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Besides, this would be a boaring website if every thread went.

A - "how does speaker X sound?"
B - "go listen"
A - "ok".

Not much point in a websight, neh?

Yep, surely would be

 

[Gimpy Ric]

You guys really should look at the date on these threads. Those speakers are a gimmick.

SheepStar

Of course they are a gimmick, and those that can't see that, well the jokes on them.

 

[Sheep]

Yep, surely would be

Here's the alternative.

A - "how does speaker X sound?"
B - "subjective bullshit"
A - "...****"

SheepStar

 

[Rickster71]

I'm having trouble reconciling the fact that Roger Russell would build speakers that are a gimmick.
I guess the jury's still out. At least for me anyway.
Over the years, reading Roger's web site, and knowing his work history; along with him being
anti-snake oil, as far as cables go. He just doesn't seem like the 'gimmicky' type. You know what I mean?

Since I don't have the speaker knowledge of Gene, TLS, or WmAx; I'll go along with their expertise.

Gene, is there any chance of getting a pair for review?

 

[larry7995]

One of the reasons I am going to RMAF this October is to audition the LS-6 and LS-9 from AV123, might be my next upgrade after I get my dual subs and swiveling rack with sliding shelves...

 

[fmw]

I'm having trouble reconciling the fact that Roger Russell would build speakers that are a gimmick.
I guess the jury's still out. At least for me anyway.
Over the years, reading Roger's web site, and knowing his work history; along with him being
anti-snake oil, as far as cables go. He just doesn't seem like the 'gimmicky' type. You know what I mean?

Since I don't have the speaker knowledge of Gene, TLS, or WmAx; I'll go along with their expertise.

Gene, is there any chance of getting a pair for review?

People who call it a gimmick are guessing. I agree with you and I'll bet they sound great. I remember when my father put in a pair of sweet 16's in my bedroom system back in 1959 and they sounded super. Over priced? For sure. No better sounding than conventional designs? Probably. Gimmick? I don't think so. It is just another approach to the age old quest.

 

[Rickster71]

Roger lives in Florida; can he be invited to the Audioholic's event in Oct?
I would love to see and hear his speakers in person.

 

[WmAx]

I'm having trouble reconciling the fact that Roger Russell would build speakers that are a gimmick.
I guess the jury's still out. At least for me anyway.
Over the years, reading Roger's web site, and knowing his work history; along with him being
anti-snake oil, as far as cables go. He just doesn't seem like the 'gimmicky' type. You know what I mean?

Since I don't have the speaker knowledge of Gene, TLS, or WmAx; I'll go along with their expertise.

Gene, is there any chance of getting a pair for review?

Just to make it clear: I never said they were a gimmick.

But I don't believe they have the same potential (in regards to perceived realism) as certain alternative design choices.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Roger lives in Florida; can he be invited to the Audioholic's event in Oct?
I would love to see and hear his speakers in person.

Now that would be a winner for all

 

[highfihoney]

I'm having trouble reconciling the fact that Roger Russell would build speakers that are a gimmick.
I guess the jury's still out. At least for me anyway.
Over the years, reading Roger's web site, and knowing his work history; along with him being
anti-snake oil, as far as cables go. He just doesn't seem like the 'gimmicky' type. You know what I mean?

Since I don't have the speaker knowledge of Gene, TLS, or WmAx; I'll go along with their expertise.

Gene, is there any chance of getting a pair for review?

Im glad to see somebody being sceptical about this speaker being bashed.

It's funny to see guy's talking crap about a speaker designer that has made so many legendary speaker designs,Roger is a legend in audio & did not become so by a long list of failures,the only agenda Roger has ever had was to reproduce musis as accurately as possible,comparing anything designed by Roger Russell with bose junk is ignorant to say the least.

Hearing is believing for the constant sceptics,all one has to do is to set aside the time to go to the AK Fest every year in Michigan & they can hear them in person,anybody who think's roger has designed an overpriced lemon with a name brand recognition price tag following it is only kidding themselves for the sake of doing so,and they can forget about the need to incorporate subwoofers too,the bass response is excellent.

Ive heard these speakers in person twice now & they knocked my socks off,my Mcintosh dealers silent partner is the only dealer for them.