C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
Personally I like the idea of a properly implemented compression driver.
My understanding is that compression drivers really do not buy you much until you get into high SPL's....where most people don't go, and to design/manufacture/implement correctly, even for "normal" SPL listening, is not cost effective.
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
OK...I had to look up "fungeable", but you guys mean "fungible"....right?
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
My understanding is that compression drivers really do not buy you much until you get into high SPL's....where most people don't go, and to design/manufacture/implement correctly, even for "normal" SPL listening, is not cost effective.
As I said earlier, it's all about design goals. IMO a great compression driver properly implemented can sound as good as any ribbon or dome at normal SPLs, and a poor one can sound just awful. The difference is that the compression driver WILL give you extremely high SPLs AND a lower crossover frequency! Again, a ribbon may be a better choice for low level near field listening, a dome a better choice for a off axis dispersion. Before any loudspeaker design you have to organize your thoughts, budget, and design goals.

Nothing wrong with what's being discussed in this thread re: what value is there in a ribbon tweeter. I just don't think you can compare the two technologies from a subjective listening point of view as too many variable factors come into play. I think the best you can do is compare individual drivers for a given situation and compare the projected or achieved results. In the case of revel salon for example they've got their tweeter crossed around 2200hz from what I recall. That's simply not ribbon territory! In the case of Dennis Murphy, even with domes he doesn't seem to use many 1" dome tweeters and prefers 3/4" domes and ribbons - there's another factor you always have to consider - the size of the driver! You have to wonder why revel would use a 1.25" titanium dome over the wider dispersion of a 3/4" dome.... it's all about design tradeoffs, not the technology as a whole!
 
Last edited:
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Fair enough.

But I am attempting to generalize about ribbons vs domes on their own.

We seem to clearly have "ribbons have more problems with low frequencies".
But if that were all, then there should be no ribbons in use.
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
We seem to clearly have "ribbons have more problems with low frequencies".
But if that were all, then there should be no ribbons in use.
"Domes have more problems with the top octave"

;)
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
I would definitely agree that ribbons have the top frequencies over soft domes.
I don't know how the cost of Be tweeters compare with ribbon tweeters, but the ribbons may be a less expensive way to obtain those high (and clear) frequencies.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It might be marketing, not R&D. Infinity is not HK's top of the line speaker.
Maybe not now but when the Infinity IRS system was being made, they would have. That model had a permanent 1-1/2 year waiting list and they went for $72K in the late 1970s.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
Maybe not now but when the Infinity IRS system was being made, they would have. That model had a permanent 1-1/2 year waiting list and they went for $72K in the late 1970s.
Right. Now what is their top? Revel is reasonably up there. Thy don't use ribbons.

Is it that simple: Infinity liked ribbons and HK doesn't? That just begs me to wonder either what Infinity liked about them so much, or what HK prefers about domes and cones.

I know why magie's use them; but that's a different design philosophy.

If the ribbions have the edge at the top: why not a greater use (in 4-way+ high-end at least) of super-tweeters?
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
If the ribbions have the edge at the top: why not a greater use (in 4-way+ high-end at least) of super-tweeters?
Because in the high end, as KEW alluded to, you've got the budget for exotic dome materials like Beryllium and Diamond. Materials like that push breakups and reduced definition well into ultrasonics anyways. Then you get into a matter of "Super expensive high end dome" vs "Super expensive high end ribbon" and at that point it may even be inaudible. For you guys I'd..uh..suffer through a side by side between a Salk Soundscape and a Revel Salon... in my room... i'd need a few years to collect my thoughts though. Anyone who wants to invest in this..uh... review... is free to paypal me :D And you can throw a JBL Synthesis Everest 66000 into the mix too so I've got a compression driver to really compare tweeter techs... you know.. for this board...
 
Last edited:
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
Because in the high end, as KEW alluded to, you've got the budget for exotic dome materials like Beryllium and Diamond. Materials like that push breakups and reduced definition well into ultrasonics anyways. Then you get into a matter of "Super expensive high end dome" vs "Super expensive high end ribbon" and at that point it may even be inaudible. For you guys I'd..uh..suffer through a side by side between a Salk Soundscape and a Revel Salon... in my room... i'd need a few years to collect my thoughts though. Anyone who wants to invest in this..uh... review... is free to paypal me :D And you can throw a JBL Synthesis Everest 66000 into the mix too so I've got a compression driver to really compare tweeter techs... you know.. for this board...
You are very generous:D
 
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
My understanding is that compression drivers really do not buy you much until you get into high SPL's....where most people don't go, and to design/manufacture/implement correctly, even for "normal" SPL listening, is not cost effective.
I am going to differ on this but it is based on my own subjective listening of various speakers I have had and Geddes Abbey's and Harpers. For whatever reason, I think there is a difference even in normal listening in the dynamics. By that, I mean the difference in level between the softest and loudest. I level matched an instant switch between Harpers and Song bookshelfs and the immediate difference I found was the dynamics. All I can say, is that even though "night listening" was not employed on the receiver, it sounded like it was for Songs and not for the Harpers. Now there may be other issues with compression drivers but I do not agree that you only get a benefit in dynamics at high listening levels.
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
I am going to differ on this but it is based on my own subjective listening of various speakers I have had and Geddes Abbey's and Harpers. For whatever reason, I think there is a difference even in normal listening in the dynamics. By that, I mean the difference in level between the softest and loudest. I level matched an instant switch between Harpers and Song bookshelfs and the immediate difference I found was the dynamics. All I can say, is that even though "night listening" was not employed on the receiver, it sounded like it was for Songs and not for the Harpers. Now there may be other issues with compression drivers but I do not agree that you only get a benefit in dynamics at high listening levels.
I would love to hear some of Geddes' speakers.

My comment was not limited to dynamics, but overall SQ/performance, and also in general.

Were you able to take a FR measurements at different listening levels?
 
Last edited:
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
I would love to hear some of Geddes' speakers.

My comment was not limited to dynamics, but overall SQ/performance, and also in general.

Were you able to take a FR measurements at different listening levels?
For overall sound quality that is a different matter. I didn't take measurments but it was a test of my ability to level match and do instant switching for a blind speaker test that never materialized.

My comments were strictly in relation to what I feel may be an advantage of a compression tweeter for dynamics as used by Earl (but also others). I think his designs use that type of tweeter for a number of reasons but one big reason being dynamics (and not just because they will play louder). I see this as possibly one of the reasons Dennis Erskine and his group are now mainly installing Procella speakers.

Obviously, different speaker designers have different priorities and that is why I think it is hard to make general statements, like ribbons or compression drivers or planar or electrostatics etc are bad. In the hands of a good designer who has defined his priorities, I think all of them can be made to sound really good. Different strokes for different folks.
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
Thanks Randy!

It is certainly a very interesting observation/experience.

At what level did you match the speakers? I wonder how efficiency comes into play at lower levels?

Did you notice a difference in mids/midbass?

You have a lot of experience than I do.....so sorry for all the questions. :)
 
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
Thanks Randy!

It is certainly a very interesting observation/experience.

At what level did you match the speakers? I wonder how efficiency comes into play at lower levels?

Did you notice a difference in mids/midbass?

You have a lot of experience than I do.....so sorry for all the questions. :)
I don't remember the specific level, but it was normal listening level for music. It was not loud. I am not sure how efficiency would come into play and while I am sure that the Harpers are more efficient than the Song bookshelf, I don't think excessively so because the Songs are pretty easy to drive.

I absolutely did see a difference in the midbass (not so much in the mids) and bass as the Harpers don't have much. Could that have had a psycological effect, possibly but I doubt it. It really did seem like dynamics was the main difference and then you would have to say, well which is more accurate. I would guess the Songs but you know it would be guessing as I didn't measure and I didn't do any long term listening. It was the surprising fact that the Harpers were bass shy to the Songs and the dynamics of the Harpers. I must say that is also the main thing that stands out in my mind when listening to the Abbey's. It is a very addicting thing in a speaker. It can make other speakers sound lifeless and even if a speaker can play loud without distortion, it does not mean it is dynamic IMO. I also don't remember for sure what music I played but I think it was Sticky Fingers by the Stones and possibly some Linda Ronstadt.

You know another speaker that I owned a long time ago impressed me with its dynamics. Not sure whether it was becasue CD's were just coming into their own or becasue of the speaker, but it wa a standard three way-the Boston Acoustic A150.
 
Last edited:
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
Right. Now what is their top? Revel is reasonably up there. They don't use ribbons.

Is it that simple: Infinity liked ribbons and HK doesn't? That just begs me to wonder either what Infinity liked about them so much, or what HK prefers about domes and cones.
I don't know the timing for when they switched from ribbons to dome or when they did their research, but the following blurb from the interview RandyB linked (italics and bold are mine) would suggest a pretty good reason they would stay clear of ribbons:

Sumit: ...When designing a loudspeaker what are the three most important aspects of a loudspeaker according to you that one must get right?

Kevin: Timbre is the overwhelming aspect. Based on our blind listening tests timbre is the thing that differentiates between good and bad loudspeakers, but also between good and great loudspeakers. So timbre is kind of a broad term. It incorporates balance, frequency balance, or it can be thought of very roughly as frequency response. That’s a little dangerous because, not to infer that one on-axis measurement tells you what the frequency response is in a loudspeaker. It doesn’t. Other areas like off-axis response are very critical and we’ve learned that very far off-axis response like 60-75 degrees is very critical. Almost no one even measures it, let alone designs loudspeakers that are optimized at that sort of angle. But we’ve looked at real world situations and found that the all-important side-wall first reflection is a function of the speaker’s output at that kind of angle in the vast majority of listening rooms. So it means that you’re going to be hearing that kind of sound. You will hear it with a slight delay, and in many rooms without very much attenuation. So optimizing the response at that kind of extreme angle is very, very important. And then the power response, the reverberant field that we hear a little later in time is also important. So we literally design for all of those areas: the direct sound, the first reflection sound, and the reverberant field, because we know that all those three things are huge contributors to the timbre, to our perception of the speaker’s timbre.
 
JerryLove

JerryLove

Audioholic Samurai
I don't know the timing for when they switched from ribbons to dome or when they did their research, but the following blurb from the interview RandyB linked (italics and bold are mine) would suggest a pretty good reason they would stay clear of ribbons:
Are you asserting that ribbons have poor off-axis performance?
 
C

cschang

Audioholic Chief
Randy...when you send GranteedEV the Soundscapes and Salons, can you send me the Abbeys? :)
 
R

randyb

Full Audioholic
Randy...when you send GranteedEV the Soundscapes and Salons, can you send me the Abbeys? :)
Hehe. I would love to hear the Soundscapes and the Salons but really haven't...much less being able to afford them, although, hmmmm, if I sold everything.....must not buy/....must not buy:D
 
newsletter

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