What could this be?

[everettT]

Knowing Dennis' preselection and voicing preferences, little to none.

I agree, though, it would be very cool to put them together in the same room. While we're at it, throw in the HT Tower to see how that compares!!!

We could have an "all Dennis designed" shootout and see if we can 'pick the speaker'.. I'd have to host, of course, as I'm not lugging any speakers.

 

[Swerd]

Agreed, there is little to nothing audible between the 64-10 and the 70-10 Raals. Similarly, not much difference between the BMR (Mid) Driver and the BG Neo8 Planar of the Phil 3s... Audibly, that is.

Dennis wasn't kidding by much when he questions why people want a big Tower instead of the BMR Monitors.

Just before Dennis sent a pair of his BMR Monitors on their first road trip, I heard them at my house. Dennis brought them over because he said bass in my family room sounds so good. So, for about an hour we listened to both. It was my impression that the BMR Monitors sounded noticeably different and better (wider dispersion, better imaging & soundstage) at the mid-range and higher frequencies, but the Veracity STs have better sounding bass. But the BMR Monitors cost one third the price of the VSTs.

See my link for some photos.

 

[ryanosaur]

Just before Dennis sent a pair of his BMR Monitors on their first road trip, I heard them at my house. Dennis brought them over because he said bass in my family room sounds so good. So, for about an hour we listened to both. It was my impression that the BMR Monitors sounded noticeably different and better (wider dispersion, better imaging & soundstage) at the mid-range and higher frequencies, but the Veracity STs have better sounding bass. But the BMR Monitors cost one third the price of the VSTs.

See my link for some photos.

My suspicion is there was still some directivity issue in the cross on the ST. Might not be bad, but that always seems to be the bugaboo in even the best 2-way designs.
I recall chatting with Dennis after doing up my AA Monitor with the Morel Mod and commenting that there was a distinct hollowness in the midrange. He admitted that it was something he could never fully address due to the Dayton Woofer's range. It isn't bad by any stretch, but when compared to a 3-way like the BMR Monitors or the Phil3s where there is next to no directivity error it becomes strikingly audible.

 

[everettT]

My suspicion is there was still some directivity issue in the cross on the ST. Might not be bad, but that always seems to be the bugaboo in even the best 2-way designs.
I recall chatting with Dennis after doing up my AA Monitor with the Morel Mod and commenting that there was a distinct hollowness in the midrange. He admitted that it was something he could never fully address due to the Dayton Woofer's range. It isn't bad by any stretch, but when compared to a 3-way like the BMR Monitors or the Phil3s where there is next to no directivity error it becomes strikingly audible.

Hopefully the 70-20's lower XO helps compensate in a 2 way. I almost pulled the trigger on two different Dynaudio 2 ways (well and one 3 way) just didn't hear the lower notes that excited me. The lower treble was very nice with the dynaudios, and I think I want to revisit them at some point.

 

[ryanosaur]

Hopefully the 70-20's lower XO helps compensate in a 2 way. I almost pulled the trigger on two different Dynaudio 2 ways (well and one 3 way) just didn't hear the lower notes that excited me. The lower treble was very nice with the dynaudios, and I think I want to revisit them at some point.

Ya, the 70-xx Tweets each play a little lower and handle a touch more Power iirc. Of course, the tradeoff is with the 70mm ribbons, you get tighter vertical dispersion over the 64, and then the 70-20 will have narrowed horizontal dispersion compared to the xx-10s.
I don't know that I've really seen any measurements that show to what extent this happens in a well designed Speaker... and even if it takes it from ±80º to ±70º... Is that really a big deal?

I've always said I prefer a good 3-way, but if I ever were to buy a 2-way, it would be something Dennis had his hand in!

A different conversation with Dennis yielded his view that the Raal 70mm Tweets weren't really worth the cost compared to the OEM 64-10 (especially now that they have the 64-10x which lowers distortion). I think you go from something costing him around $80 each to the non-OEM Tweets that retail over ~$500 each!

IIRC, the 70-20xr crosses as low as 1800 with a LR4 filter. The 70-10 crosses around 2800!

 

[everettT]

Ya, the 70-xx Tweets each play a little lower and handle a touch more Power iirc. Of course, the tradeoff is with the 70mm ribbons, you get tighter vertical dispersion over the 64, and then the 70-20 will have narrowed horizontal dispersion compared to the xx-10s.
I don't know that I've really seen any measurements that show to what extent this happens in a well designed Speaker... and even if it takes it from ±80º to ±70º... Is that really a big deal?

I've always said I prefer a good 3-way, but if I ever were to buy a 2-way, it would be something Dennis had his hand in!

A different conversation with Dennis yielded his view that the Raal 70mm Tweets weren't really worth the cost compared to the OEM 64-10 (especially now that they have the 64-10x which lowers distortion). I think you go from something costing him around $80 each to the non-OEM Tweets that retail over ~$500 each!

IIRC, the 70-20xr crosses as low as 1800 with a LR4 filter. The 70-10 crosses around 2800!

Definitely, the latest gen base RAAL is completely different than it's predecessor, which is all I currently own. I think I've said it before (here) that I prefer the RAAL 64 over the Satori beryllium overall, and now that I have three of the best midrange drivers made in house, it should make comparing lower treble fun.

 

[Swerd]

Several things I want to mention:

Bass
The Salk Veracity ST has two 6" mid-woofers mounted in a mass loaded TL cabinet. The bass F3 is measured at 34 Hz. The Salk Song 3 Encore has a 9½" woofer mounted in a ported reflex cabinet. It's bass F3 is 25 Hz. The Song 3 Encore clearly goes lower than the Salk VST. But their sound may also differ because of the cabinet designs and their interactions in a room. I couldn't predict which speaker has better sounding bass.

Tweeters
These two different speakers come with very different tweeters, either the RAAL 70-20 ribbon tweeter or the Satori Beryillium (alloy?) 1" dome tweeter. Both are very expensive tweeters. They may very well sound different to some listeners, but with Dennis Murphy's crossovers and voicing, that may not be readily audible to all. With Dennis's strong preference for wide dispersion across the crossover frequencies, within a range of ±1 octave, I doubt if either of these speakers lack in horizontal dispersion.

I clearly remember years ago a DIY speaker builder meeting where Dennis proved wrong people's opinions that they could hear differences in fabric or aluminum dome tweeters. He demonstrated two different 2-way speakers that he built, with the same woofers in cabinets with the same dimensions. One had a silk 1" dome tweeter and the other had an aluminum 1" dome. No one present could hear any differences. Dennis went on to say that manufacturers may want to call attention to their tweeters by deliberately voicing them to sound different from their competition. That may have worked well in the sales room, but it also can lead to undesirable differences in overall sound.

Imaging & Sound stage
Remember that these sound quality features are determined by the speakers location within a room, as well as a listener's seating position. The type of music as well as the recording qualities have major influences on this. Some people recognize these sound qualities readily, and others do not. Preferences vary widely too. Any one can certainly talk about their listening experiences with speakers, but they must remember how many different things can affect their perceptions.

When Dennis Murphy designs speakers and crossovers, he uses only one cabinet, not two. He highly values wide dispersion without dips across crossover frequency ranges, and strongly believes that they directly affect good imaging & sound stage. But these features cannot be directly measured. Dennis knows how to achieve these sound qualities, but he does not directly listen for them while designing speakers. With designs intended for commercial sale, he does listen, at a later time, to two speakers in stereo. And he does go back to alter the crossovers if needed.

 

[everettT]

Several things I want to mention:

Bass
The Salk Veracity ST has two 6" mid-woofers mounted in a mass loaded TL cabinet. The bass F3 is measured at 34 Hz. The Salk Song 3 Encore has a 9½" woofer mounted in a ported reflex cabinet. It's bass F3 is 25 Hz. The Song 3 Encore clearly goes lower than the Salk VST. But their sound may also differ because of the cabinet designs and their interactions in a room. I couldn't predict which speaker has better sounding bass.

Tweeters
These two different speakers come with very different tweeters, either the RAAL 70-20 ribbon tweeter or the Satori Beryillium (alloy?) 1" dome tweeter. Both are very expensive tweeters. The may very well sound different to some listeners, but with Dennis Murphy's crossovers and voicing, that may not be readily audible to all. With Dennis's strong preference for wide dispersion across the crossover frequencies, within a range of ±1 octave, I doubt if either of these speakers lack in horizontal dispersion.

I clearly remember years ago a DIY speaker builder meeting where Dennis proved wrong people's opinions that they could hear differences in fabric or aluminum dome tweeters. He demonstrated two different 2-way speakers that he built, with the same woofers in cabinets with the same dimensions. One had a silk 1" dome tweeter and the other had an aluminum 1" dome. No one present could hear any differences. Dennis went on to say that manufacturers may want to call attention to their tweeters by deliberately voicing them to sound different from their competition. That may have worked well in the sales room, but it also can lead to undesirable differences in overall sound.

Imaging & Sound stage
Remember that these sound quality features are determined by the speakers location within a room, as well as a listener's seating position. The type of music as well as the recording qualities have major influences on this. Some people recognize these sound qualities readily, and others do not. Preferences vary widely too. Any one can certainly talk about their listening experiences with speakers, but they must remember how many different things can affect their perceptions.

When Dennis Murphy designs speakers and crossovers, he uses only one cabinet, not two. He highly values wide dispersion without dips across crossover frequency ranges, and strongly believes that they directly affect good imaging & sound stage. But these features cannot be directly measured. Dennis knows how to achieve these sound qualities, but he does not directly listen for them while designing speakers. With designs intended for commercial sale, he does listen, at a later time, to two speakers in stereo. And he does go back to alter the crossovers if needed.

I'm assuming that with the F3 being @ 34hz that it's down 10db @27hz, anechoic. In room and with the TLs shallower roll off, that they may sound similar in-room. The Song 3 cabinet is large compared to VST and the distortion is very nice into deep bass, based on the raw driver data for the W16 it seems to indicate distortion is under control through the vocal range, into the mid bass nicely.

I didn't have enough time last night to let them rip, but did put them through my reference tracks of female vocals and unamplified instruments and I was very pleased so far. I'm waiting on a new rack for the electronics, more electronics, so all of my listening is without any EQ applied and I'm running them full range no subs, and should be fully setup in 3 weeks.. A whole bunch of fun to look forward to.

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm assuming that with the F3 being @ 34hz that it's down 10db @27hz, anechoic. In room and with the TLs shallower roll off, that they may sound similar in-room. The Song 3 cabinet is large compared to VST and the distortion is very nice into deep bass, based on the raw driver data for the W16 it seems to indicate distortion is under control through the vocal range, into the mid bass nicely.

I didn't have enough time last night to let them rip, but did put them through my reference tracks of female vocals and unamplified instruments and I was very pleased so far. I'm waiting on a new rack for the electronics, more electronics, so all of my listening is without any EQ applied and I'm running them full range no subs, and should be fully setup in 3 weeks.. A whole bunch of fun to look forward to.

I was pretty sure they were Salk speakers. You really want to hang on to those.

Those SEAS Excel drivers certainly have great strengths. The cones are light and very rigid. However, even the most rigid cones have a breakup point. When they do break up it is not pretty. This poses the challenge. The strength is that until the break up point rigid cones have incredibly good and even dispersion. These drivers certainly do, and I can confirm that.

So these drivers are a challenge to design for, but well worth the effort. They are beautifully made and handle huge amounts of power without complaint.

It is correct that the 7.5" drivers need a large TL line, and the 10" drivers an even bigger one. I think I am the only lunatic who has combined lines for two 7.5" drivers and two 10" drivers with those magnesium alloy cones in one enclosure containing two discrete lines. But boy, it was really worth the effort.

I have enjoyed them now for 18 years and don't want to touch them.

 

[everettT]

I was pretty sure they were Salk speakers. You really want to hang on to those.

Those SEAS Excel drivers certainly have great strengths. The cones are light and very rigid. However, even the most rigid cones have a breakup point. When they do break up it is not pretty. This poses the challenge. The strength is that until the break up point rigid cones have incredibly good and even dispersion. These drivers certainly do, and I can confirm that.

So these drivers are a challenge to design for, but well worth the effort. They are beautifully made and handle huge amounts of power without complaint.

It is correct that the 7.5" drivers need a large TL line, and the 10" drivers an even bigger one. I think I am the only lunatic who has combined lines for two 7.5" drivers and two 10" drivers with those magnesium alloy cones in one enclosure containing two discrete lines. But boy, it was really worth the effort.

I have enjoyed them now for 18 years and don't want to touch them.

I'm enjoying them for sure. These are the 6" version of the Excel magnesium drivers and @Swerd had pointed out to me in an early post about the cone breakup and how Dennis dealt with the it using a shunt circuit in line.

What could this be?

Hmmm... BTW the cat is 16lbs

forums.audioholics.com

I'd love to hear your system one day, I imagine the low bass is spectacular with four 10"s mass loaded, maybe too much at times (if that's possible).

 

[TLS Guy]

I'm enjoying them for sure. These are the 6" version of the Excel magnesium drivers and @Swerd had pointed out to me in an early post about the cone breakup and how Dennis dealt with the it using a shunt circuit in line.

What could this be?

Hmmm... BTW the cat is 16lbs

forums.audioholics.com

I'd love to hear your system one day, I imagine the low bass is spectacular with four 10"s mass loaded, maybe too much at times (if that's possible).

The lines are tapered aperiodic lines and not mass loaded.

I do have the system carefully calibrated and I think the bass is correctly balanced.

When I designed the system I was concerned whether I would run the drivers out of xmax, but I don't think I ever have. There are no actual sub drivers, and I was prepared to design and build a sub or two. However that proved to be totally unnecessary. The bass is deep and fully adequate, and can easily vibrate your liver.
But what really pleases me is how natural and totally realistic the bass is. I have never heard it boom once, it is always clean bass that starts and stops when it should

It actually is an object lesson in acoustic coupling, as it actually takes comparatively little power to produce house shaking bass. So efficient acoustic coupling aces monster amps.

The basic concept was not my idea. The concept was developed by some of the greatest pioneers in the history of audio, when they designed the active monitors for the BBC studios in Maida Vale. That was the starting point for the design. Four of the amp boards from that system came my way, but they are not part of this system.
I do have them able to be powered up and in a 405 cases, but they are "keepsakes."

You would of course be welcome here anytime.