Hi Russell,
I have the 8 inch Phy's with the normal voice coil.
The reason why the two jbl's aren't up to the tasks is because they are in a w-frame dipole cabinet,wouldn't call it open baffle anymore, but still dipole wich is important to have the same radiation pattern at the crossover. The w-frames sound very good in the low-end but as we all now they have a big dissadvantace being severe cavity resonances so they can only be used to 120Hz at max with steep crossovers. anything higher and the resonances become audible, not very nice to hear.
The Phy's can go as low but are missing the impact in this area, a crossover point of 200Hz would do the trick better. That's why I have ordered some more 15" drivers to put them on a straight baffle and use the w-baffle purely for sub duty below 50 hz.
I ended up using some modded BMS 4540nd tweeters in some small wooden 100 degree waveguides. These where funny enough one of the cheapest tweeters I have tried. The strange thing is that with thes bms waveguides I can use the Phy's unfiltered at the top and just let the bms blend in with some overlap. Couldn't do that with any of the other tweeters I have tried, don't ask why, don't know, just didn't work out. When I move my ears close in front of the speakers between the mid and highs there charactre of tone is about the same now, but this might also be the DEQX crossover responsable for that.
The next best combination was a pair of ESS air motion transformers, but then it was crossed at 3 kHz.
I'm using a DEQX crossover so changes are easily made
Lynn, as with all of these 8" wide range drivers there true dynamic capablities are in their mid- uppermidrange- lower highs. With some of them they are false dynamics i.m.o. and is in fact nothing more then a rising upper midrange. I can run a parametric e.q on my Phy's in the upper mids and have them sound almost excactly like a lowther. Some call this dynamics, I call it uneven rising response. The Phy don't have the shout of a lowther, fostex or even b200. in fact with a bad tweeter match they are even sounding a bit dull. teh tweeter has to be very dynamic, that one of the first and most important criterias according to my experience with them.
Ribbons are too thin, amt's do a better job, domes are totally out of the question i.m.o.
I think I stick with the BMS waveguide fo now but I'm really anxious to try some TAD et703's with them.
As for lower mid dynamics, no I don't think they can cope with a 10 or 12 inch lower midrange. as said before, there true dynamic capabilities are in the mids - upper mids. Nonetheless a very nice sounding speaker.
I have the 8 inch Phy's with the normal voice coil.
The reason why the two jbl's aren't up to the tasks is because they are in a w-frame dipole cabinet,wouldn't call it open baffle anymore, but still dipole wich is important to have the same radiation pattern at the crossover. The w-frames sound very good in the low-end but as we all now they have a big dissadvantace being severe cavity resonances so they can only be used to 120Hz at max with steep crossovers. anything higher and the resonances become audible, not very nice to hear.
The Phy's can go as low but are missing the impact in this area, a crossover point of 200Hz would do the trick better. That's why I have ordered some more 15" drivers to put them on a straight baffle and use the w-baffle purely for sub duty below 50 hz.
I ended up using some modded BMS 4540nd tweeters in some small wooden 100 degree waveguides. These where funny enough one of the cheapest tweeters I have tried. The strange thing is that with thes bms waveguides I can use the Phy's unfiltered at the top and just let the bms blend in with some overlap. Couldn't do that with any of the other tweeters I have tried, don't ask why, don't know, just didn't work out. When I move my ears close in front of the speakers between the mid and highs there charactre of tone is about the same now, but this might also be the DEQX crossover responsable for that.
The next best combination was a pair of ESS air motion transformers, but then it was crossed at 3 kHz.
I'm using a DEQX crossover so changes are easily made
Lynn, as with all of these 8" wide range drivers there true dynamic capablities are in their mid- uppermidrange- lower highs. With some of them they are false dynamics i.m.o. and is in fact nothing more then a rising upper midrange. I can run a parametric e.q on my Phy's in the upper mids and have them sound almost excactly like a lowther. Some call this dynamics, I call it uneven rising response. The Phy don't have the shout of a lowther, fostex or even b200. in fact with a bad tweeter match they are even sounding a bit dull. teh tweeter has to be very dynamic, that one of the first and most important criterias according to my experience with them.
Ribbons are too thin, amt's do a better job, domes are totally out of the question i.m.o.
I think I stick with the BMS waveguide fo now but I'm really anxious to try some TAD et703's with them.
As for lower mid dynamics, no I don't think they can cope with a 10 or 12 inch lower midrange. as said before, there true dynamic capabilities are in the mids - upper mids. Nonetheless a very nice sounding speaker.
neoplanars
Got the 25" neoplanars (set#2) in today...
now I've gotta figure out what to do with them. They sound pretty good unbaffled, very clear and smooth with extended response. Also seem to play down to 100 Hz or so (low volume) as when I place my ear up close you hear the bass as the dipole cancellation subsides.
probably will end up as dipole surrounds in the newest theatre/listening room, with the addition of the 52" HDTV...:
John L.
Got the 25" neoplanars (set#2) in today...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
now I've gotta figure out what to do with them. They sound pretty good unbaffled, very clear and smooth with extended response. Also seem to play down to 100 Hz or so (low volume) as when I place my ear up close you hear the bass as the dipole cancellation subsides.
probably will end up as dipole surrounds in the newest theatre/listening room, with the addition of the 52" HDTV...:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
John L.
Sjef said:
Sjef, thanks for the reply. Having finally heard the RAAL (after I bought four of them!), I have no reservations about thinness or dynamics - they basically have compression-driver impact and dynamics, combined with ionic-tweeter "air" and wide-open quality. They sound closest to the old Plasmatronics, but most people have never heard one of those. I was kind of surprised the RAALs don't sound much like conventional ribbons, and nothing like planar-films at all, with their fizzy, wispy sound.
It's good to hear the PHY doesn't have the level-dependent shout of the Lowther, Fostex, or Visaton B200. I suspect the whizzer is the bad actor there, since whizzers are so easily overloaded at HF - plenty directional too, and impossible to equalize thanks to the ragged directivity and distorted time response.
Sjef, what's your take on the 21 vs 30 cm PHY drivers for 200~300 Hz to 2~3 kHz duty? The impulse response of the two drivers looks remarkably similar, at least for the most critical 0-1 mSec time interval.
Obviously the larger driver would have a more confident and bolder lower midrange/upper bass region - I'm thinking of the power and realism of in-the-room concert piano sound, for example, which seems to be a difficult challenge for 6~8 inch drivers. By contrast, 12-inch drivers seem a lot better at pulling this off, something they share with big horn systems.
over-generalizations
"I was kind of surprised the RAALs don't sound much like conventional ribbons, and nothing like planar-films at all, with their fizzy, wispy sound."
hmmnn... good thing this is a subjective thread... sounds like the planars you've heard had a bad case of carbonation. Must have been listening to Bjork on them??? Onluy good for listening to Lawrence Welk or Guy Lombardo, I guess...
somebody stop the bubble machine!!!
John L.
"I was kind of surprised the RAALs don't sound much like conventional ribbons, and nothing like planar-films at all, with their fizzy, wispy sound."
hmmnn... good thing this is a subjective thread... sounds like the planars you've heard had a bad case of carbonation. Must have been listening to Bjork on them??? Onluy good for listening to Lawrence Welk or Guy Lombardo, I guess...
somebody stop the bubble machine!!!
John L.
Hi Lynn,
I have never heard the 12" phy, well I did but only for a minute or so in a terrible resonating cabinet without a tweeter so that's about the same as not having heard them at all, so I can't comment on them I'm afraid. I can only guess that they will have much of the sonic character of the 8" but with some more authority.
When my new woofers arive I can try the phy from 200hz upwards as planned but I think it my take a while, I'm a bit of a slowly builder the last ears, no hurry. The main reason for wanting to try this is indeed the lack of authority in the lower midrange of the 8" Phy, wich is by the way not as bad as many other 8" widerange drivers I know.
The reason I ended up with the Phy and/or the old smaller amt's is not that these are the best tweeters in the whole wide world but because they had the best integration with the mids in my system, with the use of my DEQX that is, wich plays a big factor in the complete design anyways. When trying to design a loudspeaker system there are always a thousand variables to cope with, very hard to do on paper, that's why I choose the flexibilty of a dsp crossover.
You make me kind of curious about the RAAL ribbons. I don't know the plasmatronics but I do know the Ionofane wich had a little horn attached to the plasma unit. They where very dynamic indeed, had some horn colouration though and unfortunatly didn't last long because of burning out. I saw some for sale lately for a thousand euro's, a bit expensive for there durabilty.
I did not follow this complete thread so I don't know what has been said before but my experience with ribbons is that, while I like them a lot, they sort of demand you that you start designing the whole loudspeaker system with the ribbon as starting point and work you way down with matching drivers. still curious about the RAALS though.
And like you have said erlier I completely agree that driver quality is one of the most important things to start with, a bad driver will alwyas be a bad driver nomatter what you do with it.
And to Planet 10, no I didn't have phase plug or any other mods on the B200's. I'm sure they can be bettered by modification.
I have never heard the 12" phy, well I did but only for a minute or so in a terrible resonating cabinet without a tweeter so that's about the same as not having heard them at all, so I can't comment on them I'm afraid. I can only guess that they will have much of the sonic character of the 8" but with some more authority.
When my new woofers arive I can try the phy from 200hz upwards as planned but I think it my take a while, I'm a bit of a slowly builder the last ears, no hurry. The main reason for wanting to try this is indeed the lack of authority in the lower midrange of the 8" Phy, wich is by the way not as bad as many other 8" widerange drivers I know.
The reason I ended up with the Phy and/or the old smaller amt's is not that these are the best tweeters in the whole wide world but because they had the best integration with the mids in my system, with the use of my DEQX that is, wich plays a big factor in the complete design anyways. When trying to design a loudspeaker system there are always a thousand variables to cope with, very hard to do on paper, that's why I choose the flexibilty of a dsp crossover.
You make me kind of curious about the RAAL ribbons. I don't know the plasmatronics but I do know the Ionofane wich had a little horn attached to the plasma unit. They where very dynamic indeed, had some horn colouration though and unfortunatly didn't last long because of burning out. I saw some for sale lately for a thousand euro's, a bit expensive for there durabilty.
I did not follow this complete thread so I don't know what has been said before but my experience with ribbons is that, while I like them a lot, they sort of demand you that you start designing the whole loudspeaker system with the ribbon as starting point and work you way down with matching drivers. still curious about the RAALS though.
And like you have said erlier I completely agree that driver quality is one of the most important things to start with, a bad driver will alwyas be a bad driver nomatter what you do with it.
And to Planet 10, no I didn't have phase plug or any other mods on the B200's. I'm sure they can be bettered by modification.
Lowthers and shout
"I can run a parametric e.q on my Phy's in the upper mids and have them sound almost excactly like a lowther. Some call this dynamics, I call it uneven rising response."
There seems to be some sort of continueing misconception surrounding Lowther drivers. Perhaps people have heard them misused or with poor quality electronics for front end components. I have had Lowther DX4s for several years now and people who have heard my system NEVER have complained about this so called shout (nor do I hear it). The older Lowther drivers were designed for front-loaded horns and so when they were mounted in back horns, they indeed still have a rising response that was difficult to deal with.
The newer rolled edge cone DX4s, which I have, don't have this quality when mounted in back horns and when the compression chamber is designed correctly. With the flat frequency response, they are VERY dynamic, so this quality cannot be due to a nonflat frequency response (sounds like a lot of hyperbole to me).
Over the last year I have been experimenting with Lowthers on open baffle. In this case, the DX4s will have a rising response if their frequency response is not adjusted (but wouldn't any high efficiency driver have the same problem?). Dick Olsher issued a set of plans (Basszilla) to balance the sound of a Lowther on OBs, and as a result they sound exceptional with a very even response. One difference I made to his original design is that I biamp so that the only component in the signal path of my Lowthers is a single air core inductor. I currently high pass the Lowthers at 150 hz (altlhough I plan on adjusting this to a higher frequency to avoid the congestion that Lynn revers to), and I have two sets of drivers (a set of 15 and a set of 18 inch drivers) mounted on the baffle in a W-baffle, respectively, for bass. The sound is very, very good.
Despite the great sound, I have a list of changes that I will eventually make based on what I have learned and read about designing open baffle speakers.
Does the whizzer "break up," particularly at high levels? From what I have heard, Lowther relies on this "break up" to create the high frequencies (which I have to admit, I don't fully understand). I don't normally play my DX4s above 100 db as I only use them for listening in my home and I don't want to damage my ears. I believe that there may be some very minor distortion at a particular frequency in the 1000 hz range which I can hear with frequency sweeps, but is not apparent when listening to music. I am not sure that any aberation in the frequency response is not be caused by something upstream anyways.
About the EnABLE process. I am interested in it as a possibility. What I read about Limono's experience, however, leaves me very skeptical. I believe that Bud's experiments were very short lived to derive the most from a driver which is of very high quality to begin with. I think someone has to try different applications of the coatings to figure out how much and where to place the coating material.
Interesting thread....
Retsel
"I can run a parametric e.q on my Phy's in the upper mids and have them sound almost excactly like a lowther. Some call this dynamics, I call it uneven rising response."
There seems to be some sort of continueing misconception surrounding Lowther drivers. Perhaps people have heard them misused or with poor quality electronics for front end components. I have had Lowther DX4s for several years now and people who have heard my system NEVER have complained about this so called shout (nor do I hear it). The older Lowther drivers were designed for front-loaded horns and so when they were mounted in back horns, they indeed still have a rising response that was difficult to deal with.
The newer rolled edge cone DX4s, which I have, don't have this quality when mounted in back horns and when the compression chamber is designed correctly. With the flat frequency response, they are VERY dynamic, so this quality cannot be due to a nonflat frequency response (sounds like a lot of hyperbole to me).
Over the last year I have been experimenting with Lowthers on open baffle. In this case, the DX4s will have a rising response if their frequency response is not adjusted (but wouldn't any high efficiency driver have the same problem?). Dick Olsher issued a set of plans (Basszilla) to balance the sound of a Lowther on OBs, and as a result they sound exceptional with a very even response. One difference I made to his original design is that I biamp so that the only component in the signal path of my Lowthers is a single air core inductor. I currently high pass the Lowthers at 150 hz (altlhough I plan on adjusting this to a higher frequency to avoid the congestion that Lynn revers to), and I have two sets of drivers (a set of 15 and a set of 18 inch drivers) mounted on the baffle in a W-baffle, respectively, for bass. The sound is very, very good.
Despite the great sound, I have a list of changes that I will eventually make based on what I have learned and read about designing open baffle speakers.
Does the whizzer "break up," particularly at high levels? From what I have heard, Lowther relies on this "break up" to create the high frequencies (which I have to admit, I don't fully understand). I don't normally play my DX4s above 100 db as I only use them for listening in my home and I don't want to damage my ears. I believe that there may be some very minor distortion at a particular frequency in the 1000 hz range which I can hear with frequency sweeps, but is not apparent when listening to music. I am not sure that any aberation in the frequency response is not be caused by something upstream anyways.
About the EnABLE process. I am interested in it as a possibility. What I read about Limono's experience, however, leaves me very skeptical. I believe that Bud's experiments were very short lived to derive the most from a driver which is of very high quality to begin with. I think someone has to try different applications of the coatings to figure out how much and where to place the coating material.
Interesting thread....
Retsel
Lynn Olson said:
RAAL have excellent dynamics when used correctly. I've been using the 140-15 for months now and agree with what you've said. They can sound thin when used too low <2Khz but keep them up above this and they're the best I've heard yet with a nice blend of air, detail and transparency but still able to sound dynamic and alive. Guitar playing and other sharp transients are more real sounding than any speakers I've owned or built before.
They are durable too, a couple of times I've sent silly signals to them through an active setup and they just suck it up. If you stretch them then simply apply heat and they're back taught. Despite this robustness I still managed to wreck a ribbon whilst modding the faceplate(a machine bolt got sucked into the gap and straight through the ribbon). Alex quickly sent out replacements and even conjured up some non standard ribbons that are slightly wider than the normal 140-15 ones. There's just a fraction of a mm on each side of the gap now meaning slightly more radiating area. Top bloke.
Here's a shot:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Its an acoustic sources simulator from the EV website. I use it too and its free. I have done some beach bar installation analysis with a nearby residential area that had not to be staying awake all night, and the bass direction and dispersion it showed, worked for real. ''No Police, and Hi-Fi sonics'' they enthused over the phone.
someone asked where the neoplanars came from. I got them off craigslist... here's the promotional/propaganda about them...(I have no vested interest in any of the sources, btw)
http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/neoplanar/index.php
I find these drivers to be very listenable, easy to integrate, surprisingly robust... surprised more folks haven't tried them, as a widerange driver... true, I'm "just a hobbiest" and haven't run detailed tests, waterfall plots, etc. ad nauseum, but to my ears they sound incredibly transparent as midrange / tweeters and don't suffer comb effects like multi-driver arrays.
http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/neoplanar/index.php
I find these drivers to be very listenable, easy to integrate, surprisingly robust... surprised more folks haven't tried them, as a widerange driver... true, I'm "just a hobbiest" and haven't run detailed tests, waterfall plots, etc. ad nauseum, but to my ears they sound incredibly transparent as midrange / tweeters and don't suffer comb effects like multi-driver arrays.
Salas is right. If you look back at page 30 in this tread
= http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100392&perpage=25&pagenumber=30
and at Post# 741, you will find a link to the software.
b
Retsel,
I actually had Dan Wiggins looking over my shoulder as I treated the DX 4's. He agreed that the pattern all by itself added the clarity and removed all trace of mid / hi pulses for high level transients, by bringing the rest of the drivers output up to that level.
However, dense orchestral music would still corrupt the signal and some mid / high transients were still thin and sharp, if very well defined. The gloss coating was applied layer by layer, area by area, until the corruptions disappeared. The drivers were auditioned at every stage, after 48 hours had passed and the materials were cured.
Once the optimum amount of gloss coating had been applied, I put a thin coating on the backside of the whizzer ledge, but none on the backside of the whizzer cone body. This really unleashed the demons of transient dynamics.
Dan heard this condition, mounted as all of my in treatment drivers are, in open air as an omni radiator, and was shocked at what the DX 4 was capable of. He is not a Lowther fan, by the way, and even less of a fan of whizzer cones.
Limono put them directly into his horns and was not able to stand the intensity. Clarity, detail, flat wave emission were all fine, but the intensity was overwhelming him.
He has since mounted them open baffle and then rear mounted the Le Cleach profile horn. This, along with "Electron Pools" has made them very much appreciated in his life.
Better than 3 months were involved in learning how to treat something as volatile as these DX 4 drivers. And that is with 30 plus years and 300 plus speaker systems as background experience to draw on.
I have already turned down two commissions to treat more DX 4's, just because they were being used in horn flares. I, and Jon Ver Halen in one case, advised the owners not to apply this process, due only to how intense the driver is, when all of it's energy is collected in a horn. The things were frightening enough in open air.
Bud
I actually had Dan Wiggins looking over my shoulder as I treated the DX 4's. He agreed that the pattern all by itself added the clarity and removed all trace of mid / hi pulses for high level transients, by bringing the rest of the drivers output up to that level.
However, dense orchestral music would still corrupt the signal and some mid / high transients were still thin and sharp, if very well defined. The gloss coating was applied layer by layer, area by area, until the corruptions disappeared. The drivers were auditioned at every stage, after 48 hours had passed and the materials were cured.
Once the optimum amount of gloss coating had been applied, I put a thin coating on the backside of the whizzer ledge, but none on the backside of the whizzer cone body. This really unleashed the demons of transient dynamics.
Dan heard this condition, mounted as all of my in treatment drivers are, in open air as an omni radiator, and was shocked at what the DX 4 was capable of. He is not a Lowther fan, by the way, and even less of a fan of whizzer cones.
Limono put them directly into his horns and was not able to stand the intensity. Clarity, detail, flat wave emission were all fine, but the intensity was overwhelming him.
He has since mounted them open baffle and then rear mounted the Le Cleach profile horn. This, along with "Electron Pools" has made them very much appreciated in his life.
Better than 3 months were involved in learning how to treat something as volatile as these DX 4 drivers. And that is with 30 plus years and 300 plus speaker systems as background experience to draw on.
I have already turned down two commissions to treat more DX 4's, just because they were being used in horn flares. I, and Jon Ver Halen in one case, advised the owners not to apply this process, due only to how intense the driver is, when all of it's energy is collected in a horn. The things were frightening enough in open air.
Bud
Poor man's options...
Just in case Lynn ends up getting a bit esoteric in the driver selection, or things end up a little on the big side.... I would really like to hear from Lynn and others regarding these smaller drivers that have been mentioned (and one that hasn't). These are the drivers folks have mentioned that I find very intriguing and perhaps as close as smaller drivers can come to the efficiency and dynamic range goals that seem to be pushing this project towards larger drivers:
Audax PR170M0 - Many have testified as to the quality of this midrange, only downside I can see is that most seem to feel two are needed per side, and that the driver doesn't seem to like being crossed much lower than 300Hz.
RCF L8S800 - The 8 inch woofer Magnetar is using has always interested me as I have seen it for many months now on the US Speaker site but never heard of anyone giving it a go.
Beyma 8M60/N - like the RCF above, looks like it could be very exciting on paper, but have not heard about anyones experience with it.
And then there is this one that just popped up on the net (at least for me, never seen it anywhere before):
http://www.eighteensound.it/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=243
Eighteen Sound 6ND430 - it is only a 6.5 inch driver, if that, but looks like an interesting alternative to the normal hi-fi stuff if you are happy handing off to something else around 80-100Hz or so.
Anyone heard anything about this last one? Very curious. In general, it would be interesting to hear how these would stack up if one where to follow most of Lynn's approach here but scale things back a bit for smaller rooms, lower listening levels, or just plain cost or whatever. Any thoughts? I hope Lynn doesn't mind the distraction, but I thought it was all still related enough to be better here than starting a new thread.
Just in case Lynn ends up getting a bit esoteric in the driver selection, or things end up a little on the big side.... I would really like to hear from Lynn and others regarding these smaller drivers that have been mentioned (and one that hasn't). These are the drivers folks have mentioned that I find very intriguing and perhaps as close as smaller drivers can come to the efficiency and dynamic range goals that seem to be pushing this project towards larger drivers:
Audax PR170M0 - Many have testified as to the quality of this midrange, only downside I can see is that most seem to feel two are needed per side, and that the driver doesn't seem to like being crossed much lower than 300Hz.
RCF L8S800 - The 8 inch woofer Magnetar is using has always interested me as I have seen it for many months now on the US Speaker site but never heard of anyone giving it a go.
Beyma 8M60/N - like the RCF above, looks like it could be very exciting on paper, but have not heard about anyones experience with it.
And then there is this one that just popped up on the net (at least for me, never seen it anywhere before):
http://www.eighteensound.it/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=243
Eighteen Sound 6ND430 - it is only a 6.5 inch driver, if that, but looks like an interesting alternative to the normal hi-fi stuff if you are happy handing off to something else around 80-100Hz or so.
Anyone heard anything about this last one? Very curious. In general, it would be interesting to hear how these would stack up if one where to follow most of Lynn's approach here but scale things back a bit for smaller rooms, lower listening levels, or just plain cost or whatever. Any thoughts? I hope Lynn doesn't mind the distraction, but I thought it was all still related enough to be better here than starting a new thread.
I just picked up 4 PHL 6.5" 1240 16ohm drivers from the Trading Post on the forum. My plan at the moment is to run two per side with a Neo3PDR and two 15" PA woofers...probably Pyle PPA15's due to monetary constraints. They'll be active/passive via a PA x-over, with a PA amp driving the woofers. I think that I can get ~92dB/W/M out of them with a little luck.
Regarding the PHY, I have read that one experimenter considers it beams "like a laser" in the HF.
See this post from Oct 2003 in "another forum" (he refers to an Aurum Cantus G2 tweeter):
quote... I've been working with the G2 ribbon over a PHY wideband driver. Running the PHY unfiltered, I highpassed the G2 at 9Khz with a steep slope. The ribbon is certainly underutilized crossing so high, but initially I liked what I heard.
Time, however, is not always kind.
The PHY beams like a laser and gets kind of ragged as it approaches 9 kHz, which made the transition to the ribbon less than ideal. There was also a lot of treble content I just wasn't getting. This would probably not be as big a problem with the fostex.
Recently, I have been playing with a first order series crossover at 4500 Hz, which shows much promise. Crossing here allows the PHY to handle most fundamental tones and the ribbon to handle most harmonics. Imaging and depth actually improved over running the wideband driver unfiltered.
I'm still tweaking and time willl once again tell, but consider using the wide bandwidth of the the drivers for a shallow order crossover." ... end quote
See this post from Oct 2003 in "another forum" (he refers to an Aurum Cantus G2 tweeter):
quote... I've been working with the G2 ribbon over a PHY wideband driver. Running the PHY unfiltered, I highpassed the G2 at 9Khz with a steep slope. The ribbon is certainly underutilized crossing so high, but initially I liked what I heard.
Time, however, is not always kind.
The PHY beams like a laser and gets kind of ragged as it approaches 9 kHz, which made the transition to the ribbon less than ideal. There was also a lot of treble content I just wasn't getting. This would probably not be as big a problem with the fostex.
Recently, I have been playing with a first order series crossover at 4500 Hz, which shows much promise. Crossing here allows the PHY to handle most fundamental tones and the ribbon to handle most harmonics. Imaging and depth actually improved over running the wideband driver unfiltered.
I'm still tweaking and time willl once again tell, but consider using the wide bandwidth of the the drivers for a shallow order crossover." ... end quote