With a larger cabinet and some sacrifice on sensitivity (due to BSC), David Wilson could have even forgone the very expensive and complicated addition of the Puppy woofer. The SEAS is capable of low freqs into the lower 40's. This would probably have resulted in a more coherent loudspeaker (closer to a full range point source). A SEAS 17RCY, or modern equivalent in a pyramid shaped monitor cabinet with a nice soft dome (i.e. SEAS T29 ) would make (for) an interesting diy project.
In this respect, the Reference 3A that was discussed earlier in this thread is a more straightforward design and a far more easier load for (tube) amplifiers. But, I might be oversimplifying things here.
As a tribute to to the tiny SEAS 11F's and its application in the Reference 3A Master MS 5 some images. These were highly regarded back then and share a similar modular design concept with the WATT/PUPPY's, but with different technology and at a much lower price.
In this respect, the Reference 3A that was discussed earlier in this thread is a more straightforward design and a far more easier load for (tube) amplifiers. But, I might be oversimplifying things here.
As a tribute to to the tiny SEAS 11F's and its application in the Reference 3A Master MS 5 some images. These were highly regarded back then and share a similar modular design concept with the WATT/PUPPY's, but with different technology and at a much lower price.
Attachments
Last edited:
And these were sources of inspiration for development of the Wilson WATT:
No interminable analysis this time, but a 1984 review from Audio Magazine.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
No interminable analysis this time, but a 1984 review from Audio Magazine.
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It does seem like the only way to solve the 6" bass' time-alignment problems is a sloped or stepped baffle. Otherwise you run into shallow rolloff on the bass, and the 5kHz resonance/phase issue.
I thought Michael Chua's Starling design was as good as it gets for flat baffle. He's using impedance correction and passive LR bafflestep.
Joachim Gerhard bangs on about low mechanical loss as being a good thing. How's about a Qms around a staggeringly high 8.39? Enter the Visaton B200.
I had a play with this 90dB woofer. It is remarkably like those old Elac ceiling speakers from the 1970s. Small 1" low loss Kapton (Plastic) voicecoil former. Big old magnet, but a Qts of 0.75, saying big 60-70L box.
Say we substitute it for the below heavier coned W200S in a bigger box:
No natural rolloff to simplify the crossover, so we need a full 4th. order bass section and a LCR impedance corrector. It's actually very nice done this way. I suspect this speaker, with limited bass depth and a roughish frequency response, would play jazz very well and very lively. The B200 driver is about £90 in the UK. The TW70 or Monacor HT-22/8 tweeter goes for peanuts! LOL
I thought Michael Chua's Starling design was as good as it gets for flat baffle. He's using impedance correction and passive LR bafflestep.
Joachim Gerhard bangs on about low mechanical loss as being a good thing. How's about a Qms around a staggeringly high 8.39? Enter the Visaton B200.
I had a play with this 90dB woofer. It is remarkably like those old Elac ceiling speakers from the 1970s. Small 1" low loss Kapton (Plastic) voicecoil former. Big old magnet, but a Qts of 0.75, saying big 60-70L box.
Say we substitute it for the below heavier coned W200S in a bigger box:
No natural rolloff to simplify the crossover, so we need a full 4th. order bass section and a LCR impedance corrector. It's actually very nice done this way. I suspect this speaker, with limited bass depth and a roughish frequency response, would play jazz very well and very lively. The B200 driver is about £90 in the UK. The TW70 or Monacor HT-22/8 tweeter goes for peanuts! LOL
Attachments
High QMS is desirable, but often goes hand in hand
with a larger cab as you have stated, Steve.
This B200 is to great extent similar to many vintage drivers. These are regularly offered for decent money in NL or Germany were its a classic among the diy community.
Unfortunately, its power handling is limited, akin to i.e. the JA-8008.
with a larger cab as you have stated, Steve.
This B200 is to great extent similar to many vintage drivers. These are regularly offered for decent money in NL or Germany were its a classic among the diy community.
Unfortunately, its power handling is limited, akin to i.e. the JA-8008.
Last edited:
I remember the Spica TC-50. Far better than the Wilson WATT for the simple reason the drivers were better, although the TC-50 was about 2~3 dB less efficient thanks to the heavier cone of the bass driver. Subjective compression limit seemed to be in the 92~95 dB range. It definitely ran out of steam around 100 dB, which was Just Too Loud for the TC-50.
I measured the TC-50, and it had quite good impulse response (approaching the Quad ESL57), an area where the WATT was not very good (the Focal fiberglass and Kevlar tweeters had pretty bad breakups in the 5~8 kHz area). The later versions of the Focal tweeter with titanium diaphragms traded the broad breakup region in the 5~8 kHz range for a very high-Q resonance around 22~23 khz, which was conveniently above the range of most reviewer's test gear, and above the 20 khz brickwall filter of mid-Eighties CD players.
If memory serves, the TC-50 used the Audax 1.25" large-diameter soft-dome tweeter, which had about twice as much energy-handling in the critical 2~3 kHz range compared to other 1" tweeters of the day, which greatly simplified the crossover design. By contrast, the 1" Focal had rather limited energy-handling in that same part of the spectrum, and was not a good match with 1st-order highpass filters. Asking too much excursion from the Focal tweeter emphasized the 5~8 kHz breakup region, and led to a noticeable coarsening of the sound as levels got higher.
Subjectively, the two speakers sounded completely different. The TC-50 was very spacious, sweet and a bit laid-back in the British 70's style, while the WATT was aggressive and forward sounding (in the American West Coast style), mostly due to the tweeter. The WATT also plays about 5 dB louder, which American reviewers really liked.
The WATT would have been a very different speaker if it hadn't used the Focal tweeter (and had a different crossover).
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Scanspeak make interesting drivers. But not always great ones, IMO. I mean, if my young nephews slashed my cones with a razor blade and then glued them back together, would I be pleased? I don't think so!
I grew up in the late 1960s and 1970s listening to valve amps driving Goodmans 10" or 12" bass in a huge old box with 3" cone tweeter. I don't think crossovers were taken very seriously in those days. Usually just a 10uF capacitor to protect the tweeter from low frequencies. LOL.
It actually sounded tremendously realistic on occasion.
High frequencies around 15kHz weren't the main event with setups like this. It was mostly about the 300-3kHz midrange, which is what your ear is designed for.
I compared the Visaton modelling for a modern rubber surround, big magnet W200S in a tiny 12L with the very retro cloth surround B200 in 60L. They actually end up in much the same place.
Even on power handling, though you must trust me on this. Anyway, the comparison below. A lot to be said for the small box which works as well as the big one. Wharfedale did this sort of small box back in the seventies with the 20L Wharfedale Denton II with an 8" bass. Possibly the best selling speaker they ever made. FWIW, the cone midrange/tweeter was crossed quite low around 1.5kHz. It was a plastic unit with a built-in chamber around the size of a coffee-cup with some wadding. I quite like the old retro cloth-surround style though. The Sony E44 is so retro, it's laughable. But extremely musical IMO, especially with a good crossover.
I grew up in the late 1960s and 1970s listening to valve amps driving Goodmans 10" or 12" bass in a huge old box with 3" cone tweeter. I don't think crossovers were taken very seriously in those days. Usually just a 10uF capacitor to protect the tweeter from low frequencies. LOL.
It actually sounded tremendously realistic on occasion.
High frequencies around 15kHz weren't the main event with setups like this. It was mostly about the 300-3kHz midrange, which is what your ear is designed for.
I compared the Visaton modelling for a modern rubber surround, big magnet W200S in a tiny 12L with the very retro cloth surround B200 in 60L. They actually end up in much the same place.
Even on power handling, though you must trust me on this. Anyway, the comparison below. A lot to be said for the small box which works as well as the big one. Wharfedale did this sort of small box back in the seventies with the 20L Wharfedale Denton II with an 8" bass. Possibly the best selling speaker they ever made. FWIW, the cone midrange/tweeter was crossed quite low around 1.5kHz. It was a plastic unit with a built-in chamber around the size of a coffee-cup with some wadding. I quite like the old retro cloth-surround style though. The Sony E44 is so retro, it's laughable. But extremely musical IMO, especially with a good crossover.
Attachments
Last edited:
That picture just screams Scan Speak
For years, Wilson and ScanSpeak have maintained an intimite oem relationship. For the better according to many, the SS based Wilsons are overall better balanced and easier on the ear.
Look at this $785.000 SS array:
Iam pretty sure this still is no match for your arrays as far as response is concerned.
From an esthetical viewpoint: I don't get these (b...ugly) curves on the sidepanels. Why not use curved fronts on the modules and straight lined sides?
This is probably the preferred design on the markets in the middle and far east.
Last edited:
Yes! Your experience with the Spica's tells the story!
Thank you for sharing the info.
Tweeter and woofer are both Audax units.
Last edited:
I just discovered this old thread on the Extrema in which Steve bashed the 'patented' crossover topology.
The images have disappeared, so you may want to refresh our memories here, Steve
The reason I want to dive a little deeper into this monitor lies in the technical design and the choice of drivers.
The images have disappeared, so you may want to refresh our memories here, Steve
The reason I want to dive a little deeper into this monitor lies in the technical design and the choice of drivers.
If you chose to go the 'path of low sensitivity' to build typical studio monitor loudspeakers this is an interesting read.
As usual it all comes down to tradeoffs. I have owned and listened to a great many low sensitivity loudspeakers (more on that later), but once I rediscovered HES - of reasonble quality - it became quite difficult to 'enjoy' low sens speakers again.
As usual it all comes down to tradeoffs. I have owned and listened to a great many low sensitivity loudspeakers (more on that later), but once I rediscovered HES - of reasonble quality - it became quite difficult to 'enjoy' low sens speakers again.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Is this the case across the frequency band, or is it mostly important for the mid-range ?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I will post a more in depth comment on this later, but the short answer is:
If you choose for HES, you'll want it 'across the range'.
With this I mean: in room +- 3dB, which would roughly come down to +- 6 dB free space (4 Pi).
And no, in my view that doesn't mean: 20-20.000Hz
Last edited: