I'm trying to work out what benefit you'll get from doing this build yourself, when you already like the Ascend Sierra 2 so much.
Proposed tweeter: Tweeter: RAAL 70-20XRAM
Ascend Sierra 2 tweeter: RAAL 70-20XR (with modified faceplate)
Proposed Midwoofer: AT 18H52 (expensive 5" with polypropylene cone)
Ascend Sierra 2 Midwoofer: Seas Curv (expensive 6" with polypropylene cone)
Proposed cabinet: vertically stranded bamboo
Ascend Sierra 2 cabinet: 'layered' bamboo
Poposed cost: about $US 1400 per pair - just for drivers
Ascend Sierra 2 cost: $US 1348 per pair - complete
What will the extra expenditure get you?
1) the port will be in a different location
2) the tweeter faceplate will be rectangular
3) the woofer will be smaller
4) efficiency will be lower
To me these don't seem like benefits. Am I missing something?
I get that DIY can be fun, but this is basically a clone, so the design space is pretty small (i.e you could paint your version a different colour), and a CNC robot will be doing most of the build.
These seem like advertising fulff / weasel words which don't actually carry any information.
?
Proposed tweeter: Tweeter: RAAL 70-20XRAM
Ascend Sierra 2 tweeter: RAAL 70-20XR (with modified faceplate)
Proposed Midwoofer: AT 18H52 (expensive 5" with polypropylene cone)
Ascend Sierra 2 Midwoofer: Seas Curv (expensive 6" with polypropylene cone)
Proposed cabinet: vertically stranded bamboo
Ascend Sierra 2 cabinet: 'layered' bamboo
Poposed cost: about $US 1400 per pair - just for drivers
Ascend Sierra 2 cost: $US 1348 per pair - complete
What will the extra expenditure get you?
1) the port will be in a different location
2) the tweeter faceplate will be rectangular
3) the woofer will be smaller
4) efficiency will be lower
To me these don't seem like benefits. Am I missing something?
I get that DIY can be fun, but this is basically a clone, so the design space is pretty small (i.e you could paint your version a different colour), and a CNC robot will be doing most of the build.
These seem like advertising fulff / weasel words which don't actually carry any information.
?
A few remarks:
- MW19P Satori driver with a FE108EZ crossed at 800-900Hz.
Pros:
Easy integration between drivers
Nice midrange
Good dynamics without much impact on midrange performance
Cons:
If you like ribbons the top end will be lacking
- Go bigger - WOP24 Satori + FE168EZ/MR13P + cheap ribbon or AMT, a fountek would do
Pros:
Simple crossover with lots of choice where to blend
Very good dynamics
Nice midrange
Cons:
More expensive to build
Crossover may be more complex
Bigger box
- Go for a waveguide loaded beryllium dome like the Transducer labs one and cross in the 1.8Khz-2Khz region to the midwoofer
Any other idea of mating a 18cm midwoofer to a high efficiency ribbon will sound honky, no matter what you read online. Indeed, any 2-way will be far away of the description "endgame" but I know other constraints may often force us to go smaller.
- MW19P Satori driver with a FE108EZ crossed at 800-900Hz.
Pros:
Easy integration between drivers
Nice midrange
Good dynamics without much impact on midrange performance
Cons:
If you like ribbons the top end will be lacking
- Go bigger - WOP24 Satori + FE168EZ/MR13P + cheap ribbon or AMT, a fountek would do
Pros:
Simple crossover with lots of choice where to blend
Very good dynamics
Nice midrange
Cons:
More expensive to build
Crossover may be more complex
Bigger box
- Go for a waveguide loaded beryllium dome like the Transducer labs one and cross in the 1.8Khz-2Khz region to the midwoofer
Any other idea of mating a 18cm midwoofer to a high efficiency ribbon will sound honky, no matter what you read online. Indeed, any 2-way will be far away of the description "endgame" but I know other constraints may often force us to go smaller.
Amazing drivers.
-You will need to find the time delay between the RAAL and 18H52.
-Time Step: A curve-stepped baffle around the midrange, with a large edge radius, might sound best for this ribbon + simple Xover circuit.
-A slot port needs round-over cuts on all inside and outside edges.
-I found that ribbon tweeters like the RAAL sound best in cabinets with LARGE RADIUS edges.
-Study the Vapor Sound RAAL designs.
-Vapor's translam construction is very expensive, but offers impressive customization.
The VaporSound Sundog Black is one example of simplier construction.
VAPOR AUDIO :: Exquisite Sound >> Sundog Black
Drivers Used RAAL 70-20XR Tweeter
Audio Technology C-Quenze 15H52 Woofer
Cabinet Tuning Available Sealed, or Rear Ported with 52hz tuning
Freq Response 50 – 38,500hz +/-3db, 55 – 26,000 hz +/- 1.5db
Nominal Impedance 8 ohms
Sensitivity 87 db
Weight and Dimensions 36 Pounds 15″ Height x 9″ Deep x 8″ Max Width
Crossover Details 2nd Order Parallel Network on Woofer and Tweeter Crossover point of 2300hz
-You will need to find the time delay between the RAAL and 18H52.
-Time Step: A curve-stepped baffle around the midrange, with a large edge radius, might sound best for this ribbon + simple Xover circuit.
-A slot port needs round-over cuts on all inside and outside edges.
-I found that ribbon tweeters like the RAAL sound best in cabinets with LARGE RADIUS edges.
-Study the Vapor Sound RAAL designs.
-Vapor's translam construction is very expensive, but offers impressive customization.
The VaporSound Sundog Black is one example of simplier construction.
VAPOR AUDIO :: Exquisite Sound >> Sundog Black
Drivers Used RAAL 70-20XR Tweeter
Audio Technology C-Quenze 15H52 Woofer
Cabinet Tuning Available Sealed, or Rear Ported with 52hz tuning
Freq Response 50 – 38,500hz +/-3db, 55 – 26,000 hz +/- 1.5db
Nominal Impedance 8 ohms
Sensitivity 87 db
Weight and Dimensions 36 Pounds 15″ Height x 9″ Deep x 8″ Max Width
Crossover Details 2nd Order Parallel Network on Woofer and Tweeter Crossover point of 2300hz
Attachments
Why restrict yourself to two ways?
For that budget you could build yourself a good 3 way which is likely to avoid many of the compromises that tend to exist in two ways-especially ones using small mid/woofers.
For that budget you could build yourself a good 3 way which is likely to avoid many of the compromises that tend to exist in two ways-especially ones using small mid/woofers.
does beaming really matter if you just sit in one spot and listen to the music? I am not trolling, just trying to reconcile some of then different tastes in speaker design. there are some that think the ultimate two way involves a 15 inch woofer and a horn tweeter. while others insist a two way with anything bigger than than 6 inches is fatally flawed. if one listens to 80% of the music from the same position relative to the speakers is beaming a concern?
jp
jp
These 2 ways get good reviews similar price range.
NADA 2-Way Klang + Ton Kit Pair using Illuminator Drivers
NADA 2-Way Klang + Ton Kit Pair using Illuminator Drivers
Last edited:
Possibly a MTM type design with a ribbon has a lot going for it. I don't much care if you use MT or effectively MTTM, it arrives at the same place, but dispersion becomes less of an issue with the MTTM approach IMO:
You seem to have arrived at a 6" bass as the foundation, and it looks well-behaved: C-Quenze 18 H 52 17 06 SD
Lot to like there. The ribbon tweeter should take care of the top end. This sort of thing works superbly well if you apply the bass separately via huge 15" sub-woofers. I have heard this sort of thing wall-mounted. LR4 electrical filters.
It's a low-distortion approach. I'd be hard-pressed to build a better sound system. The room is always the monster. My friends use a whole lot of rockwool sound-absorbing or damping material. Think about an 8" thickness. It's a no-compromise, money no object... strictly for the fanatics sort of sound. But near bliss. 😀
You seem to have arrived at a 6" bass as the foundation, and it looks well-behaved: C-Quenze 18 H 52 17 06 SD
Lot to like there. The ribbon tweeter should take care of the top end. This sort of thing works superbly well if you apply the bass separately via huge 15" sub-woofers. I have heard this sort of thing wall-mounted. LR4 electrical filters.
It's a low-distortion approach. I'd be hard-pressed to build a better sound system. The room is always the monster. My friends use a whole lot of rockwool sound-absorbing or damping material. Think about an 8" thickness. It's a no-compromise, money no object... strictly for the fanatics sort of sound. But near bliss. 😀
Last edited:
The C-Quenze 18H52 17 06 SD is a really, really, really nice midrange.
You really want a cleverly designed sealed cabinet to experience the really detailed transients.
So, you want to construct a RAAL + 18H52 cabinet which can easily convert between ported or sealed.
----no front slot port
----rear round port which can easily get plugged
Build a cabinet with ~0.6cuft empty.
-PORTED: 0.5cuft port tuned to 51Hz, -F3= 53Hz => 2" diamater port, 5" long, round both ends, 1350Hz port resonance
-SEALED: 0.5cuft FSC=74Hz, Qtc= 0.57, -F3=94Hz
I would.....
Use physical time alignment between the RAAL and 18H52.
Use 2" to 3" edge rounds or bevels to reduce diffraction.
Use LR4/LR4 crossovers at 2300Hz.
You really want a cleverly designed sealed cabinet to experience the really detailed transients.
So, you want to construct a RAAL + 18H52 cabinet which can easily convert between ported or sealed.
----no front slot port
----rear round port which can easily get plugged
Build a cabinet with ~0.6cuft empty.
-PORTED: 0.5cuft port tuned to 51Hz, -F3= 53Hz => 2" diamater port, 5" long, round both ends, 1350Hz port resonance
-SEALED: 0.5cuft FSC=74Hz, Qtc= 0.57, -F3=94Hz
I would.....
Use physical time alignment between the RAAL and 18H52.
Use 2" to 3" edge rounds or bevels to reduce diffraction.
Use LR4/LR4 crossovers at 2300Hz.
Attachments
What you describe is essentially the Ascend Sierra 2. With roundovers.
Given that the raw drivers cost the same as a complete Ascend Sierra 2 pair, a DIY build would cost about $500 more in money, and a lot more in hours, relative to simply buying an AS2 pair (and maybe plugging the ports). Is the reduced diffraction really worth it?
Can you point to a measurement that look bad, due to diffraction?
Sierra-2 RAAL Ribbon Tweeter Bamboo Cabinet Loudspeaker
I'm totes in favour of DIY, but in this case, if it costs MORE than an easily available, very well regarded product that the OP already likes...
From the RAAL 70-20XR datasheet, it looks like a LR4 acoustic slope crossover at 2,600Hz is produced when the 89db sensitivity terminal is selected, and the 12.6 ohm terminal is selected, and a 3.3uF series capacitor is used. If this is correct, then 2,600Hz LR4 would be a good first build with the C-Quenze 18H52 17 06 SD to study cone beaming and cone breakup.
How difficult is it to create alternative frequency LR4 acoustic slope crossovers?
How difficult is it to create alternative frequency LR4 acoustic slope crossovers?
Attachments
Thank you for all the suggestions and knowledge. With regards to the question about a comparison to the Sierra 2, it uses the 64-10 customized form and a customized SEAS Curv woofer. I think a case can be made that they are inferior in their measurements and dispersion characteristics to something like the 70-10 and 70-20 and MW offerings from SS, SEAS, and SB. Furthermore, I am able to obtain the 70-20XR and AT18H52 for a reasonable price. With a proper crossover, I'm pretty sure the latter will perform better than the Sierra 2, and its not going to cost me much more than $250 in total more than the Sierra 2.
I think the consensus is that the 18H52 is a good pair for the 70-20 so I will go ahead and start working on the cabinet and crossover design. Front port is out, so I will design with a rear, pluggable port in mind. I see that the Vapor Cirrus uses the same parts, so I will use it for research and I found what looks like its crossover online.
I will be also building a Be tweeter system tentatively using the Satori TW29BN-B and either the SB ceramic woofer, or the Satori MW16 as a comparison/gift to my sister. And maybe a proven reasonably priced kit later down the line as well, for my father. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge folks.
I think the consensus is that the 18H52 is a good pair for the 70-20 so I will go ahead and start working on the cabinet and crossover design. Front port is out, so I will design with a rear, pluggable port in mind. I see that the Vapor Cirrus uses the same parts, so I will use it for research and I found what looks like its crossover online.
I will be also building a Be tweeter system tentatively using the Satori TW29BN-B and either the SB ceramic woofer, or the Satori MW16 as a comparison/gift to my sister. And maybe a proven reasonably priced kit later down the line as well, for my father. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge folks.
Last edited:
Aha, I see my mistake. I'd somehow got the impression that the Sierra 2 used exactly the same ribbon, with a round faceplate. Maybe I saw this non-standard version referenced somewhere, and didn't realise it was a custom build.
Ascend Sierra-1 with RAAL 70/20xr tweeter upgrade For Sale - US Audio Mart
The measurements of the Sierra 2 look pretty sweet. The dispersion (polar plot) seems hard to beat.
The designer comments in the link above that the wider RAAL 70-20XR ribbon can cross a little lower. My guess is that any measurable improvement over the stock Sierra 2 would be in the CSD plot: the ribbon's rapid decay would extend ~500Hz lower.
Have you ever designed your own crossover before? Do you have measurement equipment?
A 2-way with a single 7" midwoofer is only 'end-game' if you have modest expectations for low-frequency extension and output—I'd at least want an MTM. Buying good drivers doesn't guarantee good results, and what you're aiming to do is difficult even for experienced designers. The mid will have to play higher than is optimal (for its diameter) and I doubt that little RAAL can go below 3000 Hz comfortably.
I've never heard it, but the Selah Audio Decennio kit looks nice. Those ribbon tweeters measure very well. The Viawave GRT-145 can definitely cross low enough for a 2-way, as can the RAAL 140-15D.
That Spirit Wind kit also looks nice, if you're stuck on those AT mids. The 9900 is as good a dome tweeter as any.
A 2-way with a single 7" midwoofer is only 'end-game' if you have modest expectations for low-frequency extension and output—I'd at least want an MTM. Buying good drivers doesn't guarantee good results, and what you're aiming to do is difficult even for experienced designers. The mid will have to play higher than is optimal (for its diameter) and I doubt that little RAAL can go below 3000 Hz comfortably.
I've never heard it, but the Selah Audio Decennio kit looks nice. Those ribbon tweeters measure very well. The Viawave GRT-145 can definitely cross low enough for a 2-way, as can the RAAL 140-15D.
That Spirit Wind kit also looks nice, if you're stuck on those AT mids. The 9900 is as good a dome tweeter as any.
I really believe, in this age, you can leave the crossover aside, use DSP to simulate whatever you think will work, and bi-amp, and finalize the cabinet design first.
I have the feeling that the 2-way has been designed to death, but it boils down to 3 contradictory requirements (go as low as can be, go as high as can be, and have a midrange as good as can be) and how to arrive at the best compromise for you - for you it might be end-game but there is no such a thing as an end-game 2-way for everybody.
Bass extension and output, but this usually hampers the ability for the mid-woofer to go high, because it either will have poor midrange distortion, poor midrange dispersion, or both.
So if the mid-woofer goes as low as it possibly could and the tweeter goes as high as it possibly could, who covers the midrange? There would be usually a dispersion gap where at certain frequencies the off-axis changes abruptly - even if the midrange is not outright distorting.
Or you could sacrifice bass for better mids, adding a sub, which is in reality 3-way.
One way is to use a very expensive ribbon which goes very low, like the RAAL 140 you mentioned.
Or of course, go true 3-way - like 50 years ago.
Exotics like full-range in a sat/sub arrangement would technically qualify as a 2-way, too.
I have the feeling that the 2-way has been designed to death, but it boils down to 3 contradictory requirements (go as low as can be, go as high as can be, and have a midrange as good as can be) and how to arrive at the best compromise for you - for you it might be end-game but there is no such a thing as an end-game 2-way for everybody.
Bass extension and output, but this usually hampers the ability for the mid-woofer to go high, because it either will have poor midrange distortion, poor midrange dispersion, or both.
So if the mid-woofer goes as low as it possibly could and the tweeter goes as high as it possibly could, who covers the midrange? There would be usually a dispersion gap where at certain frequencies the off-axis changes abruptly - even if the midrange is not outright distorting.
Or you could sacrifice bass for better mids, adding a sub, which is in reality 3-way.
One way is to use a very expensive ribbon which goes very low, like the RAAL 140 you mentioned.
Or of course, go true 3-way - like 50 years ago.
Exotics like full-range in a sat/sub arrangement would technically qualify as a 2-way, too.
Last edited:
Just a few clarifications:
I understand 2 way is a limited design compared to other implementations. I am space constrained, so for now I have to use bookshelf/monitor designs. Next year I’ll have a proper home and listening room, so I will reuse my current drivers and add another low end driver and build a tower cabinet and new 3 way crossover. Until then, this will do as a holdover and proof of concept. I hope that makes sense.
I also don’t mean to offend anyone with the term “endgame”. Speakers are a game of trade offs, I like the RAAL high end, and I read that the AT and Satori MW have a nice midrange with decent excursion into the 40Hz range with a .7 cubic foot cabinet. This combo makes sense on paper, and it’s good enough for now. Sure I could build something more economical and still get good results, but I’m a man of few hobbies, audiophile is a place I can afford to splurge.
I was wondering if anyone has heard or has opinions on Jeff Bagbys Auricle design. It uses the same RAAL 70-20 I want to with the Satori MW16P-8 woofer, and it seems to be an interesting design.
I understand 2 way is a limited design compared to other implementations. I am space constrained, so for now I have to use bookshelf/monitor designs. Next year I’ll have a proper home and listening room, so I will reuse my current drivers and add another low end driver and build a tower cabinet and new 3 way crossover. Until then, this will do as a holdover and proof of concept. I hope that makes sense.
I also don’t mean to offend anyone with the term “endgame”. Speakers are a game of trade offs, I like the RAAL high end, and I read that the AT and Satori MW have a nice midrange with decent excursion into the 40Hz range with a .7 cubic foot cabinet. This combo makes sense on paper, and it’s good enough for now. Sure I could build something more economical and still get good results, but I’m a man of few hobbies, audiophile is a place I can afford to splurge.
I was wondering if anyone has heard or has opinions on Jeff Bagbys Auricle design. It uses the same RAAL 70-20 I want to with the Satori MW16P-8 woofer, and it seems to be an interesting design.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.