As you may recall, I was going to replace the original tweeters in my Triangle Celius 202 (1st gen), but it was pointed out I had made a mistake with 3 caps per side in my xover that needed replacement.
The ribbons arrived first, so I addressed them first. Before I bought them I had decided there was no way given my woodworking equipment that I could put the ribbon in the original tweet slot, it would have required a very precise cut on the front and top faces, and then covering up holes flanking the ribbon. It would have looked like hell and might have ruined the physical integrity of the boxes. Instead I used two small corner braces and four wood screws and two small bolts along with rubber washers. I measured from the speakers to ‘the’ seat, and angled down the ribbons to face it.
Initial impression. Too much treble. Makes sense. The book on the speaker is 92 db/1w/1m, the Fountek X3 is 94.5. I crimped 14 resistors giving me 7 l-pad combos using the commonly found net calcs gave me from 1.4 db to 3.2 db cut for these tweeters. In terms of l-pads that might be correct 1.8 – 2.4 is the range. Once I arrive at the right number I’ll do away with the crimps and solder them in.
Yeah, but, are they good? Oh yes. The stock tweeter has always struck me as having a subtle metallic ‘sssh’ coloration. I always felt that they were the weakest driver in the box. I’ve been running them with a 1.4 db lpad for years. The Founteks yield a slightly smaller (side to side, but slightly taller) more defined and focused sound on instruments ranging from cellos to sopranos. Part of this is the dispersion, and part of it is that signals seem to be reproduced more cleanly (less ringing?). The ‘sssh’ coloration is long gone, replaced by a neutral presentation which maybe twice in 20 hours of listening I thought of them being slightly dry. The X3’s are simply much closer to the music. Recording artifacts are easier to make out. They do quiet better too. They are not ‘delicate’ as some would opine. I don’t listen very loudly but I had Yes ‘Close to the Edge’ blasting at near amp/room clip levels, and that very ‘trebeley’ recording never made the ribbon ruffle. The crossover is set at 12db/octave at ~4K, and that seems fine. I didn't detect any strain at the lower frequencies.
The X3 is not as pure as a Raal that’s in the Falcon. It’s slightly dry. It doesn’t project as massive as the Maggie 3.7i ribbon, but it does seem to fit this application and the price seems fair.
The difference isn’t one of degrees, the X3 is significantly better than the stock tweeter.
OK, my ‘fig leaf’ for not catching my bad cap change. I redid all the caps on the xover, all better varieties, and fixed two cold solder joints originally. It seemed better at the time.
The changes: Nichion Muse. So, what changed? Depth is better. This slightly ‘hashey’ flatness, gone. Quieter/black background and more pure overall. I’ll take embarrassment and better sound any day. Probably spend less time with my cans now.
The ribbons arrived first, so I addressed them first. Before I bought them I had decided there was no way given my woodworking equipment that I could put the ribbon in the original tweet slot, it would have required a very precise cut on the front and top faces, and then covering up holes flanking the ribbon. It would have looked like hell and might have ruined the physical integrity of the boxes. Instead I used two small corner braces and four wood screws and two small bolts along with rubber washers. I measured from the speakers to ‘the’ seat, and angled down the ribbons to face it.
Initial impression. Too much treble. Makes sense. The book on the speaker is 92 db/1w/1m, the Fountek X3 is 94.5. I crimped 14 resistors giving me 7 l-pad combos using the commonly found net calcs gave me from 1.4 db to 3.2 db cut for these tweeters. In terms of l-pads that might be correct 1.8 – 2.4 is the range. Once I arrive at the right number I’ll do away with the crimps and solder them in.
Yeah, but, are they good? Oh yes. The stock tweeter has always struck me as having a subtle metallic ‘sssh’ coloration. I always felt that they were the weakest driver in the box. I’ve been running them with a 1.4 db lpad for years. The Founteks yield a slightly smaller (side to side, but slightly taller) more defined and focused sound on instruments ranging from cellos to sopranos. Part of this is the dispersion, and part of it is that signals seem to be reproduced more cleanly (less ringing?). The ‘sssh’ coloration is long gone, replaced by a neutral presentation which maybe twice in 20 hours of listening I thought of them being slightly dry. The X3’s are simply much closer to the music. Recording artifacts are easier to make out. They do quiet better too. They are not ‘delicate’ as some would opine. I don’t listen very loudly but I had Yes ‘Close to the Edge’ blasting at near amp/room clip levels, and that very ‘trebeley’ recording never made the ribbon ruffle. The crossover is set at 12db/octave at ~4K, and that seems fine. I didn't detect any strain at the lower frequencies.
The X3 is not as pure as a Raal that’s in the Falcon. It’s slightly dry. It doesn’t project as massive as the Maggie 3.7i ribbon, but it does seem to fit this application and the price seems fair.
The difference isn’t one of degrees, the X3 is significantly better than the stock tweeter.
OK, my ‘fig leaf’ for not catching my bad cap change. I redid all the caps on the xover, all better varieties, and fixed two cold solder joints originally. It seemed better at the time.
The changes: Nichion Muse. So, what changed? Depth is better. This slightly ‘hashey’ flatness, gone. Quieter/black background and more pure overall. I’ll take embarrassment and better sound any day. Probably spend less time with my cans now.
Last edited:
I think you've done well. Though we never saw a schematic which is my own strong suit on improvement.
I've listened to ribbons like these:
They are good. Better than most domes. In fact I am starting to think I hate ALL dome tweeters! 😀
Your speakers actually don't have ideal characteristics for A Fountek X3 Ribbon, which IMO, best sits between two midranges in MTM for ideal dispersion. But you crack on, my friend. Glad you got back to us. It is all, after all, experimental. 😎
I've listened to ribbons like these:
They are good. Better than most domes. In fact I am starting to think I hate ALL dome tweeters! 😀
Your speakers actually don't have ideal characteristics for A Fountek X3 Ribbon, which IMO, best sits between two midranges in MTM for ideal dispersion. But you crack on, my friend. Glad you got back to us. It is all, after all, experimental. 😎
I think you've done well. Though we never saw a schematic which is my own strong suit on improvement.
I've listened to ribbons like these:
They are good. Better than most domes. In fact I am starting to think I hate ALL dome tweeters! 😀
Your speakers actually don't have ideal characteristics for A Fountek X3 Ribbon, which IMO, best sits between two midranges in MTM for ideal dispersion. But you crack on, my friend. Glad you got back to us. It is all, after all, experimental. 😎
Thanks. They are set up for bi-wire, but I never liked them that way. And I do have the earlier crossover which I don't believe have been described before. So, I'll yank the back facade off, and try and map it out - in December. Maybe you guys will be able to suggest some changes.
I've been thinking about redoing the crossover on a solderless breadboard with screw posts so I could change items in and out very easily, and ditch the solder. The current board is short so it's stuffed. If it was 3" longer it could be thinner making for an easier fit.
This is the portion of the PC board that deals with the "bass in" part of the biwire signal coming from the amp. I get the flow to the cap, and one connector of the inductor then to the woofers out (push pull ?), but the P1...?
See page one for the key to the values. Mid/tweet shortly.
See page one for the key to the values. Mid/tweet shortly.
Also I lifted and cooked a pad (used the cooper wire make a circular pad trick), and damaged 3 others the last couple of times I made changes to the boards, i want to to go to a solderlesss set up with crimped terminations on pegs so I can make changes quickly and without trouble (probably mount the new breadboards externally)
R1 5.6 ohm (mills 5 watt)
R2 1.0 ohm (mills 5 watt)
P1 .75 ohm (mills 5 watt) (P=thermistors - tested the value from them at 72 degrees, and replaced)
P2 .62 ohm (mills 5 watt)
C1 47 uf (Nichicon DB-GB 100 v)
C2 " " "
C3 22 uf Aeon 250 v
C4 (see C1 values)
C5 4.7 uf Clarity Cap 250 v (bypass Jensen .01 uf 3k v (NOS))
C6 15 uf Aeon 250 v
L-pad: still testing values
R2 1.0 ohm (mills 5 watt)
P1 .75 ohm (mills 5 watt) (P=thermistors - tested the value from them at 72 degrees, and replaced)
P2 .62 ohm (mills 5 watt)
C1 47 uf (Nichicon DB-GB 100 v)
C2 " " "
C3 22 uf Aeon 250 v
C4 (see C1 values)
C5 4.7 uf Clarity Cap 250 v (bypass Jensen .01 uf 3k v (NOS))
C6 15 uf Aeon 250 v
L-pad: still testing values
L-pad: 4.3 db reduction in ribbon output. It's good from all angles. Used 3.3 and 3.7 a lot too, but that wasn't right.
I think you've done well. Though we never saw a schematic which is my own strong suit on improvement.
I've listened to ribbons like these:
They are good. Better than most domes. In fact I am starting to think I hate ALL dome tweeters! 😀
Your speakers actually don't have ideal characteristics for A Fountek X3 Ribbon, which IMO, best sits between two midranges in MTM for ideal dispersion. But you crack on, my friend. Glad you got back to us. It is all, after all, experimental. 😎
Sorry for the necromancy, this is the original schematic from the celius 202. (plus thermistors for bass/mid/tw)
For further improvement, because they have almost no bass at all, from my side is recommended to also pad the midrange a little. Originally they have only padded just a little the titanium tweeter and none padding to the midrange. The speaker has great midranger -you will read about the excelent midrange at almost any review- but no bass at all and a very hard for my tastes highs.
The titanium dome tweeter is something unique. Some love it, some hate it. I hated it, so I sold it.
Attachments
Last edited:
nice. i wrote about 5 years ago. my bass is fine, but the tweeter had to go. So I got the Fountek 3.0, the ~4k 12 db slope is about as low as they should go.
Fine speaker if you can find one. Driving with a Ragnarok 1, Gumby 1, Qobuz via LG v40/UAPP, Next up a pair of Cizek 1's I sold to a friend in 1979, just given back to me.
Fine speaker if you can find one. Driving with a Ragnarok 1, Gumby 1, Qobuz via LG v40/UAPP, Next up a pair of Cizek 1's I sold to a friend in 1979, just given back to me.
...back. One of my mids voice coil/spider was misaligned. Could not fix it. My idea to replace it is:
Add two Tectonic TEBM54C30-8 driver (new - 4 @ $54.13 each) per speaker in an MTMWW vertical alignment with my Fountek X3 ribbons - per System7's writings. I chose the BMR mids because an earlier BMR mid is in the BMR Philharmonic which I think is quite special, and they are physically small which is necessary to get them into my speakers above the woofer, and still get the MTM alignment. I'll have to remove the original mids and tweeters to make room, and fashion a plug in baffle to mount the drivers on, and then in to fit the same space. its behind the grill cloth so doesn't have to be perfect looking.
The BMR is 8 ohms 85.5 db 1 w/1m. If I hook them in parallel it will rise to 88.5, but not drop under 4 ohms which is required. still not a match for the 92.5 of the tweeter and woofer, so I will have to decrease resistance to the mid xover to get them close. I will also have to fashion/buy enclosures for the BMR's.
My crossover is 12 db at 400 and 4k, not nearly as steep as the Philharmonic, but reviews seem to indicate they can handle my load.
Sound reasonable?
Add two Tectonic TEBM54C30-8 driver (new - 4 @ $54.13 each) per speaker in an MTMWW vertical alignment with my Fountek X3 ribbons - per System7's writings. I chose the BMR mids because an earlier BMR mid is in the BMR Philharmonic which I think is quite special, and they are physically small which is necessary to get them into my speakers above the woofer, and still get the MTM alignment. I'll have to remove the original mids and tweeters to make room, and fashion a plug in baffle to mount the drivers on, and then in to fit the same space. its behind the grill cloth so doesn't have to be perfect looking.
The BMR is 8 ohms 85.5 db 1 w/1m. If I hook them in parallel it will rise to 88.5, but not drop under 4 ohms which is required. still not a match for the 92.5 of the tweeter and woofer, so I will have to decrease resistance to the mid xover to get them close. I will also have to fashion/buy enclosures for the BMR's.
My crossover is 12 db at 400 and 4k, not nearly as steep as the Philharmonic, but reviews seem to indicate they can handle my load.
Sound reasonable?
Hi Walt, you asked me what I think... LOL
First I am uneasy about the schematic that "vassilis1984" showed us:
Seems to match your cap and resistor values, but the mid section looks unlikely to me!
I can't see anything hard about fitting new 6" 8 ohm mids. That must be simplest, surely? Maybe a bit of level adjust, but not much more, surely?
Peerless 830874 or a SEAS offering? http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&Itemid=461
Get your measuring tape out!
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/celius202_e.html
A complete rebuild into something resembling a splendid BMR Tower looks VERY tricky.
Looks like 4 ohm BMR fullrangers as mids, possibly wired in series.
That's a 8 ohm Scan 22W bass unit and a RAAL ribbon it seems. You could use other drivers, of course.
All quite an undertaking, IMO.
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/philharmonic-bmr
I wouldn't attempt this without some serious simulations and driver spec sheets, although certain things could be winged a bit if room for adjustment is left.
Best regards, Steve in Portsmouth UK.
First I am uneasy about the schematic that "vassilis1984" showed us:
Seems to match your cap and resistor values, but the mid section looks unlikely to me!
I can't see anything hard about fitting new 6" 8 ohm mids. That must be simplest, surely? Maybe a bit of level adjust, but not much more, surely?
Peerless 830874 or a SEAS offering? http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=44&Itemid=461
Get your measuring tape out!
https://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/celius202_e.html
A complete rebuild into something resembling a splendid BMR Tower looks VERY tricky.
Looks like 4 ohm BMR fullrangers as mids, possibly wired in series.
That's a 8 ohm Scan 22W bass unit and a RAAL ribbon it seems. You could use other drivers, of course.
All quite an undertaking, IMO.
https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/philharmonic-bmr
I wouldn't attempt this without some serious simulations and driver spec sheets, although certain things could be winged a bit if room for adjustment is left.
Best regards, Steve in Portsmouth UK.
Hi Steve, this is exactly what the schematic was for my triangle celius 202. Except for the resistance of the coils, I didn't bother to measure the coils resistance.
Be interesting to know what the midrange driver impedance or DCR is, but I can't see it helps. There is something odd going on somewhere.
I just did a sim of the crossover with any old 6" woofers, and I got a rotten impedance minimum of 2 ohms due to the mid filter.
I don't make this up!
Just ignore the frequency response, which is driver dependent. I couldn't fix it without losing components, though I didn't try a notch. 😕
I just did a sim of the crossover with any old 6" woofers, and I got a rotten impedance minimum of 2 ohms due to the mid filter.
I don't make this up!
Just ignore the frequency response, which is driver dependent. I couldn't fix it without losing components, though I didn't try a notch. 😕
The frequency response looks like the one I got from my triangles 😂😂😂
They got a very nasty hill at around 1 kHz, about 6 dB or even more. AFAIK the midrange was 8ohm and to be honest a very nice driver, super clean and efficient.
They got a very nasty hill at around 1 kHz, about 6 dB or even more. AFAIK the midrange was 8ohm and to be honest a very nice driver, super clean and efficient.
Just for interest I applied some established principles to the "questionable" Triangle Celius 202 speaker.
Without knowing too much detail... LOL.
My new overall crossover is something that the esteemed Mr. Troels Gravesen could have designed:
Fair bit of wriggle room on resistor values and level (marked in RED).
All smooths along nicely with Mr. Troels' approved BBC frequency response slope:
What is not to like! Much better impedance. No escaping the 4 ohm bass impedance of parallel basses, here in closed box. No getting away from the 5kHz breakup of the 6" midbass.
You will hear that breakup.
The 15 ohm resistors are cheap impedance correction, an idea I nicked from Gilbert Briggs at Wharfedale.
But that is how I would do this particular design. 😎
Without knowing too much detail... LOL.
My new overall crossover is something that the esteemed Mr. Troels Gravesen could have designed:
Fair bit of wriggle room on resistor values and level (marked in RED).
All smooths along nicely with Mr. Troels' approved BBC frequency response slope:
What is not to like! Much better impedance. No escaping the 4 ohm bass impedance of parallel basses, here in closed box. No getting away from the 5kHz breakup of the 6" midbass.
You will hear that breakup.
The 15 ohm resistors are cheap impedance correction, an idea I nicked from Gilbert Briggs at Wharfedale.
But that is how I would do this particular design. 😎
The woofers are not 8 ohm each, they are 12 ohm if I remember correctly. The schematic is pretty much what I did and actually they sounded better. Just minor changes, for instances I used 2nd order to the tweeter as well
I was working on transcribing my data onto that schematic from post #31, including my L-pad for my ribbon. I will still post that.
You folks are way past me technically, so I will heed your advice carefully. Maybe my posting will help clear up any confusion.
The 202 xover was modified after initial release - pictured way up towards the top of this thread, so there was room for improvement per the designers.
Also I did twice try to obtain a replacement midrange from Triangle and got no response. So I've got to do something.
You folks are way past me technically, so I will heed your advice carefully. Maybe my posting will help clear up any confusion.
The 202 xover was modified after initial release - pictured way up towards the top of this thread, so there was room for improvement per the designers.
Also I did twice try to obtain a replacement midrange from Triangle and got no response. So I've got to do something.