# Khanspires vs Spassvogels



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

There is a DIY speaker head to head matchup planned for next weekend that I will be a part of which will compare ---k---'s Khanspires vs JonW's Spassvogels. Since I don't think I can link to other forums, do a search on google for those speaker names for more information and pictures. Basically the crux of our test is whether multiple drivers of medium quality and medium price (WMTMW using Dayton Reference series) will outperform fewer, higher quality and higher cost drivers (TM using Scanspeak). Other variables in play are the crossovers each creator settled on, the flat baffle of the Khanspires vs the slanted and heavily chamfered baffle of the Spassvogels, and a WMTMW implementation vs a TM.

Details aren't final, but I'm pretty sure the methodology will be one of blind preference. By that I mean we will play the same clippets of song or full song back to back and the listeners will note which presentation they preferred, not knowing which speaker is being used on each run. 

Should be interesting, as every speaker I've heard with drivers above the tweeter seems to lose imaging quality and soundstage width, and at the same time, I feel strongly that a speaker with just a small midwoofer can't displace enough air for my needs. I will post back next weekend with my results - this post is just to build up any anticipation :bigsmile:

I think I may have found a few pictures that can be usable until the owners send me some directly.

Spassvogel unfinished cabinet









Khanspire


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Linking to _most_ other forums is okay as long as that is not the only purpose of the thread. Linking and then keeping us updated is fine. :T

Appearance wise, it would sure seem that the Khanspire would win out hands down. I would be surprised otherwise.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I don't know, drivers above the tweeter really kills some of the spatial imaging for me, every single time. To add to that characteristic, the heavy chamfering of the Spassvogel should really let that tweeter shine with imaging and soundstage. On the other hand, the Khanspires should be able to play much more cleanly with much better midbass and bass. 

My test disc will have songs that I feel will capitalize on each of their weaknesses. Good thing this test will be blind.....that way their feelings won't be hurt too much :R


----------



## Aaron Gilbert (Nov 12, 2008)

Sonnie said:


> ...
> Appearance wise, it would sure seem that the Khanspire would win out hands down. I would be surprised otherwise.


I'm going to disagree with you there. To me, the Khanspire is just a big black rectangular, ordinary box. I find the Spassvogel much more aesthetically appealing. The raked front and rear baffles and heavy chamfering add unique character. 

Sounds like an interesting comparison, Steve. My expectations would be the same as yours regarding performance advantage of the Khanspire. I hadn't heard of a problem with drivers above tweeters before. I'm curious to hear if it holds true for this trial as well. I don't have a particular use for designs with the driver above the tweeter. However, with my current speakers, a good argument could certainly have been made for a tweeter on the bottom, based strictly on height.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

To clarify... I did not mean appearance wise as is which one looks more appealing... he did not mention judging the appearance. What I meant is that from the appearance of the sheer number of speakers in the Khanspire... realizing both of these men are serious speaker builders, I would believe it to end up being the superior sounding speaker. :T 

I am not crazy about the design of either, but I would still probably choose that big black rectangular ordinary box. The uniqueness of the other would wear off me pretty quick, although I don't think it's all that unique.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Correct, to clarify, aesthetics are not being judged.


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

Cool stuff. Who else is going to be on the listening panel Steve? I assume there will be numerous listening session notes :work:.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

Aaron Gilbert said:


> I'm going to disagree with you there. To me, the Khanspire is just a big black rectangular, ordinary box.





Sonnie said:


> I am not crazy about the design of either, .


Ouch, my feelings are hurt! 

Finish carpentry was never my thing. I tell people, I like to "build things". How about this for a slightly better picture of a big ugly square box with the finished paint and the little legs:








More photos and info: http://htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=26309

Steve, 
I can tell you it will be a good time. I don't want to bias you, but I've heard Jon's speakers before and there are some things that his do better than mine. But, there are also things that mine do better than his. (In my opinion, of course) I think you will be surprised. I'm not sure blind will be needed, because I think it is going to be instantly obvious which speaker is playing - but, I'll play along. Picking a winner will come down to preferences. Even at this price range these speakers are still a set of compromises. If money were no object, I would prefer to have a WMTMW with all Scan Speak drivers. 

There are some other significant differences that may make crowning a champ a bit trickier. Probably just the opposite of what everyone out there would guess, but Jon's speakers are designed with full baffle step (meaning pull them out into the room more), ported and designed for the bass to be run full range. Mine are designed with only partial baffle step, (meaning place them closer to the wall), sealed and intended to be crossover to a subwoofer. Mine have a f3 around 53hz, so close to full range but the bass is rolling off. Building these ported was just a bit bigger box than I was willing to accept, and I have a pretty sub in the corner that isn't going anywhere.

Also, note the drivers and crossover for mine were $650 per speaker, while Jon's are like $1200 - $1400. That is sort of the point of the exercise. But, this isn't a competition between equally priced speakers. 

Sounds like I'm already making excuses. But truth be told, I love my speakers and I wouldn't trade them for Jon's. I'm sure he would say the same. Like I said, it is going to come down to preferences. I'm really looking forward to it. I always have a lot fun at these types of get togethers and probably learn about 10x as much as I do from 6 months of forum reading.

So, what music is on that test disc of yours?


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

Also, should I bring the matching center channel so can judge performance on a full 5.1 setup?


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Referring to Dayton RS drivers as medium quality is ridiculous. These drivers are at about the same quality as SEAS EXCEL. They may be low priced, but they are by no means low or medium quality.

-Chris


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

I didn't take exception to medium quality. Simplistically on a scale of Low Quality, Medium Quality, and High Quality, the RS would be medium and the Scans would be high. I think the RS drivers are a very high value driver. I'll leave it at that. If people want to dig into it further, they can read Zaph's test results.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Exactly, the Dayton Reference drivers offer tremedous performance for the dollar, but on a static performance scale, they would fall into the medium classification. The ScanSpeaks Jon is using would fall into high. As Ryan mentioned, same with crossover components. 

Jon's whole purpose with these speakers - if I'm not mistaken - was to see what happens when top notch drivers, top notch cabinet, and top notch crossover components are used. He didn't go full 3 way because he needed to cut his teeth on a two way first, as it is an expensive "test".

Ryan, it's not a test to see who's are better, it's more a test of a theory or a philosophy. We can test both full range and then both crossed to his sub at 80hz. 

I'll hold off on naming my songs until we meet up, otherwise someone may complain my music isn't audiophile enough :sarcastic:


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Unless it's an electrostat, I probably wouldn't be crazy about any design. :hide: 

That is a much better pic that the first one. I would not have a problem parking those in my dedicated home theater room (if I had one that is). Knowing you built them, they would probably sound better than anything I've ever had in my "former" HT room, save the ML Ascent i's.


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

---k--- said:


> I didn't take exception to medium quality. Simplistically on a scale of Low Quality, Medium Quality, and High Quality, the RS would be medium and the Scans would be high. I think the RS drivers are a very high value driver. I'll leave it at that. If people want to dig into it further, they can read Zaph's test results.


Oh, I'm familar with the Zaph tests. But in reality, the RS drives overall are 'high' in quality, not medium. They can easily be transparent drivers if used properly, at least most of them. The ones that come off to me as simple 'high quality' right off the bat based on objective measure are the RS52, RS150, the RS tweeter and the 12" RS HiFi woofer(which has a superb Klippel analysis report).

-Chris


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> Jon's whole purpose with these speakers - if I'm not mistaken - was to see what happens when top notch drivers, top notch cabinet, and top notch crossover components are used. He didn't go full 3 way because he needed to cut his teeth on a two way first, as it is an expensive "test".


Are the cabinets built to a far higher than normal standard, using special provisions to be audibly inert in so far as panel cabinet resonances? I find most all DIY cabinets and hi fi commercial for that matter, to have substantial panel acoustic output that causes significant timbre coloration. I did not notice if these cabinets have any special design to actually minimize this effect.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Sonnie said:


> Unless it's an electrostat, I probably wouldn't be crazy about any design. :hide:
> 
> That is a much better pic that the first one. I would not have a problem parking those in my dedicated home theater room (if I had one that is). Knowing you built them, they would probably sound better than anything I've ever had in my "former" HT room, save the ML Ascent i's.


No surprise here. You are used to virtually zero timbre resonances if you use high grade electrostats for music, primarily. Extremely few box speakers can manage this.

-Chris


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Although I don't like where you are headed with this, I believe his front baffle is 4 layers thick of 3/4" Russian Baltic Birch with a a few layers of horizontal bracing. That's about as overkill as you can get for a smallish midwoofer. I also think he has some dynamat lining his walls and a wad of batting behind the midwoofer. 

I'll let Jon elaborate on his cabinet when he gets a chance to show up.


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Hi Guys,

I have to get my post count up and then I can give some details on the Spassvogels. In the mean time, I'll answer a question here...




WmAx said:


> Are the cabinets built to a far higher than normal standard, using special provisions to be audibly inert in so far as panel cabinet resonances? I find most all DIY cabinets and hi fi commercial for that matter, to have substantial panel acoustic output that causes significant timbre coloration. I did not notice if these cabinets have any special design to actually minimize this effect.
> 
> -Chris


I won't comment on the normal standard, but I can tell you what I did. My front baffle is 3 layers of 3/4" baltic birch plywood thick, to 2.25" total. The other 4 sides are single layers. Then I have 3 shelf braces inside. And there are 4 corner braces, each 1.5" x 3". So I'd say the cabinet is pretty solid- as much as can be done, really. Total weight of each speaker is 87 pounds. Any more than that and I can't really move it around the work bench. I hope that answers your questions.

Edit: This link has pics of the cabinet design in posts 1 and 2:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=25031

-Jon


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

SteveCallas said:


> Although I don't like where you are headed with this, I believe his front baffle is 4 layers thick of 3/4" Russian Baltic Birch with a a few layers of horizontal bracing. That's about as overkill as you can get for a smallish midwoofer. I also think he has some dynamat lining his walls and a wad of batting behind the midwoofer.
> 
> I'll let Jon elaborate on his cabinet when he gets a chance to show up.


Thanks Steve. I just posted the general construction features. In the end, I did not add any vibration damping material. The cabinets feel pretty substantial as they are. (To me, at least.) There is some acoustic damping in there (OC703 and Acoustastuf).

Now let's see if my post count is high enough to post what I just wrote up, with links...


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Hi Guys,

Steve pointed me to this thread so I thought I’d stop by and say hi. Thanks for the thread, Steve. 

Some things about the Spassvogels, in case anyone is interested…
The design and build thread is here:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=25031
And a couple photos are below.

Steve hit my design goals exactly dead on, in post 12: top notch drivers, top notch cabinet design, and an all-out crossover. I restricted it to a 2 way MT design because it’s my first speaker. Other than that, it’s pretty much a no-compromise exercise. 

Regarding the facets and sloped baffle… I decided on these features after building and taking measurements in lots of different types of test cabinets. The details are mostly on pages 10 and 11 of the design thread. Here are the test results, starting with post #321:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=25031&page=10
The facets seem to help baffle diffraction. The sloped baffle also helps baffle diffraction (that was a surprise to me) as well as provides a little alignment of the driver acoustic centers. So that’s why I went with them. 

I do think these features contribute significantly to the overall presentation of the speakers. That said, I’m not sure I would consider the sloped baffle and facets a major difference when comparing the speakers to the Khanspires. The raw measurements are taken in each of our cabinets. And the crossover is designed accordingly. So, to some extent, the cabinet differences can come out in the wash. But there are still differences. Like where the sweet spot of the drivers are pointing/summing (i.e., polar resonse), off axis performance, baffle diffraction, and alignment of the acoustic centers. 

Sonnie-
You said that you’d think the unique appearance would grate on you. I totally understand. After I did all the testing and the slanted, faceted design came out as the winner, I was a little disappointed. These cabinets were very difficult to build. At least for me, a pretty novice woodworker. A simple box would have been much, much easier. So when I look at the speakers in the room, my typical thought is to curse them for being so extremely complex and taking ages to design and build. 

Ryan, feel free to bring your center or any electronics that you want. We’ll see what time permits. 

We might have a fourth friend stop by. If anyone happens to be in the area (Lafayette, IN) and wants to join us, that might work, depending upon what else is going on at home that day. I will try my best to judge things in an unbiased manner. But I have so much effort invested in these speakers that I have no defense against charges of extreme bias.  Like Ryan said, I’m not sure if we can do this blind in that you tend to be able to tell which speaker the sound is coming from. We could put a screen in front of the speakers… but that’s probably not such a hot idea. 

Should be fun! 

-Jon


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> Although I don't like where you are headed with this, I believe his front baffle is 4 layers thick of 3/4" Russian Baltic Birch with a a few layers of horizontal bracing. That's about as overkill as you can get for a smallish midwoofer. I also think he has some dynamat lining his walls and a wad of batting behind the midwoofer.
> 
> I'll let Jon elaborate on his cabinet when he gets a chance to show up.


As I presumed, standard cabinet construction. BTW, a strong front baffle in itself will not do very much towards reducing cabinet panel resonances. As a superb example, the Theile CS 3.7 has a 3/4 or 1" solid CNC machined aluminum alloy front. It also has curved high grade hardwood ply sides and average density bracing. It's panel amplitude measurements are not better than average(_which means, substantially high in amplitude_).

That being said, I hope the builder does not think I am putting his effort down. I am just making an observation. Most people overlook the cabinet's own acoustic output. I speculate that this is because they are used to this specific coloration and assume all box speakers are stuck with it no matter what. However, with some added effort. this can be changed, but since most seem to assume the coloration is inherent, and that their mild bracing efforts would get rid of panel resonances(which is just not true to my knowledge), they don't realize the problem and thus do not address it.

-Chris


----------



## ScruffyHT (Sep 23, 2008)

Too bad you wont have a pair of Statement speakers to add to this comparison ... I am considering building a pair next year and would like to hear comments on how they sound compared to the Spassvogels and Khanspires


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Hi Jon and welcome to the Shack!

I must say the workmanship on your speakers is excellent. :T

They remind me of a speaker I have seen before, but I cannot place the name at the moment.

I am curious as to how the results will turn out. Wish I was closer so I could actually hear them blind for myself.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Jon said:


> Like Ryan said, I’m not sure if we can do this blind in that you tend to be able to tell which speaker the sound is coming from. We could put a screen in front of the speakers… but that’s probably not such a hot idea.


If we keep both L speakers and both R speakers very close to each other, you never know onder:



WmAx said:


> However, with some added effort. this can be changed, but since most seem to assume the coloration is inherent, and that their mild bracing efforts would get rid of panel resonances(which is just not true to my knowledge), they don't realize the problem and thus do not address it.


Measurements to prove your case would be appreciated. I'd be willing to bet the magnitude to what you are describing in a cabinet like Jon's is so minimal that's it's not worth talking about. A midwoofer with modest excursion can only displace so much air - not nearly enough to pressurize the rigid, braced, BB cabinet he has built to the point of causing pannel flexing.


----------



## jeremy7 (Feb 7, 2008)

Sonnie said:


> Hi Jon and welcome to the Shack!
> 
> I must say the workmanship on your speakers is excellent. :T
> 
> ...


maybe the speakers your thinking about are the Avalon Acoustics Indra loudspeakers? to me they seem to have aesthetic similarities


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

WmAx said:


> Most people overlook the cabinet's own acoustic output


Hi Chris,

For whatever it’s worth… If you look at my cabinet plans you’ll see that I have 3 shelf braces in there. And that divides the internal space (or think of it as sides of the cabinet) into 4 sections. But the braces are not evenly spaced. I have the space between each brace unique. So that, on a given side, all the sections are of a different size. That way, the cabinet vibrations are divided over, say, a 5”, an 8”, a 10”, and a 17” section. Rather than, say, four 10” sections. Any sound output from the vibrations will then be spread out over the different frequencies corresponding to all those different vibrations. And not all loaded up at, say, the one frequency corresponding to the 10” section. 

Does any of this make an audible difference? I have no idea. 




ScruffyHT said:


> Too bad you wont have a pair of Statement speakers to add to this comparison ... I am considering building a pair next year and would like to hear comments on how they sound compared to the Spassvogels and Khanspires


I brought the Spassvogels to the Iowa DIY meet in October. The Mini Statements were there as well. Or was it the Statement Monitors? Ryan and I both heard them. He can offer his opinion. The Statements are very nice speakers. But to my tastes, I preferred the Spassvogels. I say that trying to be unbiased. But if I were you, I would definitely not trust me to be unbiased. 

(Actually, the Parts Express board has all the ratings from the excellent event. About 22 speakers were all listened to by about 40 people. We filled out ratings sheets for each pair. So you can get a numerical comparison amongst the various designs. For whatever that may be worth.)


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

SteveCallas said:


> If we keep both L speakers and both R speakers very close to each other, you never know onder:
> 
> 
> Measurements to prove your case would be appreciated. I'd be willing to bet the magnitude to what you are describing in a cabinet like Jon's is so minimal that's it's not worth talking about. A midwoofer with modest excursion can only displace so much air - not nearly enough to pressurize the rigid, braced, BB cabinet he has built to the point of causing pannel flexing.


Hi Steve,

Sure thing. We’ll keep the speakers close and see how it goes. However you want to do it, really.

The speakers being so close will mess with the baffle step compensation and such. But if we separate them by, say 6-12”, the BSC will still be mucked up a bit. Not too much we can do in such a situation, I think. Keeping them 2 feet apart would be good but I’m not sure how practical that will be in the room. We’ll see what we can do when you get here.

Regarding panel flex, there’s an easy test. We’ll play some loud music and put your hand on the cabinets. See if you feel anything. Kind of like a hand-held accelerometer. 




Sonnie said:


> Hi Jon and welcome to the Shack!
> 
> I must say the workmanship on your speakers is excellent. :T
> 
> ...



Thanks for the kind words, Sonnie. You know, gas is really cheap. And it’s a full 8 degrees here right now. You’re welcome to make the drive. 

Avalon Acoustics has a lot of speakers with this general look. There’s now a second company doing this, too, but I forget the name. 



jeremy7 said:


> maybe the speakers your thinking about are the Avalon Acoustics Indra loudspeakers? to me they seem to have aesthetic similarities


Yup. There you go.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

When I said that it will be easy to tell which speaker was playing, I was expecting the tonal difference to be enough that we'll quickly learn to tell them apart. I guess we'll see. 

As for panel resonance. Ugh... My impedance graphs don't shown any wiggles that would indicate panel resonances. I'm sure Jon's are the same. Lets move on.









(Though that is a _nice_ 3 ohm load!)


----------



## Aaron Gilbert (Nov 12, 2008)

Sonnie said:


> To clarify... I did not mean appearance wise as is which one looks more appealing... he did not mention judging the appearance. What I meant is that from the appearance of the sheer number of speakers in the Khanspire... realizing both of these men are serious speaker builders, I would believe it to end up being the superior sounding speaker. :T
> 
> I am not crazy about the design of either, but I would still probably choose that big black rectangular ordinary box. The uniqueness of the other would wear off me pretty quick, although I don't think it's all that unique.


No, he didn't mention judging appearance, you mentioned appearance. Thanks for the clarification of your meaning, though. I don't automatically think that a speaker with more drivers will necessarily sound better, though the potential is certain there is specific areas of performance, as Steve pointed out. All speaker designs are a compromise in some way, depending on one's point of view, so whether one sounds 'better' will often likely depend upon the listener's goals.

Are you kidding me on the uniqueness, though?? :blink: Out of hundreds of speakers worked on, I can think of only a handful of commercial speakers that are as unique looking as the Spassvogel - excluding electrostatics. I think too much exposure to DIY speakers has blinded your eye to the blandness that is most commercial speakers, where _any_ departure from the norm is almost unheard of.


----------



## Aaron Gilbert (Nov 12, 2008)

---k--- said:


> Ouch, my feelings are hurt!
> 
> Finish carpentry was never my thing. I tell people, I like to "build things". How about this for a slightly better picture of a big ugly square box with the finished paint and the little legs:
> ...
> ...


Sorry, I didn't intend that. :sweat: I don't take any issue with the finish carpentry. It's better than I'd do most of the time! I like the little legs. I just have an aversion to the same shapes and colors I see day in and day out. If that shape and design work for you though, more power to you! :T 

I certainly always admire someone getting excellent performance out of relatively inexpensive drivers and components. $650 total for all components to a pair of five driver systems is nothing to sneeze at! As you say, it all comes down to preferences, and that is one of the greatest aspects of DIY. Each builder gets to choose their own design goals, their own style, their own budget, etc!


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

---k--- said:


> As for panel resonance. Ugh... My impedance graphs don't shown any wiggles that would indicate panel resonances.


As can be seen by accelerometer measurements vs. actual impedance graphs, the impedance graph is not necessarily going to show easily, panel resonances. , for a large number or examples, John Atkinson has noted many cases where no wrinkles were present in the graph, yet substantial panel vibration amplitudes were measured. I only mention this as while the subjective magazine is worthless, the measurements/data itself in the magazine are some of the best available ; just ignore any subjective or perceptual claims in the magazine including those made in the technical comments section.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

JonW said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> For whatever it’s worth… If you look at my cabinet plans you’ll see that I have 3 shelf braces in there. And that divides the internal space (or think of it as sides of the cabinet) into 4 sections. But the braces are not evenly spaced. I have the space between each brace unique. So that, on a given side, all the sections are of a different size. That way, the cabinet vibrations are divided over, say, a 5”, an 8”, a 10”, and a 17” section. Rather than, say, four 10” sections. Any sound output from the vibrations will then be spread out over the different frequencies corresponding to all those different vibrations. And not all loaded up at, say, the one frequency corresponding to the 10” section.
> 
> Does any of this make an audible difference? I have no idea.


I find that to reduce panel output to insignificant levels, far more extreme methods are required. I do tend to perhaps be a little overkill to be on the safe side -- but just one example of a common method I use: 1/2" to 3/4" hardwood ply exterior, 1/4" visco-elastic layer adhered to this, then a 1"-1.25" solid oak layer adhered to the visco-elastic layer. This gives me an extremely effective constrained layer system. Then I add in cross bracing in a matrix, with no more than 3" on average distance from one brace to another, on every axis. I vary this method using concrete slabs in place of the oak inner layer, and I have used steel subframes of angle iron also on the concrete, with steel tubing every 3" or so internally. Measured panel amplitude is on average 20-30dB lower in output as compared to standard enclosure construction with these methods.

Now, I guess at this point I should explain, that to a point, I have performed blinded testing using switches and people to assist me, comparing identical speakers in externally identical cabinets, but with various levels of panel control, and also comparisons done using recordings of them in the same position and later time synched and evaluated in ABX software.

One of the easiest 'quick' compares for on the spot, not so carefully controlled comparisons to identify various resonances, is to A/B the speaker with an extraordinary low resonance headphone that I use, that has been modified to have the cleanest over-all band response in terms of resonances, of any transducer I have ever used/measured. This makes resonances/timbre errors glaring when compared. I use it mainly as I said, for quick evaluations, especially when out away from home as part of evaluation. Pieces like piano and classical vocal are especially destroyed by resonance(s).

As far as determining acoustic response of a cabinet and knowing the audibility, this is difficult. You essetially need a full range true anechoic chamber, as you need to derive high resolution energy-time analysis in the far field, and at various polar positions, to allow merging of acoustic direct driver output and cabinet panel output. I have come up with I believe a way to derive a cabinet acoustic output curve AND driver direct energy curve fairly accurate to be over layed, but I have not taken the opportunity to try it yet; it is a laborious method.

If you can derive a curve showing relative level difference between cabinet output, in detail of also bandwidth(Q) and frequency of the energy peak bands, then it can be correlated with the current standing resonance audibility research: 
"The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement", Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, JAES, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1988, March, pages 122-141, which is an extension/thorough analysis of the original founding research in this matter: "Loudspeaker Distortions, Can We Hear Them?" P.A. Fryer, Hi-Fi News Rec. Rev., vol.22, pp. 51-56, 1977

Speaking of the research above in relation to your panel dividing method: divided substantially, spacings of the panel sizes to spread out the energy peaks in effect is probably more audible as compared to narrower, but higher amplitude resonance peaks. In substantially dividing and spreading out the panels bands, you in effect likely have lower Q - far wider energy spreads; much larger broad ranges of resonance are far more easily excited as compared to far fewer(even if higher Q/amplitude) modes, and it shown in the peer reviewed work that such broad band/low Q conditions are of higher audibility.

-Chris


----------



## fbov (Aug 28, 2008)

Chris,
I saw your pictures on the PE forum bracing thread. Your description doesn't do your box justice; those braces at 3" spacing are 1" thick... 
Frank


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

Aaron Gilbert said:


> Sorry, I didn't intend that. :sweat:


I wasn't offended by you or anyone. No worries.

I honestly don't think mine look that great to what many in the DIY world produce. I'm often in amazement at what some people produce. Dan Neubec's speakers are amazing! I think his stuff is better than 99% of commercial stuff. It takes long enough to build speakers as big as mine that appearance just isn't high on my priority list. Also, my wife actually preferred the black paint. We already have like three different woods in that room and wood veneered speakers that big would just be too much. Glossy piano black is sexy, but I didn't want something that reflective right next to my only tv. 

My smaller Lineup D4 speakers are slightly sexier, though I forgot to paint the inside - still haven't fixed that. Too busy enjoying life.


----------



## ScruffyHT (Sep 23, 2008)

JonW said:


> I brought the Spassvogels to the Iowa DIY meet in October. The Mini Statements were there as well. Or was it the Statement Monitors? Ryan and I both heard them. He can offer his opinion. The Statements are very nice speakers. But to my tastes, I preferred the Spassvogels. I say that trying to be unbiased. But if I were you, I would definitely not trust me to be unbiased.
> 
> (Actually, the Parts Express board has all the ratings from the excellent event. About 22 speakers were all listened to by about 40 people. We filled out ratings sheets for each pair. So you can get a numerical comparison amongst the various designs. For whatever that may be worth.)


It was the Statement monitors that you heard ... not what I am thinking of building ... take a look at the full size statement http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=28728 ... more comparable in size to the Khanspire


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Ryan,

The stain over the birch on your Lineups looks very nice.  If the Khans look like that, they should be pretty.




WmAx said:


> I find that to reduce panel output to insignificant levels, far more extreme methods are required.


Hi Chris,

Thanks for the vibration damping thoughts and experience. Sounds like you’re really serious about this topic. I guess 2 questions come to my mind reading about what you’ve done:

First, if you take a typically braced cabinet like Ryan’s or mine, are the resonances actually that audible? I can appreciate how all the bracing, small spacing, non-wood materials, etc. will reduce vibrations by 20-30 db. How much lower in magnitude are the starting vibrations than the “primary” signal coming from the drivers? If the vibrations start out, say, 30 db down and you now pushed them to 60 db down…? I’m not trying to be antagonistic (or throw this thread off onto a tangent) but I have no idea how real such concerns are.

Second, how much do your cabinets weigh? As I mentioned, mine are 87 pounds each. That’s it for me. When you build them, veneer them, finish them, etc. you need to move them around a lot, up onto the bench, back down onto the floor, flip them over, etc. For me, these cabinets are as big and heavy as I am capable of dealing with. 




ScruffyHT said:


> It was the Statement monitors that you heard ... not what I am thinking of building ... take a look at the full size statement http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=28728 ... more comparable in size to the Khanspire


Got it. I have not heard the full-sized Statements, so I can’t really comment. I would *guess* that they have a similar presentation to the ones I heard, but with more bass. I think Ryan heard them last year at Iowa, when he also had his Khanspires there…?

If you’re trying to decide between different designs, I recommend going over to htguide (where these designs reside) and starting up a discussion. People there are friendly and very helpful.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

WmAx said:


> Measured panel amplitude is on average 20-30dB lower in output as compared to standard enclosure construction with these methods.


Please provide measurements to back up your case, otherwise you're just clogging up my thread and taking it where it doesn't need to go.


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> Please provide measurements to back up your case, otherwise you're just clogging up my thread and taking it where it doesn't need to go.


Here is a standard construction bookshelf speaker, with 10" or so open spanning panels, compared to modification of the same unit, with 1/8" visco-elastic layer, 1/2" concrete, steel subframe and steel tube cross bracing. Sine wave sweep, same input voltage to each unit, accelerometer(ACH-01) placed on center side panel of each unit.










-Chris


----------



## Aaron Gilbert (Nov 12, 2008)

WmAx said:


> Here is a standard construction bookshelf speaker, with 10" or so open spanning panels, compared to modification of the same unit, with 1/8" visco-elastic layer, 1/2" concrete, steel subframe and steel tube cross bracing. Sine wave sweep, same input voltage to each unit, accelerometer(ACH-01) placed on center side panel of each unit.


So what are the output levels of the drivers relative to the output levels shown on this graph?


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

JonW said:


> First, if you take a typically braced cabinet like Ryan’s or mine, are the resonances actually that audible? I can appreciate how all the bracing, small spacing, non-wood materials, etc. will reduce vibrations by 20-30 db. How much lower in magnitude are the starting vibrations than the “primary” signal coming from the drivers? If the vibrations start out, say, 30 db down and you now pushed them to 60 db down…? I’m not trying to be antagonistic (or throw this thread off onto a tangent) but I have no idea how real such concerns are.


If the output of the cabinets started out as 30dB down from the speaker signal, then there would be no cause for concern. The problem is when the cabinet produces nearly as much output as the drivers. As for finding the actual levels of the cabinet output, as I addressed earlier, it's very hard to measure this under home conditions. I have had to resort to blind testing to reference extreme low resonance controls using special test cabinets for this purpose in the past, and I use a known very low resonance reference to make quick and dirty comparisons also, as explained earlier. I do find resonance to be a major problem with affecting timbre on the vast majority of speakers based on these methods I explained earlier.



> Second, how much do your cabinets weigh? As I mentioned, mine are 87 pounds each. That’s it for me. When you build them, veneer them, finish them, etc. you need to move them around a lot, up onto the bench, back down onto the floor, flip them over, etc. For me, these cabinets are as big and heavy as I am capable of dealing with.


I can understand your hesitation when weight enters the picture. A small bookshelf like the Ascend CBM-170 after modification weighs just under 30lbs each. More then 2x the original mass. A full size speaker such as the ones in this thread would probably end up 200lbs or more each using the same construction methods. But you need not apply this to the entire cabinet. If you build the cabinet as two modular units, you can attach the mid/tweeter section with a soft suspension to the bottom part with woofers, and only use this construction method in the mid-treble module. In the bass module, simply use normal bracing as sufficient density as to push the 1st resonant mode of the cabinet above the woofer passband. While this can only work under practical situations(it gets hard to push MDF panels over 400-500Hz), you could use this as part of the design consideration(s) when choosing the woofers and mid-range units, and the bands they will cover. Refer to B&W 802D. It uses this very concept.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Aaron Gilbert said:


> So what are the output levels of the drivers relative to the output levels shown on this graph?


I wish I had a practical way to make this determination.

Please refer to post number 32.

-Chris


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

WmAx said:


> Sine wave sweep, same input voltage to each unit, accelerometer(ACH-01) placed on center side panel of each unit.


All that's really saying is that you reduced panel vibration - it's not proving that panel resonance is as bad an offender as you have previously claimed. Until you can, let's end this discussion going forward, or please just start your own thread.



> Aaron Gilbert wrote:
> So what are the output levels of the drivers relative to the output levels shown on this graph?
> 
> I wish I had a practical way to make this determination.


Very easy if you ask me, close mic the midwoofer with an spl meter at the same time you have the accelerometer on the panel. I'd be willing to bet, again, it's no big deal. Just one of those things that people in this hobby obsess about while overlooking much more critical aspects of performance.


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> All that's really saying is that you reduced panel vibration - it's not proving that panel resonance is as bad an offender as you have previously claimed. Until you can, let's end this discussion going forward, or please just start your own thread.


As explained a few posts back, I have compared cabinets in blinded situations, both in real time and in post using recorded samples, along with more loose comparisons against a non-resonant headphone unit which makes timbre distortions easy to discern in comparison.




> Very easy if you ask me, close mic the midwoofer with an spl meter at the same time you have the accelerometer on the panel. I'd be willing to bet, again, it's no big deal. Just one of those things that people in this hobby obsess about while overlooking much more critical aspects of performance.


Then how do you coorelate the absolute SPL equivalence of the accelerometer reading with the acoustic response? How do you account for the complex multi-mode behaviour of the cabinet across different points of it's surface? The total room acoustic output summation of all of the panels into a room?

-Chris


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

It probably is a wise idea to start a new thread about cabinet/panel resonance. It is worth discussion, but others reading this thread are being taken down a different road than what I believe was intended. Let's please follow the rules. Thanks!


----------



## WmAx (Jan 26, 2008)

Sonnie said:


> It probably is a wise idea to start a new thread about cabinet/panel resonance. It is worth discussion, but others reading this thread are being taken down a different road than what I believe was intended. Let's please follow the rules. Thanks!


I'm sorry if I have upset anyone. This was not my intention.

I often get carried away with anything to do with true factors of sound quality - and I lose sight of things.

-Chris


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

We're approaching 24 hours till showdown. Let the countdown begin. 

Steve, make sure you eat your Wheaties tomorrow. I'm going to need help getting these in the house. Once on carpet, they can be pushed around pretty easily. But in and out of the truck will definitely be a two man job. 

I got to go figure out how I'm getting these in the back of my truck. A simple length and width measurement says that they will theoretically fit the back seat, but....


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

No worries on the lifting, just point me in the right direction :flex:

There is one potential problem however. We've had really bad ice all over the roads these past couple days - last night and today the temperature is getting up to 50-60 degrees, so everything has melted and it has been raining. Lots of flood warnings because there is just so much water right now. Then tonight it's supposed to drop back down to 10 degrees, so we could have another really bad ice situation with all this water.

Don't know how it is up by you, but definitely be mindful of ice on the roads on 80/94 and I-65, lots of accidents the past few days.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Testing went pretty well. The quick verdict is that mutiple medium quality drivers vs few high quality drivers didn't really seem to be a determining factor in my overall preference for sound quality on each song. It came down to crossover voicing, box stuffing, and deciding to go sealed vs ported.

Unfortunately, due to the layout of the room and furniture/equipment in it, we weren't able to seperate the speakers as far apart as I would have liked. Because of that, imaging and soundstage width didn't really get to be tested all that well. Everything else was ok - we had a very quick, level matched switch method in play - only about 2 seconds per switch. 

The Khanspires had more top end energy which sometimes caused them to sound edgy, harsh, or sibilant, and other times caused them to sound more open or give female vocals a tone I preferred. The Spassvogels sounded smoother, a bit more laid back. The low end on the Spassvogels was fairly hot though, and lows were overemphasized in some songs - to the point of taking away from the entire presentation on those songs. On the whole, surprisingly, the Spassvogels seemed to hold up better when we really cranked up the volume - that's when the Khanspires would get harsh. Ryan mentioned that he took out a lot of fill behind his midrange drivers, so perhaps internal reflections and cone cry were the cause of the harshness, or perhaps sibilance from the all metal drivers?

Jon's speakers sound like they may benefit from either a 3db reduction below 100hz or perhaps decreasing the enclosure volume so that the low end isn't as sensitive. For me personally, I'd maybe bring up the highs a tad. It didn't seem like the slanted baffle and facets added much, but again, the speakers weren't far enough apart to really extract such potential benefits.

I think one would have to eliminate both Jon and Ryan's votes, as they pretty much always picked their own speakers on every song, even if their speakers clearly sounded worse on a particular song :sarcastic: It was easy to tell them apart even though the test was blind because the Spassvogels had deeper, more powerful bass and the Khanspires had more top end energy. So if we just count the votes of myself and Jared, another participant, I believe the Spassvogels won by a fair margin, probably something like 2 to 1.

Moral of the story - from my take - is that higher quality parts can only help, but ultimately frequency response and tuning by ear are the ultimate dictators of sound quality. The two lower distortion Soundspeak drivers in the Spassvogels held up better at higher levels and in more "busy" music than the five Dayton drivers in the Khanspires. If one used Scanspeak drivers in a 3 way with a very flat FR except for a slight increase in the top end, one would have a very good speaker. DIY is nice because you can always change things, but commercial is nice because you can compare all kinds of speakers to find out exactly what you like. With no point of reference, every speaker can sound "good".


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

SteveCallas said:


> With no point of reference, every speaker can sound "good".


This is a very important take home message that has been repeatedly been shown in multiple published perceptual works.


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Hi Guys,

That was fun! Big thanks to Ryan and Steve for taking the time to drive down to my place. They did all the heavy lifting (literally) and I just stayed at home. 

Honestly, I tried to be unbiased, but…


SteveCallas said:


> I think one would have to eliminate both Jon and Ryan's votes, as they pretty much always picked their own speakers on every song, even if their speakers clearly sounded worse on a particular song :sarcastic:


Ryan's speakers did sound excellent. No doubt about it. And when you factor in how much cheaper they are to build than mine, they are even more impressive. But I pretty much always preferred the Spassvogels, with the exception of one song and it was pretty close with another (out of ~20 total). For me there always seemed to be more clarity (less distortion, echoey sound, or other extraneous things?). Clarity and pinpoint accuracy were what I was after, more than anything else, when designing these speakers.

However, after playing any given song, we would all discuss what we heard. And many times we all mentioned something different. So I guess the “perfect” speaker for one person may not be so great for another. An example that comes to mind is all the excitement I’ve heard people express with regard to open baffle speakers- no “box coloration,” etc. I’ve heard a few and, eh, they’re just not for me. The big sound stage is nice but there seems to be a lack of pinpoint accuracy/clarity to my ears. So in speakers what one person loves another may hate.

I agree with Steve and Ryan that the bass can be hot on my speakers. Seems to me it’s nice on most songs but around 1/4 or 1/3 of songs it’s too much. Plugging the ports helped but then that kills the bass on songs where it’s nice to have that bass extension. I experimented with different tunings and this one (34 Hz) came out the best in terms of a middle ground between bass extension and mid range clarity. I’m not sure what to do about this- would reducing the volume but keeping the same tuning possibly help? 

For what it’s worth, in terms of moral of the story or take home messages, my current thought is that there are 3 important aspects of the speaker design- good drivers, a good cabinet, and a good crossover. Lots of aspects of each to deal with. For example, start with higher distortion drivers and the sound will be compromised, no matter what you do with the rest of the design. Design a good cabinet and that can help with aligning the acoustic offset of each driver, thereby making for better phase integration and a tighter, more focused presentation. Baffle diffraction can also be improved with the cabinet. And then, of course, all the design considerations in a crossover. When tweaking the model that last 2% and having to choose between better phase integration, a flatter frequency response, or a flatter impedance plot, which way do you go? From my quite limited experience with only one design, I’d say every one of these things are important to getting a really great sounding speaker. 

Glad we did that. It was fun.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Very interesting results... and it sounds like you guys had a lot of fun.

May I ask what music you guys listened to? What were some of the tracks? And are these songs part of your reference music that you listen to often? Thanks!


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Hi Sonnie,

Most of the 20 or so songs we played were from Steve ad Ryan. So I’ll let them list the songs they brought. There were 3 of the many that I use frequently for voicing. They were:

Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pigeon from the Chesky Ultimate Demo Disc
Arousing Thunder by Grant Lee Buffalo from Copperopolis
Might Joe Moon by Grant Lee Buffalo from Mighty Joe Moon


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I have one disc of songs that I always use and have used for audio comparisons (speakers or electronics) for the past few years, and then I also made a new disc just for this test with songs that I have been listening to a lot lately and that I feel would help differentiate these two speakers. Only got to listen to a few, as time flies during these tests and Ryan and Jon had cds of their own. Started with stuff from my new disc.

Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata - unknown artist - this version was recoreded in such a way that of the 30 or so versions I have heard of this song, this version is the most realistic, "there in the room with the piano" version - perfect to reveal the overall tone of each speaker, as this song probably yielded one of the biggest differences in sound between the two speakers of all the songs we used 

Aria - Yanni at the Acropolis version - picked to test clarity, female vocal tone, bass, and which speaker would become harsh first 

I Kissed a Girl - Katy Perry - :rubeyes::R picked this one to see which speaker can hold together at *high* volumes, sound stage width, and which could accuratey deliver the pounding bass sounds of the chorus line which I really love on my system at home - unfortunately neither could do the bass right

At Emperor's Palace - Tan Dun, Hero Soundtrack - very percussive track picked to test dynamics, clarity, detail, and male vocal tone - this one stands out to me because we all picked Ryan's speakers and Ryan and Jon thought they were picking Jon's speakers

O Holy Night - Mariah Carey - same as Aria, clarity, female vocal tone, bass, and which gets harsh first - I believe this was one where the bass of the Spassvogels took away from the overall performance

my turn was up at this point, when I got a chance again later, seeing as a lot of Ryan's stuff was dynamic, I skipped most of the rest of this disc and chose to use a couple mellow songs

Us and Them - Pink Floyd - picked to test male vocal tone, sax tone, and detail

Imagine - John Lennin - male vocal tone, and overall smoothness - I believe Ryan commented that this song never sounded as good to him as he heard it on Jon's speakers?

now it was Jon's turn, and then when getting back to me, my final verdict was already decided, so I played a couple tracks from my default disc that I felt I already knew the outcome of

Green Hornet - Al Hirt - impressive trumpet performance that is enjoyable on good speakers, but will send you running if the speakers are too bright or harsh 

Shelf in the Room - Days of the New - tests overall tone, detail, male vocals, and "black space", or how quiet the brief instances of no sound are


I had plenty other songs, but the differences were already obvious by this point, and it was ~5:30PM. Again, unfortunate that imaging and soundstage width didn't really get to come in play, but the differences we did hear were big enough to pick decisively on each song. Commence jokes on using Katy Perry for a speaker comparison, I stand by my decision :bigsmile:


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

SteveCallas said:


> Shelf in the Room - Days of the New - tests overall tone, detail, male vocals, and "black space", or how quiet the brief instances of no sound are
> 
> 
> :


LOL!:R I just saw Travis's mother a few days ago at WalMart. Haven't seen him in a long time though. Charlestown IN baby.

Good job on the summary. I'd like to hear what the speakers owner's thought of the sound of the other guys pair. Also what amplification was used? How big of a contributer to the difference in character between the 2 speakers do you feel like the x-overs were? Large, medium, or small?


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

We had several amps at our disposal (Adcom, Outlaw Audio, Carvin, Crown, PS Audio, Behringer), but we chose to use a Yamaha receiver due to it's impressive 4 ohm stereo performance (220 watts at 0.1% distortion 2 channels driven), perfectly flat FR from 15hz to 25khz, and it's ability to allow you to switch between A and B speakers on the fly without having to connect/disconnect anything - made switching incredibly easy.

Half the fun was hearing Jon and Ryan try to politely take jabs at the other guy's speakers. It's unfortunate that the bass of the Spassvogels and upper mids of the Khans were so emphasized, otherwise the blind test format would have really made their impressions much more interesting, and they wouldn't have picked their own speakers nearly every single time.

Not sure if you are asking me or them, but I feel as though the crossovers were huge, because again, reduce the bass of the Spassvogels and the upper mids of the Khans, and you have two very different speakers that sound quite similar.


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

SteveCallas said:


> Half the fun was hearing Jon and Ryan try to politely take jabs at the other guy's speakers.


Oh c’mon. We weren’t *that* polite about it.  




SteveCallas said:


> IBeethoven's Moonlight Sonata - unknown artist - this version was recoreded in such a way that of the 30 or so versions I have heard of this song, this version is the most realistic, "there in the room with the piano" version - perfect to reveal the overall tone of each speaker, as this song probably yielded one of the biggest differences in sound between the two speakers of all the songs we used


See, I find this comment very interesting. I thought that this song showed one of the *smallest* differences between the speakers. Goes to show how differently we all hear these things. But I must admit that I had difficulty listening to this track. I couldn't wait for it to be over. For some reason I found it to be pretty annoying. I even preferred that screechy trumpet song to this one. 





SteveCallas said:


> I Kissed a Girl - Katy Perry - :rubeyes::R picked this one to see which speaker can hold together at *high* volumes, sound stage width, and which could accuratey deliver the pounding bass sounds of the chorus line which I really love on my system at home - unfortunately neither could do the bass right


Not my favorite song, but not as horrible as I expected.  There’s a lot going on there (busy). And it was played louder than many of the other songs. So I actually thought this one was a very good test track to use.




---
By the way, I think that Days of the New song is one of those pleasant recordings that sound good on almost any speaker. Really fills up a room. I’d put Dianna Krall’s “Cry Me A River” into that same category. “Chan Chan” from Buena Vista Social Club is another one.


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Ricci said:


> How big of a contributer to the difference in character between the 2 speakers do you feel like the x-overs were? Large, medium, or small?


I’d say medium or large. Along with driver choice (medium or large) and cabinet design (medium or small). The crossover is in there with all the other factors. Design and voicing of the crossover will give the forward mids that Steve mentioned with the Khans. Or the lack of mids/highs that Steve mentioned with the Spassvogels. The overly pronounced bass on the Spassvogels is a different story and not part of the crossover. Getting good crossover phase overlap will help the pinpointing and picking up the room ambiance of the recoding, etc. A good, flat impedance function in the crossover will also help things (so I found by experimenting) but I can’t really describe what that contributes other than a dimwitted “it sounded better that way.” Supposedly easier for the amp or something like that.

I cannot explain it but from the Iowa DIY meet in October, I thought that the majority of 3-way speakers had this character of forward mids and the 2-ways did not. That’s to my ears. If I recall, I think that the builders of some of those 3-ways thought that the mids in my 2-way were recessed. So it’s all relative. But what should it be relative to? Who knows…


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

Ricci said:


> I'd like to hear what the speakers owner's thought of the sound of the other guys pair.


Well, for what it’s worth, I can give my impressions. Before that, to let you know where I’m coming from… I cannot claim to be free of bias, given how much effort I have into the Spassvogels. Even despite my efforts to remain open minded. I heard all the speakers at the Iowa DIY meet and, to my snooty ears, I would say there was a notable gap between the “unlimited” speakers there ($700 and up, I think, including mine) and the lower priced designs. But the unlimiteds all sounded pretty close to each other. Other people there thought there was hardly any difference between the unlimiteds and the cheaper designs. So I’d say this qualifies me as a snob. I’m not proud of that, but there you go. With all that said…

Khanspires: Overall an excellent speaker. If they hit your budget plans, I’d recommend them without hesitation. Excellent value. I won’t bad mouth these very nice speakers if that’s what you’re after.  I’ll just say that they are slightly lacking in the pinpoint clarity that I like so much. The mids were more forward but I’m not sure if that’s good or bad. Just different. Not as much bass, but that’s a simple tuning issue or use a sub. Very likely the best sounding speaker I’ve heard that’s based on the Dayton RS drivers. 

Spassvogels: Clarity was my highest priority in the design. So that’s both what I’m listening for and I designed these speakers accordingly. So I thought these had more clarity/air/atmosphere, and a better ability to hear the room of the recording. BUT: Note that Ryan said he thought the opposite was true- the Khans had a better ability to hear the rest of the room, etc. So it’s just my opinion here. On about 1/4 or 1/3 of the songs, the Spassvogels have too much bass. For other songs the bass seems pleasant. 

Soundstage: There was one song on which I preferred the Khans. The movie soundtrack from Hero. It’s *big* movie music meant to really fill up the room. You want a *huge* presentation and to be just overwhelmed by it all. The Khans did a better job at that. Here, too, I thought the Khans were not as clear as the Spassvogels. But in this case, I’d pick the big soundstage over the clarity. My guess is it’s the Khans having sound radiating from a larger area, thereby providing the bigger soundstage. 

I’d guess that Steve and Ryan did not hear all or any of those differences I just described. It could be my bias or snobbiness talking. Or that we’re each after something different in a speaker. We need to have Ryan step in here and defend his good name. (ahem) :R


----------



## dlneubec (Oct 9, 2006)

Wow, Jon, you have some pretty strong opinions! So far you have trashed all open baffles (after hearing a couple) and 3ways (again), as well as calling all of your lower priced compeitors at Iowa inferior.:hide: I find this a strange position to take considering all the generous help you received during the design of the Spassvogels over at HtGuide. A little humility can go a long way, especially on the internet. 

One glaring thing that is missing from this discussion, IMO, is the recognition of the effect that the room the "test" took place in can have. I'd imagine that Jon's speakers were voiced to sound the best he could get them in his room and conversely, Ryans for his room. Varying room conditions can significantly change the sound of a speaker, particularly in terms of the bass, but also in the percieved brightness. One of the clear benefits of DIY design versus buying commercial is the ability to tailor a speakers sound to the exact environment it will be used in, rather than to a generic room and I would fully expect that to be the case here. IIRC, Jon has a pretty hard surfaced room. I have no idea what Ryans is like, but I would not be surprised if it was considerably less reflective (just carpet could make a big difference). If that were true, it would make sense that in a side by side comparison, Jons would be more laid back and Ryans brighter and it could easily account for the differences in bass response. I have heard both of the speakers in a more neutral setting, at the Iowa DIY, one in 2007 and one in 2008. I certainly can't do a valid comparison between them since they were so far apart in time, but both are very good, carefully designed speakers and based on my memory, I would expect the differences to be a matter of taste, not design quality or execution.

One other comment I would like to make. IMO, I don't believe you can or should make a decision on a speaker design with a few minutes of comparison. It takes months to do a really great job of voicing a speaker. You really have to live with them for awhile. Listen to them under many different conditions, differnet music, loud, quiet, HT, music, at different times of the day when your ears can often have different senstivity to sounds, etc. and most ideally, in the room they will be used in. Often the speaker that is picked in head to head competion is the one that stands out the most, which may end up being something you find bothersome after hours of or weeks of listening. Your ears typically take some time to adapt to a different sound and the initial reaction can often be that you prefer the sound you are used to, but in time that can certainly change.


----------



## fbov (Aug 28, 2008)

SteveCallas said:


> ... Green Hornet - Al Hirt - impressive trumpet performance that is enjoyable on good speakers, but will send you running if the speakers are too bright or harsh...





JonW said:


> ... screechy trumpet song...





dlneubec said:


> Wow, Jon, you have some pretty strong opinions! ...


I'll say!:foottap:

One thought. Jon's port is in the back. To what extent would the large, flat baffle of the Khanspires, front and back, act to change the low frequency output of both driver and port? 

Frank


----------



## Ricci (May 23, 2007)

Thanks for the reply Jon. I'm not looking to instigate anything. I think it's interesting reading the different opinions and and comments on what was heard from the 2 speakers by each person involved. I too would assume that the x-overs have a very large contribution to the character of each speaker. I would actually think that the drivers may be secondary to the enclosure also if they are of good quality to begin with as all of the drivers used here are. This is not to say that the drivers don't have differing quality or strengths, but that there is a very large amount of tailoring of the sound that can be done with the x-over and enclosure to achieve a certain sound one way or the other. Maybe 35% components, 65% implementation? 

That Days of the New cd has a very rounded, or soft sound. Very lower midrange oriented. I like it but the one thing that bugs me being a drummer is that there is only one crash cymbal used on the whole album.


----------



## JonW (Nov 21, 2006)

dlneubec said:


> Wow, Jon, you have some pretty strong opinions! So far you have trashed all open baffles (after hearing a couple) and 3ways (again), as well as calling all of your lower priced compeitors at Iowa inferior.:hide: I find this a strange position to take considering all the generous help you received during the design of the Spassvogels over at HtGuide. A little humility can go a long way, especially on the internet.


Hi Dan,

Thanks for mentioning this. I am very sorry to give that impression. Certainly not my intent. What I wrote must have come across quite differently than what I had intended. Hopefully this is only a case of true thoughts not coming across fully with only text. If I read something from someone else and had the same impression you did, I would certainly thing that fellow a jerk. 

By no means do I consider myself an expert. I’ve only plodded through one design. And as you mention, it was all with tons of help from the htguide crew. Without all of them (including you) I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere close to a functional speaker. If you look at the Spassvogel thread, it’s mostly my asking questions and people helping me. I have not lost sight of that. , just Sunday I was telling Ryan and Steve how great I think the htguide crew is. 

I definitely did not mean to trash open baffles. I said "just not for me." I’ve heard a few. My impressions are they have big, big soundstage but lack some of the precision that I really like. It’s an opinion based on not many examples and certainly subject to change. I know that some people love open baffles above all else. Great. I don’t mean to take anything away from them or steer anyone in a different direction. I happen to want to go in a different direction for myself. Nothing wrong with that, I think. Look at Ryan’s speakers. He’d never change them for mine. And I wouldn’t change mine for his. Everyone’s happy. Perfect. Here I offered my personal opinion as to why I prefer one speaker (or approach) over another. That was one of the intents of this thread/discussion, I think. Unfortunately that came across much more strongly than I ever imagined it could have. I thought I couched things sufficiently as only my opinion and not necessarily how I think other people should go. I'm not at all saying one approach is better than another. But apparently I was not sufficiently conditional about it. Sorry.

With regard to trashing 3-ways, there, too, I didn’t mean to trash them at all. I have nothing against 3-way (how could anyone?). I thought that I phrased things more neutrally than I guess they came off. For instance, when mentioning the forward mids of Ryan’s speakers, I said it’s different, neither good nor bad. And when I brought up this topic at the PE board I posted it as a question: Why did many of the 3-ways sound like they had forward mids to me? And I think I asked about which one might be more “correct.” Certainly I was trying to learn why I had that impression and if others had it as well. And maybe I should go more for that sound in my future projects. I don’t recall ever implying that the way my speakers sound was better and everyone else’s was worse. Gosh, I hope it didn’t come across that way. If it did that, too, was nowhere even near my intent. I was asking such questions so I could learn how to improve on my next project. There will be 3-ways in my future, I hope. So I am not trying to trash them at all. The impressions I seem to have given are very, very far off my actual thoughts. Not good at all. Sorry.

Same story with the other speakers at Iowa. Not trashing them. I gave my own opinion but was careful to say that many others had a contrary opinion. Trying to put my opinions in the context of others and be clear that I'm the minority on that particular issue. I learned tons that day. I really enjoyed listening to all the speakers there. I thought that nearly every pair there was excellent. Your Duo’s (both flavors) and Maynard’s 3-ways were stand outs for me. But I decided to go a route using particular drivers and a more traditional design. And I’m happy with that. For me, at the time, it was a good thing to do. But it’s obviously a different route than what is best for you or others. I don’t see any problem with that. 

In my posts here I tried to be up front about how it seems that we were each looking for something pretty different in a speaker. So that no one person has the right approach. And everyone’s opinions are equally valid. I acknowledged the bias I may carry toward my own design. I also tried to be forthcoming about the weaknesses in my speakers (hot bass, possibly recessed mids, etc.). And I made it clear that I’m no expert, having worked through only a single design. By no means am I trying to elevate my speakers or knowledge above anyone else’s. , I even called one of my opinions “dimwitted.” 

I apologize if what I wrote made it sound as though I lack respect for what other people are doing. Definitely not my intent, of course. Nor is it anything even close to my actual opinion. Most people on these boards know far more about speaker design than I do. I read these boards (and sometimes participate in the discussions) to learn from you all. If I thought I wasn’t learning, I wouldn’t read the boards. 

Again, very sorry for coming across this way. 

-Jon


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Pfff, I didn't interpret anything Jon said with ill intent :huh:



dlneubec said:


> recognition of the effect that the room the "test" took place in can have. I'd imagine that Jon's speakers were voiced to sound the best he could get them in his room and conversely, Ryans for his room


Great point, although Ryan's crossovers and voicing were done by someone else, CJD I believe. But you are right, Ryan's speakers having more upper mids very likely is the result of Ryan's and or CJD's rooms being less reflective than Jon's, as Jon's has some windows behind the speakers, a hardwood floor (albeit with a large rug between the speakers and seating area), and no absorption panels. I feel like an idiot for skipping over that :doh:


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

I always love reading about these kinds of events. And I love the basic many drivers vs. fewer "better" drivers. The results kind of mirror my prejudices about speakers.. and also the importance of the crossover.

I have a couple of ponderings that I'm left with now.. one, obviously, is how much the room truly affected the product. Not only with respect to the speaker being next to each other but in general.

Also, how these speakers would be perform with a sub in the mix. Granted, that takes away from the purist aspect, but in the real world, most of us have a sub to handle the low stuff. Maybe the two might have done better handling the 80 and above stuff.

Thanks to all who participated and took the time to post their opinions.


----------



## Aaron Gilbert (Nov 12, 2008)

I have enjoyed reading all the experiences and opinions put forth after this comparison. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone! Obviously not being there, I can't add any sonic impressions on these particular speakers. However, I will say that many of the comments in this thread have only served to solidify some of the primary benefits to this 'hobby' of ours. Each builder creates his or her design to suit their particular sonic goals, their room, and even their musical tastes (not even getting into style or costs, which are also fun).


----------



## dlneubec (Oct 9, 2006)

Hi Jon,

I'm glad to hear that your intent is not what I interpreted it to be. I apologize for any misunderstanding. 

One thing I have learned over the last few years posting on the internet is that it is ok to talk critically about ones own creations but it is best to avoid giving any negative impressions about anyone else’s work. That is just my opinion and one a lot of forum participants don’t seem to value. We all our our hearts into our work and it is all too easy on the internet to misunderstand another’s intent, especially when it appears to be unfavorable in any way. Comments that might be construed as critical of someone else’s work, IMO, are best handled directly and privately. One of the main reasons many of us participate in these forums and in this hobby is for the “community”. I believe that should be valued. As someone else said, it could stand to be more about encouraging and supporting the designer than about the design.

It is obvious to me, from hearing the Spassvogels, that you have a good ear. I expect your future designs to be excellent as well. Keep up the good work.:T

BTW, I hope to change your impression of open baffle speakers this year.:yes:


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this thread. I didn't get home Sunday night until around 9:00 pm. Then on Monday I flew to both Philadelphia and Dallas, then trip was then reversed on Tuesday. 

First, I want to thank Jon and Steve for the great time. It is amazing how much you can learn for getting together and actually doing some listening. Having met both, I know they are not as big of jerks as they come off as here on the boards.  Its tough though to post after these things, everyone is demanding to hear your thoughts, everyone wants there to be a winner. But putting impressions into words without sounding overly harsh - especially when your discussing minute differences that really aren't big negatives - is really difficult. 

I'm not an expert here. I don't claim to be one. I have never designed a crossover and this is only the first pair of speakers I've built. So, nothing I say should be taken as fact or too personal. Also, I think that the listening session was in general too short to identify subtle differences between the speakers. I think most of the time, everyone but Jon, was likely hearing only the tonal differences in the voicing.

The songs I brought were, all songs in heavy rotation in my player:
Andy Palacio - Watina 
Damien Rice - 9 Crimes
Racheal Yamagata - Be Be Your Love
Jack Johnson - Staple it Together
Los_Lonely - Boys-Crazy Dream

Jon's Spassvogels sounded very good. I think most people would enjoy them. In general, I think I could hear the difference in quality of the Scan Speak drivers from my Dayton RS drivers. Instruments on my Khans had just a subtle edge to them that they didn't have on Jon's. Just a hair smoother, more natural. This was very subtle. They also had great imaging and soundstage. I didn't notice this as much this time as I did the last time we got together, but I think that was more the nature of where I was sitting and bouncing around and chatting. However, Jon's speakers have some pretty hot bass. I said several times I found it "obnoxious". Jon only agreed on two songs: Jack Johnson - Staple it Together and a song by Grant Lee Buffalo. I think Steve agreed with me on like 4 songs of the probably two dozen. So, it is definitely a personal thing. And, not really a big deal since it can be easily be modified to taste by modifying the enclosure volume, tuning and stuffing. I was shocked that as we turned the volume way up on a couple of songs, that Jon's speakers never sounded like they were falling apart. I thought that would be the difference maker. 

Listening to the Khans side by side with speaker that uses drivers that cost 2x as much made me love them even more (same reaction after Iowa last year). I've very happy with them, but yet they did disappoint me in some ways. While, I thoroughly enjoy them in my home, at Jon's I did find the bass weak and them to be a bit more forward than I'm used to.

There was also a very subtle edge to them compared to Jon's, like I stated before. I think this is 100% attributed to the drivers.

There was definitely a big difference in the voicing of the speakers. The Khans were sounding forward. Jon would often be describing how the vocals sounded and I would agreed fully with what he was hearing, but he would conclude that his was better while I was left saying I liked mine.  The vocal on Damien Rice was an example of this. I think - and here is where I struggle to find the right words - there was a bit more richness on Jon's and it sounded like a bit of struggling in the voice on the Khans. I think mine sound correct, Jon thinks his sound good.  - I have no idea which is correct.

I consistently thought I heard more of the room where the recording was made on my speakers. On the painful piano recording Steve brought, Jon's sounded like you were very close up to the piano where mine sound like you were a bit further away and could hear some of the reverberation of the room. 

The Khan's bass is definitely on the dry side and doesn't extend as far down, but this was also a design factor. As I stated, I have a sub the size of a small refrigerator, so why build an even bigger ported speaker? If you want lots of bass, build them ported. I admit that I have found the bass somewhat lacking at times at home and have experimented with stuffing some, but I've never viewed it as a problem. But, I'm listening to the same CD here in my room now, and not nearly as dissapointed as I was at Jon's. In fact, I sit here and think that it is right! 

Driving home gave me some time to think about why I found the bass lacking and them more forward. My laundry list is (maybe not entirely accurate, but it makes me feel good!  ): 1) It was a comparison with a speaker that had hot bass and more laid back. A big anchor point. 2) I told CJD when he designed them that I liked speakers a bit more forward. 3) My room is very absorptive with two sofas directly adjacent to them, full carpet, and some 3" thick OC703 sound panels. Jon's is pretty reflective with an area rug and single sofa. 4) My speakers were designed with baffle step to be close to the wall and were probably a hair further away from back wall than normal. 5) Jon has a more open floor plan than my square room with one open doorway, so maybe I pick up more room gain. 6) The one speaker was really close the wall and maybe was really energizing that tweeter that I placed on the outside to widen the sweet spot. 7) Jon used 10' longer speaker wires on mine to roll off my bass. 

(Obviously that last one is a joke)


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

---k--- said:


> Also, I think that the listening session was in general too short to identify subtle differences between the speakers


This has been mentioned a couple times now, and I have to strongly disagree. I can only speak for myself, but across the range of songs each of us used, I felt I had a complete picture of what each speaker was capable of in that particular room. I'm repeating myself, but it would have been nice to have had a wider room where we could have spaced the speakers further apart, because to my ears, it is only with wider spacing that one can fully appreciate good imaging and soundstage presence. My place is available for any future testing - I've got a wide room with carpet and several absorption panels - though I doubt you would want to make the 5 hour trip.


PS. I'm willing to somehow post the version of Moonlight Sonata I brought so others can try it out if anyone wants - Jon and Ryan don't seem to listen to much classical or instrumental, and particularly didn't care for this song, but for me it is going to be an absolute staple for any future audio testing. Not only do I like it, but this up close and personal recording of a piano is perfect for showcasing the differences in tone and voicing of different speakers.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

Steve, 
You obviously have a better ear than I. I can hear the tonal balance differences between speakers pretty quickly. But to memorize where one speaker is placing instruments in space and textures in order to compare to another takes me really focusing and a lot longer.

You also mentioned soundstage and imaging. My four test songs admittedly weren't big demonstrators imaging. These were just some of the songs I listen to and enjoy the most, and all studio recordings with any imagining being artificially created. But, I thought I threw some music at them afterwards that really demonstrated imagining and soundstage. 

What did you think about that jazz song I played from The Body Acoustic? In my room, it really demonstrates imagining. I beleive that it is a natural recording with just a single mic. You can hear very clearly where each person in the jazz assembly is in all 3 dimensions. The sax is clearly off deep to the right, the bass is right in front, with the the drums behind him, and the piano and trumpet are way off back to the left. My impression was pretty much the same at Jon's. 

The African drums on Olantunji's Drums of Passion also really demonstrated imagining. I remember very clearly on the first song hearing two of the same drums being played and commenting how you could hear each distinctly and each on each side. 

Finally, you mention that maybe if if Jon's bass wasn't so hot and mine weren't sounding so forward, we could have done a more blind test and I wouldn't have been picking mine every time. I'm not so sure this is the case. I think I was picking mine because I like, or have become used to, the sound. Jon, I'm sure, is the same. And what is to say you weren't picking the better speaker, but the one that you thought sounded the most like your Boston's? Way to much of this is personal preference. I could never handle Jon's bass, but he likes it. So :huh: To each his own.

We need to have a rematch with these speakers in my room.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

SteveCallas said:


> I Kissed a Girl - Katy Perry - :rubeyes::R picked this one to see which speaker can hold together at *high* volumes, sound stage width, and which could accuratey deliver the pounding bass sounds of the chorus line which I really love on my system at home - unfortunately neither could do the bass right


You're right, neither sounded good at high volumes. This was surprising, because I've listened to some things at really high volumes in my room and have never experience what I was experiencing on Sunday. I think it had to be a function of the room.

But your comments about the bass has been bothering me for a while. Then I remembered Jon's friend asked you how you knew what was the "right" bass. Your response was, "Because I have two of those giant subs in my room."

You're not biased because you built one or the other speakers, like Jon or I. But, you're still biased.


----------



## cjd (Jan 1, 2009)

I want to reiterate a few items here about the Khans, because I actually anticipated the comments before reading them  And, as far as the Khans go I think they're also spot on.



---k--- said:


> 2) I told CJD when he designed them that I liked speakers a bit more forward. 3) My room is very absorptive with two sofas directly adjacent to them, full carpet, and some 3" thick OC703 sound panels. Jon's is pretty reflective with an area rug and single sofa. 4) My speakers were designed with baffle step to be close to the wall and were probably a hair further away from back wall than normal. 5) Jon has a more open floor plan than my square room with one open doorway, so maybe I pick up more room gain. 6) The one speaker was really close the wall and maybe was really energizing that tweeter that I placed on the outside to widen the sweet spot. 7) Jon used 10' longer speaker wires on mine to roll off my bass.
> 
> (Obviously that last one is a joke)


1. These were designed to be much closer to a rear wall than they were, they were probably lacking a couple dB on the bottom end as a result.
2. If I were building these for myself I'd have added a little series impedance on the midrange (we played with this a little) - it IS a little hot in the midrange, and Ryan does in fact prefer this. Combine a general preference for "BBC dip" with these being a little hot and you get 3-4dB more energy through the midrange than most people are used to hearing - combine with bass being a bit shy...
3. The rather reflective room combined with the above two items makes the observations here not at all surprising. 

I voice with classical (solo violin first as it tends to cover through all the crossovers and I've also played for about 30 years...) and then throw a variety of other stuff (vocals, jazz, rock, percussion) at it. I didn't really get much opportunity to voice these and rather had to rely on my experience with the drivers and the characteristics I thought would be audible. The long history of classical music means I tend to build for accuracy - perhaps clinical accuracy. More monitor-like. All told probably good things for HT.

I've not heard Jon's so I can offer nothing at all in comment on them.  Only that I really would love to do a design with Scans. And every time I start to think about it I balk when I see the total - not because I don't want to shell out that kind of cash, but because I know how long the drivers will sit in my basement untouched... I have a nice pair of matched OW1's still...

I'm curious since you mentioned a few different amps - did the high(er) SPL issues in the Khans show up equally with all the amps? One thing I'm pretty much horrible with is designing for benign impedance loads, and this could also introduce additional harshness as the amp struggles.

Jon: you prefer the Khans to their larger siblings? (genuine curiosity here though I don't recall that we had a good pre-amp working when you were here - then again, that was a while ago!)

Oh yeah. Long speaker wires?! Probably 20ga too! :foottap: You know better than that... bumps up Q... heh.

Quick addendum: If you prefer the sound of a BBC dip (I believe Jon's music preferences would lend itself to this) you'll almost always find my voicing to be forward. BBC dip drives me NUTS.  I recently auditioned a pair of huge Mags at a store - first was with a pre some guy was buying in front of some high end amps (the room was mostly Classe and Ayre and I think some Parasound?). The classical track sounded HORRIBLE to me, but Pink Floyd sounded pretty sharp. After he left (with the pre) I asked the salesman about it and he hooked up a different pre - totally different sound, and none of the problems. Our best guess is this guy had been messing with the tone controls and cranked up the bass and trebel (equivalent to a nice BBC dip).


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

---k--- said:


> But to memorize where one speaker is placing instruments in space





> But, I thought I threw some music at them afterwards that really demonstrated imagining and soundstage.





> You can hear very clearly where each person in the jazz assembly is in all 3 dimensions. The sax is clearly off deep to the right, the bass is right in front, with the the drums behind him, and the piano and trumpet are way off back to the left. My impression was pretty much the same at Jon's.
> 
> The African drums on Olantunji's Drums of Passion also really demonstrated imagining. I remember very clearly on the first song hearing two of the same drums being played and commenting how you could hear each distinctly and each on each side.


Yes and no. No because again, I'm used to wider spacing and those kinds of details stand out more. Yes because there were a few songs in which soundstage size and imaging were still noticable. Regarding soundstage, from one of mine it was the Hero Soundtrack song and then there was also one of yours....I forget which one it was, but I remember my comments being that things kinda collapsed when we switched to the Spassvogels. On your jazz recording, yes, that one stood out as well as being able to place certain sounds in space, but there weren't many more I remember being able to do that with during our comparison. So we're clear though, I'm not saying it had anything to do with the speakers.

I'll use this space to wax about a theory :R Regarding soundstage size, were I ever to build my own speakers, I would voice them so that generally, on axis, there is a rising top end starting ~10khz. In doing this, I could position the speakers without using much toe in, allowing the top end to roll off so that the resulting FR at my ears is relatively flat. What I stand to gain is an incredible soundstage width without losing any detail or clarity.



> Finally, you mention that maybe if if Jon's bass wasn't so hot and mine weren't sounding so forward, we could have done a more blind test and I wouldn't have been picking mine every time. I'm not so sure this is the case. I think I was picking mine because I like, or have become used to, the sound. Jon, I'm sure, is the same. And what is to say you weren't picking the better speaker, but the one that you thought sounded the most like your Boston's? Way to much of this is personal preference.


What I meant was that we were using a blind methodology, but it was almost pointless due to the fact that the Spassvogels had a lot of bass and the Khanspires had a lot of upper mids because we were able to easily tell the speakers apart and therefore know which was playing when, introducing bias. If the speakers sounded more similar - which I truly believe would have been the case if certain characteristics weren't so strong - there still would be differentiation in the sound quality, just not as blatantly obvious. It would have been more subtle, and thus, I'm almost positive you and Jon would have picked your counterparts speakers more than once or twice in a test of ~20 songs.



> But your comments about the bass has been bothering me for a while. Then I remembered Jon's friend asked you how you knew what was the "right" bass. Your response was, "Because I have two of those giant subs in my room."


Well, I didn't feel the need to go into detail, but I can. I have two subs at home with a lot of displacement capability relatively flat in room measured at my seat down to 10hz. My speakers have quad 7" drivers that only need to cover the range of 80hz - 250hz, and they are flat in that range. Basically what I was getting at was that with a rolloff ~50hz on your speakers (without a sub, I understand and agree with your reasoning not to aim lower), and overemphasized bass on Jon's speakers with a rollof ~30hz and those dual midwoofers handling everything eblwo the crossover to the tweeter, for this song, my setup with the subs is able to recreate a more accurate presentation. 

If you listen to this song on your setup at home with your sub in play crossed at 80hz, assuming relatively flat in room FR measured at your seat, you'll hear the bass in a way different than you heard it at Jon's on either of your speakers - it will sound much more similar to the way I hear it at my place. There's a lot more texture and power to those bass notes than what we heard. Am I biased because I was expecting to hear it recreated in roughly that same way? Absolutely, as you may have noticed that on the first playthrough I just stopped the song without notice because the bass wasn't there at all. I was a little disappointed, it takes away from the song.

I get your overall point in that we all have our preferred sound characteristics - but our test wasn't to pick a winner and a loser, it was to find out what is different between them and which total package of characterics we prefferd. Is there a certain sound that 4 out of 5 people prefer? If so, that doesn't mean the 5th person is wrong.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

You know, I don't think there is anything that i can disagree with in the above posts. I think CJD's comments are informative to explain why the Khan's sounded the way they did. 

I will point out, though I know we all were joking, that Jon's speaker cables weren't 20 ga. They were nice and thick.

I've been avoiding discussing the amp. We were just using the internal amp inside a top of Yamaha's line of receivers. My speakers are a hard 4 ohm design, dipping down to 3 ohms at spots. I think they benefit from a good separate amp such as my Outlaw over the internal amp inside my Pioneer 1014tx receiver. Jon's speakers are a 6ohm design with an impedance flatting circuit in the crossover, that is probably not as demanding on the amp. Steve and Jon have done blind testing of amps and receivers. Steve is very adamant that the receiver's amp versus a fancier amp wouldn't make a difference. We're just going to have to politely disagree on this one. It wasn't worth it to me to add complexity to the test setup to demand an amp. I don't want to get into an amp discussion. Maybe some day Steve and I will circle back and test this at my place, with my speakers.

It is starting to sound argumentative. Having personally met everyone, I know it isn't.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Lol, I'm always open for another blind amp vs amp test, and I'm willing to bet a meal on not being able to statistically differentiate any differences as long as we test no less than 25 samples.

To take that one step further, I'd almost be willing to bet that the Yamaha we used performs *better *than the Outlaw if the Outlaw uses a modular design, which I believe it does. What model Outlaw do you have?


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

I have an Outlaw 7500
http://outlawaudio.com/products/7500.html

I would love to do some blind testing. But, it is 80+ pounds and isn't moving very far. You're welcome any time to find your way to my place. You know where I live. 

I guess we'll just have to leave it at that for now.


----------



## cjd (Jan 1, 2009)

I believe it's going to come down to the power supply in the two amps, and the Outlaws can generally drive high current pretty well (receivers do NOT tend to handle this as well, but drive voltage very well).

I've driven a chip-amp into auto shut-down on my current mains (which make the Khan impedance look benign... ) - they drive at low output quite well and sounded really good, but as that output level went up, heat went up, the sound started to get grainy and harsh. IIRC I wasn't even pushing the pair to 90dB at that point, though it was likely in that range. The amp is definitely not 4ohm rated 

I have a pair of the Outlaw monoblocks which I think are similar enough and a bit easier to move, should we want to do an amp comparison.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

For the record

Outlaw 7500 tested

Good to ~447 watts 4 ohm 2 channels driven at 0.1% distortion, about twice as much as the Yamaha. I think it's safe to say neither speakers took more than 25 watts during our comparison.

We'll have to set up such a test for this Spring.


----------



## ---k--- (Aug 12, 2006)

cjd said:


> 2. If I were building these for myself I'd have added a little series impedance on the midrange (we played with this a little) - it IS a little hot in the midrange, and Ryan does in fact prefer this. Combine a general preference for "BBC dip" with these being a little hot and you get 3-4dB more energy through the midrange than most people are used to hearing - combine with bass being a bit shy...


Lazy day here. Not much going on here, except for the watching the Winter Classic. Man it looks great in HD.

Just sitting here thinking about things, and there are so many little "oh yeahs." I thought I would mention that well before CJD designed the Khans for me, we spent a day together listening in my room and discussing speakers , including: Paradigm, Dynaudios, Ascend, SVS and his own MTM's. I had also been to his place a couple times to listen to his big 3-ways. So, I think based on my comments during those sessions, he probably did have a good idea that I like hot mids.

Like Chris mentions, most prefer a BBC dip, which I guess is just the opposite to the hot mids. So, I'm the odd ball! 

Also, they were measured at the Iowa DIY event last year with the previous crossover. The new crossover just adds a steeper slope on the RS150s, not a real change in the voicing. This was in a big open room, so it is generally accurate to about 500hz. Below that, ahhhh the room starts to take effect and then measurement gating comes into play.
http://htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=369215&postcount=451


----------



## crackyflipside (Jul 8, 2006)

Hey, Steve, long time no see! CJD also made some changes to the crossover design to accommodate a non-BSC version for wall mounting. I wasn't really surprised by the results as the lack of bass from the khans was the first thing I noticed after building them but once I clicked the sub on it filled out everything that was missing. I also put a fair amount of stuffing in the mid chamber so it might be why the mids sounded hot on K's speaker. I think for using the dayton drivers they sound very good but I have not yet had a chance to listen to the Spassvogels; the only other design I have heard with somewhat expensive drivers is the Arvo dipoles and I was floored by it's clarity especially in the high-end.


----------

