|
Post by daveczski65 on Jun 9, 2020 16:24:18 GMT -5
Quandary time... Option1: Buy a second pair of used T2s and a second pair of PA-1 amps to get more bass in the room Option 2: Sell my T2s (and my Airmotiv S15s) and use the $$$ toward a pair of Tekton Double Impacts Pros? Cons? Alternatives? Boom I hope you have patience if you go with tekton..I have been waiting 7 weeks now for my Electron SEs with a wide center..I keep getting run around when i call,,never get a call back or answer to why so long..About fed up with them!
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Jun 9, 2020 17:42:46 GMT -5
Quandary time... Option1: Buy a second pair of used T2s and a second pair of PA-1 amps to get more bass in the room Option 2: Sell my T2s (and my Airmotiv S15s) and use the $$$ toward a pair of Tekton Double Impacts Pros? Cons? Alternatives? Boom I hope you have patience if you go with tekton..I have been waiting 7 weeks now for my Electron SEs with a wide center..I keep getting run around when i call,,never get a call back or answer to why so long..About fed up with them! While wait times are extensive, Eric has always been very responsive. Bought a pair of DIs just after Christmas and they were slammed with business at that time, may still be the case.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jun 11, 2020 8:05:15 GMT -5
I'm in no rush. I'd still like to try the "double T2" stack, but am waiting until I have the spare change in my PayPal to buy a second pair. I'm suspecting that the economy won't fully revive for a year or two and my better half is far more pessimistic. My gut feeling is that even a second pair of T2s in the room won't provide the bass the room needs without use of the subs (my room is the WORLD'S WORST for bass propagation).
I do plan to start moving the subs around to see where in the room I can get the smoothest response. AFTER I find that spot, THEN I'll apply the Dayton DSP-LF to tweak the response. Should the best location be in a place where I can't conveniently run wires, I'll get some Emotiva wireless sub transmitter/receivers to help out.
Cheers - Boom
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jul 1, 2020 22:36:15 GMT -5
Since Hair Nick is busy, I may (may) have a second pair of T2s on the way. So I'll finally get to try this: My next problem is how to power this concoction! The Parallel resistance will be 2 Ohms, and the only amp I have rated for that is the Ashly "pro" amp with one kind of weak channel. May be time for a Crown XTi 3500? The only other option would be to buy two more PA-1 monos from Emotiva. Keeping in mind that the amps will be loafing, the PA-1s would be more than sufficient...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 1, 2020 23:09:18 GMT -5
There's no problem at all.... the easiest solution is to JUST PUT EACH PAIR IN SERIES.
In series two 4 Ohm speakers add up to a nice amplifier-friendly 8 Ohm load. It's a bad idea to put two different speakers in series... But it's perfectly fine to put two identical speakers in series...
And, yes, connected that way you can run them from any amp, including our fully differential XPA-DR amps.
Just make sure to get the phase right....
The + terminal on one goes to the amplifier + .
The - terminal on the other one goes to the amplifier's - .
And the other two (+ and -) terminals get connected together.
Or, if you really want to parallel them, our A-400z will cheerfully drive a pair in parallel. (It's rated to deliver 250 watts/channel continuously into a 2 Ohm load.)
Or, if you want to, you can do a variation of "bi-amping", by connecting each speaker to its own separate amplifier channel. (Then drive each pair from one channel of your processor or preamp using passive splitters.)
Since Hair Nick is busy, I may (may) have a second pair of T2s on the way. So I'll finally get to try this: My next problem is how to power this concoction! The Parallel resistance will be 2 Ohms, and the only amp I have rated for that is the Ashly "pro" amp with one kind of weak channel. May be time for a Crown XTi 3500? The only other option would be to buy two more PA-1 monos from Emotiva. Keeping in mind that the amps will be loafing, the PA-1s would be more than sufficient...
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 1, 2020 23:28:14 GMT -5
As a broad generalization having a wider radiating area helps deliver more sound output with lower distortion... However, as the radiating area exceeds the wavelength at a given frequency, the directional response gets very narrow... (That's why large cones have very poor dispersion at higher frequencies.)
The other problem with large radiating areas is simply that the sound is originating from a relatively large area.
In one sense that helps "make the speaker disappear"... But, in another sense, it is unnatural to hear a vocalist's voice originating from an area that's several feet in area...
If you drive an array of speakers with the same signal, and they are very close together, they act more or less like one source with a larger area. But you must remember that, at 5 kHz, one wavelength is about two inches... This means that, at that frequency, a pair of tweeters a mere two inches apart DO NOT look like a single source. They look like two point sources, a full wavelength apart, which can give rise to all sorts of interesting comb filter effects. Now, if you have several tweeters in your array, and drive them with carefully calculated different signals, you can do all sorts of interesting things.
(One of them is what is often referred to as beam steering.) However, doing this, and getting predictable results, can be very complicated.
(This can be done very precisely at one single frequency... like in a RADAR array.) (But it isn't so easy if your drivers are handling a range of frequencies... as they are in an audio speaker.)
Now, at 50 Hz, one wavelength is about twenty FEET. Therefore, at that frequency, having two woofers a few feet apart is pretty much the same as having them next to each other.
Hair Nick - Were you serious about trying some stacked T2s? Did you ever do it? What did you think? Boomzilla Ha, during last week's earthquake here in Idaho during the 6.5 quake I was in front of the system at the time when I noticed the mighty Tekton Ulfbherts swaying left to right. My first thought was that the 4-10 subwoofer isn't turned up at this time? Then I dashed away from the listening area where the 78" 225lbs towers reside. Needlessly said, the rubber suspension that is sandwiched between the spikes and flooring got a work out. I'm definitely considering "strapping" the towers to the wall after experiencing an earthquake in Idaho [my 1 year anniversary]. Anyhoot, that's when I thought maybe going "wider" rather than "taller" might be more desirable concerning stacking. I suppose going wider still places the tweeter in the optimum position rather than stacking all them speakers into a single tower with the tweeter 78" above the listener like some kinda siren during incoming artillery. Anyways, stacking the speakers just reminded me of the duplicate pattern top to bottom the Ulfberhts use. No doubt they could of got more creative in placing the speakers in the towers but that'd probably add to the overall price. Hand crafting surely isn't as inexpensive as CAD work which I think but am not sure that Tekton uses. It would explain why they use MDF and offer painted finishes rather than expensive veneers as well as cool cabinets like the Klipsch Palladium etc. I remember approaching Eric of Tekton about custom made cabinets for the Ulfs before my purchase but there hadn't appeared to be any interest. Just curious, is there a technical reason for placing one sub above and one below other than desired tweeter placement in the overall pattern? Might two twelves at the very bottom followed by 4 7" midbass drivers, the MTM array and tweeter at top have more problems than the current pattern? I mean I sometimes hear people suggest to get the subwoofer off the floor etc. The current pattern disappears in the front sound stage making it impossible to tell the localization of the frequencies whereas I suspect having all bass drivers here, all mid bass drivers there, etc might run into?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,929
|
Post by KeithL on Jul 1, 2020 23:47:46 GMT -5
First off, just FYI, I'm pretty sure Tekton does differ the content sent to the tweeters in their array to do some sort of beam forming / steering. (I haven't heard the big Tektons but I seem to recall reading this in their literature.) This means that they neither act like "one small tweeter" or "one big tweeter" but potentially have better dispersion control than either. However, because they're spreading that energy out over several drivers, each driver is handling much less power, which should also lower distortion.
Also... since you're asking for opinions... I'll throw mine into the ring. I haven't heard the big Tektons... the last ones I listened to for any length of time were the Pendragons... And, to be quite honest, while many people love them, including the owner of the pair I listened to, I was not especially impressed... (They also sounded very much as I would have expected them to from the design.) They use a large woofer, crossing over to a small tweeter, at a relatively high frequency, so their dispersion at midrange frequencies is very narrow. As a result, at midrange frequencies, you hear more direct sound, and fewer room reflections, which tends to lead to good imaging. (You hear proportionally more direct midrange compared to the relative amounts of both higher and lower frequencies.)
However, to my ears, that large light cone didn't reproduce delicate midrange especially cleanly.
Therefore, while they sounded very punchy and dynamic, and had good imaging, I didn't think they did vocals, and especially female vocals, very well. To me, they made vocals sound "airy", but lacked in something I can attempt to describe as "bell like clarity"...
To me this ability seems to be a particular strength of folded ribbon tweeters... And a particular weakness of cone tweeters (and many soft dome tweeters)... From their design I would expect the bigger Tektons to be very dynamic... and able to deliver high sound levels cleanly. However, I very much doubt that they can deliver vocals with pinpoint localization and sharp clarity.
(They're just delivering the midrange from too large an area to be able to create concise pinpoint localization.)
So, for me, I would expect to be much happier with a double pair of T2's.
(I also have fond memories of Double Advents... which, to me, managed to sound significantly better than singles.)
Quandary time... Option1: Buy a second pair of used T2s and a second pair of PA-1 amps to get more bass in the room Option 2: Sell my T2s (and my Airmotiv S15s) and use the $$$ toward a pair of Tekton Double Impacts Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jul 2, 2020 5:57:32 GMT -5
Hi KeithL - Agreed, point for point on the Tekton Pendragons. As to the stacked T2s, yes - I expect some comb filtering in the treble. I hope to alleviate some of it by tilting the stack fore and aft to focus the array for better treble smoothness at the listening position. I'd never thought of running the T2s in series, but on your suggestion, I'll definitely try it. The main thing I'm hoping to achieve with the stack is "fuller," more articulate, and higher definition bass. As I've mentioned before, my listening room is particularly problematical in the bass region. Every corner is vented to a different space, and although there seem to be no peaks in the bass response, the dips (in particular a very sharp notch at 65 Hz. are brutal. By positioning, I can move the frequency of the notch from 45 to 65 Hz., but it is consistent in its -6dB amplitude. I'm hoping that the speaker stack will slightly attenuate the dip. Of course, being a narrow dip (about 10 Hz. wide), it isn't particularly noticeable when actually playing music. And I've seen rooms with a LOT worse performance... I'm also hoping that with more woofers in the mix, that I can slightly equalize the stack for about 5 Hz. lower bass. The "official" -3dB point for the T2 speakers is 35 Hz. If I could get an honest 30 Hz. out of the stack, even at slightly reduced amplitude, I'd be comfortable in omitting the subs from the system completely. I chose poorly when purchasing my subs. The Airmotiv S15s are maybe the very best HT subs I've ever heard, and in my room, extend cleanly to the mid 20s. But their response is far from flat, and even with the Dayton DSP-LF equalizers on them, they can't extend too much on the high end. I was hoping to cross over the satellites to the subs at around 100 Hz., but the S15s just aren't up to the task. The frequency response below is for the S15 sub in the best position I've found for it. I'll post the results of the stacked T2s when I get them. Thanks - Glenn
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Jul 2, 2020 6:24:52 GMT -5
Or 4 mono DRs
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jul 2, 2020 7:48:29 GMT -5
My wife is NOT going to like you! LOL
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Jul 2, 2020 10:39:46 GMT -5
Just sitting in the sweet spot will likely reduce or eliminate any adverse effects of comb filtering. At least that is what I discovered with stacked double Large Advents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 11:44:35 GMT -5
First off, just FYI, I'm pretty sure Tekton does differ the content sent to the tweeters in their array to do some sort of beam forming / steering. (I haven't heard the big Tektons but I seem to recall reading this in their literature.) This means that they neither act like "one small tweeter" or "one big tweeter" but potentially have better dispersion control than either. However, because they're spreading that energy out over several drivers, each driver is handling much less power, which should also lower distortion.
Also... since you're asking for opinions... I'll throw mine into the ring. I haven't heard the big Tektons... the last ones I listened to for any length of time were the Pendragons... And, to be quite honest, while many people love them, including the owner of the pair I listened to, I was not especially impressed... (They also sounded very much as I would have expected them to from the design.) They use a large woofer, crossing over to a small tweeter, at a relatively high frequency, so their dispersion at midrange frequencies is very narrow. As a result, at midrange frequencies, you hear more direct sound, and fewer room reflections, which tends to lead to good imaging. (You hear proportionally more direct midrange compared to the relative amounts of both higher and lower frequencies.)
However, to my ears, that large light cone didn't reproduce delicate midrange especially cleanly.
Therefore, while they sounded very punchy and dynamic, and had good imaging, I didn't think they did vocals, and especially female vocals, very well. To me, they made vocals sound "airy", but lacked in something I can attempt to describe as "bell like clarity"...
To me this ability seems to be a particular strength of folded ribbon tweeters... And a particular weakness of cone tweeters (and many soft dome tweeters)... From their design I would expect the bigger Tektons to be very dynamic... and able to deliver high sound levels cleanly. However, I very much doubt that they can deliver vocals with pinpoint localization and sharp clarity.
(They're just delivering the midrange from too large an area to be able to create concise pinpoint localization.)
So, for me, I would expect to be much happier with a double pair of T2's.
(I also have fond memories of Double Advents... which, to me, managed to sound significantly better than singles.)
Quandary time... Option1: Buy a second pair of used T2s and a second pair of PA-1 amps to get more bass in the room Option 2: Sell my T2s (and my Airmotiv S15s) and use the $$$ toward a pair of Tekton Double Impacts Pros? Cons? Alternatives? Well, the Pendragons far as I can tell don't use Tekton Design's MTM array. An array which is in the top several models. I haven't personally heard the Pendragons but was surprised to see them in some reviewer's top ten best speaker lists of all time [suspecting that pricepoint was considered] . Mind you there are updated Pendragons. I take it that Glenn had a legitimate complaint against the original crossovers and that the update were warranted. I hear you loud and clear concerning the big woofer trying to reproduce razor clarity in the mid-range. Ironically, the exact area Tekton has made a name for itself and with the current theory behind the MTM array. That is, using an extremely low mass drivers in an array to convey what's recorded in the treble area. However, most critics haven't any idea about how a MTM array works and thinks the array is nothing more than 15 high frequency tweeters in each tower or 30 between two towers. The Ulfs, Encores, and Moabs from what I can see utilize the top of the line/model MTM array. The DIs ect utilize different tweeters in their respective MTM arrays.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2020 12:09:25 GMT -5
@shimei what do you think of your A 31?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 12:38:50 GMT -5
@shimei what do you think of your A 31? Love it garbulky . From what I have learned the Ulf speakers dip into the 2 ohm loads in the mid bass region. For that reason I can accept the added perceived fidelity over Gen 3 Emotiva amps. That is in consideration of the larger transformer and 60+ amps of current per channel. I can only imagine how the JC1+ monoblocks with 180+ amps of current per channel sound! I suspect that the Tekton Encores with 2 and 4 [single vs pair] less mid bass drivers or Moabs [3 way] with no mid bass drivers might be a more forgiving load. However, I found the Ulfberhts forcing a conversation about whatever amp upstream. In contrast , I describe the Emotiva Gen 3 and Dr series like cold butter spread over toast whereas the Parasound is more likened to warm butter spread over soft bread. If you haven't noticed Parasound and Tekton have a strong public relationship. Together they've take several awards at RMAF. Together, Tekton has taken the best of show [emphasis on midrange], that is, when teamed with Parasound.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jul 2, 2020 14:45:52 GMT -5
@shimei what do you think of your A 31? Love it garbulky . From what I have learned the Ulf speakers dip into the 2 ohm loads in the mid bass region. For that reason I can accept the added perceived fidelity over Gen 3 Emotiva amps. That is in consideration of the larger transformer and 60+ amps of current per channel. I can only imagine how the JC1+ monoblocks with 180+ amps of current per channel sound! I suspect that the Tekton Encores with 2 and 4 [single vs pair] less mid bass drivers or Moabs [3 way] with no mid bass drivers might be a more forgiving load. However, I found the Ulfberhts forcing a conversation about whatever amp upstream. In contrast , I describe the Emotiva Gen 3 and Dr series like cold butter spread over toast whereas the Parasound is more likened to warm butter spread over soft bread. If you haven't noticed Parasound and Tekton have a strong public relationship. Together they've take several awards at RMAF. Together, Tekton has taken the best of show [emphasis on midrange], that is, when teamed with Parasound. The cold butter and warm would be similar to what I thought the difference between the gen 2 and 3 was. Whatever they did with the gen 3, the sound simply did not feel very natural full or relaxed though it felt very quick and powerful. The gen 3 uses a switching PS and the gen 2 uses a torroidal transformer. I don't know if that's the reason for the difference, but that's the main physical change I see. Glad you are enjoying the parasound. Yeah I think those JC-1's would make those Tekton's sound amazing! Go for it! If not, try a pair of used XPA-1 gen 2. It might surprise you.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jul 3, 2020 6:23:34 GMT -5
Before stacking the T2s, I believe I'll try them back-to-back. Leaving the speakers in phase with one another, I can use the level pots on the Ashly Pro amplifier to reduce the volume on the aft-facing pair by 6dB relative to the front-facing ones. This will form a "bi-polar" pair. The aft-facing speakers can be toed in or out relative to the front-facing pair to adjust sound staging.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Jul 16, 2020 14:51:49 GMT -5
Second pair of T2s is supposed to be on the way and will hopefully arrive by next week. Game plan:
4 amplifier channels - bipolar speaker configuration (4-Ohms per channel) Both PA-1s and Ashly Pro amp used with rear-facing speakers -6dB down from front-facing pair.
2 amplifier channels - stacked speaker configuration with speakers in series (8-Ohms per channel) Only the PA-1s used
2 amplifier channels - stacked speaker configuration with speakers in parallel (2-Ohms per channel) Only the Ashly Pro amp used
4 amplifier channels - stacked speaker configuration with speakers in parallel (4-ohms per channel) Both PA-1s and Ashly Pro amp used
And with the variety of stuff going on, I'm finally going to break down and REW all the different configurations.
And I think I want a much wider base for the stacked towers than the Dayton stands provide. I'm thinking the easiest is just to get some plywood and, using the speakers' threaded spike sockets as a template, bolt the speakers to the plywood. That way, I can have as broad a foundation as I'm willing to pay for (and at minimum cost). But I'm open to ideas if any of you have better?
Thanks - Boom
|
|