• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Perlisten speakers

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,633
Likes
2,751
Sorry, I was taking about the difference between the Perlisten S and R series. I thought you may have had the opportunity to listen to both.
I wish! I do not even have access to hi fi stores, so...

What I know about Petlisten, I do from measurements.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
37
Likes
27
Location
Maryland
Please delete if this isn't allowed here, I'll understand. for anyone interested, my employer is now carrying PerListen. We are on the east coast. Gramophone in Maryland. Thanks!
 

daniboun

Major Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
2,069
Location
France (Lyon)
Without wanting to bring the subject back on the carpet:


"eXtreme diaphragms are definitely finding acceptance among loudspeaker manufacturers over the last several years. In the two-channel high-end market Rockport Technologies uses Textreme woofer and midrange cones in all four of its models starting at $26,500/pair to $169,500/pair. In the studio monitor market, Ex Machina Soundworks uses a Textreme midrange cone in a coax driver for both of its monitors priced from $8000 to $11,500. And recently, THX certified, the Perlisten Audio’s $15,000/pair S7t tower, which uses four 6.5” Textreme cone woofers"
 
D

Deleted member 4708

Guest
Without wanting to bring the subject back on the carpet:


"eXtreme diaphragms are definitely finding acceptance among loudspeaker manufacturers over the last several years. In the two-channel high-end market Rockport Technologies uses Textreme woofer and midrange cones in all four of its models starting at $26,500/pair to $169,500/pair. In the studio monitor market, Ex Machina Soundworks uses a Textreme midrange cone in a coax driver for both of its monitors priced from $8000 to $11,500. And recently, THX certified, the Perlisten Audio’s $15,000/pair S7t tower, which uses four 6.5” Textreme cone woofers"
Too bad they write articles without reading basic specs. S7T drivers are 7".
 

subframe

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2023
Messages
128
Likes
191
I finally figured out what has been bothering me about the Perlisten design. The baffle is curved, presumably to reduce diffraction - but the drivers themselves are mounted on hard-edged protruding shapes. Won't those edges re-introduce diffraction effects?
 

Matthew J Poes

Active Member
Technical Expert
Reviewer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
159
Likes
547
I finally figured out what has been bothering me about the Perlisten design. The baffle is curved, presumably to reduce diffraction - but the drivers themselves are mounted on hard-edged protruding shapes. Won't those edges re-introduce diffraction effects?
Yes hard sharp edges can potentially have diffraction issues but the Perlisten has a number of factors in it's favor, including the basic issue that the measurements don't show measured signs of serious diffraction problems.

First, waveguides in general help direct the sound at mid and high frequencies in such a way that it can reduce the impact. However even Geddes, master of waveguides, was a big proponent of large rounded edges. The edge also is going to be related to wavelengths and at low frequencies the diffraction isn't the sharp edge but the entire edge, meaning enclosure side too. Since the waveguide operates down to 1khz there is actually little effect of those sharp edges on the response of the low frequency drivers. The tweeter/waveguide would be where I would have worried. However, if that were the case, then the S7I and S7T would have vastly different responses in this diffraction zone. I noticed slight variations when they first shared the data with me and I asked Dan. Dan sent back the data overlaid and showed me that the differences were largely imagined. The HF response is nearly identical.

One possible reason why, beyond what I've already mentioned, is that some of the research into mnimizing diffraction also found that any number of gradual transitions help including pyramid shapes. Maybe the transition of the tweeter to the rounded baffle has a similar net effect at the frequencies for which sound is wrapping around the edges and minimizing it.

The S7I was tested in a wall in a hemispherical anechoic environment and so I would stand by that if there are serious diffraction issues in the design of the box speakers, we would see it as a difference between the in-walls and the box. The in-walls have no such diffraction sources.
 

Matthew J Poes

Active Member
Technical Expert
Reviewer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
159
Likes
547
Hi @Matthew J Poes , in the recent vid you did w/ Gene re: Dirac ART, you mentioned that you had asked Perlisten about an active model and they replied not much would be gained. Is that something you're able to elaborate on at all? I don't know anything about EE or crossovers, but this is the first time I've personally heard that claim. I'm assuming they meant real-world audible differences would be negligible, perhaps similar to the small variations in the LS50W II vs passive Meta. but, I have no idea how/why or how common this is?
I apologize I just saw this and realize I never responded.

The main benefits of DSP vs passive designs are that there is no cost to adding more response shaping and correction and the mechanisms to do so are far more precise. Further, inductors distort and so getting rid of them reduces distortion. Caps, Inductors, and resistors are all prone to failure and restrict the power handling, so the parts must be of decent quality and large in size. The inductors also reduce sensitivity of the woofers they are in-line with. It can be significant enough. So an active design in theory could have a smoother response, higher power handling, and lower distortion. They may even play a little louder and be a little more sensitive.

Further, in the most advanced DSP systems, the speaker could be made totally time coherent, accurately pass a square wave, and so be both a frequency and time perfect speaker. At least for one point in space and close enough around that area.

What Dan was sharing was simply that going active for them wouldn't have changed things that much. The desired results were largely achieved using passive means. What would be gained would be a slightly smoother response and slightly lower distortion. Not much else, from what I understand. When i asked about the loss of sensitivity, he felt we would be talking no more than a dB.

As for the mention of enhanced bass extension, well yes. But keep in mind that DSP used to extend bass doesn't make a speaker play any louder at deep bass or actually extend any lower. It simply forces the speaker to reach its LF limits sooner. So the S7T, as an example, cannot achieve its 120dB maximum output at 25hz, that was the max output from 100hz on up. Adding DSP to boost and extend the bass would simply cause the bass to hit its limit sooner, giving you more bass at lower relative volume levels, but potentially limiting the output. Further, they intentionally chose a QB3 like roll-off on the ported design. It wasn't intended to have any more bass. So yes, you can get an F3 of a lower frequency with DSP when you choose an arbitrary linear level, like 75dB and for small bookshelves this is a great idea. However for a speaker that is intended for high output in a theater, used with subwoofers typically, that DSP could actually be a detriment without addressing those issues.

of course, you could go active on the low end, build in dynamic EQ and dynamic limiters, add more bass headroom to account for that problem, and get the best of both worlds. Who knows, maybe that will come to be here.
 

subframe

Active Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2023
Messages
128
Likes
191
@Matthew J Poes That is super interesting, thanks for the insight.

Having heard the S7T, I certainly didn't hear anything I would have attributed to diffraction, and as you note the measurements don't show any issues. The Perlistens are very smart designs, no question.
 

tifune

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,085
Likes
767
The desired results were largely achieved using passive means. What would be gained would be a slightly smoother response and slightly lower distortion. Not much else, from what I understand. When i asked about the loss of sensitivity, he felt we would be talking no more than a dB

Would you say, on modern passive designs, this is fairly common? Or, at least, becoming more prevalent? Or is Perlisten unique in that sense (which wouldn't be surprising at the price)?
 

Andysu

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
2,885
Likes
1,478
perlisten , gene dellaSala , alien speaker area 51 technology ?

 

quattro98

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Messages
143
Likes
116
Location
Chicago, IL
More info on the ceiling speakers if you want to read rather than watch a video.


 

daniboun

Major Contributor
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
1,769
Likes
2,069
Location
France (Lyon)
Last edited:

aoaaron

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2019
Messages
61
Likes
6
I apologize I just saw this and realize I never responded.

The main benefits of DSP vs passive designs are that there is no cost to adding more response shaping and correction and the mechanisms to do so are far more precise. Further, inductors distort and so getting rid of them reduces distortion. Caps, Inductors, and resistors are all prone to failure and restrict the power handling, so the parts must be of decent quality and large in size. The inductors also reduce sensitivity of the woofers they are in-line with. It can be significant enough. So an active design in theory could have a smoother response, higher power handling, and lower distortion. They may even play a little louder and be a little more sensitive.

Further, in the most advanced DSP systems, the speaker could be made totally time coherent, accurately pass a square wave, and so be both a frequency and time perfect speaker. At least for one point in space and close enough around that area.

What Dan was sharing was simply that going active for them wouldn't have changed things that much. The desired results were largely achieved using passive means. What would be gained would be a slightly smoother response and slightly lower distortion. Not much else, from what I understand. When i asked about the loss of sensitivity, he felt we would be talking no more than a dB.

As for the mention of enhanced bass extension, well yes. But keep in mind that DSP used to extend bass doesn't make a speaker play any louder at deep bass or actually extend any lower. It simply forces the speaker to reach its LF limits sooner. So the S7T, as an example, cannot achieve its 120dB maximum output at 25hz, that was the max output from 100hz on up. Adding DSP to boost and extend the bass would simply cause the bass to hit its limit sooner, giving you more bass at lower relative volume levels, but potentially limiting the output. Further, they intentionally chose a QB3 like roll-off on the ported design. It wasn't intended to have any more bass. So yes, you can get an F3 of a lower frequency with DSP when you choose an arbitrary linear level, like 75dB and for small bookshelves this is a great idea. However for a speaker that is intended for high output in a theater, used with subwoofers typically, that DSP could actually be a detriment without addressing those issues.

of course, you could go active on the low end, build in dynamic EQ and dynamic limiters, add more bass headroom to account for that problem, and get the best of both worlds. Who knows, maybe that will come to be here.


Are there any speakers to cosnider you'd reccomend over say S5Ms? I can get a pair for 35% off RRP. trying to toy with if any other options i should consider. KEF did come up in equation.
 
Top Bottom