yeah , he seems to be carrying the load and putting the bar pretty high ...he's having a "comeback player of the year" moment...
2 kHz is "way too high" for a 5" driver? People like curved cabinets. Any science on what IM distortion level is needed for a "seriously natural' sound?To use a rounded shape makes no sense. Speakers are *not* aerodynamic devices, or build as a plaything for a kindergarten. It is just kitschy, especially now that everbody does it.
The technical merits originate in the SB drivers. And so they are as limited. Not bad at all, only a bit less perfect.
The layout doesn't convince me at all. No waveguide, the crossover frequency way too high. And as I cannot imagine how P/A solved the problem of port noise (chuffing etc) I give them the benfit of doubt.
Finally, because Erin mentions it, the intermodulation (thank's for doing the measurement!) is expected, but still, it is too high for a seriously 'natural' sound with ceramic
You mean this one? https://philharmonicaudio.com/BMR-Tower.html In room the F3 is around 20 Hz.
There is a little more round-over on the curved cabinet than we would have on a rectangular one, but clearly not enough to eliminate the mid-treble diffraction. A curved cabinet has some theoretical advantages (rigidity, internal standing waves), but I've never heard any difference. With my speakers at least, it's purely a matter of aesthetics. Wave guides definitely can make life easier for a speaker designer. Fairly narrow-dispersion ones pretty much eliminate edge diffraction and may allow a lower crossover point. And that type will improve directivity, at the expense of broad radiation. Wider radiation guides, such as used by Revel, won't do much to reduce diffraction, but can produce more even directivity. But almost by definition, a guide will reduce the dispersion of the tweeter, and many guides color the sound. My experience is that wave guides are difficult to implement optimally, and even where successful a speaker with broader dispersion but less even directivity may sound better to some people on some music. My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that wave guides are not needed on 3-way designs if the right drivers and crossover points are chosen. Two-ways are a tougher call. I've chosen to use as low a crossover point as possible and smaller woofers and not risk the downsides of many wave guides. But in the end it's what comes out of the speaker that counts. Plop the Ceramic Mini's next to, say, a Revel M16 and see what you think. I'm guessing opinions will be divided.
You linked the BMR tower, but i asked about the Ceramic tower
No, my bad. It is o/k-ish. Especially as you (?) managed the suck-out vertically pretty well. But still, a waveguide please
People eat french fries. No good reason to feed your children with such diet on a daily basis.
Hopefully I got your attention. I personally think that IM is a new frontier. My threshold for detecting IM is about 0,3% in the lower mids in a quite analytical situation. I would (not so) happily allow 1% as a realistic limit. Which defines the max level a speaker shall reproduce. Given that, the 'Ceramic' might be useful up to 85dB single @ 1m. Not bad at all! But there's a viable alternative : same internal volume sealed, 7" bass up to 300Hz, 3" mid plus tweeter. A *real* three-way. Behold, though, I patented it (pending)!
Mixed reaction to all of this. Are you referring to a suck-out in the mid-treble diffraction region or at the crossover frequency? If the latter, a properly designed 4th order acoustic crossover should generate a deep dip if you go high enough to throw the tweeter and woofers out of phase, since they should be in phase on the design axis. I've already posted my thoughts about wave guides, and I don't intend to use them. A surfeit of curved cabinets is considerably less dangerous than a ton of French Fries. I'll wait until I see a properly designed ABX test for IM distortion audibility before I start worrying about levels exceeding 1% above 85 dB. I think we're in agreement on 3-ways vs. 2-ways. If I could design a decent 3-way in the Ceramic's cabinet and bring it in for $850/pair, I would. CheersNo, my bad. It is o/k-ish. Especially as you (?) managed the suck-out vertically pretty well. But still, a waveguide please
People eat french fries. No good reason to feed your children with such diet on a daily basis.
Hopefully I got your attention. I personally think that IM is a new frontier. My threshold for detecting IM is about 0,3% in the lower mids in a quite analytical situation. I would (not so) happily allow 1% as a realistic limit. Which defines the max level a speaker shall reproduce. Given that, the 'Ceramic' might be useful up to 85dB single @ 1m. Not bad at all! But there's a viable alternative : same internal volume sealed, 7" bass up to 300Hz, 3" mid plus tweeter. A *real* three-way. Behold, though, I patented it (pending)!
Well done, Dennis. But not as innovative as the curved shape and nice paint job suggest, sorry
edt: it doesn't make sense to measure IM of a reflexed speaker (ported) when driving it with sub-tuning frequencies. I think Erin does it to some degree with the 20..20k piece.
The science behind this bold statement?
I'm a subjectivist. I investigate my own hearing so far, and what comes out is what is. The quality of the stereo is about me, not others. I don't have to proove my findings. I'm just advocating this nowadays quie accessible approach, as we have lots of handy tools in nearly every household.
Once again, at your price point and SQ goals, very little can stand in comparison.That was all predicted on the other site iirc... And congrats Dennis , once again you give us better results value wise ....Funny.
Didn't even take a full page before somebody started commenting about waveguides and complaining about minutia measurements... And comparisons to KEF and Revel were made.
Par for the course.
@Dennis Murphy .... Congrats on another winning design! Not that there should be much doubt.
Cheers!
