Radiant Acoustics Clarity 66 Speaker Review

[thewas]

Running the woofers in parallel gives of course a narrowing vertical pattern which seems to be the complaint here.

The issue is not that much that but that the total directivity mismatch at the crossover frequency which is accentuated due to this and leads to more coloured reflected sound, total sound power and ceiling reflection. Your reasoning of the compromise is understandable of course, different people place different priorities, with a different driver combination and/or waveguide possibly this would have been a smaller issue as kimmosto showed above.

 

[YouDontHaveEnoughBass]

I’m amazed this was achieved with an AMT tweeter; I always presumed these were less ‘rugged’ than domes and more prone to distortion, especially when in a large waveguide crossed over low

 

[Lars Risbo]

Would have been good from a dispersion point to cross lower but AMTs are not good at pumping air - they have a large surface area and does not move much. The large waveguide helps of course at the lower end.

 

[Lars Risbo]

The issue is not that much that but that the total directivity mismatch at the crossover frequency which is accentuated due to this and leads to more coloured reflected sound, total sound power and ceiling reflection. Your reasoning of the compromise is understandable of course, different people place different priorities, with a different driver combination and/or waveguide possibly this would have been a smaller issue as kimmosto showed above.

With a DSP active design, the compromises fall out differently. At least one of my objections against 2.5 way would go away since we can do phase linear xovers like Kimmo showed. Very nice engineering and extremely good value btw.

 

[Waxx]

Would have been good from a dispersion point to cross lower but AMTs are not good at pumping air - they have a large surface area and does not move much. The large waveguide helps of course at the lower end.

For that i would rather want a waveguided dome. That could probally solve a lot of issues that this speaker has for me. The woofers used, and the alignment are very good, it's the tweeter that causes all the issues i have the impression. Maybe a good id for a next model, as there are certainly dome tweeters arround that are low distortion also, very similar to that AMT. And you can often cross them lower to the woofer so they better match dispertion.

 

[thewas]

For that i would rather want a waveguided dome. That could probally solve a lot of issues that this speaker has for me. The woofers used, and the alignment are very good, it's the tweeter that causes all the issues i have the impression. Maybe a good id for a next model, as there are certainly dome tweeters arround that are low distortion also, very similar to that AMT. And you can often cross them lower to the woofer so they better match dispertion.

Even more since there exist also great Purifi dome tweeters.

 

[Jonazkur]

Even more since there exist also great Purifi dome tweeters.

There is already speakers that has those and purifi woofers. Imo its good to have different kind of speakers to choose from and not just all the same with same measurements.

 

[henz]

For that i would rather want a waveguided dome. That could probally solve a lot of issues that this speaker has for me. The woofers used, and the alignment are very good, it's the tweeter that causes all the issues i have the impression. Maybe a good id for a next model, as there are certainly dome tweeters arround that are low distortion also, very similar to that AMT. And you can often cross them lower to the woofer so they better match dispertion.

During the design of this, and our other speakers, the Purifi tweeter was not ready for mass production quite yet. So we went with this custom AMT - Peter Lyngdorf owns the design and it’s manufactured by DALI. It’s a very high quality AMT and sounds fantastic. To my ears, it certainly brings something to the table that most dome tweeters cannot, even if it does have some shortcomings.

The Purifi tweeter of course remains very interesting

 

[Orsted]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or told earlier in this thread already.

But the reason for this being a two way and not a 2.5 way or a 3 way is because they believed that would hinder the timing of the speaker. Radiant representatives speak of that as the primary reason, prioritizing that this speaker has very good timing and punctuation. They believe making a 3 way would take away transients and punch and would require a much more different crossover. Another reason for this is because they wanted to showcase how much bass the purifi woofers actually can output and it is pretty impressive for the size, but it requires a lot of power for the headroom to be fully used.
These speakers are in my opinion, and for the price, kind of a showcase/glass canon what makes it good is that it uses purifi woofers in a ported design. It has the bass, and it has the distortion. All other important factors you can find cheaper in other builds. A more balanced speaker that also has plenty of bass and output but far exceeds the speaker in every other parameters is the audio first cadentia. It's also 2-4 times cheaper... So for me this speaker feels more like a purifi showcase.

 

[Matt_Holland]

To my ears, it certainly brings something to the table that most dome tweeters cannot, even if it does have some shortcomings.

You and Lars have brought a lot to this thread and I, for one, appreciate it. Your participation and insight into the design choices for this speaker is really great!

Speakers I have heard with AMTs tended to make a point of their inclusion with an HF emphasis to the FR. As if their presence should be justified by a deliberately HF dominant presentation.

Would you mind elaborating on what you think the AMT brings to the table over domes and why?

 

[henz]

You and Lars have brought a lot to this thread and I, for one, appreciate it. Your participation and insight into the design choices for this speaker is really great!

Speakers I have heard with AMTs tended to make a point of their inclusion with an HF emphasis to the FR. As if their presence should be justified by a deliberately HF dominant presentation.

Would you mind elaborating on what you think the AMT brings to the table over domes and why?

This tweeter in particular is a pretty big, CNC-machined symmetrical design with dual magnets. It has low compression and distortion, so it fitted well with the very clean Purifi drivers. Lars’ custom waveguide helps mitigate some of the limitations in the horizontal dispersion we’d normally get with AMTs.

Peter (Lyngdorf) also has a dream of perhaps doing something with an open baffle in Radiant Acoustics one day - the AMT would be perfect for that as well.

Plus, it just sounds fantastic.

The slight rise in HF seen on Amir’s measurements is not something we have seen in our own measurements, btw. Those are on our website if you’re curious.

 

[Tassin]

... the audio first cadentia. It's also 2-4 times cheaper...

Weird math.

Audio First Cadentia: £ 5.680 = ± € 6.650 + you need stands
Radiant Acoustics Clarity 66: € 8.000

 

[Orsted]

I was talking about the kit version. And buy counting stands. And a 2k euro difference is still quite a lot

 

[Matt_Holland]

This tweeter in particular is a pretty big, CNC-machined symmetrical design with dual magnets. It has low compression and distortion, so it fitted well with the very clean Purifi drivers. Lars’ custom waveguide helps mitigate some of the limitations in the horizontal dispersion we’d normally get with AMTs.

Peter (Lyngdorf) also has a dream of perhaps doing something with an open baffle in Radiant Acoustics one day - the AMT would be perfect for that as well.

Plus, it just sounds fantastic.

The slight rise in HF seen on Amir’s measurements is not something we have seen in our own measurements, btw. Those are on our website if you’re curious.

Thanks for the thoughts.

My thoughts are that considering the products these might be auditioned against and the typical potential customer (subjectivists), they will blow everything away with the bass response and lack of distortion. So assuming the mid and hf have plenty of resolution and power, they will audition very well. The data shows me you have developed a very good product and one that will compete very well at its price point. The fact that similar performance can be had for less money should not detract from this. In the audiophile world there will be many many products that are more expensive and perform worse. That’s the context I judge it in.

 

[Cote Dazur]

I was talking about the kit version

Then it would have been fair to mention it in your post.

 

[Lars Risbo]

AMTs have very low magnetic hysteresis distortion; the conductors are away from the steel and low inductance (ie little induced ) due to the current path going up and down side by side.

 

[see_no_evil]

I was talking about the kit version. And buy counting stands. And a 2k euro difference is still quite a lot

 

[Lars Risbo]

No doubt that Cadentia is extremely well designed by Harry. Goes not quite as deep as the 66.

 

[YouDontHaveEnoughBass]

I can't imagine many people preferring the Cadentia to the 66 in an AB test, the difference in bass response is massive and utterly overwhelms considerations like vertical directionality when it comes to perceived quality

 

[Matt_Holland]

I wonder what a floorstander with 2x 10” Purify, a 5 or 6”” mid and a suitable tweeter can achieve in terms of distortion and linearity?