The Dynaudio Arbiters are here

[Roysen]

Yes, I have confirmed this with Andy Payor myself when I spoke with him.

I wonder what the price differance is. I also wonder what soundwise compromise is involved.

 

[LL21]

Lloyd, do you know if Rockport still will make the passive Arrakis?

By the way, you may have already read this article which interviews Andy Payor, Laurence Dickie and Richard Vandersteen...primarily about active speakers...but it is a very very good read for a non-techie like me. If you are dedicated to true all-out SOTA...and I know you are...then this article certainly suggests strongly (and unanimously across all 3 designers) that the added cost/setup and other elements involved with active at this level...are entirely worth it.

http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php...payor-laurence-dickie-and-richard-vandersteen

If I am fortunate enough to find and be ready for an older passive Arrakis someday, then other than the Be Tweeter upgrade, that is me done and grateful to be so.

 

[wizard]

Which output on the Arbiter do you use with Magico Q7, 40 or 1000?

 

[Roysen]

Which output on the Arbiter do you use with Magico Q7, 40 or 1000?

I've tried both. Any recomendations?

 

[wizard]

I've tried both. Any recomendations?

Which one was your favorite of the two?

The 40 output low feedback of 0,2 ohm should sound better, because it control the drivers voice-coils back-emf better.

 

[Roysen]

Which one was your favorite of the two?

The 40 output low feedback of 0,2 ohm should sound better, because it control the drivers voice-coils back-emf better.

I prefer the high damping factot of 1000. It sounds like amplifiers have better control. It gives a wider and deeper soundstage with better image focus. The micro dynamics is also better.

I assume you meant that 1000 damping factor output over the 40 damping factor output because higher damping factor gives better control of the speaker drivers?

 

[wizard]

I prefer the high damping factot of 1000. It sounds like amplifiers have better control. It gives a wider and deeper soundstage with better image focus. The micro dynamics is also better.

I assume you meant that 1000 damping factor output over the 40 damping factor output because higher damping factor gives better control of the speaker drivers?

High damping factor has nothing to do with the drivers voice-coils movement. If they moves a signal goes from the speaker to the amp output stage, and amps with high feedback/damping factor have problems with it, the signal goes then to the amps input stage - the amps tries to control it, but the result is compressed sound as the amps loose the control of the speaker.

 

[Roysen]

High damping factor has nothing to do with the drivers voice-coils movement. If they moves a signal goes from the speaker to the amp output stage, and amps with high feedback/damping factor have problems with it, the signal goes then to the amps input stage - the amps tries to control it, but the result is compressed sound as the amps loose the control of the speaker.

Ok, this is out of my knowledge. However what I have heard before is that higher damping factor increases the ability to control start and stop of the movement of the speaker drivers. It might be wrong. Anyone else?

 

[wizard]

Back-emf stands for electro-motive-force.

A different name is back-emv.

Motion-induced voltage produced by the movement of the voice coil of a loudspeaker in its magnetic field.

 

[Roysen]

Back-emf stands for electro-motive-force.

A different name is back-emv.

Motion-induced voltage produced by the movement of the voice coil of a loudspeaker in its magnetic field.

Ok, but are there any application where the higher damping factor would be preferable?

 

[microstrip]

Ok, but are there any application where the higher damping factor would be preferable?

One more subject where the adherents to simple electronics rules and black and white statements will not be happy with the grey answers.

We have supporters of both camps (low or high damping factor). Both have achieved excellent subjective results and will present you several reasons why their choice is the better. Even those preferring low damping will accept that strictly in terms of damping anything over 200 is almost meaningless unless you weld your speaker units terminals to your amplifier.

The only application where I would consider that a low damping is mandatory is a subwoofer amplifier - it will be used in a very low bandwidth needing plenty of power and control, and is usually associated to a crossover/equalizer that will allow you fine tuning to your room.

 

[wizard]

Digging further down.

Back-emf is only a problem with amps that have overall global feedback.
Amps that have local feedback in the input stage have no problem with back-emf.

 

[wizard]

Also the Horch Powerstage sounds better at its higher damping factor output - now it's 1500.

Powerstage is one of the fastest amps on the market: 100V slew rate is not to fast like Soulution and Spectral, Arbiter 80V.

I would keep the Arbiter, and pair it with for example the F1 fast FMA 255IIR and 223.
A FMA preamp will add a little more organic sound to the neutral Arbiter.

 

[LL21]

Hi, Lloyd.

Actually I think a pair of great subwoofers like Magico Q-Sub18, Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer, JL Audio Gotham, Burmester S8 etc with a pair of Altair 2 might have some benefits compared to the Arrakis 2 in terms of bass and scale, which is closely related. This is because it gives you the freedom to place the speakers where they sound best well into the room to avoid early reflections and create the best soundststaging while you can place the subwoofers near the room boundaries where they give best bass response and scale. This setup might help cancel out some of the bass standing waves in your room...

...However to create that sense of power and energy, I think its more a combination of midbass/lower midrange and amplifier. I had that with my Audio Physic Cerubin/Krell MRA and lost it with the Magico Q7/Dynaudio Arbiter. The Cerubin has 8x 10 inch bass drivers in each speaker and a 6 inch midrange but crossed the bass drivers over at 250Hz while the Magico has 2x 12 inch bass drivers, a 10 inch midbass and a smaller midrange but the bass drivers are crossed over much lower. So they don't contribute to the midbass or midrange. I think this increased driver area in the midbass/lower midrange pluss a more powerful amplifier created this sence of power and energy - or what you call scale. In this area I think the dual midbass and dual midrange drivers of the Arrakis 2 can't be matched by Altair 2 and subwoofers.

I guess to have it all Arrakis 2 and subwoofers is the way to go.

Having read thru your post a few times, I am inclined to agree with your advice. There is something about 'true scale' for 20 ensemble classical performances (Rachel Podger Channel Classics...Vivaldi) where much of this 'scale' lives in the mids of the strings and like deep powerful bass needing lots of drivers, etc...I think ultimate power in the mids and breadth of scale probably requires lots of surface or drivers (or something like this...I am no techie). Thanks for the advice.

 

[LL21]

Hi, Lloyd.

Actually I think a pair of great subwoofers like Magico Q-Sub18, Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer, JL Audio Gotham, Burmester S8 etc with a pair of Altair 2 might have some benefits compared to the Arrakis 2 in terms of bass and scale, which is closely related. This is because it gives you the freedom to place the speakers where they sound best well into the room to avoid early reflections and create the best soundststaging while you can place the subwoofers near the room boundaries where they give best bass response and scale. This setup might help cancel out some of the bass standing waves in your room.

The drawback is that integrating a pair of subwoofers with a pair of fullrange seperate speakers is very difficult.

But I am not sure what you call scale is similar to what I mean with scale. Scale to me is soundstaging - depth, width, image size etc.

However to create that sense of power and energy, I think its more a combination of midbass/lower midrange and amplifier. I had that with my Audio Physic Cerubin/Krell MRA and lost it with the Magico Q7/Dynaudio Arbiter. The Cerubin has 8x 10 inch bass drivers in each speaker and a 6 inch midrange but crossed the bass drivers over at 250Hz while the Magico has 2x 12 inch bass drivers, a 10 inch midbass and a smaller midrange but the bass drivers are crossed over much lower. So they don't contribute to the midbass or midrange. I think this increased driver area in the midbass/lower midrange pluss a more powerful amplifier created this sence of power and energy - or what you call scale. In this area I think the dual midbass and dual midrange drivers of the Arrakis 2 can't be matched by Altair 2 and subwoofers.

I guess to have it all Arrakis 2 and subwoofers is the way to go.

Hi Roy,

I have been re-reading your post which makes a lot of sense to me. The question I think (for me) which is relevant is: which of the following creates more of the power which you describe in the mid-bass/midrange region:

- Altair plus dual subs with dual-mono or monoblock
- Arrakis (but passive with only stereo or single monoblock

The reason I ask is because even in my dream system...I am not sure I want to have the cost, size, room, setup and maintenance of 4 ICs from preamp to Active Crossover, 4 ICs to 4 monoblocks and 2 sets of cables running to the Arrakis.

Which means the above 2 options are more likely a comparison even in a dream system. A well setup/ideally setup of Altair 2 plus dual subs...or perhaps a competently (but not all-out) setup with Arrakis passive.

 

[microstrip]

Hi Roy,

I have been re-reading your post which makes a lot of sense to me. The question I think (for me) which is relevant is: which of the following creates more of the power which you describe in the mid-bass/midrange region:

- Altair plus dual subs with dual-mono or monoblock
- Arrakis (but passive with only stereo or single monoblock

The reason I ask is because even in my dream system...I am not sure I want to have the cost, size, room, setup and maintenance of 4 ICs from preamp to Active Crossover, 4 ICs to 4 monoblocks and 2 sets of cables running to the Arrakis.

Which means the above 2 options are more likely a comparison even in a dream system. A well setup/ideally setup of Altair 2 plus dual subs...or perhaps a competently (but not all-out) setup with Arrakis passive.

Why not going to passive Arrakis with subs?

 

[LL21]

Why not going to passive Arrakis with subs?

If I were going Arrakis passive...I probably would. The reason I ask about Altair 2 + Subs vs Arrakis Passive with only 1 stereo amp...is because I am trying to understand how far the performance of Option 1 would go relative to Option 2 in terms of unlimited, effortless scale. Room 17 x 33 x 10 feet.

 

[Steve williams]

Posts deleted. Thread laundered with removal of all off topic and irrelevant posts

 

[Roysen]

I just want to pop in and tell you guys that I am back after a short breather and a good hard think. I hope to be able to contribute positively at the forum in the future.

 

[egidius]

I just want to pop in and tell you guys that I am back after a short breather and a good hard think. I hope to be able to contribute positively at the forum in the future.

As an outsider - neither do I own multimillion dollar gear nor would I intend to, and being a musician I like highend gear without ever giving much thought about its absolute lack of truth - I have considered the WBF as a useful source of information. The discussion not mentioned here I consider such!! I am glad that you are back, because I would have felt it a loss for WBF, had they let you pull out.

Of course, having worked lots with slightly dangerous political systems, I now understand that business systems obviously exert a similarly oppressive power, that hinder me even mentioning the subject.

All the best.