I couldn't find any of them in the USA, but in Australia you can get them for $47 US, which comes to a total of 2350 or so for the speakers. They use a dedicated equalizer, but what the heck lets buy a brand new top of the line Rane digital True-Q equalizer for them at $800 US$. Since they need no crossover, you don't need that. So you are up to 3100. Lets ask a skilled cabinet builder to build us a couple of boxes. Say $1500 a piece. Now we are up to $6100. Russell wants $18,000. WOW! This guy just got a cool 12 grand on each one.

But you need a current model speaker. Reproducing his stuff, I'd buy a Aurasound NS3-193.

("Aurasound NS3-193 - This driver has smooth response with minimal breakup and very low distortion. Bass distortion and extension are the lowest of the group, and a full +/- 5mm Xmax is almost unheard of for a driver of this size. If I had to pick one of these drivers to run without any filter at all, this would probably be the one. Don't get the wrong idea however - it will need a baffle step circuit. Also of special note is the frame - care will need to be taken to seal the frame to the enclosure. Due to it's design and high output, it's prone to rattling from air leakage. A small bead of rubber cement around the opening will solve that problem. Great little woofer---Zaphaudio: http://www.zaphaudio.com/minitest/" )

These are super little speakers and better than the ones he used in my opinion, are only $19 each, so the total would be just 950 bucks. We can now make an additional 1200 bucks when we sell them for 18 thou!

Marlboro

What do you suppose was happening?

A. Did Fred, assuming he actual does imbibe, have a little too much champagne with Russell before the test? or

B. Was there a man beind the curtain? Or,

C. As is more likely, does the equalizer that Russel uses turn out to be a proprietary Stealth McIntosh digital model which rubs out most of the combing or at least blurs it a good bit.

I'm betting on the last choice.

Marlboro

First off, I will admit that I heard no obvious combfiltering effects, at least nothing that sounded like a rough upper end response with wild dips all over the place. Now of interest, I believe I have read, and would love for Dr. Griffin to comment here, that comb filtering mostly shows up as massive dips at very specific and mostly narrow frequency ranges, many to be sure, but mostly dips and not artificial peaks. I have also read in numerous places that when a driver has a narrow dip somewhere in its range that it is much less noticeable than a peak for some reason. Perhaps, if what I have written above is at least in the ballpark of reality, that is why comb filtering does not irritate us as much "in room" as it does the more informed among us "on paper".

Having said all that, I was not impressed with the IDS25. If I was given a mansion with ten listening rooms and allowed to pick ten systems from this past RMAF to place in each of them, I personally would no select the IDS25 as one of those top ten systems. I will not, however, be surprised if others disagree because there were some things that these speakers did spectacularly well. Here are my own pros/cons from my listening sessions:

Pros:

An obvious dynamic range that just slaps you upside the head and screams "you hear this buddy, this is real dynamic range compared to that other stuff you have been listening to...."

A cleanliness to the sound that is very appealing, call it low distortion, call it lack of crossover, call it many drivers coupling themselves to the air space in the room, call it cylindical radiation, whatever.... more than just dynamics, there was a crystal clear quality throughout most of the range that was very, very appealing.

Transient snap (not sure if that is the best pair of terms here...), or some type of quality that makes you feel like these little speakers speak quickly, and just let go of the notes so fast that everything seems to float a few feet out from the baffles and not exactly eminate directly from the cones/baffles, this quality really stuck me when hearing the percussion parts on recordings, one of the best of the show in this regard

Vocals, for the most part, where scary good, with a real clear window, and make that a big beautiful picture window, letting you see the face, lips, teeth and tongue of every singer, and even giving you a sense of their lungs and how much air was being pushed out and at the same time left in reserve with each note sung. Honestly, my reaction to some vocals on the IDS25 versus other very good speakers was like going from 720p on a good video projector to true 1080p, just when you thought you really knew what High Definition was someone comes along and gives you just a bit more. Not more of a jump than when going from SD to HD, but still a noticeable jump nonetheless.

Cons:

As much as I loved the clear quality of most of the full range of music, just like there was something new and better in the range where others have a crossover, there seemed to be something slightly better to be found in others with real woofers and real tweeters. Not sure if what I heard had anything to do with comb filtering, the quality of the drivers, or the affects of havey EQ, or some comination of all of the above, but I did find that the frequency extremes had a slightly artificial quality to them that I just couldn't get past. I am comletely open to the idea that this is part of my own subjective bias more so than any faults of the IDS25, but I can't get it out of my head that I am convinced something has gone somewhat astray at both ends.

Though the imaging in general was very reasonable and sometimes better, I thought everything sounded bigger than it should, including vocals which in some cases sounded to me like they were being sung by giants. Some instrumental tracks, though granted I was not familiar with them, but at times I felt disconnected from the physical size and structure of the instruments and/or recording space.

Conclusion - I would not throw these speakers out of my house, no doubt, and in fact for many of my own discs/records I would be having a blast and calling all my friends up to come have a listen to something that I was sure would blow them away. But at the end of the day, I would long for speakers that bring me a bit closer to the other things I value.

Regards,

Greg Jensen

Unfortunately, this is a very slow forum. Its unlikely that anyone else will "weigh in". Would that this weren't true.

I don't find it intriguing because of the very nature of ANY array with a large number of speakers. Any array with more than 10 speakers, and with increasing tendency will provide three wonderful characteristics that can be exploited.

1. Frequency response dips and bumps tend to smooth out. And because there are some many of the speakers, each speaker may have limited output in the upper treble or the lower bass, but all speakers put out something in those areas. If you put enough of them together you can actually get some decent response in the areas even if the individual speakers don't have much to give.

2. All arrays whether with really cheap speakers(49 cent for example) or expensive($49 for example) have decreased distortion. Decreased distortion increases airiness, openness etc. 50 of them will really do that.

3. All arrays have vastly increased dynamic range and increase sensitivity. One of the things that lends to a speaker sounding so much like Russell's are described is the ability of the speaker to play quietly with a flat response, and very low distortion. Almost all point source speakers, except horns, suffer from some disability in regards to being able to play very quietly and still have beautiful music.

For these reasons, everyone who owns an array, and especially those of us who own ones that have a lot of speakers(each channel for mine has 17 wide range speakers, 30 dome tweeters, and one 12 inch DVC woofer) hears a level of dynamic range which blows away any competition.

This is why I agree with you, but at the same time am not at all intrigued by Russell's speakers.

Finally, with all these speakers he can do things with equalization that others can only drool at. In my opinion, a boost of 6 db in a spot source single speaker will be about all you can get in equalization before the speaker starts experiencing distress. After all, its handling 100% of the frequency range and amplitude. But when I go to equalize mine, each speaker handles only 3.3 % of the total amplitude, and frequency range. I have way way way more latitude to boost or otherwise modify the frequency response of an individual speaker, and way way more db's to work with. He can probably boost his mid ranges easily 10 to 12 db at 13000hz - 20Khz without any stress at all. So now the speaker handles 6% or 9% of the total by the equivalent of equalization: big deal. The speakers is still way way way understressed.

Marlboro

I can assure you all I know how a line array works, and I know what comb filtering is and what its affects are. It's precisely this knowledge that makes me and some of the others here curious about the sound quality of the IDS-25.

Anyway, I thank Greggo for his calm and reasoned reply, and Jim for his. I response to Jim, I did read FredT's post's on the general Forum (thank you for pointing me in that direction), and also his comment's on his own web site at the link below (I'm asuming it's the same guy), which seem even more positive.

I'm simply interested in whether this type of implementation can work or not, nothing more. It seems from what I've read so far that this is a reasonably good stab at a full range array, which makes it worthy of our curiosity. Is it perfect? I doubt it. But it is interesting....

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. Thanks gentlemen.
Steve

"A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood"
Chinese Proverb

• http://fredt300b.smugmug.com/gallery/2040368/1/104741598

Of course it works. My point is that an array is so damn forgiving because of its way of action, that you can put nearly anything together and it will beat out most point source speakers.

But you really can't compare array designs with point source speakers. You have to compare them with other arrays. My second point is that Russell's bringin in his tepid array into the show was like bringing a wolf into a chicken coop. It would have worked adequately only if the wolf was also confronted with other wolves.

You've not ruffled any feathers. We're just talking about different arrays, and the subject has mutated, like it does on most forums.

Vocals were very nice sounding but two dimensional. There was no depth of the sound stage. It all sounded as if it were playing from the wall forward. I guess it should though, they were setting right up against the wall. This might have been compensating for the baffle step loss. These might have sounded pretty thin in a large treated room with the speaker well placed away from boundary walls.

For how these speakers sounded verses what he was asking for them, I think it to be a bit insane.

Sorry if this sounded a bit negative, but I call them like I hear them.

Danny

I have played around with plenty of full range drivers and have a few of TB's finest laying around. I even have a pair of FR-125's, full range drivers, as computer speakers on my desk. As good as they are, and even though they do have good extension to 20kHz, there is no comparing them to a decent tweeter from 2kHz and up.

Any time I start thinking that the FR-125 is really good, I compare it to our A/V-1 and realize how much of a compromise it is for a full range driver (at least receiving a full range signal) to have to do everything and do it all at once. Our A/V-1 blows it away.

I get the same impression from those line sources. They had a dull, slow, and rolled off top end.

They can EQ the hell out of them and get back some top end output but that does nothing for the resolution or detail level or the fact that there is still comb filtering all over the top end.