Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Chris, I certainly did not mean “costs nothing" in the literal sense. I meant that it costs as much as any other driver to make that Feastrex. Come on! If it is an electromagnetic driver then how much does it cost to make a few pounds of core (even if is an exotic one) and to wind a few hundred turns of coil (let it be even squared wire). BTW, I feel that electromagnetic drivers shell be less expansive then perm magnets driver as it is easier to make them in the environment of small manufacturing. The rest elements of the driver: cone and suspension are at in 40K Feastrex as I understand are the same type as it was in $1K “entry-level D5nf” Feastrex. Well, it is posble that the $40K Feastrex’s come need to be manufactured in a sealed atmosphere that contains a last fart of Aristotelis Onassis but it would be a story for different audio publication…

Infesting that as the justification for high Feastrex price you brought alleged high cost of Permendur but why it is Permendur was not pronounced anywhere. I have a very high suspicion that if the very same driver would be made with more conventional core then the driver will be only better in context or ration use. Let me to explain. Permendur is a core that favorite to work very high saturation point. So I see absolutely no need to have all-Permendur driver as only the rind under electromagnet might be Permendur-made. Then why to use Permendur even there? The constant BS that filed–coil supporters spread (that filed–coil driver have more flux) is very much bogusness of the people who juts recite sound bites. I battle this notion at the following threads, if you wish you might read them:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=1929

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=3023

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=5901

The whole point that higher flux in the gap is beneficiary ONLY of high frequency extreme (HF) and the very same higher flux very much reflects negatively for opposite frequency extreme or even at mid range as it overtrump the suspension at lower end. So, before to go into extremes and trying to convince yourself as damp on others Permendur spiel I think it would be reasonable to question the justification of Permendur use. I did not see from you or anybody else any comments about the sonic objectives that Feastrex was trying to accomplish or had already accomplished by use of Permendur. Would Feastrex be the same if the use M3 steal? Oh, but no one will be able to write that 2342 Japanese machinists committed suicides while they worked with Permendur. I hope you undusted what I am coming from…

Another things. There is absolutely no need to battle your own “ulterior motives” around me. I, as well as anybody else with non- artificial awareness, have absolutely no fear of you association Feastrex. I always welcome anybody with any agenda to lobby any audio topic they feel inspired - the juts need to leave with consequences :-). All that I usually demand is to express own judgment and do not to be a damn zombie brainlessly reciting empty phrases. In your case you are not the Feastrex’s puppet. Despite of your desire do not look like you are on Feastrex’s payroll (if you are not then you are fool) you Chris is the voice and the brain of Feastrex for use Western audio people. So, wish you or not but you are the Feastrex. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and I have no idea why you need to feel like you are a witness protection program escapee…

Now is the main point of my reply. With all presumed glory of Feastrex quality (do not BS me with low tolerance of manufacturing but talk to me about sonic results) this is still a driver that implies the notion of so called full-range driver. It is absolute not about the “different people have different needs in audio”. We do not talk about people – this would be a subject for marketing meeting at Feastrex HQ. We talk about pure audio subject and the means of various audio tools to address the pure audio subjects. So, in context of pure audio subjects the idea of a full-range driver does not exist….

It does not exist a full-range bowed string musical instrument in orchestra but strings devised on sections: violins, violas, violoncellos, upper basses. The very same is with Woodwinds – the sections divided by size: flutes, clarinets, oboes, bassoons... Brasses in the same scale:  trumpets, trombones, horns, tubas... The point is that for each tonal range there is own optimum condition to produce sound but there is even bigger point. When you have different musical instrumants care full composite range then composers/musicians have opportunity to add different level of expressivity at the each instrumental group and to capitalize and to animate the on integration between the instrument groups. The very same is with the elements of multi-channel playback. The notion of full-range loudspeaker does not exist as it is just an illusion. Any singe Hz of deviation from MF is a compromised, it might better or worse in context of limited expectation but it has absolutely no competition with multi-channeling. Even the alleged advantage of full-range speaker: phase coherency is not really there as if the full-range driver does relatively low (let say 70Hz) then it has considerable exercise and Doppler distortions offset all phase unanimity. (I would not even mention the case when a back-loaded horn is being used as any prejudges about time accuracy are gone then.)

There is another ugly moment that I never accept with full-range drivers – then all make any music less complex and more simplified, even though I never have seen any full-range driver system with objective to get complexity out of sound. So, the full-range driver idea is not something that shell not exist - “different people have different needs in audio” – but the if to perform cost-benefit analyzed then the full-range driver ideas is wonderful for low level investment and low level of blood spent for playback implementation. I see absolutely no justification why there is a need to improve the full-range drivers if it increases its cost. The entire idea of a full-range driver is to take off the shelf a driver, nail it to a baffle and to have ready to go speaker to listen the Prairie Home Companion or some trampy jazz sessions. To have too good full-range driver is like to invest time money into coaching a talented basketball player who use handicap chair to compete with NBA players. He might be great player but only in context of the handicap Olympics…

I do not make any claims about Feastrex. I heard it once, it was not serious but there are zillion reasons why a playback might not sound right – at the shows I pay attention only to accidently-positive results. Sure, I have that $40K Feastrex around New England then I would be interested to hear it. Still even if it was good and I decided to use it (for instance for my MiniMe project) then it would be in pass-band application. The question then would be: how contestable and how reasonable to use $40K Feastrex against for instance $0.1K JBL LE5-2 if both drivers are use within just 3 octaves.

Chris, I do not want to sound like I am trying to knock down Feastrex. It might be a good driver and most likely it is. Still, I think that Feastrex move into $40K was not a something that makes since to me, regardless how justifiable the price would be. Did you even see a car with two cylinders to be luxury cars with $100K price tag? That is exactly what I am trying to advocate. Let for instance to take my Macondo. I am not proposing that Macondo is capable for more superior result then Feastrex but if Macondo is contestable then Feastrex then Macondo costs $20K. The Feastrex twice more expensive, does it mean that it is twice more capable?  Well, if you find yours in Boston then bring this 5” Feastrex driver. I am sure that playing Feastrex we will find opportunity for mutual education… So far I feel I have expressed my view.

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site