Romy the Cat wrote:

The S2 has own channel and here is nothing your can do about it.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Yes, I did asked myself this question at the begging...The profile of this channel is irrelevant as at very begging of the curve they all are very much alike.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I would not think about it.

morespeakers2 wrote:

… I do hope to create a driver that meets or exceeds the S2 in sound quality.

morespeakers2,

I would live aside your ideas of “building a system” as it is not the subject of this thread. This thread is about S2 driver and I would appreciate if you keep it this way. I do not sound very encouraging because I think what you do is very unfruitful. You can’t analyze the design of the drivers that you do not know and make assumption how minute design decision of the driver might affect sound. Come on, this is ridicules. Not one in the would tell you. What the point for you to learn how different $300 Chinese violin sound vs. some kind of famous Strud if you do not play the violin and do not even listen it.

Anyhow, let I give you advise what to do it you insist to extract an advice from me. Stop your crusade for ultimate MF driver. Bult some kind of bare bones playback installation on which you would like to use your MF driver. Begin to use that playback and begin to build reference points and practical sonic requirements for your ultimate MF driver. Than try a few existing MF drivers at your inhalation, including your 288 and S2 and define how far they are from the sound you need to be. You need a very specific definitions what they do and what they do not in context of your sonic objectives. Then, ONLY then you might begin to experiments to modify driver or build your own in order to accomplish whatever you are trying to accomplish.

Now read me very carefully: any another approach is a pile of shit that I would not accept seriously. If you long reader of this site then you have read this:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=432

... and you shall know that I consider it absolutely mandatory and if people do not comply with it then I do not waste my time. Do not feel that I am too brutal to you as any other way to deal with audio is a waste of YOUR time. You might not understand it now but if you serious what you do then it will come to you.

morespeakers2 wrote:

I am not against trying the S2 in the future but I was just curious about the very small details to cause compression drivers make their different sounds before running out and trying any more drivers. I upset a few speaker distributors several years back going on a wild driver goose chase buying and returning drivers and besides testing the patience of distributors it tired me out also. So I made this post as homework before trying anything to learn possibly what direction to even pursue.

morespeakers2 wrote:

A quote from your post #2 post id # 18360 Radial vs. annular vs. combination phase plugs."So, unless you are a machinist and make your own drivers (if you are then let to be friends)" I would like to be that friend in the future if you would like. Although at the moment I need complete this sort of interesting and minimally barbaric four way all horn pa/high quality playback system for a night club I am working on. If you still care to make a driver from a clean sheet of paper or care to watch me try and maybe you have some ideas on what can be done differently from your experiences with S2.

morespeakers2 wrote:

So this brings me back to where I would hope we talk about to topic my original post in an effort you might share the small details of the S2 you observed that could possibly make it sound "different" to the 288, it really doesn't matter for this S2 discussion if I like or you like the sound but really to get to the bottom of what has been done to mechanically on each that cause differences in the sound so new paths can be charted. Is this not worthwhile to discuss?

morespeakers2 wrote:

I thought Romy being very familiar with the S2 and also familiar with the 288 could quickly simply state a few simple observations between the two or just be honest as say he doesn't know, doesn't care, or doesn't remember.

morespeakers2 wrote:

Instead I guess Romy being Romy was intent on questioning my motives, goals, methods, and then points me to  a link how to build a system breaking his only request to posters, that is to to keep on topic. All of this rather than getting to the point of the S2 versus 288 mechanical differences only conversation.  I actually do appreciate Romy's responses and it did get me to think a little more about system building, but still no discussion of S2 versus 288 differences for whatever reasons.

morespeakers2 wrote:

My response  "… I do hope to create a driver that meets or exceeds the S2 in sound quality."  should not really have even got any attention as I thought it is nearly everyone's goal to reproduce sound as realistically as possible, maybe this is an unrealistic a black and white goal.  In reality I know everything is a balancing act of compromises in the speaker world, but in the context of recreating sound as closely to the actual source I thought it a reasonable statement, however I am not sure how any of this is relevant to S2/288 conversation. Don't want to go off on these tangents myself here.

morespeakers2 wrote:

I was hoping Romy might have observed diaphragm to phase plug height, coil gap, radical or small differences in the phase plugs, etc. between the S2 and 288 but whatever.

morespeakers2 wrote:

I also thought Romy might like to share what he does not like about the S2 sound (maybe it is here on the site if someone could direct me) and what physical factors he thinks might cause these problems he is always alluding to.  I am sure he has thoughts on these matters. So any way, Romy still not understanding why we can't talk about driver mechanics only, like I said in my other post, what do you do when you have lived with a driver for a long time and then want to shape the sound to what you want?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Here is the list of the thing to do with Vitavox S2 in order to use it in 4-ways installations. The S2 must not be used in 2, 3 ways systems. It possible to do with S2 whatever you wish but pretty much any other way to utilize them produces some very specific sonic negative manifestations that I very much might name. ....(snip) Rgs, Romy the Cat PS: this is what I have now at the top of my mind. Possibly I missed something then I will add it later on. Added March 2005: Please read the thread to the end as some of the my view about the use S2 have changed since I've written this article.

anthony wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote: Here is the list of the thing to do with Vitavox S2 in order to use it in 4-ways installations. The S2 must not be used in 2, 3 ways systems. It possible to do with S2 whatever you wish but pretty much any other way to utilize them produces some very specific sonic negative manifestations that I very much might name. ....(snip) Rgs, Romy the Cat PS: this is what I have now at the top of my mind. Possibly I missed something then I will add it later on. Added March 2005: Please read the thread to the end as some of the my view about the use S2 have changed since I've written this article. Hi Romy, I have read this thread through (and others) and am just wondering which diaphragms you are using now.  My understanding is that you use the original "metal" diaphragm (produced before about 1970 I believe) in the Fundamentals Channel and a more recent "plastic" diaphragm (post about 1970) in your MF channel.  Is this correct? Regards, Anthony

• White = current type
• Aluminium (silver) = pre 1972 type
• Clear = S5/S6 type.  Note with just a cursory glance this type may appear to be silver as you can see the chrome plated top plate beneath