Green Mountain Audio Rio...

I believe..., posted on August 15, 2009 at 17:05:59
Nicholas Renter Audiophile Posts: 530 Location: Texas, baby!! Joined: March 18, 2002	MSRP US $2500/pair.

Reads like ad copy-, posted on August 15, 2009 at 17:11:55

Iron Knee
Audiophile

Posts: 955
Location: Middle Florida
Joined: May 17, 2009

Or did I miss something?

See "2-D"

Maybe it IS allowed? (for the record)

Sorry about that..., posted on August 15, 2009 at 17:23:55
Nicholas Renter Audiophile Posts: 530 Location: Texas, baby!! Joined: March 18, 2002	...I don't think I was 'out of bounds' but I'm definately not interested in drama. I'm kinda excited about this speaker (well, anything that GMA designs). Just trying to share it the audio community.

RE: Sorry about that..., posted on August 15, 2009 at 17:45:16

Iron Knee
Audiophile

Posts: 955
Location: Middle Florida
Joined: May 17, 2009

I am simply trying to get it straight; whether placing an enthusiastic message about a product you actually own VS simply "talking up" a product because you like the brand/owner/design/company is allowed based on the rule-set.

I happen to like quite a few products that I do not own but that does not really qualify me to 'talk them up' without the appearance of an advertisement.

SO, perhaps I was out of bounds?

I simply KNOW from reading this forum over the last few months that a "press release" (such as you posted and please don't tell me it was not a release of information for a purpose other than exposure) is NOT something that would be considered "ok"

Perhaps the company in question gets a pass?

Just trying to see what fits in around here to avoid appearing as a drum beater but to share my experiences of OWNED equipment, not promoting something to garner attention to the brand/owner/company/product.

Last time I checked the prices of adv. in major magazines, well you get the picture.

(perhaps someone with more experience with this could chime in and set me straight?)

--I am simply trying to sort out "what goes and what don't go" early on.--

Then, I do find this, which seems appropriate--

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/news/bbs.html

Industry news and press releases.

Like I said..., posted on August 15, 2009 at 18:06:57
Nicholas Renter Audiophile Posts: 530 Location: Texas, baby!! Joined: March 18, 2002	...I apologize if my post is deemed offensive or against the rules. The moderators are free to delete it if they so choose. However, I'm glad that I inspired you to contribute your 6th and 7th post at the 'asylum (at least as "Iron Knee"). Thanks for helping keep AA safe from guys like me!

RE: I believe..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 08:28:06

departure
Audiophile

Posts: 25
Location: CO
Joined: February 1, 2009

Don't know if I'm out of bounds or not, but here goes.....I am a retailer for Green Mountain Audio (Departure Audio) and work closely with Roy. I have had Rio's in my home for about 3 weeks. I also have EOS here and, until recently, Calypsos. Bias for Green Mountain products acknowledged, I can tell you it's an exceptional speaker. If there's anything else that performs like this and is built like this for $2500, I'm not aware of it. Sonically, it comes pretty close to EOS and the styling (and price) is likely to be much more attractive to most folks. I haven't A/B'd Rio's with Callisto's, but Roy maintains Rio's do outperform Callisto's. Whether it's worth upgrading is a different question.
Those who are interested can see and hear the Rio's at the upcoming Rocky Mountain Audio fest in October. Roy will be with me in the Departure Audio room where we will feature products from Green Mountain Audio, Blue Circle Audio, Audio Magic and Vincent Audio. The design brief for Rio's just posted on the Green Mountain site is also a good resource for those who are interested.

RE: Green Mountain Audio Rio..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 10:07:32
sed Audiophile Posts: 28 Joined: February 24, 2009	I own the EOS HD. I've said before, I don't look at speakers anymore. Well, smaller two ways. I've owned a few big names before as well. The Rio looks like a single ported version of the EOS with the inline tweeter. I can't say for sure but it looks like the same drivers as the EOS.

RE: Green Mountain Audio Rio..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 12:41:49
departure Audiophile Posts: 25 Location: CO Joined: February 1, 2009	sed: Same mid/bass driver in Rio and EOS. Rio uses a different tweeter. Also, Rio tweeter is not adjustable and binding posts are different. EOS HD's are incredible, wouldn't think you'd need any more speakers.

How does time-coherent technology correct for lousy recordings?, posted on August 16, 2009 at 13:31:07
gme109 Audiophile Posts: 17817 Joined: April 3, 2001	"As in our other speakers, Rio's time-coherent technology allows you to listen for hours on end, with no concern for a recording's quality" ------------------------------------------------------------

RE: How does time-coherent technology correct for lousy recordings?, posted on August 16, 2009 at 13:50:51
mauimusicman	Doesn't "correct" for lousy recordings. By not manipulating the waveform like most crossovers do, your not adding the associated phase distortions. No magic involved......just good engineering and design.

RE: How does time-coherent technology correct for lousy recordings?, posted on August 16, 2009 at 14:42:49

gme109
Audiophile

Posts: 17817
Joined: April 3, 2001

I'm not doubting that good engineering and design is involved. I just don't know what to make of this statement.

"As in our other speakers, Rio's time-coherent technology allows you to listen for hours on end, with no concern for a recording's quality"

How does time-coherent technology allow you have no concern for a recording's quality? If a speaker accurately reproduces a recording, then a lousy recording should sound lousy. But with a time-coherent design, somehow you'll be less concerned?
------------------------------------------------------------

RE: How does time-coherent technology correct for lousy recordings?, posted on August 16, 2009 at 15:32:09

mauimusicman

I've not been real successfull explaining this in the past, but i'll try once more. The added distortion is caused by the crossover. A 2nd order crossover slope will add 180 degree's of phase shift, or time delay to what your ears hear. A 4th order crossover will add 360 degree's of phase shift, or time delay to what your ears hear. Another way to look at it is the woofer and tweeter, though starting at the same time, do not STOP at the same time. The original waveform has been altered. That waveform includes the musical nuances of every artist, instrument, recording. For example, you can play an "A" note on a guitar and an "A" note at the exact same frequency on a Ukelele. Do they sound the same? Of course not. The instruments both have their own unique sonic signiture. That individual sonic signiture is there in the original waveform. In fact, if you play the exact same note on a Martin, Takamine and Taylor guitars, they sound different. The sound varies with the type and age of the wood used, the luthiers experience, etc. Phase distortion smears the original waveform in time, thereby also smearing the sonic signiture of every instrument or voice to a degree. The amount of delay varies by frequency. By using a first order crossover, you are not adding that additional phase shift (or time delay) Hence the "poor recordings now sound more listenable" statement. Nothing in the recording has been changed. It's simply that the added phase distorions are not there. Some argue this is not audable, but it clearly is if you listen. What you hear with this design is not that it's a recording of a guitar, as with my own music and studio recordings, but that it's a recording of MY Martin D-28 guitar.
Your hearing deaper into the music.

*I'd say you did a pretty good job with your explanation. Thanks! , posted on August 16, 2009 at 15:39:51**
gme109 Audiophile Posts: 17817 Joined: April 3, 2001	* ------------------------------------------------------------

perfect phase response with built-in 3-order hipass filter???, posted on August 16, 2009 at 18:14:55
mäç	Since some of his speakers are ported, and most don't have flat response to 20Hz, how does the 18db/octave high-pass roll-off affect the claimed "perfect" acoustic phase response of his speakers? Clearly, some compromise has been made to favor bass extension over phase response. Why no mention of this?

Quite simply..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 18:48:38

Nicholas Renter
Audiophile

Posts: 530
Location: Texas, baby!!
Joined: March 18, 2002

it's physics. For those who believe time and phase-alignment is essential, it is accepted that time and phase-alignment is less relevant in the lower bass regions as presented by the loudspeaker itself.

Why? Well, first of all a single bass note wavelength will not fit into a room. Let's look a the wavelengths of various notes:

First Key of a piano - 27.5 Hz - 12.5 meters
Middle C - 261.63 Hz - 1.31 meters
Last key of a piano - 4186.01 Hz - 0.082 meters

You can see that wavelength really starts to increase in the mid-bass region of the audio spectrum (as frequency decreases). There's no way A(0) will fit within my room (so it wraps all around, and I hope that my room is not some nice, neat fraction of this wavelength that will create a node or a null in my listening position).

Also, since bass is less localizable (if that's a word), what you perceive as low-end is dominated by other factors (room loading, geometry and absorption, etc. This leads back to point #1.

Does this make sense?

I am a huge time and phase-alignment proponent, and I use my 2 powered subs both destructively and constructively to smooth out the sub-60 Hz response in my listening space.

good answer, but..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 19:02:24

mäç

Have you ever run a square wave through a 3rd order Butterworth filter tuned to 50Hz? Have you really seen no phase shift at higher frequencies, say in the 800-1KhZ range?

Furthermore, why do some loudspeaker designers (who know their stuff) fuss so much about sub woofer integration when the frequencies are generally below 100Hz? Bases on your response, it would seem to that it wouldn't matter much due to the size of the wavelength. Maybe you know something that they don'?

It's been a while..., posted on August 16, 2009 at 19:44:24

Nicholas Renter
Audiophile

Posts: 530
Location: Texas, baby!!
Joined: March 18, 2002

...since I've been in a EE lab. Like the Indigo Girls once sang "Got my paper, and I was free."

As for your other question, I can't speak for "some" loudspeaker designers (actually I can't speak for any), but I think I addressed your question in my initial post - the majority of variables that significantly impact your sub-bass experience are dictated by elements outside of the speaker desginer's control. One bass response does not fit all, and is exactly why (IMHO) Richard Vandersteen integrates an 11-band EQ into the powered subs in the Quatro, 5A and 7 series speakers. Plus, there are a lot of crappy subs out there. Not sure that I can tell you much more that isn't obvious.

Sub integration ain't easy. No one said it was. If it's done right, it's spectacular. Maybe I'm an idiot and have no idea what I'm talking about, but my system sounds amazing to me and, quite frankly, that's really all that matters.

Also, it would be helpful if you register here at AA.

Defensive! But all seems above board, posted on August 17, 2009 at 07:44:02
badman Reviewer Posts: 8801 Location: Tustin, CA (Orange County) Joined: March 10, 2001	Enthusiastic people pointing out speakers they think are 'neat' is perfectly okay. People who are buddies with the builder, or builders themselves, not so much. Bass is supposed to sound big. 6.5" is not a woofer size.

Phase, crossovers, bass alignment, posted on August 17, 2009 at 07:56:33

badman
Reviewer

Posts: 8801
Location: Tustin, CA (Orange County)
Joined: March 10, 2001

So, the topic's been pretty well covered. Couple points:

There IS phase shift with a first order crossover, just not nearly as much. A true first order alignment is clean in the time domain, but 'true' first order designs are extremely rare for a variety of reasons. Directivity changes make the slow rolloffs tough to achieve across a broader response window, and both drivers must be exceedingly well behaved. Do you know a lot of 12"s that are clean at 5kHz?

Bass alignment causes phase shift in all speakers. Infinite baffle designs are the best in this regard for audibility sake, generally, as there's no raising of the Fc and thus the phase shift takes place around and about Fs rather than a higher Fc. This applies to open baffle as well, though the summation of the front and rear waves makes matters somewhat more complex. In any case, it's low enough that it's less of an issue of concern than a midwoof/tweeter crossover, which is bouncing around in or on the high end of the vocal band.

Bass is supposed to sound big. 6.5" is not a woofer size.

RE: Green Mountain Audio Rio..., posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:46:34

Bombaywalla
Audiophile

Posts: 494
Location: East Coast
Joined: September 17, 2002

Thanx for sharing Nrenter! I very much like Roy's designs & own his C1.5i 3-way.
Like another member wrote, the Rio looks like a cross between the Europa & the Callisto (altho' I prefer the Callisto lines - they are smoother & more curvaceous! ;-)).
The Eos is a notch above in performance due to its outside-the-cabinet tweeter - gives the playback sonics more air.
Great job by Roy producing another affordable speaker for the audio community.

RE: just another side note.........., posted on August 17, 2009 at 08:49:02
Bombaywalla Audiophile Posts: 494 Location: East Coast Joined: September 17, 2002	With the intro of the Rio, looks like Roy has come down to Earth! LOL! All his other 2-way/stand-mount speakers had names of celestial objects.

RE: just another side note.........., posted on August 17, 2009 at 10:01:00
mäç	I wonder why the tweeter on the Rio was recessed into a square cavity. I can't help think this would cause some strange resonances that otherwise would not need band-aid treatment by felt dots. Hrm. Perhaps it was done for cosmetic reasons so that the grill would lay flat across the front of the baffle?

RE: Green Mountain Audio Rio..., posted on August 17, 2009 at 19:07:39
Ewalaa Audiophile Posts: 504 Location: Central VA Joined: December 10, 2000	(altho' I prefer the Callisto lines - they are smoother & more curvaceous! ;-)). The curves are one thing I didn't like about the Callisto. The rounded sides made them very hard to carry. It was like lifting a 60lb bowling ball which you really didn't want to drop. E.

RE: just another side note.........., posted on August 18, 2009 at 00:46:32
Todd B. Audiophile Posts: 1026 Joined: February 13, 2001	I don't think the felt is a band-aid solution on this particular model, as it's been incorporated into previous GMA designs. There's a PDF of the Rio's "Design Concept" at the GMA website, in which the use of the felt is addressed. ___ Boycott Monster Cable

My own speakers are time coherent and lousy recordings still sound lousy to me, posted on August 20, 2009 at 07:44:41

Richard BassNut Greene

-EPOS ES11's
-No low-pass filter
-High-pass filter at 5000Hz. consists of one "audiophile cap"
-Speakers are tilted back to make woofer and tweeter voice coils
equal distances from ears
-Speakers are located over 5' from the nearest wall
-Seat is 4' from speakers to reduce the effect of room reflections,
and seat is over 6' from the nearest wall

-The only speakers more time coherent
would be nearfield single-driver speakers

In my opinion, lousy recordings still sound lousy
(compared with other speakers tried in the same location).
The only solution is to give away the recordings.
Would you like some recordings?
.
.
.

You don't even need a filter for that trick, posted on August 24, 2009 at 12:38:05

Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 5957
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004

Richard Bass Nut's "near perfect" full range speaker has a built-in 2nd order high-pass filter also known as natural rolloff. The effects of the resulting phase distortion are seen well into the midband. A mangled square wave at 50hz admist rolloff would cause distortion in the midband at up to 500hz.

Most "1st order designers" do not mention their designs are only TRUE acoustic 1st order where the drivers are not rolling off. Once the drivers roll off, you get all kinds of mayhem going on. Running a mid or midbass "full range" with no low pass filter, for example, means the driver is allowed to pass it's natural rolloff which is 12db/octave - not the 6db/octave required.

What would be better, in my mind, is WILLFULLY coming up with a 4th order acoustic response and just removing the phase roll with forward-reverse digital signal processing. It does work. If you're listening to CD or PCM you've already got a filter in your DAC. What's a bit more DSP to achieve transient perfect reproduction? Might be a worthwhile trade if you ask me.

I tested the Thuneau Allocator and with phase correction enabled, the crossover (by itself) is truly transient perfect with the Arbitrator properly dialed in - aka reproduces square waves at ALL frequencies. The trick is to get the electrical transfer functions to combine with the drivers natural rolloffs / response to yield the 4th order acoustic transfer function.

1st order speakers and full range cone-type speakers are (IMHO) over-rated and are only truly transient perfect for portions of their bandwidth where drivers are in the linear (non-rolloff) region of their respective bandwidths. They are moreso "just another way to skin the cat" with their own set of limitations and exceptions - just like every other design out there.

Cheers,
Presto

Yes, that is my experience too., posted on August 24, 2009 at 22:27:29

Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002

Real stereo sounds so much better, although some well made mix-downs don't always shriek their flaws at you, and you can still tell a Decca Xmas tree job from a stereo pair recording.

My current spheres have no low-pass, and the HP is first order at the xover point. The tweeter has a steep T-filter/trap on its Fs, which causes the HP slope to cascade to 3rd order by about 2K. So the drivers are connected to be acoustically add in phase around 3.5k.

Thinking about GMA's 'claim' REG who writes for TAS has pointed out that speakers that can decode real-stereo properly are still going to do what they do with lesser through to awful recordings, IE 'least damage' ......?

I agree that GMA seems to be over-claiming just a tad.

Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger

I know this is a bit late. . . ., posted on January 26, 2011 at 16:31:44

�

The same exact midbass driver used in the Rio and also the Eos/HD is now available from Parts Express for $11.50!

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=299-

RE: I know this is a bit late. . . ., posted on January 26, 2011 at 19:45:09
rebbi Audiophile Posts: 288 Location: Austin, TX Joined: September 4, 2008	How do you know it's the same driver?

RE: I know this is a bit late. . . ., posted on January 26, 2011 at 20:00:38

�

I cannot be absolutely 100 percent sure, but the general consensus from other forums is that it is. I'd be willing to say 99 percent sure.

Anyway if you go and take a look at the Green Mountain Audio website and read their downloadable .pdf files you can see that it is indeed an AURA woofer and that it sure looks and specs the same. A downloadable .pdf for the driver is available from Madisound. The frequency response graph looks real nice.

http://www.greenmountainaudio.com/storage/speakers/rio/Rio-Design-Concept.pdf

https://www.madisound.com/store/manuals/ns6-255-8a.pdf

RE: I know this is a bit late. . . ., posted on January 26, 2011 at 22:37:27

�

Take a look at this website (see link below), note the model number NS6-255-8A. I don't see any other 6 inch woofers except for the 4 ohm version. Don't know why their download link isn't working either, but the specs for the same model numbered woofer is available at the Madisound website.

http://aurasound.flyinghstudios.com/downloads.html

Aura woofers for Rio, posted on January 27, 2011 at 09:38:21
RoyJ Manufacturer Posts: 144 Location: Colorado Joined: January 24, 2002	It is only similar to the one we use. We also test and tightly match our woofers into pairs, then modify the chassis of each for increased stiffness and damping. What Madisound is selling is from a one-time overstock sale by the factory, offered at an excellent price certainly. Best regards, Roy Johnson Designer Green Mountain Audio

Well I'm glad that it is finally cleared up., posted on January 27, 2011 at 10:31:22

�

Thank you for the reply.
Similar is still pretty darn good. Oh yeah I'm all for grading and matching of drivers, not hard to do when you can buy them by the case. I've done it with tweeters. I remember way back, FOCAL/ORCA selling "perfect pairs."
I will apply peel and stick type of bituminous material to stamped driver frames for damping. Kind of makes you wonder why Aura didn't go ahead and use cast frames instead of stamped. I'm also wondering why they use a front gasket, when pretty much everyone mounts their drivers from the outside instead of from the inside of the baffle?

Welcome to high-end speaker-land...., posted on January 27, 2011 at 18:19:52

joeljoel1947
Audiophile

Posts: 1067
Location: MICHIGAN
Joined: October 16, 2004

I've been building my own speakers for a long time because of this very fact---the drivers used in commercial designs (in many cases--not all cases nor am I singling GMA out because I know they make fine speakers) are CRAP. I remember the look on my face the first time I de-constructed a pair of $8000 floorstanders only to find after some research that all I had was a $20 tweeter, a $30 midwoofer and a $35 woofer encased in a very beautiful cabinet (but not 7k beautiful, LOL!). And that was not as bad as some other designs I've seen that have used even LESS expensive drivers!

Sure, they ALL say their drivers are "different" or "modified" or "whatever" from the off the shelf drivers so that you THINK your getting something "special or different". But modified COULD MEAN they stuck a hunk of blu-tak to the driver basket and called it a day! There ya go---we use "proprietary drivers" LOL!

And even if they manufacture their OWN drivers (take B&W for example) its not any better. Have you ever measured the T/S parameters of an "in-house" driver?? They are no better then the $10-$15 dollar range drivers you can buy at MAD or PE! In many cases--much much worse!
Regards,
Joel

RE: Welcome to high-end speaker-land...., posted on January 27, 2011 at 20:57:23

�

Nothing new to me, but I hear you. I've been building my own too, since the mid 80s. Currently I have maybe 60 or 70 drivers in house (garage). I'm working on several different projects and I just ordered 12 more tweeters from PartsExpress.
That AURA midbass driver looks very promising, especially at such a low price. The fact that Aura is liquidating so many of them probably makes the designer over at GMA turn "Green." Ha!

RE: Welcome to high-end speaker-land...., posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:07:35

Christopher (Critofur)

Boy was I pissed off when I cut apart my $1,000 oil painting, had the lab analyze it, and found the artist had used paints that only cost $8.75 per tube!

Get the idea? Anyway, nothing wrong with a ~ $1,000 or so speaker using a "$50" woofer and tweeter. What matters is, with the overall system, can you find another speaker that you personally like better for the same or less money? Do you have the time, knowledge, desire, and tools to build a pair for yourself?

If a speaker does cost more than a couple thousand dollars then I would expect it to use either high quality or custom drivers which are well integrated into a whole "greater than the sum of it's parts".

Speaker Asylum

Green Mountain Audio Rio...

173.74.58.39