44 posts / 0 new
Last post
moon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2011 - 09:14
Posts: 861
RE: Another ADM9T Review

BigColz wrote:

moon wrote:

nice to read your review, looks like youve found a winner for you.

If you like a bit of breakbeat then play a track called " Metropolis" of an album called Circles by Adam F . that will give them a good run out!

 

have fun

 

Thats a good tune but it's D&B.. Check this breakbeat out! Going to watch him tonight  Dance 4 :bounce: :bounce: :cheers:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GkhBuZnE38

Smile I do know its D and B, ...... it has a breakbeat in it derived form the Original Amen break.  Smile

 

will check you vid out...... have fun

I remember  the original Blue note in Hoxton square  with the Metalheadz . Fsntastic stuff

drummerman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 18/01/2008 - 21:12
Posts: 5204
RE: Another ADM9T Review

A question to JC

Why are AVI insisting on fitting the port to the front? I think they done that on the larger 40 too?

A large percentage of distortion (and time smear) is created by the port. I can understand that on the ADM's, rear fitting is out of the question but a downward facing port would be possible if you needed a ported design. In some ways a better compromise than rear facing as well.

This is the one aspect of my Ushers I find most intruding, and I had the same problem with Regas and Kef's, both otherwise good designs. I have a set of Eltax monitor 3's in the bedroom and you can hear (or much less, to be precise) the difference air exiting through the bottom (pardon) makes.

The only issue with this is that a gap needs to be retained. Easily done by either using spikes (Eltax) or fit a spaced bottom plate.

I would certainly look at this part of the design next. They've maxed (no relation to ireland) out on drivers, pretty much sorted the electronics and a change of box shape is both costly and would probably yield less results. A raised and/or smooted front plate would probably be beneficial having said that.  I am currently working on changes to a pair of standmounts and am considering moving the ports of those as mentioned above.

regards

 

richardw42's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 02/05/2010 - 18:56
Posts: 1987
RE: Another ADM9T Review

I've only heard the 9RS & RSS, so don't know how they compare to other versions of the 9. 

 

Theyre definitely not bass light for my tastes, although using the sub does make a difference, IME more or less depending on the music, and its not always the obvious candidates. 

 

For instance this morning I've listened to some Deadmau5 off Spotify and Sneaker Pimps - Becoming X and I've turned the sub off. 

However watching Metallica - Quebec Magnetic, a lot of the songs benefitted from my sub, but strangely a song Master of Puppets didn't particularly. 

 

Deep Bass isn't my thing, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to comment

jcbrum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 20 hours ago
Joined: 27/04/2008 - 10:31
Posts: 597
RE: Another ADM9T Review

drummerman wrote:

A question to JC

Why are AVI insisting on fitting the port to the front? I think they done that on the larger 40 too?

A large percentage of distortion (and time smear) is created by the port. I can understand that on the ADM's, rear fitting is out of the question but a downward facing port would be possible if you needed a ported design. In some ways a better compromise than rear facing as well.

This is the one aspect of my Ushers I find most intruding, and I had the same problem with Regas and Kef's, both otherwise good designs. I have a set of Eltax monitor 3's in the bedroom and you can hear (or much less, to be precise) the difference air exiting through the bottom (pardon) makes.

The only issue with this is that a gap needs to be retained. Easily done by either using spikes (Eltax) or fit a spaced bottom plate.

I would certainly look at this part of the design next. They've maxed (no relation to ireland) out on drivers, pretty much sorted the electronics and a change of box shape is both costly and would probably yield less results. A raised and/or smooted front plate would probably be beneficial having said that.  I am currently working on changes to a pair of standmounts and am considering moving the ports of those as mentioned above.

regards

 

 

You're asking the wrong guy really, DM, we should have Ashley to answer on the forum really, but I'll try and help, from my own point of view.

 

Ports are used to smooth and extend the frequency response of a physically small cabinet.  An unported enclosure has a pretty rapid fall off, and therefore needs to be physically much larger to give the same extension.

 

Placing the port on the front helps greatly when it is necessary to place the speakers directly against a wall.

 

The ports on ADM loudspeakers are relatively small (particularly the 40s) and do not exhibit undesirable effects.  They don't emit 'chuffing' sounds, or 'whooshy' noises, or any significant level of distortion.  ADMs are generally accepted as having a particularly 'clear', 'clean', and 'accurate' sound with good transparency.  This suggests that the port effects are kept to a desirable minimum.

 

I don't know, atm, in which direction AVI R&D is heading, but I've heard that Martin is experimenting with a new active design for Neutrons (smaller than 9s), and also a new Sub, and designing and evaluating a 500 watt Class D amplifier.

 

I hope to make a factory visit soon, and will pass on info if I can.

 

Regards,  JC

moon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2011 - 09:14
Posts: 861
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:

drummerman wrote:

A question to JC

Why are AVI insisting on fitting the port to the front? I think they done that on the larger 40 too?

A large percentage of distortion (and time smear) is created by the port. I can understand that on the ADM's, rear fitting is out of the question but a downward facing port would be possible if you needed a ported design. In some ways a better compromise than rear facing as well.

This is the one aspect of my Ushers I find most intruding, and I had the same problem with Regas and Kef's, both otherwise good designs. I have a set of Eltax monitor 3's in the bedroom and you can hear (or much less, to be precise) the difference air exiting through the bottom (pardon) makes.

The only issue with this is that a gap needs to be retained. Easily done by either using spikes (Eltax) or fit a spaced bottom plate.

I would certainly look at this part of the design next. They've maxed (no relation to ireland) out on drivers, pretty much sorted the electronics and a change of box shape is both costly and would probably yield less results. A raised and/or smooted front plate would probably be beneficial having said that.  I am currently working on changes to a pair of standmounts and am considering moving the ports of those as mentioned above.

regards

 

 

You're asking the wrong guy really, DM, we should have Ashley to answer on the forum really, but I'll try and help, from my own point of view.

 

Ports are used to smooth and extend the frequency response of a physically small cabinet.  An unported enclosure has a pretty rapid fall off, and therefore needs to be physically much larger to give the same extension.

 

Placing the port on the front helps greatly when it is necessary to place the speakers directly against a wall.

 

The ports on ADM loudspeakers are relatively small (particularly the 40s) and do not exhibit undesirable effects.  They don't emit 'chuffing' sounds, or 'whooshy' noises, or any significant level of distortion.  ADMs are generally accepted as having a particularly 'clear', 'clean', and 'accurate' sound with good transparency.  This suggests that the port effects are kept to a desirable minimum.

 

I don't know, atm, in which direction AVI R&D is heading, but I've heard that Martin is experimenting with a new active design for Neutrons (smaller than 9s), and also a new Sub, and designing and evaluating a 500 watt Class D amplifier.

 

I hope to make a factory visit soon, and will pass on info if I can.

 

Regards,  JC

active neutrons,, £500 a pair would be  interesting....... do it

hoopsontoast's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 01/10/2011 - 13:08
Posts: 892
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:

drummerman wrote:

A question to JC

Why are AVI insisting on fitting the port to the front? I think they done that on the larger 40 too?

A large percentage of distortion (and time smear) is created by the port. I can understand that on the ADM's, rear fitting is out of the question but a downward facing port would be possible if you needed a ported design. In some ways a better compromise than rear facing as well.

This is the one aspect of my Ushers I find most intruding, and I had the same problem with Regas and Kef's, both otherwise good designs. I have a set of Eltax monitor 3's in the bedroom and you can hear (or much less, to be precise) the difference air exiting through the bottom (pardon) makes.

The only issue with this is that a gap needs to be retained. Easily done by either using spikes (Eltax) or fit a spaced bottom plate.

I would certainly look at this part of the design next. They've maxed (no relation to ireland) out on drivers, pretty much sorted the electronics and a change of box shape is both costly and would probably yield less results. A raised and/or smooted front plate would probably be beneficial having said that.  I am currently working on changes to a pair of standmounts and am considering moving the ports of those as mentioned above.

regards

 

 

You're asking the wrong guy really, DM, we should have Ashley to answer on the forum really, but I'll try and help, from my own point of view.

 

Ports are used to smooth and extend the frequency response of a physically small cabinet.  An unported enclosure has a pretty rapid fall off, and therefore needs to be physically much larger to give the same extension.

 

Placing the port on the front helps greatly when it is necessary to place the speakers directly against a wall.

 

The ports on ADM loudspeakers are relatively small (particularly the 40s) and do not exhibit undesirable effects.  They don't emit 'chuffing' sounds, or 'whooshy' noises, or any significant level of distortion.  ADMs are generally accepted as having a particularly 'clear', 'clean', and 'accurate' sound with good transparency.  This suggests that the port effects are kept to a desirable minimum.

 

I don't know, atm, in which direction AVI R&D is heading, but I've heard that Martin is experimenting with a new active design for Neutrons (smaller than 9s), and also a new Sub, and designing and evaluating a 500 watt Class D amplifier.

 

I hope to make a factory visit soon, and will pass on info if I can.

 

Regards,  JC

 

I hate to nitpick. but a sealed enclosure will have a shallower roll-off in the bass (12dB/Octave) rather than the ported box (24dB/Octave) and actually usually give a lower -10dB/-15dB bass figure but a higher -3dB figure, with a bass driver that has a Qts of say 0.35-0.45 which is typical for a driver optimised for bass reflex loading in a small cabinet.

Technically a sealed cabinet is ideal, but requires larger drivers/cabinets and genereally more power to get the same bass extension as with a ported box, hence most speakers these days that are optimised to fit in to modern houses/lifestyles are ported.

Also sealed enclosures are a little easier to integrate with subwoofers IME.

 

Anyway, A nice balanced review :grin:

Michell Gyrodec SE / RB300 / 2M Blue | Sony DVP-S9000ES | Bryston B60 | Rega R9

jcbrum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 20 hours ago
Joined: 27/04/2008 - 10:31
Posts: 597
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:

IRRC, it goes something like this . . . over approx six years . . . 

The original ADM9s were USB digital input, and analogue too, with stereo L+R sub outs.

Then came revisions to provide two additional optical digital inputs, delete the USB input and combine L+R sub signals in the pre-amp, instead of in the sub main amp. These were called optical ADM9s. The sub inputs were revised too.

The 9.1 was a revision involving newly available Wolfson DAC components, and consequently a revised pre-amp configuration.

9.1T was as a result of noticing that having done the aforesaid revisions, the tweeters then slightly benefited from a phase adjustment (Tweak).

9.1RS was an entire re-design, it's really a completely new LS, because a new mid/bass driver became available following R&D work, and consequently the crossover frequency was altered as well.  The new model was annotated by affixing a red spot (RS) to the existing back plates.

Actually the best way of identifying the RS model is by the matt surface texture of the driver dust cap dome (previously shiny).

AVI also then, later, realised that the change in crossover frequency provided the opportunity to use a much more expensive tweeter, from the ADM40, which due to cost was offered as an option.  This is known as the 9.1RSS (Red Spot Scanspeak).

All this is from memory, but if anyone wishes to know more, or check my recollections, I'm sure Ashley or Martin will help.

 

JC

 

 

 

Someone drew Ashleys attention to this thread, and Chebby's enquiry, so Ash sent me this email . . . 

 

The new RS have new new tweeters and a totally new and more advanced bass driver with all sorts of changes including diaphragm and now a shorting ring on the pole piece to reduce inductance. It's far cleaner and clearer. The crossover is now 2.3 instead of 3.4 because the new tweeter is so much better, but still not good enough, hence Scanspeak.

Bass radiates in all directions and we use alignments suggested by driver manufacturers to avoid time smear. 


The RS are the biggest improvement yet and it is big, have even more bass, a lot more bass, and only large peak to peak linearity allows it.

Ash
Sent from my iPad

 

. . . 

 

We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

 

JC

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 13095
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

I expect Ashley's lifetime ban from these forums might have something to do with it. None of these posts will be here for long.

spiny norman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 11 hours ago
Joined: 14/01/2009 - 12:49
Posts: 1028
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post

Why would he gother, when he can throw his voice to the goys and girls through JC Grum? Gottle of geer, gottle of geer, etc

chebby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16401
RE: Another ADM9T Review

JC. Thanks for clarifying the differences between iterations of the ADM9s.

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

jcbrum's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 20 hours ago
Joined: 27/04/2008 - 10:31
Posts: 597
RE: Another ADM9T Review

The_Lhc wrote:

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

I expect Ashley's lifetime ban from these forums might have something to do with it. None of these posts will be here for long.

 

Seems a silly thing to do to a successful and important British HiFi manufacturer.  

 

They have been in business now for 25 years and have an established reputation for very high quality products.

 

If AVI is banned, (I thought all that had been sorted in the revisions), then it should be repealed.  

 

Not to do so would seem to make What HiFi lack credibility and integrity.

 

JC

drummerman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 18/01/2008 - 21:12
Posts: 5204
RE: Another ADM9T Review

@ JC - Not sure if he would want that or would he?

You usually do a good job of politely and informed answering questions and the re-laying of any information from from AVI. I understand that the ADM's front port is optimized as far as can be. Unfortunately, distortion/time smear is inevitable as you probably agree, no matter how good the design. - They certainly sounded reasonably clean as far as I can remember but perhaps this could be further improved?

Its perhaps unfair to criticise them technically, considering what you get for the money but it is possible. The speakers USP is, as far as I know, low distortion. Best perhaps to not forget one of the main contributors to it.

regards

moon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2011 - 09:14
Posts: 861
RE: Another ADM9T Review

jcbrum wrote:

The_Lhc wrote:

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

I expect Ashley's lifetime ban from these forums might have something to do with it. None of these posts will be here for long.

 

Seems a silly thing to do to a successful and important British HiFi manufacturer.  

 

They have been in business now for 25 years and have an established reputation for very high quality products.

 

If AVI is banned, (I thought all that had been sorted in the revisions), then it should be repealed.  

 

Not to do so would seem to make What HiFi lack credibility and integrity.

 

JC

Personally I think Ashley should be allowed to post on this forum, he is obviously very knowledgable and it would only serve to help answer questions people have on active designs. 

I mean how many times has Maxflinn been banned and returned.

 

The AVI vs Passive is old news now and very boring. Let see if we cant all be friends. Smile

altruistic.lemon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 25/07/2011 - 09:18
Posts: 1865
RE: Another ADM9T Review

moon wrote:

jcbrum wrote:

The_Lhc wrote:

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

I expect Ashley's lifetime ban from these forums might have something to do with it. None of these posts will be here for long.

 

Seems a silly thing to do to a successful and important British HiFi manufacturer.  

 

They have been in business now for 25 years and have an established reputation for very high quality products.

 

If AVI is banned, (I thought all that had been sorted in the revisions), then it should be repealed.  

 

Not to do so would seem to make What HiFi lack credibility and integrity.

 

JC

Personally I think Ashley should be allowed to post on this forum, he is obviously very knowledgable and it would only serve to help answer questions people have on active designs. 

I mean how many times has Maxflinn been banned and returned.

 

The AVI vs Passive is old news now and very boring. Let see if we cant all be friends. Smile

I don't think he should be allowed to post here. If you did that, all manufacturers should be given the same rights. If there werea tradesection, fair enough, but here is a good place to keep free of the endless marketing.

Besides, he has his own forum.

 

b

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 13095
RE: Another ADM9T Review

moon wrote:

jcbrum wrote:

The_Lhc wrote:

jcbrum wrote:
We should really have Ashley on the forum to answer these equiries,  JD or someone, why don't you email him and tell him to post ?

I expect Ashley's lifetime ban from these forums might have something to do with it. None of these posts will be here for long.

Seems a silly thing to do to a successful and important British HiFi manufacturer.  

They have been in business now for 25 years and have an established reputation for very high quality products.

If AVI is banned, (I thought all that had been sorted in the revisions), then it should be repealed.  

Not to do so would seem to make What HiFi lack credibility and integrity.

Personally I think Ashley should be allowed to post on this forum, he is obviously very knowledgable and it would only serve to help answer questions people have on active designs.

I don't know the exact circumstances of the ban but it would have been due to personal behaviour, so presumably he wasn't capable of conducting himself in the manner required for membership (and when you see the kind of things he says about WHF staff on his own forum I can quite understand why they don't want him back).

Quote:
I mean how many times has Maxflinn been banned and returned.

He hasn't been allowed to return, he's been circumventing the bans by re-registering under different names, that's a very different thing.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments