or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Swan Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Swan Owner's Thread - Page 4

post #91 of 3884
Jon, I know there are other models outside the Diva and Classic lines that have the top mounted tweeter - I've seen them. Before purchasing my 6.1's, C3 and R3's, I asked about the possibility of getting a C3 with a top mounted tweeter and was told that it was no longer being made. Is that not true?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Yes, they do. There are a few reasons we elected to stay with the baffle-tweetered version, but the top-tweeter version is still in the wings.
post #92 of 3884
I've owned my 6.1 and R3's for going on two months now...still waiting for the C3. I still don't have as many hours as I'd like to on them but they sound and look great...no problems here. Yes, TAI and OZ are authorized dealers. I also live close to a HiVi store in California. Yes, they're made in China.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

So what's the deal with these speakers? Are they Chinese-made, or are parts imported from Germany and China and assembled here? The Audio Insider and OZ are both authorized dealers, correct?

To those who have owned their Swan 6.1s for a little while now: How are they holding up?
post #93 of 3884
I'm driving my 6.1's with a Denon 3803...sounds excellent! They seem to be fairly efficient speakers. The 3803 is spec'd at 110 x 7 @ 8 ohms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

Thanks for the info. What do you guys have powering your 6.1s? How much wattage would a receiver need to adequately power these things? I really don't want to buy separate amps if I can get away with it.
post #94 of 3884
I am driving them with a Denon 3805 120W x 7
post #95 of 3884
Just placed an order with OZ for the 6.1s (rosewood, of course). How long does it usually take for these things to ship? And thanks for all of the helpful info you guys have given!
post #96 of 3884
It took about 3 days for mine to ship and another 4 for them to arrive (shipped from west coast to east coast).
post #97 of 3884
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

To those who have owned their Swan 6.1s for a little while now: How are they holding up?

I have had mine for a few years now, and they sound as good now as they ever have. The finish is still beautiful, with no marring or blemishes at all.
post #98 of 3884
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

Thanks for the info. What do you guys have powering your 6.1s? How much wattage would a receiver need to adequately power these things? I really don't want to buy separate amps if I can get away with it.

I use an Outlaw Audio 7100. This amp is rated at 100 watts per channel 8ohms, 7 channels, but seems to be considered under-rated. Comparing to other amps I have had, I would agree. I bi-amp the 6.1s for the same reasons listed by usp1. This gives two dedicated 100w amplification channels to each main speaker, 100w channel for the C3 center channel, and 100w each to the 4.1 surround speakers.

You can never have too much power, but you might be playing your system too loud.
post #99 of 3884
Riblet,

The way you describe the bi-amping is not entirely correct. This explanations is going to be very over-simplified but is fundamentally correct. When you amplify a speaker in the traditional manner (single-amp) you're sending a specific amount of power (for simplicity sake say the full 100w) to the speaker's crossover. The crossover then splits the signal based on the frequency (for simplicity sake say 50w/each) to the woofer and tweeter. Now, when you bi-amp, you're sending 100w directly to the tweeter's section of the crossover and 100w directly to the woofer's section of the crossover. The tweeter's crossover throws away all the power not in its intended frequency range by converting it to heat dissipated by the crossover's electronic. What actually reaches the tweeter is the same 50w as in the single-amp situation. The woofer's crossover throws away the inapplicable frequency range in the form of heat the same way as the tweeter, receiving the same 50w as the single-amp situation.

As you see, regardless of single-amp or passive bi-amp, the speaker's end components (tweeter and woofer) are receiving the same amount of power. That said, the amplifier is forced to produce 2 full range channels of power per speaker instead of just one, even though half of that is being dissipated in the form of heat. This extra load on the amplifier can actually stress the amplifier more in a bi-amp situation, making it sound worse than the same setup in a standard amplification setup.

There is one situation where passive bi-amp makes more sense. If you're running speakers with a lower impedance than your amp can handle (4 ohm for example), you can use passive bi-amping to present 2 channels per speaker with an easier load (2 8ohm loads for example) instead.
post #100 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins View Post

Riblet,

The way you describe the bi-amping is not entirely correct. This explanations is going to be very over-simplified but is fundamentally correct. When you amplify a speaker in the traditional manner (single-amp) you're sending a specific amount of power (for simplicity sake say the full 100w) to the speaker's crossover. The crossover then splits the signal based on the frequency (for simplicity sake say 50w/each) to the woofer and tweeter. Now, when you bi-amp, you're sending 100w directly to the tweeter's section of the crossover and 100w directly to the woofer's section of the crossover. The tweeter's crossover throws away all the power not in its intended frequency range by converting it to heat dissipated by the crossover's electronic. What actually reaches the tweeter is the same 50w as in the single-amp situation. The woofer's crossover throws away the inapplicable frequency range in the form of heat the same way as the tweeter, receiving the same 50w as the single-amp situation.

As you see, regardless of single-amp or passive bi-amp, the speaker's end components (tweeter and woofer) are receiving the same amount of power. That said, the amplifier is forced to produce 2 full range channels of power per speaker instead of just one, even though half of that is being dissipated in the form of heat. This extra load on the amplifier can actually stress the amplifier more in a bi-amp situation, making it sound worse than the same setup in a standard amplification setup.

There is one situation where passive bi-amp makes more sense. If you're running speakers with a lower impedance than your amp can handle (4 ohm for example), you can use passive bi-amping to present 2 channels per speaker with an easier load (2 8ohm loads for example) instead.

took my words out of my mouth! well said.

ps- beware of the snake oil theorems about "frequency" reaching the particular driver (tweeter vs mid) faster or slower via bi-amping as well, etc. About as accurate as saying we are winning the war in Iraq!
post #101 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunacious View Post

Jon, I know there are other models outside the Diva and Classic lines that have the top mounted tweeter - I've seen them. Before purchasing my 6.1's, C3 and R3's, I asked about the possibility of getting a C3 with a top mounted tweeter and was told that it was no longer being made. Is that not true?

It's no longer being made for US markets, and as far as I know, may not be made for international markets either, however I can get them, provided TAI orders 25+ units.

We'd be happy to do so, although the valid decision to drop them was based on three or four specific acoustical and practical reasons. With enough interest, technically nearly anything's possible.
post #102 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by A/Vspec View Post

Jon,

Do you have one in the Rosewood color?

Not with the top tweeter, no...
post #103 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

Thanks for the info. What do you guys have powering your 6.1s? How much wattage would a receiver need to adequately power these things? I really don't want to buy separate amps if I can get away with it.

As with any 90dB/1W speaker, frankly 95% of your listening averages a fraction of a watt, and that despite the speaker's maximum rating of roughly 200. We recommend a solid 100watts, max., simply because it seems amps are in general more musical somewhat below the 200w class. The wattage issue is typically overrated.

If it were me, I'd use a 50-watter with good current reserves, something like an Emotiva. By "high-current", look for appreciable more power into 4 ohms versus the standard 8 ohm rating. HK qualifies on a budget, as does Onkyo. Others are NAD, Parasound, B&K, Rotel. But I had a call just today confirming again just how musical the Emotiva's are...
post #104 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Not with the top tweeter, no...

Thanks Jon. If you do stumble across one before the standard C3 come in.... well you know...
post #105 of 3884
Oh, about "passive" bi-amping, since a speaker's crossover network simply ramps up impedance to infinity outside the driver's "passband", there's no real risk of burning anything up. And as far as using multiple channels, as long as they're of the same gain (meaning as long as the signal voltage in gives a linear amount of power out across all channels) there won't be any mismatching problems.

This translates as taking four channels from one amp, two large and two small, and hooking them up as bass and treble channels, respectively, and letting it all rip. Remember that the tweeter will be using a tiny fraction of a watt (unless you clip the amp) so your 50 watt "tweeter channels" will be mostly untapped, but there may be a subtle increase in some sonic areas.

If you use multiple channels on one speaker, remember to remove the speaker's shorting straps or you'll be shorting your amp channels together, something that's not a good idea. I don't think that's why they called them that, but it helps to remind a user.
post #106 of 3884
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins View Post

Riblet,

The way you describe the bi-amping is not entirely correct. This explanations is going to be very over-simplified but is fundamentally correct. When you amplify a speaker...

I was posting how I have it hooked up, not how things work.

I posted:

"I bi-amp the 6.1s for the same reasons listed by usp1. This gives two dedicated 100w amplification channels to each main speaker, 100w channel for the C3 center channel, and 100w each to the 4.1 surround speakers." To further clarify, my amplifier (Outlaw 7100) is a seven independent amplifier amp. If I only used 5 out of the 7 amps, two amps would just be sitting there not used. The only combined circuitry in my amp is the large toroidal transformer power supply. After that, there are seven separate amplifiers. So, by hooking up two amps instead of one amp on each speaker, I am not really stressing anything. The 7100 is designed to have all seven amplifier circuits run at rated power continuously. I would not spend extra money to buy two extra channels, but in my case the 5c vs the 7c was the same price at time of purchase.
usp1 wrote: "Suddenly the highs are much airier, the mids are much clearer, I can hear more detail in the instruments and the soundstage has improved. In each case, the differences are quite subtle actually, but in totality it sounds much more melodious." This is what I discovered with the way I have my 6.1's hooked up versus only using one amp channel, and having the shorting strap across the binding posts. I suspect the reason a positive difference is heard is due to the impedance difference near the crossover point of having a single amp driving both high pass and low pass sides of the crossover. Two amps, one high pass one low pass, would both have a much smoother impedance change at crossover and would not be as low.
post #107 of 3884
I wasn't saying you were stressing your amp beyond its capacity/ability... only that you were possibly stressing it more in a bi-amp situation than in a single-amp situation.

As I said, my explanation was over-simplified and the varying impedance of the different sections of the speaker/crossover definitely do minimize the extraneous current draw in bi-amping, but they don't eliminate it entirely.
post #108 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

As with any 90dB/1W speaker, frankly 95% of your listening averages a fraction of a watt, and that despite the speaker's maximum rating of roughly 200. We recommend a solid 100watts, max., simply because it seems amps are in general more musical somewhat below the 200w class. The wattage issue is typically overrated.

If it were me, I'd use a 50-watter with good current reserves, something like an Emotiva. By "high-current", look for appreciable more power into 4 ohms versus the standard 8 ohm rating. HK qualifies on a budget, as does Onkyo. Others are NAD, Parasound, B&K, Rotel. But I had a call just today confirming again just how musical the Emotiva's are...

Alright, thanks. So do you work in tandem with OZ or is The Audio Insider a separate entity? I only ask because you link to them from your site.
post #109 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benniator View Post

Alright, thanks. So do you work in tandem with OZ or is The Audio Insider a separate entity? I only ask because you link to them from your site.

TAI is developer/importer and OZ (and New Egg) are our resellers.
post #110 of 3884
newegg doesnt have anything anymore except 1 model of swans computer speakers. the 4.1's, 5.1's, and surround speakers were all sold out. I got a pair of 4.1's (rosewood) for $270 after shipping. Tough to beat that.. I almost snagged a pair of 5.1's for 400+ shipping (rosewood) but they only had 1 left at the time. Probably better i didnt, my wife would have killed me.
post #111 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwolfe38 View Post

newegg doesnt have anything anymore except 1 model of swans computer speakers. the 4.1's, 5.1's, and surround speakers were all sold out. I got a pair of 4.1's (rosewood) for $270 after shipping. Tough to beat that.. I almost snagged a pair of 5.1's for 400+ shipping (rosewood) but they only had 1 left at the time. Probably better i didnt, my wife would have killed me.

That's correct; for Swan, we're transitioning New Egg to 100% multimedia and HTIB models.
post #112 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

We'd be happy to do so, although the valid decision to drop them was based on three or four specific acoustical and practical reasons.

Jon, can you share what these reasons are? And, why these issues do not come into play on any of the other top-mounted Diva designs still used today?
post #113 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jephdood View Post

Jon, can you share what these reasons are? And, why these issues do not come into play on any of the other top-mounted Diva designs still used today?

The top tweeter, we feel, is superior in most cases. In some cases, however, there are benefits to having the tweeter in the body of the speaker.

Swan's international model C3 is still, to my knowledge, using the top tweeter. In North America, where there is a high ratio of in-cabinet, or in-entertainment center, or under-TV installations, "enclosing" the top tweeter in that external furniture actually obstructs and reflects its superior dispersion. Obviously this isn't a problem for the great majority of main speaker setups which are set in "free air".

We also found that with the highly variable positioning of center speakers, having a little more uniform integration with the 50mm dome at the relatively high crossover frequency the C3 uses was beneficial for dispersion. We achieved this by putting the tweeter back in the enclosure and closer to the midrange. This is not an issue with the 5.1 since we know nearly exactly at what angle the listener will be from a floor-standing speaker measuring X inches from the floor to tweeter center and we can include this angle in the crossover design, which we have.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, saving a few inches in height means the C3 can be used in many more systems.

All in all, the acoustical differences are not great but they are worth considering, which we did. We also find that customers prefer a shorter center speaker where space is usually at a premium.
post #114 of 3884
Thread Starter 
Jon, do you consider the C3 the premium center channel speaker from Swan? In my system, it sounds fabulous. But, I am always willing to consider changing things around.
post #115 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riblet View Post

Jon, do you consider the C3 the premium center channel speaker from Swan? In my system, it sounds fabulous. But, I am always willing to consider changing things around.

I do. It's on a par with the Diva 5.2C.
post #116 of 3884
The C3 is a very good center. And I like the fact that it has the dedicated mid. The 5.2C would do well with a little middie in it as well... perhaps a 5.3C is in order.
post #117 of 3884
Anyone else having trouble getting in touch with OZ? I've been trying to inquire about an order for a few days now and I haven't gotten a return email.
post #118 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jephdood View Post

The C3 is a very good center. And I like the fact that it has the dedicated mid. The 5.2C would do well with a little middie in it as well... perhaps a 5.3C is in order.

Both use 6.5" midbass drivers, however the 5.2C's have significantly higher range, easing the design substantially. Result: No mid needed.

Now a 6.2C (dual 8" bass drivers, 5.25" mid, 28mm dome, oodles of output) that is a distinct possibility for 2008...
post #119 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

The top tweeter, we feel, is superior in most cases. In some cases, however, there are benefits to having the tweeter in the body of the speaker.

Swan's international model C3 is still, to my knowledge, using the top tweeter. In North America, where there is a high ratio of in-cabinet, or in-entertainment center, or under-TV installations, "enclosing" the top tweeter in that external furniture actually obstructs and reflects its superior dispersion. Obviously this isn't a problem for the great majority of main speaker setups which are set in "free air".

We also found that with the highly variable positioning of center speakers, having a little more uniform integration with the 50mm dome at the relatively high crossover frequency the C3 uses was beneficial for dispersion. We achieved this by putting the tweeter back in the enclosure and closer to the midrange. This is not an issue with the 5.1 since we know nearly exactly at what angle the listener will be from a floor-standing speaker measuring X inches from the floor to tweeter center and we can include this angle in the crossover design, which we have.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, saving a few inches in height means the C3 can be used in many more systems.

All in all, the acoustical differences are not great but they are worth considering, which we did. We also find that customers prefer a shorter center speaker where space is usually at a premium.


Time for a poll to see if there or 25 people out there interested in Jon getting some top mounted units shipped over here to the USA!


Mark - 1
post #120 of 3884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Lane View Post

Now a 6.2C (dual 8" bass drivers, 5.25" mid, 28mm dome, oodles of output) that is a distinct possibility for 2008...

WOOF!

Let me know...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Swan Owner's Thread