Swan Owner's Thread - Page 4

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

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.

Originally Posted by Benniator

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?

Originally Posted by Benniator

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen Hopkins

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.

Originally Posted by Tunacious

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?

Originally Posted by A/Vspec

Jon,

Do you have one in the Rosewood color?

Originally Posted by Benniator

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.

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

Not with the top tweeter, no...

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

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...

Originally Posted by Benniator

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.

Originally Posted by mwolfe38

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.

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

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.

Originally Posted by jephdood

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?

Originally Posted by Riblet

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.

Originally Posted by jephdood

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.

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

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.

Originally Posted by Jon Lane

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