WD25a vs WD25t

Hi all

I'm considering building myself some new speakers to go with my WAD6550 and I'm considering the WD25a and WD25t. I've not had a chance to listen to either of the designs and am curious about the differences in sound between the 2 designs. I assume its mostly in the bass response of the speakers?

I'm probably going to get the flatpack versions due to lack of tools and construction space but if i go for the WD25a then my budget would cover the XL Treble unit. I Know its a very subjective question but how much better is the XL version?

Steve

[petercom]

You are correct in assuming the difference is mainly in the bass response. The WD25t, with its larger cabinet, has a more extended bass but both offer the same clarity and definition through the bass region. The larger baffle of the WD25t also smooths out the midband a little.

The XL treble unit brings out a lot of midrange detail and is very clean and clear throughout the treble area. However both treble units are very smooth, and we have a lot of nice comments on the forum about how good the STD kit sounds.

I hope that is enough information for you to make up your mind. I think it is more down to whether you want a pair of floorstanders or stand mounts that really matters.

Likewise I'm considering either the stand mount vs the floorstander. Do the WD25A & T XL kit x-over's now include the 'tuning' modifications discussed recently in the construction articles?

I'd appreciate a comment.

Chuck
College Kid

[petercom]

The kits are now supplied with the latest fine tuned version crossovers as described in the construction articles.

The only extra is the Panel Damping Compound that you may like to fit to the WD25a if you choose those. This is not supplied as part of the kit but can be ordered from our catalogue.

[Primalsea]

I've often heard people say they prefer standmounts over floorstanders but could'nt understand why. I while ago I herd some Linn Kans and although I didn't like them they did image like no other large speaker I have heard. I also herd some custom made standmounts that were in a 6in cubed box and had a single 3in driver. Although these were limited in the frequency extreames the midrange was fantastic and imaging was also exceptional.

Would this be a similar situation with the WD25 standmounts imaging better that the floorstanders but having less bass.

I'm not sure if its interaction with the bass frequencies that can muddy imaging or if good imaging is just a virtue of smaller boxes and smaller drivers on their own.

[petercom]

Originally Posted by Primalsea

Would this be a similar situation with the WD25 standmounts imaging better that the floorstanders but having less bass.

I'm not sure if its interaction with the bass frequencies that can muddy imaging or if good imaging is just a virtue of smaller boxes and smaller drivers on their own.

The standmounts and the floorstanders image the same. There is no reason at all why large speakers can't image. The main reason that large speakers usually deliver a 'smeared' image compared to small ones is because the larger cone does not usually approach the dispersion of the dome of a treble unit as you approach the crossover frequency.

We managed this in the WD25 by a) allowing the cone to breakup gradually through the upper midrange, so it is only the centre portion of the cone and the dust cap that is producing output above 1.5kHz and b) lowering the crossover frequency to 2kHz so that the treble unit is handling a lot of the upper midrange.

If you have heard a 3-way speaker that doesn't image either then it is usually because of inept crossover design (it is difficult enough to design a 2-way successfully, designing a 3-way increases the difficulty factor by 4).

The usual reason given for narrow baffle speakers giving 'better' imaging is because there is less diffraction. Where this came from I don't know as a little thought indicates that the narrower the baffle the greater the diffraction. It is possible that it is a truism based on the concept that the further the baffle edges are from the drive unit the more delayed in time the secondary reflections from those edges reach the ears of the listener. In fact there is very little evidence that secondary reflections from baffle edges are audible at all as their level is very low. In fact there are greater problems from drive units that see a step in the response caused by narrow baffle widths in the midrange area. In addition, if you use a grille, the relatively close edges of the grille to the drive unit(s) form a cavity which introduces all sorts of tonal coloration.

One difference that is obvious between a floorstanding and stand mount speaker is that the relationship between the floor and the bass driver is altered. On a pair of open stands the stand mount lessens the bass driver's coupling to the floor compared to the baffle conjunction to the floor of the floorstander. If your room has bass resonance problems then the stand mount will lessen these by not coupling to the room modes so well. This could be a reason why stand mounted speakers are preferred in small rooms where the room modes are more audibly obvious and troublesome.

So the floorstanding WD25t will deliver a more powerful bass performance partly because of its greater internal volume that allows better bass extension and also because of its better coupling to the room. In other words it 'drives' the room better.

Thanks

I have a bit of a habit of prefering the sound of standmounts when compared with floorstanders of a similar price then later wishing for more bass Which is why i'm debating a bit rather than just following my instincts and getting the standmounts but i think the standmounts are probably the right choice for me.

Just out of curiosity do you have figures for the frequency responses of the 2 models?

Do you have a demo room or are you planning to attend any shows in the near future so i could have a chance to listen before i buy?

Thanks again

Steve

[Cobblers]

Hi Steve,
As you have probably read I am highly impressed with the standmounters std kit.
Peter has done a very good job of getting the more affordable tweeter to integrate seemlessly with the 10inch mid/bass.

The XL speaker should prove superior because the tweeter can reach lower than the standard unit, therefore will sound even cleaner at the bottom of its working range, relieving the bass mid from some of the upper mid/lower treble duty.
However as I said (without knowing what I am missing out on -since I haven't heard the better unit) performance is utterly superb with std tweeter.

I would go for the better tweeter option if I was considering the two options you are choosing between. the Bass from the standmount is so much better than normal standmount designs anyway.

[petercom]

Originally Posted by steveA

Thanks

I have a bit of a habit of prefering the sound of standmounts when compared with floorstanders of a similar price then later wishing for more bass Which is why i'm debating a bit rather than just following my instincts and getting the standmounts but i think the standmounts are probably the right choice for me.

Just out of curiosity do you have figures for the frequency responses of the 2 models?

Do you have a demo room or are you planning to attend any shows in the near future so i could have a chance to listen before i buy?

Thanks again

Steve

The responses are shown in the articles in Hi-Fi World and can be downloaded from the World Designs catalogue/speaker kits area. They won't give you any idea of what they sound like, though.

We have a demo room here at Arena Electronics and can accommodate anyone who would like to listen by appointment. Give us a ring beforehand and bring whatever partnering equipment and music you wish.

I'm fairly sure i'm going to go for the standmounts and will hopefully be able to put the order through in the next couple of weeks.

Thanks again for all your help

Steve