Gilmore Audio planars revealed

I believe people have a healthy skepticism of a very expensive new speaker that makes rather outlandish claims yet appears to be no more than rehash of the Carver and a number of other ribbon/dynamic hybrids.

The manufacturer's dealers have posted on a number of sites touting these speakers, which makes them fair game for comment.

I suspect they sound very good, but wish they would go easy on the pseudo-science, cheap thrills advertising and exagerration.

"Second, and somewhat related is the skepticism concerning the ability of our woofers to move sufficient air to accomplish authoritative bass. Cone excursion of drivers on some of the sites referred to are as little as 6mm. We are able to attain big excursions, cleanly -- plus or minus 2 inches! So our four woofers move a lot of air. To do this, "you can't use no ordinary woofer", as my grandmother would say. Not surprisingly, we haven't. It is a very unique, proprietary planar driver with a surround that allows it to function much like a dynamic speaker -- on steroids. The magnets and supporting structure are very robust. As a result, we have a woofer that is very responsive (it moves fast) while remaining very compliant (it tracks the wave form very nicely). It has a very high QTS. The four drivers share the load so they "run cool". Even reasonably high spl levels can be maintained without loss of performance. We think you'll like what we have done, unless your the jealous type."

OK, so it is now 'reasonably high' SPL levels. And you are claiming +/- 2 inches of Xmax. Excellent and unusual.

However, someone way smarter than me suggested I look at the surround of the drivers and consider whether such a surround would physically allow the cone to go in and out by 1 inch each way. Obviously it doesn't.

The high qts is also a sign of a weak magnet, which can be seen from the shots of the rear and compared to a high Xmax driver like the Adire Tumult. But that doesn't matter since bass = displacement in most universes.

Even then there is still no way 4 12 inch dipole drivers will come close to the volume you are talking about.

Unless you would like to share what frequencies we are talking about.

Apologize for what, o sellerwithintegrity? For pointing out that your claims for these speakers might be a tad overblown?

I have speakers using dynamic dipole drivers for the bass so I have an idea what the tradeoffs are, although dipole bass is as good as it gets. If you want a better idea yourself, examine this site carefully:

www.linkwitzlab.com

Regarding the excursion, here is a link to the subwoofer with possibly the highest excursion out there, the Adire Tumult.

http://www.adireaudio.com/diy_audio/drivers/adire/tumult.htm

Notice the very large roll surround that is clearly visible? The Tumult has a 1.5 inch xmax. Your magic woofers are claiming 2 inch. So the surround should be even bigger.

Without the big, flexible surround the cone cannot move in and out by the required amount, since the surround allows the movement to take place. It's quite simple really.

You can tell even from the poor quality photos on the Gilmore site that the surround is nowhere near enough to allow that kind of xmax. Of course, if you care to have the woofers Dumaxed for us and post the results I will eat my words and even say sorry.

http://www.dlcdesignaudio.com/dumax.htm

You may also notice the very large motor on the Tumult, handy to control the cone at those kind of excursions.

The weak motors on the Gilmore drivers are, you stated, to raise the Qts. Presumably to create a low frquency rise in the response to counteract dipole roll off so you don't need active EQ? This is valid design decision but has its own tradeoffs as noted here:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/faq.htm#Q34

As for the SPL question, I would simply invite anyone who is interested to download the following spreadsheet and plug in the numbers themselves.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/spl_max1.xls

The path difference is half the baffle width, in this case 450mm.

The answer I got for four 12 inch drivers with a 25mm xmax is 98dB at 25Hz. Just for giggles, keep adding drivers until you get to 127dB. You'll find you need 100 of them.

Of course, the 'so-called expert' who designed this spreadsheet might not know what he is talking about. In which case I suggest you contact Seigfried Linkwitz and tell him yourself. I assume the name is familiar?

You made the claim "The Gilmore speakers, especially the model 2's, can play bass louder and cleaner than any other dipole or planar for sure and any home audio dynamic speakers we know of."

I find the dipople/planar part of this statement at least plausible, but the second part less so. Any other home audio dynamic speaker?

That's a heck of a bold statement. Price no object?

Finally, to suggest that the height of a line source doesn't matter is rather strange. Anyone who has listened to the Newform R645 speaker or other similar ribbon speakers can tell you what happens when you either stand up or sit too low. The treble rolls off.

To avoid this, your ear needs to be within the range of the ribbon, which may be a problem with the Model 3.

As I said earlier, I'm sure these speakers sound great. But to make all these hyperbolic claims taints them with a strong whiff of snake oil.

Have a lovely day.

Duke, thanks for your reasoned response. Your explanation of the the high QTS drivers, the excursion limited lows and the vertical dispersion accord perfectly with my experience with ribbons and dynamic dipole bass.

Best of luck with the speakers.

I believe he is referring to me as the one he is done with, mainly because in spite of his 'welcoming skepticism' he is unable to answer the questions.

He incorrectly stated the Xmax, then says proper testing is unnecessary when a finger is just as good.

He has stated they didn't even bother testing the vertical dispersion, which was the point in question with the ribbons, not the horizontal dispersion.

He has made the rather unusual statement that his speakers are louder at 3 meters than they are at 1 meter because they are line sources (!).

He has also stated that they produce 'louder and cleaner' bass than any other speaker they know of, in spite of being dipoles.

While professing admiration for Mr. Linkwitz, who probably knows more about dipole bass than any other on this planet, he has failed to provide any information on how his speakers are able to ignore the fundamental truths about dipole bass SL espouses, especially in the area of maximum volume.

And in the midst of all that he has intimated that I am a liar, ignorant etc etc. I'm quite happy to admit I'm wrong, when shown precisely why.

Just for the hell of it, I will reiterate the problem. You have used this forum to tout your speakers while making very grandiose claims. When questioned about these claims you have failed to respond in any meaningful way other than to say 'trust us', and insult those who ask the question.

You may be a 'buyerwithintegrity' at eBay, but as a 'sellerwithintegrity' you still have a ways to go.

Still, best of luck. Having heard other ribbon/dynamic hybrids of a very similar design, and owned many dipoles from Martin Logans to Audio Artistry, plus having build my own Linkwitz inspired dipoles I am sure they will sound great. Within their limitations.

Take a chill pill and have a great day.

Wel, at least they are thick skinned. Imagine my surprise thumbing through the latest Absolute Sound when I see a three page ad for the Gilmores. Still making the same suspect claims of course, but using even worse creative. I've worked in advertising for 20+ years, but this sexist, moronic attempt to sell most likely good speakers makes me want to gag.

If Mr Gilmore 'Audio Guru' is reading this, change your advertising. You are making yourself a joke.

The sonic attributes that were described match those from a well-designed dipole. Before anyone plunks down the $19K I'd suggest trying to have a listen to the Linkwitz Orion speakers (www.linkwitzlab.com). The reviews there match the one above rather closely. The variation I built made my sell my Wilsons very qickly.

They also don't have the beaming problem described due to the limited vertical dispersion of the ribbon.