Eminent Technology LFT 7 !!


Not a missprint!  LFT 7 was the LFT 6 with additional bass panels. The bass panels had 3 bass drivers per panel.  4 panels total.  Would like to hear them or purchase them.  
128x128riverdinaudio

Because both the GR Research/Rythmik OB/Dipole Sub and their standard sealed enclosure subs (the F12G in the case of GRR) employ the Rythmik Servo-Feedback system, the difference between the two is not as great as it would be sans the servo. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the other:

Sealed provides more output, OB less room loading as well as dipole characteristics matching that of planar loudspeakers (not just out-of-phase cancellation to either side, but also equal SPL drop off at varying distances, keeping the speaker/sub balance the same at all listening positions.). Not to mention no sealed enclosure resonance issues!

Hello riverdinaudio,

      I have listened to numerous high quality subs including dipoles but have never listened to OB or any GR Research subs.  My only experience utilizing 4 subs in a distributed bass array (DBA) configuration is the Audio Kinesis Debra 4-sub complete DBA kit system I bought and installed about 5 years ago in my 21'x15'x8' room.  This system is identical in price, sub amp/controller utilized and concept to the AK Swarm system except the Debra subs are more rectangular at 12"Wx14.5"Dx28"H.  
     I initially used Magnepan 2.7QR 3-way 6'x2' dipole panels as main speakers with no room treatments, DSP room correction or EQ and ran them full range (35-20K Hz) with all 4 Debra subs operated in mono, without the port plugs and a 40Hz cutoff frequency setting, so all 4 subs in mono and  ported configuration operating between 20 and 40 Hz.
     This setup provided what I consider near sota bass performance in my room that was fast, smooth and detailed enough to seamlessly integrate with the 2.7QRs while still providing the powerful deep bass impact and dynamics I felt they lacked.
     A couple months ago I upgraded to a pair of Magnepan 3.7i main speakers, which are the same size and 3-ways but have the true-ribbon treble transducer instead of a quasi-ribbon transducer, and fully treated my room with $3,500 worth of custom installed GIK room treatments.  You can view my recently updated system pics to view the results.
     Long story short, the true-ribbon treble section and other 25 year newer technology of the 3.7i main speakers, along with the room treatments, significantly improved the overall detail, sound stage imaging, naturalness, quality, realism and overall enjoyment of my system. And I  perceive the sota bass performance and seamless integration with the new 3.7i main speakers provided by the 4-sub DBA system as even more  impressive, which I didn't think was possible.
     So in summary, I'm stating that I'm thoroughly convinced of the 4-sub DBA concept's effectiveness in my room and believe you'll be thoroughly convinced if you deploy one in your room.  However, I'm not stating that 4 high quality GR Research/Rhythmik OB or servo-controlled sealed subs wouldn't perform and sound equally as well or better in a DBA confguration, because I've never heard them and just don't know.

Best wishes,
    Tim
Damn Tim, 3.7i's and the Debra Swarm. I would without hesitation take that over the 3/4 million dollar Wilsons. A lotta loot left for music!
Hello bdp24,
     
    Yes, the 3.7is with the Swarm are extremely good and a real bargain. Think of the 20.7s with better bass and dynamics at half the price. I've heard the 30.7s and don't claim the 3.7i/Swarm combo is quite that fine, or probably as fine as the $750K Wilsons which I've not heard, but it's definitely a close enough approximation to the 30.7s from my perspective, especially at less than 1/3rd the price.
    I went on a bit of a splurge in addition to the 3.7is and GIK room treatments. I also bought an LG 77" 4K OLED hdtv, pre-owned Levinson 326S preamp, Oppo 205, Lumin D2 dac/streamer and a 20 TB Synology hard drive that came loaded with 20,000 hours of music of multiple genres (rock, blues, R&B, jazz, folk, country and classical) that's all on my LAN and controlled by Lumin software on an iPad. It functions and has a GUI very similar to JRiver.
    I've chosen not to feel guilty and would think I died and went to heaven if I didn't have to completely pay for all of it to the last penny. But this is by far the best system I've owned to date and the system I receive the most enjoyment from on a daily basis with music and HT. So, I have absolutely no doubt it's all been worth it and have zero regrets.

Enjoy,
Tim
Interesting... sorry I missed this thread earlier.

I got a pair of LFT-VIs in 1994 or so and used them as my main speakers until I moved across-country in late 2006.

From 1981-1994, I cycled through Acoustat 2s, 2+2s, MG-IIIAs (Still the best highs overall in my setups!), 1+1s, PK R&D mods to the 1+1s, and original CLSs. Sometimes I used various fill-in speakers as gaps between selling and buying occurred and I filled those gaps with SMGs, MG-Is, MG-IIs, and Spica TC-50s (still have them!).

While all of the top planars above had their pros and cons, I found the LFT-VIs to be the best overall mix... not quite as detailed as the best electrostatics, but very close, not as good of highs as the big Magnepan ribbon, but not far behind, while not a single-driver electrostatic, with careful positioning they equaled the coherence of those speakers and the TC-50s, AND more dynamic than any of the other planars.

Before I moved, I’d already gotten the panels to do a mid-woofer rebuild (2 mid drivers had trace breaks) and looked for a fill speaker to use in the apartment until after we bought a house there and I had the chance to do that rebuild after we got settled. I found a good deal on some Gallo Ref 3A’s which were ok, but the mid-to-woofer transition was not as good as the full-range or otherwise coherent speakers like the LFT-VI. THEN I found a GREAT deal on a pair of LFT-VIIIs and got them... and they quickly replaced the Ref 3As. We moved into the house, I used the Ref 3As in the smallish downstairs ’temporary’ stereo room, and put the LFT-VIIIs upstairs for when I got time to setup that room.

Before that happened, I found another great deal on a pair of LFT-IVs and jumped on that. They went into that downstairs ’temporary’ setup in 2007-2008 and are still there now, a couple of crossover upgrades and lots of system changes later and sounding better than ever. AND I use the Ref 3A just away from the corners with a resistor across the woofer terminals as a bass damper... works!

Back to the LFT-VIs... The LFT-VIIIs (also with upgraded crossovers) are sounding great in that upstairs room. I’m working hard to retire mid-next-year so I can do that LFT-VI rebuild. BUT to the subject of this thread, I found a pair of mostly dead LFT-VI’s and got them for a good trade in 2009 or so. The dead panel drivers on my original LFT-VIs were the mids on 2 of the mid-woofers, so I figured that the 6 pulls from the LFT-VI rebuild would supply sufficient drivers for the deaders. BUT when I reached out to Bruce T at ET about using them to construct LFT-VII’s, he suggested getting 6 woofer only panels, similar to what they used in the old LFT-III outer panels, as that’s what they used on the original LFT-VIIs. So I did. MAYBE a year from now, everything willing, I can update y’all on how they worked out. Will be bi-amping them with separate amps for the woofer panels... and yes, if I need more woof, I’d consider some of the dipolar cone drivers like the GR Research ones mentioned above, I’ve heard a number of good dipole cone-drivered woofers/subs since 1980 or so and suspect they’d be the best overall match to the LFT bass presentation.

Greg in Mississippi

P.S. The LFT-VI’s got Sound Anchor bases (also on the LFT-VIIIs) and upgraded crossovers too along with Dynamat on the non-driver portion of the diaphram panels. All were well-worthwhile, though the Dynamat is way ugly!