Richter shakes market with radical Series 7 Special Editions

The development saw Richter’s long-time acoustic engineer Dr Martin Gosnell working closely with industrial designer Adam Hobbs to create a softer, more contemporary form – reducing the visual dominance of traditional large black boxes, while maintaining the integrity of Richter’s sound.

You may like

Their solutions include newly-curved cabinet designs, with real Natural Walnut veneers and matching anthracite-grey baffles with optional mottled-grey cloth grilles and “just enough shiny bling to draw your attention”, say Rodgers.

(Image credit: Richter)

In driver terms the mid-bass drivers are new and improved, with ultra-rigid, lightweight cones in precision-engineered cast alloy baskets, while the bass drivers gain larger voice coils.

But the biggest change is the arrival of a new high-frequency module, the ‘SE Teardrop’, housing a 25mm high-output neodymium-backed tweeter and a new 70mm soft-dome midrange; it is mounted vertically in the floorstanders but pivots sideways in the Aurora standmount design.

In the larger Dragon and Excalibur models, Richter uses the teardrop D’Appolito-style, flanked by the two 6.5-inch mid-bass drivers. This creates a symmetrical “wall of sound” that should disperse widely into the room while retaining the precision of the double domes.

Remarkably, then, the 119cm-high Excalibur requires a 4.5-way crossover network, with dedicated circuits feeding the SE tweeter and mid-dome, while parallel midrange circuits drive the flanking twin 165mm (6½-inch) drivers, supported by a bass-shelf extension design (a dual-chamber tuning system) for the lower twin 6½-inch bass drivers.

The 109cm-high Dragon becomes a 4-way design with bass-shelf extension, and the 101cm-high Wizard a 3.5-way. Even the Aurora standmount becomes a three-way, its crossover splitting between tweeter, mid dome and 165mm mid-bass woofer.

(Image credit: Richter)

Large mid-domes are rare in this price bracket. They come with both potential advantages and disadvantages. The dispersion pattern more closely resembles that of a dome tweeter, and its frequency response can extend higher than that of a cone, taking more of the workload from the tweeter and moving the crossover to a higher region where the ear is less sensitive. Mid domes can provide a faster, more natural-sounding response for vocals than a traditional cone. The ‘teardrop’ curve may assist in minimising diffraction, while having the tweeter and mid-dome as close together as possible potentially improves phase coherence, creating more stable stereo imaging. Richter emphasises this advantage, promising “superior detail and imaging”.

Downsides of a dome mid includes relatively limited excursion, and the need for a very precise crossover to the tweeter to avoid the mid dome’s break-up frequencies being evident. Domes are also more prone to power compression under high loads, and may require the woofers to handle higher upper-bass than they would otherwise.

(Image credit: Richter)

And mid domes are certainly far more expensive to engineer than an equivalent mid-range cone. So kudos to Richter for choosing this path, and we look forward to hearing the results, with Brian Rodgers promising of this 40th anniversary release: “this is Richter at its finest – 40 years in the making!”