Hi guys,
Seas W18EX001
or
Accuton C158-8-085
This 2-way, closed box, active loudspeaker will use the Transducer Labs N26CS-G tweeter , and will be my Center channel in my music/HT system. It will play down to 70-80 hz, then the sub kicks in.
This is a picture of the possible digital crossover at 2 khz
Pros and cons of the 2 midwoofers? Which one could give me better details and voice rendition?
and final question.... keeping the same tweeter, and considered the power and flexibility of such x-over solution (note the steepness), would you dare a 8 inch driver? (of course at a lower x-over point) .
I thought about W22EX001, or Accuton C220-6-221 but last one has a huge distortion spike at 900hz. The motor of this driver is nothing special, and it's sure far away from the performance of the wonderful C220-6-222, which is out of budget.
Comments appreciated...
Seas W18EX001
or
Accuton C158-8-085
This 2-way, closed box, active loudspeaker will use the Transducer Labs N26CS-G tweeter , and will be my Center channel in my music/HT system. It will play down to 70-80 hz, then the sub kicks in.
This is a picture of the possible digital crossover at 2 khz
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Pros and cons of the 2 midwoofers? Which one could give me better details and voice rendition?
and final question.... keeping the same tweeter, and considered the power and flexibility of such x-over solution (note the steepness), would you dare a 8 inch driver? (of course at a lower x-over point) .
I thought about W22EX001, or Accuton C220-6-221 but last one has a huge distortion spike at 900hz. The motor of this driver is nothing special, and it's sure far away from the performance of the wonderful C220-6-222, which is out of budget.
Comments appreciated...
Last edited:
All of accutons drivers with ceramic motors are lacklustre and simply not worth using IMO. The SEAS in the other hand is a different story offering exceptionally low distortion, especially in the bass and lower midrange. With still excellent performance up higher.
Really it needs a crossover lower than 2kHz though to avoid its third order distortion peak. A 4th order acoustic target at 1.5kHz would be far more suitable.
Both drivers use rigid cones that should be purely pistonic over the range they are intended to operate over. The SEAS will have the lower distortion/better linearity so should theoretically provide you with the cleanest more detailed sound.
Really it needs a crossover lower than 2kHz though to avoid its third order distortion peak. A 4th order acoustic target at 1.5kHz would be far more suitable.
Both drivers use rigid cones that should be purely pistonic over the range they are intended to operate over. The SEAS will have the lower distortion/better linearity so should theoretically provide you with the cleanest more detailed sound.
Ask not what your speaker can do for you – ask what you can do for your speaker.
Thanks! According to this well-known test Midrange distortion test , the Seas it's the best in its class up to 1200hz. What do you think? May I cross my TL tweeter so low?
Please note (in the pic above) the crossover design is different from any traditional analog design.
The alternative could be a Satori, which is a gorgeous speaker, even the new bigger one 7" 1/2, but I think that rigid cones (metal. ceramic...), combined with superlative motors, if properly used, have a precision that no paper cone can match.
My only doubt about the Seas concern the Qms, pretty low. As far as I know, low Qms driver may be not ideal at low listening levels.
I'd recommend the L18 (see below); it's an excellent driver, especially at low levels...
If you use a fourth order crossover at 2k, it's distortion peak at 2.3k will be inaudible. The W18 has a distortion peak at 1.6k, however, there appear to be many successful designs using this driver at 2k+ x/o frequencies.
If you use a fourth order crossover at 2k, it's distortion peak at 2.3k will be inaudible. The W18 has a distortion peak at 1.6k, however, there appear to be many successful designs using this driver at 2k+ x/o frequencies.
Attachments
Last edited:
Another woofer to consider: http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...8s-w22ny001&catid=49:excel-woofers&Itemid=359
The rise in response is exaggerated in SEAS's graph. Distortion is very low up to 6k.
The rise in response is exaggerated in SEAS's graph. Distortion is very low up to 6k.
Hi 5th element,
it happened that I saw one of your comment on another forum about the Accutons...
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showth...nued-Accuton-s&p=603121&viewfull=1#post603121
Now I better understand all your suggestions, and basically I strongly agree; the good sounding Accutons are the ones with neodymium motors, because their motors are superior underhung designs.
You also cited the Accuton tweeters, spending much better words.. what's your opinion about the new CELL ones?
Could be a much better alternative to the ceramic Transducer Labs tw? And how do you compare all of them to the RAALs?
Sorry for all these questions, but I'd like to put everything in the right perspective. thanks in advance!
Hello guys,
I update my old thread and share some impressions.... I bought a pair of Accuton 158 used. So the bargain that appeared online decided for me in December...
I'm really satisfied!!! I'm using them temporarily in a cheap cabinet, but sealed, 12 litres, and carefully stuffed in order to absorb the backwave. The tweeter is also cheap, but I'm upgrading right now to the very high value Seas 27 TBC or TDC (soft or hard dome). (I don't trust much in cheap hard domes, I think that hard domes require state of the art motor and dome material in order to not "hiss", so I will probably go for the soft).
Biamped, crossed at 2800hz, EQd and room corrected via FIR filters. The results are incredible, given the limited Sd of 113 cm2. Of course true lifelike drums requires more serious woofer, but properly EQd, they go incredibly low, very satisfying for bass guitar for example.
Below a pic of the FR in room:
They are in a HT system, and thanks to the DSP, I made a lot of test and comparison. The actual Center channel (also temporarily) is a Yamaha S55 (stuff that I had...). Well, even though all speakers benefit of EQ and room correction, if I swap the left and center channel, the difference in clarity of the dialog is astonishing!.
That's why I changed my plans and now I want to build immediately a definitive center channel.
The Accu 158 is an obvious choice, but I'm considering the Seas W18 now and a tweeter that can be crossed very low, such as the SS 2905 9700 or the aforementioned Transducer Labs in ceramic.
The reason is also that in future the Accuton C158 will be the midrange of a 3-way system, while I would prefer a 2-way for the center, 1 excellent and bigger midwoofer+tweeter, (no horizonatal MTM design to avoid comb filtering issues when not perfectly in front of the speaker).
The W18 is just a bit bigger, an 8" is tempting but more critical in the midrange area.. What about the Seas W22? Does it make more sense than the W18 in a Center channel? The Accuton C220-6-222 would be my first choice (the "good" Accuton with great neo motors), but way too expensive...
One last comment about the low frequencies... I also tried to cross to the sub B&W 610 at 80hz. Of course I made a perfect integration thanks to the unlimited DSP possibility of Audiolense. Furthermore I used the same target curve, so I gave the same roll-off depicted above to the 2.0 and 2.1 in order to compare apples with apples..
Well, the 2.0 wins for clarity. The B&W 610 makes a "whooump" sound when the strings of a bass guiter are pitched. Of course it guarantees much higher SPL, but there is no good sound quality.
Packed and ready to be sold to some HT enthusiast looking for rumble and noise
Comments appreaciated
I update my old thread and share some impressions.... I bought a pair of Accuton 158 used. So the bargain that appeared online decided for me in December...
I'm really satisfied!!! I'm using them temporarily in a cheap cabinet, but sealed, 12 litres, and carefully stuffed in order to absorb the backwave. The tweeter is also cheap, but I'm upgrading right now to the very high value Seas 27 TBC or TDC (soft or hard dome). (I don't trust much in cheap hard domes, I think that hard domes require state of the art motor and dome material in order to not "hiss", so I will probably go for the soft).
Biamped, crossed at 2800hz, EQd and room corrected via FIR filters. The results are incredible, given the limited Sd of 113 cm2. Of course true lifelike drums requires more serious woofer, but properly EQd, they go incredibly low, very satisfying for bass guitar for example.
Below a pic of the FR in room:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
They are in a HT system, and thanks to the DSP, I made a lot of test and comparison. The actual Center channel (also temporarily) is a Yamaha S55 (stuff that I had...). Well, even though all speakers benefit of EQ and room correction, if I swap the left and center channel, the difference in clarity of the dialog is astonishing!.
That's why I changed my plans and now I want to build immediately a definitive center channel.
The Accu 158 is an obvious choice, but I'm considering the Seas W18 now and a tweeter that can be crossed very low, such as the SS 2905 9700 or the aforementioned Transducer Labs in ceramic.
The reason is also that in future the Accuton C158 will be the midrange of a 3-way system, while I would prefer a 2-way for the center, 1 excellent and bigger midwoofer+tweeter, (no horizonatal MTM design to avoid comb filtering issues when not perfectly in front of the speaker).
The W18 is just a bit bigger, an 8" is tempting but more critical in the midrange area.. What about the Seas W22? Does it make more sense than the W18 in a Center channel? The Accuton C220-6-222 would be my first choice (the "good" Accuton with great neo motors), but way too expensive...
One last comment about the low frequencies... I also tried to cross to the sub B&W 610 at 80hz. Of course I made a perfect integration thanks to the unlimited DSP possibility of Audiolense. Furthermore I used the same target curve, so I gave the same roll-off depicted above to the 2.0 and 2.1 in order to compare apples with apples..
Well, the 2.0 wins for clarity. The B&W 610 makes a "whooump" sound when the strings of a bass guiter are pitched. Of course it guarantees much higher SPL, but there is no good sound quality.
Packed and ready to be sold to some HT enthusiast looking for rumble and noise
Comments appreaciated
Last edited:
Another good fit, and similar price for the mid-bass are some of the 15W Scanspeaks. They can be useful in smaller (0.3cubic feet) enclosures, plus are smaller (5.5" vs. 7") so can be used in a narrower cabinet such as the Dayton MTM-075 series.
I love the Scanspeaks, especially for their unbelievable output at low frequencies vs. size. I've never heard the Seas woofers though. Or at least can't remember them.
Best,
Erik
I love the Scanspeaks, especially for their unbelievable output at low frequencies vs. size. I've never heard the Seas woofers though. Or at least can't remember them.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
If used correctly the SEAS magnesium excel drivers sound sublime and also have excellent bass output for their size.
I have only used the W15CY001, but really they are all the same, just with more demanding requirements the larger you go.
To make the most of them you absolutely have to cross over low enough so that the third order distortion peak, due to cone resonance distortion amplification, is put to rest. With the W15 this requires a lower than 2k xover point and a steep filter.
With the W18 it's even lower. It's breakup is at 5kHz. Really I'd want to cross it at around 1.2kHz with a steep filter. As expected this would require a very robust tweeter. I'd guess that the DXT tweeter from SEAS could do it, in fact I have done a design crossed this low, the caveat is that the design is never played particularly loud so that relaxes the demands placed on the tweeter somewhat.
Another option would be the D2905/9700 theoretically, according to these measurements...
??-????????
The 9700 could be crossed over at 1.2kHz with a steep xover and you'd be fine. The other option would be to whack the 9700 into a waveguide, giving it even more capability down low and again, cross at around 1.2kHz.
I have only used the W15CY001, but really they are all the same, just with more demanding requirements the larger you go.
To make the most of them you absolutely have to cross over low enough so that the third order distortion peak, due to cone resonance distortion amplification, is put to rest. With the W15 this requires a lower than 2k xover point and a steep filter.
With the W18 it's even lower. It's breakup is at 5kHz. Really I'd want to cross it at around 1.2kHz with a steep filter. As expected this would require a very robust tweeter. I'd guess that the DXT tweeter from SEAS could do it, in fact I have done a design crossed this low, the caveat is that the design is never played particularly loud so that relaxes the demands placed on the tweeter somewhat.
Another option would be the D2905/9700 theoretically, according to these measurements...
??-????????
The 9700 could be crossed over at 1.2kHz with a steep xover and you'd be fine. The other option would be to whack the 9700 into a waveguide, giving it even more capability down low and again, cross at around 1.2kHz.
Hi 5th element,
always very helpful! Is this steep enough?
Decision made, Seas W18! Not sure about the tweeter... I read some conflicting comments about the DXT, which would be great about dispersion as a center channel, but the diffraction used to get it, may create some strange time domain bahaviour.
Diffraction Waveguide (DXT) Impulse | Audio Forums
There could be other very good tweeters over there, but there's abundance of measurements and comments indicating the SS 2905 9700 as a safe, high level choice, not ultra expensive.
Linkwitz also measured a very good time domain behaviour in comparison with a SS metal dome and a Seas one.
always very helpful! Is this steep enough?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Decision made, Seas W18! Not sure about the tweeter... I read some conflicting comments about the DXT, which would be great about dispersion as a center channel, but the diffraction used to get it, may create some strange time domain bahaviour.
Diffraction Waveguide (DXT) Impulse | Audio Forums
There could be other very good tweeters over there, but there's abundance of measurements and comments indicating the SS 2905 9700 as a safe, high level choice, not ultra expensive.
Linkwitz also measured a very good time domain behaviour in comparison with a SS metal dome and a Seas one.
Yes Bill, exactly! It has a new motor and new suspension, it's not in the class of the neo-underhung motors, but it has outstanding clarity and definition in mid-bass and midrange up to 1 khz.
Also consider that in my setup the equalization implies high excursions, but the midrange doesn't seem to suffer at all.
Since I don't like the "hissing" tweeter of the Yamaha S55 temporarily paired with the Accu, I pushed the crossover as high as possible, and I must say that at 3 khz instead of 2.8, the upper midrange becomes a bit edgy, even though my digital crossover are incredibly steep!
The reason is that the x-over is actually pretty shallow in the cross region, that's why if crossed at 3 khz, you intercept some of the nasty distortion whose peak is at 4.1 khz.
My guess is that the better Accutons, the 7" neo which cost the triple, shine especially in the 1-2.5 khz band.
Anyway the 158-8-085 can go very low (of course at moderate SPL), and sealed and EQd, is a great midwoofer for a 2-way system in small to medium rooms. Lots lots of definition without edginess
Also consider that in my setup the equalization implies high excursions, but the midrange doesn't seem to suffer at all.
Since I don't like the "hissing" tweeter of the Yamaha S55 temporarily paired with the Accu, I pushed the crossover as high as possible, and I must say that at 3 khz instead of 2.8, the upper midrange becomes a bit edgy, even though my digital crossover are incredibly steep!
The reason is that the x-over is actually pretty shallow in the cross region, that's why if crossed at 3 khz, you intercept some of the nasty distortion whose peak is at 4.1 khz.
My guess is that the better Accutons, the 7" neo which cost the triple, shine especially in the 1-2.5 khz band.
Anyway the 158-8-085 can go very low (of course at moderate SPL), and sealed and EQd, is a great midwoofer for a 2-way system in small to medium rooms. Lots lots of definition without edginess
Last edited:
And you are probably right if you are referring to models such as C173-6-191, which I never heard, but I would not be surprised if someone says that it shrills...
Rigid cones and domes require outstanding motors with extremely low HD, otherwise they shrill!
I started a little thread on PE on just this subject. http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/tech-talk-forum/1281139-accuton-s-when-cranked-up
I've never heard an Accuton being shrill. Veiled is a better word. 5th used the perfect word for my experience: "lackluster", meaning lacking brilliance.
Shame since I wanted ceramics to solve all our ills when I heard them. I was looking forward to being hooked on them. I just remembered that I heard the C158 paired with the most excellent Mundorf AMT in the MA30 kit. It was just a shoulder shrugging experience. The Scanspeak Revelator series not only sounds clearer and more revealing, and warm, it has better bass extension in similar sized cabinets, so it would be difficult for me to justify using the Accuton at the same price point.
Perhaps a better presentation would have changed my mind.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
Bill,
If you are looking at the specs from Grant Fidelity I think they were clearly cut/pasted from something else. Those specs claim 1st order and 3,450 Hz, which doesn't match up with the pictures of the crossover or the layout. Based on my memory of seeing it person, online pictures and the Mundorf docs, I believe the actual topology of the HP filter is very common 3rd order with padding resistor.
A quick simulation via XSim using the Mundorf crossover layout pic puts the electrical high pass filter at 2 to 2.5kHz with a 4 dB bump at around 3.2 kHz.
I didn't bother simulating the woofer crossover, but it seems equally mundane. Either 3rd or 4th order and the usual "stuff." I'm sure if anyone cared they could re-create the entire crossover from the part layout image in the doc. I don't have a burning need to myself.
Best,
Erik
If you are looking at the specs from Grant Fidelity I think they were clearly cut/pasted from something else. Those specs claim 1st order and 3,450 Hz, which doesn't match up with the pictures of the crossover or the layout. Based on my memory of seeing it person, online pictures and the Mundorf docs, I believe the actual topology of the HP filter is very common 3rd order with padding resistor.
A quick simulation via XSim using the Mundorf crossover layout pic puts the electrical high pass filter at 2 to 2.5kHz with a 4 dB bump at around 3.2 kHz.
I didn't bother simulating the woofer crossover, but it seems equally mundane. Either 3rd or 4th order and the usual "stuff." I'm sure if anyone cared they could re-create the entire crossover from the part layout image in the doc. I don't have a burning need to myself.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.