Scan-Speak 18W/4531G0 - 4 Ohm, 90 dB
18w4531g0
18w4531g0
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
yes, as is pointing cotdt, using an 8" driver for a midrange, 2khz is a little high, especially if you don't take care of power response.
+ I don't know the raal ribbons but zaph pointed out in his article on ribbons that 2 khz is a little low for most ribbon's crossover. I remember some people knew them around here, maybe ScottG ...
all in all, wanting bass sealed to 20hz + ribbon tweeter, a 4 way seems more appropriate to me. If you were using some sort of waveguide on your ribbon, or some dome tweeters like the seas, using an 8" mid would be less of a problem of course.
It doesn't mean that it can't be done, it just means that it will be difficult to achieve.
I would aim towards 8" poly or paper, as at 2khz you are already in the range of breakup for many 8" cones, you prefer to have the soft breakup. No alu, magnesium and such then.
Or i would use a good 6" that is doing 100 hz sealed, there are plenty of them. The Peerless V-line XG18 is doing fine, and is having very good distortions figures. You may have a little distortion around 150 hz due to the LAB12. I would say that in this driver class, a dayton aluminium sub would be better quality.
+ I don't know the raal ribbons but zaph pointed out in his article on ribbons that 2 khz is a little low for most ribbon's crossover. I remember some people knew them around here, maybe ScottG ...
all in all, wanting bass sealed to 20hz + ribbon tweeter, a 4 way seems more appropriate to me. If you were using some sort of waveguide on your ribbon, or some dome tweeters like the seas, using an 8" mid would be less of a problem of course.
It doesn't mean that it can't be done, it just means that it will be difficult to achieve.
I would aim towards 8" poly or paper, as at 2khz you are already in the range of breakup for many 8" cones, you prefer to have the soft breakup. No alu, magnesium and such then.
Or i would use a good 6" that is doing 100 hz sealed, there are plenty of them. The Peerless V-line XG18 is doing fine, and is having very good distortions figures. You may have a little distortion around 150 hz due to the LAB12. I would say that in this driver class, a dayton aluminium sub would be better quality.
Nemophyle said:
Not for this ones.
RAAL
140-15D lowest at 1.6 kHz, and 70-10 lowest at 2 kHz.
Big ribbon units. 140-15D have Sd of 21 cm2. There is meauserments at the site, too.
I listen many of different (before) versions of this units. And it sounds fantastic. Its another world from dinamic calote tweeter. More dinamics, details, more air....
I'm looking at the 140-15D which can cross at 1.6KHz 4th order. I said 2Khz just to make sure.
I think a 6" would do well, but the SPL at 100Hz is a bit limited in a closed box. 8" should be okay with beaming I think, probably starts to kick in around just over 2KHz.
Why do you think a smaller woofer is a better midrange? Larger woofers (as long as beaming isn't a problem) will have lower IMD, be more dynamic and faster (they don't have to move as far). Surely they also have lowered other distortions because it won't stress them as much. Is this not the case?
Ahh well... that Dayton woofer does look rather nice. Smooth response up to about 400Hz AND equal SPL capabilities to the Emience Lab12. Are these specs believable? How high could it be used in real life?
If it can cross around 200Hz then I would be happy with one of the smaller drivers, probably the Accuton as I have heard those and was very impressed.
I think a 6" would do well, but the SPL at 100Hz is a bit limited in a closed box. 8" should be okay with beaming I think, probably starts to kick in around just over 2KHz.
Why do you think a smaller woofer is a better midrange? Larger woofers (as long as beaming isn't a problem) will have lower IMD, be more dynamic and faster (they don't have to move as far). Surely they also have lowered other distortions because it won't stress them as much. Is this not the case?
Ahh well... that Dayton woofer does look rather nice. Smooth response up to about 400Hz AND equal SPL capabilities to the Emience Lab12. Are these specs believable? How high could it be used in real life?
If it can cross around 200Hz then I would be happy with one of the smaller drivers, probably the Accuton as I have heard those and was very impressed.
Everyone here is recommending a 5-6" due to personal experiences. Why not just try them all? It's the most surefire way to make your selection.
In my experience, it's the smaller woofers that give that "fast bass". Bigger almost always has lower nonlinear distortion than smaller, but at 100Hz the smaller ones can still do quite well and subjectively gives more punch. Most 6" woofers can go down cleanly to 70Hz and extend to 45Hz. A little bit of bass muddiness is fine and hard to notice, while the midrange quality really stands out.
Another advice is that low odd-order nonlinear distortion and low Le seems to correspond to how detailed a midrange sounds, the other measurements don't correspond very well to subjective interpretation and I would just ignore them. The Peerless Exclusives have much lower measured Le than published specs, however.
In my experience, it's the smaller woofers that give that "fast bass". Bigger almost always has lower nonlinear distortion than smaller, but at 100Hz the smaller ones can still do quite well and subjectively gives more punch. Most 6" woofers can go down cleanly to 70Hz and extend to 45Hz. A little bit of bass muddiness is fine and hard to notice, while the midrange quality really stands out.
Another advice is that low odd-order nonlinear distortion and low Le seems to correspond to how detailed a midrange sounds, the other measurements don't correspond very well to subjective interpretation and I would just ignore them. The Peerless Exclusives have much lower measured Le than published specs, however.
Tenson said:
6" by Audio Technology is more like other 7". Sd=174 cm2.
5" by Audio Technology is like 6" at others. Sd= 137 cm2.
Ideal size for 2-way and for this purpose (100Hz-2kHz) is 6H52 17 06 with Sd=174 cm2 and Mms=16.5 gr, great magnet and voice-coile, fantastic basket etc.
Scan-Speak 18W/4531G0 (4 Ohm, 89.5 dB)) or 18W/8531G0 (8 Ohm, 87.5 dB) is great unit ,too. Sd=150 cm2, Mms=17.5 gr.
Tenson said:AudioTechnology if I can afford it
Scan-speak in Madisound is 205$. Its 162 €. I dont know is it export price or with tax of 10%. 18W/4531G0 is really best buy. Best price/performance in Universe.
Audio Technology is fantastic unit, but costs more than twice as this SS.
"The Scan-speak 18W/4531G-00 is a 7” Revelator mid/woofer. It features a non-resonant cone and dust cap structure, dynamic linear suspension, SD-1 magnet system, “Grasshopper” cast chassis with maximized air flow and resonance terminating mounting system. Less resonance in all structures, lower compression and higher linearity, faster termination of excess energy and higher sound pressure capability. The 18W/4531G should have an F3 of about 65Hz sealed and 40Hz vented."
18W/4531G0
Hmm..
The problem with a larger driver is:
1. off-axis directivity (i.e. beaming) depending on the diameter of the diaphram. It would be nice here to have half an octave of non-beaming above your crossover. This can alter the sound in many different ways - particularly image position. Its best to have as horizontal omni dispersion as possible here - particularly because the tweeter will behave like this at your crossover.
This requires a driver that is smaller.. and considering baffle step loss and excursion potential you would be FAR better served with 2 small drivers (i.e. a "2.5" driver situation with a 1st order lowpass on the ".5"). The 2 drivers need not be the same. (..though they should have similar materials like a 5 inch paper driver and a 10 inch paper driver for the ".5".
2. Pistonic radiation in the passband.. (almost the same criteria as #1) Here comb filtering from non-pistonic operation creates a less tangible image - though sometimes presents subjectivly a more "transparent" (or "thin") sound.
3. Non-Linear distortion "break-up" lower in freq. - or closer to the crossover (relative to a smaller driver). Can cause tonal alteration and a more fatiguiging sound.
4. Poorer Linear decay as freq.s are higher. Causes less "transparency" and a "slower" sound.
.............................................................
Personally if it were me I'd go for the Veravox 5s as your classical "midrange" and use a good pro 10 inch driver for midbass region.
IF you want to spend less money but have similar quality then substitue the 5s for the fostex fe126e - it has a surround cavity "suck-out" around 1.8 kHz. With the right crossover however you can work with it. Its only about 1-1.5 db less eff. than the 5s in the same passband. Its linear decay isn't as good though.
Note that I have actually seen the Hobby-HiFi CSD plot of the Vervox 5s - its extraordinary and the eff. is slightly over 95db 1/watt 1-meter between 550 Hz and 7kHz. (..and no I don't have the graph.. sorry). I don't think you will get a more efficient driver than that with that small a driver. Also considering the pound vs. dollar the 5s is not that expensive and should still allow for some decent ".5" pro drivers.
The problem with a larger driver is:
1. off-axis directivity (i.e. beaming) depending on the diameter of the diaphram. It would be nice here to have half an octave of non-beaming above your crossover. This can alter the sound in many different ways - particularly image position. Its best to have as horizontal omni dispersion as possible here - particularly because the tweeter will behave like this at your crossover.
This requires a driver that is smaller.. and considering baffle step loss and excursion potential you would be FAR better served with 2 small drivers (i.e. a "2.5" driver situation with a 1st order lowpass on the ".5"). The 2 drivers need not be the same. (..though they should have similar materials like a 5 inch paper driver and a 10 inch paper driver for the ".5".
2. Pistonic radiation in the passband.. (almost the same criteria as #1) Here comb filtering from non-pistonic operation creates a less tangible image - though sometimes presents subjectivly a more "transparent" (or "thin") sound.
3. Non-Linear distortion "break-up" lower in freq. - or closer to the crossover (relative to a smaller driver). Can cause tonal alteration and a more fatiguiging sound.
4. Poorer Linear decay as freq.s are higher. Causes less "transparency" and a "slower" sound.
.............................................................
Personally if it were me I'd go for the Veravox 5s as your classical "midrange" and use a good pro 10 inch driver for midbass region.
IF you want to spend less money but have similar quality then substitue the 5s for the fostex fe126e - it has a surround cavity "suck-out" around 1.8 kHz. With the right crossover however you can work with it. Its only about 1-1.5 db less eff. than the 5s in the same passband. Its linear decay isn't as good though.
Note that I have actually seen the Hobby-HiFi CSD plot of the Vervox 5s - its extraordinary and the eff. is slightly over 95db 1/watt 1-meter between 550 Hz and 7kHz. (..and no I don't have the graph.. sorry). I don't think you will get a more efficient driver than that with that small a driver. Also considering the pound vs. dollar the 5s is not that expensive and should still allow for some decent ".5" pro drivers.
Scott, what sort of music do you listen to? I can't help but think it must be quite different to me.
I can't find a lot on the Veravox but I'm not really bothered by efficiency as I said before. I will have 500watts RMS for the midrange lol! It just needs to sound good. I know efficiency is important to good sound but it is not the be all and end all.
The linear decay plots don’t seem to be available for a lot of drivers.
Again, anybody got experience with the Dayton RSS315HF? How high can it be used?
I can't find a lot on the Veravox but I'm not really bothered by efficiency as I said before. I will have 500watts RMS for the midrange lol! It just needs to sound good. I know efficiency is important to good sound but it is not the be all and end all.
The linear decay plots don’t seem to be available for a lot of drivers.
Again, anybody got experience with the Dayton RSS315HF? How high can it be used?
Tenson said:
Just a suggestion - have a look at this 12"
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
and the FR:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
More details to be found here: Visaton TIW 300
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.