4" coil, lower power rating, Xmax, Bl. I see it as oldschool ecconomical bassreflex driver rather than response to B&C. Beyma ALSO works, but I wouldn´t suggest anybody to pretend that they´re "there" with leaders. It´s getting desperate now, and while the design looks new, to me it looks like someone is becoming a poor copy cat. No flame though. I would buy beyma drivers in my setup any day, if I found something interesting about it (not necessarily "best").
B&C doesn´t work the old way anymore. They rather do awesome driver, you put it in the suited (you have to note, very small!) enclosure, and then you try to find a driver that can match the maximum power output in that enclosure size. There is about none. They value SPL/box volume performance ratio, and that´s propably the way to go for PA people.
Now after I bought 21DS115 (which is awesome), I´m jealous about 18DS115.
What I find most interesting, is how they deal with materials. Especially Aluminum voice coil, adhesives and coil expansion in heat.
Here is some good reading from Bennett Prescott on what, how and why they do:
"It is very important to look at subwoofers as more than a discrete driver, since every application marries a subwoofer with a box, and the two form an integral system. Modern sub woofers are over-damped, with a Qts in the range of 0.2 - 0.4, which ends up working well with under-damped box and port designs - not to mention the atmosphere. This makes life a lot easier, actually, since given a woofer designed with this in mind you can pretty much tune the box to the woofer's Fs and get a good magnitude response. That said, apparent output in the subwoofer range is mostly a function of Qe, as more damping equates to reduced LF. Therefore, you can build a woofer with a light cone (which will give good sensitivity), and put a loose suspension on it (which will get the Fs back to the expected range), and put a weaker motor on it (which reduces Bl and improves apparent LF), and have a woofer that looks great on paper with significantly increased LF sensitivity but reduced cone control. The real tradeoff is in Vas, or how big a box the woofer needs. If you look at the JBL 2242H you reference, its Vas is almost twice our 18SW115. What we've done is put on a massive motor, a very stiff suspension, and a heavier cone. In our experience this results in better reliability and sonics, not to mention the ability to get similar performance in nearly half the box size. Certainly there are many applications where a high Vas is no big deal, but most of our customers build products that have to travel regularly by truck and so this advantage in output from a relatively small box is A Big Deal™. Look at our 21SW152, for example - significantly higher Bl (with a lower Re!) than the 18SW115, more cone area, more excursion, more power handling, while maintaining a Vas of about 7ft^3!
Many of these tradeoffs result in off-spec-sheet differences that can end up being really significant. Careful attention to Klippel data will reveal more of the magic here, all our woofers exhibit extremely low DC offset, excellent symmetry, and relatively flat Bl. The end result is a woofer that sounds better, especially when driven to rated power. Our voice coil, former, and motor cooling technologies are a big part of the jump in power levels you have observed as well, but don't think of them as spurious. We really can build woofers now that have more than twice the power handling of the best of the previous era's, while having better usable LF sensitivity, and that behave much better at max output - letting you actually utilize these hard won advantages. "
B&C doesn´t work the old way anymore. They rather do awesome driver, you put it in the suited (you have to note, very small!) enclosure, and then you try to find a driver that can match the maximum power output in that enclosure size. There is about none. They value SPL/box volume performance ratio, and that´s propably the way to go for PA people.
Now after I bought 21DS115 (which is awesome), I´m jealous about 18DS115.
What I find most interesting, is how they deal with materials. Especially Aluminum voice coil, adhesives and coil expansion in heat.
Here is some good reading from Bennett Prescott on what, how and why they do:
"It is very important to look at subwoofers as more than a discrete driver, since every application marries a subwoofer with a box, and the two form an integral system. Modern sub woofers are over-damped, with a Qts in the range of 0.2 - 0.4, which ends up working well with under-damped box and port designs - not to mention the atmosphere. This makes life a lot easier, actually, since given a woofer designed with this in mind you can pretty much tune the box to the woofer's Fs and get a good magnitude response. That said, apparent output in the subwoofer range is mostly a function of Qe, as more damping equates to reduced LF. Therefore, you can build a woofer with a light cone (which will give good sensitivity), and put a loose suspension on it (which will get the Fs back to the expected range), and put a weaker motor on it (which reduces Bl and improves apparent LF), and have a woofer that looks great on paper with significantly increased LF sensitivity but reduced cone control. The real tradeoff is in Vas, or how big a box the woofer needs. If you look at the JBL 2242H you reference, its Vas is almost twice our 18SW115. What we've done is put on a massive motor, a very stiff suspension, and a heavier cone. In our experience this results in better reliability and sonics, not to mention the ability to get similar performance in nearly half the box size. Certainly there are many applications where a high Vas is no big deal, but most of our customers build products that have to travel regularly by truck and so this advantage in output from a relatively small box is A Big Deal™. Look at our 21SW152, for example - significantly higher Bl (with a lower Re!) than the 18SW115, more cone area, more excursion, more power handling, while maintaining a Vas of about 7ft^3!
Many of these tradeoffs result in off-spec-sheet differences that can end up being really significant. Careful attention to Klippel data will reveal more of the magic here, all our woofers exhibit extremely low DC offset, excellent symmetry, and relatively flat Bl. The end result is a woofer that sounds better, especially when driven to rated power. Our voice coil, former, and motor cooling technologies are a big part of the jump in power levels you have observed as well, but don't think of them as spurious. We really can build woofers now that have more than twice the power handling of the best of the previous era's, while having better usable LF sensitivity, and that behave much better at max output - letting you actually utilize these hard won advantages. "
Last edited:
There is no copycatting taking place since both companies promote their products for different markets. The majority of B&C woofers are aimed for horn loaded cabinets hence the compatibility of having their 18” woofers in a small box. You have the option of placing a B&C 18” woofer in a small reflex box because the internal chamber of a small reflex box is the size of an internal chamber of a folded horn the woofer resides in. The majority of Beyma drivers are aimed for medium to large reflex boxes where the drivers will take advantage of a larger internal chamber extend lower without the need of heavy equalisation. Understanding your requirements steers you to a particular product.
OMNIFEX: yes, might be like that. My reaction was about the "Beyma response" made by chris661.
I don´t see how majority of B&C woofers is aimed for horn loading. Nobody suggested it officially. On each B&C woofer product page, there is rather bassreflex box suggestion, and my citation of Bennett also shows they aim for bassreflex loading, just differently.
Horn enclosures usually use significantly smaller volumes. Fractions of what bassreflex box uses.
I see where Beyma fits and that´s okay. I was just making a point about what is B&C all about. Power density. If you compare maximum output power of "ordinarily" tuned box, you might find out, that 21DS115 in 170l enclosure will put out more(maximum) than 18LEX1600Nd in 200l box, and that catches atention of many people. Especially those who don´t like to lug around with big heavy box...
1-3db to match up flat response is not what I´d call heavy EQing.
Okay, enaugh is enaugh. I promise I have no interest in B&C, am not working for them, and am not promoting it to push people buy it.
I don´t see how majority of B&C woofers is aimed for horn loading. Nobody suggested it officially. On each B&C woofer product page, there is rather bassreflex box suggestion, and my citation of Bennett also shows they aim for bassreflex loading, just differently.
Horn enclosures usually use significantly smaller volumes. Fractions of what bassreflex box uses.
I see where Beyma fits and that´s okay. I was just making a point about what is B&C all about. Power density. If you compare maximum output power of "ordinarily" tuned box, you might find out, that 21DS115 in 170l enclosure will put out more(maximum) than 18LEX1600Nd in 200l box, and that catches atention of many people. Especially those who don´t like to lug around with big heavy box...
1-3db to match up flat response is not what I´d call heavy EQing.
Okay, enaugh is enaugh. I promise I have no interest in B&C, am not working for them, and am not promoting it to push people buy it.
OMNIFEX: yes, might be like that. My reaction was about the "Beyma response" made by chris661.
I don´t see how majority of B&C woofers is aimed for horn loading. Nobody suggested it officially. On each B&C woofer product page, there is rather bassreflex box suggestion, and my citation of Bennett also shows they aim for bassreflex loading, just differently.
Horn enclosures usually use significantly smaller volumes. Fractions of what bassreflex box uses.
I see where Beyma fits and that´s okay. I was just making a point about what is B&C all about. Power density. If you compare maximum output power of "ordinarily" tuned box, you might find out, that 21DS115 in 170l enclosure will put out more(maximum) than 18LEX1600Nd in 200l box, and that catches atention of many people. Especially those who don´t like to lug around with big heavy box...
1-3db to match up flat response is not what I´d call heavy EQing.
Okay, enaugh is enaugh. I promise I have no interest in B&C, am not working for them, and am not promoting it to push people buy it.
I am familiar with B&C since 1995. In those times dealers would offer you are really low price on B&C speakers as B&C was trying to build a reputation for them selves outside of Italy. Nevertheless, from 1995 to date the bulk B&C 18” woofers were used primarily in horn loaded cabinets as they performed better in horn loaded cabinets than reflex enclosures compared to RCF, JBL and Beyma. At the same token RCF, JBL and Beyma did not offer the most ideal 18” woofer for horn loading but, JBL, RCF and Beyma performed extremely well in medium to large size reflex enclosures.
There is a difference when a manufacture or sales rep compares one of their products to one of their products and end users comparing two products each stemming from a different manufacture. The manufacture or sales rep will always be biased towards their product. The end user just wants to know which one will work best for their requirements.
B&C has had a very successful 18" sub driver in the 18SW115, and I maintain that this new Beyma driver would be a contender. Looking more closely at the T/S parameters, yes, it looks like the B&C driver would be better under the extreme loading that THs etc might provide, but since bass reflex is much more commonly used, it looks to me like Beyma has optimised their high-power sub driver towards that sort of cabinet.
Chris
OMNIFEX: On that I agree.
I also have some experience with B&C drivers (though rather from 2002 on...), and I´ve owned propably dozens of types. Most of these mid-bass and bass drivers. You name it. PZB, PLB, PL, PS, TBX, NDL, NW, now SW, DS. Many sizes and shapes. Neo or ferrite.
I had some performance issues, discussed with B&C, and I´m happy to say that with DS and SW drivers, these are all gone for good. Everything finally works 100% as indended and wanted. We have some trustworthy simulations, and even measurements as hard facts, so it´s not just talking and boasting of some biased people. It works as advertised.
They let you pay for it though, so It´s not really that easy call it better just like that.
chris661: Sure. That way it´s not really response to B&C, as these are quite different products with different aim.
I also have some experience with B&C drivers (though rather from 2002 on...), and I´ve owned propably dozens of types. Most of these mid-bass and bass drivers. You name it. PZB, PLB, PL, PS, TBX, NDL, NW, now SW, DS. Many sizes and shapes. Neo or ferrite.
I had some performance issues, discussed with B&C, and I´m happy to say that with DS and SW drivers, these are all gone for good. Everything finally works 100% as indended and wanted. We have some trustworthy simulations, and even measurements as hard facts, so it´s not just talking and boasting of some biased people. It works as advertised.
They let you pay for it though, so It´s not really that easy call it better just like that.
chris661: Sure. That way it´s not really response to B&C, as these are quite different products with different aim.
I see your point. I do wonder if a lot of people are using the B&C unit in bass reflex designs, so Beyma have decided to optimise towards that.
Just guessing, though - I don't work for either of them.
Chris
It usually depends on price in the particular country I guess. In my Country B&C is available and that for very competitive prices, and it also works very well, so it is very used brand here. Some B&C drivers are used in bassreflex bins. Especially TBX,NW, and PS versions of the drivers. Not to mention NBX. With these, Beyma can now easily compete I guess. SW and DS is still different aim and in some ways one full step ahead. It's tough to compete with larger and mightier driver, able to work in as small enclosure, as in what could the older, smaller weaker driver. I wonder if B&C stops playong that silly game of mightier and mightiest speakers though, it leads to insanity. It's exponentially more difficult to build even bigger, stronger and mightier driver. Time to use current technology and provide it down to 15", 12", or even 10" and 8" drivers. Those have the potential to have more cone area (modular, so you're able, and willing to make larger system with it), more heat dissipation area, etc... I don't see how 24" able to work in the same enclosure volume is the way.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.