Oceanic30 wrote:
Moreover, fast, fat and wooly bass do not exist: bass is...only bass (damped or not, so tight or not, haha
Cone material has nothing to do with tight or fat or wooly bass. The only issue is pistonic motion on a given frequencies range and therefore distortion/break-up modes.
Moreover, fast, fat and wooly bass do not exist: bass is...only bass (damped or not, so tight or not, haha
Brett said:
Bingo, we have a winner! I am going to use 2225H ( may recone to 2235H) 2123H, and 2425H on 2344A......I have heard great thing about the BMS, and I may just have to buy a couple to fool with. Other speakers ARE like toys once you've heard drivers like these properly used. By the by, what crossovers are you using?
Russellc
crazyhub said:Oceanic30 wrote: Cone material has nothing to do with tight or fat or wooly bass. The only issue is pistonic motion on a given frequencies range and therefore distortion/break-up modes.
Moreover, fast, fat and wooly bass do not exist: bass is...only bass (damped or not, so tight or not, haha
Of course the bass is not fat!
I was thinking to the transient response and the timing with the other drivers. With large orchestral material I don't know if that 15'' AT would match a 10'' alu ScanSpeak in transient response and timing, I think the alu cone may be faster then the poly one even if both have a pistonic movement for a given frequencies range.
I'm not using these exact drivers, but I've heard similar systems with modern design details that take the old JBL designs and kill them in performance.Russellc said:
Personally, I'd stay with the 2225/6 and then use a dedicated sub. I'm also not a fan of the babybutt flares, with the DDS and 18Sound 1086 looking like far superior designs to me (built a lot of horns). Don't want to sound unneccessarily critical or dismissive, just expressing my personal preferences. I do know it'll sound better than about anything else out there. Philes that hear well designed and interated Pro based designs are usually floored with their ease, unless they actually like constipated audio. However, I find most are too biassed and think that Pro components mean it'll sound like a PA.
I'm going to be using Beyma 15G40's (because I have them) in an SBB4 cab, with the 2123 at 300Hz and the 4552 or maybe 18Sound ND1030 on the XT1086. These are going to be my rears and will be active with opa2134 based LR24 xovers, 3886 Gainclones for the MF/HF and a UCD180 for the Beymas.
This thread outlined my thinking a couple of weeks ago, but there's been a lot of developments since, which I'll post later when I have something substantive.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106059
You've probably seen it before, but I just love this: I'd do it differently, but the excess is perfect.
Attachments
oceanic30 wrote:
Transient response and timing has to do with the acoustic loading and the x-over, NOT with the cone material. If it is exact that alu has a greater inner sound velocity than softer materials like poly, all the frequencies from both drivers will propagate with exactly the same speed in the air (342m/s). The 15"AT can match a 10" alu cone if you chose the right x-over point and slope: type of acoustic loading (transient/dampening and therefore group-delay), directivity, distortion and efficiency are the key words.
crazyhub said:oceanic30 wrote: Transient response and timing has to do with the acoustic loading and the x-over, NOT with the cone material. If it is exact that alu has a greater inner sound velocity than softer materials like poly, all the frequencies from both drivers will propagate with exactly the same speed in the air (342m/s). The 15"AT can match a 10" alu cone if you chose the right x-over point and slope: type of acoustic loading (transient/dampening and therefore group-delay), directivity, distortion and efficiency are the key words.
Ok, I don't want to start a discussion about which woofer beats that woofer.
Being curios about that AT, I've run a simulation in BassBox 6 Pro for the 15'' model listed on the AT site and a SS 26W/4867T00 alu cone. I prefer sealed boxes. Recommended by the software:
AT 15'' - 52.51 l box, F3 = 73.47 Hz (a bit (un)low for a 15'' woofer)
SS 10'' - 21.42 l box, F3 = 56.93Hz
Did you see the mass and the maximum excursion of this 15'' AT? 127 g & 46 mm, while the SS has 51 g & 14 mm; I really think the lighter, smaller excursion SS it's faster and more precise then that soft and flexible poly cone, not to mention that this 10'' gives better bass then the 15'' AT. Looks like Zaph is right when he says that woofers with small excursion sound better then those with a bigger one.
That poly cone can't match the speed and precision of the SS alu cone, it doesn't have the stiffness and lightness of the alu cone, even if the AT motors are stronger than those on the SS.Also, I think that transient response and timing HAS also to do with the cone material since the physical properties of the respective material influence the way a cone moves and, accordingly, its transient response and timing.
oceanic30,
Heavier mass does only lowering efficiency, not the band-pass extension (except in the bass range by lowering fs); heavier mass doesn't affect transients or what you name "speed". "Speed" simply doesn't exist in a physical point of view about sound. A listening impression of "speed" comes from uppermid and high frequencies which are reproduced with the proper intensity. To get intensity and low directivity at high frequencies, you first need a small cone area. That's why a 15" needs to be crossed lower than a 10" and this is all about. But with both you need a middriver...
A stiffer cone generally has reduced distortions in a given band-pass...and high Q break-up modes...that's all about, nothing to do with "speed" or transients. However I love the accuton stiffness for example, I guess the very high inner sound velocity allows reduced storage energy but they are also very well designed and builded (like the SS and AT) But you can also find floppy cones which have low storage energy, simply check Zaph's site...
High or small excursions: the only issue is the linear displacement of the VC in the magnetic field. Motor structure is responsable for that. Saying small excursion woofers sound better is very restrictive. I prefer an underhung or XBL2 +/-13mm motor than a +/- 10mm overhung type.
Sealed boxes: yes, me too I love them because of their unbeatable group delay. I tend to prefer Qtc 0.577 to 0.50.
Heavier mass does only lowering efficiency, not the band-pass extension (except in the bass range by lowering fs); heavier mass doesn't affect transients or what you name "speed". "Speed" simply doesn't exist in a physical point of view about sound. A listening impression of "speed" comes from uppermid and high frequencies which are reproduced with the proper intensity. To get intensity and low directivity at high frequencies, you first need a small cone area. That's why a 15" needs to be crossed lower than a 10" and this is all about. But with both you need a middriver...
A stiffer cone generally has reduced distortions in a given band-pass...and high Q break-up modes...that's all about, nothing to do with "speed" or transients. However I love the accuton stiffness for example, I guess the very high inner sound velocity allows reduced storage energy but they are also very well designed and builded (like the SS and AT)
But you can also find floppy cones which have low storage energy, simply check Zaph's site...High or small excursions: the only issue is the linear displacement of the VC in the magnetic field. Motor structure is responsable for that. Saying small excursion woofers sound better is very restrictive. I prefer an underhung or XBL2 +/-13mm motor than a +/- 10mm overhung type.
Sealed boxes: yes, me too I love them because of their unbeatable group delay. I tend to prefer Qtc 0.577 to 0.50.
Re: Whats your pick for drivers in an ultimate 3way (for music)?
If you're going with the C44, then I'd be more likely to push for the C92-6 as your bass speaker (in a sealed 28 litre enclosure) and the C12 tweeter.
Some other midranges you might consider also are Ciare 10.64, Celestion TF1020, ATC SM75-150S (measurements by ralphs99) and Audio Technology 4 H 52 06 13
m0tion said:
If you're going with the C44, then I'd be more likely to push for the C92-6 as your bass speaker (in a sealed 28 litre enclosure) and the C12 tweeter.
Some other midranges you might consider also are Ciare 10.64, Celestion TF1020, ATC SM75-150S (measurements by ralphs99) and Audio Technology 4 H 52 06 13
Cloth Ears:
I'm curious, why is it that you never see speakers with just one Accuton driver. Usually speakers that have Accuton drivers are all Accuton drivers (save Avalon w/ the occasional Eton woofer). I'm not saying I disagree with your recommendation, but why?
Interesting suggestions. I would like the mid to be smaller than the woofer though . The ATC seems great, but I think that it would require a complex crossover to equalize, maybe more trouble than it's worth? You have to be very confident in your xover skills to use that driver I think. The AT seems interesting also, I'll have to give those specs a closer look.
I'm curious, why is it that you never see speakers with just one Accuton driver. Usually speakers that have Accuton drivers are all Accuton drivers (save Avalon w/ the occasional Eton woofer). I'm not saying I disagree with your recommendation, but why?
Interesting suggestions. I would like the mid to be smaller than the woofer though
. The ATC seems great, but I think that it would require a complex crossover to equalize, maybe more trouble than it's worth? You have to be very confident in your xover skills to use that driver I think. The AT seems interesting also, I'll have to give those specs a closer look.
Re: Whats your pick for drivers in an ultimate 3way (for music)?
Interesting idea I just had. What if I kept the 4KHz and 800Hz 24dB/oct crossover points, but used two 18W/8531's. Does this cause comb filtering problems with the 800Hz crossover? What about localization and imaging problems, meaning that all the way up to 800Hz is coming from both 18W's?
m0tion said:
Interesting idea I just had. What if I kept the 4KHz and 800Hz 24dB/oct crossover points, but used two 18W/8531's. Does this cause comb filtering problems with the 800Hz crossover? What about localization and imaging problems, meaning that all the way up to 800Hz is coming from both 18W's?
A friend who had some experience (I haven't, the only pair I ever ordered got lost in the postm0tion said:Cloth Ears:
I'm curious, why is it that you never see speakers with just one Accuton driver. Usually speakers that have Accuton drivers are all Accuton drivers (save Avalon w/ the occasional Eton woofer). I'm not saying I disagree with your recommendation, but why?
Interesting suggestions. I would like the mid to be smaller than the woofer though
) was pretty derogatory about their robustness - in that he thought they broke too easily (both from physical shock and being over-driven). I'd surmise from that, that it would be better to design using the similar drivers (and thus crossover and amplification) to avoid overdriving one. Which could be likely given your choice of tweeter and woofer.Why do people get hung up on size? Is it an American thing?
I think that the people who use the ATC think that the crossover is worth the trouble. Myself, I have some 2-inch mid-domes from ITC (late 70's models) which do the job as well as the ATCs (IMO).
The AT is quite expensive also. Have you considered the C44's big brother (C79)?
Have any of you tried a JBL 2435 compression driver on one of their waveguides??? The 2435 is a BEO diaphramed 1.5" compression driver. If you go the compression driver route they are really quite nice. I have a pair on PTH1010's and the clarity and detail is really excellent.
Rob
Rob
Attachments
Brett,
I have every reason to believe your project will turn out good and I am serious when I say this. I have listened to the old JBL, etc. You have to allow me to listen to your system once completed. On the other hand, I don't believe the speakers of my current project (93dB sensitivity, 119dB SPL within linear excursion from 60Hz up) using the lowest distortion "philes" drivers would turn out to be constipated. The speakers under build consist of 2 x Dynaudio Esotar T330D (200W continuous, 1000W transient) tweeters, 4 x ScanSpeak 18W8531G00 (7"), 4 x Scanspeak 26W8861T00 (10"), and 4 x Peerless 830500 (12"). I have gone this route not because I hate pro drivers or love phile drivers, it is only a matter of convenience when getting the drivers. I have a trader's account with WEB so I can get the SS at trader prices, while getting any pro drivers for me would cost much more. I don't have the time to look for stuff from the e-bay or the used market. At the end of the day, I believe what really counts is engineering, not pro drivers or phile drivers.
For now, I think pro drivers sound good mainly because they usually have high sensitivity and high SPL capability comparing to phile speakers. They usually have a plenty of cone area and headroom with high sensitivity, which give very low non linear distortions and can be driven by tube amps. But if a "phile" speaker have the same cone area and SPL capability with similar sensitivity then I would be interested in seeing how they would sound like toys comparing to the pro drivers. I guess it would be fun to compare your speakers of reputable, high grade pro drivers to my speakers with top of the breed, low distortion phile drivers.
Regards,
Bill
I have every reason to believe your project will turn out good and I am serious when I say this. I have listened to the old JBL, etc. You have to allow me to listen to your system once completed. On the other hand, I don't believe the speakers of my current project (93dB sensitivity, 119dB SPL within linear excursion from 60Hz up) using the lowest distortion "philes" drivers would turn out to be constipated. The speakers under build consist of 2 x Dynaudio Esotar T330D (200W continuous, 1000W transient) tweeters, 4 x ScanSpeak 18W8531G00 (7"), 4 x Scanspeak 26W8861T00 (10"), and 4 x Peerless 830500 (12"). I have gone this route not because I hate pro drivers or love phile drivers, it is only a matter of convenience when getting the drivers. I have a trader's account with WEB so I can get the SS at trader prices, while getting any pro drivers for me would cost much more. I don't have the time to look for stuff from the e-bay or the used market. At the end of the day, I believe what really counts is engineering, not pro drivers or phile drivers.
For now, I think pro drivers sound good mainly because they usually have high sensitivity and high SPL capability comparing to phile speakers. They usually have a plenty of cone area and headroom with high sensitivity, which give very low non linear distortions and can be driven by tube amps. But if a "phile" speaker have the same cone area and SPL capability with similar sensitivity then I would be interested in seeing how they would sound like toys comparing to the pro drivers. I guess it would be fun to compare your speakers of reputable, high grade pro drivers to my speakers with top of the breed, low distortion phile drivers.
Regards,
Bill
The difference in "audiophile" and "pro audio" is just a matter of taste. The High efficiency route, to many, gives a larger more realistic presentation. To others, this presentation is colored, and so on. Lord knows if I could get scan speak drivers at some deep discount I would take advantage of it. As to the comparison, while I may be unaware of many of the modern "audiophile" offerings, I know of none with "similar sensitivity". That is a large part of the "High efficency" sound that I speak of that makes others with smaller drivers and lesser efficencies sound "smaller" to those who favor them. I understand that others will prefer exactly the other way. As to modern "audiophile" drivers with "similar efficiencies", I know of none, but maybe somethings have come along I am unaware of. I quite looking a long time ago after falling under the spell of horn/ high efficiency. Does Scan speak offer any drivers with similar efficiency? The Jbl pro stuff I am talking about have efficiencies from 105 db for woofers, to 110 db for mids and highs. Systems with all horns are capable of 130 db with these drivers! For a real stand off, try holding the contest outside..... not really a fair comparison, but thats precisely the difference, its all just about taste. I also own two pair off "audiophile" speakers as well....one with 89 db and another with about 92 or so. They use Focal drivers and hold their own against scan speak. And they sound great, but when you have been listening to the horn/high efficiency route, I have to "readjust" for a while when I go to another room and listen to the non high efficiency systems. At first, they indeed sound thin in comparison to the high efficiency, thus the tag
"toys". Nothing personal. The other camp likes precisely the opposite, considering the "pro sound" stuff "unrefined and colored".....just a matter of taste, thats all. At a stand off, both sides would probably walk away thinking they had prevailed!
Cheers,
Russellc
"toys". Nothing personal. The other camp likes precisely the opposite, considering the "pro sound" stuff "unrefined and colored".....just a matter of taste, thats all. At a stand off, both sides would probably walk away thinking they had prevailed!
Cheers,
Russellc
The ScanSpeak drivers have pretty low sensitivity. I use double number of drivers to add 6dB to make them 93dB/v. In this way, they won't compare to the pro drivers because other draw backs, such as MT vs MTM. The demands for power from amplifiers will be greater, which make the whole system more expensive. These are the things phile drivers can't compare to the pro drivers.
But pro drivers may not necessarily have the smooth response of the best of the phile drivers.
I agree that they may reflect different tastes. It would still be fun to compare the two.
But pro drivers may not necessarily have the smooth response of the best of the phile drivers.
I agree that they may reflect different tastes. It would still be fun to compare the two.
I have a mate that just got a pair of these drivers and is waiting for some flares to be turned up. I beleive he's going trax because he couldn't get the one's you have.Robh3606 said:Have any of you tried a JBL 2435 compression driver on one of their waveguides??? The 2435 is a BEO diaphramed 1.5" compression driver. If you go the compression driver route they are really quite nice. I have a pair on PTH1010's and the clarity and detail is really excellent.
Rob
crazyhub said:oceanic30,
.... heavier mass doesn't affect transients or what you name "speed". "Speed" simply doesn't exist in a physical point of view about sound.
A stiffer cone generally has reduced distortions in a given band-pass...and high Q break-up modes...that's all about, nothing to do with "speed" or transients.
I was talking about the speed of the woofer diaphragm not the speed of the sound, that is, the responsiveness (not efficiency) of the woofer diaphragm to the signals it receives and the precision with which it can follow those signals. So, the sound radiated from these two woofers will have the same speed to the listener, but the way the diaphragm reacts to the signals will be different, which may translate in a perceived floppiness from the AT driver.
At what frequency would you cross this AT?
If you were in the market for a large woofer and money was not an issue would this 15'' AT driver be one of your top choices?
Well Supravox, phy-hp, even Fertin may be get into this category if it exists. High spl, small moving mass, big motors stuff just for home-audio.
There is out there pro stuff that measure as good as an audiophile driver while mentaining the pro advatages. These are the companies designing drivers with a certain "sound" as an objective, not only for power-handling, low fs, high-excursion, cheap prices or whatever usualy PA companies are using as guidelines. I am talking about companies like JBL, TAD, which are no longer to be considered only PA companies. They have products that are legends in the audiophile market.
Russellc said:
Yes!
I have built a system with 2226H in 140L/36 Hz, 2118J in 90x70 front horn and 2425H on 2370A horn. Digital crossover and eq from the Behringer DCX2496, passive crossover between mid and treble. Crossover frequencies 300/1,2 kHz. System eq'ed for +/2 dB flat response.
Currently, I'm building a new 3-way with 2235H, 2123H and 2425H on the 2344A. Crossovers and eq will all be electronic - analog this time.
I actually like the big soundstage from butt cheeks horn. I have also tested the DDS and MCM round waveguides (no difference between them apart from price). These horns all measure very good - the waveguides have smoother response, but in my room I somehow prefer the butt cheeks.
I also agree with you, Brett. Good systems with pro drivers - given proper crossovers and eq - does not have to sound colored or "PA-like". They will actually floor most audiophiles that are used to 6,5" woofers and dome tweeters.
Espen
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.