nice THD performance too:
Anyone know if the CeraDome Tweeter is available diy, $ etc?
http://www.acousticdev.com/cms/inde...dome-tweeter&catid=37:uncategorized&Itemid=59
The people behind it inc Dan Wiggins
Anyone know if the CeraDome Tweeter is available diy, $ etc?
http://www.acousticdev.com/cms/inde...dome-tweeter&catid=37:uncategorized&Itemid=59
The people behind it inc Dan Wiggins
This looks an awful lot like the Tang Band ceramic dome tweeter with a different magnet gap. Maybe ADi did the development work for Tang Band, or maybe they just took an existing Tang Band design and added the XBL air gap design to increase the excursion capability. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be anything special, but unless you really need the low end capability, I think you would probably come out better to get the Tang Band now rather than wait for some boutique offering for twice or three times the price.
The dome design is probably the same anyways, the Tang Band spec sheet looks very good (but they always do).
If you look at the ceradome FR graph, it looks just like the Tang Band graph (and is scaled in the same flattering way that Tang Band always uses).
Tang Band Graph
ADi Graph
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The dome design is probably the same anyways, the Tang Band spec sheet looks very good (but they always do).
If you look at the ceradome FR graph, it looks just like the Tang Band graph (and is scaled in the same flattering way that Tang Band always uses).
Tang Band Graph
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
ADi Graph
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
sreten said:Hi,
FWIW whilst the XBL magnet technology works with a standard
voice coil, the alternative of splitting the voice coil instead is
somewhat simpler and has exactly the same end effect.
AFAIK nobody "owns" the split coil concept, it is an option.
/sreten.
I'd imagine that the suspension would need to be special to allow further excursion than what is found in normal tweeters...?
Sreten is absolutely right. The XBL design uses a split magnet gap and a single coil to extend the BL curve, the same thing can be done with a single magnet gap and dual coils. The inductance and moving mass of the voice coil will be higher with the split coil winding, but not by much.
As easily replaceable as tweeter voice coils are, it would not be difficult to make your own split coil design if you have to have 100+db at 1000Hz from a tweeter. Yes the suspension will limit the ultimate usable linear xmax, but I would suspect that there is still a generous portion of linear travel left in most newer wide surround tweeters.
As far as what drivers use the split coil design, I think the late Ascendant Audio Poly 6.5 used a split coil. I'm not sure what others may use this design.
-David
As easily replaceable as tweeter voice coils are, it would not be difficult to make your own split coil design if you have to have 100+db at 1000Hz from a tweeter. Yes the suspension will limit the ultimate usable linear xmax, but I would suspect that there is still a generous portion of linear travel left in most newer wide surround tweeters.
As far as what drivers use the split coil design, I think the late Ascendant Audio Poly 6.5 used a split coil. I'm not sure what others may use this design.
-David
otto88 said:
An underhung motor would allow the shortest, lowest mass voice coil plus a large Xmax. NdFeB can build a superior underhung motor in the required small volume.
No patents on underhung motors, but no sexy marketing speak buzz word like XL^2 either. There is a market for a 95db/watt dome tweeter with about 0.2mm Xmax and FS~400Hz, but I suspect the surround material and design that can achieve this with very low distortion is still hiding.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that a tweeter cannot be crossed over at 1kHz, just that it is usually not necessary and that the standard tweeter designs are plenty capable of good output levels.
If you absolutely require that low of a crossover point, there are not many options, and it looks like the Ceradome tweeter in discussion would meet that goal.
My point earlier was that unless you need the low crossover point, an immediate and probably less expensive alternative is already available in a nearly identical ceramic dome tweeter.
Now it may seem like I don't care for the Ceradome, but that is certainly not the case as I find it very intriguing. A tweeter with that much xmax could open up some very interesting possibilities.
Consider a comparison of two identical 26mm domes:
One with 1.85mm xmax (ala Ceradome) and one with 0.5mm xmax (typical of todays tweeters)
The Ceradome tweeter would be able to output at least 108dB at 1000Hz, while the typical tweeter would be stuck down at 97dB.
I think 108dB at 1000Hz should be plenty for most applications and I would definitely feel comfortable using the Ceradome tweeter down that low.
Regards
David
If you absolutely require that low of a crossover point, there are not many options, and it looks like the Ceradome tweeter in discussion would meet that goal.
My point earlier was that unless you need the low crossover point, an immediate and probably less expensive alternative is already available in a nearly identical ceramic dome tweeter.
Now it may seem like I don't care for the Ceradome, but that is certainly not the case as I find it very intriguing. A tweeter with that much xmax could open up some very interesting possibilities.
Consider a comparison of two identical 26mm domes:
One with 1.85mm xmax (ala Ceradome) and one with 0.5mm xmax (typical of todays tweeters)
The Ceradome tweeter would be able to output at least 108dB at 1000Hz, while the typical tweeter would be stuck down at 97dB.
I think 108dB at 1000Hz should be plenty for most applications and I would definitely feel comfortable using the Ceradome tweeter down that low.
Regards
David
Visaton Ceramic Dome
I heard the Visaton KE 25 SC ceramic dome tweeter in two systems a while ago.
Both used modified versions of the ScanSpeak carbon coated paper 6.5" woofer.
The treble sounded good to me - clear, detailed, no obvious resonances.
I heard in two different accompanying equipment systems, in different rooms.
I think the Cross-over to the tweeter was at 2.7kHz, using a 24dB slope, and was the -6dB Linkwitz/Riley type.
Thus it may suit similar applications to those two others you are discussing in this thread.
I heard the Visaton KE 25 SC ceramic dome tweeter in two systems a while ago.
Both used modified versions of the ScanSpeak carbon coated paper 6.5" woofer.
The treble sounded good to me - clear, detailed, no obvious resonances.
I heard in two different accompanying equipment systems, in different rooms.
I think the Cross-over to the tweeter was at 2.7kHz, using a 24dB slope, and was the -6dB Linkwitz/Riley type.
Thus it may suit similar applications to those two others you are discussing in this thread.
I think ADi has several of their drivers built at Tang Band. The Adire Extremis was built there also, I think. But I wonder how much TB is actually involved, if there is technology sharing or if they simply act as a producer. Those two tweeters (ADi and TB ceramic) are eerily similar.
I wonder if XBL^2 is such a good idea in a tweeter. The dual gaps has to be pretty small and the construction must require tighter tolerances than a regular underhung tweeter.
I wonder if XBL^2 is such a good idea in a tweeter. The dual gaps has to be pretty small and the construction must require tighter tolerances than a regular underhung tweeter.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.