Skaaning 15H52 C-Queenze info

inertial · 30th October 2008, 11:55 AM

Hi,
I'm interested to the 15H52 C-Queenze for a lowmid filtered at 300Hz
first acoustic order.
Looking at the frequency response on the AT website, it seems to me very unregular, in short absolutely not flat. Much better the 4" Flex units IMO.
Is it really so bad?
Has someone some indipendent data measured ?
Thanks for any comments, really appreciate

Cheers,
Paolo

tktran303 · 30th October 2008, 02:55 PM

That FR looks fine and easily manageable.
As soon as you put it on baffle the low end will droop so you'll have an even higher relative rise

Are you looking for a driver where you don't have to design a low pass filter?

inertial · 30th October 2008, 03:14 PM

Respectfully I desagree.
The response of the FLEX 4 is good, the C-Queenze not, to my eyes.

I am perplex of this and I hope someone has measured one to show.

Abiut the filtering, my target is about 300 Hz first acoustic order H/P
to mate with a 12" wf. Probably a big shunted capacitor

Cheers,

Paolo

Henckel · 30th October 2008, 06:52 PM

i am using 15H52 C-queence in a three way system. Lower crossover between 100 and 500 Hz is possible and up to 4Khz upper Xover is possible. you will find the rising response easy to manage in crossover - but you need to measure in the final cabinet in order to get the right baffelsetp level and frequency.

The sound quality is very good only lacking the very fine micro detail of some of the hard cone high end alternatives - but with music - NICE !

Morten

inertial · 30th October 2008, 06:57 PM

Thanks Morten,

mine friend have measuring system, but I would like to see before a real measure 2.83v/1m to put in my simulator. Please can you post your ? I 'm very interested

Cheers,
Paolo

FrancoB · 30th October 2008, 07:04 PM

Here's mine.

This is the SDK version. Kapton former.

FrancoB · 30th October 2008, 07:36 PM

Morten,

Tell us something about your system. I can't seem to find it on your website.

Cheers,

Franco

inertial · 30th October 2008, 07:39 PM

Oh thanks FrancoB,

please what is your measurement conditions?

Paolo

FrancoB · 30th October 2008, 08:00 PM

Anechoic room, baffle width approx. 20cm. Closed box. Mic. distance 2m.

Don't pay any attention to the sensitivity. It's not correct.

inertial · 30th October 2008, 08:06 PM

anechoic room.....lucky guy FrancoB

Perfect. Now I have enough info.
Thanks again!

Paolo

P.s: maybe tktran was right, the measured response is not so bad
after all

30th October 2008, 11:55 AM	#1
inertial diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Italy	Skaaning 15H52 C-Queenze info Hi, I'm interested to the 15H52 C-Queenze for a lowmid filtered at 300Hz first acoustic order. Looking at the frequency response on the AT website, it seems to me very unregular, in short absolutely not flat. Much better the 4" Flex units IMO. Is it really so bad? Has someone some indipendent data measured ? Thanks for any comments, really appreciate Cheers, Paolo

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: Audiotechnology C-Quenze 15H52	Zedguy	Swap Meet	9	6th December 2008 06:29 PM
Skaaning AT 18H52 or 5H52?	Audist	Multi-Way	1	29th January 2007 10:22 PM
Skaaning question (again ;) )	Audist	Multi-Way	0	31st May 2005 03:39 PM
Skaaning (AudioTechnology) woofers	Audist	Multi-Way	7	10th May 2005 08:14 PM
Skaaning Flex	Oz_Audio	Multi-Way	4	22nd July 2002 07:30 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

30th October 2008, 02:55 PM	#2
tktran303 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perth, WA	That FR looks fine and easily manageable. As soon as you put it on baffle the low end will droop so you'll have an even higher relative rise Are you looking for a driver where you don't have to design a low pass filter?

30th October 2008, 03:14 PM	#3
inertial diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Italy	Respectfully I desagree. The response of the FLEX 4 is good, the C-Queenze not, to my eyes. I am perplex of this and I hope someone has measured one to show. Abiut the filtering, my target is about 300 Hz first acoustic order H/P to mate with a 12" wf. Probably a big shunted capacitor Cheers, Paolo

30th October 2008, 06:52 PM	#4
Henckel diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark	i am using 15H52 C-queence in a three way system. Lower crossover between 100 and 500 Hz is possible and up to 4Khz upper Xover is possible. you will find the rising response easy to manage in crossover - but you need to measure in the final cabinet in order to get the right baffelsetp level and frequency. The sound quality is very good only lacking the very fine micro detail of some of the hard cone high end alternatives - but with music - NICE ! Morten

30th October 2008, 06:57 PM	#5
inertial diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Italy	Thanks Morten, mine friend have measuring system, but I would like to see before a real measure 2.83v/1m to put in my simulator. Please can you post your ? I 'm very interested Cheers, Paolo

30th October 2008, 07:36 PM	#7
FrancoB diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Europe	Morten, Tell us something about your system. I can't seem to find it on your website. Cheers, Franco

30th October 2008, 07:39 PM	#8
inertial diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Italy	Oh thanks FrancoB, please what is your measurement conditions? Paolo

30th October 2008, 08:00 PM	#9
FrancoB diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Europe	Anechoic room, baffle width approx. 20cm. Closed box. Mic. distance 2m. Don't pay any attention to the sensitivity. It's not correct.

30th October 2008, 08:06 PM	#10
inertial diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Italy	anechoic room.....lucky guy FrancoB Perfect. Now I have enough info. Thanks again! Paolo P.s: maybe tktran was right, the measured response is not so bad after all

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)