I've got a SEAS Nextel w18, their 6.5 inch driver as my midrange and 3 peerless 7 inch HDS Nomex woofers in a pair of narrow towers. I've tried the Peerless HDS tweeters and they were too dry and light sounding for my tastes. I've been using the SB Acoustics SB29 as a replacement and I like the warmer, smoother sound signature. But it's overall less transparent and measures worse than the HDS. I'm wondering if upgrading to the considerably more expensive AirCirc 6600 from ScanSpeak will give me the transparency and the sound signature I'm after.
I'm using a DEQX preamp/crossover so I'm very flexible with the crossover points, and I can use any crossover slope, up to 300db/octave, and it corrects for driver FR and also corrects for phase within each driver and across all drivers in the system.
I'm using a DEQX preamp/crossover so I'm very flexible with the crossover points, and I can use any crossover slope, up to 300db/octave, and it corrects for driver FR and also corrects for phase within each driver and across all drivers in the system.
Cutout in my speakers is too small to fit it. 104mm is my current cutout and I'd rather keep it this way. The 6600 would fit nicely, as would the Illuminator Ring Radiators, so I'm open to either of these options, but only as long as they keep a smooth, relaxed sound like the SB29 but with more resolution....
Dragging this back up for an OT post, but Tinitus, have you actually used/tested the W2-800SL? I actually have some but haven't gotten around to testing or listening to them yet. On paper they look pretty good from ~500 up, although I'm not sure how loud they'd play that low.
Warmth is largely due to the low freq. response of the driver, with respect to directivity, in conjunction with your crossover & mid driver. The greater output (particularly over a large radiation pattern), the greater the subjective sense of "warmth".
Now *detail* is somewhat freq. dependent, and among other things has to do with physical damping of the diaphragm. It also has to do with the amount of force in the gap imposed on the VC in relation to the moving mass and compliance.
For instance ALL of the *latest* fabric "ring radiator" types operate as ring radiators primarily at the low-end of the driver's usable bandwidth.. sort of like adding a weak concentric midrange driver without an electrical crossover. (..the somewhat "older" double ring versions used the inner ring + phase plug for higher freq. operation.)
The problem with this particular configuration (fabric ring) is a loss in apparent detail due to the compliance of the driver (..it's stiff and well damped). The partial "cure" for this was increasing the force in the gap.. BUT even with this, the low compliance of the ring (or rings) adds more to the initial "pulse", but does little for the decay of that pulse. The subjective result is that (all else equal) image clarity increases and dynamics increase, but spatial decay doesn't (..or does very little).
Another cure for the ring design is lowering the amount of fibrous damping in the "venting" portion of the rear chamber. This largely effects of the lower freq. end of the tweeter's operation, BUT doing so can also produce unwanted results (usually increasing both linear and non linear distortion). So there is still very much an "art" to this.
What does all this mean for the SB Acoustics SB29 vs. the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery vs. the Scan Speak AirCirc 6600?
Warmth-wise:
The SB has more output at the *functional* lower end of it's response than *any* of the others (..basically the area just below 1.6 kHz). The AirCirc comes in second in this respect, and the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery is MUCH less than the other two.
Detail:
The SB and the AirCirc both use ring radiators for lower freq. support. Both will generally have less detail with respect to decay at lower freq.s than a Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery.. BUT this is up until a point in usable bandwidth, because again - the Peerless doesn't have much usable bandwidth below 2 kHz. The AirCirc because of "multi-path" routing for the driver's venting and the use of progressive resistance along the "main line" of the dirver" - will likely have an increase in apparent detail from decay at lower freq.s when compared to the SB.. HOWEVER, because the motor is less strong, the initial response will likely be less "detailed" and less "dynamic" sounding.
Suggestion:
http://www.parts-express.com/pdf/264-870s.pdf
This driver has *less* damping for the diaphragm, AND it has a slightly larger diameter surface when compared to the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery unit (..meaning it is less well damped structurally and the surround provides less damping as freq.s go higher). Further, and similar to the SB, it's response is a bit elevated in it's functional lower freq. response.
Basically the Tangband should provide more detail with respect to decay (with good initial pulse detail), while also providing subjective warmth a bit more similar to the SB.
Now *detail* is somewhat freq. dependent, and among other things has to do with physical damping of the diaphragm. It also has to do with the amount of force in the gap imposed on the VC in relation to the moving mass and compliance.
For instance ALL of the *latest* fabric "ring radiator" types operate as ring radiators primarily at the low-end of the driver's usable bandwidth.. sort of like adding a weak concentric midrange driver without an electrical crossover. (..the somewhat "older" double ring versions used the inner ring + phase plug for higher freq. operation.)
The problem with this particular configuration (fabric ring) is a loss in apparent detail due to the compliance of the driver (..it's stiff and well damped). The partial "cure" for this was increasing the force in the gap.. BUT even with this, the low compliance of the ring (or rings) adds more to the initial "pulse", but does little for the decay of that pulse. The subjective result is that (all else equal) image clarity increases and dynamics increase, but spatial decay doesn't (..or does very little).
Another cure for the ring design is lowering the amount of fibrous damping in the "venting" portion of the rear chamber. This largely effects of the lower freq. end of the tweeter's operation, BUT doing so can also produce unwanted results (usually increasing both linear and non linear distortion). So there is still very much an "art" to this.
What does all this mean for the SB Acoustics SB29 vs. the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery vs. the Scan Speak AirCirc 6600?
Warmth-wise:
The SB has more output at the *functional* lower end of it's response than *any* of the others (..basically the area just below 1.6 kHz). The AirCirc comes in second in this respect, and the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery is MUCH less than the other two.
Detail:
The SB and the AirCirc both use ring radiators for lower freq. support. Both will generally have less detail with respect to decay at lower freq.s than a Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery.. BUT this is up until a point in usable bandwidth, because again - the Peerless doesn't have much usable bandwidth below 2 kHz. The AirCirc because of "multi-path" routing for the driver's venting and the use of progressive resistance along the "main line" of the dirver" - will likely have an increase in apparent detail from decay at lower freq.s when compared to the SB.. HOWEVER, because the motor is less strong, the initial response will likely be less "detailed" and less "dynamic" sounding.
Suggestion:
http://www.parts-express.com/pdf/264-870s.pdf
This driver has *less* damping for the diaphragm, AND it has a slightly larger diameter surface when compared to the Peerless/Scan Speak Discovery unit (..meaning it is less well damped structurally and the surround provides less damping as freq.s go higher). Further, and similar to the SB, it's response is a bit elevated in it's functional lower freq. response.
Basically the Tangband should provide more detail with respect to decay (with good initial pulse detail), while also providing subjective warmth a bit more similar to the SB.
Last edited:
Thanks everyone, especially ScottG!
I ended up getting a different tweeter entirely, based mainly on Mark K's measurements, the Dayton RS28F, which I've been crossing over to my SEAS Nextel 18W at 1khz with a 48db/octave electronic crossover, via my DEQX.
It plays loud without audible distortion, but 1khz is about as low as I'm comfortable crossing it. Anywhere between 1khz and 2khz actually sounds pretty good in my system, but I prefer the lower crossover point because my 7 inch midrange driver beams a lot less when it only plays up to 1khz. Smooth off-axis response is important to me, as is an even off-axis transfer function from mid to tweeter (I listen very frequently off-axis).
The sound of the Dayton's are exactly what I wanted - detailed but smooth, and able to cross low without distortion.
I ended up getting a different tweeter entirely, based mainly on Mark K's measurements, the Dayton RS28F, which I've been crossing over to my SEAS Nextel 18W at 1khz with a 48db/octave electronic crossover, via my DEQX.
It plays loud without audible distortion, but 1khz is about as low as I'm comfortable crossing it. Anywhere between 1khz and 2khz actually sounds pretty good in my system, but I prefer the lower crossover point because my 7 inch midrange driver beams a lot less when it only plays up to 1khz. Smooth off-axis response is important to me, as is an even off-axis transfer function from mid to tweeter (I listen very frequently off-axis).
The sound of the Dayton's are exactly what I wanted - detailed but smooth, and able to cross low without distortion.
Your welcome!
..sorry I was late to the thread.
Those Daytons are very similar to the Tangbands, if less efficient. Basically the Tangbands should have a bit more detail, but are also less likely to be as linear as the Daytons.
These are both based on the original Dynaudio Esotar, and probably improve upon it in several respects.
Your welcome!
..sorry I was late to the thread.
Those Daytons are very similar to the Tangbands, if less efficient. Basically the Tangbands should have a bit more detail, but are also less likely to be as linear as the Daytons.
These are both based on the original Dynaudio Esotar, and probably improve upon it in several respects.
Love the Esotars, where did you hear the Daytons are a clone/improvement?
If you see a 28mm fabric dome - chances are it's a "clone" (..though perhaps very loosely). I think Morel was one of the first to start doing this. More recently the Chinese have "gravitated" to this design.
The DC28F is as well.. and basically the RS28F is an improved DC28F (improvements hailing from various revisions of the RS28A).
I'm not sure who did the Esotar design.. I tend to think of Ejvind Skaaning, but I'm not sure.. Perhaps Kurt Mueller (and co.) did?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.