The CSX stands for Composite Sandwich Cone, (Xone??), and all I know about it is that it is five layers, and that "composite" is a form of "plastic".
However, the Composite Sandwich Cone does indeed seem to do good things to the frequency response.
Below are frequency response charts for two Peerless 10 inchers. The first is from the CCC line with a poly cone, the second is from the CSX line with a Composite Sandwich Cone. The woofers were pretty much alike on most other aspects-the cone material seems to be the only difference.
The composite cone seems to extend good smooth frequency response up a full ovtave-from 800 Hz to 1,600 Hz.
Here is the poly:
And here is the Composite Sandwich Cone. See how the usable upper end is extended about an octave higher:
However, the Composite Sandwich Cone does indeed seem to do good things to the frequency response.
Below are frequency response charts for two Peerless 10 inchers. The first is from the CCC line with a poly cone, the second is from the CSX line with a Composite Sandwich Cone. The woofers were pretty much alike on most other aspects-the cone material seems to be the only difference.
The composite cone seems to extend good smooth frequency response up a full ovtave-from 800 Hz to 1,600 Hz.
Here is the poly:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
And here is the Composite Sandwich Cone. See how the usable upper end is extended about an octave higher:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
DIY Peter:
You are correct.
However at Parts Express in America, the difference in price between the two is not large-$54 for the CCC, $63 for the CSX.
The CCC came years ahead of the CSX, which is basically the CCC with the improved cone. If you want to pay a little extra for the improved cone, fine. But if you are going to cross over low, one would seem to be as good as the other.
Some people just don't like poly cones, period. They might go the slight extra money. Otherwise, at 300 Hz crossover, there would be little to choose.
Nope. Thiele Small specs are about the same. It's the same woofer except for the cone, basically.
You are correct.
However at Parts Express in America, the difference in price between the two is not large-$54 for the CCC, $63 for the CSX.
The CCC came years ahead of the CSX, which is basically the CCC with the improved cone. If you want to pay a little extra for the improved cone, fine. But if you are going to cross over low, one would seem to be as good as the other.
Some people just don't like poly cones, period. They might go the slight extra money. Otherwise, at 300 Hz crossover, there would be little to choose.
Nope. Thiele Small specs are about the same. It's the same woofer except for the cone, basically.
Ok, I hadn't checked the prices. The difference is small.
I would like to build a subwoofer using the largest of the CC range. It has a very smooth freq. responce. Maybe it looks oldfashioned and outdated, but I think it can beat many modern designs. You need a large box, but that's not really a problem for me.
Maybe the XLS range is popular because they don't need large boxes. But I think you can build a better sub with the CC. If you have room for it...
I would like to build a subwoofer using the largest of the CC range. It has a very smooth freq. responce. Maybe it looks oldfashioned and outdated, but I think it can beat many modern designs. You need a large box, but that's not really a problem for me.
Maybe the XLS range is popular because they don't need large boxes. But I think you can build a better sub with the CC. If you have room for it...
he, he, he; I was wondering when someone picked up on the csx this is the one I had been advocating for a T/L in a couple of previous posts to some strange frenchman who wanted advice and virtually for all of us to design and build a system for him/her, for which I was sent to the sin- bin for some time which affected me not at all as I went away to europe for a month
and it was a wonderfull trip.... cheers tj for my 2cents I would go for the csx with the sandwich cone and I suspect it would be as good as any of the audax hda drivers
I have used the 5.25" drivers before and the sound quality of these is outstanding though the 10" will of necesssity be in a three way so x/over around 500 Hz or below to a mid the quality of which will more than determine the resultant sound quality allied with a suitable tweeter
tomcat
and it was a wonderfull trip.... cheers tj for my 2cents I would go for the csx with the sandwich cone and I suspect it would be as good as any of the audax hda drivers I have used the 5.25" drivers before and the sound quality of these is outstanding though the 10" will of necesssity be in a three way so x/over around 500 Hz or below to a mid the quality of which will more than determine the resultant sound quality allied with a suitable tweeter tomcatThe CSX feature a shorting ring to help reduce distortion, also it has a much more impressive spider than the CC.
but neither of these drivers was designed to extend past 800Hz or so, the CSX extension is simply a result of the higher quality lower distorsion motor used. As for the cone, the sandwich is a better material and it also features an inverted dustcap not like the light grey paper one of the cc.
btw i have a CSX sub in progress with pics here
http://www.geocities.com/diymike999/peerless_10.htm
oh and here is a link of sombody who has experience with both
http://www.acc.umu.se/~sagge/audio/
but neither of these drivers was designed to extend past 800Hz or so, the CSX extension is simply a result of the higher quality lower distorsion motor used. As for the cone, the sandwich is a better material and it also features an inverted dustcap not like the light grey paper one of the cc.
btw i have a CSX sub in progress with pics here
http://www.geocities.com/diymike999/peerless_10.htm
oh and here is a link of sombody who has experience with both
http://www.acc.umu.se/~sagge/audio/
Thanx Michael, I overlooked the shorting ring side of the driver but not having examined one at close hand I wouldn't know about the spider, though I think you are wrong about 800Hz the freq response plot goes up past 1 k tho not real smooth but smoother than most this is why I plan on using it in a T/L with a 2"alu dome mid from LPG of germany and an alloy dbl chambered 1"tweet for the top end though you are right the x/over between these will be at around the 800Hz & 3 k I hope using a 1st order series network; anyhow we'll see how things pan out when the time comes; as they say it all comes out in the wash at the end, No?
cheers tomcatqwad.. your hungarian?
so am i, and we both live in adelaide, thats freaky.
gimme an email sometime and maybe we could talk about that project of yours.
michaellane999@hotmail.com
so am i, and we both live in adelaide, thats freaky.
gimme an email sometime and maybe we could talk about that project of yours.
michaellane999@hotmail.com
michael said:
The CCC line from the 180 on up had an aluminum shorting ring as well. That means the 315 has the shorting ring also. I can vouch for the shorting in the ring in the 10" CCC line, having bought one and used it. The woofer exhibited no "suck-in" at resonance when driven hard.
If you look at the Peerless data sheets, you will see AL alone in the numbers. That means it has an aluminum shorting ring. If you see a listing such as "39/AL", that means the voice coil is made of aluminum and is 39mm in diameter. But if AL appears alone in the data sheet, that means the Peerless woofer has an aluminum shorting ring.
Codes to Peerless numbers are listed here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=262737#post262737
Improvements in distortion from the older CCC line to the newer CSX line are not due to the lack of an aluminum shorting ring in the CCC line. It is there.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.