I had a sample of this highly respected tweeter. Sounded fair, but the electrical measurements were way off published, far enough that using it in a low order crossover pretty low was going to be problematic. So, I decided to dig into it. ( My original plan was 2nd at 2K) Fs was posted at 600, but measured more like 1200.
It has a fairly flimsy rear back of thin plastic. I found if I held tightly while doing the measurements, it would behave far better. Fs down to about 700. That also made me think it could be susceptible to mid-range feedback through the cabinet. I noticed my Seas, HDS and XT25's all had very heavy rear chambers. So, can I do better?
I set up a number of back chambers made of rigid material. Mostly just big holes drilled in a 2 x 4. I used hot glue to make a quick and removable seal. I had my stock of various stuffing materials handy. With no rear chamber, it had a double hump impedance like you would expect from a ported enclosure. That surprised me a little. Peaks were in the 350 and 900 range.
To make a long story only long, I wound up with a 12 CC chamber lightly filled with cotton patting. The stuffing had a small effect on the shape of the now single peak curve but it had a big effect on the Q and Rmax. Of course, the lower the Rmax, the lower the Q. End result is Fs at 654, Rmax at 9.4 and Qts at .723. Much closet to being the low crossover point champ it is held up to be.
Obvious question is how does it sound. By itself, it sounds like a tweeter. I have not designed a system to put it in yet. What did I learn? Yes, I can do better, but I don't think I would treat this unit the same way. The test I did not do was to cut a puck of half inch MDF and glue it firmly to the rear of the tweeter. That may be the best fix. I hope this is something improved in the Satori version.
I have two plans for this tweeter. The first is to combine it with their mid base for a traditional 6" two way small monitor. The second is to build a three way first order system. I have not picked the mid-range yet, but am considering a Fountek FR89 or something like that.
It has a fairly flimsy rear back of thin plastic. I found if I held tightly while doing the measurements, it would behave far better. Fs down to about 700. That also made me think it could be susceptible to mid-range feedback through the cabinet. I noticed my Seas, HDS and XT25's all had very heavy rear chambers. So, can I do better?
I set up a number of back chambers made of rigid material. Mostly just big holes drilled in a 2 x 4. I used hot glue to make a quick and removable seal. I had my stock of various stuffing materials handy. With no rear chamber, it had a double hump impedance like you would expect from a ported enclosure. That surprised me a little. Peaks were in the 350 and 900 range.
To make a long story only long, I wound up with a 12 CC chamber lightly filled with cotton patting. The stuffing had a small effect on the shape of the now single peak curve but it had a big effect on the Q and Rmax. Of course, the lower the Rmax, the lower the Q. End result is Fs at 654, Rmax at 9.4 and Qts at .723. Much closet to being the low crossover point champ it is held up to be.
Obvious question is how does it sound. By itself, it sounds like a tweeter. I have not designed a system to put it in yet. What did I learn? Yes, I can do better, but I don't think I would treat this unit the same way. The test I did not do was to cut a puck of half inch MDF and glue it firmly to the rear of the tweeter. That may be the best fix. I hope this is something improved in the Satori version.
I have two plans for this tweeter. The first is to combine it with their mid base for a traditional 6" two way small monitor. The second is to build a three way first order system. I have not picked the mid-range yet, but am considering a Fountek FR89 or something like that.