I think you'll find that Scan produce different model ranges because they are a company that wishes to sell product and make a profit, which is fair enough. They need to come out with new models every so often to keep people interested and buying. The specific reference to the sales department in the Soundstage link posted above regarding these new units is a good example of the commercial realities of driver development. They're different, and thus likely interesting enough to get people buying, which is the goal. Whether they are actually superior to some of the existing units is, to a point, neither here nor there. I can't say I'm currently feeling like giving my credit card a battering for some of the reasons already mentioned, but YMMV.
Last edited:
Agree, but there is also a different technical approach in all these designs, giving different results in each case.
If we forget about price, which of all these designs/approaches is closest to technical perfection?
Btw, from their polars, it seems clear that Illuminator tweeters tend to illuminate more the room (wide dispersion), while Revelators tend to more restricted directivity.
Discovery is clearly positionned as politically correct specs and reasonnable prices...
What are your personnal ideology/credo/standard in that matter? What's your personnal taste as a listenner?
What's the ... state of the art about?
Last edited:
Naaa....
Ah, yes. What was wrong with my perception, Tschernobyl and Fukushima are unique on its own, you couldn't get that with science, it's clearly art. You are right, it seems, I've always mistaken that.
I think the Illuminator motor looks substantially better - this one looks like half-finished Focal motor to me.
I can understand their desire for a new line, a fair bit of their customer base is going to SB Acoustics..
Neither model looks that interesting to me.
The tweeter looks like it has most of its money "wrapped-up" in a machined face plate - when that driver and its rising response is begging for a larger waveguide.
The midbass has too much mms and isn't efficient enough given its 4 ohm average. The linear stroke is impressive, but frankly if I want a more efficient driver I'll give up some stroke and lower freq. to get it, and this driver doesn't strike the right "balance". In particular they seem to be using the revelator (8") pulp mixture, when it probably could have used something a bit lighter infused into the mixture. The weird gold "shine" on the back of the driver's diaphragm suggests a coating of some sort with the spider's yellow reflecting off of it. (..or maybe they reinforce the back with a thin sheet of kapton, though I think this unlikely.)
I can understand their desire for a new line, a fair bit of their customer base is going to SB Acoustics..
Neither model looks that interesting to me.
The tweeter looks like it has most of its money "wrapped-up" in a machined face plate - when that driver and its rising response is begging for a larger waveguide.
The midbass has too much mms and isn't efficient enough given its 4 ohm average. The linear stroke is impressive, but frankly if I want a more efficient driver I'll give up some stroke and lower freq. to get it, and this driver doesn't strike the right "balance". In particular they seem to be using the revelator (8") pulp mixture, when it probably could have used something a bit lighter infused into the mixture. The weird gold "shine" on the back of the driver's diaphragm suggests a coating of some sort with the spider's yellow reflecting off of it. (..or maybe they reinforce the back with a thin sheet of kapton, though I think this unlikely.)
All this talk would be different if manufacturers would decide to give proper measurements in their datasheets - distortion, waterfall, frequency response (on and off axis), high resolution impedance and klippel measurements.
Maybe providing just TS parameters was good enough in last century. Not in this one i'm afraid.
Maybe providing just TS parameters was good enough in last century. Not in this one i'm afraid.
Ha!
Me no idea, me completely out of the box lately, total dipolar disorder...
@Zvu: I could not agree more. It is time for standarized measurements and data. I i.e. hate so much how 'generous' most manufacturers are with the excursion values. Most of the time the only chance to get really comparable values is to calculate it yourself via winding height and pole plate dimensions.
@scottjoplin: Yes, you can. Ofcourse not everything is applicable in a real-world box though but that's already the case with the little date we've got so far.
Most of the time the only chance to get really comparable values is to calculate it yourself via winding height and pole plate dimensions. @scottjoplin: Yes, you can. Ofcourse not everything is applicable in a real-world box though but that's already the case with the little date we've got so far.
Ha!
It has its purpose. If it is resonance free out of the box, then any measured resonance when in cabinet is cabinet induced resonance, and you know what to do and where to do it.
No point of measuring the waterfall in cabinet without having midwoofer measured out of the cabinet.
Last edited:
-which would be great, but I can't think of anyone that does that.
I like raw impulse responses as well, and high res. polar plots.
I'm quite shure that bashing few new products in threads like this because of not knowing if it is any good or is it ugly for a reason, will eventually lead to "Guys, we better do it or the sales won't go as good in first couple of years as we hopped it would."
It is ridiculously foolish if they allow themselves to rely on few rich individuals that are interested in this hobby so much to buy their new drivers (with healthy amount of risk that the drivers are really bad, since they started as a joke), measure them and post results for others to see. Not to mention that the guys measuring it can have a bad measuring system and thus screw up the measurements.