While the paper/carbon cone scan-speaks are fine units, they are not a good match for ribbon drivers such as the R2 Raven. They do not have the resolving mid range needed to seamlessly transition to a ribbon. You would achieve much better results mating that Raven with a Focal V, K or W cone, Eton or Seas magnesium cone. The SEAS will require a rather complex correction circuit to tame the significant breakup modes though.
-Chris
-Chris
What the?
"the scanspeaks don't have resolving midrange" - I guess that's why Wilson Audio Watts use them.
I understand it is hard to match to ribbons but this is normally due to very different off-axis repsonse characteristics ribbon vs. cone.
I would recommend using a small diameter driver to match with a ribbon, brand is not as important.
"the scanspeaks don't have resolving midrange" - I guess that's why Wilson Audio Watts use them.
I understand it is hard to match to ribbons but this is normally due to very different off-axis repsonse characteristics ribbon vs. cone.
I would recommend using a small diameter driver to match with a ribbon, brand is not as important.
Not wanting to get in an argument, but poly(propylene) is synthetic.
Now then, that might be why i specifically quoted "stiff synthetic". I should have also specified metals, such as magnesium, aluminum, etc. However, I personally tend to stray from cones requiring such extensive corrective filters to curb the severe resonances/breakup.
Not wanting to get in an argument
Same here. I apolagize if I seem abrasive.
Do you reckon paper is not as good as synthetic?
IME, that is true. I have yet to come across a paper/paper composite midbass that is satisfactory to me. However, for reference it should be known that i typically design speaker systems to have a relatively high fc transition of midbass to tweeter(3.5khz and greater), an extended range where paper and poly also have no ability to provide suitable power response. Only very stiff synthetic cone designs(and very few of those at that) are able to be used satisfactorily, AND also have suitable internal damping to prevent the use of corrective circuits. If you can , however point out to me a 5.25" or larger paper midbass with excellent power response around 4khz, and a relatively clean spectral decay, I'll consider testing it for myself.
-Chris
Now then, that might be why i specifically quoted "stiff synthetic". I should have also specified metals, such as magnesium, aluminum, etc. However, I personally tend to stray from cones requiring such extensive corrective filters to curb the severe resonances/breakup.
Not wanting to get in an argument
Same here. I apolagize if I seem abrasive.
Do you reckon paper is not as good as synthetic?
IME, that is true. I have yet to come across a paper/paper composite midbass that is satisfactory to me. However, for reference it should be known that i typically design speaker systems to have a relatively high fc transition of midbass to tweeter(3.5khz and greater), an extended range where paper and poly also have no ability to provide suitable power response. Only very stiff synthetic cone designs(and very few of those at that) are able to be used satisfactorily, AND also have suitable internal damping to prevent the use of corrective circuits. If you can , however point out to me a 5.25" or larger paper midbass with excellent power response around 4khz, and a relatively clean spectral decay, I'll consider testing it for myself.
-Chris
Vifa look good
I've used the cheap Vifa C13wg (5" paper) with a ribbon.
Woofer rolled out with only a single inductor at 5k - worked really well.
A lot of the smaller Vifa's have good response on axis up to 5k.
I think some paper drivers are quite a good match for ribbons, I agree that poly's aren't, due to their higher mass/damping & generaly low Qms.
I think Qms is a good indicator of sound characteristic, & interesting that it can be either high or low depending not only on material but also other factors such as surround material & termination.
For example check out Audax, they make a lot of similar drivers with various materials like paper/carbon fibre/kevlar, all different materials & all different specs, there is no real correlation between material & a certain spec.
I've used the cheap Vifa C13wg (5" paper) with a ribbon.
Woofer rolled out with only a single inductor at 5k - worked really well.
A lot of the smaller Vifa's have good response on axis up to 5k.
I think some paper drivers are quite a good match for ribbons, I agree that poly's aren't, due to their higher mass/damping & generaly low Qms.
I think Qms is a good indicator of sound characteristic, & interesting that it can be either high or low depending not only on material but also other factors such as surround material & termination.
For example check out Audax, they make a lot of similar drivers with various materials like paper/carbon fibre/kevlar, all different materials & all different specs, there is no real correlation between material & a certain spec.
"A lot of the smaller Vifa's have good response on axis up to 5k."
Surely you jest. I agree; ALOT of smaller woofers have 'good' response on axis up to 5k. Hey, did you forget one 'little' detail? Off axis response is not normally usable on these drivers, the high degree of beaming makes the woofer unusable. If you do use it in that range, the result? Poor imaging. Your paper vifa is no exception. And the paper having the same resolution as say a focal? Yeah, sure. The spectral decay characteristics of almost all paper cones is cleary inferior, and in the frequency range you specify, i know not of a single 5" or larger example with acceptable behaviour for serious audiophile applications. Not only do the 'super' stiff cones provide pistonic behaviour at higher frequencies, they also exhibit typically narrow bands of resoances problems, rather than the typical broad spectracl decay problems of 'not-so-stiff' cones. But, some regarded people have specifically stated that they prefer the warm, romanitic sound of a paper cone, rather than the 'analytical' sound of super stiffs. A personal preference.
Maybe you also prefer the 'romantic' sound of paper. If so, enjoy.
-Chris
Surely you jest. I agree; ALOT of smaller woofers have 'good' response on axis up to 5k. Hey, did you forget one 'little' detail? Off axis response is not normally usable on these drivers, the high degree of beaming makes the woofer unusable. If you do use it in that range, the result? Poor imaging. Your paper vifa is no exception. And the paper having the same resolution as say a focal? Yeah, sure. The spectral decay characteristics of almost all paper cones is cleary inferior, and in the frequency range you specify, i know not of a single 5" or larger example with acceptable behaviour for serious audiophile applications. Not only do the 'super' stiff cones provide pistonic behaviour at higher frequencies, they also exhibit typically narrow bands of resoances problems, rather than the typical broad spectracl decay problems of 'not-so-stiff' cones. But, some regarded people have specifically stated that they prefer the warm, romanitic sound of a paper cone, rather than the 'analytical' sound of super stiffs. A personal preference.
Maybe you also prefer the 'romantic' sound of paper. If so, enjoy.
-Chris
Off axis not usable?
How so? As I said I've used the 5" Vifa & also a 4.5" with great results up to 5k. "High degree of beaming" - what the? I don't think beaming is an issue with smaller drivers, regardless of cone material.
"Poor imaging" - what the? Surely you jest! Haven't you heard of the Audio Physic Virgo.
I agree with the rest, paper cones do have a broader range of breakup & inferior waterfall plots compared to stiffer cones.
Hence stiffer cones do sound cleaner & more detailed, & yes I do prefer the romantic sound of paper cones.
Call it 'musicality' vs. 'monitor'.
Enjoy.
How so? As I said I've used the 5" Vifa & also a 4.5" with great results up to 5k. "High degree of beaming" - what the? I don't think beaming is an issue with smaller drivers, regardless of cone material.
"Poor imaging" - what the? Surely you jest! Haven't you heard of the Audio Physic Virgo.
I agree with the rest, paper cones do have a broader range of breakup & inferior waterfall plots compared to stiffer cones.
Hence stiffer cones do sound cleaner & more detailed, & yes I do prefer the romantic sound of paper cones.
Call it 'musicality' vs. 'monitor'.
Enjoy.
"I don't think beaming is an issue with smaller drivers, regardless of cone material. "
Beaming is a problem with any size driver, relative to an upper frequency pistonic behaviour limit of that driver, considering off axis variation.
I would NEVER consider using any driver mid/midwoofer if, at intented fc it demonstrated more than a 3db(preferably less) variation relative to 0 degrees axis, and 30 degrees. In such instance that you exceed this variation, imaging is damaged as the mid and tweeter will not integrate well off axis. The reflections off of boundaries are importenat for proper soundstaging. With a band that is inconsistent, sounds in that band will not image the same as the bordering bands.
I found no response charts of the 5" paper woofer you reference, however i know of no 5" midwoofer that complies to my 'preference' if you will in order to integrate, much less a paper unit. I have tried a couple of 5.25/5" units(focal 5k4211 and 5k3211b)with a limit a touch over 4khz(and that is a rare upper limit), with mininimal off axis variation. Those are stiff synthetics, and they could not even provide satisfactory off axis response up to 5khz for ME.
Have a nice day.
-Chris
Beaming is a problem with any size driver, relative to an upper frequency pistonic behaviour limit of that driver, considering off axis variation.
I would NEVER consider using any driver mid/midwoofer if, at intented fc it demonstrated more than a 3db(preferably less) variation relative to 0 degrees axis, and 30 degrees. In such instance that you exceed this variation, imaging is damaged as the mid and tweeter will not integrate well off axis. The reflections off of boundaries are importenat for proper soundstaging. With a band that is inconsistent, sounds in that band will not image the same as the bordering bands.
I found no response charts of the 5" paper woofer you reference, however i know of no 5" midwoofer that complies to my 'preference' if you will in order to integrate, much less a paper unit. I have tried a couple of 5.25/5" units(focal 5k4211 and 5k3211b)with a limit a touch over 4khz(and that is a rare upper limit), with mininimal off axis variation. Those are stiff synthetics, and they could not even provide satisfactory off axis response up to 5khz for ME.
Have a nice day.
-Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.