I haven't listened to them actually 
but in the Hobby Hifi Magazine they said that Excel M15CH001 performed better than this list of drivers:
Audax PR170Z0
Audax PR170M0
Focal 6WM
Focal 7k6411
Scan-Speak 12M 4631G00
Scan-Speak 15m 4531k00
Beyma 605 ND
Visaton TI 100 M
& four cheaper Visaton drivers
Also Sherwin noticed that the Excel M15CH001 had almost the same qualities with the Accuton C^2 79.
BTW it is very intresting that the Sonus Faber Stradivari uses the C-Quenze 15H with the Scan-speak ring-radiator and some modified (?) Seas 10". While the TAF Oss Royal Excalibur uses the M15CH001 with the Scan-speak ring-radiator, with a Excel Paper 8" and a 10" woofer.
Here there are some intresting links:
http://www.taf-oss.nl/indexuk.htm (TAF Oss Site)
www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/Sherwin.htm (Sherwin's loudspeakers)
here is the TAF Oss Royal Excalibur picture:
but in the Hobby Hifi Magazine they said that Excel M15CH001 performed better than this list of drivers:Audax PR170Z0
Audax PR170M0
Focal 6WM
Focal 7k6411
Scan-Speak 12M 4631G00
Scan-Speak 15m 4531k00
Beyma 605 ND
Visaton TI 100 M
& four cheaper Visaton drivers
Also Sherwin noticed that the Excel M15CH001 had almost the same qualities with the Accuton C^2 79.
BTW it is very intresting that the Sonus Faber Stradivari uses the C-Quenze 15H with the Scan-speak ring-radiator and some modified (?) Seas 10". While the TAF Oss Royal Excalibur uses the M15CH001 with the Scan-speak ring-radiator, with a Excel Paper 8" and a 10" woofer.
Here there are some intresting links:
http://www.taf-oss.nl/indexuk.htm (TAF Oss Site)
www.hsi-luidsprekers.nl/Sherwin.htm (Sherwin's loudspeakers)
here is the TAF Oss Royal Excalibur picture:
Attachments
Thanks for the feedback.
The M15 rear magnet assembly design looks like there would be very little in the way of internal reflections. I plan on optimizing the rear enclosure cavity in my next design. The 15H on the other hand has a magnet assembly almost as large as the cut out making this difficult. My only concern with the M15 is the 1mm xmax.
The M15 rear magnet assembly design looks like there would be very little in the way of internal reflections. I plan on optimizing the rear enclosure cavity in my next design. The 15H on the other hand has a magnet assembly almost as large as the cut out making this difficult. My only concern with the M15 is the 1mm xmax.
I agree. Xmax could be the decision maker. I was faced with the same choice some time ago, and decided to go for the CQuenze 15H to meet my SPL requirements when using a 2nd order highpass filter at 250Hz.
So it depends on the crossover freq and slopes you have in mind, and the cost of course.
www.geocities.com/gattiweb/delta
So it depends on the crossover freq and slopes you have in mind, and the cost of course.
www.geocities.com/gattiweb/delta
Hi Slogan. You must be patient!
Progress has been a little slow and at this rate it's going to be Christmas before I'm listening to them.
Back to the topic, I often wonder how significant the rear internal reflections off the magnet are. I haven't really seen any hard data to support the interference theories, and I think it could only come into play above about 2kHz.
Progress has been a little slow and at this rate it's going to be Christmas before I'm listening to them.
Back to the topic, I often wonder how significant the rear internal reflections off the magnet are. I haven't really seen any hard data to support the interference theories, and I think it could only come into play above about 2kHz.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.