I have done some searching and don't seem to come up with a whole lot of people that have used Skaaning's AT drivers.
Can anyone who does have experience with these please comment on how they rate on the overall scale of being some of the best around.
I am looking at using a midrange driver which will be in a sealed enclosure. I have used seas excel drivers in the past but would like to know how these stack up in detail and imaging qualities.
Thanks for any comments that can be made,
goskers
Can anyone who does have experience with these please comment on how they rate on the overall scale of being some of the best around.
I am looking at using a midrange driver which will be in a sealed enclosure. I have used seas excel drivers in the past but would like to know how these stack up in detail and imaging qualities.
Thanks for any comments that can be made,
goskers
You also found Lama's comment in this thread
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38411&perpage=10&pagenumber=2
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38411&perpage=10&pagenumber=2
Thanks for the link,
I believe that I read this at one point in time but not while I was looking at the AT gear. I am looking at using the c-quence 15H as a mid because that is what Per Skaaning recommended to me. He thinks the cquence is better and cheaper for this mid application because of the new cone. I think I will take this to heart and run with it as you rarely see a manufactorer recommend a cheaper model.
Any comments regarding the AT for mid only apps?
Cheers
I believe that I read this at one point in time but not while I was looking at the AT gear. I am looking at using the c-quence 15H as a mid because that is what Per Skaaning recommended to me. He thinks the cquence is better and cheaper for this mid application because of the new cone. I think I will take this to heart and run with it as you rarely see a manufactorer recommend a cheaper model.
Any comments regarding the AT for mid only apps?
Cheers
Maybe you could contact this guy, selling AT drivers: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38410&highlight=
Here is a link with a loudspeaker being built with
CQuenze 15H520613SDK along with Scanspeak 26W8861T00, Scanspeak 18W8531G00, Morel Supreme 110:
http://www.gattiweb.com/delta_construction.html
CQuenze 15H520613SDK along with Scanspeak 26W8861T00, Scanspeak 18W8531G00, Morel Supreme 110:
http://www.gattiweb.com/delta_construction.html
I've to make some remarks:
The cquenze 15H is a fine driver, the sound is very dynamic, but sometimes it seems to sound less open then the 18H. Or to put it differently the 18H sounds more laid back less compressed then the 15H. The level of microdetail is the same, but it sounds more natural with the 18H.
I've contacted Per Skaaning about this, it seems that the sound signature of the 15H is due to the high acceleration factor (which is far higher then any other conventional cone drivers).
For ppl like me who are looking for a more 'airy' and more laid back sound you have to consider (according to Per) the 15J (I've to look up the exact designation of this driver) with a smaller magnet and therefore a lower BL and a lower Rms due to the smaller physical dimensions of the magnet system. It sound resembles more on the 18H.
The cquenze 15H is a fine driver, the sound is very dynamic, but sometimes it seems to sound less open then the 18H. Or to put it differently the 18H sounds more laid back less compressed then the 15H. The level of microdetail is the same, but it sounds more natural with the 18H.
I've contacted Per Skaaning about this, it seems that the sound signature of the 15H is due to the high acceleration factor (which is far higher then any other conventional cone drivers).
For ppl like me who are looking for a more 'airy' and more laid back sound you have to consider (according to Per) the 15J (I've to look up the exact designation of this driver) with a smaller magnet and therefore a lower BL and a lower Rms due to the smaller physical dimensions of the magnet system. It sound resembles more on the 18H.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Troels Gravesen, http://home1.stofanet.dk/troels.gravesen/
went searching for a midrange driver for dipole operation from 300Hz-3Khz and along his journey tried a handful of drivers, including various 4", 5", 6/7". He tested the 18H52 1706 C-Quenze was bettered by the ScanSpeak 8545:
In turn this was beaten by the Seas Excel W18EX:
Troels later said, in another project that uses his 8545 sitting on the shelf...
went searching for a midrange driver for dipole operation from 300Hz-3Khz and along his journey tried a handful of drivers, including various 4", 5", 6/7". He tested the 18H52 1706 C-Quenze was bettered by the ScanSpeak 8545:
In turn this was beaten by the Seas Excel W18EX:
Troels later said, in another project that uses his 8545 sitting on the shelf...
goskers said:
The micro detail retrieval is not the same as mag/ceramic. But the presentation of the details is very fluid/natural. With magnesium/ ceramic the details are all there, but the sound of those details are in some cases not real. It is hard to explain, I don't have the "being there" feeling with mag/ceramic. But I am a Scan Speak/ Audiotechnology fan
.Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Sorry i don't have any comments of my own about AT. I've only heard ScanSpeak but not AT or Seas Excel (yet)
In the end perhaps it depends on intended use, as well as factors of cost and availability?
To quote someone else, in URL= http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/NaO.html ]NaO[/URL] John K used both the SS 8545 (original NaO) and W18 (NaO-AEP version) again in dipole operation. This time down to 100Hz.
This is what he had to say:
That reminded me of my own ScanSpeak based 2 ways. (ProAclone 2.95 speakers- SS 18W/8535 and D2905/9500; crossover design by Troels Gravesen).
Musical and natural. Very sweet sounding.
Yes it sound ridiculous but I can't think of another way to describe.
So that sold me- my next project is ScanSpeak again, and NaO it is!
In the end perhaps it depends on intended use, as well as factors of cost and availability?
To quote someone else, in URL= http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/NaO.html ]NaO[/URL] John K used both the SS 8545 (original NaO) and W18 (NaO-AEP version) again in dipole operation. This time down to 100Hz.
This is what he had to say:
That reminded me of my own ScanSpeak based 2 ways. (ProAclone 2.95 speakers- SS 18W/8535 and D2905/9500; crossover design by Troels Gravesen).
Musical and natural. Very sweet sounding.
Yes it sound ridiculous but I can't think of another way to describe.
So that sold me- my next project is ScanSpeak again, and NaO it is!
Good choice on the NAO tktran. This is a design which is similar to the Linkwitz Orion's. I have owned the orion's and they are fantastic.
I will be mating this mid to a 5" true ribbon so speed and accuracy will come into play here. This will be in a sealed enclosure so I am contemplating the 15x series vs the 18 which would be much better in a dipole config.
Anyone have some experience with the 15H or 15J as compared to other highend mids?
I think accuton has a couple new drivers which use a new motor. Can't find any info on a new 5"ish mid though
Cheers
I will be mating this mid to a 5" true ribbon so speed and accuracy will come into play here. This will be in a sealed enclosure so I am contemplating the 15x series vs the 18 which would be much better in a dipole config.
Anyone have some experience with the 15H or 15J as compared to other highend mids?
I think accuton has a couple new drivers which use a new motor. Can't find any info on a new 5"ish mid though
Cheers
I think at this level of driver quality personal taste comes into it as a major infuencing factor. Also the cross over used in the speakers can make a huge impact on the overall sound of a finished speaker.
We see on more then one occasion people prefering the Scanspeak drivers, on another the AT drivers and another the Seas Excels. One problem with all of this is that you simply do not know what your taste is until you hear all the drivers and their slightly different way of communicating the music.
I think what would be nice are companies that have drivers for loan. Like richer sounds has a case of interconnects you can take away with a deposit to the value of the drivers.
Id be more then happy to leave a deposit to the value of say four pairs of drivers from different stables of construction, for say a month. Thus allowing me to build four similar loudspeakers so I can choose which type of driver I prefer. Then after the audition period give the drivers back and get my money back.
This is unlikely to happen but it would be nice.
We see on more then one occasion people prefering the Scanspeak drivers, on another the AT drivers and another the Seas Excels. One problem with all of this is that you simply do not know what your taste is until you hear all the drivers and their slightly different way of communicating the music.
I think what would be nice are companies that have drivers for loan. Like richer sounds has a case of interconnects you can take away with a deposit to the value of the drivers.
Id be more then happy to leave a deposit to the value of say four pairs of drivers from different stables of construction, for say a month. Thus allowing me to build four similar loudspeakers so I can choose which type of driver I prefer. Then after the audition period give the drivers back and get my money back.
This is unlikely to happen but it would be nice.
I think of things in terms of flexibility of cross-over points,and most specifically, fexability of crossover slope.
I use stepped 12db filters, or quasi-second order, where the second leg is furthur out in frequency, for woofers.
I find this gives the best compromise in distortion and phasing issues in either the crossover or the driver.
If the crossover slope is too high..then the speaker system sounds a like a disparagate group of drivers and sufferes greatly in distortion, coherency and intergration. And due to the following, is basically an uncurable disease.
It's trade off, as I said. I've never built or designed with 18 db and above. in EVERY SINGLE incidence of high slope crossovers, either electronic (non-digital) or passive, I've found such high slopes to sound like MUD.
I'll say it again MUD. Screechy, distorted MUD.
I won't explain, but expect you to make it there on your own. Go through the thought exercise, step by step. Of every single physical and electrical consideration. It may take years.
Out of all the drivers mentioned.. the one drive that can handle the lower slopse and maintain flexability.. is the Audio technology driver.
The rest require high slope crossovers to deal with their resonance issues..and since they need to be crossed over lower than the resonance..the resonance cannot be properly controlled or damped by the amplifer or the electrical and electromagnetic mass characteristics. The resonant noise is left undamped. And it resonantes... notably so. Thus..requires you to move the crossover point even LOWER than nessessary.
All in all..a bad deal.
Per Skanning does it right. The skanning drivers are terrific. The big test, is..as usual.. how does the driver sound without any crossover at all?????? that's the ticket!
8545...OK. definitely an honourable mention. But still a difficult driver to deal with.
I use stepped 12db filters, or quasi-second order, where the second leg is furthur out in frequency, for woofers.
I find this gives the best compromise in distortion and phasing issues in either the crossover or the driver.
If the crossover slope is too high..then the speaker system sounds a like a disparagate group of drivers and sufferes greatly in distortion, coherency and intergration. And due to the following, is basically an uncurable disease.
It's trade off, as I said. I've never built or designed with 18 db and above. in EVERY SINGLE incidence of high slope crossovers, either electronic (non-digital) or passive, I've found such high slopes to sound like MUD.
I'll say it again MUD. Screechy, distorted MUD.
I won't explain, but expect you to make it there on your own. Go through the thought exercise, step by step. Of every single physical and electrical consideration. It may take years.
Out of all the drivers mentioned.. the one drive that can handle the lower slopse and maintain flexability.. is the Audio technology driver.
The rest require high slope crossovers to deal with their resonance issues..and since they need to be crossed over lower than the resonance..the resonance cannot be properly controlled or damped by the amplifer or the electrical and electromagnetic mass characteristics. The resonant noise is left undamped. And it resonantes... notably so. Thus..requires you to move the crossover point even LOWER than nessessary.
All in all..a bad deal.
Per Skanning does it right. The skanning drivers are terrific. The big test, is..as usual.. how does the driver sound without any crossover at all?????? that's the ticket!
8545...OK. definitely an honourable mention. But still a difficult driver to deal with.
"I've found such high slopes to sound like MUD"
While I agree in general about something superior in the way shallow slopes sound, I must say there are high order designs that are done right and sound very good indeed. Linkwitz comes to mind.
"the one drive that can handle the lower slopse and maintain flexability.. is the Audio technology driver."
AT are not the only one that goes well with low order.
"the resonance cannot be properly controlled or damped by the amplifer or the electrical and electromagnetic mass characteristics."
The damping of cone breakup by the motor is close to nill. You may see a small impedance kirk but low output impedance from driving amp will not affect the amplitude and decay much at all... if any.
/Peter
While I agree in general about something superior in the way shallow slopes sound, I must say there are high order designs that are done right and sound very good indeed. Linkwitz comes to mind.
"the one drive that can handle the lower slopse and maintain flexability.. is the Audio technology driver."
AT are not the only one that goes well with low order.
"the resonance cannot be properly controlled or damped by the amplifer or the electrical and electromagnetic mass characteristics."
The damping of cone breakup by the motor is close to nill. You may see a small impedance kirk but low output impedance from driving amp will not affect the amplitude and decay much at all... if any.
/Peter
KBK said:
Correct... but nobody mentioned PHL yet (1120 & 1340)!
I think it betters most mentioned, including AT.
I like it better than 8545. Excel detailed but sometimes thin/lean.
PHL can have detail as good as Excel but still retain warmth, not lean.
Ill take paper over poly cone. Poly can have that muddy sound also, no matter what slope.
I own both the Seas W15cy and PHL 1120 at the moment. The PHL should be returned to me from getting driver (distortion) tests done. It will be very interesting to see these measurements as there does not seem to be a whole lot of available data on them.
I regards to steep xo's, I don't know. I personally will be using a deqx pdc2.6 which allows me major flexibility for xo points and slopes.
I am very tempted to go the AT route as there is something to be said for a product that has ultimate quality as it's goal.
wasser
I regards to steep xo's, I don't know. I personally will be using a deqx pdc2.6 which allows me major flexibility for xo points and slopes.
I am very tempted to go the AT route as there is something to be said for a product that has ultimate quality as it's goal.
wasser
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.