Scan-Speak sliced cone drivers .

[alan-1-b]

For their sliced paper cone drivers Scan-Speak state :- "reduces break-up modes in the membrane dramatically" . I don't expect perfection , but these are expensive compared to conventional cone types made by SEAS ; Peerless ; Morel etc ... thus can any users of any of the Scan sliced cone models comment on the degree of improvement - particually in the midrange - compared to the other brands I listed ? Eg:- the Scan 18W/8531GOO frequency plot shows a small peak at about 3.3kHz and another at about 6kHz - I would expect some resonance at both . Scan do not publish Cumulative Spectral Decay plots , nor any type of Time Domain data and I haven't been able to find any via web searches {is any given anywhere ?} , thus I don't know the degree of break-up nor its duration . How audible are these compared to similar in plain cones ? There are similar artefacts on the plots for the 15W/**** and 12M/**** sliced cone models . Any comments about audible advantages or problems from users of any of the sliced cone models would be most welcome . Also , the "Low Loss linear Suspension" which Scan state for the surrounds - is this made of solid rubber or foam rubber or of some other material , eg:- Santoprene , etc ... ? , thankyou ,

[Eton]

They have to justify the outrageous high prices for a plain paper cone driver somehow and still get the customer to buy it. Hence sliced paper.

[lndm]

A gentle rise in response from below 1k to the upper mid area is a useful trait for box speaker use as baffle step compensation can be dealt with simultaneously with the crossover inductance.

Some speakers have an ugly bump at a couple of k or so and this should probably define the upper limit for your crossover.

If the ss succeeds in smoothing this region, then they are probably doing a good thing.

P.S. I don't use these drivers (I do use scanspeak).

[cotdt]

it's too expensive! I wonder how it sounds compared to Seas Excel W18NX and Peerless Exclusive.

Reducing break-up nodes tends to actually have a negative impact on the sound IMHO. It tends to lower and hide the break-up nodes but I prefer pistonic drivers with high breakup nodes, even if it is a bigger breakup.

[lndm]

Originally posted by cotdt
Reducing break-up nodes tends to actually have a negative impact on the sound IMHO. It tends to lower and hide the break-up nodes

That's an interesting perspective, also you can't deal with what you can't see. I wonder what Zaph has on his site about these drivers.

[pinkmouse]

Originally posted by cotdt
...Reducing break-up nodes tends to actually have a negative impact on the sound IMHO. It tends to lower and hide the break-up nodes...

Hmm. Interesting use of logic...

Lets say I grow nuts on a remote island. There are two types of birds on this island, red ones, that eat my nuts, and green ones that don't.

Now if we apply your logic to my island, if I shoot all the red birds, I will lose no nuts and have a full harvest. What difference is there between that situation and one where red birds never existed? None, for all practical applications, but you seem to be saying there is.

[alan-1-b]

Thanks guys for your comments - which I've thought about . ____ Cotdt , bigger breakup will then necessitate a higher slope cross-over - not a problem in some cases . There will always be breakup in cone drivers , but lesser will be lesser audible surely !?__ , and even a high slope cross-over won't drop the breakup region down through the full audible dynamic range of the music , or to the lower limit of the speakers' capability , thus I think either option in cone drivers will involve some degree of compromise . ______ Indm , I couldn't find anything on Zaph's site about these drivers when I last looked - I'm hoping some enthusiast will analyse them as I don't have the type of equipment to do so . Which Scan-speak drivers do you use ? ____ Their other cone types' drivers all have a resonant peak immediately prior to roll-off , thus I'd have to use a higher slope cross-over than I'd prefer to . I'll probably use the Scan D2905/97000 tweeter . I'm still curious about the material used for the surrounds if anyone owns these drivers and can recognise it .____ Thanks again for the comments ,

[lndm]

I use the 18w/8545k. I use a first order electrical rolloff but I use notch filtering for the cone breakup and an earlier peak.

These drivers are reportedly difficult to deal with at the top end, but this challenge is not insurmountable. They are sensitive to the crossover, you need to tweak carefully but when you do, they fall in to place magnificently.

They have a particularly sweet bottom end and are a good match for my 9500's.

[cotdt]

When using very dampened cones, the breakup is usually part of the passband. Although the cone breakup is harder to see in graphs, it occurs earlier in frequency than rigid rones. Observe the Seas L18, which for a driver of its size has a breakup very high in frequency (peaks at 7kHz), while poly cones of the same size tend to start break up right after 1kHz yet it is used to 3kHz typically.

The near-invisible breakup of well-dampened cones has negative consequences on the sound and I claim to hear a degradation. For one, there is higher even-order distortion, and a rougher frequency response in the passband which contributes to linear distortion. The evidence for this are the many drivers that use the same motor but different cones, so direct comparisons are possible.

Anyhow, I'm interested in these sliced-cone drivers and am curious as to how they sound. I've held one in my hand before and the cones are pretty rigid. I'm looking for 15cm cones as clean and detailed as the Peerless Exclusive or Seas Excel, but with better bass output.

[tinitus]

Hi, well, some like the uncoated version which is said to be more bright - frequency response show a rise from about 1khz on all those drivers - on a plot it looks pretty awfull and most people tend to deal with this using a very big coil - personally I dont like such approach because it messes up phase - I rather let it be as is and I think its not a problem because its a very wide spread soft rise in frequency - and I place crossover point relative high which makes the elevated sensitivity even wider and maybe therefore of less concern - but must admit I am working with a nearly 90db 3way speakersystem and it seems this 5" lacks a bit in sensitivity - but it plays very nice and if it dont the fault is in crossover - simple as that
an interesting replacement for me could be the midrange version, which then is a 4ohm driver - but I guess thats not in your interest as you want a driver with good bass also