Scan-Speak sliced cone drivers . - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th April 2006, 03:45 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Question Scan-Speak sliced cone drivers .

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 Scan do not publish Cumulative Spectral Decay plots , nor any type of Time Domain data and I haven't been able to find any via web searches {is any given anywhere ?} , thus I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 ,
__________________
Alan
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th April 2006, 10:54 PM   #2
Eton is offline Eton  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 12:35 AM   #3
lndm is offline lndm  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: nsw
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).
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 01:58 AM   #4
cotdt is offline cotdt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Send a message via AIM to 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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 02:37 AM   #5
lndm is offline lndm  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: nsw
Quote:
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 07:50 AM   #6
diyAudio Moderator
 
pinkmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chatham, England
Quote:
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.
__________________
Rick: Oh Cliff / Sometimes it must be difficult not to feel as if / You really are a cliff / when fascists keep trying to push you over it! / Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 01:55 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Midlands
Default Thanks guys !

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 ,
__________________
Alan
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 02:51 PM   #8
lndm is offline lndm  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: nsw
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 08:09 PM   #9
cotdt is offline cotdt  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Send a message via AIM to 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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2006, 08:43 PM   #10
tinitus is offline tinitus  Europe
diyAudio Moderator R.I.P.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
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
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Old Scan Speak drivers? Zen Mod Multi-Way 53 30th October 2013 06:44 PM
Scan Speak Drivers sbrtoy Swap Meet 9 5th May 2008 03:26 PM
FS: Audax, Vifa, Scan Speak etc... various drivers sphinx Swap Meet 14 27th March 2006 03:05 AM
About Scan-Speak drivers kevinlin1013 Multi-Way 8 3rd September 2005 05:20 PM
2 way dappolito with scan-speak drivers ermes Multi-Way 14 9th April 2005 05:18 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2