Pealess, Sea or Vifa ???
Hi all,
I'm asking your help to choose 6.5" or 17" driver. I prefer a paper cone and the best sensitivity for the price. I'm looking around 70$CAN.
What is the Nomex cone from Pearless. Is it as good as paper ?
I used specs from
http://www.solen.ca/
to compare the drivers
So are my choices:
Pearless
Nomex cone
N164WR3308 63$CAN
Paper cone
S164WR2608 26$CAN Why so cheap ?
Sea paper cone
CB17RCY/P08 63$CAN
Vifa paper cone
PL18WO0908 84$CAN
If you have any experience working with these drivers ...
Thanks,
FLEO
Hi all,
I'm asking your help to choose 6.5" or 17" driver. I prefer a paper cone and the best sensitivity for the price. I'm looking around 70$CAN.
What is the Nomex cone from Pearless. Is it as good as paper ?
I used specs from
http://www.solen.ca/
to compare the drivers
So are my choices:
Pearless
Nomex cone
N164WR3308 63$CAN
Paper cone
S164WR2608 26$CAN Why so cheap ?
Sea paper cone
CB17RCY/P08 63$CAN
Vifa paper cone
PL18WO0908 84$CAN
If you have any experience working with these drivers ...
Thanks,
FLEO
check these out...
You can not beat the price or build, would work well open baffle, $13 and change CND.
http://www.mach5audio.com/product_info.php?products_id=40&osCsid=c7f713c07850906dc94eeb788dd9d5b3
You can not beat the price or build, would work well open baffle, $13 and change CND.
http://www.mach5audio.com/product_info.php?products_id=40&osCsid=c7f713c07850906dc94eeb788dd9d5b3
Moray - Excuse me for butting in here - I'm very interested in the Mach 5 midwoofers - I already own their MAW 10 subs - have you actually done a build with the 6.5s, and/or tested them? Would love to see some measurements, but a subjective evaluation will do in a pinch. Thanks.
REALFLEO - just a friendly FYI - it's spelled "Peerless", as in having no peers - pearless means you're hungry for fruit and can't find any. And it's not Sea - it's SEAS - and I believe that one's just pronounced as the individual letters. As for trying to decide between a 6.5" woofer and a 17" - I'm sure you meant 7".
Typos happen.
Oh yeah and "pealess" means you're hungry for veg - oh never mind you get the picture...
Good thing you didn't type "peeless."
REALFLEO - just a friendly FYI - it's spelled "Peerless", as in having no peers - pearless means you're hungry for fruit and can't find any. And it's not Sea - it's SEAS - and I believe that one's just pronounced as the individual letters. As for trying to decide between a 6.5" woofer and a 17" - I'm sure you meant 7".
Typos happen.
Oh yeah and "pealess" means you're hungry for veg - oh never mind you get the picture...
Good thing you didn't type "peeless."
sorry no...
I don't have any hands on experience with this driver. Given the price and what I have read about it how can you loose? These prices will not last as they have to be a loss leader to break into the market. The T/S data would indicate aok use OB though the efficiency is a tad low but it is ok especially if you triamp. Regards.
I don't have any hands on experience with this driver. Given the price and what I have read about it how can you loose? These prices will not last as they have to be a loss leader to break into the market. The T/S data would indicate aok use OB though the efficiency is a tad low but it is ok especially if you triamp. Regards.
Ok so I read a bit more and I don't really understand SEAS response graph:
http://madisound.com/pdf/seas/h571.pdf
It's not really flat ... Am I wrong
compare to Vifa PL18WO0908
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=126
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think of the
Peerless S164WR2608
http://www.d-s-t.com/link/peerless/data/830657.htm
combine with SEAS EXCEL T25CF001
http://www.seas.no/PDF data excel 05-06/T25CF001.pdf
The thing is the Vifa and SEAS drivers may be a bit too expensive for me. So I would probably go for the S164WR2608 with a second order x-over.
Thanks,
REALFLEO
http://madisound.com/pdf/seas/h571.pdf
It's not really flat ... Am I wrong
compare to Vifa PL18WO0908
http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=126
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think of the
Peerless S164WR2608
http://www.d-s-t.com/link/peerless/data/830657.htm
combine with SEAS EXCEL T25CF001
http://www.seas.no/PDF data excel 05-06/T25CF001.pdf
The thing is the Vifa and SEAS drivers may be a bit too expensive for me. So I would probably go for the S164WR2608 with a second order x-over.
Thanks,
REALFLEO
Hi Realfleo,
I have quite a lot of experience with different vifa, seas and peerless units, but sadly not with these.. As far as I can judge from the specs I'd say the more expensive ones have a stronger "motor" and will behave best in a BR design. The Mach 5 has the weakest motor (Qts=0.8) and will behave best in a closed, TL or OB. The vifa and peerless paper cone are most universal (Qts 0.34 and 0.50) closed, BR will work and for the peerless OB or TL might also work.
I wouldn't worry to much about the response of the seas driver, the graph is a bit misleading and this driver can deliver under 500 hz very well in the right enclosure...
The peerless paper cone does show a slight peak in it's upper region, but it might be filtered out adequately with a 2nd order x-over. I think the paper cone version is that cheap because it didn't need new technology, the nomex cone will probably not sound almost three times as good. But note that the driver also uses a larger voice coil and much lower Qts, it will probably be capable of producing "dryer" bass.
Don't forget any tweeter attenuation (if you even want it) the tweeter is slightly more sensitive than most bass-mid drivers you opted.
If you want to save go for the peerless paper cone, you'll end up with fine quality for the price. If you want to know which I would choose disregarding the price, it's the vifa.
Hope I've been of some help..
I have quite a lot of experience with different vifa, seas and peerless units, but sadly not with these.. As far as I can judge from the specs I'd say the more expensive ones have a stronger "motor" and will behave best in a BR design. The Mach 5 has the weakest motor (Qts=0.8) and will behave best in a closed, TL or OB. The vifa and peerless paper cone are most universal (Qts 0.34 and 0.50) closed, BR will work and for the peerless OB or TL might also work.
I wouldn't worry to much about the response of the seas driver, the graph is a bit misleading and this driver can deliver under 500 hz very well in the right enclosure...
The peerless paper cone does show a slight peak in it's upper region, but it might be filtered out adequately with a 2nd order x-over. I think the paper cone version is that cheap because it didn't need new technology, the nomex cone will probably not sound almost three times as good. But note that the driver also uses a larger voice coil and much lower Qts, it will probably be capable of producing "dryer" bass.
Don't forget any tweeter attenuation (if you even want it) the tweeter is slightly more sensitive than most bass-mid drivers you opted.
If you want to save go for the peerless paper cone, you'll end up with fine quality for the price. If you want to know which I would choose disregarding the price, it's the vifa.
Hope I've been of some help..
v-bro,
Thanks for the anwser.
What do you think about SEAS's Qts ? It has a Qts of 0.27. Is it too low ? I have not seen so mutch diy project using the SEAS H571. Do you know good quality loudspeakers using this driver ? Are you sure the response will be as flat as the Peerless ?
I'm attracted to the SEAS driver because of his 91dB SPL too. That means I won't have use too mutch tweeter attenuation ... What do you think ?
Vifa is too expensive and his SPL maybe too low, so it's between the Peerless and SEAS
Sorry for all these questions ;-)
REALFLEO
Thanks for the anwser.
What do you think about SEAS's Qts ? It has a Qts of 0.27. Is it too low ? I have not seen so mutch diy project using the SEAS H571. Do you know good quality loudspeakers using this driver ? Are you sure the response will be as flat as the Peerless ?
I'm attracted to the SEAS driver because of his 91dB SPL too. That means I won't have use too mutch tweeter attenuation ... What do you think ?
Vifa is too expensive and his SPL maybe too low, so it's between the Peerless and SEAS
Sorry for all these questions ;-)
REALFLEO
No, that's not what I meant. I think for the nomex coned driver you'll pay a lot extra because the technology behind it. It wil probably be a better driver, but not weigh up to the price difference.
I would say always choose the driver that has to handle the most sensitive freq. area (round 4khz) the best quality.
I would perhaps choose a driver for the higher freqs. with even lower fs in combination with a bass speaker (like a veravox 3 for instance). Offcourse a bass-speaker has to be good quality too, but I would rather cut the cost down here than choosing a cheaper mid-high range unit.
Paper cones mostly sound best, especially teken their price in account..
In your case the Vifa is probaly to expensive, despite the fact it's probably the best quality. Your results will probably benefit more from a good high freq driver than a good bass driver.
Would the x-over point be at 4 khz and up the bass-midrange unit would have to be a lot better.
I would try to keep x-over freq. as low as possible (way out of the 3 to 5khz area). It may be a matter of preference, but a good small fullrange and a say bass speaker for under 500hz have proved to be capable of quite thrilling results. (the more audio out of one driver, the better. Crossing over in the lower end can be done quite unnoticeable).
Offcourse filter components have to be larger to filter this area, but there are other options that don't have to cost much to do this.....
I would say always choose the driver that has to handle the most sensitive freq. area (round 4khz) the best quality.
I would perhaps choose a driver for the higher freqs. with even lower fs in combination with a bass speaker (like a veravox 3 for instance). Offcourse a bass-speaker has to be good quality too, but I would rather cut the cost down here than choosing a cheaper mid-high range unit.
Paper cones mostly sound best, especially teken their price in account..
In your case the Vifa is probaly to expensive, despite the fact it's probably the best quality. Your results will probably benefit more from a good high freq driver than a good bass driver.
Would the x-over point be at 4 khz and up the bass-midrange unit would have to be a lot better.
I would try to keep x-over freq. as low as possible (way out of the 3 to 5khz area). It may be a matter of preference, but a good small fullrange and a say bass speaker for under 500hz have proved to be capable of quite thrilling results. (the more audio out of one driver, the better. Crossing over in the lower end can be done quite unnoticeable).
Offcourse filter components have to be larger to filter this area, but there are other options that don't have to cost much to do this.....
Sorry, I didn't read your prior post before I posted...
The low Qts means the driver has a very strong magnet and/or high mechanical dampening. It will only mean the driver will have other enclosure requirements, it hasn't got much to do with the quality.
Another thing, I wouldn't worry much about flat response, your ears are not a microphone. This also tells you nothing about the quality. Many very good sounding speakers show a far from "flat" response. The response will vary a lot from room to room...
regards,
Vincent.
The low Qts means the driver has a very strong magnet and/or high mechanical dampening. It will only mean the driver will have other enclosure requirements, it hasn't got much to do with the quality.
Another thing, I wouldn't worry much about flat response, your ears are not a microphone. This also tells you nothing about the quality. Many very good sounding speakers show a far from "flat" response. The response will vary a lot from room to room...
regards,
Vincent.
Specs. can make an experienced designer suspect good quality, eventual soundquality will be proved by further measurements in enclosures and listening tests.
My quad esl speakers measure terrible because they produce a sort of allready dispersed (spread) sound, a microphone just can't even grasp what sounds it just can't percieve. The percieved soundquality is absolutely breathtaking.....
read this:http://www.quadesl.com/quad_meas.html
And look at the frequency response (and explanations why these measurements don't say much...).
My quad esl speakers measure terrible because they produce a sort of allready dispersed (spread) sound, a microphone just can't even grasp what sounds it just can't percieve. The percieved soundquality is absolutely breathtaking.....
read this:http://www.quadesl.com/quad_meas.html
And look at the frequency response (and explanations why these measurements don't say much...).
Check this out, especially the part about the r/c filters. For just a few bucks you can make a pretty low frequency x-over! With low distortion.....but.....
But it works fantastic!
Provided you have 4 amp channels....
The next text is quoted from this site:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...oss&hl=nl&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a[/url]
Bi-amping, Tri-amping, etc.
Virtually all impedance problems disappear if each driver is driven by it's own amp. Good amplifiers are very tolerant of variable impedance loads (unless they drop below 1-2 Ohms or so). The other big benefit is that now the crossover goes ahead of the power amp, so resistance in the crossover network has virtually no effect on performance. The effect of interaction between crossover and enclosure is also greatly improved. See Small-Thiele analysis. The input impedance of an amp is typically 20 kΩ or more, so the crossover designs given in the table above are no longer practical, because the inductance values are too large. The most common approach is to use an active crossover. Kits are available from John Pomann and Rod Elliot. A 4th order Linkwitz-Riley design I built from a kit is presented and analyzed in a separate section.
For a digital crossover the logical topology is to obtain the crossover input directly from a digital device, and to follow the crossover by multiple digital-to-analog converters, which then feed multiple analog stereo channels. So this architecture also has all the advantages noted above. ( I suppose it could be considered a type of active crossover).
There is one other alternative - passive RC filters. These are dirt cheap, and have zero distortion. Amplifiers are a benign load for a crossover. All components operate at low power levels. There are two negatives: (1) the filter must be tailored to match the input impedance of a specific amplifier; (2) the crossover output voltage is reduced. The first negative means you probably need to build a new crossover if you replace the amp. For the second, since the loss occurs ahead of the power amp, it is only necessary to crank up the preamp gain. This is not a major problem as long as the loss is not more than 6dB or so. This option is particularly attractive for a bi-amped system using 1st order crossovers. I implemented this design in the original version of my own system [6.2kb]. The filter circuits [2kb] are simple.
But it works fantastic!
Provided you have 4 amp channels....
The next text is quoted from this site:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cach...oss&hl=nl&gl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a[/url]
Bi-amping, Tri-amping, etc.
Virtually all impedance problems disappear if each driver is driven by it's own amp. Good amplifiers are very tolerant of variable impedance loads (unless they drop below 1-2 Ohms or so). The other big benefit is that now the crossover goes ahead of the power amp, so resistance in the crossover network has virtually no effect on performance. The effect of interaction between crossover and enclosure is also greatly improved. See Small-Thiele analysis. The input impedance of an amp is typically 20 kΩ or more, so the crossover designs given in the table above are no longer practical, because the inductance values are too large. The most common approach is to use an active crossover. Kits are available from John Pomann and Rod Elliot. A 4th order Linkwitz-Riley design I built from a kit is presented and analyzed in a separate section.
For a digital crossover the logical topology is to obtain the crossover input directly from a digital device, and to follow the crossover by multiple digital-to-analog converters, which then feed multiple analog stereo channels. So this architecture also has all the advantages noted above. ( I suppose it could be considered a type of active crossover).
There is one other alternative - passive RC filters. These are dirt cheap, and have zero distortion. Amplifiers are a benign load for a crossover. All components operate at low power levels. There are two negatives: (1) the filter must be tailored to match the input impedance of a specific amplifier; (2) the crossover output voltage is reduced. The first negative means you probably need to build a new crossover if you replace the amp. For the second, since the loss occurs ahead of the power amp, it is only necessary to crank up the preamp gain. This is not a major problem as long as the loss is not more than 6dB or so. This option is particularly attractive for a bi-amped system using 1st order crossovers. I implemented this design in the original version of my own system [6.2kb]. The filter circuits [2kb] are simple.
Is it ok to build a 2 way with a mid-range speaker ?
I read this there : http://www.lalena.com/Audio/FAQ/Speaker/
Should I use this SEAS driver instead ?
http://www.seas.no/Prestige Basser PDF/MCA15RCY-H1262-08.pdf
Thanks,
REALFLEO
I read this there : http://www.lalena.com/Audio/FAQ/Speaker/
Should I use this SEAS driver instead ?
http://www.seas.no/Prestige Basser PDF/MCA15RCY-H1262-08.pdf
Thanks,
REALFLEO
The text in the link is a bit misleading, the socalled "midrange" driver actually delivers quite low frequency bass. They call it a midrange for this reason because it will miss a littlebit of the bottom octave.
You can use that Seas driver ONLY if you don't play loud, though I don't know what the maximum allowed cone excursion of the driver is. The resonant freq is about the same as the Peerless, but don't be fooled here, this has nothing to do with Xmax. The manufacturer should be able to provide these specs...
A three way or two point vife way can be arranged later, that is if you want the bottom region represented. Just add a sub and in this case do filter some lower freqs on the "midrange", this will improve the power handling and soundquality (in the higher midrange). But all this will only be necessary if you're a real bass lover or want to play louder..
And actually there are good compromises possible, though can be found rather in 8" drivers. But this will only be preferred if you'll never add a sub......
And still, many people are totally satisfied with two ways with 6.5" drivers. I listened to 5" Morel mw113 "midranges" in a two way config (x-over at 250 hz!!) for several months without really missing a lot*, after all it's only a fraction of the whole freq range..
*Until I was offered two 10" transmissionline subs.....
You can use that Seas driver ONLY if you don't play loud, though I don't know what the maximum allowed cone excursion of the driver is. The resonant freq is about the same as the Peerless, but don't be fooled here, this has nothing to do with Xmax. The manufacturer should be able to provide these specs...
A three way or two point vife way can be arranged later, that is if you want the bottom region represented. Just add a sub and in this case do filter some lower freqs on the "midrange", this will improve the power handling and soundquality (in the higher midrange). But all this will only be necessary if you're a real bass lover or want to play louder..
And actually there are good compromises possible, though can be found rather in 8" drivers. But this will only be preferred if you'll never add a sub......
And still, many people are totally satisfied with two ways with 6.5" drivers. I listened to 5" Morel mw113 "midranges" in a two way config (x-over at 250 hz!!) for several months without really missing a lot*, after all it's only a fraction of the whole freq range..
*Until I was offered two 10" transmissionline subs.....
People build 3-ways because of driver limitations in the frequency range. Just judging on frequency curves is not enough, the sound should "match" in many more ways...
The best way to evade from such nuissances would be to have all sound coming from one driver.
A 2 way more answers the demands of "purists" than a 3 way, the driver quality only becomes much more important. How does it behave with complex and mechanically demanding signal.....
Some "purists" worship fullrange driver systems for this reason...
But you choose what you like best right, check one of them speaker build superstores and compare the speakers in their listening rooms by
"system" and not by "brand" or "model", this can be very revealing.....
The best way to evade from such nuissances would be to have all sound coming from one driver.
A 2 way more answers the demands of "purists" than a 3 way, the driver quality only becomes much more important. How does it behave with complex and mechanically demanding signal.....
Some "purists" worship fullrange driver systems for this reason...
But you choose what you like best right, check one of them speaker build superstores and compare the speakers in their listening rooms by
"system" and not by "brand" or "model", this can be very revealing.....
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.