ShinOBIWAN said:
Visually they look the same. Joe's might have a little shinier coating but that might just be the light.
I think a highish 2nd order HD is just typical of this type of tweeter. All other tweeters from this family that I've tested behave similarly. (XT25, 7100, DX25) It's a fair trade for the lower tall order products.
I might suspect higher 2nd order HD for any driver having the surround contribute a greater portion to overall output.
Zaph said:
I've listened to distortion tests which added the same amount of distortion to various harmonics. It took a lot more 2nd order to be noticeable than 3rd order and even more so for higher orders, as one would expect from masking theory.
As it turns out, taking a bit more 2nd order distortion for reduced higher order products is a useful tradeoff in other ways, since 2nd order Volterra filters are considerably less complicated than higher orders. Here are some abstracts:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/11715.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14175313
http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/publications/reports/2004/IR-S3-SB-0451.pdf
Volterra filters do have costs, however: they must be tuned to the precise driver used, because unit manufacturing variations will render the DSP useless, or possibly degrade performance. The processing sampling rate must also be at least twice the normal sampling rate to keep nonlinearities from aliasing around the Nyquist frequency into the passband.
Long story short, they're good for high-end work, where the manufacturer can take the time to tune each filter to the particular set of drivers, but they'd be uneconomical to implement for cheap speakers.
Joe,
WES Components (the sole Australian distributor for Tymphany), were due to receive stock of the 6600 last July, however I never followed that up (may have arrived later)
In Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually received an "06 model", even though WES confess that they've just received newer/more stock. The reverse has happened to me in the past- I wanted old stock, WES sent new stock, followed by confusion, multiple phone calls back and forth etc)
Due to a variety of factors (smaller market share, relatively high prices, complete lack of advertising) it's likely that these tweeters have never sold well, and it's likely WES never had the "out of stock" problem that Madisound or other US distributors experienced.
I guess we won't be able to put this to rest, until you or John test another sample, but by the off-chance,
Do you have a batch number of your pair?
I've had batch numbers on all ScanSpeak drivers, and although only Tymphany's internal database can extract the exact production date, we can make some inferences whether yours was made before, after or much later than John or Mark's.
WES Components (the sole Australian distributor for Tymphany), were due to receive stock of the 6600 last July, however I never followed that up (may have arrived later)
In Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if you actually received an "06 model", even though WES confess that they've just received newer/more stock. The reverse has happened to me in the past- I wanted old stock, WES sent new stock, followed by confusion, multiple phone calls back and forth etc)
Due to a variety of factors (smaller market share, relatively high prices, complete lack of advertising) it's likely that these tweeters have never sold well, and it's likely WES never had the "out of stock" problem that Madisound or other US distributors experienced.
I guess we won't be able to put this to rest, until you or John test another sample, but by the off-chance,
Do you have a batch number of your pair?
I've had batch numbers on all ScanSpeak drivers, and although only Tymphany's internal database can extract the exact production date, we can make some inferences whether yours was made before, after or much later than John or Mark's.
tktran303 said:
It was made clear to me that this pair was delayed because of Tymphany and some 'finishing' - such as the 'finish' (look?) wasn't right. Let's say they are receiving the front plate from a different source and it looks wrong (it has a mat finish) , or the perspex(?) rear also looked bad... that was the kind of problem they were inferring.
This pair is NOT from WES, but direct from Tymphany - to a loudspeaker manufacturer. Also, if you have problems with WES, make note (hush-hush) the boss' name is Peter Carlini (known him a LONG time), don't mention my name to him, at least not in that context! He doesn't like getting pestered.
But he says that there was TWO deliveries dates last year and nothing came of it. The reason? "Production problems!" Maybe those mat front plates? They have no date when they will get them.
Re batch number, you saw the photos? See any? Nope. These are clearly samples, but how representative are they when REAL production units come on stream? I was told this pair was one of only two pairs sent to Australia (not WES). Are THESE the REAL deal? With a little luck, my source who lent these to me will get more later and we can explore and reach a firmer conclusion. Also, this pair will be installed into a prototype speaker box - but that may some weeks off, before we get an idea how they sound.
As I have to return these tomorrow I am running a batch of distortion tests right now and will post asap.
Joe R.
versus Scan-Speak D2905/970000 ?
Hi Joe,
as you say the Peerless HDS 810921 is currently your favorite tweeter, and you seem to have some experience with ScanSpeak drivers, have you compared the Peerless 810921 with the older and much liked by DIYers Scan D2905/970000 ?
Yes, I see the 810921 has higher sensitivity and higher Fs than the D2905/970000, though within a sensibly chosen operating bandwidth and power for the Scan I am wondering how both compare for harmonic distortions and what-ever delayed decaying resonances, etc ...
Have you ever tested the D2905/970000, and made any plots or other measurements from it that you are able to publish here, or have any other comments to make about it, eg:- sample variations, etc ... ???
Regards,
Hi Joe,
as you say the Peerless HDS 810921 is currently your favorite tweeter, and you seem to have some experience with ScanSpeak drivers, have you compared the Peerless 810921 with the older and much liked by DIYers Scan D2905/970000 ?
Yes, I see the 810921 has higher sensitivity and higher Fs than the D2905/970000, though within a sensibly chosen operating bandwidth and power for the Scan I am wondering how both compare for harmonic distortions and what-ever delayed decaying resonances, etc ...
Have you ever tested the D2905/970000, and made any plots or other measurements from it that you are able to publish here, or have any other comments to make about it, eg:- sample variations, etc ... ???
Regards,
Hi!
It is interesting, and as in the comparison with Peerless of 810921 and SS 6600 will show itself Morel Mdt-33? On the Mark K. page it appears very well...
http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/testing.htm
It is interesting, and as in the comparison with Peerless of 810921 and SS 6600 will show itself Morel Mdt-33? On the Mark K. page it appears very well...
http://www.markk.claub.net/Testing/testing.htm
Re: versus Scan-Speak D2905/970000 ?
Hi Guys
Scan-Speak D30 versus Peerless HDS Tweeter Shoot-Out - Coming Soon.
Sorry for the delay, but I have just spent most of the day testing both SS D30 and Peerless HDS tweeters. There will be 22 graphs posted (maybe more). Let me just say that both are premium tweeters and measure as such. But I have only actually heard the HDS and very impressed. I suspect that the D30 will also impress, but have to wait some weeks yet to have a listen.
I don't have any measurements on D2905/9700 and I have to say I am no expert on SS drivers perse'. But it does look like I will be working with them a lot more in the near future.
The measurements you have requested, will post shortly.
Joe R.
Hi Guys
Scan-Speak D30 versus Peerless HDS Tweeter Shoot-Out - Coming Soon.
Sorry for the delay, but I have just spent most of the day testing both SS D30 and Peerless HDS tweeters. There will be 22 graphs posted (maybe more). Let me just say that both are premium tweeters and measure as such. But I have only actually heard the HDS and very impressed. I suspect that the D30 will also impress, but have to wait some weeks yet to have a listen.
alan-1-b said:
I don't have any measurements on D2905/9700 and I have to say I am no expert on SS drivers perse'. But it does look like I will be working with them a lot more in the near future.
The measurements you have requested, will post shortly.
Joe R.
Hi Guys
Scan-Speak D3004/660000 Versus Peerless HDS 810921
Will take this step by step. Frequency Response first.
Even though this will be a comparison between Scan-Speak D3004/660000 and Peerless HDS 810921, the will be referred as D30 and HDS subsequently. Please also note the colours will be consistent throughout. At the beginning the Vifa (now Peerless V-Line) XT25 will be Green.
The XT25 has a predictable response and is easy to reference to 91dB @ 1M with 2.83V RMS input:
Has there ever been a flatter frequency response by ANY tweeter, period? AWESOME! This is of course ON axis, so let us not be premature to give it a tick of approval. These FR measurements are taken @ 700mm which means, given that this is a 4 Ohm nominal tweeter, normally would require 2W @ 91dB. This is 700mm and thus 3dB less power - 1W.
The response is accurate down to 1300-1400Hz. It is not a full size IEC baffle. Besides, ultimately it is the final in-box response that matters.
This tweeter is a great reference tool. I allows you to calibrate your system to better than reasonable accuracy, given that it is a consistent 91dBSPL and FLAT. Just make sure that it is flush mounted (don't try measure it any other way) on a large rectangular baffle, does not have to be as big as an IEC baffle (although that would be good).
Next D30:
Much more sensitive by 2-3dB, quite useful. Depression @ 8.5KHz and 16KHz peak. Will be interesting to see what happens to those when looking OFF axis.
Next HDS
This has the least flat response of the three.
Now for OFF Axis Response Family :
These are 25 degrees OFF axis. Both D30 and HDS look good, D30 averages almost flat in the top octave. HDS looks very smooth here but not too badly rolled off. BUT XT25 has died. Just as its ON axis is smooth, so is its OFF axis response, but it starts to die at 2KHz and is minus 20dB down @ 20KHz.
The D30 has the highest sensitivity (voltage), but since the HDS is 8 Ohm, it shades the D30 in efficiency (voltage times current). The XT25 is the hardest to drive. This is not inconsequential as I see it. At the same (relative) SPL this means greater heat in the voice coil and potentially greater dynamic compression, all other things being equal (are they?).
The winner here is D30. HDS is OK, even though it has the worst ON axis response, its OFF axis response is redeeming especially when compared with XT25 .
XT25 now exits.
Your thoughts?
Joe R.
Next: CSD.
(21 more graphs to come).
Scan-Speak D3004/660000 Versus Peerless HDS 810921
Will take this step by step. Frequency Response first.
Even though this will be a comparison between Scan-Speak D3004/660000 and Peerless HDS 810921, the will be referred as D30 and HDS subsequently. Please also note the colours will be consistent throughout. At the beginning the Vifa (now Peerless V-Line) XT25 will be Green.
The XT25 has a predictable response and is easy to reference to 91dB @ 1M with 2.83V RMS input:
Has there ever been a flatter frequency response by ANY tweeter, period? AWESOME! This is of course ON axis, so let us not be premature to give it a tick of approval. These FR measurements are taken @ 700mm which means, given that this is a 4 Ohm nominal tweeter, normally would require 2W @ 91dB. This is 700mm and thus 3dB less power - 1W.
The response is accurate down to 1300-1400Hz. It is not a full size IEC baffle. Besides, ultimately it is the final in-box response that matters.
This tweeter is a great reference tool. I allows you to calibrate your system to better than reasonable accuracy, given that it is a consistent 91dBSPL and FLAT. Just make sure that it is flush mounted (don't try measure it any other way) on a large rectangular baffle, does not have to be as big as an IEC baffle (although that would be good).
Next D30:
Much more sensitive by 2-3dB, quite useful. Depression @ 8.5KHz and 16KHz peak. Will be interesting to see what happens to those when looking OFF axis.
Next HDS
This has the least flat response of the three.
Now for OFF Axis Response Family :
These are 25 degrees OFF axis. Both D30 and HDS look good, D30 averages almost flat in the top octave. HDS looks very smooth here but not too badly rolled off. BUT XT25 has died. Just as its ON axis is smooth, so is its OFF axis response, but it starts to die at 2KHz and is minus 20dB down @ 20KHz.
The D30 has the highest sensitivity (voltage), but since the HDS is 8 Ohm, it shades the D30 in efficiency (voltage times current). The XT25 is the hardest to drive. This is not inconsequential as I see it. At the same (relative) SPL this means greater heat in the voice coil and potentially greater dynamic compression, all other things being equal (are they?).
The winner here is D30. HDS is OK, even though it has the worst ON axis response, its OFF axis response is redeeming especially when compared with XT25 .
XT25 now exits.
Your thoughts?
Joe R.
Next: CSD.
(21 more graphs to come).
Harmonic Distortion Graphs
These are done at 125mm on axis. Please note the dBSPL scale on the left. This relates to the SPL actually seen by the measurement mic. If you wish to convert to 1 Metre - then minus 18dB. Thus the first set of graphs set to a max of 110dB would equate to 92dBSPL.
We will start with 110dBSPL max.
D30 :
There is that elevated 2nd but higher order are well suppressed and generally going downwards with rising frequency.
Now compare with Next HDS:
Lower 2nd but 3rd is not generally as low as D30 .
Next 100dBSPL.
D30 :
Still elevated 2nd but look at that 3rd as well as higher orders, super!
Now compare with Next HDS:
Despite the elevation of 2nd in D30 it is the 3rd that stands out as better than HDS.
Next 90dBSPL.
D30 :
Since 90dBSPL equates to 72dB, this is near respectable listening range IMO. At these levels the 2nd is no longer elevated and the results are near exemplary.
Now compare with Next HDS:
Quite good as well, but notice that here the tables are turned with respect to 2nd. Now it is the HDS that has a rising 2nd, which it had at higher level plots as well. But unlike D30's elevated 2nd, the HDS has not lost its rising 2nd entirely, but its lower end 2nd is even better suppressed than D30.
But BOTH are very credible performers.
The winner? It is so close as to be near a tie, but better 3rd order gives it narrowly to D30.
Joe R.
Next: THD.
These are done at 125mm on axis. Please note the dBSPL scale on the left. This relates to the SPL actually seen by the measurement mic. If you wish to convert to 1 Metre - then minus 18dB. Thus the first set of graphs set to a max of 110dB would equate to 92dBSPL.
We will start with 110dBSPL max.
D30 :
There is that elevated 2nd but higher order are well suppressed and generally going downwards with rising frequency.
Now compare with Next HDS:
Lower 2nd but 3rd is not generally as low as D30 .
Next 100dBSPL.
D30 :
Still elevated 2nd but look at that 3rd as well as higher orders, super!
Now compare with Next HDS:
Despite the elevation of 2nd in D30 it is the 3rd that stands out as better than HDS.
Next 90dBSPL.
D30 :
Since 90dBSPL equates to 72dB, this is near respectable listening range IMO. At these levels the 2nd is no longer elevated and the results are near exemplary.
Now compare with Next HDS:
Quite good as well, but notice that here the tables are turned with respect to 2nd. Now it is the HDS that has a rising 2nd, which it had at higher level plots as well. But unlike D30's elevated 2nd, the HDS has not lost its rising 2nd entirely, but its lower end 2nd is even better suppressed than D30.
But BOTH are very credible performers.
The winner? It is so close as to be near a tie, but better 3rd order gives it narrowly to D30.
Joe R.
Next: THD.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.