Focal 10K 515 vs. Peerless 830847 xxls 12 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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 12th May 2006, 06:28 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
Default Focal 10K 515 vs. Peerless 830847 xxls 12

I would like to compare sound quality between these two drivers. Has anybody listened to these two drivers or something similar? Is there a way to judge how they are going to sound from the T/S parameters?

I have recently built a 3-way speaker using the 10" Focal's but would like a little more output in the bass region. However, I really like the way the Focal's sound and I don't want to lose the sound quality. They are in bass reflex enclosures with a net volume of 3.12 ft^3 tuned to 35 Hz. They are actively crossed at 100Hz, LR.

I have modeled the Peerless using Winsd Beta and they simulate well in the same enclosure with a little modification to the port. They also will play lower which I like.

Focal's have kevlar cones with rubber surrounds and the following parameters:
Z 10
Re 7.8 ohm
Le 107.64 mH
fs 31.46 Hz
Qms 7.73
Qes 0.367
Qts 0.35
Mms 32 g
Cms 0.0007988 m/N
Sd 360 cm^2
Bl 11.61 N/A
Xmax 5.3 mm
SPL 92
W 175 Watts

Peerless have Nomex cones with rubber surrounds and the followng parameters:
Z 4 ohm
Re 2.5 ohm
Le 1.8 mH
fs 21.8 Hz
Qms 10.24
Qes 0.37
Qts 0.36
Mms 110.9 g
Cms 0.00048 m/N
Sd 466 cm^2
BL 10.2 N/A
Xmax 12.5 mm
SPL 92
W 350 Watts
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2006, 04:19 PM   #2
Notax is offline Notax  Montenegro
diyAudio Member
 
Notax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Belgrade
Focal I would try in box of 63 litter (2,33 cu. ft.) and Fb=40-42 Hz.

Peerless is 2 times better unit for low freq. Smaller efficient (about 88 dB with 1 W or 2 V signal, 91 dB with 2 W or 2,83 V signal) but who cares in active system.
It has everything better, magnet, cone, voice-coile. Built like a tenk.

Peerless goes in 68 litter (2,52 cu. ft.) anf Fb=22,5-23,5 Hz.

So, Peerless is my recommendation.
You can use that box. Maybe you can reduce volume some.
And different BR tunel. About Dt=85 mm and Lt=320-350 mm.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2006, 04:51 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
I made a mistake, the Le for the Focal is 1.10 mH, it was late when I posted.

I know the Peerless is a more sustantial driver but will it sound as good as the Focal?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2006, 03:31 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
Well, my worst suspicions were correct. The Peerless does not sound as good as the Focal's. I modified only one side so I was able to do a direct comparison with the Peerless on one side and the Focal on the other (the pre-amp set to mono). The Focal seemed to play cleaner in the upper frequencies.

I guess I should let the Peerless break in more since I have only played it for 4 hours. I really doubt that this will help the upper frequencies though.

Any thoughts anybody?
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2006, 12:19 PM   #5
Notax is offline Notax  Montenegro
diyAudio Member
 
Notax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Belgrade
Focal is 3-4 dB louder and because of that you have impression Focal is better.
Second, same active crossover for these two basses is not the best solution. They have much different freq. respons. If you are serious with project its must be measured.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2006, 01:36 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I have heard some larger Focal woofers in bass reflex as well as the XLS with PR subs as well as sealed - 3 different XLS subs at different times. Unfortunately I haven't had an AB comparison.

I do like the sound of Focal woofers. They would have the advantage of more useable top end. The XLS is a great driver and if both are used up to 100 Hz and were eq'd to the same response then I'd expect it would have a chance at sounding as good, but if I had to choose a winner above 40 Hz in SQ then I'd go with the focal.

It's not much of a comparison though, as they are very different drivers. They don't really do the same job.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2006, 12:33 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, WA
Hi Nichol1997,

You've just discovered something that DIYers like myself have gradually come to appreciate- it is the design or implementation that is the critical determinant of the end result- ie. how your system sounds.

Your two chosen drivers have a frequency response (~tonal balance) and sensitivity (loudness) that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Unless you compensate for this in your design, it will be an apples to oranges comparison.

IMHO the improved sound "quality", "richness", or "detail" may be related to higher sensitivity, higher frequency extension, or higher/different non-distortion spectrum.

Your ears are telling you the differences, but without measurements we'll have a hard time figuring out why...
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2006, 02:34 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
This is where something like Behringer Ultracurve comes in handy. You can eq them both to the same response and set the volume to match and then you are listening to the differences.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2006, 02:34 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
So, is there anyway to make the Peerless sound like the Focals? I thought about the different sensitivities and tried to compensate for this by adjusting the volume but they still sounded different.

The Peerless sounded thicker on the lower octaves but lacked some of the instrument details that I could hear with Focals. I don't want to use a equalizer to try and compensate for this.

How can you predict how a speaker is going to sound? The frequency response supplied by the manufacturer looked good for both drivers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th May 2006, 02:44 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
paulspencer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
The Peerless will go lower, and the Focal will go higher. They are for different implementations!

For the sake of comparison you could eq them to match to judge SQ. You should play at the same SPL to compare properly.

With the same frequency response they will still sound different, and this is ideally what you want to compare.

The XLS should be happy with 20 - 80 Hz.

I'd use the focal from fs to about 200 or 300 Hz and it will do more than the XLS to improve the rest of the system.
  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
peerless xxls sealed -vs- peerless xls with passive radiator Naudio Subwoofers 8 23rd March 2008 09:00 PM
Comments on my Peerless 830847 with PR harrisni Subwoofers 0 11th March 2008 07:13 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34 AM.


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