If you look at the F3 of the 4ohm version of the RS180 the whole ball game is changed 😉 The Qt being low is the reason for the 8ohm version not having a lot of bass. There are advantages to this though such as smaller box size and higher efficiency when used as a midwoofer instead of a woofer.
If you want to compare F3 vs size vs price tag perhaps the Dayton ES180Ti-8 is a better match. I'm doubtful that it can hold a candle to the Scan anywhere else though.
If you want to compare F3 vs size vs price tag perhaps the Dayton ES180Ti-8 is a better match. I'm doubtful that it can hold a candle to the Scan anywhere else though.
Last edited:
Now that I personally have no evidence of. For all I know it's a fine sounding speaker. I have no idea.
I went back and looked at my measurements for the 18W/4531 by the way. There are no pronounced breakup modes in either my measurements or the speaker specifications. I did use a wide notch filter, but that was more to adjust the roll-off slope than to remove any particular resonance, that's why it was able to cross over at such a high 2.7kHz.
What IS true is that the 2nd order distortion products rise up around 2kHz, but in a narrow band that is quite acceptable. I'll have to go find my notes. All in all, I'll trade an octave in the bass for a little more distortion.
Best,
Erik
Of course, my ideal mid-woofer goes from 35 Hz in a third cubic foot (i.e. 8.5l) enclosure to 3kHz with 90dB sensitivity.
Perhaps if some one starts selling an electromagnet based woofer in a kit form we'll get there.
Best,
Erik
Perhaps if some one starts selling an electromagnet based woofer in a kit form we'll get there.
Best,
Erik
This is the most absurd and biased thing I've ever read. Dayton make some drivers that have extremely good performance and on a par with, and sometimes exceeding, what SEAS and SS offer. You cannot make a generalisation like this as it's completely down to which drivers from which manufacturer you are talking about.
Again, I have no idea about the subjective sound qualities of Dayton drivers, but I will say that they will separate me and my Scanspeak 18W/4531's only from my cold dead fingers. 😀
When the earthquake hits San Francisco, it's the speakers and the cats I take. With luck I'll still have my pants on.
Best,
Erik
When the earthquake hits San Francisco, it's the speakers and the cats I take. With luck I'll still have my pants on.
Best,
Erik
This is what I see when I look at the Scan and the Dayton responses
Scan:
Dayton:
The red line is the simulated roll off due to the voicecoil. Therefore the amount above the red line that the actual response is the amount that the cone is breaking up. As you can see the Scan actually begins breaking up earlier while the Dayton is almost a perfect piston to 4kHz but then the breakup is fierce. This is fundamentally the difference between a highly damped (paper) cone and a stiff metal cone.
With the Scan you will need much larger (=expensive) components to shape down the broad 1-10kHz region. Either that or you use a electrical lowpass around 1kHz and hopefully hit an Fc around 2-3kHz.
The crossover components needed to hammer the Dayton into a workable response will be cheaper as you'll be making notch filter centered around 7kHz or so = smaller value components. Given that the breakup nodes are so high in frequency, it's probably even economical to create two notches. If you're making a 3-way then you don't even need to deal with it as it'll already be >30dB down and you should be able to hit a near perfect slope up to 4kHz with minimal components.
Scan:
Dayton:
The red line is the simulated roll off due to the voicecoil. Therefore the amount above the red line that the actual response is the amount that the cone is breaking up. As you can see the Scan actually begins breaking up earlier while the Dayton is almost a perfect piston to 4kHz but then the breakup is fierce. This is fundamentally the difference between a highly damped (paper) cone and a stiff metal cone.
With the Scan you will need much larger (=expensive) components to shape down the broad 1-10kHz region. Either that or you use a electrical lowpass around 1kHz and hopefully hit an Fc around 2-3kHz.
The crossover components needed to hammer the Dayton into a workable response will be cheaper as you'll be making notch filter centered around 7kHz or so = smaller value components. Given that the breakup nodes are so high in frequency, it's probably even economical to create two notches. If you're making a 3-way then you don't even need to deal with it as it'll already be >30dB down and you should be able to hit a near perfect slope up to 4kHz with minimal components.
Last edited:
Something isn't matching, I'm sorry.
As I mentioned, I have the 18W/4531. I ended up using a 2uF cap ($2) with an 0.65mH coil ($7) and 6.2 ohm resistor as a very broad notch filter to straighten the slope of the low pass filter. Without this it ends up too plump.
If that's what you mean by expensive, then yes, I guess I spent $10 on it, besides the single coil in the low pass and a Zobel. In the grand scheme of things the notch was a minor expense (5%) against the $210 driver cost. Also, it was optional. It makes very little difference to the final FR, but mostly helps clean up the phase matching. I suspect that if I had just done a 2nd order low pass instead of a first order this problme wouldn't have even surfaced.
If you build some actual speakers with this driver, let's discuss again, but for now it seems your theory and my measurements aren't matching up at all.
Best,
Erik
As I mentioned, I have the 18W/4531. I ended up using a 2uF cap ($2) with an 0.65mH coil ($7) and 6.2 ohm resistor as a very broad notch filter to straighten the slope of the low pass filter. Without this it ends up too plump.
If that's what you mean by expensive, then yes, I guess I spent $10 on it, besides the single coil in the low pass and a Zobel. In the grand scheme of things the notch was a minor expense (5%) against the $210 driver cost. Also, it was optional. It makes very little difference to the final FR, but mostly helps clean up the phase matching. I suspect that if I had just done a 2nd order low pass instead of a first order this problme wouldn't have even surfaced.
If you build some actual speakers with this driver, let's discuss again, but for now it seems your theory and my measurements aren't matching up at all.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
To be perfectly honest this is all semantics. Both drivers are easy to use and the crossover component values will be what they are for using them correctly and for integrating them properly with whatever tweeter you decide to use.
Neither of them will present with any issues although TMM is correct in saying that the scans rising response will require more in the way of attenuation to hit a target slope. You do this by using larger components, either in the shunt or series position, maybe both, it all depends on what you're aiming for.
The fact that the Dayton doesn't go as low as the Scan is simply a design choice on the part of the engineer who came up with the target T/S parameters. The Scan goes lower at the cost of needing a bloody huge box to get there, very impractical for most people if they want a bookshelf speaker, or if they want to do a MTM or TMM configuration. The Dayton on the other hand fits right in.
For example the old RS125 needed a 12 litre box to work properly, it had really nice bass extension considering its small size. Very nice when properly used, I did a design with it and the DQ25. 12 litres is a small floor stander for a driver of that size though, which is pretty impractical. The new one fits into 3-5 litres if I remember correctly, which suits a bookshelf speaker for a driver of this size, a much better choice imo.
I vastly prefer drivers that optimise into smaller boxes that can then be used with a sub (it's easy to pick up a decent cheap second hand sub on ebay if you don't want to build one). About the only time that you don't want this is if you're after maximising the extension of a TM floor standing two way. There are drivers on the market that suit both ends of that spectrum and in between. Simply pick the driver that suits your application, then use it correctly to get the job done.
Neither of them will present with any issues although TMM is correct in saying that the scans rising response will require more in the way of attenuation to hit a target slope. You do this by using larger components, either in the shunt or series position, maybe both, it all depends on what you're aiming for.
The fact that the Dayton doesn't go as low as the Scan is simply a design choice on the part of the engineer who came up with the target T/S parameters. The Scan goes lower at the cost of needing a bloody huge box to get there, very impractical for most people if they want a bookshelf speaker, or if they want to do a MTM or TMM configuration. The Dayton on the other hand fits right in.
For example the old RS125 needed a 12 litre box to work properly, it had really nice bass extension considering its small size. Very nice when properly used, I did a design with it and the DQ25. 12 litres is a small floor stander for a driver of that size though, which is pretty impractical. The new one fits into 3-5 litres if I remember correctly, which suits a bookshelf speaker for a driver of this size, a much better choice imo.
I vastly prefer drivers that optimise into smaller boxes that can then be used with a sub (it's easy to pick up a decent cheap second hand sub on ebay if you don't want to build one). About the only time that you don't want this is if you're after maximising the extension of a TM floor standing two way. There are drivers on the market that suit both ends of that spectrum and in between. Simply pick the driver that suits your application, then use it correctly to get the job done.
Last edited:
So far I can say that nearly every Dayton driver I've used has been very close to its published spec. I cannot say the same thing for some other brands and the worst offender was Vifa. For me it was so far out to lunch that it was not even funny.
I've used SB Acoustics before as well and I think I liked the SQ a little bit more but that's subjective because maybe I was able to cross it over better..etc.
I've used SB Acoustics before as well and I think I liked the SQ a little bit more but that's subjective because maybe I was able to cross it over better..etc.
My experience is the same, Dayton drivers have excellent consistency. T/S parameters and frequency response are always dead on. I'm always impressed that the breakup nodes of their metal cone drivers are exactly the same as what the datasheet shows, even over 7-8 years of production.
Vifa and Usher are OK from what i've bought. Tang Band have good consistency but the frequency response in their datasheets is garbage. Fountek are one to add to the list of horrible consistency, at least with T/S parameters - i've had drivers that were so far off that I suspect that Fountek had substituted a wildly different spider or surround.
$10 could be breaking the bank so to speak (mind the pun) when we start looking at $20-50 woofers instead of $200 woofers. I'm all for buying cheaper woofers that have good non-linear performance but need more complicated filter work to hammer them into usable slopes, that's why the RS woofers appeal to me - it's like buying a $50 woofer and turning it into a $200 woofer with only $5-10 of components. That said with the RS woofers in the past I have used nothing more than a $1 capacitor shunted across an existing lowpass inductor - hits a 4th order acoustic slope with only a 3rd order filter and kills the majority of the metal cone breakup - now that's what I call economy 🙂. It really pains me to people bagging out the RS series for having a 'rough response' and then see people buy steaming piles of turd like the Dayton DC160 just because they have a smoother frequency response. Metal cones make a lot of sense for budget drivers.
Last edited:
No, it's not. Normal humans compare things and they draw conclusions accordingly.
Subjectively, what makes people think Scan Speak is better with nuances, comes
from the price difference of these product. It's easy to make a wrong conclusion.
What's really hard to make is objective evaluation which doesn't come with sighted
experiments.
edit: Ferrari is a toy.
Attachments
Last edited:
Differences between Scanspeak and Dayton? Well, if i am not mistaken Scanspeak is a chinese manufacturer, and Dayton a US dealer...🙄
You are confusing ownership with day-to-day management...
"Scan-Speak will continue to be located in its current facilities, and will be operated independently via its current management team. "
"Scan-Speak will continue to be located in its current facilities, and will be operated independently via its current management team. "
I am not confusing anything. I simply don't matter about chinese or not chinese.
We are all chinese, Dayton and Scanspeak first, you and me after!😀
Last edited:
There is only so much money you can put into a driver. The relationship between the price of a driver and its measured quality is weak and uncertain. In case of xover elements, certainly in the case of capacitors, there may even be an inverse relationship.
However, at the same time, the price of quality amplification has gone down incredibly fast. In short, you may be right. But not at the level of spending 1000$, but rather 100$.
I suspect that a large amount of manufacturing is done in china, even if the final assembly is done on danish soil. Enough to keep costs down, not enough for someone to steal an entire design or for QC to go out the window. Nothing wrong with that.
Dayton are more a distributor than a manufacturer. Many of their drivers are simply a slight twist on an existing driver. It's well known that they resell drivers from Morel, Usher, Peerless India, Eminence and probably a whole slew of little known asian OEMs.
