Thanks!
At first, it was a matter of power handling. The TW29 is a great tweeter but it doesn't like to be played loud with 12dB/oct crossover. The bottom of the frequency range handled by it would start to distort at high volume levels.
It wasn't my first choice to 'downgrade' to a non-satori tweeter.
The TW29 has a rising response at the top, something I never corrected in the crossover as it seems to be following the loudness-curve I actually liked it that way.
This experience made listening to the SB26ADC sound different in a bad way, but after copying the TW29 response to the SB26, it was really, really hard to notice the differences at first. I liked it because it sounded the same as TW29 but handled more power at the same time. After a while I noticed that the SB26 just seems a tad more detailed, especially at the bottom region (to my ears). Testing the distortion profiles of both tweeters confirmed that SB26 had a similar 3rd harmonic distortion profile, it has much lower 2nd harmonics. Music sounds more real. Especially metallic instruments seem to be more detailed. Also, dispersion is better than the Satori. It really should be a Satori branded tweeter.
To sum it up:
SB26ADC:
1: More power handling (higher max SPL)
2: Less 2nd harmonic distortion
3: Better dispersion characteristics
4: A lot cheaper
It would make a lot of sense when SB acoustics finish the waveguide development for the SB26 to add some more copper, use an aluminium back chamber, call it Satori and sell them for 300 a piece. This tweeter is a bargain as of now. So yes, this €40 tweeter outperforms the €140 Satori tweeter in a lot of ways. I couldn't ask for more.
I doubt de BlieSMa would outperform it. That tweeter would be really difficult to use with low 12dB/oct crossovers if not impossible. Even if it could, distortion is higher.
At first, it was a matter of power handling. The TW29 is a great tweeter but it doesn't like to be played loud with 12dB/oct crossover. The bottom of the frequency range handled by it would start to distort at high volume levels.
It wasn't my first choice to 'downgrade' to a non-satori tweeter.
The TW29 has a rising response at the top, something I never corrected in the crossover as it seems to be following the loudness-curve I actually liked it that way.
This experience made listening to the SB26ADC sound different in a bad way, but after copying the TW29 response to the SB26, it was really, really hard to notice the differences at first. I liked it because it sounded the same as TW29 but handled more power at the same time. After a while I noticed that the SB26 just seems a tad more detailed, especially at the bottom region (to my ears). Testing the distortion profiles of both tweeters confirmed that SB26 had a similar 3rd harmonic distortion profile, it has much lower 2nd harmonics. Music sounds more real. Especially metallic instruments seem to be more detailed. Also, dispersion is better than the Satori. It really should be a Satori branded tweeter.
To sum it up:
SB26ADC:
1: More power handling (higher max SPL)
2: Less 2nd harmonic distortion
3: Better dispersion characteristics
4: A lot cheaper
It would make a lot of sense when SB acoustics finish the waveguide development for the SB26 to add some more copper, use an aluminium back chamber, call it Satori and sell them for 300 a piece. This tweeter is a bargain as of now. So yes, this €40 tweeter outperforms the €140 Satori tweeter in a lot of ways. I couldn't ask for more.
I doubt de BlieSMa would outperform it. That tweeter would be really difficult to use with low 12dB/oct crossovers if not impossible. Even if it could, distortion is higher.
This is a great Wharfedale E70 speaker incorporating some good ideas:
My first speakers! They still leave me with the fondest memories with classic rock
Thank you very much for elaborating. Shows that cheaper drivers can sometimes be better in a specific configuration. I like to cross a little higher i.e. 2100 - But of course it depends what sounds best. I have used SB29 and I did notch down the rising response to make it flat (keep in mind I listen at close distance in a small but damped room).
Have you tried crossing it higher?
Sorry for OP if this is too OT.
Still the TW29 is relatively cheap compared to SS high-end tweeters.
Have you tried crossing it higher?
Sorry for OP if this is too OT.
Still the TW29 is relatively cheap compared to SS high-end tweeters.
Well, if your listening nearfield, that wouldn't be much of a problem.
For me, the problem is crossing over any higher than 1780, beaming of the MW16 becomes a problem, resulting in a worse power-response.
All this OT talk maybe helps OP realise that good speaker design doesn't always have to do with choosing the best units. Crossovers and baffle design are way more important than I ever thought when starting this hobby. Not having rounded edges on a baffle makes it pointless to invest in a good tweeter, because it will not do it justice. Same goes for crossovers. If you don't measure, it probably won't live up to expecations. If it does, then you just don't realise what's the potential.
For me, the problem is crossing over any higher than 1780, beaming of the MW16 becomes a problem, resulting in a worse power-response.
All this OT talk maybe helps OP realise that good speaker design doesn't always have to do with choosing the best units. Crossovers and baffle design are way more important than I ever thought when starting this hobby. Not having rounded edges on a baffle makes it pointless to invest in a good tweeter, because it will not do it justice. Same goes for crossovers. If you don't measure, it probably won't live up to expecations. If it does, then you just don't realise what's the potential.
Thanks!
I have also found that making baffle where diffraction issues are handled properly is VERY important.
Read this for a nice explanation - And it still holds true:
http://www.dwdrums.com/images/moonmic/olson_direct-radiator-loudspeaker-enclosures.pdf
To OP I will suggest to make a test baffle to see how the tweeter behave. My guess it that it will not work well. I like to keep it centered - And normally it work well if the tweeter is positioned close to the top ie. 1-2 cm.
In regards to crossover I would suggest looking into the Samuel Harsch topology. Basically based on a 4. order BW filter and 2. order Bessel filter. I think it sounds VERY good. Harsch made af NICE paper / PowerPoint about his ideas.
The tweeter and midwoofer must be delayed depending on the crossover. Ie 2100 = 1/2100*0.5*1000 = 0,238 ms. for the tweeter. On top of that a little bit to get them acoustically aligned.
Also a very important fact. The standard filters in miniDSP cannot just be used to implement ie a 2. order LR filter. You need to mingle around to get the right curve. Same goes on with the Samuel Harsch topology. Basically the same as with a passive filter. No generic filter will work on a set of drivers if the filter is not made for the drivers in the first place.
I have also found that making baffle where diffraction issues are handled properly is VERY important.
Read this for a nice explanation - And it still holds true:
http://www.dwdrums.com/images/moonmic/olson_direct-radiator-loudspeaker-enclosures.pdf
To OP I will suggest to make a test baffle to see how the tweeter behave. My guess it that it will not work well. I like to keep it centered - And normally it work well if the tweeter is positioned close to the top ie. 1-2 cm.
In regards to crossover I would suggest looking into the Samuel Harsch topology. Basically based on a 4. order BW filter and 2. order Bessel filter. I think it sounds VERY good. Harsch made af NICE paper / PowerPoint about his ideas.
The tweeter and midwoofer must be delayed depending on the crossover. Ie 2100 = 1/2100*0.5*1000 = 0,238 ms. for the tweeter. On top of that a little bit to get them acoustically aligned.
Also a very important fact. The standard filters in miniDSP cannot just be used to implement ie a 2. order LR filter. You need to mingle around to get the right curve. Same goes on with the Samuel Harsch topology. Basically the same as with a passive filter. No generic filter will work on a set of drivers if the filter is not made for the drivers in the first place.
Reduce not eliminate. The radius of roundover does play a role in the frequency range and efficiency of reduction by the way (for the high frequency side of it, bsc is a diffraction too and this is the other side of it).
Only way to eliminate is in wall.
Have you refined your choice now Threewayaddict?
Because if you have, what i proposed you in mp still stand if you want or need it.
Only way to eliminate is in wall.
Have you refined your choice now Threewayaddict?
Because if you have, what i proposed you in mp still stand if you want or need it.
Last edited:
Okay, I've not entirely red the piece because of dyslexia and an instant heart attack as soon as I see a long equation of words but the box with the slanted top and side edges seems to show quite good results but obviously it has a lot to do with the dimensions and wavelengths.
I know that tiny piece of soft stuff on the faceplate of the Illuminator doesn't do much but every little bit helps.
Well because I for the first time I came up with a driver selection didn't get everybody involved in this thread shouting at my "it's like watching a train crash in slow motion" I think I'm gonna go for the Scan-Speak Illuminator D3004/662000 with the W18NX001. I've also searched around for every subwoofer I could possibly use to be sure I wasn't fooling myself all the time with my subwoofer choice but the SB23MFCL45-4's are still the best choice, or at least for under €150,- a piece.
What do you mean with what you proposed?
Last edited:
What's the problem with the 2x4? It only has to do the processing. I'm already feeding it from my Bluesound Node 2 DAC. I would like to use a bigger, more powerful DSP but they are so expensive. The one that would probably be the best suiting for me would be the 4x10 HD but that thing is almost €700,- without measuring mic! And with that many outputs I could use fully active crossover for each layer but that would also require another amp which then will be even more expensive.
Even when keeping the NeoX and taking a cheaper Dayton mid that would be super expensive. But the Dayton I think had some pretty bad cone breakup or at least that's what I heard.
But I've already got an email back from the store. They want to make an exception for me one more time. So I'll return the NeoX. I'm pretty sure the Scan-Speak and Excel will make for a better sounding or at least better achievable result both driver and crossover wise.
But I've already got an email back from the store. They want to make an exception for me one more time. So I'll return the NeoX. I'm pretty sure the Scan-Speak and Excel will make for a better sounding or at least better achievable result both driver and crossover wise.
What could I reach with the capabilities of a DSP built in an amplifier like the Crown XLS if I were to measure and then manually adjust the DSP of the amplifier and then commit myself enough to build a complete passive crossover for the mid/high section? Taking a XLS for the subwoofers, leaving the MiniDSP and then measure to adjust the subwoofers and build the crossover.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.