I'm comparing the following woofers:
6” SB17NRX2C35-4
6" SB17NBAC35-4
6" SB17MFC35-4
does anyone have any experience on what to expect between these different drivers. I can make them all work for my planned 2-way, but I'm not sure on the relative advantages/differences between the cone material.
Could anyone provide some insight into the effects of the different materials. What applications best suit the different materials used in the cone?
6” SB17NRX2C35-4
6" SB17NBAC35-4
6" SB17MFC35-4
does anyone have any experience on what to expect between these different drivers. I can make them all work for my planned 2-way, but I'm not sure on the relative advantages/differences between the cone material.
Could anyone provide some insight into the effects of the different materials. What applications best suit the different materials used in the cone?
Troels did 3 speakers with these but some are 8 ohm versions.
SBAcoustics-61-NAC
SBAcoustics-61-MFC
SBAcoustics-61-NRXC
Jeff Bagby used the MFC in his Tributes.
I've used the SB17NAC35-8 and SB17MFC35-8 and find the NAC the best in detail, control plus bottom end but the MFC is the easiest to work with. NAC was crossed over around 2100Hz and MFC around 2300Hz. I've used SB26STAC-C000-4 with both and SB29RDAC-C000-4 with the MFC. Both are excellent drivers but are slightly different in presentation. For a metal driver the NAC is easy to work with as the breakup is handled well enough by the xo.
I've heard the NRX a long time ago but don't remember any details. I've used the SB12NRX drivers and they are excellent but I don't know if that also relates to the 6" version.
SBAcoustics-61-NAC
SBAcoustics-61-MFC
SBAcoustics-61-NRXC
Jeff Bagby used the MFC in his Tributes.
I've used the SB17NAC35-8 and SB17MFC35-8 and find the NAC the best in detail, control plus bottom end but the MFC is the easiest to work with. NAC was crossed over around 2100Hz and MFC around 2300Hz. I've used SB26STAC-C000-4 with both and SB29RDAC-C000-4 with the MFC. Both are excellent drivers but are slightly different in presentation. For a metal driver the NAC is easy to work with as the breakup is handled well enough by the xo.
I've heard the NRX a long time ago but don't remember any details. I've used the SB12NRX drivers and they are excellent but I don't know if that also relates to the 6" version.
I have the Nac 4 ohm. Great driver in every way, can't fault it. Smooth sounding, detailed, great mid and bass, not hard to use. I've used it up to 2.6khz.
I have all of those, gen 1 of the paper cone though, and i can not decide which one is best, at the moment i use the poly cone, and i do not think they are so much smoother the others
But I do think it sounds better the the satori mw16
But I do think it sounds better the the satori mw16
" and i do not think they are so much smoother the others" I'm having hard time understanding what you mean.
You mean the polycone is much smoother than the others?
Yeah I'm leaning towards using either the gen 2 paper cone or the aluminum, with a slight lean towards the new paper cone.
I enjoy Troels description of the paper cone version.
"Here the final SBA-61 construction. The SBAcoustics SB17NRXC35-8 driver obviously fit right into the cabinet used for the two other constructions.
Hard pressed paper cones offer very much the same level of transparency as other hard cones. They also share the same cone break-up at higher frequences like aluminium, hence must be treated accordingly, i.e. 4th order filters. Only a few changes from the 61-NAC crossover had to be made. As can be seen below, a fairly straight forward LR4, 4th order filter.
The primary thing that characterise these three speakers is the crossover topology. Thoughts on the difference in sound from LR2 and LR4 filters can be found here. Secondly the cone material adds to the particular sound of a speaker and I won't even try to add words to what it means, it must be experienced." - Troels
Troels experience sort of echoes mine. I compared the poly and paper with LR4 (acoustic) crossover although no extraordinary attempts at burying the paper's breakup. I thought the paper had sort of a constant low level hiss. Clearly the breakup needs to be dealt with, but then what's the point of using the paper over the metal? The poly OTOH relative to the paper had a certain "calmness" to it. It was a short audition, but I didn't feel it gave up any detail, in fact was better in that removed the background hiss of the paper. So for me the poly is good sounding driver that is easy to work with. If you are really obsessed with the lost detail, skip the paper and wrestle with the metal ones.
Typically, polycones has a smooth freq response, but those mfc behaves more in line with sb's paper and alucones
I know it's an old one, but maybe someone can give their thoughts on it. I have the old paper and black alu cone in 4ohm version. The paper is kind of muddy but very easy on ears with nice warmth, the ALU very clean, too clean and almost sterile without the trace of paper warmth. The box is 17L, 38-40Hz port tuning, 10 degr sloped baffle for acoustic center alignment with SB29RDNC close to woofer frame. The x-o LR4 around 2-2.2k (can't go lower as the 29RDNC just distort too much) with RLC trap to kill the cone resonances on ALU cone. So, do I like them, not really paper is noisy and lacking details but very forgiving, NBAC way too analytical and boomy in low end, but seems to work very nicely with 5x8 PR. Also the Qts on ALU cones is higher, thus giving extra 1-1.5dB around 80Hz over paper in BR version. So, maybe I should try poly cone for something with 'in the middle' character and change my tweeter choice for something with lower distortions and less overdamped sound - any ideas?
Last edited:
If I had to do a standard 2-way at moderate cost, it would be with:
Tymphany NE180W-08 (vented, keeping any "fill" off of the interior walls by at least 3 inches), this driver needs a narrow-band notch around 3.8 kHz with a typical low-pass filter. This driver should offer more detail than the SB paper, and shouldn't be over-damped (lacking some decay) like the SB Aluminum.
and,
SB26STAC-C000-4
(..less damping, better dispersion - needs a good high-pass filter)
Crossover around 2 kHz.
Tymphany NE180W-08 (vented, keeping any "fill" off of the interior walls by at least 3 inches), this driver needs a narrow-band notch around 3.8 kHz with a typical low-pass filter. This driver should offer more detail than the SB paper, and shouldn't be over-damped (lacking some decay) like the SB Aluminum.
and,
SB26STAC-C000-4
(..less damping, better dispersion - needs a good high-pass filter)
Crossover around 2 kHz.
Last edited:
The SB tweeter is going to be quite a bit more efficient than Vifa once you've corrected for baffle step.. requiring more resistance.
Still, I haven't done any modeling on the drivers for a 2-way - so maybe the 4 ohm would be better? 😱
Oh, probably should have already linked Tim's measurements of the Vifa:
Timothy Feleppa's Pages: Speaker Measurements - Woofers 5" to 8"
Still, I haven't done any modeling on the drivers for a 2-way - so maybe the 4 ohm would be better? 😱
Oh, probably should have already linked Tim's measurements of the Vifa:
Timothy Feleppa's Pages: Speaker Measurements - Woofers 5" to 8"
Attachments
Thanks for the suggestions. No problem with higher efficiency on the tweeter side, actually having a few dB more allows for some degree of transfer function shaping and damping of tweeter fs peak. I had the SB17 ALU 4ohm playing with Kartesian TWT-30 in their 'horn' which has some 7dB more out on infinite baffle and almost twice as much when mounted in the actual box. Wasn't easy to implement and barely doable. Anything with 90-93dB/2.83V should be OK. Ahh, the Vifa's peak at 3.8k isn't so bad, nothing comparing to SB 'Himalayas' above 3.5kHz in paper or the 9kHz ALU cone resonance present in off axis resp, which can't be easily burried without RLC and other tricks. I fixed the boomy bass in my room by stuffing the end of the port with roled piece of Dacron about 2" wide to lower the ports out and kill some resonances.
Zvu, did you got any response regarding the Polish made STX Carbon fiber cone 6" midwoofer once you asked about. Somehow nobody seems to use it on Polish DIY forum. Maybe one day I will ask what they think about it.
Zvu, did you got any response regarding the Polish made STX Carbon fiber cone 6" midwoofer once you asked about. Somehow nobody seems to use it on Polish DIY forum. Maybe one day I will ask what they think about it.
Interestingly NE180-4's T/S parameters allow for a smaller cabinet but it doesn't go very low. (~7-8L F3 65Hz)
NE180W-8 can go in 1/2 to 0.8cu foot and can go lower (about 20L and F3 ~38Hz)
NE180W-8 can go in 1/2 to 0.8cu foot and can go lower (about 20L and F3 ~38Hz)
Due to higher Qts - the 8 ohm version of a driver will have better base extension than it's 4 ohm sibling at the expense of sensitivity.
Though the average sensitivity for the 8 ohm driver is a decent *89.5 db average (and like its linearity: better than shown on their spec. sheet).
*subtract 10.5 db from the average shown on Tim's measurement.
*subtract 10.5 db from the average shown on Tim's measurement.
This driver has been around for a decade.
I wonder why it has been flying under the radar?
I do recall John Krutke measuring an early pre-production sample (with heat sink to motor) and then a production sample in its early Viva NE days.
The FR was not as nice as what Tim measured.
One can then presume that it got better over time. How many did Tim measure?
I might see if I can order a few and test…
I wonder why it has been flying under the radar?
I do recall John Krutke measuring an early pre-production sample (with heat sink to motor) and then a production sample in its early Viva NE days.
The FR was not as nice as what Tim measured.
One can then presume that it got better over time. How many did Tim measure?
I might see if I can order a few and test…
Vifa ne180w is a steal, at least for the price in europe.
Michael chua likes it and rates it above the satori mw16, also Timothy Feleppa states that is probably the most suitable driver for 2way.
I also wonder why it is under the radar and not seen many people working on it.
Michael chua likes it and rates it above the satori mw16, also Timothy Feleppa states that is probably the most suitable driver for 2way.
I also wonder why it is under the radar and not seen many people working on it.