Satori vs Revelator

[cs]

This is really a follow-up to my recent thread on comparing the Satori midwoofers to the SB17 series.

I'm interested in people's experience with the Satori MW16P-8 midwoofer in comparison to the Scanspeak Revelator 18W/8531G00, or their respective 4 ohm variants. In the UK, the former sells for around £120 and the latter £180, so they are in a similar priceband.

 

[celef]

are they really comparable, there is a huge difference in size i think

satori mw16 123cm2
revelator 18w 158,3cm2
revelator 15w 100,2cm2

 

[rabbitz]

I've used 8 ohm versions and both are great drivers that can deliver good detail and low distortion. Been a long time since I heard the 18W8531G00 as I gave it away as part of a 3-way speaker where it ran mid duty. I did find that it could do great bass or mids but not at the same time hence the mid duty from around 100Hz. For 2-way use, an under size box 20-24 litres worked the best and found the modelled 30 litre plus was too big, even though it had lower extension, it didn't have the control. I ended up coating mine as there was nasal quality to it.

The MW16P-8 is a smoother driver but I use that in an under size box so don't know how it handles low bass (<50Hz). I think it is the better driver with less compromises in the driver design. SB Acoustics seems to have picked a good balance between price and performance.

 

[cs]

I've used 8 ohm versions and both are great drivers that can deliver good detail and low distortion. Been a long time since I heard the 18W8531G00 as I gave it away as part of a 3-way speaker where it ran mid duty. I did find that it could do great bass or mids but not at the same time hence the mid duty from around 100Hz. For 2-way use, an under size box 20-24 litres worked the best and found the modelled 30 litre plus was too big, even though it had lower extension, it didn't have the control. I ended up coating mine as there was nasal quality to it.

The MW16P-8 is a smoother driver but I use that in an under size box so don't know how it handles low bass (<50Hz). I think it is the better driver with less compromises in the driver design. SB Acoustics seems to have picked a good balance between price and performance.

Thanks, useful info.

I would be using the chosen woofer in a compact MLTL cabinet of around 20 litres volume.

I have a pair of both the SB29RDC and SB26ADC tweeters, which I would be using with the woofer. I have tried the SB29RDC before with other drivers, but I found it a bit dull and lifeless. Haven't tried the SB26ADC at all yet, but hoping it would be a better.

 

[rabbitz]

I prefer the SB26ADC over the SB29RDAC. I'm still not sure about ring radiators but you either love or hate them (I didn't like the old XT25TG but others swear by them).

I found the SB26ADC partnered well with SB17NAC to give a lively presentation and the SB29RDAC partnered well with MW16P-8 to give a more smooth presentation. Of course the crossover has a large influence on the final sonics.

 

[Rokytheman]

I ended up coating mine as there was nasal quality to it...

Very interested in the recipe for coating the paper cone. Will you share it ?

 

[Rokytheman]

Very interested in the recipe for coating the paper cone. Willing to share it ?

 

[brianco]

I seem to remember that there is a thread on this subject. We used White Shellac Resin , well diluted and two coats applied to front AND back. This was on Lowther drivers.

 

[Moondog55]

Might not be relevant to good drivers but on my cheap paper coned woofers I used diluted PVA wood glue, several coats allowing extended drying time in between coats

 

[rabbitz]

I used one coat of Visaton LTS-50. It gives a flexible coating that does not stiffen the cone.

Soundlabs Group Cone Damping Liquid LTS-50

 

[ScottG]

(I didn't like the old XT25TG but others swear by them).

-yup, there only seem to be a few of us that find them lacking. A bit "thin" with restricted depth, along with only modest off-axis performance in the top octave.

Clear, yes. But not what I'd recommend.

 

[5th element]

Some of us actually prefer the way the XT25 sounds specifically because of the lower amount of energy it throws out off axis. Then the lower intensity of early reflections that results in.

What your room is like and your personal preference towards how you like things to sound will determine if you prefer something like the XT25 or not.

 

[celef]

To me, xt25 works poorly in a small room/speaker setup but works much better in a large system

 

[brianco]

I seem to remember that there is a thread on this subject. We used White Shellac Resin , well diluted and two coats applied to front AND back. This was on Lowther drivers.

...the intent was to stiffen the cone rather than increase damping.

 

[ScottG]

Some of us actually prefer the way the XT25 sounds specifically because of the lower amount of energy it throws out off axis. Then the lower intensity of early reflections that results in.

What your room is like and your personal preference towards how you like things to sound will determine if you prefer something like the XT25 or not.

Not to me.

What I specifically don't like about it has everything to do with the suspension (or rather it's lacking suspension) - generating resistance and damping at extremely low excursion. And most of that objection relates to freq.s lower than 5 kHz.

To an extent I'm also not fond of the Mms and how it lacks a bit of image "density" relative to a more standard dome (..again, below 5 kHz).

Note: I don't like the "dimple-dome" tweeters from SB either, though almost exclusively because of the suspension's "stiffness". (..not the amount of Mms, at least in relation to the larger diaphragm tweeters.)


On the other hand I do like the Scan Speak D2604/ 833000 (..and presumably the Peerless version as well). Still not as good as a good standard dome with respect to mechanical resistance, but it's a much better compromise overall (both subjectively (IMO) and objectively) - and it's also better in a waveguide than a standard dome.