There are no extended data published about the "ceramic" coned SB17CAC35, but it's aluminium coned SB17NBAC35 sibling has been measured by
Measurements and compare | Page 2 | HiFiCompass
On this site, you also will find data about the paper coned SB17NRXC35. Besides the different cones, all these three drivers seem otherwise quite identically built.
Using these two available data sets, there are 2 facts to extract from:
1. Restricting the CAC/NBAC to a frequency range to 200Hz ... 2000Hz is wise. These drivers are simply excellent in this range, the NBAC producing fantastic lowish < 0.2% thd from 200Hz ... 2500Hz @ 90dB. At 100Hz thd is already fifefold with >1%, and at 70Hz it has reached >5%. Furthermore and as a non-specific fact, two signals of 100Hz and 2000Hz will produce much more doppler distortion than two signals of 200Hz and 2000Hz.
2. Going back to the metal v.s. paper discussion: The published data (thd, step response and waterfall) of the NBAC (Aluminium) and the NRXC (Paper) show a clear superiority of the metal-cone in all these three assessments within the useful passband: The paper coned NRXC looks really not bad. But the alumiuim coned NBAC is even better.
Last edited:
Yes it does. But I think this is one of a few things that is difficult to hear. If you understand the meaning of "one-note bass" then I think you can hear it.
Do you mean SPL or quality (i.e. integrity)?
Imo, smaller diameter will be better. But then we will have to work hard to get the quality in the lower range.
A specialized mudrange driver will be always better in the medium due to its less long vouce coil...i.e. giving better micro details, NO?
the danger in the range we are talking about in the discussion...100 to 400 hz, is a cone have to do many things. Impacts in the low but very few near 400 hz about exursion in the same time
Crossover strategy seems critical in that area; as voice coil construction...number of turns; length of the voice coil... in my mind, true or not, the mid shoul beginn around 150 hz...but the 100 to 200 hz gap is more tricky than the 100 400 hz. I SURMISE here a line array of several same little drivers below 5 inches for a total Sd of a 10 inches is a winning solution. Certainly with an aded complexity about making the soundstage right...
the danger in the range we are talking about in the discussion...100 to 400 hz, is a cone have to do many things. Impacts in the low but very few near 400 hz about exursion in the same time
Crossover strategy seems critical in that area; as voice coil construction...number of turns; length of the voice coil... in my mind, true or not, the mid shoul beginn around 150 hz...but the 100 to 200 hz gap is more tricky than the 100 400 hz. I SURMISE here a line array of several same little drivers below 5 inches for a total Sd of a 10 inches is a winning solution. Certainly with an aded complexity about making the soundstage right...
I agree with both of you. 3way seems to be the sweet spot for domestic use.
My Tannoys (I started off with LittleReds) improved considerably in clarity by implementing 2 changes: Active operation and removing bass duties by adding a dedicated woofer.
If paper is better, then every high-end manufacturers will use paper for their top-of-the -line drivers. Shouldn't it be obvious?
What not so obvious is what a paper cone can deliver. That's why those manufacturers still try hard to combine paper with other materials to make it stiff.
slipy off topigg
could have be if my mind was "coupled" to the board, but here it's simply big itchy fingers on a small smartphone. btw, more and more thanks to the tech you can now voice your phrases on some social networks and it makes very funny results, some freudian... lol . I just can imagine myself on a sofa talking to my loudspeaker behind with the smartphone on it about my young days.... "doctor, I was looking for the perfect mud range !"... lol....... "I'm your father will respond the black NBAC driver with a caverned sound -cause i failed the filter, the weed one-
let's go back to "science", sort of
A Freudian slip of the finger?
could have be if my mind was "coupled" to the board, but here it's simply big itchy fingers on a small smartphone. btw, more and more thanks to the tech you can now voice your phrases on some social networks and it makes very funny results, some freudian... lol . I just can imagine myself on a sofa talking to my loudspeaker behind with the smartphone on it about my young days.... "doctor, I was looking for the perfect mud range !"... lol....... "I'm your father will respond the black NBAC driver with a caverned sound -cause i failed the filter, the weed one-
let's go back to "science", sort of
I don't understand what you are saying. If Dayton "seems" to work in smaller volume that's probably because the Vas is low and you are trying to use it in a closed box. And Vas is proportional to Cms.
I don't understand what trade-off. But drivers are designed with so many parameters with reflect different goals. Apple to apple comparison is difficult. Dayton is very good for the price but I think I will pick the more expensive SB for sound quality.
What I'm trying to figure out - is. Are there any drawbacks to lower Vas? Is it a compromise towards smaller and more designed focused speakers, rather than sound quality, when a speaker driver is able to play in smaller boxes?
And how is a SB better quality than Dayton? SB clearly needs more box volume... so that forces me to have a bigger speaker to get the same spl - no?
Last edited:
Indeed. I think the paper cone will be easier on ears. It's higher Fs is not an issue because it's not suitable for 2-way anyway. It will be easier to work with.
OTOH, the paperglass cone will give more detail that I like. It depends how serious the hump at 2k is. From distortion chart it was a 2nd order but I doubt it, there might be bigger issue than shown. And the position of this hump is in the middle of the audio band such that it is difficult to fix.
Above 10kHz there is a 2nd order hump that I believe is audible. Probably 10F has something similar as I could hear there was extra sweetness at the top end. But of course I wont run the midrange without LPF or an additional tweeter.
Like always, it is detail versus cost, ease of design and natural sound. I will pick the detail one assuming the 2k issue can be fixed (even with extra cost!).
Just my guess.
Smaller Vas = lower Qms?
To me a high Q subwoofer is for cars - small space. Whereas 0,6-0,7Q subwoofer are for home systems - bigger place.
Is this true for woofers and midranges too? Because I seek a tight, detailed and dynamic mid-woofer to fill in around 80-100hz to 3-500hz.
If it shows on all axis' - then it should be easily fixable with EQ. But we only have an on-axis curve... so we are left to guess for sure
If it shows on all axis' - then it should be easily fixable with EQ. But we only have an on-axis curve... so we are left to guess for sure
There is up to 45deg curve in the document. We don't know if the manufacturer's chart is fully "honest" or not. Those who have worked with this driver should be able to tell.
Woops ...forgot to scroll all the way down in my haste
Indeed it has the 2kHz bump on all axis'. So that would be an easy fix with EQ
We'll with active DSP filters it is.... have no clue when it comes to passive design Vas is more related with closed box. The SB is more suitable for bass reflex. I don't think there is a correlation between Vas and quality (surely not spl). But low Vas is probably the result of not pursuing lower Fs.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.