hello everyone, I am writing because I would like to have some opinions on a midwoofer that is rarely talked about on the forums and that is the seas w12cy003.
in particular, it could be used with a 9500/9700 or the illuminato 660000 scanspeak tweeter?
my idea is to build two mini monitor of 4 or 5 liters.
thank you
in particular, it could be used with a 9500/9700 or the illuminato 660000 scanspeak tweeter?
my idea is to build two mini monitor of 4 or 5 liters.
thank you
Last edited:
what I would like to understand is if what are the best frequencies to cut this midwoofer and those tweeters and if they are compatible
Yes, I think this is straightforward enough. Largely been done before by the master himself, Mr. Troels Gravesen in Eekels' Mini:
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/W12.htm
A severe issue with shout at 900Hz on the woofer in a narrow cabinet which Troels' notches. 3khz crossover since a 4" will have breakup around 9kHz.
Swapping the metal 92db 4.9R SEAS 98mm tweeter for a soft dome 90dB 4.8R 104mm Scan 9500 should merely require changing R1011 from 8.2R to about 6.2R. You would have to run a sim to adjust the exact frequency response of the tweeters, but I would chance it here unless you are quite experienced with simulators.
https://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d2905-950000.pdf
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...cle&id=79:h1283-06-22tafg&catid=45&Itemid=239
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...8s-w12cy003&catid=49:excel-woofers&Itemid=359
A 4.8L cabinet from Troels. I wouldn't go smaller. You can use cheaper and smaller capacitor crossover components and ceramic resistors IMO. Use any good air-core coils. I can never hear any difference.
Nice project, if pricey. Those on a budget might think about the CA12RCY and 22TAF/G:
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...2rcy&catid=44:utv-prestige-woofers&Itemid=461
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/W12.htm
A severe issue with shout at 900Hz on the woofer in a narrow cabinet which Troels' notches. 3khz crossover since a 4" will have breakup around 9kHz.
Swapping the metal 92db 4.9R SEAS 98mm tweeter for a soft dome 90dB 4.8R 104mm Scan 9500 should merely require changing R1011 from 8.2R to about 6.2R. You would have to run a sim to adjust the exact frequency response of the tweeters, but I would chance it here unless you are quite experienced with simulators.
https://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/d2905-950000.pdf
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...cle&id=79:h1283-06-22tafg&catid=45&Itemid=239
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...8s-w12cy003&catid=49:excel-woofers&Itemid=359
A 4.8L cabinet from Troels. I wouldn't go smaller. You can use cheaper and smaller capacitor crossover components and ceramic resistors IMO. Use any good air-core coils. I can never hear any difference.
Nice project, if pricey. Those on a budget might think about the CA12RCY and 22TAF/G:
http://www.seas.no/index.php?option...2rcy&catid=44:utv-prestige-woofers&Itemid=461
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. my only experience as a DIYer is that of a pair of speakers with seas ca18rly midwoofer and seas 27tdfc tweeter in a 32lt box loaded with reflex. now I wanted to build mini monitors with finer speakers but I have never used such small midwoofers. so you say that I can cut them even to 2.5 / 3khz without problems? because in the 9500 datasheet there is a recommended frequency of 2.5khz
Adapting a design and a redesign depends on how much time and experience you have!
The Scan tweeters ought to be happy at 2.5kHz crossover. As would the Seas 27TDFC.
Your CA18RLY is a quite tricky woofer IMO, and dispersion at 3kHz might be more problematic. Troels adds a tank 18R/0.47uF breakup notch to the woofer which has significant breakup around 4kHz. It's acting around 6kHz and would be audible.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/SEAS_CA18RLY-COMPACT.htm
I always remember that the product of 1mH and 1uF is a 5kHz notch and take it from there.
The Scan tweeters ought to be happy at 2.5kHz crossover. As would the Seas 27TDFC.
Your CA18RLY is a quite tricky woofer IMO, and dispersion at 3kHz might be more problematic. Troels adds a tank 18R/0.47uF breakup notch to the woofer which has significant breakup around 4kHz. It's acting around 6kHz and would be audible.
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/SEAS_CA18RLY-COMPACT.htm
I always remember that the product of 1mH and 1uF is a 5kHz notch and take it from there.
I tell you the truth, I designed those speakers with the ca18rly, in the sense that I designed the crossover using a simulator, then measuring and then by ear. the same thing I would like to do with these mini monitors, so I'm not interested in taking a different project and adapting it to mine ... obvious maybe for some ideas. but the satisfaction of having done it alone is greater, even if it sounds a little worse 🤓
Ok thank you...and what do you think about 9700 or illuminator 620000( i like very much off axis frequency response of 620000).
Thank you
Thank you
Know nothing about these various tweeters, nor virtually any drivers made after the early '80s, only know where in a driver's pistonic BW they match WRT directivity.
Next point = ~3229 Hz, D9700 = 2.8 kHz, so 3.2 kHz or up at ~3687/~3941/~4072/~4212 Hz for this woofer, though of course the higher the more it beams, so figure your in room polar response requirements at the listening position/whatever and if they can't be met, then best to choose drivers that can. 😉
Next point = ~3229 Hz, D9700 = 2.8 kHz, so 3.2 kHz or up at ~3687/~3941/~4072/~4212 Hz for this woofer, though of course the higher the more it beams, so figure your in room polar response requirements at the listening position/whatever and if they can't be met, then best to choose drivers that can. 😉
Last edited:
Of course! The BBC, and others, have concluded from their research that there’s no correlation between measurements like distortion, waterfall plots etc and sound quality. The BBC have also said that if sound quality doesn’t agree with the theory, then the theory is wrong! Consequently, I rely on my ability to distinguish between different drive units by listening. However, listening without a clear framework can only lead to confusion, so it’s important that the criteria relates to the desired outcome, whatever that may be: smoothness, dynamics, neutrality, detail etc. For me, I’m only interested in one thing; how well a loudspeaker is able to reproduce a notes fundamental and associated harmonics, producing a musically pleasant sound. I know that it’s a radical approach, but after completing the build, I’ll want to be able to enjoy listening to it, and I certainly won’t be measuring it!
thank you very much, I agree with you. what kind of differences did your ear hear? is the 6600 too precise / analytical?
Tony Gee's HATT series would be worth a look if you are interested in the Seas 12cm size drivers as a mini-monitor:
https://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/archive.html
https://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/archive.html
You’re welcome! To me, the 6600 sounds very similar to most modern drive units; they give the impression of being detailed and dynamic, but to me it’s just added distortion (despite what the distortion figures might look like!). The distortion give a guitar “attack”, but chords are lost within the noise. I find this type of reproduction quite tiresome after a while because not only are harmonies destroyed, subtle timing is affected too. I wouldn’t like to say that the 9700 is perfect, but it’s the most musical tweeter I’ve heard so far, out of D2010/8521, D2904/7100, D2905/9900, D3004/6620 and several tweeters from highly rated commercial loudspeakers. There are too many tweeters to try them all, but for me the 9700 is good enough to stick with for now. At some point I’d like to try the new D2010 replacement, a Hiquphon, and maybe a few others.