Hey guys
i found the tweeter for my next project, the seas t35
now theres the alnico magnet and neo magnet
anyone had the chance to hear both?
if not, any though on which i should go for?
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...-exotic-t35-x3-06-tweeter-with-alnico-magnet/
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/seas-soft-dome-tweeters/seas-excel-t35c-002-35mm-mid-tweeter/
i found the tweeter for my next project, the seas t35
now theres the alnico magnet and neo magnet
anyone had the chance to hear both?
if not, any though on which i should go for?
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...-exotic-t35-x3-06-tweeter-with-alnico-magnet/
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/seas-soft-dome-tweeters/seas-excel-t35c-002-35mm-mid-tweeter/
Last edited:
Sounds like a fine choice either way. I have to alnico set waiting for woofers to add - had the Exotic 8 in in mind but more and more considering a 10 in instead.
What will you be pairing these with? and what cabinet?
What will you be pairing these with? and what cabinet?
150L ported cabinets
matched with audax pr170mo and eminence omega pro 15a. first order series at 1500khz/350hz
I listened to both. The neo version sounds more extended up top and analytical. The alnico sounded a little warmer and relaxed with smoother mids. I opted for the neo mounted on WGs. Its become my favorite large soft dome. Very pricey, but worth it.
1500 hz first order xo?
With relatively high sensitivity/spl drivers below.
For that price unless you need/wish a soft dome specifically.
20€ more will give you a Bliesma T34A.
Meaning :
50% more linear excursion !
And very low distortion down past 1k.
2 db more sensitivity.
Diaphgram weight is ca half.
Inductance 0.008 vs 0.06 mh.
2.2T in the gap.
Much wider dispersion due to its special shape al/mg diaphgram better then many 1"domes, so xo wise directivity prefers a higher xo.
If narrower dispersion, a WG or similar is desired the T34B is a superior choice just more expensive.
Neither of them drops off as fast as the T35 off axis.
The large ellipticor tweeter also deserves a mention, just too pricey for what it offers imo.
I believe the only place there is measurements of them all is troels gravesen.
Hificompass is missing the t35.
With relatively high sensitivity/spl drivers below.
For that price unless you need/wish a soft dome specifically.
20€ more will give you a Bliesma T34A.
Meaning :
50% more linear excursion !
And very low distortion down past 1k.
2 db more sensitivity.
Diaphgram weight is ca half.
Inductance 0.008 vs 0.06 mh.
2.2T in the gap.
Much wider dispersion due to its special shape al/mg diaphgram better then many 1"domes, so xo wise directivity prefers a higher xo.
If narrower dispersion, a WG or similar is desired the T34B is a superior choice just more expensive.
Neither of them drops off as fast as the T35 off axis.
The large ellipticor tweeter also deserves a mention, just too pricey for what it offers imo.
I believe the only place there is measurements of them all is troels gravesen.
Hificompass is missing the t35.
Believe it or not, the bliesma t34 is the same price then the Seas T35 here.
if anyone by chance compare the seas t35 and t34, do tell!
the ellipticor tweeter is not linear until 3khz. Useless for my project i think
Last edited:
I may make some enemies for saying this, but for what it's worth, despite not being an equal comparison, I can give you my impression on some Bliesma T34Bs. I was going to pull the trigger on a pair myself a while back and wanted to hear them first, being how expensive they are.
The T34Bs were mounted on WGs in some passive 2 way monitors in MTM configuration with a pair of Scanspeak 7" midbass (don't remember the exact model). Crossover was around 1.8k 2nd order LR with FR compensation for the WG. The impression I got was something rough going on in the upper mids, around 4- 5k ish. Sounded like a narrow peak in HD and could also be heard by the owner himself after I pointed it out. The top end was very good for a large dome, as was dispersion and overall presentation was otherwise very clear. Yes, its hard to compare a large Be dome to a soft dome, but I'm going on whats happening mostly in the pistonic range. I just didn't care for the bite of the Bliesma T34B. Compared to the Seas T35 on louder passages in the midrange at a similar crossover point and playback levels, it was a more fatiguing sound.
I have some very dynamic piano and vocal tracks I use for auditioning speakers, specifically for midrange issues. Its my litmus test for speakers and many expensive ones fail it miserably which are otherwise regarded as some people's favorites.
People put the T34B on a high pedestal, which in alot of ways it well deserves but to my ears I preferred the Seas T35 in the critical midrange. It wasn't any less clear or analytical than the T34B and it was less fatiguing based on my assessments. The top end extension is definitely not as good as the T34B (obviously), but the T35 midrange was a bit cleaner, even at levels that would make most people cringe.
I haven't heard the T34A or the T34S. They may be different. The T34 series tweeters use the same rear chamber designs to the best of my knowledge. Maybe this has something to do with the dampening of the chamber. I don't know for sure, but I can say to my ears I prefer the Seas T35 over any other large softdome I've heard so far. As a far comparison, the Audax TW034 is "ok", but it sounds like sandpaper on concrete compared to the Seas T35. I have alot of experience with larger soft dome tweeters and smaller metal domes. The two I always go back to are the Seas T35C002 and Audax TW025A28.
The T34Bs were mounted on WGs in some passive 2 way monitors in MTM configuration with a pair of Scanspeak 7" midbass (don't remember the exact model). Crossover was around 1.8k 2nd order LR with FR compensation for the WG. The impression I got was something rough going on in the upper mids, around 4- 5k ish. Sounded like a narrow peak in HD and could also be heard by the owner himself after I pointed it out. The top end was very good for a large dome, as was dispersion and overall presentation was otherwise very clear. Yes, its hard to compare a large Be dome to a soft dome, but I'm going on whats happening mostly in the pistonic range. I just didn't care for the bite of the Bliesma T34B. Compared to the Seas T35 on louder passages in the midrange at a similar crossover point and playback levels, it was a more fatiguing sound.
I have some very dynamic piano and vocal tracks I use for auditioning speakers, specifically for midrange issues. Its my litmus test for speakers and many expensive ones fail it miserably which are otherwise regarded as some people's favorites.
People put the T34B on a high pedestal, which in alot of ways it well deserves but to my ears I preferred the Seas T35 in the critical midrange. It wasn't any less clear or analytical than the T34B and it was less fatiguing based on my assessments. The top end extension is definitely not as good as the T34B (obviously), but the T35 midrange was a bit cleaner, even at levels that would make most people cringe.
I haven't heard the T34A or the T34S. They may be different. The T34 series tweeters use the same rear chamber designs to the best of my knowledge. Maybe this has something to do with the dampening of the chamber. I don't know for sure, but I can say to my ears I prefer the Seas T35 over any other large softdome I've heard so far. As a far comparison, the Audax TW034 is "ok", but it sounds like sandpaper on concrete compared to the Seas T35. I have alot of experience with larger soft dome tweeters and smaller metal domes. The two I always go back to are the Seas T35C002 and Audax TW025A28.
Hey profiguy
ive read some of your previous post
what would be the best compression driver/horn or WG combo that youd recommend as being comparable SQ wise to the Seas T35? Im designing a speaker right now and will try a couple of different HF to find what i prefer!
The HF108 (non R) on the STH100 horn is a nice combination. Most of my judgement with this is based on listening and looking at the impedance curve. The fewer resonances, the better. This combination looks very clean in that regard and sounds like it as well.
The 18sound NSD1095N is nice too, but to eek out enough top end extension requires alot of EQ (likely more than possible with passive xover). By the time you get it flat past 15k, you end up dropping the sensitivity to less than 100 dB/w. Not necessarily a big deal but the HF108 is flatter further out and a bit more efficient. However, once the NSD1095N is EQed right, it sounds more detailed and open than the HF108 (both on the STH100 WG). The HF108 is a better choice for those preferring the soft dome sound and the NSD1095N is more akin to a higher end metal dome.
The 18sound NSD1095N is nice too, but to eek out enough top end extension requires alot of EQ (likely more than possible with passive xover). By the time you get it flat past 15k, you end up dropping the sensitivity to less than 100 dB/w. Not necessarily a big deal but the HF108 is flatter further out and a bit more efficient. However, once the NSD1095N is EQed right, it sounds more detailed and open than the HF108 (both on the STH100 WG). The HF108 is a better choice for those preferring the soft dome sound and the NSD1095N is more akin to a higher end metal dome.
The HF109 is the ferrite magnet version of the HF108, but the HF109 has a narrower exit angle of 13deg (compared to 31deg on the HF108).
From what I've seen, I believe the narrower exit could be a better fit for the STH100 horn, and check out FR of the 16ohm HF109, it looks remarkably flat. So I'd be curious to see an independent measurement.
From what I've seen, I believe the narrower exit could be a better fit for the STH100 horn, and check out FR of the 16ohm HF109, it looks remarkably flat. So I'd be curious to see an independent measurement.
I'll have to look into that. The HF108 sounds great on the STH100 from my experience, at pretty much any listening angle. The driver may not be as sensitive to the impedance shift in the throat if there is one. Most of the differenc will be in the top end IMO.
Edit - the FR posted on Faitals website looks pretty much close to the same between both HF108 and 109. Any exit angle induced issues will be dependent on whether the driver phase plug to throat transition is going to cause further resonances or reflections. Hard to say.
First graph is HF109, second is HF108
Edit - the FR posted on Faitals website looks pretty much close to the same between both HF108 and 109. Any exit angle induced issues will be dependent on whether the driver phase plug to throat transition is going to cause further resonances or reflections. Hard to say.
First graph is HF109, second is HF108
Attachments
Last edited:
@mjvbl - keep in mind that posted manufacturer FR + impedance graphs of compression drivers don't reflect component tolerances. Different impedance drivers will also measure different just because there are two different driver samples to begin with. I can say that I'd usually choose the driver with the least amount of resonances past the Fs itself. Aside from a difference of exit angles, the HF108 has a smaller VC gap volume than the ferrite version HF109, which has its advantages. Thats likely why there's a slightly higher second resonance in the HF109, but that's only a valid gauge if both drievers were measured under the same conditions and with the same horn. There is also the issue of VC asy design, which is likely the same type on both drivers. The HF 108 has holes in the VC surround and I'm pretty sure the HF109 does also.
The exit angle differences are consequential and not planned, mainly because the HF109 has a greater throat depth due to the thicker magnet and pole piece
The exit angle differences are consequential and not planned, mainly because the HF109 has a greater throat depth due to the thicker magnet and pole piece
Yes, the diaphragm is the same, and I agree, it's the geometry of the ferrite version (or conversely, the exit of the HF108 is wider because it's a thinner neo device), but I mean the FR of the 16ohm HF109, which for some reason appears to be the flattest of all variants. https://faitalpro.com/en/products/HF_Drivers/product_details/index.php?id=502010193
Attachments
I unfortunately don't see a rational explanation why the 16 ohm version should be any smoother than the 8 ohm one just based on the fact VC imductance is higher (normal) and the VC winding perhaps thinner in cross section. That means you could just buy 16 ohm VCs and get flatter (smoother would be the proper term) response. If i look at the different versions of VCs on the HF108 (same VCs as 109), its the other way around with the 8 ohm version having smoother FR on paper. Not sure if I believe those FR curves as real world results for off the shelf production samples. I'm going to have to see whats up with that. I suspect there has to be more than just an impedance difference for that FR to be so different.
No reason you should make enemies, different experiences and opinion is always valueable. And we all have different preferences, hearing and room effects, and different dfivers to match each with its own 'signature'.
The main reason i even mentioned the T34A/B is the op's goal of a 1,5 k first order xo. The 50% extra excursion alone is a huge difference in power handling/ spl capability.
If played loud most tweeters will complain.
And if the acoustic resulting slope would also be 6db/octave, the tweeter is only down 6 db at 750.
Thats not a real occurence due to natural roll off of course, but shows why low end distortion is important in this case imo.
My problem with the T35 is it's very limited top end past 12 K, and it will not allow you to go much lower then other options due to the limited xmax, despite it's size. It is a very smooth and resonance free tweeer though,but has a THD bump at 4-5k.
Also in general Seas has fairly basic motors on theyre drivers.
They do have good materials, and consistency in production tends to be excellent.
As for the Bliesma T34B sounding harsh, you had a passive xo with a relatively low cross. The T34 has a high FS, for it's excursion capability. That is indeed partly an effect of the back chamber volume/shape.
Did you use a RLC at FS to take care of the impedance?
If not, some harshness likely will be provoked out, that was also my finding.
But once the impedance linearization was implemented it was gone.
Check the pharaoh build threads @hificompass.com, and ATB @troels gravesen, and you will also find similar comments.
On the B version there is also a area from 3,5-6k ish that is about 2db above the rest of the tweeter on a "infinite" baffle, visible @HiFiCompass, @troels, and barely in mfg datasheet. That can be amplified or minimized with the baffle shape or a notch of course.
If not for those 2 reasons. Then your ears have issues with it, that i don't 🙂
The main reason i even mentioned the T34A/B is the op's goal of a 1,5 k first order xo. The 50% extra excursion alone is a huge difference in power handling/ spl capability.
If played loud most tweeters will complain.
And if the acoustic resulting slope would also be 6db/octave, the tweeter is only down 6 db at 750.
Thats not a real occurence due to natural roll off of course, but shows why low end distortion is important in this case imo.
My problem with the T35 is it's very limited top end past 12 K, and it will not allow you to go much lower then other options due to the limited xmax, despite it's size. It is a very smooth and resonance free tweeer though,but has a THD bump at 4-5k.
Also in general Seas has fairly basic motors on theyre drivers.
They do have good materials, and consistency in production tends to be excellent.
As for the Bliesma T34B sounding harsh, you had a passive xo with a relatively low cross. The T34 has a high FS, for it's excursion capability. That is indeed partly an effect of the back chamber volume/shape.
Did you use a RLC at FS to take care of the impedance?
If not, some harshness likely will be provoked out, that was also my finding.
But once the impedance linearization was implemented it was gone.
Check the pharaoh build threads @hificompass.com, and ATB @troels gravesen, and you will also find similar comments.
On the B version there is also a area from 3,5-6k ish that is about 2db above the rest of the tweeter on a "infinite" baffle, visible @HiFiCompass, @troels, and barely in mfg datasheet. That can be amplified or minimized with the baffle shape or a notch of course.
If not for those 2 reasons. Then your ears have issues with it, that i don't 🙂
The HF108, HF109 and HF103 all use the same diaphragm holes included, 8 and 16 ohm versions available..
HF108R has different clamping mechanism else identical diaphragm.
The new HF1460 also has the perforated VC surround, with it's dome design.
Last edited: