What would you choose over SB29SDAC/RDAC?

Jump to Latest
#84
duvixan said:
And it has noticeable positive effect during actual listening?
Click to expand...
Yes, by a considerable margin.

I listen to alot of piano and acoustic music. Even without material that has true content beyond 20k (which is rare), you'll notice the reduction in harshness on HF transients. It won't be so much noticeable on everyday compressed mp3 music (which I don't listen to), but anything that has sharp transients will be noticeably cleaner with the notch filter.

I have an album by Earl Klugh -Fingerpaintings on MFSL vinyl that has alot of percussion stuff and acoustic guitar. Its an analog recording that has HF content beyond 20k, plus the top end is very hot on top of all that. This album is unlistenable on most speakers with metal/hard dome tweeters. Without the notch filter on the Audax Ti dome, playing this record will send my 15 yr old son running out of the room even at lowest volume levels. The filter removes all of the hard transient distortion and the dome sounds alot more like a refined ribbon tweeter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duvixan
#89
augerpro said:
I'd like to add a counterpoint to the soft vs hard debate. I directly compared the Vifa NE19 in fabric, ano Al, and Ti one time. So all the same motor, direct A/B setup. I thought the Ti was the smoothest and best behaved of the three. The ano Al was a fairly close second. The fabric was not near as smooth, somewhat "sizzly". I did not prefer it, and was a bit surprised by that since I had somewhat believed the myths around dome material.

Another example of direct comparison of two tweeters where only the dome is different, is the original Dayton RS28. These were really popular, and used in a lot speakers that would be directly compared at get-togethers or PE's competition. Over many comparisons over a number of years, it was understood that the Al dome was the smoothest and best behaved. The fabric was more "lively" to those who like it, and more "sizzly" to those who didn't.

So it is interesting that the only two examples I know of where this dome material was directly compared, the fabric was not the smoother one. HiFiCompass's comparison of Satori tweeters was also interesting, he states "The silk dome TW29DN-B was not included in the comparison, because it is too different in sound. It was much interesting for me to compare the tweeters with rigid membranes." I don't know what that means, but it seems reading between the lines he did not find it in the same league as the rigid Textreme and Be tweeter?
Click to expand...

FWIW I had the opportunity to test Tw29dn and tw29txn. The textreme was much better, more realistic, more detailed. I believe that a well made rigid dome tweeter is better than the silk variant and my opinion changed recently. The cheaper silk dome sound good but I feel that the silk as material has reached it's limits at lower price products. What I mean is if you have some money to spend the pricier silk dome tweeter will not offer much over the entry level tweeters. When I first bought Tw29dn I compared them to the sb29sdac, of course the satori were better, but when I compared tw29txn to the Tw29dn, the textreme was much better, the difference was bigger than the Tw29dn from sdac upgrade.
Now I want to buy the bliesma t25 for my car pillars and I am going straight to the aluminum/magnesium dome.
 
#92
I think it depends on the tweeter itself more than the diaphragm material, AND it depends on the particular pass-band you are concentrating-on along with what sort of character you prefer.

Assuming similar designs excepting diaphragm material, this grouping (under listening impressions near the bottom of the page)

BlieSMa T25A-6, T25B-6, T25D-6, T25S-6​

-should give you a good idea of general material subjective difference.

https://hificompass.com/en/reviews/bliesma-t25a-6-t25b-6-t25d-6-t25s-6
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: duvixan
#96
Btw just for the discuss, there are also another serie of drivers that are near from each others but with different cones : ScanSpeak 93000/95000/97000/98000 (metal)/99000.

Most like more the soft domes of the 97000 and the 99000 the most- this last being the best of the bunch also not only the dome ! The only hard dome is the 98000, not bad most say, but a little behind from these two last soft domes.
 
#97
The SS 9500 and 9700 are superb soft domes. Very natural sounding and just the right tonal balance, yet accurate and resolving. Dunlavy used these in their larger systems, as did ProAc and othes. They can cope with first order filters, but need an impedance flattening LCR if you want a low xover. The 9500 is IMO the most cost effective one of the bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom