There were changes, but I would not say that one was "better," just different. It caused me to change the crossover but in the end the before and after were equivalent. And I would never describe the products as inconsistent. They changed the diaphragm mounting to alleviate pirating of diaphragms, so of course there were small changes. But once changed they were consistent.
A small side path in the light of 'modern hyped technology'.
This is the latest loudspeaker system from Living Voice, equipped with Scanspeak Ellipticor drivers.
It's currently being demonstrated at Munich High-End.
I'm almost willing to bet that this system won't get anywhere near as much appreciation as the existing products.
Soon I may explain why this is the case.
This is the latest loudspeaker system from Living Voice, equipped with Scanspeak Ellipticor drivers.
It's currently being demonstrated at Munich High-End.
I'm almost willing to bet that this system won't get anywhere near as much appreciation as the existing products.
Soon I may explain why this is the case.
Possibly, but they also consistently measure worse.
It was more or less the preferred 1" driver for DIY projects including a waveguide, because of your own speakers and the econowaves.
Its popularity was based on favorable performance at the time, mostly prior to 2010.
10 years later, it finished last in this comparative test of 10 drivers.
Why pick scanspeak?
Isn't purifi or other PA manufacturer produce much better measured woofer? ( Also sounding according to various review)
But I do want to know the listing impression about that 38we woofer...so expensive
"if it is the most expensive driver it must be the best " High end most used sentence ..
these shows are for rich gogo we are serious DIY people here 🙂
these shows are for rich gogo we are serious DIY people here 🙂
The drivers of TAD primarily was not developed in total isolation". The TL1601/4001 made/released at the same time, along with the horn. Factory made crossovers to match them. Sold as kits. TSM 1/2 soon to follow.
Same with the :1102/2002, 1601C/4003. All released same year, and the speakers soon to follow, made to improve existing transducers and speakers.
Also the previous Pioneer exclusive 2301, 3401 have drivers with similar lineage paired in the ED 915/EL-403 fx.
TAD TL-1601 and TD-4001 + TN-1/TN-2 = TAD 2401/02 /TSM 1/2
TAD TL-1601C and TD-4003/TH-4003 = TAD 2404
TL-1102/TD-2002/TH-2002=TAD 2251 2252
If one wants a high XO, one will have a better match from the 1601 line, the 1601A and 1601C has a stronger Alnico motor, lower Q and 2% Efficiency. While the cones are very much alike, it should behave a little better higher up.. The 1601C having some other improved features like the unified frame, venting, counterbalance weights for leads, new polepiece design, different Alnico magnet design, etc.
Lower FS, Lower Q, higher VAS, lower xmax, 2,05% eff. foam suspension etc, was available in the 1602.
The 1603 was the 'budget' workhorse, 16" with a Ferrite motor, higher power handling, vented VC ,motor structure etc.
Shares the same cone, suspension and VC with the 1601B.
Used with the 'budget' 4002/Z in the TCM(TH-4371) and TSC, PA and Cinema lines.
TL 1601B current model, cone/VC etc shared with the 1603, Vented motor, frame,VC etc. Alnico motor, but 1,8% efficiency again. Higher power handling then the others.
The TL 1801 (2,2% eff) and 1101H (1,8%eff, 16 ohm, 2,5mm xmax) are also a decent marriage, they use the same materials in the cones and surrounds, similar Ferrite, motor structure in 2 different sizes.
TL-1102 (1,1% eff, 6,2mm xmax) uses the same cone material as it's bigger 16" relatives, and the rest of the features built into the 1601C released at the same time.
And the odd duck TM 1201/H. 12" mid range, (5,5% efficiency, 16ohm)
The PG cone is fairly light, very stiff, low density, high youngs modulus, with modest internal loss.
The material is as close to Tad Be in characteristics as you come in large cones i believe.
Heavily coated cloth surround. Using a different polepiece shape and material then the rest, and what TAD calls a magnetic flux short circuit, a faraday ring in some format.
Efficiency is high 5,54%, 3,6 kg Ferrite magnet, BL 36, 324,000 maxwell, 1,45 T in the gap..
Qts 0,15, mms 60 gr, Le 0,68. 11kg of midrange driver.
Response is smooth and well behaved, just limited in it's useable range, not suitable as a mid woofer,without a horn.
and fills a good deal of your requirements for a good match to they're Compression drivers actually🤔😱🤣
Some will argue it's only suitable in a horn,some love it, and some hate it. And the cone is still ribbed and relatively straight.
It's parameters makes it a bit of a odd duck, but it does very well in it's limited range.
There is product quality in terms of specs/performance and durability.
In general I'd say that 'the progress' is mainly related to the former and certainly not the latter.
Product life cycles simply don't permit over-engineering anymore.
In addition, product complexity has increased enormously with disastrous consequences for the economic lifespan
That's why there are still plenty of Mercedes W116s, 123s and 126s around, while the models from the 1990s onwards are being shredded in large numbers .
That could be, it's been about ten years since I did any loudspeaker measurements.
Indeed!
While I appreciate some of the older, basic (not necessarily cheap) Scanspeak drivers, over the past 10 years they've increasingly focused on hyped BS products. Tbh, I don't even know where to start regarding the elliptical nonsense.
I'll keep it short so as not to derail the topic too much:
If you buy an 8" woofer for $1000, you could at least expect the measurements, specification and unit to unit consistency to be on par with an 8" that costs $500 (which is already ridiculous imo). This is not the case. Over and out.
Quote:
"One of the goals for a new driver concept at Scan-Speak was to minimize cone modes, so it was kind of a joke to suggest an elliptical voice coil, but it was engineering humor that had some solid science behind it. By driving the diaphragm asymmetrically using the oval voice coil concept, what you get is an “infinite” number of Eigen frequencies, but with less contribution for each frequency and overall lower distortion."
And a joke it is.
If you come up with a cumbersome and therefore very expensive solution for a small problem, it apparently provides enough marketing opportunities nowadays.
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed explanation. This pretty much covers the load.
To finish it off...
Vance Dickason:
"Scan-Speak has tried different techniques over the years to suppress cone modes (a source of coloration) — the most notable one being the sliced cone series of woofers. With this concept, cone modes are suppressed by angled slices in the cone that are glued back together. This product was extremely popular in the high-end two-channel market when it was introduced."
Scan-Speak:
"The Illuminator midranges and midwoofers are in every aspect unusual designs with the open construction, the extremely long linear excursion and patented under-hung SD-3 (Symmetrical Drive) neodymium motor system, which due to copper caps and its construction ensures very low distortion, adding the unique patented cones, low-loss linear suspension the result is: “The Very Best Money Can Buy”!
Is it??
Vance Dickason:
"Scan-Speak has tried different techniques over the years to suppress cone modes (a source of coloration) — the most notable one being the sliced cone series of woofers. With this concept, cone modes are suppressed by angled slices in the cone that are glued back together. This product was extremely popular in the high-end two-channel market when it was introduced."
Scan-Speak:
"The Illuminator midranges and midwoofers are in every aspect unusual designs with the open construction, the extremely long linear excursion and patented under-hung SD-3 (Symmetrical Drive) neodymium motor system, which due to copper caps and its construction ensures very low distortion, adding the unique patented cones, low-loss linear suspension the result is: “The Very Best Money Can Buy”!
Is it??
Maybe there is truth to what you say. There probably used to be more focus on making things last because everything was so damn expensive and difficult to make back then. It made sense to make it last. Now you can make the same thing much cheaper and in much larger volumes. But that doesn’t mean it has to be made poorly. At the level we are talking about, all drivers are well engineered and made to exacting standards, just as they were previously.
I am yet to see objective measurements showing worse performance from modern drivers compared to older drivers. There may be truth to certain older driver/horn combinations sounding better than certain newer driver/horn combinations. But to say that the state of the art has not moved at all in the past three decades is disingenuous. Horn and compression driver design has certainly improved. With regard to the best, I am always looking for well-engineered products with a high price/performance ratio as opposed to boutique products. Call it a Nissan GTR as opposed to a Lamborghini (though I would definitely not say no to a Lambo
). And several drivers mentioned in this thread are up there. From that point onward, more performance is to be had in combining the driver with the right horn and then making a proper crossover and system out of the parts.
The Illuminator range with sliced cone seems a bit more down-to-earth in terms of technology and pricing. So let's compare this "best money can buy" product to an ordinary low-budget, multi-purpose professional 15-inch woofer.
A few years ago I bought a pair 15s from the same series, albeit the 'top model' with a more powerful motor. I paid €75 for both, unused in carboard box.
Comment:
"Classical 15" professional woofer, with ferrite magnet, 2.5" voice coil, treated paper membrane and sheet metal basket. The SICA 15E2.5CS-8 stands out for its high efficiency and is a typical loudspeaker that is good both for new projects and restoring damaged systems. More than decent performance emerge from our test. The frequency response is not very regular, but does not show important break-ups; the resonance frequency is quite low and the average efficiency rises to over 96 dB; the THD is not a miracle, but it falls within the standards for products of this type. The measured parameters are decidedly in line with what was declared by the manufacturer, apart from some values that are not very decisive for practical purposes. If used in bass-reflex, the load volumes are quite large (approximately 150 - 200 litres), but for particular applications ("musical instruments", for example) it could also be used in open-baffle."
So, nothing spectacular...
A few years ago I bought a pair 15s from the same series, albeit the 'top model' with a more powerful motor. I paid €75 for both, unused in carboard box.
Comment:
"Classical 15" professional woofer, with ferrite magnet, 2.5" voice coil, treated paper membrane and sheet metal basket. The SICA 15E2.5CS-8 stands out for its high efficiency and is a typical loudspeaker that is good both for new projects and restoring damaged systems. More than decent performance emerge from our test. The frequency response is not very regular, but does not show important break-ups; the resonance frequency is quite low and the average efficiency rises to over 96 dB; the THD is not a miracle, but it falls within the standards for products of this type. The measured parameters are decidedly in line with what was declared by the manufacturer, apart from some values that are not very decisive for practical purposes. If used in bass-reflex, the load volumes are quite large (approximately 150 - 200 litres), but for particular applications ("musical instruments", for example) it could also be used in open-baffle."
So, nothing spectacular...
The chance that this webshop uses 'golden samples' seems nil. So here we go.
Scan-Speak:
Sica:
The only positive aspect of the Scan-Speak's almost surreal inconsistency between stated and measured parameters is the significantly higher sensitivity, but such a woofer is obviously (also) bought because of the "supposed" low Fs.
Scan-Speak:
Sica:
The only positive aspect of the Scan-Speak's almost surreal inconsistency between stated and measured parameters is the significantly higher sensitivity, but such a woofer is obviously (also) bought because of the "supposed" low Fs.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/scanspeak18wu4741t00/
Voicecoil also had measurement about a decade ago.
Comparing 15" woofer to 6.5" woofer. Is this an out-of-season April's Fool joke?
I heard a youtube snipit of these playing.. MTM problems (spacing/combing) as usual along with treble clarity lacking when compared to a good compression driver and waveguide combo irrespective of dispersion. Low bass was also missing - just not enough cabinet volume for those mid-bass drivers.
On the other hand tone and low-level detail from the midbass drivers was excellent, particularly low-level detail.
Also that finish is excellent: looks like a real french polish with real lacquer and at least 15 coats of build-up, NOT poly.
In contrast the Rockport/Absolare room was far superior.
Problem is a CD/Horn in a MTM with low efficienty woof need a ton of passive attenuation on the CD... Not sure it sounds as a CD yet after such ohms numbers in front of it ?
Ah, there was on Part Express IIRC that guy who made a DIY MTM with a 18th Sounds 1.4 horn and two 8" magnesium Excels that has good reviews and won a local club award ? He understood a MTM is sounding better with cut offs below 2 khz duee to the said combing problems.
There is this, but 3 k hz so useless for a MTM with a CD : https://www.kartesian-acoustic.com/cmp25-vhp-h
Ah, there was on Part Express IIRC that guy who made a DIY MTM with a 18th Sounds 1.4 horn and two 8" magnesium Excels that has good reviews and won a local club award ? He understood a MTM is sounding better with cut offs below 2 khz duee to the said combing problems.
There is this, but 3 k hz so useless for a MTM with a CD : https://www.kartesian-acoustic.com/cmp25-vhp-h
If I understood him correctly the main idea was not the comparison of a 6.5" woofer and a 15" per se but how each of them fulfill their published specifications. In this regard the expensive one is clearly worse than the cheap one. We do not know by how much both of them will change after being used for a while however.
Regards
Charles
I just don't get the point using scanspeak to demonstrate 'modern hyped technology'
when there's actual improvement by purifi/18sound/B&C...etc
I don't think the technology improvement from them is 'modern hyped technology'
Especially this thread is
when there's actual improvement by purifi/18sound/B&C...etc
I don't think the technology improvement from them is 'modern hyped technology'
Especially this thread is