Post your opinion on 6" woofer choice 800-20 Hz

4 ohm drivers, waste of time. Why tolerate low impedance for no reason.
Agree. They are using a thicker wire gauge with lower production costs because of reliability and tolerances.
Youll soon realize that all these drivers use 6mm plates and xmax will be the same old 5mm Xmax for ALL of them.
10 , 11 or 12 mm peak to peak all nonsense they all have 6mm plates and BL is weaker on all of them than Dayton.
Except for the 5mm plate which is = 4mm Xmax.
However, this is not quite right. You must look at the voice coil height as well and calculate the amount of overhang. They all have giant, bloated, woofer-y coils, 16-18mm tall, so there's no question of them exiting the gap so quickly.


Understandably, OP likes bass. But how well do the different models perform at 800Hz (or 1600Hz for that matter, where the filter hasn't strongly kicked in yet! ), while bass thumps or warbles are moving the cone ±5mm?

Adding a mid-range mitigates one problem, but adds others. Stacking the mid and tweeter vertically should be an improvement, per adason's post, but it's still not going to be a "point source".

Satori: 50L compliance, likely a big plus for SQ as the spring load won't add much distortion. The next best would probably be the ceramic SB, at a guess.
The Titan has a heavy 20g cone, but that has to be balanced against the VAS, which is very tight. The lighter cones will generally store less energy, which is a mixed bag. You don't want mid-range frequencies to resonate. The air is very inefficient at absorbing vibrations from such a small surface area, while soft polymers in the cone materials tend to distort. Hence, the old rules of thumb that the snappiest, clearest tones generally come from old-school, large, lightweight cones and soft suspension, not counting the motor technology itself.

But if the cone is a bit heavier, and the suspension is soft, the bass resonance is extended lower. So it's a balancing act.

There's a lot more to it. With some of them the impedance stays quite low at high frequencies. Apart from the older Seas, they all look like they're using shorting rings to linearize the motors. This makes the drivers more "plug and play" with active filters. Whereas the CA18 for example, would probably benefit a lot from using an inductor-based low-pass filter above 300Hz or something like that. And then EQ the overall output to whatever you want with active filters. I would actually guess that the upside potential of doing that is actually higher for the older motors, whereas with the newer motors the sound you get out-of-the-box is more baked-in. (There are deep-dives on this and related topics in threads on current driving of speakers.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bmsluite
Wolf,

Where are you even getting a 1500uf cap from? How much are they lol?
There are various examples of something that will work in this example, as you can buy 3x 500uF NPE caps and place them in parallel. I happen to have some 1300uF NPE caps as well as some 330uF polarized caps that a series-parallel arrangement can be wired to get close as well.

However, the electrolytic types in this case sound poorer than poly caps and have too much insertion loss. I have tried both of the above.

Then I found the 400V 1100uF Unlytics (poly) from Electronic Concepts on ebay for roughly $50 each. These are about 3" diameter x 9" long. This should work a lot better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bmsluite
Agree. They are using a thicker wire gauge with lower production costs because of reliability and tolerances.

However, this is not quite right. You must look at the voice coil height as well and calculate the amount of overhang. They all have giant, bloated, woofer-y coils, 16-18mm tall, so there's no question of them exiting the gap so quickly.


Understandably, OP likes bass. But how well do the different models perform at 800Hz (or 1600Hz for that matter, where the filter hasn't strongly kicked in yet! ), while bass thumps or warbles are moving the cone ±5mm?

Adding a mid-range mitigates one problem, but adds others. Stacking the mid and tweeter vertically should be an improvement, per adason's post, but it's still not going to be a "point source".

Satori: 50L compliance, likely a big plus for SQ as the spring load won't add much distortion. The next best would probably be the ceramic SB, at a guess.
The Titan has a heavy 20g cone, but that has to be balanced against the VAS, which is very tight. The lighter cones will generally store less energy, which is a mixed bag. You don't want mid-range frequencies to resonate. The air is very inefficient at absorbing vibrations from such a small surface area, while soft polymers in the cone materials tend to distort. Hence, the old rules of thumb that the snappiest, clearest tones generally come from old-school, large, lightweight cones and soft suspension, not counting the motor technology itself.

But if the cone is a bit heavier, and the suspension is soft, the bass resonance is extended lower. So it's a balancing act.

There's a lot more to it. With some of them the impedance stays quite low at high frequencies. Apart from the older Seas, they all look like they're using shorting rings to linearize the motors. This makes the drivers more "plug and play" with active filters. Whereas the CA18 for example, would probably benefit a lot from using an inductor-based low-pass filter above 300Hz or something like that. And then EQ the overall output to whatever you want with active filters. I would actually guess that the upside potential of doing that is actually higher for the older motors, whereas with the newer motors the sound you get out-of-the-box is more baked-in. (There are deep-dives on this and related topics in threads on current driving of speakers.)
Very helpful information. Thank you for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abstract
Nope not 12mm of xmax , it cant and never will be.
In fact this driver has a smaller front plate/ air gap than all of them only 5mm.
All the rest including Dayton use 6mm front plates.

They are rating Xmax = "PEAK to PEAK." Udder misleading nonsense being its actually 11mm again PEAK to PEAK
So in reality that would be 5.5mm

Need to know what your looking at. Xmax at 70% BL it is absolutely impossible to exceed the gap height for any speaker.
The magnet will never ever have enough control to make linear excursion exceed the front plate.
We can look at the force factor around 5.3 Tm about normal for a 6.5" with 5 to 6mm front plate usually expect 3 to 5 Tm

So they claim that it can exceed the gap with only 5.3 Tm ....LOL !!!
When Dayton has 9.75 Tm = and uses a 6mm front plate and claims a realistic 5.3mm xmax
Which by the way using SB acoustics fantasy rating peak to peak would be 10.6mm xmax.

So much for the dayton not having enough Xmax, or not being "trusted"
Any company misleading people with peak to peak ratings that exceed the gap....bloop go right in the trash.

4 ohm drivers, waste of time. Why tolerate low impedance for no reason.
Youll soon realize that all these drivers use 6mm plates and xmax will be the same old 5mm Xmax for ALL of them.
10 , 11 or 12 mm peak to peak all nonsense they all have 6mm plates and BL is weaker on all of them than Dayton.
Except for the 5mm plate which is = 4mm Xmax.

My vote is DSA-175-8 Aluminum Cone Qts is lower than all of them .29 So it is a more suitable for small boxes.
And has the most BL than all of them 9.7 Tm
Dont matter these are 6 to 6.5" woofers. With itsy bitsy baffle step non of them will do more than 60 to 70 Hz real world.
The bass comes back with EQ and no matter what brand, Xmax is 4 to 5mm because they all have the same type front plates = 6mm
except for the overpriced ones with only 5mm front plates. All with weaker magnets and light cones. So basically nonsense.
People get lost in brand names and prices that are 2x to 3x higher for the same old thing.

The truncated 835025 aint to bad either being truncated for tweeter mounting closer.
people that mount them the other way to make the baffle smaller lol no thanks
That actually models out very well. I might just run with this.

The epique 5.5 models out well too but at the cost of sensitivity.
 
So port noise will be a problem then. Any tricky ways around this? Bends in the port, lining it, make it face a wall, etc?
In my opinion, a well designed port is more difficult than a crossover. That’s because I’m an electrical engineer and do not have a background in fluid dynamics. Everything about a port matters - size, shape, material, location of the opening in the box, shape and size of the flair, etc.. Major manufacturers come up with some interesting port designs to overcome resonances and noise.

I’m sure there are mech e’s laughing at me for sweating the easy stuff, but the more I delve into the complexities of ports, the more attractive passive radiators become. If going active, power is cheap. Double the woofers and seal it up ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bmsluite
In my opinion, a well designed port is more difficult than a crossover. That’s because I’m an electrical engineer and do not have a background in fluid dynamics. Everything about a port matters - size, shape, material, location of the opening in the box, shape and size of the flair, etc.. Major manufacturers come up with some interesting port designs to overcome resonances and noise.

I’m sure there are mech e’s laughing at me for sweating the easy stuff, but the more I delve into the complexities of ports, the more attractive passive radiators become. If going active, power is cheap. Double the woofers and seal it up ;-)
My side business is motorsports aerodynamics. The port is the least of my worries. The electronics I also understand.

Its all the speaker specs I don't currently have a huge knowledge bank on. I need to do some studying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: looneybomber