I'm am looking at building a omnidirectional loudspeaker with a Ripole subwoofer section.
The lows/mids is handled by a 15" pro driver in a "Hartley boffle" Expected DSP crossover for the Ripole sub is 24db slope @60 or 70Hz.
I am looking at two Kané brand 18" pro woofers locally available. One is largely based on a RCF woofer and the other one on a B&C.
Kane 18tbw100 (B&C) / Kane 18X451(RCF)
Fs 37hz / 36hz
Vas 227lt / 198lt
Sensitivity 98dB/ 97dB
QMS 12.7 / 3.16
Qes 0.6 / 0.35
Qts 0.56 / 0.31
BL 19 / 26
MMS 166g / 197g
Xmax 14mm / 14.3mm
Efficiency 1.8% / 2.7%
So both drivers have almost the same fs, vas and xmax but very different QMS, qts, bl and MMS.
Which one is the best choice for a Ripole? Does QMS have any influence on sound quality? Is the higher QTS better or doesn't it matter when using DSP?
They are priced similarly.
The lows/mids is handled by a 15" pro driver in a "Hartley boffle" Expected DSP crossover for the Ripole sub is 24db slope @60 or 70Hz.
I am looking at two Kané brand 18" pro woofers locally available. One is largely based on a RCF woofer and the other one on a B&C.
Kane 18tbw100 (B&C) / Kane 18X451(RCF)
Fs 37hz / 36hz
Vas 227lt / 198lt
Sensitivity 98dB/ 97dB
QMS 12.7 / 3.16
Qes 0.6 / 0.35
Qts 0.56 / 0.31
BL 19 / 26
MMS 166g / 197g
Xmax 14mm / 14.3mm
Efficiency 1.8% / 2.7%
So both drivers have almost the same fs, vas and xmax but very different QMS, qts, bl and MMS.
Which one is the best choice for a Ripole? Does QMS have any influence on sound quality? Is the higher QTS better or doesn't it matter when using DSP?
They are priced similarly.
Last edited:
These T/S parameters are actual measured values? I asking because their datasheets shows differently.
These are local Thai models. They mostly use Italian parts but are not the same as the western models they are based on. Same basket but different cone and voice coil.
These are the T/S parameters provided by Kané.
Okay, these are cheap "fake copies" and probably nothing related to their name origins. I wouldn't expect reliable parameters from them.
Understood, but better than nothing, otherwise buy one of each and measure them or just flip a coin. 😉
There are different philosophies regarding QTS for OB. When doing a passive crossover high QTS is more important. I also read somewhere that for ripoles qts starts to matter less the bigger the driver gets.
The low qts driver has the same xmax and a stronger motor. So it's response can be eq'ed to be the same as the high qts driver.
My question is more about the sound quality than the frequency response.
No. Western buyers have to pay more for the same.
It is the same with printers for example. Canon sells stuff for less than half here by just removing one function and changing the model number.
Margins are lower here, costs are way lower and VAT is only 7%
If they are really the same, then why the Kane 18tbw100 have such a low Bl (hence high Qes, Qts), compared to B&C?
There are many different types of driver. Low or high qts doesn't mean high vs low price. Maybe it is made for a different application? The RCF "clone/rebadge" has low qts and is also cheap.
Do you realize anyone in the west lifting a finger costs a fortune? Everything is cheaper here. For example yearly insurance and tax for my car barely covers one month of the same back home. You are being screwed 😂
The low BL also goes with a significantly lighter membrane. Everything has a balance.
Why don't you just turn your Ripole sideways and leave one side open? Voila you have a U-frame or H-frame, depending on where you place the driver. This would work better for an 18" driver IMO... and you will definitely have fewer potential issues with tunnel resonances that often plague Ripole subs. The tunnel depth of a U-frame only needs to be on the order of 30cm, which is probably about as wide as your Ripole will be.
The only advantage I can see of using an 18" driver in a Ripole configuration is that the resulting system's visual size will be smaller (narrower) than if the driver is facing you. Maybe that is important to you?
The only advantage I can see of using an 18" driver in a Ripole configuration is that the resulting system's visual size will be smaller (narrower) than if the driver is facing you. Maybe that is important to you?
You really need a higher q driver, as there is no real box loading, to have the low response like a ripole. A QTS of 0.31 is to low. I tried it before with a 15" driver of 0.35 QTS and even that did not work. If you can find a local driver with qts of 0.4 to 0.5 and decent xmax (6mm or more) it can work, but not with this Kane driver. I don't know local drivers at your side of the planet, but something like a Faital Pro 18FH500-16 or an D.A.S. Audio 18LXN have on first sight the good specs for a 18" ripole sub. If you can find local drivers with similar specs and good quality it can work.
But then it's not the same driver if the membrane mass is lower by that much (166 g vs 245 g). Even if we consider the lower mass, the Bl of the Kane 18tbw100 is still to low because the resulted Qts is 0.6 instead of the B&C's 0.39. So in the end, they are not the same drivers, even from far.
Last edited:
I don't claim it is the same, but I am pretty sure many parts are the same. I don't think it is a "fake" but rather just a alternate version for the local market.
I bought a local compression driver that is a rebadged 18 sound nd3st and am convinced it is absolutely the same driver for a nice local price.
Just accept you are being screwed by the Western feudal system.
Hmmm, the Ripole has 2 drivers, the h frame only one. I also like the force cancellation. A 18" with 14mm xmax would need a stupendously heavy baffle.
The cavity resonances shouldn't be a problem with a low and steep crossover. It only needs to augment a 15" driver with 40hz fs
Last edited: