So I have been on a mission to build the best cost no object speaker I can, and to achieve full range without a subwoofer. This is proving to be a much harder task than I thought. Below are the 4 woofers and my impressions. I built several boxes for testing, used a variety of port lengths to tune each test, and an external filter to remove high frequency sound that would surely distort and invalidate the test. I used a variety of music and test signals to compare the drivers. My final design needs to take into account performance but also footprint as it's easy to build a ridiculously large box with 2 -10" drivers. Here are my results.
Scan-Speak Revelator 26W/8867T
This was my first instinct, but it turned out to be wrong. I have always loved SS drivers and I liked the idea of an aluminum cone. I have had great luck with aluminum coned woofers on recent projects. I was incredibly disappointed when I finally did listening tests with this driver. Compared to the other drivers in the roundup, low bass seemed to be strained, and the excursion just isn't comparable to slightly newer designs. Considering that this driver still needs comparable internal volume to the others in this test, this was the first driver to be ruled out.
Scan-Speak Revelator 28W/8878T-01
This is the newest 11" hard paper driver from Scan-Speak. The volume of bass delivered was excellent, and the tonality at lower frequency was great. This driver caused me to encounter two problems. One is that the performance in the crossover region wasn't great. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a subwoofer, but expect a low crossover point. Secondly, when you get the tuning frequency to where it sounds natural and balanced Fb is too high at around 27Hz. This makes the port turn into a leak below that and causes the driver to essentially pump air and “chuff”. This is likely a problem with cabinet alignment, but be advised that this is a difficult driver to make sound good. The tightest cabinet you would want to cram 2 of these in for a ported alignment is around 3.8 cu ft.
Satori WO24P-8
This driver was a pleasant surprise in some ways and a disappointment in others. When they call this thing a 9.5” woofer they should really say 8”+ woofer. It’s substantially smaller than other 10” woofers like the Revelator 26W listed above. The small area also makes it look lost when you install it in an appropriate sized box. Make no mistake this driver loves cabinet volume. The driver won’t hit nearly as hard as the SS 11” or 13”, but the tone and texture of the bass is the best of this roundup. This is likely contributed to by its upper freq. extension. Even with my crossover, some high freq comes through. I didn't worry about it since, in the real world, crossovers are slopes and not cliffs. The other drivers here need to be crossed over low, while the Satori can really extend on the top end. Don’t start thinking 2 way, but it’s impressive. The issue lies mostly in the volume required to get the most of this driver. Two of these in a box, and you won’t want to dip under 4 cu. ft.. I can’t seem to make that large of a cabinet not look stupid. You almost need to do a WTMW stack and have two 2 cu ft boxes. Lastly, this will produce plenty of “fake bass” but when the freq starts to dip really low (under 35) you are simply not moving as much air.
Scan-Speak Revelator 32W/4878T
This is a subwoofer, make no mistake. The woofer version doesn’t make much sense as it doesn’t extend as low as much smaller drivers in this test. In terms of bass it easily sweeps the pack for hitting hard, low, and clean. The volume requirement isn’t extreme either. This driver will be comfortable in less than 3.5 cu. ft.. The tonality and texture of the bass is wonderful. The problem is that this all comes with a catch. Again, it is definitely a subwoofer. When using test tones, and even music, you can hear audible distortion over 150hz. Scan-Speak never marketed this as a woofer, so this application is off label, but don’t think that this is functional in a 3 way with passive crossovers. That being said, if one was building an active crossover based 3 way, this would be at the top of my list.
Final notes…
Bottom line, is that I would really like to have a 3.0 to 3.4 cu ft. box. This can be made to be astatically pleasing. I’m going to build a test box next and see how much extension I’m giving up with the smaller enclosure. I’m leaning to 2 of the Satori drivers per box, but we’ll see. I may have to keep experimenting with the 11” Revelator to see if I can fix the chuffing issues with lower tuning.
Scan-Speak Revelator 26W/8867T
This was my first instinct, but it turned out to be wrong. I have always loved SS drivers and I liked the idea of an aluminum cone. I have had great luck with aluminum coned woofers on recent projects. I was incredibly disappointed when I finally did listening tests with this driver. Compared to the other drivers in the roundup, low bass seemed to be strained, and the excursion just isn't comparable to slightly newer designs. Considering that this driver still needs comparable internal volume to the others in this test, this was the first driver to be ruled out.
Scan-Speak Revelator 28W/8878T-01
This is the newest 11" hard paper driver from Scan-Speak. The volume of bass delivered was excellent, and the tonality at lower frequency was great. This driver caused me to encounter two problems. One is that the performance in the crossover region wasn't great. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it a subwoofer, but expect a low crossover point. Secondly, when you get the tuning frequency to where it sounds natural and balanced Fb is too high at around 27Hz. This makes the port turn into a leak below that and causes the driver to essentially pump air and “chuff”. This is likely a problem with cabinet alignment, but be advised that this is a difficult driver to make sound good. The tightest cabinet you would want to cram 2 of these in for a ported alignment is around 3.8 cu ft.
Satori WO24P-8
This driver was a pleasant surprise in some ways and a disappointment in others. When they call this thing a 9.5” woofer they should really say 8”+ woofer. It’s substantially smaller than other 10” woofers like the Revelator 26W listed above. The small area also makes it look lost when you install it in an appropriate sized box. Make no mistake this driver loves cabinet volume. The driver won’t hit nearly as hard as the SS 11” or 13”, but the tone and texture of the bass is the best of this roundup. This is likely contributed to by its upper freq. extension. Even with my crossover, some high freq comes through. I didn't worry about it since, in the real world, crossovers are slopes and not cliffs. The other drivers here need to be crossed over low, while the Satori can really extend on the top end. Don’t start thinking 2 way, but it’s impressive. The issue lies mostly in the volume required to get the most of this driver. Two of these in a box, and you won’t want to dip under 4 cu. ft.. I can’t seem to make that large of a cabinet not look stupid. You almost need to do a WTMW stack and have two 2 cu ft boxes. Lastly, this will produce plenty of “fake bass” but when the freq starts to dip really low (under 35) you are simply not moving as much air.
Scan-Speak Revelator 32W/4878T
This is a subwoofer, make no mistake. The woofer version doesn’t make much sense as it doesn’t extend as low as much smaller drivers in this test. In terms of bass it easily sweeps the pack for hitting hard, low, and clean. The volume requirement isn’t extreme either. This driver will be comfortable in less than 3.5 cu. ft.. The tonality and texture of the bass is wonderful. The problem is that this all comes with a catch. Again, it is definitely a subwoofer. When using test tones, and even music, you can hear audible distortion over 150hz. Scan-Speak never marketed this as a woofer, so this application is off label, but don’t think that this is functional in a 3 way with passive crossovers. That being said, if one was building an active crossover based 3 way, this would be at the top of my list.
Final notes…
Bottom line, is that I would really like to have a 3.0 to 3.4 cu ft. box. This can be made to be astatically pleasing. I’m going to build a test box next and see how much extension I’m giving up with the smaller enclosure. I’m leaning to 2 of the Satori drivers per box, but we’ll see. I may have to keep experimenting with the 11” Revelator to see if I can fix the chuffing issues with lower tuning.
Attachments
I went a similar way, tried more 10" hifi drivers, wanted flat down to 20Hz, but ended up with a 12" pro woofer, sacrificing the lowest range.
If you consider the room gain, you get enough low bass with an adequate tuning.
In-room F3 (measured) is around 25Hz for me with the aid of room gain. I think it's worth it, but everyone has to decide for themselves.
If you consider the room gain, you get enough low bass with an adequate tuning.
In-room F3 (measured) is around 25Hz for me with the aid of room gain. I think it's worth it, but everyone has to decide for themselves.
I've used the 28W (pair) and 32W (single and quad) in commercial designs and the WO24 in pairs in a system of mine and in each case I've used them in much smaller sealed enclosures with DSP flattening out the bottom end and they are all fantastic, accounting for their size and excursion. The Revelators were crossed around 250Hz. Be aware that it is very difficult making a large box that is really inert this high up. Your bracing and damping strategy must be spot on. These enclosures were 44mm thick plywood, braced at least every 150mm with a layer of barium loaded vinyl over the internal walls.
I'm not a fan of vented/PR allignments in high end designs. Too much port noise, compression and excessive group delay.
My guess is your enclosure choices were biasing your results.
I'm not a fan of vented/PR allignments in high end designs. Too much port noise, compression and excessive group delay.
My guess is your enclosure choices were biasing your results.
Sorry, but creating a heroic cabinet for a driver which sounds plain wrong (to the ears, not to the mic) without DSP is waste of time and money for a passive project.
What this means: "accounting for their size and excursion"? Sounds like you want to explain the certificate.
Agree on the tuning. Very low Fc often problematic for some reasons like port speed and resonances. But the truth is that very few drivers with Fs around 20Hz is adequate for good a sounding ported box.
The group delay can be heard due to the acoustics of the room (and not the speaker itself) if heard at all, or if the box and tuning are
totally wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
I was simply suggesting that the 32W will give more output than the 28W which in turn has more low frequency output than the WO24. Most of us, you included, would likely not assume otherwise.
You are underestimating the effect of enclosure resonances. I would rather have a middle of the road driver in an inert enclosure than the opposite.
Yea, more membrane area means more output for the same xmax, that's true.
Maybe I'm underestimating, though I haven't built a "badly rattling" box yet. But often there was a strong box in vain, but another driver gave me what I expected from the previous one.
That's my experience.
I reckon you would be better served if you were to build a sealed cabinet and then restore/shape the response to your liking employing dsp capabilities. This will enable you playing twin drivers in a not large of an enclosure.
Unfortunately, no DSP exists that doesn't suck. MiniDSP, Hypex, DEQX, they are all substandard DAC's. I have owned them all and none are fit to lick the boots of my dCS Elgar Plus. I'm planning on upgrading the Elgar, not downgrading.
The only possible corrective solution would be an analog based active crossover. That in and of itself becomes a development issue.
Lastly, I have played with trying to boost the rolloff of sealed cabinet enclosures, and the transfer function becomes rediculous.
The only possible corrective solution would be an analog based active crossover. That in and of itself becomes a development issue.
Lastly, I have played with trying to boost the rolloff of sealed cabinet enclosures, and the transfer function becomes rediculous.
Are you trolling lol?
You're trying to tell us that "no DSP exists that doesn't suck" and "none are fit to lick the boots" of a unit from twenty two years ago?
dCS Elgar D/A processor | Stereophile.com
I am not trolling. I have owned all the DSP solutions I listed, and none of them are what I would consider even mid-fi.
If you're saying that a flagship dac isn't any good bc it's not the latest generation then I would encourage you to go buy one and compare. I assure you that the only thing that beats it is the current generation dCS dacs.
Also, the article you posted was for an older model, not the "Plus" which added DSD. There is so little difference between the dCS stuff, that I'm skipping the Scarlatti, and waiting for a Rossini to come along at a good price before I upgrade.
If you're saying that a flagship dac isn't any good bc it's not the latest generation then I would encourage you to go buy one and compare. I assure you that the only thing that beats it is the current generation dCS dacs.
Also, the article you posted was for an older model, not the "Plus" which added DSD. There is so little difference between the dCS stuff, that I'm skipping the Scarlatti, and waiting for a Rossini to come along at a good price before I upgrade.
Last edited:
Have you looked at the minidsp nanodigi that keeps all of the dsp functions digital and outputs Coax spdif (stereo in, 8 channels out) so you can keep your dcs as the dac.
I guess if you are only talking about bass correction that might work, but as a crossover it's a no-go becasue I would then have to buy 2 dacs and still have no way to keep their volume controls in synch.
In the end I'm simply going to have to find a way to hide internal volume by running it up behind the M/T area and use stiffer materials to thin out the walls.
I'm thinking of using acryllic counter top material for the cabinet. A half inch is more "dead" than 3/4" of MDF. The only issue is that it expands and contracts a lot with temp.
In the end I'm simply going to have to find a way to hide internal volume by running it up behind the M/T area and use stiffer materials to thin out the walls.
I'm thinking of using acryllic counter top material for the cabinet. A half inch is more "dead" than 3/4" of MDF. The only issue is that it expands and contracts a lot with temp.
-this is pretty much a futile exercise for several reasons including: room-modes, non-linear distortion, transient fidelity, tactile sensation, etc..
You are better off targeting a pass-band between 50-400 Hz, and using near-field stereo subs to transition somewhere within that pass-band. This upper-bass range has most of that tactile sensation (gut-punch). I like to use efficient pro drivers for this duty: Eminence in particular for their lower distortion and subjective transient behaviour in this range for a given spl: (see the 20mm distance for non-linear effects - and remember that the 2.83v measurement around 200 Hz is MUCH higher in spl than other solution, meaning you'd have this driver low-passed/eq. corrected for a lower spl. - thereby reducing the resulting distortion.)
Eminence Deltalite-II-2512 | HiFiCompass
The quality of the DAC is pretty much irrelevant (with any good DSP solution) at lower freq.s, particularly when you still have stereo channels that still extend into the bass (..like a 1st order/"shallow" electrical high-pass at 100 Hz). At that point it becomes more about "blending" the output to still preserve transient fidelity. Just use the analog input of one of those solutions (ie. minidsp) for your stereo subs.
For the sub.s Rythmik Audio with their "servo" plate amps (..with much lower distortion), along with the much lower distortion being near-field.
Rythmik Audio • Direct Servo subwoofer products
Last edited:
I've heard speakers with "pro" drivers like the JBL Synthesis, and I'm just not a fan personally.
I may break down and design an analog active crossover and use the 32cm SS.
Even with the DEQX, which was the best of the bunch, it still wasn't what I would call good and the sound was very pronounced. I have even had 2 different versions of the DEQX. The most recent the HDP-4 was much better than the older PDC 2.6, but still not on the level....
My criticism may have used some level of hyperbole with regards to the HDP-4 specifically, but the DEQX PDC, the MiniDSP Balanced, and the Hypex DLCP, were all reallly bad.
If I had to rank them, I would say it's something like this....
DEQX HDP-4
DEQX PDC-2.6
Hypex DLCP
Distant Last Place
Hypex OEM DSP from AS100
MiniDSP Balanced with the stupid barrier strip connectors...
For the record, I'm not a Hypex hater. I love their amplifiers!!!
I may break down and design an analog active crossover and use the 32cm SS.
Even with the DEQX, which was the best of the bunch, it still wasn't what I would call good and the sound was very pronounced. I have even had 2 different versions of the DEQX. The most recent the HDP-4 was much better than the older PDC 2.6, but still not on the level....
My criticism may have used some level of hyperbole with regards to the HDP-4 specifically, but the DEQX PDC, the MiniDSP Balanced, and the Hypex DLCP, were all reallly bad.
If I had to rank them, I would say it's something like this....
DEQX HDP-4
DEQX PDC-2.6
Hypex DLCP
Distant Last Place
Hypex OEM DSP from AS100
MiniDSP Balanced with the stupid barrier strip connectors...
For the record, I'm not a Hypex hater. I love their amplifiers!!!
Last edited:
I'm wondering why this dCS DAC can be better than a current average unit. Nothing in the measurements at least indicates that this is something special.
I've heard many dacs as of recent, as I'm finally coming to replace my aging HW. I assumed that I would be able to upgrade for 3 to 5K. Boy was I surprized.
I currently have an Elgar Plus, Purcell upsampler, and an Antelope Pure 2 as word clock and source.
I listend to quite a few from $1000 to $50,000. I don't know what to tell you....
The only inexpensive unit that was really competition was the Berkely. All the units that are hailed as great by the audio press fell short. Schitt, Mytek, Auralic, PS Audio, my own Antelope, and even some REALLY expensive pieces like the TAD weren't any better. I'm not saying that they are bad, but when you hear them side by side, it's clear dCS has some secret sauce.
Aside from age, the only big improvement dCS has made is the volume control. The Elgar+ will sound better at high volume, becasue it's a digital volume control. At low volume it messes with the signal a little.
I currently have an Elgar Plus, Purcell upsampler, and an Antelope Pure 2 as word clock and source.
I listend to quite a few from $1000 to $50,000. I don't know what to tell you....
The only inexpensive unit that was really competition was the Berkely. All the units that are hailed as great by the audio press fell short. Schitt, Mytek, Auralic, PS Audio, my own Antelope, and even some REALLY expensive pieces like the TAD weren't any better. I'm not saying that they are bad, but when you hear them side by side, it's clear dCS has some secret sauce.
Aside from age, the only big improvement dCS has made is the volume control. The Elgar+ will sound better at high volume, becasue it's a digital volume control. At low volume it messes with the signal a little.
I see DACs and DSPs as different animals. To me DSP means digital processing, DAC means the conversion back to analog. Good DSP's are about MIPs and properly coded filter implementations. What DAC's are about is less clear to me...
Anyway, imho, once we introduce a room into the sound quality equation, we've found the inevitable weakest link, by at least one order of magnitude...and it usually makes my DAC vs DSP separation get much less noteworthy.
BTW, the miniDSP openDRC digital in - digital, out is good kit. Hells bells 🙂, PCs in the digital domain.... are good kit......
Anyway, imho, once we introduce a room into the sound quality equation, we've found the inevitable weakest link, by at least one order of magnitude...and it usually makes my DAC vs DSP separation get much less noteworthy.
BTW, the miniDSP openDRC digital in - digital, out is good kit. Hells bells 🙂, PCs in the digital domain.... are good kit......
Did you listen to the Chord Electronics Hugo M Scaler with the DAVE or Hugo TT2 DACS? Rob Watts, the design engineer, is truly going down an interesting and different path in his development of DAC processing. Fairly expensive equipment, too expensive for me currently.
Note: I'm NOT advocating a change to an active digital crossover for your use. 😉
Instead I'm suggesting:
Source > Preamp (split to A and B) >
A (amplifier) > main Loudspeakers
B (miniDSP) > L & R "servo" plate-amp/subwoofers (for stereo output).
As far as a pro woofer like the Eminence: it's really a matter of implementation. In a situation like this I wouldn't use it much above 400 Hz, nor would I use it much below 50 Hz, and I'd tune the bass reflex for a low freq. even though I'd be using a *high-pass filter for it (..and this often requires a larger volume for the right characteristic/slope). The subjective result would be vastly more "dynamic" than what you are used to hearing provided you either have an amplifier with a lot of current for its power supply with a low output impedance OR you use an impedance compensation filter (LCR) for the in-box resonance (for the driver).
-basically don't make a comparison with pro or "prosumer" products: it's really not the same at all (..and this isn't even factoring-in that the overall loudspeaker design is usually a LOT different). 😉
*this along with the Impedance "flattening" filter would be part of your main loudspeaker's crossover: a typical "passive" design.
Last edited:
If your not afraid of some pro drivers I can't believe that you haven't read the 10" driver shootout. War of the 10" monster midbasses
It seems like the beymas and ciarres perform fairly well in the distortion area and the neodiums seem best even into the lowest frequencies. Not sure exactly what your trying to accomplish other than trying to make a large enough cabinet that doesn't take over the room. I found a video where some chinese guy built a threeway speaker using a mundorf amt tweater + 4.5inch illuminator + 7.5 inch satori for the base unit. If youv'e got good headphones give it a listen. YouTube
It seems like the beymas and ciarres perform fairly well in the distortion area and the neodiums seem best even into the lowest frequencies. Not sure exactly what your trying to accomplish other than trying to make a large enough cabinet that doesn't take over the room. I found a video where some chinese guy built a threeway speaker using a mundorf amt tweater + 4.5inch illuminator + 7.5 inch satori for the base unit. If youv'e got good headphones give it a listen. YouTube