NE-149 specs
Has anyone measured T&S parameters for the NE-149? I've looked at data sheets for both the 4 and 8 ohm datasheets. The Vas for the 4 Ohm is half that of the 8 Ohm, 4.6l for the 4 and 8.5 for the 8 Ohm. Seems unlikely that they would use a different suspension.
Vifa, NE149W-08 - Meniscus Audio
Vifa, NE149W-04 - Meniscus Audio
Has anyone measured T&S parameters for the NE-149? I've looked at data sheets for both the 4 and 8 ohm datasheets. The Vas for the 4 Ohm is half that of the 8 Ohm, 4.6l for the 4 and 8.5 for the 8 Ohm. Seems unlikely that they would use a different suspension.
Vifa, NE149W-08 - Meniscus Audio
Vifa, NE149W-04 - Meniscus Audio
I didn't have sucess to purchase 4x NE123W-08 for a MTM use, Has anyone experienced the NE149W-04/08 with its own measurements as well ?
Curt and I used the NE149-04 mid in the Finalist design. It sounds great and is a duplicate to the 8 ohm version except for the 4 vs 8 ohm rating. Good luck finding any of either one. Lack of availability is the only reason the Finalists aren't available as a parts kit. The Travelers are an upgraded version with a significant improvement in midrange clarity and detail.
I do have some measurements Curt did when he developed the design.
I do have some measurements Curt did when he developed the design.
Thanks Jim Holtz for chiming here. Often read HTGUIDE pages 🙂 , I wish I could make an Isis with the complex Avalon like shapes ! I really have no idea on how you can acheive that perfect cabinet symetry complex recesses with a table saw ?!
The measurement is appreciated in order to compare with the one from HifiCompass and also the datasheet. Looks like measured on the final loudspeaker baffle with a sligth baffle step compensation, rigth?
Did you not find the Vifa more dynamic, punchy in the low mid VS the SBAcoustic? (say from 250/300 hz)
Initialy I wanted to use the NE123 -but yes defintly NLA in 8 ohms despite what say some on line vendors- inspired by The Statment II mid section open back (I need 91/92 dB/-2.83 V) but blended with a Faital 12PR320 and something different tweeter... AST2560 or a horned classic fabric in a narrow cabinet there.
I eventually can source here the NE149w-08 for a bigger MTM or MMT. something 300 hz-2/2.5 Khz. When I see the datasheet this pulpcone hit a lot of good points from the titanium VC, incredible T&S that seems to be better than A Revelator but also from the SB15CAC.
I am sure aluminium is more detailed (my current speaker has one btw), but always some of resonance are there with those very hard cones whatever the LCR applied to tame it...
But the clarity and details, do you not find the wood pulp cone more musical and dynamic ? Anyway both of these drivers are in my wallet possibilities 🙂 But my bass driver is already there and it is a paper (the Faital)... so blending a paper with an alu cone to something 500 hz to rule the Baffle step due to the low efficienty of the SB15CAC would surely be difficult due to the different cone material definition, at least this what I surmise.
I am looking for something musical... i.e. between something the precision of alu, electrostatic and the the old Kef with nomex B110 (I have had the Kef104/2 ref I quite liked). So I applied a magic though without proof of concept : the in between being very hard paper cone or modern pulp wood cone and still with a good motor design, at the end I short listed only two drivers: the Seas ERLY aka Reed Cone and the Vifas NE for their known clarity and detail, but smooth high end for less ringing VS an aluminium/ceramic (I find the 100% ceramic a bit coldy).
I target an Harman like at home power response : around 5 to 10 dB fall between the low end and the high end...
I am certainly spliting hairs here, but I have this constraint with the Faital 12" : 91 db/ mini for the mid(s) in order to cross over around 250 to 400 hz.
The measurement is appreciated in order to compare with the one from HifiCompass and also the datasheet. Looks like measured on the final loudspeaker baffle with a sligth baffle step compensation, rigth?
Did you not find the Vifa more dynamic, punchy in the low mid VS the SBAcoustic? (say from 250/300 hz)
Initialy I wanted to use the NE123 -but yes defintly NLA in 8 ohms despite what say some on line vendors- inspired by The Statment II mid section open back (I need 91/92 dB/-2.83 V) but blended with a Faital 12PR320 and something different tweeter... AST2560 or a horned classic fabric in a narrow cabinet there.
I eventually can source here the NE149w-08 for a bigger MTM or MMT. something 300 hz-2/2.5 Khz. When I see the datasheet this pulpcone hit a lot of good points from the titanium VC, incredible T&S that seems to be better than A Revelator but also from the SB15CAC.
I am sure aluminium is more detailed (my current speaker has one btw), but always some of resonance are there with those very hard cones whatever the LCR applied to tame it...
But the clarity and details, do you not find the wood pulp cone more musical and dynamic ? Anyway both of these drivers are in my wallet possibilities 🙂 But my bass driver is already there and it is a paper (the Faital)... so blending a paper with an alu cone to something 500 hz to rule the Baffle step due to the low efficienty of the SB15CAC would surely be difficult due to the different cone material definition, at least this what I surmise.
I am looking for something musical... i.e. between something the precision of alu, electrostatic and the the old Kef with nomex B110 (I have had the Kef104/2 ref I quite liked). So I applied a magic though without proof of concept : the in between being very hard paper cone or modern pulp wood cone and still with a good motor design, at the end I short listed only two drivers: the Seas ERLY aka Reed Cone and the Vifas NE for their known clarity and detail, but smooth high end for less ringing VS an aluminium/ceramic (I find the 100% ceramic a bit coldy).
I target an Harman like at home power response : around 5 to 10 dB fall between the low end and the high end...
I am certainly spliting hairs here, but I have this constraint with the Faital 12" : 91 db/ mini for the mid(s) in order to cross over around 250 to 400 hz.
The driver was mounted on the speaker cabinet but no crossover or baffle step involved. The crossover to the bass driver was above 300 Hz. and is used as a mid in a 3 way so the "punch" is dominated by the bass drivers rather than the SB15CAC.
The CAC sounds quite different from the pure aluminum con version. The CAC is a hybrid ceramic coating bonded to the aluminum base. It is much smoother and natural sounding, but still detailed with exceptional clarity. It is at the top of my list of drivers to use.
Paper cone drivers can be very nice, but I do like the CAC better. I also use an Accuton mid in the Bordeaux with the same opinion. Here's the secret.... It's all in the crossover. Curt and I talked at length about not having a "clinical" sound that's often associated with metal drivers. Curt did his magic on the crossover design and took care of the cold sound.
HTH
Jim
The CAC sounds quite different from the pure aluminum con version. The CAC is a hybrid ceramic coating bonded to the aluminum base. It is much smoother and natural sounding, but still detailed with exceptional clarity. It is at the top of my list of drivers to use.
Paper cone drivers can be very nice, but I do like the CAC better. I also use an Accuton mid in the Bordeaux with the same opinion. Here's the secret.... It's all in the crossover. Curt and I talked at length about not having a "clinical" sound that's often associated with metal drivers. Curt did his magic on the crossover design and took care of the cold sound.
HTH
Jim
I assume a MT to have a more coherent soundstage than the MTM or halfway MMT as well due to the sligth inconcistency of production between pair of drivers.
The choice between the "paper" NE cone vs the "hybrid ceramic" on the the SB CAC cone is much up to how you want your cone breakup range distributed. However, with the NE we aren't really dealing with a traditional paper cone. It uses a tight grain wood pulp with a proprietary resin bonding it together, forming a much stiffer cone with a higher modulus than any paper cone I've ever dealt with. Due to the unique compromise between stiffness and breakup distribution plus the deep cone profile and small dustcap, the NE cone sounds much more "musical" when being run at the upper edge of its passband. The way the breakup modes are spaced apart spectrally speaking on this driver and the how they rise in proportion to one another is why it sounds so natural, especially at higher output levels. The Ti VC former has its benefits as well, but that shows up more in the higher Qms, which can aid in lower level detail retrieval. The odd order HD remains fairly low in the main usable pass band of the NE123, NE149 and NE180, while mainly the even order HD increases with output level. This behavior keeps the driver sounding much cleaner and composed at higher output levels than any other paper cone midbass I've ever heard and imparts an analytic SQ without the sterile sound of most other "over-dampened" low Qms cone drivers (mainly being operated in its pistonic range).
The SB15CAC cone is definitely designated in my eyes as a metal cone. IMO, the ceramic oxide layer is too thin to provide significant control of the main radial cone breakup modes higher up as the pistonic mode of operation is exceeded. Some of this can be seen in the factory published driver FR. The useful bandwidth of this driver is however a little wider than most metal cone drivers, but as with these and many other rigid metal cones (which breakip rather abruptly and high in amplitude), the peaks are much closer together and tend to give that zingy typical metal cone sound. This is mainly the case if the peaks aren't dealt with very carefully in the crossover and kept far away from the working bandpass of the driver. If the breakup zone isn't suppressed at least 30dB, the metal cone signature will come through. I believe you'd be ok with a crossover point of no higher than 2.5k on this driver. IMO, much of the reason this CAC driver performs better than most Alu cone units is due to the 5 radial slits cut into the cone surface, sort of like a SS revelator driver (NE cones use a backcut "pentacone" design in the outer cone perimeter to attempt something similar). I also don't think the ceramic layer on the SB is thick enough to provide the level of breakup mode suppression compared to the mechanical cone design itself. The price would be much higher on this driver if the ceramic layer was thicker. Its not cheap to manufacture a cone this way - $100 is already pretty reasonable for any reasonably well designed midbass driver.
A well thought out and dampened metal cone driver will have a breakup zone which diminishes in complete proportion to off angle dispersion rather than having shifting peaks varying with dispersion angle - these drivers will always have a coloration signature which can't be eliminated even with steep notching of the breakup. The SB15CAC is no exception to this and has varying sharp peaks higher in amplitude than its pass band level, which move around as the listening angle varies. Some paper drivers suffer from this too, but often to a lesser degree and don't exceed in level compared to the pass band amplitude. Thanks to how far up they've managed to push the breakup on the SB driver, its not as noticeable compared to other (even well regarded) Alu cone drivers. If you compare the NE149 driver, it has less abnormalities higher up, which diminish proportionality the further you move off axis and are lower in proportion to its main output level. Becuase of this, the useful bandwidth is wider on the NE149 than the SB15CAC and it can be run closer to the breakup range without sounding rough, even with a more shallow xover. I've run the NE149 past 3k 2nd order without a hint of noticeable harshness or fatiquing character. It just did what you asked it to and never complained or lost its composer at ear melting higher output levels.
Both drivers are well designed midbass units, but IMHO, the NE149 has the edge and will sound more natural, musically complementing over a wider operating range, which makes crossover design much easier. The SB15CAC isn't a driver for beginner diy speaker designers, as it needs careful implementation to sound its best.
The SB15CAC cone is definitely designated in my eyes as a metal cone. IMO, the ceramic oxide layer is too thin to provide significant control of the main radial cone breakup modes higher up as the pistonic mode of operation is exceeded. Some of this can be seen in the factory published driver FR. The useful bandwidth of this driver is however a little wider than most metal cone drivers, but as with these and many other rigid metal cones (which breakip rather abruptly and high in amplitude), the peaks are much closer together and tend to give that zingy typical metal cone sound. This is mainly the case if the peaks aren't dealt with very carefully in the crossover and kept far away from the working bandpass of the driver. If the breakup zone isn't suppressed at least 30dB, the metal cone signature will come through. I believe you'd be ok with a crossover point of no higher than 2.5k on this driver. IMO, much of the reason this CAC driver performs better than most Alu cone units is due to the 5 radial slits cut into the cone surface, sort of like a SS revelator driver (NE cones use a backcut "pentacone" design in the outer cone perimeter to attempt something similar). I also don't think the ceramic layer on the SB is thick enough to provide the level of breakup mode suppression compared to the mechanical cone design itself. The price would be much higher on this driver if the ceramic layer was thicker. Its not cheap to manufacture a cone this way - $100 is already pretty reasonable for any reasonably well designed midbass driver.
A well thought out and dampened metal cone driver will have a breakup zone which diminishes in complete proportion to off angle dispersion rather than having shifting peaks varying with dispersion angle - these drivers will always have a coloration signature which can't be eliminated even with steep notching of the breakup. The SB15CAC is no exception to this and has varying sharp peaks higher in amplitude than its pass band level, which move around as the listening angle varies. Some paper drivers suffer from this too, but often to a lesser degree and don't exceed in level compared to the pass band amplitude. Thanks to how far up they've managed to push the breakup on the SB driver, its not as noticeable compared to other (even well regarded) Alu cone drivers. If you compare the NE149 driver, it has less abnormalities higher up, which diminish proportionality the further you move off axis and are lower in proportion to its main output level. Becuase of this, the useful bandwidth is wider on the NE149 than the SB15CAC and it can be run closer to the breakup range without sounding rough, even with a more shallow xover. I've run the NE149 past 3k 2nd order without a hint of noticeable harshness or fatiquing character. It just did what you asked it to and never complained or lost its composer at ear melting higher output levels.
Both drivers are well designed midbass units, but IMHO, the NE149 has the edge and will sound more natural, musically complementing over a wider operating range, which makes crossover design much easier. The SB15CAC isn't a driver for beginner diy speaker designers, as it needs careful implementation to sound its best.
Hello,
The vendor takes all his time to send my monney back in order I trigger a new one. I asked him if he could check for 4 NE149W-08... What a mess !
I planned to purchase also the cat378 if the Peereless are ok for sending. Also, had you have the chance The Be tweeter from SBAcous tics ? The vendor is a little expensive but yet has a 20% discount on Peereless, What about a SB29Be or its bigger brother also in feritt magnet the Satori SB29B (for what I understand little embeded WG in plus of the simplier less expensive version) ?
I re read all the Finalist crossover on Curt Campbel site, talentuous guy as his crossover stays simple. From the Statements II with the NE128 and the Finalist monitor with the NE149w-08 and the same with the micro staement (or Finalist duno remember precisely), there are several itteration for great inspiration ! But, uh, 2 units of 149-08 in // asks for 200 uF high pass for 320 hz in around 20 L or two x 11 litre if open tube load ! Well, let me ocuppy for the next 2 years due to my snail rapidity !😱 ... wood working is my nigthmare... I made only one loudspeaker already as usually I just refurbish vintage speaker for friends and family... I am quite sure this NE should sound better than the Textreme... imo maybe the Audiotechnology are as good or better but not as smooth !
The vendor takes all his time to send my monney back in order I trigger a new one. I asked him if he could check for 4 NE149W-08... What a mess !
I planned to purchase also the cat378 if the Peereless are ok for sending. Also, had you have the chance The Be tweeter from SBAcous tics ? The vendor is a little expensive but yet has a 20% discount on Peereless, What about a SB29Be or its bigger brother also in feritt magnet the Satori SB29B (for what I understand little embeded WG in plus of the simplier less expensive version) ?
I re read all the Finalist crossover on Curt Campbel site, talentuous guy as his crossover stays simple. From the Statements II with the NE128 and the Finalist monitor with the NE149w-08 and the same with the micro staement (or Finalist duno remember precisely), there are several itteration for great inspiration ! But, uh, 2 units of 149-08 in // asks for 200 uF high pass for 320 hz in around 20 L or two x 11 litre if open tube load ! Well, let me ocuppy for the next 2 years due to my snail rapidity !😱 ... wood working is my nigthmare... I made only one loudspeaker already as usually I just refurbish vintage speaker for friends and family... I am quite sure this NE should sound better than the Textreme... imo maybe the Audiotechnology are as good or better but not as smooth !
Why not use 2 of the 4 ohm version.NE123 in series? The statements 2 crossover (last version I've seen) uses alot of series resistance (something like 4.5 ohms) to the mids, so you're dropping more than 3 dB right there. Doing a series circuit with 2 drivers is no issue at all if the drivers are reasonably close in Fs and share the same Vb.
I do not have experience with the ferrite SB Be tweeters, only the smaller NE version in thr plastic frame,.which sounds pretty nice to my ears, just not as nice as my favorite TW025A28 Ti dome.
You're in a pickle with the mids. The shortage of NE123s and Ne149s is the issue here. Don't get hung up on the Be tweeter thing. There are.good silk dome and TI domes available as you already know ie CAT378.
Someone has to have some NE mids laying around. I'd let mine go if I knew for sure I had no plans for them. I've been looking around for you. Its just not so easy. Something will come up. Be patient.
I do not have experience with the ferrite SB Be tweeters, only the smaller NE version in thr plastic frame,.which sounds pretty nice to my ears, just not as nice as my favorite TW025A28 Ti dome.
You're in a pickle with the mids. The shortage of NE123s and Ne149s is the issue here. Don't get hung up on the Be tweeter thing. There are.good silk dome and TI domes available as you already know ie CAT378.
Someone has to have some NE mids laying around. I'd let mine go if I knew for sure I had no plans for them. I've been looking around for you. Its just not so easy. Something will come up. Be patient.
The webShop Compacbel in Belgium is definitly not serious, the NE149-08 is not avialable also, but still on line. I sent a message to the vendor and finally most of the NE line he has on line are NLA he said. He has no stock, and now guessing if he doesn't sell B-stock having 20% on SBAcoustic... ?
There were two avialable at SoundImports that were sold a pair of days before, certainly due to this wake-uped thread !
Well better to avoid that shop imho ! I am disgusted by such practices...
I give up ! Do not like to have such mess for my hobby and to run behind the merchands...
There were two avialable at SoundImports that were sold a pair of days before, certainly due to this wake-uped thread !
Well better to avoid that shop imho ! I am disgusted by such practices...
I give up ! Do not like to have such mess for my hobby and to run behind the merchands...
Sorry to interrupt, but I see that some of you want to buy Peerless NE123. I have 10 of them brand new if you want. ( from a project that was not finished)
HI, which impedance, please ? We are in the same country...
Edit : saw your Swap Met post, so 4 ohms... I am not confortable for a serie design (the idea of two coils in serie let me fear of phase problem with passive filter about the second unit in serie... I am certainly too much picky here though...
Edit : saw your Swap Met post, so 4 ohms... I am not confortable for a serie design (the idea of two coils in serie let me fear of phase problem with passive filter about the second unit in serie... I am certainly too much picky here though...
Phase problem? Considering the speed of current, I doubt that you will see phase problem until reaching 1000000000000000ghz ;-)
you certainly rigth 🙂 ... and the coils have to be also on the return path for a bandpass filter...
Hello,
I recently built a pair of micro statement speakers.
First of all : what an amazing speaker ! I totally agree with "sound description" chapter in World design's paper.
I noticed a very quick and huge improvement in sound quality as the NE149 are breaking in. In fact , the faster break-in improvement i had to notice in my speaker building life (say 3 decades).
One thing i would like to address here , with other builders and if possible with Jim and Curt is the NE149 small peak around 7kHz.
I can hear it (before seeing it on FR), inducing a sort of grain accentuation on strings. Has anybody experienced the same ?
I kinda solved this problem with a series RLC (4,7ohm / 0,2mH / 2,2uf, parallel to speaker)° that has still to be fine tuned, but the improvement is obvious, loosing grainyness and finding an even more musical presentation of strings, and a sibillance taming too.
I would enjoy to share your thoughts about this fact.
Musically, Pascal
I recently built a pair of micro statement speakers.
First of all : what an amazing speaker ! I totally agree with "sound description" chapter in World design's paper.
I noticed a very quick and huge improvement in sound quality as the NE149 are breaking in. In fact , the faster break-in improvement i had to notice in my speaker building life (say 3 decades).
One thing i would like to address here , with other builders and if possible with Jim and Curt is the NE149 small peak around 7kHz.
I can hear it (before seeing it on FR), inducing a sort of grain accentuation on strings. Has anybody experienced the same ?
I kinda solved this problem with a series RLC (4,7ohm / 0,2mH / 2,2uf, parallel to speaker)° that has still to be fine tuned, but the improvement is obvious, loosing grainyness and finding an even more musical presentation of strings, and a sibillance taming too.
I would enjoy to share your thoughts about this fact.
Musically, Pascal
But I am not sure of the version which Holtz and Campbell liked the most with that driver : the micro or the Finalist low pass . Quite different cut-offs.
Only the micro lower the little 700 hz/1200 hz bump. but one has an early cut-off. So tweeters play not the same area... The two loudspeakers while more similar than different should sound different somewhere in the high mid low treble.
Only the micro lower the little 700 hz/1200 hz bump. but one has an early cut-off. So tweeters play not the same area... The two loudspeakers while more similar than different should sound different somewhere in the high mid low treble.
Can't tell which speaker is better as i had no occasion to listen to the Finalist monitor.
But your remark made me think about one thing : in the Finalist monitor, the LP is set about an octave lower than in micro Statement, so the 7kHz peak is lowered 12dB more, making it not hearable.
In the Micro Statement, the 7kHz peak attenuation is about12-15 db (without notch), making it still hearable
That possibly indicates one of the sound differences beetween the two, to be confirmed .
But your remark made me think about one thing : in the Finalist monitor, the LP is set about an octave lower than in micro Statement, so the 7kHz peak is lowered 12dB more, making it not hearable.
In the Micro Statement, the 7kHz peak attenuation is about12-15 db (without notch), making it still hearable
That possibly indicates one of the sound differences beetween the two, to be confirmed .