I might need some listening experience here.
I used to combine the MW16 and TW29, but have since moved on to the SB26ADC hard dome tweeter. The listening experience has improved to my opinion. But now I'm asking myself: if going from softdome to harddome made this difference, why am I still using a midwoofer with a soft cone?
Obviously changing the cone to an aluminium one of the same size might introduce some other problems... So here I am trying to find an alu cone driver that can at least match the MW16's distortion profile. Going smaller only, so to e.g. MR13, was an idea I had for a while but now I found out the reason behind my sudden craving for a smaller midrange, might as well explore some more.
If somebody here tried both styles of midrange while keeping the (hard dome) tweeter and crossover point the same, please elaborate to see if this is just a hunch or something I must persue and try out..
Suggestions for a midrange are welcome too.
I used to combine the MW16 and TW29, but have since moved on to the SB26ADC hard dome tweeter. The listening experience has improved to my opinion. But now I'm asking myself: if going from softdome to harddome made this difference, why am I still using a midwoofer with a soft cone?
Obviously changing the cone to an aluminium one of the same size might introduce some other problems... So here I am trying to find an alu cone driver that can at least match the MW16's distortion profile. Going smaller only, so to e.g. MR13, was an idea I had for a while but now I found out the reason behind my sudden craving for a smaller midrange, might as well explore some more.
If somebody here tried both styles of midrange while keeping the (hard dome) tweeter and crossover point the same, please elaborate to see if this is just a hunch or something I must persue and try out..
Suggestions for a midrange are welcome too.
Well, it's worth recalling that in shifting from the TW29 [whichever soft-dome / ring dome variation it was] to the SB26ADC, you are not just comparing a difference in dome material. The tweeters do not share a single component in common; the innate motor and suspension designs are completely different too, so their distortion, response &c. behaviour is rather different.
Be that as it may, since you like the hard dome irrespective of the specific cause & are looking for an aluminium cone midrange (and why not?) then take a hard look at the SBNAC15.
Be that as it may, since you like the hard dome irrespective of the specific cause
..and don't forget these:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/343951-beryllium-vs-soft-domes-2.html#post5945522
some measurements for the smaller Peerless 1" corundum here:
Ardent Speaker Camp - Page 45
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/343951-beryllium-vs-soft-domes-2.html#post5945522
some measurements for the smaller Peerless 1" corundum here:
Ardent Speaker Camp - Page 45
Last edited:
When I looked at the distortion data on the HiFiCompass website, it seemed that the SB17NBAC aluminum cone driver was comparable to the Satori MW16, except that it remains pistonic to about 6k. The deeply-anodized ceramic cone version (SB17CAC) remains pistonic to about 8k.
You didn't follow. I and also Troels just tested the network with the tweeter. The allpass shouldn't do nothing but invert the phase. I wasn't familiar with dynaudio speakers. I was familiar with their tweeters and a few midwoofers. The whole idea of these is my 'opinion' regarding to the importance of minimum series elements in passive crossover, and to save tweeter from handling too much power a notch filter can be used (my preference) instead of higher order electrical slope.
Indeed; there are quite a few different ways of doing this, which do not all provide the same resuts or effects. All potentially useful of course.
I don't think I'm the one 'not following', since the point I made, which you have quoted out of context, applied to Dynaudio, not Troels. You stated in your previous post that
Now you are saying you are 'familiar with their tweeters and a few midwoofers'. The last time I checked, tweeters and woofers were drive units. Drive units do not incorporate all-pass delay networks all by themselves. Those are part of an overall speaker system and included in the crossover design. Ergo, since you say you are familiar 'with several dynaudio [sic] tweeters where such [a] network was found in the past' then either you have added it yourself and were listening to the tweeter solo (generally a rather fruitless enterprise without any kind of context), or you were listening to a summed loudspeaker system comprised of several drive units and a crossover design, with an almost infinite number of variables involved.
Thanks for confirming that it was just your opinion rather than fact; this gives the rest of us reading much greater clarity. 🙂
Certainly; notch filters can be used to help provide, or maintain, a desired transfer function. I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise. However, as noted, this really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so I suggest you start a dedicated thread where you can discuss your personal preferences regarding crossover slopes.
I don't think I'm the one 'not following', since the point I made, which you have quoted out of context, applied to Dynaudio, not Troels. You stated in your previous post that
Now you are saying you are 'familiar with their tweeters and a few midwoofers'. The last time I checked, tweeters and woofers were drive units. Drive units do not incorporate all-pass delay networks all by themselves. Those are part of an overall speaker system and included in the crossover design. Ergo, since you say you are familiar 'with several dynaudio [sic] tweeters where such [a] network was found in the past' then either you have added it yourself and were listening to the tweeter solo (generally a rather fruitless enterprise without any kind of context), or you were listening to a summed loudspeaker system comprised of several drive units and a crossover design, with an almost infinite number of variables involved.
Thanks for confirming that it was just your opinion rather than fact; this gives the rest of us reading much greater clarity. 🙂
Certainly; notch filters can be used to help provide, or maintain, a desired transfer function. I don't think anybody has suggested otherwise. However, as noted, this really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, so I suggest you start a dedicated thread where you can discuss your personal preferences regarding crossover slopes.
Last edited:
Please note that i was responding to the OP in context where the fx is 2kHz and 2nd order slope was questioned whether sufficiently save or not. In this case the notch can be in tweeter's resonance frequency, or just below 2 kHz to form steep acoustic roll off (elliptical). The Q, if it is for resonance, depends on the Q of the resonance and if for elliptical I prefer to hunt for -40dB 'residual' like inverse Chebyshev.
I am a bit surprised. Looking at the official SB acoustic datasheet, the ceramic cone version seems to have nearly the same frequency reponse curve than the NBAC version.
You'd have to ask Jon/Evil Twin.
Don't forget the measurement conditions for the non-linear distortion plot though: 1800 Hz high-pass.
Don't forget the measurement conditions for the non-linear distortion plot though: 1800 Hz high-pass.
Do different cone materials sound different in a properly made speaker?
Lets do an experiment and find out.
Find yourself 3 squares 12" x 12" x 1/4" thick. One of steal one of plastic and one of cardboard. Take each square in one hand and strike yourself in the face with each square 3 or 4 times and tell me afterwards if anyone of these three different materials caused you more pain when struck with it.
Simply put, It doesn't matter if you can make any speaker flat and measure the same with impulse responses and test tones. It also doesn't matter if you use passive or active, electronic or DSP because a mag tweeter will not sound the same as a fabric soft dome tweeter. They have different tonalities.
That's because different materials interact with their environment differently. Take a non porous metal cone compared to a very porous fabric dome and one is going to move more air then the other. The metal cone will also have a more reflective surface due to the hardness of the material. This will tend to make for a sharper more detailed sound when reproducing things like trumpets and symbols that are highly dynamic but might be fatiguing or harsh when playing back highly saturated music like "Smashing
Pumpkins" for instance.
I believe the reason for this is that as the sound is generated and starts moving away from the driver a part of the sound wave is pulled back into the cone by the low pressure part of the cycle and gets reflected back outward when it bounces off the cone changing the attack be reinforcing parts of the sound wave while causing combing effects with other parts. This reflected sound is also frequency dependent as far as how strong the effect is.
That's my
Lets do an experiment and find out.
Find yourself 3 squares 12" x 12" x 1/4" thick. One of steal one of plastic and one of cardboard. Take each square in one hand and strike yourself in the face with each square 3 or 4 times and tell me afterwards if anyone of these three different materials caused you more pain when struck with it.
Simply put, It doesn't matter if you can make any speaker flat and measure the same with impulse responses and test tones. It also doesn't matter if you use passive or active, electronic or DSP because a mag tweeter will not sound the same as a fabric soft dome tweeter. They have different tonalities.
That's because different materials interact with their environment differently. Take a non porous metal cone compared to a very porous fabric dome and one is going to move more air then the other. The metal cone will also have a more reflective surface due to the hardness of the material. This will tend to make for a sharper more detailed sound when reproducing things like trumpets and symbols that are highly dynamic but might be fatiguing or harsh when playing back highly saturated music like "Smashing
Pumpkins" for instance. I believe the reason for this is that as the sound is generated and starts moving away from the driver a part of the sound wave is pulled back into the cone by the low pressure part of the cycle and gets reflected back outward when it bounces off the cone changing the attack be reinforcing parts of the sound wave while causing combing effects with other parts. This reflected sound is also frequency dependent as far as how strong the effect is.
That's my
I hade the chance to listen to two speakers: same XO, same Scan Speak Woofer, same ATC Mid dome
and a SS relelator soft or BE dome.
the BE dome was clearly better! more 3D, better resolution, clean heights.
for me BE is THE dome material.
and a SS relelator soft or BE dome.
the BE dome was clearly better! more 3D, better resolution, clean heights.
for me BE is THE dome material.
Not diameter but circumference < lambda is when drivers start to become directional. It is much worse than you imagined, by a factor of pi.
I don't quite follow you on this one. Many speakers benefit from (an extent) of current drive. Many tweeters measure best with a small resistance in series. It all depends.
The reason I prefer active is not because the amplifier is more in direct control of the drivers (although on the low end, the series resistance of the xover coil(s) may impact alignment). The real reasons for me are 1) precision 2) no thermal effects 3) all pass filters for time alignment are hard to do passively.
SS Revelator D2904/7100 fabric vs D2908/7140 Be? I ask because the faceplates are not the same (flange diameter for example) so this two tweeter is not one-to-one interchangeable.
Anyway, the prices for Be domes is so much higher and I don't think it's only because of the increased manufacturing cost of the Be.
Last edited:
As long as people buy it, they'll sell it at that price. Either we will accept 5% compromise (very questionable if the difference is perceivable everything else being equal) for using aluminium domes and pay 50-60 euros for a tweeter or we get that 5% more measurable performance (and a bit toxicity that goes with it) and pay 250 euros for a tweeter, or more.
Last edited:
Look on the bright side -I'm sure diamond domes will soon be available at bargain prices for those who feel the need. 😉
TBH, I like the beryllium dome Satori within its design context. Compared to the soft dome & ring-radiator models using the same motor (more or less), in the same speaker, & with the same baseline response, I prefer it. But: it's about 2.3x more expensive, and as you say, it's percentage point differences in performance.
TBH, I like the beryllium dome Satori within its design context. Compared to the soft dome & ring-radiator models using the same motor (more or less), in the same speaker, & with the same baseline response, I prefer it. But: it's about 2.3x more expensive, and as you say, it's percentage point differences in performance.
I made a typo there (shallow slope instead of steep slope). The point is I try to avoid components (inductor or capacitor) in series with drivers as much as i can. This also means I try to avoid high order (electrical) slope as much as I can. Notch filter will help (of course the one in parallel with drivers not in series one) and mandatory for drivers' resonance. Most notch filters for drivers resonance have little perceived effects for most ears such that leaving it out can be considered cost saving. But for high quality speakers there's no such thing as 'cost saving' with components.