Difference between Dynaudio D280 & D260?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
gordonhunsaker

gordonhunsaker

Member
Joined 2017
#1
What is the difference between Dynaudio's newer D280 compared to D260? I see on some older OEM models that use D280 having 6 mounting holes yet on other new models have 3 mounting holes. I read somewhere that maybe D280 uses ferrite magnet as compared to neodymium? I've looked high and low and can't find any spec sheet on it. I know Dyn stopped selling parts to feed the DIY market and perhaps at that time they developed the D280 as an enhanced version of D280 and did not release a spec sheet for the world to see...? Have D260's in use now with 17W75XL-08 and in process of doing an x-over for them but I always wonder about the D280 and if its only slightly better? (albeit hard to find for sale)...

Thanks,
Gordon
 
#4
Thanks for the reply Daniel.
I wonder if Dynaudio did anything else to the dome or dome coating on newer D280? Anyway I'm sure enjoying the speakers I put together with Dynaudio 17W75XL-08 and D260 using very good x-over components (Solen and Mundorf) in really good-braced/damped cabinet...!

Regards,
Gordon
 
#5
Since 10 - 12 years no changes in the coating process, even all domes are coated the same way, for any model. After drying, there is a selection, and the best ones end up in the top tweeters, the other in more standard models. So, any Dynaudio tweeter sounds similar and good, it's the magnet system that makes a difference.

If you need advices for your setup let me know, I know all those drivers by heart.

Rgds,
- dan
 
#6
Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than that. The ferrofluid used was changed over the course of the years, the viscosity changed. To make things worse, ferrofluid dries up at some time, so comparing differences between tweeters can actually have different reasons.
 
#7
ICG said:
Unfortunately it's a bit more complicated than that. The ferrofluid used was changed over the course of the years, the viscosity changed. To make things worse, ferrofluid dries up at some time, so comparing differences between tweeters can actually have different reasons.
Click to expand...

Dynaudio is using the same ferrofluid since at least 15 years, and it's a special version with a rather viscosity, but made to be stabilised over the years - because of the use in car tweeters where it needs to be stable because of the temperatures variations.
Old ferrofluid can dry out, but then it doesn't harm that much to remove it completely - it doesn't sound worse.

- dan
 
#8
Alfetta87 said:
Dynaudio is using the same ferrofluid since at least 15 years,
Click to expand...

Why are there then different part numbers for it?

Alfetta87 said:
Old ferrofluid can dry out, but then it doesn't harm that much to remove it completely - it doesn't sound worse.
Click to expand...

The removal of the FF changes the impedance response a lot and since that's where the crossover interacts with it the most, the sound actually does change a lot - unless it's an active setup.
 
#9
ICG said:
Why are there then different part numbers for it?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but I know it's the same fluid.

ICG said:
The removal of the FF changes the impedance response a lot and since that's where the crossover interacts with it the most, the sound actually does change a lot - unless it's an active setup.
Click to expand...

I know, but a stiff ferrofluid would change the Fs as well - in the wrong direction (up). Removing the fluid might need changes, but since the Fs goes down it's less critical. Generally the SPL goes up a bit (about 1.5 dB) which can easily compensated with a higher attenuation.
 
#10
Alfetta87 said:
I know, but a stiff ferrofluid would change the Fs as well - in the wrong direction (up). Removing the fluid might need changes, but since the Fs goes down it's less critical. Generally the SPL goes up a bit (about 1.5 dB) which can easily compensated with a higher attenuation.
Click to expand...

That's true but it's still an issue if you want to compare the sound of different tweeters. Almost nobody is able to mask out this difference from the rest of the sound.
 
#11
ICG said:
That's true but it's still an issue if you want to compare the sound of different tweeters. Almost nobody is able to mask out this difference from the rest of the sound.
Click to expand...

We made tests with identical tweeters, a pair with and a pair without. Woofers were 4 identical 17W75 XL, and all was driven with 4 AS2.100 from Hypex. The level was adapted, almost no change in the XO or EQ; measured curves were identical.

The ferrofluid less versions were better, but also more demanding. Some people like the "closed" sound of ferrofluid. But instruments were more authentic without FF, more air.

The best compromise was finally a ferrofluid with less viscosity, which made both worlds happy.
 
#12
Alfetta87 said:
We made tests with identical tweeters, a pair with and a pair without. Woofers were 4 identical 17W75 XL, and all was driven with 4 AS2.100 from Hypex. The level was adapted, almost no change in the XO or EQ; measured curves were identical.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, active it's not an issue, just passive. And that's completely logical, the impedance peak changes the filter behaviour passive a lot while acitve the filter isn't affected at all.

Alfetta87 said:
The ferrofluid less versions were better, but also more demanding. Some people like the "closed" sound of ferrofluid. But instruments were more authentic without FF, more air.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Did you make distortion measurements?

Alfetta87 said:
The best compromise was finally a ferrofluid with less viscosity, which made both worlds happy.
Click to expand...

Well, if the passive crossover is made for higher viscosity, you've still got an issue. Or the other way around. 'One fits all' sadly doesn't work in passive crossovers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom