Yep, this totally reminds me on my experiences with WO24P and SB15NBAC and SB15MFC drivers. Somehow they sound congested in the fundamentals, sound seems to stick a bit on the drivers. SB15NBAC e.g. is an exceptional clear and great midrange with a big recommendation from me for that use case but for midwoofer duty, they somehow play "thick/fat/slow" in the lower range. Same with WO24P in CB vs. a Scan Speak 26W Discovery in CB; the 26W is a wonderful driver hard to find anything to complain, the WO24P is not really bad objectively but in comparison it really lacks the authory and drive of the Scan Speak (both equalized to the same FR, similar xover frequencies around 300Hz). It appears to me that it lacks some "motivation" and the amp always has to push to keep it alive that the driver not falls asleep. Hard to describe sound by words, I know.... Got some subjective improvements for both SB15 and WOP24 with additional bucking magnets, somehow they got more "control". I also came to the conclusion with the NRXL as the ony SB woofer which remains interesting to me. SB15 and SB17 still keep very high place on my list for midrange duty....
My Dali 18mk2 had to be played too loud for casual listening and then they opened up and the singer entered the room. After i bypassed their passive xovers they have been fine at low level too. Just my limited experience.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Regarding one note bass of the SB drivers, they seem to have higher distortion, especially 2nd order below 100-200Hz? Regarding clarity in bass and midrange, shouldn't a high Qms (low mechanic resistance) also help out?
I will give you my experience, although, limited. I have the NE123 and haven't had the chance to try it out. Other than that, I really liked the SS 4424. I also liked the Tang Band 1137 very much. I used both of these from 300 to 3000 hz. I liked the SS better because I thought it just had a bit more body. Ultimately, I went with a Purifi 6.5 midrange driver from 200 to 1000 hz and then the Tang Band 50-1426SE from 1000 to 4000 hz.
If you want a smaller mid than a 6.5, you might want to check out the 5.25 or even the 4 from Purifi.
If you want a smaller mid than a 6.5, you might want to check out the 5.25 or even the 4 from Purifi.
Drivers are electro motors…..and as such, all motors have an operational range of efficiency to the point where power compression takes over and no more work can be done. Start with the obvious…..high QTS and lighter cones, compliant suspensions……critically damped is what you don’t want here except for domes.
Those are different sized drivers so cannot be swapped between. Also Fs seems to be in sub frequencies so likely not optimal for mids, they seem to be optimized for bass 🤔 There is too much simplification I'm afraid, I'm quite sure you cannot see performance from the TS spec and compare two drivers like that. Many say they could draw information from some particular parameters and I have no reason not to believe people say what they think is true, but until full disclosure of context I can list multiple other reasons why sound could differ, which could be narrowed down by starting to define a context, and make more sense.
I've got my alarm bell ringing as you guys are talking about mid driver being dull, I think it should be dull sound because tweeter is responsible for the highs in system context! If mid isn't dull, it enters into tweeters territory now, likely has distortion, or it is not EQ:d to context! If not compared in context, what you hear is meaningless in the context. Less dull driver could have more cone breakup, which put into context with tweeter could actually sound worse! So not sure what are we dealing with here.
I think mid drivers should be compared in a application within the exact same system (same tweeter, box etc, filters adjusted of course), or playing alone, either case they should be equalized for exactly the same acoustic response between each other and compared with exactly the same SPL. If there is some difference between the drivers, it should be audible now, which it could, but it's not clear if differences are compared this way on threads like this one. What I'm getting at if one compares speaker A with drivers x and y implemented by person K, and speaker B with drivers z and d implemented by person L, or even same person and only one variable changing like a mid driver but there is years in between and different crossover of course, they are very very different systems with everything being different and it's important to realize changing any single part requires tuning of the whole system, right. Heck, I can change dullness of my complete system with toe-in and listening distance for example, directivity and early reflections of room matter. No being careful comparing two things could lead to confusion.
Example of context, if one is building a speaker that must have passive filter with one cap and one coil for some reason, then, reality is some drivers sound better than others, because they would make better balanced system, they suit better! In which case, better keep on rotating until the end of good days, or invest in EQ, or invest in system design so you'd know exactly what driver(s) suit it.
For the TS parameters one could get some insight into how well a driver suits for a task, but between two drivers that suit I'm not sure they have too much meaning, one would have to measure, tune and listen, repeat. For example Qts is damping around driver main resonance frequency, but not above where mass dominates suspension, and mid drivers are seldom operated on the resonance but above, so I think Qts is not very important spec for an midrange application. What would matter between two mid drivers that are equalized for same frequency response is basically how problem free the pass band is for planned (max) SPL. But, if the driver is a bass unit as well, like a in a two way speaker a woofer would handle bass and mid, it get's more complicated and now Qts matters, also distortion stuff matters much more. Still the driver should not sound bright but dull, because it's not a tweeter, unless it's unequalized and not in context.
Perhaps you guys are hearing stuff beyond frequency response, not saying you aren't, I just don't have information about your context so not sure how you are comparing things, side by side AB carefully matched, or years apart without any matching.
In general, make sure a driver you choose has advanced motor, advanced suspension, and is suitable for system design which you have already done. Carefully designed system likely has any cone breakups designed be out of band and handled appropriately, and thus has a spec for suitable driver that can have this or that amount of breakup, needs this amount of excursion to reach SPL target and still have nice sound. Don't forget appropriate high pass, perhaps the most important thing to reduce distortion is by reducing excursion in order to optimize some other things that give more performance to mids, or conversely make less compromised mids.
Not sure what you guys are getting at? Reading between lines, and being a bit provocative, I only see system problem here. In general, distortion doesn't seem to be a problem with properly designed and tuned system and as long as driver is selected according to the system design it should not have this kind of issues. Basically, make good system design assuming ideal drivers, then buy suitable drivers. If in doubt, buy several and do AB comparison, in application.
Sorry a bit grumpy message, I don't usually write like so, not sure why I even post this. This is not targeted to pick on anyone, I just felt responsibility to give more perspective in this thread for the readers, stuff isn't that black and white, small details matter but only if the big picture is well defined. Toying around with small details without proper plan for big picture is just confusing, big picture first, then drill into details and everything is clear and well defined, meaningful.
edit. Logic from the above is this: if one has more than few drivers to compare, the system design is not nailed, so get back to drawing board. When system design is nailed there is probably only few suitable driver candidates, in which case it's quite straight forward to ask from forums about them. But be aware what the context is, clearly communicate both ways, without context the information may not be relevant to your application. Basically, it would be best to buy the drivers and test yourself, that's what one has to do eventually anyway. Or find someone that has done it, with same application you have, with your ears. Other than that it's nice chat, and could lead fine results still, so, take this as coffee break philosphy 🙂
I've got my alarm bell ringing as you guys are talking about mid driver being dull, I think it should be dull sound because tweeter is responsible for the highs in system context! If mid isn't dull, it enters into tweeters territory now, likely has distortion, or it is not EQ:d to context! If not compared in context, what you hear is meaningless in the context. Less dull driver could have more cone breakup, which put into context with tweeter could actually sound worse! So not sure what are we dealing with here.
I think mid drivers should be compared in a application within the exact same system (same tweeter, box etc, filters adjusted of course), or playing alone, either case they should be equalized for exactly the same acoustic response between each other and compared with exactly the same SPL. If there is some difference between the drivers, it should be audible now, which it could, but it's not clear if differences are compared this way on threads like this one. What I'm getting at if one compares speaker A with drivers x and y implemented by person K, and speaker B with drivers z and d implemented by person L, or even same person and only one variable changing like a mid driver but there is years in between and different crossover of course, they are very very different systems with everything being different and it's important to realize changing any single part requires tuning of the whole system, right. Heck, I can change dullness of my complete system with toe-in and listening distance for example, directivity and early reflections of room matter. No being careful comparing two things could lead to confusion.
Example of context, if one is building a speaker that must have passive filter with one cap and one coil for some reason, then, reality is some drivers sound better than others, because they would make better balanced system, they suit better! In which case, better keep on rotating until the end of good days, or invest in EQ, or invest in system design so you'd know exactly what driver(s) suit it.
For the TS parameters one could get some insight into how well a driver suits for a task, but between two drivers that suit I'm not sure they have too much meaning, one would have to measure, tune and listen, repeat. For example Qts is damping around driver main resonance frequency, but not above where mass dominates suspension, and mid drivers are seldom operated on the resonance but above, so I think Qts is not very important spec for an midrange application. What would matter between two mid drivers that are equalized for same frequency response is basically how problem free the pass band is for planned (max) SPL. But, if the driver is a bass unit as well, like a in a two way speaker a woofer would handle bass and mid, it get's more complicated and now Qts matters, also distortion stuff matters much more. Still the driver should not sound bright but dull, because it's not a tweeter, unless it's unequalized and not in context.
Perhaps you guys are hearing stuff beyond frequency response, not saying you aren't, I just don't have information about your context so not sure how you are comparing things, side by side AB carefully matched, or years apart without any matching.
In general, make sure a driver you choose has advanced motor, advanced suspension, and is suitable for system design which you have already done. Carefully designed system likely has any cone breakups designed be out of band and handled appropriately, and thus has a spec for suitable driver that can have this or that amount of breakup, needs this amount of excursion to reach SPL target and still have nice sound. Don't forget appropriate high pass, perhaps the most important thing to reduce distortion is by reducing excursion in order to optimize some other things that give more performance to mids, or conversely make less compromised mids.
Not sure what you guys are getting at? Reading between lines, and being a bit provocative, I only see system problem here. In general, distortion doesn't seem to be a problem with properly designed and tuned system and as long as driver is selected according to the system design it should not have this kind of issues. Basically, make good system design assuming ideal drivers, then buy suitable drivers. If in doubt, buy several and do AB comparison, in application.
Sorry a bit grumpy message, I don't usually write like so, not sure why I even post this. This is not targeted to pick on anyone, I just felt responsibility to give more perspective in this thread for the readers, stuff isn't that black and white, small details matter but only if the big picture is well defined. Toying around with small details without proper plan for big picture is just confusing, big picture first, then drill into details and everything is clear and well defined, meaningful.
edit. Logic from the above is this: if one has more than few drivers to compare, the system design is not nailed, so get back to drawing board. When system design is nailed there is probably only few suitable driver candidates, in which case it's quite straight forward to ask from forums about them. But be aware what the context is, clearly communicate both ways, without context the information may not be relevant to your application. Basically, it would be best to buy the drivers and test yourself, that's what one has to do eventually anyway. Or find someone that has done it, with same application you have, with your ears. Other than that it's nice chat, and could lead fine results still, so, take this as coffee break philosphy 🙂
Last edited:
My approach to 3ways if following:
- keep the woofer close to midrange (with this rule the result was always good, solid soundstage, the bands are well integrated and connected). Woofer placed close to the floor, on the sides, or read side, well there are the approaches to deal with this by lowering crossover etc, but I was never fully happy with the results.
- I do not push midrange-woofer Fc too low, 6-7" midrange Fc ~300Hz, 4" midrange ~500Hz
22W/4851 has strong resonance at ~700Hz, I wanted to avoid making Fc close to this.
Good points 👍 I admit provoking a bit with that woofer comparison, because it shows that even though we have soooo many specs and details, we still do not have enough to put it into context and chose correctly. The two drivers are the WO24P-4 and the Discovery 26W, where people still chose according to looks, brand and price - because - we're human, I guess.
I went back and looked at the data I had when pairing the different midranges I did not like, with the ones I did like. A key difference was off-axis behavior in the cross-over region. Drivers I like, have a smoother and gradual tilt upwards in frequency, at the off-axis angles. And I often see harder cones like the MW13TX having smoother curves as we go off-axis, where I more often see paper cones, like the SB15NRX, have a bigger drop in SPL as we move off-axis, or at least be less precise when doing so.
This leaves me with a smoother power response together with for example an Augerpro waveguide for the SB26ADC or a Seas DXT - resulting in a bit more energy in the cross-over at the off-axis. I think I perceive this as "clearer" and more detailed in the total system. I crossed around 2kHz with LR24.
First picture is TX the other the NRX.
Maybe the best indicator is still total energy leaving the driver in a given baffle/cabinet and the frequency response.
Good 👍 I often see break-up in midranges ruin a good tweeter, break-up in woofers ruin a good midranges and ports doing all sorts of resonances all the way to almost 1kHz. So as tmuikku points out, we have to consider the whole system, to understand where a potential problem is.
Strong resonance? I see a bump in the impedance curve... but that is small - right?
It is likely cone edge resonance. Anyway, it was just one of the system integration aspects. I do not follow 8+4+1, 10+5+1 etc guidelines. In this case I wanted to implement T25B with 5" WG, and 22W drivers I had already at home. To get good directivities matching with WG, ~6" midrange was the obvious choice.
Hificompass measurements:
Hificompass measurements:
Ah.. It's the harmonics making that "disturbance" at around 800Hz. Interesting how hard cones often get a bad rep for high Q issues, when this paper woofer clearly has trouble too. But again, a given type of cone material can be made in many ways, which works across common belief of concept. KEF uses a rubber ring around the coil to cone fixture, to tame the typical resonance of their hard cone midrange. So many ways to do it.
Seas also moved most of their alu-drivers to the "vintage" driver section - and removed them from the regular list - 3 left 😆
Seas also moved most of their alu-drivers to the "vintage" driver section - and removed them from the regular list - 3 left 😆
Just responding to the OPs observation of Scanspeak drivers when used in a system playing at low volume. Obviously this observation is counter to what we for the most part measure and test for. If one is to take the OPs observation at face value, then variations in the individual driver’s output level must likely vary across a spectrum of input voltage…..only to perform in a more balanced fashion as designed once typical operational input is achieved. Clearly this isn‘t a distortion or response issue………..unless someone can show me a host of drivers who have elevated distortions or who’s frequency response changes from low to normal op levels?
Stiff suspensions, heavy or critically damped cones, low QTS system can all attribute to sluggish operation of an electro-motor. Of course his observations could be attributed to a faulty crossover component too who‘s value changes with temperature or variable current.
Stiff suspensions, heavy or critically damped cones, low QTS system can all attribute to sluggish operation of an electro-motor. Of course his observations could be attributed to a faulty crossover component too who‘s value changes with temperature or variable current.
Hi, advanced motor and suspension is just sensible engineering, a good driver, perhaps designed and manufactured relatively lately but could be some older one. Not necessarily the most expensive one, and certainly not the cheapest one, just a fine driver that has some effort in it.
Hi,
In the past I have used Visaton's W130S with success as mid-range. I think it has non-resonant sound character and good quality in general. Also Peeerless FSL-0512R01-08 is IMO quality mid range despite it's low price.
Tested metal domes, metal cones, mid-ranges and treble units. Most marketed as "hi-end". None of them are in my system as I find it fatiquing for some reson, despite steep crossovers. It would be interesting to hear if others also share this impression.
Regards
In the past I have used Visaton's W130S with success as mid-range. I think it has non-resonant sound character and good quality in general. Also Peeerless FSL-0512R01-08 is IMO quality mid range despite it's low price.
Tested metal domes, metal cones, mid-ranges and treble units. Most marketed as "hi-end". None of them are in my system as I find it fatiquing for some reson, despite steep crossovers. It would be interesting to hear if others also share this impression.
Regards
Last edited:
One of my friends often has drivers on the shelf, so I tested it for kicks and curiosity.
SB23NRX and WO24 are within a few millimeters of each other, when it comes to diameters of cut-out and over-all basket size. So I took two identical closed 60 liter boxes and swapped two NRX for WO24 in one box - then shifted between them to hear what full-range on both sounded like. The NRX definitely has way more upper frequency to it, which is also clearly seen in its break-up mode, and distortion measurements also define this pretty clearly. They measure almost identical when it comes to how deep they play and the curves are, in-room almost on top of each other, except the NRX being around 1,5dB more sensitive. They are coupled in parallel, providing a 4 ohm load and driven by a 400W amplifier - directly - with DSP in front.
I then added my usual 400Hz LP LR24 filter, to hear how much came through when used as an actual woofer + added my coax on top, because a filtered woofer alone, always sounds weird to me.
And here I think I found the real difference between the two different motor and cone types. The better motor and stiffer cone of the Satori, makes transients in music like funk/disco and acoustically dynamic recordings sound way more distinct. With the NRX it sounds flat, where the Satori gives a much more natural "snap" when a musician smacks the guitar or a drum smacks hard. The tone is there in the NRX, it just sounds smoothed out, where the Satori has way more "life" to the actual dynamics of the sound.
This is why I like harder cones for woofers. I believe we need way more controlled "hard" cones. I get why softer cones with broad Q smoothed out transients, can sound relaxed, and ease up low order filter design, make it nicer to listen to bad recordings. But if we have a hard cone, with good internal damping, then we should be able to have a bit of both.
And with the MW13TX, I heard the same thing in contrast to the 15NRX. The detail and dynamics of the harder cone and better motor, is clearly - to me - heard. I think that sometimes the break-up character of either less good designed hard and soft cones, gives us a sensation of both or either, the feeling of detail and/or listening fatigue. But if done right, I believe we can have the best of both in all drivers. But I must also be quick to admit, that it has not been easy to find these drivers within a normal budget 😗
I played with the following midrange/woofer drivers:
SB15NRX - nice and cheap, build well, but to me a little less detailed
Accuton C8 - lot's of detail but be careful about that 4800Hz break-up which needs care
Illuminator 15WU - more a woofer/midrange with big tall surround and lot's of x-max. Plays fine, but to me it was better at bass than midrange clarity
Dayton RS125 - suprisingly lot's of bass from such small drive and very extended frequency and smooth off-axis. Just a bit less detail, since it is a rather lossy design
SB Satori MW13TX - the best I had so far. Good natural details, extended, dynamic and easy to work with
Purifi PTT6.5W - more of a broad band, but overall a very good driver for a very broad frequency range. i just personally find it a bit to large for a midrange - unless you have a large waveguide and cross around maybe 1800Hz
NE149 - did a bit of fiddling with this one.... seemed ok, but not something I would consider in contrast to everything else available.
And many more...
I always aim for waveguided tweeters, to cross within the area where the midrange is most linear both on and off-axis. This to me makes a smoother power response, and a way more predictable crossover, with respect to the "play" between acoustical and electrical filter slopes.
The midrange is very important - for sure. But try and unplug the woofer below anywhere from 3-500Hz..... I'll estimate that around 75% of the energy in music disappear. So a lot goes on down there, to support those midranges and make the tonal character and summed response great.
SB23NRX and WO24 are within a few millimeters of each other, when it comes to diameters of cut-out and over-all basket size. So I took two identical closed 60 liter boxes and swapped two NRX for WO24 in one box - then shifted between them to hear what full-range on both sounded like. The NRX definitely has way more upper frequency to it, which is also clearly seen in its break-up mode, and distortion measurements also define this pretty clearly. They measure almost identical when it comes to how deep they play and the curves are, in-room almost on top of each other, except the NRX being around 1,5dB more sensitive. They are coupled in parallel, providing a 4 ohm load and driven by a 400W amplifier - directly - with DSP in front.
I then added my usual 400Hz LP LR24 filter, to hear how much came through when used as an actual woofer + added my coax on top, because a filtered woofer alone, always sounds weird to me.
And here I think I found the real difference between the two different motor and cone types. The better motor and stiffer cone of the Satori, makes transients in music like funk/disco and acoustically dynamic recordings sound way more distinct. With the NRX it sounds flat, where the Satori gives a much more natural "snap" when a musician smacks the guitar or a drum smacks hard. The tone is there in the NRX, it just sounds smoothed out, where the Satori has way more "life" to the actual dynamics of the sound.
This is why I like harder cones for woofers. I believe we need way more controlled "hard" cones. I get why softer cones with broad Q smoothed out transients, can sound relaxed, and ease up low order filter design, make it nicer to listen to bad recordings. But if we have a hard cone, with good internal damping, then we should be able to have a bit of both.
And with the MW13TX, I heard the same thing in contrast to the 15NRX. The detail and dynamics of the harder cone and better motor, is clearly - to me - heard. I think that sometimes the break-up character of either less good designed hard and soft cones, gives us a sensation of both or either, the feeling of detail and/or listening fatigue. But if done right, I believe we can have the best of both in all drivers. But I must also be quick to admit, that it has not been easy to find these drivers within a normal budget 😗
I played with the following midrange/woofer drivers:
SB15NRX - nice and cheap, build well, but to me a little less detailed
Accuton C8 - lot's of detail but be careful about that 4800Hz break-up which needs care
Illuminator 15WU - more a woofer/midrange with big tall surround and lot's of x-max. Plays fine, but to me it was better at bass than midrange clarity
Dayton RS125 - suprisingly lot's of bass from such small drive and very extended frequency and smooth off-axis. Just a bit less detail, since it is a rather lossy design
SB Satori MW13TX - the best I had so far. Good natural details, extended, dynamic and easy to work with
Purifi PTT6.5W - more of a broad band, but overall a very good driver for a very broad frequency range. i just personally find it a bit to large for a midrange - unless you have a large waveguide and cross around maybe 1800Hz
NE149 - did a bit of fiddling with this one.... seemed ok, but not something I would consider in contrast to everything else available.
And many more...
I always aim for waveguided tweeters, to cross within the area where the midrange is most linear both on and off-axis. This to me makes a smoother power response, and a way more predictable crossover, with respect to the "play" between acoustical and electrical filter slopes.
The midrange is very important - for sure. But try and unplug the woofer below anywhere from 3-500Hz..... I'll estimate that around 75% of the energy in music disappear. So a lot goes on down there, to support those midranges and make the tonal character and summed response great.
Hi,
did you equalize the acoustic response of the woofers to be the same?
Using same electrical crossover doesn't equalize them, and they would sound different due to different system response, no matter what's the reason be it motor or cone or everything different.
When equalized to same acoustic response, differences due to frequency response is now eliminated and any real difference of materials, motors, cones, better one would emerge. I mean, if you compare technically superior and inferior driver, but they just have different frequency response, the inferior could sound better if it happens to result better system response. First drivers must be equalized to have same acoustic response, then overall SPL needs to be calibrated as well to match the system responses.
Well, I bet you'd hear differences with drivers, but there is no certainty, too many variables, they are different that's for sure but in random way. Thus test like so isn't very useful, minimum requirement is to match SPL and frequency response, then compare.
did you equalize the acoustic response of the woofers to be the same?
Using same electrical crossover doesn't equalize them, and they would sound different due to different system response, no matter what's the reason be it motor or cone or everything different.
When equalized to same acoustic response, differences due to frequency response is now eliminated and any real difference of materials, motors, cones, better one would emerge. I mean, if you compare technically superior and inferior driver, but they just have different frequency response, the inferior could sound better if it happens to result better system response. First drivers must be equalized to have same acoustic response, then overall SPL needs to be calibrated as well to match the system responses.
Well, I bet you'd hear differences with drivers, but there is no certainty, too many variables, they are different that's for sure but in random way. Thus test like so isn't very useful, minimum requirement is to match SPL and frequency response, then compare.
Last edited:
Fully agree 👍
And believe me, I absolutely wished that there were less of a difference, since I could then live happily with the cheaper option 😉
It could be that the geometry of the cone, the slightly larger cone area and other little factors plays a role too. I will certainly explore further and create my own thread about it, since I have a project right around the corner with these 😀
The thicker "bluer" curve is the SB23NRX and the thin slightly dotted one is the WO24P-8
I played only a simple bass tune with a simple rhythmic tone like the intro of Daft Punk - Da Funk, or the like. Then at moderate volume, sitting in front of the woofers, switching forth and back between them. It's a little bit like the experience I have when switching between two different amplifiers, where one have much better damping/control - the sound somehow "tightens" and it becomes less muddy.
The only difference is the drivers. Cabinets front baffle, room-placement, stuffing, amplifiers - everything is the same. The NRX has a "character" to it, which also shows in its other published curves. And even when EQ is applied, the tonal character seems to stay, even though you can dampen it a bit with EQ.
If you see an error on my behalf, you're absolutely welcome to point it out. I'm a happy DIY-amateur that admit to keep learning 😀
Only borrowed the drivers... so you can still save me a 1000 Euro's 😉