Specs on the new SB 10" drivers look aimed right at the decades old budget open baffle king, particularly comparing the two 8ohm versions for parallel use.
SB26SFCL38-8
SB26SFCL38-8
Higher QTS bumps the low end and requires less compensation. Drivers made specifically for dipole operation generally have Qts figures in the .5-.6 range range to get close to .7 without going over, as it's not going to change much when left on an open baffle and not placed in a box. Higher Qes also.
For me the ideal IB driver has a Qt high enough for the bare driver to be the ideal baffle size. 😉
I don't know about that. In the past, drivers with high Qts were preferred for dipole operation because the peaking could be associated/compensated with baffle width and reduce/eliminate EQ requirements.
You need look only to the Carver Amazing for an example of that.
Drivers with low Qts are perfectly acceptable for dipole usage.
Nowadays, with the extremely easy access we have to electronic equalization, motor strength is one of those factors that can compensated and probably not be as high on the trade-off list.
More important are linear excursion, low aerodynamic noise, etc, etc.
I'm not sure I've heard the 830668 being a "budget open baffle king." I always thought it much more suitable to closed-box usage.
Regardless, the SB driver looks pretty good and is budget friendly.
Dave.
Yeah, Carver bragged about using drivers with a Qts of 1!! No thanks.
The 830668 is the driver that was suggested as budget alternative by both Linkiwtz and John K in their designs, so I'm in good company there. I've been using them in various designs for over 20 years now, since Linkwitz first started his website and they're still around for a reason. Buy 4 of them from PE and you can get them for $57 a piece. In general drivers spec'd for closed box are more suitable for open baffle because of the higher Qts and Qes values.
Of course with DSP you can hammer a low shelf into any driver and take it down where you want it, but it will require more compensation and amplifier power. That's why, as I said before; drivers made specifically for open baffle have higher values in the .5 to .6 range, which can easily be checked out and verified. A driver on an open baffle will not change the manufacturer's Q specs very much, compared to what will happen to the driver's resonance frequency and Q values when placed in a box.
Jason
The 830668 is the driver that was suggested as budget alternative by both Linkiwtz and John K in their designs, so I'm in good company there. I've been using them in various designs for over 20 years now, since Linkwitz first started his website and they're still around for a reason. Buy 4 of them from PE and you can get them for $57 a piece. In general drivers spec'd for closed box are more suitable for open baffle because of the higher Qts and Qes values.
Of course with DSP you can hammer a low shelf into any driver and take it down where you want it, but it will require more compensation and amplifier power. That's why, as I said before; drivers made specifically for open baffle have higher values in the .5 to .6 range, which can easily be checked out and verified. A driver on an open baffle will not change the manufacturer's Q specs very much, compared to what will happen to the driver's resonance frequency and Q values when placed in a box.
Jason
SB Audience Bianco-15OB350- 15" Open Baffle Woofer Qts .57 Qes .6
Sensitivity is also a huge factor for dipole woofers, as just 3db of increased sensitivity equates to doubling your amplifier power. This doesn't equate to twice as loud however, as that requires a 10 fold increase in amp power. So the lower the Qts, sensitivity and the more compensation required equals substantially more amplifier power.
Sensitivity is also a huge factor for dipole woofers, as just 3db of increased sensitivity equates to doubling your amplifier power. This doesn't equate to twice as loud however, as that requires a 10 fold increase in amp power. So the lower the Qts, sensitivity and the more compensation required equals substantially more amplifier power.
Geoff the grey geek lol has an excellent website with many useful calculators Understanding speaker sensitivity
I should mention that madisound has posted the wrong specs for the Peerless sls10" in error, PE have the correct specs.
2x10" drivers in parallel have an sd of nearly 700 square cm, the equivalent of around a 13" driver with sensitivity of around 93db, low fs compared to pro sound drivers, light cones for a subwoofer and decent x-max of 8mm.
Peerless seems to be getting out of consumer sales and the new sb drivers are definitely aimed at filling a niche the sls has occupied for many years.
2x10" drivers in parallel have an sd of nearly 700 square cm, the equivalent of around a 13" driver with sensitivity of around 93db, low fs compared to pro sound drivers, light cones for a subwoofer and decent x-max of 8mm.
Peerless seems to be getting out of consumer sales and the new sb drivers are definitely aimed at filling a niche the sls has occupied for many years.
The 830668 specs on the Madisound website are taken directly from the Tymphany datasheet. 🙂
Madisound has a hard time meeting MOQ's for some of the Peerless drivers. But certain drivers, like this one, will continue to be available.
I've chatted with Adam about this a few months ago.
Dave.
Madisound has a hard time meeting MOQ's for some of the Peerless drivers. But certain drivers, like this one, will continue to be available.
I've chatted with Adam about this a few months ago.
Dave.
Excellent news. Not sure at what point Peerless changed their data sheet from the PDF on PE, but I prefer the specs madisound has lol
BTW, Linkwitz did not use this driver for any dipole designs. He didn't think it appropriate in that usage, relative to other options.
John did use the driver in one of his NaO variants. But only with the understood trade-offs.
Multiple drivers (greater than two) would make the driver probably usable for dipole usage at moderate SPL's, with typical baffle construction.
Dave.
John did use the driver in one of his NaO variants. But only with the understood trade-offs.
Multiple drivers (greater than two) would make the driver probably usable for dipole usage at moderate SPL's, with typical baffle construction.
Dave.
I never said either one of them used them in a dipole design offering although John K did, I said they suggested them as budget alternatives in their designs which of course comes with caveats. Linkwitz used them in a sealed sub for the Pluto Pluto sub
John K used them in the Nao Note II RS as the budget conscious choice.
And yes, I've never used them singly or just two of them, always in parallel, in stereo and gave sd and sensitivity specs for that above. 4 of them easily get down to the 60hz area where I like to cross to a sealed sub, but they play fine themselves too.
John K used them in the Nao Note II RS as the budget conscious choice.
And yes, I've never used them singly or just two of them, always in parallel, in stereo and gave sd and sensitivity specs for that above. 4 of them easily get down to the 60hz area where I like to cross to a sealed sub, but they play fine themselves too.