NEW ScanSpeak Illuminator Woofer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#141
"1 - "if all things the same" the driver should cost 20 bucks"

That's the problem, All things are not the same and equal, But I'm glad somebody invented the word "if".

"2 - suspension compliance has nothing (as in zero) to do with efficiency"

I'm not so sure about that, But if you care to explain , I'll be glad to learn. All i know is if you tighten the suspension , the driver will loose some bass due to the increase in fs, Of coarse the midrange effeciency will still be the same. But if I were to design a speaker, I would like to have a good bass extension, I would then increase the value of the first inductor to somehow compensate. loosing effeciency and /or sensetivity in the process.

I'm still not sure about the surround though.
 
#143
marchel said:
if you care to explain , I'll be glad to learn. All i know is if you tighten the suspension , the driver will loose some bass due to the increase in fs, Of coarse the midrange effeciency will still be the same. But if I were to design a speaker, I would like to have a good bass extension, I would then increase the value of the first inductor to somehow compensate. loosing effeciency and /or sensetivity in the process.

I'm still not sure about the surround though.
Click to expand...

sure Fs will increase. in a sealed box slightly increasing the box volume will fully compensate for this and there will be no change in response whatsoever.

if used in an infinite baffle lets say ... sure there will be loss of output below the old Fs. there will be an increase in output at the new Fs and there will be no change in efficiency in midband. there will be no net loss or gain in efficiency.

i'm not sure what inductors have to do with this. i don't have any inductors in my speakers anyway ... they're active.

ps: if you can formulate your question about the surround in more definite terms maybe i could answer it ...
 
#144
"i don't have any inductors in my speakers anyway ... they're active."

But I use passive xo, and so does the majority here. And I'm talking about a hypothetical 2 way , not an active 3 way.


"ps: if you can formulate your question about the surround in more definite terms maybe i could answer it ..."

I dont know what to ask, Or if I have a real question about it at all.
 
#145
" there will be an increase in output at the new Fs and there will be no change in efficiency in midband."

I doubt it. And even if it does, The stiffer supension would restrict the cone travel, especially in a woofer with long xmax. Therefore , limiting the maximum potential loudness in the bass region and increasing distortion.
 
#146
:cop:

Vasyachkin

Your new here so let me explain how it works. We don't tolerate personal insults, calling someone a moron is a personal insult. By all means feel free to challenge ideas and theories but the personal stuff is where the line is drawn.

Can you also please keep the references to human by-products and female reproductive cycles out of your posts.

Please consider this a warning.
 
#148
Agreed John. I'm certainly interested as well.

Once they're released I'm sure we could get something arranged. Hopefully the price breaks start at a fairly low point. Some manufacturers for example offer a 15% discount from quantities as low as 4 drivers, fingers crossed that's the case here. If these are quite customisable then we might be looking at a complicated group buy. I say this because I'm sure most peoples choices will vary and, I'm guessing, so will the prices that go along with each of those choices.

I think like you said, wait until the time is right then look into it.
 
#150
nicoch46 said:
Ant e john which type spearkers have in mind ?

Ant are particolary dangerous on this side 😀
Click to expand...

I'm not sure yet nicoch, I'm merely interested at the moment. Until we see some opinions and measurements its not crystal clear what the best applications are for these drivers. No doubt they'll work well in 2 and 3 ways but its still nice to have some empirical data to back things up, especially since they'll be fairly expensive.

But right now I'm more interested 5" and 6.5" drivers rather than the tweeter. If the basket is compatible then a possible swap out of the AT midranges I use now could be on the cards but more likely is a new design.
 
#152
marchel said:
The stiffer supension would restrict the cone travel, especially in a woofer with long xmax. Therefore , limiting the maximum potential loudness in the bass region and increasing distortion.
Click to expand...

i think you overestimate the stiffness of suspension in relation to motor strength and box volume compliance. and scan-speak is sort of known for making suspensions softer than most other guys. both scan speak woofers and tweeters usually have lower Fs than competition. i would not worry there ...
 
#154
"and scan-speak is sort of known for making suspensions softer than most other guys. both scan speak woofers and tweeters usually have lower Fs than competition. i would not worry there ..."

So now you know...

And what does a driver with a suspension "softer than most other guys" and Fs " lower Fs than competition" means?

Answers : bigger than usual Vas value and possible higher than usual Qts value.

And what does that result into?

A quote from Zaph's test on the Scan-Speak 18W8531G 7" revelator woofer.

" ............Not a whole lot to complain about here except for the high price. Needs a slightly larger enclosure than one could hope for."

Back to the new SS woofers.

The new SS woofers, Having longer than usual xmax , should have softer than usual suspension , to realize the advantage of the long xmax..... which would result in bigger than usual Vas value and box requirement. This is what I was saying all along. I hope you're getting it.
 
#155
Relative high Fs doesnt point in the direction of a soft suspension

My point from the start was that the "high" Fs doesnt seem to make any use of the long Xmax...UNLESS you use EQ😀 like they do at Gryphon..mrDuelund played with EQ on small 2way designs and actually he inspired Gryphon to go that route, but personally he couldnt afford customised drivers 😉

This driver might have been intended to be used with EQ...at least that would make sense 😎
 
#157
marchel said:
The new SS woofers, Having longer than usual xmax , should have softer than usual suspension , to realize the advantage of the long xmax..... which would result in bigger than usual Vas value and box requirement. This is what I was saying all along. I hope you're getting it.
Click to expand...

and you can keep saying and it still is not going to make it right.

1 - you dont need softer suspension to realize advantages of larger xmax

2 - larger vas does not make the driver need a bigger box

you're trying to think of these things intuitively ... its not going to work.

here is a reality check for you - do you know why TS parameters are called "small signal" ?
 
#158
tinitus said:
My point from the start was that the "high" Fs doesnt seem to make any use of the long Xmax
Click to expand...

you make it look like FS and Xmax are the only parameters at play here

you're forgetting the following key players:

Cone Surface Area
Moving Mass
Power Handling

a driver with high power handling, low moving mass and low surface area will have no problem using up the Xmax even with a high Fs and no EQ.

dont forget that at 10 mm xmax a 6" displaces only as much air as a 18" displaces at 1 mm ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom