Yeah I'm starting to notice this. I could run a Tang Band W5/W6 but their sensitivity is super low. Also, I used one a W5 in a transmission line 3 way in my bedroom and it didn't measure out anywhere near its specs. Still hits, but not as low as claimed
Madisound has in the description to not use it ported because of the QTS. Why is it that high QTS drivers are bad for porting?
Are you running them sealed or ported? I might just run them sealed and let a subwoofer take care of the lower octaves. Technically it'll then be a 4 way
A high qts and a low vas (like this one) does not work in a classic bookshelf as the vent is way to long to fit in the cabinet. But as you will use an external vent it can work. An aperiodic vented or restricted vented does also work as the port is a lot shortere (but is harder to design right). But most who read those comments won't build those as they are not so easy to design. So it's true, for a classic ported bookshelf these are not fit to be used vented and that is why madisound probally put that comment there.
Sealed. 35L towers, 2 midbass per side, so about 17L per midbass driver. I think that is a bit bigger than expected, but it works well for me.
I use the SB Acoustics SW26DBAC76-4 10" aluminum subwoofer (also ND magnet) in a sealed box for the 25-55Hz.
I use the SB Acoustics SW26DBAC76-4 10" aluminum subwoofer (also ND magnet) in a sealed box for the 25-55Hz.
Yup, that revelator does hit significantly lower than the SB. Looks like it runs out flatter where I'd be using it as well.
I guess it just depends on if I'm willing to empty my pocket a little.
Attachments
So port noise will be a problem then. Any tricky ways around this? Bends in the port, lining it, make it face a wall, etc?
What exactly does this thing do and how are you supposed to mount it?
Would it throw the Q of the driver so much as to reduce it to the same specs as one of the SB drivers?
Attachments
1) Going back to the Satori vs other drivers. IF you are trying to keep costs down (which I don't think is a high priority) I just measured two Dayton RS180-8s and they model very good in 0.50-0.60 cubic feet. F3 of only 43-45Hz.
2) If the length of the port is too long, consider a passive radiator. (If you don't go sealed, that is.)
2) If the length of the port is too long, consider a passive radiator. (If you don't go sealed, that is.)
Dont forget to model baffle step rolloff for the sub 600hz freq. It can be significant. Correcting for it dropped my overall efficiency by about 4bB, and especially impacted my upper freq response levels.
A4e,
Taking a look at those now
I feel like I would be taking a gamble on that driver too. Not too many people have used it and some of the reviews say the carbon leaks.
Taking a look at those now
I have modeled this before and it looks like it will work. I just don't think its going to be on the level of the other drivers here from 100-800 hz.
I feel like I would be taking a gamble on that driver too. Not too many people have used it and some of the reviews say the carbon leaks.
Wolf,
Do you have any measurements of them you could share with me?
The only real drawback to using these are the low sensitivity but its not a big deal to pad down the other two drivers.
I could always slap a sub together but I've tried to help some friends setup a sub with their studio monitors and it never works out quite right. It just never wants to match up and cross for proper accuracy.
Do you have any measurements of them you could share with me?
The only real drawback to using these are the low sensitivity but its not a big deal to pad down the other two drivers.
I could always slap a sub together but I've tried to help some friends setup a sub with their studio monitors and it never works out quite right. It just never wants to match up and cross for proper accuracy.
If you could run them at 2 ohms, that would help too.
There is a thread at PETT with my T/S measurements of various configurations.
I plan on running them "carefully" at 2 ohms parallel, but with a proper bandpass filter that keeps the impedance up. It is mentioned how in the same thread of my measurements.
There is a thread at PETT with my T/S measurements of various configurations.
I plan on running them "carefully" at 2 ohms parallel, but with a proper bandpass filter that keeps the impedance up. It is mentioned how in the same thread of my measurements.
Nope not 12mm of xmax , it cant and never will be.
In fact this driver has a smaller front plate/ air gap than all of them only 5mm.
All the rest including Dayton use 6mm front plates.
They are rating Xmax = "PEAK to PEAK." Udder misleading nonsense being its actually 11mm again PEAK to PEAK
So in reality that would be 5.5mm
Need to know what your looking at. Xmax at 70% BL it is absolutely impossible to exceed the gap height for any speaker.
The magnet will never ever have enough control to make linear excursion exceed the front plate.
We can look at the force factor around 5.3 Tm about normal for a 6.5" with 5 to 6mm front plate usually expect 3 to 5 Tm
So they claim that it can exceed the gap with only 5.3 Tm ....LOL !!!
When Dayton has 9.75 Tm = and uses a 6mm front plate and claims a realistic 5.3mm xmax
Which by the way using SB acoustics fantasy rating peak to peak would be 10.6mm xmax.
So much for the dayton not having enough Xmax, or not being "trusted"
Any company misleading people with peak to peak ratings that exceed the gap....bloop go right in the trash.
4 ohm drivers, waste of time. Why tolerate low impedance for no reason.
Youll soon realize that all these drivers use 6mm plates and xmax will be the same old 5mm Xmax for ALL of them.
10 , 11 or 12 mm peak to peak all nonsense they all have 6mm plates and BL is weaker on all of them than Dayton.
Except for the 5mm plate which is = 4mm Xmax.
My vote is DSA-175-8 Aluminum Cone Qts is lower than all of them .29 So it is a more suitable for small boxes.
And has the most BL than all of them 9.7 Tm
Dont matter these are 6 to 6.5" woofers. With itsy bitsy baffle step non of them will do more than 60 to 70 Hz real world.
The bass comes back with EQ and no matter what brand, Xmax is 4 to 5mm because they all have the same type front plates = 6mm
except for the overpriced ones with only 5mm front plates. All with weaker magnets and light cones. So basically nonsense.
People get lost in brand names and prices that are 2x to 3x higher for the same old thing.
The truncated 835025 aint to bad either being truncated for tweeter mounting closer.
people that mount them the other way to make the baffle smaller lol no thanks
Last edited:
^^^"Youll soon realize that all these drivers use 6mm plates and xmax will be the same old 5mm Xmax for ALL of them.
10 , 11 or 12 mm peak to peak all nonsense they all have 6mm plates..."
👍
There are a small number of exceptions, but YES, thank you!! If you want loud and/or low you need big drivers. But unlike those who say you can't have bass without 15" woofer, I find 6-1/2" to 8" woofers with modest xmax that can reach an F3 below 40Hz to be perfectly fine in my small to medium sized rooms. I'd go with the best sound quality I can get, accept the compromises, and enjoy the music. If I want loud and low, that is what a 5 cubic foot tower with dual 10"s or 12"s is for.
10 , 11 or 12 mm peak to peak all nonsense they all have 6mm plates..."
👍
There are a small number of exceptions, but YES, thank you!! If you want loud and/or low you need big drivers. But unlike those who say you can't have bass without 15" woofer, I find 6-1/2" to 8" woofers with modest xmax that can reach an F3 below 40Hz to be perfectly fine in my small to medium sized rooms. I'd go with the best sound quality I can get, accept the compromises, and enjoy the music. If I want loud and low, that is what a 5 cubic foot tower with dual 10"s or 12"s is for.