SB Acoustics Satori MR16P-4, a new hope for the big dark midrange world?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
M

mtoc

Banned
Joined 2015
Should I skip everything and wait for it? Will it be the game changer of the big midrange world (I doubt it)? Big midranges (not mid-bass) seems to be pretty hard to design. I won't afraid this cos a good mid-bass driver is a good alternative solution.
 
M

mtoc

Banned
Joined 2015
Charles Darwin said:
In my book about 250Hz to 2.5-3.5kHz.
Above 2.5k almost everything is harmonics, only the piccolo, piano and the organ produce fundamentals above that. The human voice stops producing fundamentals at 1.2k.
Click to expand...

btw, in the eyes of JBL, midrange is 700-900Hz to 1500-3500Hz, it's kinda weird.

exps,
4319 (no horns at all): 800Hz/3.5kHz
4365: 750Hz/15kHz
9900: 900Hz/15kHz
 
T

TMM

Member
Joined 2007
I'm not sure that there is much to improve on to make a dedicated midrange version of the mw16p. If the shorten the voice coil like they did on the Sb12 midrange this reduces Le(x) which reduces intermodulation distortion but only where the impedance is becoming inductive. On the SB drivers it's of little benefit since the VC inductance is already so low that the frequency at which the coil is more inductive than resistive is above the midrange frequencies (3k+). What a shorter coil does help with is reducing mass which increases sensitivity and also Fs. I think that is really the only major "improvement" that can be made other than refining the cone to smooth out the frequency response - the Mw16p suffers a dip between 1 and 2k, so it'll be interesting to see if they can resolve it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
A

andy19191

Member
Joined 2005
TMM said:
I think that is really the only major "improvement" that can be made other than refining the cone to smooth out the frequency response - the Mw16p suffers a dip between 1 and 2k, so it'll be interesting to see if they can resolve it.
Click to expand...
See the foam and rubber surround 4" NRX midwoofers. I would be very surprised if the upper midrange response is not cleaned up in a similar manner.
 
T

TMM

Member
Joined 2007
andy19191 said:
See the foam and rubber surround 4" NRX midwoofers. I would be very surprised if the upper midrange response is not cleaned up in a similar manner.
Click to expand...
I went and took another look at the frequency response of those two and it's actually the opposite way around to what I expected. The 'midrange' version has a rubber surround and rough response while the 'midwoofer' version has the foam surround and ruler flat response from 400-5K. Given that the MW16P has a rubber surround this gives hope that a foam surround could clean up the response, but it would contradict what they have done with the SB12.
 
Last edited:
A

andy19191

Member
Joined 2005
TMM said:
I went and took another look at the frequency response of those two and it's actually the opposite way around to what I expected. The 'midrange' version has a rubber surround and rough response while the 'midwoofer' version has the foam surround and ruler flat response from 400-5K. Given that the MW16P has a rubber surround this gives hope that a foam surround could clean up the response, but it would contradict what they have done with the SB12.
Click to expand...
I didn't intend a comparison between the odd and disappointing midrange but the 4" NRX midwoofer with a rubber surround and the same one with a foam surround. This shows the effect of the stiffer surround in cleaning up the upper midrange but it also raises Fs which is relatively unimportant for a midrange but is more so for a midwoofer.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom