SB Acoustics Textreme

Jump to Latest
#745
Look at the high frequency, beyond the cone breakup. The paper will have better THD and especially IMD compared to the TX, while the TX will have better or flatter behavior in its useful range than the paper. So while the TX fixes certain things, it apparently comes at another type of penalty - the TX require steep filters ( 24dB) and further away from the cone breakup compared to the paper cone.
 
#746
I have a 2 way speaker with the MW13P crossed at 1.8KHz.

If I were using a larger 7-7.5” mid-woofer in a 2 way, like the MW19, I’d cross below 2KHz as well. So I don’t quite see the problem between the TX or P
 
Last edited:
#747
If I were using a larger 7-7.5” mid-woofer in a 2 way, like the MW19, I’d cross below 2KHz as well
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how I see it. Anyone who wants to run a woofer this big above 2 kHz has already decided to comprimise on dispersion and directivity. This woofer will be at its best when crossed at 2k or below, just like every other 7 inch driver.
 
#749
I really like HiFiCompass's measurements; his technique, the care he takes, the quality of his graphics and plots, his explanations.

I am pleased that my measurements in posts 542, 606, 608 agree, more or less, with HiFiCompass. It was an opportunity to embarrass myself, and thankfully that did not happen...
 
#753
Well that was a bit of anticlimax...

Better midrange but worse mid bass than the paper versions for both the MW16 and MW19.

Looks like the trade offs make it a side grade, not upgrade.

At the current prices I wouldn’t upgrade my MW13P to MW13TX...
 
#755
What matters is how it compares to the competition.

Scanspeak Illuminator 18WU/4741T paper cone ~ $330

ScanSpeak Revelator 18W/4531-G00 paper cone ~ $210

SEAS Excel W16NX-003 (E0073-08) 6" Graphene Cone ~ $460

SEAS Excel W16NX-001 (E0049-04) 6" Magnesium ~ $280

Purifi Audio PTT6.5W04-01B 6.5" Woofer ~$370

The value of the MW16TX will be determined by how it compares to these other drivers, some of which cost more, some cost less...
 
#756
70 vs 260$ - 5dB drop in breakup and a bit more even FR.
But is it worth it when you aim to cross around 1800hz to a waveguide?
SB Acoustics SB17NBAC35-4 Aluminum Cone Woofer - 4 ohm


SATORI 6" MW16TX-8 TeXtreme Cone Woofer - 8 ohm


I've seen the Textreme up close around 7 month ago, cause Ulrik brought it along to one of our countless hifi-gatherings.


I really dig the idea to have some mix between paper and metal, that can bring something new. Cause I always found softer cones to be a little boring - like they hide some details in the softer cone - damping. Harder cones on the other hand, needs a bit more care, but can really shine in their way of delivering an open performance - very clear and detailed.
 
#757
I keep going back and forth on my decision to try the MW13TX. I know for sure I will get them if the politicians give us a bigger stimulus check. Again, I would prefer a true mid or wide band "full-range" such as MR13TX over a MW version in the same size. I love my Satori MR16 mid (Papyrus cone); plenty of resolution and micro-detail and a very wide and usable band width. I read something else that because SB thinks the TexTreme mid woofers are better than the Papyrus; they may decide they won't even bother with MR versions and so we would only have MW versions to choose from. The MR16 is so much better than the MW16 at the higher (frequency) end as one would expect. The MW16P and MR16P though have to be some of the best sounding drivers in that size regardless of cost or any brand out there. They will probably always remain a great bargain when you factor in the high performance to cost ratio. I still hope SB will eventually drop the TexTreme prices after the initial models have all been released and available for all (maybe after 1 year???)
 
#760
Yes, me too! Like I said many times; I would really rather have a TRUE midrange (or better yet, very wide band full range) version but that may not even happen. Some have said that SB may not do any TexTreme mids as they think the mid range performance of the MW is a good enough as is unlike with the original Papyrus cone that has separate MW and MR versions!??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom