Feel free to pass judgement but keep the feelings to yourself. You are not obliged to post or speculate in a thread. If there is a concern, use the report post button.
I used its predecessor in a 17 liter cabinet (will get back on tuning frequency) in a two way with SB29RDC-C0004.
It goes very deep in my room and can take loads of power. Thing is that it is one of the muddiest bass drivers that i've heard. Deep yes but without any details or punchiness. Old Seas CA18RNX is twice as good - for no obvious reason if i may say. Mids lack in details as well. After 6 months of working on it and various crossover iterations i sold it. Tweeter on the other hand is nothing short of amazing, especially for the price asked. I'll take it over Seas prestige anytime.
No wonder mk1 is discontinuited
SB17NRXC35-8 and SB29RDC-C0004 playground
It goes very deep in my room and can take loads of power. Thing is that it is one of the muddiest bass drivers that i've heard. Deep yes but without any details or punchiness. Old Seas CA18RNX is twice as good - for no obvious reason if i may say. Mids lack in details as well. After 6 months of working on it and various crossover iterations i sold it. Tweeter on the other hand is nothing short of amazing, especially for the price asked. I'll take it over Seas prestige anytime.
No wonder mk1 is discontinuited
SB17NRXC35-8 and SB29RDC-C0004 playground
Last edited:
thank you zvu 😉
i know that sb midwoofers need of carefully loaded volume and duct, probably in 17 liters it go low but without articulation.
in 12 / 15 liters probably you could compensate the lack of articulation, imho 😉
i know that sb midwoofers need of carefully loaded volume and duct, probably in 17 liters it go low but without articulation.
in 12 / 15 liters probably you could compensate the lack of articulation, imho 😉
I've tried different volumes and tunings from 9 liters to 22 in test cabinets. 17 liters sounded the best for SB17NRXC and it was the worst sounding 6.5" midwoofer i've heard so far. Go figure.
Maybe the dissapointment was bigger because it measures very good regarding distortion in midbass and midrange. The sound of it was dreadful. I also moved the crossover frequency from 1500-2200hz. All air coils winded with 1.4mm and 1.6mm wire.
I think that just might be the real reason for discontinuing it - sadly, i don't see things improved for mk2 version. I can just hope that those few things they did in mk2 removed the curtain from the midrange.
Maybe the dissapointment was bigger because it measures very good regarding distortion in midbass and midrange. The sound of it was dreadful. I also moved the crossover frequency from 1500-2200hz. All air coils winded with 1.4mm and 1.6mm wire.
I think that just might be the real reason for discontinuing it - sadly, i don't see things improved for mk2 version. I can just hope that those few things they did in mk2 removed the curtain from the midrange.
Last edited:
yes i understand😉, it had very high complilance so very flabby movement of the cone.
it need of power amp with very high damping factor to tame very uncontrolled movement.
a question: it load better in small or large volume from 9 to 22 liters (excuse for probably stupid question 🙂)
it need of power amp with very high damping factor to tame very uncontrolled movement.
a question: it load better in small or large volume from 9 to 22 liters (excuse for probably stupid question 🙂)
Truth to be told, SB17NRXC had rising distortion from 300Hz and down. That seems to be fixed in SB17NRX2C. I really hope that was the problem and that they've fixed it because affordable paper cone 6.5" midwoofer is the basis of every succesful loudspeaker manufacturer.
Zvu, I fully trust your experience with SB17NRX. Recently I did 2way with SB17CAC, I started with 18l BR tuned ~40Hz. Crossover 2kHz LR4 with DXT tweeter. Though I do not like that description of the sound, it sounded slow fat muddy, one note bass. As on paper this midwoofer is all one could wish, I was surprised of what I listened. Change of volume, port tuning, crossover, and even closing the cabinet did not bring satisfactory result, the sound signature was still there.
I changed tweeter to TW29DN which brought some improvement, but still it was not something I would be proud of, so I changed also midwoofer for MW16P as I had it at home already. Of course all changes were reflected in new measurement and new crossover. It was such a relief to listen to normal sound after that all.
Interesting is that I used SB17NBAC 2 in parallel in 3way, crossed over at 400Hz, and it was quite ok.
I studied Troelse designs with SB17 and also others to find out what I was doing wrong.
I changed tweeter to TW29DN which brought some improvement, but still it was not something I would be proud of, so I changed also midwoofer for MW16P as I had it at home already. Of course all changes were reflected in new measurement and new crossover. It was such a relief to listen to normal sound after that all.
Interesting is that I used SB17NBAC 2 in parallel in 3way, crossed over at 400Hz, and it was quite ok.
I studied Troelse designs with SB17 and also others to find out what I was doing wrong.
Last edited:
A guy here made Elsinore loudspeaker that uses 4xSB17NRXC per side. I thought that might sound different if distortion in bass and midbass is the cause of muddy sound. It had that exact sound signature i had at home with one midwoofer per side.
Kind of weird but I did use the uncoated version. I wonder if that makes a difference in sound and sound signature. I'm quite happy with it for now until I want to upgrade the speakers.
It depends on what kind of music you are listening amd what is your reference. With electronic music it is hardly noticable. Vokals, piano and violin family of instruments reveal it pretty well.
If 6.5 SB then I rather go with Alu cone, still some people say it may sound more like sub than midwoofer. Didn't try the rev2 but 17NRXC-4 ohm sounds kind of dark - half a year of playing with x-o. Initially I thought it's the tweeter (29RDNC) but the midwoof has this sound signature which makes everything as if coming from behind curtain. On the other hand I have to ask Wolf (Ben), GOWA and other people which Rival Acoustics to go for - looks like much better designed product in similar price category.
Last edited:
I wonder how the SB17 compares to a MW16 when it comes to multi-tone testing.
You know the type where the stimulus is multiple tones at once spread from say 25Hz up to 2Khz?
You know the type where the stimulus is multiple tones at once spread from say 25Hz up to 2Khz?
He means the Satori MW16P
On the other hand if someone looks at the impedance curve, there are some 'glitches' around Fs. Because Fs is rather low for this kind of size of the cone more attention should be paid to the suspension design - IMO the spider just doesn't feel to large enough and lacks springiness - feels too soft and flabby. Possible that the design sacrifices clarity, speed for low resonans. Also the 8ohm version has much larger Qts which might contribute to what Zvu described as one note, uncontrolled bass. I suspect that IMD are high, making the 17NRXC sound confusing, slow and lacking details. The problem I have with 17NRXC 4ohm is that the two samples sound noticeably different from one another, having a bit different Fs and Qts.
On the other hand if someone looks at the impedance curve, there are some 'glitches' around Fs. Because Fs is rather low for this kind of size of the cone more attention should be paid to the suspension design - IMO the spider just doesn't feel to large enough and lacks springiness - feels too soft and flabby. Possible that the design sacrifices clarity, speed for low resonans. Also the 8ohm version has much larger Qts which might contribute to what Zvu described as one note, uncontrolled bass. I suspect that IMD are high, making the 17NRXC sound confusing, slow and lacking details. The problem I have with 17NRXC 4ohm is that the two samples sound noticeably different from one another, having a bit different Fs and Qts.
Last edited: