ok but none has tried and used the 2 version, so these are suppositions based on the 1 version 😉
this is the same problem in sound signature that I have observed. Muddy bass. Its suspension system is not good not damping properly not just the spider but also the rubber surround which is soft but not decaying rightly. The cone feels that the energy residue is still in there. It seems that the cones and suspensions used were cheaper ones as you would expect from any low cost driver but any day I would choose vifa / scanspeak as they have whole new level of tonality and rest. sb should get good quality soft parts before they loose the reputation of great sound. Even satori driver had similar issues.
The late Jeff Bagby used the SB17RNX1/2C35-8 in a 2 way, in 15L tuned to 38Hz, with F3 of 42 and F6 of 38Hz.
The speaker is called the Mandolin.
Mandolin 2 Loudspeaker Kit - Meniscus Audio
The speaker is called the Mandolin.
Mandolin 2 Loudspeaker Kit - Meniscus Audio
Since my post #33 in this thread I had a chance to listen to Buchardt S400 and one MTM from local manufacturer with SB17CAC in closed cabinet. My opinion on SB17 line stays the same.
I have worked with SB17CAC, NBAC and MFC. All of them shared the same one note bass and muddy lower midrange region. As there is always possibility I did not use these midwoofers correctly, I listened to S400 and MTM from local manufacturer, and it confirmed my previous conclusions. RN2X might be better in that regard.
Last edited:
All the 17s use the same parts other cone and most likely the trend will the same.
Erin puts out drivers test using Klippel from time to time, even though he's a car audio person.
SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review
Has anyone tried Scan Discovery like the 18W/8434G00 or it's 4 ohm version. Maybe it behaves better than SB17's, although it won't go as low and doesn't have copper shorting rings, maybe the suspension is better. Surely crossover should be much easier comparing with the Himalayan cone break up of SB.
Erin puts out drivers test using Klippel from time to time, even though he's a car audio person.
SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review
Has anyone tried Scan Discovery like the 18W/8434G00 or it's 4 ohm version. Maybe it behaves better than SB17's, although it won't go as low and doesn't have copper shorting rings, maybe the suspension is better. Surely crossover should be much easier comparing with the Himalayan cone break up of SB.
Pliedtka, 18W discovery is exactly what I would use instead of SB17. I got a tip that 8ohm version works very well in 30l BR, providding typical scanspeak bass and energy, and midrange is very good as well (the DIYer had direct comparison to W18 Nextel).
Just a different perspective... I used an SB17MFC35-8 in a small sealed box 2-way last summer... I find the bass to be articulate and punchy. Of course I do not expect high SPL, and I do not expect much response below 45 Hz.
I have never liked the sound of small vented boxes, no matter what driver is used. I think it is the high tuning frequency... if the vented box tuning frequency is greater than 30 Hz, I am not going to like it...
I have never liked the sound of small vented boxes, no matter what driver is used. I think it is the high tuning frequency... if the vented box tuning frequency is greater than 30 Hz, I am not going to like it...
I think something like 18L, 36H-38z is optimal for the 17NRXC-4 ver1 for my room. Frankly, I don't like QB3 alignment, SBB4 sounds more balanced. Before I had large 3way with 10" in sealed loading, f3 in upper 30s, Q of 0.8, woofer close to the floor and I like the way it interacted with the room. To many loudspeakers just sound too boomy for my taste.
Are you abot? I think the above paragraph explained everything.
Middle you even follow the Mandolin2 link to realise it’s a tested and measured design?
Middle you even follow the Mandolin2 link to realise it’s a tested and measured design?
You clearly don't know who Jeff Bagby was or you wouldn't need to ask. 😉
He built it. https://meniscus.lightningbasehosted.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Mandolin-SPL-Write-up.pdf -note the final page 'Measured Frequency Response'.
Last edited:
As an aside -I've used the CAC series. T/S not quite in line with the factory, especially for the 8ohm models, but using my own, not had any issues to date of the type described. Good units of their type from my POV.
SBB4 has shallower drop (lower Q) and sounds smoother in my room, with less 'boom'. Of course ones choice might depend on the room gain, placement of the loudspeakers, and how they perceive sound. It easy to change alignment from SSB4 to QB3, usually by lowering internal volume and using shorter port. The other reason I use larger box has also to do with drive dependent change in Qt, and Vas, so I compensate for them a little. If you take a look at the Erin's Klippel data the change T/S parameters is very evident.
The T/S parameters my set of 4 ohm SBs, had one driver off quite a bit (higher Fs, Qts, lower SPL) in one driver, the other one a bit off from factory specs but close to other test. I let them play for a month or so and then took the 'final' measurements using older Clio, 0.775V drive voltage.
The T/S parameters my set of 4 ohm SBs, had one driver off quite a bit (higher Fs, Qts, lower SPL) in one driver, the other one a bit off from factory specs but close to other test. I let them play for a month or so and then took the 'final' measurements using older Clio, 0.775V drive voltage.