Scan-speak D2905/950000

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Firstly I would like to thank Hedlund for pointing out the weakness of the tweeter that I was originally considering. Janne I have now tested the Peerless units and you were right, they would have been the weakest link in the system. I'll find a use for them elsewhere.
I'm now seriously considering the Scan-speak D2905/950000, I have two on order and an quite prepared to add them to my stock if they fail to please.
I would be grateful if anyone who has used the Scan-speaks or heard them could let me know of their experiences. It will save me time searching for their shortcomings when I audition them. I understand that in the end it is my ears and mind they will have to please.

Thank you in advance,
Regards WALKER
Hello Walker,

hope you don't mind sticking my nose in again.
I have tested all Scanspeak's tweeters and this was the one I liked the best. D2904/9800, D2905/9700 and Revelator can be better in certain areas, but if you will use a 5" midrange this is the best choice.
They perform much better than the Peerless tweeter but have a little bit too soft and "lazy" sound compared to Focal 120TDX or Thiel & Partner C2-12, which both have clearer sound.

But after reading you amplifier/active crossover threads the Scanspeak tweeter might be the best choice.
I have bad experience of active crossovers and the use of IC's in the signal path.

Thanks Janne, your nose is always welcome:) Your previous posts have had me re-examining the design and have been most helpful. You seem to have an amazing familiarity with these products. I'm getting the feeling that I need to audition the Focals again.

The Peerless tweeters are a lovely sounding driver but couldn’t do metallic sounds as well as some that I have heard, (with recordings of triangles and small bells). At the price they have to be the best I have heard, (in my limited experience). They will probably become the staple diet for speaker from my customers who don’t understand their alcoholic limit.

Regards WALKER

It's great that people with different tastes can help one another.
I want to say '2 gr' about SS.
I'm building two way loudspeakers where i used 9700 and Focal 6W4254 (6 1/2")in TL. I heard 9300, 9700 and 9900 and i choose 9700. Why? Becouse 9300 is little be slowly and dark, 9900 is almost O.K. but i don't like tubes and he have too big frontplate. 9700 sounds light, have lot of air and is very detailed. If you don't like light always you can cut off some high frequency (above 10kHz). I thik 9700 is the best choice if you use small midwoofer (<7") or big midrange.

The choice is yours!>
I used to have 9000s in my speakers. I upgraded to the 9500s as a bit of an indulgence.

I liked the 9500s a lot. They seem to be very natural sounding. They have a wonderful soundstage, are not fatiguing, and I like the frequency balance. Between the 9500 and 9000, I would say the improvement in the imaging and the reduction in listening fatigue are the biggest differences. I never knew the 9000s were fatiguing, until I got the 9500s.

If I had to complain about them, they seem a bit laid back. Also, the counterbores on the faceplate fit some pretty weird screws. Not much to complain about.

Another major factor for me was their reasonable price, at least compared to the 9700 and 9900.

I should note that I use them in a tri-amped, active crossover system with nothing between the speaker(s) and amp(s). Just my 0.02.
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.