There's nothing going wrong wrong with the MW16P-4's in now about 85 L unless the software is wrong but it's not. I also kind of expected them to exceed their Xmax and that kind of stuff but they are doing totally fine. They move quite a lot of air actually. They almost need the same port diameter as the SB23's.
Attachments
That's fun but guess what, I'll have to make the cabinet ugly to make it fit, MW16P-4 will stil be quicker and tighter because two of them together have less than a fifth of the moving mass and why should I take that thing over two SB23's? They'e the same line and design of subs but the 29 is just bigger so in terms of distortion and other sound quality determining factors I only expect less from a 12" then from a 8" and in terms of crossover frequency it will only be a huge disadvantage, 200 Hz would be very high for that thing.
You may want to double check your xmax for that 16P Satori.
In terms of cone excursion, "p-p" stands for peak to peak - which is twice as large as xmax.
https://solen.ca/wp-content/uploads/mw16p.pdf
That's going to make just a little bit of difference in terms of max SPL when you only have half the cone travel........
Maybe stick with rigid metal cones for the woofers too to match your metal mid and go with the 8" SB NACS45-8?
You might also want to try just a slightly a more gentle roll-off on the bottom end when you are tuning this low to allow for the room to add in its effects so that the net result isn't too boomy.
In terms of cone excursion, "p-p" stands for peak to peak - which is twice as large as xmax.
https://solen.ca/wp-content/uploads/mw16p.pdf
That's going to make just a little bit of difference in terms of max SPL when you only have half the cone travel........
Maybe stick with rigid metal cones for the woofers too to match your metal mid and go with the 8" SB NACS45-8?
You might also want to try just a slightly a more gentle roll-off on the bottom end when you are tuning this low to allow for the room to add in its effects so that the net result isn't too boomy.
Oh okay. Then they indeed won't be as good.
I wen't modeling again and I came up with these: Scan-Speak Revelator 18W04531G01, will play to 31 Hz -3 dB and will obviously be the quickest and tightest. Seas Prestige CD22NR4X will play to 28 Hz -3 dB and the impuls response and moving mass are okay but I don't really know what the specs all together and the reviews say about sound quality. And then there's the SB-Acoustics SB23MFCL45-4 again. It will have the poorest impuls respons and measurements supposedly say it has quite some distortion going on but it will play the lowest to 23 Hz -3 dB and someone said it has that bad distortion but how noticeable will it be here? It only has to play at 40 watts to reach the SPL +3 dB of the mid.
The bigger Satori's won't play that low.
I wen't modeling again and I came up with these: Scan-Speak Revelator 18W04531G01, will play to 31 Hz -3 dB and will obviously be the quickest and tightest. Seas Prestige CD22NR4X will play to 28 Hz -3 dB and the impuls response and moving mass are okay but I don't really know what the specs all together and the reviews say about sound quality. And then there's the SB-Acoustics SB23MFCL45-4 again. It will have the poorest impuls respons and measurements supposedly say it has quite some distortion going on but it will play the lowest to 23 Hz -3 dB and someone said it has that bad distortion but how noticeable will it be here? It only has to play at 40 watts to reach the SPL +3 dB of the mid.
The bigger Satori's won't play that low.
Attachments
It is your thread so you Can write want you want. And you Can Think what you want. But I Think it is wrong to State almost all Your arguments as facts - When you have no actual experience with speakerbuilding.
There are bunch of ways to build a phenomenal speaker. It takes huge load of experience, hence experiment to get there.
There are bunch of ways to build a phenomenal speaker. It takes huge load of experience, hence experiment to get there.
Distortion measurement of the Seas W15CY001 :
http://www.zaphaudio.com/5.5test/Seas-W15CY001-HD.gif
And the Satori MW16P :
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Satori-MW165DC-08N36-DA00-HD.gif
As you can see, the MW16P outperforms the Seas quite a lot.
http://www.zaphaudio.com/5.5test/Seas-W15CY001-HD.gif
And the Satori MW16P :
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Satori-MW165DC-08N36-DA00-HD.gif
As you can see, the MW16P outperforms the Seas quite a lot.
I think the CD22NR4X is a pretty good option. I red about people (really experienced people) quite liking them in another thread. They have a reasonably low moving mass, tight impuls response and dig low enough. They aren't really subwoofers. It's the same basic design but just the slightly lower tuned brother of the CA22RNX which is a normal 8" woofer so they should have pretty reasonable distortion. The Satori MW19P-4's go nowhere near as low and are quite expensive.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Okay you have a point but hadn't we already discussed that any 6,5" will start beaming at 2 kHz and that it's not just the distortion graphs but also the cone material that matters. A couple of pages back we pretty much all agreed the W18EX001 or any magnesium cone Seas Excel are pretty much the most natural and accurate or with other words best sounding out there and now that I finally thought to have made my decision it's AGAIN isn't right. I know everyone's opinions and preferences are different but it seems it's just never right no matter what my choice is.
What if I were to just smak €1.400,- on a pair of Accuton C173-6-096E's then still nobody would be pleased. I'm just gonna stay with the W15CY001 disregarding what you say. I know opinions differ but I'm getting kinda sick of this and I pretty sure I'm just gonna stick with my own.
Last edited:
For who are you building these speakers?
Why don't you go and have a listen at Jeroen's place. I'm sure you will be pleased with what you hear.
Investing in accuton seems rather stupid, moneywise and soundquality wise.
Spend less money on better speakers...
Price means nothing.
MW16's are also in Wilson audio speakers that cost over 200.000, you won't please anybody if you buy those will you? Except, maybe Wilson Audio.
Why don't you go and have a listen at Jeroen's place. I'm sure you will be pleased with what you hear.
Investing in accuton seems rather stupid, moneywise and soundquality wise.
Spend less money on better speakers...
Price means nothing.
MW16's are also in Wilson audio speakers that cost over 200.000, you won't please anybody if you buy those will you? Except, maybe Wilson Audio.
I won't buy accuton anyway. They literally cost the entire budget without amps.
But if we're comparing midranges, why not the MR16P-4?
I'm not looking at prices here. I'm looking at this thread, moving masses, force factors, impuls respons, reviews, crossover frequencies and cone materials.
But if we're comparing midranges, why not the MR16P-4?
I'm not looking at prices here. I'm looking at this thread, moving masses, force factors, impuls respons, reviews, crossover frequencies and cone materials.
Okay then, if the W15CY001 didn't exist. We're replaying this game: MW/R16P-4 vs 18W/4531G01. I probably already know what everyone's gonna say but I'll try it again anyway. Distortion graphs and impuls response are quite similar. Bring it on.
Again, NOT LOOKING AT PRICES. THEY COST ROUGHLY THE SAME. Well not really BUT ANYWAY.
Again, NOT LOOKING AT PRICES. THEY COST ROUGHLY THE SAME. Well not really BUT ANYWAY.
MW16: lower mms, lower distortion, better motor, lower SD so can cross higher, better midrange because extreme low loss suspension (better microdetails)(lower rms and higher cms)
18W: more bass output.
If you are looking for a midrange then the choice should be obvious.
MR16 has similar distortion as MW16, if you want to crossover to a big subwoofer at 200Hz then go for MW16. It's xmax is a bit overrated, contrary to e.g. MW19 which xmax is a bit underrated. MR16 should only be an option if you have a small subwoofer and don't play loud. It has to crossover higher to the sub or play less loud or both.
What subwoofer(s) are you going to use?
18W: more bass output.
If you are looking for a midrange then the choice should be obvious.
MR16 has similar distortion as MW16, if you want to crossover to a big subwoofer at 200Hz then go for MW16. It's xmax is a bit overrated, contrary to e.g. MW19 which xmax is a bit underrated. MR16 should only be an option if you have a small subwoofer and don't play loud. It has to crossover higher to the sub or play less loud or both.
What subwoofer(s) are you going to use?
The design is done.
But about the MW16P-4 vs MR16P-4. I think it's pretty obvious the MR16P-4 will be a better midrange when crossed high enough right? Or does it have more distortion just like the Scan-Speak midrange versions? The Seas woofers can be crossed quite high since they're not really subwoofers but just the bass boasted version of a normal 8" woofer. What if I would cross the subs at like 250 - 300 Hz, would the MR then be a better performer or will it still have more distortion just like with the Scan-Speak midranges?
But about the MW16P-4 vs MR16P-4. I think it's pretty obvious the MR16P-4 will be a better midrange when crossed high enough right? Or does it have more distortion just like the Scan-Speak midrange versions? The Seas woofers can be crossed quite high since they're not really subwoofers but just the bass boasted version of a normal 8" woofer. What if I would cross the subs at like 250 - 300 Hz, would the MR then be a better performer or will it still have more distortion just like with the Scan-Speak midranges?
Attachments
For bass alignment you probably don't want the configuration that achieves the lowest F3 in simulation. In most smaller to medium sized rooms this will give you a booming one-note bass due to room modes. Only in very large rooms with the speakers positions significantly out from the walls (1m+ from rear wall, several metres from side walls) does the alignment with the lowest F3 sound balanced.
My experience is the same as many others - a practical alignment is about midway between a sealed box, and a ported box that achieves the lowest F3. This means slightly smaller box and tuned a bit lower than you would when trying to achieve the lowest F3. Of course, if you don't know what is going to be suitable build the box larger and add fill later to make it smaller if the bass is too much.
My experience is the same as many others - a practical alignment is about midway between a sealed box, and a ported box that achieves the lowest F3. This means slightly smaller box and tuned a bit lower than you would when trying to achieve the lowest F3. Of course, if you don't know what is going to be suitable build the box larger and add fill later to make it smaller if the bass is too much.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'll take the Scan-Speak Illuminator D3004/662000, a SB-Acoustics Satori MW16P-4 and two Seas Prestige CD22RN4X's and I'm hoping to stick with them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.