Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#22
Here are some pictures:

2580726088_e552a89388_b.jpg


2580730190_b54b68f54b_b.jpg


2580727514_8d1d3fdca9_b.jpg


2580728868_f1c24ef7d1_b.jpg
 
#27
tpsorin said:

Also for dome I am >80% sure that it is some kind of plastic.
I expect aluminum to be cold on touch. This is warm.
Even warmer than plastic; like textile.
Click to expand...

Hi,

It looks like alloy. It is too thin to judge by a touch "temperature" test.

(The protective mesh looks like plastic coated steel)

🙂/sreten.
 
#28
tpsorin said:
Hello!

I am planning to use MCA15RCY into a 3way system.
The system has 2nd order active filter with cutoff frequency of 300 / 2400Hz. Tweeter is SEAS 27TDC. Woofer: Beyma 8BR40N in a closed 55l box.
It is possible that I will upgrade filter to 4th order.

Anybody has experience with this driver? How it handles 300Hz?
I want a "fast" driver. Currently I have Beyma 5MP60N, but it can not keep up with tweeter (or at least this is my feeling).

Any other suggestion? I want to stay under 100EUR/driver.
Click to expand...


The PHL 1120 is $120 USD, so probably available for under 100 Euro. I have used the Seas, and its a nice midrange, but the PHL is in a different class altogether. You will need a 4th order to cross it at 300 Hz on the low side, it has a very low Q. It polays nicely out to 4000 Hz on the high side.

Dick M
 
#29
#30
Re: Re: Re: Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

BHTX said:


http://www.audioheuristics.org/measurements/Testing/PHL1120/PHL1120.htm
Click to expand...


Measurements are an indicator, but they do not tell the whole story. I have designed with both of these drivers, and auditioned both extensively. The SEAS is a very nice midrange, but lacks a characteristic that allows the convincing illusion of reality to appear. The PHL driver does this superbly. As one of my collaborators put it, other drivers do not convince you that the musician is standing in your listening room. There are a number of DIY designs out there with the 1120 midrange.....if you have never heard one, give it a try!

Dick
 
#31
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

dickmorgan22 said:
Measurements are an indicator, but they do not tell the whole story. I have designed with both of these drivers, and auditioned both extensively. The SEAS is a very nice midrange, but lacks a characteristic that allows the convincing illusion of reality to appear. The PHL driver does this superbly. As one of my collaborators put it, other drivers do not convince you that the musician is standing in your listening room. There are a number of DIY designs out there with the 1120 midrange.....if you have never heard one, give it a try!
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree. Haven't heard it though, but I've read nothing but positive comments about it.. A LOT of good comments. Wish I could somehow hear one for myself in a design sometime.
 
#32
The PHL has presence and is relatively uncolored for the SPL that is capable. It is not most linear though and needs experience with crossover design. Its a live transducer non the less. I use 1220 personally, and I have made speakers with 1120, 5050, 4530, 2410.
 
#33
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

dickmorgan22 said:



I have designed with both of these drivers, and auditioned both extensively. The SEAS is a very nice midrange, but lacks a characteristic that allows the convincing illusion of reality to appear. The PHL driver does this superbly.
Dick
Click to expand...
If I told you that this kind of statement smells subjectivism and is very mainly a result of the (your) speaker design I'm quite sure you will disapprove, isn't it?
Thus, let us know what ARE the technical characteristic(s) of the PHL that allow(s) this more convincing "illusion of reality" than whatever other driver, including the SEAS, please.
Thank you.
 
#34
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

crazyhub said:
If I told you that this kind of statement smells subjectivism and is very mainly a result of the (your) speaker design I'm quite sure you will disapprove, isn't it?
Thus, let us know what ARE the technical characteristic(s) of the PHL that allow(s) this more convincing "illusion of reality" than whatever other driver, including the SEAS, please.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

I will make one response on this very old argument.

Of course I don't know what these characteristics are, if I, or anyone else did, it would have been published by now. Fom my point of view, its the height of arrogance to assume that we know everything there is to know about transducers in an environment where we cannot even agree that cone material matters. Subjective?! Of course! The speakers sound demonstrably different. We are not talking "amplifer" or "cable" different here, the entire presentation is different. Unlike a capacitor test where you can't get a room full of people to statistically demonstrate that a difference can be heard, nearly anyone can tell one speaker from another ten times out of ten in a double blind test. Mark's measurements are useful, in fact, they are all we have from a science viewpoint. To anyone who listens though, they clearly do not tell the whole story. Your skepticism is healthy, but have you sat down and listened?

Dick
 
#35
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seas MCA15RCY anyoane?

dickmorgan22 said:


Your skepticism is healthy, but have you sat down and listened?

Dick
Click to expand...
My answer could sound like this: Are you absolutely sure one couldn't build a speaker with the SEAS that sounds closer to reality than the speaker(s) you designed with the PHL?...
Or: Are you sure that your used design process do not favour the PHL allowing this better "illusion of reality" result?
Or: give the same drivers to two different designers, are you not astonished by the listening differences between the two speakers.

But where I fully agree with you is that things aren't so simple, none the reasons two drivers sound different none the reasons of some statements.


😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom