I heard the Village people being belted out by one of the larger Sony back in the late 1970's and it sounded bloody awesome -very clean and dynamic. I bet if a brand new sample were able to be measured it would come up pretty good. Aging is the enemy of everything sadly
@ScottG because a quote of an empty quote deletes itself
You know that's not what center-to-center means, right? You can have a pretty small distance between two 18" woofers but that doesn't mean that they're going to act as a single source off-axis at 3 kHz.
-the 18" beams, the distance generates a phase/time difference, and the result is a combing pattern (..and also assuming the addition of a crossover it does the same: generating a phase/time difference, and depending on placement of drivers relative to each other the combing pattern generates a more specific lobing pattern due to phase angle).
..Note: my suggestion was one of practicality relative to your desire for that near-concentric result. You can "fudge" it a bit more than what you are suggesting in the context you provided assuming that you can move the diaphragms closer together by routing-into the face-plates/frames of the respective drivers as much as possible.
-and by "substantively higher in freq." I mean a few 100's of Hz more - which is often enough to relieve the excursion stress of the tweeter (relative to the crossover of course). 1600 Hz is often brutal IMO (and typically foreshorten's image depth).. but something closer to 1.9-2k is typically more "do-able" depending on the tweeter. The result is often not anywhere near the same subjectively.
..in any event, my bad for continuing this thread off-topic. 😱 (..I'll not do so in this thread again, or at least try harder not to do so.)
..Note: my suggestion was one of practicality relative to your desire for that near-concentric result. You can "fudge" it a bit more than what you are suggesting in the context you provided assuming that you can move the diaphragms closer together by routing-into the face-plates/frames of the respective drivers as much as possible.
-and by "substantively higher in freq." I mean a few 100's of Hz more - which is often enough to relieve the excursion stress of the tweeter (relative to the crossover of course). 1600 Hz is often brutal IMO (and typically foreshorten's image depth).. but something closer to 1.9-2k is typically more "do-able" depending on the tweeter. The result is often not anywhere near the same subjectively.
..in any event, my bad for continuing this thread off-topic. 😱 (..I'll not do so in this thread again, or at least try harder not to do so.)
Last edited:
Possibly a suspension issue at this age. Depending on what coating they used, it might be correctible. I contacted Kenrick Sound tonight about this very thing, for a different set of speakers.
This is a < $100 driver that does that range well:
Scanspeak 15M/4624G Discovery, 5.25" Midrange
It is easy to use, no notch filters or whatever required:
Nice curves... - Scan-Speak 15M/4624G -
Techtalk Speaker Building, Audio, Video Discussion Forum
It was tested in Voice Coil; the sensitivity was a bit lower than the spec, but everything else seemed right.
The HF seems fine (assuming wide, even dispersion is what you want): at 1.6kHz, the 30 degree curve is within 1dB of the on-axis curve.
The LF seems fine: it is capable of ~100dB without a crossover, and >110dB when used with a high pass filter.
I have tested one, and this point seems correct: it can play pretty loud as a midbass.
I'm not trying to suggest this is a uniquely good option, I'm just pointing out that it is not uncommon to cover this range with one driver.
The Scanspeak 10F might be better for you, or maybe a SB Acoustics 4".
The review of the 4" SEAS "Excel" W12CY006 (E0091-08) Nextel midwoofer:
Seas Excel 4" W12CY006 (E0091-08) midwoofer review | HiFiCompass
Seas Excel 4" W12CY006 (E0091-08) midwoofer review | HiFiCompass
4" SEAS "Excel" W12CY006 (E0091-08) Nextel midwoofer .Thanks for the review I think I will be saving my Penny's for something else
The measurements of the SB Acoustics SB17NRX2C35-4 6" midwoofer:
SB Acoustics SB17NRX2C35-4 | HiFiCompass
SB Acoustics SB17NRX2C35-4 | HiFiCompass
@HiFiCompass
I was just reading the review about the W12CY003 and it almost seems there is a trend going on.
I had an extremely similar experience with some 4" SB Acoustics woofers.
When measured at just low volume pink noise, the Fs was totally different.
Only when a stepped sine wave was being used, the parameters were according datasheet.
After some emailing, they even seem to take a specific voltage for this as well, were the Fs impedance peak is minimal.
In this case, and I almost bet in the case of the W12CY003,
it was VERY audible when these speakers were played at a lower level music vs higher levels.
Also a Tymphany/Peerless P830855 or Dayton RS125P-8 don't seem to have this extremely significant change in Fs (as well as Qts) at all.
There is still some tolerances, around 10-15%, something one would expect.
I can share my findings later if people are interested.
This is clearly (very) non linear behavior of the suspension below a certain output.
I was just reading the review about the W12CY003 and it almost seems there is a trend going on.
I had an extremely similar experience with some 4" SB Acoustics woofers.
When measured at just low volume pink noise, the Fs was totally different.
Only when a stepped sine wave was being used, the parameters were according datasheet.
After some emailing, they even seem to take a specific voltage for this as well, were the Fs impedance peak is minimal.
In this case, and I almost bet in the case of the W12CY003,
it was VERY audible when these speakers were played at a lower level music vs higher levels.
Also a Tymphany/Peerless P830855 or Dayton RS125P-8 don't seem to have this extremely significant change in Fs (as well as Qts) at all.
There is still some tolerances, around 10-15%, something one would expect.
I can share my findings later if people are interested.
This is clearly (very) non linear behavior of the suspension below a certain output.
Nice... Although I am enthusiastic about advanced technology diaphragm materials, there is no doubt that paper is an excellent material.
Very low harmonic distortion, easy to work-with frequency response. A great value.
Very low harmonic distortion, easy to work-with frequency response. A great value.
That is rather confusing, I was always under the impression that NOREX was a PVC type/sort ?
http://www.totalplastics.com/assets/Norex_Butyl.PDF
Material Data Center | Norex
Tradenames for Plastics: N
Last edited:
My understanding is that the cone material is paper, and the coating is norex.
SB does not give a lot of details on the cone material... from their data sheet "Proprietary cone material with natural fibers made in-house". That sounds like paper.
The cone on the SB34NRX75-6 (which I own) is definitely a hard paper material.
SB does not give a lot of details on the cone material... from their data sheet "Proprietary cone material with natural fibers made in-house". That sounds like paper.
The cone on the SB34NRX75-6 (which I own) is definitely a hard paper material.