Hey
I have been messing my speakers and i feel something is missing.
Speakers is 3 way
tweeters are dayton rst28f or seas 27tbc/g
midabass is peerless HDS 6,5"
Bass is polish STX 12"
I feel the weakest link is tweeter, with RST28F sound is almost there but detail is not good and upper range energy is weak, maybe it is too soft, but it measures very well. Resolution is not the strongest side too.
seas 27tbc/g this tweeter is very smooth sound and resolution is ok, but sound is not right, wooden stiks sound very unnatural, rst28f is much much better.
I have good experience sb satory ring radiator tweeter (but it sounds little bit dark) and scan speak illuminator
so my question is
how diffrent is scan speak 9130 compared to rst28f or other scanspeak revelator illuminator series
Also i'm intrested little bit morel and wavecor tweeters, but i dont have any experience with those.
Does anybody knows is HDS glassfibre has more midrange clarity than nomex cones ?
I have been messing my speakers and i feel something is missing.
Speakers is 3 way
tweeters are dayton rst28f or seas 27tbc/g
midabass is peerless HDS 6,5"
Bass is polish STX 12"
I feel the weakest link is tweeter, with RST28F sound is almost there but detail is not good and upper range energy is weak, maybe it is too soft, but it measures very well. Resolution is not the strongest side too.
seas 27tbc/g this tweeter is very smooth sound and resolution is ok, but sound is not right, wooden stiks sound very unnatural, rst28f is much much better.
I have good experience sb satory ring radiator tweeter (but it sounds little bit dark) and scan speak illuminator
so my question is
how diffrent is scan speak 9130 compared to rst28f or other scanspeak revelator illuminator series
Also i'm intrested little bit morel and wavecor tweeters, but i dont have any experience with those.
Does anybody knows is HDS glassfibre has more midrange clarity than nomex cones ?
H1212
Some years ago I spent time with SEAS H1212 tweeter - similar to one you mentioned. The difference is that your tweeter does not have ferrofluid and the H1212 does have ferrofluid. I thought the H1212 was a dandy budget tweeter and perhaps my choice among all of budget tweeters 15 years ago.
A possible consideration for a budget tweeter, if you can find one, would be a Vifa tweeter from one of Paul Hales loudspeakers. These had lower sensitivity and an underhung voice coil, and sounded very good.
Alternately, a complete solution to your malady would be a pair of Dynaudio Esotar tweeters 🙂 . At this point you could safely alleviate any worries about your tweeter quality issues. There are other excellent hand-coated tweeters too.
I am not personally familiar with the other tweeters you mentioned.
Solid choice on the midrange driver. The older HDS drivers were solid performers. There have been several changes in ownership since my listening though. Hopefully the solid quality has continued.
Oh.... my initial paradigm in cost and quality for woofers and tweeters maintained that it was more important to spend more $$$ on the woofer than the tweeter. I did this for many projects across about 5-7 years. Then I heard a speaker with a $40 woofer and $120 tweeter (15 years ago) 😱 . It was really good. My source gear had evolved, and perhaps my listening preference had evolved too. But the "average" midwoofer and "expensive" tweeter sounded VERY good.
Others are welcome to disagree.
Oh, and assuming a passive crossover, experimenting with the capacitors behind the tweeter and/or adding .1uf bypass capacitors might cure some of your ailment.
My 2c,
Sincerely,
Dave
Some years ago I spent time with SEAS H1212 tweeter - similar to one you mentioned. The difference is that your tweeter does not have ferrofluid and the H1212 does have ferrofluid. I thought the H1212 was a dandy budget tweeter and perhaps my choice among all of budget tweeters 15 years ago.
A possible consideration for a budget tweeter, if you can find one, would be a Vifa tweeter from one of Paul Hales loudspeakers. These had lower sensitivity and an underhung voice coil, and sounded very good.
Alternately, a complete solution to your malady would be a pair of Dynaudio Esotar tweeters 🙂 . At this point you could safely alleviate any worries about your tweeter quality issues. There are other excellent hand-coated tweeters too.
I am not personally familiar with the other tweeters you mentioned.
Solid choice on the midrange driver. The older HDS drivers were solid performers. There have been several changes in ownership since my listening though. Hopefully the solid quality has continued.
Oh.... my initial paradigm in cost and quality for woofers and tweeters maintained that it was more important to spend more $$$ on the woofer than the tweeter. I did this for many projects across about 5-7 years. Then I heard a speaker with a $40 woofer and $120 tweeter (15 years ago) 😱 . It was really good. My source gear had evolved, and perhaps my listening preference had evolved too. But the "average" midwoofer and "expensive" tweeter sounded VERY good.
Others are welcome to disagree.
Oh, and assuming a passive crossover, experimenting with the capacitors behind the tweeter and/or adding .1uf bypass capacitors might cure some of your ailment.
My 2c,
Sincerely,
Dave
Any tweeter or bassmid is as good as the system it's used in. Enclosure properties and proprietary crossover design are likely as/more important as/than the drivers themselves. And it's pretty useless to swap a tweeter for a boutique part if you're not going to redesign the crossover anyway.
Who said i dont re-design crossover ?
Problem isn't crossover or enclosure. Tonality is good rather, tiny details is annoying.
Problem isn't crossover or enclosure. Tonality is good rather, tiny details is annoying.
Why not the excellent HDS tweeter (I always forget the Scan equivalent number...)? And did you consider the DXT or maybe a waveguide with the HDS mid?
Are you quite certain the current construction of this tweeter has remained the same as the very good tweeter you historically remember ?
Have you performed a good a/b comparison between a waveguide on a midrange and Flush mounted midrange on the same cabinet. Under what circumstances was the waveguide positively impactful ?
Also, to the original poster.
I can't answer this directly.
I can convey anecdotally, that many fiber cones are not very stiff, and there are a handful of paper cones that are very stiff.
I have also learned that a reasonably good predictor of cone stiffness and driver clarity from THIS variable, is the response curve. In most cases, a nicely stiff cone will have a profound bump / peak in the response curve where the wavelength approaches 1/4 length inside the cone. This is the AIR resonating inside the cone. With a softer cone, this energy will simply soak into the cone and be re-radiated.
These are two examples of stiff cones:
E0018-08S W18E001
E0042-08S W18NX001
These are soft cones:
H1215-08 CA18RNX
H1471-08 CA22RNY
Caveat: On the fringe of my knowledge in this paradigm are the Dayton Aluminum drivers. I believe, without testing or certainty, the profound curved cone profile contributes to mitigation of the air resonance inside the cone. Or maybe the factory graphs aren't fully faithful. I am really not sure in these regards.
Hmmmm, I do have something else to offer that may possibly be relevant to the 6.5 HDS. Many years ago Geoffrey Dillon used this low pass crossover with very good success by reputation and feedback:
Dillon Acoustics' Metaphor
I vaguely recall the crossover point was about 1800hz, but the values of the components don't LOOK like they would result in an 1800hz crossover. But perhaps with additional inductance from the HDS woofer my memory of the 1800hz crossover is correct.
It feel like Geoffrey would want a higher crossover point for the 3/4 inch tweeter. The tweeter is robust, but still 3/4" diameter. Perhaps there is some wierd problems with the 6.5 HDS driver that blossom around 2500hz ???
Hopefully some of this might be helpful.
Sincerely,
Dave
Nope. Why should I? The original design is quite old already.
Nope. A waveguide brings a different dispersion pattern. So how do you suggest I should perform a good A/B/X comparison? Other (to be quite respected) designers have published their findings though. As a rule of thumb the dispersion of a waveguided 1" tweeter matches that of a 6,5" woofer better if crossed at about 2,5kHz or higher.
So, it is not the first breakup mode of the cone itself? How would air resonate here?
Um, er, you recommended the driver.
By using the same midrange driver with and without a waveguide in the same cabinet - with crossover and phase accommodations to accommodate amplitude and phase.
This is how I would accomplish the test. I have never done this test though. Therefore, I would be hesitant to offer an opinion in the matter as it relates to the original posters question.
Have you considered 1/4 wavelength loading ?
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Fitz/Loudspeaker%20Cabinet%20Diffraction.pdf
Baffle Step Compensation
Physics Tutorial: Fundamental Frequency and Harmonics
More specifically, have you considered there could be a sanding wave generated inside the cone that corresponds to the cone diameter ?
I fit a small Zobel to most tweeters, especially metal ones:
The Full Zobel for a 0.05mH tweeter does too much top end rolloff IMO:
Cheap entertainment.
Some discussion of ferrofluid in the Seas 27TBC/G and 27TBFC/G by Joachim Gerhard here:
Sonics by Joachim Gerhard cabinets and kits.
The Full Zobel for a 0.05mH tweeter does too much top end rolloff IMO:
Cheap entertainment.
Some discussion of ferrofluid in the Seas 27TBC/G and 27TBFC/G by Joachim Gerhard here:
Sonics by Joachim Gerhard cabinets and kits.
Due to inflation, here my 0.02 cents
Maybe try to reduce the tweeter atenuation by 0.5 dB steps till you like it ?
It beginns to be known the RST28F is way below the former RS28F in term of sound quality, as said in numerous forums.
Have you tried to change your listening distance if you can by 20 cm steps in front of your loudspeakers ?
Now all these drivers are said to be good enough ! What caps are you using for the tweeter then for the mids ? If you're using a lytic and have soe MKP on hands it is worthing a try for no monney spent, but a Jantzen MKP cross cap are very inexpensive and neutral I have found in some cabinets I refurbished and if the serie reistance of the filter is ok for it VS a former lythic...
In the cheap tweeters I found the SB26STAC to have some light and details without being harsh but it's maybe the upper range of the HDS you don't like. But this nomex is said to be one of the very good drivers outhere many brands are using ! Maybe a Peereless Red paper cone is what you need instead !
I'm not an expert but if you drop your filter sheme and cabinet size , experts here will surely help you more ! Active ? Passive ? Slope ? Cut-offs frequencies, etc...
Maybe try to reduce the tweeter atenuation by 0.5 dB steps till you like it ?
It beginns to be known the RST28F is way below the former RS28F in term of sound quality, as said in numerous forums.
Have you tried to change your listening distance if you can by 20 cm steps in front of your loudspeakers ?
Now all these drivers are said to be good enough ! What caps are you using for the tweeter then for the mids ? If you're using a lytic and have soe MKP on hands it is worthing a try for no monney spent, but a Jantzen MKP cross cap are very inexpensive and neutral I have found in some cabinets I refurbished and if the serie reistance of the filter is ok for it VS a former lythic...
In the cheap tweeters I found the SB26STAC to have some light and details without being harsh but it's maybe the upper range of the HDS you don't like. But this nomex is said to be one of the very good drivers outhere many brands are using ! Maybe a Peereless Red paper cone is what you need instead !
I'm not an expert but if you drop your filter sheme and cabinet size , experts here will surely help you more ! Active ? Passive ? Slope ? Cut-offs frequencies, etc...
Last edited:
The HDS drivers are a bit dull (over-damped) above 1 kHz, and a 6" driver is sub-optimal for a midrange.
It would likely be the first driver I'd replace for a subjective upgrade in quality. If I had to stick with that size driver then I'd choose the *NE180W-08. (..and that driver needs a fair bit of drive/break-in before it's at its best.) I'd also make sure there was little or no absorptive material in the midrange enclosure.. AND I'd make it a smaller (volume) bass-reflex enclosure with a lower port tunning freq. well below its high-pass (..w/ the bass-reflex NOT for extension, rather for achieving "free'er" motion above driver resonance (in-box), and better damping at driver resonance (in-box).
*the Peerless that diyiggy is mentioning.
It would likely be the first driver I'd replace for a subjective upgrade in quality. If I had to stick with that size driver then I'd choose the *NE180W-08. (..and that driver needs a fair bit of drive/break-in before it's at its best.) I'd also make sure there was little or no absorptive material in the midrange enclosure.. AND I'd make it a smaller (volume) bass-reflex enclosure with a lower port tunning freq. well below its high-pass (..w/ the bass-reflex NOT for extension, rather for achieving "free'er" motion above driver resonance (in-box), and better damping at driver resonance (in-box).
*the Peerless that diyiggy is mentioning.
Last edited:
Hello Scott, how fine ? 🙂
My bad, I was more thinking about this one (I have problems with references) : Boutique Haut-parleurs & Audio DIY
But hey, just see prices are increasing... so if th Nomex in this size is not liked with the op, perhaps a SB17CAC at the same price could do the trick if not too low slope for its low pass ?
Your should be better of course, due to the design.
What I'm trying to say to without knowing if it's related to the op problem is often a tweeter is arming by his low end or a mid by it's high end ... but most of us being not speaciaist or having not made yet dozen of diy speakers can be wrog with the frequency window culprit (it's often below the frequency we beleive the problem is) 🙁
My bad, I was more thinking about this one (I have problems with references) : Boutique Haut-parleurs & Audio DIY
But hey, just see prices are increasing... so if th Nomex in this size is not liked with the op, perhaps a SB17CAC at the same price could do the trick if not too low slope for its low pass ?
Your should be better of course, due to the design.
What I'm trying to say to without knowing if it's related to the op problem is often a tweeter is arming by his low end or a mid by it's high end ... but most of us being not speaciaist or having not made yet dozen of diy speakers can be wrog with the frequency window culprit (it's often below the frequency we beleive the problem is) 🙁
Hey
If somebody describes how HDS tweeter sounds, is has been one option before i bought dayton rst tweeters.
seas prestige series tweeters does not intrest me, i have heard them many setups.
when i planned that i upgrade my speakers my frist tought was i must change midbass
and my choice was wifa ne180 or eton midbass but when i listen then seems that top octaves information and resolution is what i miss most.
If somebody describes how HDS tweeter sounds, is has been one option before i bought dayton rst tweeters.
seas prestige series tweeters does not intrest me, i have heard them many setups.
when i planned that i upgrade my speakers my frist tought was i must change midbass
and my choice was wifa ne180 or eton midbass but when i listen then seems that top octaves information and resolution is what i miss most.
Detailed, "bright", a little "edgy", and a bit over-damped leading to a foreshortening of decay and low-level detail (or acoustic "hall sound"), as well as a bit of depth. This is by and "absolute" standard. They are a bit more "hi-fi" and less "natural" sounding than something like the D2604/833000 (or its Peerless counterpart).
The STAC that diyiggy mentioned is a bit more "natural" sounding while also NOT having decay/low-level detail reduction, or the reduction in depth (..though depth takes a modest "hit" the lower in freq. you take the STAC).
The STAC that diyiggy mentioned is a bit more "natural" sounding while also NOT having decay/low-level detail reduction, or the reduction in depth (..though depth takes a modest "hit" the lower in freq. you take the STAC).
Last edited:
That's Seas is actually a better mid-bass driver; the Peerless is a better midrange driver.
Seas driver's in general aren't great as midranges because they tend to have very stiff spiders (..Qm is low, Rms high, Kms (Klippel) is high). It doesn't matter much IF you play very loud, but if you listen at more moderate levels it reduces low-level detail by comparison. This does make them better at lower freq.s as far as non-linear distortion is concerned (..at least until an octave above resonance).
Also, the non-excel drivers often have more high-order distortion (5th) in the upper midrange (with higher Inductance).
Last edited:
That's not true at all imo. They do have soft spider and suspension and all the low Qms and high Rms comes from their electrically conductive voice coil formers, which is made from alu. Their latest modells have titanium (much less electrically conductive than alu) vc former and their Qms went high and Rms went low with the same suspension compliance.
You are describing magnetic damping, more specifically in this instance: induced Eddy Currents increasing magnetic damping by means of motional EMF generating current loops in the conductor (..the conductor which is primary composed of the VC itself, but also to a far lesser extent the Former). Most of this is generated by the VC leaving the magnetic field, not the Former (which always has part of it out of the field). Obviously with an over-hung design like the Seas ER - you are always generating motional EMF. This is an Inductive (electrical) quality, not a mechanical one.
Note: as you increase excursion with these drivers (by increasing SPL) that motional EMF increases, HOWEVER subjectivly the result is that damping is DECREASED - basically that driver has moved past it's (mechanical) "stiffness" range (..Kms).
The reason their latest models have better mechanical performance is because of better modeling being done with those new models - in this instance better FEA modeling of the spider and the surround. Look to Seas's information on the drivers specifically relating to "suspension mechanical resistance" relative to Qms. Those with higher mechanical resistance have lower Qms; the newer drivers tend to have lower mechanical resistance and as a result, higher Qms.
Note: as you increase excursion with these drivers (by increasing SPL) that motional EMF increases, HOWEVER subjectivly the result is that damping is DECREASED - basically that driver has moved past it's (mechanical) "stiffness" range (..Kms).
The reason their latest models have better mechanical performance is because of better modeling being done with those new models - in this instance better FEA modeling of the spider and the surround. Look to Seas's information on the drivers specifically relating to "suspension mechanical resistance" relative to Qms. Those with higher mechanical resistance have lower Qms; the newer drivers tend to have lower mechanical resistance and as a result, higher Qms.
Last edited: