Isn't aesthetics so important?
It's not all about measurement or even music, is it? Recently I was inspired by the look and bass performance of Wharfedale Elysian 2. But from my experience, it is always more satisfying to have the woofer coupled to the floor, i.e. putting the woofer just close to the floor. So, is it performance or look that is more important? 
nah, not important, but when it's too much ugly like Wilson Audios' ! Lol !
Better a Nasi Goreng woke as a wave guide in the living room than a terrible Wilson Audio in the living room. Baseline of Wilson Audio should be : loudspeakers tuned by blind people of piano academy... for blind people listeners !
Better a Nasi Goreng woke as a wave guide in the living room than a terrible Wilson Audio in the living room. Baseline of Wilson Audio should be : loudspeakers tuned by blind people of piano academy... for blind people listeners !
Last edited:
LOL you meant satellite dishes. 80% loudspeakers are ugly imo.
It's just about calculation. As long as the diffraction effects are taken into account in the design of the crossover response, there shouldn't be a big difference.
Fact is, we don't design speaker to excel in an un-echoic chamber. We need floor to enhance the bass, we need wall reflection to create image. And we need the enclosure to produce the sound too (ahem!).
When properly calculated, they are still different. Slim is for perfect situation where we don't need other than what is in the recording (it is hard to make it satisfying. Ok, pure sound, better imaging). But audio design is far from perfect such that it is usually about choosing the most preferred compromises.
The effect of tweeter diffraction on the baffle edge is small in term of frequency response, but surprisingly audible. But who knows, may be not audible for most people?
Reading into this project, you mention that the project was not totally satisfactory. Eventually you switched to a different set of drivers.
So what went aside? The measurements surely look nice.
I bet it's not the reduced THD people like with them but something like the better energy overlap patern with the driver below off axis... at least something like this.
It's also why some people as I, prefer the small mid woof - around 4 to 5 each with classic tweeter ? I don't know. It's maybe size mismatch between two drivers should not be too big in their overlap area, perhaps. also the recess for best impulse response I surmise ?
I like also the idea expressed that WGs project somewhat the sound, avoiding the bad edge of the cabinet diffraction ! That's why I'm tempted to purchase one despite I'm sure for my small casual 3 ways classic I could be perfectly happy with the raws sb26 CAC or the 22 TNF/G ...
I follow the hype of people that knows !
It's also why some people as I, prefer the small mid woof - around 4 to 5 each with classic tweeter ? I don't know. It's maybe size mismatch between two drivers should not be too big in their overlap area, perhaps. also the recess for best impulse response I surmise ?
I like also the idea expressed that WGs project somewhat the sound, avoiding the bad edge of the cabinet diffraction ! That's why I'm tempted to purchase one despite I'm sure for my small casual 3 ways classic I could be perfectly happy with the raws sb26 CAC or the 22 TNF/G ...
I follow the hype of people that knows !
I was afraid that somebody asks .
This was one of a SB17 experiences I did not like the overall result. When working on this project, I have already known the sound of Satori drivers from Jurko and Ghibli. So from SB17CAC and DXT (a highly regarded drivers) I had high expectations. Measured performace look very good as well. But overall sound was weird, first of all I noticed the treble being empty, hollow, maybe little bit like from a cup, low details, overall very dull. Of course I remeasuredeverything, I tried increase and lower the treble, the sound changed, but overall impression was still the same. It was like it played just envelope but not a details and mild nuances.
So I replaced DXT with Satori TW26DN, new measurement and crossover modelling, and there was immediate improvement of the sound, it started to sound normal, though still not right. So I replaced NAC with MW16P, again new measurement and crossover modelling, and it started to sound really good. Overall balance and character was right.
I spent a lot of hours and days trying to make CAC+DXT sounding good, but no success.
If CAC and DXT are typical representatives of perfect measured performace and clean and clear sound then they are definitely not for me.
I liked cheap drivers like SB26STNC, Vifa TC9, OT19 and DX25, Visaton W200S, 15M Discovery and many other (so it is not about the price), but SB17 line and DXT I found strange.
.This was one of a SB17 experiences I did not like the overall result. When working on this project, I have already known the sound of Satori drivers from Jurko and Ghibli. So from SB17CAC and DXT (a highly regarded drivers) I had high expectations. Measured performace look very good as well. But overall sound was weird, first of all I noticed the treble being empty, hollow, maybe little bit like from a cup, low details, overall very dull. Of course I remeasuredeverything, I tried increase and lower the treble, the sound changed, but overall impression was still the same. It was like it played just envelope but not a details and mild nuances.
So I replaced DXT with Satori TW26DN, new measurement and crossover modelling, and there was immediate improvement of the sound, it started to sound normal, though still not right. So I replaced NAC with MW16P, again new measurement and crossover modelling, and it started to sound really good. Overall balance and character was right.
I spent a lot of hours and days trying to make CAC+DXT sounding good, but no success.
If CAC and DXT are typical representatives of perfect measured performace and clean and clear sound then they are definitely not for me.
I liked cheap drivers like SB26STNC, Vifa TC9, OT19 and DX25, Visaton W200S, 15M Discovery and many other (so it is not about the price), but SB17 line and DXT I found strange.
^^ Fair enough. Just shows how different people perceive and opine differently when working with same drivers, and the measurements don't lead to such conclusions.
For example, Michael Chua is somewhat reserved about MW16P: Thrush (Satori MW16P-4 with Morel CAT378) – AmpsLab
On the other hand, he has a very positive opinion about the 27-DXT: Goldfinch-DXT (Scanspeak PL18 with Seas DXT) – AmpsLab
Sorry to all participants if this goes a little off topic...
For example, Michael Chua is somewhat reserved about MW16P: Thrush (Satori MW16P-4 with Morel CAT378) – AmpsLab
On the other hand, he has a very positive opinion about the 27-DXT: Goldfinch-DXT (Scanspeak PL18 with Seas DXT) – AmpsLab
Sorry to all participants if this goes a little off topic...
Off-axis response. Look at off-axis responses of both drivers at crossover frequency (big diameter mid-woofer's response falls off quickly). Imo, off-axis listening is even more important than on-axis performance.
Waveguide is a solution (also when the tweeter faceplate doesn't allow a close distance to the mid-woofer center), but the honky nature of it is always audible (to my ears) and I don't like that.
I was afraid that somebody asks
This was one of a SB17 experiences I did not like the overall result. When working on this project, I have already known the sound of Satori drivers from Jurko and Ghibli. So from SB17CAC and DXT (a highly regarded drivers) I had high expectations. Measured performace look very good as well. But overall sound was weird, first of all I noticed the treble being empty, hollow, maybe little bit like from a cup, low details, overall very dull. Of course I remeasuredeverything, I tried increase and lower the treble, the sound changed, but overall impression was still the same. It was like it played just envelope but not a details and mild nuances.
So I replaced DXT with Satori TW26DN, new measurement and crossover modelling, and there was immediate improvement of the sound, it started to sound normal, though still not right. So I replaced NAC with MW16P, again new measurement and crossover modelling, and it started to sound really good. Overall balance and character was right.
I spent a lot of hours and days trying to make CAC+DXT sounding good, but no success.
If CAC and DXT are typical representatives of perfect measured performace and clean and clear sound then they are definitely not for me.
I liked cheap drivers like SB26STNC, Vifa TC9, OT19 and DX25, Visaton W200S, 15M Discovery and many other (so it is not about the price), but SB17 line and DXT I found strange.
Over-damped drivers, and doing this (particularly) in that critical upper-mid. through the treble.
You can get a similar effect to a better low-level detail midbass/woofer by substantially over-stuffing that driver's cabinet volume. (..should be an easy experiment with the Satori midbass.) At some point (with that added in-fill) depth reproduction goes away. (..though I should note that some drivers react a lot less than others.)
Last edited:
Someone call Dr.Geddes to explain uber audiophiles the difference between imaging and spaciousness.
No need. We uber audiophiles accommodate the use of terminologies such as airiness, smoothness, sonic, dynamic, imaging, soundstage, dark background, without having to comply with engineering dictionary because we tend to know what each others are talking about and many of us are not technically minded people.
Draki, thanks for that. I can partially agree with Michael. In absolute terms, NE series, the majority of Scan Speaks, Wavecors BD line offer more impact and vivid sound. Anyway, I find Satoris much better than SB17 line when it comes to overall sound.
Maybe its also the difference in DAC, Pre and DSP we use. Mine are extremely transparent and very powerful - might make a difference - cant be sure.I was afraid that somebody asks
If CAC and DXT are typical representatives of perfect measured performace and clean and clear sound then they are definitely not for me.
I liked cheap drivers like SB26STNC, Vifa TC9, OT19 and DX25, Visaton W200S, 15M Discovery and many other (so it is not about the price), but SB17 line and DXT I found strange.
I find the DXT + Dayton RS125 to be a combo that do not reveal, but rather simply play in a way where I hear voices and plucks on guitars in a way that makes me forget that I listen to a speaker. I play around with the area between 100 and 400hz, because this is where I believe that most of the rhythm is "hidden". Its the area where all the fullness and foundation of the voices and rhythmic core of many instruments have their distinct identity. If there is to much energy here, then cellos or deep close mic. voices sound way to boomy and annoying - leaving the mid and tweeter to be very difficult to hear.
I know of no other tweeter than the DXT, that is so easy to integrate without special DIY waveguides, adapters and other trickery. I also like that its a harddome rather than a softdome... again preferences
My opinion on SB17 was formed over the years, from my experiences and also from listening to Buchardt S400 (passive radiator), and MTM 2way with SB17CAC (closed cabinet). S400 was quite acceptable, but still there was character I heard on my projects with SB17 drivers. And that MTM, it was really dead, it did not have weight and impact, though strings sounded quite good (larger AMT tweeter).
I agree with your opinion on 100-400Hz area, you described it really well.
I agree with your opinion on 100-400Hz area, you described it really well.
I believe that many people look for 6-7" midranges to raise sensitivity and play some kind of bass in a smaller speaker. But this leaves us with a demanding job for the midrange driver, when the tweeter has to be crossed low and there is no woofer to fill in the bottom octave. I see way more drivers refered to as bass/midranged than pure midrange. It might not matter, but still there must be things that could be different, if we designed af driver more specificly for midrange duty - maybe.
I find a 3 way to be absolutely great, because I can chose a driver for dedicated midrange duty with a woofer that has more potential to give a dynamic smack and elegant fullness, at a level where a good bass/midrange driver simply wont cut it. At least with a modern dsp filter, it seems a lot easier to divide a speaker in 3 than 2 - compared to passive filters. We are no longer forced to certain drivers, because its difficult to balance sensitivity or tame break-up-modes. Again no chain is stronger than the weakest link. I strongly believe in a balanced build, rather than some exotic super duper driver. But sometimes I do wish that it would be that simple - to just buy the best and most fanzy driver money could buy. But apparently its a bit more complicated
I find a 3 way to be absolutely great, because I can chose a driver for dedicated midrange duty with a woofer that has more potential to give a dynamic smack and elegant fullness, at a level where a good bass/midrange driver simply wont cut it. At least with a modern dsp filter, it seems a lot easier to divide a speaker in 3 than 2 - compared to passive filters. We are no longer forced to certain drivers, because its difficult to balance sensitivity or tame break-up-modes. Again no chain is stronger than the weakest link. I strongly believe in a balanced build, rather than some exotic super duper driver. But sometimes I do wish that it would be that simple - to just buy the best and most fanzy driver money could buy. But apparently its a bit more complicated
I know I am going to regret jumping into this [can of worms] discussion, but...
I agree. I have written several times that I find the SB17CAC35 to have great midrange qualities, but that is in my system where it is bandpass limited by (1) a 200 Hz high pass filter and (2) and 2000 Hz low pass filter. If this driver was asked to handle everything from 30 Hz to 3 kHz, I am sure I would be less impressed.
I chose to use a 6 inch driver rather than a 5 inch or 4 inch driver because I wanted as much SPL capability in the 150-300 Hz range as I could get. And I made a conscious decision to compromise on the narrowing directivity and C-to-C spacing of a 6 inch driver at 2 kHz.
... And I agree with digitalthor ^ that (to paraphrase) it is easier to get very high performance from a 3 way than a 2 way. I have great respect for those designers who can get really high performance from a 2 way... Hats off, Salud, Ich respektiere... to me, with my knowledge and skill level, if I want to pursue top performance, it will have to be a 3-way.
I agree. I have written several times that I find the SB17CAC35 to have great midrange qualities, but that is in my system where it is bandpass limited by (1) a 200 Hz high pass filter and (2) and 2000 Hz low pass filter. If this driver was asked to handle everything from 30 Hz to 3 kHz, I am sure I would be less impressed.
I chose to use a 6 inch driver rather than a 5 inch or 4 inch driver because I wanted as much SPL capability in the 150-300 Hz range as I could get. And I made a conscious decision to compromise on the narrowing directivity and C-to-C spacing of a 6 inch driver at 2 kHz.
... And I agree with digitalthor ^ that (to paraphrase) it is easier to get very high performance from a 3 way than a 2 way. I have great respect for those designers who can get really high performance from a 2 way... Hats off, Salud, Ich respektiere... to me, with my knowledge and skill level, if I want to pursue top performance, it will have to be a 3-way.
"..it is easier to get very high performance from a 3 way than a 2 way.."
Barring verticals in some cases, YUP.
(..and if you choose the correct pass-bands and filters, it's easier as you go higher than that: 4 way, 5 way, etc..)
Still, most seem to be stuck on 2-way designs (..or perhaps 2-way + powered sub.)
Really the easiest way to do a 2-way design (conventional dynamic monopole design) is using a small wide band driver with a crossover (high-pass) that's at least as low as 900 Hz and integrating a midbass/woofer with it.
Barring verticals in some cases, YUP.
(..and if you choose the correct pass-bands and filters, it's easier as you go higher than that: 4 way, 5 way, etc..)
Still, most seem to be stuck on 2-way designs (..or perhaps 2-way + powered sub.)
Really the easiest way to do a 2-way design (conventional dynamic monopole design) is using a small wide band driver with a crossover (high-pass) that's at least as low as 900 Hz and integrating a midbass/woofer with it.
Agreed.... there is a lot of talent out there, that can create fantastic designs. But when we seek to twist the last drop, then it does not really matter whether we have a 2 way on a stand or a 3 way on the floor. Subwoofers are mandatory in my world - so filling in anything below around 80-100hz should also never happen to a midrange/woofer - IMO
Anyone who found any difference with CMS in different drivers? I mean, we have SB with high CMS and Dayton with low CMS - no matter the size. Does that really matter to dynamics in sound?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.