Hi,
I have been interested in the Supravox 165-2000 for a while and was wondering if anyone had used them before?
165-2000 Full range drive unit 35W / 94dB / 4 Ohms - Supravox
I was thinking it looks like a great candidate for a sealed/aperiodic (couple of Variovents) enclosure. I like the idea of this as I would like to build some corner enclosures which would hide the 80-100 litres size that would be required.
I have been interested in the Supravox 165-2000 for a while and was wondering if anyone had used them before?
165-2000 Full range drive unit 35W / 94dB / 4 Ohms - Supravox
I was thinking it looks like a great candidate for a sealed/aperiodic (couple of Variovents) enclosure. I like the idea of this as I would like to build some corner enclosures which would hide the 80-100 litres size that would be required.
Greets! I wish I had some personal experience with this brand, but cab loading considerations don't require it per se, only specs, room loading, so assuming its published specs are reasonably accurate it's right in the 'sweet spot' for a ~aperiodic alignment in a typical HIFI app IME.
GM
edit: Dave P10's somewhat aperiodic alignment would be a nice stylish Onken 'look' compromise, but maybe tuned a bit lower than his preferred alignment to eek a bit more LF out of it, though if a separate sub system is used, then it's a good way to go.
GM
edit: Dave P10's somewhat aperiodic alignment would be a nice stylish Onken 'look' compromise, but maybe tuned a bit lower than his preferred alignment to eek a bit more LF out of it, though if a separate sub system is used, then it's a good way to go.
Last edited:
As there does not seem to be a huge amount on the internet about the 165-2000, I was wondering what the differences might be between the 165GMF and the 165-2000 apart from the magnet type?
Qms, Cms, Mms are very similar which I guess they should be as it looks like they share the same cone and suspension.
The 165-2000 has a much more powerful magnet (2-Tesla compared to 1.4-Tesla) but lower BL product, is this a factor of possibly the longer voice coil and the larger excursion?
Supravox state the 165-2000 has 10mm of Linear excursion compared to 6mm for the 165-GMF, although speaking with them the, on the 165-2000, Kippel X-Max is 2.5mm.
This is where I get confused as the Qes is a lot lower on the 165-GMF despite having a 'smaller' magnet. I get that the flatter Impedance curve (and lower peak at Fs, combined with the lower DC resistance on the 165-2000 gives it the higher Qes but how does that actually effect in the real world?
The 165-2000 seems to have a lot flatter Impedance curve and more even phase plot too, which is attractive to me as I want to use it with a little Decware Zen SET.
So in short, when looking for real world experience, is it accurate to take any impressions of the 165-GMF and compare roughly to the 165-2000, save for the differences in application. As the 165-2000 is usually used in OB and the 165-GMF in small ported boxes.
Qms, Cms, Mms are very similar which I guess they should be as it looks like they share the same cone and suspension.
The 165-2000 has a much more powerful magnet (2-Tesla compared to 1.4-Tesla) but lower BL product, is this a factor of possibly the longer voice coil and the larger excursion?
Supravox state the 165-2000 has 10mm of Linear excursion compared to 6mm for the 165-GMF, although speaking with them the, on the 165-2000, Kippel X-Max is 2.5mm.
This is where I get confused as the Qes is a lot lower on the 165-GMF despite having a 'smaller' magnet. I get that the flatter Impedance curve (and lower peak at Fs, combined with the lower DC resistance on the 165-2000 gives it the higher Qes but how does that actually effect in the real world?
The 165-2000 seems to have a lot flatter Impedance curve and more even phase plot too, which is attractive to me as I want to use it with a little Decware Zen SET.
So in short, when looking for real world experience, is it accurate to take any impressions of the 165-GMF and compare roughly to the 165-2000, save for the differences in application. As the 165-2000 is usually used in OB and the 165-GMF in small ported boxes.
Well, I found a pair in stock, from toutlehautparleur.com, excellent service! 
Fullrange speaker Supravox 165-2000, 4 ohm, 7 inch
Arrived today so thought I would test them, hoping there would not be such quality control issues as mbrennwa had below:
Supravox 165-2000 parameter inconsistencies
Out of the box, they came with individual spec sheets with the measured parameters, not looking good as they both say a Qe of around 1.5!
Most of the other specs are roughly in the right ball park, fs a little high but not too far.
I thought I would give it a go on my new Dayton DATS, and below are the results.
Supravox Website:
Fs : 70Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 0.78 Qe : 0.9 Qm : 6 Vas : 40 L Bl : 3.2 Cms : 1.1 Mms : 4.9 g Sd : 165 cm2
Measured (1)
Fs : 83Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 1.24 Qe : 1.46 Qm : 7.9 Vas : 27 L Bl : 2.7 Cms : 0.71 Mms : 5.05 g Sd : 165 cm2
Measured (2)
Fs : 80.1Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 1.28 Qe : 1.55 Qm : 7.4 Vas : 30 L Bl : 2.5 Cms : 0.79 Mms : 4.8 g Sd : 165 cm2
Supravox 165-2000 (1) by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 (2) by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Fullrange speaker Supravox 165-2000, 4 ohm, 7 inch
Arrived today so thought I would test them, hoping there would not be such quality control issues as mbrennwa had below:
Supravox 165-2000 parameter inconsistencies
Out of the box, they came with individual spec sheets with the measured parameters, not looking good as they both say a Qe of around 1.5!
Most of the other specs are roughly in the right ball park, fs a little high but not too far.
I thought I would give it a go on my new Dayton DATS, and below are the results.
Supravox Website:
Fs : 70Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 0.78 Qe : 0.9 Qm : 6 Vas : 40 L Bl : 3.2 Cms : 1.1 Mms : 4.9 g Sd : 165 cm2
Measured (1)
Fs : 83Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 1.24 Qe : 1.46 Qm : 7.9 Vas : 27 L Bl : 2.7 Cms : 0.71 Mms : 5.05 g Sd : 165 cm2
Measured (2)
Fs : 80.1Hz Re : 4.1Ω Qts : 1.28 Qe : 1.55 Qm : 7.4 Vas : 30 L Bl : 2.5 Cms : 0.79 Mms : 4.8 g Sd : 165 cm2
Supravox 165-2000 (1) by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 (2) by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
And some pretty photos as there are not many on the internet:
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Ouch. I'm sorry, but I'd send them straight back. Especially if the individual spec. sheets you say they've provided are so far away from the published data. Some tolerance variation is to be expected, particularly with hand-built drivers, but that's way too much. They advertise a Qe of 0.9 and they then supply you with units they themselves have measured at 1.5? Nearly 68% higher? That's ridiculous.
A real shame. I genuinely want to like Supravox; European specialist company in a small field, no bad thing. But it's a mite tricky when they knowingly send out product massively wide of published spec.
A real shame. I genuinely want to like Supravox; European specialist company in a small field, no bad thing. But it's a mite tricky when they knowingly send out product massively wide of published spec.
Post 10 above states that individual data sheets were supplied with the drivers themselves, and that these show electrical damping to be far from the advertised specification on the Supravox website:
The advertised Qes on the Supravox website is 0.9, making a deviation of 67% [nearly] from what is advertised.
The advertised Qes on the Supravox website is 0.9, making a deviation of 67% [nearly] from what is advertised.
Last edited:
Indeed France does, some very fine companies there.
If it's a typo though, it's a very long-standing one indeed. Back in 2003 that unit had an advertised Qes on their website of 0.8. Some time between April and November 2006 that was changed to 0.9, and it has remained at that 0.9 value on their website ever since, even when they got a brand-new site earlier this year. Hopefully they'll be able to send a replacement pair out that does conform reasonably to the advertised spec.
If it's a typo though, it's a very long-standing one indeed. Back in 2003 that unit had an advertised Qes on their website of 0.8. Some time between April and November 2006 that was changed to 0.9, and it has remained at that 0.9 value on their website ever since, even when they got a brand-new site earlier this year. Hopefully they'll be able to send a replacement pair out that does conform reasonably to the advertised spec.
Last edited:
I have emailed Cyrille @ Supravox and he is looking into it.
As Scott says, the drivers came with spec sheets for each, and the values largely reflect what I measured.
In the mean time, its been a busy afternoon! Thought I would get the test cabinets made up anyway and see what they do!
New front baffles from lovely 21mm Birch Ply (off eBay, cheaper to order, cut to size from Germany than it was at my local Travis Perkins....)
Driver rebating was much better on the second one, very happy!
Build by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Showing the original baffle now cut out.
Build by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
And in the room
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Little and Large!
Little and Large by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
As Scott says, the drivers came with spec sheets for each, and the values largely reflect what I measured.
In the mean time, its been a busy afternoon! Thought I would get the test cabinets made up anyway and see what they do!
New front baffles from lovely 21mm Birch Ply (off eBay, cheaper to order, cut to size from Germany than it was at my local Travis Perkins....)
Driver rebating was much better on the second one, very happy!
Build by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Showing the original baffle now cut out.
Build by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
And in the room
Supravox 165-2000 by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Little and Large!
Little and Large by Robert Seymour, on Flickr
Pardon my cynicism, but rebating a driver for cosmetic and/or preferably to negate some [modulating/comb filtering] reflections back to the 'throat' of the driver, then rebating a baffle to create lower frequency [higher power] reflections more likely to be audible isn't something to be happy about unless 'curb appeal' trumps all.
Weakening the baffle, requiring the driver to act more like a stressed member is [at least] theoretically not a good plan either.
Better overall to add just a driver support/preloading feature and a false baffle to visually both flush mount the driver and speaker face and of course best overall being either well damped and/or sloping baffles to deal with the cab's external acoustics.
GM
Looks reasonable in that something I've noticed folks don't always do is that they don't add enough weight to sufficiently lower Fs, which theoretically needs it to be at least 1.56x for best accuracy.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.