2 drivers under consideration for use as a midrange 300-3.5K open baffle transitioning to a Fountek Neo3:
SS 15M/4624G and Satori MR16P-4. They have the efficiency I am looking for and appear to have similar specs but the SS is quite a bit cheaper. Does it give anything up to the Satori? Does one have better sound quality than the other?
SS 15M/4624G and Satori MR16P-4. They have the efficiency I am looking for and appear to have similar specs but the SS is quite a bit cheaper. Does it give anything up to the Satori? Does one have better sound quality than the other?
I was shocked when you said Satori was more expensive than SS. 
You are comparing two different grades. The Satori is the high-end SB Acoustics brand, so its closer to the Revelator or Illuminator line. So the comparison is usually to the SS 15M/4531K.
The SB Acoustics line is closer to the Discovery line.
In addition to looking for mid-ranges, you may also find a couple of mid-woofers that play nicely for you as well like the SS Revelator 15W/4531 and SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4
I'm curious if you've considered going down a size in the midrange, perhaps to a 4"?
Best of luck,
-E
You are comparing two different grades. The Satori is the high-end SB Acoustics brand, so its closer to the Revelator or Illuminator line. So the comparison is usually to the SS 15M/4531K.
The SB Acoustics line is closer to the Discovery line.
In addition to looking for mid-ranges, you may also find a couple of mid-woofers that play nicely for you as well like the SS Revelator 15W/4531 and SB Acoustics SB15MFC30-4
I'm curious if you've considered going down a size in the midrange, perhaps to a 4"?
Best of luck,
-E
Last edited:
Erik,
Yes I have, based on your suggestion. I think the SS 15M might be a candidate since it is a bit smaller than my current driver (830883) We discussed CTC distances and the smaller SS might work but i don't know if it sounds good. I know SS has a good rep but I want to make sure it is a good driver. The Satori is $148 and the SS is $69. Oh, and the SS 4531 is only 87db, I was targeting 91db. Thanks.
Yes I have, based on your suggestion. I think the SS 15M might be a candidate since it is a bit smaller than my current driver (830883) We discussed CTC distances and the smaller SS might work but i don't know if it sounds good. I know SS has a good rep but I want to make sure it is a good driver. The Satori is $148 and the SS is $69. Oh, and the SS 4531 is only 87db, I was targeting 91db. Thanks.
I have peerless and ScanSpeak speakers here, but completely unfair to compare the 830991 to the SS 18/4531. Still, I think the Peerless mid-woofers are excellent, but limited in dynamic range and bass extension. I find the 830991 to be particularly lively driver and think it would make a very good midrange but shy of your target efficiency.
Best,
Erik
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
I know I am comparing different grades and I am OK with spending the extra money if it gives me better performance. I just didn't want to assume because something is more expensive automatically makes it a better driver.
Side note: The SB29 is till one of the best tweeters I have heard and I am considering the Satori version if just for a small increase in performance vs large cost.
Side note: The SB29 is till one of the best tweeters I have heard and I am considering the Satori version if just for a small increase in performance vs large cost.
The 5" Satori MR13P-4 for $130 has better 3.5kHz polar plots, but only 91db sensitivity with Mms = 5.4g vs. 92.5db with Mms = 11.2g for the larger 6" MR16P-4. How important is the quality of the soundstage around 3.5kHz to your decision? A 6" with produce more beaming.
The size, efficiency and "weight" of your below 300Hz woofer will also affect your decision. Taking some baffle step into consideration, your 300Hz woofer will require very high efficiency to match 92.5db sensitivity midrange.
Good 5" midranges: high-low prices
$130 Satori MR13P-4
$52 Tang Band W5-2143
the only scan speaks which are bad (imho) is discovery line 15/18cm and 26cm units. probably its related to cone material. all other scan speaks is question of implementation, but those are really low fi drivers. Satori(especialy bigger 7incher) have some problems but its totaly diferent leaque
This spring I intend to build and implement the GR Research H Frame woofers with servo amp. That should be more than enough. No?
Nonsense.
I have worked with the crappiest drivers one could find in this world, vintage technology basically, once filtered out of all that qualifies for rubbish in the FR, the SQ was decent. Assuming the drivers are overlapping enough, it's always the implementation and XO filter. Always! If they do not overlap, you find a filler driver and all is well again.
The GR dipole woofers get good reviews. You will have the controlled directivity 200Hz bass foundation for several dipole designs, and even for horn designs that benefit from room directivity bass control.
As discussed in your other thread. Do you plan to add an 8" or 10" dipole speaker between the 200Hz GR_dipole-woofs and the 5"-6" dipole midrange? For low cost, the Faital 8FE200 and 10FE200 have good T/S parameters for dipole usage. Complex 4-way crossovers and equalization just like the LX521 and NANO II would be necessary. Follow the leaders?
Last edited:
well, I prefer to avoid 4 way (passive) design as 3 way is complex enough for me Lol!!
I prefer to biamp only. I do have minidsp 2x4 but the SQ is not up to the level that my electronics are. It is a very useful tool. I use it as a LP filter to my current RS270's and passive to my upper speakers. I see a potential hole between where the GR leaves off (250-300 hz) and the upper mid. I don't mind spending the money to learn so I may buy the smaller mid and if i find it doesn't fill the gap I can go to a 4 way Ugh! or just get a very good larger mid (6.5") and live with the lobing issues?
I prefer to biamp only. I do have minidsp 2x4 but the SQ is not up to the level that my electronics are. It is a very useful tool. I use it as a LP filter to my current RS270's and passive to my upper speakers. I see a potential hole between where the GR leaves off (250-300 hz) and the upper mid. I don't mind spending the money to learn so I may buy the smaller mid and if i find it doesn't fill the gap I can go to a 4 way Ugh! or just get a very good larger mid (6.5") and live with the lobing issues?
I suspect you will need to move to a 4-way dipole design and use an 8" or 10" midbass after your 200Hz GR active dipole woofers. Model the Faital 10FE200 and the Dayton Audio PA255-8 with a dipole simulator -- their T/S parameters could simplify equalzation. There are probably a few clever ideas for implementing a passive dipole crossover for the MB-M-T on the web that will move you toward acceptable sound. Passive components are expensive, so it may be smarter to select higher quality speakers with low Le motors and modest breakup cones since they typically require fewer passives.
quick Google found a build with example crossover schematic: Hestia-SL
New Build: Hestia-SL
New Build: Hestia-SL
Dayton 10" Pro Sound Driver 8 ohms ---Dayton Audio PA255-8
L1 = 4.00 mh, Solen 14 AWG Perfect Lay air core inductor
C1 = 31 uf, Bennic non polarized electrolytic, 100V
R1 = 6.8 ohm, Mundorf MOX (metal oxide resistor)
Mid Coupler:
Celestion 5" Neo 8 ohms
L2 = .22 mh, Solen Perfect Lay 14 AWG
C2 = 5.6 uf, Clarity Cap ESA, 630V
R2 = 5.6 ohm resistor, Mundorf MOX
High Frequency:
Vifa XT19TD00-04 4 ohms
C3 = 5.6 uf Mundorf EVO aluminum oil capacitor, 450V
quick Google found a build with example crossover schematic: Hestia-SL
New Build: Hestia-SL
New Build: Hestia-SL
Dayton 10" Pro Sound Driver 8 ohms ---Dayton Audio PA255-8
L1 = 4.00 mh, Solen 14 AWG Perfect Lay air core inductor
C1 = 31 uf, Bennic non polarized electrolytic, 100V
R1 = 6.8 ohm, Mundorf MOX (metal oxide resistor)
Mid Coupler:
Celestion 5" Neo 8 ohms
L2 = .22 mh, Solen Perfect Lay 14 AWG
C2 = 5.6 uf, Clarity Cap ESA, 630V
R2 = 5.6 ohm resistor, Mundorf MOX
High Frequency:
Vifa XT19TD00-04 4 ohms
C3 = 5.6 uf Mundorf EVO aluminum oil capacitor, 450V
So your concerns for your woofer diameter and bass extension come from a limitation in upper frequency extension of your proposed dipole woofers?
If this is correct, remember.......there's a consistency of directivity to consider and how this relates to the dipolar operation on your baffle. Side panels on the upper baffle or U frame can help, particularly those that taper from narrow on top to deeper at bottom can help to boost the lower range of the mid driver, effectively compensation for your concerns for the 5" driver vs the 6.5" unit.
Look towards the critical human response range of 400hz to 4khz for your answer here. Of course no matter the design, there's a compromise somewhere. For Linkwitz and John K designs, clearly the compromise if cost and complexity. Hard to quantify those gains vs the added cost and complexity.
Mayhem, your description of the baffle wings is exactly what I have. If you do a search on the parts express tech forum there is a build thread for Lada speaker. This is mine but it is a little dated. I can get down to 250 or 300 hz no problem. I don't mind spending money it's time spent on the woodwork that I'd like to keep in check.
Hi,
What is the frequencies range where the OB design is the most interressant ?
Low-Mid ?
Is it really interressant because all the difficullties in the mid (let say above 800/1000 Hz) ? (not talking of the low end which id off topic here !)
So 8" to 12" inchs for a 300 - 800 Hz without bafle and maybe a 180 Hz to 800 Hz with a larg bafle (1 m width) !
In the Troels Gravsen's OBL 11/15 design, there is a 8" from 180 Hz to 2000 Hz with a wild width front bafle.
The 3.5 KHz XO of the Fountek stays maybe a problem: too high for a non 4 Ways. But maybe with some planars like the B&G 8s at Part Express instead the Fountek ???
Or the SS 10 F 8 ohms (4") in a foam horn from 500 Hz to the 3.5 K Hz(and even higher) of the Fountek . Of course here with no sealed load. The horn helps in the loss of efficienty while having not the bafle step loss in the area you want to cross ?? (look at xrq971 designs)...
What is the frequencies range where the OB design is the most interressant ?
Low-Mid ?
Is it really interressant because all the difficullties in the mid (let say above 800/1000 Hz) ? (not talking of the low end which id off topic here !)
So 8" to 12" inchs for a 300 - 800 Hz without bafle and maybe a 180 Hz to 800 Hz with a larg bafle (1 m width) !
In the Troels Gravsen's OBL 11/15 design, there is a 8" from 180 Hz to 2000 Hz with a wild width front bafle.
The 3.5 KHz XO of the Fountek stays maybe a problem: too high for a non 4 Ways. But maybe with some planars like the B&G 8s at Part Express instead the Fountek ???
Or the SS 10 F 8 ohms (4") in a foam horn from 500 Hz to the 3.5 K Hz(and even higher) of the Fountek . Of course here with no sealed load. The horn helps in the loss of efficienty while having not the bafle step loss in the area you want to cross ?? (look at xrq971 designs)...
The 5" Satori MR13P-4 for $130 is a good match for your ribbon, but it has limited cone area and limited Xmax. You can't expect the MR13P to direct jump to two 12" dipole woofers.
Read over the passive crossover work on the Hestia dipole and you will likely also purchase the 10" Faital 10FE200 or Dayton Audio PA255-8 for a 3-way dipole baffle. I attached the crossover schematic from the Hestia work. Run a few Xsim models.
New Build: Hestia-SL
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.