Some speaker driver measurements...

Ms Rainer Weber (from Kaiser Acoustics) received the SBA MW16TX and auditioned it today with the following comment(s)
The long waiting seems to be highly rewarded. Extreme clarity and speed and no harshness
So I asked if it was on par or better than Accuton Ceramic and he replied with
in my opinion better
 

Attachments

  • 122035118_3260561377362199_5385332499165026315_o.jpg
    122035118_3260561377362199_5385332499165026315_o.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 645
In a field of otherwise total triumph, I really feel the cone is a weak point. For a modern 4" to have a breakup at 5 kHz is pretty disappointing. We actually see that the distortion magnification (with H5) starts as low as 400 Hz with this driver, but remarkably, the distortion performance is still excellent because the motor is unbelievably pristine. Now, imagine if this driver had the cone from the SB12CACS25, for example. At 16 V drive you'd probably have H5 at under -80 dB from 500 Hz on up... what a pity.

I mean, this is still an excellent driver, top-tier even, but it's leaving easy performance on the table. Maybe there'll be a future version of this with a better cone?

EDIT: I wonder if it's because of the massive size of the dust cap. It looks almost as large as the cone itself.
 
Last edited:
Clearly better than both, if you've got the amp power (Purifi has less sensitivity) and can handle the looks :)

Thanks for the comment, based on volume of air shifted and lower distortion the Purifi wins but was worried about that break up and meeting something like a T25B-6 tweeter at around 2.5-3Khz which the 12MU has a nicer breakup and may be more easily do this. My application will be for moderate level home hifi so may notue the full capability of something like the Purifi.

Also interested in subjective sound difference between the three cone materials or the three drivers if they are not typical of their type.

All thoughts welcome.
 
Nice review, how do you think this stacks up against the 12MU4731 or even the AT 15H SDKM Mid, all similarly (high) priced mids but all very different philosophies?

Unfortunately, I didn't hear AT15HSDKM, but two years ago I had decided to build 3way loudspeakers for myself and after a lot of comparisons choosed 12mu. This midrange driver best suits my taste. That time PTT4.0 was not born yet.:)
Today I would be give a chance to PTT4.0, if it had better sensitivity.
Soundwise, I can't say which one is better, it's a question of personal taste. These speakers are from different sound philosophy, really.
 
In a field of otherwise total triumph, I really feel the cone is a weak point. For a modern 4" to have a breakup at 5 kHz is pretty disappointing. We actually see that the distortion magnification (with H5) starts as low as 400 Hz with this driver, but remarkably, the distortion performance is still excellent because the motor is unbelievably pristine. Now, imagine if this driver had the cone from the SB12CACS25, for example. At 16 V drive you'd probably have H5 at under -80 dB from 500 Hz on up... what a pity.

I mean, this is still an excellent driver, top-tier even, but it's leaving easy performance on the table. Maybe there'll be a future version of this with a better cone?

EDIT: I wonder if it's because of the massive size of the dust cap. It looks almost as large as the cone itself.
You shouldn't compare paper cones to metal ones. They have absolutely different sound signature.
As for paper, PTT4.0 has a great hard paper cone, so it sounds very clean and transparent. If you know a paper cone speaker which has better break-up mode, please, let us know.
 
You shouldn't compare paper cones to metal ones. They have absolutely different sound signature.
Yes and no. There are a huge number of factors which affect the audibility of paper vs metal, and it doesn't make sense to make that claim without at least alluding to the broader context of things.

For example, I'd bet no one on this planet could tell from a blind test whether a sub driver (<18" size), in a subwoofer application, had a metal cone or a paper cone, if the SPL, room conditions, distortion, etc. were exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I didn't hear AT15HSDKM, but two years ago I had decided to build 3way loudspeakers for myself and after a lot of comparisons choosed 12mu. This midrange driver best suits my taste. That time PTT4.0 was not born yet.:)
Today I would be give a chance to PTT4.0, if it had better sensitivity.
Soundwise, I can't say which one is better, it's a question of personal taste. These speakers are from different sound philosophy, really.

Many thanks, much appreciated, can you give a subjective description of the 12mu vs Purifi?
 
Yes and no. There are a huge number of factors which affect the audibility of paper vs metal, and it doesn't make sense to make that claim without at least alluding to the broader context of things.

For example, I'd bet no one on this planet could tell from a blind test whether a sub driver (<18" size), in a subwoofer application, had a metal cone or a paper cone, if the SPL, room conditions, distortion, etc. were exactly the same.

in my experience, metal cones won't flex as much under stress and will not ,pretty much, absorb anything, so you will hear more detail, for better or worst, also, i have not testes this, but i would imagine that reflection waves from inside the enclsure will go through, to the outside easier, with metal (or hard cones in general).
 
Last edited:
Disabled Account
Joined 2019
Makes me think nobody theorised the amount of absortion an ideal emiter surface should have ???
Indeed the motor structure seems always to rule over the emitter material, be it ESL, compression driver, cone, dome...? That's a question of course. But I'm not sure what you hear with a hard cone is only the break up and the back bad harmonics distorsion of this break up !