The measurements of the Satori MW16P-4 midwoofer have been added:
Satori MW16P-4 | HiFiCompass
It is a great and one of my favorite speakers!
Satori MW16P-4 | HiFiCompass
It is a great and one of my favorite speakers!
2nd order isn't very good, but it's not like you are ever going to hear it. Typical problems around surround resonance..
Better than average off-axis for a 6" (extending a half octave beyond it's natural directive/diameter suggests).
Basically a very good (w/ high-output) midrange with correction.
(..so long as your tweeter pairing is capable of a crossover around 2.1 kHz.)
..wish it was more efficient.
-sort of screams "Wilson Audio midrange".
Better than average off-axis for a 6" (extending a half octave beyond it's natural directive/diameter suggests).
Basically a very good (w/ high-output) midrange with correction.
(..so long as your tweeter pairing is capable of a crossover around 2.1 kHz.)..wish it was more efficient.
-sort of screams "Wilson Audio midrange".
Last edited:
All speakers have its strong and weak features. Could you give an example of a better midwoofer from technical+price+sounding point of view? It would be very interesting for all of us[emoji846].2nd order isn't very good, but it's not like you are ever going to hear it. Typical problems around surround resonance..
Better than average off-axis for a 6" (extending a half octave beyond it's natural directive/diameter suggests).
Basically a very good (w/ high-output) midrange with correction.
..wish it was more efficient.
-sort of screams "Wilson Audio midrange".
Based on your own measurements, SB17 NAC actually seems to be better technically and price-wise. Less 2nd order harmonic distorsion, more linear frequency response, no resonance at 1Khz. But since I haven't listened to any of these drivers, I would not give much weight to my opinion.
The SB17NAC (or SB15NAC) is still probably an exceptionnal driver at any price.
Like 5th element often says here and on HTGuide, a driver with Satori motor and SB NAC metal cone would probably be one of the very best of its kind.
-"better" is a loaded word, no?
Any number of drivers are better as far as linearity is concerned (..and I'm assuming a midrange pass-band). Just going to a smaller diameter driver usually results in better off-axis performance a bit higher in freq. - which allows for a for much better treble driver integration.
A few drivers are better with respect to 2nd-order (again, midrange pass-band).
Combo of the above (within the typical pass-band for a midrange):
SB Acoustics SB15NBAC30-4 | HiFiCompass
-a fair bit cheaper to.
As to it sounding better, well that's something else all-together.
I'd take the sound of the Morel Supreme (TSCM634) ANY day over the Satori despite the substantively poorer objective performance with non-linear (except for 2nd). Cost's a lot more, but from the various designs I've heard - more than worth it (..even with the "hit" in objective non-linear performance).Despite the above:
I'm personally interested most in subjective performance, THEN objective linearity, and only after that: non-linear performance. Difficult to start your selection with subjective performance though.. (..though hearing a lot of different designs helps, DIY and commercial). I want all 3 of course, but I'll place my priority in that order despite that desire (..and even then, linearity is often a function of the design).
Last edited:
-look at a lot of Wilson Audio designs. Most (over their product grouping) have a 6-7 inch paper woofer (mid-bass) as a midrange driver that's ported. They place quite a bit of emphasis on clean (lower non-linear distortion) in the midrange for a higher dynamic range, while being far less concerned with narrow-band linearity.
Attachments
Yes, I know... I think SB17xxxx don't better overall technically than MW16P, just better in some areas but worse in anothers one. Who knows what does make more influence on sounding properties - more linear frequency response or some lower nonlinear distortion, and maybe the membrane material or something else? Soundwise, personally for me MW16 is better than anyone of SB17xxxx famaliy.
If SB NAC metal cone were placed on the Satori motor it would be undoubtedly better measured speaker but whatever certainly not a my cup of tea
I listened to Wilson Audio Alexandria XLF, Alexx, Alexia, Sophia 2 and Sasha Daw and only the last one have problems with the midrange shouting. I noticed it in two different setups and rooms.
I should say that I share your point of view here. For me the subjective performance of a speaker is on the first place despite how good the speaker is measured.As to it sounding better, well that's something else all-together.
Despite the above:
I'm personally interested most in subjective performance, THEN objective linearity, and only after that: non-linear performance. Difficult to start your selection with subjective performance though.. (..though hearing a lot of different designs helps, DIY and commercial). I want all 3 of course, but I'll place my priority in that order despite that desire (..and even then, linearity is often a function of the design).
TSCM634 and MW16P are among my favorite speakers soundwise regardless of price. The final impression of the loudspeaker depends on the implementation of the crossover and rest speakers which a midrange speaker is married with
Yes, I know... I think SB17xxxx don't better overall technically than MW16P, just better in some areas but worse in anothers one. Who knows what does make more influence on sounding properties - more linear frequency response or some lower nonlinear distortion, and maybe the membrane material or something else? Soundwise, personally for me MW16 is better than anyone of SB17xxxx famaliy.
If SB NAC metal cone were placed on the Satori motor it would be undoubtedly better measured speaker but whatever certainly not a my cup of tea
Agreed. It can be quite hard to predict how the measured performance of a driver will translate in the subjective listening stage, especially with the crossover in the equation
Hovewer, since I am a recording engineer, I personnaly always tend to favor pure accuracy over subjectively euphonic but inaccurate characteristics. In that line of thought, I also tend to prefere active over passive speakers. If I want the music to sound good, it's my job to make it happen, not the speaker's job. But I perfectly understand that this may not be as important for other listeners
By the way, there was a test (in French) comparing the SB17NBAC to the SB17CRC. Although both were pretty close, as was shown in your own test, some intermodulation distortion measurements showed that the NAC was slightly "noisier" than the CRC in that regard. A characteristic that would probably not be in favor of the NAC for subjective listening.
For those interested, here is the test page : /SB17NBAC35-4 versus SB17CRC35-4 : le duel fratricide ! - JustDIYIt !
The intermodulation tests are interesting, they reveal a clear difference between the drivers.
Yes, these IMD measurements are interesting indeed. It would be great to see more of these in driver tests but I suppose that the lack of standardized IMD measurement procedure makes it less convenient than HD tests. On the same website, there are two other large tests (same process with HD, IMD etc.) about 10in woofers and small midrange/fullrange drivers.
I have to say that I find the difference in IMD between the SB17CRC and SB17NBAC quite surprising. They supposedly share the same motor and suspension, which would indicate that the NBAC "noisier" measurements come from the cone. I am in no way an expert, but I find this quite weird, maybe the NBAC unit was slightly defective or out of specs. A test with another unit from another batch could have confirmed or refuted these results (which of course is a PITA to do
)
REW has a small guide for doing valid IMD tests, but I haven't tried it yet.
Different cone materials have different characteristics, so it seems plausible that the difference shows up in the IMD test.
Different cone materials have different characteristics, so it seems plausible that the difference shows up in the IMD test.