Some speaker driver measurements...

Jump to Latest
K

Kukulcan

Member
Joined 2014
Zuhl said:
Crossover at 5k to a 50mm dome mid maybe?
Click to expand...


an Accuton C51 maybe.... so that the ribbon works only where it really excels. (still vertical dispersion is a problem...)

The big issue of such pairing (RAAL-Accu C51) for upper mid and treble is that you need a pure 4-way design (not 3-way plus sub), if you want excellent bass and impact up to 250hz.
I was thinking to a C-220-6-222 for 80-800 hz plus a subwoofer, but I doubt that such system would have bass (80-250hz) adequate to the top quality I'm trying to achieve.

Accuton S 280, C 168, C51 e RAAL 70-10 (active system). this is another story.... I see no compromise here, but it's more than 6.000 Euros of drivers...

More probably I will go for a pure 3-way active design: S 280, C90 and some excellent dome tweeter crossed at 2.5 khz. (and no vertical dispersion issues!)
 
Last edited:
HiFiCompass

HiFiCompass

Member
Joined 2018
Kukulcan said:
Hi! First of all many thanks for the great effort! :)



What's your opinion about the C168? Especially compared to the C90, which is your favourite Accuton midrange (according to some of your previous posts..).
Click to expand...
Yes, C90 is my favourite Accuton's midrange. I made loudspeakers based on S280+C90+C25 and was very pleased with it's sounding. I believe, it is the best 3way configuration on Accuton ceramic speakers.
C90 has more warmer sound signature than C168, not so sterile and bright in the high midrange and it allows to be crossed as high as 2.5-3kHz if implemented properly in a crossover, and it doesn't have the outband parasitic ringing (don't mess with the main breakup ringing).
 
K

Kukulcan

Member
Joined 2014
HiFiCompass said:
I made loudspeakers based on S280+C90+C25 and was very pleased with it's sounding. I believe, it is the best 3way configuration on Accuton ceramic speakers.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm considering the S280, and not the new AS250, because it has an awesome motor, and I don't need the CELL peculiarity of time aligned acoustic centers, since I align them digitally.

HiFiCompass said:
C90 has more warmer sound signature than C168, not so sterile and bright in the high midrange and it allows to be crossed as high as 2.5-3kHz if implemented properly in a crossover, and it doesn't have the outband parasitic ringing (don't mess with the main breakup ringing).
Click to expand...

what kind of crossovers did you use in your testing/implementations?

By looking at dispersion patterns and distortion plots, I'd cross the C90 no upper than 2.5 khz, and the C168 at 2 khz, by using steep digital crossover, because I consider well balanced direct and reflected sound of utmost importance. (but this is my personal opinion) :)
 
Last edited:
HiFiCompass

HiFiCompass

Member
Joined 2018
Kukulcan said:
what kind of crossovers did you use in your testing/implementations?

By looking at dispersion patterns and distortion plots, I'd cross the C90 no upper than 2.5 khz, and the C168 at 2 khz, by using steep digital crossover.
Click to expand...
I made two different loudspeakers with c90+c25 combos. The one had 3kHz/4th acoustic order and the another 2.5kHz/4th acoustic order. The second one sounded better for me.
In another project I crossed c168 at 2kHz/2.5÷3 acoustic order to c25.
 
HiFiCompass

HiFiCompass

Member
Joined 2018
Charles Darwin said:
You say that, I say that but according to the RAAL fanbois it is behaving differently to all other ribbons.

I imagine they say that because it costs much more than the other ribbons and they already bought them.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that 70-20xr is really sounds like no other ribbons I have heard. It has more body and weight in the sounding. I crossed it around 2.5kHz with MW16P and it sounded good on most jazz music, vocals and wind instruments but very restricted on piano and percussion, it had some kind of veil on a vibraphone and lacked dynamics.
It would be interesting to try it paired with a 3-4" inch midrange and to cross it around 4-5kHz.
The tweeter doesn't worth it's price, imho.
 
K

Kukulcan

Member
Joined 2014
HiFiCompass said:
I made two different loudspeakers with c90+c25 combos. The one had 3kHz/4th acoustic order and the another 2.5kHz/4th acoustic order. The second one sounded better for me.
In another project I crossed c168 at 2kHz/2.5÷3 acoustic order to c25.
Click to expand...

thanks for the info! I'm not surprised that the 2.5 khz combo sounded better. Ceramic, like any rigid membranes, can easily sound harsh...

and what if using such kind of crossover? Would it be a game changer for the C168 in your opinion?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


Dropbox - crossover1.PNG - Simplify your life
 
Last edited:
HiFiCompass

HiFiCompass

Member
Joined 2018
Kukulcan said:
thanks for the info! I'm not surprised that the 2.5 khz combo sounded better. Ceramic, like any rigid membranes, can easily sound harsh...

and what if using such kind of crossover? Would it be a game changer for the C168 in your opinion?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Click to expand...
Who knows... but the overall sounding signature of a midrange speaker can't be affected by moving the x-over frequency some left/right. If I were making a such speaker today, I would try to cross c90+c25 at 2-2.5kHz by 2.5-3 order filter. It sounds better for me than 4th LR.
Unfortunately, the clear 2nd order is impossible here.
Regarding the crossover you asked about I don't like crossovers with very steep slopes as they all sound dry and flatly for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom