It's tough finding a decent dome that will play lower than the SB Acoustics ring radiators.
Last edited:
Has anyone compared the TW29RN and the TW29DN side by side?
I expect the dome to be able to play a bit lower (lower fs) and the ring dome to be a bit more extended in high frequencies, just looking at the spec sheets, but would be nice if someone could compare the two and offer some subjective impressions about sound differences between the two.
I expect the dome to be able to play a bit lower (lower fs) and the ring dome to be a bit more extended in high frequencies, just looking at the spec sheets, but would be nice if someone could compare the two and offer some subjective impressions about sound differences between the two.
Well, if you're going purely by spec. sheets, the TW29R ring-dome actually has a lower Fs than the TW29DN dome (600Hz plays 650Hz). I've crossed the former at 1.2KHz: providing you account for design context & don't mind the raising HD2 < 3KHz characteristic of many SB and Scan tweeters it can handle it quite happily, which begs the question: how low do you want to go?
There's some good testing at Troels' site:
SBAcoustics-tweeters
He does the two main ring radiators, and the metal dome 26ADC.
The metal dome is excellent according to a recent thread here.
I don't think SB make any bad tweeters. They all look good.
SBAcoustics-tweeters
He does the two main ring radiators, and the metal dome 26ADC.
The metal dome is excellent according to a recent thread here.
I don't think SB make any bad tweeters. They all look good.
That's the ferrite version, I'm talking about the neodymium versions.
Btw I also made a mistake, both tweeters (TW29RN and TW29DN) have the same fs (650hz).
Again, has anyone heard both tweeters?
A very cool project could be done with one of those tweeters + Acoustic Elegance TD8M and TD12H, that would be a killer 8 ohm/93 db system, both Satori tweeters seem capable of handling a low crossover point (Troels crossed the TW29RN at 1.6khz with a L2 filter) to mate a 8 inch midrange.
@system7 Yeah I've read that, but no comparisons between the new SB Acoustics soft dome tweeter (TW29DN) and the well known ring dome (TW29RN), just measurements of the ring dome vs the lower end SB Acoustics products.
Last edited:
All these serial numbers and variants! 
I can't keep googling every flippin' driver...
Anyhoo, here's some comments about SB 29 rings versus 29 domes:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/325419-sb26adc-compared-sb29rdc.html#post5499050
I think most people feel rings are a better way to do things. But don't neglect metal or 19mm tweeters used correctly.
I think most people use too low and shallow a crossover a lot of the time. 4th order 3kHz for me. Most stuff works.
I can't keep googling every flippin' driver...
Anyhoo, here's some comments about SB 29 rings versus 29 domes:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/325419-sb26adc-compared-sb29rdc.html#post5499050
I think most people feel rings are a better way to do things. But don't neglect metal or 19mm tweeters used correctly.
I think most people use too low and shallow a crossover a lot of the time. 4th order 3kHz for me. Most stuff works.
All these serial numbers and variants!
I can't keep googling every flippin' driver...
Anyhoo, here's some comments about SB 29 rings versus 29 domes:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/325419-sb26adc-compared-sb29rdc.html#post5499050
I think most people feel rings are a better way to do things. But don't neglect metal or 19mm tweeters used correctly.
I think most people use too low and shallow a crossover a lot of the time. 4th order 3kHz for me. Most stuff works.
I see, useful post!
However...not sensitive enough, and also, I don't think one can match a paper midrange (TD8M) successfully with a metal dome, sound signature of both drivers may be very different. A 19mm dome is a great idea, but not the best match for a big 8 inch midrange, probably awesome for a 4 or 5 inch midrange.
Call it bias or prejudice, but I prefer to match aluminum mids/midwoofers to aluminum tweeters, paper cones to soft domes, etc.
I would love if Acoustic Elegance or Audiotechnology could make a cone tweeter btw.
PS: I agree, SB Acoustics product nomenclature is a nightmare
Last edited:
The domes have only just been released, so it's excessively unlikely you'll find anyone who has done direct comparisons yet. More to the point, even if you did, since they are in effect more or less identical other than the dome shape, any subjective differences in performance will be exactly what you'd expect from the measurements.
Since SB made a big feature of the soft TW29R[variations] having an internally pinned dome, it seems a little ironic they've now released a non-pinned conventional soft dome variation. Perhaps they thought some were put off by the internally pinned / ring dome variation; technically there are good reasons for them doing that, and other good technical reasons not to. I really like the TW29R -I actually gave my pair away 2 days ago because in my current situation I can't afford to use them.
Since SB made a big feature of the soft TW29R[variations] having an internally pinned dome, it seems a little ironic they've now released a non-pinned conventional soft dome variation. Perhaps they thought some were put off by the internally pinned / ring dome variation; technically there are good reasons for them doing that, and other good technical reasons not to. I really like the TW29R -I actually gave my pair away 2 days ago because in my current situation I can't afford to use them.
I'm thinking of a 2-way with 6th order acoustic (approx slopes) using a MW19P and the dome tweeter, MT flavour to handle both the axial response peak and time alignment.
However, there's a bit of an issue:
Satori TW29DN and Jantzen WG
However, there's a bit of an issue:
Satori TW29DN and Jantzen WG
Thanks, I appreciate your input on both threads.
The tweeters are going back and replacements have already been shipped. The customer service by the local distributor is very good. I was really asking about what might have caused it and how it might be prevented, as I also have the TW29RN, but those came from the UK and are so far undamaged.
The steep crossover (actually it's a shade over 26db down so not exactly 6th order) is needed to phase match with the woofer's target slope - as the 3.5K resonance is messy and badly interferes with the final axial response. The resultant peaking HD at 1200Hz is also worrisome. It's only -35dB down at 1w for the 4 ohm model and almost coincides with the dip in FR due to the cone edge resonance. I'm not even sure a 2-way is possible but we'll see once I have all the drivers in place and scrounge up a test box.
I understand your points. I did prototype speakers with MW19+SS6600+customWG, see Vituix six-pack in the attachment. I started with quite simple crossover and gave it a listening. Phase tracking could be better on both sides of Fc.
WG profile does not exactly follow target curve, hence dip around 10kHz.
I also worried about HD peaking at 1200Hz. But considering all aspects of MW19, I see that peaking to be just a wrinkle on otherwise great midwoofer. ~10 people heard that project and nobody complaint about midrange (actually it was opposite, midrange clarity was common comment), unless loudspeakers driven very hard with symphonic music, which is just inherent issue of 7+1 2-way.
But to be clear, I do not like that Satori cone edge resonance either, and hope to see it mitigated on Textrene series of Satori.
WG profile does not exactly follow target curve, hence dip around 10kHz.
I also worried about HD peaking at 1200Hz. But considering all aspects of MW19, I see that peaking to be just a wrinkle on otherwise great midwoofer. ~10 people heard that project and nobody complaint about midrange (actually it was opposite, midrange clarity was common comment), unless loudspeakers driven very hard with symphonic music, which is just inherent issue of 7+1 2-way.
But to be clear, I do not like that Satori cone edge resonance either, and hope to see it mitigated on Textrene series of Satori.
Attachments
Last edited:
That looks a nice design - did you use the 4 ohm woofer?
I don't have measurements yet, but I'm using the manufacturer's data to give me some perspective on what I need the crossovers to approximately look like. Though this does not finalise the crossover, I get a good idea of the topology needed.
This is what I have so far. It's based on the tweeter's 30 deg response as it is below woofer, farfield will be closer to 15 degrees. 4dB of baffle step with woofer on top layout. I ended up putting zobel on the woofer to hit the target curves at the top end.
After this is some way ahead, I can try some kind of comparison between the RN and DN versions, even though the rest of the drivers are totally different. The RN is in a system with Volt B2549 at the bottom and a MW13P-4 crossed at 220 and 2.3k.
I don't have measurements yet, but I'm using the manufacturer's data to give me some perspective on what I need the crossovers to approximately look like. Though this does not finalise the crossover, I get a good idea of the topology needed.
This is what I have so far. It's based on the tweeter's 30 deg response as it is below woofer, farfield will be closer to 15 degrees. 4dB of baffle step with woofer on top layout. I ended up putting zobel on the woofer to hit the target curves at the top end.
After this is some way ahead, I can try some kind of comparison between the RN and DN versions, even though the rest of the drivers are totally different. The RN is in a system with Volt B2549 at the bottom and a MW13P-4 crossed at 220 and 2.3k.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.