I was literally waiting for that driver and bought a Scanspeak 32w/4878T00 instead. I'd love to see it happen, especially as a TX model.
I was bored, so decide to look at T/S and compare MW16TX-8/4 to a few other woofers on the market, namely Accuton C173-6-096 and Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00. All are nominally 8ohms and marketed as 6.5”.
Sd.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 119 cm² - this makes it a small 6.5”
Accuton C173-6-096: 130 cm2
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 154 cm² largest in the group
Le. Lower is better for transient response aka “speed”.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 0.2 mH – lowest in the group, the 4ohm version is 0.15 mH
Accuton C173-6-096: 0.25 mH
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 0.72 mH
Motor strength. Ratio Bl^2/Re – motor strength normalized to the ohm load. Bl^2/Re is used when the coil value is different. Bl/√Re when the coil value is the same.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 6.40 N^2/W – the 4ohm version is 7.95 N^2/W
Accuton C173-6-096: 20 N^2/W – Twice the strength to Scan-Speak and 3 times to MW16TX-8.
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 9.18 N^2/W
SPL.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 87.5 dB – the 4ohm version is 90.5 dB
Accuton C173-6-096: 94.0 dB
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 85.4 dB
Cms – Lower = stiffer suspension.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 2.4 mm/N – the 4ohm is 2.39 mm/N
Accuton C173-6-096: 1.16 mm/N
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 1.12 mm/N
Xmax.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: +/- 6mm
Accuton C173-6-096: +/-5mm
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: +/-9mm
Power Handling or Pe.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 60W
Accuton C173-6-096: 120W
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 70 (150)W
Qts.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 0.33
Accuton C173-6-096: 0.17
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 0.39
EBP.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 83 – either – 4ohm version is 100 = vented
Accuton C173-6-096: 216 – vented.
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 79 – either
VAS
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 48 liters
Accuton C173-6-096: 28 liters
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 37 liters
Summery.
First of all, the Accuton woofer is $900, the Scan-Speak is $300(ish) and the Satori paper version is roughly $170, what the TX will be is unknown but hopefully in the same price range. The Accuton is stronger and larger compared to both SBA and SS.
Both SBA and SS reach roughly 75dB @ 20Hz while Accuton reach roughly 63dB @ 20Hz. Another issue that Accuton has is the enormous breakup at 5kHz of almost 15dB (material property). 18WU/8741T00 have cone issues presenting itself at just 3kHz of 5dB, comparing that to both MW16TX-8 and MW16TX-4, we can see that these are much better controlled with a slight 5-7dB rise at 5kHz, so higher up in frequency. Cone break up higher is better for IMD as you probably know.
Looking at MW16TX-8 and MW16TX-4, comparing the T/S and Fr graphs presented by SBA, its fairly obvious that MW16TX-4 is a more refined driver and out of the two versions and 18WU/8741T00, the MW16TX-4 is the new transient KING
. This woofer is aimed at (in my perspective) to be used in a loudspeaker that focuses on SQ rather than SPL. We still don't know the harmonic content, but considering that the cone breakup pattern is much better controlled compared to paper, it should be a tad better.
So, there you go. I know which one I personally prefer.
Accuton C173-6-096 | HiFiCompass
Sd.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 119 cm² - this makes it a small 6.5”
Accuton C173-6-096: 130 cm2
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 154 cm² largest in the group
Le. Lower is better for transient response aka “speed”.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 0.2 mH – lowest in the group, the 4ohm version is 0.15 mH
Accuton C173-6-096: 0.25 mH
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 0.72 mH
Motor strength. Ratio Bl^2/Re – motor strength normalized to the ohm load. Bl^2/Re is used when the coil value is different. Bl/√Re when the coil value is the same.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 6.40 N^2/W – the 4ohm version is 7.95 N^2/W
Accuton C173-6-096: 20 N^2/W – Twice the strength to Scan-Speak and 3 times to MW16TX-8.
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 9.18 N^2/W
SPL.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 87.5 dB – the 4ohm version is 90.5 dB
Accuton C173-6-096: 94.0 dB
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 85.4 dB
Cms – Lower = stiffer suspension.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 2.4 mm/N – the 4ohm is 2.39 mm/N
Accuton C173-6-096: 1.16 mm/N
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 1.12 mm/N
Xmax.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: +/- 6mm
Accuton C173-6-096: +/-5mm
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: +/-9mm
Power Handling or Pe.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 60W
Accuton C173-6-096: 120W
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 70 (150)W
Qts.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 0.33
Accuton C173-6-096: 0.17
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 0.39
EBP.
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 83 – either – 4ohm version is 100 = vented
Accuton C173-6-096: 216 – vented.
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 79 – either
VAS
SB Acoustics MW16TX-8: 48 liters
Accuton C173-6-096: 28 liters
Scan-Speak 18WU/8741T00: 37 liters
Summery.
First of all, the Accuton woofer is $900, the Scan-Speak is $300(ish) and the Satori paper version is roughly $170, what the TX will be is unknown but hopefully in the same price range. The Accuton is stronger and larger compared to both SBA and SS.
Both SBA and SS reach roughly 75dB @ 20Hz while Accuton reach roughly 63dB @ 20Hz. Another issue that Accuton has is the enormous breakup at 5kHz of almost 15dB (material property). 18WU/8741T00 have cone issues presenting itself at just 3kHz of 5dB, comparing that to both MW16TX-8 and MW16TX-4, we can see that these are much better controlled with a slight 5-7dB rise at 5kHz, so higher up in frequency. Cone break up higher is better for IMD as you probably know.
Looking at MW16TX-8 and MW16TX-4, comparing the T/S and Fr graphs presented by SBA, its fairly obvious that MW16TX-4 is a more refined driver and out of the two versions and 18WU/8741T00, the MW16TX-4 is the new transient KING
. This woofer is aimed at (in my perspective) to be used in a loudspeaker that focuses on SQ rather than SPL. We still don't know the harmonic content, but considering that the cone breakup pattern is much better controlled compared to paper, it should be a tad better.So, there you go. I know which one I personally prefer.
Accuton C173-6-096 | HiFiCompass
Last edited:
Ulrich , do you have some frequency response grafic for the TX Tw ?
I am waiting to buy a pair.
Thanks
Oneminde, the frame diameter and the nominal SD place the Scan-Speak 18 models as a match for the Satori MW19. Scan's models are more like 7-inch cones. Their only "6-inch" cone I know of is the Disco 16W. But if the existing Satoris are a good indication, the useful upper-range of the coming MW19TX should still be higher than the Scans.
Also, why tie Le into the transient response? The effective inductance will be frequency-dependent, and you already have the reference raw driver curves.
Also, why tie Le into the transient response? The effective inductance will be frequency-dependent, and you already have the reference raw driver curves.
I just noted that the square pattern on the cones does not align up with the screw holes, i hope they are more meticulous with the assembling when production runs
http://www.sbacoustics.com/files/cache/e1a383e4c9a5c7ac1ae4d86eb89b946d.jpg
http://www.sbacoustics.com/files/cache/e1a383e4c9a5c7ac1ae4d86eb89b946d.jpg
Why ? If you look at this cone breakup pattern you will see that it is less severe for the TX compared to the more conventional uniform material. Both paper and metals are uniform materials, the TeXtreme is a weave and has less uniformity which is beneficial here. We are suppose to move forward not backwards.
Figure 1: The first breakup mode of a titanium compression driver vs. a distributed first break up in a thin ply carbon diaphragm.
Frequency response of SB Acoustics SATORI MW16TX-4 VS SEAS L19RNX1 (New)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The proof is in the pudding. In this instance, a metal cone is not better than the Thin Ply Carbon Diaphragms.
Sources:
1. New High-Performance Cone and Diaphragm Technology | audioXpress
2. SB Acoustics :: 6.5” SATORI MW16TX-4
3. H1878-08 L19RNX1
I'm assuming this is rhetorical, because obviously they're a ton of reasons, some good some not.
By your logic why have paper, metal or anything but the TX?
Frequency response of SB Acoustics SATORI MW16TX-4 VS SEAS [/I]L19RNX1 (New)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The proof is in the pudding. In this instance, a metal cone is not better than the Thin Ply Carbon Diaphragms.
[/url]
I don't understand why you compare it to the seas L19 and not the SB17NAC? The NAC looks a lot better.
What I am indicating is that what makes the TX better is the non-uniform material, that can be accomplished in more than one way. Be that sandwich or designing the cone to have support like YG Acoustic has done with their Billetcore cone. Its not so much if its TeXtreme, paper or aluminum, but rather the distribution of the cone breakup mode. Vandersteen soltuion is carbon cone with Balsa core support, Bowers&Wilkins use foam core.. I think the SBA TX line is a sandwich cone, but that is just a guess. The stiffer and lighter the cone is, the more pistonic it is and the more pistonic it is, the cleaner it will reproduce the tone or frequency.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I could have but didn't
The reason for doing so was to show how a normal metal cone behaves compared to the TX. NAC/BNAC has cone break-up optimization. "But that is unfair" you might say since we could apply the cone break-up optimization to the carbon weave which makes up the TeXtreme material. In this instance, both the NAC and TX drivers outperform the standard cone material and shape. I have for years been advocating for Al cones rather than paper and I might end up back at Al after listening to TX... all of that is pure speculation, but non the less, cone break-up optimization or distribution in the material is better on the TX and NAC than many other cones. So far I like both of them. I will evaluate both drivers next summer
Do you manufacture your own cones ?
Oxeon AB makes the TeXtreme, I can't find the materials you mention, are you sure its Oxeon who makes it? What you talk about reminds me about the Endumax cone Dr. Kurt Mueller was experimenting with a few years ago. Have not seen any new material lately.
Endumax from Teijin Aramid - An Exciting New Speaker Cone Material | audioXpress