I have a set of both SS Revelator 9900, Morel ST1108 Supreme and now play with Seas Excel Magnum T29MF001.
I've heard the Beryllium and the new Ellipticor too. And they are great drivers, but not always worth the extreme high price.
Look at - lets say the SB26ADC. It's very cheap and performs like som of the best out there. You dont really need neodymium or beryllium. Just tame the slight breakup with the DSP in your active system and you can still have awesome sound.
The reason I have the Seas MAgnum, was because someone gave them to me with broken domes, I had the Morel before, so my cabinets have the 110mm cutout. Then I simply bought replacement domes and was happy.
If I had to start over today. I would chose SB ADC - maybe the new cheramic version - and maybe a waveguide to have a better power response, when mating it with a 5-6" midrange.
But since I run it 4 way, then I still like the approach Revel did with with the Salon 2, to keep the narrow baffle.
What electronics are you planning to use for the this active system?
oh..... yet another reason to go for the hard cone/dome and run active
Losing the pistonic movement is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it happens in a controlled way, like with the best soft dome tweeters.
Never heard anything like that, especially as when I compared, I used 1.5kHz cross, as cone profile is not the same in Visaton and Seas. Again, couldn't hear no difference...
Personally I tend to use soft domes, but a like metal tweeters too. If it's a good construction then it sounds good usually.
I didn't say they couldn't sound the same.
Interesting things usually start to happens when the sound wavelength start to get smaller than the cone diameter. For a typical 17cm midwoofer the 1.5kHz is plenty in the comfort zone.
Just create a crossover with xo pint 2.5kHz ore more for these woofers and I bet you would hear a difference. 17cm cone drivers usually have around 13cm usable cone diameter, which is about 2.6 kHz based on the wavelength of the sound.
It wouldn't be too far off from something like the SB Acoustics 2.5" mid which has 0.5mm xmax. Most compression drivers are limited by the phase plug. A gasket can increase the limit to about the same excursion limit as dedicated mid domes. I would use something like a Radian with the stock dome with their mylar surrounds. Used no higher than 2.5k which gives plenty of headroom for quality 1-1.25" tweeters. Beryllium would be a waste in this range.
Cost a couple hundred less than the fabric domed Volt VM752. Would only do it with sharp linear phase filters in either case.
Cost a couple hundred less than the fabric domed Volt VM752. Would only do it with sharp linear phase filters in either case.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that some BE drivers (TAD for example) are "pure" BE (I don't know this to be fact) and some other "BE" drivers are actually BE coating over a substrate (copper?) of some other metal so in a sense, they're only BE coated.
Anyone know the facts on this?
I am of course only referring to the diaphragm as being pure verses coated....not the whole thing!
Anyone know the facts on this?
I am of course only referring to the diaphragm as being pure verses coated....not the whole thing!
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if you cut a (for example) TAD diaphragm in half, is it BE through & through or do they use a substrate and the BE is deposited on (I've heard Copper is used)?
Now, if you cut the others in half.... are they 100% BE or are they put atop a substrate?
I know TAD uses a "vapor deposit" but that doesn't tell a dummy like me if it's deposited onto something else as the base or if the former is then removed leaving you with a pure BE part. (??)
Now, if you cut the others in half.... are they 100% BE or are they put atop a substrate?
I know TAD uses a "vapor deposit" but that doesn't tell a dummy like me if it's deposited onto something else as the base or if the former is then removed leaving you with a pure BE part. (??)
They melt the copper away, so it's all Be.
The Materion ones are all Be. Usher, Sonance, and similar companies might have some Be waved over their diaphragms...
Coytee,
There shouldn't be anymore. I think you are thinking of the fake Be scandal of a few years ago, documented by Steve Mowry in his 2009 paper here:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=40060
True Be tweeters have become much more widely available. I wouldn't use Be as the only gauge of tweeter quality.
There shouldn't be anymore. I think you are thinking of the fake Be scandal of a few years ago, documented by Steve Mowry in his 2009 paper here:
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=40060
True Be tweeters have become much more widely available. I wouldn't use Be as the only gauge of tweeter quality.
Several folks have recommended a 2nd order filter as being superior to a 4th order between a mid-woofer and tweeter. This is something I intend to experiment with.
A Question then... Is a 2nd order filter at 2kHz sufficient to protect a tweeter? Assuming a resonance frequency of 550 - 750 Hz, which seems typical for the 25 - 29 mm domes... I had assumed that a low 2k crossover required a 4th order filter, but I am here to learn...
Jim
A Question then... Is a 2nd order filter at 2kHz sufficient to protect a tweeter? Assuming a resonance frequency of 550 - 750 Hz, which seems typical for the 25 - 29 mm domes... I had assumed that a low 2k crossover required a 4th order filter, but I am here to learn...
Jim
What slope (order) works best is depends on many other factors (baffle shape, mid-driver particularity, xover point etc.). Stating that a 2nd order slope is much better than a 4th order is too general statement.
For the same xo point, a tweeter with a 4th order slope crossover have better power handling than with a 2nd order slope, a 4th order slope on the mid-driver hide the cone breakup better then a 2nd order.
The only clear advantage of lower order slope is a better time domain response compared to higher order slopes, its audibility is highly dependent, even on individual perception, room acoustics and so on.
Well, in a nutshell, that is my concern with a low-order crossover for the particular drivers I have in mind... the mid woofer has a cone breakup at about 7500 Hz, and when I model it with a 4th order at 2k, it is no problem... but when I model it with 2nd order at 2k, there is enough activity to interfere with the tweeter response...
Now with DSP based filtering, I understand I can first handle the 7.5k cone resonance, then filter with either 2nd order or 4th order. And with the Hypex amp, this seems pretty simple to experiment with. I try both and see which one works best. Frankly I am suspecting that the 4th order will sound better, but I have an open mind.
But the question I have is more generalized... Is a 2nd order filter at 2kHz sufficient to protect a tweeter? Assuming a resonance frequency of 550 - 750 Hz, which seems typical for the 25 - 29 mm domes.
Now with DSP based filtering, I understand I can first handle the 7.5k cone resonance, then filter with either 2nd order or 4th order. And with the Hypex amp, this seems pretty simple to experiment with. I try both and see which one works best. Frankly I am suspecting that the 4th order will sound better, but I have an open mind.
But the question I have is more generalized... Is a 2nd order filter at 2kHz sufficient to protect a tweeter? Assuming a resonance frequency of 550 - 750 Hz, which seems typical for the 25 - 29 mm domes.