I've always liked robust 6.5" drivers and at the 2019 Capital Audiofest (CAF) they could be found everywhere, in the listening rooms and out in the corridors.
This SB ceramic driver perked my interest but the response looked a lot like speakers I have on the shelf, but cost 3x as much..
Madisound posted the Bromo Kit, with a schematic from SB (I guess), which could be interesting but don't really know if there is going to much of an improvement on previous SF/SB29s builds.
Any thoughts?
btw, the CAF 2021 event is on!
This SB ceramic driver perked my interest but the response looked a lot like speakers I have on the shelf, but cost 3x as much..
Madisound posted the Bromo Kit, with a schematic from SB (I guess), which could be interesting but don't really know if there is going to much of an improvement on previous SF/SB29s builds.
Any thoughts?
btw, the CAF 2021 event is on!
I finished the Bromo kit a few months ago and I am very pleased with it.. Very nice bass and a very balanced presentation.
The tweeter is nothing short of fantastic.
For the total price of ca. 600 euro I would say they are a bargain.
The tweeter is nothing short of fantastic.
For the total price of ca. 600 euro I would say they are a bargain.
Attachments
Ceramic SB17 is not significantly better than any of the other SB17. The material affects the frequency response a bit and the sensitivity, due to difference in weight. Once you put the crossover in place, there is going to be very little audible difference between the different SB17 models.
Any of the SB17 are a significant step up in performance from the Silver Flute, because the SB17 has a better motor design.
Any of the SB17 are a significant step up in performance from the Silver Flute, because the SB17 has a better motor design.
Most 'Ceramic' domes from SB are heavily oxidised Aluminum. That is why their response and performance is identical to Aluminum cones, but you do pay for the additional work. The cones are fractionally heavier and it affects to a very small extent some of the mechanical parameters but they are fully interchangeable.
For tweeters the Al versions would have better performance and the Ceramics might have better behaviour in the breakup region. I've not looked at it in detail, but at a purely technical level there's no reason to choose them over the Al cones/domes except if you like how they look. I'll admit they're very pretty, and will be as good of a performer as the Al drivers.
You can't discount the distortion characteristics - the old SF woofers had, even back then,. very primitive motors and would need to be crossed very early, or very hard, or need a lot of crossover work. When building with SB drivers, the crossovers tend to be very easy to do, with not much control required except if you're going into dicey territory to begin with. And most of their drivers have vanishingly low distortion, so they are a real treat regardless of which level of driver you choose.
Edit: TMM covered it while I was typing.
For tweeters the Al versions would have better performance and the Ceramics might have better behaviour in the breakup region. I've not looked at it in detail, but at a purely technical level there's no reason to choose them over the Al cones/domes except if you like how they look. I'll admit they're very pretty, and will be as good of a performer as the Al drivers.
You can't discount the distortion characteristics - the old SF woofers had, even back then,. very primitive motors and would need to be crossed very early, or very hard, or need a lot of crossover work. When building with SB drivers, the crossovers tend to be very easy to do, with not much control required except if you're going into dicey territory to begin with. And most of their drivers have vanishingly low distortion, so they are a real treat regardless of which level of driver you choose.
Edit: TMM covered it while I was typing.
Last edited:
Hi,
Why the Al SB tweeter has better performance ? Not so clear at seing the two datasheets over the ceramic sibling but a smoother high end for the white one.
In the shoes of the poster, a real easy answer could be for the bigger driver: go ahead the next step with better motorized drivers : Wavecores and Revelators, the first being near the second in performance and closer to the SB about its price while more expensive.
Seems the SB26 range is very good : SB26 STAC for instance and the Al ones indeed.
Why the Al SB tweeter has better performance ? Not so clear at seing the two datasheets over the ceramic sibling but a smoother high end for the white one.
In the shoes of the poster, a real easy answer could be for the bigger driver: go ahead the next step with better motorized drivers : Wavecores and Revelators, the first being near the second in performance and closer to the SB about its price while more expensive.
Seems the SB26 range is very good : SB26 STAC for instance and the Al ones indeed.
I have used the SB17CAC35 and SB26CDC in a project, and I think they are a great driver combination. my project was a DSP filter active amplification system.
Based on technical reviews and comments from other DIY-builders whose opinions I respect, I believe that the SB17NBAC and SB26ADC have equivalent performance. The ceramic diaphragms have just slightly better performance at the first mode breakup... just slightly more damped by about 2 dB. This is probably insignificant, but for an extra $10, why not?
j.
Based on technical reviews and comments from other DIY-builders whose opinions I respect, I believe that the SB17NBAC and SB26ADC have equivalent performance. The ceramic diaphragms have just slightly better performance at the first mode breakup... just slightly more damped by about 2 dB. This is probably insignificant, but for an extra $10, why not?
j.
May I ask you if the SB26 CAC is a little fleshy in its low end while being able to make the bells and cymbals crystal clear with slam, please. I'm looking for such a tweeter and I often loudspeakers that can not make both according the tweeter they have. I'm also attracted by the cac, both cause the good price and indeed the smoother top end against the full Al version ?
I wanted to buy the SS 98000, an Al dome too, but unluckilly to much for my money...
I liked the SB26 STAC I used for a friend refurbishing, ScotG advised to me, I just found it a little toppy in the loudspeaker he swapped a broken silk dome. I think more because the former filter. While very ok and good enough, the sound was clean, especially for the price of it which was a criteria.
Hope that is not off topic and can be informative for the op.
I wanted to buy the SS 98000, an Al dome too, but unluckilly to much for my money...
I liked the SB26 STAC I used for a friend refurbishing, ScotG advised to me, I just found it a little toppy in the loudspeaker he swapped a broken silk dome. I think more because the former filter. While very ok and good enough, the sound was clean, especially for the price of it which was a criteria.
Hope that is not off topic and can be informative for the op.
For what it's worth, here is a link to a Klippel test of the SB17CAC35-4 ceramic 6-inch mid-bass. While bass distortion (<200Hz) was something of a disappointment, the midrange distortion (>200Hz) was found to be a test record low. Which is not proof that the ceramic cone was responsible for either result. Certainly not for the bass distortion.
SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review
SB Acoustics SB17CAC35-4 6 Inch Ceramic Midwoofer Review
Regarding the potential sound character neutrality of rigid (meaning, high-Q) cone materials, Ted Jordan once proposed a simple kitchen experiment. He said to sit two drinking cups on a counter, one made of plastic (a low-Q material) and the other of glass (a high-Q material). Then strike each cup with a knife edge. The plastic cup material is naturally highly damped and produces a short 'thunk' sort of sound, while the glass cup rings a long time.
Now, repeat the experiment, except this time, with a fingertip resting on the rim of each cup. The plastic cup essentially sounds the same as before, while the glass cup now produces a very brief and colorless 'tick' sort of sound. Being high-Q, the glass is much more easily edge terminated with something close to it's characteristic mechanical impedance (your fingertip), while the plastic cup is permanently terminated by it's own lossy material, which is inherently distributed throughout the cup. Even when held in your entire hand, the plastic cup's sound character when struck persists. Ted's point being that high-Q cone materials can be made much more colorless than can distributed low-Q cone materials.
Now, repeat the experiment, except this time, with a fingertip resting on the rim of each cup. The plastic cup essentially sounds the same as before, while the glass cup now produces a very brief and colorless 'tick' sort of sound. Being high-Q, the glass is much more easily edge terminated with something close to it's characteristic mechanical impedance (your fingertip), while the plastic cup is permanently terminated by it's own lossy material, which is inherently distributed throughout the cup. Even when held in your entire hand, the plastic cup's sound character when struck persists. Ted's point being that high-Q cone materials can be made much more colorless than can distributed low-Q cone materials.
Last edited:
It has been a few months since I listened to the SB17CAC+SB26CDC system, but my recollection is that cymbals, bells, and chimes all seemed realistic.
Remember, however, that my opinion is based on this tweeter in my baffle, with my DSP EQ, and my DSP filter. I am not comfortable in drawing generalities about drivers based on how a given system sounds, especially tweeters.
Thanks all,
I've heard this from other builders also, the 4 different models are about the same, although I see not everyone agreed.
The SB17CRC35-4 6" Woven Carbon Fiber Cone looks like the flagship model going out to 4,000 hz.
I've been in the same rut for years, wanting better midrange from a 2-way, and a shelf-full of tweeters to prove it. ugh
Maybe I could match the carbon driver with a Vifa XT25?
In any case, the tweeter cutout will be the standard 4-1/8".
Thanks again!
I've heard this from other builders also, the 4 different models are about the same, although I see not everyone agreed.
The SB17CRC35-4 6" Woven Carbon Fiber Cone looks like the flagship model going out to 4,000 hz.
I've been in the same rut for years, wanting better midrange from a 2-way, and a shelf-full of tweeters to prove it. ugh
Maybe I could match the carbon driver with a Vifa XT25?
In any case, the tweeter cutout will be the standard 4-1/8".
Thanks again!
Thanks HifiJim,
I can understand that, it's very subjective, there is also the surrounding, room, amp; source, interconnects, material playbacked, etc.
I have a good information though : so you needed to Eq it with your DSP.
I found also usefull the difference you talked about with the Textreme, you weighted your words and if the Textreme seems better you meant it's not night & day though you find it more natural... Good information for the reader, we seems to be in the diminishing return with the Textreme tweeter according the price gap with the cac.
I know all of this is subjective, I change 1 uf of a different capacitor in my loudspeaker and sounds changes dramatically enough, power response is not always enough to talk about units, as you somewhat pointed out.
I can understand that, it's very subjective, there is also the surrounding, room, amp; source, interconnects, material playbacked, etc.
I have a good information though : so you needed to Eq it with your DSP.
I found also usefull the difference you talked about with the Textreme, you weighted your words and if the Textreme seems better you meant it's not night & day though you find it more natural... Good information for the reader, we seems to be in the diminishing return with the Textreme tweeter according the price gap with the cac.
I know all of this is subjective, I change 1 uf of a different capacitor in my loudspeaker and sounds changes dramatically enough, power response is not always enough to talk about units, as you somewhat pointed out.
If that helps I foundd an extended review about two SB17 : the carbon foam sandwiched and the NBAC. The carbon one was better and was nicer for the reviewer while less easy to use in the filter. Its sound was more natural for him.
The Vifa XT25 if you're talking about the one with a bullet is not easy in its low end because its bump and ask according meany reads I've done some efforts in the croosover. But look at heissman acoustic website, it was measured with some others with and w/o off shelves waveguuides.
The little Vifa DX for its low price is quite good and measured on HifiCompas. the price difference can gives headroom to invest in a better mid.
of course all is about your XO, the less affordable tweeter like often to be crossed 3000 Khz, 2500 K Hz max with stiffer slope imho (cause THD increases in the low end where it is finally more important as you can also hear the harmonics of that higher).
my two cents as I'm on the same subject these days.
Is it a poly or a rohacel core as well ? Nicer the Peereles Nomex you work with too in your 2.5 ways ?
Your everyday loudspeaker ? When I look at the datasheets of the Morel mids I find them not easy to work with for the passive filter guys. I read the flagship that was made by Morel to be very good with nice sounding trade offs... I surmise the mid you like ios not the cheaper of their range that can climb high too ? The SB rohacell is around 100 USD at least near that in euros.
Your everyday loudspeaker ? When I look at the datasheets of the Morel mids I find them not easy to work with for the passive filter guys. I read the flagship that was made by Morel to be very good with nice sounding trade offs... I surmise the mid you like ios not the cheaper of their range that can climb high too ? The SB rohacell is around 100 USD at least near that in euros.
Last edited:
(Typically, Stance for surrounds, and Attitudes for main/fronts. Overdrive10 for sub if wanted.)
