I am looking for a good poly mid-woofer, but I can not decide between the 830874 Peerless (6.5" Poly HDS) and the new P18RNXP that madisound lists from SEAS. I cant find much manufacturer data for the seas, and I cant find much DIY data on the Peerless so it makes them kind of hard to compare without having the units in hand. Zaph has measurements on the Seas, but not the Peerless and Mark K doesn't seem to have tested either yet. Is there any other source of data on these woofers that I am missing? If I must decide without a direct comparason I might lean toward the Peerless because there are many commercial speakers that I like very much that use this driver (the AVI and Linn top the list), but Zaph's measurements make the SEAS look pretty good too. Has anybody out there delt with both and might be able to give a recomendation?
As a side note, does anybody have experience using Madisounds return policy? I cant imagine that buying 2 sets of drivers with no intention of keeping both makes you very popular over there even if they would acomidate you. Any feelings on that?
Thanks,
Chad
As a side note, does anybody have experience using Madisounds return policy? I cant imagine that buying 2 sets of drivers with no intention of keeping both makes you very popular over there even if they would acomidate you. Any feelings on that?
Thanks,
Chad
After reading my post I feel a little dumb... i just asked a "whats the best woofer in the world" kind of question. Let me try to be a little more specific. I am planing on a floor-standing 2 way, so enclusure volume is not much of an issue. I will probably be crossing to the Peerless HDS tweeter around 2-2.5k (as long as the woofers dont hold any suprises), perhapse even try to do a 2nd order, so a clean rolloff is important. I perfer sealed bass enclsures, but I dont think that either driver would produce much bass in such a configuration, and the SEAS Qts obviously makes it inapropriate for a sealed enclosure.
Hopefully that might help people interested in giving advise.
Thanks again,
Chad
Hopefully that might help people interested in giving advise.
Thanks again,
Chad
I think that the Peerless HDS has a stiffer cone (which should provide better bass defenition). I do not know the Seas woofer,
but I heard the HDS, it's a good woofer but not that great.
The Seas woofer is pretty new (not listed at the Seas website), so I think there are not that many people around who actually used that woofer. My experience with Seas and Peerless are both good. In this case I think the HDS is a better choice for a 2-way. And you're right you don't get much extension in a closed box.
but I heard the HDS, it's a good woofer but not that great.
The Seas woofer is pretty new (not listed at the Seas website), so I think there are not that many people around who actually used that woofer. My experience with Seas and Peerless are both good. In this case I think the HDS is a better choice for a 2-way. And you're right you don't get much extension in a closed box.
Hmm, honestly I bought the SS8543 because of very good measurement data (Mark K), compared to a _lot_ of woofers, and I do like them... In the absence of comparable measurement or implementation conditions it's going to be hard to tell which one out of a set of models is "better". Newer, or more technology laden, does not necessarily translate to "better" ; Zaph has a lot of surprises on his site where exotic materials (ceramic cones) or cherished design philosophies (ribbons) show serious problems, or no advantages at all, even compared to run of the mill offers...
Or let's put it this way - I'd choose a model where there is at least _some_ supporting test or data sheet data available that let you guess at likely performance, rather than choose on specs, novelty or subjective impression based on particular implementations.
OTOH much of the performance will come from the execution anyway, and smaller deviations in driver performance will be swamped out.
Or let's put it this way - I'd choose a model where there is at least _some_ supporting test or data sheet data available that let you guess at likely performance, rather than choose on specs, novelty or subjective impression based on particular implementations.
OTOH much of the performance will come from the execution anyway, and smaller deviations in driver performance will be swamped out.
MBK, Taco- I am interested in the 8543
Could you describe your subjective likes/dislikes in more detail? Other people have described this driver as a typical bland/boring poly cone, yet, MarkK tests show rather high sensitivity and reasonable CSD. Looking at markK tests, it performed near the top.
Second, since you both have first hand experience, can you tell me how you employed these midwoofers? 2way/3way -sealed/vented -XO points and slope.
Third, do you have any of your own measurements you could share? it seems the Fs is significantly more than the spec sheet. does it change significantly with burn-in, etc. Other people have said it has anemic bass.
If I would use this driver, I would use it as a sealed mid- 2nd butterworth ele 100~120hz+ 4th LR ele 2000hz
Could you describe your subjective likes/dislikes in more detail? Other people have described this driver as a typical bland/boring poly cone, yet, MarkK tests show rather high sensitivity and reasonable CSD. Looking at markK tests, it performed near the top.
Second, since you both have first hand experience, can you tell me how you employed these midwoofers? 2way/3way -sealed/vented -XO points and slope.
Third, do you have any of your own measurements you could share? it seems the Fs is significantly more than the spec sheet. does it change significantly with burn-in, etc. Other people have said it has anemic bass.
If I would use this driver, I would use it as a sealed mid- 2nd butterworth ele 100~120hz+ 4th LR ele 2000hz
I would hang for a short while, and see what "Zaph" thinks of these.
http://www.gr-research.com/drivers/m165x.shtm
He also has a few other 6.5's he is testing real soon.
http://www.gr-research.com/drivers/m165x.shtm
He also has a few other 6.5's he is testing real soon.
Mbutzkies,
I use the 8543 in an open baffle, HP anywhere from 100 to 200 (have tried this range and not found much subjective differences, if x-o implemented well), up to 1700 Hz.
Likes: extremely clean sound, as evidenced by a simple sweep - no buzz, singsang etc, remember in Mark K's test there was virtually no high order HD. To my taste there is also plenty enough detail, definition of instruments in orchestras and their position etc. Since I do not use it in lower bass, I can't comment on that. A low HD might sound to some people as "anemic", these qualificatives are always problematic: how can bass be anemic if the FR plot is adjusted to be just like some other driver? etc. Note low Qts, if using a box and passive X-O definitely one would have to design it properly
. AFAIK this driver was used in one of the Proac implementations.
Dislikes: none really, the breakup is not obviously audible (though I do use a notch filter around 1.8k to compensate for the rising response). The data sheet shows irregular off axis response >2k which was not too evident in my units. All things equal though I surely would like a flat response from 1-2k and not this resonant peak, however, 1- many other drivers have this "feature" as well, and 2- notching it out still gets me a textbook acoustic LR4 on axis. There is some off axis loss though at 1-2k, in open baffle ca. -3 dB.
Nearfield measurements attached,forget anything beyond 8", these are just room and baffle effects.
I have not bothered measuring t/s since I am using it far from resonance as a mid in a 3 way. The calculated 1st pole from data sheet should be ca. 135 Hz but appears to be at 100 Hz, that is after months of use, but then again this is mounted in a U-frame open baffle.
I use the 8543 in an open baffle, HP anywhere from 100 to 200 (have tried this range and not found much subjective differences, if x-o implemented well), up to 1700 Hz.
Likes: extremely clean sound, as evidenced by a simple sweep - no buzz, singsang etc, remember in Mark K's test there was virtually no high order HD. To my taste there is also plenty enough detail, definition of instruments in orchestras and their position etc. Since I do not use it in lower bass, I can't comment on that. A low HD might sound to some people as "anemic", these qualificatives are always problematic: how can bass be anemic if the FR plot is adjusted to be just like some other driver? etc. Note low Qts, if using a box and passive X-O definitely one would have to design it properly
. AFAIK this driver was used in one of the Proac implementations.Dislikes: none really, the breakup is not obviously audible (though I do use a notch filter around 1.8k to compensate for the rising response). The data sheet shows irregular off axis response >2k which was not too evident in my units. All things equal though I surely would like a flat response from 1-2k and not this resonant peak, however, 1- many other drivers have this "feature" as well, and 2- notching it out still gets me a textbook acoustic LR4 on axis. There is some off axis loss though at 1-2k, in open baffle ca. -3 dB.
Nearfield measurements attached,forget anything beyond 8", these are just room and baffle effects.
I have not bothered measuring t/s since I am using it far from resonance as a mid in a 3 way. The calculated 1st pole from data sheet should be ca. 135 Hz but appears to be at 100 Hz, that is after months of use, but then again this is mounted in a U-frame open baffle.
Attachments
mbutzkies said:
1)
Likes:
-smooth presentation.
Dislikes:
- bass performance (no kick), warm sounding
- lack of detail (all other Scan Speaks of that era have better micro details)
- the driver employs a very thin flange for mounting
limited frequency band.
- limited frequency band for a poly driver.
-timbre is not correct it sounds like plastic.
I used also the 8545, 8544, 8546 and I would choose those. Especially the 8845 in a closed box is very nice.
2)
I used those in a 2.5-way 18 liter vented enclousure. 12 dB filter (2 kHz to a Morel MDT). Higher and the mid wasn't open at all.
3)
Fs changes with burn in, but specs of Scans are in my experience accurate.
I do my own measurements, but I did not measure T/S for this one. MBK, it's fine with me that you like this driver. Also it depends of what's your reference.
Saying that Accuton/ Seas Excell is bad because of the cone problems does not tell the whole story. I have used many drivers (cheap and expensive) and I certainly do not believe everything what's published on the net. This also holds for my own preferences. It's my experience and I do not state it's the truth (like others on the Internet).
Taco,
fair enough, and also, I didn't intend implying anything else than that my experience with it so far has been satisfying, or to put it even more neutrally, to my taste. I agree though on this one, cross no higher than 2k.
And yes, neither some set of measurements nor assembled net wisdom tell the whole story, in the end your result will depend on the specific trade offs you're after and how well you tailor driver choices to your design. For instance I'd be really curious of the Accutons' performance were it not for the price.
fair enough, and also, I didn't intend implying anything else than that my experience with it so far has been satisfying, or to put it even more neutrally, to my taste. I agree though on this one, cross no higher than 2k.
And yes, neither some set of measurements nor assembled net wisdom tell the whole story, in the end your result will depend on the specific trade offs you're after and how well you tailor driver choices to your design. For instance I'd be really curious of the Accutons' performance were it not for the price.
Accuton isn't my favourite, it takes a lot of tuning/ filtering to lose the "cold" presentation. The woofer exhibits to much detail for my own preferences, but for others that is the aspect of the woofer they like very much. Also, the dynamics can sound to mechanical. For instance I do not like the accuton in a Lumen White, for me, the Kharma 3.2 does a much better job.
Seas Excel is a cheaper alternative, and I would prefere it above Accuton. Lower distortion, neutral sounding but not to "hifi-ish".
Seas Excel is a cheaper alternative, and I would prefere it above Accuton. Lower distortion, neutral sounding but not to "hifi-ish".
Taco, MBK, thanks for your comments, they were much appreciated.
You both use this driver very differently which, in addition to tonality preference, could lead to opposite opinions of the driver. Based on your comments, I think I will skip this driver. At $110 it might have been worth it, but with the recent price increase to $160, I am not too sure.
I did not suspect its weak high frequency performance. I think crossing ultralow transfers woofer problems to the tweeter. I already suspected poor bass from other people's comments and speaker modeling. However, since I was going to use it as a mid, bass did not concern me
The Fs comment came from MarkK ~75hz and Scanspeak's 30hz which I think is too big of a difference for burn in.
You both use this driver very differently which, in addition to tonality preference, could lead to opposite opinions of the driver. Based on your comments, I think I will skip this driver. At $110 it might have been worth it, but with the recent price increase to $160, I am not too sure.
I did not suspect its weak high frequency performance. I think crossing ultralow transfers woofer problems to the tweeter. I already suspected poor bass from other people's comments and speaker modeling. However, since I was going to use it as a mid, bass did not concern me
The Fs comment came from MarkK ~75hz and Scanspeak's 30hz which I think is too big of a difference for burn in.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.