Very interesting thread, with lots of fundamental basics. I am looking forward
to build a Kalasan 5.0 Version with 8 ° baffle (30cm width). Two things are confusing me so far till the end of this thread.
1. Impendance tweeter: SBA specs are only given for 4 Ohm: Intertechnik website gives TW29R (-S/-B) in 4 Ohm and TW29RN (B optional) in 8 Ohm.
I guess the network for 5.0 is for the 4 Ohm Tweeter? Is there also an 8-Ohm-Tweeter Version?
2. Which is the best cabinet net volume and spec for a single port (length/diameter) version (5.0 network)?
Thanx in advance.
Marcus
to build a Kalasan 5.0 Version with 8 ° baffle (30cm width). Two things are confusing me so far till the end of this thread.
1. Impendance tweeter: SBA specs are only given for 4 Ohm: Intertechnik website gives TW29R (-S/-B) in 4 Ohm and TW29RN (B optional) in 8 Ohm.
I guess the network for 5.0 is for the 4 Ohm Tweeter? Is there also an 8-Ohm-Tweeter Version?
2. Which is the best cabinet net volume and spec for a single port (length/diameter) version (5.0 network)?
Thanx in advance.
Marcus
That's not an easy question to answer. It's a "How long is a rope" question.
To sum up:
1. Without x-over they sound equally bad.
2. With x-over, it depends on how successful the cross-over design is.
With that said.
The Satori woofer has less cone area, better distortion profile and requires a smaller enclosure than the SB17NRX.
The Satori tweeter has a better distortion profile and better consistency than the SB29RDC, but similar frequency response.
You can compare them here: SB Acoustics SB29RDC vs. Satori TW29R-B
If you aren't an experienced builder, I recommend using the SB17NRX and SB29RDC. Great drivers for a modest price.
Regards
/Göran
That's not an easy question to answer. It's a "How long is a rope" question.
To sum up:
1. Without x-over they sound equally bad.
2. With x-over, it depends on how successful the cross-over design is.
With that said.
The Satori woofer has less cone area, better distortion profile and requires a smaller enclosure than the SB17NRX.
The Satori tweeter has a better distortion profile and better consistency than the SB29RDC, but similar frequency response.
You can compare them here: SB Acoustics SB29RDC vs. Satori TW29R-B
If you aren't an experienced builder, I recommend using the SB17NRX and SB29RDC. Great drivers for a modest price.
Regards
/Göran
Thanks
but frequency response tells nothing about the sound. Frequency response only helps to know if needed help from the LCR circuit.
How i understand not so big difference? Now i have 2way seas prestige. Just wanna some upgrade.
Stronger magnet >> Smaller magnet >> Free backward airflow.
Detailed cone resonance will be different too.
You can check the products specification to see what differs in the T/S parameter. If the neo magnet is designed with the same strength in mind then there will be little differences. The biggest practical difference I believe is the effect of the backward airflow in typical box speaker.
When the driver is mounted from in front of the baffle, some of the backward airflow is blocked and this affect midrange quality. See common solution on the picture. And see how the magnet of Scan-Speak Illuminator is designed regarding this airflow (the sketch), using also neo magnet. It is one of the best sounding midrange driver available.
Attachments
thanks. I was asking as often I see Neodynium seems to have more distorsion on the measurements made by some manufacturers...like Beyma for instance (vs its ceramic line). I was always asking myself if it was due to the bad heat behavior of the Neodynium magnet (voice coil heat) or the cooling method design... or simply because of the mix material and how it is made, Neodynium has a little difference in magnetic field behavior...
Indeed rear side of a drivers seems to be more important in hifi for the sound than the weight trade off of PA drivers.
But Zaph measurements it is true we don't see too much listening benchamark between the Satoris, the Revelators, then the Illuminators.
Zaph was saying than the Revelator won other the Illuminator at measurements but as you say, the geometry should give different results at ears as well!
Gornir answer says the most important and there is also some dofference in the cone material damping and maybe shape also ?!
I wisch to see so much drivers of these types able of lower XO than 200 Hz to allow XO nearer than 100 Hz. Maybe the new Satori 5"...
Anyway it's OT.
Indeed rear side of a drivers seems to be more important in hifi for the sound than the weight trade off of PA drivers.
But Zaph measurements it is true we don't see too much listening benchamark between the Satoris, the Revelators, then the Illuminators.
Zaph was saying than the Revelator won other the Illuminator at measurements but as you say, the geometry should give different results at ears as well!
Gornir answer says the most important and there is also some dofference in the cone material damping and maybe shape also ?!
I wisch to see so much drivers of these types able of lower XO than 200 Hz to allow XO nearer than 100 Hz. Maybe the new Satori 5"...
Anyway it's OT.
Last edited:
To compare the difference calculation of physical offset between MW16P and TW29R by sb acoustic website here: http://www.sbacoustics.com/index.php/download_file/-/view/937/
and Joachim and Jeff results, 21 mm vs 38 mm. Its quite different result. Is ambient temperature causing such difference?
and Joachim and Jeff results, 21 mm vs 38 mm. Its quite different result. Is ambient temperature causing such difference?
The filter changes the phase too, so when they use different filter (different slope), it is normal. Usually Jeff uses simpler slope?
Isnt physical offset measurement done before crossover design? Is it because the measurement from Jeff is for the overall FR than only the 2-3Khz FR (SB Acoustic paper)?
Last edited:
Any opinion about adding Satori WO24P-8 in combination with Kalasan with Jeff's crossover that he describe in paper ''The Kairos and Continuum Tree Way'' at around 200Hz
SB Acoustics :: 9½" Satori WO24P-8
Here is simulation from Unibox - vented in 60L...that's the biggest I could get by, with slim front baffle of around 25-26cm to keep it slim...
thanks
SB Acoustics :: 9½" Satori WO24P-8
Here is simulation from Unibox - vented in 60L...that's the biggest I could get by, with slim front baffle of around 25-26cm to keep it slim...
thanks
Physical offset can be part of the design, as one of the variables that we can change on the fly just like changing capacitor value etc.
I dont know/remember anything about Jeff design as I dont have the Satori.
Hello, Joachim Gerhard!
I am interesting in your project, the Kalasan. The tweeter I have is Satori TW29RN-8 instead of TW29R. And I can buy used crossover components from it's previous owner for a low price. As I understand, those tweeters are made from the same basic model, and may be a chance to recalculate HF part of crossover, left LF part untouched. I do not have measurement equipment for now. I want to try make my own calculation with VituixCAD, using just a simulator tool. Of cource result may be imperfect, but for the first time it's ok. Can you give me an advice, about how to do this? And if it's not violate your copyright, let me discuss this somewhere else on diyaudio (start a separate thread or ask VituixCad users to help)? Tanks!
I am interesting in your project, the Kalasan. The tweeter I have is Satori TW29RN-8 instead of TW29R. And I can buy used crossover components from it's previous owner for a low price. As I understand, those tweeters are made from the same basic model, and may be a chance to recalculate HF part of crossover, left LF part untouched. I do not have measurement equipment for now. I want to try make my own calculation with VituixCAD, using just a simulator tool. Of cource result may be imperfect, but for the first time it's ok. Can you give me an advice, about how to do this? And if it's not violate your copyright, let me discuss this somewhere else on diyaudio (start a separate thread or ask VituixCad users to help)? Tanks!