Matt,
You commented that you HATE tweeters with wide dispersion. Can you elaborate on this a bit more?
Objectively, are you talking about the top octave (10-20KHz)? Or the off axis response eg. 45/60 degrees at 10KHz?
Say, do you prefer the XT25 to the DX25?
When I go looking for tweeter selection I look for high sensitivity, ability to cross low enough to meet the mid/midwoofer where it starts to diverge at 30degrees off axis.
I've notice what's really different about dome/cone materials is that the off axis responses vary dramatically, so what they're outputting into the room is clearly different.
In fact, I like to look at the normalised off axis response from 2-10Khz. I believe the top octave is really over-rated. Getting good response to 16Khz is more important than what's going on above 16Khz.
You commented that you HATE tweeters with wide dispersion. Can you elaborate on this a bit more?
Objectively, are you talking about the top octave (10-20KHz)? Or the off axis response eg. 45/60 degrees at 10KHz?
Say, do you prefer the XT25 to the DX25?
When I go looking for tweeter selection I look for high sensitivity, ability to cross low enough to meet the mid/midwoofer where it starts to diverge at 30degrees off axis.
I've notice what's really different about dome/cone materials is that the off axis responses vary dramatically, so what they're outputting into the room is clearly different.
In fact, I like to look at the normalised off axis response from 2-10Khz. I believe the top octave is really over-rated. Getting good response to 16Khz is more important than what's going on above 16Khz.
I suppose I'm talking about the entire off axis energy that the tweeter, and loudspeaker, produces as a whole. It's the entire ethos behind why using a waveguide is a good idea in the first place. Controlled directivity. The basic idea is that you linearise the off-axis energy that the speaker produces out to a specific off axis angle. From experience this usually looks like till about 30 degrees for domestic speakers. In other words the frequency response across the first 30 degrees off axis is as close to as identical as possible. This means if you sit anywhere within these 30 degrees the tonal balance of the sound will stay, roughly, the same. Freedom from any head in a vice.
This is only half of the story however and arguably the least important aspect of what a waveguide does for domestic listening. For domestic listening, in typical rooms, we need reflections within the room to create a realistic sound field. A complete absence of these reflections would create a sound field like headphones which is not why one listens to loudspeakers. The reflections are necessary. This is only up until a point however. If these reflections arrive too quickly vs the direct sound we end up with an issue. It affects the brains ability to pinpoint the location of a sound source. For our brain to construct a realistic stereo image it basically processes the information in the music that give it cues as to where any of the sounds within it are located. If you blur these cues with room early reflections the imaging gets smeared. These reflections usually come from side walls and are created by the off axis energy produced out at wide angles. While a typical domestic waveguide attempts to linearise the energy within the first 30 degrees off-axis it does so by focusing the far off axis energy into this 30 degree beam. This is a smooth, progressive, process so all that happens is you end up with a more controlled 30 degrees and less energy out at the wider angles vs if the waveguide wasn't used. The reduction of energy thrown out to the side walls reduces the intensity of the 'early reflections' produced within the room and enhances the clarity and precision of the perceived images within the sound field.
To my ears the subjective effect of increasing the intensity of these early reflections is to add 'hash' or 'noise' to the higher frequencies making them come across as confused and difficult to listen to. It's not 'bright' in the typical sense it's just unpleasant and feels like the brain is having to work hard to listen to the music.
Room treatment can be used to reduce the intensity of early reflections but the trouble with this is it also reduces the intensity of the late reflections. We want late reflections as they are necessary in creating the spaciousness that we want when listening to loudspeakers.
As to your question about preferring the XT25 to the DX25? Absolutely yes. And a 19mm tweeter is even worse than a standard dome with the DXT tweeter better than the XT25.
Now the bigger a waveguide is the further down in frequency it will be able to control the directivity. As far as I remember I think Geddes said something about this being beneficial even down as low as 500Hz? I'm guessing that the biggest benefits happen much before this though.
This is only half of the story however and arguably the least important aspect of what a waveguide does for domestic listening. For domestic listening, in typical rooms, we need reflections within the room to create a realistic sound field. A complete absence of these reflections would create a sound field like headphones which is not why one listens to loudspeakers. The reflections are necessary. This is only up until a point however. If these reflections arrive too quickly vs the direct sound we end up with an issue. It affects the brains ability to pinpoint the location of a sound source. For our brain to construct a realistic stereo image it basically processes the information in the music that give it cues as to where any of the sounds within it are located. If you blur these cues with room early reflections the imaging gets smeared. These reflections usually come from side walls and are created by the off axis energy produced out at wide angles. While a typical domestic waveguide attempts to linearise the energy within the first 30 degrees off-axis it does so by focusing the far off axis energy into this 30 degree beam. This is a smooth, progressive, process so all that happens is you end up with a more controlled 30 degrees and less energy out at the wider angles vs if the waveguide wasn't used. The reduction of energy thrown out to the side walls reduces the intensity of the 'early reflections' produced within the room and enhances the clarity and precision of the perceived images within the sound field.
To my ears the subjective effect of increasing the intensity of these early reflections is to add 'hash' or 'noise' to the higher frequencies making them come across as confused and difficult to listen to. It's not 'bright' in the typical sense it's just unpleasant and feels like the brain is having to work hard to listen to the music.
Room treatment can be used to reduce the intensity of early reflections but the trouble with this is it also reduces the intensity of the late reflections. We want late reflections as they are necessary in creating the spaciousness that we want when listening to loudspeakers.
As to your question about preferring the XT25 to the DX25? Absolutely yes. And a 19mm tweeter is even worse than a standard dome with the DXT tweeter better than the XT25.
Now the bigger a waveguide is the further down in frequency it will be able to control the directivity. As far as I remember I think Geddes said something about this being beneficial even down as low as 500Hz? I'm guessing that the biggest benefits happen much before this though.
Quite some people argue for early reflections / wide dispersion speakers. I find myself, that these type of speaker indeed create a more realistic rendition of say an orchestra as heard from say 8th row. At least for typical mainstream recordings.
I do agree that they don't produce the same degree of sharp focus as a more narrow beaming sound source. Nor is any/very few instrument as heard from row 8 "sharp" in focus.
Its about reference and preference....
//
I do agree that they don't produce the same degree of sharp focus as a more narrow beaming sound source. Nor is any/very few instrument as heard from row 8 "sharp" in focus.
Its about reference and preference....
//
Thanks for all the responses.
unfortunately I don’t have enough experience and empirical testing with different tweeters to get a good grasp. I always wondered why tweeters like the Hiquphon OW series were so revered, I assumed it had something to do with the dispersion in the top end vs a 1” or larger dome.
Years ago I brushed off ribbon tweeters after seeing their relatively high non-linear distortion compared to good domes but after having owned the Statement II speaker, I can say that I couldn’t find anything to complain about the Fountek CD3.0 ‘a higher non-linear distortion. And with reduced vertical dispersion of this WMTMW; I couldn’t figure if that was an advantage or a detriment. Certainly the tonal balance changes a listen if you’re laying on the floor; but I really enjoyed the wide horizontal dispersion. But then perhaps it’s because I’m in a room about 10m wide; perhaps in smaller room it would sound confused as 5th element experienced.
I haven’t seen any data on what kind of dispersion target we should be be aiming for, as speaker designers in domestic environments. Maybe it depends on the task at hand eg. Mixing, mastering vs listening for pleasure
unfortunately I don’t have enough experience and empirical testing with different tweeters to get a good grasp. I always wondered why tweeters like the Hiquphon OW series were so revered, I assumed it had something to do with the dispersion in the top end vs a 1” or larger dome.
Years ago I brushed off ribbon tweeters after seeing their relatively high non-linear distortion compared to good domes but after having owned the Statement II speaker, I can say that I couldn’t find anything to complain about the Fountek CD3.0 ‘a higher non-linear distortion. And with reduced vertical dispersion of this WMTMW; I couldn’t figure if that was an advantage or a detriment. Certainly the tonal balance changes a listen if you’re laying on the floor; but I really enjoyed the wide horizontal dispersion. But then perhaps it’s because I’m in a room about 10m wide; perhaps in smaller room it would sound confused as 5th element experienced.
I haven’t seen any data on what kind of dispersion target we should be be aiming for, as speaker designers in domestic environments. Maybe it depends on the task at hand eg. Mixing, mastering vs listening for pleasure
well D2008 is quite hard really bad to me ,but I love D2010 very sweet.
is not relate to size....
Hello,
did anybody had the chance to do a listening comparison between the Satori Textreme midwoofers and an Audiotechnolgy C-Quenze midwoofer/midrange?
E.g. MW16TX vs. AT 15H521206SDKM?
I'm aware of the existing measurements, which you find on different websites.
But leaving the measurements aside, I would be especially interested in how both sound in terms of (micro) details in the midrange.
Troels somewhen stated, that the Audiotechnology C-Quenze he used was one of the best midrange he ever used. But as far as I can see, the Satori drivers did not exist at this time and micro details are supposed to be their strength as well.
Happy to hear your experience about this both
BR
Matthias
did anybody had the chance to do a listening comparison between the Satori Textreme midwoofers and an Audiotechnolgy C-Quenze midwoofer/midrange?
E.g. MW16TX vs. AT 15H521206SDKM?
I'm aware of the existing measurements, which you find on different websites.
But leaving the measurements aside, I would be especially interested in how both sound in terms of (micro) details in the midrange.
Troels somewhen stated, that the Audiotechnology C-Quenze he used was one of the best midrange he ever used. But as far as I can see, the Satori drivers did not exist at this time and micro details are supposed to be their strength as well.
Happy to hear your experience about this both
BR
Matthias
What box size and turning freq did you used for that box?LoDrac
Hi Folks !
I've ended the first version of my speaker.
Second step will consist in designing and adding a port to transform in a BR !
Hi
If you used MW16TX-4 ofc.
Last edited:
I have both drivers and I am not that hyped about the MW16TX driver...Hello,
did anybody had the chance to do a listening comparison between the Satori Textreme midwoofers and an Audiotechnolgy C-Quenze midwoofer/midrange?
E.g. MW16TX vs. AT 15H521206SDKM?
I'm aware of the existing measurements, which you find on different websites.
But leaving the measurements aside, I would be especially interested in how both sound in terms of (micro) details in the midrange.
Troels somewhen stated, that the Audiotechnology C-Quenze he used was one of the best midrange he ever used. But as far as I can see, the Satori drivers did not exist at this time and micro details are supposed to be their strength as well.
Happy to hear your experience about this both
BR
Matthias
It is a great driver - but it depends immensely on how you use it.
I am running full active with DSP and have some freedom on the xo frequencies because my bass and tweeter are quite wideband.
I have tested it as a wide band driver from about 100Hz up to about 2Khz to meet the high (I have tested them with RAAL, Bliesma and an older set of Scan-Speak beryllium domes).
It sounds great but I do not think it is better than my Audio Technology 15H drivers - I prefer my 15H drivers.
But the difference is very small - so as a price/performance comparison I would say the MW16TX is a better choice.
Same when I compare the MX16TX with Purifi PTT6.5W04-NFA-01 - on price/performance the MX16TX wins, but in a cost-no-object build, the Purifi performs a little better (and a lot better in the right setting).
I have tested a lot of different frequency ranges, but my main focus has been on the 100Hz to 2-2,5Khz band.
I do think they perform quite nice from 100Hz to 2,5Khz (24dB-48dB filters).
My experience is the same with an ordinary AT 15H driver as with the dedicated midrange AT 15H driver.
The SDKM do have some lower end limits which the ordinary 15H does not - I am not entirely sure the SDKM is worth the extra complexity in loudspeaker design, but I do really like it though.
I do think they perform quite nice from 100Hz to 2,5Khz (24dB-48dB filters).
My experience is the same with an ordinary AT 15H driver as with the dedicated midrange AT 15H driver.
The SDKM do have some lower end limits which the ordinary 15H does not - I am not entirely sure the SDKM is worth the extra complexity in loudspeaker design, but I do really like it though.
Yop,
It's a 24liter box tuned at 40hz.
Digital XO
Tweeter XO LR24@2300hz.
Beware of the port diameter and it's length, mine have a nice half wavelength pipe resonance. Fortunately inaudible at listening position and on-axis.
I use this bookshelf half time as is, only with a HP_but36@30hz.
The other half time with a sub, xo LR24@80hz.
Oh, and with 1 or 2 EQs for room correction.
The result is quite impressive at listening position
Have you noticed any harshness with the MW16TX when played loudly? It reminds me of how some paper cones can shriek at higher levels.
I've been working on incorporating MW16TX into a 3 way approximately as you've described and, although it sounds fantastic at normal listening levels, it develops harshness at higher levels (~94 db @ 1 m and louder). The harshness seems to correspond with harmonics of vocals roughly around 1000 Hz. That's with the breakup peak at ~5 kHz EQed down. The harshness even shows up with a -3 db BBC-like dip in the range seemingly associated with it, although the dip does help reduce the prominence of the harshness and make it seem less forward.
I'm thinking of applying a damping coating to the back of the cone, but I have no idea what might stick well to the carbon fibre resin.
A few things I have used in the past to treat various cones are tire black (for blackening your tires at car shows and such, does a good job at water proofing paper cones for car installs), rubber cement (for damping), white glue watered down and applied with a small brush and once I used a roofing mastic thinned out with turpentine and heated then applied with a small brush and then over that a craft paper in an attempt at stiffing up an old 18" woofer that was tired. It worked pretty well actually but man it stunk to high heavens for a couple of weeks afterwards. It did stop stinking though.
I have not noticed any harshness when the MW16TX is played loud, which for me is 95 dB average SPL at the listening position. In my application, the MW16TX runs from 200 Hz to 1.8 kHz.
Harshness at high SPL can be caused by many things. It is not necessarily a driver issue.