Only talking about paper. Baset on internet discussions
SS relevator deepest bass but slow mid bass, not so open mids,
Seas Excel fastest bass, mid bass and greath open midrange(drivers only for pros! hard to work with this drivers),
SBA best midrage on this days but not so good, fast mid bass and bass,
SS Illuminator something fast like Seas Excel but with bass too and only with small drivers like 5". 18w is slow in mid bass, not soo good in midrage like Excels. In 3way in theory can be bass, midbass fast, control like excels but with more bass.
Seas excel in theory best drivers, for people with preference dynamic bass and mid bass, greath mids for 2way. But bass only 45hz-50hz, -3db? Only problem hard to work with?
Two schools of sound.
1. Fast dynamic bass, mid bass sounding drivers with low qms.(similar to PRO type drivers?)
2. Slow deep bass, mid bass drivers with high qms.
And of course Le, and RMS important here.
Do you confirm?
NO? Why?
Please make a big discussion. I would like it not to be theoretical as mine, but with comparisons under the same conditions.
SS relevator deepest bass but slow mid bass, not so open mids,
Seas Excel fastest bass, mid bass and greath open midrange(drivers only for pros! hard to work with this drivers),
SBA best midrage on this days but not so good, fast mid bass and bass,
SS Illuminator something fast like Seas Excel but with bass too and only with small drivers like 5". 18w is slow in mid bass, not soo good in midrage like Excels. In 3way in theory can be bass, midbass fast, control like excels but with more bass.
Seas excel in theory best drivers, for people with preference dynamic bass and mid bass, greath mids for 2way. But bass only 45hz-50hz, -3db? Only problem hard to work with?
Two schools of sound.
1. Fast dynamic bass, mid bass sounding drivers with low qms.(similar to PRO type drivers?)
2. Slow deep bass, mid bass drivers with high qms.
And of course Le, and RMS important here.
Do you confirm?
NO? Why?Please make a big discussion. I would like it not to be theoretical as mine, but with comparisons under the same conditions.
Last edited:
Only talking about paper. Baset on internet discussions
SS relevator deepest bass but slow mid bass, not so open mids,
Seas Excel fastest bass, mid bass and greath open midrange(drivers only for pros! hard to work with this drivers),
SBA best midrage on this days but not so good, fast mid bass and bass,
SS Illuminator something fast like Seas Excel but with bass too and only with small drivers like 5". 18w is slow in mid bass, not soo good in midrage like Excels. In 3way in theory can be bass, midbass fast, control like excels but with more bass.
Seas excel in theory best drivers, for people with preference dynamic bass and mid bass, greath mids for 2way. But bass only 45hz-50hz, -3db? Only problem hard to work with?
Two schools of sound.
1. Fast dynamic bass, mid bass sounding drivers with low qms.(similar to PRO type drivers?)
2. Slow deep bass, mid bass drivers with high qms.
And of course Le, and RMS important here.
Do you confirm?
Please make a big discussion. I would like it not to be theoretical as mine, but with comparisons under the same conditions.
The MR16P-4 6.5” Satori Midrange from SB Acoustics | audioXpress
I am using these as mid/bass, near full-range and am very happy with them. If you want more deep or powerful bass, you might consider the MW version which are true mid/woofers. In my application; the MR "midrange" drivers give me plenty of bass. Regardless; the SB Satori line is very hard to beat for accurate sound quality within their price range.
400 Bad Request test review)
Last edited:
www.audioexcite.com >> SB Acoustics “Satori” MW16P-4
Not sure if I can post the link that works but read the test and review on the MW16P on the "audioexcite" web page
I believe there is fast and slow bass, since that is how people describes the sound they hear.
I believe there is more to the impulse response then just bandwidth, like phase and frequency response
Believe... believe...
Alas, it doesn't actually matter what you believe; transient response is a question of BW (at least over the rising response & mass controlled BW out to the point resonant behaviour becomes dominant) and, where relevant, enclosure load behaviour.
Attachments
Bandwidth = high and low extent of frequency response
Impulse Response (time domain response) contains the same information as the frequency response!
Take any woofer that is low passed at some frequency - the driver size will not matter. The impulse response will look "slow". This is simply a consequence of the frequency response not having high frequencies in it. The high frequency components allow the driver to quickly respond to the stimulus because a high frequency component more quickly grows to its peak compared to a low frequency. Think of high and low frequency sine waves and how they differ WRT how quickly they go from zero crossing to peak. The initial rise in the impulse response is completely governed by the frequency response - in fact both representations contain THE SAME INFORMATION, except on is in the time domain and the other is in the frequency domain.
The low frequency (near resonance) behavior is governed by the motor strength (force) and compliance of the surround and suspension (damping) and how the driver is being used (free air, sealed box, etc). The "sound" of the bass is contributed to both by the driver's response and by resonances in cabinet and other structures. When there is little bass, the impulse response (time domain response) will quickly die out because there are no longer-period components (that represent the low frequencies in the FR domain). When the FR extends deep into the bass, or has a peak in the response at the low end of the passband, the impulse response will take longer to die out due to the presence of these longer period components. This is simply a result of how frequency and time responses are related. One can be calculated from the other and a change in one must result in a change in the other.
If you want your driver to be "fast" and "stop quickly" then it should have "no bass". It is impossible to have a driver with deep bass extension AND have an impulse response that stops quickly.
When I see people saying a driver is "fast" I always get the idea that they do not understand the correspondence (duality) between the time and frequency responses.
SB line use harder cones than the Scanspeak in question, hence better resolution. Cone is heavier, however (for the same Sd). On your comment of fast midbass/bass - see Scott`s comment above. Seas excel has lower sensitivity and a breakup node which requires carefull work in the crossover. Most Excel midwoofers have higher inductance which introduces another set of issues especially under higher excursion. Magnesium cones are said to corrode and you`re close to the Baltic sea.
It pains me to see this kind of comment (your harder cone <--> better resolution). What is "resolution" in this context, anyway? I am afraid that some people will read your comment and then run with the sentiment to the extreme in a somewhat naive way IMHO.
I feel that your sentiment is not necessarily the case, because it depends on the frequency range in which the driver will be used. A "soft" cone (e.g. poly) can do quite well until breakup, at which point the cone is doing all sorts of weird things but the soft material helps to damp out the breakup. If the driver's passband in the loudspeaker will include the breakup part of the drivers response I would strongly prefer the soft cone over the "hard" one! A hard cone might push breakup to higher frequencies, but may have worse breakup behavior. Is that better?
Also, both the "soft" and "hard" cones will be pistonic at medium frequencies. I find it hard to say one would have better "resolution" (whatever that is) in this part of the audio band compared to the other, all other things being equal. Since all things are never 100% equal for any two different driver models you have to look at the whole picture regarding the driver's response behavior and how the driver will be utilized in the loudspeaker.
Every driver is different and the many aspects of performance are not easily boiled down into "fast vs slow" or "hard cone versus soft cone", etc.
The above is all IMHO, of course...
I always thought that fast bass is played in front of the beat, and slow bass is played behind the beat. A good drummer and bass player combo can play in front of the beat, on the beat, and behind the beat, mutually swopping the timing to make a dance rhythm really groove or swing.
Listen to Sly and Robbie, or James Brown.
Perhaps I am wrong - correct me if I am.
ToS
Hello Mario,
Simply stating matters do not make these matters true. This hard cone= detail thing is audiophoolery nonsense.
I will illustrate my point: for many here polypropylene is seen as dull sounding. For the sake of completeness, poly's come in different degrees of calcium fillings, making some a bit more stiff then others.
However, it always amuses me when Audio Technolgy comes into view. Then, these same people rejecting plastic cones, all of a sudden claim that AT cones are stellar and out of this world regarding "detail".
The reconcile these oddities, the claim then is that AT use some super-out- of- this-world unobtainable plastic.
So, to wrap it up: there is maybe from a designers point of view a philosophy: lower more gentle break up vs higher up, but more aggressive break up. Pick your poison.
Simply stating matters do not make these matters true. This hard cone= detail thing is audiophoolery nonsense.
I will illustrate my point: for many here polypropylene is seen as dull sounding. For the sake of completeness, poly's come in different degrees of calcium fillings, making some a bit more stiff then others.
However, it always amuses me when Audio Technolgy comes into view. Then, these same people rejecting plastic cones, all of a sudden claim that AT cones are stellar and out of this world regarding "detail".
The reconcile these oddities, the claim then is that AT use some super-out- of- this-world unobtainable plastic.
So, to wrap it up: there is maybe from a designers point of view a philosophy: lower more gentle break up vs higher up, but more aggressive break up. Pick your poison.
What do wee need to get the detail/resolution? We need the driver to work well in the intended bandwidth (which means it should produce both LF and HF at once). As most detail is in the midrange (HF) the cone shouldn't be allowed to flex/bend affecting sound in this region. A flexed cone will create noise and out-of-phase signal that mask music, will compress the dynamics, hence reducing resolution. What do we need so the cone behaves like a piston? First it must be strong/hard so as not to flex. But we need it light so it can cover the top bandwidth. Of course there are other factors (such as strong motor to create proper magnetic field, etc) but we all know that so I think it is fine to associate hard cone with resolution, knowing that no one would create a cone from metal weighting 1kg. Basically, we have to assume proper engineering for the driver and proper designing for the speaker.
There is no such thing as detail or resolution: it is not a loudspeaker design parameter (linear nor non-linear) in our current universe or or scientific system.
And back to reality: how is this stiff cone philosophy to be reconciled with the praise for the e.g. ATC 75 mm doped soft-dome, the floppiest diaphram of all, so to say?
We have seen some attempts to characterize break up as DDR or other unfounded stuff. But that has nothing to do with a scientific approach of driver design.
All that matters is a reasonably flat target passband. There are many ways to skin that cat.
And back to reality: how is this stiff cone philosophy to be reconciled with the praise for the e.g. ATC 75 mm doped soft-dome, the floppiest diaphram of all, so to say?
We have seen some attempts to characterize break up as DDR or other unfounded stuff. But that has nothing to do with a scientific approach of driver design.
All that matters is a reasonably flat target passband. There are many ways to skin that cat.
An what would you call a planer tweeter which puts out more detailed highs then a dome or compression driver?
And when I measure a 3.3" broadband driver; it plays above 10k, but it sounds like one note highs.
A tweeter can measures about the same in response, but has a higher detail resolution, plays more details.
There might be no tools to measure this, but that does not make it not exist.
I think this boils down to cost, things with hefty pricetags are always adored for their better sound
There is endless discussion about whether a planar/ribbon/AMT is more detailed, or a Be dome wins. The reality is that you need an extremely careful, matched SPL level equalized set-up with identical passbands/stopbands.
In the real world it is the on axis/off axis combination that will determine how a particular transducer sounds. Ribbons/planar are great in this respect, in that they combine a very smooth, break up free on axis passband, with very wide horizontal dispersion in case of a small diaphragm. Imo the perceived detail is more the result of splashing (more than a 25 mm dome) off axis SPL against the adjacent walls than anything else.
It is, however, open for debate whether such wide dispersion at , say 10kHz, is desirable from a multi driver system design perspective. See the controlled directivity debate
In the real world it is the on axis/off axis combination that will determine how a particular transducer sounds. Ribbons/planar are great in this respect, in that they combine a very smooth, break up free on axis passband, with very wide horizontal dispersion in case of a small diaphragm. Imo the perceived detail is more the result of splashing (more than a 25 mm dome) off axis SPL against the adjacent walls than anything else.
It is, however, open for debate whether such wide dispersion at , say 10kHz, is desirable from a multi driver system design perspective. See the controlled directivity debate
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.