"Let me say this, although the Vox did not get its required horn cabinet, Vox will have to come up with alotttt more than what I heard with their AC1A demo in a 12x12x12 inch /1/4 inch plywood test cabinet." Mozartfan, Really not sure how you can accurately evaluate a speakers performance in a cabinet it's not designed for. |
The dealer said that it is 95 db/w efficient, s
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 95!!!!!! db sens,, in a 15 incher,,WOW, = $2k from a Scanspeak = bargain. One of those guys + a Seas W16 Graphene + a Seas Crescendo = blows anything from Wilson's in all shootouts. I just got the DavidLouis 6.5 wide band. For under $500, this driver looks stunning, The paper is soem sort of composite and has kick to the tap of my finger,,, Waiting for tech to open shop tomorrow so we can get the DL wired up N running/YT vid tomorrow. I am expecting stunning results,, Some tech geek over there in china knows how to make a wide band. This guy is a speaker guru genius. The Vox I had will not stand up in any fq's to this materful designed wide band from ~~China~~ Yeah I know, how often have I emphatically stated here,,~~China can not make a speaker~~, I am eating those words. Beats the Seas wide band in all fq's as well. I've been cking every inch of the driver for 1 hour, and am amazed at the contsruction/design. I do not think there is wide band in current production that will beat it in any shootout in any fq range. The lil 4 incher is extremely accurate in vocals. Has bass puch and highs that do not roll off til say 12k region, FOUR INCH wide band doing it all!!! I'd put this 6.5 up against anything from Feastrex/AER, Voxativ. Let me say this, although the Vox did not get its required horn cabinet, Vox will have to come up with alotttt more than what I heard with their AC1A demo in a 12x12x12 inch /1/4 inch plywood test cabinet. Vox/AER has many models, so i can not say how the shootouts will do down. Then again, @ $450, I could care less if Vox/AER/Feastrex blows away the DL. But again, the shootout might just be close ORRRR The DL6.5 might come out last speaker standing at speaker shootout at ~~The Old OK Corral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAFNVCXk93Y |
I don't know what sets the price for this particular driver. It could be that few units are expected to be sold, so the price of developing the driver is being amortized from fewer expected sales. I believe it is a newer offering. It could be a speaker intended to fill a particular niche--vintage speaker designs--and the price might be a reflection of what is available in that arena. I know people who have spent $5,000 to $20,000 each on vintage woofers. I cannot tell you what I would pay for a perfectly match pair of 18" Goodman woofers. The dealer said that it is 95 db/w efficient, so it is not a very high efficiency unit like many vintage woofers. Still, this would work well with modestly powerful tube amps. |
@larryi -- Scanspeak makes some fairly expensive paper coned woofers. I don't think they think that paper is crap. A local dealer that builds its own custom speakers just finished a pair that utilizes 15" paper coned drivers from Scanspeak. The drivers cost the dealer $2,000 each. The speaker just came in and the crossover has not been mounted so I haven't heard them playing, but, I will get a chance. I wonder what the reason is for their 15" driver to be that expensive, and how the sonic results would ever reflect the price positively. I guess that's up to the individual to decide.. Arguments have been made that high efficiency drivers are more expensive due to the smaller tolerances required in the voice coil gap, but there are many great HE pro drivers that, when looking at their typically vastly bigger magnets, voice coils and overall size, compare favorably here to hifi drivers of smaller size and not least (much) lower efficiency. Go figure. It's telling then that when Scanspeak sets out to make a 15" driver, likely only no more than moderately sensitive at that, the dealer cost is $2,000 (even more for the consumer, I presume). Not to dismiss their efforts prematurely, but that's hifi in a nutshell. |
Every material for drivers; paper, aluminum, kevlar, carbon fiber, nomex, ceramic, magnesium, beryllium, etc.... all have pros and cons. And incidentally, more people than SEAS and Scanspeak make great drivers. Each material has different characteristics that behave differently in different applications. Paper is not inherently good or bad. Paper cones are not simple card sock cut into a cone. The formula is typically a carefully guarded secret and they can deliver elite level performance. I find the paper drivers I use (Eton's Orchestra) offer a tiny bit of coloration which makes them engaging and incredibly musical. In the right application, paper drivers can simply be extraordinary. In terms of accuracy, I agree that magnesium offers some distinct benefits. I prefer Eton's magnesium driver to SEAS more because it is much easier to work with. The SEAS is very difficult to get the crossover just right while Eton's Arcosia works with simpler crossovers and delivers and incredibly smooth yet accurate sound. I actually prefer Eton's paper drivers compared to Scanspeak as well. But, this is based on my designs and my experience using lightweight but heavily damped cabinet material. The EXACT opposite of say Joseph Audio or Wilson who are producing high mass cabinets. In the end, a speaker is a complete system and you can't take a driver and say it is "the best" without the context of cabinet and crossover. A great driver in a bad cabinet or with a bad crossover will deliver a bad speaker. A modestly priced driver integrated with the right cabinet and the right crossover can be insanely good and in the end, it is the complete design that matters. Individual parts should be taken in the context of that system. |
Scanspeak makes some fairly expensive paper coned woofers. I don't think they think that paper is crap. A local dealer that builds its own custom speakers just finished a pair that utilizes 15" paper coned drivers from Scanspeak. The drivers cost the dealer $2,000 each. The speaker just came in and the crossover has not been mounted so I haven't heard them playing, but, I will get a chance. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE Paper vs Balsa C/F with the ruthless truth machine German laser… Listen and measure…or wander randomly |
Mozart….just a bit of effort on your part will reveal that Vandersteen builds unique balsa core, carbon fiber and aluminum honeycomb ( sub ) cones for integration into Scanspeak bespoke frames and motor assy, including unique to Vandy aerodynamic structures. A partnership with Scanspeak that spans decades… You may on self reflection discover that this post is not really a reply to you… |
Hehehe. Well, for mid-woofers some of the best drivers on earth are the ScanSpeak Revelator/Illuminator lines. They are pretty advanced though, using a sandwich/resin technology, but essentially paper. You’ll find these in several Wilson models, among others. There are also some afficionado’s of the paper tweeter/midrange, but probably not me. :) It’s not just about the materials. You can make both excellent and also very very bad speakers out of a lot of different materials. The design of the motor, suspension and integration with the overall design matter a great deal. Personally aside from paper I’m generally a fan of composite materials (SS Revelator included) such as resin/Kevlar, the Focal W and resin/fiberglass. You can make some incredibly light and resonance free drivers this way. One free piece of knowledge I got was from a slide from Focal, on how they sold their brand. Consumers like you want modernity. The idea that new = better, so many brands will sell you on that alone. Modernity without necessarily an audible benefit, or different but not better. It takes a very confident audiophile to buy a bargain. :) |
Magnesium is some sort of super damp, yet extremely accurate bass/upper mids. sens is a bit low at 87, Better go W18EX or even better W22EX,,or even more cash W22 Graphene, wow factor off the charts. DavidLouis is alos sharing spot light with the Seas. The lil Kasun paper tweet 91db sens, ain't no joke either. Throw in Mundorf's Silver supremes, and = best bang for the speaker buck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI5TZ4KCE_Y I will have issues with the Wilson line, I know it. I never like a midrange in a speaker. And the Wilson's will only confirm what I already know. |
Thiel, Vandersteen, Wilson, These names mean absoluetly nothing to me, What I want to know is where did they buy their midwoofers,,and what kind of cone material are they using. Thats it. Names signify nothing. UNless of course its Troel Gravesen name of the spaker,, Then yeah, I know I'm getting best bang cone material. Not sure why Troels never designed a dual W22 Magnesium + Cresendo tweeter. For me, thats the ultimate speaker. Ultimate. WEll 2nd only to Dual Graphene W22's, But you are gonna need cash for that one, Still alottttt less price vs Wilson's over rated Scanspeaks. |
I prefer high efficiency 15" woofers with paper cones (most if not all of this segment of drivers use paper cones anyway), preferably crossed not much higher than in the 500Hz vicinity - horn-loaded if possible or in duals (per channel) as direct radiators. In this frequency spectrum and sensitivity range the specific configuration would seem to dictate the material used. Above that frequency compression drivers fitted to large horns are my choice, and mostly a variety of metal diaphragms are used in such drivers - apart from BMS/JBL ring radiator variants where polyester is used. Aluminum, titanium, magnesium, beryllium, plastic or paper compounds (the latter of which would be HF-limited) - I couldn't say which material in particular floats my boat. Some prefer aluminum here for its claimed tonal prowess (think Vitavox S2 as a prime example), others beryllium for its upper extension and overall relatively smooth response (Truextent diaphragms come to mind), the PA/cinema industry for years has preferred titanium for its durability, some domestic users favor non-metal materials for what they believe is less harsh/more natural sounding to their ears, etc. Inclusivity be damned; it's about preference, implementation and the specific use. |
If you have a white paper (report), all materials sound good. Of course, that can be misconstrued as racist, so we have to say that whatever color cone paper you have is good, just to be equitable. And, to be inclusive we have to say that whatever material you use, it has to be accepted - no endorsed! Performance doesn’t matter; inclusivity is most important. The cone has to feel good about itself. ;) |
Seas answer to Scanspeaks newest paper composite woofers which are indeed phenomenal.. But this NX001, a driver which Troel Gravesen had some imput in the design, (Titanium voice coil etc), This NXE001 is something equal to Scanspeaks top midwoofers. WOW factor off the charts. Tempting for sure,, but I think I'm going to swap the bottom W18E001 for a Magnesium W22 EX001. Seas vs Scanpsek, 6 of 1 /half dozen the oher But I am a Seas devotee for life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCZ8qDDStk |
If Magnesium was not offered, I'd have no choice but to go with paper. Thankfully Seas figured out how to get Magnesium to work, http://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=49&Itemid=246 |
@gs5556 -- Not true at all. "Paper" tends to denote taking the cheap way out but is in fact a complicated mess of fibers, polymers, resins etc., engineered for light weight (has to react quickly), high rigidity (prevents deformation) and longevity. Paper's been a proven performer for decades - only recently have things like Kevlar and metal cones been introduced, and while they have advantages and disadvantages over paper, they alone do not make a speaker high end by virtue of their properties. Very well put. |
I may be naive or uninformed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note all the Wilson reviews. Not even once do they mention Sacspeaks paper composite style sound. No thanks. magnesium is superior to paper in upper bass./low midrange. Seas has magnesium. Wilson offers Scanspeak paper comp sound. No thank you. Lets get real here folks. No more snakeoil |
larryi2,563 posts08-03-2021 3:53pmYou can find many examples of current drivers that are very expensive that utilize paper cones--AER, Feastrix, Fostex, and G.I.P. come to mind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As in Voxativ Employs super thin papyrus paper, My tech badgers me all the time**You did not hear the Voxativ set up in a proper horn cabinet...***. well true. Still , that 12x12x12 cabinet gave me all I want to know. Tapping on the papyrus (PAPER!) cone,,, its was like no bass whatsoever,,I was thinking,,how in the world is this driver going to go down to low bass??? You can tap on a cone and get some inkling of an idea how it will respond to bass fq's. We will see how the DavidLouis treated paper cone responds in the 60hz zone. Drums specifically. The Seas magnesium is the best midwoofer ever made for bass guitar. But you will need a Mundorf SESGO or Supreme Silver to get the results. In drums/percussion kettles, Scanspeak wins the prize. |
A friend of mine spends a small fortune collecting as many Western Electric or Altec paper coned drivers (515 or 555 or something like that) as he can get his hands on. The cones are so old they crumble if touched. The sound, however, is very lively and articulate when these drivers are used in his full-range, multi-driver designs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ These 1929 Colortura made in Chicago, Telefunken made in Berlin and your friends, WE, 's, EV's, and not to forget Jensen's, all have nice high fidelity midrange. These drivers set the bench mark for high fidelity. I have tested some new wide bands, found the Voxativ a bit weak if not worse,,and have stayed with a line out of china, DavidLouis. Female voice very accurate, bass, YES, highs, yes. 4 inch. Some stress in midrange/= distortion,,but livable up to mid vol. |
There is paper, and there is paper. Paper is a laminate of wood (mostly) fibers, and can be a very sophisticated product.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sure Scanspeaks paper composites are not regular old paper, The material is complex and have excellent, if not the very best lowest end drum/percussion reproduction. For jazz i think the Scanspeak line are the best midwoofers. I listen to classical and so the Magnesium material has less (near zero) upper bass/low mids coloration. A friend describes the Magnesium as being **neutral*. |
I've recently made ~~NUMEROUS~~ posts (more than the board can take). Concerning issues with anything paper/paper composite (Exceptions to every rule as you know). I've heard countless paper cones in the 1970's/1980's. Thats just about the best that was offered back then.. But in 2002 when I began my speaker search,,I came across a Seas Magnesium cone,, NOt knowing what the k=hoot magnesium was/sounded like,,I went ahead and trust the old famous Norwegain lab on cone material choice. IMHO, and for my musical sound preferences,, this material seems to work best for how i want to hear upper bass/lower mids. Can the Magnesium do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6B6WjAzuc8&t=5s No The W18 magnesium can not match the Scanspeak paper composite in this extremely accurate drum solo. STUNNING!!! AS with any cone material there are tradeoffs. I give up deep accurate rock soild drums, but gain in other fq's. I just do not ever wish to hear a paper/paper composite style mid cone. Brings up old memories of a era I wish to forget.. That said, I do like upper bass in the davidLouis 4 inch wide band **treated *paper composite cone. I have the DL 6.5 arriving in days. I am expecting same nice tight upper bass, maybe hitting 60hz...and hopefully avoiding that **paperish* resonances. Which explains why I would never come around to anything Wilson, nor Vandersteen. Dont get me wrong, the Denmark lab, Scanspeak makes incredible midbass speakers. Equal to the Magnesium But do expect the paper type resonances in upperbass/lower midrange. Troels has no issues using Scan's or Seas new Nextel treated paper in his best designs... Just not my cup of tea. |
Here's an interesting video that shows how the shape of cones can be distorted. I can only imagine what might happen to the sound. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE |
Sean...Lighten up! Dogs eat homework every day! I, and I am sure many others, have been in the situation of losing work for one reason or another, and the worst part is realizing that other people will be skeptical of our explanation. One time I lost a 20 sheet PowerPoint presentation while putting finishing touches on it after hours the night before the business trip. No choice but to suck it in and stay up all night doing it over again. As usual for a second time around it actually came out better, but I never told a soul that I had screwed up. When I write long Audiogon posts I do it first in WORD, and then copy it into the thread. Why? I learned the hard way. BTW this also gives you a spell checker for words like "analogue" :-) We look forward to your next dissertation. |
El: I don't know if that was meant to be humorous as a comment about modern day technology and how things get "lost in the system" or to say that i'm bullshitting and didn't do any of the work i.e. an excuse. Believe me, i invested a great amount of time in what i lost and it doesn't make me happy. Sean > |
I spent quite a long time typing out a very thorough yet somewhat easy to follow response to the above about Qms, loudspeaker design, resonances, the amplifier / speaker power transfer interface, etc... While attempting to perform another function on my computer, i somehow managed to shut down multiple windows at one time. One of those windows was the Agon post i was working on. Needless to say, i'm quite frustrated and not up to trying to re-do it right now, so it will have to wait. I apollogize for the delay and will try to get to this soon. As a side note, good news from my ear doctor today. He told me that they can stay on the sides of my head, no need for removal as of yet : ) Sean > |
Cdc: I've got to head out to the ear doctor and then off to work. I'll try to explain why Qms is important later tonight. What i'll have to say is controversial amongst most speaker designers / engineers, but the facts present themselves once one does research on the subject. Even so, many that are rooted in their beliefs refuse to see the light, just like those that told you that it didn't really matter. Sean > |
Hi Sean, I dunno, that was what I was told. I justified it when looking at total Q. The electrical Q seemed to have a greater impact on Qts than the mechanical Q did. Anyhow, does this bamboo material driver look like a good choice? It retails for about $35 each. I can't put up response curves but above 14k there is an 8db plateau from 15-18k - that doesn't look very musical or accurate to me. |
Cdc: What makes you think that Qes is any more important than Qms, especially on a "full range" driver or woofer??? I see this line of thinking expressed all the time, yet i can't understand the logic behind it. If this were a driver specifically designed for use over a limited bandwidth where resonance would not come into play at all, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. With a woofer and / or a tweeter, where the resonance does come into play within the audible bandpass of the driver, this is a completely different story. My guess is that most people don't understand what a higher Qms brings with it, hence the lack of concern in this area. This is exactly why most low frequency drivers, especially "American made" ones, are as poor of a performer as they are. When you start studying power transfer characteristics, transient response, ringing, etc... it becomes apparent just how important a low Qms really is. Combining a high Qms woofer with a vent, which also reduces control and damping, is a sure-fire way to lose all forms of bass definition and transient response. Sean > |
Tang-Band has a full range 4" driver made from bamboo coming out in May. Qms = 1.499 Qes = 0.484 Qts = 0.366 BL = 4.80 Mms = 3.49 g Compared to their W4-655sa 4" paper driver: Qms = 4.35 Qes = 0.35 Qts = 0.33 Electrical Q being more important to damp than mechanical Q. But TB's typical paper Qms is no lower than 2.80. So the bamboo damps very well indeed. |
Used to have a pair of paper cone full range speakers. Spectrums, I think they were Dutch, taken over by Fisher at some point. Great speakers. They had been my grandfather's with an old NAD integrated. Both came out of a screening room at CBS 60 Minutes when they revamp'd. Wasn't sure about the ensemble when they got shipped to me... paper, 25 years old, etc. My intro to hi-fi after my grandfather passed away. Lasted me five years even so, 30 years total, and paper cones are supposed to be easy to destroy. After an hour with them I had been converted. |
Reinforced paper cones seems to be one of optimal choices, dont know to which extend slicing the paper etc. is just hype... ? low-end would be poly-propylene materials... it has a smoother and deeper (comparable to paper), but clearity and precision is very bad - PP simply flexes too much when playing bass, making distortion the rule rather than the exception. Surprisingly many manufactures markets their pp cone woofer as quality - showing of their smooth response curves and low-end fs values... and only very very few gives you any idea of rated distortion and power compression, which is much more important in a bass unit. from what I've heard aluminium is not optimal when it comes to timbre, i.e. it makes the sound less natural, and Kevlar tend to have a less uniform response curve than paper, but have a deeper fs value, ideal for non-vented enclosures, but who uses that for bass? Anyways the point being that its a trade off (between many things, where paper still seems to posses the best of each. I myself have two 15" paper cones - one $50 that sounds like crap compared to my $500 JBL 2226 G 15", but that would be expected - paper cones comes in many varities too... A. |
Paper is a low mass low loss material. Paper cones have better transient reponse ang higher mechanical Q compared to plastic/polymer alternatives. They have higher efficiency. But they may have resonances which must be taken care of at crossover side. The envoiremental robustness is achieved by surface treatments. But since it is a compressed material it will loose it's structural rigidity in time. High tech marketting jargon can also be applied to parper cones by giving exotic names to pulp mixtures etc. |
