Scan-Speak Discovery 10F/8414G10 “Fullrange”


Up for test is Scan’s newer edition to their 10F lineage: The 10F/8414G10.  This features a smaller neo magnet than it’s predecessors, making it an easier fit for tighter install applications.  I tested one of those models a couple years ago, and the data can be viewed here.

 

IMG_2237 IMG_2240 IMG_2239

 

 

Small Signal Parameters

Results as measured via Dayton’s DATs measurement tool.  Which is a very little handy tool to have.  😉

  • f(s)= 133.20 Hz
  • R(e)= 5.73 Ohms
  • Z(max)= 18.36 Ohms
  • Q(ms)= 2.251
  • Q(es)= 1.022
  • Q(ts)= 0.703
  • V(as)= 1.219 liters (0.043 cubic feet)
  • L(e)= 0.55 mH
  • n(0)= 0.27 %
  • SPL= 86.39 1W/1m
  • M(ms)= 2.17 grams
  • C(ms)= 0.66 mm/N
  • BL= 3.19

10f_8414G10 impedance

Frequency Response

Frequency Response and the following Harmonic Distortion measurements were taken using Dayton’s OmniMic measurement system.

The frequency response measurements below are on-axis (0 degrees) and off-axis (15, 30, 60 degrees), measured at 2.83v/1m.

10f_8414G10 HD 0 15 30 60

 

Harmonic Distortion

The following HD graphs are done in the nearfield, emulating 90dB at 1 meter as well as 96dB at 1 meter, respectively.

10f_8414G10 HD 90db 10f_8414G10 HD 96db

 

 

Thoughts

Frequency Response:  This is pretty much cream of the crop stuff here.  Average sensitivity is approximately 85dB @ 2.83v/1m.  While not dead flat across the board, there is a high-shelf like boost above 2khz by about 3dB.  The response also trends upward on-axis.  At 30 degrees off-axis, this driver is practically flat out to 10khz.  The polar response (off-axis response relative to on-axis) is stellar.  Each axis of measure follows the same trend above the beaming point (which is determined by the diameter of the drive unit; in this case approximately 2khz) which is a sign of a very well damped cone exhibiting no modal issues to speak of until nearly 15khz.  This excellent polar response means a couple things: a) if you wanted to use this above the beaming point there will be no significant modal ringing or specifically harsh areas in the sound or b) if you plan to cross this to mate with a tweeter, keeping directivity at the crossover low this driver will not need a lot of ‘work’ at the crossover because outside of the typical crossover point I’d expect one to use here there are no aberrations in the response; just a general upward tilt to the response.

Harmonic Distortion:  The first thing worth noting is the 400hz high-Q peak in distortion.  At 96dB and 102dB equivalent output, this peaks to about 2-3% THD.  This is a resonance of some sort (possibly basket) evidenced by the fact the small blip in impedance lines up with this frequency.  Worth noting is this same peak in distortion appears in the my testing of the earlier 10f/4424g00 here.  Outside of that, the 3% THD limit is met on the low end at approximately 115hz.  The 1% THD line is above 300hz.  Above 600hz, distortion falls to under 0.50% THD throughout the rest of the frequency range.  Given the Fs of this drive unit and the THD, a realistic crossover range is in the 300-500hz region, depending on output levels and steepness of the crossover slope.

Comparing against the earlier 10f/4424g00 tested here: While FR looks very similar, THD is one area where this particular drive unit differs from the 10f/4424g00.  Comparing the THD of the two, you’ll see the distortion of the 10f/4424g00 unit increases above 1% to approximately 1.5% THD above about 1500hz where 2nd order distortion with that unit rose nearly 20dB.  The unit under test here keeps it’s low 2nd order distortion and is approximately 1% lower above 1500hz in comparison.

Test setup note:  The driver cutout was chamfered.  The driver was not flush-mounted; it was surface mounted.

PS:  If you would like to help me keep up funds for testing, there’s a little ‘contribute’ button that goes through Paypal all the way at the bottom of every page.  Any little bit helps.

AudioFrog GB40 4″ Midrange


Up for test is AudioFrog’s GB40 4″ Midrange.

The GB15 1.5″ tweeter was tested here.

It’s worth noting this review is based on mostly objective data.  These drivers – as well as the others from the AudioFrog GB series speakers – include a LOT of installation hardware to make installs quicker and easier.  I simply don’t have the time right now to really delve in to the facets of this here.

IMG_2217 IMG_2235 IMG_2233 IMG_2230 IMG_2226

 

 

Small Signal Parameters

Results as measured via Dayton’s DATs measurement tool.  Which is a very little handy tool to have.  😉

  • f(s)= 105.60 Hz
  • R(e)= 3.30 Ohms
  • Z(max)= 12.93 Ohms
  • Q(ms)= 2.654
  • Q(es)= 0.908
  • Q(ts)= 0.676
  • V(as)= 2.332 liters (0.082 cubic feet)
  • L(e)= 0.34 mH
  • n(0)= 0.29 %
  • SPL= 86.70 1W/1m
  • M(ms)= 4.81 grams
  • C(ms)= 0.47 mm/N
  • BL= 3.40

gb40 impedance

Frequency Response

Frequency Response and the following Harmonic Distortion measurements were taken using Dayton’s OmniMic measurement system.

The frequency response measurements below are on-axis (0 degrees) and off-axis (15, 30, 60 degrees), measured at 2.83v/1m.

gb40 fr 0 15 30 60

 

 

Harmonic Distortion

The following HD graphs are done in the nearfield, emulating 90dB at 1 meter as well as 96dB at 1 meter, respectively.

gb40 HD 90

gb40 HD 96

Thoughts

I’m going to have to make this quick…

FR indicates average sensitivity in the 85dB @ 2.83v/1m ballpark.  There’s an upward climb on-axis above 2khz, which is similar to what I measured with the JL Audio C5-400cm here and the ScanSpeak 10f I measured here.  Seems to indicate this may be better placed off-axis.  There’s a fairly small breakup at 6.7kHz that doesn’t bother me much, but does show up in all axes.  That said, this peaking is about 2 octaves above the nominal low-pass crossover and so benign it will be mitigated by the crossover anyway.

The THD at 96dB overall is quite low, though there’s an anomaly that shows up around 400hz.  I’m not sure what this could be, though it’s worth noting I saw the same issue with the Scanspeak 10f I measured a couple years back.  This doesn’t show up in any other of my measurements, which indicates that it’s not the measurement setup itself.  Not sure what this could be, exactly, but it’s interesting that this occurs with both these 4″ drivers. Outside of that issue, the THD measured at 96dB breaks down as follows: 3% THD is met at approximately 100hz.  At 200hz the THD measured is approximately 1.25%.  At 300hz the THD is approximately 0.60% and above 500hz the THD is below 0.50% and as low as 0.30% in some places.  Very good.

Overall: Given the upper frequency crossover is determined by the beaming point, with a 4″ driver you can expect to cross this driver on the high end at about 3khz (give or take depending on the slope).  The low end crossover is typically driven by the amount of distortion you get.  I’d say, if you pay attention to the trend (and ignore the 400hz concern) the appropriate crossover for this driver would be in the 200-250hz ballpark which would provide you plenty of output at low distortion.  Also this provides the ability to cross this lower than I typically recommend for the ScanSpeak 10f (one of my go-to suggestions). The mid 80’s sensitivity is likely due to the tradeoff of low frequency extension.  In other words, if the sensitivity were higher, distortion would be higher, lower in frequency meaning you may have to cross at 300hz rather than 200hz to achieve the same level of THD.

Speaking of the 10f comparison, the below pictures show the difference in size between the newer, smaller neo magnet version of the 10f (this one):

IMG_2218 IMG_2219

PS:  If you would like to help me keep up funds for testing, there’s a little ‘contribute’ button that goes through Paypal all the way at the bottom of every page.  Any little bit helps.

AudioFrog GB15 1.5″ Dome Tweeter


Up for test is AudioFrog’s GB15 1.5″ Dome Tweeter.

It’s worth noting this review is based on mostly objective data.  These drivers – as well as the others from the AudioFrog GB series speakers – include a LOT of installation hardware to make installs quicker and easier.  I simply don’t have the time right now to really delve in to the facets of this, but I will include some of the hardware in the following pictures.

IMG_2215 IMG_2209 IMG_2210 IMG_2213 IMG_2211 IMG_2205

 

Small Signal Parameters

Results as measured via Dayton’s DATs measurement tool.  Which is a very little handy tool to have.  😉

  • f(s)= 1183.00 Hz
  • R(e)= 2.92 Ohms
  • Z(max)= 9.32 Ohms
  • Q(ms)= 4.810
  • Q(es)= 2.195
  • Q(ts)= 1.507

AF GB15 Impedance

 

Frequency Response

Frequency Response and the following Harmonic Distortion measurements were taken using Dayton’s OmniMic measurement system.

The frequency response measurements below are on-axis (0 degrees) and off-axis (15, 30, 60 degrees), measured at 2.83v/1m.

GB15 FR 0 15 30 60pngNow, normalized to show the relation of the off-axis response to the on-axis response:

GB15 FR 0 15 30 60 normalized

 

Harmonic Distortion

The following HD graphs are done in the nearfield, emulating the 1 meter output of 90dB, 96dB, and 102dB in order.

GB15 HD 90dB GB15 HD 96dB GB15 HD 102dB

Thoughts

Let’s take this step by step…

In terms of build quality, these are very nice.  The body is made from some thick metal.  There is a slew of install related optioned hardware provided (such as mounting tabs, screw ring to clamp the tweeter, removable grille that you can custom paint, etc, etc).  Just extremely high build quality here.

The Fs shows an Fs of 1183Hz.  Pairing this up with the distortion plots, it’s easier to get an idea of where an appropriate high-pass crossover point for a tweeter is.  In this case, above 2khz, distortion is at about 0.50% THD at 96dB output and below 0.80% THD at 102dB output, so I’d say this is probably a safe low-frequency crossover with at least a 12dB slope.

While that may seem like a (relatively) high cross over point for a 1.5 inch tweeter, take a look at the average sensitivity above this point: 90.5dB @ 2.83v/1m measured.  Compare that to the Gladen Aerospace 28mm tweeter I recently measured – which is only a couple millimeters smaller in each dimension – and you’ll see, while the Gladen looks like it can also take this same crossover point, that tweeter has an average sensitivity of approximately 87.5dB @ 2.83v/1m.  The Gladen 28mm is just a hair more compact, by a couple millimeters in the various dimensions, but the AF has about 3dB higher sensitivity.  So, in terms of output, I’d say the AF is slightly above the Gladen thanks to it’s similarly low distortion but 3dB higher output.

That’s a lot of talk about crossover point, so let’s look at frequency response which is more important to me…

You’ll notice a broad peak on the low end near resonance.  Scan’s D3004/60000 has this as well, though steeper.  I’m not saying it’s bad… I’m just doing some comparison against a well-liked product.  There’s an off-axis dip And it’s worth pointing out here this testing was done without flush-mounting the tweeter (which is the same way I have conducted all of my tweeter tests over the past few years).  As you can see the in the photo at the beginning of this review there is a pretty deep trough between the tweeter dome and the side of the housing that I believe is causing some of the combing pattern you see in the high frequency area.  With that said, I prefer to look at on-axis to get an idea of the smoothness but I focus more on what happens off-axis to see how the trend behaves.  Are the same bumps/dips there or do they differ quite a bit.  According to my measurements the dip at ~10.5khz is due to a reflection from the dome center to the surround (this is a educated guess; doesn’t mean I’m right ;)).  Overall the response on and off-axis trends well in relation to each other.

Overall, the on-axis response isn’t flat and it shows some combing in the high frequencies.  The polar response (how the off-axis behaves relative to on-axis) tracks pretty smoothly.  The sensitivity is 90.5dB @ 2.83v/1m which is pretty high and the distortion levels are very low. This tweeter should be able to handle a 2khz crossover point with the right slope (12dB or greater).

As extra, I also did some ‘grille on’ vs ‘grille off’ measurements below because I know some may wonder what effect there is.  I DO NOT recommend using them in this manner because you surely run the risk of voiding a warranty claim if the dome gets damaged and being exposed makes it certain that Murphy will strike you…  😉

The following results illustrate the effect of the grille for both 0 degrees measurements and 30 degrees measurements, respectively.

GB15 FR 0 grille GB15 FR 30 grille

As you can see, there is ~1dB additional output between 3khz-8.5khz with the grille on, but with the grille off, there is a maximum of ~2dB higher output above 8.5khz to about 16khz.  So, it seems the grille impedes the high frequency output some amount while helps the lower tweeter range out.

That’s all…

PS:  If you would like to help me keep up funds for testing, there’s a little ‘contribute’ button that goes through Paypal all the way at the bottom of every page.  Any little bit helps.

SB Acoustics’ Satori MW13P-4 5″ Mid


Up for test is a fairly new driver in SB Acoustics’ ‘Satori’ lineup: MW13P-4 5″ Mid(woofer/range).  At the time of this posting (02/26/15) this driver can be purchased from Madisound for about $155/each.  I’ve got a new install that calls for a 5″ midrange and I thought this would be worth a shot.  So, let’s check it out.

Let’s start this out by looking at this work of art…

IMG_2194 IMG_2196 IMG_2200 IMG_2201 IMG_2202

 

 

Small Signal Parameters

Results as measured via Dayton’s DATs measurement tool.  Which is a very little handy tool to have.  😉

  • f(s)= 48.45 Hz
  • R(e)= 4.16 Ohms
  • Z(max)= 38.69 Ohms
  • Q(ms)= 3.475
  • Q(es)= 0.419
  • Q(ts)= 0.374
  • V(as)= 12.410 liters (0.438 cubic feet)
  • L(e)= 0.46 mH
  • n(0)= 0.32 %
  • SPL= 87.17 1W/1m
  • M(ms)= 7.18 grams
  • C(ms)= 1.50 mm/N
  • BL= 4.66

Satori MW13P-4 impedance

 

 

Frequency Response

Frequency Response and the following Harmonic Distortion measurements were taken using Dayton’s OmniMic measurement system.

The frequency response measurements below are on-axis (0 degrees) and off-axis (15, 30, 60 degrees), measured at 2.83v/1m.

Satori MW13P-4 FR 0 15 30 60

Harmonic Distortion

Legend:

Maroon – Fundamental

Blue – THD

Red – 2nd Order Distortion

Pink – 3rd Order Distortion

Green – 4th order

Teal – 5th order

Testing done in the nearfield to emulate 90dB, 96dB, and finally 102dB output (in order):

Satori MW13P-4 HD 90dB Satori MW13P-4 HD 96dB Satori MW13P-4 HD 102dB

Thoughts

Frequency Response: As you can see above, there is about a 5dB rise in response beginning at about 1.5khz extending through the rest of the response in conjunction with typical modal issues.  It’s worth noting the ScanSpeak 15m exhibits the same rise, though, a bit earlier in frequency.  You can see the spec sheet here.  Additionally, ScanSpeak’s 15w exhibits very similar FR bump, as seen in the spec sheet here.  Comparing these two, you can see there are actually a lot of similarities in the FR between the Scan 15w and this 5″ Satori.  While the FR isn’t ruler flat, this rise occurs at a point where beaming has occurred and therefore most likely would be mitigated by a crossover point that allows a wider dispersion pattern to match up with a tweeter that is ‘omni’ directional at it’s low end.

The 8khz mode is about 10dB higher than the response at 2khz and shows up off-axis in each increment.  This shouldn’t be a real issue if this driver is crossed over at/before the beaming point, but if you were to try to eek extra performance out of this (though, I don’t advise it), either need a notch filter or a very steep crossover slope should be used to avoid the audible sibilance and brightness caused by this modal issue.

Harmonic Distortion: The HD looks VERY good.  Even at 102dB @ 1/2m equivalent the THD above 150hz is less than 0.30% for the most part which is still EXTREMELY low distortion for this high of SPL.  The separation between 2nd and 3rd order distortion at this output has about a 15dB delta above 300hz which is very nice.  Overall, some top-shelf distortion values.

Bottom line: Used as a midrange crossed above 200hz/LR2 and below 2khz/LR2 I’d say this is a stellar driver.  If you wanted to cross lower, I’d say 150hz is feasible with a steeper crossover.  You could get away with a lower crossover point but I personally prefer to go with larger drivers and cross high (relatively speaking) when I can.  On the high end, I would say that the 2-3khz region would be the max I’d go for reasons mentioned before.

Subjectively I can say that I’ve been using these in my car for the past couple weeks and have been VERY impressed with them.  I actually prefer them over the Scan 12m, and the Scan 15m/15w … but I’m basing these impressions on aural memory which isn’t great, so take that for what it’s worth.

As an aside… these things are just plain gorgeous!

For what it’s worth, Zaph tested the 6″ Satori some time ago and it had quite good results. This 5″ version emulates that.

Here is a link to download the 30 degree FRD and ZMA data.

 

PS:  If you would like to help me keep up funds for testing, there’s a little ‘contribute’ button that goes through Paypal all the way at the bottom of every page.  Any little bit helps.. heck, $3 buys me painter’s tape to help seal any small gaps in the baffle/blank interface.  😀

Gladen Aerospace 28 Tweeter


Up for test is the Gladen Aerospace 28mm tweeter.  Product specs can be found here.

IMG_2189 IMG_2191

 

Small Signal Parameters and Impedance

Results as measured via Dayton’s DATs measurement tool.  Which is a very little handy tool to have.  😉

  • f(s)= 794.70 Hz
  • R(e)= 3.55 Ohms
  • Z(max)= 8.19 Ohms
  • Q(ms)= 2.900
  • Q(es)= 2.216
  • Q(ts)= 1.256
  • L(e)= 0.67 mH

gladen aerospace 28mm impedance

 

 

 

Frequency Response

Frequency Response and the following Harmonic Distortion measurements were taken using Dayton’s OmniMic measurement system.

The frequency response measurements below are on-axis (0 degrees) and off-axis (15, 30, 60 degrees), measured at 2.83v/1m.

gladen aerospace 28mm FR large

To get an idea of the off-axis response vs the on-axis (0 degrees) response, I normalized the above.  What you get is the relative output level of each axis vs the on-axis level.

gladen aerospace 28mm FR normalized no notes

Harmonic Distortion Testing

Legend:

Maroon – Fundamental

Blue – THD

Red – 2nd Order Distortion

Pink – 3rd Order Distortion

Green – 4th order

Teal – 5th order

Testing done in the nearfield to emulate 90dB output.

gladen aerospace 28mm HD 90dB

Testing done in the nearfield to emulate 96dB output.

gladen aerospace 28mm HD 96dB

Impressions/Results

Let’s start with the build quality… impressive.  These tweeters feel heavy, which one typically equates to build quality.  Though, I’m not a fan of generalizing, that generalization is legitimate in this case.  There is no plastic housing; these are all (some form) of metal.  I’m not necessarily a fan of the large-ish gauge wire.  I do appreciate no terminals (honestly, they usually just cause your cutout diameter to be widdled out even more to accommodate the wire ran to the terminal).  I just think Gladen could have used a tick smaller wire here given most will have to immediately bend the wire in the install to clear whatever pillar or sail panel they install these in.

The test data shows a mighty fine tweeter.  The Fs is measured at just a tick under 800hz which indicates a lower crossover point can be used; for instance, to mate up with a 6.5″ woofer (keep a check on center-to-center spacing here).

Measured sensitivity is right around 87.5dB which jives well with the Gladen spec linked at the top of this review.  Linearity is pretty good with about -2/+2.5dB.  These numbers seem large, but the 2.5dB delta comes from the upward swing starting above 4khz.  So, while it’s not as ‘flat’ as I’d like, I’ve come to expect this kind of upward tilt in response from dome tweeters.  What’s as important, if not more important, is how well behaved the off-axis response is relative to the on-axis.  If you look back at the normalized plot you see the off-axis responses follow along very well.  At 30 degrees off-axis, the response is down approximately 5dB at 10khz.  At 60 degrees off-axis, the response is down approximately 12.5dB at 10khz, which is pretty much par for the course for a 1″ dome tweeter.

The real shining point here is the HD results.  What else can I say but they are fantastic.  At 96dB output the THD (blue) is less than 0.50% down to 1.5khz where it is comprised almost entirely of 2nd order distortion above 1.5khz.   Above 1.5khz there is nearly 15-20dB separation between 2nd and 3rd order components.  Most people would cross this tweeter in the 2-3khz ballpark, and from what I’m seeing, it’s certainly capable (though, the slope order plays an important factor here).

Bottom line: very impressive.  I honestly have no idea how much these cost but the data shows a very nice tweeter.  The FR could be flatter above 4khz but the off-axis response is very well maintained and the HD is exceptional.

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, I also tested the 20mm version of this tweeter here as well.  Here is a comparison picture.

IMG_2257

Additionally, I have tested the ScanSpeak D3004/60200 here.  For a comparison of the two and also with the 20mm Gladen, here you go…

IMG_2260IMG_2264

Here is the on-axis response of both compared directly to each other.  Black is the Scan, Blue is the Gladen 28mm:

scan vs gladen 28

Here’s a comparison of the Scan, Gladen 28mm, and Gladen 20mm (just for the heck of it):

IMG_2265

And the response comparison of all three.  Again, Scan is black, Gladen 28mm is blue and the Gladen 20mm is red.  You can see from this comparison just how linear in response the Gladen 20mm is compared to the larger sibling and the Scan (but the Gladen 20mm cannot cross as low as these other two).

scan vs gladen 28 and 20

PS:  If you would like to help me keep up funds for testing additional drivers, there’s a little ‘contribute’ button that goes through Paypal all the way at the bottom of every page.  Any little bit helps.

ScanSpeak Illuminator 18WU/4741T-00 7″ Woofer, 4 ohm


Up for test is the ScanSpeak Illuminator 18WU/4741T-00 7″ Woofer, 4 ohm.  This particular scanspeak woofer has been one of the most impressive midwoofers I’ve tested to date.

340b5d50

Small Signal Testing:

  • Re = 3.2401 ohms
  • Fs = 40.2090 Hz
  • Zmax = 48.9959 ohms
  • Qes = 0.5031
  • Qms = 7.1050
  • Qts = 0.4699
  • Le = 0.2073 mH (at 1 kHz)
  • Diam = 137.1600 mm ( 5.4000 in )
  • Sd =14775.5910 mm^2( 22.9022 in^2)
  • Vas = 29.5769 L ( 1.0445 ft^3)
  • BL = 5.1700 N/A
  • Mms = 16.4284 g
  • Cms = 953.6699 uM/N
  • Kms = 1048.5808 N/M
  • Rms = 0.5842 R mechanical
  • Efficiency = 0.3591 %
  • Sensitivity= 87.5700 dB @1W/1m
  • Sensitivity= 91.4953 dB @2.83Vrms/1m

Scanspeak18wuImpTS

 

Large Signal LSI Klippel Testing:

Displacement Limits thresholds can be changed in Processing property page
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 11.6 mm Displacement limit due to force factor variation
X C @ C min=75% 9.1 mm Displacement limit due to compliance variation
X L @ Z max=10 % 12.6 mm Displacement limit due to inductance variation
X d @ d2=10% 37.1 mm Displacement limit due to IM distortion (Doppler)

This driver is flat out unreal. The symmetry is almost perfect for a stroke of it’s size, and the most limiting xmax is 9.2mm. Bl is 11.9mm.
The Cms curve is nearly perfectly symmetrical. Bl has a small shift.

img_BlX img_KmsX img_LX

Frequency Response and Harmonic Distortion Results:

 Scanspeak18wuFRHDSTDScanspeak18wuFRHD102

Bose 10″ OEM Woofer


The driver is a 10″ OEM Bose subwoofer which came from a 2008 Cadillac CTS-V ( the year may be off by a couple, but I believe this is the correct year).

 

8e9fe89b 70b6b849 12201852

Small Signal Testing:

  • Re = 0.4625 ohms
  • Fs = 45.6971 Hz
  • Zmax = 2.0756 ohms
  • Qes = 1.2681
  • Qms = 4.4224
  • Qts = 0.9855
  • Le = 0.1834 mH (at 1 kHz)
  • Diam = 215.9000 mm ( 8.5000 in )
  • Sd =36609.6161 mm^2( 56.7450 in^2)
  • Vas = 66.5281 L ( 2.3494 ft^3)
  • BL = 1.9067 N/A
  • Mms = 34.7146 g
  • Cms = 349.4218 uM/N
  • Kms = 2861.8704 N/M
  • Rms = 2.2538 R mechanical
  • Efficiency = 0.4704 %
  • Sensitivity= 88.7426 dB @1W/1m
  • Sensitivity= 101.1220 dB @2.83Vrms/1m

BOSEOEM10inchSubwoofer

 

Large Signal LSI Klippel Testing:

Displacement Limits thresholds can be changed in Processing property page
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 5.3 mm Displacement limit due to force factor variation
X C @ C min=75% 6.8 mm Displacement limit due to compliance variation
X L @ Z max=10 %               3.9 mm Displacement limit due to inductance variation
X d @ d2=10% 25.3 mm Displacement limit due to IM distortion (Doppler)

 img_BlX img_BlSymmetryRange img_KmsX img_KmsSymmetryRange

SB Acoustics 17NRXC35-4


Up for test is SB Acoustics’ 17NRXC35-4 6″ Woofer.

16dad960 cd3fb7dc

 Small Signal Testing:

The following results were obtained via Smith & Larson’s Woofer Tester 2.

SB-A17NRXC35-4Impedance

Large Signal LSI Klippel Testing:

Displacement Limits thresholds can be changed in Processing property page
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 4.4 mm Displacement limit due to force factor variation
X C @ C min=75% 1.9 mm Displacement limit due to compliance variation
X L @ Z max=10 % >4.5 mm Displacement limit due to inductance variation
X d @ d2=10% 26.2 mm Displacement limit due to IM distortion (Doppler)

img_BlX-2 img_CmsX-2 img_KmsSymmetryRange img_LX-2

ScanSpeak Revelator 26W/8867T


Up for test, is the ScanSpeak Revelator 26W/8867T Aluminum Cone 10″ Woofer.

IMG_8818 IMG_8819

Small Signal Analysis

Electrical Parameters
Re 6.08 Ohm electrical voice coil resistance at DC
Le 0.296 mH frequency independent part of voice coil inductance
L2 0.299 mH para-inductance of voice coil
R2 2.88 Ohm electrical resistance due to eddy current losses
Cmes 533 µF electrical capacitance representing moving mass
Lces 55.99 mH electrical inductance representing driver compliance
Res 91.54 Ohm resistance due to mechanical losses
fs 29.1 Hz driver resonance frequency
——————
fm 23.6 Hz resonance frequency of driver with additional mass
Mechanical Parameters
(using add. mass)
Mms 52.776 g mechanical mass of driver diaphragm assembly including air load and voice coil
Mmd (Sd) 46.307 g mechanical mass of voice coil and diaphragm without air load
Rms 1.081 kg/s mechanical resistance of  total-driver losses
Cms 0.566 mm/N mechanical compliance of driver suspension
Kms 1.77 N/mm mechanical stiffness of driver suspension
Bl 9.949 N/A force factor (Bl product)
Loss factors
Qtp 0.556 total Q-factor considering all losses
Qms 8.934 mechanical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Rms only
Qes 0.593 electrical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Re only
Qts 0.556 total Q-factor considering Re and Rms only
Other Parameters
Vas 81.9789 l equivalent air volume of suspension
n0 0.328 % reference efficiency (2 pi-radiation using Re)
Lm 87.36 dB characteristic sound pressure level (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Re)
Lnom 88.56 dB nominal sensitivity (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Zn)

ScanSpeak Revelator 26W8867T impedance

Large Signal Analysis

Displacement Limits thresholds can be changed in Processing property page
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 9.8 mm Displacement limit due to force factor variation
X C @ C min=75% 11.7 mm Displacement limit due to compliance variation
X L @ Z max=10 % >12.8 mm Displacement limit due to inductance variation
X d @ d2=10% 42.1 mm Displacement limit due to IM distortion (Doppler)

Force factor Bl (X) Bl Symmetry Range Mechanical compliance Cms (X) Stiffness of suspension Kms (X) Kms Symmetry Range Electrical inductance L(X, I=0) Inductance over current L(X=0, I) Total loss factor Qts (X) Resonance frequency fs (X) Mechanical loss factor Qms (X) Electrical loss factor Qes (X)

Scanspeak 22W/8534G00 Discovery 8″ Woofer


Below are the test results from the Scanspeak 22W/8534G00 Discovery 8″ Woofer.

I purchased two drivers and tested both in the small signal suite.  I only tested one driver for large signal results.

 

IMG_8774 IMG_8775

 

 

Small Signal Results:

Driver 1 Driver 2
Electrical Parameters
Re 5.94 5.95 Ohm electrical voice coil resistance at DC
Le 0.33 0.322 mH frequency independent part of voice coil inductance
L2 0.631 0.71 mH para-inductance of voice coil
R2 2.39 2.52 Ohm electrical resistance due to eddy current losses
Cmes 400 380 µF electrical capacitance representing moving mass
Lces 54.65 46.74 mH electrical inductance representing driver compliance
Res 37 32.27 Ohm resistance due to mechanical losses
fs 34 37.8 Hz driver resonance frequency
——————
fm 27.9 31.1 Hz resonance frequency of driver with additional mass
Mechanical Parameters
(using add. mass)
Mms 27.015 26.544 g mechanical mass of driver diaphragm assembly including air load and voice coil
Mmd (Sd) 22.944 22.473 g mechanical mass of voice coil and diaphragm without air load
Rms 1.823 2.166 kg/s mechanical resistance of  total-driver losses
Cms 0.81 0.669 mm/N mechanical compliance of driver suspension
Kms 1.23 1.5 N/mm mechanical stiffness of driver suspension
Bl 8.213 8.36 N/A force factor (Bl product)
Loss factors
Qtp 0.439 0.454 total Q-factor considering all losses
Qms 3.167 2.909 mechanical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Rms only
Qes 0.509 0.537 electrical Q-factor of driver in free air considering Re only
Qts 0.438 0.453 total Q-factor considering Re and Rms only
Other Parameters
Vas 63.3215 52.2728 l equivalent air volume of suspension
n0 0.471 0.505 % reference efficiency (2 pi-radiation using Re)
Lm 88.93 89.23 dB characteristic sound pressure level (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Re)
Lnom 90.22 90.52 dB nominal sensitivity (SPL at 1m for 1W @ Zn)

Discovery 22w_8534g00 imp

 

Large Signal Results:

Displacement Limits thresholds can be changed in Processing property page
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 4.4 mm Displacement limit due to force factor variation
X C @ C min=75% 4.7 mm Displacement limit due to compliance variation
X L @ Z max=10 % >6.0 mm Displacement limit due to inductance variation
X d @ d2=10% 29 mm Displacement limit due to IM distortion (Doppler)
Asymmetry (IEC 62458)
Ak -17.67 % Stiffness asymmetry Ak(Xpeak)
Xsym 0.8 mm Symmetry point of Bl(x) at maximal excursion

Discovery 22w_8534g00 bl Discovery 22w_8534g00 bl symmetry Discovery 22w_8534g00 cms Discovery 22w_8534g00 kms Discovery 22w_8534g00 kms symmetry Discovery 22w_8534g00 lx Discovery 22w_8534g00 li