Seas Magnesium cones

[CacaPhonius]

Have you heard these Excel drivers? I first heard the W22 in the Orion
and noted an odd hard dryness--a sort of scouring/scowling edge to the
sound. I recently heard a small 2-way with the W18 and that design has
the same exact sound. The owner claims that it is merely "accurate".
I was ready to build the Orion.

I've got to wonder if the ~4.2 khz cone ringing is properly
suppressed? Pearl Audio uses infinite slope crossovers to deal with
the problem.

CacaPhonius

[R]

CacaPhonius > wrote in
:

> Have you heard these Excel drivers? I first heard the W22 in the Orion
> and noted an odd hard dryness--a sort of scouring/scowling edge to the
> sound. I recently heard a small 2-way with the W18 and that design has
> the same exact sound. The owner claims that it is merely "accurate".
> I was ready to build the Orion.
>
> I've got to wonder if the ~4.2 khz cone ringing is properly
> suppressed? Pearl Audio uses infinite slope crossovers to deal with
> the problem.
>
> CacaPhonius
>

Which model W18 was it? There are 3 different W18 drivers. Two with
magnesium cones and one uses coated paper. According the SEAS wensite the
coated paper cones are new for this year.

rich

--

[CacaPhonius]

W18E-001, magnesium cone.

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:45:34 GMT, R > wrote:

>CacaPhonius > wrote in
:
>
>> Have you heard these Excel drivers? I first heard the W22 in the Orion
>> and noted an odd hard dryness--a sort of scouring/scowling edge to the
>> sound. I recently heard a small 2-way with the W18 and that design has
>> the same exact sound. The owner claims that it is merely "accurate".
>> I was ready to build the Orion.
>>
>> I've got to wonder if the ~4.2 khz cone ringing is properly
>> suppressed? Pearl Audio uses infinite slope crossovers to deal with
>> the problem.
>>
>> CacaPhonius
>>
>
>Which model W18 was it? There are 3 different W18 drivers. Two with
>magnesium cones and one uses coated paper. According the SEAS wensite the
>coated paper cones are new for this year.
>
>rich

[R]

CacaPhonius > wrote in
:

> W18E-001, magnesium cone.

Then I would say that your assesment about the ringing is correct. I
think that SEAS is responding to customer comments/concerns/issues by
adding the coated paper cone to the product.


>
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:45:34 GMT, R > wrote:
>
>>CacaPhonius > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Have you heard these Excel drivers? I first heard the W22 in the Orion
>>> and noted an odd hard dryness--a sort of scouring/scowling edge to the
>>> sound. I recently heard a small 2-way with the W18 and that design has
>>> the same exact sound. The owner claims that it is merely "accurate".
>>> I was ready to build the Orion.
>>>
>>> I've got to wonder if the ~4.2 khz cone ringing is properly
>>> suppressed? Pearl Audio uses infinite slope crossovers to deal with
>>> the problem.
>>>
>>> CacaPhonius
>>>
>>
>>Which model W18 was it? There are 3 different W18 drivers. Two with
>>magnesium cones and one uses coated paper. According the SEAS wensite
>>the coated paper cones are new for this year.
>>
>>rich
>
>



--

[John Stone]

On 4/7/05 10:59 PM, in article
, "R" >
wrote:

> CacaPhonius > wrote in
> :
>
>> W18E-001, magnesium cone.
>
> Then I would say that your assesment about the ringing is correct. I
> think that SEAS is responding to customer comments/concerns/issues by
> adding the coated paper cone to the product.

What assessment? He was not criticizing the peak as a fatal flaw in the
driver. He was asking if it was properly suppressed in the Orion. And to
that, the answer is yes.
As for our bringing out soft cone Excel drivers, we are simply responding to
a segment of the market for whom paper is always the best choice. Our reason
has nothing to do with addressing any drawbacks of the magnesium cone. Paper
cone drivers have always been popular, and the market dictates that we offer
more than one choice. Paper cones also exhibit much higher levels 2nd and
3rd order harmonic distortion than the magnesium cones. Some people object
to the single breakup mode outside the pass band of a metal cone, while at
the same time ignoring that soft cones are in continual breakup within the
pass band. At least the single breakup can be notched out. You can't do
anything about the resonances in paper cone drivers.
Measurably, and in most opinions, audibly, the magnesium cone drivers are
superior. But preference comes strongly into play in speaker design.
As to the complaints about the Orion, who knows? I've heard it many times
and simply disagree with his opinion on the sound, as do many others. Given
that it is a complex DIY project and that the Orion crossover requires
careful level calibration,(not to mention the placement challenges of a
dipole speaker) there are any number of possibilities for why "CacaPhonius"
didn't like the sound of the ones he heard. But I would never second guess
Linkwitz on his choice of drivers or crossover design. He knows what he's
doing better than most. Properly implemented, the Orion is, IMO, a state of
the art speaker.

John Stone
SEAS USA

[CacaPhonius]

John,
The 2- way I heard uses one of the Raven tweeters and a passive
crossover. The Orion, of course, uses active crossovers.

How much suppression is necessary to eliminate ringing artifacts and
can it be accomplished with passive crossovers? I note that Joseph
Audio uses their "infinite slope" crossover--120 db/octave.
CacaPhonius




On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:57:36 -0500, John Stone >
wrote:

>
>
>
>On 4/7/05 10:59 PM, in article
, "R" >
>wrote:
>
>> CacaPhonius > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> W18E-001, magnesium cone.
>>
>> Then I would say that your assesment about the ringing is correct. I
>> think that SEAS is responding to customer comments/concerns/issues by
>> adding the coated paper cone to the product.
>
>What assessment? He was not criticizing the peak as a fatal flaw in the
>driver. He was asking if it was properly suppressed in the Orion. And to
>that, the answer is yes.
>As for our bringing out soft cone Excel drivers, we are simply responding to
>a segment of the market for whom paper is always the best choice. Our reason
>has nothing to do with addressing any drawbacks of the magnesium cone. Paper
>cone drivers have always been popular, and the market dictates that we offer
>more than one choice. Paper cones also exhibit much higher levels 2nd and
>3rd order harmonic distortion than the magnesium cones. Some people object
>to the single breakup mode outside the pass band of a metal cone, while at
>the same time ignoring that soft cones are in continual breakup within the
>pass band. At least the single breakup can be notched out. You can't do
>anything about the resonances in paper cone drivers.
>Measurably, and in most opinions, audibly, the magnesium cone drivers are
>superior. But preference comes strongly into play in speaker design.
>As to the complaints about the Orion, who knows? I've heard it many times
>and simply disagree with his opinion on the sound, as do many others. Given
>that it is a complex DIY project and that the Orion crossover requires
>careful level calibration,(not to mention the placement challenges of a
>dipole speaker) there are any number of possibilities for why "CacaPhonius"
>didn't like the sound of the ones he heard. But I would never second guess
>Linkwitz on his choice of drivers or crossover design. He knows what he's
>doing better than most. Properly implemented, the Orion is, IMO, a state of
>the art speaker.
>
>John Stone
>SEAS USA
>
>

[John Stone]

On 4/8/05 3:27 PM, in article ,
"CacaPhonius" > wrote:

> John,
> The 2- way I heard uses one of the Raven tweeters and a passive
> crossover. The Orion, of course, uses active crossovers.
>
> How much suppression is necessary to eliminate ringing artifacts and
> can it be accomplished with passive crossovers? I note that Joseph
> Audio uses their "infinite slope" crossover--120 db/octave.
> CacaPhonius

You can easily suppress the resonance peak a good 30dB+ in a passive network
using a simple series or parallel notch filter. That amount of suppression
should be more than adequate. Check the review of the Thor kit on the
Madisound site.

[Howard Ferstler]

John Stone wrote:
>
> On 4/7/05 10:59 PM, in article
> , "R" >
> wrote:
>
> > CacaPhonius > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> W18E-001, magnesium cone.
> >
> > Then I would say that your assesment about the ringing is correct. I
> > think that SEAS is responding to customer comments/concerns/issues by
> > adding the coated paper cone to the product.
>
> What assessment? He was not criticizing the peak as a fatal flaw in the
> driver. He was asking if it was properly suppressed in the Orion. And to
> that, the answer is yes.
> As for our bringing out soft cone Excel drivers, we are simply responding to
> a segment of the market for whom paper is always the best choice. Our reason
> has nothing to do with addressing any drawbacks of the magnesium cone. Paper
> cone drivers have always been popular, and the market dictates that we offer
> more than one choice.

More than one choice? One would think that your outfit would
make the best drivers possible and be done with it. Why
build sub-par drivers for misinformed consumers?

Howard Ferstler

[ScottW]

Forgive Howard, He doesn't comprehend the concept of design tradeoffs.

ScottW