Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Scanspeak Ellipticor range..

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by johnnyrichards View Post
    SS has gone full marketing in their engineering department, eh?
    That is honestly partially what occurred to me. I honestly think both units would be just as nice with round voice coils.
    Wolf
    "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
    "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
    "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
    "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

    *InDIYana event website*

    Photobucket pages:
    http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

    My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

    Comment


    • #17
      With the elliptical coil configuration, Scanspeak claims the tighter tolerances provide for lower distortion and greater transducer sensitivity. In addition cone modes are purportedly "randomized" to reduce energy storage while improving impulse behavior. As was mentioned, the top and backplates combined with the magnet configuration are identical in design/ appearance to the JM Lab/Focal "Power-Flower" motor. These transducers are typically found in Focal's Utopia series of Speakers, except that Scanspeak employs neodymium magnets as opposed to the multi-ferrite approach. Looking at the internal construction of these beauties, the are unlikely to come cheap! Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • #18
        The Raidho, Hexadym, and Ellipticor motors are flower-petal shaped, whereas the Focal units are not. Last I knew the Utopia units have round front and back plates. I honestly thought the Focals were Neo too, but I didn't know for sure.

        Later,
        Wolf
        "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
        "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
        "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
        "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

        *InDIYana event website*

        Photobucket pages:
        http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

        My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
        http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

        Comment


        • #19
          I haven't read their info, but at first glance it would be logical that differing path length differences between former and surround would spread out (randomize) resonances. It won't actually reduce them by that alone. What I don't like is seeing a new design such as the 18WE mid-woofer that has an obvious resonance at about 1200 Hz. Often that is a surround resonance issue. It shows up in the impedance curve and in the SPL response, though the latter seems less prominent than in most mid-woofers.

          They are touting the low distortion, so the motor structure combined with the elliptic shape may provide better distortion results that of course don't show in the SPL response. It may be that the elliptical shape is more structurally sound as well, if you'll pardon the pun. It may make diaphragm construction cheaper and/or more consistent as well.

          WRT the alternative of an oval shaped diaphragm for randomizing path length, the problem with that is that you introduce non-uniform off-axis (polar) response. The elliptic former looks like a good idea. Evidently the ability to maintain tight production tolerances is what allows this.

          Just some random thoughts.

          dlr
          Last edited by dlr; 05-21-2017, 07:00 PM. Reason: Corrected to say elliptic former looks like a good idea, not an elliptic diaphragm!
          WinPCD - Windows .NET Passive Crossover Designer

          Dave's Speaker Pages

          Comment


          • #20
            Before I worry about gimmicks, I would wonder if this solves some flux force/density/ aysmmetry issues as well. Rings of slugs do not always act as a single unit once the driver starts seeing real voltage. Kippell should show that though.

            Ill buy the cone solutions it provides. However I think the little information available raises more questions than it answers!
            .

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Wolf View Post
              92.5dB on the woofer!
              Wow- output!
              Wolf
              They're 4ohm drivers, hence the "higher" sensitivity.

              Comment


              • #22
                These are a few of the Focal drive-units I was referring to. If my memory serves me Focal, then JM Lab after Jacques Mahul, began utilizing this design at the "turn of the century😊" if not a bit earlier. They continue to utilize this configuration in some of their highest quality speakers. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by olu78 View Post
                  These are a few of the Focal drive-units I was referring to. If my memory serves me Focal, then JM Lab after Jacques Mahul, began utilizing this design at the "turn of the century😊" if not a bit earlier. They continue to utilize this configuration in some of their highest quality speakers. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
                  Didn't they call.it "flower power" magnet system for a short time?

                  ....just what wealthy audiophile-types with overcompensation issues want to say to impress their buddies....."These things have flower power magnets!!!"
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 300Z View Post

                    They're 4ohm drivers, hence the "higher" sensitivity.
                    Even then, unless it's a dedicated midrange or pro-driver, most 7" designs do not breach 90dB. You almost have to go to an 8" driver to net a sensitivity that high. This is because they are made to extend low enough to not need another woofer or subwoofer, and yet do not have the Sd large enough to hit that high and still extend low. 90dB is not a hard limit, but it's a pretty normal one on 7" midwoofers. To almost be 93dB is really overachieving or having a lot more motor drive all else being equal.

                    Later,
                    Wolf
                    "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
                    "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
                    "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
                    "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

                    *InDIYana event website*

                    Photobucket pages:
                    http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

                    My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
                    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well, the responses aren't very smooth so the claim of "fewer resonances" doesn't seem to hold.

                      Required mfg tolerances are dictated by tightest curvature. Given the elliptical shape, they will demand better mfg tolerances to not rub than a circular of equivalent gap exposure. That is not a benefit of the ellipse, it's a drawback required by the ellipse. There's no reason they couldn't use similar tight mfg tolerances on a round coil to get the sensitivity up

                      Guess that leaves the distortion claims, requiring some curves to compare.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by olu78 View Post
                        These are a few of the Focal drive-units I was referring to. If my memory serves me Focal, then JM Lab after Jacques Mahul, began utilizing this design at the "turn of the century😊" if not a bit earlier. They continue to utilize this configuration in some of their highest quality speakers. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
                        I had not seen those before! Thanks for enlightening me.
                        Later,
                        Wolf
                        "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
                        "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
                        "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
                        "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

                        *InDIYana event website*

                        Photobucket pages:
                        http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

                        My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
                        http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Wolf
                          I had not seen those before! Thanks for enlightening me. Later, Wolf
                          No sweat! That's what this forum is for. I have learned quite a bit from you, and many others throughout the years!! Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I wouldn't get too hung up on the sensitivity ratings, they are 4ohm so of course the sensitivity numbers look high when at 2.83V/2W rating instead of the normal 1W you get with 8 ohm drivers at 2.83V.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              similar size and sensitivity to the satori 7.5" 4 ohm. Not sure which one goes deeper. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Threads like thisare a great showing of how a little knowledge can far more dangerous than a full set.

                                I love how there are MORE excuses of why this is a gimmick vs. The discussion about why it could be good. It feels a whole lot like "new expensive driver I dont want to buy, lets see how I can justify why its bad from what little I know". Because one does not wish to purchase an item does not make it inherently bad, regardless of a theroetically correct, but quite incomplete justification.

                                Scan has traditionally moved driver technologies forward, and have kept gimmicks to a minimum. Why WOULD this be different? Sure, they could be changing and moving in the wrong direcrion, but why would they ruin their industry-wide reputation? Really, they sell WAY more drivers to the industry than our little clique.

                                I would hope to see Kippell info sometime soon, as well as step response data and maybe Scan could be willing to provide a white paper on the motor as a whole. Ill reserve my opnion until then.

                                ....Or likely forget they exist because they are likely going to be well outside this repairman's salary.
                                .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X