Tweet
This shootout pits the $201 Scan 5.5" Revelator against the $51 SB 5" woofer with the uncoated paper cone. To make this a fair fight, some DIY has been applied to the SB driver.
The competitors weigh in on the impedance sweep with a very close match-up!
Scan: Fs 48, Qts 0.49, Qms 3.9 Le 0.24
SB: Fs 48, Qts 0.47, Qms 4.3, Le 0.12
So, how do they look? Well, looks are important. The SB looks well-built, clean and simple. The Scan impresses immediately. A more elegant frame, uniform coating on the cone, 5-hole mounting. It's clear the Scan-Speak has a larger voice coil than the SB, indicating possibly better long-term power handling and more peak output. Advantage- Scan
Let's talk distortion. I took a lot of measurements, but have decided not to show the distortion plots here for clarity. In general, all distortions are low for these drivers. The one area the Scan does better is distortions below 200 hz, mostly 2nd order. Both drivers show distortion rising below 200 hz, which is why you should use larger drivers for that range. If you do need a 5.5" subwoofer though, the Scan Rev might be on your list.
How do they sound? The drivers were evaluated as part of a speaker system. A 0.46 ft. cabinet tuned to 43 hz, fully damped, CLD walls, 1.75" radius edges. Passive crossover [email protected] 2.4k, active to sub at 70hz during listening.
Starting with the unmodified SB15, it's immediately obvious that this driver needs some work. It's simply not an acceptable choice for a 2nd order slope. The break-up harshness is apparent in almost everything. Bells have excess ringing, sometimes ear-piercing. Instruments lack separation. Vocals have a slight veil with occasional minor edginess. A bit of sibilance, not much. The image is slightly indistinct and slightly forward. No comparison with LR4 slopes will be considered, so don't ask.
The Scan-Speak was built for this challenge. One of very few factory offerings that take readily to 12dB acoustic slopes. Why do it that way? Why, better imaging, of course, having a better phase response. The Scan settles right in, making you think you are a good speaker designer. This is why you spent the big bucks, right? Oh, about the sound - Bells have good spacing, with no excess ringing, but the tone is unnatural. Vocals have a pleasant fizzy character, including some soft sibilance, not objectionable, but obviously not exactly right. Instruments are difficult to separate. Undermelodies are not too clear, and imaging is correctly placed, but not very accessible. This is an OK speaker.
The modified SB has pole cavity treatment and damped slots in the cone. It has in-band performance identical to the stock driver. What's amazing is how much the out-of-band sound matters. Bells are clear, vibrant, full bodied, no excess ringing. Vocals are a revelation. No more glaze/veil. Instruments have distinct separation. Subtle sub-melodies are easier to pick out. This driver is not perfect, but it is easily much better than the others. The modified SB15 is the clear winner!
So the modified SB isn't just the value leader, it's the better sounding driver, by far.
Why did the Scan W15/8530K-00 lose this comparison? Well, the design is a bit dated, and the SB15 clearly has a better motor, with much lower inductance. I might also suspect the Kapton former could contribute to the colored sound, whereas the SB has a glass fiber former. Another area is the dust cap, which can be quite influential.
Why would you not do this? Every time. I'll tell you. Maybe you don't like anything DIY. Maybe you don't like constantly being drawn into the music. Maybe you don't want to visualize how the singer is positioned in relation to the microphone, and start wondering what brand of microphone sounds like that. Maybe you don't want to remember that Johnny Cash is old, because you are pretty sure you can see the wrinkles on his face. Maybe you just want to hear the vague sound of the tin whistle instead of hearing all the subtle mouth work. Maybe you just want music to exist somewhere in the background, preferably behind a curtain. MAYBE you care more about resale value than how the speaker SOUNDS.
The competitors weigh in on the impedance sweep with a very close match-up!
Scan: Fs 48, Qts 0.49, Qms 3.9 Le 0.24
SB: Fs 48, Qts 0.47, Qms 4.3, Le 0.12
So, how do they look? Well, looks are important. The SB looks well-built, clean and simple. The Scan impresses immediately. A more elegant frame, uniform coating on the cone, 5-hole mounting. It's clear the Scan-Speak has a larger voice coil than the SB, indicating possibly better long-term power handling and more peak output. Advantage- Scan
Let's talk distortion. I took a lot of measurements, but have decided not to show the distortion plots here for clarity. In general, all distortions are low for these drivers. The one area the Scan does better is distortions below 200 hz, mostly 2nd order. Both drivers show distortion rising below 200 hz, which is why you should use larger drivers for that range. If you do need a 5.5" subwoofer though, the Scan Rev might be on your list.
How do they sound? The drivers were evaluated as part of a speaker system. A 0.46 ft. cabinet tuned to 43 hz, fully damped, CLD walls, 1.75" radius edges. Passive crossover [email protected] 2.4k, active to sub at 70hz during listening.
Starting with the unmodified SB15, it's immediately obvious that this driver needs some work. It's simply not an acceptable choice for a 2nd order slope. The break-up harshness is apparent in almost everything. Bells have excess ringing, sometimes ear-piercing. Instruments lack separation. Vocals have a slight veil with occasional minor edginess. A bit of sibilance, not much. The image is slightly indistinct and slightly forward. No comparison with LR4 slopes will be considered, so don't ask.
The Scan-Speak was built for this challenge. One of very few factory offerings that take readily to 12dB acoustic slopes. Why do it that way? Why, better imaging, of course, having a better phase response. The Scan settles right in, making you think you are a good speaker designer. This is why you spent the big bucks, right? Oh, about the sound - Bells have good spacing, with no excess ringing, but the tone is unnatural. Vocals have a pleasant fizzy character, including some soft sibilance, not objectionable, but obviously not exactly right. Instruments are difficult to separate. Undermelodies are not too clear, and imaging is correctly placed, but not very accessible. This is an OK speaker.
The modified SB has pole cavity treatment and damped slots in the cone. It has in-band performance identical to the stock driver. What's amazing is how much the out-of-band sound matters. Bells are clear, vibrant, full bodied, no excess ringing. Vocals are a revelation. No more glaze/veil. Instruments have distinct separation. Subtle sub-melodies are easier to pick out. This driver is not perfect, but it is easily much better than the others. The modified SB15 is the clear winner!
So the modified SB isn't just the value leader, it's the better sounding driver, by far.
Why did the Scan W15/8530K-00 lose this comparison? Well, the design is a bit dated, and the SB15 clearly has a better motor, with much lower inductance. I might also suspect the Kapton former could contribute to the colored sound, whereas the SB has a glass fiber former. Another area is the dust cap, which can be quite influential.
Why would you not do this? Every time. I'll tell you. Maybe you don't like anything DIY. Maybe you don't like constantly being drawn into the music. Maybe you don't want to visualize how the singer is positioned in relation to the microphone, and start wondering what brand of microphone sounds like that. Maybe you don't want to remember that Johnny Cash is old, because you are pretty sure you can see the wrinkles on his face. Maybe you just want to hear the vague sound of the tin whistle instead of hearing all the subtle mouth work. Maybe you just want music to exist somewhere in the background, preferably behind a curtain. MAYBE you care more about resale value than how the speaker SOUNDS.
Comment