Peerless HDS 830869 vs SB Acoustics SB23 vs Dayton RS225

[AndyWest]

Hi, if anyone had a chance to play/use/ test any two of these three 8 inch woofers ( Peerless 830869, SB Acoustics SB23 (any variants), Dayton RS225), kindly share your experience.

Currently I am using the Peerless in a 2 way and wondering if I can make things any better with the other two affordable woofers. Higher SPL in bass before bottoming out and lower midrange distortion are main priorities.

The peerless did pretty bad in klippel tests I have seen when it comes to the suspension. Hence my interests in a different woofer.

Thanks.

[Chris Roemer]

You'd have to specify which 225 (there are 4 of them) and which SB23.
What's the interior volume of your box?
If it's vented, what's the port i.d. and length?

The Peerless will only do about 50Hz ported. Is that your problem (most rock bass gets down near 40)?

[AndyWest]

All versions of SB23 and RS225 use the same suspension system and as such the low frequency performance should be the same.
If I narrow down to particular versions of these woofers I'd probably get no one to share their experiences.

Internal volume, vent etc would be decided according to the woofer selected. No restrictions as such.

[AndyWest]

The Peerless will only do about 50Hz ported. Is that your problem (most rock bass gets down near 40)?

36 L box tuned to 35Hz ( confirmed with impedance plots) gives noticeable distortion which I believe comes from the suspension.
Must be something in the 50-60Hz range. In 30-40Hz area cone travel is restricted by bass reflex tuning.

[DeZZar]

I'm working with the SB23NBACS45-8 in an unfinished project at the moment. Its relegated to sub 250 hz duties in a 3-way application. Its a great performer so far - but I don't exactly have hours of listening to go by at this stage. This is one woofer you can get to play really low - if you're willing to give it the volume it requires. I've squeezed it into about as small of an enclosure as you should go @ 40L tuned to 30Hz for an [email protected], [email protected] - but the bass response does hump up a little. It'll take 40 Watts like this for content @25Hz and above. It also has good sensitivity for a woofer that can play this low @90db for the 4ohm (87.5, 8ohm) (helps a lot with the final outcome with full BSC).

I don't think I'd be tempted to try it in a two way though.

[fatmarley]

How about putting the Peerless in a sealed 20ltr enclosure and adding a subwoofer for the low end? Maybe with a front mounted 8" or side mounted 10" sub?

[andy19191]

36 L box tuned to 35Hz ( confirmed with impedance plots) gives noticeable distortion which I believe comes from the suspension.
Must be something in the 50-60Hz range. In 30-40Hz area cone travel is restricted by bass reflex tuning.

I haven't checked but this looks a bit like tuning too low? When you do this there is a hole in clean SPL at frequencies above the port resonance. If you play at standard levels then you will hear distortion due to high deflection of the cone at these frequencies. If this is what is going on then raising the tuning frequency is likely to give a better overall performance by increasing the clean SPL in the hole in exchange for less SPL at the lowest frequencies. Of course a better solution is to use more/larger drivers but this sometimes isn't a viable option.

[AndyWest]

I haven't checked but this looks a bit like tuning too low? When you do this there is a hole in clean SPL at frequencies above the port resonance. If you play at standard levels then you will hear distortion due to high deflection of the cone at these frequencies. If this is what is going on then raising the tuning frequency is likely to give a better overall performance by increasing the clean SPL in the hole in exchange for less SPL at the lowest frequencies. Of course a better solution is to use more/larger drivers but this sometimes isn't a viable option.

I don't think 35 Hz is too low for this woofer. Even Peerless/ Tymphany recommends 35Hz for this woofer in their ' application notes'.

[AndyWest]

I'm working with the SB23NBACS45-8 in an unfinished project at the moment. Its relegated to sub 250 hz duties in a 3-way application. Its a great performer so far - but I don't exactly have hours of listening to go by at this stage. This is one woofer you can get to play really low - if you're willing to give it the volume it requires. I've squeezed it into about as small of an enclosure as you should go @ 40L tuned to 30Hz for an [email protected], [email protected] - but the bass response does hump up a little. It'll take 40 Watts like this for content @25Hz and above. It also has good sensitivity for a woofer that can play this low @90db for the 4ohm (87.5, 8ohm) (helps a lot with the final outcome with full BSC).

I don't think I'd be tempted to try it in a two way though.

Have you used any other popular 8 inch woofer to draw a comparison with the SB23?

Why would you not use this woofer in a 2 way? cone breakup? Distortion?

[DeZZar]

Only other 8inch I've used is the old Vifa P21WO. Cone breakup/distortion and crossover complexity would be the reasons I'd avoid a two way with it. I also just personally prefer my midrange to be covered by a driver with significantly less moving mass.

[andy19191]

I don't think 35 Hz is too low for this woofer. Even Peerless/ Tymphany recommends 35Hz for this woofer in their ' application notes'.

I have checked and the SPL is deflection limited above the port resonance in the range 42-75 Hz or so. Therefore these frequencies will require the cone to deflect most relative to other frequencies and will be where distortion will first grow when you raise the level. Below this frequency range the port is resonating alleviating the cone deflection and above the rising frequency requires less deflection to achieve a given SPL.

Having said that, the hole is not a deep one and given the significant compromises involved in porting small cones it looks to be well within the range of reasonable tuning and box volumes. Raising the tuning frequency a few Hz and the box volume a few litres will help the low frequency SPL a few dB but at the cost of less low frequency extension and a larger cabinet. If using subs this might be preferable. Without possibly not depending on listening levels and low frequency content in preferred recordings. So I would agree that given the driver's published parameters your box volume and tuning look reasonable.

[Chris Roemer]

F3 is determined by Qts and Fs - irrelevant to suspension design.
Your Peerless runs around the mid 40s, whereas the 225 can do 30Hz; but even though it can take more power, it's output ends up lower due to lower sensitivity.

Do you box model? (is your "volume" based on internal or external dimensions?)

[Paul K.]

F3 is determined by Qts and Fs - irrelevant to suspension design.
Your Peerless runs around the mid 40s, whereas the 225 can do 30Hz; but even though it can take more power, it's output ends up lower due to lower sensitivity.

Do you box model? (is your "volume" based on internal or external dimensions?)

In my years of modeling and building TLs, I've always found that Qts and Fs dictate the optimum tuning frequency that's required, and then once that is established, F3 is ultimately determined by the line's volume. So, depending on what F3 was desired, I'd increase/decrease the line's volume while maintaining that optimum tuning frequency while keeping an eye on woofer excursion, terminus or port air velocity and overall response shape and smoothness. Just my 2 cents.
Paul
Edit: My comments weren't intended to disagree with what Chris stated. For two woofers, like the Peerless and RS225 with different values of Fs, the woofer with the lower Fs should be expected to reach a lower F3.

[AndyWest]

I have checked and the SPL is deflection limited above the port resonance in the range 42-75 Hz or so. Therefore these frequencies will require the cone to deflect most relative to other frequencies and will be where distortion will first grow when you raise the level. Below this frequency range the port is resonating alleviating the cone deflection and above the rising frequency requires less deflection to achieve a given SPL.

Having said that, the hole is not a deep one and given the significant compromises involved in porting small cones it looks to be well within the range of reasonable tuning and box volumes. Raising the tuning frequency a few Hz and the box volume a few litres will help the low frequency SPL a few dB but at the cost of less low frequency extension and a larger cabinet. If using subs this might be preferable. Without possibly not depending on listening levels and low frequency content in preferred recordings. So I would agree that given the driver's published parameters your box volume and tuning look reasonable.

Most of the 8 inch woofers are tuned to 30-35Hz. And what you said applies to all of those applications as that is the very basic of how bass reflex works. I don't think if this should be even be the subject for discussion.

[AndyWest]

F3 is determined by Qts and Fs - irrelevant to suspension design.
Your Peerless runs around the mid 40s, whereas the 225 can do 30Hz; but even though it can take more power, it's output ends up lower due to lower sensitivity.

Do you box model? (is your "volume" based on internal or external dimensions?)

F3, F6 or box modelling are very easy in WinISD.
What you don't get from WinISD or from manufacturer's specs sheet is actual Xmax ( or linear excursion limits) which is almost always dependent on suspension design.

Peerless 830869 says Xmax is 5.5mm, klippel tests says 2.2mm 70% Cms variation
SB23 says Xmax is 6.5mm, klippel test says 3.9mm 70% Cms variation
I do not have any info on the RS225 but RS180 has 3.5 70% Cms variation according to audioexpress klippel tests.

Now, numbers are a different thing but how audible are these Cms variations in actual use? NE225 has 70% Cms variation of around 2mm (against rated 8.7mm Xmax) but has great reviews regarding bass as well as midrange.

So, what I need are views of people who have actually used any of these woofers.

[DeZZar]

Here's a modelling comparison of the three woofers. These are all shown in the 36L enclosure tuned to 35Hz for comparative purposes.

There is also a comparison showing the peerless tuned to 40Hz instead of 35Hz.

Blue = Peerless @ 35Hz
Red = Peerless @ 40Hz
Green = SB23
Purple = RS225

Magnitude response:


By raising the tuning frequency a little on the Peerless you end up with a flatter magnitude response and lower F3.

The SB and RS are really asking for a bit more volume to work with but the RS will dig the deepest in this alignment.

Peerless @ 35Hz, f3 43Hz
Peerless @ 40Hz, f3 42Hz
SB23, f3 36Hz
RS225, f3 33Hz



SPL @ xMax:
Each woofer given as much power as it can take for xMax at its primary tuning frequency. (Reflex enclosures always have a rippled excursion characteristic with two peaks - one just before the tuning frequency and then the usual after the tuning frequency where the woofer starts to behave as though its in free air. The first hump is what's targeted here).


This is mechanical power handling, not the thermal ratings quoted by the manufacturer. In my experience generally the deeper you get the woofer to dig, the lower the power it can take.

SPL comparison @ 50Hz
Peerless @ 35Hz, @ 34W = 103.8dB
Peerless @ 40Hz, @ 40W = 105.5dB
SB23 @ 36W = 104.9dB
RS225 @ 70W = 105.6dB

SPL comparison @ 40Hz
Peerless @ 35Hz, @ 34W = 101.6dB
Peerless @ 40Hz, @ 40W = 102.2dB
SB23 @ 36W = 101.9dB
RS225 @ 70W = 104.5dB


I cant comment on the distortion characteristics of each driver.


What is the design of the two way you are currently running? What's the crossover point? What's the crossover topology? Has any BSC been factored in? A speaker can sound 'weak' in the bass region purely from not being balanced correctly and not having any BSC in the design.

None of these woofers in any application are going to be SPL kings - so there is also an element of expectation here. In a correctly designed two way system using any of these woofers sensitivity is going to down in the low 80's at best.