Scanspeak 10F/8414G

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 11443 times.

richidoo

Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #20 on: 19 Sep 2016, 05:55 pm »
Tony Gee just published a new design called Fast One using the 10F.

No measurements, but his audio prose is always worth reading.  :thumb:

wushuliu

Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #21 on: 19 Sep 2016, 06:39 pm »
Tony Gee just published a new design called Fast One using the 10F.

No measurements, but his audio prose is always worth reading.  :thumb:

Awesome. May have to put that design at the top of the list. Or at least grab some 10fs and put em in a box.

JeffB

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 490
Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #22 on: 19 Sep 2016, 10:59 pm »
I took a peak at the Fast Ones and see they are crossed over at 700Hz.
Any idea why one wouldn't cross-over lower at say 200Hz.
I always hear the line about how smaller speakers are faster and more accurate and it seems like you would want to make maximum use of the smaller drivers range.  On the other hand I suppose doppler distortion begins to appear in the high frequencies.
At 200Hz one could easily go with an 8" or 10" bass driver instead of the 7"., unless overall size is a concern.

planet10

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1915
  • Frugal-phile (tm)
    • planet10-hifi
Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #23 on: 19 Sep 2016, 11:10 pm »
And why, given the 700 Hz XO, has he not made the driver spacing as small as possible.

dave

wushuliu

Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #24 on: 19 Sep 2016, 11:47 pm »
I took a peak at the Fast Ones and see they are crossed over at 700Hz.
Any idea why one wouldn't cross-over lower at say 200Hz.
I always hear the line about how smaller speakers are faster and more accurate and it seems like you would want to make maximum use of the smaller drivers range.  On the other hand I suppose doppler distortion begins to appear in the high frequencies.
At 200Hz one could easily go with an 8" or 10" bass driver instead of the 7"., unless overall size is a concern.

He can't cross that low and have such a narrow baffle, at least not without greatly reduced efficiency (and he's definitely not a fan of low efficiency). Hopefully he'll get the measurements up soon.

JeffB

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 490
Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #25 on: 20 Sep 2016, 12:01 am »
Ok, so this avoids having to do BSC on the wide range driver.  Interesting.

planet10

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1915
  • Frugal-phile (tm)
    • planet10-hifi
Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #26 on: 20 Sep 2016, 12:06 am »
Expanding on the narrow baffle: In a FAST there are 2 numbers to look at when picking the XO.

If you are using "turning up the woofer” to accomplish bafflestep compensation then the XO should be in the range of 0.707 to 1 times the BS(F3).

Ideally the XO frequency should be such that the C-C of the XOed drivers correponds to less than the ¼ wavelength defined by that C-C.

The 1st gives a range (410-580 Hz), the 2nd a maximum XO frequency (480 Hz).

I note that he is putting a 5° tilt on the baffle, something we 1st did with Tysen, and he has missed a few other places where a design tweak could subtly enhance things.

dave

JohnR

Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #27 on: 20 Sep 2016, 08:34 am »
Or at least grab some 10fs and put em in a box.

I think you'd probably like them. So far, and within the constraints apparent in the response graph in 1st post and from driver size, I do anyway. Quite engaging, no weird peaks or grungy crunchy. Will try on my desk this week and try supporting woofer next week.

[Edit] For clarity, note that there are three versions of the "10F" driver. This thread is about the 10F/8414G10. They are not interchangeable.

JohnR

Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
« Reply #28 on: 20 Sep 2016, 08:36 am »
It's the Seas L16RN-SL, same driver as used in the LX-Mini. I'm running them sealed in the 0.25 cu ft PE cabs, with a powered sub taking over below ~70Hz.

Ah! Sadly Seas drivers end up quite expensive by the time I can get my hands on them :(