AudioCircle

Audio/Video Gear and Systems => Single Driver, Wide-Bandwidth Speakers => Topic started by: JohnR on 15 Sep 2016, 02:25 pm

Title: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 15 Sep 2016, 02:25 pm
This might be my new favorite fullrange driver! Quickly put one in a small box to see, quick measurement 20cm on axis and 30 degrees. Look how well controlled the 30 degree off axis is -

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150357)

Will put the other in a box tomorrow and see how it sounds.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: Folsom on 15 Sep 2016, 03:38 pm
Those are great drivers, that line. I've heard them in a speaker that was developing nicely.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: Blackmore on 15 Sep 2016, 03:47 pm
Wow, John, that's a pretty nice looking graph for a full range. I need to hear these.  Keep us posted on how they sound.

Mark
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: dwk on 15 Sep 2016, 04:04 pm
Yes, very nice drivers. Plus, they're cheaper than the 8424/4424.

I'm using them from ~300 on up in my desktop setup and am rather pleased.


(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150366)
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: FullRangeMan on 15 Sep 2016, 04:06 pm
Very light 3g cone, looks good driver for nearfield FR or match w/a woofer.
The fiber glass cone looks news to me.
http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/10f-8414g10.pdf
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: wushuliu on 15 Sep 2016, 06:55 pm
Hm, Troels had a good writeup on it. He was impressed:

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/5F-10F.htm
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JLM on 15 Sep 2016, 07:37 pm
$65 USD each from Madisound.  (In case anyone was wondering.)
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: Dmason on 15 Sep 2016, 10:44 pm
Wow. That 30 degree plot looks super nice. ScanSpeak. 4" is an exceptionally "correct" size for a wide ranger, it is the Goldilocks Zone for sure. Nice Q. We look forward to your follow on assessments. I have been thinking about a small, infinite TL, (sealed pipe) for something like that, something modern, useable as mains, and easily put N Sync with a little sub. Please keep us informed!!
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 16 Sep 2016, 08:53 am
Yes, very nice drivers. Plus, they're cheaper than the 8424/4424.

I'm using them from ~300 on up in my desktop setup and am rather pleased.

Very nice! What is the driver underneath?
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 16 Sep 2016, 08:55 am
$65 USD each from Madisound.  (In case anyone was wondering.)

£43 GBP each (excl VAT) from Willys Hifi ;)

I believe they come in matched pairs. My two have the same serial number, and measured response is very close.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 16 Sep 2016, 09:07 am
My measurement yesterday of the off-axis was a bit optimistic... not sure if that was the close distance (20cm) or because I hurried too much. Here's a more careful measurement at 50cm, gated at 2.5ms (still some early reflections off the stand), no smoothing - 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 degrees (red, purple, blue, orange, green). (*)

[Edit] I've revise the graphs to only run to 24 kHz.

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150401)

For comparison, a Fountek FR89EX (4 ohm version) in the same box (*):

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150402)

Aurasound NS3 (different box):

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150403)

For good measure, Jordan JX92s:

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150404)


(*) It doesn't matter for these measurements but 10F and FR89EX have some BSC (inductor||resistor) in the box.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 16 Sep 2016, 09:08 am
Wow. That 30 degree plot looks super nice. ScanSpeak. 4" is an exceptionally "correct" size for a wide ranger, it is the Goldilocks Zone for sure.

Hi Dan, I think these are really more like a 3".
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 16 Sep 2016, 09:46 am
[Graphs merged with post above]

Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: Dmason on 16 Sep 2016, 10:38 am
Fountek EX89 plot certainly illustrates what I am hearing. They, in the Serene Talismans need to be listened to well off axis. Great mid detail and projection on good material however. I think the Scans would be a few orders of magnitude better, and just enough bigger to shift more air.

Really good size driver for mains for a nearfield/midfield FAST set up, in a real world sized room.  Only 14mm greater DIA than the Fountek. 12mm wider cone DIA. Not alot, but still significant, I think.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 17 Sep 2016, 04:38 am
The Popsicles™ live again!

(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=150439)

These originally had TB W3-881s in them. I lent them to a friend and she must have used them as party speakers because they came back trashed. Poor little things. The 10Fs fit easily in the hole although the rebate is too small. Good enough for a quick tryout. Good so far!

Really good size driver for mains for a nearfield/midfield FAST set up, in a real world sized room.

May be how they end up. We'll see!
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: planet10 on 17 Sep 2016, 04:56 am
oops wrong driver

dave
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR on 17 Sep 2016, 06:41 am
oops wrong driver

What exactly the "1" vs "2" signifies in 10F/8414 vs 10F/8424 I have no idea. I suppose the G10 and G00 make a difference too.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: planet10 on 17 Sep 2016, 08:46 am
8424 has a bigger magnet and does not do as well as the 8414 at being a full-range. We have the 10F/8424. Optimally fits into a 0.8 liter miniOnken.

(http://www.planet10-hifi.com/images/SS-10F-nScan-Ken.jpg)

dave
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: dwk on 19 Sep 2016, 03:06 pm
Very nice! What is the driver underneath?

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.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: Dmason on 19 Sep 2016, 03:20 pm
Interesting. I made a mental note of Dr Linkwitz having commented at a gathering in NorCal that he was "thrilled" with the performance of that 6" driver.

Please tell us how it does in the PE cabinet. Seems like it might make a seriously sweet small bass enhancer, which is what I am after, fairly soon.

The Mini-Onkens look good. Small, effective, and portable. Are the plans available?
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: richidoo on 19 Sep 2016, 05:55 pm
Tony Gee just published a new design called Fast One (http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Fast-One.html) using the 10F.

No measurements, but his audio prose is always worth reading.  :thumb:
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: wushuliu on 19 Sep 2016, 06:39 pm
Tony Gee just published a new design called Fast One (http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Fast-One.html) 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.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JeffB 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.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: planet10 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
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: wushuliu 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.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JeffB on 20 Sep 2016, 12:01 am
Ok, so this avoids having to do BSC on the wide range driver.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: planet10 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
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR 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 (http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/pdf/10f-8414g10.pdf). They are not interchangeable.
Title: Re: Scanspeak 10F/8414G
Post by: JohnR 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 :(