[srb]

The larger W18 drivers have greater power handling and excursion, and should be able to be played louder.  While it might not make much of a difference in smaller rooms, I'm sure larger rooms could benefit.

Steve

[Saturn94]

The F3 of my (LCY) HT2-TLs is 32Hz, almost the same as the ST-SC at 34Hz.  So, at $1,000 less for the ST-SC and a much smaller footprint, what is the incentive to buy the current HT2-TL over the ST-SC? Sensitivity?

Power handling?  Higher bass output levels before distorting/bottoming out?

Edit: oops, see someone already mentioned this.

[jsalk]

The F3 of my (LCY) HT2-TLs is 32Hz, almost the same as the ST-SC at 34Hz.  So, at $1,000 less for the ST-SC and a much smaller footprint, what is the incentive to buy the current HT2-TL over the ST-SC? Sensitivity?

The sensitivity of the HT2-TL's is slightly higher.  The F3 is lower.  And power handling is superior. 

The deeper you ask a driver to play, the more air it has to move.  When you ask the W15 5" driver to play as low as it does in the ST-SC, the deeper bass requires it to move a lot of air.  Since the W15's XMAX (maximum cone excursion) is more limited than that of the HT2-TL's W18's, it will reach its limits sooner.  In addition, as volume levels increase, distortion levels will be higher as well since the W15's will be working closer to their performance limits. 

The HT2-TL drivers have more cone surface area and a greater XMAX.  So they will move more air down low before reaching their excursion limits.  The HT2-TL's will play deeper, can handle more power and distortion levels will be lower at higher volume levels.

- Jim

[rlee8394]

Jim,

That's why I'm interested in a design using the W16NX001. It has about a third more surface area than the W15, and more excursion (XMAX) than the W18 drivers. The only drawback I see is the price. They cost more than the W18 does. Even if the cabinet dimensions are less and crossover no more complicated, performance may not equal the W18 drivers for less $$. Unless there is better midrange performance due to the smaller cone. I guess in the long run they would have to provide bass performance very close to the W18 while besting it in midrange quality to make it worthwhile to implement. I've alerady worked up a Mass Loaded ST style MTM design for these. Maybe I should work up a SuperBird version using the W16NX001. Wonder how popular that would be with a RAAL?

Ron

[jsalk]

Jim,

That's why I'm interested in a design using the W16NX001. It has about a third more surface area than the W15, and more excursion (XMAX) than the W18 drivers. The only drawback I see is the price. They cost more than the W18 does. Even if the cabinet dimensions are less and crossover no more complicated, performance may not equal the W18 drivers for less $$. Unless there is better midrange performance due to the smaller cone. I guess in the long run they would have to provide bass performance very close to the W18 while besting it in midrange quality to make it worthwhile to implement. I've alerady worked up a Mass Loaded ST style MTM design for these. Maybe I should work up a SuperBird version using the W16NX001. Wonder how popular that would be with a RAAL?

Ron

Ron -

I have absolutely no doubt the W16NX would make a truly wonderful speaker and I would be very happy to build a pair should someone want them.  My main issue with the design is that the number of somewhat similar designs we have now is confusing enough.  If we added another design using the W16NX, I could see spending a lot of time trying to help people sort it all out.

To me, your idea of a "SuperBird" makes much more sense in terms of a speaker that we would offer on an ongoing basis.  But as I said above, I am not at all opposed to building a pair with an MTM configuration.

Just out of curiosity, what did you end up with for an F3 on the cabinet design you worked up?

- Jim

[rlee8394]

Jim,

As you know, it depends on the type of tuning. I usually use a bit of Extended Bass Shelf (EBS) in my designs. You heard that in the Special Edition Song Towers that you built for me. If I use a bit of EBS, F3 is around 26Hz - 28Hz. F10 is about 22Hz. Using a more conventional tuning such as Paul does, F3 is around 31Hz - 32Hz. F10 about 26Hz.

The W16NX001 driver seems to be a bit tougher to work with than the other SEAS units. To get a decent tuning, I have to use a much smaller port area, 1.5" - 2.0". This is because the cross-sectional area is much smaller to keep from having too much internal volume which can cause a big dip above the tuned frequency (Thanks for teaching about that Paul). So I'm a bit concerned about port chuffing. I can model more power to see what the max port noise will be (Thanks Paul for that one too).

I imagine one could use a larger area port which would necessitate a much longer port length than is available in cabinet depth if one mounts the port tube vertically with an elbow for the terminus. That would keep the port noise to a minimum.

This was all just a quick preliminary design. I'll keep hammering at it though.
Ron

[Paul K.]

I appreciate your thanks, Ron.  Your EBS tuning will have the benefit of making any resulting port "noise" less likely to be audible because the lower tuning frequency will not as easily be excited due to the music not having as much content in the lower frequencies.   The lower the tuning frequency,, especially if that frequency is in the low-20s or lower, the higher you can allow the port air velocity to be because it's so unlikely to be excited (special effects excluded, of course).
Paul   

Jim,

As you know, it depends on the type of tuning. I usually use a bit of Extended Bass Shelf (EBS) in my designs. You heard that in the Special Edition Song Towers that you built for me. If I use a bit of EBS, F3 is around 26Hz - 28Hz. F10 is about 22Hz. Using a more conventional tuning such as Paul does, F3 is around 31Hz - 32Hz. F10 about 26Hz.

The W16NX001 driver seems to be a bit tougher to work with than the other SEAS units. To get a decent tuning, I have to use a much smaller port area, 1.5" - 2.0". This is because the cross-sectional area is much smaller to keep from having too much internal volume which can cause a big dip above the tuned frequency (Thanks for teaching about that Paul). So I'm a bit concerned about port chuffing. I can model more power to see what the max port noise will be (Thanks Paul for that one too).

I imagine one could use a larger area port which would necessitate a much longer port length than is available in cabinet depth if one mounts the port tube vertically with an elbow for the terminus. That would keep the port noise to a minimum.

This was all just a quick preliminary design. I'll keep hammering at it though.
Ron