Excel W15CY vs. W15CH 300hz-1900hz

[Jed]

Hello,

Driver selection, as I have discussed at length with members at this board, is critical. Right now I am working with Roman to design a 3-way with RS28a, W22EX001, and either a W15CH excel or W15CY excel. He has simulated a fabulous design that uses the W15CY, but my attention has resently been drawn to the W15CH which seems to have a better magnet system and similar frequency response. Which driver would work best in a 3-way from 300HZ (2nd order) to 1900HZ (4th order)? We are looking at distortion characteristics, peaks in response differences, and the path for best pure midrange in an optimized closed box design.

Also, do the size of the inductors on the midrange affect sound quality? For example in one design for X-over the 15CY midrange system of inductors are composed of mostly 20 gauge. This seems a bit small for a midrange, but the system response is optimized for the smaller gauge wire, and larger gauge would just mean a bit too much sensitivity in the middle range. Since the W15CH seems to be slightly less sensitive, perhaps it would be a better match than the W15CY and I could use lower DCR coils? What do you all think. Just trying to make sure the W15CY or CH is the "best" choice etc......

[Dennis H]

The H appears to have higher distortion than the Y going by the Seas data sheets.

[Jed]

It appears there are 2 sets of data charts for the CH driver- Madisound vs Seas website. Which ones are correct? For example the Madisound info shows a peak at 6K and the seas website one shows it at 8Kish. If used from 300-1.9K, how might one compare their distortion measurements as a system? Do the Neo magnets make a difference?

[Dennis H]

Hmmmm, I was looking at the old data sheet. The new one (dated 6/05) on the Seas site doesn't include the distortion measurements so there's no way to know. It's disappointing that they've stopped including the distortion curves for all the new drivers released this year. I always found them helpful and was wishing they'd include them for the standard line as well. I guess they want to sell a lot of the new paper Excels.

[JonMarsh]

Hmmmm, I was looking at the old data sheet. The new one (dated 6/05) on the Seas site doesn't include the distortion measurements so there's no way to know. It's disappointing that they've stopped including the distortion curves for all the new drivers released this year. I always found them helpful and was wishing they'd include them for the standard line as well. I guess they want to sell a lot of the new paper Excels.

Yeah, whenever manufacturers start supplying LESS information than they have in the past, my natural cynicism starts to bubble to the surface...

[capslock]

It would seem that the new data sheet is more correct, after all, cone and surround seemed to be identical in the CH and CY, so it was hard for me to understand why the CH would have a lower breakup node.

As for distortion, I've been wanting to do comparative tests myself, but this won't happen before late this summer. The CH uses iron rods to interface the top plate to the Nd magnets, so there is more unshielded iron in the system. This might result in higher distortion.

[Jed]

I found out the data sheets at madisound for the W15CH were from a prototype. The actual correct data for this driver can be found at the seas website. The first resonance is identical to the CY. I think they will be nearly identical in performance with a slight edge going to the CH. We have worked some modeling with CH vs CY and it was easier to get a flat response with the CH for this system I mentioned. So I went ahead and bought some CH drivers.