Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Airbone RT-5002 vs. Scan Speak Illuminator 3/4" dome showdown.

  1. #11
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    the only problem with vertical mounting in the car is that you can't get the speaker ear level. It's ear level in my pillar and even then just the aiming puts me above the beam. Horizontal is the way to go imo. The awkard dispersion will just make your center localizable, which for a center it's quite likable. I'd say you try it both ways at least.

  2. #12
    Founding Member Subwoofery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    353
    Real Name
    Kelvin
    I posted on DIYMA coz I always wanted to use an AMT or a Ribbon driver. Now that they have shallow profile ones (cheap at that), I figured why not.

    Processor is the MS-8 in my girl's car. Will let you guyz know what Andy has to say about it.

    Kelvin

    http://speedy.sh/R8eEg/AMT.pdf
    Last edited by Subwoofery; 06-29-2012 at 09:12 PM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    In! Here is a tease pic:



    Testing earliest tomorrow. Probably not because I get my Samsung Galaxy 3 delivered.

    My preliminary take is that the AMT is to die for. I'm very happy I tried these out. I'm sure testing will show something similar. They are now -14db compared to the BG Neo10s. 3db is due to impedance differences, the rest is probably all sensitivity.

  4. #14
    What happened to the scans? Why did they blow up?

  5. #15
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Looks like DC went through somehow. Either the phone, BT adapter, or the head freaked out for a second.
    Freak accident, there is no way any dome would have survived that.

  6. #16
    Founding Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    7
    I like the setup, now to get those 10" midbass in the dash ;)

  7. #17
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    It looks like a martian stereo

    The LAT midbass will be equivalent to a 15" actually, albeit with pro-audio like (lack of) excursion.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Visalia, CA
    Posts
    123
    Real Name
    Chris
    I think it looks better with the AMT's in. Kind of hides the aluminum more. Even better that it seems from your post that it sounds better to.

  9. #19
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Testing results:

    Note: odds are there might be a few output differences due to setup unlike other tests that I did where I kept all other variables controlled because:
    I run test tones off my cellphone through bluetooth and I have a new phone since I tested the Scan
    I might have changed the bluetooth level in the headunit since it's been a month (0 to 4 db in favor of the AMT)
    AMT has in-line cap to protect it from DC surges so that it does not die on me like the Scan

    With that in mind the AMT is as expected a lot for efficient (both tweeters are 4 ohm) but the AMT is 13db lower on the head, even with the notes above I'd say 9db to 14db more efficient. AMT at level 32 on P99, AMT at level 45 (p99 levels are db steps):
    Airborne AMT in RED
    Scan Illuminator 3/4" dome BLACK

    Smoothing 1/6th octave, 3.1khz 24db HP, 20+ averages in car with driver in seat

    I was surprised to see the AMT holding up the top end better than the little dome. With that size of a folded ribbon I thought it would roll off quicker. On the bottom it does cut sharply at 3.1khz where I crossed both over with 24db slopes. Some of it is lack of midrange output but some is also the inline capacitor.

    I turned on Neo10 planar to see what the output difference is, I find both to be equally underrated sensitivity wise. They seem to be 6db away from eachother in the plot below, 3db is due to 8ohm vs. 4 ohm impedance and the other three is the AMT 3db more sensitive. The AMT is rated at 95db, the Neo10 at 92db 1w1m, spot on in relation to eachother. In absolute terms VC mag. shows the AMT is more like 100db over the intended bandwidth, I think that's true which makes the Neo 10 98db sensitive. The BG planar was more sensitive than dual 4.5" Pro audio mids running off twice the power, that's certainly very good.


    The polar response seems to be very good in-car. I think due to reflection it wasn't noticeably worse than the Scan moving the mic around. @ 20khz the response is almost the same up to 45 degrees on the longer side but from 7khz to 15khz it does beam somewhat. No noticeable beaming on the short side of the ribbon, that's up down in my setup.

    HD @102db, roughly 1m for the AMT:

    1/6 smoothing, 3.1khz HP

    -38db was the worst reading for THD 3khz up, at roughly 5.5khz to 4khz there is a peak of 1.2% or so THD. 2nd and 3rd order HD seem to go up a bit. But how does it do against the Scan?

    Scan Illuminator HD @102db:



    The scan peak HD is about 35db and it occurs lower at about 3khz-4khz. That's roughly 1.5%, so higher than the AMT but by a very small amount. However, the HD is composed of mostly 2nd order harmonics, no 3rd order like the AMT. I'd say it's a tie.

    So there you have it, two very different technologies for the same application. The AMT has better sensitivity, the Scan has better form factor and moves beaming further up. They sound shockingly different however. Even the impulse response is different, on the AMT it sounds like a gun reloading, as if the membrane gets excited between runs. Very odd. Static sounds vastly different, songs recorded on vinyl have static that sounds more like percussion on the AMTs, whereas the Scans were quite mellow. My take is that HD or FR is not why they sound different. It may be polar response, but I doubt it, line arrays of conventional drivers never sound like AMTs or planars.
    Last edited by cvjoint; 07-13-2012 at 05:54 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member cvjoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    801
    Real Name
    George
    Week 3 feedback. The AMTs sound amazing, and they seem to survive in very high heat, it's been 90+ degrees here and easily 130 degrees in my car. I unscrewed them from the a-pillar one day and they burned my skin, couldn't hold them for more than a second. The funny thing is the ribbon straightens up and looks really neat when it's hot. As the temps go down the ribbon bends a bit and looks a lot less appealing. It sounds equally good though. It just looks alive...

    The Scan's dead body.

    The tweeter can be serviced it seems really easy. A hard twist gets the protective screen loose. The diaphragm is one piece, while the motor is the third last piece. It's a very clever design, and the ease of replacement seems to be central to the whole Illuminator line. Maybe Scan will ship to me some replacement diaphrams, that would be awesome. Note while we are at it the massive amount of copper in the motor it is everywhere, above, bellow, over. This line is the pinacle of driver design imo.



    Symptoms of DC burn, one side of the coil burned to smitherenes, the former even broke apart and came off the dome:


    While the other side is clean:


    Since we are at it, I pulled the motor out of the housing, some more delicious machining and loads of felt material:



    Quality soldering by Erin, and quality photos by the new Samsung Galaxy S3 android phone.
    Last edited by cvjoint; 07-26-2012 at 05:47 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •