Technical data
|
Applications
Features
|
Components
Scan-Speak Discovery D2604/833000 with waveguide PCT-300/WG-300
Scan-Speak Discovery 18W/4434G00
Measurements
+ -1,5dB from 60Hz to 18kHz
Crossover: 1750Hz, LR filter 4. Order, symmetrical flanks, perfect addition
Extremely uniform and controlled, towards high frequencies increasing directional behavior.
Area representation of the angular frequency responses shown in the previous image
extremely low harmonic distortion at all measured levels
Driver arrangement and filtering corresponding, unproblematic behavior
Driver arrangement and filtering corresponding, unproblematic behavior
rapid decay over all frequencies
minimally delayed> 15kHz
Impedance minimum 3,1Ω at 250Hz
Bass reflex tuning frequency 52Hz
No disturbances in the impedance response,
Crossover
A very interesting speaker for my next project.
What is the situation near the wall? Will there be a HWG version like the "old" version?
Hi Andreas!
The EVO HWG would look like this:
L2 and two resistors need to be adjusted. The rest remains identical
Best Regards
Hey,
how exactly do the resistors and L2 need to be adjusted?
Thank you.
Hi Mo
L2 => 0,82mH 1mm Air Coil
R2 => 12Ω
R4 => 0,82Ω
Thanks for asking. Wanted to post that for a long time!
Best Regards
Hello, very nice speaker!
I'm actually making a similar design:
same drivers with wg, slighly larger box, sealed!
... because there'll be a bass section:
same enclosure, with dayton RSS210HF sealed.
Mu question: why your xover point so low?
I think LR2 at 2kHz, with hypex fusion.
great job!
Regards
Enrico
Hi Enrico
My X-over point is where it gives the best results regarding directivity (horizontal and vertical), distortions and power handling.
Best regards and all the best for your project
Alexander
Hey Alexander,
Thanks for your reply.
Have you tried LR2 with this driver's combination?
Kind regards
Enrico
Hi Enrico!
No, because in terms of
"Directivity (horizontal and vertical), distortions and power handling"
LR4 gave the best results. I do not believe in audible phase shift due to LR4 filters. The other side filters may result in more audibly problems caused by operating drivers at their limits.
Best regards
Alexander
thanks Alexander!
WG148 and WG300 with this tweeter before choosing the big one?
Thank you very much for all this information!
Best regards
Enrico
I did not, because I don't see a proper way to fit the WG148 with the tweeter mechanic.
Hi Alexander,
I find the Cinetor-Evo very interesting, but I would like to place the speakers at about 20cm distance to the wall on stands.
Do you see a problem with that?
Best regards,
Thorsten
Hello Thorsten
To the rear 20cm should be sufficient. To the side, I would aim for more.
Best Regards
Alexander
Thank you for the info. What should be a sufficient distance to the side (wall) in your experience?
Best regards,
Thorsten
Cinetor-Evo is less susceptible to lateral reflections than other loudspeakers due to the directionality (WG). Nevertheless, I did not want to go under 50cm. More is usually better. If the walls are very close you can experiment with sound absorbing materials.
Hi Alexander,
I'm thinking of building the Cinetor-Evo as 5.0 system. Can the Cinetor-Evo also be used horizontally for the center? For all boxes I would have to resort to a very close-to-the-wall setup (also on the side). I suspect that the HWG variant would be advisable here? The turnout is not ready to be purchased, but should always be built specifically, right?
Thanks and Regards
John
hello Johannes
No, please do not lie down Cinetor-Evo! And yes, if necessary, the HWG variant would be appropriate. Concerning. Soft: Ask me, nM. by email, for an offer.
Best regards 🙂
Hi Alexander,
Thank you for your quick response. Is there an alternative construction proposal for a center box that can be placed and harmonizes with the sound of the Cinetor? Standing works unfortunately not in terms of space.
Regards
John
I have purchased the Cinetor Evo blueprint. I would like to build the speaker first, because I run a very high quality DIY subwoofer for each channel, which can also play easily up to 200Hz or higher. Do I have to pay attention to something or does the tonality change unintentionally?
Best regards, Dominik
Hello Dominik
You are welcome to do it! You could reduce the volume to ~ 10l. As a crossover frequency I would rather target 100Hz.
Thanks for the feedback. I have now carried out the separation at 100Hz, fits very well.
I have one more question. I still have a good amount of alubutyl lying around here. Would it make sense to use this to calm the inner walls even more?
Yes, in my view that makes perfect sense. Double-layered, centered and not full surface (~ 50% of the surface is completely sufficient).
Hello Alexander!
I just ordered the construction kit, but I am considering whether you could not build the Cinetor evo fully active with a fusion module (in the sense of a studio monitor or mini PA).
Have you ever thought in this direction or maybe even already done something?
VG Steffen
Hello Steffen
I can send you a suitable DSP setup.
Kind regards
Alexander
Hi
which Fusion DSP would be suitable. Years later I have finished the housing ...
Kind regards
Klaus
Hello Klaus
The Hypex FA122 is perfectly adequate!
best regards 🙂
Hi Alexander,
something that takes a long time…
For cost reasons it has become the passive variant, and the couple is now finally finished. And they are definitely the best speakers I've ever had. Great praise!
VG Steffen
Hello Steffen!
That makes me happy 🙂
Hi, what is the tonal difference between the Cinetor Evo and the DXT-MON 182? The intended use would be home audio.
LG, Thomas
The DXT-MON-182 plays significantly lower. That is probably the most striking difference.
It also radiates wider.
If the speakers can be placed properly, that is beneficial.
The Evo's narrower radiation is an advantage under difficult conditions.
Hi Alexander,
have you ever thought of the SB Acoustics SB29RDC-C000-4 in the WG-300? I think it's even bigger, more powerful and can be coupled more deeply. Do you see problems in a speaker like the Cinetor? If you're up for it, I'll get some, marry them with the waveguides and send them to you to test!?
Hello John
I've tested many tweeters and very few worked properly on the WG.
How deep the tweeter can be coupled is not primarily determined by its performance, but by the geometry of the baffle and the size and contour of the waveguide.
Apart from that, the Scan-Speak D2604 could play down to almost 1kHz... In this regard, I don't see any need to look for a new tweeter for the Cinetor Evo.
Apart from that, I would still unpack my mic for testing if necessary.
Thanks for your answer, I'll think about the project! You tested the Vifa XT25 in the Cinetor. Can you tell us why the Scanspeak has prevailed? Thank you!
I ask myself that sometimes too
I think I will also build a Cinetor Evo with the XT-25 (Peerless XT25Tg-30/04). Is still one of the best tweeters I know and works very well on the WG.
Hello, I've been using the "old" Cinetor for a long time and wanted to ask what the difference in sound to this version is? Mainly the midrange?
And is it possible to modify the housing or is the inner workings completely different?
mfg, Nils
Hello Nils
The conversion would be relatively uncomplicated.
I would recommend the EVO vA. prefer the old variant in the mid-high range.
VG
Hi Alex,
could you use a passive membrane instead of a BR tube?
My thought would be the oval 5×8″ version from SB Acoustics, SB15SFCR-00 on the back wall.
Greeting Christian
Hi Christian
You could do it, but I would prefer to go one size bigger. The Dayton 215PR (aluminum or paper) would be an option. But would have to go into the simulation again first. maybe I'll take a look and post the result here!
VG
Hi Alex,
is the adapter for the waveguide still available separately?
I couldn't find it in the shop.
Greetings Bernhard