Anyone have response curves for the RD0198-1?

Bubinga99

The last page of this SL3000 document has curves for the SL3000:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43027&d=1252105798

but I can't seem to find any for the '198.

They must be different enough, since a majority seem to prefer the RD0198 over the SL3000, even across swapping in the RD0198 in several speaker models.

Face

The curves should be the same otherwise you would have to compensate in the crossover.

dorokusai

Unavailable but it was designed as a drop in replacement.

Bubinga99

Face wrote: »

The curves should be the same otherwise you would have to compensate in the crossover.

Wouldn't that only mean they are nearly identical up to or slightly beyond the crossover point?

With so many people saying the RD0 sounds better, and also a majority saying you should not replace just one with an RD0 (for speakers w/ multiple tweeters), doesn't that all point to an audible response difference? I don't have any other explanation for that, so I'm all ears.

Also, isn't it darn near impossible to get identical response from 2 tweeters made from completely different materials and manufacutring process?

Face

Bubinga99 wrote: »

Also, isn't it darn near impossible to get identical response from 2 tweeters made from completely different materials and manufacutring process?

Nope.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/vifa/xt25tg30-04e.pdf

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/R3004_662000.pdf

Systems

Bubinga99 wrote: »

Wouldn't that only mean they are nearly identical up to or slightly beyond the crossover point?

Sensitivity,impedance,resonant frequency and shape(Q) of the roll off at the bottom of it's response need to be very similar if the stock xover is to be used.

skrol

Yes, the RDO is a drop-in replacement. However, as we all seem to agree that the RDOxxx sounds different from the SLxxxx it seems that there must be differences in the response curves. As the RDO is compatible with the SL XO, it must be very similar to the SL at the lower end of its frequency response. It would also need to be very close for contouring, though I suspect that the mid to upper frequency range is a bit more tame than the SL giving it the smoother voice character that we seem to love.

Differences likely lie in the transient response and resonance. What is the resonance of doped silk vs polyamide, aluminum and stainless steel? When considering dome tweeters, if want fine detail I look to the metal/poly dome but for smooth character I look to the textiles.

saemark30

Is the RD0198-1 a trilaminate?
I really want to try a SL-3000 on a Polk 7B what needs to make it fit?

Thanks

heiney9

saemark30 wrote: »

Is the RD0198-1 a trilaminate?
I really want to try a SL-3000 on a Polk 7B what needs to make it fit?

Thanks

No it's not a tri-laminte; it's silk. It will fit (physically) just fine, the response curve will be different since the x-over is designed to be used with the sl2000 and RD0194-1 tweeters, NOT the sl3000 or sl2500 or RD0198-1.

H9

saemark30

OK H9, does the original Peerless tweeter fit the hole meant for the SL2000?
I think the SL3000 would have a smoother,more detailed sound, the SL2000 has resonances in the 12kHz region.
I'm willing to mod the crossover.

Joe08867

Like H9 Already stated the RD0194 is a drop in replacement and is nearly identical to the RD0198 in physical properties but is designed for your crossover.

The Peerless would sound better than the SL2000 but not as good as the RD0194.

inspiredsports

Bubinga99 wrote: »

The last page of this SL3000 document has curves for the SL3000:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43027&d=1252105798

but I can't seem to find any for the '198.

They must be different enough, since a majority seem to prefer the RD0198 over the SL3000, even across swapping in the RD0198

Face wrote: »

The curves should be the same otherwise you would have to compensate in the crossover.

So how does that answer square with SL2000 versus RDO194-1 where no crossover compensation was needed, yet the approx. 12kHz/13khz response was quite different ??

heiney9

If the curves are the same, then they would sound the same and the 13kHz bump would be seen on an RD0194-1, correct? I believe they are electrically equivalent but I woould think the curves would be different. However, Face knows a lot more and has more real world experience dealing with this type of stuff.

H9

heiney9

saemark30 wrote: »

OK H9, does the original Peerless tweeter fit the hole meant for the SL2000?
I think the SL3000 would have a smoother,more detailed sound, the SL2000 has resonances in the 12kHz region.
I'm willing to mod the crossover.

No the peerless is neither physically or electrically equivalent. Why not just buy the appropriate RD0 silk replacement. They are much better than the originals. Have you heard one yet?

H9

saemark30

I prefer a Peerless if it fits a SL2000 hole. The RDO-194 costs a sizeable amount. I don't want a RD0-198 then.

inspiredsports

saemark30 wrote: »

I prefer a Peerless if it fits a SL2000 hole. The RDO-194 costs a sizeable amount. I don't want a RD0-198 then.

RDO194-1's and RDO198-1's are generally $48 USD delivered for CP members . . . not a lot of money for what you get as tweeters go.

Hop on eBay and you will probably pay a bit more than that for a Peerless, which I guess might sound better in some cases in some older non-SDA models.

heiney9

saemark30 wrote: »

I prefer a Peerless if it fits a SL2000 hole. The RDO-194 costs a sizeable amount. I don't want a RD0-198 then.

It doesn't fit and it's the wrong tweeter so why would you want it? Unless you just want to make a franken-polk. What does the cost of an RD0194 have to do with not wanting a RD0198? Both the 194 and 198 cost the same new.

H9

saemark30

To answer H9, I want to make my speakers into a 7A but that is not possible by just getting the Peerless according to him.
$48 is only for people in US, elsewhere there is postage and taxes.

I don't want the RD0-198 for any reason.

FTGV

inspiredsports wrote: »

So how does that answer square with SL2000 versus RDO194-1 where no crossover compensation was needed, yet the approx. 12kHz/13khz response was quite different ??

I assume the SL2000's exhibited a peak in it's response in the 12-13k range due to a resonance mode in the dome that was left unattended.The RDO probably has a better damped dome that does not exhibit the same resonant mode thus the result being smoother (more ideal) response with no need of changes in the xover.

heiney9

saemark30 wrote: »

To answer H9, I want to make my speakers into a 7A but that is not possible by just getting the Peerless according to him.
$48 is only for people in US, elsewhere there is postage and taxes.

I don't want the RD0-198 for any reason.

I did forget about the shipping/taxes in Canada so yes, that will be more than us in the US. The problem physically is the peerless bezel is smaller so there will be a gap. I suppose you could hodge/podge the x-over to try and mimick the 7A that uses the peerless, but every peerless using Monitor I've seen has an extra resistor and you'd have to probably go point to point. I also don't know if the inductor values are the same, etc, etc. Not an easy thing to do to convert from a sl2000 using monitor to a peerless using monitor.

H9

inspiredsports

FTGV wrote: »

I assume the SL2000's exhibited a peak in it's response in the 12-13k range due to a resonance mode in the dome that was left unattended.The RDO probably has a better damped dome that does not exhibit the same resonant mode thus the result being smoother (more ideal) response with no need of changes in the xover.

That was my point.

You CAN change the frequency response curve to solve an anomaly without changing the crossover.

That was my problem with Face's blanket statement, "The curves should be the same otherwise you would have to compensate in the crossover" which to me would have meant meant the RDO194-1 would have nonsensically had the same problem built in to it.

dorokusai

FTGV wrote: »

I assume the SL2000's exhibited a peak in it's response in the 12-13k range due to a resonance mode in the dome that was left unattended.The RDO probably has a better damped dome that does not exhibit the same resonant mode thus the result being smoother (more ideal) response with no need of changes in the xover.

The best answer so far.

inspiredsports

heiney9 wrote: »

I did forget about the shipping/taxes in Canada so yes, that will be more than us in the US. The problem physically is the peerless bezel is smaller so there will be a gap. I suppose you could hodge/podge the x-over to try and mimick the 7A that uses the peerless, but every peerless using Monitor I've seen has an extra resistor and you'd have to probably go point to point. I also don't know if the inductor values are the same, etc, etc. Not an easy thing to do to convert from a sl2000 using monitor to a peerless using monitor.

H9

Everything costs more in Canada. I guess he should buy a Canadian brand speaker so he can get the parts.

FTGV

inspiredsports wrote: »

That was my point.

You CAN change the frequency response curve to solve an anomaly without changing the crossover.

OK yes they have solved the hi frequency anomaly through superior materials/dome design whilst keeping the important characteristics such as impedance ,sensitivity and frequency response between roughly 1-6k close enough to the SL2000 so as to not require any changes to the crossover.

dorokusai

Did you just use the word "whilst?" ....I like it.

skrol

If you are really ambitious, some of the schematics in the sticky link have mods for the SL-3000. I saw them for the 5B and the 10 but not for the 7B. You could adapt from those schematics. However, you would be best off going with going with the RDO-194. I replaced the SL-3000's in my RTA11TL's with RDO-198 and never looked back.
Stan

inspiredsports

FTGV wrote: »

OK yes they have solved the hi frequency anomaly through superior materials/dome design whilst keeping the important characteristics such as impedance ,sensitivity and frequency response between roughly 1-6k close enough to the SL2000 so as to not require any changes to the crossover.

THAT was exactly my point. I should have written what you wrote instead of being sarcastic.