advertisement


SBL D2008 tweet alternative?

divedeepdog

divedeepdog

pfm Member
I've got a temporary solution to my cooked SBL tweeter (thanks Mike) but forever evolving would the D2010 from the SL2 be any better?

I'm happy to do any woodwork alterations for fit, the other interesting point being the SBL (2008) is loaded in a box, the SL2 (2010) appears to be in free air?
I suppose the ultimate would be Hiquphon OW1, but at £250 I'd need convincing. (I had Ninka's with Hiq's, but they didn't stay long)

Any one done the swap?
 
Can't say anything about the D2010 but it does look like the SL2 tweeter is in free air.

14612020483_20e58d003b_b.jpg
 
I have fitted various hf units into active/passive sbls ,2010 ,revalators etc and tbh the original ones are as good as anything. try and get some none ferrofluid cooled 2008s.
 
The correct Scanspeak D2008 is the D2008/8511. As corretly noted, it is not ferrofluid cooled. These are available, have a google.

You will notice too that the baffle of the SL2 still 'loads' the D2010 although the tweeter is mounted on a free-standing 'stalk'!

Kind Regards
Peter
 
I've got some 2nd hand 2008 on the way, just thought it'd be an opportunity to try an alternative, the 2010 are similar price.

I've hooked up my old ES14's and there is a touch more timbre to cymbals, surprising how our ears change, they're notably fatt elsewhere .
 
I don't know if the d2008/8511 has exactly the same specs as the 8512, but the OW1 is lower sensitivity than the 8512, so I don't know if they're a like for like swap. I've actually just swapped a pair of 8512s that were in a pair of troels gravesen W15/OW1 for some new OW1s and there's a noticeable difference (although as you note, they ain't cheap). These speakers were designed for the OW1s though and the 8512s were doing an imposter job, so things sounds more balanced and smoother now.
 
2010 s can be fitted in to sbls quite easily by machining the diameter down to 92mm from 94mm in a lathe, its a 4 screw fixing though.
 
The only actual difference between D2008 and D2010 is the size of the faceplate!

If you really feel the need to perform carpentry on your SBL's for absolutely no benefit whatsoever then D2010's are a way you could go.
 
Not according to scanspeaks tech sheet, best to use the tweeter that the cross over was designed for IMHO
 
I've already been on an active/passive extravaganza, but note the SL2 PXO is considered an upgrade?!
Pretty sure my Audio 42 surpass anything standard considering the first DIY build bettered active in a lot of ways.

I can build a box to suit without butchering my cabs, certainly before I do anything permanent.


My experience with the Hiq's is probably tainted by the Ninka, they were OK loud, but fell part at low volume, mates Katans were better here.

I'll be able to swap back to working SBL's later in the week, I'll have a better opinion of the tweeter output, my gut feeling is towards the 2010 ATM. If its good enough for the SL2.........
 
We'll, the curves are different for a start meaning the time Naim spent making the crossover just right for the intended driver isn't going to work as well for the wrong tweeter.

Stefan
 
We'll the curves are different for a start, the fall off is a very different curve, the impedence curve is different to. Aside from the other differences these two will mean the crossover Naim painstakingly designed will not work as well for the wrong driver. Speaker drivers don't tend to be components that can be swapped for a similar component easily.

Stefan
 
The differences in curves are actually pretty minimal and probably no more than the differences in the physical enclosure of the unit would cause. or possibly even variation between samples.

I don't really believe that any real world crossover design world be at all likely to differ if you chose one over the other since the basic response and curve shape are the some for both in any region where the filter response would be changing rapidly.
 
Having heard SBL's with modded DIY PXO's I'm pretty confident the originals have as much an eye on budget and selling more box's (SNAXO + NAPS) as they do with SQ.

Nothing wrong with that, but a painstaking design that covers a 5 ¼" and an 8" driver (IBL +SBL) is a stretch of optimisation?

I've still got a feeling the ES14's are a littler sweeter, I've got some replacements I can try to put my theory to the test.
 
colasblue said:
The differences in curves are actually pretty minimal and probably no more than the differences in the physical enclosure of the unit would cause. or possibly even variation between samples.

I don't really believe that any real world crossover design world be at all likely to differ if you chose one over the other since the basic response and curve shape are the some for both in any region where the filter response would be changing rapidly.
Click to expand...

I can see that your links are the 8511 models which are the same (apart from faceplate as mentioned) sorry wires crossed. I was referring to the 8512 and 13 models mentioned earlier as possible substitutions which they are most definitely not. I've not looked at the OW1 spec sheet either but I doubt it could be used as a drop in replacement. Crossovers are designed after much modeling and measurement of the electrical and acoustic properties of the drivers, from my own adventures in speaker design (which is not extensive) I know that changing one small thing throws off all the other carefully chosen and designed parameters. I've no idea what the SL2 crossover looks like or models like but 'upgrading' the driver is sure to not work out well without due consideration.
 
divedeepdog said:
Nothing wrong with that, but a painstaking design that covers a 5 ¼" and an 8" driver (IBL +SBL) is a stretch of optimisation?
Click to expand...

Sorry I know nothing about NAIM speakers, but are you saying the SL2 SBL and IPL all use the same crossover?

Crossing and 8 inch driver to a 3/4 inch tweeter is a bad recipe anyway!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top