• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

SWR Goliath III replacement speakers

#82
baxter_x said:
Yes, changing the speakers will change the impedance. Upside? Easier to combine with other cabs. Downside? I don't see any...
Click to expand...
I do, the cabinets will not sound like SWR cabinets. How different is nothing more than a crapshoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassmanPaul
#84
agedhorse said:
I do, the cabinets will not sound like SWR cabinets. How different is nothing more than a crapshoot.
Click to expand...
Isn't the CA1059 a good replacement for the SWR Goliath cabs?

I based my answers on this earlier statement in the previous page:
Arjank said:
According to my simulations the CA10 can't handle mechanically what it can handle thermally, it only takes 70 watts at 80hz to push them beyond their xmax which will of course muddy the sound when pushed. The CA1059 can take a lot more before reaching that point. So if you want your notes to sound clear at higher volume my vote goes to the CA1059.
Click to expand...


Downunderwonder said:
If you are always blowing speakers with your big low end you should get a HPF3. High pass filter takes out the subwoofer lows that get kill speakers while not contributing tone.
Click to expand...
Totally! It took me about 10 years to finally find a way to stop destroying my speaker with my big low end. My Broughton HPF solved all my problems. Whish I would have used such device earlier!
 
Last edited:
#85
I don't know how close it is. I am pretty sure it uses a totally different surround and likely tubes quite differently than the original SWR driver which isn't even an Eminence driver.
 
#87
Even though Eminence states that the CA10 would be a suitable replacement for OEM speakers in an SWR Goliath cabinet, the information I have suggests that the CA10 is more like an Eden EC1060F speaker used in the Eden D410T and the metal grill equipped SWR Goliath I than the PAS driver used in the SWR Goliath II. As such, I would expect that if one were to install CA10 speakers in a suitably tuned cabinet, the voicing would be more 'Eden-like' (ie less mid scooped).

Note: I used an AKG D5 vocal mike positioned directly in front of the upper left speaker for the white noise frequency analysis presented in the D410T and SWR Goliath II graphs shown below. This is the reason for the steeper roll off below 100Hz compared to the graph provided by Eminence for the CA10.

Disclaimer: I am no expert in this area, so please feel free to set me straight if I am way off on this.

Eden vs SWR vs CA10.jpg


White noise response curve overlay:

0D301264-BD18-4930-BF12-56302EBBF810.jpeg


The darker curve is the EC1060F/Eden D410T. The lighter curve is the PAS/SWR Goliath II.
 
Last edited:
#88
You need to use pink noise, not white noise when comparing speakers. Most analyzers generate frequency response plots based on pink noise (equal energy per octave). If the legend plot was done using pink noise, the comparisons will be skewed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SNCpre
#89
agedhorse said:
You need to use pink noise, not white noise when comparing speakers. Most analyzers generate frequency response plots based on pink noise (equal energy per octave). If the legend plot was done using pink noise, the comparisons will be skewed.
Click to expand...

agedhorse said:
You need to use pink noise, not white noise when comparing speakers. Most analyzers generate frequency response plots based on pink noise (equal energy per octave). If the legend plot was done using pink noise, the comparisons will be skewed.
Click to expand...

As
agedhorse said:
You need to use pink noise, not white noise when comparing speakers. Most analyzers generate frequency response plots based on pink noise (equal energy per octave). If the legend plot was done using pink noise, the comparisons will be skewed.
Click to expand...

I checked with Eminence regarding the frequency response plot, here's their reply:

It’s measured at 1 watt across the spectrum. Nothing is weighted. When you see a peak or dip, that is the result of the speaker’s response.
 
#90
SNCpre said:
As


I checked with Eminence regarding the frequency response plot, here's their reply:

It’s measured at 1 watt across the spectrum. Nothing is weighted. When you see a peak or dip, that is the result of the speaker’s response.
Click to expand...
Correct, but if you used a white noise source on an analyzer designed for pink noise (ie. equal energy per octave) you will get different results on your measurements compared with Eminence's. White noise has an energy content that rises with each octave.
 
#93
I had a guy rip me a new one over the crappy measured low end response of one of my bass cabinets. The guy posed as a real expert, even posted reviews of cabinets as though he was a "professional reviewer". The dumb-ass had his new "professional" i-phone based analyzer measuring but using a while noise source rather than the correct pink noise source! The cabinet was like 3dB down at 200Hz... but he was SO SURE he was correct. In fact, he was so ignorant that he couldn't even recognize that kind of response would have been impossible for that cabinet to measure so poorly no matter how "bad" it could have been designed. This is why I always emphasize that when something doesn't seem quite right, you darn well better look more closely at your data and measurement set-up before publishing your wrong results. He was quite pissed at me because he was sure he knew far more than I could possibly know... after all he took an internet electronics course after he got his GED. Nothing an attorney couldn't straighten out with a simple one paragraph e-mail, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanj, BadExample and baxter_x
#95
agedhorse said:
Correct, but if you used a white noise source on an analyzer designed for pink noise (ie. equal energy per octave) you will get different results on your measurements compared with Eminence's. White noise has an energy content that rises with each octave.
Click to expand...

Signal chain I used:

White noise generator software -> Laptop soundcard headphone out -> SWR Amplite -> Speaker Cabinet -> AKG D5 ->laptop soundcard mic in -> white noise analyzer software

Thanks a lot for your comments Agedhorse - very informative as always.

I am no way trying to be condescending or hypercritical with the information I have posted. I apologize if my post has caused any confusion on this topic.

The Eden D410T and SWR Goliath II are my two favorite 410 boxes. I was simply trying to find out if the CA10 was modeled after the EC1060F or the PAS. The description offered by Eminence (OEM in many popular bass cabinets) suggests it's the EC1060F. The measurents I made appear to confirm that.
 
Last edited:
#97
agedhorse said:
What software are you using?
Click to expand...

A program that talkbass member fdeck wrote called freesa. I have used in the past to generate Bode plots for all of the bass amps I have owned/flipped over the years. If I run the headphone out into the mic jack on my soundcard, this program generates a flat response curve from 10Hz to 20kHz.

Fdeck used this program in a similar manner to characterize the frequency response of a GK cabinet and a cabinet he designed and built.
 
#98
SNCpre said:
A program that talkbass member fdeck wrote called freesa. I have used in the past to generate Bode plots for all of the bass amps I have owned/flipped over the years. If I run the headphone out into the mic jack on my soundcard, this program generates a flat response curve from 10Hz to 20kHz.

Fdeck used this program in a similar manner to characterize the frequency response of a GK cabinet and a cabinet he designed and built.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Francis can fill in the details, but if white noise is used, the analyzer portion must correct accordingly for equal energy per octave in order to have a flat response. It's possible to have the correction be in the generator or the analyzer, but I can't think of any analyzer that has used white noise rather than already corrected pink noise (because of the ease of correction in the source side)
 
#99
agedhorse said:
Perhaps Francis can fill in the details, but if white noise is used, the analyzer portion must correct accordingly for equal energy per octave in order to have a flat response. It's possible to have the correction be in the generator or the analyzer, but I can't think of any analyzer that has used white noise rather than already corrected pink noise (because of the ease of correction in the source side)
Click to expand...

I sent him an email via his website to inquire about this earlier today. I'll send him a PM here as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agedhorse
#100
SNCpre said:
I sent him an email via his website to inquire about this earlier today. I'll send him a PM here as well.
Click to expand...
Hoo boy. Where did you find my program? I actually don't think I have a copy of it any more, and I'm not quite sure I remember what I did. It got too dicey to support every new version of Microsoft Windows.

As I recall, both generator and analyzer are based on assuming white noise, since I got to design both. ;)

One thing I do remember is testing the program by looping the signal from the output to the input of the sound card, and confirming that I get a flat graph after averaging -- give or take a few filter wiggles near 20 kHz. That should be an acid test of whether the system can be used as an analyzer.

In any event, I've adopted an even more insane method since then, documented here:

toneClusterWaveform/Tone cluster audio waveform.ipynb at master · bassistTech/toneClusterWaveform · GitHub

And an amusing anecdote: My workplace is one of the pioneers, if not the pioneer, of commercial Fourier transform signal analysis instrumentation.

The Fourier Revolution and Nicolet Computers
 
  • Like
Reactions: deff and SNCpre

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back