This
will be a short presentation of the
PMS-EXCEL as most info on design considerations
is available at Poor
Man's Strad.
Here the relatively small W15 midrange (75 cm^2
membrane area) has all the acoustic support
needed from the wide baffle and from a point of
crossover around 350 Hz a good integration with
the W22 bass is achieved. The slightly modified
27TFFC is doing so well that I left it in place
from the PMS set-up. No need for more expensive
tweeter although I'm sure that some will believe
the 27TFFC cannot match tripple priced tweeter.
It can. This tweeter is used in well-recommended
Britisk speakers from ProAc and Spendor.
|
The Cabinet: Go to PMS file.
(back to
top)

The W22EX001 fits well into the 38 litre cabinet and the
vent tuning of ~33Hz was maintained.
The Crossover:
(back to
top)

The W15 was modified around 2000 as can be read here: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/SEAS_5INCH.htm
- thus a small change to the mid notch filter.
The Kit
(back to
top)
The crossover for the
EXCEL variant takes a few more components
compared to the paper-coned version. No wonder,
the midrange driver's cone break-up has to be
carefully suppressed to render a clean treble.
However, the 2nd order filter between bass and
mid could be maintained from the PMS with a few
modifications. The mid low-pass section is 3rd
order + a notch filter and the tweeter maintains
a 3rd order filter similar to the PMS.

Crossover compents avialable from Jantzen
Audio.
If you cannot get the suggested coils, target
max. resistance (DCR) shown in right column.
|
Sound of PMS-EXCEL.
This is the part I really
hate because describing sound is
impossible. We are extremely sensitive to any
negative comments on performance. We can take any
high-end speaker and start lining up what this
speaker is not good at, because no speaker does
it all. But we rarely read reviews like this in
magazines. The magazine would very soon run out
of speakers offered for reviews. A review is
meant to sell speakers and we have to carefully
read between the lines to try to find any
reservation from the reviewer - in case there are
any. Mostly it's "bla...bla... this is the
best speaker I have had in my system, etc."
Useless!
Thanks to the internet
we are seeing more critical reviews although a
lot of "amateur" reviewers try to copy
the style and language of their professional
colleagues.
Before I go to the sonics of the PMS and
PMS-EXCEL, a few comments on drivers. The high
sensitivity of the PMS is derived from the use of
drivers with lightweight paper cones. Paper, when
done right, can provide a speedy, transient sound
and usually the break-up of the paper cones is of
an ear-friendly kind. The sound simply gets
muddled when the speakers are driven too loud.
Not necessarily so with the hard-cones. These
EXCEL drivers use magnesium membrane material,
which is extremely hard and work as a piston in
the range where the driver is intended to
perform, but outside this area, they break-up and
produce some very nasty peaks that has to be
carefully removed in the filter. Despite the low
weight of magnesium the cones are heavier than
the paper cones and the EXCEL drivers generally
have 3 dB less sensitivity compared to the paper
cones and the sensitivity of the EXCEL version is
~3 dB lower than the PMS. Very much as expected.
The reduced sensitivity of
the PMS-EXCEL was immediately recognised
when the first speaker was compared to the PMS.
Going from 88 dB to 91 dB/2.8V makes a difference
and the 150 wpc amp in my workshop has to work
harder to render the soundstage of the PMS. Next
thing was that the EXCEL drivers are low-coloured
compared to the paper cones and at the same time
I warn you to put too much into this. Every
driver colour the sound due to the materials used
in driver construction. I'm sure that some will
favour the paper version due to speed and
transient attack and others will favour the ECXEL
due to the more cool and clean sound. It's a
matter of taste. Another thing is that higher
sloped crossover usually provides a
"cleaner" sound as the drivers don't
try to do things in the neighbouring area where
it may not be best performer, and the blend of
the sound from two drivers sharing a certain
frequency band will always be a mixed blessing of
different sounds.
The PMS can be driven
from small amps where the PMS-EXCEL gets better
and better the more watts you put behind. The
EXCEL drivers can grow with the task of larger
amps, where the PMS really doesn't need a whole
lot of power to perform the best. This doesn't
mean the EXCEL can't be fully enjoyed from an
e.g. 50 wpc valve amp, which is what I'm running
right now when this is written. The Copland CTA
505 does very well with the EXCEL set-up - as it
does with the Acapella SEas. All depends on how
loud we play.
All this to say that I wouldn't choose between
the PMS or the PMS-EXCEL purely based on cost.
One version may hold qualities that will suit a
particular set-up better than the other.
|
Measurements
(back to
top)

Left: Impedance of drivers in cabinet
without crossover. Vent tuning for bass is around 33-34
Hz. Vent tuning for mid = 70 Hz, not a big issue as the
point of crossover is around 350 Hz. Stuffing the mid
vent does very little to the sound.
Right: Impedance of the whole system with crossover in
place. Impedance in the 100-300 Hz region stays around 6
ohms. No deep dips here and an overall amp- friendly
performance.

Left: For those interested, the individual
response of drivers with no crossover. Please notice the
humongous peak (cone break-up) from the bass driver at
around 5 kHz. This is some 15 dB above average level!
However, crossing over at 350 Hz can be done 2nd order
without further fine-tuning.
The W15 is doing great here, flat from 200 Hz to 4.5 kHz.
Peaks are well above intended point of crossover to the
tweeter. 27TFFC really is a sensitive tweeter. 93 dB/2.8V
is no problem and it makes it suitable for the C17 construction
where an overall level of 95 dB sensitivity is achieved.
Right: Displaying the overall SPL response
is tricky due to the gating technique of the CLIO
measuring system. The graph above is made from three
measurements and merged at 200 and 700 Hz. Basically the
speaker is flat from 500 Hz to 20 kHz and I would have to
take the speaker outside to get a better picture of
performance below 500 Hz.

Left: The mid low-pass section was tried
with a 2nd order + notch filter (blue graph), but after
some days of listening there was "something" to
the treble that wasn't right. A 0.33 mH was added to the
mid and the shunt cap increased from 10 uF to 13.3 uF and
the green graph appeared. Result: Clean treble. Only
shows the importance of suppressing these resonances more
than 20-25 dB, which is often seen from e.g. the SEAS
kits.
Right: Step response showing inverted
polarity of tweeter and mid.
That's it!
Back to
intro page.
|