SL3 woofer replacement

[Tosh]

If I had to buy a replacement TODAY that worked with the existing xo, I would get the Peerless 835016 ($161) from Madisound. It >should< fit (unlike the Vifa) the counterbore of the newer SL3 cabinet (but uses 8 screws rather than 6), and simulations show that it should work OK (but not perfect) in that volume.

 

[onelightmind]

Tosh...will the new Martin Logan replacements work ?better? I assume they are just updated versions/renamed. As the vifa was purchased by whatever their new brand is. Thanks Again!

 

[onelightmind]

Service manager at Martin Logan claims D10 Al Vifa aluminum 10" is correct. I ordered 2 @ $500.00 total.

 

[Tosh]

'D10' must be ML's own pn, as I don't see a Vifa woofer with that in the model number?

When you get the woofers, will you take a pic (front and back w model number) so we can see what you got? My guess is they're Ascent i woofers, which would be fine (although I don't know for sure what they are -- custom Vifa from 10 years ago?).

 

[onelightmind]

They are new Aluminum cone woofers. I had her email me a spec sheet for all those asking over the years. I spoke with her and she said the forum had some good info but sometimes totally off.


Hello Alex,

Please see attached document on the spec for the SL3 woofer. (original)

The specifications did not change between the previous driver (D1038OZ) and the Vifa other than cone material and frame style


Let me know how the woofer exchange goes.

have a great new year!


The Great American Speaker Company

I love a company with nice people and true customer service. I am sold on Martin Logan...and give her a raise. :bowdown:

 

[Tosh]

Where to start?
The T/S parameters in the picture are for the Vifa M26WO woofer as it says on the heading. (Mine are labeled M26WO-06-04.) This is the newer paper cone Vifa which replaced a poly cone (?) Eclipse made by Eminence, referred to in your email as "the previous driver (D1038OZ)." I've seen those in older SL3, and that looks like an Eclipse model number. Those two woofers are the only ones I know of that were in SL3.

To say "The specifications did not change between the previous driver (D1038OZ) and the Vifa other than cone material and frame style" does not make sense since it is referring to two different woofers made by two separate companies which will have T/S parameters that are slightly different. It probably means that ML specified that both woofers should work in the SL3 cabinet volume.

Ascents came with aluminum cone woofers, and those woofers should also work fine in the sealed SL3 box.

 

[Tosh]

Service manager at Martin Logan claims D10 Al Vifa aluminum 10" is correct. I ordered 2 @ $500.00 total.

So what did you actually get from ML? Pics, please!

 

[dubyaemdee]

Still need replacements?

To the original poster, and anyone else: if you're still looking for the original replacement 10" woofers for the SL3, I happen to have qty(4). The part number is MA26WO07-04 D10-38OZ (my phone camera can't focus on the small sticker, or I'd send a picture of it). They've been sitting in a box in a dry basement for several years. I'm moving to a new place, and want to get them off of my hands.

I did a quick sound test on all four tonight, and all of them made noise. Note that this was not an elaborate test. I can do that on demand if desired.

Two of them look absolutely fine. One of them has a cracked terminal board, where one of the terminals is still attached but hanging loosely at an angle. The last one has a broken terminal board, where one of the terminals is free-floating.

Send me an email or PM if you're interested.

 

[donberry]

I am just curious - what is wrong with the woofer that it needs replacing ?

 

[Tosh]

If I had to buy a replacement TODAY that worked with the existing xo, I would get the Peerless 835016 ($161) from Madisound. It >should< fit (unlike the Vifa) the counterbore of the newer SL3 cabinet (but uses 8 screws rather than 6), and simulations show that it should work OK (but not perfect) in that volume.

"Today" is a new day: I just discovered that the previously mentioned 26W/4534G Scan-Speak aluminum cone 4 Ohm woofer is available at Madisound for under $100! I simulated it again just now, and for some reason it looks better than I had previously reported....

Scan-speak Discovery 26W/4534G 10" Aluminum Cone Woofer 4 ohm

 

[Tosh]

And now there's a Madisound review for the Scan-Speak Discovery 26W/4534G confirming it is a perfect PnP for Ascent (and later model SL3 that used the Vifa woofer).

 

[Wildcat Rudy]

And now there's a Madisound review for the Scan-Speak Discovery 26W/4534G confirming it is a perfect PnP for Ascent (and later model SL3 that used the Vifa woofer).

How well would this possibly work in a Sequel II? If the cabinet volume is the same, then I think it would be a good match. I can tweak the crossover point if needed (to fix the SII's notorious woofer/panel mismatch), or I may end up bi-amping and using an active crossover instead.

I saw a photo of the SL3 and Sequel II side by side, and it appeared the SL3 was shorter...? Or are they essentially the same cabinet?

 

[Horchem1972]

Hmm.. just make sure which ever unit you buy it has matching parameters to the originals. It may be hard or impossible to find and even to find out the parameters for ML units migth be hard as many times speaker manufactures use OEM units tuned for their application and no similar units are available generally.
If you choose something else then replacement units from ML be prepared to extensive tuning or complete redesign of LF-xover section.
my 2cs

The problem is, Martin Logan has already substituted a replacement. You have no idea if the replacement is anywhere near the original, until you dough out $500 for a pair of woofers. Since it is a completely different version, you really should replace both of them.

 

[Tosh]

How well would this possibly work in a Sequel II? If the cabinet volume is the same, then I think it would be a good match. I can tweak the crossover point if needed (to fix the SII's notorious woofer/panel mismatch), or I may end up bi-amping and using an active crossover instead.

I saw a photo of the SL3 and Sequel II side by side, and it appeared the SL3 was shorter...? Or are they essentially the same cabinet?

If the original Sequel II woofer is a 4 Ohm woofer, and the SS 26W/4534G basket fits the opening, then you're good to go!

Absolutely go active xo on the bass! 250Hz at 12dB/octave is the active xo you need. (Keep the stock ESL passive xo and eq.) Edited to add: If you go with an active xo for the bass, then the woofer's impedance does not matter...

 

[Wildcat Rudy]

If the original Sequel II woofer is a 4 Ohm woofer, and the SS 26W/4534G basket fits the opening, then you're good to go!

Absolutely go active xo on the bass! 250Hz at 12dB/octave is the active xo you need. (Keep the stock ESL passive xo and eq.) Edited to add: If you go with an active xo for the bass, then the woofer's impedance does not matter...

The problem is that there is a large mismatch in the Vas spec, meaning the woofer is not suited to the cabinet size. In a sealed box, if the cabinet is too small, there is a severe mid-bass hump with no low bass. Too large, and the woofer may get deeper but will have low output (and it'll be less "loaded" in terms of air suspension, making it more susceptible to damage from overdriving).

I have to run the calculations to see what the response will be, before dropping anything in there.

 

[MPS]

It would be wise to at least run a simulation and compare original vs replacement elements before purchasing anything. Anyway passive xover might still not be compatible for differences in impedance.
http://www.linearteam.dk/?pageid=winisd

 

[Tosh]

I ran the sim three years ago when I reported in this thread finding the ScanSpeak 26W/4534G, and it looked fine as a replacement for ANY 4Ohm 10 inch woofer ML has ever used in a sealed box. I can't post a pic of the response right now due to some Java issue. So please run the sim for yourself Rudy and tell us specifically what you think is the problem with the 26W/4534G. Until then, it has my full blessing.

 

[Wildcat Rudy]

Well, I did a bit of legwork today. I calculated the internal volume of the bass enclosure (deducting for the brace). Here's what I found.

The Scan-Speak will work, but...

I requested the specs of the original driver from ML (based on the model number printed on the driver) and received them this morning. I ran the calculations for the original SII and the Scan-Speak.

The original woofer gives us a Qtc (the "Q" tuning of the design) of about 0.85, meaning it will have a slight hump in the bass response, with a slight tradeoff in low frequency extension. The hump is very slight, but it's there. The F3 (-3dB point) works out to 38Hz.

The Scan-Speak actually tunes out flatter in this enclosure volume, having a Qtc of 0.75. Yet due to the larger Vas, the F3 spec is around 45Hz, which to me is not an acceptable tradeoff. The lowest note on a bass guitar is below 45Hz, and I have a lot of music that goes lower than that (dipping to 32Hz, actually). I do not have room for subwoofers, much as I would like to use them.

So, the Scan-Speak will work with no issues, and will have a smoother response than the original with no rise in the bass. It would no doubt work well with a subwoofer or two in the system to provide the much-needed extension. But for my own satisfaction, I would not be happy with an F3 that high.

I'm also looking into the Scan-Speak "Aperiodic Vent," which is like the old Dynaudio "Variovent", which was like a "stuffed" port you used in an enclosure to eliminate resonance and change the tuning somewhat. Thing is, I haven't yet found a method for tuning these--you do this by altering the density of the fiberfill in the vent. Scan-Speak does not list these on their site anymore, but Madisound still stocks them.

 

[InterMechanico]

What about the Revelator models? What are the dimensions of the enclosure?

 

[Tosh]

Wildcat Rudy: You're throwing the baby out with the bath water! Focusing only on a tiny calculated difference in F3 could be misleading. What is the difference in F10 between the two drivers (as that is a more useful measure of LF extension)?
I think if you showed a plot of both drivers' simulated responses, you would see that they are virtually indistinguishable from each other. (I can't do this myself these days, as the online calculators I've used use Java apps which are blocked by my browsers.)

Also keep in mind you are comparing today's Scan Speak specs against Eminence's (or ML's?) T/S parameters from 20-25 years ago, a time when they were a bit more, um, optimistic than today. With the Scan Speak 26W/4534G you are getting a modern low distortion woofer with an aluminum cone, a cast basket, and a wide bandwidth made by a company that has a fantastic reputation. I'm just sorry it's made in China, but I suppose that's why it's under $100...

I suggest that we all keep our eyes out for other suitable replacement woofers that may come on the market, but as things stand today I recommend the Scan Speak 26W/4534G.