[DS-21]

Has anyone played with the upper limits of the XLS8? I'm considering using them, a pair per side, in my home speaker system under a Tannoy 2046. (8" dual concentric out of their System 800 studio monitor; this poly-coned driver is ~91dB/w/m efficient and useful out to 18kHz.) The XLS8 seems to do just what I want it to down low; in a 30L enclosure (Qtc=0.6) the Audio Technology box calculator (http://graph.flexunits.com:8080/index.htm) spits out a 60Hz F3 that's perfect for sub integration. But how high are they usable?

Basically, my rough plans (subject to change) are to use the pair of 8's (or maybe 10's, if a test enclosure I build doesn't dominate the room excessively) over about 60-400Hz, the upper end chosen to compensate for the baffle step without sacrificing efficiency and the lower end chosen because my experience is that a mains/sub crossover in thr 60-80Hz range generally results in the most natural in-room bass response. Could the XLS8 be a suitable choice or should I be looking elsewhere, e.g. Peerless HDS8, Dayton RS225, and so on?

 

[npdang]

Have not run any objective tests, but subjective listening comparisons between the Peerless xls 8" and the Seas w22, Dayton RS, and even the HDS 8" tells me that above 300-400hz the XLS sounds comparitively fuzzy and dull.

 

[DS-21]

Hmm..."fuzzy and dull" are definitely not traits that suggest a good potential match with the Tannoys. Guess the doubled x-max compared to the HDS8 and maybe the hard paper cone vs. the HDS's sandwich poly exacts a price.

What, then, would be your pick of the 8's with which you've played given the following parameters: ~60Hz F3 sealed, low Qtc in a 35L or smaller cabinet (per driver), 90+ dB/w/m paired but with ~4dB baffle step compensation, and under $300 for four. Alternately, same conditions except a 10" woofer and 42L per woofer.

Not to say that I'm 100% going sealed; a dipole or cardoid radiation pattern up to ~1400Hz (which is the region in which I imagine my tweeter crossover will fall when it's all said and done) is a terribly attractive notion, too, though either option will require considerably more cone area than 2 8's under the dual concentric....