Cost effective high performance loudspeakers begin by carefully selecting the best cost effective raw drivers on the market. Introduced here are the very best (in our opinion) cost effective raw drivers on the market from Taiwan |Usher Audio|. The designers of Usher drivers confirm that extraordinary talent can be found everywhere. Usher drivers are sold in matched pairs, and marked accordingly (where indicated). Dr. Joseph D'Appolito Ph.D. has an excellent working knowledge of Usher drivers. He is the designer of some of Ushers loudspeaker systems. The 8945W and T9950 are used in some of Usher's Compass series. Dr. Joseph D'Appolito states that the Usher 8945W sound is identical to Scanspeak 18W/8545, also Usher tweeters are similar. He also states the T9950 has the lowest intermodulation distortion of any tweeters he has measured. He states the Usher T9950 can replace the Scanspeak D2905/9500 in existing speaker systems. See the T9950 review in the Usher Audio Raw Drivers link below. Loudspeakers employing Scanspeak and VIFA are also showcased here. This website is not aimed at fanatics, but for music lovers who love very good cost effective high performance sound. Some of these Danish manufactured drivers have a long established niche in the market place world wide. Scanspeak raw drivers have become increasingly expensive due to good reviews in numerous systems. VIFA holds its place at a lower cost in systems like Snell and Others.
Madisound Audio Discussion
Review of Usher 9950 Tweeters (along with Dyn. D260, Seas Excel T25, and Scans 9500) by Jeff B., dBe, and Keith Kidder (Long)
Posted By: Jeff B. (arc3-64.kokomo.in.hypervine.net) Date: 9/13 4:24p.m.
Jeff B. review of Usher 9950 Tweeter… along with the Dynaudio D260, Seas Excel T25-001, and Scanspeak 9500
First of all the initial question that I should answer is, “Why are you reviewing an Asian clone tweeter that none of us can really buy in the first place?” The answer is because this review will point out that the state of the Asian-art in speaker making has reached a higher level than many of us had expected it would. Yes, I agree with many of you, that reverse engineering existing products is not the best direction for speaker design, as one manufacture representative shared with me in an email. However, this tweeter is no Tangband, no offense to Tangband aficionado’s, because it is no Vifa, and no Dynaudio (D260) either. In fact, I think it is better than all of them. Another reason to review this tweeter is because I have learned that it is sold as an OEM unit to several high-end speaker companies where we only “think” the tweeter is a Scanspeak.
To quote Joe D’Appolito directly from an email between us when I questioned the quality of the Usher products he responded: “Usher drivers are of extremely high quality. The drivers have been made to my specifications for various commercial projects. This tweeter has the lowest intermodulation distortion of any tweeter I have measured.” Joe went on to say, “The day of the "Asian Knockoff" syndrome is long gone.” He also shared some other details which I do not feel at liberty to write in this review, but according to him Usher does their own engineering.
Well, I was always in the market for a decent sounding budget tweeter. As a general rule I have not been too impressed with the common fare of Vifa and most Seas tweeters and even less impressed with the Pioneer, MCM, and Daytons I have tried. Since I could pick up a matched pair of these for about a third of the cost of a pair of Scanspeak 9500’s I decided to give them a try, especially after reading Joe’s comments.
However, when I made the comment on the board that I had a pair of these tweeters coming and would post a review someone made the comment that since I bought them I would obviously post that they were great. So, the first thing I did was send them on to Albuquerque to the ASS and let them measure them and listen to them first. Keith Kidder was nice enough to run some measurements on the tweeters, which I have posted below. You can follow the link to see pics of the tweeters too if you like. Next Dave Elledge (dBe) took them to the Santa Fe Studios and replaced the 9500’s in their monitors and a group gave them a listen. Dave sent me back his impressions, which I will include below.
First, a description for those who may not be familiar with it. The Usher tweeter is essentially a Chinese cloned Scanspeak 9500, although they, and Joe, claim that they have done a lot of their own engineering. It has an aluminum face plate, a 28mm soft dome with a large chamber on the back, and a small amount of ferro-fluid in the gap. The Fs is about 560 Hz, but the impedance peak hits about 18 ohms. Sensitivity is about 89 dB/2.83V/M, and the response is very smooth. The dome is a soft dome made of a very thin layer of silk linen and treated with some type of polymer to stiffen it. The loading looks similar to a Dynaudio, Scanspeak or Morel tweeters. The tweeter is very well built. When I said this is no Tangband, part of what I meant is that this does not look like cheap tweeter. It is actually the second best built tweeter that I have used. The most robust looking tweeter was the Seas Excel. The Usher is heavier and more robust looking than even the Dynaudio D260. It weighs in at 710g and has a magnet wt. of 310g. It has a larger magnet than the Excel T25, but in not quite as heavy overall due to the Excel’s extra-heavy face plate. This is a very rugged looking tweeter. One really nice thing about them are the heavy 1/4” terminals. There are some good tweeters that would benefit from the addition of those.
I finally had an opportunity to check them out and evaluate them against a couple of tweeters I had lying around. I compared this driver head to head with a Seas Excel T25-001 and a Dynaudio D260. (I included the Hiquphon OWII in the shoot-out but I won’t comment on it here, because I am going to post a review of it later).
I ran each driver with my Focal 5K013L midbasses and I will not pretend that the crossover was optimal in any case, as I simply used the 4.7 uf PPMF cap with each one. I was listening more for the quality of the tweeter's sound rather than a perfectly integrated crossover. However, I am sure some may find this method less than perfect. I concur, it is. Using alligator clips on the terminals I switched each tweeter in and out listened to specific passages over and over again. I was alone doing this and I kept my eyes open so it was certainly not a blind test. I spent most of my time listening to the following CD's:
"Bonnie Portmore" from the Highlander Endgame soundtrack Trumpet Spectacular with Doc Severinsen and Erich Kunzel (CPO) on Telarc Jazz At The Pawnshop on Proprius and Michael Hedges' Ariel Boundaries on Windham Hill.
In each case I tended to find the D260 to be the airiest of the three, almost to a fault. This came out the strongest on Bonny Portmore whose female vocal (Jennifer McNeil) is recorded a little "hissy" anyway (which is why I selected this CD for the test). A quick response check indicated that the Dynaudio has peak in response in the 10kHz region. This made D260 sound unnatural to my ears. The Seas had the strongest projection of her voice, and sounded the least “hissy”, probably due to the slightly rolled off top octave of the T25, which measure very smooth otherwise. It sounded much more natural than the D260 did. The Usher was very clean in the upper vocals and tended to sound most natural of the three tweeters. It had a little more air than the T25, but not quite as airy as the Dynaudio. Overall the Usher seemed a little more neutral than the other two, and this is mostly due to the top octave differences between the three tweeters.
I spent some time listening to Trumpet Spectacular and at times I was having a very difficult time pin-pointing the differences between tweeters. Each tweeter had it's own sound but these differences were subtle and at times hard to define. The easiest thing to pick out was always the extra air from the D260. The overall sound of the Usher and the Seas T25 were quite similar on most music with the exception of the aforementioned top octave balance and the fact the T25 is about 2 dB more sensitive.
However, while listening closely to the brush strokes and hi-hat on the Jazz at the Pawnshop CD I realized that the Usher seemed to be a little more detailed and honest than the other two tweeters. It had excellent resolution of detail and was very balanced in the top octave. In this area I felt it was best of the three tweeters. Having said this, I will add that with a crossover that lifts the top octave of the Seas Excel a little it really comes alive and sounds remarkable on this passage too. The “faults” (if that is a good word?) of the T25 are quite easy to deal with -the ones in the Dynaudio are not. The Usher seemed neutral enough that I would probably not need to contour it any. It is very natural over it’s entire spectrum.
On Ariel Boundaries by Michael Hedges, when he really plucks the strings on his guitar the Dynaudio and the Seas both were dynamic enough to almost make me jump. I would call this the fright-factor. These tweeters had an excellent ability to jump in dynamics very suddenly and scare you. Of the two I would give the edge to the Seas tweeter. When I played the Usher this level of dynamic response seemed as good or better compared to the others. The Usher had the strongest dynamic output in it lower registers of the three, with the Seas very close. Keep in mind here that the Seas is only a 25mm dome and the Usher is a 28mm dome - a seemingly small difference but enough to give the Seas an edge in the dispersion category. The fact that it appears to keep up with the other two in the lower registers (even better than the D260) reveals it to be an excellent tweeter for a 25mm dome.
My personal conclusions are that the Usher is a more dynamic and neutral tweeter than the Dynaudio D260 and reveals better resolution of detail as well. I would certainly select it over the Dynaudio. Compared the Seas Excel T25, both tweeters have areas cause me to lean toward them for different reasons. I think the Usher may be better suited for lower crossover points, but the Excel is OK here too. The Usher has a better upper octave balance, but the Excel, by being smaller is a little more open. Both tweeters sound almost identical in the mid-treble range, their differences were more pronounced at the extremes. Based on the tweeter’s natural response I like the over all presentation of the Usher better, but it is quite easy to make the Excel “sing” with the right crossover. Is the Usher could be purchased for around $120 a pair, which is more than I paid, then they would be the best buy in tweeters out there. They are certainly the rival of any dome tweeter out there at double that price.
Here is what Dave Elledge had to say about them when he compared them to the Scans 9500’s :
Jeff...
Are they 9500's?
In a word: no
Are they really good tweets?
To use a different word: yes
Me and three (out of the Dirty 5) of my guys spent a morning with them in a familiar setting with known software.
The technical end of this supposition is -
they are a "little" less sensitive than the 9500s' at the crossover point (2.8K) The existing crossover was used with no modifications. It took me a couple of months to get the transition to the point that it suits the owner ( a little on the "hot" side if you ask me, but I don't mix speed metal...;-)). Anyway, they nestled in and I thank Keith for getting them broken in. The caps in the tweeter circuit are NC Crescendos, so I know them. They sound SOOOOO good. Having said this, they seem a tad, and I mean a 'tad' forward in the 10K region. Nylon drum stick tips on cymbals are really there, where they are 'kinda there' on the 9500s' The "air" in these tweets is stupendous, as the forward character above 10kHz would suggest. I think that they are probably a little more honest in the last octave than the Scans: they seem to go forever. They are certainly not lacking in dynamics... we cranked up the system until it showed 105 dB (unweighted) on the old B&K Audiometer. The cymbal crashes never "cacked", they always sounded like cymbals, not a burst of white noise. They can certainly BOOGIE!
Perception (I am, after all, Dave the Subjectivist)
I think the thing that impressed me (I hate the term "impresses") is the absolutely natural presentation that they have @ ~ 3kHz. Sibilance is not in the equation. Allison Krauss sounds fabulous on these guys as do: strings, harpsichord, brass...Chris Botti is a treat! This is a function of the lower treble shelf (~1dB) that Keith measured. It certainly follows the trend. This would also follow the statement that these were the lowest distortion tweets that Joe D had measured. I think that some of the 'distortion = detail' guys will not care for this driver. I certainly do. They are not harsh in any manner.
Bottom line: I like 'em. I like 'em enough to use them in my monitors. I will, if I can get them. At their alleged price point, they are a steal.
Are they ScanSpeak 9500's? Once again, no. Will I use them exclusively where I would have used a 9500 before? Yes. I think the top octave offers a little more of what most people want, but less the "pssssssh" that suffices for detail in some peoples minds (ears?). The Scans may be a little more forgiving, but I don't think that this is always a good thing.
I am really pleased that we (I) got to listen to these tweeters. Even Eric (the resident curmudgeon) said that they didn't suck. From this guy, that is an accolade. He thinks that the only thing that is relevant is live performance. He has been recording the NM Symphony Orchestra for years and is a "true" ear. Ain't none of us got gold ones, eh? Dave
Respectfully Submitted, Jeff Bagby (Jeff B.)
Un'altra opinione:
When I was at the WCES.
They said that they did indeed get communications from Scan Speak claiming that they were coping their designs.
Then they told me that they told Scan Speak that they were actually different and that theirs (Usher) was better, and that they invited them to come to their plant themselves to see how they are different.
After that invitation they did not hear any more from Scan Speak.
No lawsuits, etc.
Danny Richie
Un'altra:
Posted by theaudiohobby ( A ) on February 19, 2003 at 08:35:01
In Reply to: Interesting posted by Edp on February 18, 2003 at 15:33:54:
I asked the original question because further research on the web confirmed the superiority of the Usher 9950 when compared to the equivalent Scanspeak driver and nothing about any pending lawsuits. Now I do not dispute that it may be clone, some of the reviewers certainly alluded to that. But it is superior driver nonetheless and the fact some of the manufacturers who previously used the scanspeak indicated that they may move to the Usher because it is a better and accurate driver somewhat confirms this fact. I for one am minded to buy the RW 729 cos in my limited knowledge of speakers I know of nothing within it's price range that comes within a shouting distance of it soundstage and detail resolution. In fact, I will go on record as saying that the only speaker that impressed me as much as this was the yyy N805 signature and that costs much more. the specs give values of 38 Hz - 28 KHz for a standmount with low distortion levels, now if that is true it means I can enjoy even more of my hirez discs. therefore you pays the money, you makes the choice.
