# Dynaudio 17W75 (old version) vs MW160



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

hi all, 
anyone of you familiar with dyn's home speakers? i just come across with a pair of old version 17W75 midbass woofers (4ohm). i know these old 17W75's had been used in many old Dynaudio home speaker models, including the Contour 1 and Compound 3. the current Audience 52SE uses the new verion 17W75 (with convex dust cap and aluminum cast basket), which looks just like an MW160.

my question is: will the old version 17W75 be a good replacement for the MW160 in the 240MKII set (to be used in car audio of course)? will it sound better or worse than the MW160? by comparing the tech spec and frequency response curve, the 17W75 looks better than the MW160. but construction wise, the MW160's aluminum cast basket is better than the 17W75's iron basket tho. so what do you guys/gals think?

MW160 info:
http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/car/drivers/160.htm

17W75 info:
http://www.hifi-efax.com/source/dynaudio/77-17W75.html
http://www.hifido.co.jp/KW/G0204/J/0-50/C03-16602-15201-00/


----------



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

no one?


----------



## CAMSHAFT (Apr 7, 2006)

Its going to sound simliar......the thing to think about is how are you going to install it, which will lead ultimately to how it sounds.


----------



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

CAMSHAFT said:


> Its going to sound simliar......the thing to think about is how are you going to install it, which will lead ultimately to how it sounds.


thanks for the input. they will be install as front stage speakers with the MD100 tweeters and the X250 crossovers. so which woofer is better? the MW160 or the 17W75?


----------



## CAMSHAFT (Apr 7, 2006)

Between the two neither one is better per se. They both sound amazing.

By installation I meant sealed vs AP vs infinite baffle. The drivers will perform differently based on their T/S parameters and how they "interact" with the enclosure. If you can do it, go IB, it looks like the home driver would do well with it.


----------



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

CAMSHAFT said:


> Between the two neither one is better per se. They both sound amazing.
> 
> By installation I meant sealed vs AP vs infinite baffle. The drivers will perform differently based on their T/S parameters and how they "interact" with the enclosure. If you can do it, go IB, it looks like the home driver would do well with it.


cool, thanks for the advice. i'll give them a try. thanks


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

The drivers Dynaudio sold to hobbyists were notorious for their poor quality control, but since you're talking about using a generic crossover anyway (as opposed to a filter designed for those drivers in those specific locations) it probably won't be much, if any, worse.


----------



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

i've seen many positive reviews about the 17W75's, in home speakers of course. some diyers were saying they didn't even need to use crossovers for this driver because it fade out very rapidly above 2kHz. the 2kHz is almost like a cut-off frequency for the 17W75.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

I'd usually recommend running well-behaved midrange drivers full-range. I've done that in a few cars with the Seas coaxes low in the doors, and the extra energy in the upper mids does a good job of compensating for losses from seats, legs, and such.

One other thing about the 17W75's: the glue they used at the time between the surround and cone isn't well-suited to in car use, and they often delaminate. No big deal, because it's fairly easy to reglue the surround, but something to consider if you install them somewhere hard to get to.


----------



## stevexyz (Nov 2, 2007)

well, the MW150's from my 220MKII set had the same problem. the cones were separated from surround and i had to take them out to re-glue them. so i guess it wasn't just for the 17w75's, maybe all old dyn's drivers from that time have the same problem? but like you said, it's not a big deal


----------

