# A peek in the SCAN-SPEAK Illuminator D2004/60200 tweeter



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

_*



ScanSpeak Illuminator tweeters build on the heritage of the renowned ScanSpeak D29 “Revelator” tweeter, regarded by many as the best in the world. Also employing high force factor neo ring motors, the Illuminator tweeters have proprietary damping materials within an aluminum back chamber, resulting in great heat dissipation and very low resonance.

Click to expand...

*_









After hearing so many great comments about the Illum line I decided to get a set. However, the price was a bit steep so I played the waiting game to see if any deals or used one would show up. Finally a set showed up for sale used and I picked them up. When I got them, I realized that one of them did not work as the wires had been soldered to the leads and one of the leads was damaged. It looks like the during the unsoldering the lead was dammaged and they gave up on the other leads. 









As can be seen, there was too much heat applied in an attempt to repair it:









Come to find out, there was actually a segment of the wire missing and just a very small segment showing from the dome. I REALLY should have returned these to the seller as it seems I have been buying gear here lately in the last couple of years or so that seem to show up with more imperfections than originally stated. I don't see this trend changing and I need to be more selective whom I buy from going forward. Damn, I must be a good guy to deal with...or a little too timid?...or maybe I am just sick of drama and issues? I think the latter.

Anyway, after looking at them, I knew I could repair them if I could take apart the tweeter. At first it looked as if the backs were glued on. But after looking closely, I discover that the backs actually twist on and off and have locking tabs. COOL! At this point, I was curious about the internals of these compared to the internals of some of the larger Scan tweets that I have seen. So, here are pics of the tweeter taken apart:










Notice the venting.









Mmm...Copper, Aluminum...and MORE venting!









Rear dampening.









Rear chamber.









Here you can see the repair I made. I had to add a piece of wire and wrap it around the lead, them finely solder it to the VERY small segment of wire sticking out from the dome.









The finished job with all of the soldered wires removed and the leads cleaned up with a solder sucker and copper wick.









Close Up of each lead:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/WLDock/Car Audio/P1000809.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/WLDock/Car Audio/P1000810.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/WLDock/Car Audio/P1000811.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/WLDock/Car Audio/P1000812.jpg

After, I got these back together I tested them connected to an old set of MB Quart 4" mids and passive crossovers. I turned on the receiver and switched on the radio. I just happen to turn to a country station and there was a song playing that started out with a very dark and heavy ride cymbal. The stick on the cymbal was well defined and the sound of the ride was so realistic, true, and dry. Having heard many a live cymbals I was impressed. I want a dark ride that sounds that good. MAN! do I need to keep these. These are just musical tweeters that produce what is there and just get out of the way of the music. 

Walt


----------



## captainobvious (Mar 11, 2006)

Thanks for sharing the pics. They look to be pretty well contructed. Scans one day for me when I have the dough.


----------



## Deton Nation (Jul 3, 2009)

I just got mine on sale at Madisound. They do sound awesome. Sorry you had the issues, but hey at least you are capable of fixing them. I love the imaging.. they put an instrument on the stage and it is defined and steady! Plus the detail, nuance and they seem correct in what they are portraying. And they give body to the detail!
Now... what crossover point are you using and do you think 1.6 @ 24db is too low?
hehe.. My head is going to explode from crossoveritis.
Mike


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

While I am sure these can perform that low I would think a higher point would be better...Or maybe the larger dome? But, I have never crossed a tweeter over that low...No need to unless one is running 8" mids.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Deton Nation said:


> I just got mine on sale at Madisound. They do sound awesome. Sorry you had the issues, but hey at least you are capable of fixing them. I love the imaging.. they put an instrument on the stage and it is defined and steady! Plus the detail, nuance and they seem correct in what they are portraying. And they give body to the detail!
> Now... what crossover point are you using and do you think 1.6 @ 24db is too low?
> hehe.. My head is going to explode from crossoveritis.
> Mike


That is really low for a 3/4" small format tweeter. If you want to go that low, you probably should have opted for the 1" deep chambered version.

I'm sure you could play them that low, but to me tweeters just don't sound _right_ when playing those frequencies. Give it a shot, just be careful with the power applied and volume levels, as I don't see it being very usable down there.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Thanks for the pictures; I would have asked for a working pair instead of trying to fix them.


----------



## veloze (Jul 2, 2007)

Same here, I wouldn't play those puppies that low. Thanks for allowing us to appreciate the guts of these tweets with your macro photography skills. 

Good job repairing the SCANS. :thumbsup:


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

2.5khz is about as good as it gets with a 4th order electrical filter. You can go lower, but you start to compromise distortion performance IIRC.


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

npdang said:


> 2.5khz is about as good as it gets with a 4th order electrical filter. You can go lower, but you start to compromise distortion performance IIRC.


Hey Nguyen, hope all is well with you and yours...


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Bump for a nice and informative photo-shoot.

Here is Zaph's blog link, go down to Vifa Ne19 innards pics:

Zaph|Audio

The Scan seems to have a lot more dampening and a better designed rear chamber. There is a lot more venting everywhere and the voicecoil doesn't cover the vents like it does in teh Vifa design. On the other hand the Vifa coil seems to be longer and wider so it probably has less power compression.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Yeah, those Vifa's seem like a nice value. I see you run them, how do you like them? I really like the Illums but I wonder if something like the Vifa's would work for me in a three way front? I may try a set before I decide to drop down the cash on another set of Illums....quite a big price difference. I want to try the 3/4" titanium but maybe should try the silk as my install will have a slightly on axis angle.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

WLDock said:


> Yeah, those Vifa's seem like a nice value. I see you run them, how do you like them? I really like the Illums but I wonder if something like the Vifa's would work for me in a three way front? I may try a set before I decide to drop down the cash on another set of Illums....quite a big price difference. I want to try the 3/4" titanium but maybe should try the silk as my install will have a slightly on axis angle.


I'm really loving the Vifa and I find 3/4 domes to be the ideal supertweeter candidate. The only real challenge is to dissipate heat efficiently in this design since a 3/4 dome has next to no surface area and sensitivity is piss poor (83db or so at 1w). On the other hand the dispersion is so good to 20khz they are nearly omnidirectional beyond hearing capabilities. 

The Scans seem to have a better motor (surprise!). That should enable lower crossover points for the same amount of distortion. The white sheet claims 4x the xmax of the Vifa. If you cross your tweeters at 8khz I think the two would be indistinguishable. The lower you cross them the better the Scan will pull away in performance. If either the midrange is crossed high enough or the output requirements are not high the Vifa is a better choice, less money.

I've been crossing the Vifas at 8khz, 6khz, and now 5khz. At 5khz I have a nearly omindirectional soundstage. At 30 degrees off axis the frequency response varies by less than 3db from 20hz-20khz. Crossing the supertweeter lower gives better decay than a midrange could as well. So here I am, again trying to cross a tweeter low and that's what brought my Google search to your thread. It seems you are the only one that ever dissected an expensive Scan Ill!!!

I wouldn't worry too much about diaphragm material. It's the dome size that matters for dispersion properties. I got the silk because the metals break up before 20khz in some cases. That's a no no for me. I don't like time domain aberrations. Besides the silk is the more sensitive of them all.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

WLDock said:


> After, I got these back together I tested them connected to an old set of MB Quart 4" mids and passive crossovers. I turned on the receiver and switched on the radio. I just happen to turn to a country station and there was a song playing that started out with a very dark and heavy ride cymbal. The stick on the cymbal was well defined and the sound of the ride was so realistic, true, and dry. Having heard many a live cymbals I was impressed. I want a dark ride that sounds that good. MAN! do I need to keep these. These are just musical tweeters that produce what is there and just get out of the way of the music.
> 
> Walt



The scans present the mood of the recording very well. From dark, to transparent/neutral and into edgy. Yep, they step aside and let the music do it's thing. 

Like already mentioned, 1.6 is too low a xover point. With the slightly bigger 1" I've played around 2.5khz for a while and had some decent results, but I'm normally in the 3-3.25Khz range. Steep slopes give the best results. 

If you run a processor then try using the eq to balance the transition across the 2-5khz range on the MB and tweet. This would be over and above what the slopes give.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Figured I'd post up this link here...

I did some comparative analysis on the 3/4" dome and ring radiator. Data is here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...parisons/117996-scanspeak-d2004-vs-r2004.html


----------



## DiMora (Nov 14, 2011)

Awesome thread, and thanks for the pics!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Walt, can you describe a bit more about how you separated this tweeter? I'm wanting to paint the grille of mine to match the car interior and remembered this thread so figured I'd bump it to ask.

Thanks,
Erin


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Erin, it really was pretty easy...press and twist to unlock just like a medicine bottle. I don't know if they are all that way as I remember one guy have an issue getting his apart.

See the locking tabs:


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

hmm.... I'll take a look again at mine. I'm a bit scared to try to crack them open just yet. lol.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Can you run the 3/4 without its grill and rear chamber to fit it into a tight space? I already cut into my a-pillars to make a cool little mount - DIYMA to me means you can afford to doa install... so I bought some Black PVC pipe 1 1/2 inch threaded adapter and an aluminum sink thread and a o-ring and cut a hole in the A-pillar trim....damned if it doesn't look near factory in my 1994 E500 Mercedes Benz.

But it sticks out about 1" 

So I could possibly fit this tweeter under the factory grill as the diameter and height looks to be a lot less from your photos without the rear chamber and the grill. I am wondering if I could keep the little white felt sound absorbing ring behind it and put that under the tweeter and pack bluetac around the tweeter to keep it in place and further dampen vibration so I don't destroy the sound. Then the naked tweeter might fit under my factory front grills. Anyone try this yet?


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

The tweeter would sound very different without the back chamber, and also the 
power they can handle will be mutch lower! How they are standard they can may be used 
from 4000hz upwards and without back chamber form 8000hz upwards or so! 
Its about the same als a normal speaker in an small sealed enclosure and then the same 
mid range free air.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Thanks that is very helpful Meniscus audio told me about the same thing..ie higher crossover point and potential power handling issues without the enclosure.


So if I made a small rear chamber (out of non hardening moulding putty)..not as deep but wider with the same volume of air and some sound absorbing material...would FS remain the same? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

Than they would also sound different, because the shape off the enclosure is made like 
that for a optimized air flow behind the cone and magnet together with the dampening 
in the enclosure to be sure all sound in side will be killed in the back off the enclosure 
and there is no sound going back to the cone.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

I am sure you are right about that.. it makes perfect sense. And very well explained. So a less peaky shallower and ..broader.."mountain" inside a putty enclosure would likely diffract the sound differently (perhaps altering the sound)- and IB (great for preventing returned backwave) won't give the driver support...even though... the excursion should be micro minimal as compared to a midrange excursion right?

I need the 3/4 to go low so I can cross as many octaves away before it beams in the lower range- and of course cross.


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

If you want to croos them low I would use the original enclosure for sure!


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

Well at this point it is possibly...hopefully moot.... if it sounds great.

I have them cross firing in my a-pillars directly across the glass with my 12m's firing up in the OEM dash locations.

I'll do a Parametric and listen tonight.

If they don't sound awesome/great I might cross at 3K or higher and give them a go in the dash disassembled.


----------



## molsonice (Jul 15, 2012)

tonny said:


> The tweeter would sound very different without the back chamber, and also the
> power they can handle will be mutch lower! How they are standard they can may be used
> from 4000hz upwards and without back chamber form 8000hz upwards or so!
> Its about the same als a normal speaker in an small sealed enclosure and then the same
> mid range free air.


I see the logic, however whats odd is the D3004/6020-00 has a small chamber and a fs of 700hz / 130 watt power handling. The D3004/6020-10 has a much larger chamber and a fs of 425hz / the same 130 watt power handling.


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

molsonice said:


> I see the logic, however whats odd is the D3004/6020-00 has a small chamber and a fs of 700hz / 130 watt power handling. The D3004/6020-10 has a much larger chamber and a fs of 425hz / the same 130 watt power handling.


Most off the time's that's the termal power handling, and not the level 
they will distor the sound....


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

Golden Ears said:


> Well at this point it is possibly...hopefully moot.... if it sounds great.
> 
> I have them cross firing in my a-pillars directly across the glass with my 12m's firing up in the OEM dash locations.
> 
> ...


For such a small tweeter I would never use them that low especially when 
you have a mid range close by! Let the mid range play as high as possible 
and from there the tweeter.


----------



## Golden Ears (Jul 18, 2010)

tonny said:


> For such a small tweeter I would never use them that low especially when
> you have a mid range close by! Let the mid range play as high as possible
> and from there the tweeter.



The 12M starts to roll off off axis after 3K...so I thought... because I am not on axis with them... it might make more sense to cross lower so that the tweeter...would not be beaming... what do you think...4.5K or even higher?

If I could get the 12M on axis..I would be willing to push it to 8K...but as it is it is reflecting off the windshield.

The tweeter center is about 2 inches over the 12M.


----------



## tonny (Dec 4, 2010)

just try out what sounds the best, but I would never let that tweeter play any lower than 4000hz.


----------

