Well back at school with a few days before classes start. Brought back some more speaker wire so I was finally able to hook up my 10Bs to the receiver as well as the 2As (2 sets of speaker outputs). This gives me the opportunity to compare the two speakers head-to-head. (Note that this is not a controlled test). The receiver has a/b switches so I can run one set or the other, or both at the same time.
The SDAs have RD0-194 tweeters installed with a couple weeks on them for burn-in. The 10Bs have sl2000 tweets. So this also gives us the opportunity to compare the 2 tweeters head-to-head. The speakers have very similar geometry and layout - the 2As are mostly 10Bs with SDA circuitry in them (see link in my sig for pictures). The 10Bs are set on top of 2As upside down so that the tweeters are close together.
COMPARING THE TWEETERS
The sl2000s definitely have more present highs, to me this makes the speaker seem louder. At low to moderate listening levels, I actually prefer these tweets to the RD0s because the music seems more "present" or "forward". However, if you turn the volume up to critical listening levels, the 12/15 KHz peak quickly becomes bothersome and painful. The RD0s on the other hand stay pleasant all the way to receiver cut-out, and at critical listening levels sound more realistic to my ears. Upgrading from the sl2000s is highly recommended based on my listening.
The main thing I've noticed is the 10Bs are more efficient speakers: at a given volume level they are slightly louder than the 2As. The SDAs dig a little deeper into the subsonic realm thanks to their slightly larger passive radiator. On certain tracks the entire room seems vibrate - a recipe for a quick headache. With both sets playing the amount of sound produced is amazing, even as the soundstage disintegrates into mud :). The SDAs seem a little more... I dunno... musical, maybe? It's hard to describe.
I'll post more impressions later if anyone is interested.
Oh, and keep in mind this is being done in far less than ideal conditions.