He should have linked to this one:
Overview
This is interesting:
http://www.voltiaudio.com/midrangedrivers.shtml
In fact.. it looks like the B&C DCM50 is particularly well suited to this application - including its impedance.
Last edited:
I was wondering why the B&C DCM50 performed so well at lower freq.s, especially when you consider that it's a 2 inch VC..
B&C SPEAKERS
Here is the reason:
Our patent pending designs utilize a neodymium magnet assembly and a 50mm voice coil.
The platform for each design is a 5” paper cone which offers superior damping properties.
..and here it is with a Field Coil motor replacement:
http://www.kilimanjaro-series.com/kilimanjaro-series/a1428wvl/
I think that this is the "formula" for some of the lower freq. "paging" horns.. like this one: (note - page loads slowly)
http://www.atlassound.com/pn/PD60A
It also suggests to me that Fc/Fs may well have more to due with size of the rear chamber rather than the interaction with the phase plug. In other words I wouldn't be surprised if you could lower Fc a bit by increasing the size of the rear chamber.
B&C SPEAKERS
Here is the reason:
Our patent pending designs utilize a neodymium magnet assembly and a 50mm voice coil.
The platform for each design is a 5” paper cone which offers superior damping properties.
..and here it is with a Field Coil motor replacement:
http://www.kilimanjaro-series.com/kilimanjaro-series/a1428wvl/
I think that this is the "formula" for some of the lower freq. "paging" horns.. like this one: (note - page loads slowly)
http://www.atlassound.com/pn/PD60A
It also suggests to me that Fc/Fs may well have more to due with size of the rear chamber rather than the interaction with the phase plug. In other words I wouldn't be surprised if you could lower Fc a bit by increasing the size of the rear chamber.
Last edited:
That b&c holds up well to 8k nicely. -very flat too.
That website is a real find,- interesting.
So it comes down to the old warm and lower detail vs cooler and more detail trade off then.
the beyma cp850nd looks good also, and is (for once) cheap in my country. £380- same as the b&c.
http://profesional.beyma.com/ingles/pdf/CP850ND.pdf
FR dip around 750hz is unfortunate- but otherwise nice extention.
do you think one of these could give me the spine tinglingly 'real' experience?- The Living Voice Vox olympian did, thats what got me on this road.
That website is a real find,- interesting.
So it comes down to the old warm and lower detail vs cooler and more detail trade off then.
the beyma cp850nd looks good also, and is (for once) cheap in my country. £380- same as the b&c.
http://profesional.beyma.com/ingles/pdf/CP850ND.pdf
FR dip around 750hz is unfortunate- but otherwise nice extention.
do you think one of these could give me the spine tinglingly 'real' experience?- The Living Voice Vox olympian did, thats what got me on this road.
Yeah you really can't get away from the "ultimate detail vs. warmth/fullness/density/3D".
The Beyma would be more interesting to me with a Truextent diaphragm. It's pretty much a driver for an extended bandwidth (beyond 2-3 kHz).
The B&C is a dedicated midrange and probably shouldn't be used beyond about 1.5 kHz. There is also the "full-range" version, but its impedance isn't nearly as "workable". On the B&C.. consider that the Field Coil guy could have chosen any driver, but specifically chose one of those B&C drivers (M50 or X50), NOT the Beyma, because it is functionally similar to the 1428.
Ah, the Vox Olympian.. interesting design.
It's the treble horn that is really freaky..
The upper midrange horn is a straight-side hyperbolic design with some short multi-cells.. with a lot of effort you could produce your own.. OR you could purchase one. You won't be able to get the S2 (except potentially older ones used), but the design is actually a 3" VC, NOT a 4". The closest commercial offering would be the 18 Sound ND2060A (..which is actually the ND1460A with an adaptor).
Functionally the straight-side hyperbolic has more in common with the OS profile because of it's straight side-wall profile for horizontal dispersion. What you have planned is NOT the same (..i.e. conical tactrix or exponential).
Here is the *commercial* Hyperbolic horn you could buy or "clone" (..pricey but beautiful):
Wood Horn
Note that the S2, (despite Rommy's puffing), is no 1428. Of course the DCM50 or DCX50 might not be either.. BUT at least design-wise they are a *lot* closer.
OSWALDSMILLAUDIO - Tasting 2003
EDIT:
It looks like it's good well past 1.5 kHz.. B&C's ragged upper freq. response is likely due to the exponential horn it was tested with. Here some one has measured it without any horn:
<meta name="description" content="Klipsch audio systems provide the true audio/video lover a wide variety of high performance loudspeakers and loudspeaker systems for music and home theater entertainment centers, including iPod speakers, multimedia s
Note there comparison debate of the BMS vs. the B&C is ***-backwards as far as linearity and lower freq. extension. Their mistake is looking at the VC size solely (not actual surface area or excursion potential).
Last edited:
Prosoundservice:
B&C DCM50 MF Driver
..has the B&C for what amounts to a little over 240 GBP each. Of course that doesn't include your country's customs fees or shipping.
Side note: the X50 is a coaxial, so the Field Coil version is the M50.
Last edited:
True - once you get over 1.5 watt flea amps aren't the be all of reproduction they really look insane!
yes, the olympian was an impressive listen.
I appreciate that this design will be very different, but as mentioned before, the wife wouldnt let me have a design like that.
personally, I like the concept of having 1 driver cover 400 or 500 hz to 7khz comfortably, as thats the entire scale of almost all leading role instruments. Of corse, thats all great in theory, but I appreciate that there are big trade offs by doing this- not least the c-c distance of the tweeter and mid.
I like the idea of the dcm50, the only aspect im not sure of is using paper for the diaphram. excelent self damping properties, but is the ultimate resolution going to be enough?? companies like tad use beryllium for a reason- its very high ridgidity to weight ratio. And how well is this going to gel to a hard dome tweeter?
I appreciate that this design will be very different, but as mentioned before, the wife wouldnt let me have a design like that.
personally, I like the concept of having 1 driver cover 400 or 500 hz to 7khz comfortably, as thats the entire scale of almost all leading role instruments. Of corse, thats all great in theory, but I appreciate that there are big trade offs by doing this- not least the c-c distance of the tweeter and mid.
I like the idea of the dcm50, the only aspect im not sure of is using paper for the diaphram. excelent self damping properties, but is the ultimate resolution going to be enough?? companies like tad use beryllium for a reason- its very high ridgidity to weight ratio. And how well is this going to gel to a hard dome tweeter?
I would think so.
The BMS drivers (Neo motor) are often considered to be some of the most detailed drivers (..again, initial pulse, not decay). The guy comparing the two said the BMS "..had just a bit more detail", not a lot more detail.
Be is used to push the upper freq.s higher, and usually not much more than half an octave than what Ti and Al can achieve. (..it's both more rigid and lighter.)
How well it works with another driver is largely a matter of crossover integration. Generally the *lower* the slope the better the integration. If you use something like an elliptical then you'll likely here some differences in material/suspension - depending on how different they are. The DCM50's diaphragm is a composite, not paper (or in other words it's likely a poly damped paper cone). Most drivers with a poly surround shouldn't sound terribly different.
Last edited:
I think thats the driver for me then.!
Price good,
Extention great,
FR great,
Impedance good,
and 2" exit.
Most of all, its versatile enough to mean it should give me a lot of play to be used with different crossover allignments, tweeters and horns at a later point if I need to.
Hopefully at a later date, Ill get the chance to try it on a bigger horn.
I will be ordering the mid horns next week, and the drivers next month.
Next is the tweeter and horn.
Price good,
Extention great,
FR great,
Impedance good,
and 2" exit.
Most of all, its versatile enough to mean it should give me a lot of play to be used with different crossover allignments, tweeters and horns at a later point if I need to.
Hopefully at a later date, Ill get the chance to try it on a bigger horn.
I will be ordering the mid horns next week, and the drivers next month.
Next is the tweeter and horn.
The tweeter and horn will actually be more difficult.
Getting the exit angle for the driver with the correct flair for the horn, and an overall dispersion pattern that you like in a conical format that can still transition to the next driver horn/driver..
I'd say first get your own polars of the mid/horn combo and do some listening to see where/how you want to transition to the tweeter/horn. THEN start looking for the correct tweeter/horn solution.
ok, well ill get on that as soon as I can.
Quite looking forward to doing some testing, its been a while!
on the tweeter side of things, just having a look arround saw this-
Selenium D220Ti-8 1" Titanium Horn Driver 8 Ohm 1-3/8"-18 | Parts-Express.com
whats the catch? -seams too cheap to me.
Quite looking forward to doing some testing, its been a while!
on the tweeter side of things, just having a look arround saw this-
Selenium D220Ti-8 1" Titanium Horn Driver 8 Ohm 1-3/8"-18 | Parts-Express.com
whats the catch? -seams too cheap to me.
Selenium D220Ti-8 1" Titanium Horn Driver 8 Ohm 1-3/8"-18 | Parts-Express.com
whats the catch? -seams too cheap to me.
That's the driver used in many of the "econowave" projects.. doug20 and Zilch could tell you more about those projects.
It's a titanium driver with an integrated titanium surround. Augerpro has them measured here:
Selenium D220Ti - drivervault
Note that the performance of the driver is limited by the horns they were measured with.. presumably with a better horn (like the QSC PL-000446-GP that several other drivers were measured with), that the measured response would be better. (..though note that it would need to be the bolt-on version instead of the screw-on.)
For the money they are an excellent value (..at least among compression drivers). You can of course get a driver with better linear performance for more, and you can also see those on Augerpro's site.
thanks Scott G.
I appreciate the design will be compromised in center to center distance as running a 60cm horn and a smaller one is too far, but what exactly is this going to do to the response? comb filtering in the crossover region?
can the horns be pointed or focused on one point to help the issue?
my listening distance is approx 4 or 5 meters.
I appreciate the design will be compromised in center to center distance as running a 60cm horn and a smaller one is too far, but what exactly is this going to do to the response? comb filtering in the crossover region?
can the horns be pointed or focused on one point to help the issue?
my listening distance is approx 4 or 5 meters.
..that's something that must be measured (and at different distances and various axis).
The easiest remedy is an active digital crossover solution with "steep" filters and low crossover points. Then you really only need to be concerned with dispersion integration and diaphragm/material tonality.
This is somthing Im going to have to decide on.
I accept that the design will be much easyer and more flexable to impliment if I go active- and the control available using the behringer units is simply staggering- but the input is going to be analogue and that along with the noise floor concerns me.
I have been told that the behringer active crossover is realy no good using the analogue ins.
dbx make a alternative i beleave, but im very unsure of this route altogether.
A analogue active crossover would be good- but I appreciate this negates much of the advantage of the digital route- so im stuck.
I accept that the design will be much easyer and more flexable to impliment if I go active- and the control available using the behringer units is simply staggering- but the input is going to be analogue and that along with the noise floor concerns me.
I have been told that the behringer active crossover is realy no good using the analogue ins.
dbx make a alternative i beleave, but im very unsure of this route altogether.
A analogue active crossover would be good- but I appreciate this negates much of the advantage of the digital route- so im stuck.
Have you looked at minidsp? They offer something similar to the behringer unit... they also have the option of digital or analogue in and digital or analogue out... so, the whole gamut of input and output possibilities is covered.
Have no idea how they sound though. There is dedicated forum for minidsp here and maybe you should ask around there. And let us know what you find out
ScottG and co, I got my hands on a pair of JBL2445J. They should ship next week. The plan is to mate them to John Inlow's paper mache horn. That is still a while away though as some other projects are keeping me busy at the moment.
Have no idea how they sound though. There is dedicated forum for minidsp here and maybe you should ask around there. And let us know what you find out
ScottG and co, I got my hands on a pair of JBL2445J. They should ship next week. The plan is to mate them to John Inlow's paper mache horn. That is still a while away though as some other projects are keeping me busy at the moment.
There are all sorts of mods out there for the Behringer DCX2496. You could also build a kit-based ADC:
http://www.beis.de/Elektronik/ADDA24QS/AD24QS.html
Price List for AD24QS, DA24QS, 2ChPre and Options
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.