Other than the cone material, the design of the speaker is also fundamentally different. Most paper cones (Fostex etc) will have much higher efficiency due to their motor design. Metal cones Jordans, Markaudio, tangband tend to have driver efficiency closer to normal speakers.
This makes options of driving them quite different too. For example, many 8" fullrange are in the order of 94-96dB per watt. That means probabaly 1 watt is already enough. Which is why Nelson pass conceived the First watt amplifiers, just to drive these speakers.
I've heard an assortment of stuff, from Tangband, markaudio and Jordan, Fostex. I do agree that paper cones sound more pleasing to the ear, metal cones can sometimes sound a bit sharp. However having said that, the paper cones do sound terrible when it comes to the upper registers (high hats, cymbals etc) compared to metal cones when was the last time you heard paper cone tweeters). They are really no match for a tweeter. However, I find if one were to supplement a paper cone with a supertweeter, the sound changes alltogether, and becomes more suited to modern jazz recording and you don't miss out so much.
Planning on getting a Seas FA22RCZ to add to my collection....
Oon
This makes options of driving them quite different too. For example, many 8" fullrange are in the order of 94-96dB per watt. That means probabaly 1 watt is already enough. Which is why Nelson pass conceived the First watt amplifiers, just to drive these speakers.
I've heard an assortment of stuff, from Tangband, markaudio and Jordan, Fostex. I do agree that paper cones sound more pleasing to the ear, metal cones can sometimes sound a bit sharp. However having said that, the paper cones do sound terrible when it comes to the upper registers (high hats, cymbals etc) compared to metal cones when was the last time you heard paper cone tweeters). They are really no match for a tweeter. However, I find if one were to supplement a paper cone with a supertweeter, the sound changes alltogether, and becomes more suited to modern jazz recording and you don't miss out so much.
Planning on getting a Seas FA22RCZ to add to my collection....
Oon
I live with both the Mark Audio EL70 and Alpair7, and the paper does not suffer from the comparison.>>
Chris - you know the EL70 well. What are my chances of getting away without a subwoofer with these in a bipole. Cabinet can be tall - 4ft is no problem. Is there more bass with the EL70 than the CHP-70 for any reason? I have a note from a post somewhere that the bass is unexpectedly good.
Andy
Chris - you know the EL70 well. What are my chances of getting away without a subwoofer with these in a bipole. Cabinet can be tall - 4ft is no problem. Is there more bass with the EL70 than the CHP-70 for any reason? I have a note from a post somewhere that the bass is unexpectedly good.
Andy
To the first question - quite possibly - depends on room and listening etc.
A well executed bipole design with EL70 very well satisfy a lot of folks need for bass - it certainly does in my own case - the CastleMT are in fact much shorter than 4 ft.
How's that for dodging the question?
I've not heard the CHP70 extensively (if at all?) yet - there are just too many combinations of drivers and enclosures kicking around . Dave only recently dropped a couple of pairs in the bipole MTs, and we will be hopefully be comparing stock vs treated of both paper 70s within the next week or so.
What I can relate from my experience is that in the two cases of roughly comparable metal/paper drivers exist in Mark's line-up that I've heard ( Alpair 6 M/P, EL70/CHR70) I've preferred the paper over the metal for a variety of reasons, bass response included.
From my understanding, the response of the CHP was tailored for a shelved upper midrange/top end, and lacks a few Hz extension at the bottom - meaning that in small quantities in otherwise similar enclosures, they might well benefit from HP filtering and supplementation, rather than aggressive EQ that could exacerbate problems of excursion and distortion.
I suppose line arrays could deal with may of those issues, but my only experience with anything approaching those was so memorably unlikable, that I've been disinclined to pursue them - then there's the cost.
I havent used many fostex (4" one, cant even recall the p/n), but I have several metal/alloy drivers of the wideband variety. I am using the Visaton Al130: great smooth detailed passband up til the breakup which HAS to be notched (not fullrange i grant), Alpair5 grey: amazing definition, slightly too hot in the midHF, but great timbre on brass, piano, drums and steel guitar, less so on cello and 'wooden' sounds. Also I have the TB W3-1285SG, TB W2-800SL, and also Audax ap100zo and 130zo(also not wideband)
in general in my limited experience, the metal cones favour brass and metallic instruments, including guitar,cymbals, and piano. SOMETIMES piano can sound a little too sharp, but i only tend to notice on large dynamic transients, quiet passages sound fine. When i think about it piano in a live setting CAN cut your head off, so maybe the metal cones arent colouring the sound all that much, but i agree that paper cones can sound warmer or less intrusive on stringed orchestral music. I also agree with another poster who commented that the detail from metal cones helps level things alot.
The audax with the HDA cones, to my ears at least sound like a great compromise, paper-like, but with a far more acceptable breakup character than either paper or metal. For me its a shame there isnt a fullrange HDA driver out there.
in general in my limited experience, the metal cones favour brass and metallic instruments, including guitar,cymbals, and piano. SOMETIMES piano can sound a little too sharp, but i only tend to notice on large dynamic transients, quiet passages sound fine. When i think about it piano in a live setting CAN cut your head off, so maybe the metal cones arent colouring the sound all that much, but i agree that paper cones can sound warmer or less intrusive on stringed orchestral music. I also agree with another poster who commented that the detail from metal cones helps level things alot.
The audax with the HDA cones, to my ears at least sound like a great compromise, paper-like, but with a far more acceptable breakup character than either paper or metal. For me its a shame there isnt a fullrange HDA driver out there.
Ihave one client who has built 3 sets of bipole EL70 Mets and ended up moving his subwoofer out. They aren't a substitute for a dedicated subwoofer (not a woofer masquerading) for the explosions & car crashes if you want viceral impact.
More bass extention was part of the design brief of the EL70, i can't comment on the original CHP,but in my sims for the 'Kens, EL70 has a 10 hz advantage over CHP70.3. It also does nothave the shelved down top (5dB above 5k or so)
I believe that Zia has built the big ML-TL for the EL70, perhaps he can comment?
dave
The EL70 is the driver that made me a believer of full range (thanks Dave). I have yet to hear anything that makes me think it can be bested in all around performance to $ ratio. I think there are some slightly better, but they cost more. They dig very deep, but they are still only a 4" driver. If you already have subs, keep em.
I'm still building multi-ways, but the EL70 keeps me in check. I always have to ask, can this 2-way do what the EL70 can for $40? Usually makes me think pretty hard about designing the past while.
I've recommended it quite a few times on AVS forum. I'm almost done building a pair for my office desktop. Can't wait to get them going also.
I'm still building multi-ways, but the EL70 keeps me in check. I always have to ask, can this 2-way do what the EL70 can for $40? Usually makes me think pretty hard about designing the past while.
I've recommended it quite a few times on AVS forum. I'm almost done building a pair for my office desktop. Can't wait to get them going also.
This is all getting me interested in the EL70 in bipole.
Can somebody give some figures for what increase in loudness I get with 2 units? I have 86db for a single unit. Since I want to (and do) use a SE 300b amp I need all the sensitivity I can get. I could build a PP amp if I really had to, but it would be nice to stay SE.
Also is there a calculation for any increase in bass output? I presume I'm right in thinking these should be connected in parallel.
Andy
Can somebody give some figures for what increase in loudness I get with 2 units? I have 86db for a single unit. Since I want to (and do) use a SE 300b amp I need all the sensitivity I can get. I could build a PP amp if I really had to, but it would be nice to stay SE.
Also is there a calculation for any increase in bass output? I presume I'm right in thinking these should be connected in parallel.
Andy
correcto-mundo, or whatever the kids are saying these days
Even if the power levels available from a 300B SE were to be adequate for the room / listening needs / music etc, I'd recommend you also consider a modest powered P/P such as EL84 etc.
Of various tube amps I've tried, my favorite match to date with dual EL70 is the Tubelab SimplePP - basically a classic Williamson configuration, delivering in the neighborhood of 15W in pentode mode. More power of course, but also much cleaner and tighter LF extension than EL34 SE , 2A3 or 300B SET (Bottlehead Paramours, Wright Sound Mono7, respectively).
I'm seriously into DHTs all the way through - 26 input, 46 driver + interstage and usually 300b finals. But I'm thinking of trying PP outputs with a Lundahl LL1660 interstage as phase splitter. If PP2a3 can do it, that would be well good. Otherwise it's PP 300b. A bit expensive to re-tube though.
connecting in series you'll gain 3db/w/m but 0db/2.83V/m.>>
I get another 3db per Watt at 1 metre, but what's the other calculation?
Andy
connecting in series you'll gain 3db/w/m but 0db/2.83V/m.>>
I get another 3db per Watt at 1 metre, but what's the other calculation?
Andy
Well sure can't argue with the DHT - affordability / power always the conundrum - a PP 2A3 would be very interesting. I heard a commercial/kit design of Brian Cherry's a few years ago (Joplin) - a delicious sounding amp, but long since dropped in favour of 300Bs
It is missing a couple tubes to be a classic williamson. voltage amp>concertina>output stage.
It is the same topology as a Dyna ST35/70
dave
Actually you don't care about sensitivity, you care about efficiency (and a benign impedance curve). Any tap from your OPT will effectively deliver the same power. So doubling the drivers gives you 89 dB/1 w
dave
In my personal opinion, there is a reason why nobody builds tweeters with paper anymore, the last one was probably 20 years ago. Paper probably has too much damping and don't transmit high frequency well.
I find while paper cones has wonderful midranges, the treble sounds very muted especially on low level high frequency signals (maybe that little triangle in the background?), they also suffer from beaming, making sweet spot very narrow.
If you search look around, there are quite a few tweeter plus full range combo around. For example this thread.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/192624-full-range-plus-tweeter.html
Jim Griffin has a good design for a minimonitor JX92 with a Aurum Cantus ribbon tweeter.
For myself what I did was added in a supertweeter, something that I happen to have lying around to my Fostex 103, and suddenly it sounded a lot more lively (modern). Without it, the treble lacks kick...
Choice of tweeter is quite personal, and it really depends on how you want your system to sound like. I personally would go for a cheap ribbon tweeter, since it is suppose to do what a big cone is unable to do. Some may think the sound is too contrasty. But my present supertweeter is metal dome. I would not use a crossover on the full range paper cone, since you don't have to worry too much about cone breakup like normal midbass. Crossover will be for tweeter only at about 10KHz (pretty much up to taste) so that it only supplements what the fullrange is unable to do well rather than completely takes over the job. By pushing the frequency out of sensitive range for normal crossover (1~3Khz), we will not notice the transition so much. However have a look around, what is a good solution for one person may not work well with others...
Oon
Last edited:
While I do agree that not all metal or ceramic cones sound great, I haven't heard any paper cone tweeter that sound really great in the 10KHz to 20KHz region. For pairing with full range, don't really need one that goes down to 2KHz.
I have the alpair 5&6, and they have pretty good treble (10KHz to 20KHz). However I can't say the same for my fostex 103. I guess this is where we differ, I can't say that the treble from the fostex 103 (paper cone) is anywhere near my Aurum Cantus ribbons.. but comparatively the alpairs are good enough in comparison to a good 2 way speaker
Of course, matching to the sound characteristics is another story altogether...
Oon
I'd probably like to try something like this on my SEAS (when I buy them on my next paycheck), the driver for these are Eminence but they are the same colour....
tekton-design2011
Oon
UPDATE:
Well - I sold my Jordan JX92 and replaced them with Alpair 10 (original). I have to say these are considerably more natural to listen to. I've only done one cabinet so far but the difference is clear - much more mellow sound. I'm still having problems with my 300b SET amps - they overload audibly. I'll either have to run them hotter or go over to push-pull. Wondering if PP 2a3 would manage better. Some experiments ahead, but I'm enjoying listening to music again through a digital amp connected to my Mac. Handy little thing!
Temple Audio Bantam. High Quality Class T-Amp.
Those JX92s drove me nuts.
andy
Well - I sold my Jordan JX92 and replaced them with Alpair 10 (original). I have to say these are considerably more natural to listen to. I've only done one cabinet so far but the difference is clear - much more mellow sound. I'm still having problems with my 300b SET amps - they overload audibly. I'll either have to run them hotter or go over to push-pull. Wondering if PP 2a3 would manage better. Some experiments ahead, but I'm enjoying listening to music again through a digital amp connected to my Mac. Handy little thing!
Temple Audio Bantam. High Quality Class T-Amp.
Those JX92s drove me nuts.
andy
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.