papparazzi said:
Zu also claims that their speakers sensitivity is 101 dB but in reality it is about 95-97 dB and 101 dB is only a peak value at about 2 kHz.
http://editweb.iglou.com/eminence/eminence/pages/products02/legend/legb102.htm
ARZ 6608 has a peak at ~4 kHz which is about 100 dB.
I tried to simulate ARZ 6608 in MLTL box but couldn't come up with anything sensible.
Thanks all for your comments and help .
Seems I choose Supravox 215s bicone. For reason and another suppliers try to avoid selling these
drivers ? They give me allternatives like Fostex 206E etc...
Whats the problem with 215s i dont know?
I hope ,if open baffle dont have enough bottom end ,alternative
cabinets TQWT would give good results.
Papparazzi
Seems I choose Supravox 215s bicone. For reason and another suppliers try to avoid selling these
drivers ? They give me allternatives like Fostex 206E etc...
Whats the problem with 215s i dont know?
I hope ,if open baffle dont have enough bottom end ,alternative
cabinets TQWT would give good results.
Papparazzi
Excellent!
Are you going to order the drivers from www.spectrumaudio.de? Have you concidered ordering them from www.musicalaudio.fi?
You probably have read what Kuei Yang Wang has to say about Supravox in open baffle. He has written quite a lot about it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=234860#post234860
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/sear...d=300415&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Are you going to order the drivers from www.spectrumaudio.de? Have you concidered ordering them from www.musicalaudio.fi?
You probably have read what Kuei Yang Wang has to say about Supravox in open baffle. He has written quite a lot about it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=234860#post234860
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/sear...d=300415&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
When applying the rules strictly one would say that the sig. bic. is an OB driver. If you find the TQWT sounds boxy and you don`t have the space for large OBs you can still build something like that:
http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=15536&boardid=9&styleid=1
http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=15536&boardid=9&styleid=1
http://www.zucable.com/tone/index.html
The Tone is a sealed box....
I think its a similar driver to the Druid.
The Tone is a sealed box....
I think its a similar driver to the Druid.
Have you heard the HEMP fullrange speakers?
Hi Guys,
I don’t normally have the opportunity to write in, but once in a while I do so.. I really enjoy the threads. At the very least it is entertaining and on a more serious note. It offers us some invaluable insight into the marketplace.
That said, I would be curious to find out how many of you actually had the chance to really audition a set of our drivers first hand? For the ones that did, I would very much appreciate your feedback first hand. This would really help us refine our craft.
PS we are launching a few more drivers this spring, stay tuned and thank you for your interest. Enjoy the hobby keep it fun.
Kindest regards
Perry
HEMP Acoustics
Hi Guys,
I don’t normally have the opportunity to write in, but once in a while I do so.. I really enjoy the threads. At the very least it is entertaining and on a more serious note. It offers us some invaluable insight into the marketplace.
That said, I would be curious to find out how many of you actually had the chance to really audition a set of our drivers first hand? For the ones that did, I would very much appreciate your feedback first hand. This would really help us refine our craft.
PS we are launching a few more drivers this spring, stay tuned and thank you for your interest. Enjoy the hobby keep it fun.
Kindest regards
Perry
HEMP Acoustics
Hi Perry
I considered seriosly your 8 FR driver.In fact everything started from that
My main target was to get Jx92s
midrange with more sensivity and maybe more dynamic sound.
After experience/Info from different sites and very few users which i found from net,i noticed that Jordans are in that area too hard to beat??.,Therefore i was a little suspicious basically lack of info of your units So i made another decision.
Wish you still good luck still in bussiness
papparazzi
I considered seriosly your 8 FR driver.In fact everything started from that
My main target was to get Jx92s
midrange with more sensivity and maybe more dynamic sound.
After experience/Info from different sites and very few users which i found from net,i noticed that Jordans are in that area too hard to beat??.,Therefore i was a little suspicious basically lack of info of your units So i made another decision.
Wish you still good luck still in bussiness
papparazzi
Hi Perry
Good to see your post here. I have never heard one of your drivers - living Australia gives me little opportunity!
I am interested in your dirvers - I am a tone kind of guy, though I have an aversion to whizzer-cones. I am looking forward to what you come out with in the near future.
I am currently looking for some decent 4.5": easily drven by SET, decent dispersion, little rising FR, and can be high-passed (80hz or 150 hz) with a sub filling in below.
In the furure, a less compromised, wizzerless, 8" for FLH use would be nice - something like the Fostex FE208ESig, but hemp.
I guess it is evident, I prefer a wide-band covering the critical range (at good efficiency and small x-max), supported in the bass and/or trebble. There just do not seem to be enough good drivers designed for this approach - most are attempting to do full range (with its inherrent compromises) or, er, the more convential multi-way approaches.
Anyhow, thank you for taking the time to post... and reading my rambllings.
Kind regards, Raymond.
Good to see your post here. I have never heard one of your drivers - living Australia gives me little opportunity!
I am interested in your dirvers - I am a tone kind of guy, though I have an aversion to whizzer-cones. I am looking forward to what you come out with in the near future.
I am currently looking for some decent 4.5": easily drven by SET, decent dispersion, little rising FR, and can be high-passed (80hz or 150 hz) with a sub filling in below.
In the furure, a less compromised, wizzerless, 8" for FLH use would be nice - something like the Fostex FE208ESig, but hemp.
I guess it is evident, I prefer a wide-band covering the critical range (at good efficiency and small x-max), supported in the bass and/or trebble. There just do not seem to be enough good drivers designed for this approach - most are attempting to do full range (with its inherrent compromises) or, er, the more convential multi-way approaches.
Anyhow, thank you for taking the time to post... and reading my rambllings.
Kind regards, Raymond.
I've been messing around with "full range drivers" for the last 5 years or so. I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a full range driver. I'm not alone, and some have called these drivers "wide band drivers." Some observations:
1. The smaller the WB driver (4"-5") the less need for a tweeter or whizzer. However, none can produce satisfying bass without a large enclosure or sub.
2. The larger the driver (6.5"-up) the greater the need for a tweeter or whizzer. Most low Q 8" WB drivers have whizzers.
My preference for a "quasi-single driver speaker system", is for an 8" run sans filter with a "supertweeter" and a series cap in a moderate size enclosure (vs. a 4" plus subs).
The Lowthers and Fostexi with whizzers have some buzz/roughness where the whizzer cuts in. I think the addition of a whizzer is flawed/(a) compromise. I have yet to try Supravox, as they make both a whizzered and none whizzered version of their Signature drivers, although, interestingly their premiere field coil 8" does not have a whizzer.
As a side note it is interesting to note that the Horning (cuts whizzer off), Beauhorn (huge phase plug), and Rethm (phase pluge with double perforated whizzer) all basically remove the whizzer issue from the equation.
I think some of us would like to see a high Q Hemp driver without a whizzer. Perhaps, an 8" that reaches 10KHz, but with a descending response so that we can role in a supertweet 1st order.
1. The smaller the WB driver (4"-5") the less need for a tweeter or whizzer. However, none can produce satisfying bass without a large enclosure or sub.
2. The larger the driver (6.5"-up) the greater the need for a tweeter or whizzer. Most low Q 8" WB drivers have whizzers.
My preference for a "quasi-single driver speaker system", is for an 8" run sans filter with a "supertweeter" and a series cap in a moderate size enclosure (vs. a 4" plus subs).
The Lowthers and Fostexi with whizzers have some buzz/roughness where the whizzer cuts in. I think the addition of a whizzer is flawed/(a) compromise. I have yet to try Supravox, as they make both a whizzered and none whizzered version of their Signature drivers, although, interestingly their premiere field coil 8" does not have a whizzer.
As a side note it is interesting to note that the Horning (cuts whizzer off), Beauhorn (huge phase plug), and Rethm (phase pluge with double perforated whizzer) all basically remove the whizzer issue from the equation.
I think some of us would like to see a high Q Hemp driver without a whizzer. Perhaps, an 8" that reaches 10KHz, but with a descending response so that we can role in a supertweet 1st order.
Pretty much with you on this one ultrakaz, though reaching 7 - 8kHz would be fine for me (most 8" are beaming well before this), with Qts 4 to 5-ish. Hmmm, something of PHY-HP general sound quality (minus the cheesy looking bling and alnico, brass etc.) in a more cost effective package would be nice
My main concern with this approach is midrange modulation (though I guess it depends on the design) and the need for the amp to provide bass power... there are always trade-offs.Regards, Raymond.
ultrakaz said:
I, too, would be VERY interested in such a driver.
For dipole use with woofer and supertweeter augmentation.
What would be really cool would be such a driver that allowed the addition of a supertweeter coaxially (like the Eminence Beta CX8). That way the cancellation issue caused by the high crossover frequency would be minimized.
Paul Ebert
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.