What is the most euphoric midrange you have heard? So far I have heard KEF Reference, Dynaudio Contour, Accuton, Seas, and B&W Kevlar.
Based on my experience hard materials sound more similar than different. The higher the young modulus the brighter and more revealing the sound. An excellent goal when the source equipment and music is well recorded. Putting a state of the art measuring DAC will be heard on these speakers. But soundstage will not be artificially expanded and nothing will sound better than what it is. If you are in audiophile with refined taste in well recorded music and top of the line equipment then this is for you.
Poly isn't so much euphoric as it presents a softer tone and sounds more expansive. Giving up ultimate resolution, perhaps changes of equipment are less noticeable but it makes most content sound more listenable. I assume most soft materials are like this.
If my personal preferences tend towards the euphoric and not the audiophile. What paper midrange is most likely to please me with a Sonus Faber type sound? Sonus Faber uses Kapok and Kenaf. On the DIY side we have the paper Revelator, Illuminator, Purifi, Satori, Seas Nextel & Acoustic Elegance.
Based on my experience hard materials sound more similar than different. The higher the young modulus the brighter and more revealing the sound. An excellent goal when the source equipment and music is well recorded. Putting a state of the art measuring DAC will be heard on these speakers. But soundstage will not be artificially expanded and nothing will sound better than what it is. If you are in audiophile with refined taste in well recorded music and top of the line equipment then this is for you.
Poly isn't so much euphoric as it presents a softer tone and sounds more expansive. Giving up ultimate resolution, perhaps changes of equipment are less noticeable but it makes most content sound more listenable. I assume most soft materials are like this.
If my personal preferences tend towards the euphoric and not the audiophile. What paper midrange is most likely to please me with a Sonus Faber type sound? Sonus Faber uses Kapok and Kenaf. On the DIY side we have the paper Revelator, Illuminator, Purifi, Satori, Seas Nextel & Acoustic Elegance.
Hello @Pegasus123,
I'm not sure to understand clearly what do you mean by "Euphoric Midrange" (sorry, I'm French !
) but personally, I tend to prefer larger midrange units - say 7" or 8" diameter - because I find them more able due to their size to reproduce deepness, notably for the male voices, more like a good wide-band speaker do.
Below, on my 375L DIY monitors, the Midrange is a 8" paper-cone BEYMA 8M60N, flanked with a CP21/F in Treble and 12B100R in Bass. Cut-offs are 400Hz and 5kHz, and it sounds mighty fine...
Conversely, the BEYMA 5" polypropylene-cone 5MP60N offers quite poor results in my 345L DIY monitor prototype, in association with a BEYMA T2030 for Treble and 12BR70 for Bass. I tried to vary the Fc, the Xover, but the tone stayed still unsatisfactory...
Like you, I'm not fond of polypropylene, but I had nonetheless a good surprise with the MONACOR SPH-170 7" polypropylene-cone mid-bass unit, associated with a MONACOR DT-280 28mm silk dome, with a Fc at 4.5kHz, as used on my 222L DIY monitor...
Yes : polypropylene cones are probably more neutral but also less lively (less Euphoric ?) than paper cones. This is probably the reason why paper remains the most used material for wide-band speakers...
T
I'm not sure to understand clearly what do you mean by "Euphoric Midrange" (sorry, I'm French !
) but personally, I tend to prefer larger midrange units - say 7" or 8" diameter - because I find them more able due to their size to reproduce deepness, notably for the male voices, more like a good wide-band speaker do.Below, on my 375L DIY monitors, the Midrange is a 8" paper-cone BEYMA 8M60N, flanked with a CP21/F in Treble and 12B100R in Bass. Cut-offs are 400Hz and 5kHz, and it sounds mighty fine...
Conversely, the BEYMA 5" polypropylene-cone 5MP60N offers quite poor results in my 345L DIY monitor prototype, in association with a BEYMA T2030 for Treble and 12BR70 for Bass. I tried to vary the Fc, the Xover, but the tone stayed still unsatisfactory...
Like you, I'm not fond of polypropylene, but I had nonetheless a good surprise with the MONACOR SPH-170 7" polypropylene-cone mid-bass unit, associated with a MONACOR DT-280 28mm silk dome, with a Fc at 4.5kHz, as used on my 222L DIY monitor...
Yes : polypropylene cones are probably more neutral but also less lively (less Euphoric ?
) than paper cones. This is probably the reason why paper remains the most used material for wide-band speakers...T
Euphoric, to me, implies coloured.
The most revealing, least coloured midrange was/is from Markaudio Alpair 7.3eN crossed low (200-250Hz) and no tweeter to cause a discontinuity at the XO.
dave
I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or unkind
I have Jamo R909 with a midrange version of the Seas Magnesium W15CH001. Accuton Cell c90-6-724 ($750 Accuton midrange) speakers, and Dynaudio Contour 60's at home. There is a clear difference in tonality related to the hardness of the cone which presents very audible differences in sonic presentation. There is nothing wrong with a hard cone but it is very truthful, in fact even though THD is very similar one look at the CSD Sonogram and there is a measurable difference. My ear doesn't prefer engineering perfection like aluminum, magnesium, ceramic, beryllium or diamond midranges.
If you have ever heard Sonus Faber (paper) you would know that even when EQ'd to flat by Dirac or Lyndorf Room Perfect they sound nothing like a KEF Reference or any hard coned speaker.
"In that case it’s unlikely any amount of dome, beryllium or carbon fiber will get you there." Agreed
I have Jamo R909 with a midrange version of the Seas Magnesium W15CH001. Accuton Cell c90-6-724 ($750 Accuton midrange) speakers, and Dynaudio Contour 60's at home. There is a clear difference in tonality related to the hardness of the cone which presents very audible differences in sonic presentation. There is nothing wrong with a hard cone but it is very truthful, in fact even though THD is very similar one look at the CSD Sonogram and there is a measurable difference. My ear doesn't prefer engineering perfection like aluminum, magnesium, ceramic, beryllium or diamond midranges.
If you have ever heard Sonus Faber (paper) you would know that even when EQ'd to flat by Dirac or Lyndorf Room Perfect they sound nothing like a KEF Reference or any hard coned speaker.
"In that case it’s unlikely any amount of dome, beryllium or carbon fiber will get you there." Agreed
Last edited:
For instance the Dynaudio cones are said to be very euphonic with human voices. Some may like the neutrality and do not look for euphoric midrange (understood as extatic, bringing attention on itself)).
At equal designer talent, some material seem often please the listeners : paper and glass fiber and all the mixes in between.
I enjoy for the moment a 5" metal dome (for the coherency on complex material with a lot of instruments) but I will experience sooner or later with a wood pulp cone I have on my shelves
imho if understanding well your question, you certainly look for something paper based.
About the cones you listed, I have found the most detailled drivers are very sensible tonally to the mix of caps in front of them. It asks to spend some time on this according your sources and amp.
At equal designer talent, some material seem often please the listeners : paper and glass fiber and all the mixes in between.
I enjoy for the moment a 5" metal dome (for the coherency on complex material with a lot of instruments) but I will experience sooner or later with a wood pulp cone I have on my shelves
imho if understanding well your question, you certainly look for something paper based.
About the cones you listed, I have found the most detailled drivers are very sensible tonally to the mix of caps in front of them. It asks to spend some time on this according your sources and amp.
I agree about the paper cones, and you're right about how human voices sound terrific through my Dynaudio speakers. They likely sound similar to Audio Technology. These speakers offer a neutral tone with a subtle warmth. Their primary characteristic, however, lies in their ability to produce a sound that's larger than their actual size.
Trying to blend the Dynaudio Contour 25C center channel with the Jamo's and Accuton Clearwave speakers was quite challenging. On the other hand, merging the Kef aluminum center channel with magnesium and ceramic speakers, was comparatively easy. These materials, with their higher young modulus, were more revealing but still manageable when blending the materials.
I'm curious, has anyone conducted comparisons among the top paper cones? I'm aware that the Revelator, Illuminator, Satori, Seas Nextel, Purifi, and Acoustic Elegance models all boast excellent motors and low THD. However, I'm interested in pinpointing which one embodies the most 'paper character,' a quality that stands far apart from a hard cone.
I'm aware that Purifi might not be what I'm seeking, as HiFiCompass described it as a paper version of Accuton, albeit slightly softer. Considering Purifi's dedication to purity, it's understandable.
Trying to blend the Dynaudio Contour 25C center channel with the Jamo's and Accuton Clearwave speakers was quite challenging. On the other hand, merging the Kef aluminum center channel with magnesium and ceramic speakers, was comparatively easy. These materials, with their higher young modulus, were more revealing but still manageable when blending the materials.
I'm curious, has anyone conducted comparisons among the top paper cones? I'm aware that the Revelator, Illuminator, Satori, Seas Nextel, Purifi, and Acoustic Elegance models all boast excellent motors and low THD. However, I'm interested in pinpointing which one embodies the most 'paper character,' a quality that stands far apart from a hard cone.
I'm aware that Purifi might not be what I'm seeking, as HiFiCompass described it as a paper version of Accuton, albeit slightly softer. Considering Purifi's dedication to purity, it's understandable.
Last edited:
I would try then something made for guitar amp perhaps ?
Iirc @ScottG talked about one driver for guitar cab like that if precision and dryness is not what you 're looking for. You should experiment also with paper in oil capacitor.
Nomex based drivers are confortable I have found , in between polypro and paper. In the same time McCartney guitars do not sound ridiculous at all.
Iirc @ScottG talked about one driver for guitar cab like that if precision and dryness is not what you 're looking for. You should experiment also with paper in oil capacitor.
Nomex based drivers are confortable I have found , in between polypro and paper. In the same time McCartney guitars do not sound ridiculous at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Using “euphoric” will absolutely garner derision.
From 250-800 I really like the Fostex 206 with a large bass reflex cabinet tuned to about 50Hz with a high pass >200 Hz.
Though I’ve not heard it, my guess is that I would like the Bliesma 3” silk dome above the Fostex in the range of 800-3kHz.
From 250-800 I really like the Fostex 206 with a large bass reflex cabinet tuned to about 50Hz with a high pass >200 Hz.
Though I’ve not heard it, my guess is that I would like the Bliesma 3” silk dome above the Fostex in the range of 800-3kHz.
The Jensen Falcon <1.3 kHz; really good sound with a large open baffle. 12”, not the 10”. Corrected of course. (..it can go higher in freq., but absolute clarity takes a beating when compared to a good compression driver or the Great Heil.)
Last edited:
Hi there,
i doubt that it is possible to compare "the midrange sound" of completely different speaker systems. Try to work a bit and test a loudspeaker system with an active crossover, you will get a completely different sounding system just playing around with the cutoff frequencies from woofer to midrange driver and midrange driver to tweeter with the same chassis. Just changing the slope of the active crossover can make a big difference.
Trying to speak as general as possible there is a great difference which transducer technique you want to adopt for the midrange frequencies, cone driver, dome midrange driver, compression driver with horn, AMT etc. etc. Here my most "euphoric" listening experience has been with a decent large midrange horn that can go under 400 Hz, you will never want to listen to a 4 inch midrange cone system again, regardless the technical excellence of the implementation - maybe beside for a nearfield monitor for your desktop
i doubt that it is possible to compare "the midrange sound" of completely different speaker systems. Try to work a bit and test a loudspeaker system with an active crossover, you will get a completely different sounding system just playing around with the cutoff frequencies from woofer to midrange driver and midrange driver to tweeter with the same chassis. Just changing the slope of the active crossover can make a big difference.
Trying to speak as general as possible there is a great difference which transducer technique you want to adopt for the midrange frequencies, cone driver, dome midrange driver, compression driver with horn, AMT etc. etc. Here my most "euphoric" listening experience has been with a decent large midrange horn that can go under 400 Hz, you will never want to listen to a 4 inch midrange cone system again, regardless the technical excellence of the implementation - maybe beside for a nearfield monitor for your desktop
Last edited:
IMHO yes, this is a too small cone for offering a complete-suitable midrange reproduction, particularly in the bass-midrange region...
But it's me, OK ?
T
Preach!
For instance, for the better part of the last four years, I've had two speakers in my house which both use the same tweeter. One is the Yamaha DXR12. The other was my Waslo Cosyne Unity horns.
Despite having the exact same tweeter you would never know it in a million years, because they sound completely different.
I think this is something that people tend to overlook when they try and make Synergy Horns; a huge part of the "magic" is in the crossover, and 90% of the people making so-called Synergy horns are failing to study the crossover.
Hi,
Is it related to the average spl or did you feel it was also better at low average spl in a living room. I wonder if having such system push their owner to pump up the volume for a lot of reason. Like: those are big systems most of the time, so often means the owner has a house, so can push more easily the volumeand feel more bass and so on ?
Or is it something else, high efficienty, use of different things like tubes for amp, etc ?