A few random thoughts...
I just reviewed my above posts. It is very interesting how similar the two drivers are. The 10F is 10 times more expensive and because of that, it is refined to the N th degree. It is going to be interesting to see what one gains in sound with that kind of refinement.
Also, for me personally, it is going to be interesting comparing the completed TC9 array to my completed Avebury System. When looking at the cost and size of each project, they are pretty evenly matched. The Alpair 12 was about $550 (as I got Planet 10's customized version), and the cabinets themselves is 72" tall, 11" wide and 17" deep. The arrays may require a little more wood, but they are taller also. I will more then likely prefer the arrays, as I am already sold on the concept, but it will be fun if others get the chance to hear both systems. Hopefully, I will learn more on how to get proper measurements, so that could help someone if they are deciding between two systems like this.
Anyway, first thing is first, got to get the First One built first. I am posting this photo here, as I know Wesayso has expressed interest in this kit.
Allen
I just reviewed my above posts. It is very interesting how similar the two drivers are. The 10F is 10 times more expensive and because of that, it is refined to the N th degree. It is going to be interesting to see what one gains in sound with that kind of refinement.
Also, for me personally, it is going to be interesting comparing the completed TC9 array to my completed Avebury System. When looking at the cost and size of each project, they are pretty evenly matched. The Alpair 12 was about $550 (as I got Planet 10's customized version), and the cabinets themselves is 72" tall, 11" wide and 17" deep. The arrays may require a little more wood, but they are taller also. I will more then likely prefer the arrays, as I am already sold on the concept, but it will be fun if others get the chance to hear both systems. Hopefully, I will learn more on how to get proper measurements, so that could help someone if they are deciding between two systems like this.
Anyway, first thing is first, got to get the First One built first. I am posting this photo here, as I know Wesayso has expressed interest in this kit.
Allen
Attachments
Actually, there are 2 TC9's, The other one is the relative of the ones you mention. They are a new breed of drivers from Tymphany. Stamped steel baskets etc. No doubt the will share some things but the TC9 FD18-08 we are talking about is not like those others in build and heritage. It's more closely related to the Scan Speak 10F than to that new line up sharing the similar names if you ask me.
Made me wonder if it would be clever to do what I did with my TC9 array with SS 10F's, running them all the way down to 20 Hz. I have doubts they would be qualified or capable on the low end of the spectrum.
Looks like Xmas!
Last edited:
For those interested, the other TC9, the TC9 FD00-04:
Transducer Detail | Tymphany
Not at all like 'my preferred' TC9 FD18-08 driver looking at FR alone...
I do hope the old TC9 is here to stay. All other new drivers in the TC series seem to share the new stamped steel baskets etc. The old TG9 FD10-08 seems gone completely. The 4 ohm version is still listed.
Transducer Detail | Tymphany
Not at all like 'my preferred' TC9 FD18-08 driver looking at FR alone...
I do hope the old TC9 is here to stay. All other new drivers in the TC series seem to share the new stamped steel baskets etc. The old TG9 FD10-08 seems gone completely. The 4 ohm version is still listed.
Attachments
I agree, even though the frame of the 'original' TC9 has a "damped plastic basket" according to the spec sheet. It does seem to perform rather well. The SS 10F basket is cast alu though. Funny thing is, the newer TC9 is more expensive a.t.m...
I was thinking about that... stocking up....
I was thinking about that... stocking up....
In my search for drivers, I bought a few models of the Tympany PMT series. They seemed interesting drivers, but I concluded that the Fs, even though below 300 Hz, was still too high. But imagine about 75 or so of these arrayed floor-to-ceiling. Good FR, almost no beaming. I think they would reach 80 Hz, which is where I am crossing the current arrays. HF performance would be closer to ideal. They are more expensive though... as in 75 of these versus 25 TC9s.
Attachments
Last edited:
So what do you guys make of the closed up area below the spider on the 10F?
You can see the TC9 being open there:
Always wondered why they did that...
They must have their reasons because version 10F/8414G00 is ventilated as TC9.
Attachments
True, it would take only 70 watt to let the 10F do the same as 240 watt on the TC9.
Both versions of the 10F are marketed as "Fullrange". At least that's what their spec-sheet says.
I'm sure they had a very good reason to do this, why make several basket castings if you could have done all the versions, e.g. 4 ohm, 8 ohm etc.. with one.
The venting will be for the air mass behind the dust cap and not for the air behind the spider. From what I can see these are vented magnets with the hole in the back plate. You do not normally ever vent the air behind the spider through the magnetic motor, out the frame some way but not through the motor assembly.
ra7,
Those look like the speakers used in the small Apple JBL sticks that you would see in an Apple store with something like 4 stacked. I'd think even with all of those stacked you would have a lot less surface area than the 3 1/2" speakers that Wesayso is using. Will you get any bass with those even with a stack of 75 per side? What is the fs of those speakers?
Those look like the speakers used in the small Apple JBL sticks that you would see in an Apple store with something like 4 stacked. I'd think even with all of those stacked you would have a lot less surface area than the 3 1/2" speakers that Wesayso is using. Will you get any bass with those even with a stack of 75 per side? What is the fs of those speakers?
Sd = 4,9 on these, x 75 = 367,5 with 1mm of x-max.
TC9 = 36.3 x 25 = 907,5 with 2.55 mm x-max.
It's save to say they won't do bass. But the proposition of ra7 was to use them with separate bass reinforcement. The FR does look sweet though, but I'd want to see more graphs to say anything useful about it.
Fs is ~ 275 Hz.
TC9 = 36.3 x 25 = 907,5 with 2.55 mm x-max.
It's save to say they won't do bass. But the proposition of ra7 was to use them with separate bass reinforcement. The FR does look sweet though, but I'd want to see more graphs to say anything useful about it.
Fs is ~ 275 Hz.
Interesting driver...
That shows promise...
ra7, what where your listening impressions of this driver?
I really like the off-axis Frequency Response.
The cost for 75 with the parts-express discount is $568/array, so double the TC9. That I do not think is unreasonable, if they indeed perform "better" for high frequencies. I wish I could find a CSD for these...
My concern is getting down to 80 Hz, as 75 of these only has an overall SD of 367.5 cubic cm, compared to the 907.5 cubic cm of 25 TC9s. And this driver has a "fixed" enclosure volume.
I am interested in how these would perform with high frequencies in an array. My gut is telling me, these would lend themselves better to a two-way design crossed between 200 and 300 Hz. If I was to do this myself, I would consider a line of small bass drivers. Thankfully, at 200 - 300 Hz, one could easily get the two lines close enough...
I wish I had more time to play, as I would like to try "brickwall" filters in DSP to see if one could eliminate the interference between two drivers in a two-way system...
I have been thinking about some of these concepts myself for my "Aspiring Array" build. Yet, from what I have seen so far, the compromises are too great to give up the true full-range nature of TC9 arrays... ...Or the endeavor seems too overwhelming to take on.
But I might be willing to include these in with my driver comparisons also.
From what You have experienced so far with these drivers as point sources, are they as flat as the chart shows and is their dispersion better then your current arrays? Also, how "smooth" are the highs, considering these are aluminium cones?
I hope some others would be willing to dig a little deeper on this also...
That shows promise...
ra7, what where your listening impressions of this driver?
I really like the off-axis Frequency Response.
The cost for 75 with the parts-express discount is $568/array, so double the TC9. That I do not think is unreasonable, if they indeed perform "better" for high frequencies. I wish I could find a CSD for these... My concern is getting down to 80 Hz, as 75 of these only has an overall SD of 367.5 cubic cm, compared to the 907.5 cubic cm of 25 TC9s. And this driver has a "fixed" enclosure volume.
I am interested in how these would perform with high frequencies in an array. My gut is telling me, these would lend themselves better to a two-way design crossed between 200 and 300 Hz. If I was to do this myself, I would consider a line of small bass drivers. Thankfully, at 200 - 300 Hz, one could easily get the two lines close enough...
I wish I had more time to play, as I would like to try "brickwall" filters in DSP to see if one could eliminate the interference between two drivers in a two-way system...
I have been thinking about some of these concepts myself for my "Aspiring Array" build. Yet, from what I have seen so far, the compromises are too great to give up the true full-range nature of TC9 arrays... ...Or the endeavor seems too overwhelming to take on.
But I might be willing to include these in with my driver comparisons also.
From what You have experienced so far with these drivers as point sources, are they as flat as the chart shows and is their dispersion better then your current arrays? Also, how "smooth" are the highs, considering these are aluminium cones?
I hope some others would be willing to dig a little deeper on this also...