Zaph|Audio
The only real disappointment for a driver of this size is that it's a 4 ohm unit. Everything else is per*T*.
Freq. Response:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-FR-offaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif
CSD:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-CSD.gif
HD:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-HD.gif
The only real disappointment for a driver of this size is that it's a 4 ohm unit. Everything else is per*T*.
Freq. Response:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-FR-offaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif
CSD:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-CSD.gif
HD:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-HD.gif
Looks very impressive for a high powered high quality 3 way project! I'm not sure it quite cuts it for a full range though... could perhaps act as the mid/high in a two way crossed around 300Hz though
this looks like it is the 8 ohm version --> http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/10f-8424g00.pdf
Tony.
I'm not sure it quite cuts it for a full range though... could perhaps act as the mid/high in a two way crossed around 300Hz though this looks like it is the 8 ohm version --> http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/pdf/10f-8424g00.pdf
Tony.
..could perhaps act as the mid/high in a two way crossed around 300Hz though
Tony.
That was my thought. It's upper freq. response pretty much "blows away" just about any of the drivers posted here aspiring to "fullrange" status.
I think it would even be viable in a back-loaded horn to about 70 Hz or so.
Except for the FF85 and almost all the 2nd gen Mark Audio. Probably at least a few others.
Competition is a good thing. They are recognizing this is a valid market which can only be good.
dave
I'm including those as well.
At least *measurably*..I also think the 8 ohm & 4 ohm units would do well with 1.5 config.. i.e. baffle step compensation with the 4 ohm driver (connected in series with the 8 ohm unit).
Last edited:
That's a surprise -I thought now John was selling his own drivers he'd stopped reviewing other units. Looks to be a nice midrange.
For the above -not necessarily. It depends how & which measurements are taken, with what equipment & processing, what a driver is designed for, and how it is to be used. For there to be any real relevance, the drivers being compared need to be intended for the same purpose, measured in the same way, with the same equipment, and then the equivalent measures for each then employed for the purposes of comparison.
For e.g.; same driver looking slightly less impressive in the nearfield (courtesy of Mark K).
For the above -not necessarily. It depends how & which measurements are taken, with what equipment & processing, what a driver is designed for, and how it is to be used. For there to be any real relevance, the drivers being compared need to be intended for the same purpose, measured in the same way, with the same equipment, and then the equivalent measures for each then employed for the purposes of comparison.
For e.g.; same driver looking slightly less impressive in the nearfield (courtesy of Mark K).
Attachments
Last edited:
Attachments
I made a dipole with 3 ScanSpeak drivers. One 8 Ohm in the midlle and 2 4 Ohm at top and bottom. See my MPL thread. I think the treble response is just right because it compensates for the falling response on the side. I cross the speakers some centimeters before my ears. Ted Jordan gave a good explanation of this "Difuse Field" equalisation.
It improves 3 dimensional imaging and widens the sweetspot as a by effect.
It improves 3 dimensional imaging and widens the sweetspot as a by effect.
As far as I can see, most of the Mark Audio units has +/- 10 db wide banwidth ripples in response... Almost as bad as Lowthers
Allthough not quite there yet.An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
FYI, most Lowthers have 20 - 30dB fluctuations in their response.
Few points to consider:
-are equivalent measurements being compared?
-were said measures made with identical equipment, with identical signal processing?
-are the drivers being compared designed for the same functions (as in exactly the same functions)?
If the answer to all these is yes, well & good. If not, frankly, it's meaningless.
For e.g., in this case, the measurements for the different drivers mentioned here have been taken using different equipment, in different ways. The drivers were not designed for the same purposes, & their designers did not even have similar objectives in response terms (the FR of Mark's units is shaped that way deliberately). QED, they're not going to look the same.
Few points to consider:
-are equivalent measurements being compared?
-were said measures made with identical equipment, with identical signal processing?
-are the drivers being compared designed for the same functions (as in exactly the same functions)?
If the answer to all these is yes, well & good. If not, frankly, it's meaningless.
For e.g., in this case, the measurements for the different drivers mentioned here have been taken using different equipment, in different ways. The drivers were not designed for the same purposes, & their designers did not even have similar objectives in response terms (the FR of Mark's units is shaped that way deliberately). QED, they're not going to look the same.
Last edited:
Hi Guys,
A few quick points to consider.
1 - John (Zaph) ought to play fair. He's selling his own brand driver + a selection of multi-way kits. Its OK for him to publish his thinking on his own driver and those he selects for his kits; But reviewing other brand drivers is a sin and a clear commercial conflict. He's no longer in a neutral position to make judgements on drivers.
2 - Its worth carefully checking how drivers are measured, what is the quality of of the equipment, are tests conducted in a anechoic chamber etc etc. Mics in particular. Sadly, some testing relies on cheapo mics that aren't range capable and some testing environments have anechoic isolation problems.
3 - Date presentation. When I first started some three years back, I got hammered for producing RAW frequency data because it didn't look as smooth as other makers responses. I'm moving more toward RAW data today now that more folks know about my driver philosophy.
I'll post some more later.
Cheers
Mark.
A few quick points to consider.
1 - John (Zaph) ought to play fair. He's selling his own brand driver + a selection of multi-way kits. Its OK for him to publish his thinking on his own driver and those he selects for his kits; But reviewing other brand drivers is a sin and a clear commercial conflict. He's no longer in a neutral position to make judgements on drivers.
2 - Its worth carefully checking how drivers are measured, what is the quality of of the equipment, are tests conducted in a anechoic chamber etc etc. Mics in particular. Sadly, some testing relies on cheapo mics that aren't range capable and some testing environments have anechoic isolation problems.
3 - Date presentation. When I first started some three years back, I got hammered for producing RAW frequency data because it didn't look as smooth as other makers responses. I'm moving more toward RAW data today now that more folks know about my driver philosophy.
I'll post some more later.
Cheers
Mark.
Last edited:
Yeah, intriguing driver. More so now that we have a number of actual tests from reputable speaker designers (ie, Zaph and Mark K) with no axe to grind. Also, actual listening from Joachim (below) and Dr. K. No conjecture there. Although, one can surmise that they like it because of the flat frequency response.
Not really designated as a "fullrange", but in the same company as the Fostex 3" or any other 3" or smaller driver claiming to be "fullrange." As such, suitable for a FAST type system and discussion on this forum.
I think I just talked myself into a pair.
..and many of those drivers are measured in the same way on Zaph's site.
And they aren't nearly as good.
The extreme near field tests are only there for showing the lower freq. response of the driver in better detail (with less noise). Mark just didn't choose to "window" it out for that graph.
He did however display a like-kind measurement (with Zaphs) a few graphs below that one, why not display that instead?
Again, please look to the Alpair 6 on Zaphs site.
Zaph|Audio
As an objective assessment in relation to it's upper freq. bandwidth, I don't see how on earth anyone could perceive it as being nearly as good.
That's not a "slight" to the Alpair, rather it's "prop.s" to the Scan Speak, at least at higher freq.s.
And again, while there is correlation between measured performance and sound quality, that's not to say that one driver might not be preferred over the other regardless of it's measured performance.
No, not "cheers".
1. Most of the drivers posted on his site were measured BEFORE presenting the Zaph driver.
2. The driver's are being measured, virtually all in the same manner. That's about as objective as you'll get in this world. You can discount the comments section, but frankly the few comments that are there are reasonably objective in relation to the data. (..and where he is biased he explains the reason for that bias.) Of course again, most were commented on BEFORE presenting the Zaph driver.
3. The Zaph driver isn't even included in the driver testing.
4. He isn't even promoting his products beyond a foot-note of a link on the main page.
5. Using the one link on the main page you can see his objective measurement of the Zaph driver - and while it has some good qualities and is generally a good value, it's not particularly outstanding.
6. He doesn't comment on the quality of his driver.
His "reviews" are hardly reviews at all, and it's not what 99.9% of the people that go to his site are interested in. Instead people go there for the measurements. If he is screwing with the data to post false measurements, then yes - that would be a problem. If he is presenting data in a non-uniform manner that emphasizes one driver over another, then yes - that would be a problem. If you think he is doing this then please "pipe-in", otherwise your comments are far more suspect.
Even excluding all of the above - it's a nonsensical argument that Zaph is doing something wrong in this instance.
He is presenting a driver that while different, is over-all measurably better than what he offers.
Where is the conflict?
(..as for "sin" and "playing fair".. don't be absurd - that's just pitiful
)btw, again the measurements are reasonably uniform for virtually all of his driver testing, and he does state both the method and hardware used to perform the tests. So please don't try "pawning off" the "method and materials are *suspect*" routine, it's transparent here.
Last edited:
Well Scott, i must say you've caught my interest with this driver and it looks to be an excellent candidate for a critical listening PC desktop/sub system with lots of enclosure possibilites. In this config, no worries on the somewhat ragged off axis response higher up as there's no 'off axis' at the desk. The really creative might be able to gain some directivity with mild horn loading. I'm hoping the micro 2way clan will accept it regardless of cost when you consider the overall savings of a tweeter and XO components.
Last edited:
I think it would be an excellent near-field monitor, but I don't think it needs any tweeter at all. There is only a 3 db difference in output a full 30 degrees off-axis (of 0 degree) - i.e. a 60 degree "window" with a minimal loss in pressure up to 12 kHz. Again, here it is (and the "pink" line is the 30 degree line):
http://www.zaphaudio.com/temp/Scan-Speak-10F-4424G00-FR-offaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif
Note that the pic Scottmoose displayed was the extreme near-field, so unless you plan on listening a few centimeters away from the driver - the response won't be ragged.
Of course because you are within a meter distance - you don't even need baffle step compensation, just a suitable enclosure for an "even" low freq. response.
Even considering your close proximity - it won't go *real* loud however unless you have a high-pass network to attenuate the lower freq. response (..lowering excursion). (..for what it is it has good excursion, but the operating surface diameter is pretty small.)
Basically all you need is a "sub" placed close that will extend high enough in freq. to match the lower end of the driver. If it has an active high pass filter near 200 Hz, and you want to use it, then you'll be able to play louder with less non-linear distortion. I think Dave (Planet10) has some info on his site about passive/active crossovers (..passive device (capacitor) located before the amplifier) - just a 1st order electrical should do nicely for this if you don't like (or can't use) the filter in the sub's amp.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.