3"or 4" driver with very good dispersion and high xmax? - Page 21 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24th February 2014, 09:17 PM   #201
xrk971 is offline xrk971  United States
diyAudio Member
xrk971's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Metro DC area
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
The Faital full rangers do sound quite nice. I have 3 3FE25 that I use in a trifield setup in my bedroom. The way they image is fantastic.
Finally someone with firsthand experience! I have been waiting for some feedback on these drivers for a while. I asked about them in this thread Anyone try the Faital Pro 4FE32 or 3FE22?

They have less xmax than the Vifa's but are more sensitive. They also appear to be made for backside mounting and look a little rough around the edges on the metal frame up front. Otherwise they look really good on paper.

I am thinking of trying the 4FE35 version which is only $25 and had larger xmax of all variants.
Old 24th February 2014, 09:27 PM   #202
diyAudio Member
Scottmoose's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Good to know. The frames are what's put me off in the past -those mouse-ear mounts... still, nothing some creative design for the box couldn't sort I suppose.
"'That'll do", comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' James May -The Reassembler
www.wodendesign.com Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
Old 24th February 2014, 09:29 PM   #203
thedoc is offline thedoc  United States
diyAudio Member
thedoc's Avatar
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Saint Louis, MO
The faitals do sound better than they look. I'm planning on making grills for them when the weather gets nicer. I was considering several drivers but went with faital because of the tube friendly efficiency.
Old 24th February 2014, 09:55 PM   #204
diyAudio Member
Scottmoose's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Excellent. That's what counts (the sound that is).
"'That'll do", comes the cry of the perfectionist down the ages.' James May -The Reassembler
www.wodendesign.com Community sites www.frugal-horn.com http://frugal-phile.com/
Old 24th February 2014, 11:23 PM   #205
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Originally Posted by xrk971 View Post
Alas, I have not heard a glass cone TG9... I can tell you that the paper cone TC9 sounds great.
The TG9fd sounds great as well. I haven't heard the TC9. Bought three of the TG9 for testing for a particular project, and tried the 7.3 only to get the modestly greater bass extension (greater Sd and Xmax). Both exhibit similar glitches between 1 and 2 kHz (the Peerless perhaps a bit better damped), and the dispersion curves from 2kHz to 8kHz all but overlap (as you would expect from the similar diameter cones). They both have a rising response above that (on axis) with pronounced resonant peaks . . . the 7.3 peaks are higher, but its dispersion is significantly wider. I'd say that the choice between them is very application dependent . . . they don't sound the same, but I'm not sure which I prefer. I still haven't made the final decision which to use, although at the moment the 7.3 is ahead on points. It also (I'm embarrassed to admit I care) just looks better with the woofer already chosen for this project . . .
Old 24th February 2014, 11:37 PM   #206
diyAudio Member
Bob Richards's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Portland Oregon, USA
I'd measure the Faitals myself before I'd put them before the vifa TC9's. Very few frequency response graphs published by the driver maker are very accurate. They always do smoothing, which is legitimate to a point (1/6th octave in my opinion).

I'd hate to have less Xmax than the TC/G 9's have (2.5mm peak), but the improvement in efficiency is a good thing for those who are driving with a single ended tube amp.

And yes, a 3 incher going from 200HZ to 7kHZ gives some of the best imaging I've ever heard. The Polk style holographic soundbar I built with the TG9's shows this particularly well.
Old 24th February 2014, 11:39 PM   #207
Squeak is offline Squeak  Denmark
diyAudio Member
Squeak's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Frederiksberg
Almost any metal FR driver in the 2 - 4 range will have large peaks around 10 kHz.
And better dispersion.
Just look at the Peerless alu drivers for example.
People saying that the difference between paper and metal is moot clearly haven't done their research.
Metal drivers have gone from being almost universally poorer performers, with the clear exception of Jordans, to being a contender. But there is still a clear difference in the overall signature of the sound.

Last edited by Squeak; 24th February 2014 at 11:49 PM.
Old 25th February 2014, 12:04 AM   #208
DogStar is offline DogStar  Europe
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Regarding the MA drivers. I cannot recall seeing (on this forum or any other forum) frequency response measurements performed by other than the manufacturer that are consistent with the published measurements provided by MA.

When I look at the frequency response measurements given in post #177, it is my clear perception that the published measurements are misleading. How can this driver be called full range? There are drivers out there, marketed as midrange, that shows more and smoother HF extension.
Old 25th February 2014, 12:31 AM   #209
Pallas is offline Pallas  Pakistan
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Thread title is "3"/4" driver with very good dispersion and high xmax?"
So if anybody has meaningful data (preferably off-axis response out to 90) regarding the topic at hand ("3"/4" driver with very good dispersion and high xmax?") I would be grateful if he would post it.
The Aurasound NS3, mentioned above, isn't really a full-ranger (breakup at ~6kHz) but it's cheap and has more throw than anything else I know of in that size class. (Except the Dayton ND91, which is basically an Aura NS3 hot-rodded by Don Keele for his CBT36 design.) See Klippel measurements and some FR measurements out to 60deg here. I agree with Deward that dispersion is basically a function of piston size.

Compare with Klippel and FR out to 60deg of the ScanSpeak Discovery 10F, which is in some respects a fancier variant of that little Vifa mentioned earlier, here.

Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
So you're claiming you know more about the operating parameters of the suspension, its tolerances etc. than its manufacturer does. Most impressive.
I don't and can't know what anyone else knows. I can and do know that someone is spewing a line here with this break-in nonsense, though. A line that given the measured performance of the product is very astute marketing!

Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
Foam surrounds rot, paper cones become brittle and shred, "plastic" cones lose plasticizers and become stiffer, compression tweeter diaphragms crack from fatigue . . . all sorts of mechanical changes occur in loudspeaker drivers over time and with use. Do you really believe none of that ever happens? Why would you deny that a hundred hours of flexing might change the properties of a "new" spider?
My experience is that drive-units aren't wear items in the way that, say, tires, brake pads, or shoe soles are. Let's throw the myth of break-in (as opposed to breaking) to a real expert who's actually done the relevant test.

Originally Posted by Dr. Floyd Toole
In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that *** loudspeakers need to “break in.” Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the research group performed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from “breaking in.” Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful listening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because [b]it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants.[b]

It is fascinating to note that “breaking-in” seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes “over the hill”? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: “An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a steal at $3200!
Sound Reproduction at 353. Emph. added.

Originally Posted by dewardh View Post
Same with Magneplanars, and the same "break in" recommendation from the manufacturer. All "idiots", I suppose . . .
I concede that a drum head suspended in magnets may be different from a cone/dome. (Electrostats do literally break quicker than regular speakers, too.) However, considering how Maggies sound, I'm not sure your characterization is unfair...
Serious Audio Blog
Old 25th February 2014, 02:03 AM   #210
dewardh is offline dewardh  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Originally Posted by Pallas View Post
My experience is that drive-units aren't wear items in the way that, say, . . . shoe soles are.
Ah yes, but . . . how about the shoe? Never bought a new pair of boots that were less than completely comfortable when new (blister inducing, even), but after a few weeks on the trail "broke in" and became like a second skin? It was (and is) one of the great advantages of leather as a shoe material (as opposed to the no break in, no never not ever, synthetics of today).

I suspect that surrounds don't "break in", at least not past the first few thousand flexures (which should come pretty quick). Metal cones clearly don't. The place(s) where "break in" might happen are the spider (which in my experience really does change properties with use) and perhaps the flexible bond between the cone and the former (which in the MA drivers is supposed to give at least some high frequency decoupling). Toole's "general rule" may well apply to Harmon products, which are designed to work "out of the box". MA says their speakers need some exercise to reach their long term performance plateau. I think it's reasonable to assume Toole knew how Harmon products behaved, and that MA knows how MA products behave.

Last edited by dewardh; 25th February 2014 at 02:20 AM.

Closed Thread

Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Woofer "Speed," high Xmax vs. low Xmax in Uframe and Sealed Enclosures jarvissound Subwoofers 35 21st March 2014 10:48 PM
BLH w/ High Xmax Driver??? goody75 Multi-Way 3 18th December 2011 07:48 PM
four inch driver with good efficiency and low Rms/high Qms? twest820 Multi-Way 23 18th August 2010 03:55 AM
In general, how to get good dispersion? cuibono Multi-Way 2 26th August 2008 07:45 AM
12" driver with big Xmax,low Fs, & high efficiency? WolfmanX Multi-Way 18 26th November 2002 11:10 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2