Hi,
I purchased a pair of Peerless 5" drivers, 830860, for the purposes of constructing a small MT satellite for use with HT rig.
I've looked at some test data on Zaph's website for a similar driver with a Nomex cone (832873), where nice FR and distortion curves are shown. One can use this information to make informed decisions on crossover frequencies. However, to the best of my knowledge, similar data for the poly cone variant of this driver is non-existent.
So, what's a guy to do?
What I'd like to ask this group is given a particular distortion curve for a driver, what should I expect the distortion curve to look like (and the harmonic spectrum), if only the cone material is changed to polypropylene?
The other alternative is to find someone willing to test the driver, or go to the garage and spend some time building a test rig. The latter approach might require more talent to get right than what I possess.
Thanks.
I purchased a pair of Peerless 5" drivers, 830860, for the purposes of constructing a small MT satellite for use with HT rig.
I've looked at some test data on Zaph's website for a similar driver with a Nomex cone (832873), where nice FR and distortion curves are shown. One can use this information to make informed decisions on crossover frequencies. However, to the best of my knowledge, similar data for the poly cone variant of this driver is non-existent.
So, what's a guy to do?
What I'd like to ask this group is given a particular distortion curve for a driver, what should I expect the distortion curve to look like (and the harmonic spectrum), if only the cone material is changed to polypropylene?
The other alternative is to find someone willing to test the driver, or go to the garage and spend some time building a test rig. The latter approach might require more talent to get right than what I possess.
Thanks.
weinstro said:
I bet you can expect very similar performance. I don't own a pair of those, or I'd test them (I own Praxis). It's probably not worth the cost of two way shipping to figure it out either...but if you want...I can test....
I've tested the Peerless CSX range drivers, very linear, very good motor structure. The one problem I had with them is that they did NOT handle overload gracefully...they would survive, but the sound would go from pristine to eegads what was that...in a hurry.
Scott
If you are talking about the current HDS lines, the main difference-other than the cone- is a better and better motor. Being at the bottom of the HDS line, I don't believe the poly cone drivers have any shielding/shorting rings in the motor. I would expect higher distortion than the Nomex series you seen at Zaph's site, and much more asymmetric impedance with excursion. OTOH I'd also expect a very smooth response.
SpeakerScott said:
As part of the HDS series, I believe they do have the shorting rings (as did the CSX drivers of old). Plus I cheated before I wrote the post and checked out Madisounds site plus the Tymphany site...
Scott
Hmmm. The website descriptions are confusing. I've sent Tymphany an email requesting clarification. I was hoping that the only difference was the cone material.....crossing fingers.
Is there anyone nice enough to offer to run a distortion test?
SpeakerScott said:
As part of the HDS series, I believe they do have the shorting rings (as did the CSX drivers of old). Plus I cheated before I wrote the post and checked out Madisounds site plus the Tymphany site...
Scott
Yeah you may be right. The Tymphany info is confusing. I thought for sure the PPB drivers had higher inductance than the Nomex but looking at Tymphany's info they are both pretty low, with the PPB being a hair better. But the Nomex says shorting rings in the description so maybe you'll only see the difference with an impedance measurement at various excursions? The Exclusive mentions copper which I take to mean a copper plated pole piece, and if you have ever seen the Exclusive's impedance at xmax it's pretty clear that's what it is. So I dunno.
I believe both the poly and the Nomex HDS drivers have Aluminum shorting rings, and, are quite low distortion. I prefer them over the "Exclusives". Both in appearance and for their smoother frequency response.
The 5.25" HDS can work in a very small cabinet, and the 6.5" ones should make very nice two way speakers, but in a larger cabinet - still, not so large compared to some other woofers...
The 5.25" HDS can work in a very small cabinet, and the 6.5" ones should make very nice two way speakers, but in a larger cabinet - still, not so large compared to some other woofers...
sorry for the jack but i tyed makeing a new thread, but it wont let me....
Hello all,
Im looking to build a pair of bookshelf speakers and would like to use Vifa XT25TG30-04 /Peerless Nomex 832873 because of the fact i have then already. Has this combo been done before, i would need help with x-o design. If theres specs for a x-o pleae post a link to it.
Thanks
Hello all,
Im looking to build a pair of bookshelf speakers and would like to use Vifa XT25TG30-04 /Peerless Nomex 832873 because of the fact i have then already. Has this combo been done before, i would need help with x-o design. If theres specs for a x-o pleae post a link to it.
Thanks
have you seen this design http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Peerless_HDS830860.htm seems it would be a nice bookshelf to build. but could you use the 832873 and keep the x-o the same?
GWEE said:
It should be decent. I suggest building it, and, if it doesn't sound quite right, you can always ask for some suggestions for tweaking the crossover.
I would build a pair of those and measure them, but I don't have either of those types of Vifa tweeters.
I have at least a dozen of the woofers [Nomex], I had been eyeing them for years, and jumped at the chance to get some cheap.
Oh, I happen to have a pair of the PP ones also. At some point I will build two pairs of speakers which are identical, except, one will have the Nomex and the other will have the PP woofers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.