Like many of you guys, I would like to try a compression driver, in sted of my soft dome, whitch i normally prefer. With that in minde. What compression drivers/horn will you recommend me. I am holding a bit back on the metal cone types (that is most of them).
I am also sceptical about long horns, i am think they will sound nasal.
Let me hear some oppinions from someone who have tried this.
I does not have to be the most expensive types you recommend
It will have to be used from 2500Hz and up.
I am also sceptical about long horns, i am think they will sound nasal.
Let me hear some oppinions from someone who have tried this.
I does not have to be the most expensive types you recommend
It will have to be used from 2500Hz and up.
bms 1inch
1kHz up to 30kHz With short horn.
The set about 150 euro. one of the best and low priced.
This one 4524 also very good up to 20kHz set 60 euro!
1kHz up to 30kHz With short horn.
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.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The set about 150 euro. one of the best and low priced.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This one 4524 also very good up to 20kHz set 60 euro!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Another option.
Monacor DT300 with horn.
http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/anukaa/WaveGuides/WaveGuides.html
Monacor DT300 with horn.
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.
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.
http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/anukaa/WaveGuides/WaveGuides.html
here you can find quite some meassurements
http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly.php?AnchorID=46&Lng=CZ
I am fond of this one:
http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly/BMS_4540ND+A7570.pdf
nice clean csd and freq response - the chart is unsmoothed
http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly.php?AnchorID=46&Lng=CZ
I am fond of this one:
http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly/BMS_4540ND+A7570.pdf
nice clean csd and freq response - the chart is unsmoothed
deiksac said:
One needs more than just axial response to sort out a good driver. That said, I find the waveguide dominates the polar response and in general the waveguide will dominate how it sounds. I just look for a decent sensitivity match and price as almost all compression drivers, to me, are about the same (the waveguide being the dominate factor).
Gedlee,
Please go to this site, read under blog, the real test,
http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html
you may like to comment on it
Please go to this site, read under blog, the real test,
http://www.zaphaudio.com/blog.html
you may like to comment on it
That test won't prove anything. He'll set up the test to show what he wants it to show, just as I could set up a test to show what I wanted it to show.
I have never said that nonlinearities in a driver were never audible, I have said that any driver with audible nonlinearity is broken.
So he will make one good set of loudspeakers and one broken set. SO what?
In no way can he generalize this test to prove anything about nonlinearity in general either way. And in no way does this provide a scale, a metric of good versus bad.
I sat on a group in the AES with some of the highest level of people in loudspeaker design from JBL, Bose, etc. all the big names. We tried to design a test along these lines, but never could come up with one that was anything more that a specific example of one type of nonlinearity. This is the case with Klippels examples. They are quite specific about the type of nonlinearity which deos not change in the test. One cannot then take these results and apply them to any other type of nonlinearity or situation. It doesn't work.
What people keep missing here is the "burdon of proof". It is not sufficient to find an example where THD tracks perception to prove the claim, HOWEVER IT IS sufficient to find only one example which voilates the claim to prove that it is not valid. People keep getting this backwards. I can show you numerous examples where THD fails to be reliable - at least one example of failure for every example of success. The point is that THD CANNOT be relied upon in a blind situation (where one does not already know the answer) to be a good indication of perception.
I have never said that nonlinearities in a driver were never audible, I have said that any driver with audible nonlinearity is broken.
So he will make one good set of loudspeakers and one broken set. SO what?
In no way can he generalize this test to prove anything about nonlinearity in general either way. And in no way does this provide a scale, a metric of good versus bad.
I sat on a group in the AES with some of the highest level of people in loudspeaker design from JBL, Bose, etc. all the big names. We tried to design a test along these lines, but never could come up with one that was anything more that a specific example of one type of nonlinearity. This is the case with Klippels examples. They are quite specific about the type of nonlinearity which deos not change in the test. One cannot then take these results and apply them to any other type of nonlinearity or situation. It doesn't work.
What people keep missing here is the "burdon of proof". It is not sufficient to find an example where THD tracks perception to prove the claim, HOWEVER IT IS sufficient to find only one example which voilates the claim to prove that it is not valid. People keep getting this backwards. I can show you numerous examples where THD fails to be reliable - at least one example of failure for every example of success. The point is that THD CANNOT be relied upon in a blind situation (where one does not already know the answer) to be a good indication of perception.
Hylle said:
The horn will dominate the performance so the basic performance will follow the horn not the driver, but there will always be difference between drivers.
NO - the impedance curve of a compression driver is complicated. In its simplest form it will look just like the dual peaks seen on a ported woofer enclosure, for the same reason. The low point between the two peaks is the driver/horn mass resonance. Just like in the woofer impedance the two peaks don't really have something associated with them, but the upper one is close to the drivers resonance on the horn. Bottom line however is that its not that simple.
ttan98 said:
Could the same test not be created by taking a pair of speakers with very low non-linear distortion and adding non-linear distortion components through DSP (probably a computer program)? Seems simpler and more accurate than going through the process of building these two pairs of speakers.
wigginjs said:
http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt/
I think Zap's test is interesting and done right I'd say it could be accurate since it's a real life test.
/Peter
wigginjs said:
Absolutely, and this is exactly the way our test was done, and so we know how the results would come out. But those aren't the answers that are desired, so you simply design a test that gives you the answers that you want. This is a trick as old as there has been questions.
It's the "Witch" test for audio. The subject is held under water until they die, in which case they were innocent, or if they live then they must be a Witch and so they are burned at the stake.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.