4" (3.5"-5") high efficiency wanted please

[sumaudioguy]

Here they are- the catalog "for sale" entry of an efficient mid and tweeter both rated 99dB for 1 watt. Nothing around like this today. Seems everyone has forgotten how to make an efficient speaker. One watt on these two will play louder than many of today's speakers will with 20 watts. 10 watts will play louder than most of today's home speakers will at all...109dB.

Used both of these when they were available. Very dynamic sounding and very easy to drive. Both the opposite of the trends today in power hungry midranges and tweeters that blow out or distort badly due to all the power it takes to make them play loud. Wish these and some of their betters were still around. But then who would need 400 watt amps with drivers like this for the home? 50 watts would run you out of the place instead with today's "popular" drivers 50 watts barely makes more than moderate listening. HA!

Not ridiculously expensive as found today also. So is there really much progress in driver technology in 30 years? Maybe in the right place just barely a little. Different more than better and yes, always far more expensive!

[badman]

Originally Posted by sumaudioguy

Here they are- the catalog "for sale" entry of an efficient mid and tweeter both rated 99dB for 1 watt. Nothing around like this today. Seems everyone has forgotten how to make an efficient speaker. One watt on these two will play louder than many of today's speakers will with 20 watts. 10 watts will play louder than most of today's home speakers will at all...109dB.

Used both of these when they were available. Very dynamic sounding and very easy to drive. Both the opposite of the trends today in power hungry midranges and tweeters that blow out or distort badly due to all the power it takes to make them play loud. Wish these and some of their betters were still around. But then who would need 400 watt amps with drivers like this for the home? 50 watts would run you out of the place instead with today's "popular" drivers 50 watts barely makes more than moderate listening. HA!

Not ridiculously expensive as found today also. So is there really much progress in driver technology in 30 years? Maybe in the right place just barely a little. Different more than better and yes, always far more expensive!

Rife with gross oversimplifications. Look at the Fane. 900Hz-8kHz. Hardly the range you're asking for.

Datasheets are often (usually?) padded, and you talk about output... good luck getting 109 dB within Xmax on any of these in the bandwidth requirements.

Nothing stands in isolation. It's trivial to make a 100dB 10", with a short top plate and coil. But when you need power handling and actual output (read: Xmax), you throw away dB of sensitivity for dB of maximum acoustic output.

[sumaudioguy]

Originally Posted by badman

Rife with gross oversimplifications. Look at the Fane. 900Hz-8kHz. Hardly the range you're asking for.

Datasheets are often (usually?) padded, and you talk about output... good luck getting 109 dB within Xmax on any of these in the bandwidth requirements.

Nothing stands in isolation. It's trivial to make a 100dB 10", with a short top plate and coil. But when you need power handling and actual output (read: Xmax), you throw away dB of sensitivity for dB of maximum acoustic output.

"Been there done that" and both these drivers work fine. Less distortion than their modern equivalents. As stated earlier I take the back off the midrange for Fs of 80Hz and there is plenty of Xmax for use as mid down lower to 150Hz. So everything you allude to is incorrect.

The fact is inefficient drivers sell bigger more expensive amplifiers. Inefficient drivers are easier to make because sloppy manufacturing such as a larger gap and higher cone mass is easier. Inefficient drivers turn more of the signal into heat, noise, and distortion. Inefficient drivers will not play as loud as an efficient one with the same power and usually will not play as loud at peak output.

Efficient drivers are a forgotten technology and manufacturing practice. My testing has consistently shown (in general but not always true) the more efficient a driver the greater its dynamic range. The ability to resolve a small signal when a large signal is present. This characteristic is (in general) inversely proportional to efficiency. There is a big problem with that- lots of dynamic range allows one to hear how bad the amplifier and other parts of the system are. This leads to the erroneous conclusion the inefficient driver that mask sounds is better and sounds better. Inefficient drivers mask a lot of those sins with self noise therefore they hide those distortions from other parts of the system in lack of dynamic range. When those distortions can be heard it is blamed on the speaker for sounding bad. The ease of making inefficient drivers and the masking due to lack of dynamic range has pushed the hopelessly inadequate inefficient driver to center stage of modern designs. NOT interested.

Please stick to finding useful drivers and not blowing about how these kind of drivers are not any good or don't work. Again, not interested as these popular conclusions are as typical, just the popular knowledge speaking and not based in empirical evidence or experience.

[badman]

Originally Posted by sumaudioguy

"Been there done that" and both these drivers work fine. Less distortion than their modern equivalents. As stated earlier I take the back off the midrange for Fs of 80Hz and there is plenty of Xmax for use as mid down lower to 150Hz. So everything you allude to is incorrect.

The fact is inefficient drivers sell bigger more expensive amplifiers. Inefficient drivers are easier to make because sloppy manufacturing such as a larger gap and higher cone mass is easier. Inefficient drivers turn more of the signal into heat, noise, and distortion. Inefficient drivers will not play as loud as an efficient one with the same power and usually will not play as loud at peak output.

Efficient drivers are a forgotten technology and manufacturing practice. My testing has consistently shown (in general but not always true) the more efficient a driver the greater its dynamic range. The ability to resolve a small signal when a large signal is present. This characteristic is (in general) inversely proportional to efficiency. There is a big problem with that- lots of dynamic range allows one to hear how bad the amplifier and other parts of the system are. This leads to the erroneous conclusion the inefficient driver that mask sounds is better and sounds better. Inefficient drivers mask a lot of those sins with self noise therefore they hide those distortions from other parts of the system in lack of dynamic range. When those distortions can be heard it is blamed on the speaker for sounding bad. The ease of making inefficient drivers and the masking due to lack of dynamic range has pushed the hopelessly inadequate inefficient driver to center stage of modern designs. NOT interested.

Please stick to finding useful drivers and not blowing about how these kind of drivers are not any good or don't work. Again, not interested as these popular conclusions are as typical, just the popular knowledge speaking and not based in empirical evidence or experience.

There is no significant lost art and you will not get 150Hz at 109dB out of a direct radiating 4" driver. Before you make claims about distortion you'd better have measurements to back it up.

And oh yeah, I like high efficiency drivers too.

[freddi]

unrelated but fun (kinda) here's a few pages of a McGee Catalog I uploaded -
High Efficiency Speaker Asylum: McGee for the Mc Gee-zers by freddyi

[mt490]

Definitely exists, the bulk of it just isn't publicly documented because it's the domain of OEM markets where they can hide the specs from the consumer. Can't be telling the consumer that you've just made a totally banging stereo with only 20W maximum power capability can we Yet there has been more than enough decent products sold with only 5+5W chipamps in the premium consumer goods market.

Try SPK-1438AO for a 4" midrange (my experience is that it could easily be used on its own as a wide range)
SPK-1424AM for a 6.5" dual cone.

I don't have any sensitivity measurements unfortunately.

Dai-1chi also make a 94dB sealed back 4" but the diagram suggests that it's sealed by an unopened steel basket.

Happy hunting

[badman]

Originally Posted by freddi

unrelated but fun (kinda) here's a few pages of a McGee Catalog I uploaded -
High Efficiency Speaker Asylum: McGee for the Mc Gee-zers by freddyi

Some really fun looking toys there

[adason]

more fun here
1962 Radio Shack Catalog

[sumaudioguy]

Cool stuff guys, thanks! McGee rocked! To bad they had a alcoholic drunk take them out. The "discount pile" in the middle of the floor was always a source for the experimenters inspiration. adason- those links are way to cool-wow.

mt490- Who is the manufacturer of SPK-1438AO and the other driver? both Dai-ichi?

badman- you are the one that needs to do the backing up. Please show how power hungry inefficient drivers (10dB less efficient) are better and will play louder. One more thing- at the time of that Panasonic the 4 largest driver makers also built and sold amplifiers as did many other driver makers- how much more obvious does it need to be?

Was hoping to avoid a custom run but am (sadly) already in discussions with two manufacturers, darn. All I have here are custom built drivers save for the Altec 411-8As.

Keep those modern part numbers coming!!! Really hope to find off the self solutions.

[badman]

Originally Posted by sumaudioguy

badman- you are the one that needs to do the backing up. Please show how power hungry inefficient drivers (10dB less efficient) are better and will play louder. One more thing- at the time of that Panasonic the 4 largest driver makers also built and sold amplifiers as did many other driver makers- how much more obvious does it need to be?

It takes a 4" about 9mm of excursion to reach 109dB @ 150Hz 1M. Midranges like that panasonic have Xmax on the order of 1/2mm. Further, it would take 100W to get there since it's nowhere near 100dB @ 150Hz, back cup or no (It'll still be VERY damped without the back cup, and the rolloff will start sooner but be shallower).

So you've exceeded both power handling and Xmax in dramatic fashion and own a paperweight. Spend some time with simulation software like winisd before you make dramatic claims. A 4" ultra high efficiency driver is a midtweeter, not a full range or a midwoofer.