Have you considered the AE TD6M?
It should be in the 94db/w area and is reputed to sound very very good.
While I have a pair I have not tested them yet so cannot post my own impressions... until sometime in the future =)
The M is a pure midrange but if I remember correctly the same driver exists in other variants which have more xmax designed to cross lower, think it was the H one.
It should be in the 94db/w area and is reputed to sound very very good.
While I have a pair I have not tested them yet so cannot post my own impressions... until sometime in the future =)
The M is a pure midrange but if I remember correctly the same driver exists in other variants which have more xmax designed to cross lower, think it was the H one.
Yes I remember the thread. It's 93db. John said he couldn't make it more efficient. I have to see the FR, maybe a pair is efficient enough. If you measure your units please contact me.
P-audio
I searched P.audio catalogue and found two interesting drivers, plus a third one which is too efficient (around 100dB in the midrange), that would pair nicely with the Beyma TPL150.
SN6-100N (usable between 150 and 3,5k) - carbon fiber cone and neo magnet
SN6-200F (150-3k) -more traditional paper cone and ferrite magnet
Both seems well built.
Attached the two datasheets.
I searched P.audio catalogue and found two interesting drivers, plus a third one which is too efficient (around 100dB in the midrange), that would pair nicely with the Beyma TPL150.
SN6-100N (usable between 150 and 3,5k) - carbon fiber cone and neo magnet
SN6-200F (150-3k) -more traditional paper cone and ferrite magnet
Both seems well built.
Attached the two datasheets.
tentative simulations
I think the drivers selection of currently available speakers is limited to what's listed in the first post.
So I took some time do run a simulation with Boxism with most of them.
First of all, I have a question for the people that knows this program well: the SPL reported is correct? because it looks kinda low.
Most speakers do not come even close to 90dB and do not allow for 105dB peaks in all required range. The one that stands out is the PHL 1130, that was already my favourite on paper, because of the 16 ohm nominal/12 min impedance, I can connect the two of them in parallel and have 6dB boost.
Still I'm amazed how much a passive network castrate the sensitivity.
The XO point to the tweeter looks nice from 2k to 4k so I surely have fun experimenting (for which I use my digital XO) without buying expensive caps and coils.
Can someone suggest me an alternative simulation program?
Just to check how reliable Boxism is.
Later tomorrow i'll run Basta! to see better the baffle diffraction, but I think Boxism accounts for most of it. Edge/basta have been very close to reality in my previous OB speakers and I was amazed that I didnt have to redesign the test baffles (at least from 150hz up).
I also have experimented with back and top placement for the second tweeter, the top option is not bad and a front placement in top of the first tweeter à la Dynaudio could be good too. Need test cabinets to try this, since ofc the FR favours the more traditional approach.
I think the drivers selection of currently available speakers is limited to what's listed in the first post.
So I took some time do run a simulation with Boxism with most of them.
First of all, I have a question for the people that knows this program well: the SPL reported is correct? because it looks kinda low.
Most speakers do not come even close to 90dB and do not allow for 105dB peaks in all required range. The one that stands out is the PHL 1130, that was already my favourite on paper, because of the 16 ohm nominal/12 min impedance, I can connect the two of them in parallel and have 6dB boost.
Still I'm amazed how much a passive network castrate the sensitivity.
The XO point to the tweeter looks nice from 2k to 4k so I surely have fun experimenting (for which I use my digital XO) without buying expensive caps and coils.
Can someone suggest me an alternative simulation program?
Just to check how reliable Boxism is.
Later tomorrow i'll run Basta! to see better the baffle diffraction, but I think Boxism accounts for most of it. Edge/basta have been very close to reality in my previous OB speakers and I was amazed that I didnt have to redesign the test baffles (at least from 150hz up).
I also have experimented with back and top placement for the second tweeter, the top option is not bad and a front placement in top of the first tweeter à la Dynaudio could be good too. Need test cabinets to try this, since ofc the FR favours the more traditional approach.
M130-16 Woofer
4 in parallel should raise that by 12 db with a 4 ohm nominal impedance (though this depends on the amplifier for the "voltage gain" portion). The 2db "shelf" between 600 and 1.4 kHz will be "filled-in" with the 4 drivers.
You'll still have combing to deal with though, but because the driver diameters are smaller it will start a little higher in freq. (..provided they are positioned close together).
I'll sim them tomorrow.
Btw, did you use/listen to them? I know gr drivers have a very good price/performance ratio, but $25 drivers in the critical midrange. If they weren't overseas I would get one and test it. Shipping costs more than the speakers themselves.
I might of heard them in a design or not, don't remember.
Generally with a less expensive driver air-flow resistance and reflections seem to become more important (..or rather they are less immune/more susceptible to the effects of the box).
The overall design looks good, and even Le is decent for a 16 ohm driver (..if not good). Reasonably low mms and a curve-linear cone for an extended linear response on-axis (..which is rare these days).
The spider is stiff - so it will need a strong "work-out" before use.
If I was going to make one area of improvement on the design - it would be a stable foam surround (instead of the more expensive rubber surround). (..this would lower damping at higher freq.s allowing a bit more detail, and also add a db or two to the average sensitivity.)
Yeah I noticed that, too. I mean the curvilinear cone, especially those with obvious curve, seems getting fewer and fewer.
Is there any reason for this? Higher cost? Or any inferior characters compared to straight cone?
Nevertheless, I like curvilinear cones. I bought some old 2nd-hand drivers a while ago just for the curvilinear cone - a very shallow but very curvy one.
Yeah I noticed that, too. I mean the curvilinear cone, especially those with obvious curve, seems getting fewer and fewer.
Is there any reason for this? Higher cost? Or any inferior characters compared to straight cone?
Nevertheless, I like curvilinear cones. I bought some old 2nd-hand drivers a while ago just for the curvilinear cone - a very shallow but very curvy one.
Less stiff overall - which isn't good at lower freq.s. (..also less output off-axis relative to on-axis). Still, I doubt that's the primary reason, which is likely cost. (..just plain cheaper to do a straight profile design.)
Here it is. The FR looks indeed good and the MOL is plenty.
NN: not knowing the actual power i put 100W which may be too much.
They are placed on the upper part of the box like this:
M M
_T_
_T_
M M
The polar plots did not change much from a single pair of bigger midrange, which is good.
The optimizer tends to lower the XO point too much and it did it here, but it's just to have an idea.
In the low midrange they are flatter than the PHL (18db active highpass around 150hz), but I have to say that I dont like the 3.8Ohm min impedance, so I would connect in series-parallel. I didnt sim it cuz it would screw the 4th order XO. I get about 93db efficiency which i believe is somewhat wrong (also for the tweeters), and i will redo the sims on some other software.
In both cases I can get useful output from 200hz with acceptable MOL so I'm very happy on this regard.
Please regard this as a very rough draft.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi guys
I second the suggestion for the AE TD6M. You could even have a look at the TD10M.
That said, I would like to make a slightly different suggestion (as usual). Have a look at the DC Gold Reference line of drivers. My personal suggestions would be the DC Gold N69R or DC Gold N7R or DC Gold N9.5R. If I have to compare them, I'd say that I would think the N69R would have the lowest distortion, because the cone is not a constant diameter- less chance for standing waves. The N7R has the nicest looking cast basket. The N95R would have the best dynamics, and is the most efficient. All three would be good choices. BTW, that grill in front of the cone is not just for protection- it's main goal is to improve the dispersion at higher frequencies, something it does well AFAIK. Just a very interesting and under-rated alternative.
Enjoy,
Deon
I second the suggestion for the AE TD6M. You could even have a look at the TD10M.
That said, I would like to make a slightly different suggestion (as usual). Have a look at the DC Gold Reference line of drivers. My personal suggestions would be the DC Gold N69R or DC Gold N7R or DC Gold N9.5R. If I have to compare them, I'd say that I would think the N69R would have the lowest distortion, because the cone is not a constant diameter- less chance for standing waves. The N7R has the nicest looking cast basket. The N95R would have the best dynamics, and is the most efficient. All three would be good choices. BTW, that grill in front of the cone is not just for protection- it's main goal is to improve the dispersion at higher frequencies, something it does well AFAIK. Just a very interesting and under-rated alternative.
Enjoy,
Deon
They are discontinued, available only in US in some forgotten stores with a cost of 300$ min per driver, which gets 400€ min with shipping and import duties. Uhm maybe not discontinued but i didnt find any reputable online store. The oval one is very interesting
Last edited:
Hi guys
I checked, and they are still fully operational. In fact, they are launching a cast basket version of the N9.5R, which would be my choice for this application.
It is, isn't it. According to them it is the best in the midrange. Something to think about. They have a list of dealers, including international dealers. Must be one there that could help. Well, I hope so anyway.
Enjoy,
Deon
I checked, and they are still fully operational. In fact, they are launching a cast basket version of the N9.5R, which would be my choice for this application.
The oval one is very interesting
It is, isn't it. According to them it is the best in the midrange. Something to think about.
They have a list of dealers, including international dealers. Must be one there that could help. Well, I hope so anyway.Enjoy,
Deon
Added Scan-Speak 12MU/8731T00, a lovely 4" with very extended bandiwth.
I would loose 2dB (more respect to the PHL), but the actual simulation of my favourite tweeter results in about 93dB from 5k up, therefore it doesnt look too bad at all.
Attached the simulation with two 4" in parallel and 150hz active highpass.
Note that the valley around 3-4k is intentional and will stay 2-3db depressed in the final speakers.
I would loose 2dB (more respect to the PHL), but the actual simulation of my favourite tweeter results in about 93dB from 5k up, therefore it doesnt look too bad at all.
Attached the simulation with two 4" in parallel and 150hz active highpass.
Note that the valley around 3-4k is intentional and will stay 2-3db depressed in the final speakers.
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.