Extended and Efficient midrange: what do we have here? - Page 5 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st December 2012, 03:01 PM   #41
OllBoll is offline OllBoll  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2012, 03:04 PM   #42
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Yes, to taste is DIY. Taste is what is left once the cooking is done. My needs and tastes are best served by building based on physical performance measurements of components and assemblies.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Regards,

Andrew
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2012, 03:29 PM   #43
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllBoll View Post
Have you considered the AE TD6M?

It should be in the 94db/w area and is reputed to sound very very good.
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.
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2012, 11:03 PM   #44
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Default 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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf p-audio SN6-100N5.pdf (89.3 KB, 38 views)
File Type: pdf p-audio SN6-200F.pdf (57.2 KB, 32 views)
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 09:35 PM   #45
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Default 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 la Dynaudio could be good too. Need test cabinets to try this, since ofc the FR favours the more traditional approach.
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:27 PM   #46
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
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.

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).
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:06 PM   #47
Telstar is offline Telstar  Italy
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
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.
__________________
"The total harmonic distortion is not a measure of the degree of distastefulness to the listener and it is recommended that its use should be discontinued." D. Masa, 1938
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2012, 11:22 PM   #48
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar View Post
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.)
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2012, 02:33 AM   #49
CLS is offline CLS  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Taiwan
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottG View Post
...
Reasonably low mms and a curve-linear cone for an extended linear response on-axis (..which is rare these days).

...
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2012, 04:07 AM   #50
ScottG is offline ScottG  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: US
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLS View Post
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.)
__________________
perspective is everything
  Reply With Quote

Reply


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
"Best" extended midrange driver below $200 ? youyoung21147 Full Range 48 6th May 2011 04:22 PM
What is meant by 'Extended Cut-off'? Alastair E Tubes / Valves 5 5th May 2005 03:18 PM
1 efficient 12" or 2 (far) less efficient 10"s? beady Car Audio 4 8th August 2004 05:55 AM
high efficient low midrange driver maik Multi-Way 3 27th May 2003 04:27 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2