Just a quick question - I am looking at using Dayton RS125 (5") or RS150 (6") woofers in a new two-way project and am wondering how good is the resolution of the Dayton Reference Series of drivers? For a source I am using a S5 electronics K14G amp and the Audioquest Dragonfly. I am currently using the Zaph Audio Mini and the full range Tang Band bamboo drivers for my speakers. I am of the opinion that a fully modded K12G amp is capable of providing a higher level of sound quality than I can get from my two current speakers.
My goal is to build a speaker that I can be sure has high enough resolution to hear the changes to my amp as I modify it. If the Dayton's are not good enough to provide the resolution or detail that I am looking for, what will?
-Steven
My goal is to build a speaker that I can be sure has high enough resolution to hear the changes to my amp as I modify it. If the Dayton's are not good enough to provide the resolution or detail that I am looking for, what will?
-Steven
Hi Steven
I have the RS180. Resolution is pretty good. One can safely assume that the RS125 and RS150 would be similar.
You may want to have a look at my latest 2-way. I'm using Zaph ZA14 with the Vifa XT25TG30. Resolution of the ZA14 is similar to the RS Series.
More importantly, the phasing is quite linear. Impedance is friendly too. Ideal for testing power amplifiers.
Regards
Mike
I have the RS180. Resolution is pretty good. One can safely assume that the RS125 and RS150 would be similar.
You may want to have a look at my latest 2-way. I'm using Zaph ZA14 with the Vifa XT25TG30. Resolution of the ZA14 is similar to the RS Series.
More importantly, the phasing is quite linear. Impedance is friendly too. Ideal for testing power amplifiers.
Regards
Mike
Last edited:
I like 'em...
I designed the "Stance" kit that Meniscus sells as a kit, and I really like this little design. One of my best:
Stance Photos by wolf_teeth_speaker | Photobucket
On the left here:
Others have liked them a lot too. I placed 3rd in the <$200 Open class in MWAF 2012 event with them.
Later,
Wolf
I designed the "Stance" kit that Meniscus sells as a kit, and I really like this little design. One of my best:
Stance Photos by wolf_teeth_speaker | Photobucket
On the left here:
Others have liked them a lot too. I placed 3rd in the <$200 Open class in MWAF 2012 event with them.
Later,
Wolf
I have RS-150s and have listened extensively to RS-180s when I built a pair of Nat-Ps for a buddy. Ironically the 150s need to be crossed lower than the 180s due to breakup modes.
That said, both are decent resolvers. The Nat-Ps clearly showed the difference between my Leach and his receiver. He was as thrilled to hear how much better they sounded than his old speakers as I was horrified at how much fuzzier they were.
The 150s are used in an active MT with a pair of A75s. XO to a 27TDFC with an elliptical filter is at 1600 Hz. Compared to the same setup (adjusted for sensitivity differences) with a Focal 6W4254 and TC120Tdx the RS was at least equal, if not a hair clearer. Yes, I could hear a difference between Leach Amps and the Pass A75 with either.
If you want to go up a notch in resolution in that size range consider the Seas W-15CY. In a 0.375 cubic foot enclosure it will go low enough to cross to a sub at 60 Hz if your room isn't huge. Of course it's a big step up in price for a small improvement. Considering that it is one of Zaph's favorite drivers I wouldn't be surprised if the ZA14 is VERY similar.
Hope this long winded reply helps.
That said, both are decent resolvers. The Nat-Ps clearly showed the difference between my Leach and his receiver. He was as thrilled to hear how much better they sounded than his old speakers as I was horrified at how much fuzzier they were.
The 150s are used in an active MT with a pair of A75s. XO to a 27TDFC with an elliptical filter is at 1600 Hz. Compared to the same setup (adjusted for sensitivity differences) with a Focal 6W4254 and TC120Tdx the RS was at least equal, if not a hair clearer. Yes, I could hear a difference between Leach Amps and the Pass A75 with either.
If you want to go up a notch in resolution in that size range consider the Seas W-15CY. In a 0.375 cubic foot enclosure it will go low enough to cross to a sub at 60 Hz if your room isn't huge. Of course it's a big step up in price for a small improvement. Considering that it is one of Zaph's favorite drivers I wouldn't be surprised if the ZA14 is VERY similar.
Hope this long winded reply helps.
I just flicked through here because a customer sent me a link to something else over here, and normally I wouldn't respond to stuff like this, and hate to sound negative, but I also hate seeing people go down a bad path.
I had a guy bring me some of the Nat-P's. He hated the way they sounded and thought that he might have built them wrong. I measured and tested them for him. They were built as per the plans. They just had a muddy sound to the mid-range and lacked resolution.
The upper end of those drivers have a lot of break up and ring like crazy too. All of the rest of them that I have heard also had that same character. I am not a fan of that line.
There are better choices out there. Even the little paper cone woofer PE sells with the stamped steel basket has a much cleaner and more natural sounding mid-range. I'd keep looking.
I had a guy bring me some of the Nat-P's. He hated the way they sounded and thought that he might have built them wrong. I measured and tested them for him. They were built as per the plans. They just had a muddy sound to the mid-range and lacked resolution.
The upper end of those drivers have a lot of break up and ring like crazy too. All of the rest of them that I have heard also had that same character. I am not a fan of that line.
There are better choices out there. Even the little paper cone woofer PE sells with the stamped steel basket has a much cleaner and more natural sounding mid-range. I'd keep looking.
I have used the RS180 on 3 speakers. If used within their comfort zone, they are as good as the top shelf drivers. The RS180 has a very low distortion bass and misbass due to a motor design with shorting rings. I like stiff cones for transient speed. Its subjective but its there. The RS180 has break-ups at 6k and 9k which are caused by exciting 3k hz. You need to cross low to avoid this and what you then get is reference level.
I actively cross at 1700hz 4th order electrical to a XT25-60 in a wave guide that allows the low cross with low distortion on the XT25.
The RS150 actually needs a lower/steep cross than the RS180. If you can use the 180 sealed in about .5 cubic feet, its bass lines are detailed and very enjoyable.
I also built an MTM using the RS100 and those little guys can put out unbelievable low distortion bass for their size at 60hz ported.
An RS180 TMM system build thread is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/241286-my-first-wave-guide-speaker-lots-pics.html
This is the system:
I look forward to seeing your system.
I actively cross at 1700hz 4th order electrical to a XT25-60 in a wave guide that allows the low cross with low distortion on the XT25.
The RS150 actually needs a lower/steep cross than the RS180. If you can use the 180 sealed in about .5 cubic feet, its bass lines are detailed and very enjoyable.
I also built an MTM using the RS100 and those little guys can put out unbelievable low distortion bass for their size at 60hz ported.
An RS180 TMM system build thread is here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/241286-my-first-wave-guide-speaker-lots-pics.html
This is the system:
I look forward to seeing your system.
Making a statement about a driver based on how they sound and measure in a system is pretty misinformed. Any driver can sound bad if used incorrectly.
My opinion is never misinformation. I design loudspeakers professionally, drivers too. And I am highly accredited for my work. I have measured and tested with them and heard them in several different designs and in several different systems. They always have a similar character to me. The mid-range always has an artificial sound to it that sounds veiled and lacks a natural smoothness that I am used to. They just do not sound musical to me. I wouldn't recommend them.
If you like them, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Of course, you sell your own line of drivers that look to be direct competitors to the RS series .. so I feel that it is fair to disclose that .. as it may sway "your opinion".
I do sell drivers, and I design drivers for many companies. Some of them are even similar in looks to the PE drivers mentioned. Like these that I designed for Tyler Acoustics.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
But I am not here pushing drivers. I am offering my opinion on one. I'm an honest guy. If it were great then I'd say it was great whether I had anything to do with it or not. If I like something I say that I like it, and if I don't then I say that I don't.
From the looks of it, you're into passive cross overs and no horn loading on a tweeter. As I said, application is everything. Used with a tweeter in a wave guide crossed low, there is no issue with break-up or ringing. I will never again build a system without a wave guide. I agree in the simple systems you have pictured, there are better choices. RS drivers are not for use with shallow crossovers or with tweeters that cant cross low.
Oh, I have designed all kinds of speakers from the simple two way, to line sources, to open baffle designs ranging in retail price from $199 a pair to $27,000 a pair. I have also designed quite a few tweeter wave guides, and will be offering a wave guide for a particular tweeter very soon. Wave guides can actually be quite tricky to properly design.
And your statement in the last line is very much true. I also very much favor low crossover points, but am not a fan of having to use complex crossovers to control driver behavior. I much prefer designing the driver to have good behavior to begin with.
I certainly appreciate everyone's opinion on the Dayton RS series of drivers. I haven't quite made up my mind yet. In some respects, I am leaning towards not using them. So far, it seems that like they can be very respectable in sound quality when used correctly (which is true for every speaker), but I get the sense that they are not as high quality as I am looking for. One day I will certainly build a high-end Seas or ScanSpeak kit for my system, but those are also overkill for a $200 tube amp kit. I was thinking that woofers in the $50-$70 price range would be more than sufficient to get a much music as possible out of the K12G kit. According to Zaph Audio, the Dayton RS seemed to be good value as was able to compete, measurement wise, with other speakers costing double their price.
My goal is still to have each of my DIY speakers be of sufficient resolution that they be as good as or better then the amplifier they are hooked up to. I'm sure one day I'll have a nice $1k solid state amp and probably another DIY tube amp (maybe I'll upgrade to KT88's for example), but I don't foresee myself with a $10k McIntosh either. Right now all I have is a S5 Electronics K12G that I plan on modifying and I want to build something that is going to equal it.
At the moment, I listen near-field (4 feet) with small two-way speakers in a very small room.
My goal is still to have each of my DIY speakers be of sufficient resolution that they be as good as or better then the amplifier they are hooked up to. I'm sure one day I'll have a nice $1k solid state amp and probably another DIY tube amp (maybe I'll upgrade to KT88's for example), but I don't foresee myself with a $10k McIntosh either. Right now all I have is a S5 Electronics K12G that I plan on modifying and I want to build something that is going to equal it.
At the moment, I listen near-field (4 feet) with small two-way speakers in a very small room.
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.
Go to this website and order the wave guides for the XT25 or SB29. You will have a $70 investment to be able to run a tweeter to 1500hz. I have it and will never build a system without a waveguide again. The resulting tweeter will have wall to wall dispersion consistency unlike a bare tweeter. Power handling goes through the roof and distortion drops off the map. Even if you dont use RS drivers definitely get the wave guides regardless of midbass driver.
acoustic waveguides
Once you have a tweeter with a waveguide, none of the negatives you read apply to these RS drivers. You will cross low and have bass and midbass performance that matches scan speak levels. I can afford anything this hobby has to offer and my current system performance negates any benefit from using the big dollar drivers. The high freq break up and ringing is off the radar.
Read about this simple low cost build. It can be done with one RS180:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/241286-my-first-wave-guide-speaker-lots-pics.html
If you dont want to use a wave guide, the Scan Speak HDS tweeter can cross at 1500 all on its own.
Last edited:
There is nothing inherently wrong with the Dayton RS Series. One should be aware that with metal cone woofers, it's not simply a question of severe cone breakup. The effects can be felt a decade downstream. In other words, if the sharpest breakup peak is at 10kHz, it is possible the cone rings down to 1kHz. This can be verified in measurements.
Obviously, the best way to use any metal cone woofers would be strictly for its' pistonic properties, but often times, we try to stretch it for a 2-way. Whether this causes the mid-range to "sound veiled and lack a natural smoothness" remains to be seen. Subjective opinions are fine but if a claim is to be made, they must be backed up with measurements. Otherwise, they are just personal opinions. Forum members should be aware of that distinction.
The attachment below is the raw frequency response of the Vifa XT25TG30-04 (black trace) and with the faceplate replaced with a 6.5"x4.5" Elliptical Waveguide by Pellegrene (red trace). The effects of the WG loading is clearly visible. This may help understand SpinMonster's preference to using a WG.
Obviously, the best way to use any metal cone woofers would be strictly for its' pistonic properties, but often times, we try to stretch it for a 2-way. Whether this causes the mid-range to "sound veiled and lack a natural smoothness" remains to be seen. Subjective opinions are fine but if a claim is to be made, they must be backed up with measurements. Otherwise, they are just personal opinions. Forum members should be aware of that distinction.
The attachment below is the raw frequency response of the Vifa XT25TG30-04 (black trace) and with the faceplate replaced with a 6.5"x4.5" Elliptical Waveguide by Pellegrene (red trace). The effects of the WG loading is clearly visible. This may help understand SpinMonster's preference to using a WG.
Attachments
Well said.
I used a 8.5x5.5 wave guide which loads the tweeter far lower in frequency and is important to note because it allows a far lower cross over than a 6.5" wave guide.
I would never use a paper driver for bass or midbass because of how it distorts shape at higher SPLs.
I've been suspicious that many are mistaking resolution for metal diaphram ringing. Even when the obvious peak in the response has been attenuated by 12dB, ringing elongates the time, which affects our perception, making it more audible. ringing could make certain sounds seem more clear, and yet be less accurate technically, if that matters. I'd be concerned that metal cone midrange driver ringing could get tedious to listen to after a while. Tone bursts in gaussian or Blackman envelops might shed more light on this.
Personally, I would consider building a speaker with a 6.5 inch Peerless Nomex cone mid-woofer, a Peerless TC9 or TG9 3 inch midrange, and a Fountek 1.5 inch ribbon, with X=700 and 7kHZ. If I wanted better bass than I could get out of the 6 inch with active EQ, I'd add a woofer tower/columb for below 100HZ that would be forced to be acoustically flat down to 20HZ (closed box on all drivers and active EQ). I might even use the same Peerless Nomex cone 6.5 inch for the woofer tower; maybe 6 on each side. Or the aluminum version of the same. or the 8 inch version if I wanted higher volume low bass. If you're really picky, you could do the whole crossover 4 pole active. I would pay very close attention to cabinet shape and how the speaker is going to interact with the listening room acoustics. For what it's worth.
Personally, I would consider building a speaker with a 6.5 inch Peerless Nomex cone mid-woofer, a Peerless TC9 or TG9 3 inch midrange, and a Fountek 1.5 inch ribbon, with X=700 and 7kHZ. If I wanted better bass than I could get out of the 6 inch with active EQ, I'd add a woofer tower/columb for below 100HZ that would be forced to be acoustically flat down to 20HZ (closed box on all drivers and active EQ). I might even use the same Peerless Nomex cone 6.5 inch for the woofer tower; maybe 6 on each side. Or the aluminum version of the same. or the 8 inch version if I wanted higher volume low bass. If you're really picky, you could do the whole crossover 4 pole active. I would pay very close attention to cabinet shape and how the speaker is going to interact with the listening room acoustics. For what it's worth.
Last edited:
All rigid / metal cone drivers *would* have such breakup. Even ultra expensive Seas excel ! The design needs to take account of this, so that the speaker package would benefit for the low distortion and pistonic response of such metal driver.
Comparing it with paper cone is not apple to apple.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.