I am not familiar with this driver either, but was looking at the Ego kit from Dillon Acoustics. I did find a pdf file on:
http://www.zalytron.com./focal.html
Go to the very bottom on page.
http://www.zalytron.com./focal.html
Go to the very bottom on page.
Focal 5W drivers...
The 5W4252 is from Focal's Utopia line up. They're available at Zalytron. Spec wise they look, and I'm told measure, idendical to the 5W4211. I've used the 5W4252 and it is an exceptionally nice sounding driver. I would highly recommend it.
Don't be fooled by the published frequency response graphs from Focal. It's somewhat difficult to tame. I'd suggest you use one of the various professional designs that are available unless you have measuring equipment and crossover software skills.
HTH
Jim
The 5W4252 is from Focal's Utopia line up. They're available at Zalytron. Spec wise they look, and I'm told measure, idendical to the 5W4211. I've used the 5W4252 and it is an exceptionally nice sounding driver. I would highly recommend it.
Don't be fooled by the published frequency response graphs from Focal. It's somewhat difficult to tame. I'd suggest you use one of the various professional designs that are available unless you have measuring equipment and crossover software skills.
HTH
Jim
Hi, Jim. thanks for your help. I was thinking about the 4252 with an active 2nd-order low-pass at 4kHz. Do you think this is a good idea?...you mentioned something about "difficult to tame."
BTW, when you say it's from the Utopia line, does this mean it's the same driver JM Labs uses in its Utopia bookshelf speakers?
ThankS!
Derrick
BTW, when you say it's from the Utopia line, does this mean it's the same driver JM Labs uses in its Utopia bookshelf speakers?
ThankS!
Derrick
Derrick,
Any of the Focal drivers will be problematic with an active crossover unless you have measuring equipment and a Berringer 2496, for example, that can be programmed to address the lumps and bumps that occur in most hard cone drivers. 4K is also too high for a 5" driver.
The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice.
Yes, the Utopia series drivers are modeled after the JM Labs Utopia line however there doesn't seem to be any functional difference between it and the 5W4211.
HTH
Jim
(Derrick) Hi, Jim. thanks for your help. I was thinking about the 4252 with an active 2nd-order low-pass at 4kHz. Do you think this is a good idea?...you mentioned something about "difficult to tame."
BTW, when you say it's from the Utopia line, does this mean it's the same driver JM Labs uses in its Utopia bookshelf speakers?
Any of the Focal drivers will be problematic with an active crossover unless you have measuring equipment and a Berringer 2496, for example, that can be programmed to address the lumps and bumps that occur in most hard cone drivers. 4K is also too high for a 5" driver.
The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice.
Yes, the Utopia series drivers are modeled after the JM Labs Utopia line however there doesn't seem to be any functional difference between it and the 5W4211.
HTH
Jim
(Derrick) Hi, Jim. thanks for your help. I was thinking about the 4252 with an active 2nd-order low-pass at 4kHz. Do you think this is a good idea?...you mentioned something about "difficult to tame."
BTW, when you say it's from the Utopia line, does this mean it's the same driver JM Labs uses in its Utopia bookshelf speakers?
Any of the Focal drivers will be problematic with an active crossover unless you have measuring equipment and a Berringer 2496, for example, that can be programmed to address the lumps and bumps that occur in most hard cone drivers. 4K is also too high for a 5" driver.
Interesting. When I look at the FR curves for the 5W's, there don't appear to be any "lumps and bumps" that look like they need filtering (vs. the Seas Excel's which clearly do). I've also seen a few kits with 5W's that do fine with 3rd and 4th order passive filters, although they do cross over a bit lower. Can you elaborate on how I can find out more about these "lumps and bumps?"
The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice.
I don't get it - if a 2nd order passive filter works at 2.7k, what's wrong with a 2nd-order active filter? Also, I understand that in theory, 5" drivers tend to start beaming around 3k, although there will be some variation based on the actual cone area...the (30 deg?) off-axis response of the 3211b is only about -3dB, or so, at 4kHz, which means beaming doesn't sound like it'll make a substantial difference at that point. Right?
I appreciate your assistance!
Derrick
Interesting. When I look at the FR curves for the 5W's, there don't appear to be any "lumps and bumps" that look like they need filtering (vs. the Seas Excel's which clearly do). I've also seen a few kits with 5W's that do fine with 3rd and 4th order passive filters, although they do cross over a bit lower. Can you elaborate on how I can find out more about these "lumps and bumps?"
The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice.
I don't get it - if a 2nd order passive filter works at 2.7k, what's wrong with a 2nd-order active filter? Also, I understand that in theory, 5" drivers tend to start beaming around 3k, although there will be some variation based on the actual cone area...the (30 deg?) off-axis response of the 3211b is only about -3dB, or so, at 4kHz, which means beaming doesn't sound like it'll make a substantial difference at that point. Right?
I appreciate your assistance!
Derrick
Derrick,
The Focal FR graghs are excessively smoothed and don't tell the real story. They are simply not accurate. There is a peak at 1.5K and at 2.4K that are very difficult to control. Now, I should clarify that I'm not a crossover guru but I have folks that are help me. Dennis Murphy and Rick Craig have both done 5W4252 designs for me. The problems I'm pointing out are them talking rather than me.
Active crossovers don't have the smoothing ability of a correctly designed passive unless it also has equalization capability. Even then, you'd need measuring equipment to correcly address the issues. That applies to most hard cone drivers. You might get decent results with a poly or a very well behaved paper cone driver using an active crossover but even then, I prefer the accuracy of a passive crossover. BTW, Seas publishes very accurate measurements and FR curves unlike most of the other driver manufacturers.
Every design is a compromise and if you want to live with the decreased dispersion by crossing very high then that will be your choice. The Focal 5W drivers are exceptionally transparent and detailed and are by all means worth the effort. It will give much better results crossing low rather than high. I believe that Geoffrey Dillion in the Ego design crossed at 2.3K to a Hiquphon OWII. Lower is better with this driver.
Jim
(Derrick)
"Any of the Focal drivers will be problematic with an active crossover unless you have measuring equipment and a Berringer 2496, for example, that can be programmed to address the lumps and bumps that occur in most hard cone drivers. 4K is also too high for a 5" driver. "
Interesting. When I look at the FR curves for the 5W's, there don't appear to be any "lumps and bumps" that look like they need filtering (vs. the Seas Excel's which clearly do). I've also seen a few kits with 5W's that do fine with 3rd and 4th order passive filters, although they do cross over a bit lower. Can you elaborate on how I can find out more about these "lumps and bumps?"
"The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice."
I don't get it - if a 2nd order passive filter works at 2.7k, what's wrong with a 2nd-order active filter? Also, I understand that in theory, 5" drivers tend to start beaming around 3k, although there will be some variation based on the actual cone area...the (30 deg?) off-axis response of the 3211b is only about -3dB, or so, at 4kHz, which means beaming doesn't sound like it'll make a substantial difference at that point. Right?
The Focal FR graghs are excessively smoothed and don't tell the real story. They are simply not accurate. There is a peak at 1.5K and at 2.4K that are very difficult to control. Now, I should clarify that I'm not a crossover guru but I have folks that are help me. Dennis Murphy and Rick Craig have both done 5W4252 designs for me. The problems I'm pointing out are them talking rather than me.
Active crossovers don't have the smoothing ability of a correctly designed passive unless it also has equalization capability. Even then, you'd need measuring equipment to correcly address the issues. That applies to most hard cone drivers. You might get decent results with a poly or a very well behaved paper cone driver using an active crossover but even then, I prefer the accuracy of a passive crossover. BTW, Seas publishes very accurate measurements and FR curves unlike most of the other driver manufacturers.
Every design is a compromise and if you want to live with the decreased dispersion by crossing very high then that will be your choice. The Focal 5W drivers are exceptionally transparent and detailed and are by all means worth the effort. It will give much better results crossing low rather than high. I believe that Geoffrey Dillion in the Ego design crossed at 2.3K to a Hiquphon OWII. Lower is better with this driver.
Jim
(Derrick)
"Any of the Focal drivers will be problematic with an active crossover unless you have measuring equipment and a Berringer 2496, for example, that can be programmed to address the lumps and bumps that occur in most hard cone drivers. 4K is also too high for a 5" driver. "
Interesting. When I look at the FR curves for the 5W's, there don't appear to be any "lumps and bumps" that look like they need filtering (vs. the Seas Excel's which clearly do). I've also seen a few kits with 5W's that do fine with 3rd and 4th order passive filters, although they do cross over a bit lower. Can you elaborate on how I can find out more about these "lumps and bumps?"
"The 5W4252 does cross quite nicely with a 2nd order filter at 2.7K. It'll start beaming, as all 5" drivers do, at a little over 3K. A nice sounding driver that is less expensive and is very smooth is the Seas CA18. I've heard it in a Besl design with an active crossover and it was extremely nice."
I don't get it - if a 2nd order passive filter works at 2.7k, what's wrong with a 2nd-order active filter? Also, I understand that in theory, 5" drivers tend to start beaming around 3k, although there will be some variation based on the actual cone area...the (30 deg?) off-axis response of the 3211b is only about -3dB, or so, at 4kHz, which means beaming doesn't sound like it'll make a substantial difference at that point. Right?
I'm agree that the Focal is not as smooth as the graph. I owned a pair of 5W4211 for almost 4 months now, and never been successful in building a speaker from them.
I didn't care with the graph. I simply listened and examined the drivers, and I heard those "bumps" (or whatever they are called). I still don't believe this can be "fixed", rather, it is something to live with
To make sure that I'm not wrong, I built a Daline 3.1 crossover which IMO is the best speaker on the net using this family of drivers (Daline 3.1 uses 5N412DBL/5NV4211DB not 5W4211 but they are said similar in specs), and listened. And I'm NOT satisfied with the result. Frankly, I do think that different cone materials do make difference. But anyway, most of the good review about speakers using Focal 5" driver goes to the tweeter, not the midwoofer.
I know that the Focal has good dynamics and tranparency, but I didn't expect them lacking the capability of those other cheaper drivers (huge impact of woofers with larger diameter; smooth uncolored midrange). Anyhow, I'm still hoping that Jim was right when he "highly recommended" this driver.
There is something about what Jim said as (exceptionaly) detailed. 5W4211 IS indeed detailed, but NOT detailed. I found that the driver has the capability to produce low level signal, as if the signal is reinforced, so you can hear clearly sounds (instruments) that you can't hear within other drivers. But still there are details that are lost. These details which are lost is unfortunately very important, and is often refferred (at least by me) when a driver is said having "smooth midrange", "clear midrange". It is the capability of the driver to expose the room effect (echos) and "emotion" of the singer. I think these can be said as ultra fine details?
I didn't care with the graph. I simply listened and examined the drivers, and I heard those "bumps" (or whatever they are called). I still don't believe this can be "fixed", rather, it is something to live with
To make sure that I'm not wrong, I built a Daline 3.1 crossover which IMO is the best speaker on the net using this family of drivers (Daline 3.1 uses 5N412DBL/5NV4211DB not 5W4211 but they are said similar in specs), and listened. And I'm NOT satisfied with the result. Frankly, I do think that different cone materials do make difference. But anyway, most of the good review about speakers using Focal 5" driver goes to the tweeter, not the midwoofer.
I know that the Focal has good dynamics and tranparency, but I didn't expect them lacking the capability of those other cheaper drivers (huge impact of woofers with larger diameter; smooth uncolored midrange). Anyhow, I'm still hoping that Jim was right when he "highly recommended" this driver.
There is something about what Jim said as (exceptionaly) detailed. 5W4211 IS indeed detailed, but NOT detailed. I found that the driver has the capability to produce low level signal, as if the signal is reinforced, so you can hear clearly sounds (instruments) that you can't hear within other drivers. But still there are details that are lost. These details which are lost is unfortunately very important, and is often refferred (at least by me) when a driver is said having "smooth midrange", "clear midrange". It is the capability of the driver to expose the room effect (echos) and "emotion" of the singer. I think these can be said as ultra fine details?
I am enjoying this thread as it is very informative, especially for people like me who enjoy Focal drivers.
I do have a question though. A comment was made about the dispersion characteristics of the driver with respect to x-over point. How do these dispersion patterns change with respect to the x-over point?
I do have a question though. A comment was made about the dispersion characteristics of the driver with respect to x-over point. How do these dispersion patterns change with respect to the x-over point?
Jay,
If you've not had the benefit of measuring equipment and crossover software, I'll guarantee you that the reason you're not getting the results you want is because of your crossover. Go here to download the crossover for the Dillion Accustic Egos. http://www.dillonacoustics.com/ This is an excellent crossover design and will get you started in the right direction. I also have the Hiqtopia 2.5-way crossover design that is listed on the Zalytron website that I can send you if you're interested. All those details etc. that you feel like you're missing is due to the crossover and not the driver. Tweeters are equally important but the misrange is all in the midbass driver, not the tweeter.
Enigma,
To get a feel for where a drivers dispersion starts to beam, simply divide 13,560 by the diameter of the driver and you'll have the frequency that a driver starts to beam. It can be pushed somewhat but you simply can beat the laws of physics.
Jim
If you've not had the benefit of measuring equipment and crossover software, I'll guarantee you that the reason you're not getting the results you want is because of your crossover. Go here to download the crossover for the Dillion Accustic Egos. http://www.dillonacoustics.com/ This is an excellent crossover design and will get you started in the right direction. I also have the Hiqtopia 2.5-way crossover design that is listed on the Zalytron website that I can send you if you're interested. All those details etc. that you feel like you're missing is due to the crossover and not the driver. Tweeters are equally important but the misrange is all in the midbass driver, not the tweeter.
Enigma,
To get a feel for where a drivers dispersion starts to beam, simply divide 13,560 by the diameter of the driver and you'll have the frequency that a driver starts to beam. It can be pushed somewhat but you simply can beat the laws of physics.
Jim
I do have a question though. A comment was made about the dispersion characteristics of the driver with respect to x-over point. How do these dispersion patterns change with respect to the x-over point?
Sort of. What we're saying is that beyond a certain frequency, the OFF-AXIS response of midbass begins to roll-off. This so-called "beaming effect" results in impaired dispersion at higher frequencies, and so it is preferred to place your x-over point before this occurs. Larger drivers start to beam at lower frequencies, and you can roughly calculate this point based on drive diameter. However, many drivers (such as the Focal 5W's) have a dispersion cone in the middle of the woofer, which theoretically should enhance off-axis response. Looking at Focal's spec sheet, it appears that the (30 degree?) off-axis FR curve is only -3dB at about 4kHz, which suggests that it might still be useful if crossed over at 4kHz.
I don't think it's a hard-and-fast rule to always cross-over a LF driver below the theoretical beaming frequency. For instance, the excellent B&W CDM-1's employ a 1st order low-pass at 3kHz on a 6.5" driver...clearly above the point we would predict beaming to occur. Nevertheless, most people agree (including stereophile editors) that these speakers ahve excellent soundstage and imaging. go figure.
Derrick
Sort of. What we're saying is that beyond a certain frequency, the OFF-AXIS response of midbass begins to roll-off. This so-called "beaming effect" results in impaired dispersion at higher frequencies, and so it is preferred to place your x-over point before this occurs. Larger drivers start to beam at lower frequencies, and you can roughly calculate this point based on drive diameter. However, many drivers (such as the Focal 5W's) have a dispersion cone in the middle of the woofer, which theoretically should enhance off-axis response. Looking at Focal's spec sheet, it appears that the (30 degree?) off-axis FR curve is only -3dB at about 4kHz, which suggests that it might still be useful if crossed over at 4kHz.
I don't think it's a hard-and-fast rule to always cross-over a LF driver below the theoretical beaming frequency. For instance, the excellent B&W CDM-1's employ a 1st order low-pass at 3kHz on a 6.5" driver...clearly above the point we would predict beaming to occur. Nevertheless, most people agree (including stereophile editors) that these speakers ahve excellent soundstage and imaging. go figure.
Derrick
http://www.focal.tm.fr/gb/home/utopiabe/tek/powerflower.htm
The document states that "directivity" is optimal with no phase plug. Does that mean that the driver has poor off axis response?
How would this be beneficial?
Thanks
The document states that "directivity" is optimal with no phase plug. Does that mean that the driver has poor off axis response?
How would this be beneficial?
Thanks
Hi Jim,
Thank you very much for The EGO and The Hiqtopia. I have heard good things about The Ego but I'm not too easy to be convinced, hehehe Anyway, I'm giving up the 5W4211.
I think speaker building is an art to some extents. It means that small speaker that sounds big is an acceptable design goal. But what if size does not matter, does it worth it to build such a small speaker???
The Ego rolls off at above 80Hz, right? So you don't have the wonderfull lows. But then the midwoofer still produces lows, but with ABNORMAL sound, or not REAL.
I think the bass performance of large diameter woofer cannot be imitated by expensive 5'' midwoofer, even withTL, or parallelled ones.
What I need from a small speaker is the mids. And I don't think 5W4211 can be as good as Vifa P13WH in this respect.
If you opt for small diameter midwoofer (and small enclosure), you already sacrifice something. If you opt (or forced) for high order filter, you already sacrifice something. And this 5W4211 requires a high order filtering.
This is just my humble opinion. But I don't have the OWII and I don't have the money for another pair of 5W4211 (for the Hiqtopia), and I don't have the capability to build a speaker worth the money I pay for the 5W4211. (I always use price as reference or success measure of what I build)
PS. Anyone from Jakarta want to barter my 5W4211 with P13WH?
Thank you very much for The EGO and The Hiqtopia. I have heard good things about The Ego but I'm not too easy to be convinced, hehehe
Anyway, I'm giving up the 5W4211.I think speaker building is an art to some extents. It means that small speaker that sounds big is an acceptable design goal. But what if size does not matter, does it worth it to build such a small speaker???
The Ego rolls off at above 80Hz, right? So you don't have the wonderfull lows. But then the midwoofer still produces lows, but with ABNORMAL sound, or not REAL.
I think the bass performance of large diameter woofer cannot be imitated by expensive 5'' midwoofer, even withTL, or parallelled ones.
What I need from a small speaker is the mids. And I don't think 5W4211 can be as good as Vifa P13WH in this respect.
If you opt for small diameter midwoofer (and small enclosure), you already sacrifice something. If you opt (or forced) for high order filter, you already sacrifice something. And this 5W4211 requires a high order filtering.
This is just my humble opinion. But I don't have the OWII and I don't have the money for another pair of 5W4211 (for the Hiqtopia), and I don't have the capability to build a speaker worth the money I pay for the 5W4211. (I always use price as reference or success measure of what I build)
PS. Anyone from Jakarta want to barter my 5W4211 with P13WH?
Any idea what one of these drivers should be bought for? I recently found 4 of the 5W4252 drivers at a cost of $250 for new. There is so little information on these drivers, especially on the price they are sold for new. I just want to make sure this is a descent deal. I plan to use them in a MTM Tractrix type enclosure with a pair of Morel MDT33's if I get them.
Thanks,
Jeff
Thanks,
Jeff
Yes they look decent, Jeff.
For the price of similar FOCALs 5W3211B, on the 3 digit asking price each, your's for $62.50 ea., on the better specs side for the FOCALs 5W4252 seems very fair.
Dillion Accustic Egos
Welcome to E-Speakers.com - Very High End Loudspeaker Components
http://www.zalytron.com/focal.html
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.