I did some quick box tuning via WinISD and compared the 5FE120 to the Peerless 830991. In 7L cabinets, these two drivers are almos identical. In a ported version, the FaitalPRO edges out the Peerless by about 12 Hz. Not a whole lot.
However, based on my measurements of the Peerless and online specs of the Faital, the Faital has a much better and usable top end. An easier match to cross tweeters over at 3-5kHz I think.
Best,
E
However, based on my measurements of the Peerless and online specs of the Faital, the Faital has a much better and usable top end. An easier match to cross tweeters over at 3-5kHz I think.
Best,
E
Interestingly (or not) the Faital weighs about 30% more than the Peerless despite the 830991 having a heavier cast frame.
Around here the Peerless costs £40 while the Faital goes for £22 (incl tax).
Or you could believe wat Geddes says, these type of distortion mesurements aren’t worth the pixels they are printed with — they are meaningless. That from a proprt scientific study/experiment he did, mind you no one has tried to duplicate it… but there is much of that in audio.
dave
Hi Planet10!
In regards to the Peerless 5 1/4" drivers, I really like the sound, but I feel they need a bit of a low roll-off (2-3kHz) due to the response. All I can do is offer you my own measurement of the 830991 (woven fiberglass) for you to draw your own conclusions from. Would definitely have been nice to be able to cross them a little higher.
This is the 830991 in a Dayton 0.25 ft^3 / 7L cabinet. Port not spliced in, so trust nothing below 100-200 Hz.
In regards to the Peerless 5 1/4" drivers, I really like the sound, but I feel they need a bit of a low roll-off (2-3kHz) due to the response. All I can do is offer you my own measurement of the 830991 (woven fiberglass) for you to draw your own conclusions from. Would definitely have been nice to be able to cross them a little higher.
This is the 830991 in a Dayton 0.25 ft^3 / 7L cabinet. Port not spliced in, so trust nothing below 100-200 Hz.
Attachments
Last edited:
All i can offer for the 830870 is the factory response:
We use 2 of them in a Lindgren ML-TL — estimated anechoic F10 about 35 Hz. We have been using a 240 Hz 1st order PLLXO to cross them to uFonken or uMar-ken. So they should be able to meet your LF requirements.
dave
We use 2 of them in a Lindgren ML-TL — estimated anechoic F10 about 35 Hz. We have been using a 240 Hz 1st order PLLXO to cross them to uFonken or uMar-ken. So they should be able to meet your LF requirements.
dave
Attachments
The P might be good to about 5k, but the aluminum is difficult in reaching even 3kHz- however it's doable.
Later,
Wolf
The primary reason I went with NE123 is cone material and what's behind it: smaller magnet, farther away from the cone, with sculptured, heavy duty basket to reduce rear reflections and noise. I don't know how that equates to FR and distortion, but, to me, it sounds much clearer than other 4" drivers which have a close, relatively big magnet reflecting sound directly back at the cone. Can't be good!
You could ask the same question of any two drivers. How does one justify higher cost? There was obviously some careful thought involved in the design of this driver and expense in its manufacture. It is certainly unique, not merely another scaled-down woofer.
Anyone who builds speakers should know that, unless it's grossly deformed, a FR curve has little more to do with the ultimate sound of a driver than a pretty label does to the taste of a bottle of wine.
Peace,
Tom E
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.