3-way Aurum Cantus, PR170M0 w/measurements

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
S

ScottG

Member
Joined 2003
Re: Audax PR170M0 vs. PR170Z0

pmt said:
It's interesting to see several people here working with the PR170M0 - Audax drivers seem to be somewhat over looked on many DIY boards. Has anyone ever compared the sound of the paper coned PR170M0 to the Aerogel PR170Z0?
I purchased a pair of the PR170Z0 based on the guy at Zalytron declaring the the PR170Z0 was an improved version of the old PR170X0 TPX driver. I had heard a big Waveform speaker using the PR170X0 and thought it sounded great, but the TPX Audax PR17 version was out of production by the time I starting searching.
Seeing so many using the paper cone version, perhaps I made the wrong decision. Used between 500 and 2500 Hz, the PR170Z0s sound pretty good to me, but maybe I could do better with the PR170M0 or another mid. Any comments are welcome.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've heard both and chose the Aerogel version. Overall this version is better from 500 to 4kHz (at least measurement-wise). The real difference though stems from its interaction with the amplifier. If the amp has a low impeadance output the non-Aerogel version sounds better (i.e. its a bit "looser" sounding and needs the control afforded by the amp). Contrast this with the Aerogel version that sounds overdamped with a low impeadance output amp (i.e. "constrained" sounding). However when used with a high impeadance output amp (like a normal OTL), the driver really comes into its own (and extension below 500 Hz fills in a bit more as well because of the reaction with the impeadance of the driver near its fs).
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom