midwoofer 5''

[olo111]

which 5'' woofer should I use for good small mini monitor?
1. peerless HDS 850488
2. peerless CSX 850108
3. dayton rs150

I would like to have clear mids, good bass (from small box)
and no-problem connect with SS9300 tweeter.

THX.

[5th element]

The HDS, ive never heard a bad word written, linkwitz also thinks this is one of the best 5" there is too.

[5th element]

I just had a look at the dayton. Now personally I have a preference for metal cones because they just produce clean clear sound. Polyies also produce nice sound too, but they seem to have just a "thing" about their sound which lets you know its not a metal cone.

However this is just personal preference, the HDS will be as easy as they come to design a crossover for and the dayton will be harder, not the hardest, but more work. Simply because it has that breakup all metal cones posses and will require filtering out with a notch.

The peerless is a safe bet, it will sound good. I dont know these daytons so would be inclined to go with the peerless, but the daytons are quite cheap, id purchase a pair just to try them out.

[bhg41088]

Im not sure in the difference between the HDS and CSX, but i have the Dayton RS 7" and the Peerless CSX 6", and the RS definantly sounds better to my ears. All opinion though.

[5th element]

That would be my educated guess. If the RS driver is made well with good provisions made for reducing distortion then it should sound better because the metal cone.

[ucla88]

I've not tested the peerless, but I have done the RS150. It's quite good. My guess it would perform with less distortion than the peerless on the low end. All 5"s do so-so as a stand alone mid/woofer though.

Mark K's Speaker Pages

It's buried in the midrange/midwoofer test data, even though I forgot to list it at the top.

[olo111]

thanks
the rs looks very good for me too, but
i have no experience with metal cone
would you describe the sound ?
does it not too detailed, metalic in mids?

olo

[dezzz]

I also prefer metal cones over poly... I haven't tried that many though!

And I think that it makes the sound a bit more lively, especially on guitar tracks. It just adds a bit of sparkle... Pj Harvey is just better when exposed from Metal cones. But I am sure you can find people that think the opposite, a matter of preference...

[tiroth]

The way I have I heard it explained before is

Poly: very smooth, but often a hair less detailed due to the intrinsic damping and/or lack of stiffness of the plastic. Generally easy to design xover

Metal / ceramic: Very detailed, sometimes harsh (but in a well-designed driver, harshness is often just a bad crossover implementation) Generally harder to design xover.

Paper: there are so many kinds of paper and coatings that the sound can be almost anywhere in between these extremes.

These are obviously broad generalizations and won't apply universally.

The RS drivers are supposed to be very nice, but I think it is best to have one of the following with metal cones: ready-made design, 3-way, or experienced designer. If you can get 90-100% of the sound with the HDS, that driver might be a lot easier depending on your skill.

[ERICSPEEd]

Originally posted by bhg41088
Im not sure in the difference between the HDS and CSX

Simply put the difference is the frame. Though they have different X-max and Fs. Same magnet, cone, SC ring, etc.

EDIT: oh ya, the CSC-X and the HDS use a "sandwich" poly cone to improve the rigidity of polypropylene.