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.
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.
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.
Mark K's Speaker Pages
It's buried in the midrange/midwoofer test data, even though I forgot to list it at the top.
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...
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...
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.
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.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.