Audax PR170M0 vs PR170Z0 vs PHL1120

akunec · 8th May 2005, 02:50 AM

I will be using one of the above for my next active system and I was just wondering which one I should chose?

I like the Audax's for there higher efficiencies and lower prices but i like the PHL for its higher Xmax. But will the xmax really come into play when crossed over (4th order) at ~350hz? I also hear that the Audax 170M0 has foam that could rot over time. Is this true?

(it would also be alot easier to flush mount the Audax's round frame then the PHLs frame)

Also, when looking at the audax SPL/freq graphs, I don't understand how they rate the driver at 100dB. From the graphs, the average SPL seems to be in the 95dB range.

rick57 · 8th May 2005, 03:58 AM

> Grtare xmax useful at 350 Hz?

I doubt it

What is your upper cuttoof?

thylantyr · 8th May 2005, 04:03 AM

For an active system the sensitivity issue is minor.

Sound quality - it's hard to tell the 1120 and PR170M0 apart.

I haven't tried the 'Z' PR.

The PR17 is cheaper than 1120.

The 1120 has more xmax that you don't need if you cross it
over high and it has more power handling {rating}.

If you want to double your power handling you can try the
1160 but I think the sound quality is just a hair lower than 1120,
but you can abuse this one more.

akunec · 8th May 2005, 04:25 AM

Yeah, I see that the 1120 has a higher power rating, but the P17 being 3-4 dBs more efficient, should be louder. Is this right?

Magnetar · 8th May 2005, 04:54 PM

In my experiance a pair of PR170MO's a channel are kick ***. Crossing over at 350 with an active crossover will deliver serious clean lifelike output and dynamics.

planet10 · 11th May 2005, 08:51 PM

The paper cone PR17 is where i'd be. Yes the foam gaskets fail over time, even if hidden away in their original box for 20 years.

Fortunately it is a flat surround, so replacing it with felt or cloth is easy.

dave

ScottG · 11th May 2005, 09:49 PM

between the 2 audax's the MO is easier to work with. In particular the ZO can be considerably better than the MO -IF- it is being driven by an amplifier with a high output impeadance, otherwise it sounds a little "constricted" (sometimes a LOT more constricted). (btw, it also takes a LOT longer to break-in.)

IF you are worried about foam rot from the MO then consider a damping compound (to apply to the surround) that has UV protection. I think Lambda Acoustics used this stuff on their surrounds - so you might try contacting Nick to find out what the product is. (and I have NO idea what his website is now..)

Sheldon · 11th May 2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ScottG
IF you are worried about foam rot from the MO then consider a damping compound (to apply to the surround) that has UV protection. I think Lambda Acoustics used this stuff on their surrounds - so you might try contacting Nick to find out what the product is. (and I have NO idea what his website is now..)

http://www.stryke.com/ John J. bought Nick's remaining inventory so he might know.

thylantyr, still have a bunch of Apollo's? I'm looking for T/S specs.
sheldon

pinkmouse · 11th May 2005, 10:23 PM

Another vote for the PR170M0s. For what they cost, they are easily the best mid for high sensitivity applications.

8th May 2005, 02:50 AM	#1
akunec diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Alberta	Audax PR170M0 vs PR170Z0 vs PHL1120 I will be using one of the above for my next active system and I was just wondering which one I should chose? I like the Audax's for there higher efficiencies and lower prices but i like the PHL for its higher Xmax. But will the xmax really come into play when crossed over (4th order) at ~350hz? I also hear that the Audax 170M0 has foam that could rot over time. Is this true? (it would also be alot easier to flush mount the Audax's round frame then the PHLs frame) Also, when looking at the audax SPL/freq graphs, I don't understand how they rate the driver at 100dB. From the graphs, the average SPL seems to be in the 95dB range.

11th May 2005, 08:51 PM	#6
planet10 frugal-phile(tm) diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III Blog Entries: 4	The paper cone PR17 is where i'd be. Yes the foam gaskets fail over time, even if hidden away in their original box for 20 years. Fortunately it is a flat surround, so replacing it with felt or cloth is easy. dave __________________ community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi p10-hifi forum here at diyA

11th May 2005, 09:49 PM	#7
ScottG diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: US	between the 2 audax's the MO is easier to work with. In particular the ZO can be considerably better than the MO -IF- it is being driven by an amplifier with a high output impeadance, otherwise it sounds a little "constricted" (sometimes a LOT more constricted). (btw, it also takes a LOT longer to break-in.) IF you are worried about foam rot from the MO then consider a damping compound (to apply to the surround) that has UV protection. I think Lambda Acoustics used this stuff on their surrounds - so you might try contacting Nick to find out what the product is. (and I have NO idea what his website is now..) __________________ perspective is everything

11th May 2005, 10:23 PM	#9
pinkmouse diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Chatham, England	Another vote for the PR170M0s. For what they cost, they are easily the best mid for high sensitivity applications. __________________ Al I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while. Charles Fort

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

8th May 2005, 03:58 AM	#2
rick57 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: dry ol Melbourne Australia	> Grtare xmax useful at 350 Hz? I doubt it What is your upper cuttoof?

8th May 2005, 04:03 AM	#3
thylantyr diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Mars	For an active system the sensitivity issue is minor. Sound quality - it's hard to tell the 1120 and PR170M0 apart. I haven't tried the 'Z' PR. The PR17 is cheaper than 1120. The 1120 has more xmax that you don't need if you cross it over high and it has more power handling {rating}. If you want to double your power handling you can try the 1160 but I think the sound quality is just a hair lower than 1120, but you can abuse this one more.

8th May 2005, 04:25 AM	#4
akunec diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Alberta	Yeah, I see that the 1120 has a higher power rating, but the P17 being 3-4 dBs more efficient, should be louder. Is this right?

8th May 2005, 04:54 PM	#5
Magnetar Banned Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Portal 2012	In my experiance a pair of PR170MO's a channel are kick ***. Crossing over at 350 with an active crossover will deliver serious clean lifelike output and dynamics.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wtb Audax Pr170z0	ciccione	Swap Meet	1	9th September 2007 09:37 PM
Pair of Audax PR170Z0's for sale	mp006ltk	Swap Meet	1	15th November 2006 03:01 PM
Audax PR170M0 –100 dB or just *94 dB??	rick57	Multi-Way	39	14th May 2006 03:58 AM
Audax Pr170m0 And Pr300m0	RAYSIMMONS	Multi-Way	1	25th September 2002 02:42 PM
Audax pr170z0 question	woody	Multi-Way	2	22nd September 2002 11:20 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read