I'm wanting to build a small two way to suit a bedroom 4 x 3.6m. Preferred midbass is the Usher 8945A, which may or may not be a bit too big for the size room (open to dropping to about5" if it will work better) and, for the tweeter, I was pretty much set on the Fountek Neo x 2 until coming across the Bohlender Graebener range, which seem to be able to be crossed over significantly lower.
Any comparisons between the two much appreciated, I value air, fluidity and all round musicality over clinical detail. In short, which is more fun and enjoyable to listen to? Very MOR oriented in my taste, with vocals, piano, small chamber, soft rock and ambience my normal go to genres. I like music to lead with the midrange, I'm absolutely not a bass freak.
Thanks
Any comparisons between the two much appreciated, I value air, fluidity and all round musicality over clinical detail. In short, which is more fun and enjoyable to listen to? Very MOR oriented in my taste, with vocals, piano, small chamber, soft rock and ambience my normal go to genres. I like music to lead with the midrange, I'm absolutely not a bass freak.
Thanks
The Bolender performs well, however the issue with these designs is a narrow dispersion pattern when compared to a much less wide ribbon like the Fountek neo2. In your small room this will likley not work as well as a much narrower driver,
Bolender claims "better" dispersion with the "PDR" version. How much better IDK but I suspect its not a huge difference.
Both will need to be crossed over above 2 Khz or so. The Fountek ribbon is less robust than the planer designs but the planers will have some issues with diaphragm resonances if you try to go low.
I have dissected the Fountek Neo 2 in my own research and development work. Its a straight forward design with a clever ribbon clamp and damper mechanism at the terminations. They claim they are using a "new" sandwich style ribbon. Somthing I myself am very familiar with as I am in development of my own sandwich designs. However I cannot verify that they are actually using a sandwich construction. I have looked closely at their ribbon under a scope and have cut it up BUT find no evidence that it is a sandwich construction. Its has all the mechanical properties of a "FO" (foil only) style ribbon AND as such will have the metalic artifacts in the sound that this type of ribbon does. Some people do not find this a problem and others seem to be more sensitive to it. The plastic backed Bolender diaphragm seems to display less of such character.
Bolender claims "better" dispersion with the "PDR" version. How much better IDK but I suspect its not a huge difference.
Both will need to be crossed over above 2 Khz or so. The Fountek ribbon is less robust than the planer designs but the planers will have some issues with diaphragm resonances if you try to go low.
I have dissected the Fountek Neo 2 in my own research and development work. Its a straight forward design with a clever ribbon clamp and damper mechanism at the terminations. They claim they are using a "new" sandwich style ribbon. Somthing I myself am very familiar with as I am in development of my own sandwich designs. However I cannot verify that they are actually using a sandwich construction. I have looked closely at their ribbon under a scope and have cut it up BUT find no evidence that it is a sandwich construction. Its has all the mechanical properties of a "FO" (foil only) style ribbon AND as such will have the metalic artifacts in the sound that this type of ribbon does. Some people do not find this a problem and others seem to be more sensitive to it. The plastic backed Bolender diaphragm seems to display less of such character.
Well I dont have experience with the Bolender directly, BUT I do have quite a bit of experience with similar designs (through my own prototype work), and as I said I have some experience with the Neo2 and many similar design of my own making.
In the end I suspect the Bolender will be easyer to get "right" as far as the qualities you speak of. Both units are good IMO but to my ears the simple foil ribbon as in the Neo2 tends to sound a bit edgy at times. I believe this is because of the undamped resonances at the higher frequencys that are a hallmark of many straight foil ribbons. Some claim that they like this sound and in my experience this type can often sound quite convincing on strings and piano at forst listen BUT over time I hear an edge that seems less than real. I think the qualities you are looking for may be better served by better damped diaphragm of the Bolender.
The only issue I see with the bolender is the radiating surface is much wider and so its high freq will beam a bit more and in small rooms where you cannot get far away AND if you are good at hearing above about 8khz then this may be an issue.
In the end I suspect the Bolender will be easyer to get "right" as far as the qualities you speak of. Both units are good IMO but to my ears the simple foil ribbon as in the Neo2 tends to sound a bit edgy at times. I believe this is because of the undamped resonances at the higher frequencys that are a hallmark of many straight foil ribbons. Some claim that they like this sound and in my experience this type can often sound quite convincing on strings and piano at forst listen BUT over time I hear an edge that seems less than real. I think the qualities you are looking for may be better served by better damped diaphragm of the Bolender.
The only issue I see with the bolender is the radiating surface is much wider and so its high freq will beam a bit more and in small rooms where you cannot get far away AND if you are good at hearing above about 8khz then this may be an issue.
Zaph performed a lot of measurements on the BG Neo-3PDR and the Fountek NeoCD-2.0 here. Not subjective but might be helpful.
Zaph|Audio
Zaph|Audio
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.