If you could take your room out of the recordings, then I could get a much better idea of what the drivers will sound like in my room. Also a much larger baffle would be helpful. A 3'x5' baffle should be doable. Even a full sheet of foam core would be better that the tiny baffle you used. Even a full sheet of foam core would be better. I realize that sub support would be required given the size of the drivers under test. You should be able to mount your sub on the same baffle.
Bob
Bob
Every music recording that involves a microphone will be affected by the room. It appears many here do not record music and assume music recordings are not influenced and, at times endorsed by the room.
Please don’t bend over backwards and try to please everyone for if someone really wants to know how a speaker will sound in their home they will buy the speaker. PartsExpress offers a refund policy so there is really need for you to go through hoops for the few that are complaining about your tests.
I actually compared a 24" x 36" OB (bigger than a full sheet of FC at 20" x 30") with the trapezoidal baffle and Nautaloss rear chamber and got a small difference. If you recall this data set from the other thread:
This gave me more confidence that the setup is close to being almost as neutral as a moderately sized OB. So short story is, I don't think it will make much of a difference above 225Hz which is where the different drivers were compared using a FAST system.
Hi X, is the 12.7cm on that chart the measurement distance? If so I would think it is still in the nearfield so the baffle would not be having much of an effect. If you can, try the same measurement again at a distance of about 60cm and then compare. I would be surprised if they are so close.
Tony.
Tony.
I just think some of us are still having the picture of your untreated man cave with white naked walls in mind when we picture your listening room. Things might have changed?
No doubt if you have to choose then a recording with room is preferable but if you use fewer drivers next time maybe a recording with a rolled up tube of some kind between the mic and driver could be included? And maybe also a new pic of the environment to get an idea of what kind of room it is?
Update for round 2 of the driver Comparo.
I am still waiting for the B80's to arrive. Order was delayed due to damage of goods en route and had to be re-ordered.
Another generous member got me some Peerless 830986 3in drivers with Nd magnets.
I still have not received the Tang Band bamboos from Godzilla... ?
I have on hand: 10F/8424G00, TG9FD10-8, FF105WK
Next round will use new sound clips so that a few of the drivers from Round 1 can be included without prejudice.
I will record 45 second clips at 320kbits possibly AAC encoding at 48kHz. Raw data will be 96kHz 32bit wav files. In any case, expect a significant step up in SQ from 192kbit mp3.
I will provide the reference source clips from the beginning.
No sound damping or room treatments will be applied to my room.
I may try a simple sealed bass unit to improve dynamics and time alignment.
I am still waiting for the B80's to arrive. Order was delayed due to damage of goods en route and had to be re-ordered.
Another generous member got me some Peerless 830986 3in drivers with Nd magnets.
I still have not received the Tang Band bamboos from Godzilla... ?
I have on hand: 10F/8424G00, TG9FD10-8, FF105WK
Next round will use new sound clips so that a few of the drivers from Round 1 can be included without prejudice.
I will record 45 second clips at 320kbits possibly AAC encoding at 48kHz. Raw data will be 96kHz 32bit wav files. In any case, expect a significant step up in SQ from 192kbit mp3.
I will provide the reference source clips from the beginning.
No sound damping or room treatments will be applied to my room.
I may try a simple sealed bass unit to improve dynamics and time alignment.
Last edited:
SS 10f question
I see on the madisound site, two different 10F units.
The 10F8414 for $65 and the 10F8424 at $95 (also the 4 ohm version10F4424)
They don't seem all that different on the specs unless I missed something.
Anybody know what the difference is, or has experience with either?
I see on the madisound site, two different 10F units.
The 10F8414 for $65 and the 10F8424 at $95 (also the 4 ohm version10F4424)
They don't seem all that different on the specs unless I missed something.
Anybody know what the difference is, or has experience with either?
It looks like a different magnet is used.
10F 8414 seems to perform quite well though:
5F8422T01-10F8414G10
10F 8414 seems to perform quite well though:
5F8422T01-10F8414G10
Attachments
I was wondering the same thing about the 10F siblings. Just how much different and how much the same they are. The kind of financial freedom to buy everything I'm curious about would be nice.
First picture simulation high pass function in sealed Q0,7 box T/S spec from datasheet and added info for sensitivity and max thermal power.
Second picture from manufacture measured real acoustic response.
Should give some overview, example wan't finesse in a FAST (relative low XO point) pick 8424 it's the smoothest one and has the middle score in bass extension of the three, want highest sensitivity in a 2 way at higher XO point (higher XO point than FAST) pick 4424 it's the weakest in bass extension, want a full ranger no bass helper pick 8414 it has lowest bass extension but loose some sensitivity and max power.
Second picture from manufacture measured real acoustic response.
Should give some overview, example wan't finesse in a FAST (relative low XO point) pick 8424 it's the smoothest one and has the middle score in bass extension of the three, want highest sensitivity in a 2 way at higher XO point (higher XO point than FAST) pick 4424 it's the weakest in bass extension, want a full ranger no bass helper pick 8414 it has lowest bass extension but loose some sensitivity and max power.
Attachments
Last edited:
One thing I noticed in the distortion graphs of the 10F 8414: distortion seems to be about 35 dB down.
The 10F 8424 X measured did way better? Between 40 to 50 dB down trough the midrange?
The 10F 8424 X measured did way better? Between 40 to 50 dB down trough the midrange?
Last edited:
The 8424 has Qts of 0.37 and 8414 has Qts of 0.51 - very different alignments that they can be used for.
Last edited:
...Look forward round 2......
One thing I noticed in the distortion graphs of the 10F 8414: distortion seems to be about 35 dB down.
The 10F 8424 X measured did way better? Between 40 to 50 dB down trough the midrange?
my measurement was at 0.5m and -6dB down from 2.83v of 0.707v. I would go with measured HD from Klang and Ton, etc. I can also measure the HD at 1m and 2.83v at another time. It was just a tad better than TC9FD as I recall.
Is that -60dB HD at 85dB above 1kHz and about -50dB above 300Hz? Yes that is pretty impressive. I still haven't figured out what to use this driver for - maybe a DCR? As HiFi probably best in a FAST bookshelf with a high quality 6.5in to 8in woofer in a sealed box, XO at 400Hz.
Last edited:
No its -40dB down at 300 hz and reaching -50dB above 1k with one watt applied. Pretty good
Last edited:
This 10F/8424 does look special. I don't know of another 3.5in driver with Qts of 0.37 and 2.5mm xmax and 87dB sensitivity. Top it off with ultra low HD.
I may have to start with a blank slate and design a new box for it to utilize the lower Qts. Maybe a BLH or TCR? TCR = triple chamber reflex. 🙂
I may have to start with a blank slate and design a new box for it to utilize the lower Qts. Maybe a BLH or TCR? TCR = triple chamber reflex. 🙂
>>> I still have not received the Tang Band bamboos from Godzilla... ?
In a box behind my desk at work. I'll try to get this into the mail before end of week.
Sorry.
In a box behind my desk at work. I'll try to get this into the mail before end of week.
Sorry.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.