Round 2 - Reveal
A = P830986
B = W4-1320SB
C = FF105WK
D = TG9FD
E = 10F/8424
F = AHE
G = A7.3
H = PA130-8
Frequency Response in FAST:
Frequency Response with 4ms gate at 1/48th oct avg and 10dB shift for clarity:
And Impulse Response for all:
A = P830986
B = W4-1320SB
C = FF105WK
D = TG9FD
E = 10F/8424
F = AHE
G = A7.3
H = PA130-8
Frequency Response in FAST:
Frequency Response with 4ms gate at 1/48th oct avg and 10dB shift for clarity:
And Impulse Response for all:
Attachments
It was close for me as well. In the end I chose the one that sounded best across a number of different systems I have set up around the house, but there were a number of different speakers that had qualities that I enjoyed. In the end I think it was the more even performance across the high frequencies (through my multiple systems) that was the deciding factor for me.
Wow, D and E are almost parallel lines and yet most people went with E. Interesting.
Last edited:
Almost twins, those two in frequency response. The flattest FR plus cleanest impulse won this round. It was my preference as well.
Still I think some influencing of the votes was happening due to the detailed responses of some of the voters. A and G went fast in the lead at first...
For me personally the sweetest midrange won me over to choose E. D was very close in character. No doubt these are close relatives, yet a tiny bit different.
I could hear the attraction of A, and less so in G. But that type of sound is not my thing. It does seem to sound more detailed, but is it really?
Too much for me.
Still I think some influencing of the votes was happening due to the detailed responses of some of the voters. A and G went fast in the lead at first...
For me personally the sweetest midrange won me over to choose E. D was very close in character. No doubt these are close relatives, yet a tiny bit different.
I could hear the attraction of A, and less so in G. But that type of sound is not my thing. It does seem to sound more detailed, but is it really?
Too much for me.
Last edited:
xrk971,
Beautifully presented documentation at post 161 and hard work put into it, the poll is over but that value data will stay forever and is a great tool for our hobby.
Great thanks thread and sharing it with us.
Beautifully presented documentation at post 161 and hard work put into it, the poll is over but that value data will stay forever and is a great tool for our hobby.
Great thanks thread and sharing it with us.
Yeah, I chose E as well, and am kind of thankful I voted early (before some of those detailed responses). The results are definitely interesting. I'm willing to bet that these drivers (especially the more budget priced D) will likely see a rise in sales!
D and E are very similar in midrange character (fibreglass) but E is obviously better. A is different (Aluminum) so when people prefer details, they will pick A (or G) and when they prefer cleanliness, non-fatiguing or whatever character it is, they will choose E and not D. So it is expected that D will not win, unless weighting system is used because those who choose A and E as #1 may choose D as #2.
It is detailed. Often at the price of fatiguing sound. Crossover skill and good ears are required to work with such drivers.
I will check what is H...
Awesome! Yes D and E have same frequency response so it will be interesting figuring why one was preferred and what manufacturing/build difference created the improvement?
I'm glad the TB1320 showed a recessed treble response because that's what I hear (and use a tweeter with this driver).
The PA130 also showed a recessed treble but subjectively, to me, has more treble than the TB1320. The peak at 5K must be influencing me. I also wonder if the PA130 was nixed because it came after a driver that measures very differently?
Fostex didn't fare too well but I always enjoy their produts - despite how inaccurate they measure. They are a 'love it or leave it' brand, IMO.
European designs seem to have done better than Asian.
Excellent thread all around! Thanks XRK!
I'm glad the TB1320 showed a recessed treble response because that's what I hear (and use a tweeter with this driver).
The PA130 also showed a recessed treble but subjectively, to me, has more treble than the TB1320. The peak at 5K must be influencing me. I also wonder if the PA130 was nixed because it came after a driver that measures very differently?
Fostex didn't fare too well but I always enjoy their produts - despite how inaccurate they measure. They are a 'love it or leave it' brand, IMO.
European designs seem to have done better than Asian.
Excellent thread all around! Thanks XRK!
Wow, H is paper cone Dayton... If that peak from 5kHz to 6kHz (which I believe is the source of the background noise) is removed with a notch filter, it will really sound good. Technically it will be the flattest after ScanSpeak and Vifa.
That's exactly what I do to get rid of that 5kHz bump - but it sounds quite good even with it there. My ears cannot hear above 16kHz which is why it works for me. If you want more high end recall that a -3dB high shelf baffle step was applied that can be removed. Of all these drivers, I think PA130-8 is most sensitive at 90dB - I had to pad it down to level match. Hoping people give it a try as it is budget priced at $18.
Though it received little love here, I actually liked H a lot and would have chosen it over A or G (both of which I think I would find fatiguing).
But is the detail real? Or does it bring out some upper harmonics and is that what some people like in them?
A driver like "E" seems more honest to the music to me. And it does sound good to my ears. The impulse and FR shows that honesty, as does it's CSD (can be checked in the Viva TC9 thread). I bet it will sound better with a variety of music genre's.
My top three was E, A, G... followed by D.
After more listening, found D a bit dull. G sounded to my ears detailed and easy to follow, but slightly high on treble... nearly voted for G... then listened again and again...
In the end chose E. Driver A was good too, but again also felt slightly sharp on treble... E seemed balanced across all three genres - hence voted for that driver.
Most likely that is the case. Especially for genres like rock and metal.
Jay made a point on the Alu cones having sharper treble - I dare guess for far field listening, that would not be entirely bad? 🙂
My bottom 4:
5. B
6. F
7. C
8. H
Thanks for the hard work XRK!
After more listening, found D a bit dull. G sounded to my ears detailed and easy to follow, but slightly high on treble... nearly voted for G... then listened again and again...
In the end chose E. Driver A was good too, but again also felt slightly sharp on treble... E seemed balanced across all three genres - hence voted for that driver.
Most likely that is the case. Especially for genres like rock and metal.
Jay made a point on the Alu cones having sharper treble - I dare guess for far field listening, that would not be entirely bad? 🙂
My bottom 4:
5. B
6. F
7. C
8. H
Thanks for the hard work XRK!
Last edited:
How can you accept that terrible background noise?? I think it is this noise that made nobody choose it. Without that noise I believe it will rank at least #2. It is tonally the most correct of all. The sensitivity made it very dynamic. The paper cone makes it less-fatiguing.
May be harmonics affect some people. But low mass, stiff but light weigh cone will really give the detail. Aluminum is the cheapest material having this properties. Above that you can find magnesium, fibreglass, ceramic, beryllium, diamond... etc.
There must be a disceranble difference due to something other than frequency response such as CSD that made E preferred over A. The 5x price difference is audible.
I'm surprised at the spread of opinions. OK there were a couple that stood out but, apart from one, each of them was liked best by someone.
My preference is still for B, having tried again with better headphones. I find the treble false on nearly all of the drivers and that slight roll off doesn't detract from the detail for me, just makes it better to listen to. So it was a paper cone and my comments about modern materials stand - for me🙂
It appears that there are many different opinions of what good sound is. I wonder where the argument about objective/subjective is in all this. Certainly my favourite wasn't amongst the best technically it seems.
My preference is still for B, having tried again with better headphones. I find the treble false on nearly all of the drivers and that slight roll off doesn't detract from the detail for me, just makes it better to listen to. So it was a paper cone and my comments about modern materials stand - for me🙂
It appears that there are many different opinions of what good sound is. I wonder where the argument about objective/subjective is in all this. Certainly my favourite wasn't amongst the best technically it seems.
As long as the by product is a ringing impulse it is not convincing me that the cone material is the reason for the detail that is heard.
At least with the 10F I'd know the detail I hear is actually in the music 😉.
The ringing will influence the sound. A test could be to low pass the aluminium coned speaker and listen for detail. Do the same on the 10F and compare.
Another option would be to tame the ringing with FIR filters. Flatten out FR at the same time. Is the level of detail still there after you remove the ringing in the impulse?
After all, that sort of quest started these threads 😀.
I'm just glad I got to confirm that I like flat response with clean impulse. That has been my goal with my own speakers.
PA130-8 is the surprise and in my listening test it did well in mistakenly i (seen afterwards when results revealed) thought i was listening to W4-1320SB and had it in a final round of three up against D and E where it though was punished ending third. Fair cheap at 18$ and 90dB sensitivity then handle the resonances by ones preferred method it could probably fill in a nice build.
That said TG18FD-08 comes in at cost 21$ and think as long and if its available would pick that one over PA130-8.
Regarding the poll result could we reasonable expect the camp of voters seeking signature TG9FD-08 and 10F/8424G00 stands for that if only one of them had been participating all the sum of the two's votes would then be 20 votes and a very clear winner.
For people seeking building information higher performance speaker build over round one and two winners here is good links to round one winner TC9FD and round two winner 10F/8424G00, both those builds would offer close to what is acheveable in minimum phase domain transient true response, but some costly 🙂.
TC9FD: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...o-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array.html.
10F/8424G00: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/273524-10f-8424-rs225-8-fast-ref-monitor.html.
Last edited: