For now, we will take cost and efficiency aside. I was so impressed with the results of my PA using the Faital 3fe25 line array that "we" built that I am now thinking that line arrays are most likely one of the best options for hifi as well. Thinking of 18 drivers per side. I am thinking there must be some superb units out there if I don't necessarily have super efficiency an absolute imperative as I did for my line array-ish PA. What do you guys suggest? Still the TC9 varieties or is there a "new kid" on the block? Thanks!
That's what I read, too - but this price still was a bit shocking 🙂 Especially if you think line array...
My favorite 2-4” driver the Mark Audio Alpair 7.3eN has too big a bezel to make a good array, althou the similarily voiced Pluvia 7 might do (there is a P7 semi-array thread here).
I have the TC9 and was very dissapointed with the sound, the TG9 was much better. But not the best 3” around. The SS 10F mentioned, besides being pricey, is better considered a midrange, very smooth but limited at top and bottom. There is a cheaper one that is closer to a true FR and it n=might do (still pricey). For 3” we like the Mark Audio Alpair 5.2 (but again big bezel gets in the way) and the Fostex FF85wk.
dave
I have the TC9 and was very dissapointed with the sound, the TG9 was much better. But not the best 3” around. The SS 10F mentioned, besides being pricey, is better considered a midrange, very smooth but limited at top and bottom. There is a cheaper one that is closer to a true FR and it n=might do (still pricey). For 3” we like the Mark Audio Alpair 5.2 (but again big bezel gets in the way) and the Fostex FF85wk.
dave
Sure you were disappointed with the TC9. I would be too if I were running it by itself. But it's a clean driver without a ringing top end that makes it interesting.
I am not looking for a driver with character for array duty. I want a clean driver. The top end of the TC9, without work, is not what I would want. That's where the 10F is better controlled (and even the TG9). But it's even throughout a 30 degree angle and it's non ringing top end makes it a top contender for array duty.
You can't fix a ringing driver in an array. Look at the waterfall plots.
I am not looking for a driver with character for array duty. I want a clean driver. The top end of the TC9, without work, is not what I would want. That's where the 10F is better controlled (and even the TG9). But it's even throughout a 30 degree angle and it's non ringing top end makes it a top contender for array duty.
You can't fix a ringing driver in an array. Look at the waterfall plots.
The Faital 3fe22. The 3fe25 has a sag in the frequency response below 1KHz, whereas the 3fe22-8 is flat until the dimple at about 400Hz... The treble hump at about 10KHz is also less...
Oon
+1 for the Pluvia 7.
I'm a fanboy because after hearing a FE103en in a BK-12m folded horn kit and then trying a NE123W, I tried the P7's. I was blown away at the midrange transparency and the clear highs. After the NE123W test, I'm not a fan of paper cone FR drivers, just me, I hear what compares to AM radio.
What also has me intrigued are the MA Alpair 5.2 3" drivers. There is no spider as most drivers have for the rear suspension.
Alas, there are no off axis plots of the FR drivers from MarkAudio but I can say from experience the P7's are excellent all the way to 90degrees.
I'm a fanboy because after hearing a FE103en in a BK-12m folded horn kit and then trying a NE123W, I tried the P7's. I was blown away at the midrange transparency and the clear highs. After the NE123W test, I'm not a fan of paper cone FR drivers, just me, I hear what compares to AM radio.
What also has me intrigued are the MA Alpair 5.2 3" drivers. There is no spider as most drivers have for the rear suspension.
Alas, there are no off axis plots of the FR drivers from MarkAudio but I can say from experience the P7's are excellent all the way to 90degrees.
Last edited:
Yeah, the A5.2 is a very intriguing piece, certainly a candidate for mid-tweet in a two-way, or whatever scottjoplin is calling a FAST these days.
Both here at diyFEST and at a show Scott helped out in Cheshire, the A5.2 had jaws dropping when they heard the bass passages. As a midTweet it should be a killer, next revision of Tysen V2 has one.
dave
dave
How does the Alpair 5.2 compare to the Alpair 7.3? Since the former has no spider, are there any advantages (or disadvantages) to this in real time conditions?
Could the Alpair 5.2 be better when it comes to a FAST setup (high-pass XO at 200+)?
Could the Alpair 5.2 be better when it comes to a FAST setup (high-pass XO at 200+)?
We have yet to directly compare A7.3 to A5.2, but they came from the same mind. As a midTweeter it has potential that should give it some advantages over the A7.3. The one limit likely how loudly they could be played. In a FAST XO would probably need to be higher than 200. I expect we will start at 240 Hz with the PLLXO, if we can get Araon to do a passive, who knows where he will put it… he set the XO with the FF85wKeN at ~450 Hz.
dave
dave
We are painting our own curves with these arrays. Way different to sticking a driver in a suitable enclosure.
I know a lot of people don't believe in measurements and their relation to what we hear, but if you look at the right plots they actually can predict a lot of parts of the outcome.
A microphone won't measure what we hear, as what we hear is influenced by a few different factors. The most important part of that being our brain.
However these plots each can tell us something of the potential of a driver.
When building an array you can't just take any driver and assume it will work. It isn't comparable to sticking a driver in a suitable, well calculated enclosure.
Basically we are creating a new driver, one that is the uneven sum of the driver used and needs DSP help to be even close to listenable. No way around that. But we get to "paint" the FR curve we like. This will be an odd concept for a lot of people on this side of the forum. Lot's of people will try to tell us it's impossible or just plain wrong. It's just a different route.
A driver can be magical by itself, but learning why would be way more interesting. If a driver makes up for some of stereo's inherited flaws it will sound better than one with a (even slightly) different FR curve.
If we look at XRK's subjective tests we can learn a few things. Overall the flattest measuring driver won most of these tests. But there were quite a few people that chose drivers with a top end bump in FR as their personal favorite. So personal taste is a factor we cannot deny either.
So anyone that likes to build a full range line array has to make sure this concept fits his or her believes that we can paint our own preferred curves. The FR curve can be tailored to personal needs or taste. That's what I did, tailoring it to my own preferred sound. The similarities to research by Harman on preferred FR curves were stunning though. After months of tweaking I ended up with a curve that matched their "trained listeners" curve. Still I deviate from that in detail with mid/side EQ.
Like I said before, I wouldn't start with a driver with a ringing top end. I'm not pointing at specific drivers here, it's just a fair warning not to use it for an array. Because one cannot fix that sort of behavior with any sort of DSP. However such a driver with that ringing top end just may win a lot of votes when listened to. I pay more attention to drivers that are called boring in this part of the forum. That's a queue for me to look up the specs and graphs. Such a description just may point us to a non ringing driver that has the potential to work very well in a DSP solution. They probably will be less popular in side by side tests done in stereo.
This does not mean I don't "get" what people hear in these magical drivers. But learning what is so magical about them is way more interesting to me than buying them in quantities for an array.
I don't listen to a straight FR curve, even though I do have that choice. A few tweaks here and there will bring lots more magic out, so why not use that. As I'm using DSP I can even go a bit further and tweak the "side" info a little different from the "phantom center". Even more magic! Does this work? For me it does. To each his own...
If I would do it again I would pick the same driver (TC9) or it's sibling the TG9. The 10F that was mentioned is a great driver, but with its closed spider construction I don't think it can do what the TC9/TG9 can at the bottom end.
There are other 10F variants, though their measurements differ in details from the 10F/8424G. The ones that get the label "Full Range" do have an open spider.
Edit: before I forget: pick a driver you can listen to for days as you will get it back on steroids. And make sure it has plenty of x-max if you want to use it as a full range array. The TC9 has about 2.6 mm linear travel, making the volume displacement of one 25 driver array similar to a 12" Scan Speak SLS.
It's x-mech is much higher than that, they don't break easily. Each array can handle about 240 watt if the gain structure is right. They do need power. Personally I use a 100 watt amp and I'm likely to clip the amp before reaching the limits of the drivers. Though clipping amps can lead to broken drivers if you're not careful. The rest of the chain needs to be able to handle the needed boost, meaning at least a proper 24 bit DAC.
I prefer using FIR processing, though there are people being happy with IIR EQ too. When using FIR I'd recommend having lots of tabs available. This is why I still use a PC workstation for that. Work with the room to get the best results (I.M.H.O.).
I know a lot of people don't believe in measurements and their relation to what we hear, but if you look at the right plots they actually can predict a lot of parts of the outcome.
A microphone won't measure what we hear, as what we hear is influenced by a few different factors. The most important part of that being our brain.
However these plots each can tell us something of the potential of a driver.
When building an array you can't just take any driver and assume it will work. It isn't comparable to sticking a driver in a suitable, well calculated enclosure.
Basically we are creating a new driver, one that is the uneven sum of the driver used and needs DSP help to be even close to listenable. No way around that. But we get to "paint" the FR curve we like. This will be an odd concept for a lot of people on this side of the forum. Lot's of people will try to tell us it's impossible or just plain wrong. It's just a different route.
A driver can be magical by itself, but learning why would be way more interesting. If a driver makes up for some of stereo's inherited flaws it will sound better than one with a (even slightly) different FR curve.
If we look at XRK's subjective tests we can learn a few things. Overall the flattest measuring driver won most of these tests. But there were quite a few people that chose drivers with a top end bump in FR as their personal favorite. So personal taste is a factor we cannot deny either.
So anyone that likes to build a full range line array has to make sure this concept fits his or her believes that we can paint our own preferred curves. The FR curve can be tailored to personal needs or taste. That's what I did, tailoring it to my own preferred sound. The similarities to research by Harman on preferred FR curves were stunning though. After months of tweaking I ended up with a curve that matched their "trained listeners" curve. Still I deviate from that in detail with mid/side EQ.
Like I said before, I wouldn't start with a driver with a ringing top end. I'm not pointing at specific drivers here, it's just a fair warning not to use it for an array. Because one cannot fix that sort of behavior with any sort of DSP. However such a driver with that ringing top end just may win a lot of votes when listened to. I pay more attention to drivers that are called boring in this part of the forum. That's a queue for me to look up the specs and graphs. Such a description just may point us to a non ringing driver that has the potential to work very well in a DSP solution. They probably will be less popular in side by side tests done in stereo.
This does not mean I don't "get" what people hear in these magical drivers. But learning what is so magical about them is way more interesting to me than buying them in quantities for an array.
I don't listen to a straight FR curve, even though I do have that choice. A few tweaks here and there will bring lots more magic out, so why not use that. As I'm using DSP I can even go a bit further and tweak the "side" info a little different from the "phantom center". Even more magic! Does this work? For me it does. To each his own...
If I would do it again I would pick the same driver (TC9) or it's sibling the TG9. The 10F that was mentioned is a great driver, but with its closed spider construction I don't think it can do what the TC9/TG9 can at the bottom end.
There are other 10F variants, though their measurements differ in details from the 10F/8424G. The ones that get the label "Full Range" do have an open spider.
Edit: before I forget: pick a driver you can listen to for days as you will get it back on steroids. And make sure it has plenty of x-max if you want to use it as a full range array. The TC9 has about 2.6 mm linear travel, making the volume displacement of one 25 driver array similar to a 12" Scan Speak SLS.
It's x-mech is much higher than that, they don't break easily. Each array can handle about 240 watt if the gain structure is right. They do need power. Personally I use a 100 watt amp and I'm likely to clip the amp before reaching the limits of the drivers. Though clipping amps can lead to broken drivers if you're not careful. The rest of the chain needs to be able to handle the needed boost, meaning at least a proper 24 bit DAC.
I prefer using FIR processing, though there are people being happy with IIR EQ too. When using FIR I'd recommend having lots of tabs available. This is why I still use a PC workstation for that. Work with the room to get the best results (I.M.H.O.).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.