Embarking on a studio monitor project with a driver in this class as a mixing tool to check reference against small portable systems that most consumers use these days. So what say you? I know there’s lots of comparison threads here but at the end of the day, listening is very subjective and along those lines, looking for a driver with an open presentation, clarity and a flat upper mid/low treble response (think 1-10k)
These drivers were all tested, compared, and voted on previously in the “Subjective Blind” comparison threads:
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 3in to 5in Full Range Drivers
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 3in to 5in drivers - Round 2
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 4in drivers - Round 3
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 4in drivers - Round 4
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 3.5in drivers - Round 5
If memory serves me, from the above list it would be 10F/8424 / other / RS100 and FR88EX probably a tie.
What’s the “other”? B80 followed by TG9FD/TC9FD and also the Alpine Jeep OEM fullrange which doesn’t measure flat so might not fit your criteria.
Not a 3in but 2.5in SB65WBAC25-4 also did well, better than FR88EX or RS100. The SB65 probably has more top end than any other, and resembling a 1in dome tweeter in many areas but is low sensitivity at 83.5dB. However, most non pro audio woofers in the 88dB range are 84dB after baffle step loss so you don’t need to pad the SB65.
SB65WBAC25-4:
B80:
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 3in to 5in Full Range Drivers
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 3in to 5in drivers - Round 2
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 4in drivers - Round 3
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 4in drivers - Round 4
A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 3.5in drivers - Round 5
If memory serves me, from the above list it would be 10F/8424 / other / RS100 and FR88EX probably a tie.
What’s the “other”? B80 followed by TG9FD/TC9FD and also the Alpine Jeep OEM fullrange which doesn’t measure flat so might not fit your criteria.
Not a 3in but 2.5in SB65WBAC25-4 also did well, better than FR88EX or RS100. The SB65 probably has more top end than any other, and resembling a 1in dome tweeter in many areas but is low sensitivity at 83.5dB. However, most non pro audio woofers in the 88dB range are 84dB after baffle step loss so you don’t need to pad the SB65.
SB65WBAC25-4:
B80:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I very much like the new MA Pluvia 7PHD (P7PHD-paper cone; HD for high definition). It purposely rolls off the top octaves so it may not meet your needs. In listening tests; I did not notice the roll off being quite as severe as the OEM plots show however. It is more articulate, "musical" and accurate than any other 4 in. "wide-band" driver I have ever heard regardless of price. It seems to to everything very well; I have ZERO complaints with these.
My favorite driver is the Mark Audio Alpair 7.3eN or the A7 MAOP.
3” include the Fostex FF85wKeN, Alpair 5.2eN. The Faital 3F25 also shows potential, but i have not yet enabled mine.
X often brrandishes his well known Subjective Bind Comparisons but one has to remeber that what you listen to is convolved with a whole bunch of other things so one cannot tell what is the driver and what is the other stuff. You have to listen to any driver yourself. An example of that is the highly touted TC9 which i found to be a POS when i actually aquired and listened to them. So take his tests with a big grain of salt.
And what Matt says, to get a FR that does midTop well means a sacrifice in how low it will go and how loud it will play. this is where adding a high pass and either a subwoofer or (better) making a WAW can bring significant benefits if lous an dlow are requires. The 4” i have mentioned do have significantly better LF capability than any 3”, lowest bass will require a large enclosure.
dave
3” include the Fostex FF85wKeN, Alpair 5.2eN. The Faital 3F25 also shows potential, but i have not yet enabled mine.
X often brrandishes his well known Subjective Bind Comparisons but one has to remeber that what you listen to is convolved with a whole bunch of other things so one cannot tell what is the driver and what is the other stuff. You have to listen to any driver yourself. An example of that is the highly touted TC9 which i found to be a POS when i actually aquired and listened to them. So take his tests with a big grain of salt.
And what Matt says, to get a FR that does midTop well means a sacrifice in how low it will go and how loud it will play. this is where adding a high pass and either a subwoofer or (better) making a WAW can bring significant benefits if lous an dlow are requires. The 4” i have mentioned do have significantly better LF capability than any 3”, lowest bass will require a large enclosure.
dave
Thanks X.....and for all your subjective samples and testing. Yes, the SB is a nice driver....I have two waiting to be used at some point.......not enough power handling for my purposes though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Planet10,
Funny how you are the only person I have seen on DIYA who calls the exemplar (but inexpensive) TC9FD a POS.
Not brandishing anything - just putting the links there and people can listen for themselves. Sure there is a chain that produces the signal recorded. The important thing is the chain, and the recorder, room, tracks, amp, DAC, box etc are all the same except the DUT. So any differences heard are the driver.
Funny how you are the only person I have seen on DIYA who calls the exemplar (but inexpensive) TC9FD a POS.
Not brandishing anything - just putting the links there and people can listen for themselves. Sure there is a chain that produces the signal recorded. The important thing is the chain, and the recorder, room, tracks, amp, DAC, box etc are all the same except the DUT. So any differences heard are the driver.
I may be the only vocal & brave enuff one, but the same drivers i heard were auditioned by at least a dozen others who expressed the same sentiments. And a road trip to Vancouver so others could share them, and hopefully ended up coming back, were refitted with the MUCH better TG9 and successfully given away.
dave
Well if your normal preferences are “exciting” non-flat frequency response drivers, the flat TC9 might be considered not very interesting. But that’s exactly what works for being able to play all genres equally well. I don’t want to turn this into an OT TC9 do/don’t match as it wasn’t even on the choices list except maybe under “other”.
I know what I have heard and one of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard anywhere used 50 TC9’s and it’s in Holland at Wesayso’s house.
I know what I have heard and one of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard anywhere used 50 TC9’s and it’s in Holland at Wesayso’s house.
My thoughts are.. maybe the drivers suggested will not be appropriate for you. Most of those we suggest will sound much better than a boom box. And will not be representative of how a boom box sound. Point to what I say is this, having spent my teenage years in the 80s, I really enjoyed the pop music then. But it can never be played on a proper hifi system. It only works on poor sounding system. Everything becomes too exaggerated when played on a hifi set...
My 2 cents.
Oon
Let's remember that we are looking at drivers that will measure the flattest, as these are intended to be monitors for checking mixes.
So, any driver that offers a wild frequency ride, or falls short in the treble, shouldn't be suggested.
Well, that narrows it down to very few drivers, unless DSP is used to compensate.
There was no mention of dsp in the OP, so, depending on budget, the choices are mostly the 10F or B80 at the higher end of the budget, and the TC/TG9 towards the lower end.
I also really like the SB65, but it doesn't have the lush sound of the paper cones, which excel with voices.
But the SB65 is absolutely stunning with stringed and woodwind instruments.
So, any driver that offers a wild frequency ride, or falls short in the treble, shouldn't be suggested.
Well, that narrows it down to very few drivers, unless DSP is used to compensate.
There was no mention of dsp in the OP, so, depending on budget, the choices are mostly the 10F or B80 at the higher end of the budget, and the TC/TG9 towards the lower end.
I also really like the SB65, but it doesn't have the lush sound of the paper cones, which excel with voices.
But the SB65 is absolutely stunning with stringed and woodwind instruments.
I am always looking for flat response with a very high DDR, so that they are capable of not losing the very small bits of information. Something where the TC9 falls flat on its face.
dave
Sorry, but you are not.
You are looking for a driver that your ears will like, and judging by the drivers you like to share, it is not a flat response.
You are looking for drivers subjectively, because of your aversion to measurements. So, it's just as important to take your recommendation with a grain of salt, just as you take X's subjective listening tests in the same way.
In this case, the OP is looking at monitors for checking mixes, so it is not a place to be share subjectivity. It needs data to back up claims of what might work best.
When I see mentions of DDR in a thread, that just tells me that these people like some emphasis in the 3kHz to 8kHz region. So, certainly not flat.
I do not have an aversion to measurements, i just do not show any of mine, because the are so open to interpretation, and as Toole suggests if they are not done in an anechoic chamber they are questionable.
But i do also believe what Toole states:
To quote Floyd Toole:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
dave
But i do also believe what Toole states:
To quote Floyd Toole:
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
dave
I rest my case.
There are so many other quotes I could pick, I'll leave it at that.
Anechoic chamber measurements are good for companies developing drivers.... I do not know anyone who listens to music in one, though.
There are so many other quotes I could pick, I'll leave it at that.
Anechoic chamber measurements are good for companies developing drivers.... I do not know anyone who listens to music in one, though.
Note though, that a flat response isn't necessarily a good thing for any given baffle - and are looking for a flat response.
If you go pretty wide with the baffle (and a driver near center horizontally), then yes.
IF not then often you are looking for a driver with about a 2db dip between about *300 and 2.2 kHz: an area where the there is diffractive gain.
*and if you need it without baffle-step compensation, then you might need some substantive gain (above the average elevated treble) below 300-500 Hz.
DDR? 😕
TO MANY DAMN ABSURD ACRONYMS! 😡
I'm assuming this is a *"low-level detail"/clarity thing, particularly with regard to apparent reproduced space and notably depth.
This is largely a function of the surround acting on the diaphragm.
In this instance the enclosure (if any) plays a considerable part in the result, especially if the designer makes the mistake of putting "stuffing" near the driver's or on the walls of the cabinet's interior.
I've heard Fostex's Fe drivers produce some rather excellent results with no baffle or in a simple non-stuffed box with an "over-sized" volume. But start putting stuffing in the box and you loose it all.
Really what we are talking about here is often "linear" short-band oscillation, aka a "hashy" response. Of course if there isn't enough control then it goes to hell as soon as you increase the spl: imaging and everything else becomes "confused" or substantially less clear. My 166ESR does exactly that. The "hash" increases and it even changes up and down in freq..
So what's "good" in this respect, might also be bad depending on driver and spl..
*which is reasonably self-explanatory, unlike an acronym that few have heard of. 😉