hey guys
im opening a thread in the goal to ask for those who used the audax pr170mo and eventually moved on, which midrange driver you prefer and why?
Ive tried the PHL 1120 so far and i prefer the Audax.
cheers
im opening a thread in the goal to ask for those who used the audax pr170mo and eventually moved on, which midrange driver you prefer and why?
Ive tried the PHL 1120 so far and i prefer the Audax.
cheers
I used a JBL labled version and like it a lot. I like the 18 sound 6nds430 better. Though now I use a two way. I'd like to see some independent measurements of the pr170mo
For example I'd say you're right to ask about the crossover because how the breakup region is managed could explain some of the difference.
indeed, i should add to my original question that my crossover points on my mid driver is about 300hz and 1.6khz
It's OK to roll drivers looking for a sound, but I don't do it. I might say yes or no to some. I find we can control what goes toward the sound character so if drivers are capable of doing the job, we can make them work for the speaker, rather than make the speaker dependent on them.
Naturally, we can't do much about breakup so it has to be handled carefully. Normally this means cutting it out completely. One exception might be when crossing to a waveguide and you have to skirt the edge of the breakup region, so your choice of driver can be more critical.
However response variations in the pistonic region are more straightforward to deal with.
Naturally, we can't do much about breakup so it has to be handled carefully. Normally this means cutting it out completely. One exception might be when crossing to a waveguide and you have to skirt the edge of the breakup region, so your choice of driver can be more critical.
However response variations in the pistonic region are more straightforward to deal with.
Last edited:
I've used that audax mid many times. It does a few things very well but it has alot of breakup hash past 3k, plus it falls apart sonically when pushed hard. Add to this a tiny xmax which dictates a rather high crossover if it needs to play loud ie used in a 3 way with a compression driver. The only exception is when its used with a WG. That really wakes it up.
For me, the B&C 8PE21, 8PS21, 8NDL51 (midbass only), Eminence Beta 8A, Beta 6A and SB Acoustics 6MW150D are the ones I really like.
For me, the B&C 8PE21, 8PS21, 8NDL51 (midbass only), Eminence Beta 8A, Beta 6A and SB Acoustics 6MW150D are the ones I really like.
Attachments
First order calls for flater drivers to make the long overlapp easier and large bafle to put the bafle step below the mid to keep the filter simple. It is possible than the step above 1k hz with the phl driver is higher and looks like more to tge 17PR17Z0 than the MO which is smoother there. However not sure it can explain the less detailled sound of the Phl (your other post in the system description thread)
I disagree. Any response can be made flat with the right filter. What we need is a driver with well behaved breakup, and I'm not talking about the on-axis peak.
Maybe my language ? I meant 6 BUT filter ask flat spl response in the long overlapp of the filter to hqve a flat power response (on axis) . More exact (I mean if you do not want more passive parts to eq) ?
now i realize my op post was missing the context in which i use the audax driver
My system is a passive series 1st order crossover at 300hz and 1.5khz. I cross the audax to a horn loaded ribbon.
maybe details is not true.
the most evident aspect with using the phl and the audax, is just how musical the audax is. it will make any music, even stuff i dont like, super interesting.
maybe theres more to a driver then just its measurable behavior?
I think I used 600hz-3Khz for the 170 to a fostex horn and 400hz-2200 to a Wavecore dome for the 430. I sold off the 170s because foam was starting to look fragile.
sadly i dont think its efficient enough to integrate in my setup. at 500hz the driver seem to be more around 92db then 94db.
thx for the suggestion!
Could be one of the answer, as all the other parameters. It seems not to be a drop in replacement but maybe for the low end if TS parameters are very close. You can try smooth manual massage to break in the spider but I would not risk it due to the low 1,5 mm xmax... The more reasonable seems to conclude they are different beasts, so resell the Audax.
I prefer the audax over the phl, i think you have misread lol
both pairs are used so break in is not in play!
thx !