Hello, I was thinking of buying a definitive horn. I am hesitating between a yamamoto ss-300 or a GH 301BR from GT SOUND.
How do you know both horns. In your opinion, do you think there is any difference between the two?
Any information will be very useful
thanks in advance
That is one beautiful on-axis response. Have you listened to these? Any comparisons to other highly recommended compression drivers such as the beyma cd755df?
They are both top notch, and very similar in terms of design.
I've heard the GT Sound in Japan and I use the Yamamoto in my own system.
You can't go wrong with either.
In Europe you have access to this, pretty interesting and not so expensive
http://www.alg-audiodesign.com/portfolio-items/arai-a-480-dm/
http://www.alg-audiodesign.com/portfolio-items/arai-a-480-dm/
I was thinking about changing my current horn (BD Orphean Horn with modified 4592nd bms) to go from 3 to 2 way. To comfortably cover above 500 Hz, I had thought about gsu-d04r. That's why I had thought that a gh-301br from the same company would be a good combination, but the only driver measurement I could find (the old sup-t11g) was with a Yamamoto ss-300 horn. I was asking to see if I could get some more information. But thanks for the information about alg.
Greetings
Greetings
That's one of the very best drivers out there, bar none. And you're right in your assumption that using it with the GT Sound horn would be the safest bet.
You'll have to do your own measurements anyway.
Are you using these with the EV 9040s?? I grabbed a pair of these horns and PMd you asking for any info you had. Thanks!
the Be is too expensive for me , i had the N version of the _18sound NDS3 before and it was to polite in the highs needing a lot of correction . thanks for the add
I'd be very interested in your comments on these drivers and how they were reviewed here
https://audioxpress.com/article/the-745neobe-compression-driver-from-radian-audio
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/18sound-nd1480be-beryllium-1-40-compression-driver-test-review
Properly EQed, would you suspect their performance to be nearly identical?
If not, how would they differ, and by how much?
I love the BC DE900, a 1,4" exit driver with a 3" (75mm) titanium diaphragm on mylar suspension.
I've tried quite a few drivers to cover the range I needed, i.e. 2kHz-18+Khz, either 1", 1,4" or 2" (including with aftermarket Be diaphragms).
Bought mine on the basis of a comparison of datasheets from trustworthy producers and in the light of the then excellent feedback and reviews of some BC drivers such as the DE250.
Found mine NOS as the DE900 was already out of regular production but it seems still available these days, also as OEM for the sound business.
Reasons:
Summing up: a great sounding, civilised universal driver that could be your last one.
I've tried quite a few drivers to cover the range I needed, i.e. 2kHz-18+Khz, either 1", 1,4" or 2" (including with aftermarket Be diaphragms).
Bought mine on the basis of a comparison of datasheets from trustworthy producers and in the light of the then excellent feedback and reviews of some BC drivers such as the DE250.
Found mine NOS as the DE900 was already out of regular production but it seems still available these days, also as OEM for the sound business.
Reasons:
- I found the 1" drivers with small diaphragms lacking HF impact and realism compared to 2" drivers with 100mm diaphragms - this was always obvious to my ears on well recorded percussion and wind instruments - but the latter would always miss the extra UHF energy. Granted: I haven't tried TAD and the like. A 75mm diaphragm turned out to be the right compromise, with the same energy and giving the same realism as a 100mm diaphragm but with possibilities also of UHF energy and extension [yes: I can still hear at my age even the signals from electronic animal repellents which are meant to be ultrasonic]
- the DE900 has a copper shorting ring as on the better and advanced drivers and goes pretty far into the UHF area for its size ; it has even an extra UHF boost which one can use or not with the appropriate fast or slow expansion / high or low directivity horn and horizontal speaker orientation in the room.
- to my ears it sounds smooth (possibly a benefit of the mylar suspension ?), yet with a high resolution and rich timbres, and it generates no "funny" saturations on certain peaking difficult opera voices at higher volume
- its frequency response is quite flat on the right horn - at the moment I use a bms 2230 which seems extremely flat despite the broad dispersion (90x50) and the strange slightly angular shape mid-way in the horn
- its extended bandwidth makes it quite universal as it can be crossed over to the mid system at lower or higher frequencies depending on the evolution of the system, taste, needs, cut-off frequency of the horn; I've tried it also on small, circular short horns for car audio from the brand Timpano and it makes a fantastic "tweeter" at higher cross-over frequencies
- I find its a viable option in a larger LS system that would have been classically run 4 ways in the past - I try to stick to 3 ways despite the large JBL 2490-2392 combo for the mids
Summing up: a great sounding, civilised universal driver that could be your last one.
@elac310
I'm glad that you mentioned this driver ( I'm also assuming you're talking about the original de900 since you did mention the mylar surround and this model being out of common production ).
Here's a two horn study ( for those interested in some relative levels ) with Blue being the driver on a JBL "Paragon" elliptical-horn and Red being the same driver on an Emilar EH500 radial.
- Ignore my stated levels ( since I usually strive to bump-up my "measured 80db something levels", to manufacturers specified levels, for crossover work )
Traces were made on the same day ( though in retrospect there's a 1" difference in depth ) at @ 1/2 meter, on-axis, indoors within a very cluttered environment.
- I've never "heard" the pretty obvious ( on paper ) HF - UHF breakups up top ( though my hearing above 12K is MIA ).
- FWIW, any time that I've listened to this driver I never thought that I was listening to the "dreaded" titanium sound ( which I suppose is a bit of a back-wards compliment ).
EarlK
I'm glad that you mentioned this driver ( I'm also assuming you're talking about the original de900 since you did mention the mylar surround and this model being out of common production ).
Here's a two horn study ( for those interested in some relative levels ) with Blue being the driver on a JBL "Paragon" elliptical-horn and Red being the same driver on an Emilar EH500 radial.
- Ignore my stated levels ( since I usually strive to bump-up my "measured 80db something levels", to manufacturers specified levels, for crossover work )
Traces were made on the same day ( though in retrospect there's a 1" difference in depth ) at @ 1/2 meter, on-axis, indoors within a very cluttered environment.
- One can see just what the narrower 60x30deg pattern ( of the H5038 ) does for bumping up the level when compared to the wider pattern ( 90x40deg ) of the EH500.
- The 1.4" to 2" adapter used was an Eminence HA14-2 .
- I've never "heard" the pretty obvious ( on paper ) HF - UHF breakups up top ( though my hearing above 12K is MIA ).
- FWIW, any time that I've listened to this driver I never thought that I was listening to the "dreaded" titanium sound ( which I suppose is a bit of a back-wards compliment ).
EarlK
Last edited:
Compared how?
None of them have the same exit angles, throats, falre rate etc.
So none of them will really fit the same horn/waveguide, and give optimal results for more then one of the drivers at best.
EQ can't really fix reflections, diffraction, HOM's etc.
As for the drop in top end and needing correction, that is the price you pay for poistonic action through bandwidth, heavier diaphragms etc.
Most of the older type compression drivers in some form use resonances to extend the response.
Go look at JBL's fx, the older generation 24xx drivers with diamond surrounds to take advantage of spurious resonances and the coherent wave phasing plug.
While the 2435 with be diaphragm, have a different phase plug geometry, no diamond surround, ductile BE diaphragm from foil etc.
Designed to deliver a clean pistonic output up to 15khz. Sacrificing the output 15-20k to deliver a cleaner output in the designed range. Similar to the 045's and followind Douglas Buttons philosophy in design.
They are also designed to take minimal space for array use, similar to a lot of the newer drivers
Forgot the atrachment. Describing the 2435h design and drawing.
As for peoples preference, a lot seem to love the pronounced resonances, and corresponding horrendous decay, in the top octave of some compression drivers.
Some of the simplest forms of distortion that exists.
as explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/x9NAVlwvLro?si=Q4-g8YDifNVddrCV
As for peoples preference, a lot seem to love the pronounced resonances, and corresponding horrendous decay, in the top octave of some compression drivers.
Some of the simplest forms of distortion that exists.
as explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/x9NAVlwvLro?si=Q4-g8YDifNVddrCV
With careful searching Zilch did some comparisons between several drivers with the 2435 and 2431 being two of those tested. For those on a budget, the 2431compared favorably to the 2435. From my basic measurements the 2431 breaks up downward. IMO that's plus.
A 3" 1.4" driver does bring dynamics to the party but with some compromise above 10khz. Compared to my favorite domes, I don't notice that compromise but do notice the dynamics.
Yes i am aware. Those two drivers are pretty much identical except from diaphragms though.
They do not fit the same JBL waveguides/horns as the 2450/51/52/53 due to the differences in diaphragm design and phase plug, deeper backchambers on older drivers etc., not counting 3" vs 4" even.
So even that comparsion is ?