Member
Joined 2003
I had no intention of suggesting it for this budget speaker thread, only to convey the importance of proper filtering for a midrange driver. Bass creates a ton of modulated distortion products, even at very low excursions, and even in very nice drivers.
What we could ultimatly do is a sealed design with a driver having no more than Qts 0.45, going F6 40Hz (looking at the sims of that thread).
Make a port hole in the back removable baffle behind towards the middle but not rigth behind the magnet. Then easily people could choose between a removable vent and a cork if going sealed. Then choose a low tunning if vented. Impulse response/ group delay would be worse than sealed but allows a lower low end according the room.
But for the moment the SLS-12 is avaliable in Europe and US soon. Less expensive than the cheapest Faital. Lavocce have high Fs. Dayton low efficienty and expensive in Europe.
RNXL is 240 euros and more in US, That will be 700 euros for two loudspeakers but way more in US. Soout as already said.
The concept is to try to make a low cost good enough , sourcable parts almost everywhere. Taiwann Peereless and Indonesian SB Acoustics/Audience are winning for the spec/QP both in NorthAmerica, South Asia, Europe. Eminence and Lavocce are well distributes WW but have too much high Fs with their drivers.
Make a port hole in the back removable baffle behind towards the middle but not rigth behind the magnet. Then easily people could choose between a removable vent and a cork if going sealed. Then choose a low tunning if vented. Impulse response/ group delay would be worse than sealed but allows a lower low end according the room.
But for the moment the SLS-12 is avaliable in Europe and US soon. Less expensive than the cheapest Faital. Lavocce have high Fs. Dayton low efficienty and expensive in Europe.
RNXL is 240 euros and more in US, That will be 700 euros for two loudspeakers but way more in US. Soout as already said.
The concept is to try to make a low cost good enough , sourcable parts almost everywhere. Taiwann Peereless and Indonesian SB Acoustics/Audience are winning for the spec/QP both in NorthAmerica, South Asia, Europe. Eminence and Lavocce are well distributes WW but have too much high Fs with their drivers.
Last edited:
The 15M4624G is one of the best SS models under $100 and sounds very open, clean and dynamic. The issues is it needs to be crossed higher than most 5" mids due to little VC overhang (1.5 mm one way). You probably need closer to a 400 hz 2nd order HP or above 350 hz 4th order, assisted with mechanical rolloff. The steeper HP isn't that good in terms of group delay in the lower mids and will be noticeable with percussive instruments. Overall, the SS mid is really good in terms of upper mid FR, low distortion and a wider soundstage. It also has a phase plug which exposes the VC former for much better cooling in small sealed chambers than mids with sealed dust caps. The price is definitely high compared to other mids.
I have what I think is a good idea about fitting 2 or 3 designs into the same cabinet. Of course, since it is my idea, I think it is good but everyone else may think it is stupid 🙂 Once we pick a midrange and tweeter and start discussing cabinet construction, I'll share my idea.
Probably not a good choice for a group project if it is going away but that is a crazy low price!! It doesn't appear to be available in the US anymore.
Can you get it in the US for $50? (Or from Europe, shipped to the US, for $50?)
Edit: $62 ea for a pair shipped from Soundimports to the US. Not sure many Americans would go that route, but it is an option. For $62 is it better (significantly better?) than the SB12MNRX or 5FE120?
Edit: $62 ea for a pair shipped from Soundimports to the US. Not sure many Americans would go that route, but it is an option. For $62 is it better (significantly better?) than the SB12MNRX or 5FE120?
Last edited:
The Galaxy Audio S5N-8 is a nice driver as a mid. Quite efficient and widebanded without much of anything to complain about. It has a cloth surround and a good motor with a light paper cone. I've used these as dedicated mids in large 3 ways.
There's also the Mark Audio CHP90. A very nice fullrange that also can do mids very well. It sound very lively and has an open character with a wide soundstage just as a wide band. Would be great as a midrange crossed relatively low. They cost around 65 to $70.
Monacor msh 115 is an excellent midrange unit and really easy to filter. I have bought 1 pair 23 years ago.
Trying to broaden my mind here a little...Any knowledge of these...
- Eighteen Sound 5W430
- Mark Audio CHP-90
- HiVi M5N-B
- Is the Aurum Cantus AC-130F1 available in Europe?
@A4eaudio The MSH115 is better than the 5FE120 in the mids and close to the SB12MNRX2. In terms of a dedicated mid with a lower crossover capability, the SB12MNRX2 has them beat in the motor department with excursion capability. That won't matter as much in a smaller chamber, as the electrical limits take over.
My only apprehension with the CHP10 is the durability of the motor. I don't know what materials are used in the VC former and how the windings are glued. I'd have to look at one to be sure and test the temperature drop on the VC as given amplitudes and compare them with other similar drivers. Anything with an aluminum or nomex former will beat it in the case of it being unreinforced fiberglass. At least with SB I know they use a reinforced fiberglass VC former which holds up well. The cast aluminum basket helps alot with cooling a low excursion motor compared to stamped steel.
There are going to be a lot of options for drivers tossed around here. I strongly suggest people review how to read datasheets, as explained to us by @TMM here:
If you would like some pictures to help explain, I have summarized Tim's explanation here
Knowledge of these interpretation techniques aids in selecting high-performing drivers, without having to measure them yourself. Measuring is expensive, and unless you're willing to buy samples of everything and measure everything yourself, one needs to start learning how to interpret the datasheet.
If you would like some pictures to help explain, I have summarized Tim's explanation here
Knowledge of these interpretation techniques aids in selecting high-performing drivers, without having to measure them yourself. Measuring is expensive, and unless you're willing to buy samples of everything and measure everything yourself, one needs to start learning how to interpret the datasheet.
Last edited:
The 18 sound 5w430 is interesting.
About 60 eu. But with a sd of 90 and 6mm xmax. So completly différent driver than the SB.
Used on Atlantis lab at13 and at16 speakers.
Both TG and sb acoustics cross the 12mnrx at 600 and 680 respectively so quite higher than 300.
Edit: (Didn't saw you already proposes the 5w430 a4eaudio )
About 60 eu. But with a sd of 90 and 6mm xmax. So completly différent driver than the SB.
Used on Atlantis lab at13 and at16 speakers.
Both TG and sb acoustics cross the 12mnrx at 600 and 680 respectively so quite higher than 300.
Edit: (Didn't saw you already proposes the 5w430 a4eaudio )
I do think that is useful...I had seen when you had originally posted it and am glad you provided the link.
On the other hand, if you, profiguy, wolf, waxx and the many others contributors to the thread tell me they have HEARD with their own ears one of these drivers and really liked it and strongly recommend it, I barely care what a data sheet says. I have also tried to start with a list of drivers that are well regarded...so we aren't starting from scratch.
Next steps:
- Add more potential drivers if people offer suggestions
- Then eliminate all but a small number
- Then weigh the sound quality vs price and select a midrange
I would not think the M5N would be what you are looking for here. It has a double resonance breakup that might not be the easiest to subdue. I used it to 2.8k back in 2007 in my MN-14 build, but it took a 4th electrical to do it since I did not use notches. On the flip side, this speaker disappeared like no other I built at the time due to the tweeter having an inherent downward tilt I finale. I also find their midrange to be very resolving, but likely NOT the lowest distortion driver around.
The B model may be better, I don't know.
The B model may be better, I don't know.
@A4eaudio The issue of interpreting manufacturers data is mainly with FR curves and how to spot potential problems, but not be misled by the small stuff that may appear more severe.
As an example, comparing the NE149W and SB12MNRX2, the Peerless looks worse than the SB. That isn't close to the actual observed performance between these two drivers. Having heard them both, I can vouch for the NE149W being the better all around driver. Knowing where t interpret breakup modes pertaining to cone materials is important. Most 5" mids will have a first axial mode at 5 - 6 k, depending on how well the cone is dampened by the surround. The lower radial bell mode will be around 1k, again depending on the surround's capability to dampen the cone perimeter.
All the other little wiggles and bumps don't mean as much. The main things are the two breakup modes and their potential to raise lower odd order (3rd mode) HD in this area. Thats very offending to the ears and can't be practically tamed with passive filters.
Most metal cones are problematic as dedicated mids, mainly because they also generate side band distortion products which can confuse you if not familiar. Paper is just more forgiving and pleasant sounding, especially in budget applications. Woven glass fiber is also good. Poly is also nice, but only if its of a lighter weight. Seas and ScanSpeak make the better poly cone mids.
As an example, comparing the NE149W and SB12MNRX2, the Peerless looks worse than the SB. That isn't close to the actual observed performance between these two drivers. Having heard them both, I can vouch for the NE149W being the better all around driver. Knowing where t interpret breakup modes pertaining to cone materials is important. Most 5" mids will have a first axial mode at 5 - 6 k, depending on how well the cone is dampened by the surround. The lower radial bell mode will be around 1k, again depending on the surround's capability to dampen the cone perimeter.
All the other little wiggles and bumps don't mean as much. The main things are the two breakup modes and their potential to raise lower odd order (3rd mode) HD in this area. Thats very offending to the ears and can't be practically tamed with passive filters.
Most metal cones are problematic as dedicated mids, mainly because they also generate side band distortion products which can confuse you if not familiar. Paper is just more forgiving and pleasant sounding, especially in budget applications. Woven glass fiber is also good. Poly is also nice, but only if its of a lighter weight. Seas and ScanSpeak make the better poly cone mids.