Yup, just like B&O used in their 3way bookshelfs.
Back to regularly scheduled program. Another fine midrange, highly recommended by John Krutke, is this tiny 4" woofer. Yes, they call it woofer. I used it in my short line array long time ago. Its still available, very cheap, yet with very low distortion. Being metal cone, it has breakups, but they are high, easy to filter out. Highly recommended mid.
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-RS125-8-5-Reference-Woofer-295-353
Back to regularly scheduled program. Another fine midrange, highly recommended by John Krutke, is this tiny 4" woofer. Yes, they call it woofer. I used it in my short line array long time ago. Its still available, very cheap, yet with very low distortion. Being metal cone, it has breakups, but they are high, easy to filter out. Highly recommended mid.
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-RS125-8-5-Reference-Woofer-295-353
Attachments
I didn't plan on getting into the details of my build in this channel but one of the features I am going for is using less XO components. Second order only. I want the system to blend more.
I do understand that crossing lower to the tweeter will improve the off axis. Originally, I was going to use a 7 woofer, to a 3 mid, to a 3/4 tweeter. I couldn't find a suitable 3" mid for some of the other aspects I was going for. There is a Peerless full range 3" but its not going to become available
I need some teaching here. Why is a lower QTS driver with a larger magnet better suited to a narrow/skinny baffle?
I do plan on using these in a rather slim design so I guess that works out
If I understood correctly:
The low qts mid driver and the long stroke smaller magnet bass driver were intended to work together in a narrow baffle.
I really wanted to use the NE123W-8 but it didn't become available when it was supposed to
Interesting driver. I have two 7s going down low so I don't need the extension. I have not used any Artum Cantus drivers. They seem very expensive for what you get. Maybe they have some special sauce I am unaware of. Sort of the like the Wavecor which seem ordinary until you look at the Q specs and find out they are very special.
The GRS 8" Mid planar. Probably the best $65 I have ever spent on HIFI.
Keep in mind while looking at these graphs, that the measurements were taken after an entire winter of screwing around with horns and waveguides. Its not like this if you just screw it to a baffle naked. But its also not super far off
Interesting. I once bought the 2.5 or 3" version of this to use a filler in a limited XO 3 way build. It really sucked. Like really really really sucked. Kind of put me off the whole Dayton woofer line to be honest. Must be like anything else, there are gems and there are turds within any lineup
I use them with Vifa NE225W-08 and Fountek NEO CD3.0. Excellent mid drivers and not expensive. They are almost a full range, and 3.5" rather than 4".
Well, well, well. You call that midrange? Its response is droping like a rock below 1kHz! Some tweeters go lower. You were definitely ignoring what I wrote. Midrange driver is flat from 250Hz to 3kHz, I repeat. And it was said by others too.
Besides it has terrible rising distortion towards lower frequencies just as i measured myself.
But there is no definite definition of midrange frequencies, except they are in the 'middle of the spectrum'.
The quoted 300-300hz is the old telephone, voice reproduction frequencies.
that is no requirement or and actual feat that most drivers can even do.
You need it to be in piston mode
What is the problem with a rising response.
Often it just means that the driver is not rolled off by inductance, which does what? Distort the upper frequencies quite badly.
Or a smooth curvature, as long as SPL is high enough in the intended bandwidth?
Absolutely nothing, just requires a more 'complicated ' filter, as the textbooks solutions won't work great.
Absolutely nothing, just requires a more complicated filter...
Yes, there is no definition. I mentioned that in my first post. It all depends what source you follow.
Flat is preferred, but if the driver is designed with rising response, its fine with me. I used many planars with rising response. But typical cone midrange is flat. That is normal. If cone driver is not flat, than its defective.
I am absolutely ok if you use more complicated filter, its ok with me, you do not have to repeat yourself. You do not have to pay attention to what i am saying.
Flat is preferred, but if the driver is designed with rising response, its fine with me. I used many planars with rising response. But typical cone midrange is flat. That is normal. If cone driver is not flat, than its defective.
I am absolutely ok if you use more complicated filter, its ok with me, you do not have to repeat yourself. You do not have to pay attention to what i am saying.
Several posts deleted. You know who you are. Be civil or will find yourselves unable to post in this thread.
This surprises me as well. I did use a 2.5" full range as a mid filler and it works surprisingly well.
I almost feel like most 3" and smaller full range drivers are really just mid ranges. They just market them as full range. When you look at smaller full range driver's measurements, you'll see most of its meat is in the mid range. They always drop off at the top requiring a tweeter. At least, every one I have tested does. I hear the Mark Audio drivers are better in the high frequency areas than most other fill range driver s
The Tymphany TC9FD-18-08 is good sounding, smooth 3.5" "full range" that covers 125Hz to 20kHz:
It's response gets a bit rough and beamy above 8kHz, but many DIY projects have used them without tweeters.
Still available for under $15, an amazing price for a high quality driver.
It sounds good up to it's Xmax:
It can play louder and lower than the MCA12RC-H1304 midrange and still sound clean.
It's near flat impedance curve makes for easy passive crossovers.
Art
It's response gets a bit rough and beamy above 8kHz, but many DIY projects have used them without tweeters.
Still available for under $15, an amazing price for a high quality driver.
It sounds good up to it's Xmax:
It can play louder and lower than the MCA12RC-H1304 midrange and still sound clean.
It's near flat impedance curve makes for easy passive crossovers.
Art
Many years ago I listened to an ATC 3way touted as a "studio monitor". It used the 'famous & expensive' large soft dome midrange driver.
Can anyone elaborate on why I didn't like the sound of the midrange ???
Can anyone elaborate on why I didn't like the sound of the midrange ???
Going back a while, when I built my 'open baffle twin towers' I was seriously looking at using those 5" Vifa mids for the 6 driver vertical array.Legendary vifa was rather good midrange.
In the end, the price for 12 fell outside my budget, so I went with 12x Phillips 5.5" IMP drivers with higher power capacity > and nice and flat 🙂
No. Did you have an explanation? I gave up on dome mids decades ago because at the time I struggled to get them to sound as good as an equivalent cone driver.
So, what's different about them? They typically have a larger voice coil. I didn't find the domes to have a particularly low resonance. Their directivity at the top end would be different due to the wavefront off the dome. The breakup modes would be different...
Without any real comparison to other 'dome mid speakers', I basically put it down to poor X/O design or maybe incorrect 'phase wiring',
but I could never quite reconcile such an expensive driver sounding so poor 😕
but I could never quite reconcile such an expensive driver sounding so poor 😕
Which model exactly? Passive or active, what electronics.
I had a chance to work on ATC SCM40A. See the measurements, 1m, 4ms window, in the attachment. This was improvised measurement in the client's living room. Still it quite matches my listening impressions.
Bass was quite ok, not going low, but that was expected. Upper bass-lower midrange was weak, overall somewhat congested, the music did not flow easy out of the speakers. Midrange was little bit lifted and annoying, yet no particular sense of details or openess or clarity. Trebles again, somewhat veiled, I missed top end. Overall impression was that it sounded congested, front to back space was totally flat. This is exactly what happens when upper bass-lower midrange is not right.
This model is entry level, I am quite sure that midrange drivers can sound wonderful if the right hands and ears take care of the overall loudspeaker design and implementation.
Attachments
Hi,
morning coffee time so here is a philosophical reply to your Q.
I haven't heard the ATC but I've had Yamaha NS1000m that is similar speaker. While they sounded nice I now have much better system, much better in my opinion, and there is no mid dome on it, but also everything else is quite different.
Audio world has all kinds of cults that worship this or that, because everyone have their own experience, listening skill, level of interest, financial limits and interests, environment, use case, visual preferences, memories, and so on. What I mean is that there is no "absolute best", everyone have their own best, what ever that is. For some people it's the ATC for some reason.
It's just important to recognize what you value and pursue that, never mind what others say on any systems/details unless you understand why they say that.
Now that you know it, you are not easily swayed by marketing and desires of others, but can pursue what ever is important for you. Now you also see better what advise is good for you and what is irrelevant, and can actually progress toward your goal. All you need is a goal, your goal.
If you want great sounding system, don't start designing it from drivers but from what you want to perceive, how that perception happens and how to make it happen in your place. Now you know what size and shape the speakers need to be. Too big or too hard to build? perhaps adjust the goal or find a suitable compromise, do partial prototype, but never trade-off the sound, if that was your goal.
Buying drivers, or even knowing if there is a mid driver and what size is way way down in the process. If you first deside there must be a dome mid you just limited the design space and might have prevented yourself reaching some good sound. If goal was "build a speaker with mid dome" its fine, goal met, it's just important to understand it is you building for you, and mid dome like any other piece of technology might or might not fit depending whats your goal.
ATC sounded bad? perhaps, you can likely trust yourself, good system really sounds good no question. But, perhaps somebody had modified it? anyway, just be curious, open, understand there is some cults and not all gear related information is relevant, physics of sound is same for all of us, auditory systems are quite alike but listening skill isn't etc. Have fun with your quest 🙂
Last edited: