thinking of purchasing a pair to try out, im playing jbl 2226 with altec 288 with se kt88 right now and i do realy like them, but i want to try something differnt (smaller) my basement just dont have enough room and i realy want to try some coax, after reading here and there i just can find enough info.
i just wanted to know if its a good gamble.😀
i just wanted to know if its a good gamble.😀
Not sure I can contribute much. I considered a few of their coaxials - including their new 5312 NEO - to match with an upcoming SET AMP. Their sensitivity and reputation were attractive, but I passed on them due to their relative high Qts.
Radian has a reputation for producing very nice compression drivers and I have read some comments that they loosely share a history with Tannoy and have a similar musical presentation, at a gross level. But, they seem designed for pro use / low output impedance amps and their matching crossovers, while decent, could be significantly bettered.
I have decided GPA 604-8H-III drivers in large custom MLTLs and custom crossovers. Not small and not cheap.
Note: you could possibly run with something like Wayne Parham's 4Pi speakers; similar to your current set up, suited to kt88 amps, and would work well in a small room. But, if you are looking for something rather different...
Cheers
RCD
Radian has a reputation for producing very nice compression drivers and I have read some comments that they loosely share a history with Tannoy and have a similar musical presentation, at a gross level. But, they seem designed for pro use / low output impedance amps and their matching crossovers, while decent, could be significantly bettered.
I have decided GPA 604-8H-III drivers in large custom MLTLs and custom crossovers. Not small and not cheap.
Note: you could possibly run with something like Wayne Parham's 4Pi speakers; similar to your current set up, suited to kt88 amps, and would work well in a small room. But, if you are looking for something rather different...
Cheers
RCD
thanks RC!
my current setup use the pi crossover, i do like them very much just wanted to down size.
i just wanted to see what's my option if i wanted coax.
my current setup use the pi crossover, i do like them very much just wanted to down size.
i just wanted to see what's my option if i wanted coax.
For a given bass response, smaller size cabinets generally require higher Qts drivers, which are less suitable for highish output impedance (ie. SET) amps. That said, I reckon a 8" Radian (pressed basket for high value) with standard crossover in a nicely tuned Pensil-style (Scott Lindgren at Woden Audio) cabinet alignment would make for a sweet-sounding moderately sized, tunable, highish efficiency speaker with a very flat impedance plot that would make it suitable for SET. It would still have the moderate Qts driver, but the flat impedance and ability to tune the cabinet would go some way to mitigating any issues, me thinks.
Cheers,
RCD
Cheers,
RCD
This is an upgrade I would be very interested in. However, while I found various references to an MLTL design, I couldn't find a detailed enclosure plan. Do you have such a link?
best,
Tom
now we getting some where.
im plannig to run the radian with a pair of mono PP kt88 that im building but also i think with the small size room i have it should be ok with my "SE" kt88 .
it just that when i look at the Radian 5312 the response chart seem very nice for the job.
Tim
My quick thoughts concerning drivers. Qts, fs and Vas should all be taken in account to determine the proper cabinet for a driver.
Higher Qts drivers usually need a much larger cabinet size to avoid boominess caused by a very high resonance/impedance peak that smaller cabinets can't avoid.
Go for a low Qts driver and use a sub below if space limitations are a problem.
Regards, Ron
Higher Qts drivers usually need a much larger cabinet size to avoid boominess caused by a very high resonance/impedance peak that smaller cabinets can't avoid.
Go for a low Qts driver and use a sub below if space limitations are a problem.
Regards, Ron
Impedance (LF/HF) 8 ohms / 8 or 16 ohms
RMS Power Rating 500 Watts
Sensitivity (1W/1m) 96dB SPL
Frequency Response 60Hz - 20kHz
Recommended Crossover 950Hz
Voice Coil Diameter(LF/HF) 4.0" / 3.0"
Nominal Dispersion 90°
Net Weight 31 lbs. / 13.64 kg.
Mounting Information
Overall Diameter 12.375" / 314.33mm
Bolt Circle Diameter 11.625" / 295.28mm
Baffle Cutout Diameter 11.125" / 282.58mm
Overall Depth 7.937" / 201.6mm
Materials
Woofer Cone Reinforced Paper
HF Diaphragm Aluminum
HF Suspension Mylar
Basket Stamped Steel
Input Connectors (HF) .25" / 6.35mm Terminals
Input Connectors (LF) Push Button Terminals
Thiele-Small Parameters
Resonant Frequency (Fs) 54 Hz
Impedance (Re) 6.0 ohms
Total Q (Qts) .3653 Mechanical Q (Qms) 2.6136
Electrical Factor(Qes) .4246
Comp. Equivelant Vol. (Vas) 55.44 Liters
Voice Coil Overhang (Xmax) 2.87
Surface Area of Cone (Sd)m2 .08208 m2
SPL vs. Frequency
RMS Power Rating 500 Watts
Sensitivity (1W/1m) 96dB SPL
Frequency Response 60Hz - 20kHz
Recommended Crossover 950Hz
Voice Coil Diameter(LF/HF) 4.0" / 3.0"
Nominal Dispersion 90°
Net Weight 31 lbs. / 13.64 kg.
Mounting Information
Overall Diameter 12.375" / 314.33mm
Bolt Circle Diameter 11.625" / 295.28mm
Baffle Cutout Diameter 11.125" / 282.58mm
Overall Depth 7.937" / 201.6mm
Materials
Woofer Cone Reinforced Paper
HF Diaphragm Aluminum
HF Suspension Mylar
Basket Stamped Steel
Input Connectors (HF) .25" / 6.35mm Terminals
Input Connectors (LF) Push Button Terminals
Thiele-Small Parameters
Resonant Frequency (Fs) 54 Hz
Impedance (Re) 6.0 ohms
Total Q (Qts) .3653 Mechanical Q (Qms) 2.6136
Electrical Factor(Qes) .4246
Comp. Equivelant Vol. (Vas) 55.44 Liters
Voice Coil Overhang (Xmax) 2.87
Surface Area of Cone (Sd)m2 .08208 m2
SPL vs. Frequency
Sorry all, I had forgotten that I responded here. Quick responses:
Ron, I am aware of some of your exploits via some of your cohorts the ART forum and occasionally AA Hi-Eff. IIRC, you have been on quite a journey and have mucho more experience than I. I generally agree with your comments; however, contexts and objectives... specifics. Generally, bigger is better, but floor space and positioning constraints rule for some folks. For a simple 2-way solution that does not take up too much space, a higher Q driver is more workable, especially with some of the beyond bass reflex alignments being used these days. Also, not everyone has the space or desire for added boxes/cabling/complexity/cost of subs.
Tom, the MLTL is currently being designed for me for a very reasonable cost by Scott Lindgren of Woden (aka Scottmoose on the Full Range forum here). It will be a floor-stander that is larger than the MLTL project on 6moons; wide baffle (to minimise baffle step), shallow and reasonably tall - but not as tall as it could be. I will let you know how it goes and we can maybe work something out from there, though I'd like Scott to benefit in some way if you went ahead...
Tim, do your amps run feedback, therefore lowering output impedance? If yes, either your PP or SE KT88 should rock, even in a nicely tuned bass reflex design. If not, I guess it would depend on the cabinet used. I am not a fan of most simple bass reflex cabinets with non-feedback SE amps, though with some work they can be tuned to sound quite nice. My way of thinking is that if you wish to use higher Q drivers, the impedance through the bass frequencies needs to be flattened somewhat. Sealed and aperiodic achieve this with high Q drivers; Scottmoose has blurred the lines between some vented alignments in his Pensil designs to achieve this with medium Q drivers.
The driver Qts quoted puts them into my (arbitrary) medium Q category and usable in a range of cabinet types. Try bass reflex or if you have a few extra $, ask Scott if he thinks it is worth him doing a design - he will be honest.
Gotta run.
Cheers,
RCD
Ron, I am aware of some of your exploits via some of your cohorts the ART forum and occasionally AA Hi-Eff. IIRC, you have been on quite a journey and have mucho more experience than I. I generally agree with your comments; however, contexts and objectives... specifics. Generally, bigger is better, but floor space and positioning constraints rule for some folks. For a simple 2-way solution that does not take up too much space, a higher Q driver is more workable, especially with some of the beyond bass reflex alignments being used these days. Also, not everyone has the space or desire for added boxes/cabling/complexity/cost of subs.
Tom, the MLTL is currently being designed for me for a very reasonable cost by Scott Lindgren of Woden (aka Scottmoose on the Full Range forum here). It will be a floor-stander that is larger than the MLTL project on 6moons; wide baffle (to minimise baffle step), shallow and reasonably tall - but not as tall as it could be. I will let you know how it goes and we can maybe work something out from there, though I'd like Scott to benefit in some way if you went ahead...
Tim, do your amps run feedback, therefore lowering output impedance? If yes, either your PP or SE KT88 should rock, even in a nicely tuned bass reflex design. If not, I guess it would depend on the cabinet used. I am not a fan of most simple bass reflex cabinets with non-feedback SE amps, though with some work they can be tuned to sound quite nice. My way of thinking is that if you wish to use higher Q drivers, the impedance through the bass frequencies needs to be flattened somewhat. Sealed and aperiodic achieve this with high Q drivers; Scottmoose has blurred the lines between some vented alignments in his Pensil designs to achieve this with medium Q drivers.
The driver Qts quoted puts them into my (arbitrary) medium Q category and usable in a range of cabinet types. Try bass reflex or if you have a few extra $, ask Scott if he thinks it is worth him doing a design - he will be honest.
Gotta run.
Cheers,
RCD
The best I could do is a -3dB of about 60Hz in a 1.5 cu ft box tuned to 60Hz. Maximum group delay is 10msec. They don't provide Le, so I used 1.0mH. So, they'd make good satellites in a 2.1 system. The 2" compression driver in this is going to be really nice since it makes for a nice low xover of 950Hz. It'll probably beam like gangbusters at the high end though. Wear the neck vice.
Attachments
Last edited:
thanks for the response Dirk.
"So, they'd make good satellites in a 2.1 system" i dont understand what you mean, sorry😱
does this mean you're not approve of this driver?
i'm also looking at the Radian 5212 with the 1" compression drivers, a little bit cheaper but i dont know if this will be better for home use, maybe you can help me out here.
I mean that you can't expect deep bass out of these drivers. You'll need a subwoofer to make it sound best.
Well I'm not really a bass head what I have now is jbl2226 and altec 288 with Pi crossover @ 1.6k they sound really good and I'n my small basement I feel no need for sub but I wanted something different a little smaller, coax drivers alway seem practical to my needs but I have no real knowledge I'n speakers designs.
Thanks
tim
Thanks
tim
Well, B&C makes similar coaxial drivers also. This Radian has a nice and low xover, but without Le I'm not sure if the simulated response is accurate.
Quick note: just read back over my response to Ron in a previous post. It is somewhat focussed on the issues of driver Q and suitability for SET amps; as such, it does not ask the required questions - and therefore does not provide the required answers - to help the original poster. Too much haste; not enough thought. Apologies for the potential mislead and waste of data allocation.
Back to regular programming.
Cheers,
RCD
Back to regular programming.
Cheers,
RCD