18sound hd1480t vs nd1460 vs nd1460a for high spl

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm
hi
we are building 2 mt121s to go with a couple xoc1 th18 & cubo kick 15s.
the 12 will be either 18sound 12mb700 or b&c 12ndl76; for the HF i'm thinking about 18sound xt1464 1.4 horn, loaded with either the ferrite/titanium hd1480t,
the neo/titanium d1460 or the neo/aluminium nd1460a, but i can't find much reports on them.

any downside soundwise of the ferrite hd1480t, weight increase apart?
differences vs nd1460? the 1480 has a +10db spike at 17k hz, will this be good for highs or make it difficult to eq flat?
would a straight descending curve like the nd 1480 be easier to tame?
i'd like a compression i could use at high level without needing any tweeters above.

the aluminum nd1460a has wonderful curves with very little high rolloff, from specs i would choose this one, it is rated 160 vs 200 w program but more sensible higher so should require less eq boost and allow higher clean level, so max spell should be similar, or am i missing something?
Will aluminium be considerably more fragile than the titanium options?
looking from the specs it looks like you could run it without needing bullets or other tweeters, but i'm looking at pa use so it has to be strong.

any insights or experiences to share?

we're ordering the plywood and the other drivers for the project right now so after a lot of lurking here and in other forums it's time to build!
Thanks to everibody ho who shares their knowledge and experience and project here, it's a wonderful world.

regards,
joh
 

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm

yes and there's no opinions on the net so i will probably rule out the hd1480t option, and i could get the 1460s for just a little more,... but which one?

from the graphs of the 2 inch versions you kindly linked the aluminium version looks sweet but it also shows higher distortions in the higher regions, while the titanium version distorts more under my intended crossover freq (1000 - 1300) and less up high, but would need more eq to and power to get to same levels as the la version...

deiciding factor would be strength and durability under higher power, any suggestions?

joh
 

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm
hi paul thanks for coming in and for your useful comparison
so what's the difference between them? low extension and spl for 2" vs high smoothness of 1.4"?
i'm a noob learning from the net and about to do my first build, so pardon my ignorance.


from your experience which would behave better pushed at pa volume, the titanium or aluminum version of the 1460?
once i boost the highs of the titanium version to match the aluminum levels, will distortion difference in the highs became similar or will the titanium still behave better?
thanks
regards

Joh
 
I'd recommend using titanium over aluminium. Aluminium fails over time, or when pushed too hard. Titanium does not.

The 1460 is a very good compression driver. I use mine on RCF HF94 horns and get a remarkably flat native response, even at fairly extreme angles. Some EQ is necessary to get the 12kHz+ response up a little, though.

Chris
 
IMO the difference in sizes just depends on the horn throat size you have available...no reason the use the adapter if you don't need it.

As for distortion, I believe the harmonics of midrange signals would be more audible than UHF distortion products...so I used the 1460a in a home environment. No experience at PA volumes.


hi paul thanks for coming in and for your useful comparison
so what's the difference between them? low extension and spl for 2" vs high smoothness of 1.4"?
i'm a noob learning from the net and about to do my first build, so pardon my ignorance.


from your experience which would behave better pushed at pa volume, the titanium or aluminum version of the 1460?
once i boost the highs of the titanium version to match the aluminum levels, will distortion difference in the highs became similar or will the titanium still behave better?
thanks
regards

Joh
 

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm
hi
thanks paul.
chris,
actually i originally thought of going with the 60x40 version of that horn the rcf hf 64, but the 18sound xt1464 is bigger (38x30 vs 25x25 cm) so shouldn't it theoretically have better control over directivity? mt121 is a fairly directional cab .
surely the rcf looks better!

and matching cd and horn maker shouldn't be a bad thing, no?

i see the hf94 and 64 work with both 1 and 1.4 drivers. is there a 1" reduction to unmount when you use it with 1.4" drivers? can't get it form the pictures...
 
The flat part of the horn (attaches to the compression driver) is removable on the RCF horns, so 1.4" or 1" drivers can be used just by changing the plate.

I haven't worked with the XT1464, so I can't offer any advice there. Online reviews are favourable, though.

If you're using one mid-high cabinet per side, you'll probably want 90 degree horizontal dispersion. I used some 60x40 horns for a while but found them too directional for most events. Perfect for long narrow rooms, though.
Most short-throw designs (ie, one cabinet per side) have 80-90 degree horizontal dispersion, with some going above 100 degrees. This means you cover more area with a single cabinet.
If you'll be using two cabinets a side, 60x40 horns are the way to do it - you'll get 120 degree coverage. For really big stuff, you want lots of very narrow dispersion cabinets. For example, the Nexo Alpha system I'm quite familiar with uses 35x35 horns, and we array them four across.

In general, the wider dispersion the horn, the more work the tweeter has to do to. The ND1460 is a capable driver, so I think even a 90x60 horn would be fine with your setup, and would ensure everyone can hear what's going on.

Chris
 

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm
i thought the hf94/64 throat would rather be optimized for 1" drivers as i see it mostly deployed with them, your experience seems to confirm it works well so they come back into consideration.

this will be mainly used as a mono stack, probably with tops splayed a bit, so i thought 60 degree speakers would conflict less between each others up high than 90. moreover the mt12 section is supposed to be 40 degree dispersion, although it will not control it down low.
 

jo bg

Member
2015-12-10 3:08 pm
Hi paul! Allready read about the raptors, found a lot of interesting infos, thanks for sharing this.

Can i ask you something off topic? Judging from the horn size your 10"s are something like 60cm apart center to center, if i got it right they are too far apart to benefit from acoustic coupling in the higher frequencies as they are further away than 1/4 wavelenght from each other.
I'm sure you know what you are doing, so why this does not create problems?
Maybe the little comb filtering would be in the vertical plane and less noticeable?

The more i learn the more i want to know...