Mario,
I've heard the 4FE32 and 3FE22 in small boxes, nice! However the 4FE35 have better X-max. Consider it for my car as original speakers is worthless....
I've heard the 4FE32 and 3FE22 in small boxes, nice! However the 4FE35 have better X-max. Consider it for my car as original speakers is worthless....
I did some quick box tuning via WinISD and compared the 5FE120 to the Peerless 830991. In 7L cabinets, these two drivers are almos identical. In a ported version, the FaitalPRO edges out the Peerless by about 12 Hz. Not a whole lot.
However, based on my measurements of the Peerless and online specs of the Faital, the Faital has a much better and usable top end. An easier match to cross tweeters over at 3-5kHz I think.
Best,
E
However, based on my measurements of the Peerless and online specs of the Faital, the Faital has a much better and usable top end. An easier match to cross tweeters over at 3-5kHz I think.
Best,
E
The Faital driver you could run without a tweeter, I've heard them full range and they were fine. But I'm not a fan of tweeters, so YMMV.
The Faital's just sound so clean and effortless, they have an airiness about them that few others have. Even their bigger woofers are extremely clean sounding, better than most other I have used.
Interestingly (or not) the Faital weighs about 30% more than the Peerless despite the 830991 having a heavier cast frame.
Around here the Peerless costs £40 while the Faital goes for £22 (incl tax).
Charles,
Interesting here it is Peerless: $45 / FaitalPRO $40
Obviously on your side of the pond I would go straight for the Faital! 🙂
Best,
E
Interesting here it is Peerless: $45 / FaitalPRO $40
Obviously on your side of the pond I would go straight for the Faital! 🙂
Best,
E
Or you could believe wat Geddes says, these type of distortion mesurements aren’t worth the pixels they are printed with — they are meaningless. That from a proprt scientific study/experiment he did, mind you no one has tried to duplicate it… but there is much of that in audio.
dave
Another mid i like is dayton rs125, its labeled as 5" woofer, but membrane is small, only 4".
It goes quite low, and is good up to 5kHz. Low distortion too...
It goes quite low, and is good up to 5kHz. Low distortion too...
We have used thw Peerless 830870. Primarily as a helper woofer but the response looks good uo to 5-10kHz.
dave
dave
Hi Planet10!
In regards to the Peerless 5 1/4" drivers, I really like the sound, but I feel they need a bit of a low roll-off (2-3kHz) due to the response. All I can do is offer you my own measurement of the 830991 (woven fiberglass) for you to draw your own conclusions from. Would definitely have been nice to be able to cross them a little higher.
This is the 830991 in a Dayton 0.25 ft^3 / 7L cabinet. Port not spliced in, so trust nothing below 100-200 Hz. 🙂
In regards to the Peerless 5 1/4" drivers, I really like the sound, but I feel they need a bit of a low roll-off (2-3kHz) due to the response. All I can do is offer you my own measurement of the 830991 (woven fiberglass) for you to draw your own conclusions from. Would definitely have been nice to be able to cross them a little higher.
This is the 830991 in a Dayton 0.25 ft^3 / 7L cabinet. Port not spliced in, so trust nothing below 100-200 Hz. 🙂
Attachments
Last edited:
All i can offer for the 830870 is the factory response:
We use 2 of them in a Lindgren ML-TL — estimated anechoic F10 about 35 Hz. We have been using a 240 Hz 1st order PLLXO to cross them to uFonken or uMar-ken. So they should be able to meet your LF requirements.
dave
We use 2 of them in a Lindgren ML-TL — estimated anechoic F10 about 35 Hz. We have been using a 240 Hz 1st order PLLXO to cross them to uFonken or uMar-ken. So they should be able to meet your LF requirements.
dave
Attachments
The P might be good to about 5k, but the aluminum is difficult in reaching even 3kHz- however it's doable.
Later,
Wolf
Can you get Monacor drivers? If you can then the MSH-115 is worth a look. Very flat on axis up to 9k.
The primary reason I went with NE123 is cone material and what's behind it: smaller magnet, farther away from the cone, with sculptured, heavy duty basket to reduce rear reflections and noise. I don't know how that equates to FR and distortion, but, to me, it sounds much clearer than other 4" drivers which have a close, relatively big magnet reflecting sound directly back at the cone. Can't be good!
You could ask the same question of any two drivers. How does one justify higher cost? There was obviously some careful thought involved in the design of this driver and expense in its manufacture. It is certainly unique, not merely another scaled-down woofer.
Anyone who builds speakers should know that, unless it's grossly deformed, a FR curve has little more to do with the ultimate sound of a driver than a pretty label does to the taste of a bottle of wine.
Peace,
Tom E
- Status
- Not open for further replies.