The FRS5X is a cheap driver. For what it is and its price it behaves as a good example of a very cheap driver.
The SB is simply brilliant, and from the audio I am glad I avoid the Peerless. There was something not right about it. The plastic frame is fine, and the least of its issues
I hope the SB is affordable
The SB is simply brilliant, and from the audio I am glad I avoid the Peerless. There was something not right about it. The plastic frame is fine, and the least of its issues
I hope the SB is affordable
Darn... got occupied with work and didn't find time to really listen to the samples more than a few times and couldn't decide from that so I missed the deadline. Compared to the two previous blindtests, this one was a lot harder to pick a clear winner me thinks.
Anyhow. This was what I thought.
The ones that I didn't like
a: to much treble
c: peaky, bites in the upper mid and or lower highs
e: same
The ones that I thought was ok and not bad:
D:
H:
G:
The ones that I couldn't decide on:
B: Really good, actually my favorite, but I heard some elevated midrange in the Bach piece... But in all the other songs it performed very well and was the most balanced and natural sounding driver of them all me thinks.
F: This one did to my ears have a bit more air in the top end (which I liked) and didn't have elevated midrange on the classical piece ... good driver.
So... on the classical piece , I preferred F. On the other tracks I think B was the best.
Anyhow. This was what I thought.
The ones that I didn't like
a: to much treble
c: peaky, bites in the upper mid and or lower highs
e: same
The ones that I thought was ok and not bad:
D:
H:
G:
The ones that I couldn't decide on:
B: Really good, actually my favorite, but I heard some elevated midrange in the Bach piece... But in all the other songs it performed very well and was the most balanced and natural sounding driver of them all me thinks.
F: This one did to my ears have a bit more air in the top end (which I liked) and didn't have elevated midrange on the classical piece ... good driver.
So... on the classical piece , I preferred F. On the other tracks I think B was the best.
Last edited:
The FRS5X is a cheap driver. For what it is and its price it behaves as a good example of a very cheap driver.
The SB is simply brilliant, and from the audio I am glad I avoid the Peerless. There was something not right about it. The plastic frame is fine, and the least of its issues
I hope the SB is affordable
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-2-fullrange/sb-acoustics-sb65wbac25-4-2.5-full-range/
$33.50 ea in U.S.
Many enjoyable drivers available. So cool to be able to give them a listen to better understand their sonic signature. Personally, I've been listening to the TB 1808 (not in any of the tests) but look forward to swapping it out for the little Vifa for the weekend and maybe the bamboo cone TB for the rest of the week. Heck, I just purchased the SMSL 50 watt digital amp and listened to it for the first time last night - it sounds amazing! It added the illusion of depth, punch and speed the Topping TP21 lacks. Matching drivers to amps just like old times again. I love it when the components are relatively cheap.
These driver comparisons clearly indicate expensive drivers 'could' sound the best... but being expensive doesn't secure a top spot when compared to cheaper drivers with good engineering. The worst sounding drivers (to me) really sounded fatiguing. My top three all sounded similar enough and enjoyable. Fact is, I respect everyone's choice and support their decisions.
Curious what makes one comparible driver sound so much different than another. Surround? Cone material? They're all just cones moving in air so why the drastic differences?
These driver comparisons clearly indicate expensive drivers 'could' sound the best... but being expensive doesn't secure a top spot when compared to cheaper drivers with good engineering. The worst sounding drivers (to me) really sounded fatiguing. My top three all sounded similar enough and enjoyable. Fact is, I respect everyone's choice and support their decisions.
Curious what makes one comparible driver sound so much different than another. Surround? Cone material? They're all just cones moving in air so why the drastic differences?
Cone breakup mostly, these wideband drivers all rely on wave propagation through the cone in order to reach the highest treble notes. The way a wave propagates from the attachment point of the voice coil to the edge of the cone, the damping such a wave undergoes and the "bell modes" that the cone supports determine the response. Markaudio and Tymphany have different philosophies on this, which is why they sound so different.
Last edited:
Yes, Tymphany uses their patented NSRC "Pentacut" cone which if you look at the backside of the cone and where it meets the surround, the cone is a pentagon and this prevents the main symmetric drumhead modes from being dominant as a pentagon does not have mirror symmetry. Note the similarities in how smooth and even the TC9FD, TG9FD, and 10F/8424 all are - basically this works to keep those resonant treble modes from peaking massively.
Other drivers do not use this and may have no damping strategy but prefer to let their thin light cones ring like a bell. Some people actually like this ringing sound as it adds "air" that once was not there.
'Zilla:
Glad you are finally able to experience the magic of the TPA3116D2 amp. There is a reason that thread is so popular and long. The SMSL is one of the better implementations with high quality components. Once you get one (cheap Chinese made class D or class AB from Aliexpress), you will want more. Especially when they only cost between $5 and $19 as are all the amps below:
Left to right: TPA3116D2 ($19ea, SMAKN), TDA7498 ($11ea, qnty 2), TDA7492 ($6 ea qnty 2), TPA3116D2 ($15ea, fake YJ Blue/black), TDA7297 ($5ea, qnty 2, class AB "Lunch Money Amp" )
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/275505-tda7492-amp-11.html
Glad you are finally able to experience the magic of the TPA3116D2 amp. There is a reason that thread is so popular and long. The SMSL is one of the better implementations with high quality components. Once you get one (cheap Chinese made class D or class AB from Aliexpress), you will want more. Especially when they only cost between $5 and $19 as are all the amps below:
Left to right: TPA3116D2 ($19ea, SMAKN), TDA7498 ($11ea, qnty 2), TDA7492 ($6 ea qnty 2), TPA3116D2 ($15ea, fake YJ Blue/black), TDA7297 ($5ea, qnty 2, class AB "Lunch Money Amp" )
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/class-d/275505-tda7492-amp-11.html
Last edited:
While this may be true in some cases, and some companies are not particularly scrupulous with their datasheets, I've measured enough drivers to trust companies like Vifa/Tymphany and SB Acoustics that if their datasheet shows something close to dead flat and it measures with a 10dB dip/peak combo then the driver is faulty or something is wrong with the test setup.
Typically drivers with poorly designed motors need to rely more heavily on cone breakup nodes to 'keep the response going' as the inductance of the voicecoil/motor is causing it to roll off. Fostex is a prime example of doing this. The downside is that it makes any non-linear distortion the motor produces far more audible (double trouble - basic motor AND it gets shaped way up) and often the breakup nodes will have a long decay. If you have a good motor design then you can get away with a better damped cone while still reaching to 20kHz.
The Markaudio drivers have issues going beyond just compensating for the inductance of the voice coil, the resonant modes which cause deep nulls in the response several octaves below the typical "bell modes" used to extend the top few octaves.
Last edited:
The pentagon thing is interesting, as is the trilobe/tristar? That P10 has used with enable on a Fostex IIRC.
I was actually researching this the other day and stumbled upon an amateur site praising enable if I can find again ill link it.
The general upshot was (despite the OTT praise for enable - my opinion of which ill keep quiet about) that despite the thinking that odd sided shaped should qoek better, the author (an amateur I believe) found that like Accuton, even numbers worked the best.
I have some drivers with minor cone damage and once I get mic and REW sorted out, I will be experimenting with the 'ears' and distributed mass concepts.
Yes, DLRs posts #47 onward show the pictured of the method I found on a site - I guess now I know its dlr's site
http://www.speakerdesign.net/midrange_tweaks/kef/f15/kef_midwoofer.html
Last edited:
Yes, DLRs posts #47 onward show the pictured of the method I found on a site - I guess now I know its dlr's site
KEF (Celestion) F15 2-Way Mid-Woofer Modifications/Tweaks
Thanks! That was very useful - the wet look at the surround interface looks like an easy to do thing. I noticed that the Tang Band in this test has what appears to be a sticky wet look bead around the surround to cone interface as well.
The mass loading done in an asymmetric way seems to help significantly.
I thought all the DIY'ers tried to ape scans by slitting cheap drivers at some point?? The actual slit cone Scanspeaks are nice sounding, if a bit unrealistically flattering IMO. Just right levels of 2nd order distortion perhaps?
Nice quick study of those dots. That is one benefit to a plastic cone.
Don't forget the Fostex Sigma drivers, as well as the HR woofers. They've been using rather extreme odd number symmetry for years, and to good effect I might add.
The actual slit cone Scanspeaks are nice sounding, if a bit unrealistically flattering IMO. Just right levels of 2nd order distortion perhaps?Nice quick study of those dots. That is one benefit to a plastic cone.
Don't forget the Fostex Sigma drivers, as well as the HR woofers. They've been using rather extreme odd number symmetry for years, and to good effect I might add.
Indeed it does. I have a couple.of TB and they both have this shiny dust loving boundary. I have no.idea what this wet look product is though...probably a US brand name I don't recognise.
The Wet Look referenced above may be a glossy polyurethane that dries hard but looks glossy and not sticky. The stuff I am thinking of is tacky and attracts dirt like a magnet feels wet and sticky but is dry. I suspect it might be Permatex gasket material.
Gasket Sealants : Permatex® Aviation Form-A-Gasket® No. 3 Sealant Liquid
Gasket Sealants : Permatex® Aviation Form-A-Gasket® No. 3 Sealant Liquid
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.