The 15 doesnt reach much further down and the top ends are more alike than dissimilar. I'd just use the TD10M as in this build:
A couple HIGH end drivers tested, data
The results were stunning.
He crossed at 1100 so the 15 would hit that high just fine too.
A couple HIGH end drivers tested, data
The results were stunning.
He crossed at 1100 so the 15 would hit that high just fine too.
The Faital 8PR200 is a so-so driver. It looks like it should be a top performer but it's hardly worth the money Faital is charging for them. Here's a comparison of the 8PR200 and an Acoustic Elegance LO10 which is similar to the TD10M. The 8PR200 measurement was taken with the driver mounted and the low end eq'ed flat in a .75 cu ft enclosure. The LO10 distortion measurement was taken in free air, hence the rising distortion in the low end. As you can see, the Faital can't hold a candle to the AE LO10. Both measurements were taken at 85 decibels.
Attachments
I did a quick measurement of the Faital 8PR200 today in free air so it can be compared like for like with the AE LO10. I remembered that the old Faital measurement was done with a different sound card and microphone. Use this distortion graph to compare the Faital to the AE:
Attachments
It doesn't hurt horizontal directivity at all. And even though it changes the vertical directivity, I think it's only a positive. I'm in the middle of a SEOS12 TMM build.
I think TMM is ultimately better. But costs more. And you gotta wonder if a 3 way wouldn't make more sense. Also consider a MTM, though that gets tall, which is why I'm going TMM.
Should be an awesome speaker
Yes, it looks to be a TMM and based on the 8PR200 tests, I will be using 4 TD10M's. The two drivers working in the low end will help the AE's dislike of low frequencies. It looks to be a great project. I will begin building in a week during spring break.
Thanks everyone with all the info. Its much appreciated.
Thanks everyone with all the info. Its much appreciated.
Oh No, it certainly is not, its a fantastic driver that is
among other things, used in the, regarded by pros, in
the best 4/5K Cinema installations in the World, i´ve
used it extensively for the last 4 years and, no its not
a so so driver.
Would be interesting to know what Environment those measurements
were done in, also to see the response, not only the distortion, and what kind of equipment was used would be useful information as i´ve never got anything
like that result measuring them, neither in the Cinema installations where
todays standards surpass anything any normal hifi manufacturer could
Dream of.
Ingvar
I've tested the Fatial Pro APR200A, the 18 Sounds NMB420 and the B&C 8NDL and the B&C had the lowes distortion of all three.
Here are my distortion plots. Keep in mind on the first graph the lower chart is the NMB420 crossed to a tweeter at 1.8 kHz but you can still compare the distortion from 1000 Hz down.
This is the B&C 8NDL. Distortion is down by 10 dbs more then either of the first drivers. Here in the states it's also $80 cheaper.
This is B&C in blue and the Fatial Pro in red. 1 meter on axis, 5ms gating, 1/48th smoothing.
This is the Fatial Pro in blue vs the 18 Sounds in grey.
The pics are not showing up on my I pad but clicking on them they do. If they don't show let me know and I can fix them later on my laptop.
Dave
Here are my distortion plots. Keep in mind on the first graph the lower chart is the NMB420 crossed to a tweeter at 1.8 kHz but you can still compare the distortion from 1000 Hz down.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is the B&C 8NDL. Distortion is down by 10 dbs more then either of the first drivers. Here in the states it's also $80 cheaper.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is B&C in blue and the Fatial Pro in red. 1 meter on axis, 5ms gating, 1/48th smoothing.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
This is the Fatial Pro in blue vs the 18 Sounds in grey.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The pics are not showing up on my I pad but clicking on them they do. If they don't show let me know and I can fix them later on my laptop.
Dave
This is about an AE TD10M vs the Faital 8PR200. The AE has far lower distortion due to its motor. Its a big difference.
The compression driver and horn I use runs down to 1200hz, not 1800hz.
Actually, the low end of these TD drivers are not low in distortion. Under 80hz it takes off. Its the mid-range thats really clean. Its this part of the range that is cleaner than the 8PR200. If I was looking to run down to 50hz, the 8PR200 would be cleaner on the low end.
Ingvar,
The distortion measurements are done in the near field, with the microphone placed on the same plane as the surround. I keep the mic to driver close to maximize the S/N ratio. The driver is rigidly mounted by the magnet in free air. In this case, I used Faital's sensitivity rating and set the voltage to match 85dB (.89 volts IIRC).
I do all of my distortion measurements at 85dB, I don't listen to music any louder than that and so I don't annoy anyone else in the house. I use a LinearX M51 microphone, an Echo Audiofire4 sound card and a Mackie M1400i or a Hafler P1500 amplifier for testing. I used the Mackie while I was testing the Faital 8PR200 and the Acoustic Elegance LO10. ARTA is used to gather the data; a 1/24oct stepped sine wave.
There is a clear difference between the two drivers, the distortion of the Faital is easily audible when doing stepped sine sweeps and burst tests. I've tested two 8PR200s and they both produce the same results. Based on build quality and cost I expected more from the Faital. Maybe saying the Faital is so-so was harsh, but compared to the AE LO10, that is the truth.
Calling Acoustic Elegance a normal Hi-Fi manufacturer is not a fair statement.
Cheers,
Rob
I purchased AE TD10M's with the apollo upgrade. They arrived and look beefy for a midrange. The TD10M and the SEOS10/BMS4550 combo crossed at around 1300-1350 should be pretty awesome.
It looks like a 1.15 cu ft box tuned to about 60 hz. The boxes are near done and I'm up to the bondo stage on the MDF (trench method). Before full prime and automotive painting, I will give a listen.
Should I use a bit of batting behind the 10's to address the thin cone which may allow some rear wave through?
It looks like a 1.15 cu ft box tuned to about 60 hz. The boxes are near done and I'm up to the bondo stage on the MDF (trench method). Before full prime and automotive painting, I will give a listen.
Should I use a bit of batting behind the 10's to address the thin cone which may allow some rear wave through?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.