Audax HM130Z0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#5
Thank you for these datasheets!

I have made a two way design with it. The cabinet was about 8 liter, crossed @ 3 kHz to a Scanspeak 2010 19mm dome. A very decent sounding loudspeaker. The impact/ bass is not bad at all (-3 dB point around 70 Hz).
 
#7
Dick West said:

.....The HM130ZO is NOT a mid/woofer.....
.... It is a midrange only driver......
.....It must be used in a 3-way system......
Dick
Click to expand...


Hmmm.......

Simply not true. Parameters indicate it would work fine as a mid/bass.

2mm is not brilliant excursion but better than most fostex full rangers.

If used as such (reflexed) it would suit low power class A / class D amplifiers.

🙂/sreten.
 
#8
The Audax Z0 series was marketed as having "aerogel" cone construction.

When I was shopping for 6.5" drivers for my MTM DIY speakers in 2000, I chose Audax C0 speakers (Carbon Fiber), but Madisound accidentally shipped me 6.5 Z0 aerogel drivers.

The aerogel's had a very interested feel to them, they were soft yet flexible and frequencies seemed to roll off of the cones smoothly and naturally.

I have often wondered if my system would sound substantially different with aerogel drivers instead of Carbon Fiber ones.

I do know that Aerogels sold at a higher price point than CF Audax drivers...this could mean that the manufacturer intended them to perform "better," but that is open to debate.

Hope it helps 🙂
 
#11
pinkmouse said:
In my opinion, Audax's Aerogel is the best cone material ever. 🙂
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. The more drivers I listen to the more I find myself preferring the well damped ones, for example: the HM100Z0, poly cones of Audiotechnology, soft dome from ATC and various treated paper woofers.

I never entirely got on with Seas alu or magnesium cones, very nice drivers though. Its all preference so nobody is absolutely right or wrong. 😉
 
#12
ShinOBIWAN said:


I'd have to agree. The more drivers I listen to the more I find myself preferring the well damped ones, for example: the HM100Z0, poly cones of Audiotechnology, soft dome from ATC and various treated paper woofers.

I never entirely got on with Seas alu or magnesium cones, very nice drivers though. Its all preference so nobody is absolutely right or wrong. 😉
Click to expand...

I agree I "third" this. I plopped the HM130Z0's in place of the Seas magnesium coned W15CY001 and was blown away at how much better and more 'musical' they were. Dynamics just seemed to expload from the speakers in comparison with a crystal clear, free sound.

Im now in the process of the 4 way. SSD2905/97 on top, HM100Z0 upper mid. Hm210Z12 lower mid and a pair of XLS10s on bass. All open beffle. Xover ~5000hz, 400hz and 100hz.

FInally got my copy of LspCAD back today afting having lost it (thankyou Ingemar) where I measured it all+ designed a crossover, the HM100Z0 is an amazing little driver.

I would love to see what the Aerogels would sound like with Scan-speak motors. DIY driver anyone? 😀
 
#15
pinkmouse said:
In my opinion, Audax's Aerogel is the best cone material ever. 🙂
Click to expand...

Fourth this. I built MTMs using the HM170Z0 and HM100Z0 which were the two best speakers I've ever made. The former had been in use with Dynaudio 17W75EXT; the Audax Aerogels sounded ridiculously more natural. The Dynaudios ended up in the latter speakers to cover the 80-350Hz range, where the HM100s take over.
 
#20
Only PHL sounds family. Then again, Philippe Lesage was head of Audax R&D for 12yrs. But PHL does not make 90dB linearity optimised soft surround stuff to be directly comparable and usable in Hi-Fi boxes. It makes pro kickers that are difficult to tame and have high Fs. My 1220 midwoof delivers though. But it took me long to get it just right, and still is a bit rougher technically than say 170Z0, although it pays off with SPL. Audaxes were easy to tame fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom