Dick West said:
From what I've gathered the HM100Z0 had several versions under the same name. The resonance of mine is @ 180hz, which corresponds to the latter of the ones made iirc.
I've got it crossed over at 400hz currently, 4th order acoustic. I even went as far as trying 200hz when I first got them and they sounded surprisingly good, but nowhere near as clean as @ 400.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Those were the exact drivers I had my eyes on actually, considering the effort and expense that has already been put into the hifi, it seems a shame not to push the boat out for the 'best' there is. Asking what the RAALs sound like is probably a stupid question 😀
ShinOBIWAN said:
You are Welcome!
(..have to keep up my "image" for obscure driver selection somehow - even if the driver doesn't yet exist
😀 )
ScottG said:
Talk about deja vu.
Alex also explained about plasma tweeters, the Accapela specifically. He considers it the only tweeter to be comparable to his own creations.
Personally I found it cool how they'd managed to make them safe but the downside was that they'd lost efficiency in doing so and had to horn load it which was a negative in terms of sound quality.
Shinobiwan, note that the Dynaudios were driven off a separate amp because of their much lower sensitivity- and of course the other attendant advantages to multiamping.
If you run across a stash of the DT101 beyond what you need, let me know.
If you run across a stash of the DT101 beyond what you need, let me know.
5th element said:
I'd go with them in a heartbeat.
I've never heard anything quite like it. You hear that often in hifi but really this is one time when it really is true, at least for me. I posted some rather enthusiastic opinions about my initial auditioning of the RAAL 140-15d here:
I'm quite an excitable chap when it comes to audio so the wording of those initial impressions are a little OTT but the general sentiments are spot on.
ScottG said:
You are Welcome!
(..have to keep up my "image" for obscure driver selection somehow - even if the driver doesn't yet exist
Pushing vaporware now eh? I can't remember you saying you were also in the IT industry 😀
SY said:
I was just looking around for a datasheet on the Dynaudio, I bet they sound somewhat similar to the Audiotechnology drivers I'm using now having come from the same stable and bearing similar cone materials/geometry. The AT's are really just a progression of where dynaudio left off when they bowed out of the DIY scene some years ago.
Will do on the DT101 but really I'm more interested in the woofers but if I spot something I'll speak up even if I'm not going for it myself.
Your life's different after RAAL Shin...
Moral obligation to Canadian endorsed mentor of Alex demands baby RAAL as your HF choice...
Canada has joint research facilities in Serbia for military tech.
Canadian people speak French...and you look to partner an Audax!
Hemp FR8C has 9 grams of mass and does 30Hz in my MLTL. Its made out of hash plant fibers and its full range. Use it as a woofer only, and get that fast match to Audaxes and baby RAAL. Ah! What a coincidence! Hemp Acoustics is...Canadian!
No escape from destiny Shin. e-bay your 44s!😀
Else, Canada may haunt your soul eternally...
Moral obligation to Canadian endorsed mentor of Alex demands baby RAAL as your HF choice...
Canada has joint research facilities in Serbia for military tech.
Canadian people speak French...and you look to partner an Audax!
Hemp FR8C has 9 grams of mass and does 30Hz in my MLTL. Its made out of hash plant fibers and its full range. Use it as a woofer only, and get that fast match to Audaxes and baby RAAL. Ah! What a coincidence! Hemp Acoustics is...Canadian!
No escape from destiny Shin. e-bay your 44s!😀
Else, Canada may haunt your soul eternally...
I was about to ask where you got the RAALs from, but over in the LGT thread, I see you got them direct from RAAL . Its nice they will do a custom faceplate , circular, word of the day, cant stand drivers that use square frames, PITA to flush mount 😀 I can understand excitable 😛 that comes with the territory, when you land on one of those rare moments when something actually redefines what you originally thought as 'good'. These tend to be rare and are worth treating with a little OTT 'ness'. Mine generally involve rounding up all the people in close proximity and sitting them down in front of whatevers, managed to 'do it' this time round 😀
Both the HM130 and 170ZO Aerogel driers are beautifully made and sound that good as well.
It looks, to me as if you have got the box about right. 3dB down at about 70Hz is about the optimum. The Xmax of this driver is +/- 2mm. There is absolutely no reason why, driven with respect, you can't use this in a 2 way design. I have and they still work. Using them with a FOCAL inverted kevlar dome. Luverly.
Ricky.
It looks, to me as if you have got the box about right. 3dB down at about 70Hz is about the optimum. The Xmax of this driver is +/- 2mm. There is absolutely no reason why, driven with respect, you can't use this in a 2 way design. I have and they still work. Using them with a FOCAL inverted kevlar dome. Luverly.
Ricky.
Sort of off topic, but how good is the overall motor in the HMXXXZX series? I was wondering about a little experimentation (stupidly expensive if it went wrong). This would involve purchasing a second pair of HM100Z0s from IPL and a pair of W12CY003 (SEAS Nextel small diameter driver), removing the cone from each drive unit and replacing the Nextel with the Aerogel.
The voice coil is 1mm larger in diameter in the SEAS, not a huge problem IMO, but providing all the other geometry lines up, would this be something worthwhile doing? providing the physical results (my ability to actually do this) are superb.
Altering the moving mass towards that of the Aero, in LspCAD raises fs up to around 100hz and Qts plummets down to ~0.2. Simulating with the driver provides reasonably useful figures for a mid, is there something I am missing? I had wondered if Audio Tech could customise a driver for you, around a cone if you provided it😀
The voice coil is 1mm larger in diameter in the SEAS, not a huge problem IMO, but providing all the other geometry lines up, would this be something worthwhile doing? providing the physical results (my ability to actually do this) are superb.
Altering the moving mass towards that of the Aero, in LspCAD raises fs up to around 100hz and Qts plummets down to ~0.2. Simulating with the driver provides reasonably useful figures for a mid, is there something I am missing? I had wondered if Audio Tech could customise a driver for you, around a cone if you provided it😀
I just want to add that I also believe the original Audax Aerogel woofer is one of the finest 6inch midrange woofer I have ever heard, it has real snap, something the ATC super dome can't do in the same way.
It cannot handle gulps of power or and has a small excursion but who cares!
The only question for me is, does it have Aerogel in the matrix of the cone? or is the coating some kind of carbon Aerogel dopping?
I know the Audax cone is very light but does it have any gas in the cone? to be called a true aerogel it has to be around 90% to 99.8% gas
I have not been able to find anybody who makes an aerogel paper or aluminium material that can be pressed into a woofer cone and its something I have wanted to do for over a decade.
Any help or advice is more welcome 🙂
It cannot handle gulps of power or and has a small excursion but who cares!
The only question for me is, does it have Aerogel in the matrix of the cone? or is the coating some kind of carbon Aerogel dopping?
I know the Audax cone is very light but does it have any gas in the cone? to be called a true aerogel it has to be around 90% to 99.8% gas
I have not been able to find anybody who makes an aerogel paper or aluminium material that can be pressed into a woofer cone and its something I have wanted to do for over a decade.
Any help or advice is more welcome 🙂
It's not an aerogel in the materials science sense. It appears to be a fiber/foam composite, with a syntactic foam and cellulose and ceramic fibers. If I were to guess, the foam is something like Expancel, which would give a cured resin density of something like 0.50g/cc.
This is what's written in the Audax catalog at HD-A: "matrix of acrylic polymer gel in which an optimezed proportion of Carbon and Kevlar fibers are embedded. This process results in a cone that is ultra light (30% lighter than paper), extremely rigid (70% stiffer than paper at the same weight) and a maximezed internal damping."
Yup, I seem to remember a mention in a review years ago that it was originally developed for constructing sport gliders, very light, yet very strong, which is where the Aerogel name comes from.
Paradise_Ice said:
I can only echo my own thoughts of the HM100Z0 vs. the ATC Super (sortof compared them last year). I'd say the HM100Z0 is still behind the ATC and is very noticeable on hard hitting complex music such as rock and dance. The HM100Z0 sounds dynamic but it fails to electrify like the ATC's do. They just don't have that presence and live quality like the ATC's do. Its a different presentation, the Audax are smoother and easier to listen to but ultimately lesser drivers for me.
But all due respect to the HM100Z0 it is a nice mid and costs next to nothing in comparison to the ATC. I'm using AudioTech 5" mids now and I'd still give the nod to the ATC for the best mid that I've heard. The AT and Audax are very nice but a step down from the ATC.
Lets face it though, the asking price on the ATC supers is just too much given the distance between these drivers. So I'd say the HM100Z0 is arguably the better driver when you buy 22 of them for the price of a pair of supers!
pinkmouse said:
I'm not sure about that, the Audax goes pretty loud if you keep it within the same limits as the ATC ie. 400hz+. Maybe not quite as loud as the ATC but still more than enough for comfort.
I'm really talking about the presentation, the ATC gets your attention through a live and lifelike quality. Playback vocals through the ATC and the tonality is just so spot on that you just think "yeah that's how it would sound". Its a driver you don't question very often. Its a bit of tough love though because its not that great to work with, costs a bomb, looks like something out of the 70's and can be its own worst enemy with some tracks being just aweful through it and the louder you play them the more your ears hurt.
This is the Audax and AT's strength - play anything and its listenable and very often superb. However I don't quite that same 'being there' and energy that the ATC's gave when you gave them a well recorded track.
Given the fact that we're comparing a £35 midrange to a £390 one is a huge compliment to the Audax.
BTW I'd say the AT and Audax are roughly equals and actual share a very similar sound. Not bad considering the AT's are about £150 each.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.