What do you mean, any idea ?Why is this thread named "best"?
Which can compete with the famous td2001 td2002 or Yamaha's?
Or was the td2001 fantastic because it was almost the only one to be able to play in a 2 way ?
According to your profile pictures you're presumably a TAD enthusiast. Are there other drivers which you feel are in a different league from the ones mentioned in this thread, which are produced today? My research leads me to believe that the smaller neodymium drivers of today are just as performative and in some instances more than Alnico drivers of yesteryear. The top of the line drivers from brands like Beyma, Faital, BMS, etc. typically feature a magnetic flux density of around 2.2t which is not an easy feat -- or is an expensive and premium feat. The magnets in the TADs for example had a flux density of 2.0t. The magnets in 3500 AER full range drivers are 2.2t. Exceeding that flux density is quite expensive and difficult. When considering the parameters which make drivers premium, most important are the quality of the magnet and diaphragm. Today's high powered magnets and contemporary diaphragms perform quite nicely in my experience.Why is this thread named "best"?
Last edited:
Some preliminary observations comparing the drivers side by side and AB testing:
Beyma CP755ND most musical, open and authoritative crossed at 1200hz
BMS 4552 smooth treble, anemic mids compared to the CP755ND crossed at 1200hz
Faital HF108 nice midrange which is on par or maybe slightly better than 4552, 4552 has a more open extended quality in the highs which would imply it’s maybe a better option as a tweeter in a three way. Upon these findings, I imagine the neodymium BMS coax drivers which feature the same hf driver are quite good (unless the midrange is poor) despite some negative reviews
HF1440 nasal, objectionable and weak compared to the CP755ND crossed at 1200hz
The CP755ND is the smoothest of the lot thus far though the different horns I'm using certainly contribute to the various characteristics I'm hearing. Will be purchasing some more horns and waveguides to achieve a more equal basis for testing.
Beyma CP755ND most musical, open and authoritative crossed at 1200hz
BMS 4552 smooth treble, anemic mids compared to the CP755ND crossed at 1200hz
Faital HF108 nice midrange which is on par or maybe slightly better than 4552, 4552 has a more open extended quality in the highs which would imply it’s maybe a better option as a tweeter in a three way. Upon these findings, I imagine the neodymium BMS coax drivers which feature the same hf driver are quite good (unless the midrange is poor) despite some negative reviews
HF1440 nasal, objectionable and weak compared to the CP755ND crossed at 1200hz
The CP755ND is the smoothest of the lot thus far though the different horns I'm using certainly contribute to the various characteristics I'm hearing. Will be purchasing some more horns and waveguides to achieve a more equal basis for testing.
I just discovered a new PRV driver - D260MY-B.
They appear to be a knock off of a JBL 2407 with a polyester ring radiating diaphragm. Preliminary testing on a B&C ME20 WG shows close resemblance to the 2407 and very smooth top end, but only crossed rather high. It would be a good tweeter for a 3 way.
They appear to be a knock off of a JBL 2407 with a polyester ring radiating diaphragm. Preliminary testing on a B&C ME20 WG shows close resemblance to the 2407 and very smooth top end, but only crossed rather high. It would be a good tweeter for a 3 way.
It seems lot's of drivers including B&C and Beyma are JBL knockoffs. That particular PRV driver is an interesting one. It's a very cost effective and measures quite well which is not the case with some other more high end PRV drivers. Curious how the mylar diaphragm compares with others.
Last edited:
I have a Minidsp dac on hand and am waiting on some NCore amps to be able to use it. I will experiment with eqs once those arrive. For now I'm basing my preference on which has the most native pleasant tonality. Despite the differences is rated sensitivity, all the drivers aside from the TPL200s play at a similar enough level to compare them side by side at equal volume to both channels.
The difference between the HF108 and 4552 doesn't seem all that substantial. Whereas the difference between the CP755ND and HF1440 was. In addition, the 1.4" drivers seem to have more authority at the cost of some treble refinement. I suspect the HF108 or 4552 is the most composed of the lot that I've tested thus far, though the CP755ND has an energy and excitement factor that differentiates it from the rest.
The difference between the HF108 and 4552 doesn't seem all that substantial. Whereas the difference between the CP755ND and HF1440 was. In addition, the 1.4" drivers seem to have more authority at the cost of some treble refinement. I suspect the HF108 or 4552 is the most composed of the lot that I've tested thus far, though the CP755ND has an energy and excitement factor that differentiates it from the rest.
While it is nice don't throw anything away until you try with full system. If we look at manufacturer graphs the hf1440 for example has exceptionally smooth frequency response but the high treble is 10db down from the 2kHz and would sound very nasal while CP755ND has only roughly 5db down and would sound much more balanced. I've never heard either but know that driver I have sounds substantially better EQ:d than without, just sayin' don't judge on first look
Here another bigger nitride coated one, NSD1480N + XT1464 60 X 40 elliptic CD horn - but i do not like the "it's all plastic what you need" look & feel of the 18sound XT1464 horn
unwindowed third octave smoothing for horn cut off evaluation
windowed measurement for upper frequency behavior with one twelve octave smoothing
and the corresponding waterfall diagram
unwindowed third octave smoothing for horn cut off evaluation
windowed measurement for upper frequency behavior with one twelve octave smoothing
and the corresponding waterfall diagram
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the measurements. Could you post the impulse but with a total time scale of 2 ms please?
And if possible, turn the waterfall for a veiw more from the right (high freq) - and start it on 500 Hz - also deepen the levels so we can see down to -3+ dB?
//
Good morning ladies and gentlemen!
I am quite new to CLIO pocket and still fiddling around a lot with the software issues.
I post some changed views from the same CRP file obtained from the measurement of the NSD1095N with the 4 1/2 inch wooden horn some days ago.
here we can see clearly that an analog measurement without sampling effects with a good old storing oscilloscope would be much better
this is the unchanged default view of the waterfall diagram from the CLIO software
I am quite new to CLIO pocket and still fiddling around a lot with the software issues.
I post some changed views from the same CRP file obtained from the measurement of the NSD1095N with the 4 1/2 inch wooden horn some days ago.
here we can see clearly that an analog measurement without sampling effects with a good old storing oscilloscope would be much better
this is the unchanged default view of the waterfall diagram from the CLIO software
This is a measurement of the CP755Nd on my monster ES horn at random level and 0.5 m distance (inroom, therefore Psy smoothed). It is an exceptionally flat response.
Just for comparison, BC DE500 on a smaller version of the ES horn:
Different scale and smoothing, but the downwards slope above 4k is clearly visible. I am not sure where this comes from, maybe my pair is just not perfectly OK. There is nothing like that to be seen in the datasheet.
Just for comparison, BC DE500 on a smaller version of the ES horn:
Different scale and smoothing, but the downwards slope above 4k is clearly visible. I am not sure where this comes from, maybe my pair is just not perfectly OK. There is nothing like that to be seen in the datasheet.