While I've largely given up posting in this thread, I can say that, unlike Toole and Olive in their double blind tests with trained listeners, I've found that some opinions posted here are highly suspect in some cases, and seemingly among those that post here or elsewhere most prolifically. [In my responses in this and other diyAudio threads, I've posted mostly about 2" compression drivers, but I have also posted on a very small number of other driver types.]
Knowing that my last statement will likely create added tension among readers here, I nevertheless feel that the phrase "let the buyer beware" needs to be firmly stated again. I've seen opinions posted here from even noted individuals that I know to be in great error by any subjective standard that can be applied evenly. In these cases, their EQ filters used and their resulting overall resultant EQ curves are typically not shown by those giving what I know to be badly calibrated opinions (having personally had the drivers in question in my possession for extensive acoustic testing and subjective listening trials to form my opinions).
What's more, when these same individuals are questioned by myself or others about the conditions of their tests and the horns they use, they often do not readily offer up that they could have made rather large errors during their testing and/or listening, the conditions of their tests, and sometimes even hedge their replies with what appears to be erroneous EQ and/or horn measured response in order to "save face". This is especially worrisome for a thread like this that purports to be telling "truths".
I've even seen in this thread and others like it where someone was passing judgment on drivers and horns using no EQ at all. It took several pages or questioning from others to find what was actually occurring...and many more pages or messages to get said individuals to at least stop posting their "opinions" (which were not opinions at all, but in fact misinformation). This is really not encouraging, to say the least.
When someone here recommends to others to "do it yourself--because you might get different results", I think that these individuals might recognize some or all of what I've said above, but choose instead to say it in a more euphemistic manner to allow others posting here to save face.
So when someone might say words to the effect of "I would not breed from this officer" as if evaluating someone's judgment or actions, I think the other readers here seeking guidance in their compression driver selection decisions should not feel secure in their trust of others' uncalibrated opinions--most emphatically.
YMMV.
Chris
Last edited:
What could be useful is if posters show and tell, i.e. show us their current speakers systems, used daily to listen to music/videos etc., the criteria for selecting the CDs and what they feel are the pros and cons of current speakers/CDs and evt what they think is the way forward to better evt weaknesses. I often fall into the trap of inittally liking something and then long term I find out what enticed me and why I didnt initially notice the traites i dislike.
My point is short term testing something only highlights the bad and/or good traits compared to some narrow reference. While long term usage gives the opportunity to get the best out of a CD, or any component for that matter, by using different setups, horns/waveguides, amps, sources, crossovers, eq. etc. and gives one a better understanding of its strengts and weaknesses. As an example, I used lowthers horns for more than 10 years and still miss theire good traits while I know what I hate.
There is probably no best CD out there, there are many good and many that can be made good/better in the right setting.
There is probably no best CD out there, there are many good and many that can be made good/better in the right setting.
Good morning Marco,
Finally, after not getting a response from GT sound to my emails, I bought a pair of Yamamoto ss-300s. And while the rest of the components arrive. It would be good to choose a good driver for the horn. My intention is a 2-way speaker. With the Yamamoto from 500-600 hz up to 20,000 hz. With an active crossover. From previous equipment I have a pair of 4592 nd bms, and another pair of 651 be Pb radian. But I suppose there will be more suitable alternatives that better fit the characteristics of the Yamamoto. What do you think is the best driver for these horns. Thanks in advance for your advice.
@mark100 has a wealth of experience
See also
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/b-c-dcx464.335600/
Hi MRJAZZ, hi Steve,
Yeah, in fact just last month, i got my third dcx464 to have enough to fill out my LCR rig.
Finally came to the conclusion that the dcx464 lower section is so clean and clear sounding, that i've switched to over a longstanding like for the bms 4594he.
But these are the only two CDs I have much experience with...so I'm probably not a good source of comparative info vs what is out there...
Yeah, in fact just last month, i got my third dcx464 to have enough to fill out my LCR rig.
Finally came to the conclusion that the dcx464 lower section is so clean and clear sounding, that i've switched to over a longstanding like for the bms 4594he.
But these are the only two CDs I have much experience with...so I'm probably not a good source of comparative info vs what is out there...
I'd like to hear the B&C DCX464 on a suitable Synergy horn (perhaps with a pair of 8" LFs) VS the BMS 5CN140 on a suitable horn with MF tapping in (as per SM60F).
Then I could evaluate them against the Vitavox S2 loaded SH50 alike pair of horns I've made, and keep the best!
Unless I build both variants to a suitable high standard, that's the only way that comparison is ever gonna happen
That said, this could occupy my DIY horn building desires for a long time!
I also prefer the B&C DE360 over BMS 1" drivers - when you don't need the lower crossover of the BMS. The membrane of the DE360 seems to be harder, maybe that helps to have less "smooting" of the sound.
From the measurements it looks as if it would be easier to design a crossover for the DCX354 beause it has more overlap between its two ways than the DCX 464. Bu it has slightly more harmonic distortion if Vance Dickason's measurements are right.
Theoretically the coax drivers should have a slight advantage in terms of IMD over single diaphragm ones covering the same frequency range. Whether they also have an audlible advantage is still open.
Regards
Charles
It should have a BIG advantage over a 3" or 4" membrane in terms of resonances >8kHz!
IMD with a membrane which is "not moving" at these listening levels should not be the big difference?
How do you reckon that? Looking at the graphs it's pretty much six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Attachments
Looks as if my memory served me wrong. I searched for the Dickason tests as well and also there it looks as if the larger one would be slightly easier to cross over.
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...h-powered-coaxial-compression-driver-and-horn
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...igh-power-coaxial-compression-driver-and-horn
But both are quite tricky to cross over. So the question is still open whether it is worth it to use them for a HiFi application. Drivers like a HF1440 should be much easier to get a linear amplitude response from. But there is still a possibility that the B&C coaxes sound better if used properly.
One thing that I don't like that much about the DCX 354 is that the path lenght of the MF driver is about 12 mm longer than the HF path. Vice-versa would have been much more convenient for the crossover design.
Regards
Charles
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...h-powered-coaxial-compression-driver-and-horn
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...igh-power-coaxial-compression-driver-and-horn
But both are quite tricky to cross over. So the question is still open whether it is worth it to use them for a HiFi application. Drivers like a HF1440 should be much easier to get a linear amplitude response from. But there is still a possibility that the B&C coaxes sound better if used properly.
One thing that I don't like that much about the DCX 354 is that the path lenght of the MF driver is about 12 mm longer than the HF path. Vice-versa would have been much more convenient for the crossover design.
Regards
Charles
Should have if everything else is equal, which it never is.
8 khz?
You will find the B&C 464 mid diaphragm have a resonance around 5-6k khz, that is 10db ish. spike in amplitude, will need some attention in the filtering.
You will also find that the HF section have some low Q resonances from 6k and all the way up.
It has some strange impulse anomalies it seems.
But the resonances are fairly low in level and without severe breakup. The polymer material seems fairly well damped.
And no i never had a DCX 464 in my hands, just interpeting the easily available measurements from mfg. and other places.
If you want to avoid resonances, you'd often be better served by those who actually targets it in design and focus on trying to minimize it in general.
But TI diaphragms often have resonances a octave below Be for example.
You will see that JBL started coating they're Be diaphragms also to further repress the issue.
18S have done a lot of work on minimizing resonances in some of they're product line.
You will also find that plenty of manufacturers have designed resonances into drivers or avoided trying to remove them for same reasons, to boost spl or extend response.
And yes the ND360 is a nice 1".
this one might give you some insights, im sure it has been posted before, if looking at resonances and design go at 40mins + :