Relatively speaking, one can find brand new modern drivers that are arguably better than the old drivers for less money than the cost of new diaphragms for the old drivers.
This depends on the quality of the old drivers. It also depends on the desired bandwidth. The 802 was designed to extend a larger bandwidth than most modern drivers - so while it's high freq. response isn't quite as extended as newer drivers, it's lower freq. response has greater extension, something very difficult to find in newer drivers at a lower price.
Without an actual A/B comparison I can't say for sure, but reviews on the B&C DE200 and the DE250, both in the $100 range are good.
I have four used Eminence PSD 2002 for sale for $25 apiece that may sound better than some Altec 802 drivers...
I have to think that with at least some of the more reviews available,
one must consider that the implementation of any driver can be poor/decent/good -- and much is dependent on the care and consideration taken when designing/implementing a given system...
I think that we can all agree that we've heard systems with top flight components that just didn't fly very well, and well as systems that seemed pretty basic, that performed quite well despite a given set of circumstances commonly identified as 'limitations'
That's an interesting way of putting it.
I'm not a fan of titanium diaphgrams and find that hard to believe it could better a normal functioning 802.
I doubt there is are many non Altec/JBL drivers that goes from 500Hz and close to 20kHz.
The horn determines the LF response, there are plenty of 1" exit drivers that can do 500 Hz on a large horn.
Newer voice coils are able to handle higher power than the old, but excursion is the limiting factor rather than power down low, so most newer drivers rate power at a frequency that the diaphragm won't hammer against the phase plug. This results often in a 1500 Hz or so LF rating, even though the driver can go much lower when used at lower power levels.
Most compression drivers are used for PA, survivability may be more important than SQ.
The graph below shows a JBL 2420 with a Clear Power titanium diaphragm compared to a Eminence PSD 2002 (type 1) on similar horns, the difference between horns being the horn throat for the 2002 driver throat was made longer to equal the 2420 depth.
Art
Attachments
If it fits and had the same screw pattern, it would be possible.
That said, I have not researched what, if any actually use the same pattern as old Altec drivers.
Diaphragm material is only one aspect of many that result in a driver's sound quality.
Aluminum surround diaphragms crack when used low and loud, I have not used aluminum diaphragms since titanium (which does not stress crack) became available back in the early 1980s.
Art
I posted a response curve for the PSD2002 series 1 on one of my old 60 x30 horns in post #87.
Eminence has response curves available in PDF form on their website.
Art
what about Beryllium dome - polymer surround diaphragm?
shipping cost friendly
4" ND4015BE - HF Neodymium Driver
Last edited:
suspension. hd-1050 (polymer surround) in horn with (g) and without
back coverAttachments
I was just about to order NSD1480N's and live with their known limited LF capability, but now I think I'm going to wait for these new 4"-monsters...
Member
Joined 2003
The amount of smoothing used in the 18S graph reduces the small secondary peak, and makes the first peak look wider. Your measurement display the peaks as more narrow.agree
for some reason 18S drivers free air impedance graphs havn't second peak
but measured have.
hd1050:
Same thing occurs when smoothing is applied to frequency response graphs.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.