Profiguy mentioned the CHP-90 earlier, 5" paper version. It is supposed to sound very good. If the NE149W is unavailable it might be my top choice. It may not sound better than the SB12MNRX and is not as cheap as the 5FE120 but a Markaudio full range would have a uniqueness factor and the white cone would look cool 😎
Never trust spec sheet measurements is something i learned along the way. This is a third party measurement off the CHN110 from a german diy site:
And this is in line with my own measurements that i can't post now as i'm not home. But i have this driver, and can measure it when i have time. I've already build (single driver fullrange) speakers with it and listened to it for quiet a while. I still have those.
I would agree that it is wise to verify your own samples with actual measurements, instead of relying purely on datasheets.
Datasheet may have been taken at a different point in time, taken with a different measurement method, or a different microphone.
On the other hand, people who do not have measurement capability, might benefit from datasheets.
Here is that measurement, with the Mark Audio's datasheet's measurement on the single graph.
All I've done is shifted the SPL of the datasheet down to match the SPL at 1KHz. (-18.7 dB)
It would appear to me that
1. remarkable similarity between 250Hz and 5.5KHz.
2. The difference is that Mark Audio's datasheet seems to have than 1/24th octave smoothing, than the German DIY site.
3. Both datasheets and measurements could be used to estimate suitability for a midrange, since the midrange is within 250Hz and 5.5KHz.
I would prefer less smoothing.
In a pinch, a user who does not have measurement equipment could reasonable use the datasheet.
I know at least one manufacturer who provide NO datasheets. So in this case I would commend Mark Audio for providing a reasonable datasheet.
Datasheet may have been taken at a different point in time, taken with a different measurement method, or a different microphone.
On the other hand, people who do not have measurement capability, might benefit from datasheets.
Here is that measurement, with the Mark Audio's datasheet's measurement on the single graph.
All I've done is shifted the SPL of the datasheet down to match the SPL at 1KHz. (-18.7 dB)
It would appear to me that
1. remarkable similarity between 250Hz and 5.5KHz.
2. The difference is that Mark Audio's datasheet seems to have than 1/24th octave smoothing, than the German DIY site.
3. Both datasheets and measurements could be used to estimate suitability for a midrange, since the midrange is within 250Hz and 5.5KHz.
I would prefer less smoothing.
In a pinch, a user who does not have measurement equipment could reasonable use the datasheet.
I know at least one manufacturer who provide NO datasheets. So in this case I would commend Mark Audio for providing a reasonable datasheet.
The Mark Audio CHP90 is a decent sounding driver overall. It doesn't have quite the full bodied lower mids of the NE149W, but it does do well in the imaging department as does the SB12MNRX2. The NE149W definitely has a fuller lower midrange than the others and sounds more punchy.
I would agree the frame on the equivalent Faital is pretty much a non-starter for ease of mounting. Sort of requires a rear mount to a plate that then mounts in the cab.
I don't have anything currently as far as measured FR goes for the PRV, but I might be able to get it. I know where 2 pair of my Synchaetas reside.
I did want to point out the PRV has almost twice the available xmax as the Faital does, and close to 3mm.
If it were up to me, I'd include that HDS 830870 as the first one on the list. Very easy to work with, and it costs 55€ at Soundimports.
It is likely to be available in small quantities at PE again as it once used to.
https://www.parts-express.com/Lavoce-WSN041.00-4-Neodymium-Woofer-293-796?quantity=1
This is another 4" that looks very promising, aside from frame shape.
The xmax is 4.0mm, 92dB sensitivity, and a more beneficial 8 ohm load for easier system 3way impedance, and available in both areas.
This is another 4" that looks very promising, aside from frame shape.
The xmax is 4.0mm, 92dB sensitivity, and a more beneficial 8 ohm load for easier system 3way impedance, and available in both areas.
The FaitalPRO we have been considering if the 5FE120... But usspeaker has the 5FE125 which is a round frame. It has 5.25mm to max.
It is not on the current list of Peerless drivers coming back into stock at PE.
It's a 4" - while not disqualifying, 5" is preferred
Not a round frame.
What I do see that there is 2 direction on the mid. Some are trying to find the best. Some are trying to find the relativemy chip bargain.
Like we had on the bass driver.
There was the possibility to make 2 versions. High and low cost.
Maybe ,we should go this way. And for example something like:
Height cost: sb34 and ne149w
Low cost : peerless 830689 and 5fe125.
Like we had on the bass driver.
There was the possibility to make 2 versions. High and low cost.
Maybe ,we should go this way. And for example something like:
Height cost: sb34 and ne149w
Low cost : peerless 830689 and 5fe125.
I would suspect the wiggly curve is either an echoic measurement with too little gating, or something else is broken. With a typical gated measurement down with the lowest frequency at 250 Hz or so, the second lowest point would be at 500 Hz, followed by 750 Hz. The smoothing of the blue/datasheet curve corresponds roughly to this frequency resolution, and looks overall ok to me. Not so with the wiggly brown curve, which seems amiss to me.
This is only partially correct. For the woofer, a higher performance 12" woofer would kill the budget. So we choose the highest value proposition. We did NOT choose the cheapest option, as there were several GRS, Goldwood, Dayton, etc options much cheaper but simply not as high performing as the Peerless.
Because we saved money/budget on the woofer we have more flexibility in our choice of midrange. Note, no one is actually talking about the BEST midrange (Purifi, Scanspeak, Satori)... We have settled on a soft ceiling of about $75. I would suggest we choose the BEST midrange under $75. As an example, the SB15PFC is great for the money, but if we are willing to go to $75 then there are clearly better midranges to select.
Last edited:
Going to satori or purify would have no sense with a 100$ woofer...
I don't think we never talk or decide of a soft ceiling at 75$...
I do think that a good speaker needs to be cohérent. If not you always think that something doesn't sound right or is disapointing.
This means same speaker "level". 5fe120 is i think a more cohérent level. BUT i never listen to it nor the sls12 si i might be wrong. (Sb13pfcr has also good opinions but may distort to much at high spl)
I don't think we never talk or decide of a soft ceiling at 75$...
I do think that a good speaker needs to be cohérent. If not you always think that something doesn't sound right or is disapointing.
This means same speaker "level". 5fe120 is i think a more cohérent level. BUT i never listen to it nor the sls12 si i might be wrong. (Sb13pfcr has also good opinions but may distort to much at high spl)
Why just not use SB15NRX2? It's cheap and measures fantastically, just bit bigger than 5 inch. But I don't don't think that there is any driver available all over the world, who can beat it's price/performance ratio.
Or Dayton RS125.
Founded FW146
Care, Sica, Lavoce, Tang Band, HiVi - if we need to be different...
Or Dayton RS125.
Founded FW146
Care, Sica, Lavoce, Tang Band, HiVi - if we need to be different...
Last edited:
SB15NRX2 is on my original list of potential drivers in post 486. Just that no one has really discussed it, pushed it as the best choice.
Last edited:
or SB15MNRX2 with shorter voice coil (Xmax 2.2 mm)?
tested in the latest HOBBY HIFI magazine, with flawless measurements.
I was going to say... If only there was a 5" version of the MNRX2...
I don't see it in the US... If doesn't come up at all in a quick Google search, but I'm on my phone
I don't see it in the US... If doesn't come up at all in a quick Google search, but I'm on my phone
Well one doesn’t really NEED a 5” driver, if you are using a single 830669, because it is limited to about 107dB/1m after baffle step loss compensation:
Most 4" midranges or full range drivers can reach this.
Even the SB12MNRX2, a 4" driver, can play at pink noises continuously for 100hrs at 104.5 dB with a 200Hz Butterworth 12/dB octave high pass filter.
In addition, the directivity would be lower (wider dispersion - > increase spaciousness) for a 4" midrange.
Re: SB15MNRX2
Did SB change the soft parts (surround and/spider) as well?
All SB15/SB17 have full copper cap (and as opposed to than SB12/SB23 have alu ring) and are ideal for midrange use.
in conjunction with the shortened VC, another method to increase sensitivity is to NOT use a big half roll surround that robs precious Sd and increases moving mass.
Use of a double roll surround, or flat foam surround can further increase Sd and reduce moving mass and thereby increasing sensitivity.
If we select the Peerless 830669, with a 4pi sensitivity of 87-88 dB/2.83V, the standard SB15NRX2 has a sensitivity of 86.5dB which comes up a little short. The shortened VC will be enough to increase the sensitivity to make it a suitable midrange.
But if the SB15MNRX2 has a sensitivity of over 90dB/2.83V, then the 830669 then becomes the limiting factor, and we may benefit from reconsidering the 830669 as the woofer.
If we want to reach as close to the OSMC in terms of performance (but a drastically reduced cost) we will need a 4” driver (or smaller) and a higher sensitivity woofer to get close to the high sensitivity (92dB/2.83V 8 ohm) and wide dispersion of the OSMC, which one of the reason's for its high performance. (IMHO)
@stv
Do you have excerpts of the SB15MNRX2 (pictures or measurements) that could be posted under fair use rules (<10% of publication, for academic/non-commercial use)
Most 4" midranges or full range drivers can reach this.
Even the SB12MNRX2, a 4" driver, can play at pink noises continuously for 100hrs at 104.5 dB with a 200Hz Butterworth 12/dB octave high pass filter.
In addition, the directivity would be lower (wider dispersion - > increase spaciousness) for a 4" midrange.
Re: SB15MNRX2
Did SB change the soft parts (surround and/spider) as well?
All SB15/SB17 have full copper cap (and as opposed to than SB12/SB23 have alu ring) and are ideal for midrange use.
in conjunction with the shortened VC, another method to increase sensitivity is to NOT use a big half roll surround that robs precious Sd and increases moving mass.
Use of a double roll surround, or flat foam surround can further increase Sd and reduce moving mass and thereby increasing sensitivity.
If we select the Peerless 830669, with a 4pi sensitivity of 87-88 dB/2.83V, the standard SB15NRX2 has a sensitivity of 86.5dB which comes up a little short. The shortened VC will be enough to increase the sensitivity to make it a suitable midrange.
But if the SB15MNRX2 has a sensitivity of over 90dB/2.83V, then the 830669 then becomes the limiting factor, and we may benefit from reconsidering the 830669 as the woofer.
If we want to reach as close to the OSMC in terms of performance (but a drastically reduced cost) we will need a 4” driver (or smaller) and a higher sensitivity woofer to get close to the high sensitivity (92dB/2.83V 8 ohm) and wide dispersion of the OSMC, which one of the reason's for its high performance. (IMHO)
@stv
Do you have excerpts of the SB15MNRX2 (pictures or measurements) that could be posted under fair use rules (<10% of publication, for academic/non-commercial use)
Last edited: