PB,
"But the main problem with the NS3-194-16A is that it's grungey, and that 'grunge' may very well be harmonic distortion. So using a big pile of 'em may be a very good solution!"
Could you please explain this, not being sarcastic, but I've got a pile of them sitting on my table saw waiting for their turn. If I can do something that will improve the sound, I'm all ears. (pun intended) I am planing on the CBT shaded.(I've heard them too, and I liked them) Not the best I've heard, but should be great for my HT.
Ron
"But the main problem with the NS3-194-16A is that it's grungey, and that 'grunge' may very well be harmonic distortion. So using a big pile of 'em may be a very good solution!"
Could you please explain this, not being sarcastic, but I've got a pile of them sitting on my table saw waiting for their turn. If I can do something that will improve the sound, I'm all ears. (pun intended) I am planing on the CBT shaded.(I've heard them too, and I liked them) Not the best I've heard, but should be great for my HT.
Ron
the paper cone Aurasound drivers sound night and day, compared to the aluminum cone drivers. I have both here, but I've only measured the aluminum cone ones, so I can't put my finger on why they sound so different. If I had to make a stab at it, I'd guess that it's due to much greater excursion in the aluminum cone aurasound drivers, and perhaps better damping.
These are just educated guesses though. The difference in sound quality is startling.
I hear similar problems with a lot of the low excursion paper cone drivers though; the fifty cent aurasound drivers sound fairly similar to the $40 Faital 3FE20. And the $2 2" buyout drivers from Parts Express sound similar too.
For my money, the Dayton ND91 and the Fostex 3" are the best sounding drivers in this size category.
And even some of the really tiny drivers sound better than the paper cone Auras. For instance, the 2" Aurasound Cougar sounds great, and Peerless sells a 2" driver with an aluminum cone that sounds great also.
Bang for the buck, the Dayton Aurasound clones (ND90 & ND91) are tough to beat.
Last edited:
Please explain how "using a big pile of 'em might be a very good solution."
Were you?
A: Sarcastic
B: Referring to the "global" sphere of sound design
C: Thinking perhaps due to a large quantity of drivers they may not be pushed hard enough to distort.
🙂
Hoping that one singer may be "fair" but an entire chorus is sweet.
Ron
AKA-----el cheapo
Were you?
A: Sarcastic
B: Referring to the "global" sphere of sound design
C: Thinking perhaps due to a large quantity of drivers they may not be pushed hard enough to distort.
🙂
Hoping that one singer may be "fair" but an entire chorus is sweet.
Ron
AKA-----el cheapo
Wasn't being sarcastic - was thinking that the problem with the paper cone Aurasound may simply be harmonic distortion. If this is the case, reducing the excursion by using a pile of them may well be the answer!
Still not 100% sure if it's distortion though. For a while I was convinced that the Faital 3FE20 was a fine driver, and some people on the full range forum said that the Fostex FF85WK was a better solution.
And they were right! The FF85WK *does* sound very very good.
To my ears, I'd rate the four drivers like this:
1) Fostex FF85WK
2) Dayton ND91 (used in the 'real' CBT, and designed with the input of Keele himself.)
3) Faital 3FE20
4) the cheapo paper cone Aurasound drivers
But all of this is a 'law of diminishing returns' type thing. Is the Aurasound 10% as good as the Fostex? No, more like 75% as good. You have to pay a lot to get that last few percent of performance.
One of the tricky things with arrays is that an array of a lot of crappy drivers will often sound like one big crappy driver. The trick is to find a cheap driver that sounds good, but has low power handling and low displacement. Because arraying a lot of drivers will raise their power handling, and it will raise their displacement, but it won't always improve the fundamental sound of the driver. The only exception to that rule is if the driver has some type of fundamental problem with distortion.
And at this point, I can't say if that's the case with the paper cone Aurasound. It may be. Not 100% sure unless I ran some measurements on it.
No kerfing. 1/2" MDF bends over the arc just fine. You need to screw it down good (I think I went every 6 inches).
The real CBT36s are not kerfed either. Once all the holes for the drivers are in, its very flexible.
What I find interesting about the CBT36 is that the Dayton ND91 is only used from 100Hz to 1K .. then he crosses to the tweeters. I wonder if that is to get out of the driver before some of the nasty breakups start to happen.
I find that the Aura has a very natural sound in the midrange and extends nicely up to about 6KHz. That's where I roll it off to the tweeters. I put a dip in the EQ right around 2KHz to take a little of the 'boxy' sound out. But to be honest, I like this with just about every speaker I have every listened to. Guess I am addicted to the 'BBC Dip'
With 19 drivers a side, no single driver is working very hard and the entire array is very dynamic. I'm still digging it.
I find that the Aura has a very natural sound in the midrange and extends nicely up to about 6KHz. That's where I roll it off to the tweeters. I put a dip in the EQ right around 2KHz to take a little of the 'boxy' sound out. But to be honest, I like this with just about every speaker I have every listened to. Guess I am addicted to the 'BBC Dip'
With 19 drivers a side, no single driver is working very hard and the entire array is very dynamic. I'm still digging it.
P.B.
Thank you for that post and explanation, I am familiar with the law of diminishing returns. I built a set of speakers for my daughter with Dayton drivers, they sounded better than they should have. I have a set of speakers with Seas Excel drivers, the Seas tweeter alone cost more than all the Dayton drivers combined. But they don't sound 10 times better to my ears. Much better? Yes. IMO worth the difference because I enjoy the shimmer of the cymbals.
Not too sure I want you to test the Paper Aura's.......LOL. Really appreciate you answering my questions. I learn each time I join a thread. Thanks.
Rhubarb,
Awesome that I won't have to kerf the backside of the baffle. I was trying to come up with some edge treatment to hide the slices. One more thing I don't have to worry about. 🙂 I'm thinking about crossing the Aura's over about 5KHz.
How hard is it to implement a "dip" in the passive XO? I am not using an active XO.
I was going to use 16 drivers per side, works for Ohms and passive XOs.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
Ron
Glad you like your speakers still. :
Thank you for that post and explanation, I am familiar with the law of diminishing returns. I built a set of speakers for my daughter with Dayton drivers, they sounded better than they should have. I have a set of speakers with Seas Excel drivers, the Seas tweeter alone cost more than all the Dayton drivers combined. But they don't sound 10 times better to my ears. Much better? Yes. IMO worth the difference because I enjoy the shimmer of the cymbals.
Not too sure I want you to test the Paper Aura's.......LOL. Really appreciate you answering my questions. I learn each time I join a thread. Thanks.
Rhubarb,
Awesome that I won't have to kerf the backside of the baffle. I was trying to come up with some edge treatment to hide the slices. One more thing I don't have to worry about. 🙂 I'm thinking about crossing the Aura's over about 5KHz.
How hard is it to implement a "dip" in the passive XO? I am not using an active XO.
I was going to use 16 drivers per side, works for Ohms and passive XOs.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
Ron
Glad you like your speakers still. :
- Status
- Not open for further replies.