let's say from 1.5 khz and up the array uses Radian:
https://radianaudio.com/collections/ribbon/products/lm8k-wide-band-planar-ribbon-transducer
and below 250 hz it uses 12" woofers:
https://www.eighteensound.it/en/products/lf-driver/12-0/8/12ntlw3500
and you need to cover 250 hz to 1.5 khz with something ...
this is a fairly important frequency range and i wouldn't want to use something that isn't clean ...
so far the best i could come up with is this:
https://lavocespeakers.com/single-product/?id=135
steel basket keeps price down to $55 making it viable for array use, and manufacturer provided FR is very clean through intended range but there is no information about distortion for example ... also the driver doesn't seem to have demodulation rings or caps which makes me question if it's high enough caliber to work with the drivers i mentioned that it would cross over to above and below ...
it seems demodulation rings are used mostly to extend HF response in "full range" drivers with lowering of distortion being just a welcome side effect ... nobody seems to bother to put demodulation rings in a driver if that would take an already flat response and make it a rising response ...
the other issue i am facing is that essentially all small drivers ( 3" or less ) are "full range" which means they prioritize bandwidth over midrange quality ...
true midranges do exist of course but the smallest i was able to find are 5 inches and also they are very expensive ( $150 or more ) for array use. pretty much no matter if you use Faital, B&C or Beyma or any other dedicated prosound midrange they are all $150+ ...
the reason i would like a smaller driver like 3" is because then i could flank the Radian ribbon by midranges on both sides and have nice symmetrical directivity ... but after seeing 20% THD on a peerless full range as tested by Vance Dickason i am worried if full range drivers may not be clean enough for this application ...
on other hand dedicated mid-range drivers are too big and too expensive ...
thoughts ?
https://radianaudio.com/collections/ribbon/products/lm8k-wide-band-planar-ribbon-transducer
and below 250 hz it uses 12" woofers:
https://www.eighteensound.it/en/products/lf-driver/12-0/8/12ntlw3500
and you need to cover 250 hz to 1.5 khz with something ...
this is a fairly important frequency range and i wouldn't want to use something that isn't clean ...
so far the best i could come up with is this:
https://lavocespeakers.com/single-product/?id=135
steel basket keeps price down to $55 making it viable for array use, and manufacturer provided FR is very clean through intended range but there is no information about distortion for example ... also the driver doesn't seem to have demodulation rings or caps which makes me question if it's high enough caliber to work with the drivers i mentioned that it would cross over to above and below ...
it seems demodulation rings are used mostly to extend HF response in "full range" drivers with lowering of distortion being just a welcome side effect ... nobody seems to bother to put demodulation rings in a driver if that would take an already flat response and make it a rising response ...
the other issue i am facing is that essentially all small drivers ( 3" or less ) are "full range" which means they prioritize bandwidth over midrange quality ...
true midranges do exist of course but the smallest i was able to find are 5 inches and also they are very expensive ( $150 or more ) for array use. pretty much no matter if you use Faital, B&C or Beyma or any other dedicated prosound midrange they are all $150+ ...
the reason i would like a smaller driver like 3" is because then i could flank the Radian ribbon by midranges on both sides and have nice symmetrical directivity ... but after seeing 20% THD on a peerless full range as tested by Vance Dickason i am worried if full range drivers may not be clean enough for this application ...
on other hand dedicated mid-range drivers are too big and too expensive ...
thoughts ?
@Dissident Sound
this driver is pretty perfect
I would skip for this one the tweeters
no joke
it will sound as a FAST system also with best impulse response and perfect dispersion
this driver is pretty perfect
I would skip for this one the tweeters
no joke
it will sound as a FAST system also with best impulse response and perfect dispersion
a commercial speaker used two of the tectonic drivers as a small line array with bass
I would only use a single one with maybe a short waveguide
I would only use a single one with maybe a short waveguide
are there any 3rd party distortion measurements for the tectonic ?
i don't care that it reaches 20 khz flat - i am looking for midrange, not full range.
i only need clear FR over a relatively narrow range and beyond that i want high efficiency and low distortion.
it seems to me that because Tectonic relies on diaphragm bending so much it might have higher distortion, even if it would have flatter response.
basically polypropylene drivers measure flat but aren't well regarded because flat response isn't everything. stiffer, more efficient drivers like carbon fiber loaded paper seem to sound better despite not being as flat measuring, so long as you implement a crossover that has a final response that is flat.
to me tectonic philosophy is similar to that of poly cones, only even more extreme. they allow for an even less stiff diaphragm than poly and then simply control the breakup even more than poly does. this is the right solution when you NEED wide bandwidth / can't implement any kind of brick wall DSP crossovers but if you can band-limit the driver to a narrow range where it is flat then i think a lighter, stiffer cone would maybe perform better ?
did anybody measure the distortion of these drivers ?
i don't care that it reaches 20 khz flat - i am looking for midrange, not full range.
i only need clear FR over a relatively narrow range and beyond that i want high efficiency and low distortion.
it seems to me that because Tectonic relies on diaphragm bending so much it might have higher distortion, even if it would have flatter response.
basically polypropylene drivers measure flat but aren't well regarded because flat response isn't everything. stiffer, more efficient drivers like carbon fiber loaded paper seem to sound better despite not being as flat measuring, so long as you implement a crossover that has a final response that is flat.
to me tectonic philosophy is similar to that of poly cones, only even more extreme. they allow for an even less stiff diaphragm than poly and then simply control the breakup even more than poly does. this is the right solution when you NEED wide bandwidth / can't implement any kind of brick wall DSP crossovers but if you can band-limit the driver to a narrow range where it is flat then i think a lighter, stiffer cone would maybe perform better ?
did anybody measure the distortion of these drivers ?
With most of the smaller drivers it's just a matter of physics that they can play as a full range Vs whether or not they were designed specifically as such.
In other words you shouldn't discount them on the basis that they'll have compromised performance between 250-1500Hz.
A bad driver is a bad driver though but that doesn't mean they all are.
The Peerless TC9/TG9 drivers are fine performers at any price point and then there's the Scanspeak 10F. Arrays have already been built to excellent success using the former two. I think most have avoided arraying the 10F due to its elevated price for very little extra gain.
Dayton Audio have the RS75 and RS100. As well as the PS95.
This website has some additional measurements.
https://feleppa.com.au/speakermeasmid.html
There is no replacement for displacement though so squeezing in bigger drivers will help the lower part of their range if possible.
As for the tectonic drivers? I've seen some measurements somewhere. One of them has excellent performance whereas the others do not.
In other words you shouldn't discount them on the basis that they'll have compromised performance between 250-1500Hz.
A bad driver is a bad driver though but that doesn't mean they all are.
The Peerless TC9/TG9 drivers are fine performers at any price point and then there's the Scanspeak 10F. Arrays have already been built to excellent success using the former two. I think most have avoided arraying the 10F due to its elevated price for very little extra gain.
Dayton Audio have the RS75 and RS100. As well as the PS95.
This website has some additional measurements.
https://feleppa.com.au/speakermeasmid.html
There is no replacement for displacement though so squeezing in bigger drivers will help the lower part of their range if possible.
As for the tectonic drivers? I've seen some measurements somewhere. One of them has excellent performance whereas the others do not.
@Dissident Sound
you can trust these measurements from a german diy loudspeaker magazine.
If you go for efficiency you will have to look for the pro drivers
if you filter active a single tectonic and a waveguide for it will do irrespective of efficiency
if you try them its worth listening to them fullrange. Would be interesting to get a feedback on fullrange vs tweeter design
you can trust these measurements from a german diy loudspeaker magazine.
If you go for efficiency you will have to look for the pro drivers
if you filter active a single tectonic and a waveguide for it will do irrespective of efficiency
if you try them its worth listening to them fullrange. Would be interesting to get a feedback on fullrange vs tweeter design
ah i see it now. looks like distortion is low above 1 khz ...
but 1 khz is pretty high for a driver with full on suspension ...
there are dome and planar midranges that can go lower than that ...
maybe they are testing at a high SPL level i don't know ...
More measurements here:
https://hificompass.com/en/speakers/measurements/tectonic/tectonic-tebm46c20n-4b
However it seems that the driver may have been discontinued, as I can't actually find it for sale anywhere at the moment...
https://hificompass.com/en/speakers/measurements/tectonic/tectonic-tebm46c20n-4b
However it seems that the driver may have been discontinued, as I can't actually find it for sale anywhere at the moment...
this one is decent quality for a good price (from 3 way loudspeaker discussion thread)
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-PC105-4-4-Full-Range-Poly-Cone-Driver-295-158?quantity=1
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-PC105-4-4-Full-Range-Poly-Cone-Driver-295-158?quantity=1
This one (LaVoce WSN041.00) looks very promising. >90db sensitivity, focus on covering between ~150 and 3kHz, seemingly few resonances in the passband (if the impedance data is not smoothed too much, at least). And a price of around 50 USD/EUR.
https://lavocespeakers.com/single-product/?id=135
https://lavocespeakers.com/single-product/?id=135
it's impressive for the price. it's $55 compared to only slightly better Faital Pro 5PR160 which is $130.
while both are designed in Italy the Faital is also made in Italy while LaVoce is made in China.
also the Faital is bigger ( 5-1/4" vs 4" ) and has a cast basket and a demodulation ring and water repellent cone coating and leads woven into the spider and 3X the rated power handling ...
that said for a smaller, more affordable driver LaVoce has really nice frequency response and great efficiency.
it seems LaVoce is a newer company that is based around designing in Italy and manufacturing in China and is overall a more of a budget brand than Faital, B&C, RCF, Beyma, 18 Sound etc. but it seems well liked in the community ( no doubt due to their value ) and in the one review Vance Dickason had of a La Voce driver he said "it would appear that the company is going to be a formidable player in the OEM pro market" again, due to the value proposition enabled by manufacturing in China ...
that said ... it's not like companies like Faital couldn't manufacture in China if they wanted to. they just aren't as focused on the value aspect of things, and their small full-range drivers are also quite affordable.
but the 4" non-full-range is a rare beast ... though frankly the response of LaVoce is such that you may as well call it full range. while Faital 5PR160 is definitely NOT a full range, but rather a mid-bass with a very clean response.
i don't know which one appeals to me more philosophically.
Vance reviewed the 6" version of the Faital ( 6PR160 ) and it did very well, but the one LaVoce he reviewed ( though unrelated to the 4" ) did well too.
Faital is hyping the 5PR160 pretty hard. they have an entire press release with a bunch of product photos for it and a youtube video etc. LaVoce doesn't even have a picture of their 4" on their site - just a rendering, which kind of goes to show they are a more down to earth, or perhaps down to China brand.
https://faitalpro.com/highlights/2021/5PR160/
If you are about to purchase 20-30 pcs, maybe you should get one of each and do a evaluation?
//
//
The small Beyma full range drivers are fantastic value - not exactly what you want but they have a very clean midrange.
i agree this is a very nice 3" full range:
https://www.beyma.de/fileadmin/seiten/download/pdf/Datenblaetter/3FR30Nd_Preliminar.pdf
$55 is a bit high for a 3" but it has some nice touches and better efficiency over lesser 3" full range drivers.
@Dissident Sound
its a woven glassfiber cone. Not a poly. Only poly damped they say
its a woven glassfiber cone. Not a poly. Only poly damped they say
- Poly damped woven glass fiber cone controls cone break-up and provides a smooth roll-off
- Copper cap keeps inductance under control and extends high frequency response
- 1" vented aluminum voice coil former and vented pole piece for high power handling
- High energy ferrite magnet increases BL for higher efficiency and more output
- Smooth response with true full-range reproduction for simple speaker designs
