You're probably right. Anyone who has heard a real live jazz performance especially with live horns playing like a sax, knows a classic soft paper mid sounds like AM radio to the real thing. That 'blat' is so difficult to get right in a speaker. Wave guides and metal cones get it right but some people may not find that edge as it is in the real world to be relaxing in their living room.
Having my wave guide speaker crossed actively, I'm down 20db by 3000hz which is the frequency that activates the twin peaks ringing at 6K and 9K for the F2 and F3 distortion. By F2 at 6K its down over 50db and by 9K its down over 60db. In addition to that I have a wide centered notch at 6-9K. There is zero harshness and the midrange is clean. The entire issue above and below are dictated by what happens at 3000hz so don't activate that frequency. Used from 80 to 1600hz 4th order, the RS180 hangs with drivers many times its price. My TMM has the lower RS180 heading out by 300hz so its off the radar completely. Its function is for baffle step compensation, less low end distortion, and to increase efficiency.
Most people never get as far as your thinking. They dismiss a driver based on hype and never get the chance to see those issues just arent real in all applications. Bass guitar on jazz recording never sound like this with paper or plastic. 1 watt distortion graphs never tell you what you get at 100watts. Paper drivers don't have the transients of a stiff cone. Their shape distorts at higher SPLs.
If you're not into wave guides then use the Scan Speak/peerless HDS tweeter LR4 at 1500. I know first hand that works too because unlike most opinions on the RS180 that come from people who never heard it, I built that system too. I've also used the SB29 and XT25 bare with it. I tend not to give my subjective opinions on these things but if its going to go to that level at least my subjective opinion is based on actually having used the driver in 4 real systems, not theories based on Zaph's distortion graphs. I build a lot of speakers. I only comment on the drivers I've used.
RS180 with HDS tweeter 1500hz 4th order electrical active cross. Down over 24db at 3000hz. No harsh midrange. The HDS tweeter here is 80 bucks. The XT25 with a wave guide is $70 and has low distortion, higher SPL capacity, nearly perfect acoustic center with the midbass drver, and maintains near same freq response anywhere in the room.
Last edited:
I think you have to be precise when you discredit something. Is it the Dayton rs or metal cone in general. Question is what metal cone do you prefer because if none then it is clear that you don't prefer metal cone. That wouldn't sound like discrediting anything. And we know that it is just about personal preference.
I believe that I'm one of those who can clearly see/hear issues with stiff cones but I still prefer them because (1) I know I can solve the issues to certain degree (2) My Prefered cone material is more expensive
I am not a big metal cone fan in general, but I have used them in various designs for several clients. Some are not too bad at all.
Here is an inexpensive line that I designed for Virtue Audio using metal cone drivers. Lucid White Speaker Line And the mid-range was pretty good.
I have used the Seas Excel line too. Three or four of them anyway.
I also redesigned some product for AV123 that used metal cone drivers. It was their Rocket Series speakers.
The Dayton's to me though just do not have a natural sound in the mid-range. They just sound kind of veiled. They do not let the music flow through. I just don't care for them and wouldn't recommend them.
Nothing personal...
Can you elaborate a bit about the systems you used RS drivers in, where crossed, what slopes, and what tweeter you used with them?
Hi,
Imho one needs to distinguish between objective and subjective qualities.
Objectively the Dayton RS-drivers are very well equipped with features usually not found in their price-class.
Build-quality is very high and manufacturing is clean.
These drivers look costier than they are and they´re not cheating.
Tolerances within a charge are reasonable low.
Within their main working range, their linearity is high and THD low.
The upper end working range needs to be resticted low enough or taken special care of, due to the distinct modes of the membrane.
But the features of the RS180S are more those of a good bass-lower mids-driver than a true 2-way driver anyway.
The lower end is exceptionally clean, due to the very stiff cone, mated to a rather complex motor-structure (cone is welted at the outer rim for improved stiffness, 7mm longthrow capability, short-circuit demodulation rings, lowloss surround)
I use them only as bass and lower mids drivers, where their performance is absolutely great.
Using ESLs as mid-high transducers, I certainly know a bit about ´Resolution´. A dynamic driver must for sure be very capable in this regard if it´s to be mated with an ESL. The Dayton is one of the very few drivers - and the only in its price class- I know of, that fulfills the job.
Subjectively they may range from useless to excellent.
Besides personal taste, there are so many influencing factors, like cabinet, setup, implementation, situation, etc, that may spoil the full potential the driver is capable of.
If everything is done right, both, the objective as well as the subjective quality of these drivers, is outstanding in its price class and and beyond.
jauu
Calvin
Imho one needs to distinguish between objective and subjective qualities.
Objectively the Dayton RS-drivers are very well equipped with features usually not found in their price-class.
Build-quality is very high and manufacturing is clean.
These drivers look costier than they are and they´re not cheating.
Tolerances within a charge are reasonable low.
Within their main working range, their linearity is high and THD low.
The upper end working range needs to be resticted low enough or taken special care of, due to the distinct modes of the membrane.
But the features of the RS180S are more those of a good bass-lower mids-driver than a true 2-way driver anyway.
The lower end is exceptionally clean, due to the very stiff cone, mated to a rather complex motor-structure (cone is welted at the outer rim for improved stiffness, 7mm longthrow capability, short-circuit demodulation rings, lowloss surround)
I use them only as bass and lower mids drivers, where their performance is absolutely great.
Using ESLs as mid-high transducers, I certainly know a bit about ´Resolution´. A dynamic driver must for sure be very capable in this regard if it´s to be mated with an ESL. The Dayton is one of the very few drivers - and the only in its price class- I know of, that fulfills the job.
Subjectively they may range from useless to excellent.
Besides personal taste, there are so many influencing factors, like cabinet, setup, implementation, situation, etc, that may spoil the full potential the driver is capable of.
If everything is done right, both, the objective as well as the subjective quality of these drivers, is outstanding in its price class and and beyond.
jauu
Calvin
Actively crossed at LR4 what upper freq would you say is the limit for an RS180?
I guess I'm curious what lower mids means to you. Wave guide loaded tweeters move that cross freq way down. Given the low end loading of tweeters in this fashion, I wouldnt use any midbass above 1600hz from a directivity standpoint.
As to the general message in your post...I agree.
I guess I'm curious what lower mids means to you. Wave guide loaded tweeters move that cross freq way down. Given the low end loading of tweeters in this fashion, I wouldnt use any midbass above 1600hz from a directivity standpoint.
As to the general message in your post...I agree.
I was worried we were getting off topic for a while, but we've seem to gotten back on track...kinda. I certainly appreciate everyone's input, but the tweeter isn't a problem. Whether I use a WG or not wouldn't make much difference in this project if the woofer is unable to give me the musicality and resolution I am looking for. Per my original post, I am looking at using either the 5" or 6" RS woofers and was wondering how well they resolved fine details and changes in one's system. One day, I would like to build an all metal-driver system just to hear how it performs and what is different about it's sound, but that is not this system.
My intended use was to crossover to a tweeter at 2KHz using 4th order slopes if I did choose those drivers. Since I was looking at 5" woofers originally, most speakers at this size seem to break up around 5KHz.
Based on everyone's input from above, I should move on to higher end drivers to get the results I am looking for. Perhaps the SB Acoustics SB15 woofers?
My intended use was to crossover to a tweeter at 2KHz using 4th order slopes if I did choose those drivers. Since I was looking at 5" woofers originally, most speakers at this size seem to break up around 5KHz.
Based on everyone's input from above, I should move on to higher end drivers to get the results I am looking for. Perhaps the SB Acoustics SB15 woofers?
I think the tweeter discussion was an indirect way of pointing out that most metal cone drivers need to be crossed a bit lower than your target 2K. Even the Seas W15CY gets a little dicey if you cross it that high. Notch filters can be important to reduce directly ringing the bell of cone modes if you are trying to cross as high as possible. Nothing will help if it's a harmonic distortion product driving the ringing. You just need to operate the driver so that it's harmonics are low enough to not excite - don't push too hard.
If you can cross lower, an RS driver should suit. Otherwise, the SB15NRXC30-4 (I have a prejudice against poly, although I haven't used any in a LONG time) looks like it can be crossed at 2K. It's breakup stuff doesn't start until 4K or so, but I would be seriously considering a 4th order filter and/or a notch.
The hard part is you are asking others to tell you what you'll hear. There's a good deal of personal judgement in there. In my experience the RS drivers crossed appropriately will allow you to hear at least some differences in your amplifiers. I can't give you the measurements or data to back that up, and of course there are those who say nobody can hear a difference in amplifiers if operated cleanly into a suitable load.
Can you build multiple speakers to see if one suits you better? I caught a bit of grief from now ex SWMBO for doing a dome vs. ribbon shootout. (no clear winner, each had its strengths)
If you can cross lower, an RS driver should suit. Otherwise, the SB15NRXC30-4 (I have a prejudice against poly, although I haven't used any in a LONG time) looks like it can be crossed at 2K. It's breakup stuff doesn't start until 4K or so, but I would be seriously considering a 4th order filter and/or a notch.
The hard part is you are asking others to tell you what you'll hear. There's a good deal of personal judgement in there. In my experience the RS drivers crossed appropriately will allow you to hear at least some differences in your amplifiers. I can't give you the measurements or data to back that up, and of course there are those who say nobody can hear a difference in amplifiers if operated cleanly into a suitable load.
Can you build multiple speakers to see if one suits you better? I caught a bit of grief from now ex SWMBO for doing a dome vs. ribbon shootout. (no clear winner, each had its strengths)
I heard a very high quality recording of the Portland Orchestra through the Linkwitz Orion speakers (triamp'd 4th order active crossover), turned fairly loud. It's got a Seas metal cone 8 inch midrange driver and the Seas Millenium 1 inch fabric dome tweeter. It sounded extremely clean and real. Maybe the best sounding mid and tweet I've ever heard. It actually inspired me to drop over $800 on four millenium tweeters for my system (OB quad amp'd di-pole).
So I respect metal diaphram midrange drivers, but I'd only use them with 4th order active crossovers so the bad region would be VERY attenuated. Metal tweeters all seem to have huge peaks just above the audio freq range, which is said to cause fatigue over time. Above 6kHZ I prefer certain ribbons (Fountek 1.5 inch is a favorite), but I don't know of any ribbon tweeters that are really good below about 4kHZ.
As someone who's always tried to have the best imaging, I've researched the heck out of that and concluded that it's better to avoid having a crossover between 1.5kHZ and 7kHZ. Also from 100HZ to 800HZ, but in the real world that gets largely screwed up by inter-aural crosstalk anyway unless you use a cancellation technique (Carver or Polk) and sit in exactly the right spot (which I actually do sometimes).
So I respect metal diaphram midrange drivers, but I'd only use them with 4th order active crossovers so the bad region would be VERY attenuated. Metal tweeters all seem to have huge peaks just above the audio freq range, which is said to cause fatigue over time. Above 6kHZ I prefer certain ribbons (Fountek 1.5 inch is a favorite), but I don't know of any ribbon tweeters that are really good below about 4kHZ.
As someone who's always tried to have the best imaging, I've researched the heck out of that and concluded that it's better to avoid having a crossover between 1.5kHZ and 7kHZ. Also from 100HZ to 800HZ, but in the real world that gets largely screwed up by inter-aural crosstalk anyway unless you use a cancellation technique (Carver or Polk) and sit in exactly the right spot (which I actually do sometimes).
Below are the THD of the ZA14. First plot is the Raw driver THD. The ringing caused by the cone breakup at 8.5kHz goes all the way down to 1kHz.
The second plot is with a 2.5kHz, 18dB/oct passive crossover. The distortion peak at 8.5kHz has vanished. 2nd-5th Harmonics down to 1kHz show no signs of ringing.
This distortion from ringing is probably one of the causes of "listening fatigue".
Yup, I get what you are saying Bob. I am just looking for something new to build and thought I would start with the woofer since my range of box sizes is somewhat fixed. (small two way stand mount). I am not tied to using to any particular tweeter or crossover, I would use whatever was appropriate if the woofer was good.
I know Legacy Audio used the Dayton RS 10" or 12" woofers in their older signature speakers, so they must offer some high end sound quality attributes. I am pretty convinced though that the Dayton's just aren't exactly what I am looking for. There are not many high-end DIY speaker projects using them after all.
I do like Michael Chua's Swift speaker, and I just happen to have some XT25's laying around. I also have some linaeum ribbon tweeters laying around next to the vifas.
Anyway, with everyone's opinion here, I am definitely going to look at something higher than Dayton's for my next project. I am not doing active crossover's, this is just a small hobby (hehe, like it will ever stay that way...lol) and I'm only using a simple tube amp. I'm just looking for simple passive two ways that I can build and learn from.
I know Legacy Audio used the Dayton RS 10" or 12" woofers in their older signature speakers, so they must offer some high end sound quality attributes. I am pretty convinced though that the Dayton's just aren't exactly what I am looking for. There are not many high-end DIY speaker projects using them after all.
I do like Michael Chua's Swift speaker, and I just happen to have some XT25's laying around. I also have some linaeum ribbon tweeters laying around next to the vifas.
Anyway, with everyone's opinion here, I am definitely going to look at something higher than Dayton's for my next project. I am not doing active crossover's, this is just a small hobby (hehe, like it will ever stay that way...lol) and I'm only using a simple tube amp. I'm just looking for simple passive two ways that I can build and learn from.
Steve, passive crossovers can cause non tube friendly impedance swings. Go active with your favorite signal triode for your crossover... 
Interesting that the filter knocked down the ringing down low like that. I would have thought it wouldn't impact the result until higher. Thanks, Michael.
Interesting that the filter knocked down the ringing down low like that. I would have thought it wouldn't impact the result until higher. Thanks, Michael.
You're welcome, Bob. Glad you find it useful.
I do distortion test as part of my design process. I find it's extremely helpful in verifying what I'm hearing.
I was auditioning the XT25TG30 with only a 4uF to have a quick feel of how it sounds like. It didn't take long to pick up some distortion. I suspected the tweeter was resonanting at Fs. Did a Distortion sweep and it confirmed where it came from (top plot).
I wanted to see whether the distortion will go away if I damp the impedance peak at Fs. The bottom plot shows no distortion with a LCR installed.
I do distortion test as part of my design process. I find it's extremely helpful in verifying what I'm hearing.
I was auditioning the XT25TG30 with only a 4uF to have a quick feel of how it sounds like. It didn't take long to pick up some distortion. I suspected the tweeter was resonanting at Fs. Did a Distortion sweep and it confirmed where it came from (top plot).
I wanted to see whether the distortion will go away if I damp the impedance peak at Fs. The bottom plot shows no distortion with a LCR installed.
Everyone's opinion from above is to use a driver in its comfort zone. They didnt say to move to higher cost drivers. There is one dissenting opinion here in this thread who admits he doesnt like metal cones which exist from all high end driver manufacturers on their most expensive products because they are the pinnacle of resolution if used properly. Everyone else is telling you that the ringing isnt an issue if you use the driver properly. Metal cones are higher resolution when implemented correctly than paper or plastic. A metal cone is a perfect piston.
You also apparently arent aware of what effect wave guides have as the gains aren't small. I have $20K in my system and I'm doing this for 35 years. No I don't sell speakers but I can afford any driver I feel would improve what I have. The only driver I would consider is the Seas magnesium cones 7" but I just dont think any real improvement would be had as the two drivers in question test nearly the same in the range I use them in. The bass and midbass of a metal cones is an order of magnitude more detailed and accurate than paper or plastic cones because their shape distorts.
I build an average of 6 systems a year and I buy and sell drivers all the time. I love this hobby.
You're welcome, Bob. Glad you find it useful.
I do distortion test as part of my design process. I find it's extremely helpful in verifying what I'm hearing.
I was auditioning the XT25TG30 with only a 4uF to have a quick feel of how it sounds like. It didn't take long to pick up some distortion. I suspected the tweeter was resonanting at Fs. Did a Distortion sweep and it confirmed where it came from (top plot).
I wanted to see whether the distortion will go away if I damp the impedance peak at Fs. The bottom plot shows no distortion with a LCR installed.
Good info. Exactly why you use a notch at the res freq which is common knowledge for the XT25. A waveguide with a cap up at 8K to flatten the response, lowers distortion by up to 25db from 2k down. Another factor is that the XT25tg60 is cleaner on the lower end than the single magnet xt25tg30 you used. A wave guide boosts the bottom end of XT25's output by 10db. Once back to flat with the cap, its less distortion even at the res freq than any bare tweeter.
To illustrate for others who aren't aware of Zaph's tests for wave guides added to a tweeter..............see for yourself just much people understate the gains in performance from a wave guide:
This is the Seas 27-TDFC bare response
This is the lift with a small 6" wave guide (I used a 8" wide for the XT25 = more low end lift)
This is the response with a 3.3 cap on it:
Here is the bare tweeter distortion plot
Here is the distortion plot with guide and cap. The F2 distortion is down by 25db at 2000hz and the response is again flat on the tweeter. Its not just low in frequency. Since the harmonics generate the noise up top that theyre based on, the F2 is down 15db from 6-10k Hz. Whats really interesting is that the higher order distortion is based on whats happening from the low end hiccups and thus the F4 and F5 is sent to the floor on the top of the range. Active crossover uses can use any slope they want countering the phase issues electronically. The roll off approximates an LR2. I dont know how to build passives but if you can then increase the crossover to LR4 from 1800 or so, the low end issues are off the map including the res freq ringing like a bell.
An XT25 is a wave guide has ZERO distortion issues. Its cleaner than any bare tweeter and can be crossed as low as 1400hz and still hits 110db in my room. At a higher cross, you can get higher SPLs. the point being that you can cross low enough to negate any nasties a metal cone has up top. The response from 80-1500hz on most metal cones is then reference level.
Last edited:
You're obviously right SpinMonster about the comfort zone for speakers, and I totally agree and it is absolutely logical. I didn't want to give the impression that I was against metal cone drivers, I was just getting the feeling that the Dayton RS125 or RS150 wasn't going to be as good as I wanted given how I was going to use them. I am totally not against metal drivers or wave guides; in fact I am listening to metal MCM woofers and an Aura metal tweeter right now. I plan on building Michael's Swift speakers in the future just to learn what a linear phase system sounds like and you've just about convinced me to upgrade my future reference project to a waveguide, I just didn't want to do it on this particular project. The information you have provided and discussed is well put together by the way.
In my mind I have a neat cabinet idea and it simply looks better with a regular round tweeter in it. I don't care if it's a metal dome, soft dome, ring radiator, concave Focal, or even a round ribbon. When I complete this next speaker project I want to start modifying my tube amp and I wanted a speaker that I *know* is going to let me hear the changes. Right now, my speakers have a MCM 4" metal woofer in them. Comparing them to my B&W 601's I have in another room, I can tell they don't have the resolution I am looking for. My Tang Band bamboo full-ranges are better (not tonally accurate either), but still not what I am hoping for.
Two other members in this thread expressed their opinion that the Dayton's are better used in the bass and mid-bass regions and there are better choices for a woofer that will be used in the critical midrange. Therefore, for this project, I feel I would get better results by using a different woofer. Given the price range ($40 - $60), they all happen to be more expensive than the Daytons; such as Peerless (which I kinda like in other speakers), Aurum Cantus (not sure about), or SB Acoustics (which Zaph likes). For example, given my goals, the Aurum AC-130 seems to be able to play the highest with the most easily controlled breakup node. This could also be a good opportunity for me to hear what a breakup node sounds like. With the Aurum, I could add/remove two or three components from the crossover to see if I hear a difference....
In my mind I have a neat cabinet idea and it simply looks better with a regular round tweeter in it. I don't care if it's a metal dome, soft dome, ring radiator, concave Focal, or even a round ribbon. When I complete this next speaker project I want to start modifying my tube amp and I wanted a speaker that I *know* is going to let me hear the changes. Right now, my speakers have a MCM 4" metal woofer in them. Comparing them to my B&W 601's I have in another room, I can tell they don't have the resolution I am looking for. My Tang Band bamboo full-ranges are better (not tonally accurate either), but still not what I am hoping for.
Two other members in this thread expressed their opinion that the Dayton's are better used in the bass and mid-bass regions and there are better choices for a woofer that will be used in the critical midrange. Therefore, for this project, I feel I would get better results by using a different woofer. Given the price range ($40 - $60), they all happen to be more expensive than the Daytons; such as Peerless (which I kinda like in other speakers), Aurum Cantus (not sure about), or SB Acoustics (which Zaph likes). For example, given my goals, the Aurum AC-130 seems to be able to play the highest with the most easily controlled breakup node. This could also be a good opportunity for me to hear what a breakup node sounds like. With the Aurum, I could add/remove two or three components from the crossover to see if I hear a difference....
Zaph also speaks highly of the RS line.
Zaph feels the XT25 is reference level to where the distortion limits its use in many systems. Used with a wave guide, its as good as it gets for reference level highs allowing a much lower cross distortion free. A wave guide also time aligns a system. The XT25 ring radiator tests the best in a wave guide because its phase plug cancels out throat reflections, so typical dome units wont work as well. I'd start from there. If you had the lowest distortion tweeter that was $70 each with the wave guide that easily reaches down to 1500hz, what midbass driver would you use? An AC 130F1's ability to reach higher would be irrelevant. The truth is no one here is thinking about wave guides and thus they dont see why the RS180 mates so well in a system that uses it.
My speakers are 93db with one watt as a system. My speakers use 2 RS180's with a wave guide loaded XT25-60. The use of 2 RS180's increases efficiency to about 93db/1 watt. Using 2 RS180's lowers distortion because each is doing 1/2 the job in making a certain SPL. The RS180 reaches to the upper 30hz range cleanly. No one is arguing the RS180's ability to reproduce bass cleanly, more detailed, and deepest of your choices. The RS180's distortion plots show it to be as clean up to 1500hz as the best drivers. I saw no benefit to having a different midbass driver.
I have owned martin logan ESL's, Apogee stages, and about 40 other pairs of speakers running the spectrum of drivers paired with Krell and Bryston electronics. My current midrange is as good as it gets or I would buy a better driver for my application.
I hope this helps.
Last edited:
SB Acoustics.. and probably the un-coated version. Good low-loss mechanical compliance won't over-damp the operation of the driver at extremely small excursion.
One of the critical things to note with any woofer used into the mid however is to make sure that all air-flow resistance near the driver should be avoided - or again: an over-damped result occurs. Generally have a good low friction chamfered/beveled edge into the interior of the box at the driver's mount, and keep any lossy material off of walls and near the driver. (..rather suspend fibrous batting in the box reasonably far away from the driver for best results..)
Last edited:
It's a "smooth" (not sticky) compliant poly coat intended to dampen some of the more minor "ripple" of the driver. Depending on the application this tends to lower subjective detail by some amount.
Because of smoothing in freq. plots, you'll only ever see it's effects as a minor suppression. IF both were compared as completely un-smoothed the un-coated version would display more "hash" - particularly as freq.s ascend.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.