The fifteen in question has commonly been commonly crossed at 1200 hertz with no critical issues. Experiments run as low as 675 have created slight improvements but making a four-way designs is well beyond this purview. "Your basically describing a large near-field monitor style..." Yes, how very perceptive of you, this my objective here, not absolute SPL levels, not even close to "concert levels". Since this is my ultimate goal here, I'm sure this dome mid will attain my aspirations just fine. With this creation I've simmed out, I should be getting a true 20-20,000 hertz just fine with an acceptable range of variance...and non of this -17 Db at 20 hertz...and yes, it is truely giant...1.63 M high, 1.15M wide, 0.71 M deep.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Here's my list of goto midbass / midrange drivers -
PRV 5MR450NDY, 6MR500NDY
B&C 6NDL38, 4NDF34, 8NDL51, 8PS21, 8PE21
FAITAL 6RS140
SB Acoustics 6MW150D
Audax PR170MO
Eminence Alpha 6A, Beta 6A, Beta 8A
Scanspeak 18M4631T/8631T
The B&C 6NDL38, 8NDL51, 8PE21, Eminence Beta 8A, Faital 6RS140 and SB 6MW150D are my favorites.
You generally want to avoid rubber surrounds for mids due to the kink around 700 - 1.2 k caused by the reflections of the surround. The 6NDL38, 6MW150 and 6RS140 are better in that regard.
The smaller VC diameter drivers (less than 1.5" / 38mm) are limited by power handling unless they're high sensitivity models. They're ok for average hifi, but not for higher output, larger designs.
PRV 5MR450NDY, 6MR500NDY
B&C 6NDL38, 4NDF34, 8NDL51, 8PS21, 8PE21
FAITAL 6RS140
SB Acoustics 6MW150D
Audax PR170MO
Eminence Alpha 6A, Beta 6A, Beta 8A
Scanspeak 18M4631T/8631T
The B&C 6NDL38, 8NDL51, 8PE21, Eminence Beta 8A, Faital 6RS140 and SB 6MW150D are my favorites.
You generally want to avoid rubber surrounds for mids due to the kink around 700 - 1.2 k caused by the reflections of the surround. The 6NDL38, 6MW150 and 6RS140 are better in that regard.
The smaller VC diameter drivers (less than 1.5" / 38mm) are limited by power handling unless they're high sensitivity models. They're ok for average hifi, but not for higher output, larger designs.
@Richard Ellis As long as you're ok with the limitations of that TB dome, go for it. I'm not a fan of the deeper profile dome they use and the cost itself. The SS D7608 is a better mid dome, despite its lower xmax. With the correct chamber, it will exceed your expectations. Its worth the $130 cost.
I've tried all the cheaper 2 - 3" dome mids out there and came to the conclusion the D7608 is the best 3" and the Morel CAM558/MDM55 the best 2" dome.
I would consider the Bliesma M74S as a good step up from the D7608 for crossing around 600 hz. Its probably the nicest sounding higher end 3" dome available.
I've tried all the cheaper 2 - 3" dome mids out there and came to the conclusion the D7608 is the best 3" and the Morel CAM558/MDM55 the best 2" dome.
I would consider the Bliesma M74S as a good step up from the D7608 for crossing around 600 hz. Its probably the nicest sounding higher end 3" dome available.
What do you think of the FaitalPro M5N8-80? It has a very high efficiency, but can only be used from about 400 Hz.
With kind regards
Michael
With kind regards
Michael
Thr M5N8 has a lot of breakup modes in its usable FR, which is due to the very light cone it uses. Its a little too rough sounding for critical listening. It does sound nice at lower levels and may be good for horn loading with low wattage amps.
The low Mms of the M5N8 comes from the small (diameter and length) voice coil and not from the cone itself. It's just slightly lighter than other pro sound 5" midwoofers, which usually have longer voice coils, that's all.
Well I'm just looking at all the spec sheets of 5" pro cone drivers and the Mms of the M5N8 is 6.8 g. Most of the other 5s have an Mms around 9-10 g, which is about average for that diameter cone. I pay attention to that number alot because it partially signifies how high the BL is.
I did a ton of research on cone mids to find the few ones which have very high sensitivity and the M5N8 has one of the highest output levels for its size. The only way you get that is high BL, low Mms, a short VC and a lot of magnet flux in the gap.
The M5N8 has a pretty flimsy, under dampened cone. I know this from disecting a failed driver.
I did a ton of research on cone mids to find the few ones which have very high sensitivity and the M5N8 has one of the highest output levels for its size. The only way you get that is high BL, low Mms, a short VC and a lot of magnet flux in the gap.
The M5N8 has a pretty flimsy, under dampened cone. I know this from disecting a failed driver.
Mms or not, the only things I care about;
If it's called a midrange, ducttape, or a bobaahboob, I honestly don't care how it is called.
If it has any issues like a under dampened cone, you WILL see that in any of those things.
T/S parameters (like Mms) give a tiny bit of indication, but often if can be a bit deceiving.
As a midwoofer, a big magnet and BL seems to be often beneficial, but not always.
- smooth frequency response
- good smooth low enough distortion
- enough sensitivity and power for its purpose
- to some extend directivity of the driver
If it's called a midrange, ducttape, or a bobaahboob, I honestly don't care how it is called.
If it has any issues like a under dampened cone, you WILL see that in any of those things.
T/S parameters (like Mms) give a tiny bit of indication, but often if can be a bit deceiving.
As a midwoofer, a big magnet and BL seems to be often beneficial, but not always.
Sorry, but you can't dismiss Mms as a relatively important comparison figure to determine where the bulk of driver voltage sensitivity comes from with all other factors being equal. In the example of a very low Mms paper cone, it means you'll typically end up with more breakup induced distortion, being less likely to remain pistonic at higher frequencies and SPLs. The only way to strengthen a very light weight paper (or pulp) cone without increasing mass is very strategic cone geometry and stiffening features - either way you end up with a heavier cone.
The fundamental problem with high sensitivity paper cone drivers is how severely they distort at relatively high SPLs and frequencies. The only way to fix this and retain sensitivity is to add material, increase magnetic flux, shorten the VC length or use stiffer, more inert cone materials / combinations / formulations. Any time you're dealing with lower than average Mms figures, the driver will be prone to more cone breakup related distortion. You can't cheat physics. Thats why Mms matters alot as a comparitive figure when predictiing driver performance.
The fundamental problem with high sensitivity paper cone drivers is how severely they distort at relatively high SPLs and frequencies. The only way to fix this and retain sensitivity is to add material, increase magnetic flux, shorten the VC length or use stiffer, more inert cone materials / combinations / formulations. Any time you're dealing with lower than average Mms figures, the driver will be prone to more cone breakup related distortion. You can't cheat physics. Thats why Mms matters alot as a comparitive figure when predictiing driver performance.
Have you tried the new HiVI DM7500 3" dome? I'm not suggesting it is better than the D7608, but curious if you have actually tried it, what are your thought?
I'm ordering this new cabinet to my friend who owns cnc workshop, expecting to enable changing midrange driver 4"-5" with swapable baffle.
my newest acquisition for Dyanudio Esotar2 430 (2nd hand item but measured and look good) but have not tested it yet until this box completed.
my previous drivers : Esotec MW152, Alpair 10P, PRV 5MR450 have different characteristic. love and hate among them, but with DSP i can save different profiles for each drivers and swap easily.
my wishlist midrange for next test : Satori MR13P & SS 12M
my newest acquisition for Dyanudio Esotar2 430 (2nd hand item but measured and look good) but have not tested it yet until this box completed.
my previous drivers : Esotec MW152, Alpair 10P, PRV 5MR450 have different characteristic. love and hate among them, but with DSP i can save different profiles for each drivers and swap easily.
my wishlist midrange for next test : Satori MR13P & SS 12M
Attachments
Its about on par with the Tang Band 1558SH. The biggest issue with the Hivi and Tang Band is the deep profile diaphragm. The phase difference at higher mid frequencies is significant enough to cause sharp off axis dips. The motor on the Hivi isn't quite as good as the Tang Band either.
The 2" Morels are actually quite capable for their size. They can be crossed at 800 hz 3rd order and keep up with a good 8" midbass. I like the square frame MDM55 and the round flanged CAM558 over the EM1308, mainly because of the recessed large faceplate making close driver spacing difficult.
The smaller Hivi DMB-A 2" dome is quite good, especially considering the $30 price tag. It sounds better than all the other sub $100 mid domes, actually smoother but a bit more veiled than the Morels.
The Dayton RS52FN is pretty good, but it has more stored energy decay problems than the much cheaper Hivi DMB-A.
The problem with dome midrange is that usually they do not have a high efficiency nor a low resonant frequency compared to cone midranges : this are two limiting factors...
My preference goes to 7" or 8" midranges, considering that a 5" is the minimum. Here I use a Beyma 8M60N in a 7.5L enclosure offering a 110Hz bass cutoff, for a crossover at Fc=400Hz. This allow the voice's characters to "stay" more naturally in the midrange speaker, like if it was a wide band speaker..
T
My preference goes to 7" or 8" midranges, considering that a 5" is the minimum. Here I use a Beyma 8M60N in a 7.5L enclosure offering a 110Hz bass cutoff, for a crossover at Fc=400Hz. This allow the voice's characters to "stay" more naturally in the midrange speaker, like if it was a wide band speaker..
T
What about the Dayton RS52AN? I remember there was a test in which this Middome outperformed the RS52FN with its membrane made of fabric.
Sincerly
Michael
Hi everyone I saw a video from a high-end studio monitor manufacturer
Their top model a 3 ways has a 5.5" cone mid while the model just below in price and i guess in quality has a 2" dome mid
I asked if this choice means they consider the cone mid solution superior to the dome one
They didn't answer me I hope they weren't offended
Absolutely not my intention
Anyway I'm really going crazy There must be an optimal xover point between woofer and mid in a three-way
Once that is established then it's all downhill from there
The idea of breaking the human voice right in the middle and sending part of it to the woofer and part to the mid seems like real bs to me
Their top model a 3 ways has a 5.5" cone mid while the model just below in price and i guess in quality has a 2" dome mid
I asked if this choice means they consider the cone mid solution superior to the dome one
They didn't answer me I hope they weren't offended
Absolutely not my intention
Anyway I'm really going crazy There must be an optimal xover point between woofer and mid in a three-way
Once that is established then it's all downhill from there
The idea of breaking the human voice right in the middle and sending part of it to the woofer and part to the mid seems like real bs to me
