Thanks, that tells me that the 2332 is metal and "cast", which I didn't think of. Yes, a plastic alternative should definitely be easier to fix.
In some ways, plastic WGs are more desirable due to the ease of modification and adding reinforcement to the back if the material is suspect to cause resomances or ringing. ABS glues easily with cyanoacrylic resin and can even bond to some other plastics, since it acts as a solvent to ABS itself. In the event of needing to reinforce an ABS WG, I just bond multiple strips of sheet ABS to the backside. Its an easy process.
I just got my WG10s today. They look really nice and promising. Excited to see how they do with the NSD1095Ns.
I think the ones I had repaired were made of "Plaster of Paris", resulting in a white area in the throat which I didn't paint.
In the case of some WGs that are made from fiberglass loaded poly propylene, this stuff doesn't glue with cyano or even epoxy. Its not that common of material for WGs, but some older JBL and EV stuff was made from it. You can melt and thermo fuse it, but gluing it requires a special adhesive that isnt readily available.
That's probably one of the best waveguides on the market, with 'ideal' 70 x 60° dispersion and generous roundovers.
Too bad it's not available in a 50% larger version.
(Tiny irregularities and casting residues visible at the throat).
Here I posted a kind of clone of the JBL M2 waveguide, made of fiberglass reinforced plastic.
I came across a similar horn that looks more like the PT-F95HF-1 (Dayton Audio H6512) that became popular thanks to Zilch's Econowave projects.
This is undoubtedly one of the biggest commercially available horns with 1" throat: W437 x H280 x D240mm. Material: ABS
Crossing at 800 Hz should be feasible if an appropriate driver is used and due to the width, pairing with a 15" shouldn't be a problem.
In China it costs only $9.50, but shipping will be quite expensive, I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Just got my 18Sound drivers in today and gave a quick preliminary listen to the NSD1095s on the WG10s. The combo shows to be a very well designed driver on an equally capable, yet affordable WG.
After some quick shelf EQ to compensate HF drop, there are no discernable resonances, peaks or harsh areas that stand out to my ears. I would describe it as rather smooth but with nice detail and very defined, deep and tall soundstage. It sounds alot like a very good hard dome HF driver. The distortion has to be very low, even down to about 1.5k, where the WG starts droping off.
I paired the CD+WG combo with Eminence Kappalite 3012HO 12" midbass crossed at 1.4k LR2. WG was mounted on a 15" wide baltic birch baffle on top of the LF driver in a small 1 cu ft sealed test box. The drivers were all fed by a Philips CDM based transport, RME ADI 2 Pro FSR dac, Parasound JC2 pre-, 2x A21 power-amps with custom discrete jfet based crossover. I would describe this as a fairly neutral and revealing signal chain.
The DE250 on the WG10 is more efficient but at the expense of some pronounced resonances around 2k and 3k, which IMO explains what some people describe as being harsh, especially with female vocals. It is somewhat smoother and veiled, lacking fine detail yet while being a little more extended up top. Even though the 18sound CD drops off faster without HF compensation, it retains more of the upper harmonics that are missing on the DE250. That may be due to the reduced amount of dampening from the Ti diaphragm vs the DE250's polymer material.
I can't wait to measure what I'm hearing. It can't be that bad based on what my ears are telling me. The NSD1095s are keepers for sure. The thing that stands out most for me is the lack of distortion coupled with overall detail, even at higher volume levels with female vocals. Annie Lenox has an amazing voice and this driver really delivers her vocal character with authority and plenty of dynamics.
Having the impression of a larger Mundorf AMT based 3 way in recent memory crossed at 1.8k 3rd order, they didn't sound as clean or open as this combo of WG10 and NSD1095 crossed lower at a shallower slope. That's a very contrasting comparison of two very different types of HF drivers and I wouldn't have expected it to be that way. The 18sound driver definitely isn't going to flatter a bad recording. This was readily apparent listening to some early Carpenters songs which are miserable in terms of recording quality.
There are still several other WGs to check out with the 18sound driver. Hopefully more info to come soon.
After some quick shelf EQ to compensate HF drop, there are no discernable resonances, peaks or harsh areas that stand out to my ears. I would describe it as rather smooth but with nice detail and very defined, deep and tall soundstage. It sounds alot like a very good hard dome HF driver. The distortion has to be very low, even down to about 1.5k, where the WG starts droping off.
I paired the CD+WG combo with Eminence Kappalite 3012HO 12" midbass crossed at 1.4k LR2. WG was mounted on a 15" wide baltic birch baffle on top of the LF driver in a small 1 cu ft sealed test box. The drivers were all fed by a Philips CDM based transport, RME ADI 2 Pro FSR dac, Parasound JC2 pre-, 2x A21 power-amps with custom discrete jfet based crossover. I would describe this as a fairly neutral and revealing signal chain.
The DE250 on the WG10 is more efficient but at the expense of some pronounced resonances around 2k and 3k, which IMO explains what some people describe as being harsh, especially with female vocals. It is somewhat smoother and veiled, lacking fine detail yet while being a little more extended up top. Even though the 18sound CD drops off faster without HF compensation, it retains more of the upper harmonics that are missing on the DE250. That may be due to the reduced amount of dampening from the Ti diaphragm vs the DE250's polymer material.
I can't wait to measure what I'm hearing. It can't be that bad based on what my ears are telling me. The NSD1095s are keepers for sure. The thing that stands out most for me is the lack of distortion coupled with overall detail, even at higher volume levels with female vocals. Annie Lenox has an amazing voice and this driver really delivers her vocal character with authority and plenty of dynamics.
Having the impression of a larger Mundorf AMT based 3 way in recent memory crossed at 1.8k 3rd order, they didn't sound as clean or open as this combo of WG10 and NSD1095 crossed lower at a shallower slope. That's a very contrasting comparison of two very different types of HF drivers and I wouldn't have expected it to be that way. The 18sound driver definitely isn't going to flatter a bad recording. This was readily apparent listening to some early Carpenters songs which are miserable in terms of recording quality.
There are still several other WGs to check out with the 18sound driver. Hopefully more info to come soon.
Until about 10 years ago, the DE250 was considered a benchmark 1" driver, thanks in part to Dr. Geddes and Zilch.
The DE250 was praised precisely for its low distortion, clean reproduction in the vocal and presence range as well as its 'good-natured' top end.
I also owned a pair of the first series (white label instead of black) that I liked, but not as much as the Beyma CP380M.
So what happened?
Here's a clue.
Waterfall of a DE250-8 from 2005:
Waterfall of a DE250-16 from 2014 with the same horn:
Diaphragm damping is one of the most interesting and complex aspects of loudspeaker technology imo.
The interaction between the subsystems of an electro-mechano-acoustical device determines the measurable outcome, though the ultimate 'appreciation' also depends on personal preferences.
Objectively speaking, the ND1090 performs slightly better than the NSD1095 under certain conditions - the most common in home use. The soft-suspended, uncoated Ti diaphragm of the ND1090 is better damped and therefore causes less 'hash'. In addition, it delivers more output above 8 Khz.
BD of the NSD1095N:
ND1090:
And for comparison (a recent) DE250-8:
Last edited:
Looks like either the diaphragm changed and/or the pjase plug design. My money's on the diaphragm,specifically the material. Many dome type CD diaphragms are made with a varying thickness from tip through edge. I dont ever remember the DE250 being any different than it is now since I haven't heard it before a few years ago. It would be interesting to look at an old diaphragm vs newer production.
I was going to try converting my 16 ohm DE250s to 8 ohms with a diaphragm swap, but when I went to unpack the replacement diaphragms, one of the boxes looked different than the other and while that in itself isn't a problem, it turns out one of the diaphragms was previously installed or used judging by slight marks left behind by the rear chamber cover being tightened up on it. The diaphragms both came from Parts Express and it appears they don't check their returns all that well based on previous similar issues I've had with them. I'm becoming very frustrated with PE regarding this issue. I can't remember how many times this sort of thing has now happened, but in reality its the scum bag people who return used stuff who are to blame. Unfortunately liberal return policies make this a recurring problem, especially when the vendor doesn't watch what goes back on the shelf after it gets returned.
That's too bad.
I have no experience with PE, but it seems to be a reliable and service-oriented company, based on the many reviews I've come across over the years.
As you point out, their return policy is very flexible. I'd take advantage of that.
I have no experience with PE, but it seems to be a reliable and service-oriented company, based on the many reviews I've come across over the years.
As you point out, their return policy is very flexible. I'd take advantage of that.
The Faital Pro STH100 horns are better horns, they have the edge.
The shorter horn places the driver Voice Coil much closer to being in line with the Voice Coil of the midrange driver.
Timing / phase issues disappear.
You are over thinking that little bit of a lip thing at the throat of the horn, it is part of the design. It is part of the flair geometry of the horn.
I like the Faital Pro HF111 Driver with the Faital Pro horns.
Thanks DT
I unfortunately can't see how cast flashing is part of the design. Thats just a seam that is there from putting the two pieces of WG mold together (horn flange attached to throat) before the molten aluminum gets poured into the whole thing. It should have been cleaned up before they coated the WG in its black finish. Its just simply an oversight and lack of detail. Let's face it, for over 100 dollars you should be able to expect a bit more attention to detail.
If there are any diffraction steps put into the WG design, you would be able to clearly notice them and they wouldn't look like cast flash. Fortunately in the case of my LTH102 together with the NSD1095N, the CD exit is larger than that of the DE250 and removing the cast flash lip will result in a smooth transition to the WG.
The LTH100 WG is obviously shorter than the LTH102, which shows up as ripple in the pass band. Most FR plots I've seen of the LTH100 show a good amount of ripple, which is the penalty you pay for a shorter WG coupled with a wider than optimal mouth. Simply put, the expansion rate is too aggressive for the depth of the WG.
Many times you need a deeper WG to mate with the LF or mid driver to compensate for early relative phase angles caused by the crossover filters ie with elliptical response slopes and offset target frequencies depending on whether and where CD EQ is applied (almost always required with most drivers exhibiting falling HF response.)
Only under ideal circumstances would a perfect acoustic center alignment be desirable but that can be the case of course. Either way, it can be compensated for if DSP is employed and with an allpass filter, so there are ways around the issue.
If there are any diffraction steps put into the WG design, you would be able to clearly notice them and they wouldn't look like cast flash. Fortunately in the case of my LTH102 together with the NSD1095N, the CD exit is larger than that of the DE250 and removing the cast flash lip will result in a smooth transition to the WG.
The LTH100 WG is obviously shorter than the LTH102, which shows up as ripple in the pass band. Most FR plots I've seen of the LTH100 show a good amount of ripple, which is the penalty you pay for a shorter WG coupled with a wider than optimal mouth. Simply put, the expansion rate is too aggressive for the depth of the WG.
Many times you need a deeper WG to mate with the LF or mid driver to compensate for early relative phase angles caused by the crossover filters ie with elliptical response slopes and offset target frequencies depending on whether and where CD EQ is applied (almost always required with most drivers exhibiting falling HF response.)
Only under ideal circumstances would a perfect acoustic center alignment be desirable but that can be the case of course. Either way, it can be compensated for if DSP is employed and with an allpass filter, so there are ways around the issue.
Could you show an example of this? Trying to understand.
To my eye the problem is often mouth termination more likely than depth, or I'm not sure how the depth relates here? What is the expansion rate for direct radiating dome on flat baffle, very aggressive? is the ripple there? There is ripple but it is due to diffraction I think, or any reflections (sudden change in impedance) where only part of the sound transmits and part is reflected back which happens at poor mouth termination or at baffle edge. Ripple happens when there is some additional sound interfering with the direct sound.
Yes, I'll certainly be calling them about it and getting the diaphragms swapped. I had to buy the 16 ohm drivers because the 8 ohm versions were backordered. In some ways the 16 ohm version sounds a little cleaner down low so I'd have to investigate what it is that's actually different causing the discrepancy. I can already hear the second response peak usually found on a CD is suppressed vs the 8 ohm DE250. It jusy doesn't add up logically why the VC impedance itself would cause this. There has to be a mechanical difference of some sort.
This is the logical explanation, but doesn't really hold true for the 8 and 16 ohm variants of the DE250 shown above:
"A 16 ohm driver always has a lower Q and less resonant peaking than its 8 ohm counterpart.
A 16 ohm driver can allow for a tighter gap on a different magnet structure than its 8 ohm counterpart. When built with the tighter gap this lowers Q and increases efficiency.
A 16 ohm driver has a lighter voice coil than an 8 ohm driver so is a better mechanical match to the diaphragm portion of the driver. Ideal is voice coil/bobbin assembly mass should equal effective diaphragm/air load/surround assembly mass. This matches mechanical impedance of the two parts and moves toward ideal coupling of the voice coil to the diaphragm."
(Copied from this thread)
"A 16 ohm driver always has a lower Q and less resonant peaking than its 8 ohm counterpart.
A 16 ohm driver can allow for a tighter gap on a different magnet structure than its 8 ohm counterpart. When built with the tighter gap this lowers Q and increases efficiency.
A 16 ohm driver has a lighter voice coil than an 8 ohm driver so is a better mechanical match to the diaphragm portion of the driver. Ideal is voice coil/bobbin assembly mass should equal effective diaphragm/air load/surround assembly mass. This matches mechanical impedance of the two parts and moves toward ideal coupling of the voice coil to the diaphragm."
(Copied from this thread)
Last edited:
First off, I realized making a mistake, referring to the STH100 as an LTH100... looking at the description itself, I'm pretty sure LTH means "long throw horn" and STH means " short throw horn".
That being said, I can't find the bookmarked sites anymore which had all the WG comparisons with various CDs tested together that I was referencing to. The HF on the STH100 collapses faster than some of the deeper WGs, which is its main deficit and thats really only an issue when used with larger mid drivers and lower xover points .
For nearfield applications the STH100 is a really good horn but it requires a specific CD exit angle to avoid excess response peaks and dips. Many shallow horns suffer from early HF drop-off, such as the really shallow spherical WGs used with dome tweeters. In the vertical plane the STH100 is at a disadvantage to the LTH102 which is why I chose the LTH102.
The STH100 response ripple shows up with some CDs. It was very pronounced with some of the cheaper CDs. The DE250 looks nice on the STH100 both in vertical and horizontal planes.