Since the cone size and shape effect on directivity / beaming was discussed on this thread and is very relevant for op to reach the design goal, I'll add link https://site.diy-loudspeakers.com/diaphragm-shape that has some nice graphs and text to demonstrate differences between simulated piston vs. reality.
In reality beaming is not "as sudden" as with ideal rigid piston, although more erratic, so yeah a bigger driver might work than fast calculations using driver diameter suggest. Maybe 4" or even 5" driver would work better than 3" in this application, the wide band mid 3-way speaker, considering increased SPL capability on low frequencies.
In reality beaming is not "as sudden" as with ideal rigid piston, although more erratic, so yeah a bigger driver might work than fast calculations using driver diameter suggest. Maybe 4" or even 5" driver would work better than 3" in this application, the wide band mid 3-way speaker, considering increased SPL capability on low frequencies.
Last edited:
Yes, driver diameter doesn't tell everything. Midrange drivers have many challenges and managing dispersion in top octaves is crucial if one wants to achieve wide and smooth directivity a'la old school. Cone shape, surround shape and dustcap/phase plug are important.
Here is a very good video demonstrating a simulation programme for driver design, FineCone by Loudsoft
FINECone Demo - YouTube
Here is a very good video demonstrating a simulation programme for driver design, FineCone by Loudsoft
FINECone Demo - YouTube
Last edited:
My personal favourite:
Monacor MSH-115 – Thomann Belgie
Have used this in many builds with great results. Does 200 - 5k no problem.
Specs: MONACOR: MSH-115
Monacor MSH-115 – Thomann Belgie
Have used this in many builds with great results. Does 200 - 5k no problem.
Specs: MONACOR: MSH-115
I have the neo version of the 3” (16Ω). A very good driver, up with the Mark Audio Alpair 5.2/3, and Fostex FF85wk. The rated sensitivity is misleading, in the realworld closer to 87-88 dB.
dave
Hi Dave,
Just wondering if you have Enabled any of the Faitalpro? I tried coating a coat of Visaton LTS50 (similar to the modge podge) and there is significant improvement in sound, sounds quiter and more defined.
Oon
No, by the time i got mine, poor eyesite made me quit. So only stock. I will modpodge them and fair the frame before they go out. I haven’t met a paper cone that hasn’t been improved by an appropriate koat of modPodge. Started playing with it in teh late 70s. It holds up nicely.
I expect EnABL would bring similar assets as the other 2 mentioned.
Stock i think the Alpair has an edge over the Fostex, but once EnABLed (and the FF85wk gets some preEnABL tweaks). I have spent at least a couple afternoons trying to tease apart A5.2eN and FF85wKeN.
The neo Faital has an anobtrusive magnet which is nice, but the frame is by far the poorest of the 3. But cheaper than either ($35 vrs $50 each?).
dave
I expect EnABL would bring similar assets as the other 2 mentioned.
Stock i think the Alpair has an edge over the Fostex, but once EnABLed (and the FF85wk gets some preEnABL tweaks). I have spent at least a couple afternoons trying to tease apart A5.2eN and FF85wKeN.
The neo Faital has an anobtrusive magnet which is nice, but the frame is by far the poorest of the 3. But cheaper than either ($35 vrs $50 each?).
dave
This is quite an interesting thread, I'm wondering what specific recordings the members here use to make the sound assesments between the speakers they are discussing?
100%
Noone values my opinion here...but I am glad that someone else has realised how outstanding sounding and value this midrange is.
And sensitive!
What, quiting Enabled. Gee, I hope you pass down the knowledge properly one day so it is not lost permanently...
Oon
Trouble is, Juhazi, this shows measurements by 3rd party of Monacor MSH116, which is a midwoofer and performs less well than MSH115 as a midrange.
Even the factory data shows the same warts that the 116 has, and the 115 does not have...such as presence bump and early roll off
Seeing this data, makes me grateful I considered the three Monacor variants MSH115 MSH116 and HQ; the non surprise is....the midrange performs better as a midrange, than the midwoofers do 🙄
Many manufacturers do "dope" their paper cones.
Just look for coated paper...
In the old days, at Goodmans, it was a goo called Plastiflex, which was probably just PVA glue given a proprietary material ID internally.
I don't believe modgepodgeing a doped cone is gonna get you far though, other than losing SPL
(My mention of Monacor MSH115...that's a doped paper cone; the Faital 4FE35...I think that's woven PP or something)
Just look for coated paper...
In the old days, at Goodmans, it was a goo called Plastiflex, which was probably just PVA glue given a proprietary material ID internally.
I don't believe modgepodgeing a doped cone is gonna get you far though, other than losing SPL
(My mention of Monacor MSH115...that's a doped paper cone; the Faital 4FE35...I think that's woven PP or something)
Wel, i don't find any independent measurements of this driver. I also don't find any measurements of-axis of this driver neighter. If you know where to find those, please link it.
I don't know any 3rd party measurements of any of those drivers.
But nor do I accredit them with any relevance or additional "trustworthiness" than the manufacturers data.
I would be interested in THD measurements of the MSH115 but I suspect the motor is exactly the same as in the 115HQ or 116, and those look very Good.
I think the Manufacturer SPL graphs, though scaled small, and small images, are close enough to reality (particularly looking at the manufacturer data and this 3rd party measure compared) to give credence to the original data.
But nor do I accredit them with any relevance or additional "trustworthiness" than the manufacturers data.
I would be interested in THD measurements of the MSH115 but I suspect the motor is exactly the same as in the 115HQ or 116, and those look very Good.
I think the Manufacturer SPL graphs, though scaled small, and small images, are close enough to reality (particularly looking at the manufacturer data and this 3rd party measure compared) to give credence to the original data.
Last edited:
Conservative, momentum, an extra manual step in manufacture.
You do see it on some.
dave
Given that, except in some specific cases (woofers), you want a minimum of added material. A coated woofer has already been done.
dave
ERROR, ERROR.. 😀
It doesn't show the MSH115 at all.
Do you have good independent measurements (under the same conditions) for the MSH115?
I would NOT trust the manufacturer's data at all.
Also note that the 116 is measured here:
MONACOR MSH-116/4 (Mid-range 4", 4 Ohm, 120 Wmax)
Further the Clio data here seems to have both near field and farfield integrated and/or is measured on a larger baffle. The magnitude difference between the 2 at around 1.7 kHz also seems larger than it should be - perhaps the result of an un-chamferred rear of the test baffle for the heissmann results.
Last edited:
Scott,
You misinterpret.
I am fully aware the data linked is for the MSH116.
The manufacturers data correlates very nicely with the linked 3rd party measurements.
It is that observation, that gives me confidence in the validity of the manufacturers data in general, and also that of the MSH 115 which I have not seen 3rd party measures of.
Going by manufacturers data, the MSH115 is ultimately more efficient, smoother and better extended than the MSH116 or HQ variant - as you might expect, being a dedicated midrange driver.
That gives me confidence that the 115 is a better mid.
No news perhaps.
You misinterpret.
I am fully aware the data linked is for the MSH116.
The manufacturers data correlates very nicely with the linked 3rd party measurements.
It is that observation, that gives me confidence in the validity of the manufacturers data in general, and also that of the MSH 115 which I have not seen 3rd party measures of.
Going by manufacturers data, the MSH115 is ultimately more efficient, smoother and better extended than the MSH116 or HQ variant - as you might expect, being a dedicated midrange driver.
That gives me confidence that the 115 is a better mid.
No news perhaps.