Alex
My point is different.
Even in a standard, urban and relatively noisy room, anyone can hear the difference between a professional DAC with 118dB dynamic range and a top-of-the-line DAC with 126dB (of course, the other components of the system should be of high quality too). I did many experiments with different untrained people and the vast majority voted for the last DAC. It gave a noticeably better sound.
Motu vs Mytek Brooklyn It's not hard to guess who won. 🙂 😉
My point is different.
Even in a standard, urban and relatively noisy room, anyone can hear the difference between a professional DAC with 118dB dynamic range and a top-of-the-line DAC with 126dB (of course, the other components of the system should be of high quality too). I did many experiments with different untrained people and the vast majority voted for the last DAC. It gave a noticeably better sound.
Motu vs Mytek Brooklyn It's not hard to guess who won. 🙂 😉
Last edited:
The accuton has an extremely wide dispersion at 1khz (at 60 degrees 0 db down looking at hificompass), that means that pairing it with anything much bigger than 7 inch will result in a big directivity mismatch, also most drivers that are bigger than 7 inch will start to breakup and produce all kinds of distortions at that point (remember a driver also has to perform 1 to 2 octaves above crossover point as we aren't using brickwall filters probably, meaning 3khz should also look good). So using 15, 12 or 10 inch drivers are immediately out of question unless you want guaranteed bad sound. That means most woofers are probably out on that aspect alone too as they don't have low enough distortion nor high enough cone breakup. Looking at accutons own lineup maybe C220-6-221 looks good or C220-6-222 (but too expensive). The audiotechnology isn't much better probably if it is as good as others i've seen don't look very advanced to me. Might even need to use 6 inch because of the breakup and dispersion mismatch.
Back to OP again, I personally would consider the C220 (if you can do 4th order filter @800hz (or something along that line) with proper notch, would imagine this to go pretty well) or a C173, probably sounds pretty good as accuton designed them for each other probably. Might be more to be had with others drivers but that also would mean you have to find a driver that has good dispersion, distortion, linear response etc and that actual sounding good in combination with the c50 which probably isn't as easy as it looks...
The reason pro audio drivers have high BL and low mms, is to gain a higher efficiency. When you need to produce 130db it is not that smart to try to do that with 86db drivers. That is literally the only reason, lower mms and higher bl primarly are used to create higher sensitivity and in turn effiency, a side cause of a higher bl is a lower qes which is no problem in pro audio as they are band limited anyway (most pro audio doesn't produce much under 50hz and almost always subs are used. For hifi speakers this makes no sense, most loudspeakers in consumer home opperate in the small signal domain and will never ever reach even 90db, the low qes only makes crossover andb ox design complicated and will only be a negative attribute. While the magnet strength and mms can be way better used to make more linear and wide band drivers. That is why hifi drivers have high mms and low spl because it is not needed and not the end goal. Hifi drivers aren't ****, they are made for a completely differenct purpose, if you had any idea how drivers worked, you would know hifi drivers are way more linear, have way lower distortion both in amplitude and non linear domain at normal spl <100db. Comments like this are just complete absurd, bl and mss has nothing to do with speed nor is any indication of a good driver perse. Instead using pro audio drivers as a consumer has many disadvantages while practicly no benefit unless you need high efficiency. I will tell a few;
- High fs due to stiff suspension and low mms, leading to a lower limit on bass output.
- Low Xmax or non linear bl curve due to the need for high bl in limited range for again max spl, and limiting to prevent damage to the driver, ultimately limiting avaible bass output and more bass distortion
- Too low qts so only bass reflex cabinets or horns are an option, or otherwise you end up with overdamped and limited low frequency response (sealed enclosures).
- limited response due to either high qes because of high bl or because of paper cones that limit upper response due to resonances due to too thin or poorly damped cones.
- Overall bad non linear performance due to different goals and design choices; suspension design which is primarly designed to limit driver damage and not most linear operation etc.
Back to OP again, I personally would consider the C220 (if you can do 4th order filter @800hz (or something along that line) with proper notch, would imagine this to go pretty well) or a C173, probably sounds pretty good as accuton designed them for each other probably. Might be more to be had with others drivers but that also would mean you have to find a driver that has good dispersion, distortion, linear response etc and that actual sounding good in combination with the c50 which probably isn't as easy as it looks...
There is a lot to more to sound quality assessments, even uncontrolled "which DAC your friends prefer" to any one spec, be that dynamic range, noise, THD etc.
Any characteristic of an external DAC (based on ess9038pro or ak4499) is many times better than that of a built in DSP DAC. Don't you agree?
Lehnok
already have:BMS 18n850v2
Accuton c50-8-044
Scan Speak R2904/700005
don't forget accuton is one of the best mids that plays the upper mids brilliantly.
SS is also one of the best tweeters 🙂
Hi Lehnok!
I have tried real quick to be a little bit more concrete. As i mentioned in another thread i am too old for learning curve of VituixCAD and have taken BoxSim 2.1 de-de - it is portable and run on Windows with no install. https://www.visaton.de/en/literature-software/software . Here what i got taking similar drivers, for a first shot for me it says more than thousands of words, here:
I have attached the project file compressed with 7-zip for your convenience if you want to check out some details with the downloaded software
I have spent about half an hour with this first quick shot using Visaton drivers. You can import your own measurements, but this is not a quick shot anymore. My fastest way to develop a first proof of concept is to get as fast as possible as close as possible to a target function for the crossover frequency, here i have chosen Bessel 2nd order with Q=0.58. Sorry for the German version, the latest build is not available in an English version. What you can get out of the simulation is for instance the max SPL simulation that shows that with the high crossover for the dome midrange the limiting factor for max SPL is still the 18 inch driver that i put in a closed cabinet with some substantial PEQ to stay with 200 liter net volume of the bass enclosure. Interesting is also the fact that despite the flat baffle i did not need to put in some delay for the dome midrange and dome tweeter. So most probably this stuff will work with a passive or semi passive (Class D 1 way plate amp for the 18 inch driver and some fine CLASS A MOS - FET Amp from Papa for the rest with a 3 way passive crossover). The nice thing is that you can spend a lot of time playing around with the simulation software without spending a dime, only spending spare time.
I have tried real quick to be a little bit more concrete. As i mentioned in another thread i am too old for learning curve of VituixCAD and have taken BoxSim 2.1 de-de - it is portable and run on Windows with no install. https://www.visaton.de/en/literature-software/software . Here what i got taking similar drivers, for a first shot for me it says more than thousands of words, here:
I have attached the project file compressed with 7-zip for your convenience if you want to check out some details with the downloaded software
I have spent about half an hour with this first quick shot using Visaton drivers. You can import your own measurements, but this is not a quick shot anymore. My fastest way to develop a first proof of concept is to get as fast as possible as close as possible to a target function for the crossover frequency, here i have chosen Bessel 2nd order with Q=0.58. Sorry for the German version, the latest build is not available in an English version. What you can get out of the simulation is for instance the max SPL simulation that shows that with the high crossover for the dome midrange the limiting factor for max SPL is still the 18 inch driver that i put in a closed cabinet with some substantial PEQ to stay with 200 liter net volume of the bass enclosure. Interesting is also the fact that despite the flat baffle i did not need to put in some delay for the dome midrange and dome tweeter. So most probably this stuff will work with a passive or semi passive (Class D 1 way plate amp for the 18 inch driver and some fine CLASS A MOS - FET Amp from Papa for the rest with a 3 way passive crossover). The nice thing is that you can spend a lot of time playing around with the simulation software without spending a dime, only spending spare time.
Last edited:
SBA_SLOB_GUY
Nice work.But it's a little more difficult in real life, you also need to stitch well phase . That's why I suggested to make 2 enclosures and a Z-axis shift
Hi gaga_r,
Once my new mic arrive, I will mount the c50 and the SS tweeter on a test baffle, and will try cook some passive cover in LSPCAD 😅😅
Cheers
Once my new mic arrive, I will mount the c50 and the SS tweeter on a test baffle, and will try cook some passive cover in LSPCAD 😅😅
Cheers
High efficiency brings a raft of sonic benefits at typical domestic audio SPL's, you are clearly unaware of them, I am happy with that situation.
So which part of, "the PHL and Celsetion are midrange drivers, not a bass drivers" didnt you get?
Non linear BL curve... You are funny Tim! But also clearly misinformed... Here is the PHL Bl curve (Klippel data) . For any given SPL, say 96dB to stay below your suggested 100 dB SPL in domestic settings, a 4 inch Accuton midrange has to travel plus / minus 4.5 mm to match the 6.5 inch PHL plus / minus 1 mm...! This brings a raft of distortions, non linearities and time domain issues. Note at plus/minus 1mm the PHL remains 100% perfectly within all linear specification and would do this with just TWO watts of power to hit 96dB and therefore will be 100% free from thermal compression (see attached doc).
The BMS 18 inch driver works better in a 80 liter sealed box because it free of time smearing delayed resonance ie Ports suck air in when the driver cone is pushing air out and Visa Versa... The most accurate bass (or mids) are from sealed, not ported bixes.
"Limited response" ....? What response, step response? impulse response? Dynamics? Frequency, bass/mid/top end...? Be specific please.
Also whatever response you claim is limited "limited" by high Bl or high Qes, please post links to peer reviewed data proving this is the case, and not just your opinion.... And remember, limited bass response in a midrange driver is not a bad thing!!
Thanks a lot!! I will definitely take a look at it!
I really appreciate all the help!
Hello gaga_r, with VituixCAD with your own measurements on and off axis imported you can get a much more reliable simulation, but it will take you more weeks than days of work, i spent for the first quick shot less than an hour.
from the BMS 18 inch is required of the lowest sub-bass - fat meat - it is not accuracy that matters there, but solidity, the human ear cannot discern accuracy in the lowest range. Therefore port.
But for the midbass, precision and punch are more important - that's why it's a closed box and small volume.
Hi forum, simulated real quick the difference for my 18 inch reference driver, for sure not as good as the BMS. With a ported 200 liter bass enclosure instead of the close box the limiting factor for the max SPL moves from the subwoofer to the 8 inch driver for the kick bass at about 100 Hz. I have chosen a very low cut off between subwoofer and mid-bass, there is a chance to play around with a higher cut off to get out the best max SPL value. The max SPL limiting factor in a real world living room are the vibrations of some other stuff in the room that ruin your values for bass frequency distortions.
Last edited:
Nothing you've provided has given me any evidence supporting such.
Where did I say it was only about midrange drivers? You mention in your comment supperiority of both lf and mf drivers;
The bl curve, Le(x) curve, and kms look considerably better on this Seas https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-the-seas-l19rnx1-prestige-titan-series-woofer. In fact I've never said a 6 inch pro driver is a replacement for a 4 inch hifi one, I think I've also not understated the advantage of high spl or bigger drivers? I've only said hifi drivers can be considerable more linear if used within normal spl levels. Also very convenient to now make the argument 'oh uh but I was just talking about a midrange and you can see it clearly is linear with 1mm of excursion' yeah I get that too smartass but you made the claim both mids and woofers were better which it clearly isn't as my seas has 2-3x as much xmax as midwoofer which both drivers are, and the seas works way better if it has more than 1mm excursion, every driver is linear if it moves only a milimeter...
Also I don't know if you can see it but at 4mm the kms has almost doubled and the BL halfed that was kinda the point I was making about the non linear bl and kms...
Frequency obviously and in turn obv step&impulse. Here an example between a Seas W15LY001 and 2 pa midwoofers from hificompass:
And a Beyma 5G40Nd;
And a Celestion T5687A with only on-axis as HifiCompass doesn't have off axis sadly.
You clearly see much more smooth high frequency and breakup as I claimed and rolloff also looks relaxter and less steep on the Seas.
Low qes*, here you go: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254844155_Direct-radiator_loudspeaker_systems_with_high_BI from John Vanderkooy in the JAES, fig 3;
And in this paper which also mentions high bl drivers you can even find the decreased Qes as a result of high bl under section 3.2.1. Mechanical Parameters; https://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/PDF/Keele (2003-10 AES Preprint) - Nom vs True Eff High BL.pdf
To top it off here is a b&c which shows exactly what I mean https://www.bcspeakers.com/en/products/lf-driver/5-0/8/5mdn38-8, breakup way lower than even the seas I mentioed which is optimized for bass duty, extremely high fs, extremely high impedance peak, early rolloff making filter design difficult (both digital and passive especially), fs resonance basicly in passband because it is so high and broad. Limited bass response is not a bad thing? So you mean that you have to use your 6 inch max down to 350-500hz is not bad?
As you can see what I said were/could be problems is actually reality, so please again tell me why I should, with facts please not just opinions, use pro drivers if I want only 80-96db max spl and have a 400 watt amplifier to power them and where they are supposedly supperior?
Before we end up like some fighting dogs, there actually are good pro drivers and bad hifi drivers. The design goals differ (like I wrote earlier) and once you’re aware of that, especially picking ‘good’ pro drivers becomes easier. Let go mainly of the high efficiency goal and you’ll find a lot of good drivers at both sides of the fence. But you have to be picky. Otherwise you’ll either pay too much or get crap.
Tim thx for the references.
Tim thx for the references.
What's the reasoning behind the likes of Troel's preference for using numerous PA drivers in his builds then? It doesn't seem to be solely about cost, given his use of very exotic components in his systems. What advantages do PA drivers offer in his designs that make them a compelling choice?