Hi All,
I have been very intrigued the B3S after reading John K's tests on ZaphAudio, to use as a midrange in a sort-of budget 3-way floorstanding design, which is still just in the conceptual stage. I am thinking of using the Dayton DA175 for the lows, and the SEAS 27TBFCG to do the tweeting.
What I'm wondering about is the B3N - it's the same diameter but with a round frame, slightly different parameters, and a lower operating range - 100 to 7k as opposed to 300 to 15k (claimed) for the 3S.
The 3N seems to be a little better suited as a wide midrange due to the lower bottom end, but I'm thinking that crossing at or near its lower limits might put a strain on it at higher listening levels.
Then there is the B4N - just about the same bottom end as the 3 but can probably handle SPL better in that region. What I'm a little afraid of is that rather prominent FR peak at 3K - an issue with neither of the smaller drivers.
I want to assume that all three drivers have relatively the same sound characteristics, but without seeing any distortion data like Zaph's for all of them I am hesitant to jump to conclusions. So, has anyone tested the other two, or seen tests of them?
On the other hand, I could dispense with the midrange altogether and go with just the Dayton woofs and SEAS tweets - with the right crossover I think they'd make a good combination - perhaps in a TMM configuration.
OK - let me have it!
I have been very intrigued the B3S after reading John K's tests on ZaphAudio, to use as a midrange in a sort-of budget 3-way floorstanding design, which is still just in the conceptual stage. I am thinking of using the Dayton DA175 for the lows, and the SEAS 27TBFCG to do the tweeting.
What I'm wondering about is the B3N - it's the same diameter but with a round frame, slightly different parameters, and a lower operating range - 100 to 7k as opposed to 300 to 15k (claimed) for the 3S.
The 3N seems to be a little better suited as a wide midrange due to the lower bottom end, but I'm thinking that crossing at or near its lower limits might put a strain on it at higher listening levels.
Then there is the B4N - just about the same bottom end as the 3 but can probably handle SPL better in that region. What I'm a little afraid of is that rather prominent FR peak at 3K - an issue with neither of the smaller drivers.
I want to assume that all three drivers have relatively the same sound characteristics, but without seeing any distortion data like Zaph's for all of them I am hesitant to jump to conclusions. So, has anyone tested the other two, or seen tests of them?
On the other hand, I could dispense with the midrange altogether and go with just the Dayton woofs and SEAS tweets - with the right crossover I think they'd make a good combination - perhaps in a TMM configuration.
OK - let me have it!
This is just my opinion
The Hi Vi B3N is rather low on SPL about 79, not a good choice for a midrange.
I would take the money from the B3N/S and upgrade the woofer to Dayton RS and go two way.
The Hi Vi B3N is rather low on SPL about 79, not a good choice for a midrange.
I would take the money from the B3N/S and upgrade the woofer to Dayton RS and go two way.
On PE the SPL for both 3" Hi Vis is listed at 81, while the B4N is shown at 85 - not super efficient but better.
I was considering the the cheaper Dayton aluminum drivers because they're, well, cheaper, and supposed to be pretty decent. The DA175-8 happens to match the efficiency of the B4N too.
I was considering the the cheaper Dayton aluminum drivers because they're, well, cheaper, and supposed to be pretty decent. The DA175-8 happens to match the efficiency of the B4N too.
Hi,
IMHO, 3" is a very good extended range. In a short listening test
in a friend's system the B3" was always better than B4".
If SPL and sensitivity is not your first target, I suggest the 3".
My friend have matched with a HI-Vi M6 and M5 and various tweeters.
My preference is for a true first acoustic order at 800-1000Hz and
about 4000-5000Hz. 80 dB / 2,83v / 4pi target
perdone my basic english
Cheers,
Inertial
IMHO, 3" is a very good extended range. In a short listening test
in a friend's system the B3" was always better than B4".
If SPL and sensitivity is not your first target, I suggest the 3".
My friend have matched with a HI-Vi M6 and M5 and various tweeters.
My preference is for a true first acoustic order at 800-1000Hz and
about 4000-5000Hz. 80 dB / 2,83v / 4pi target
perdone my basic english
Cheers,
Inertial
sdclc126 said:
Hi,
In a 3 way the bass driver needs to be 4 to 6db more efficient than
the mid. Its a common misunderstanding and one of the causes of
the many dissapointing 3 way designs people make for themselves.
Building 3 ways is far more complex (especially crossover wise)
than people imagine and very difficult to get right.
The dayton DA175-8 drivers used in pairs would be appropriate
to a 4ohm (in the bass) 85to87db/2.83V midband level louspeaker.
(not particularly high, but means bass will be good for the size)
They do give very good performance + levels for the money.
As you seem to be interested in 3-ways :
I'd be tempted to mate them with the Dayton RS52, but note
the impedance peak of the RS52 needs careful c/o handling.
🙂/sreten.
Inertial & Sreten -
Thanks for those replies. Sreten I'm leaning in the direction you suggest - two DA175-8s + tweet in a 2-way - simpler design and nice strong bass.
No I'm not necessarily bent on 3-way designs - I guess I was a little concerned with cone break-up in large metal woofers crossed relatively high to a tweeter, but a high order x-over and a tweet like the 27TBFCG which can be crossed low address that issue.
I'm really wanting to do something like Zaph's L18/27TBFCG in a floor stander, but with two woofs and sealed, but the L18s are just too pricey for me and the DA175s would be a good substitute. I could use 1 L18 or DA175 + sub, but I'd like the mains to be as "self sufficient" in the low end as possible. The sub will be there either way - I just like strong mains that aren't just tall bookshelf speakers.
Thanks for those replies. Sreten I'm leaning in the direction you suggest - two DA175-8s + tweet in a 2-way - simpler design and nice strong bass.
No I'm not necessarily bent on 3-way designs - I guess I was a little concerned with cone break-up in large metal woofers crossed relatively high to a tweeter, but a high order x-over and a tweet like the 27TBFCG which can be crossed low address that issue.
I'm really wanting to do something like Zaph's L18/27TBFCG in a floor stander, but with two woofs and sealed, but the L18s are just too pricey for me and the DA175s would be a good substitute. I could use 1 L18 or DA175 + sub, but I'd like the mains to be as "self sufficient" in the low end as possible. The sub will be there either way - I just like strong mains that aren't just tall bookshelf speakers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.