HiVi B3N replacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
F

flyinglemur

Member
Joined 2005
#1
Hi Guys,

I don't really want to, but I'm the mids (B3N) finding my 3-way setup (Dayton DC-160 + HiVi B3N + Visaton DTW72) a little lost at times and would like a suggestion or two as to what to go about replacing them with. They really are a cracking little unit and sound great, but there is an audible difference between 82 and 88dB - I don't want to be imagining it, so I'll measure them before doing anything when my mic arrives.

Has anyone else made this move?
 
#3
It seems like, it would be better to follow a kit/prototype set-up, instead of shooting in the dark, when there are a lot difficulties. What 3-Way project are you doing/working on, speakers/xover/enclosure? Is it being design by you? If it is, that tweeter is also very critical.
 
#4
With all due respect, Inductor, I'm not shooting in the dark - I know what I came in looking for - something that is more efficient than the B3N and has been tried and tested by members of this forum.

From my original post :
Woofer - Dayton DC160 in a mass-loaded transmission line (74").
Tweeter - Visaton DTW72, padded accordingly to my tastes - I did find it a little harsh at the start but with some padding, it fits in well.
 
#7
 
#8
When you have climbed off your high horses, you might read Zaph's article on the B3N -

>> Comments: Pretty good midrange performance, especially considering the price. Very smooth response, with a minor 8kHz breakup. Below 130hz, bass turns to thick mud. *Do Not* run this speaker without some sort of subwoofer crossover, preferably active at 150hz LR4. You might be able to cross at 100hz LR4 if you can trade a little distortion and output for subwoofer localization. This driver can run without a tweeter, but will sound better with a notch filter and a small amount of baffle step compensation. Cheap stamped frame, no voice coil venting. Widely available at many vendors. Tested June 2006.<<

Sorry, what was that? MIDRANGE performance? So, I ask a little advice after making one bad choice for experimenting's sake and now people treat me as an imbecile? Jeez, I thought this forum was the last bastion of politeness.

Mashypie and Steviedon, who have actually been helpful, I thank you.
 
#12
Psychobiker said:
When you have climbed off your high horses, you might read Zaph's article on the B3N -

>> Comments: Pretty good midrange performance, especially considering the price. Very smooth response, with a minor 8kHz breakup. Below 130hz, bass turns to thick mud. *Do Not* run this speaker without some sort of subwoofer crossover, preferably active at 150hz LR4. You might be able to cross at 100hz LR4 if you can trade a little distortion and output for subwoofer localization. This driver can run without a tweeter, but will sound better with a notch filter and a small amount of baffle step compensation. Cheap stamped frame, no voice coil venting. Widely available at many vendors. Tested June 2006.<<

Sorry, what was that? MIDRANGE performance? So, I ask a little advice after making one bad choice for experimenting's sake and now people treat me as an imbecile? Jeez, I thought this forum was the last bastion of politeness.

Mashypie and Steviedon, who have actually been helpful, I thank you.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Of course I read that, I don't post links to stuff I haven't mostly read.
He talking about it in a fullrange context, to be used with a subwoofer,
he is not implying it would make a good 3 way speaker midrange at all.

3 ways are notoriously difficult to design properly and its not unreasonable
to assume that that is not the only "bad choice" made in the design / build.

After baffle step compensation of the DC160 your talking about 83dB or
so maximum midrange level, and the B3S/B3N could be made to work well if
you accept a relaxed presentation and c/o above the baffle step frequency,
note the midrange and treble levels of the Classix design versions linked to.
So there is no reason for the B3N to be a "bad choice" if used in the way
it could work with the DC160, c/o fairly high so the DC160 has most BSC.

For some reason Zaph does not post his tests of small Fostex's, but he is
adamant they are relatively poor compared to the recommended drivers.

rgds, sreten.

I do apologise for my comments sounding somewhat trite.
I did not have the time to look into this further at the time.

TBH I could see your original drivers working quite well.
First order series c/o mid to tweeter fairly high with tweeter L-pad.
The difficult bit is bass to mid c/o, that would need some modelling.
If you don't BSC the woofer you'll never get the famous TL bass.
 
Last edited:
#13
sreten said:
Hi,

Of course I read that, I don't post links to stuff I haven't mostly read.
He talking about it in a fullrange context, to be used with a subwoofer,
he is not implying it would make a good 3 way speaker midrange at all.

3 ways are notoriously difficult to design properly and its not unreasonable
to assume that that is not the only "bad choice" made in the design / build.

After baffle step compensation of the DC160 your talking about 83dB or
so maximum midrange level, and the B3S/B3N could be made to work well if
you accept a relaxed presentation and c/o above the baffle step frequency,
note the midrange and treble levels of the Classix design versions linked to.
So there is no reason for the B3N to be a "bad choice" if used in the way
it could work with the DC160, c/o fairly high so the DC160 has most BSC.

For some reason Zaph does not post his tests of small Fostex's, but he is
adamant they are relatively poor compared to the recommended drivers.

rgds, sreten.

I do apologise for my comments sounding somewhat trite.
I did not have the time to look into this further at the time.

TBH I could see your original drivers working quite well.
First order series c/o mid to tweeter fairly high with tweeter L-pad.
The difficult bit is bass to mid c/o, that would need some modelling.
If you don't BSC the woofer you'll never get the famous TL bass.
Click to expand...

Not to come accross as somewhat "trite", but implying the b3n, a tested well documented wide range driver will not make at least a decent midrange is just pure IDIOCY sir.

With that said, I'll second the fr88ex you mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:
#14
sreten said:
For some reason Zaph does not post his tests of small Fostex's, but he is
adamant they are relatively poor compared to the recommended drivers.
Click to expand...

It seems to me, that Zaph's opinion of a driver is often biased as he has seen the measurements before the audition.

I don't think he has tested the best of the small Fostex -- which has unfortunately been discontinued. Any of the 3" shine thou when XOed 300+ to bass driver.

dave
 
#15
steviedon said:
With that said, I'll second the fr88ex you mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

Got my FR88ex just yesterday. They are a decent looking, well built driver, not nearly as impressive as an FF85k in the detail, but available (and less expensive). In particular the surround could be much better done, IMHO.

Trying to judge a driver based on its looks is always a minefield, the proof is in the pudding, going to pop them in the uFonken^2 ASAP and adjust the slot spacers as needed, and we'll see.

dave
 
#16
steviedon said:
Not to come accross as somewhat "trite", but implying the b3n, a tested well documented
wide range driver will not make at least a decent midrange is just pure IDIOCY sir.

With that said, I'll second the fr88ex you mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

Hi,

No. I did not say that. I said Zaph in what he was saying did not imply that.
The driver is too low sensitivity for a general purpose midrange. Zaph IMO
was commenting on the midrange performance relative to other 3" drivers
used in the sub / sat context.

It turns out for the DC160 properly BSC'd the B3N would work as a midrange
driver c/o at the right point if a somewhat laid back balance is acceptable.
(The DC160 does need to be BSC'd if you want the relative TL bass extension.)

The FRE88X is more flexible as a mid unit, due to its higher senstivity.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
#17
planet10 said:
It seems to me, that Zaph's opinion of a driver is often biased
as he has seen the measurements before the audition.

I don't think he has tested the best of the small Fostex --
which has unfortunately been discontinued. Any of the 3"
shine thou when XOed 300+ to bass driver.

dave
Click to expand...

Hi,

As Zaphs 3" basic concept is a c/o quite a bit lower than 300Hz, i.e. a single
sub with multiple satellites, I don't see the problem with preconception.
If the measurements tell you it won't do 100Hz, it won't, end of story.

Measurements rather than ears are far more reliable for practical limits.

rgds, sreten.
 
Last edited:
#20
The difference between what these drivers can do on paper, and what they actually do can be quite dramatic. Ask anyone who has lived with FF85 uFonken. On paper excursion limited to 1W 100 Hz (and why it is "offocoally" a computer speaker)... in real life you'd have trouble swallowing that.

dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom