There was no love for the reflector either.. and now my wife also destroyed any hops of me ever making one
Why? Because it doesn't look like a walk-in closet?
(Or a fridge, in a less than perfect world)
Last edited:
I am sure the FX is a very nice driver as well.
But without even comparing T&S parameters, I expect the FX will be no match for the 15PR400 as regards to midrange sound quality.
Last edited:
Based on what information? Not that I don’t trust you, just curious about the reasons why. I only need them to work to about 600 to 700Hz.
Agreed with the caveat 'at low power' likely in a typical HIFI/HT apps based on published specs due to a higher inductance, breakup modes BW yielding more so called 'inner detail', which at higher power is masked and the FX's better damped breakup modes makes for a more pistonic output, which yields a more technically correct wide range response, hence can maintain a bit more clarity at higher SPLs.
In short, recommend choosing based on the app's desired average SPL [AKA music power]. Unfortunately, I've no 'feel' for the ~ power break point of modern stiffer sprung/massive drivers as even the 15PR400's so called 'low' Mmd/Mms is 2-3x > the Altec 416, 515 and their spin-off woofer series.
That, or severely limit HF output and it's down to box size, peak power handling, cost difference.
GM
Last edited:
Perhaps we could work on that, GM
I just had a conversation about the 15PH500 (16 Ohm).
We ended up with the 15PR400, because its more versatile.
The Faital 15FH500 (16 ohm) is unique! I love them and use them in 300 liter reflex, unbelievable!
Never heard such a deep and swinging bass.
Ideally we want those nasty 'snap' modes way up high at > -35 dB/XO point, so 700 Hz is ~ the practical limit for 4th order for either driver.
GM
Due to my locale, my 8 ft^3-up cabs were denoted as XXXX outhouse, where XXXX defined its use by social status with the largest of course being the 'presidential suite'.
GM
Thank you very much Ro808.
The sub driver has a second coil that is used to send feedback to the amp.
I will post a link below. Some interesting reading for sure!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ikaudio.com/&usg=AOvVaw2EijHdqIqhzsjD0WuMOO6b
And
A370PEQ
This is one of the selling points for the AE15TDM...the woofer that has the lowest MMS of the considered woofers that could provide the bass extension and app I wanted.
I have read time and time again that there is a correlation with low MMS and the reproduction of natural instruments. Even though motor strength can seemingly even the playing field somehow something is loss in translation with a heavier woofer. To me that speaks of vulnerability, and I’d would think that the supposed loss, of low bass authority that is seemingly a plus, with heavier woofers, will be minimized by having them in pairs.
There must be more to it than just low mms and high sensitivity.
I had a pair of AE TD15M in sealed enclosures. I felt it needed decent volume before the sound would ‘open up’ or come alive. This is compared to altec 416 and even my beymas.
Cone material? Spider material? Not sure..
Thing is I often play music at low volumes. So low room modes probably don’t even get chance to get excited yet. Not really what these big PA woofers are designed for.
I had a pair of AE TD15M in sealed enclosures. I felt it needed decent volume before the sound would ‘open up’ or come alive. This is compared to altec 416 and even my beymas.
Cone material? Spider material? Not sure..
Thing is I often play music at low volumes. So low room modes probably don’t even get chance to get excited yet. Not really what these big PA woofers are designed for.
Last edited:
Based on the characteristics you mentioned:
"The FX has stronger motor to compensate for the heavier cone, and almost double the excursion."
It's a common misconception, that 'boosting' certain parameters can be compensated for by reinforcing others with impunity .
While theoretically it seems perfectly possible and is true up to some extent (Akabak sims would be more or less confirmative), you'll loose some subtle nuances along the way.
Technically, this stuff gets complicated quickly and personally, I don't think the electro-mechano-acoustical equivalent circuit is sufficient to include the effects of these nuances.
To keep it simple: if you wish to increase excursion, power handling etc. you not only have to use stronger motor parts but also modify suspension in order to dampen resonances (resulting in a lower Qts). Evidently this goes hand in hand with increased Mms.
Not only electro-mechanical aspects change, the material properties change accordingly.
If you think the composition and thickness of the cone, or coating it, doesn't affect soundquality then ignore this post.
I have to admit the differences between between the FX560 and PR400 will be minor, especially up to 600, 700Hz.
Now that I've checked the specsheet it's obvious the 15FX560 is (still) something in between a woofer and a midwoofer.
If you compare the 15HP1060 though, differences become more obvious. Just look at the cone.
This morning, I was discussing a crossover at 1200hz and in this case the extended and clean midrange of the PR400 pays off.
Obviously GM is right, 700Hz would be better.
In the right cab and with proper tuning, the PR400 pretty much achieves similar low freq. extension as a generic 1500 Watt PA (not car audio) subwoofer driver. The differences are primarily SPL related.
The PR400 achieves this with considerably less excursion, but in change needs a larger volume of air.
Last edited:
This is very true.
Why would manufacturers of esoteric drivers primarily focus on development and production of light cones?
That said, the reproduced media also plays an important role.
For a home cinema system priorities may differ considerably from monitors for classical musicians.
As for purely electronic music, there's no reference. IOW nobody knows exactly how it's supposed to sound.
Last edited:
For the TD15M I got :Suspension stiffness K 3304 N / m, which is still 1000 lower than both the 15PR400 and my own woofers.
For the Altec 816-8B v1 it's astounishingly low: 1667
Beyma 15G40: 6520 N / m which is almost identical to the15FX560.
Naturally, this value has to be considered relative to the other parameters.
For the Altec 816-8B v1 it's astounishingly low: 1667
Beyma 15G40: 6520 N / m which is almost identical to the15FX560.
Naturally, this value has to be considered relative to the other parameters.
Last edited: