You are putting far too much into the FR curves as a measure of quality. They are an indicator, but only tellpart of the story.
(PS. i hope you are talking Smith & Larson woofertester?)
dave
10+ years ago i did a speaker with the shielded version. I got OKish sound, this is a cheap driver in all senses.
dave
Some of the stuff i have seen from those make me really doubt the veracity of their measures.
In defense of MA, the company has only been making drivers for 6-7 years, and but for a few exceptions the latest drivers are way better than the 1st gen.
dave
I believe that is what Scott & Colin are using in Jenna. Chris also has them in his latest Castles. Definitely needs a tweeter. Basically a CHP70.2 with a 5 dB deeper shelf at the top. Not even sure if a 2nd batch of those was ever made (i'm sitting on quite a few, never sold any).
What may be of interest is the new CHN70 which is, at best guess, is a CHP70 in a less expensive lower profile CHP70.2 without the shelved down topend that made it inferior to the earlier CHP70/EL70 (CHP70.2 is still a nice driver)
dave
sdep777- I'd like to add a few squeaks to the conversation;
there is no best - of anything- period
what exactly is the application - i.e. bandwidth and anticipated operating levels?
I've heard a fair number of drivers in the size range under discussion - including several mentioned, and note that Fostex have yet to be included - there are a couple in their line worthy of consideration ( FF105WK & 85WK for example)
Exactly why constrain yourself to sealed?
As to the MCMs - I heard a "line array" using that or a sibling driver about a dozen years ago at a small audio show, and I left the room with a headache - so it was with trepidation that I first auditioned Jordan JX92, and subsequently Mark Audio CHRs and Alpair metal cones. IMHO, both these 2 brands are orders of magnitude superior to the MCM metals.
there is no best - of anything- period
what exactly is the application - i.e. bandwidth and anticipated operating levels?
I've heard a fair number of drivers in the size range under discussion - including several mentioned, and note that Fostex have yet to be included - there are a couple in their line worthy of consideration ( FF105WK & 85WK for example)
Exactly why constrain yourself to sealed?
As to the MCMs - I heard a "line array" using that or a sibling driver about a dozen years ago at a small audio show, and I left the room with a headache - so it was with trepidation that I first auditioned Jordan JX92, and subsequently Mark Audio CHRs and Alpair metal cones. IMHO, both these 2 brands are orders of magnitude superior to the MCM metals.
Last edited:
No point of including Fostex since their drivers are not suited to sealed boxes for the most part. There's only so much that can be expected from a 4" fullrange driver in a sealed box. I'd say the Alpair7 is the way to go if this is a fixed requirement, though there are some lower priced options if OK to goodish sound is enough.
I think "why constrain yourself to sealed" is a reasonable question. So +1. Why??
The old MCM 1870 were pretty good midbass drivers for the buck, and were happy in a tiny box. The upper freqencies weren't much to write home about if run WFO.
I think "why constrain yourself to sealed" is a reasonable question. So +1. Why??
The old MCM 1870 were pretty good midbass drivers for the buck, and were happy in a tiny box. The upper freqencies weren't much to write home about if run WFO.
Last edited:
The new drivers will be used for my computer speakers point source driven by my "new to me" old amp I just received off of Ebay the B & K ST 140
Back in the 80s and 90s I built many speakers always looked forward to the arrival of my Speaker Builder Magazine and just preferred building closed box systems. keep it simple I guess
"Fostex" I have just not gotten to them yet but many seem to be for more esoteric cabinet designs which is just not what I prefer to build and beyond my cabinet making skills
"The best" well most people want the best they can get..... and you are right nothing is the best
Last edited:
Drivers from the current FF-series can all do bass reflex and perhaps even sealed if a bit of EQ is used. Worth checking out.
OK then. Personal preference for sealed is a reasonable position. 
One problem though is almost all available small full rangers are optimized for vented (or horns), largely because low efficiency is out of fashion.
Using EQ - yeah, that opens up the number of drivers that are viable, though you may run out of xmax on many of them.
One problem though is almost all available small full rangers are optimized for vented (or horns), largely because low efficiency is out of fashion.
Using EQ - yeah, that opens up the number of drivers that are viable, though you may run out of xmax on many of them.
That goes without saying, except it didn't.
Even the two larger models, '225 and '165, LT down to 60Hz and 70Hz respectively takes them past Xmax at 1W. A bit of actual "EQ" filter around the f3~f6 region would be a bit more forgiving I suppose.
Well then maybe I should be looking for a 5 inch full range instead of the 4 inch, it's just there seem to be many more choices in the 4 inch driver size. Tang Band makes a couple 5 inch that looked very good just have a question as to the validity of the published response curves. also Dayton has a 5 inch FR that is listed as more for pro sound applications and it has received very good owner reviews.
Last edited:
The Mark Audio 6p is an excellent driver for desktop duty. I've been running them in vented boxes (Planet_10 prototypes) for several years. At ~3ft, they have the capacity to melt your eardrums, so larger drivers with more power handling may not be necessary.
jeff
Last edited:
re Fostex drivers requiring more esoteric enclosures - certainly not all do. I've built literally scores of pairs from as simple as conventional ported or slot vented to folded labyrinths, BLH, MLTLs you name it
As Jeffie notes, for computer nearfield, the A6 works very well, as does the Fostex FF85WK - I own 2 pairs of those, driven by Topping TP30 digital amp.
As good as you can possibly get in this weight class? maybe not, but good enough for these aged, jaded and well damaged ears.
As Jeffie notes, for computer nearfield, the A6 works very well, as does the Fostex FF85WK - I own 2 pairs of those, driven by Topping TP30 digital amp.
As good as you can possibly get in this weight class? maybe not, but good enough for these aged, jaded and well damaged ears.
I agree with Dave that the alp 7 is a lot better.
You won't be shocked by the impedance plot, if you understand what you're measuring and how to interpret the data, something I'm not very proficient at myself. What I've learned and experienced is that Fs is usually higher than spec out of the box. I've had some that come back down after break in, but even then sometimes they just don't align. Despite this, box predictions are quite good, generally.
As for the frequency response, you should not expect to see similar results. As Scott pointed out, it's common practice to smooth and squish and what ever else the data into something of a straight line. You'll probably detect a general trend that is accurate. For instance, that Dayton you posted will likely have a 5db shelf above 1.2khz and once on a baffle even more. But will it be smooth like their data sheet suggests? I think not. The CHR70 shows some break up in the top 1.5 octaves. This will likely be more pronounced than shown and have a much more dramatic manifestation off axis.
You won't be shocked by the impedance plot, if you understand what you're measuring and how to interpret the data, something I'm not very proficient at myself. What I've learned and experienced is that Fs is usually higher than spec out of the box. I've had some that come back down after break in, but even then sometimes they just don't align. Despite this, box predictions are quite good, generally.
As for the frequency response, you should not expect to see similar results. As Scott pointed out, it's common practice to smooth and squish and what ever else the data into something of a straight line. You'll probably detect a general trend that is accurate. For instance, that Dayton you posted will likely have a 5db shelf above 1.2khz and once on a baffle even more. But will it be smooth like their data sheet suggests? I think not. The CHR70 shows some break up in the top 1.5 octaves. This will likely be more pronounced than shown and have a much more dramatic manifestation off axis.
well, the B&K ST140 is scads more power than one could possibly "need" for any computer set-up that I've ever seen, and while I've never heard one, what I've seen described as its "signature warm sound" should be taken into consideration - perhaps as compensation for the bright and forward presentation of some of the smaller drivers - particularly any of the metal cones listed - when used in the very near field.
In case you didn't notice it, check out this current thread: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/258482-aurasound-ns3-193-8a.html
These aurasound 3" drivers are intended for tiny sealed boxes. Efficiency is very low, but as has been pointed out, the B&K has plenty of power. Obviously, a 3" driver with 20w PE will never bring the house down, but should be fine for typical computer use, background music, etc.
BTW, I would describe the current edition Alpair 10.3M as relatively laid back sounding. It's not at all bright and forward. Previously, I was running the generation 2 CHR70, which was fairly bright, but I understand the current version has been revoiced.
These aurasound 3" drivers are intended for tiny sealed boxes. Efficiency is very low, but as has been pointed out, the B&K has plenty of power. Obviously, a 3" driver with 20w PE will never bring the house down, but should be fine for typical computer use, background music, etc.
BTW, I would describe the current edition Alpair 10.3M as relatively laid back sounding. It's not at all bright and forward. Previously, I was running the generation 2 CHR70, which was fairly bright, but I understand the current version has been revoiced.
Had a B & K ST-140 in the 80s they are only 125 watts per channel into 8 ohms , this one sounds very good from Ebay , anyway yea, I like the specs on the Alpair but ( and I have not seen one in person ) but those cone colors are awful looking has to be good looking besides good, with no grill I will have to look at them and I want eye candy NOT an eye sore
Last edited:
Which ones? The 1st gen had issues (not quite as bas as the JX92), the later ones are WAY better.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.