Looking for a good <70€ mid-bass, and nice <30€ tweeter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#23
BRICOLO😀 I would venture:bigeyes: to again say that the HDS is better than the CLassic since the classic is only treated paper:judge: in this regard the laminated sandwich cone should be cleaner in the all important mids which as I have said before was very sweet and clear:angel: I don't know of prices over there but even wholsalers list price here the peerless are at least 50% cheaper here vis a vis each other; and no it is too early in the morning to be touching anything to cloud my thoughts :drink: so I can honestly say I havent had a drop since last night:att'n: CHEERS, TJB... I" will however have another cup of coffee now though!!!
 
#25
Bricolo said:
the HDS aren't cheaper than the Audax classical line
they are both in the 40-50€
Click to expand...

The HM170G8 isn't just an ordinary paperwoofer, flat until 3kHz first cone breakup at 5kHz, so it's usable for a ribbontweeter. It can reach 50 Hz in a 20l enclosure. And I like the sound a lot, a neutral sound with a good transient respons in the midband, very clean (also dependend on your enclosure). The hds is also a good driver, but you can't say that easy to go for the peerless or vice versa for the audax. It's a matter of taste. I'm biased to the audax.
 
#26
I think I'll go with an Audax (still not decided which one 😀)
many of you say they are good drivers, and even Nelson sayd this, and he added that they work very well with a minimal crossover

now, for the tweeter, which audax? 😀
 
#27
la ma😕 ( I doubt wether a ribon is within our friends budget for 30 euoro's or wether the audax's response at 5k is high enough to meet a ribon) i agree it is largely a matter of taste and personal preference, so if he is leaning toward the audax drivers, then so be it all one can say to Brimolco, is to " suck it and see" as they say, there are no quick and easy answers this way, the only way is to build a speaker and try the different brands of drivers to see which he prefers:bigeyes: keep in mind what NELSON said about the peerless drivers, I'm sure he tried any number before coming to his conclusion😉 CHEERS. TJB
 
#29
:scratch: I dunno I was just repeating what you said in a previous post:bawling: CHEERS:drink: I think I will have one now, and perhaps so should you.... if you can't remember what you said previously, or was it the other bloke? thegumby:mafioso: TJB🙂
 
#30
Mark25 said:
TJB,
is the peerless tweeter you are on about the 811815? if so, that is the unit which made me realise i did not like the sound of "cheap" tweeters. i immediately forked out on some ss 2905/9300's after hearing it, so PERSONALLY would not recomend that model. although i'm NOT saying it's not good value at that price point!
Mark
Click to expand...

The WA10 is indeed the 811815. I have not heard it, but I can remember it measuring with low distortion in a review. Also, judging from the data sheet, it may be an old, but not necessarily a poor design (and neither is it really cheap). It has a low 800 Hz resonance frequency, flat response and pretty low inductance. It being without ferrofluid (which may make for a very open sound), there are no secondary peaks in the impedance plot and the resonance is pretty pronounced. This may, of course, cause problems if the unit is crossed over too low and there is no impedance correction.

Regards,

Eric
 
#32
capslock said:


The WA10 is indeed the 811815. I have not heard it, but I can remember it measuring with low distortion in a review. Also, judging from the data sheet, it may be an old, but not necessarily a poor design (and neither is it really cheap). It has a low 800 Hz resonance frequency, flat response and pretty low inductance. It being without ferrofluid (which may make for a very open sound), there are no secondary peaks in the impedance plot and the resonance is pretty pronounced. This may, of course, cause problems if the unit is crossed over too low and there is no impedance correction.

Regards,

Eric
Click to expand...

I agree. I've used the WA10 tweeter in combination with the peerless hds182's and I really like it. It's a good tweeter for that price
 
#33
Bricolo said:
aren't paper woofer good?
Click to expand...

It isn't about the material used for a particular driver, it is about the sound of that particular driver. And not to forget the ease of implementation alu, kevlar, magnesium, polyglass, HDA etc. cones haven't that gentle cone break-ups as a paper cone has, so getting a nice x-over is far more difficult. Manufacturers who use paper (treated or not) in their best products are e.g. Scanspeak, Audax and Vifa, even Seas has a very good paper woofer the Seas CB17RCY/P.

So for a first project I would always use a driver with a smooth and gentle roll off with no early cone resonances. And the use of a driver with a paper cone will give you that.
 
#34
Eric,
i heard the 811815 in a 3-way system with the peerless enclosed mid.
TJB
Volt drivers are outstanding in my opinion! i use the BM220 everyday, well worth the money, i've compared it to the CSX217H and 220WR peerless drivers, and their in a different ballpark. as always, you get what you pay for! sorry to get off topic with that one Briloco.
Mark
 
#37
:cannotbe: YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFULL HERE, many manufacturers fiddle their published response plots i.e. audax use mlssa and if you look at the curves they are 1/3rd oct smoothed that makes a huge difference compared to sine responses published by others also keep in mind under impulse testing the speaker behaves differently than when being fed a sine signal also the mlssa plots can be stretched out to make them look smoother than they really are, the reason many prefer mlssa is it is easier to use without an anechoic chbr which is expensive to build and equip... anyway it always pays to look at the notes on the published graph, how it was taken etc... also check to see if an analog generated plot what signal they used sine or 1/3 oct pink noise, if the latter the response always looks flatter and smoother than the sine plot. I"m afraid time is of the essence here so I must be off, but I want to dispute paper cones vs others at another time when I have more of it to spare 🙂 regards to all... TJB:devily:
 
#38
TJB,
i would be nice to get your opinion on the trebble from the ATC's (when you have time) as it would be quite relevant to this post i think. It would be usefull to talk about what the 10KHz hump in the audax units response brings to the preceedings, as well as the absolute quality. I am thinking of using them for my first active project, because at 12ukp each, mistakes will be cheaper than with my ss2905/9500's!
Mark
 
#39
🙂 OK, let's see what we have so far; BRIMOLCO leaning towards the audax units along with another person on this thread I just went back to the audax site to refresh my memory on the paper coned HM170 and it is not real flash whereas I was thinking of the earlier die cast mazak framed version which had a real gentle slope at roll off and would have been easier to use...🙄 in comparison to the new plastic framed version which breaks up violently above 1000 Hz the magnitude of the peak @ 4kHz is a good 10 dB above the rest of the output and this will be very difficult to suppress adequetly in the x-over to the tweeter:bawling: the tweeter in answer to somebody else used in the atc is not 20mm but a 25mm TMO25F9 AS I DON'T think audax makes a 20mm version and in all honesty I can say I have never HEard the ATC speaker in question:goodbad: my guess the reason atc are using the audax unit is more to do with cost as the 20mm scan speak tweeter they were using before is about 3 to 10 times the price: now this may not sound as much of a saving but every dollar saved lowers the end price to the dealer significantly so the showroom price might drop by a 100quid or sheckles or whatever currency you want to call it:devily: this initself is not much of an endorsement, though I have used the tweeter in question and it is not much to rave about, it sounded like any other; in other words: ordinary🙄
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom