Mid/high drivers

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
frugal-phile™
Joined 2001
Paid Member
Where can I find T/S parameters, frequency response, polar pattern, some objective measure of improved performance?

T/S parameters do not significantly change from stock. No one has yet been able to provide incontrovertable measures of the improvements that EnABL makes. We (the hifi community) have not yet developed the measures that show what it does.

As i said earlier, what is currently within measurement capability only skims the surface of what a speaker does… which is why you have to listen to a driver to evaluate it. You are not going to be able to find what you are looking for using just measures. At some point you just have to bite the bullet, start somewhere, and get listening.

Aren't these drivers moot? Unless you do the treatments yourself (none of it is secret and i encourage people to take them on) i believe just the cost of getting the mods done exceed your budget?

dave
 
Shrinking the chamber puts a hump in the response at the lower cutoff.

Depends on the driver / where you want to cutoff. I put the numbers into a sim, and it appears that to get a +3dB hump with the Tang Band W2-852SH requires a super tiny enclosure (basically sealing the basket) to push the Qts up to 1.3. The hump is centred around 950Hz, so you'd have to cross pretty high.

That's too much of a price for +3dB, IMO.

It also pushes the impedance peak upward in frequency. This is how I'm increasing efficiency. I'm increasing sensitivity and increasing impedance so it uses less current. The tradeoff is reduced low-end extension. This is perfectly fine for me because I'm trying to turn a full-range into a mid-range.

Valid*, but not how I'd do. I'd use baffle size and/or horn loading rather than this. Or just choose a more efficient driver.

Maybe consider the Visaton Speaker Driver - SL 713 - 4 Ohm Full Range
Art. No. 2050

It looks exactly like an upmarket TV speaker, is more efficient than the 2" TB, lots more cone surface than the 2" TB, yet has pretty good horizontal pattern, with enough HF lift to sound good off axis.

The Qts of 1.7 is also typical of a TV speaker. The actual TV speakers I used / was impressed by had very similar stats and similar HF lift when I measured them, so at about 20 or 30 degrees off-axis they were quite flat to ~7kHz.

*I think there is an article about this (or very similar) on the Elliott Sound Products page, you could mine it for info.
 
Depends on the driver / where you want to cutoff. I put the numbers into a sim, and it appears that to get a +3dB hump with the Tang Band W2-852SH requires a super tiny enclosure (basically sealing the basket) to push the Qts up to 1.3. The hump is centred around 950Hz, so you'd have to cross pretty high.

That's too much of a price for +3dB, IMO.

I'm planning on a ~80ml rear chamber. Quite small indeed, but only a Qts of .65 with this little driver. It pushes the impedance peak to 310Hz.

Valid*, but not how I'd do. I'd use baffle size and/or horn loading rather than this. Or just choose a more efficient driver.

Oh yes. A more efficient driver would certainly be more ideal. The ones I keep finding cost a pretty penny. I need something I can produce in bulk. The baffle size is limited and horn loading is out of the question since the final enclosure will be quite small.
 
T/S parameters do not significantly change from stock. No one has yet been able to provide incontrovertable measures of the improvements that EnABL makes. We (the hifi community) have not yet developed the measures that show what it does.

As i said earlier, what is currently within measurement capability only skims the surface of what a speaker does… which is why you have to listen to a driver to evaluate it. You are not going to be able to find what you are looking for using just measures. At some point you just have to bite the bullet, start somewhere, and get listening.

Aren't these drivers moot? Unless you do the treatments yourself (none of it is secret and i encourage people to take them on) i believe just the cost of getting the mods done exceed your budget?

dave

Not necessarily moot I'm not opposed to doing the treatments myself if it provides significant advantage. I'm creating this to be a reference monitor. I only care about how accurately it can reproduce a signal. All of those properties CAN be measured. I need accurate frequency response and time domain behavior. I'm also looking for a certain amount of efficiency, headroom, and pattern coverage which compose my current challenge at this price point. Again though, all measurable parameters.
 
Oh yes. A more efficient driver would certainly be more ideal. The ones I keep finding cost a pretty penny. I need something I can produce in bulk. The baffle size is limited and horn loading is out of the question since the final enclosure will be quite small.

https://www.soundlabsgroup.com.au/p/V-2050-SL713/SL+713+-+4+Ohm

$22 Australian (including tax), which translates to ~15 $US. If you were buying direct & in bulk, they might be ten bucks each.

I'm keen to try them myself, but already have several projects that I need to finish before I buy more toys.
 
As i said earlier, what is currently within measurement capability only skims
the surface of what a speaker does… which is why you have to listen to a
driver to evaluate it. You are not going to be able to find what you are
looking for using just measures. At some point you just have to bite
the bullet, start somewhere, and get listening.

dave

Hi,

That is pure BS. For speakers good measurements tell you nearly
everything you need to know and also tell you that EnABL is BS.

The idea you can design a good speaker by listening only is
completely wrong, try it, it simply doesn't remotely work.

rgds, sreten.
 
Now that is far from true. For example how do you measure what is happening 30-40 dB down in the presence of the main signal? (ie how well does it reproduce the small, but very important signal)

dave

My measurement rig only goes ~60dB down due to background noise, cheap parts, but others can show noise and distortion artifacts as low as -90dB from the fundamental

The question really isn't how accurate measurements are. Measurements are empirical and have easily quantifiable parameters. The question is how accurate are your ears. The details are very complex, but the answer is quite simple. They're just not very reliable at all.
 
Oh, and of course, as if that weren't hard enough, it has to be cheap.

Not at 100dB but perfect for low volume listening. A bandpass sub using a 8" Dayton SD215 DVC is used for the bass.

Regards
Mike
 

Attachments

  • W3_1364_XT25.jpg
    W3_1364_XT25.jpg
    63.2 KB · Views: 91
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.