By the way, I recently tested a Faital Pro HF20AT (2") compression driver and did pretty extensive multi-day listening versus TAD TD-4002s, as well as a Klipsch K-691 driver (i.e., either a B&C DE75 or DE750 2" compression driver), all on a stereo pair of K-402 horns in a 2-way (home version) Klipsch Jubilee configuration using a Xilica XP series crossover.
If I were to pay more to get higher fidelity in a 2" driver, I'd definitely go to the Faital Pro HF20AT. I've got spectrogram plots that show its extreme high frequency performance is on par with the TAD, although not an equal to the TAD. (Remember that the TAD TD-4002 diaphragm is 4" diameter beryllium, while the others are 3" titanium diaphragms.)
I was very impressed with the performance of the Faital Pro driver. Cymbal transients, which are in my experience the gold standard for judging "full range" 2" compression drivers, were quite clean and convincing. Only the TADs could outshine the Faital Pro drivers, and by a very small margin. I'd be hard pressed to pick which driver I was listening to in a blind single test.
Comparative listening would be easier to pick the TADs, but certainly not easy. In my opinion, this is a very significant technical hurdle by a 2" titanium diaphragm full range compression driver. Beryllium is about 7X better in terms of its combined mass and stiffness properties than titanium: not a lot of people are aware of the magnitude of the diaphragm material properties differences.
The required equalization of the Faital Pro HF20AT driver (to 17+kHz) on a K-402 horn was also insignificantly different to the TAD TD-4002 equalization.
JMTC.
Chris
If I were to pay more to get higher fidelity in a 2" driver, I'd definitely go to the Faital Pro HF20AT. I've got spectrogram plots that show its extreme high frequency performance is on par with the TAD, although not an equal to the TAD. (Remember that the TAD TD-4002 diaphragm is 4" diameter beryllium, while the others are 3" titanium diaphragms.)
I was very impressed with the performance of the Faital Pro driver. Cymbal transients, which are in my experience the gold standard for judging "full range" 2" compression drivers, were quite clean and convincing. Only the TADs could outshine the Faital Pro drivers, and by a very small margin. I'd be hard pressed to pick which driver I was listening to in a blind single test.
Comparative listening would be easier to pick the TADs, but certainly not easy. In my opinion, this is a very significant technical hurdle by a 2" titanium diaphragm full range compression driver. Beryllium is about 7X better in terms of its combined mass and stiffness properties than titanium: not a lot of people are aware of the magnitude of the diaphragm material properties differences.
The required equalization of the Faital Pro HF20AT driver (to 17+kHz) on a K-402 horn was also insignificantly different to the TAD TD-4002 equalization.
JMTC.
Chris
I haven't heard the other two Faital Pro drivers. I would think that they have differences, but as a matter of small trades in performance.
The K-691s and Faital Pros were on loan so that I could develop active crossover settings for the older Electrovoice Dx38 crossover, as well as the Xilica XP series crossovers. I used REW, a ECM8000 microphone, and a small mixer for the in-room measurements.
________________________________________________
The distinction between 1.4" and 2" is not a very good one in my experience. I would pay more attention to the diaphragm voice coil diameter and the field strength measured in Tesla, as well as diaphragm material (Be vs. Ti) as better guideposts.
There seems to be a lot of propaganda that the TAD 4002 is a 1.4" compression driver. If you take off the snout, it's a 1.5" diameter throat, but it takes the same 4" diaphragm part number as the "2 inch" TD-4001 driver. In listening trials, I haven't seen or read about anyone being able to pick out the sound of a 4001 vs. a 4002--the sound is the same. I would think that the acoustic measurements between these two would show insignificant differences. They use the same diaphragm.
The K-402 and K-510 horns are both 2" diameter throat horns. I'm sold on two inch horns over 1" designs.
If I were to go 1", then I'd do it with a coaxial driver--like Danley has done using the Faital Pro 6" (actually 5") coaxial driver in his SM-96 and other Synergy models. This makes a lot more sense to me from the standpoint of trying to wedge in little midrange cone drivers around the mouth flange of the horn. That's a difficult way to go that's mainly for providing increased acoustic power rather than in-home high fidelity...in my opinion.
Chris
The K-691s and Faital Pros were on loan so that I could develop active crossover settings for the older Electrovoice Dx38 crossover, as well as the Xilica XP series crossovers. I used REW, a ECM8000 microphone, and a small mixer for the in-room measurements.
________________________________________________
The distinction between 1.4" and 2" is not a very good one in my experience. I would pay more attention to the diaphragm voice coil diameter and the field strength measured in Tesla, as well as diaphragm material (Be vs. Ti) as better guideposts.
There seems to be a lot of propaganda that the TAD 4002 is a 1.4" compression driver. If you take off the snout, it's a 1.5" diameter throat, but it takes the same 4" diaphragm part number as the "2 inch" TD-4001 driver. In listening trials, I haven't seen or read about anyone being able to pick out the sound of a 4001 vs. a 4002--the sound is the same. I would think that the acoustic measurements between these two would show insignificant differences. They use the same diaphragm.
The K-402 and K-510 horns are both 2" diameter throat horns. I'm sold on two inch horns over 1" designs.
If I were to go 1", then I'd do it with a coaxial driver--like Danley has done using the Faital Pro 6" (actually 5") coaxial driver in his SM-96 and other Synergy models. This makes a lot more sense to me from the standpoint of trying to wedge in little midrange cone drivers around the mouth flange of the horn. That's a difficult way to go that's mainly for providing increased acoustic power rather than in-home high fidelity...in my opinion.
Chris
Often a mfr makes 1.4" and 2" CDs that are identical except for an adapter in their throat that transitions between the diaphragm or phase plug and the exit. That seems to be true for Faital Pro.
I've got nothing against 2" throat horns so long as they have the mumps in their throats that Roy DelGado attributed the excellent HF polars of the K-402 to. Without the mumps and no doubt all the trial and error it took to optimize them, HF dispersion might suffer.
One thing where 2" hurts is the extra diameter adds directly to the circumference of the horn at the mid/woofer entry points and thus can force a marginally lower XO or force the ports closer to the throars. That's exactly what you don't want to have happen when the ports have to be big enough for 15" woofers.
That is why I lean towards a 1.4" throat. I'm not saying a 2" throat can't be made to work well but I think its more challenging with a 2" throat.
I've got nothing against 2" throat horns so long as they have the mumps in their throats that Roy DelGado attributed the excellent HF polars of the K-402 to. Without the mumps and no doubt all the trial and error it took to optimize them, HF dispersion might suffer.
One thing where 2" hurts is the extra diameter adds directly to the circumference of the horn at the mid/woofer entry points and thus can force a marginally lower XO or force the ports closer to the throars. That's exactly what you don't want to have happen when the ports have to be big enough for 15" woofers.
That is why I lean towards a 1.4" throat. I'm not saying a 2" throat can't be made to work well but I think its more challenging with a 2" throat.
The "mumps" thing is a patent by Roy Delgado. That patent was issued in 2009 by the USPTO. It is a way of controlling the narrowing of polars in the lower mid-band for smaller horns than the K-402. If a horn profile doesn't experience that narrowing, then mumps isn't required. Th K-510 horn needs it, but the K-402 doesn't. The K-510 horn is a much smaller 2" throat horn than the K-402...much smaller. I own and have used both and tested both. The K-402 wins hands-down in all respects...except smaller size.
The smaller the horn mouth, the more you're going to need some sort of pattern control device to keep angular coverage the same vs. frequency.
Roy uses mumps button area while JBL uses retreating horn "creases". Both achieve the same objective. (It can be argued that JBL infringed in point of fact.)
If you go further still in terms of coverage angles--the K-402 and K-510 both use 90x60 degree coverage angles--then you get into the JBL M2-type geometries, which are heavily dependent on the compression driver phase plug and throat geometries, i.e., you don't swap out to use different drivers...
Chris
The smaller the horn mouth, the more you're going to need some sort of pattern control device to keep angular coverage the same vs. frequency.
Roy uses mumps button area while JBL uses retreating horn "creases". Both achieve the same objective. (It can be argued that JBL infringed in point of fact.)
If you go further still in terms of coverage angles--the K-402 and K-510 both use 90x60 degree coverage angles--then you get into the JBL M2-type geometries, which are heavily dependent on the compression driver phase plug and throat geometries, i.e., you don't swap out to use different drivers...
Chris
Is 15 kHz enough? well I can still hear 16 kHz
My BMS-4550's have a breakup peak at 18 kHz that I flatten in the XO. On some of these 1.4" CDs, the breakup isn't so well controlled that a simple PEQ can minimize its effects.
Fluid's point about tractrix vs constant directivity horns applies here. Put that 3" full range driver on a constant directivity horn, and due to spreading the sound around the room instead of concentrating it on axis at HF, there will no longer be enough SPL at HF.
And if you look at that full range driver's FR, you will see breakup there also.
It was the good low reach making me post about it but good points it will fall apart for application here.
Another thing is think got some fantastic precise EQ correction up running using TDA_EQ v004, as seen below even live measured acoustic curve starts look as smooth as its synthetic textbook curve with REW gate set as 1/6 FDW. One of the keys to get there was feeding various correction curves to TDA_EQ process although admit create those curves take quite some work, another is above 24kHz what TDA_EQ suggest is corrected by hand. Share the info here because thanks your sharing here was the one push me get a licencse and think precision is superior compared most manual correction.
Attachments
I have to admit I got distracted from TDA_EQ when I tried RePhase generated FIR with my OpenDRC from MiniDSP. That did a good job but I ended up with enough latency to give me a lip sync problem. I also corrected phase down to too low a frequency so I've been meaning to repeat that process. Now that I've got more bass damping in the room I should give TDA_EQ another try measuring at the LP.
But how do you use REW measurements with TDA_EQ? I've only used it with its own built in moving mic measurement process.
But how do you use REW measurements with TDA_EQ? I've only used it with its own built in moving mic measurement process.
Correction is up front forming planned slopes, for my part listening position correction will have to wait later down the road, REW measurement is on its own what shown there is quality check that even acoustic slope end up being close to as smooth as a perfect synthetic target curve, inside TDA_EQ process use the build in method and set it to lowest setting that is 2 pulse sweeps and for HF part set Q at 8 is okay, but feeding it wishes of slopes and excess responses from chain that only will be there when measure-ring process takes place really help it can output some high precision results compared what my manual handmade corrections can think of, its correction is pure minimum phase so any wishes for linearize XO points have to be somewhere else. Think my point for sharing is the smooth high quality of precision on par the good quality wesayso do manual with his own hands, how to get it implemented per multiple band pass is harder but think not bad to dream of.
Last edited:
well its been quiet here for a while but I'm still subscribed. Depending on what you want to talk about, I also have an array thread
Full range line array for wall or corner placement
well that array IS my current setup and I borrowed the bass bins from the synergies to support it
Full range line array for wall or corner placement
well that array IS my current setup and I borrowed the bass bins from the synergies to support it
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.