Here's a website that has measured some of the drivers you mentioned:
Timothy Feleppa's Pages: Speaker Measurements - Midrange/Fullrange Speakers 4" and smaller
Yes, but Hificompass’s are more thorough and plentiful and it’s really nice to have apples-to-apples on everything in one database. Not to take away from Timothy's very good site.
Last edited:
The measurements of woofer out of sometime Kharma top loudspeakers - Kharma Exquisite Grand:
Eton 12-680/62Hex out of Kharma Exquisite Grand | HiFiCompass
Eton 12-680/62Hex out of Kharma Exquisite Grand | HiFiCompass
Last edited:
Holy crap, why is the odd order distortion so bad? Based on H3 and H5 I wouldn’t be surprised if H7 was audible too.
Eton drives never had the lowest distortion numbers.
That membrane construction is problematic IMO.
That membrane construction is problematic IMO.
That kind of HD is pretty typical of a motor with high inductance (or poor inductance control - Le(X) etc), further shaped/worsened by a cone having a savage breakup peak. This is why we don't make 2-ways with large subwoofer type drivers - just because the frequency response is usable doesn't mean the non-linear response is 🙂. Below 200hz its performance is acceptable to good, so it works as a woofer up to there in a big system.
Last edited:
On another note. Just took a look at the Dayton RS52AN-8 (2in). If limited to 800-3000Hz, the distortion is down at -55-60dB. Does who have used it and measure it report that it is transparent and revealing. If the SBA 2.5” MD60N-6 midrange appear in a test, it will be interesting to compare them two.
I can see some improvements being made in the distortion department by adding an absorption tube just like the MD60N-6 uses.
I can see some improvements being made in the distortion department by adding an absorption tube just like the MD60N-6 uses.
Im confused by comments such as ...
"odd order distortion so bad"
"very bad motor..."
"membrane construction is problematic"
How is it that a cone described this way ends up in some very high end speakers?
This is just a guess on my part based on some limited experience. Could it be that a cone behavior is more important to our ears than a bit of motor related distortion?
This is a real question from me btw. I am just not sure about a lot of the emphasis on distortion
My guess is that a skinned, honeycomb cored cone is extremely well behaved below the breakup and if used properly, even with a simple motor, the sound as far as the ear is concerned can be very good?
"odd order distortion so bad"
"very bad motor..."
"membrane construction is problematic"
How is it that a cone described this way ends up in some very high end speakers?
This is just a guess on my part based on some limited experience. Could it be that a cone behavior is more important to our ears than a bit of motor related distortion?
This is a real question from me btw. I am just not sure about a lot of the emphasis on distortion
My guess is that a skinned, honeycomb cored cone is extremely well behaved below the breakup and if used properly, even with a simple motor, the sound as far as the ear is concerned can be very good?
Everyone has his personal opinion. I heard that Kharma woofer and would characterize it as not a good sounding speaker having audible distortion, especially IMD.
So what I imagine here is that if the back-wave is allowed to travel in a cone shape absorber, one might control the reflections better. The question is if that absorption amount (wool) is enough as is.
I have yet to experiment with this but I think its an exciting idea. There might also be an issue with the "shelf" one can see close to the voicecoil which might cause some internal reflections.
This is something Laurence Dickie have explored extensively and SB Acoustic is employing it in their new 2" midrange.
I have yet to experiment with this but I think its an exciting idea. There might also be an issue with the "shelf" one can see close to the voicecoil which might cause some internal reflections.
This is something Laurence Dickie have explored extensively and SB Acoustic is employing it in their new 2" midrange.
Attachments
I am currently working on two back chambers for a small ribbon used above 1kHz. One is a "transmission line"? style similar to the SB dome. The other is a simple box. The long tapered line has the smoothest response and is used as the test standard in attempts to get the box to work as close to the lines performance as possible.
I dont measure any significant distortion improvement from the line( the box is much larger than typically seen in commercial ribbons so thos may be why?) BUT it is easy to get a smooth response from it compared to a box.
A tapered horn/waveguide is always better than a straight pipe. Not only that, but any room, enclosure and encapsulation will have reflections and standing waves.
The more you absorb the cleaner the distortion will be. This was proven by Bell Labs in the 30's 🙂 and just like a 90 degree cabinet has diffraction, this pattern also exist inside drivers.
The more you absorb the cleaner the distortion will be. This was proven by Bell Labs in the 30's 🙂 and just like a 90 degree cabinet has diffraction, this pattern also exist inside drivers.
THD, distortion, reflections etc. come from many sources and if we can address one or a few of the many issues a driver might have, I am all for that 🙂
HifiCompass, thank you for that Eton 12" measurement, now I can remove it from the list of 12inchers worth buying. SS 32W remains #1. I would be interested to see Peerless NE315W testing.
I'm interested in testing of NE315W too but there was no opportunity for a while...
32w/8878T11 is coming...