TB W4-1320B vs CSS FR125S

[Paul Ebert]

Has anyone been able to listen to both of these drivers and come to a comparison? I'm considering building a pair of ML TQWT bipoles using one or the other of these drivers.

I'm wondering if anyone has been able to give a good listen to both and would offer an opinion on how they sound comparitively.

Thanks.

Paul Ebert

 

[one1speed]

There's been some discussin of this over at fullrangedriver.com. You may want to check there if you're not getting any replies here. There's also what appears to be a really nice horn design being developed with info there. May be worth checking out.

 

[Josephjcole]

I've been listening to my w4-1320 some recently, and I have to say it's a very smooth driver that is easy to listen to. I was pleasantly supprised. If I didn't own my fostex108's I would be completly happy with them. However they don't have the depth or inner detail that the fostex have. I've listened to the CSS WR125S's, but it's been quite a while and I wouldn't try to do any comparisons. My guess is that you get what you pay for, and that the CSS drivers will be the better of the two drivers. That's just pure speculation though.
Joe

 

[validator]

Bamboo vs. Paper

Hi,

I had both in DBR enclosure and closed box. They are real close in mids and high range. Both would benefit from a notch filter in the 7 kHz region.

CSS has a better bass, 6mm Xmax and can go quite deep. Overall a bit more detailed than TB W4-Bamboo. TB on the other hand played good "out-of-the-shipping-box", CSS needs some time to break-in.

Regards
Thorsten

 

[Paul Ebert]

Thanks for the replies, Gentlemen.

I think I'll spring for the FR125s. I like the potential for doing a dipole down the road.

Of course, then I think "Only $30 more and I can go with 108EZs", though I'd have to rethink the intended enclosure.

Or, since I'm thinking bipoles (2 pairs = $280), I could go with a pair of 168EZs in a blh or something.

Decisions, decisions...

Thanks, again.

Paul Ebert

 

[soongsc]

I would expect these two to each have strengths and weaknesses. Klippel seems working on methods to tests different cone material properties, it would be interesting to see comparisons.