Member
Joined 2004
Hi
Spend some hours simulating TL enclosures for the ascendant audio 6.5 poly. Just found out AA does not ship international....
Does AA have dealers that ship international? Someone interesed in drivers from the EU that are not available in the USA?
Groeten
Roland
Spend some hours simulating TL enclosures for the ascendant audio 6.5 poly. Just found out AA does not ship international....
Does AA have dealers that ship international? Someone interesed in drivers from the EU that are not available in the USA?
Groeten
Roland
First off, great work and effort Zaph. Also, I think you should make that temporary page permanent as an addendum to the 6.5" test.
Second off, based on those tests and my opinion, the suprise drivers were the 8945a, 8945p, and the AA6.5, has anybody tried/used these? What is your opinion on them?
third, I expected the 8308883 to do better. I have noticed that peerless has changed the datasheet for them, You can see both, new at tymphany, and old at Madisound. The changes in Cms seem more significant than just break-in or datasheet refinement, i.e. a new spider. I think they made the changes for better Bass, at the expense of a stronger 1 Khz dip. Zaph, were the 883s brand new? I asume you don't do any break in-is that correct? Does anybody have older 883s and can share meaurements?
Fourth, 92 db .5m anechoic= 86db/1m= 80db/2m 6.5ft=74db/4m 13 ft. Add a reverberant room gain of 0-4db depending on the size of the room and damping, and you get a listening/testing spl of anywhere from 74 to 84 db. That is for a fully panned L or R signal. When a signal is centered, the mix is usually cut/or the pan boosted to keep level even in the mix. To get a 6 db boost, you need to have coherent sources (same material) plus close coupled sources, the speakers need to be placed close to each other as a function of frequency to get that extra +3db. So depending on speaker placement you might not get +6db for the mid you might only get +3db for a stereo pair playing a mono signal. I personally would have prefered a slightly higher level.
Second off, based on those tests and my opinion, the suprise drivers were the 8945a, 8945p, and the AA6.5, has anybody tried/used these? What is your opinion on them?
third, I expected the 8308883 to do better. I have noticed that peerless has changed the datasheet for them, You can see both, new at tymphany, and old at Madisound. The changes in Cms seem more significant than just break-in or datasheet refinement, i.e. a new spider. I think they made the changes for better Bass, at the expense of a stronger 1 Khz dip. Zaph, were the 883s brand new? I asume you don't do any break in-is that correct? Does anybody have older 883s and can share meaurements?
Fourth, 92 db .5m anechoic= 86db/1m= 80db/2m 6.5ft=74db/4m 13 ft. Add a reverberant room gain of 0-4db depending on the size of the room and damping, and you get a listening/testing spl of anywhere from 74 to 84 db. That is for a fully panned L or R signal. When a signal is centered, the mix is usually cut/or the pan boosted to keep level even in the mix. To get a 6 db boost, you need to have coherent sources (same material) plus close coupled sources, the speakers need to be placed close to each other as a function of frequency to get that extra +3db. So depending on speaker placement you might not get +6db for the mid you might only get +3db for a stereo pair playing a mono signal. I personally would have prefered a slightly higher level.
The FR of the L18RNXP is commenably smooth and flat, except for the resonances starting at 7Khz and extending all the way past 20Khz. These modes are brutal, and seen as hash on the CSD curve.
So to avoid the typical "metal" sound, you better use the L18 no further than 2Khz or even lower eg. 1.5Khz if your tweeter is up to the task, LR4 or higher.
That HD is not poor, but average and typical of drivers with standard motor systems (eg. neck and neck with the other SEAS standards (CA18RNX, P18RNXP etc)
They are not in the same class as drivers that have advanced motor systems eg. Usher, ScanSpeak, SEAS Excel.
The AA poly 6.5 is my pick for a pure midrange (ie. 250Hz up). Although it has 11mm xmax, the bass and midbass HD is not as clean as some others. In terms of purely subjective performance, higher levels of the 2nd order distortion in the midbass would like sound "rich" or "full", and satisfy many people too. You are being faked out though.
So to avoid the typical "metal" sound, you better use the L18 no further than 2Khz or even lower eg. 1.5Khz if your tweeter is up to the task, LR4 or higher.
That HD is not poor, but average and typical of drivers with standard motor systems (eg. neck and neck with the other SEAS standards (CA18RNX, P18RNXP etc)
They are not in the same class as drivers that have advanced motor systems eg. Usher, ScanSpeak, SEAS Excel.
The AA poly 6.5 is my pick for a pure midrange (ie. 250Hz up). Although it has 11mm xmax, the bass and midbass HD is not as clean as some others. In terms of purely subjective performance, higher levels of the 2nd order distortion in the midbass would like sound "rich" or "full", and satisfy many people too. You are being faked out though.
There are a couple of very nice drivers in Zaph's test.
Tktran, you suggest using one of these (and specifically the AA 6.5") as a midrange driver from 250 up. Do you think a driver of this size has advantages over a more conventional 5.5" sized midrange driver?
Tktran, you suggest using one of these (and specifically the AA 6.5") as a midrange driver from 250 up. Do you think a driver of this size has advantages over a more conventional 5.5" sized midrange driver?
...and another question about the AA 6.5...and poly cone woofers in general
I have acquired the attitude that poly cones were not suited for low frequency reproduction. Should I reconsider this? I thought they lacked stiffness necessary for moving larger quantities of air. I appreciate your comments.
I have acquired the attitude that poly cones were not suited for low frequency reproduction. Should I reconsider this? I thought they lacked stiffness necessary for moving larger quantities of air. I appreciate your comments.
I'm no expert, but I'm not sure why a poly cone would be a problem at low frequencies. At low frequencies, almost any cone is going to have pistonic behavior, so I would expect other elements of the driver to play a bigger role on low frequency performance. Many very good subwoofers use poly cones sucessfully.
I am really looking forward to what Zaph has to say on the A A 6.5" in particular. I have a set of them but due to a family problem I have been unable to put them to use. I was going to put them in the rear deck of the gf's car but now I am thinking about other options. I am not sure I am reading the graphs correctly but they look pretty good to me.
Hey Mark, have you had a chance to check their excursion? I'm really curious about their possible use as mini-subs, even though it looks like they're really more suited to midrange use.
So far I've heard that the leads will slap and buzz at higher excursion, but this can be fixed with some strategic application of hot glue. What I'm still curious about, since this isn't really visible from any of Zaph's tests, is how audible the distortion becomes as the drivers are pushed close to Xmax.
Does anyone else out there care to comment on how these drivers do at high excursion? I'm tempted to buy a pair, but I really don't need more speakers in my one bedroom apartment right now.
So far I've heard that the leads will slap and buzz at higher excursion, but this can be fixed with some strategic application of hot glue. What I'm still curious about, since this isn't really visible from any of Zaph's tests, is how audible the distortion becomes as the drivers are pushed close to Xmax.
Does anyone else out there care to comment on how these drivers do at high excursion? I'm tempted to buy a pair, but I really don't need more speakers in my one bedroom apartment right now.
That wide ranged frequency and high efficiency can only come from a light cone (and low inductance), which means it will be restrichted in low frequencies - allways wondered about that huge x-max, but it might do good in a quaterwave, but I would think it would be better with less x-max and gain a little exstra efficiency
Diymobileaudio.com has some reviews on the AA6.5. This driver also came up when discussing the P18rex on the same website.
To paraphrase that discussion, the driver is very warm. If you look at zaph's HD testing you know why, it has a lot of 2nd order distortion at the lower frequencies. It appears to have a great motor but weaker suspension. I suspect it would get worse at higher SPL.
I have not heard the driver, I am just interpeting zaph's data and the diymobileaudio discussion.
To paraphrase that discussion, the driver is very warm. If you look at zaph's HD testing you know why, it has a lot of 2nd order distortion at the lower frequencies. It appears to have a great motor but weaker suspension. I suspect it would get worse at higher SPL.
I have not heard the driver, I am just interpeting zaph's data and the diymobileaudio discussion.
QUOTE]Hey Mark, have you had a chance to check their excursion?[/QUOTE]
Not yet the so far I have only hooked them up "free air" in place of the woofer section of my gf's infinity kappa 693 6x9's so there was very little bass.
I just read about the lead slap issue on another forum I would like to see where he(cant remeber the name off hand) glued them down. He also mentioned cutting the leads and re-soldering. I think I would stick with the hot glue.
Have you considered the Assassin 8" sub they offer? Probably easier to work with and not much bigger.
Not yet the so far I have only hooked them up "free air" in place of the woofer section of my gf's infinity kappa 693 6x9's so there was very little bass.
I just read about the lead slap issue on another forum I would like to see where he(cant remeber the name off hand) glued them down. He also mentioned cutting the leads and re-soldering. I think I would stick with the hot glue.
Have you considered the Assassin 8" sub they offer? Probably easier to work with and not much bigger.
Yes, I'm considering that as well. It helps that it would be cheaper. Of course, there are certain things you could do with several small drivers that would just look neat. I guess if I really just want a small sub, the Assassin 8 gives me some options.
Download Zaph TMM project data files?
I'm wondering where can you download data files (containing FR data etc) for Seas CA18RNX drivers so that one could fiddle with various designs before actually owning some of the drivers. Would be interested in files that would work with programs such as Speaker Workshop, SoundEasy, LspCAD, or LinearX LEAP (EnclosureShop / CrossoverShop) etc.
Are there complete "project" files available for Zaph's TMM waveguide speakers?
I'd like to see what the simulated FR would be with a series crossover for instance, and look at differences between the TMM and a TM configuration, etc.
It seems like such data is not available for most decent recent (currently in production) drivers. Maybe I just haven't found where to look, but it would sure be nice to be able to simulate some designs, for people who can't afford to buy drivers for "testing" yet want to come up with their own (or at least modify somebody else's) design to suit their tastes.
I'm wondering where can you download data files (containing FR data etc) for Seas CA18RNX drivers so that one could fiddle with various designs before actually owning some of the drivers. Would be interested in files that would work with programs such as Speaker Workshop, SoundEasy, LspCAD, or LinearX LEAP (EnclosureShop / CrossoverShop) etc.
Are there complete "project" files available for Zaph's TMM waveguide speakers?
I'd like to see what the simulated FR would be with a series crossover for instance, and look at differences between the TMM and a TM configuration, etc.
It seems like such data is not available for most decent recent (currently in production) drivers. Maybe I just haven't found where to look, but it would sure be nice to be able to simulate some designs, for people who can't afford to buy drivers for "testing" yet want to come up with their own (or at least modify somebody else's) design to suit their tastes.
Re: Download Zaph TMM project data files?
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/FRDtools.html
You can use SPL trace with Zaphs data, 🙂/sreten.
critofur said:
http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/FRDtools.html
You can use SPL trace with Zaphs data, 🙂/sreten.
Re: Re: Download Zaph TMM project data files?
Do you think that really nobody has made such files available online? Seems very strange to me that people aren't sharing such files?
It seems to me that SPL trace would be a little less precise, and also not give you measured T/S data from the driver. The manufacturer's specifications often seem not to be too reliable.
I've seen "driver database" web pages before a few times, but of course they become obsolete quickly, unless you're working with old speakers...
Zaph, could you post your project files for the waveguide TMM? I looked, but I didn't find a forum on his ZaphAudio.com website to ask there.
sreten said:
Do you think that really nobody has made such files available online? Seems very strange to me that people aren't sharing such files?
It seems to me that SPL trace would be a little less precise, and also not give you measured T/S data from the driver. The manufacturer's specifications often seem not to be too reliable.
I've seen "driver database" web pages before a few times, but of course they become obsolete quickly, unless you're working with old speakers...
Zaph, could you post your project files for the waveguide TMM? I looked, but I didn't find a forum on his ZaphAudio.com website to ask there.
Timn8ter said:
What I mean by "project files" is files that you load into speaker design software packages such as Speaker Workshop, or SoundEasy ~ whatever programs he happened to use while designing that speaker.
sreten said:
Thanks ~ well, I've looked at a lot of his website, so I should have remembered that..., but so far I've had limited success trying to enter in everything (parameters and FR data) myself excpet with some of the more simple programs such as WinISD and WinISD Pro (which seem to be nice for calculating box size).
(for me) It's mostly an issue of the user-unfriendlyness of the various speaker design packages. Having sample files for a speaker that I would actually like to build might be much more inspiring than the "tutorial" files generally included with such programs and then I might actually be able to learn to use the software rather than just getting a headache each time I look at them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.