Planet 10, you have made everyone painfully aware that you are not a fan of this driver! We get it, it is what it is! Move on.
Larry
Larry
The discussion of measurements and P10s photoshopped charts started in the objective measurements thread. That thread has been suspended right now. Maybe P10 should wait until that thread is reopened to continue this discussion. It really doesn't belong here.
Larry.
Of the drivers XRK tested -- XRK continued his objective measurements thread with the introduction of the 10F in this thread -- i have only commented on the drivers i have heard. The TC9FD was a dissapointment after all the hype and is not the giant killer it is purported to be.
What i really don't like is:
1/ The premise that a speaker can be fully quantified from the top 5 ocatves of its measured FR (as is being presented)
2/ That a single generic foam core box is an appropriate vehicle to create accurate measures
3/ that XRK's measures done in room with a really cheap microphone are of high accuracy
4/ XRK's assertion that his measurements, in mst cases, closely mimic factory measures
dave
I seem to recall it was you, Dave, who brought the discussion here. It doesn't really matter. Let's wait for that thread to reopen.
I think Tony's remarks may be worth considering: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/268626-vifa-tc9fd18-08-best-bang-buck-12.html#post4250609
From my own listening experiences I prefer the tc8 over the tc9, it has a nicer overall tonal balance. The tc9 has a slightly rising mid and high range. The tc8 has a steel frame and is 4ohm, about the same price and cone size as tc9 but is called a 3 inch speaker.
Larry
Larry
MA's graph is, i believe, what came out of the anechoic chamber. Lack of honesty is not one of his faults. That it is unsmoothed data and looks completely out to lunch compared with what we usually sees is disconcerting and makes it hard to compare it to anything. XRK's graph follows the same trends except for the highest frequencies -- but then that seems to also be the case with some of his other measures compared to factory. This last is not that surprising. I have 4 cross-spectrum calibrated mics (ECM8000 & the similar Dayton), and from those calibrations i question the accuracy of any of those mics above 10k (and that may be stretching things).
I also recently came across this tidbit which i find worthy of follow-up (it is copy to sell a $1000 Aco based mic) to see if there is technical backup and what the capsules of our favorite cheap mics are made of (from context i am guessing they mean to say "does not need"):
From here: iPrecisionMic | Studio Six Digital > Applications > Loudspeaker Analysis.
I know my mics came with different curves for different angles, but what about the SPL thing... Can any of the measure gurus help with this?
dave
May we stop this ******* match all in all? Neither "side" can truly claim any form of "authority" as trying to extrapolate from either the tests themselves and the pushback is a fools errand.
N=1 and all that jazz. And planet10--you should know better than to linearly scale a log plot.
N=1 and all that jazz. And planet10--you should know better than to linearly scale a log plot.
All the graticles line up... you cannot do better than that.
We are scaling a log graph over a log graph. To match them you have to scale linearly, alou the amount will likely differ horizontally & vertically.
dave
+1
Everyone should evaluate the kit wrt how well it connects them to the art.
Even the best speakers are so bad there are many ways to get there.
dave
Can i remind from the start it's not supposed to state manufacture datasheets are lying, and either have none said a calibrated UMM-1 is as good as reference equipment. The test was meant you can compare the data between and here because all sat under same setup it is logic to be good value, and what is possible response in a home setup. Manufacture datasheets are probably taken under different conditions from manufacture to manufacture therefor difficult to compare right, xrk971 conditions was under equal conditions drivers between.
CHN-70 was very different in those data that's why all the discussions, where you pop up with new angle on critism everytime and old attack angle loose argumentation weight as example see above where one of them is foam core box, please planet10 CHN-70 was the only one that got the exstra flexibility to be tested on open baffle where back waves can escape except the ones that come into conflict with the device hardware.
Last edited:
The Markaudio CHN-70 is not a good full range driver. It has a very erratic response. EQ probably doesn't help either. It might make a good mid range driver though. But this is really off topic for this thread.
The topic here is which driver delivers more performance than the TC9FD for less money.
The topic here is which driver delivers more performance than the TC9FD for less money.
Less than $12? Good luck with that. I think less than $60 there isn't a better driver. Alhough the recent poll shows that the $32 3FE22r16 comes pretty close.
Last edited:
Let's get this thread back on it's original subject...
Posted pages ago:
And:
These three seem very similar in measurements. Can you post the graph from the TG9 vs 10F too? We've seen both compared to the TC9, how close to each other are they in a graph?
Posted pages ago:
This driver is a joy to behold in one's hands - it exudes quality and craftsmanship, and it's appearance is backed by superb performance. For $100 each, it should look good, measure great, and sound fantastic. The measurements will show that frequency response, harmonic distortion, impulse response, minimum phase, etc. are all class-leading and excellent. However, the performance is not that much better from the $12 Vifa TC9FD, except for the fact that the Vas and Qts are much smaller, meaning you can get the same performance in a *tiny* cabinet.
The measurements were made in the same sealed spiral TL Nautaloss enclosure with a trapezoidal baffle as previously described elsewhere. The excitation signal was put through a miniDSP to enable a Q=0.7 high-shelf filter to enable a -3dB baffle step correction at 750Hz - as I was doing this to record some sound clips to compare to the other drivers in the "Subjective Blind Comparison..." thread. However, there is a similar measurement of the TC9FD at the same setup. The mic is slightly off axis (located between the woofer and the full range), maybe 10 deg and at 0.5m away. Measurement data is gated for 4 ms and I would not trust anything below 600Hz. The drive voltage is 0.71 volts. Mic is calibrated UMM-6. Amp is custom DUG PCB v0 TPA3116D2.
Here is a photo of the two drivers:
Here is the frequency response for the 10F/8424 vs the TC9FD (5dB/division, 1/48th octave smoothing), the 10F/8424 is smoother, has higher extension, and loses the 12KHz breakup peak - an excellent full range driver that is essentially free of breakup peaks in the 6kHz to 14kHz range - very rare to find this:
Here is the harmonic distortion of the 10F/8424 (slightly better than TC9FD):
Here is the harmonic distortion of the TC9FD:
Here is the Impulse Response of the 10F/8424 (you can see first reflection at 6ms which is why I used a 4ms gate), it has less ringing than the TC9FD:
Here is the Impulse Response of the TC9FD:
Here is the Minimum Phase of the 10F/8424:
Here is the Minimum Phase of the TC9FD:
Here is the CSD of the 10F/8424 with 0.1ms risetime and 4ms window:
Here is the CSD of the TC9FD with same settings:
The measurements clearly show that the 10F/8424 is a better driver than the TC9FD, but at almost 10x the price, I am not sure if it is that much better. The main advantage is the smoother frequency response with cleaner impulse response and slightly lower harmonic distortion. Under a listening test, I am not sure one could pick out the two - but we will see when I compare sound clips in the other thread.
Initial listening impressions are that the 10F/8424 sounds very balanced, excellent detail, clear and clean with very low distortion. It will be interesting to start designing some enclosures for it that are now very small, I am so used to rather large boxes to accommodate the large Vas of the TC9FD. I guess you could call this a better-TC9FD that fits in compact boxes.
And:
Here are some initial measurements in the Nautaloss and trapezoidal baffle at 0.5m, 0 deg, 0.71volts, no miniDSP - straight to amp.
Freq response as compared to TC9FD - the TG9FD appears to be smoother than the TC9FD, but with a tad less sensitivity:
Harmonic Distortion is actually very low, not quite as good as the 10F/8424 but a very respectable performer:
Impulse Response - very clean, almost similar to the 10F/8424:
Minimum Phasen - phase variation is less than the TC9FD, not quite as good as 10F/8424:
CSD:
Given the similar cone material between the TG9FD and the 10F/8424, this driver appears to be a low cost, less sensitive alternative. A very nice performing driver. Sounds very good too but have not had too much time to listen.
I wonder if break-in might loosen up cone and change the Qts a smaller value.
These three seem very similar in measurements. Can you post the graph from the TG9 vs 10F too? We've seen both compared to the TC9, how close to each other are they in a graph?
for what little its worth, here's a crude sensitivity comparison between TC9FD and the L.Cao F6. (traces smoothed 1/12 octave) - I think there's a sweet spot for HF lobe where F6 will go higher than it did here.
The SS and Vifa look very similar.
The Cao may be rougher but I'd imagine some/many will prefer it regardless... ahh, the privilege of choice.
The Cao may be rougher but I'd imagine some/many will prefer it regardless... ahh, the privilege of choice.