Optimal cone shape for me would be flat (no beaming, superwide sweetspot), but there is problem with material of membrane, it's breakup and distorsion overall.
I didn't mention flatcone 3" TB because they are expensive and metal sound is recognisable, but for electronic music and 3D sound there is no better WR (except maybe the Overkills BMRs but didn't heard them) 🙂
I didn't mention flatcone 3" TB because they are expensive and metal sound is recognisable, but for electronic music and 3D sound there is no better WR (except maybe the Overkills BMRs but didn't heard them) 🙂
Last edited:
They have a ceramic honeycomb flat TB as well. Quite expensive too but may sound metallic as ceramic is very stiff.
That's the point! I remember when I first heard Coral Flat 5 tears started to roll of from alone
, but then I heard the 5" TB polycone and it surpassed the emotion of Corals, two opposite characters, Coral cold and bright, TB warm and dark, but the emotion of TB beats Coral, altough both midranges are top class but different 🙂
Last edited:
Yeah I have both 3" and 4" versions, the latter needs heavy equalisation in HF (or even tweeter is a must), but it can be the best in Home Theater aplications, I watched movies with 4" and man it's realy real 😀
Last edited:
The 4" bamboo does the imaging thing really well. My ears can adjust to their balance but when you add a tweeter on top they sound even better. I never heard the 3" bambbo (but I heard the 3" titanium and it was excellent). It might be interesting to examine the 3 and 4 inch bamboo measurements and see what's different about the dispersion, off axis, etc.
Not that I've toyed with a ton of small FR drivers, but the 4" bamboo (in ~9L DCR) is one of my favourites so far, along with the old Fostex FF125K in a ~8L reflex. The Fostex is not as smooth on top, even has a couple of large peaks around 10kHz, but is much less beamy and probably has a more even power response because of this. I prefer the Fostex overall. As far as I understand what is meant by DDR, I think the FF125K has lots of it. I also like that it has very high sensitivity for a sub-6" driver. It allows me to use it with my 2.5W SEP 6GW8 amp, which gives it a hand in return with its ~2ohm output Z.
Here are these two drivers, measured on-axis, mic probably 20"-24" away and speakers on the edge of my desk IIRC, same drive level, so the sensitivity difference is correct. Not an ideal setup by any stretch, but fair enough for comparison IMO. Calibrated UMM-6 mic and, even if not shown, gate must have been ~600Hz, the data above ~1kHz mostly likely reliable enough. TB in red, Fostex in blue.
I've had small 4" drivers from a JVC shelf system that weren't too bad, Pioneer A11, which were rather boring ultimately and also have a pair of FF85WK, which I have mostly used in funky experiments so far. I should give them a fairer home to compare against the FF125K and the W4-1320SIF.
I've been tempted by MA drivers on a few occasions, as well as the titular Vifa TC9FD, hard to pass at ~14$ and seems to offer excellent performance on paper. I ought to grab a pair if only to hear what they're about.
I'm all for objective data when I have nothing else to go on. I won't keep a component in my system for long if it fails to please me subjectively though, regardless how good it is on paper.
Attachments
Last edited:
I saw the chart earlier but thanks for posting again. I have the TB1320 and Fostex 127e. To me they represent two different approaches to achieve similar goals. They sound different but are both very good examples of what a manufacturer can do. The Fostex is more efficient and probably has a similar sound to the 125k in the chart.
The chart provided by Fostex looks very much the same with the same trend.
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/ffwk.pdf
Personally, I just look at the trend of the driver (ignoring the more drastic peaks and dips) to get an understanding of the drivers overall sound. The Fostex appears brighter than the TB... and it is... just as the chart suggests. This is not the only measurement to reveal the sound of these drivers but it's a start and represents on axis response. As we know, the TBs treble drops rapidly off axis explaining why it's treble energy is less than optimal. But it's a great compromise and can be improved with a tweeter (or left alone if that's what you want).
When Mark Audio drivers appeared I was excited by their frequency charts. But what's posted is not what most people measure. The trends (while you can see similar peaks and dips) are not quite the same. They may sound very good but I can't get a handle on their sound from looking at the charts. It's unfortunate because they may sound great. But there seems to be inconsistent praise / dislike for them similar to the measurements we've seen.
I've always admired Fostex for posting very wiggly and peaky charts. I know what I'm getting myself into when I purchase their drivers. Honestly, I'm not in love with the peaky treble of the 127e... but I knew prior to purchase I'd be experimenting with toe in and possibly a circuit to tame it.
The chart provided by Fostex looks very much the same with the same trend.
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/ffwk.pdf
Personally, I just look at the trend of the driver (ignoring the more drastic peaks and dips) to get an understanding of the drivers overall sound. The Fostex appears brighter than the TB... and it is... just as the chart suggests. This is not the only measurement to reveal the sound of these drivers but it's a start and represents on axis response. As we know, the TBs treble drops rapidly off axis explaining why it's treble energy is less than optimal. But it's a great compromise and can be improved with a tweeter (or left alone if that's what you want).
When Mark Audio drivers appeared I was excited by their frequency charts. But what's posted is not what most people measure. The trends (while you can see similar peaks and dips) are not quite the same. They may sound very good but I can't get a handle on their sound from looking at the charts. It's unfortunate because they may sound great. But there seems to be inconsistent praise / dislike for them similar to the measurements we've seen.
I've always admired Fostex for posting very wiggly and peaky charts. I know what I'm getting myself into when I purchase their drivers. Honestly, I'm not in love with the peaky treble of the 127e... but I knew prior to purchase I'd be experimenting with toe in and possibly a circuit to tame it.
Attachments
DDR is meant as a more technical & encompassing term which contain historically used terms like detail, inner-detail, micro-detail. The ability to retain the really low-level information and not have it buried by noise or excessive damping or not lost to the loud stuff. The kind of information that puts flesh on bones, adds nuance to a voice or instrument, and the subtle bits and correct phase to provide image/soundstage. The stuff that gives recorded music a greater sense of reality (i say it that way because we are still far-far away from reproducing reality)
dave
I was talking about the old FF125K, no "W". 😉
Here's the factory response:
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/ff125k.pdf
It's more smoothed than the FF-WK factory plot, but we see that trend my plot shows, which is also a lot what I look at to get a general idea of tonal balance. My above plot is smoothed at 1/12-oct. Most any amplitude wart worth hiding will still come through - 1/12 hides very little IME.
Last edited:
Their data isn't more useful than what Markaudio posts. They don't even care about labeling the off axis curves. Quite frustrating. See attachment.
Attachments
It's typically 30° and 60° for Fostex AFAIK and they do sometimes indicate it (see my FF125K link a few posts back), but I agree they should make it consistently clear. The FF-WK graphs are a bit more brutal (and useful) in their less-smoothed nature.
Last edited:
If the customer has to guess what the product performance might be then there's something fundamentally wrong.
To bad that this technical & encompassing term, DDR is based on listening tests by humans. Being one of them (human that is) I know how flawed that can make these tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Last edited:
At this point in time. For every measure that we use that has correlation to what we hear -- jitter is a good example -- listening came 1st, then the tech guys came to the challenge and figured out what to measure. I would love to see a measure of this, i have not seen it yet.
dave
That doesn't mean we cannot measure it or don't have the means...
Maybe all it takes is finding out how to interpret what we can measure.
That's why I proposed a test in the other thread. There are some that think it's frequency response that created this DDR, others might feel it is added harmonic distortion or ringing. And yet another group is convinced the measurement of this kind of driver behaviour doesn't exist and this DDR behaviour is driver based.
I'd rather spend time on actually finding a clue about this than continuing a senseless discussion about it.
I can say that my 50x Vifa's has let me hear many a thing I haven't heard before in music I've known for more than half my life. And I will continue my personal quest to make it perform even better than it is right now. And yes, I do know my chosen compromise in a speaker has flaws too. But it has already thought me some new things. For that alone it was worth the journey.
Maybe all it takes is finding out how to interpret what we can measure.
That's why I proposed a test in the other thread. There are some that think it's frequency response that created this DDR, others might feel it is added harmonic distortion or ringing. And yet another group is convinced the measurement of this kind of driver behaviour doesn't exist and this DDR behaviour is driver based.
I'd rather spend time on actually finding a clue about this than continuing a senseless discussion about it.
I can say that my 50x Vifa's has let me hear many a thing I haven't heard before in music I've known for more than half my life. And I will continue my personal quest to make it perform even better than it is right now. And yes, I do know my chosen compromise in a speaker has flaws too. But it has already thought me some new things. For that alone it was worth the journey.
I have already posited that drivers that have a ringing IR have enhanced audibility of low level or micro details. You can hear it when you listen to a wav file of an IR that rings. It is artificial and I say that if a driver is lauded for having DDR, look at its IR, and you will see a ringing response. The A7.3 is pehaps one of the most notable examples universally acclaimed to have great DDR - look at its IR - there is a ring with what looks like about a 60% amplitude of the main impulse. So I say that DDR is indeed measurable - just not what we normally associate with what a good driver temporal response should be. A driver with clean non ringing IR, will be deemed to have poor DDR. A good thing if you want to hear what was really in the recording. It's all about preferences. Some like tube amps because they sound "warm", another euphemism for 2nd order harmonic distortion. I am not saying DDR is bad, if you like it, look for a ringing IR. For example, take the PRV 5MR450NDY, I love listening to that driver as it really has zing, or some call DDR. But I would not say it's the most temporally accurate with regards to reproducing a sharp percussive. My Heil AMT is the king in that category. Detailed but no ring.
There you go...
An example what we could do to learn a thing or two:
Take that driver (A7.3) and use FIR filters on it to remove (as best as we can) the ringing. Test it against the same driver without correction.
In theory the corrected speaker should sound better as it is closer to the input. If it (the corrected speaker) wins the test we have learned the ringing isn't the cause of the enhanced DDR experience.
If the uncorrected speaker wins we have an indication that ringing could be responsible for the enhanced DDR.
If it's a draw between both speakers we move on to the next variable.
Now the only thing we need is a few listeners experienced in uncovering DDR in drivers and some basic FIR filter knowledge. Both available right here on this forum!
Now the big question: Are we really willing enough to learn?
An example what we could do to learn a thing or two:
Take that driver (A7.3) and use FIR filters on it to remove (as best as we can) the ringing. Test it against the same driver without correction.
In theory the corrected speaker should sound better as it is closer to the input. If it (the corrected speaker) wins the test we have learned the ringing isn't the cause of the enhanced DDR experience.
If the uncorrected speaker wins we have an indication that ringing could be responsible for the enhanced DDR.
If it's a draw between both speakers we move on to the next variable.
Now the only thing we need is a few listeners experienced in uncovering DDR in drivers and some basic FIR filter knowledge. Both available right here on this forum!
Now the big question: Are we really willing enough to learn?
That is very hard to square with the differences shown between the VIFA & the CHN.
The VIFA has considerably better FR but is sorely lacking in DDR with the CHN.
After seeing the plots, and all the accolades from XRK i was expecting a lot more from the VIFA. Perhaps very heavy damping of the VIFA smooths its response at the expense of its ability to retain the small details?
All FRs ring in the broadest sense of the term, since they would have no high frequency response if they didn't (that is physics). Uncontrolled ringing/breakup is another thing.
dave
The uneven response could be the reason behind the DDR observed. It would emphasise some parts of the music and obscuring other parts. No driver with flat response would be guilty of that.
But there could be other factors at play, like distortion or ringing. But as I said, without a bit of work it remains just a guessing game. 🙁
Again: a simple test could tell us a lot more than this battle of words will ever do.
Last edited: