This PHL sounds really great, decent on paper graphs but sounds better than it measures in my experience. Good for 150Hz to 1,500Hz or even 100Hz to 2,000Hz ish.
http://lsv-achenbach.de/images/lautsprecher/eigene/point_p/kt_test_phl_3002.jpg
This Beyma is a gem, good price and great sound. Good for 60Hz to 1,600 Hz.
LOUDSPEAKER 10MC500 8 OH
http://lsv-achenbach.de/images/lautsprecher/eigene/point_p/kt_test_phl_3002.jpg
This Beyma is a gem, good price and great sound. Good for 60Hz to 1,600 Hz.
LOUDSPEAKER 10MC500 8 OH
To all of you folks who use 10" midrange drivers, I would like to ask a question. I ask this with respect, and no intention of picking an argument. I am simply interested in your perspective.
A 10 inch paper cone will not be pistonic over the full range you are operating it. Do you find this non-pistonic behavior annoying, or intrusive?
Again, I ask this question honestly and with respect.
Jim.
A 10 inch paper cone will not be pistonic over the full range you are operating it. Do you find this non-pistonic behavior annoying, or intrusive?
Again, I ask this question honestly and with respect.
Jim.
I don't think we can discern pistonic vs non-pistonic operation. We can only hear the variations in frequency response and temporal smearing from stored energy. This is why many prefer the character of a well damped cone operating into breakup modes.
If cone breakup is well dampened and what you're mostly hearing is from the decoupled dustcap/cone center, it can sound pretty decent given off axis performance isn't important to you. The real issue will always be how near to far field transition and off axis linearity behaves, so HF driver integration will be tricky. I have heard some larger LF drivers with decent non-pistonic midrange behavior - the Faital 15PR400 comes to mind.
I may catch some flack for saying this, but I prefer listening to controlled/linearized cone breakup to an HF driver crossed over too low and distorting. Too many newer designs (pro and hifi) run the HF down to the point of IMD and THD getting audible at decent listening levels. Most larger soft dome tweeters don't run pistonic in the upper hearing range anyways, and the obvious argument is HF breakup won't be as audible in that range. Most 8 - 10" pro audio midrange cone drivers are operated in breakup mode, so I believe they're optimized for this by the manufacturer to not sound terrible. For example, the Eminence Beta 8A sounds great up to 3 kHz, even with a shallow LP filter and still gels well with a small CD+WG combo.
As a compromise on a larger pro sound LF driver 2 way design, a trick I like to implement is having the off axis response dip take place at around 3 to 5 kHz so the FR non-linearity sounds more pleasant to the ears where you would want to pull some EQ to keep people's ears from melting at higher SPLs. Its the most logical compromise IMO for a less than optimum speaker design.
I may catch some flack for saying this, but I prefer listening to controlled/linearized cone breakup to an HF driver crossed over too low and distorting. Too many newer designs (pro and hifi) run the HF down to the point of IMD and THD getting audible at decent listening levels. Most larger soft dome tweeters don't run pistonic in the upper hearing range anyways, and the obvious argument is HF breakup won't be as audible in that range. Most 8 - 10" pro audio midrange cone drivers are operated in breakup mode, so I believe they're optimized for this by the manufacturer to not sound terrible. For example, the Eminence Beta 8A sounds great up to 3 kHz, even with a shallow LP filter and still gels well with a small CD+WG combo.
As a compromise on a larger pro sound LF driver 2 way design, a trick I like to implement is having the off axis response dip take place at around 3 to 5 kHz so the FR non-linearity sounds more pleasant to the ears where you would want to pull some EQ to keep people's ears from melting at higher SPLs. Its the most logical compromise IMO for a less than optimum speaker design.
Eighteen Sound - Professional loudspeakers
While Troels is only using it as a midrange here, it is a midbass (..requiring a proper bass-reflex design):
The-Loudspeaker
While Troels is only using it as a midrange here, it is a midbass (..requiring a proper bass-reflex design):
The-Loudspeaker
Last edited:
It's a pro midbass (as requested), not a woofer. 😉
30 liters, 60 Hz vent tuning.
My perspective is i want to use cones within their pistonic range.
I've found on-axis EQs hold up better off-axis, when staying within pistonic range. (I think this along the lines profiguy was saying)
When on-axis response really begins to ripple, time to cut the driver off, imo.
Transients sound tighter too, i think.
Well, Geddes showed us quite some things about our hearing's sensitivity to distortions. And likely about the importance of a well-distributed sound field in our listening environment too. So one could argue a 10" bass-mid would be a valid choice. You have to take into account that directivity control with such big mid speakers stays crucial. It's not the question 10" or not, it's more about the 'how to'.
All the same, about 10 years ago I was on the same track as mark100. And I still would follow the argument. Staying away from breakups can lead to quite predictable behavior. That in its own is valid too. But I've heard too much very well sounding mids that break up to incline either way.
All the same, about 10 years ago I was on the same track as mark100. And I still would follow the argument. Staying away from breakups can lead to quite predictable behavior. That in its own is valid too. But I've heard too much very well sounding mids that break up to incline either way.
Yep, amazing mid bass driver. I'm really amazed AIC hasn't found its way into lots of other drivers. It's a very interesting technology.
You'll get no flack from me, that matches my (limited) experience. Currently listening to paired Audax PR170M0 crossed at 250Hz and 7kHz...
Did you ever get around trying/measuring these?
Can´t find much about actual projects with them despite great frequency response and low price. There are commercial projects on open baffle and a couple of car audio guys using these but nothing like sealed enclosures.
Thinking of mating a 1"-CD with them or an 830669 that I already have.
I´d guess the mid-range of the 10FE200 would be much better though.
Thanks for your opinion!
I already decided to give the 830669 a try on open baffle (XO~1.2kHz) and eventually built an enclosure for it long-term. I can always swap for a 12PR300 or so later if I don´t like it.
Just for the record: What did you not like about the 10FE200? Bass or midrange or everything? I´d guess it should do well on OB!?
Regards
Jens
Jens, I think overall I don't like it, but I used it from 100 to 500 only. It is slow somehow, and too warm, maybe H2 is high but I don't have measurements saved 🙁