The rectangular planar driver has completely different directivity from a circular cone driver, so that may be a factor in how it sounds different.
I based this statement, because, based on my small, directivity study, a rectangular ribbon ALWAYS has a different directivity to a dome tweeter.
I avoid trying to describe how it sounds because describing it is like describing wine or chocolate- unless we can come to an agreement of what we mean, we are just using flowery language to try to convey what we mean...
I based this statement, because, based on my small, directivity study, a rectangular ribbon ALWAYS has a different directivity to a dome tweeter.
I avoid trying to describe how it sounds because describing it is like describing wine or chocolate- unless we can come to an agreement of what we mean, we are just using flowery language to try to convey what we mean...
Last edited:
Try a planar mid some time. It is different. More different than any of the different drivers I have used. Hearing it was like the first time I heard a proper subwoofer in high school. Like an "oh, thats what it should actually sound like" sort of thing.
I have 😉
The described audible differences might be attributable to the many circumstantial differences in the system. If configured so all these are accounted for, I would not expect that level of difference.
This is going back some time and I couldn't say.
I don't know what difference that would make but planars do have interesting and useful diaphragm configurations and certain smaller details that can make them attractive. However if fundamentally they sound so different to cones, that sounds like a reason to avoid them.. but I'm sure that's not what we're trying to say here.
As you can see in the picture, the midrange starts to lose energy around the cross-over region. This is due to its off-axis response. You have to cross lower, and also use a tweeter that can cross lower - or use a waveguide - or else you will almost always get that reduction in the 2-5kHz region - just see almost all measurements from B&W, since around 1997.
An extended frequency response from a dedicated midrange, is a nice thing, but you still have to consider the whole speaker, in regard to baffle step, power response, sensitivity etc.
For example, I've noticed that moving from the cheaper KEF speakers, to the more expensive ones, you get less sensitivity, which could indicate that the smoother response of the more expensive - and better - models, are most likely better filtered than the lower level models, which could mean that they use more components in the filter to make the speaker more smooth and better over-all sounding. So, there is no free lunch. What you have to consider, is whether a given component in your design, gives you more fidelity, than it takes away.
Example from my system. I looked around a lot for the best woofer for my DIY speakers. Almost everywhere, I was shown how low they could play - often in a reflex cabinet. And this is often what people use these drivers for, so this is totally understandable. I just use a lot of energy to add subwoofers, which means that I actually do not need 30Hz from my woofers. Therefore, it was easy for me to use my woofers in a closed design, making the build smaller, also way easier to design/build.
Second example. When I looked for a midrange, I tried to find one that was as smooth on all axis' as possible. Dayton RS125 and SB Satori MW13TX being some of them. But I cross them at around 2000Hz to an SB 26ADC tweeter in an Augerpro waveguide, which leaves all break-up modes several thousands of Hz above the cross-over region. So even though many do not like the huge break-up in the harder coned midrange models. I would argue that you can get around it with the low cross-over point and a waveguide - hereby taking advantage of the smoother off-axis response from the more rigid cone.
So, the added "clarity" from these harder coned midranges, could actually simply be because I can make a smoother transition between the drivers - no lowering in the 2-5kHz region - rather than actually the harder cone being so-called more "resolving". But that's another topic 🙂
It appears they use a larger magnet on the midrange. I'm guessing this would move the QTS lower. I think these were designed to go together in a tall skinny enclosure.
But to answer the question, a midrange goes between the woofer and the tweeter. There is every possible configuration available from 12" cone midranges to 2" dome midranges. Some handle woofer ranges some handle high frequencies just under tweeter ranges.
30 years ago I had a similar dilemma, Seas 11FGX midbass or Seas 11FM midrange driver for 3way with with Scanspeak 21W8553 & Dynaudio D28AF. Same story as with these two new drivers. Chose of course 11FM for 400Hz/2.5kHz. There were other candidates for the mid range, but I chose this one on the advice of a friend. The first version was only 2way (8+1"), but I was not satisfied. Adding midrange was the right thing to do.
Last edited:
A good midrange driver exhibits flat frequency response + low distortion over the mid-band desired > it is that simple.
Dispersion comes in at #2, but is highly dependent upon the enclosure, room and listening position 🙂
Dispersion comes in at #2, but is highly dependent upon the enclosure, room and listening position 🙂
It's clear that a dedicated midrange has some advantages over a driver that has to work with low frequencies as well. But there are few of them on offer, they are the rarest drivers i think. Mostly midbass is used as midrange in multi way.
And size and material. Paper has a tendency to break up quicker than metal, giving you a much steeper roll off at off-axis.
Midrange frequencies are defined slighly differently depending on the table you use. This is just one example. Midrange is from 250 Hz to 2kHz. Above that are upper mids, some count that as mids too. So 250 Hz to 6kHz.
Generally, most 3way speakers, passive or active have 300 Hz to ~ 3kHz covered by midrange.
So midrange driver is supposed to cover this as flat as possible, with low distortion and minimum beaming. Low beaming is important for proper transition to tweeter.
Big midbass driver starts beaming too soon and require being crossed lower to tweeter, stressing the need for powerfull tweeter with low fs.
Ideal midrange is only 4-5" big. This has been discussed ad nauseam, no need to repeat it.
Attachments
Last edited:
Another rather good midrange i used with hiquphon tweeter without crossover was this peerless. I think its on backorder or no longer available, like vifa. This could have been vifa replacement.
Notice lack of bass, ruler flat midrange, excellent of axis behaviour, almost no breakups.
Show me big midbass which can do this...
Notice lack of bass, ruler flat midrange, excellent of axis behaviour, almost no breakups.
Show me big midbass which can do this...
Attachments
Wait, there is more...this is actually considered midbass, yes, it can do some bass. I made bookshelf with this aurum cantus which goes down to 30Hz. Not real bass, the cone is light and thin. But where it shines is midrange. Smooth, flat, goes up high enough to be crossed to ribbon tweeter, great of axis, almost no breakups. Used this one a lot. Not expensive, still available.
https://loudspeakerdatabase.com/AurumCantus/AC-130F1
https://loudspeakerdatabase.com/AurumCantus/AC-130F1
Attachments
There are many good dome mids, but i am not going to discuss it here. It does not seems to fit here. Besides op has already made his mind.