Which of These 3 Options will Give the Nicest Sound?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
My recommendation would be to go with a driver designed for full range use;
Do you mean by this that the TC9FD was not designed for Full Range use?


Fostex or Mark Audio
The Markaudio Alpair-6P is defined as 3.5",
but it appears that most of it is wasted on the frame, and not on the diaphragm..

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.



The Fostex FF85WK is 3",
but you get most of it for the diaphragm:

ff85wk.jpg
 
Do you mean by this that the TC9FD was not designed for Full Range use?

I can't say for sure, but I can say the Mark Audio drivers are designed for full range use.


The Markaudio Alpair-6P is defined as 3.5",
but it appears that most of it is wasted on the frame, and not on the diaphragm..

The overall diameter is 4.5 inches. That still leaves enough for a 3.5 inch cone.

alpair-6p.jpg



The Fostex FF85WK is 3",
but you get most of it for the diaphragm:

ff85wk.jpg

I can't speak for the Fostex. I've only heard a Fostex 127.
 
spaceman: I think the two drivers in the last two posts - both of which I'm quite familiar with- are great examples of size of cone not telling the whole story.

as for how to make a wise choice? - well all the online subjective listening tests, and bloviations by members can't guarantee anything there
 
Last edited:
Jon - the Airbornes are very nice performers, particularly in a full sized floorstander, but for a desk-top/ nearfield as per original post, I'd be inclined towards something smaller.

I'm not particularly a big fan of the TC9, but it certainly does nothing wrong and has lots of fans here. No surprise to frequent readers here, but personally I'd recommend something like Fostex FF85WK or Alpair6P for this case. Both can deliver quite decent low level full bandwidth performance in boxes as small as a few liters.

How nearfield are we talking about ?

I'd put the airborne in very small sealed boxes, without problem. If, really, you're looking for something smaller and with a bit more sparkle, i'd say the various tang bang 3-4'' would be good.
 
BTW

I must say that I am surprised that people here are not fan of larger diameter speakers,
like 6.5" for example.

I understand that the TC9FD (and the Fostex FF85WK) give a very nice sound (and I will soon hear it myself),
but don't people here like large diameter FR drivers?

spaceman: I think the two drivers in the last two posts - both of which I'm quite familiar with- are great examples of size of cone not telling the whole story.
If these drivers give a great sound, imagine what the same diaphragm material, and the same manufacturer, can do in 5", or 6.5",
instead of just 3" or 3.5"..


So how come it is not frequent here to see people use larger FR drivers?
 
Although not an absolute rule, I think the way of thinking is quite often that top end might start to fall off sooner with larger diameter drivers. I know that's not always the case by any stretch, but that thought process might play into it. Also, I believe it's more fitting to go with a small enclosure with a small driver.
Obviously, those are only some thoughts. I'm sure many could disprove them several times over.
Mike
 
Although not an absolute rule, I think the way of thinking is quite often that top end might start to fall off sooner with larger diameter drivers.
Do you know what is the reason for that?


Also, I believe it's more fitting to go with a small enclosure with a small driver.
Again I am curious:
Can you please tell why a small enclosure + a small driver is better?

(not lack of space I assume.. especially not for people who want to get the best sound quality they can achieve)
 
I can't explain why a smaller driver is better with higher frequencies. I believe I understand the general concept, but putting it into words is a different story. Some of the other guys understand and can put these things into words much better than I can. Again, that is only a general thought process. It isn't hard fact.

I wouldn't say small enclosure + small box is better, but it often times just works out for a small driver to work well in a small box. And again, that is by no means across the board. There are small drivers that require a larger box to be at their best. And I imagine there are large drivers that work well in a small box.

I was just trying to offer some thought for your question about why going with a smaller driver instead of a larger is a popular thought for near field listening. So much in speaker building is far from hard and fast rules. Subjectivity and personal preference play a large part in what sounds good to one person compared to what sounds good to another. It's a lot like art; beauty is in the EAR of the beholder.
 
I can't explain why a smaller driver is better with higher frequencies.
Oh
No need to explain this - I understand it bymyself
(it's like if you create a small diameter drum, you will receive a higher tone from it, compared to a large diameter drum which will sound lower)

But I didn't know that achieving higher frequencies is the goal.
I thought that the purpose in FR is to get as far as possible to both sides of the frequency scale(lower, and higher, not just one)

I hope I understood you well..


Actually, these guys aren't bad for near field. A dip at ~1-2k which isn't a bad thing in this scenario. Great bass response in the right cabinet. (0.20 cuft, 1" dia port, 2" long)
Tectonic Elements TEBM65C20F-8 3-1/2" BMR Full-Range Speaker 8 Ohm
This is the driver I currently use for my near field set-up. I have them in a small folded MLTL run by a small class D amp. I can highly recommend these if you can get them in your area.
Mike
Great
I have a thread I opened regarding BMR, it's nice to see it being used and recommended too
 
Not quite there...

A bigger driver will usually start to beam (think like a narrow beam bright light, but dark around it) higher frequencies at a lower point than a smaller driver... even though it can reach high frequencies, they will be focused out from the centre of the cone. A smaller driver will be able to spread those higher frequencies to a wider dispersion.

There are variations on this... For example, the TB W8-1172, a driver I really like but hard to handle, doesn't feel like it's beaming like most 8" drivers.
 
Last edited:
Oh
But I didn't know that achieving higher frequencies is the goal.
I thought that the purpose in FR is to get as far as possible to both sides of the frequency scale(lower, and higher, not just one)

The goal is to get as much of the full audio spectrum as possible. If the highs roll off too early, it won't sound great. They by no means need to go to 20KHz, but 15KHz is within some people's range. I believe those of us with some miles on our ears don't typically hear much past 12KHz. If the lows come in too late, it won't sound great. They by no means need to, or can, go to 20Hz. Ideally, into the 40s would be GREAT. However, that would be tough with a typical 3" or 4" full range driver. The goal with a full range is to get as much of both as possible.
 
By rolling off too early, I'm saying the driver's output stops at a lower frequency than desired. By coming in too late, I'm saying the driver starts at a higher frequency than desired. That's a very simplified way to explain it. If you look at a frequency response graph of a woofer, you'll see the signal start dropping (rolling off) at anywhere from 500 Hz to 10KHz, or some other frequency, depending on the woofer. A tweeter response graph will show the signal coming in at a higher frequency. If you pull up a frequency response graph, you should be able to see what I'm saying.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.