https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/294-1103-faitalpro-3fe25-4-specificarions.pdf
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/297-2157--tectonic-temb46c20n-4b-2-spec-sheet.pdf
Consider operational range of 500hz to 20khz, which on paper seems more appealing?
When I consider the operational bandwidth, the average SPL isn’t as much a disparity than the peak averages used by the mfgr for spec
The Tectonic BMR to the eye on paper clearly has better dispersion characteristics off axis
Power handling seems to be the same on paper too…..20w rms/40w continuous
Cost and physical size are a toss up really……looks?…..who cares. The Tecton looks like a bear to flush mount though! Lol
Of course, it’s all in the sound. Apparently there’s much to do fan fare around the BMR as a midrange how Dennis Murphy used it in his Philharmonic BMR tower. An older thread I started polling 3” full range drivers had the Faital pretty well received…..the 3” BMR wasn’t included in that thread as it wasn’t on my radar.
Some around the web searches have turned up some folks NOT caring for the BMR as sounding like ‘paper’ and worse ‘cardboard’ cheap not hifi presentation. Maybe just expectation bias against the looks and format?….hard to say. Can’t look past the subjective response to the Philharmonic though from the true ‘audiofiles’ though
I‘ve worked with the Faital and my memory says it was a really nice performer for what it was. Sadly I no longer have any of those laying around…..those systems were gifted away. Never worked with a BMR so I’m only looking at them from objective data.
Probably best to just purchase one of each and listen for myself (I’m often ranting about voicing here and elsewhere) but I figure I’d give you experienced folks a go at……which would you choose?
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/297-2157--tectonic-temb46c20n-4b-2-spec-sheet.pdf
Consider operational range of 500hz to 20khz, which on paper seems more appealing?
When I consider the operational bandwidth, the average SPL isn’t as much a disparity than the peak averages used by the mfgr for spec
The Tectonic BMR to the eye on paper clearly has better dispersion characteristics off axis
Power handling seems to be the same on paper too…..20w rms/40w continuous
Cost and physical size are a toss up really……looks?…..who cares. The Tecton looks like a bear to flush mount though! Lol
Of course, it’s all in the sound. Apparently there’s much to do fan fare around the BMR as a midrange how Dennis Murphy used it in his Philharmonic BMR tower. An older thread I started polling 3” full range drivers had the Faital pretty well received…..the 3” BMR wasn’t included in that thread as it wasn’t on my radar.
Some around the web searches have turned up some folks NOT caring for the BMR as sounding like ‘paper’ and worse ‘cardboard’ cheap not hifi presentation. Maybe just expectation bias against the looks and format?….hard to say. Can’t look past the subjective response to the Philharmonic though from the true ‘audiofiles’ though
I‘ve worked with the Faital and my memory says it was a really nice performer for what it was. Sadly I no longer have any of those laying around…..those systems were gifted away. Never worked with a BMR so I’m only looking at them from objective data.
Probably best to just purchase one of each and listen for myself (I’m often ranting about voicing here and elsewhere) but I figure I’d give you experienced folks a go at……which would you choose?
Spec wise looks very comparable to both of my choices…..but twice the price for me here in the U.S.
The plan is for a Horizonal 5 element Bessel array for center channel use…5x would be really expensive!
The plan is for a Horizonal 5 element Bessel array for center channel use…5x would be really expensive!
As a general rule and depending on budget, I always went with highest eff. choices that otherwise met enough of the desired performance goals as everything else is tweakable.
I have the 16Ω neo version of the Final, it is good but not quite up to the FF85wk or Alpair 5.2/3 (of which the cheap, cheap CHN-50 is really close) are better. Both the paper cones can benefit from a few simple mods, we are playing with simple ways to improve the metal cones now that no-one is EnABLing.
I followed the DML thing all during its development in the 90s, heard many, and am not convinced of their applicability in a HiFi situation.
dave
I followed the DML thing all during its development in the 90s, heard many, and am not convinced of their applicability in a HiFi situation.
dave
BMR = DML. The name changed once the original company went dodo. All the AES papers, and there are an aweful lot of them, use the term DML. Distributed Mode Loudspeaker.
dave
dave
The Faital is 91dB and has a rising higher end response, and the BMR is 84dB with a dropping higher end response.
They will need completely different implementation. The 5x Faitals will need a lot of padding to match a woofer.
We tend to use drivers with a rising response when placed in an array.
Also, I did have a couple of Tectonic BMR at one point, and they had a chasm in the response that is not shown in the factory data. Can't remember the exact frequency, but I think it was around the 2kHz to 4kHz. Huge drop.
SBA's SB10 or SB65 could be also considered here.
They will need completely different implementation. The 5x Faitals will need a lot of padding to match a woofer.
We tend to use drivers with a rising response when placed in an array.
Also, I did have a couple of Tectonic BMR at one point, and they had a chasm in the response that is not shown in the factory data. Can't remember the exact frequency, but I think it was around the 2kHz to 4kHz. Huge drop.
SBA's SB10 or SB65 could be also considered here.
This is a Bessel array…..horizontal. I linked Don Keele’s paper.
yes….the 3.5” BMR has that response suckout……not this one.
yes….the 3.5” BMR has that response suckout……not this one.
Ok, from what I get, the Bessel array behaves like a point source, has more output and can handle more power. The negative is that the phase over the bandwidth behaves in a sinusoïdal pattern, ranging for 90 to -90 degrees.
I get the array that behaves as a point source with better output and power handling would be fun to play with, but the phase issues, especially in a movie setup, where phase is critical, would make it very difficult to integrate with the system.
Will be interesting to read your impressions when you have it going.
I get the array that behaves as a point source with better output and power handling would be fun to play with, but the phase issues, especially in a movie setup, where phase is critical, would make it very difficult to integrate with the system.
Will be interesting to read your impressions when you have it going.
The way I understood Keele is that the problem with the phase patterns would be only if one were to cross the array with another driver in a passband……say if I did an array of tweeters and needed to do the typical cross to a mid/woofer.
But thanks for the response. I ‘think’ what I’m asking is purely subjective anyways so I’m not sure what I’m hoping to get out of all of this……I should just buy one of each and listen……like I’m always telling other folks to do 😊
But thanks for the response. I ‘think’ what I’m asking is purely subjective anyways so I’m not sure what I’m hoping to get out of all of this……I should just buy one of each and listen……like I’m always telling other folks to do 😊
Yep, and from your first post, you mention, "Consider operational range of 500hz to 20khz"
I assumed you will be crossing to a woofer or two.
Also, since movie setups rely on everything being in phase, the Bessel array, with its continually changing phase across the frequencies might have some weird effect on the rest of the system, mainly L/R mains, with the array in the middle. The center channel shares a lot of information with the mains.
But, might be a fun and interesting winter project! 🙂
I assumed you will be crossing to a woofer or two.
Also, since movie setups rely on everything being in phase, the Bessel array, with its continually changing phase across the frequencies might have some weird effect on the rest of the system, mainly L/R mains, with the array in the middle. The center channel shares a lot of information with the mains.
But, might be a fun and interesting winter project! 🙂
See….now here’s an application where i can get with your Enabling process……since a BMR doesn’t act like a cone it instead employs bending waves to get the job done. I could see one covering the planar surface with sand and running signal through it looking for patterns and irregularities at certain frequencies……that‘s a method that’s scientific in my book. I have a hard time with the random Morse code thing you guys do on cones. Cones do exhibit bending waves, but that’s not a desired quality…….it just may be part of your whole DDR thing but too unpredictable to effectively correct with patterned cone damping IMO……..but hey different courses for different horses I suppose.
Anyways….I believe in the whole subjective thing so who am I to criticize your method…..stuff sounds better to me on occasion for no good reason that I can or cannot think of all the time! Lol
You may be correct that the left and right imaging across the soundstage may fall apart.......but it CAN'T be worse than always turning up the volume to hear dialogue or no center where the guy talking on the screen is half way across the room instead of on the screen.😳
I don't anticipate any negative effects with a high pass at 300-500hz really.........it would only be the on axis stuff that could suffer from direct time line interference.....and i plan on upfiring the woofers.......they'll do a near full phase inversion anyway with those distances.
I bet a vertical array of these for nearfield use crossed to a sub at 100hz or so would be really cool though.....say a desktop/work station application......horizontal off axis dispersion would be fantastic and for an alternative to a soundbar?.......phantom center should be scary good.