The 3 inch Peerless TG9FD-10-08 is probably as good as anything out there. They cost $22 each at Madisound or Parts Express (4 ohm ver. only). Downside: 86dB sensitivity, you have to provide a rear chamber to isolate its open rear from the woofer, only available with a light gray cone. Plus side: VERY flat from around 300HZ to 15kHZ, vented spider, vented pole piece, shorted turn on pole for lower distortion and flatter impedance curve, high resolution glass fiber cone material, large enough diameter (3 inch) to project well at relatively low frequency, but small enough to still have very good off axis performance, rubber surround suspension sticks out enough to give reasonable Xmax, but not so much as to cause significant "cavity effect", like some of the competing drivers have (such as the Dayton 3 inch). Makes it easy to keep crossover points out of the frequency range where the ear-brain mechanism is most sensitive (800HZ - 5kHZ). I use it from 500HZ - 8kHZ in one system I built, and 500HZ - 15kHZ in another. Both sound very good. Striking realism on a good recoding.
The Vifa TC9 3 inch treated paper cone driver is virtually identical to the above except for the cone material. It's $12 each at Madisound or Parts Express. It has a slight peak at around 10kHZ that the glass fiber cone apparently doesn't have. It's cone is black. Sounds excellent as well.
The Vifa TC9 3 inch treated paper cone driver is virtually identical to the above except for the cone material. It's $12 each at Madisound or Parts Express. It has a slight peak at around 10kHZ that the glass fiber cone apparently doesn't have. It's cone is black. Sounds excellent as well.
Last edited:
There's actually very good reason to go up to 7kHZ. to keep the crossover frequency out of the range where the ear is most sensitive (800 - 5kHZ). the trouble with a crossover point (assuming a very good quality crossover) is that there is a "lobe" of maximum acoustic output level that moves (changes direction) as you go through the crossover frequency region. It's because of the way the acoustic outputs of the two drivers add, with their accompaning phase shifts due to the crossover electronics and physical displacement on the Z axis (not to mention off axis abrupt dispersion change). In an anechoic chamber this might not be a big deal, but in a conventional room, the way the speaker interacts with the acoustics of the room will make this an issue in most cases.
Also, the most effective stereo effect happens between 800HZ and 6kHZ, since inter-aural crosstalk invariably confuses imaging below 800HZ, and because the ear-brain mechanism senses image location differently above about 6kHZ, where the wavelength of the energy starts to interact with the dimensions of the physical outer ear.
Looks like fiberglass cone TG9FD and paper cone TC9FD present are at 2 votes, TMM also in a way hints to TG9FD.
I also think the TG9FD-10-8 is probably one of the best performance to cost drivers that is tough to beat. I am using them in a B&O hole filler 3-way MTMWW now and they sound fantastic.
if i have the time to do so, i'll do xrk971's method by recording the (EQed) drivers. At least i'll try.
Will try different set-up to get what would be the most realistic recording v.s. what we hear in-room.
Got a Tascam recorder and a pair of M50's. Might try quasi-binaural, even on single driver config.
Will try different set-up to get what would be the most realistic recording v.s. what we hear in-room.
Got a Tascam recorder and a pair of M50's. Might try quasi-binaural, even on single driver config.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Just added TG9FD10 on the pre-selection list.
I'll continue the pre-selection tests next week or so. That will be an arbitrary process with only few pairs of ears.
Will decide what will be the 4 semi-finalists.
If i can get my hands on any other drivers from ''the big league'' (such as Lowther DX4, Davis or a Manger) i'll proceed with a semi-final among them as well.
The Final must be with exactly 4 drivers (which will most likely include 3 from the big league + 1 low-cost champion)
Last edited:
Not sure what the list looks like as of now. I looked at the first post again, where I believe you are keeping the updated list and didn't see the PHL driver mentioned by Overkill Audio. I'lll throw a second vote for that one!
at my opinion 5'' is much better in the 400hz+ than 6 1/2''
will also have to compare 5'' wooden and paper next week.
Firstly, according to some (many?) once equalized, all the drivers will sound the same, especially in a blind test.
Can't wait to see that.
That is why earlobes are shaped asymmetrically the way they are - for use to perceive whether sound is from front, back, up, or down using just two bio-microphones in our cochleas. The ripples and lobes on our outer ears apply different phase shifts to allow extra info to be extracted from freq/phase sensitive brain processing. 3d triangulation with 2 mics - pretty cool
Final test's methodology is not yet decided but i'm thinking to use music's excerpts on 2 volume levels, so we can observe the differences cause with amplitude.
How each driver's react with low/moderate listening volume (75-80dB at listening position) and high volume (90-95dB).
How each driver's react with low/moderate listening volume (75-80dB at listening position) and high volume (90-95dB).
Interesting to see TG9 and 10F comparison in your test. If any of them didn't pass the pre-selection please tell me your listening impression about both.
In XRK test, objectively, using Foobar both drivers are very close (except for obviously stronger sibilance with TG9) but I'm not the only one who found that TG9 sounded subjectively un-interesting.
Logically (weak logic of course), because TG9 is the closest to 10F soundwise, then if 10F is in the first place, then TG9 should be in second place. But my subjective preference didn't work that way.
Somebody above mentioned that TG9 has low non-linear distortion, so I want to know what makes the TG9 didn't "tick" with me.
IME 'subjectively un-interesting' is usually a very good sign when it comes to speakers.
All the best speaker systems I've heard sound uninteresting at first.
The ones which sounded initially exciting quickly became fatiguing, annoying even. Especially high THD and uneven FR can make a speaker appear more detailed at first.
YMMV
Isn't the signature of a good driver (or amplifier) is that it presents faithfully just what is there in the recorded signal? Hence, low coloration, low distortion, etc. may just be boring if you are used to hearing colored splashy drivers.
So you have actually started your elimination rounds via listening? It would be great for us if you could kindly provide sound clips from your Tascam digital recorder of the test.
I have no choice, there is too many drivers out there for me to test each one.
But i'll eliminate only the ones that would obviously be discarded anyway. The Satori has clearly no chance.
it's too soon to tell what will be the pattern, i'll have to test at least 2 or 3 more drivers.
Question: is the FST (B&W) would be a serious contender ?
i myself never been a huge fan of the B&W speaker (and kevlar mid), but i see it as a very good benchmark since it's extremely well-known by the public.
i myself never been a huge fan of the B&W speaker (and kevlar mid), but i see it as a very good benchmark since it's extremely well-known by the public.
JonBocani,
Regarding B&W FST did you try the link i posted at #118 because would mean if you offer some time there can make up your mind if its worth for your style and preferences.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...nd-testing-need-your-help-12.html#post4387790
Regarding B&W FST did you try the link i posted at #118 because would mean if you offer some time there can make up your mind if its worth for your style and preferences.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...nd-testing-need-your-help-12.html#post4387790