Note that I wrote "the first harmonic to a fundamental". The first harmonic distortion product, the first harmonic overtone to a fundamental spectral component can not be the fundamental itself. The first one in a series ov overtones above the fundamental is naturally the second order harmonic.
And to be precise, the 2nd harmonic is not necessarily the first overtone, but the first harmonic one. With wide band input the first overtone can be a non-harmonic one.
Please also try to understand the context of my post where I wanted to sort out the misunderstanding by Bob Richards that 2nd harmonic = IMD.
Both overtones and harmonics describe the same thing with different terminology.
If you got a fundamental of 1kHz the first overtone is 2k and the second 3k.
If you use the harmonic series to describe the same frequencies these are called 1st harmonic at 1k, 2nd harmonic 2k and 3rd 3k.
There is no frequency called 'fundamental' in a harmonic series.
2nd order harmonic distortion is a product at 2kHz if your test tone is 1kHz.
IMD is not harmonic distortion and Bob was wrong on that one. It is more of a sum and difference thing. These can be part of a harmonic series in rare cases but usually they are not.
If you got a fundamental of 1kHz the first overtone is 2k and the second 3k.
If you use the harmonic series to describe the same frequencies these are called 1st harmonic at 1k, 2nd harmonic 2k and 3rd 3k.
There is no frequency called 'fundamental' in a harmonic series.
2nd order harmonic distortion is a product at 2kHz if your test tone is 1kHz.
IMD is not harmonic distortion and Bob was wrong on that one. It is more of a sum and difference thing. These can be part of a harmonic series in rare cases but usually they are not.
This makes no sense, rambled and arrived at a conclusion that doesn't follow. You say no mid from ScanSpeak, Focal, Dynaudio, SEAS, etc have passed this test. What test? Then you say a cheap 4in driver however is good and, presumably passed this test because you chose it. What test is this that a cheap 4in driver can beat those brands' best mid range?
The fashion police might 😀...
I never warmed up to that white cone, black dust cap look...
But you have the 10F as well BYRTT, do you like the TG more?
Midwoofers, not midrange/FR (like 10F). Many of you were surprised why midwoofers like the Satori was "disqualified", weren't you?
I see. No surprises there, this driver isn't going to sound good unless used correctly. I said this at the start. You cannot generalise in a test like this and come up with answers that make any kind of logical sense.
Anyone I have ever seen write about the Satori (both the 6" and 5" versions) in a subjective sense have said how amazing it sounds but this is only when the drivers are crossed over and used in an appropriately designed system.
I still agree with 5th: Without a tweeter you get a rehash of XRKs full-range test.
It will say nothing particularly useful about the drivers suitability as a dedicated, band-limited mid range.
It will say nothing particularly useful about the drivers suitability as a dedicated, band-limited mid range.
Nope.
Using it along with a tweeter and a sub/woofer WON'T change the part he's doing. His bandwith remain his bandwith and he's the only one doing it (i hope..)
If you rely on other drivers to enhance the performance of a mid, then you have a real design problem. Or some kind of budget issue, which is not a problem per se, not just the concern of this very thread/test.
A really good mid, such as the ATC, will also benefit from having a tweeter and a woofer. Its perfectly normal. But even alone, it sounds extremely well...
From the start i made it very clear: this test is about a single element (midrange driver).
By not restricting the bandwidth you are forcing the driver to deal with signals it was not designed to deal with.
You are not only testing their midrange abilities but also their treble behaviour.
You are not only testing their midrange abilities but also their treble behaviour.
This post really shows that you have very little understanding of what it is you are actually doing.
Of course it wont, but this is not how we hear.
You do not use other drivers to 'enhance' the performance of the midrange driver you are simply using them to allow the midrange driver to work as it was intended.
Yes and the ATC is completely different in comparison to the Satori. No matter how much EQ you apply you can never come up with a test that will allow you to compare them in a meaningful way if you are only using those drivers.
The only thing you could attempt to do would be to use both drivers in an identical cabinet, so that the diffraction effects added to both would be identical, then bandwidth limit both of them to cover exactly the same range. This would mean using a 4th order acoustic high pass at 400Hz for both and also a 4th order low pass on both at around 2000Hz.
Exactly and forcing drivers to do things that they were not intended for is a recipe for auditory disaster.
A Good Way to test is. Play a sine like 1 KHz, adjust volume to a fixed level (like 90 dB) make a note, do this to all your drivers. So you have a catalog and volume settings. Now listen to all drivers at the correct volume setting with white noise. The best an most natural sounding driver will most likely be the one that sounds the least aggressive.
ATC SM75-150 Midrange
My goodness, for $580, the ATC better sound good. What is so special about it versus another 91dB driver that covers 380Hz to 3.8kHz? Is there a lot of just reputation and myth here?
ATC as measured by Zaph:
Similar Tang Band 75-1558SE dome mid:
Is there something here to justify the huge price differential over the Tang Band? Perhaps the Tang Band 75-1558SE (circa $175) should be added to the list if the ATC is the current King?
http://www.parts-express.com/tang-band-75-1558se-3-textile-dome-midrange--264-857
My goodness, for $580, the ATC better sound good. What is so special about it versus another 91dB driver that covers 380Hz to 3.8kHz? Is there a lot of just reputation and myth here?
ATC as measured by Zaph:
Similar Tang Band 75-1558SE dome mid:
Is there something here to justify the huge price differential over the Tang Band? Perhaps the Tang Band 75-1558SE (circa $175) should be added to the list if the ATC is the current King?
http://www.parts-express.com/tang-band-75-1558se-3-textile-dome-midrange--264-857
Last edited:
Probably the reality good pointed out, some listen with the eyes but then give it some clothing on if its a problem 😀.
If we forget about sound agree in taste and prefer the black ones as 10F or TC9FD in my eyes TC9FD has fancy frame too. Know i expressed had TG9 on order but pulled it last minute had to rearrange finances at that time but soon will reorder. TC9FD and 10F are great performers for me but here in thread cost is not a parameter and expensive drivers are on the list therefor expect TC9FD to be run over and comment pointing to it was meant as joke.
We are splitting the posts relating to the new listening test off into a separate thread which is here.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/277207-round-three-best-midrange-blind-testing.html
It needs a better title... whatever you decide.
If any posts have been missed or any are wrong then please list the posts that need moving.
The above needs clarification.
I agree with the above if the tweeter is working outside the midrange frequency we are studying. For example, we are studying 500-5kHz, then adding tweeter from 5kHz-20kHz is irrelevant. And that is the point. We only care with a narrow band where problems usually occur.
But in my case I have stated, I found the best midrange from using two drivers. It means that the narrow band is to be divided into 2 parts. For example, if the narrow band to study is 500-5k, I assign 500-2k5 to a midwoofer and I assign 2k5-5k to a tweeter. Many designers avoid this complexity and assign only one driver to cover the sensitive bandwidth.
Speaker design is full of compromises. The worst compromise is the designer himself. So if making a crossover is difficult, better purchase FR speakers.
There is a reason why the midrange bandwidth is to be divided into two parts. Because each part requires different driver characteristics! For life-like dynamics, I don't think small drivers (including ATC) is sufficient. ATC has slightly bigger than usual waveguide, but I think the life-like dynamics require much bigger waveguide. I even found that my 5.25" is not sufficient to produce the believable scale in mono, but in stereo they are just "fit" nicely.
Ok guys, we're ready for some fun. 
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
So here we go for the first pre-selection run:
Scanspeak 10F/8424G00
Vifa TG9FD1004
Max Fidelity PR4neo/8
Fane STD.5FRK
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B80
Fostex FF85WK
Will slowly start to test them while they break-in a bit... I'll take the preselection process seriously and will ask for the help of other ears. It won't be too vindicative 😉
Also for each one i'll try 2 or 3 different bandwith, even a very limited 500hz-2.5khz or so, just for the sake of experimentation.
Scanspeak 10F/8424G00
Vifa TG9FD1004
Max Fidelity PR4neo/8
Fane STD.5FRK
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B80
Fostex FF85WK
Will slowly start to test them while they break-in a bit... I'll take the preselection process seriously and will ask for the help of other ears. It won't be too vindicative 😉
Also for each one i'll try 2 or 3 different bandwith, even a very limited 500hz-2.5khz or so, just for the sake of experimentation.
Last edited:
Oh you should have gotten the 8ohm TG9FD - the 4ohm is a different driver - not as good as 8ohm.
What is the black square frame driver above the TG9FD?
What is the black square frame driver above the TG9FD?