The verdict is there:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...t-midranges-shocking-results-conclusions.html
Yeah, I know, it's somewhat not what we want to hear...
Just one post ago, i just said i miss the Radian CDs... While i know perfectly that i'd probably could not spot them in a blind test compared to my 30 bucks 3fe22...
Well, maybe my subconscious is running my audiophile life now? I do have that pair of 3fe22 in my system right now! 😱
It would be interressant to know if the material changes Something after EQ between the two Radians ! Beside the macro EQ and the further point of ringing, I'm asking myself if such Be si hearable in the FR you use it or if the aluminium is enough ! You can also add some felt or coton into the dome to damp ! I make it with my aluminium tweeter with a good sucess : more resolution and softer ! But no idea with a compression 2" mid ?!
Blindly, i'd say no human would be able to spot a Be from an aluminum 950 once EQd.
For what i remember, even without EQ and fullrange (400hz+) the differences were minimal to my ears.
For what i heard so far from any array of midrange drivers, i'm not convinced. An array of tweeters, maybe yes. An array of woofer/subwoofer, yes. But for the mid, the point source seems to be the best solution.
You need for that a geometric curved shape à la Keele or different delay in the vertical array from the mid-woof.
I'm super confused, all of the results links don't lead to any results. What am I missing here?
Jon did. bunch of these threads which turned out to be mostly clik-bait.
“Best”. How do you define that?
dave
“Best”. How do you define that?
dave
Ah that's a bummer. So there was never any real ranking or result of the 'subjective testing' even. It's nice to just see opinions.
HAHAHA I'll comb through the threads to look at the shipping containers, I've seen that concept used on some of those 'tiny houses' shows.
Charles, I think that he eq'd them all flat to differentiate the sound of the drivers based on other attributes besides response.
I always find that interesting because I'm fully vested in digital active crossovers (can't get much easier to experiment with them and I love not dealing with passive boutique components, etc. and their astronomical cost). So in my use case it's the sound of the driver, overall response and efficiency that concerns me more than small peaks and valleys that I can surmount.
Interestingly enough in my digital crossover travails, I find that nothing surmounts a PC with good software for equalization and convolution. My minidsp's might be able to make a few 100 changes to a wave but on a PC I'm making filters (at the cost of some latency) of over 100,000 taps.
Charles, I think that he eq'd them all flat to differentiate the sound of the drivers based on other attributes besides response.
I always find that interesting because I'm fully vested in digital active crossovers (can't get much easier to experiment with them and I love not dealing with passive boutique components, etc. and their astronomical cost). So in my use case it's the sound of the driver, overall response and efficiency that concerns me more than small peaks and valleys that I can surmount.
Interestingly enough in my digital crossover travails, I find that nothing surmounts a PC with good software for equalization and convolution. My minidsp's might be able to make a few 100 changes to a wave but on a PC I'm making filters (at the cost of some latency) of over 100,000 taps.