4" (3.5"-5") high efficiency wanted please

[sumaudioguy]

Here it is!! And a efficient tweeter also.

Here they are- the catalog "for sale" entry of an efficient mid and tweeter both rated 99dB for 1 watt. Nothing around like this today. Seems everyone has forgotten how to make an efficient speaker. One watt on these two will play louder than many of today's speakers will with 20 watts. 10 watts will play louder than most of today's home speakers will at all...109dB.

Used both of these when they were available. Very dynamic sounding and very easy to drive. Both the opposite of the trends today in power hungry midranges and tweeters that blow out or distort badly due to all the power it takes to make them play loud. Wish these and some of their betters were still around. But then who would need 400 watt amps with drivers like this for the home? 50 watts would run you out of the place instead with today's "popular" drivers 50 watts barely makes more than moderate listening. HA!

Not ridiculously expensive as found today also. So is there really much progress in driver technology in 30 years? Maybe in the right place just barely a little. Different more than better and yes, always far more expensive!

 

[badman]

Here they are- the catalog "for sale" entry of an efficient mid and tweeter both rated 99dB for 1 watt. Nothing around like this today. Seems everyone has forgotten how to make an efficient speaker. One watt on these two will play louder than many of today's speakers will with 20 watts. 10 watts will play louder than most of today's home speakers will at all...109dB.

Used both of these when they were available. Very dynamic sounding and very easy to drive. Both the opposite of the trends today in power hungry midranges and tweeters that blow out or distort badly due to all the power it takes to make them play loud. Wish these and some of their betters were still around. But then who would need 400 watt amps with drivers like this for the home? 50 watts would run you out of the place instead with today's "popular" drivers 50 watts barely makes more than moderate listening. HA!

Not ridiculously expensive as found today also. So is there really much progress in driver technology in 30 years? Maybe in the right place just barely a little. Different more than better and yes, always far more expensive!

Rife with gross oversimplifications. Look at the Fane. 900Hz-8kHz. Hardly the range you're asking for.

Datasheets are often (usually?) padded, and you talk about output... good luck getting 109 dB within Xmax on any of these in the bandwidth requirements.

Nothing stands in isolation. It's trivial to make a 100dB 10", with a short top plate and coil. But when you need power handling and actual output (read: Xmax), you throw away dB of sensitivity for dB of maximum acoustic output.

 

[sumaudioguy]

Still looking for more efficient drivers

Rife with gross oversimplifications. Look at the Fane. 900Hz-8kHz. Hardly the range you're asking for.

Datasheets are often (usually?) padded, and you talk about output... good luck getting 109 dB within Xmax on any of these in the bandwidth requirements.

Nothing stands in isolation. It's trivial to make a 100dB 10", with a short top plate and coil. But when you need power handling and actual output (read: Xmax), you throw away dB of sensitivity for dB of maximum acoustic output.

"Been there done that" and both these drivers work fine. Less distortion than their modern equivalents. As stated earlier I take the back off the midrange for Fs of 80Hz and there is plenty of Xmax for use as mid down lower to 150Hz. So everything you allude to is incorrect.

The fact is inefficient drivers sell bigger more expensive amplifiers. Inefficient drivers are easier to make because sloppy manufacturing such as a larger gap and higher cone mass is easier. Inefficient drivers turn more of the signal into heat, noise, and distortion. Inefficient drivers will not play as loud as an efficient one with the same power and usually will not play as loud at peak output.

Efficient drivers are a forgotten technology and manufacturing practice. My testing has consistently shown (in general but not always true) the more efficient a driver the greater its dynamic range. The ability to resolve a small signal when a large signal is present. This characteristic is (in general) inversely proportional to efficiency. There is a big problem with that- lots of dynamic range allows one to hear how bad the amplifier and other parts of the system are. This leads to the erroneous conclusion the inefficient driver that mask sounds is better and sounds better. Inefficient drivers mask a lot of those sins with self noise therefore they hide those distortions from other parts of the system in lack of dynamic range. When those distortions can be heard it is blamed on the speaker for sounding bad. The ease of making inefficient drivers and the masking due to lack of dynamic range has pushed the hopelessly inadequate inefficient driver to center stage of modern designs. NOT interested.

Please stick to finding useful drivers and not blowing about how these kind of drivers are not any good or don't work. Again, not interested as these popular conclusions are as typical, just the popular knowledge speaking and not based in empirical evidence or experience.

 

[badman]

"Been there done that" and both these drivers work fine. Less distortion than their modern equivalents. As stated earlier I take the back off the midrange for Fs of 80Hz and there is plenty of Xmax for use as mid down lower to 150Hz. So everything you allude to is incorrect.

The fact is inefficient drivers sell bigger more expensive amplifiers. Inefficient drivers are easier to make because sloppy manufacturing such as a larger gap and higher cone mass is easier. Inefficient drivers turn more of the signal into heat, noise, and distortion. Inefficient drivers will not play as loud as an efficient one with the same power and usually will not play as loud at peak output.

Efficient drivers are a forgotten technology and manufacturing practice. My testing has consistently shown (in general but not always true) the more efficient a driver the greater its dynamic range. The ability to resolve a small signal when a large signal is present. This characteristic is (in general) inversely proportional to efficiency. There is a big problem with that- lots of dynamic range allows one to hear how bad the amplifier and other parts of the system are. This leads to the erroneous conclusion the inefficient driver that mask sounds is better and sounds better. Inefficient drivers mask a lot of those sins with self noise therefore they hide those distortions from other parts of the system in lack of dynamic range. When those distortions can be heard it is blamed on the speaker for sounding bad. The ease of making inefficient drivers and the masking due to lack of dynamic range has pushed the hopelessly inadequate inefficient driver to center stage of modern designs. NOT interested.

Please stick to finding useful drivers and not blowing about how these kind of drivers are not any good or don't work. Again, not interested as these popular conclusions are as typical, just the popular knowledge speaking and not based in empirical evidence or experience.

There is no significant lost art and you will not get 150Hz at 109dB out of a direct radiating 4" driver. Before you make claims about distortion you'd better have measurements to back it up.

And oh yeah, I like high efficiency drivers too.

 

[freddi]

unrelated but fun (kinda) here's a few pages of a McGee Catalog I uploaded -
High Efficiency Speaker Asylum: McGee for the Mc Gee-zers by freddyi

 

[mt490]

Definitely exists, the bulk of it just isn't publicly documented because it's the domain of OEM markets where they can hide the specs from the consumer. Can't be telling the consumer that you've just made a totally banging stereo with only 20W maximum power capability can we Yet there has been more than enough decent products sold with only 5+5W chipamps in the premium consumer goods market.

Try SPK-1438AO for a 4" midrange (my experience is that it could easily be used on its own as a wide range)
SPK-1424AM for a 6.5" dual cone.

I don't have any sensitivity measurements unfortunately.

Dai-1chi also make a 94dB sealed back 4" but the diagram suggests that it's sealed by an unopened steel basket.

Happy hunting

 

[badman]

unrelated but fun (kinda) here's a few pages of a McGee Catalog I uploaded -
High Efficiency Speaker Asylum: McGee for the Mc Gee-zers by freddyi

Some really fun looking toys there

 

[adason]

more fun here
1962 Radio Shack Catalog

 

[sumaudioguy]

Cool stuff guys, thanks!

Cool stuff guys, thanks! McGee rocked! To bad they had a alcoholic drunk take them out. The "discount pile" in the middle of the floor was always a source for the experimenters inspiration. adason- those links are way to cool-wow.

mt490- Who is the manufacturer of SPK-1438AO and the other driver? both Dai-ichi?

badman- you are the one that needs to do the backing up. Please show how power hungry inefficient drivers (10dB less efficient) are better and will play louder. One more thing- at the time of that Panasonic the 4 largest driver makers also built and sold amplifiers as did many other driver makers- how much more obvious does it need to be?

Was hoping to avoid a custom run but am (sadly) already in discussions with two manufacturers, darn. All I have here are custom built drivers save for the Altec 411-8As.

Keep those modern part numbers coming!!! Really hope to find off the self solutions.

 

[badman]

badman- you are the one that needs to do the backing up. Please show how power hungry inefficient drivers (10dB less efficient) are better and will play louder. One more thing- at the time of that Panasonic the 4 largest driver makers also built and sold amplifiers as did many other driver makers- how much more obvious does it need to be?

It takes a 4" about 9mm of excursion to reach 109dB @ 150Hz 1M. Midranges like that panasonic have Xmax on the order of 1/2mm. Further, it would take 100W to get there since it's nowhere near 100dB @ 150Hz, back cup or no (It'll still be VERY damped without the back cup, and the rolloff will start sooner but be shallower).

So you've exceeded both power handling and Xmax in dramatic fashion and own a paperweight. Spend some time with simulation software like winisd before you make dramatic claims. A 4" ultra high efficiency driver is a midtweeter, not a full range or a midwoofer.

 

[adason]

just came across this one, no personal experience, but is 99.8 dB/w/m and 100 watts
Eminence Alphalite 6A-CBMR 6" Neo Sealed Back Midrange | Parts-Express.com

 

[mt490]

mt490- Who is the manufacturer of SPK-1438AO and the other driver? both Dai-ichi?

Toshiba I guess, there's no branding in particular. Both were taken from Toshiba rear projection TV's.

All the dai-ichi stuff is typically ferrous magnet, but the two drivers ( I guess I'll refer to them as the Toshiba drivers for simplicity ) are fully shielded alnico magnet (or similar captive magnet - I didn't get the shield off the back of it but it doesn't smash either) and polymide voice coil. You can't stick a screw to the outer housing

 

[Norris Wilson]

Since you are looking at small diameter midrange drivers. I thought I would throw this one in for fun.

Pioneer B11EC80-02F 5-1/4" Cup Midrange | Parts-Express.com

 

[sumaudioguy]

more great links! -cool

Thanks for so much more.

I did not wish this thread to turn into a referendum on smallish drivers and how loud that driver would play at a given frequency. It is certainly easy enough to put a larger magnet and an under-hung voice coil on most drivers to increase Xmax in production. I was looking for some manufacturer with either a suitable product or a product at a good starting point for my application. More on this later. Let us keep this thread on track!

The point of this thread is to identify 3.5-5 inch drivers with high efficiency. How those drivers are used in the speaker system is another story. Efficiency allows use of small inexpensive amplifiers which is my goal. Consider from a DIY standpoint... A 20 watt LM1875 based amp is within the capacity of just about anyone who can solder (ebay kits and parts makes this very easy!!!) and will run off a large wall wart power supply. A sacrificial chassis with heat sink is available off ebay all the time for $100 or less. Usually these chassis have space for many such small amps which also means my "high efficiency" system can have as many 20 watt amplifiers as I want. Say a 4 way and 8 20 watt amps and simple active crossovers... That will sound very good and be very cheap to build with the right drivers. It will also play plenty loud and have low distortion because of the amplifiers not working hard at reasonable levels and because one just cannot beat connecting an amp directly to the driver without having a passive crossover or attenuator in the way. The full range guys (different forum here at DIYaudio) know this very very well.

As a note, I need the low Fs so the phase response is good through the crossover region. If a single 3.5-5 inch driver is used then crossover would likely be 250Hz or above but an Fs near the crossover is BAD, VERY BAD! That Panasonic in its own box has Fs at 80Hz and crosses over at 250Hz or 300Hz very nicely.

Norris- going to buy that cheap Pioneer copy of the Panasonic and see just what it will do out of its' to small of box. Thanks for the link.

badman- you have shown one typical small driver will not play loud at 100Hz. You have not shown at all how inefficient drivers are better than efficient ones which was my complaint and the reason for this thread. Historically, I quit building speakers (1979) when everyone went gaga over the KEF B110 hopelessly inadequate bad sounding driver with no dynamics and no ability to play even 100dB without turning the voice coil into and ruined slinky. We both agree (it seems) efficient drivers just simply sound better and are more dynamic (more dynamic has been verified in my lab meaning greater dynamic range many times) than these low efficiency drivers. More on loudness solutions later.

Panasonic has a high efficiency line using bamboo but such a large company is difficult to contact the correct department. So far no luck. Anyone know the right phone number?

Thanks everyone! Keep them coming! Anything efficient will be posted. Should we do a thread on efficient tweeters? Woofers?

This thread has put a smile on my face, thanks!

 

[badman]

Thanks for so much more.

I did not wish this thread to turn into a referendum on smallish drivers and how loud that driver would play at a given frequency. It is certainly easy enough to put a larger magnet and an under-hung voice coil on most drivers to increase Xmax in production.

It's important to NOT let this alone until it's well understood. More Xmax still doesn't mean it will sound good operating in that region. The only suspensions that would support such Xmax would lower radiating area and increase (dramatically) suspension loss, throwing away your efficiency. You're oversimplifying the driver design. A larger magnet and top plate will give you more xmax but there's only so big you can go, and you wind up trading your efficiency for output. You can only saturate the top plate and pole, beyond that, increasing their size is the only solution and that means bigger heavier coils etc etc etc.

Small super high efficiency drivers are never going to give you significant real world output at 100,200,300 or even 400Hz. In high efficiency prosound apps, you'd see a 400Hz crossover frequently used with a 6.5 or 8" midrange driver. 5 1/4 don't even make the cut as they can only be highly efficient in the mid-tweet band and are handily outperformed in that range by a good fullsize pro mid and horn.

It's fine to try to identify super efficient baby size drivers but it's important NOT to spread misinformation, this is DIYaudio, not one of those OTHER forums

 

[sumaudioguy]

It's important to NOT let this alone until it's well understood. More Xmax still doesn't mean it will sound good operating in that region. The only suspensions that would support such Xmax would lower radiating area and increase (dramatically) suspension loss, throwing away your efficiency. You're oversimplifying the driver design. A larger magnet and top plate will give you more xmax but there's only so big you can go, and you wind up trading your efficiency for output. You can only saturate the top plate and pole, beyond that, increasing their size is the only solution and that means bigger heavier coils etc etc etc.

Small super high efficiency drivers are never going to give you significant real world output at 100,200,300 or even 400Hz. In high efficiency prosound apps, you'd see a 400Hz crossover frequently used with a 6.5 or 8" midrange driver. 5 1/4 don't even make the cut as they can only be highly efficient in the mid-tweet band and are handily outperformed in that range by a good fullsize pro mid and horn.

It's fine to try to identify super efficient baby size drivers but it's important NOT to spread misinformation, this is DIYaudio, not one of those OTHER forums

There is no "spreading" of misinformation. There is a lot of spreading conclusion based on assumptions which support the conclusions. That is what I object to. That referenced Panasonic suspension will easily give an Xmax of 6mm. I disagree with your other conclusions also as those are a matter of opinion and assumptions which again support the conclusion. As a matter of FACT a heavier cone must store more energy when it is accelerated to the same SPL as a lighter cone. This means the heavier cone will always take more time to dissipate that stored energy than a lighter cone. This is clearly shown in dynamic range testing of drivers. It is likely no heavy inefficient driver will ever have the dynamic capacity (in general) of a lighter, more efficient driver of the same size.. It is extremely important to understand this effect. This is why I hate the KEF B110. One of the most dull lifeless drivers I have ever tested or heard. On the other hand that Panasonic is extremely alive and close to the music. As a note, we commonly use 6.5" at 120Hz for PA use were a single cabinet plays 122dB in the bandpass region. Be very careful about making conclusions based on bad assumptions.

Please recall I have only custom drivers here and you are likely not going to teach me anything about driver design as I have been doing that for over 30 years with products turning up at Harmony, Real to Real, and Seas to name a few. The real culprit here is all the assumptions you make and then draw a conclusion. Assume you know nothing and stick to the thread topic please. It is pretty clear there is room for everyone to learn. Since you are a writer, go find some efficient drivers please! With your experience I believe you should be able to add a few part numbers.

 

[wg_ski]

Small super high efficiency drivers are never going to give you significant real world output at 100,200,300 or even 400Hz. In high efficiency prosound apps, you'd see a 400Hz crossover frequently used with a 6.5 or 8" midrange driver. 5 1/4 don't even make the cut as they can only be highly efficient in the mid-tweet band and are handily outperformed in that range by a good fullsize pro mid and horn.

When driven by a 2000 watt (or more) amplifier, you probably do want an efficient (ish) 8" crossed at 400 Hz. But when used with a 20 or even 100 watt amp, you could let that driver do bass duty in a 3 way with music in a domestic environment. Why? Because NOT ALL the power is concentrated in that one band where power handling is excursion limited. It's distributed over a wide spectrum and has a high peak to average ratio. Note that I did not say "subwoofer", where you may have sustained maximum output at clipping dwelling on one low note/tone at a time.

If you ask a 5" midrange with a 2mm xmax to put out "109 dB", it's not all at 150 Hz where it *would* bottom out. Some of those 50 watts being fed to it are at higher frequency where you simply don't need the excursion. And in a home audio system, the average power will be considerably less anyway unless you want a ruined slinky for a voice coil. Exceeding xmax for a few cycles never hurt anything and may be far less objectionable than sustained power compression.

 

[chlorofille]

Feastrex D5nf entry level 5'' - $2150 each
95dB efficient
Fs ~ 100Hz

 

[badman]

Please recall I have only custom drivers here and you are likely not going to teach me anything about driver design as I have been doing that for over 30 years with products turning up at Harmony, Real to Real, and Seas to name a few. The real culprit here is all the assumptions you make and then draw a conclusion. Assume you know nothing and stick to the thread topic please. It is pretty clear there is room for everyone to learn. Since you are a writer, go find some efficient drivers please! With your experience I believe you should be able to add a few part numbers.

You spec'd a job that no existing driver can do, ever could do, or ever would even want to do due to huge imd. Excursion and efficiency are at odds with each other in driver design and that's been the case since forever. There are practical limitations to the motor that prevent "bigger and more" from always doing the job. You talk a lot about the tests you've done, but I don't see a curve for the magic panasonic without it's back cup. Whatever credentials you have are irrelevant here, you're way off base with your expectations.

 

[SunRa]

FaitalPRO M5N12-80

Anyone mentioned it?

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