What has been the most detailed driver you have worked with?

I'm curious what you guys have found to be the most detailed driver you have used?
Mid Visaton TI100.

Visaton - Lautsprecher und Zubehör, Loudspeakers and Accessories

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


Low monacor sph250ctc.
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL : New products
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


High DT300.
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL : New products
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
 
Audax HM100Z0.

Ah yes, there is something a bit special about them. I do wonder if maybe I shouldn't have sold mine. They just need to be treated very carefully with regard to their enclosure and I didn't give them enough room to breathe. They still produced incredible imaging though.

Well, looks like they are back in production again anyhow, can get new models from Madisound which are presumably identical to the originals.
 
Ah yes, there is something a bit special about them. I do wonder if maybe I shouldn't have sold mine. They just need to be treated very carefully with regard to their enclosure and I didn't give them enough room to breathe. They still produced incredible imaging though.

Well, looks like they are back in production again anyhow, can get new models from Madisound which are presumably identical to the originals.

My TI100 are 4" to like the audax I think it is a good diameter for open sounding mid-reproduction.
 
What exactly does that mean?? "detailed"??

Lowest distortion?
Widest bandwidth?
Flattest in band response??

Tip up the highs and people think it is "detailed".
Not much of a trick in that. Works most of the time.

The best single driver I have ever worked with that is not on a horn was the Stage Accompany ribbon... probably because it was nearly flat, very wide bandwidth (it went flat past 20kHz.. - not that many can hear up there) and it was lower in distortion by an order of magnitude compared with other very good direct radiator drivers of any type... It did have vertical dispersion issues however... so no free lunch (yet). FYI usable range was from 1.5kHz. up.

So there is my "2 cents worth" of personal preferences and opinion... and as always, I am always right. :D

_-_-bear
 
What exactly does that mean?? "detailed"??

Lowest distortion?
Widest bandwidth?
Flattest in band response??

Tip up the highs and people think it is "detailed".
Not much of a trick in that. Works most of the time.

The best single driver I have ever worked with that is not on a horn was the Stage Accompany ribbon... probably because it was nearly flat, very wide bandwidth (it went flat past 20kHz.. - not that many can hear up there) and it was lower in distortion by an order of magnitude compared with other very good direct radiator drivers of any type... It did have vertical dispersion issues however... so no free lunch (yet). FYI usable range was from 1.5kHz. up.

So there is my "2 cents worth" of personal preferences and opinion... and as always, I am always right. :D

_-_-bear

This is an important point of the matter isn't it? If it has a narrow dispersion, it stands a better chance of being more "detailed" all other things considered (in a typical room) since the direct to reverb ratio is that much higher.

Also, crank up the high end, more detail. Crank up 4 kHz, more vocal intelligibility which can sound like detail. So many factors.

If detail is the over-riding goal, design it to be free field headphones: near field listening, no near boundaries, relatively dead room, narrow dispersion, tweak the EQ.

The real question is: how far are you willing to push any of these trade offs? The question only really makes sense once you baseline the acceptable limits of these trade-offs, along with size and cost limitations. Then you know what class of transducers and box (or not) designs you can choose from.

Dave
 
This is an important point of the matter isn't it? If it has a narrow dispersion, it stands a better chance of being more "detailed" all other things considered (in a typical room) since the direct to reverb ratio is that much higher. snip

FWIW this contradicts what Dr. Toole says in sound reproductions and my personal experience with different dispersion characteristics. People's perception of these small drivers being more detailed would also agree with the research, but you are right--many factors come into play here. I thought my 4" metal cones on an OB were extremely detailed, but they also sounded bright on a lot of recordings. On axis was flat, of axis had a big 2-4k bubble(roughly). I don't use those anymore......

Dan
 
Some people mistake a bright system for being detailed. I am not talking about this. I am talking about drivers that will resolve the most minute details and timbers in the range they play in. I personally feel this is dominated by great temporal response followed by low distortion but there are many factors that are involved.
 
Some people mistake a bright system for being detailed. I am not talking about this. I am talking about drivers that will resolve the most minute details and timbers in the range they play in. I personally feel this is dominated by great temporal response followed by low distortion but there are many factors that are involved.

Yes, actually detailed and perceived detail may not be the same thing. The question is what is what and how to separate the 2? If the FR is smooth, the temporal response is fairly fast and the low lever distortion of modern drivers renders it moot. Without detailed graphs for support, this conversation is meaningless.

Dan