Hi,
thanks for the impedance shots.
18s generally uses a copper shorting ring and the Radian not - why? My Radians did not have any absorbing material in the back cover - why? And the big disadvantage of the 745Neos is that if you open the back cover then the alignment is disturbed. They use the same screws for back cover and diaphragm - why? This suspicious hole in the back cover - why? Btw, it is intended to protect the diaphragm for high SPL. You can safely close it for HiFi use and the second side peak is gone and the LF extension is better. A quick and simple tweak.
I am very curious when you present the first measurements in a horn.
thanks for the impedance shots.
18s generally uses a copper shorting ring and the Radian not - why? My Radians did not have any absorbing material in the back cover - why? And the big disadvantage of the 745Neos is that if you open the back cover then the alignment is disturbed. They use the same screws for back cover and diaphragm - why? This suspicious hole in the back cover - why? Btw, it is intended to protect the diaphragm for high SPL. You can safely close it for HiFi use and the second side peak is gone and the LF extension is better. A quick and simple tweak.
I am very curious when you present the first measurements in a horn.
I was also surprised to see no foam or felt behind the cover. The screws were a little loose on one after long term storage. Had to realign the diaphragm as I was getting a huge dip in the response. Did it by feel to where it felt even on opposite sides. A few minor changes would bring it up a bit. Still a good driver overall. Will try plugging the hole sometime.
At least their packaging is better than 18 Sound
@manninen - That's my plan if my last attempts at nesting the seos 8's doesn't work. Sucker for coaxials. Going to try a shaded array with three waveguides per side. Initial results look workable. Will try some foam and phase plug experiments as well to help mitigate any reflections off the back side of the array.
@mark100 - No problem. I was curious myself. They look like a toss up so far in HD but IMD is more interesting. Dual tone 13khz-14khz showed a clear advantage for the ND3SN. Much lower sideband activity than the Radian.
Last edited:
Not sure where the shortfall in the measurement chain is but I couldn't find any major differences on paper.
During music playback in a system it is clear the 745NEO has quite a bit more hash. The ND3SN sounds more laid back while having better instrument separation and detail. I'm surprised how audible the difference is. Guess that's where beryllium would help for the Radian.
Will live with them for awhile and maybe give the HF1440 a try. Although I'm pretty happy with these at the moment.
During music playback in a system it is clear the 745NEO has quite a bit more hash. The ND3SN sounds more laid back while having better instrument separation and detail. I'm surprised how audible the difference is. Guess that's where beryllium would help for the Radian.
Will live with them for awhile and maybe give the HF1440 a try. Although I'm pretty happy with these at the moment.
Have a pair of Ciare PR614 on the way. Will try for more detailed measurements when I get them. They seem to be the best commercially available compromise for my application. Plan on crossing them at 1.2khz LR24-96.
Current setup is just a temporary mono stack for testing purposes. Compared both drivers mounted through a flat baffle with 1" foam on the surface. Didn't like how the waveguide was interacting with the top octave. Eq'd relatively flat from 2khz. Crossed at 2khz LR24 to a prosound 8".
For reference, the final system will include the following per side:
-HF source(s) on a horn/waveguide. Possibly mounted coaxially. 1.2khz.
-Large format JBL cinema waveguide with two or four 8" drivers. Stiffened and damped walls. Open back with damping material around drivers for tuned dipole characteristics. 200-1.2khz.
-2x18" open back angled baffle enclosure. 60-250hz.
-2x21" low tuned bass reflex. 25-100hz.
I have all the parts on hand to make it happen but the high frequency portion is the most difficult part to narrow down for high spl performance, most natural dispersion characteristics, and durability.
Current setup is just a temporary mono stack for testing purposes. Compared both drivers mounted through a flat baffle with 1" foam on the surface. Didn't like how the waveguide was interacting with the top octave. Eq'd relatively flat from 2khz. Crossed at 2khz LR24 to a prosound 8".
For reference, the final system will include the following per side:
-HF source(s) on a horn/waveguide. Possibly mounted coaxially. 1.2khz.
-Large format JBL cinema waveguide with two or four 8" drivers. Stiffened and damped walls. Open back with damping material around drivers for tuned dipole characteristics. 200-1.2khz.
-2x18" open back angled baffle enclosure. 60-250hz.
-2x21" low tuned bass reflex. 25-100hz.
I have all the parts on hand to make it happen but the high frequency portion is the most difficult part to narrow down for high spl performance, most natural dispersion characteristics, and durability.
Last edited:
uh, 4x8" into two 140mm holes? i wanna see that manifold.
about from using similar open back at the moment, it is bit hot power response wise. i think im gonna seal my rear radiating waves cause of that.
Its all about balance
Will probably only be two 8's. Still want to try it just for fun. It'll also put some unused drivers to work if it works. Compression ratio would be ok but reaching a clean 1.2k might be a stretch. Although Inverted dustcaps does make it a bit easier to fill the space in front of the cone.
I have had good results with 3.5" recycled cotton insulation directly behind dipole mids. Really cleans up rear wall reflections while maintaining controlled directivity.
I have had good results with 3.5" recycled cotton insulation directly behind dipole mids. Really cleans up rear wall reflections while maintaining controlled directivity.
Will give it a try and compare the differences. It's kind of interesting that the FMJ60 designed in tandem actually has a slightly wider angle than the entrance of the horn.
Ciare Daisy Shape FMJ-60 - YouTube @3:10
Last edited:
Some data on a horn. Off-axis response is similar to the XT1464(quick RTA check). I was hoping for less beaming in the top octave but it's still very controlled up to about 14khz. Must be a result of the conical exit.
Distortion is actually pretty good imo. This was a very loud sweep and probably the most I'll ever need out of them. Gives me flexibility in a nested horn effort. Will listen to this stack for a while and try the NEO745 later.
Distortion is actually pretty good imo. This was a very loud sweep and probably the most I'll ever need out of them. Gives me flexibility in a nested horn effort. Will listen to this stack for a while and try the NEO745 later.
Attachments
Been listening for a week now crossed at 1.2khz with semi-linear phase alignment. I don't have any desire to try anything else in the near future. Works well without a baffle if you have some kind of damping material on the mouth edge.
It's deceptively loud and clean in the highs while the 1200w mid channel is clipping the 98db/w 12" mid-bass. Excellent resolution I've only heard on good direct radiating domes up to now(Bliesma T34).
Will try the Radian when I finish cleaning shop. Wish I had beryllium domes to compare but I have no motivation to spend that much on them at this point.
It's deceptively loud and clean in the highs while the 1200w mid channel is clipping the 98db/w 12" mid-bass. Excellent resolution I've only heard on good direct radiating domes up to now(Bliesma T34).
Will try the Radian when I finish cleaning shop. Wish I had beryllium domes to compare but I have no motivation to spend that much on them at this point.