4 inch Midranges - Price Performance ?

[Charles Darwin]

FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | 4FE32

Here you go.
Not as efficient but twice the Xmax. £20each or £15 for the ferrite version.

Haven't used these but the 5FE120 is clearly a better driver than the 5" aerogel Audax so I'm extrapolating.

 

[hollowboy]

I love my Scanspeak 6.5" but would rather spend Discovery prices.

I'm wondering if you kind folks have any experience in cost saving and performance of the current crop from SB, SS, etc?

I've picked up a few 3-6" mids. I'm interested in wideband use (quasi full range) so might have different priorities. From best to worst cost : performance

https://www.vfmaudio.com.au/19776/F...A-DJ-Subwoofer-Speaker-8-Ohm-160-Watt-Woofer/
A very good Audax clone

The P Audio 4" is similarly good. Only 3 of my 4 match spec (one has a weak magnet / high Qts, and is 2dB low).

To stick with Scanspeak, the 15M works fine for not much cash. Very extended. I'm not sure I like their HF, though.

P Audio 3" is fine and seems to have lots more xmax / capability than the spec suggests. However, it seems relatively overpriced (the 4" is better value), and if I recall correctly, TSP don't match spec.

Fostex FF105WK do match spec and could be OK as a bandpassed mid but the HF and value aren't great

 

[JonBocani]

My favorite PRICE/performance is the Visaton FR 10.

My Favorite Price/PERFORMANCE would be the Faital Pro 4fe32.

Both are actually pretty cheap.

 

[JonBocani]

Another thing, if you're EQing them and use within their mechanical limits (so not as sub/woofers...) you basically won't be able to tell any of them apart, as per the blind test i made recently. So then why not take the most efficient ? The Faital would probably win then.

 

[hollowboy]

Another thing, if you're EQing them and use within their mechanical limits (so not as sub/woofers...) you basically won't be able to tell any of them apart, as per the blind test i made recently. So then why not take the most efficient ? The Faital would probably win then.

This seems valid (with the caveat that Jon's tests were >400Hz, so maybe slightly different priorities).

1) I meant to say, I am not too interested in deep bass from this, so it is OK with me if it cuts off early.

2) The problem is sensitivity and power limits.

3) Lots of output, power handling, and off axis extension out to 3-4kHz

4) I know the M to W distance will be unusually large.

Points 1 and 4 seem to be in conflict. A large M to W distance means you'd want the mid to go fairly low.

That, plus the points about sensitivity, output and power handling imply that you should go with the biggest / highest output driver that satisfies the off axis response criteria.

Out of what has been named, the FaitalPRO 5FE120 5" (or similar midbass) seems like the way to get max output / crossover ~100Hz.

The ScanSpeak 15M (or similar mid with decent xmax) would be the winner if you needed more efficiency / crossover ~200Hz.

 

[eriksquires]

Hi Hollow,

I meant to say, I am not looking for 40Hz here. Anywhere from 100 to 200 Hz is probably fine for a lower cut-off.

So long as the 100Hz - 20kHz range is handled by drivers which are close together, I would be quite happy putting a woofer in a couple of feet away from the mid.

 

[eriksquires]

BTW, I think I have given up on the 4". I'm really kind of entranced by the 5" FaitalPRO line. really nice extension AND dispersion.

 

[suzyj]

I'm fond of the SB acoustics ones. Specifically I'm using the SB12NRX as a mid-bass. The polycone NRX has quite low distortion from 200Hz to around 3KHz - just right for a mid.

As a bonus they do a few different speakers in the 4" size that have common mounting holes, so you can play.

 

[peteki]

The Audax HM100ZO. 4" cone is a possibility. Its response is quite flat over the midrange

 

[Charles Darwin]

Out of curiosity which woofer and tweeter are you eying up to use if any?

 

[adason]

I have recently build MTM with TC9Fd...if one 3.5" mid is not enough for power handling, two can be just fine.
Check out this:MTM with TC9fd

Then I was doing 5FE100 with Neo3 as bookshelf, and faitalpro needed little work, even spec looks great.

I used AT130F1 (5.25") with ribbon tweeter...very successful bookshelf project.

Then there is 6FE200, amazing mid you take up to 5kHz, used it in many projects.

 

[Mario Pankov]

Hi Hollow,
Anywhere from 100 to 200 Hz is probably fine for a lower cut-off.

So long as the 100Hz - 20kHz range is handled by drivers which are close together, I would be quite happy putting a woofer in a couple of feet away from the mid.

While you can cross a 4" mid at 100Hz or even 200hz, you should not in general. Measure one and look up at its distortion plot to find out why.

 

[Bill poster]

Also consider the Dayton CF120, a carbon fibre midwoofer which is well specced/built and great value. If also looks stunning. Several builds using it on PE

 

[hollowboy]

While you can cross a 4" mid at 100Hz or even 200hz, you should not in general. Measure one and look up at its distortion plot to find out why.

I looked up a couple of (slightly larger) drivers, the 15M I mentioned earlier, and the 4.5" Dayton that Bill Poster just mentioned. These are images from Voice Coil.

The Dayton midbass level was "a 2.83 V/1 m impulse response" (about 86dB) ...and it has ~3% distortion under 1kHz, rising sharply below 200Hz.

The 15M level was "setting the SPL to 94 dB at 1 m (1.16 V) using a pink noise stimulus" ...and it has ~1% distortion under 1kHz, rising sharply below 200Hz.

So: it looks like both units are suitable for a 200Hz crossover, but the 15M looks a jillion times better, with 1/3 the distortion when played 8dB louder.

Am I interpreting these graphs (and signal levels) correctly?

 

[Bill poster]

Thanks for posting. I hadnt realised the 3rd harmonic was that high on the cf120. What a shame. Whats causing it?

 

[Scottmoose]

Insufficient copper in the motor I imagine. They say it's got a copper cap, but that's not going to match full symmetric drive. In fairness, this is not an expensive driver, so a state of the art motor is probably asking a bit much along with everything else if they're to make any profit. That said you can see some resonances in the impedance plot also, so there may be some cone / suspension issues creeping in between 700Hz - 2.2KHz.

 

[Bill poster]

Insufficient copper in the motor I imagine. They say it's got a copper cap, but that's not going to match full symmetric drive. In fairness, this is not an expensive driver, so a state of the art motor is probably asking a bit much along with everything else if they're to make any profit.

Yeah I guess for the price. I have a pair of these and not sure what to use them for now

 

[hollowboy]

Yeah I guess for the price. I have a pair of these and not sure what to use them for now

Did you like them before you saw the graph? If they sound OK, they are OK

The thing that surprises me is: if you were designing to minimise HD, particularly 3rd and higher order, you'd cross either driver at ~200Hz. This is despite one being a midbass (Fs ~50Hz), and the other a pure mid (Fs ~100Hz).

The usual rule of thumb is Fs times X (where X depends on crossover slope and stuff).

 

[Scottmoose]

Yeah I guess for the price. I have a pair of these and not sure what to use them for now

Well, they're a reasonable enough driver, especially for the money, and even most Scan Revelators have a surround edge-resonance around 1KHz. If you're expecting / wanting absolute perfection, you wont find in at < $30. You'll have to pay for it. Accutons for e.g., or for a goodly amount of the performance for less money, Dayton's aluminium cone RS series with steep filters to ensure the HD products of their large bell modes don't affect the passband.

 

[Bill poster]

I feel a bit silly now recommending them.. they seem to do everything ok apart from the highish distortion, which I completely missed.