I entered a table with drivers parameters, unfortunately I cant enter the response but I rated the responses from the ones that can be used without corrections to the ones which are almost impossible to correct the response.
The idea is to select a driver for maximum dynamics, resolution and true frequency response for the midrange of a 3 way.
The idea is to select a driver for maximum dynamics, resolution and true frequency response for the midrange of a 3 way.
Attachments
Last edited:
-You can't select a driver for maximum dynamics if you don't know for which f-range it's going to be used.
-You can't select a driver for maximum dynamics if you don't know its distortion, you have to measure it.
-You can't select a driver for maximum dynamics if you don't know its power capabilities.
-You can't select a driver for maximum frequency response if you don't know ..the frequency response..
- you have to measure it.-You can't select a driver for maximum frequency response if you don't know the dispersion pattern or what it's used for.
-You can't select a driver for maximum resolution if you don't know the f-response, impulse response, distortion on low and high spl
-You can't select a driver for maximum frequency response if you have to use maximum dynamics because the great excurse limits greatly the f-band you can use it up to (that applies to the upper aswell as the lower end).
-You can't select a driver for maximum dynamic without knowing what enclosure type and size you can/want to use. Or the room size.
-You can't select a driver purely from the parameters.
-You can't select a driver without knowing its partners (unless it's a fullrange but it's probably not one since this is the multi-way forum).
The woofer or sub is taking care of low end
All drivers specs have acceptable THDs
All drivers specs have good power ability from 30 watts to 300 watts, all acceptable due to sensitivity , 30 watts at 92 db and 100 watts at 88 is equivalents, so they all play acceptable to modern home standards, not for PA.
The Fq response I which I could put all the graphs, but I resumed to a simple description with drivers which don't need any XO corrections to those which cannot be corrected and will be not flat, in the middle there are those with just a small bump or dip which is easy to fix and those with 2 or 3 defects and those with very complicated to fix responses.
The partners are not a concern right now. Just the most critical sound from 100 hz to 2000hz , lets presume the bass is taken care off and a great tweeter can cover from 2khz.
(ps. as diys we have to choose at one point on parameters, review, kits etc., I have been in a room with all the B&W models from the low end to the 805D 804, 803, 802 and the PSB most expensive towers, I listened to each speaker with my reference materials, however this is not how you can do with DIY, get like 12 expensive speakers with their matching tweeter and woofers with best enclosures and 100 years of XO matching in anechoic chamber and then pick your poison to build... we have to look at parameters and make compromises like : active XO, complex passive XO, simple XO with ragged Fq, or just a bad speaker, and go to the next build!)
Just from the parameters...
All drivers specs have acceptable THDs
All drivers specs have good power ability from 30 watts to 300 watts, all acceptable due to sensitivity , 30 watts at 92 db and 100 watts at 88 is equivalents, so they all play acceptable to modern home standards, not for PA.
The Fq response I which I could put all the graphs, but I resumed to a simple description with drivers which don't need any XO corrections to those which cannot be corrected and will be not flat, in the middle there are those with just a small bump or dip which is easy to fix and those with 2 or 3 defects and those with very complicated to fix responses.
The partners are not a concern right now. Just the most critical sound from 100 hz to 2000hz , lets presume the bass is taken care off and a great tweeter can cover from 2khz.
(ps. as diys we have to choose at one point on parameters, review, kits etc., I have been in a room with all the B&W models from the low end to the 805D 804, 803, 802 and the PSB most expensive towers, I listened to each speaker with my reference materials, however this is not how you can do with DIY, get like 12 expensive speakers with their matching tweeter and woofers with best enclosures and 100 years of XO matching in anechoic chamber and then pick your poison to build... we have to look at parameters and make compromises like : active XO, complex passive XO, simple XO with ragged Fq, or just a bad speaker, and go to the next build!)
Just from the parameters...
Last edited:
Well, that would not meet my idea of maximum dynamics. At all. And there you have it already, completely different standards. If I think about a speaker with maximum dynamic, I'd start at being capable of 110dB at least. Not that I often listen to that spl, rather the opposite but a maximum dynamic speaker has to be able to reproduce that spl and not cut of the peaks (because that happens already much earlier).
You cannot recognize how a driver sounds from the specs and data alone. Dips can only be 'fixed' by an complex active setup or DSP. You did not mention that you'd use one in the post before. But more importantly, you can neither fix the dispersion pattern nor the distortion levels with a DSP.
Yes, they are of concern. You can't use a bass driver that's louder than the tweeter in a passive setup because you'd change (increase) the the Q-factor if you introduce serial resistors. Besides the fact that it gives you a noticable up to a quite ugly bump, a lot of resolution is lost that way.
To the human ear, 100Hz is still not critical, that starts one or one and a half octaves higher. For best dynamics, resolution and sound quality I would not use 100Hz XO and go slightly higher. Around 100Hz is a mark for the xo of sat and sub though. But you did not mention that either.
The B&W 805D is expensive but not a good speaker. Have you ever heard them? Or seen measurements? The price tag was never granting good sound quality.
measurements from audio.com.pl
Attachments
Well, that would not meet my idea of maximum dynamics. At all. And there you have it already, completely different standards. If I think about a speaker with maximum dynamic, I'd start at being capable of 110dB at least. Not that I often listen to that spl, rather the opposite but a maximum dynamic speaker has to be able to reproduce that spl and not cut of the peaks (because that happens already much earlier).
You cannot recognize how a driver sounds from the specs and data alone. Dips can only be 'fixed' by an complex active setup or DSP. You did not mention that you'd use one in the post before. But more importantly, you can neither fix the dispersion pattern nor the distortion levels with a DSP.
Yes, they are of concern. You can't use a bass driver that's louder than the tweeter in a passive setup because you'd change (increase) the the Q-factor if you introduce serial resistors. Besides the fact that it gives you a noticable up to a quite ugly bump, a lot of resolution is lost that way.
To the human ear, 100Hz is still not critical, that starts one or one and a half octaves higher. For best dynamics, resolution and sound quality I would not use 100Hz XO and go slightly higher. Around 100Hz is a mark for the xo of sat and sub though. But you did not mention that either.
The B&W 805D is expensive but not a good speaker. Have you ever heard them? Or seen measurements? The price tag was never granting good sound quality.
measurements from audio.com.pl
If you read my post : I have been in a room with all the B&W models from the low end to the 805D 804, 803, 802 and the PSB most expensive towers, I listened to each speaker with my reference materials,
I never saw the response curve of the 805D until now, thank you for that, this confirms what I heard, very vivid details, but it was not unpleasant, just too much to impress a first listener. But I have to say that it is a good speaker and sounds better than the lesser models from B&W, the 804, 803 and 802 adds bass, they are all good, the 804 is very reserved, the 803 more neutral and the 802 is very fun to listen to the bass which is very dry. I didn't listen to the 802 with the best amps, which were NAD.
Take a close look at the SB Acoustics Satori line. I am using a MR16P-4 and really love it. I am using it almost fullrange (no filter on the low end at all) with a BW2 low-pass at 7400 Hz. OBVIOUSLY, most people would never use a 6 inch "midrange" driver that high up but it sounds like a fullrange driver so it's not as ridiculous as many might imagine it to be. Regardless, it will easily do your intended frequency band (I don't know about the maximum SPL). In fact, you might even consider the MW16P Satori which is a mid-bass driver for no higher than your crossover; the voice coil is longer so it will take way more power than the MR "midrange". For the money, the Satori line is very hard to beat (for high performance/relatively low cost)!
I would take a look at the B+C drivers (5" or 6.5") and Scan Speak (12/15/18cm size). I am a sucker for the Scan 8545 midwoofer.
I think maybe you are looking at drivers that tend to be more woofers than midwoofers, and since you don't need to play below 100hz, you could look at something more mid focused. Typically a driver that resonates below 50-60hz uses less controlled mass to produce LF. However if I'm forced to pick from your list without looking at FR graphs, I think the #9 Alnico is the most interesting. The high efficiency is indicative of a strong Bl/Mms ratio. The Xmax is a little low so you will need a strong high pass to limit the excursion but this driver should play the freq range you desire very accurately. It probably does not have a very flat FR but this is the trade off usually for cone control. In general you want: low inductance or you will see more high freq roll off, low Qes and high Qms for a more midrange driver. I agree the ScanSpeaks are great drivers and should be considered.
I asked if you've heard them because you made it sound like they would be some kind of goal to reach - which I found a bit ..surprising..
Well, a speaker has to perform on several criteria to be a long term good speaker and not just impress with some sensational effects because that becomes annoying or wearing pretty quickly. I've seen a lot of ppl were impressed by a short listening session and immediately buying speakers (among them B&W) and after a while they realized it's not the fidelity they really wanted. In the end they were frustrated and bought other speakers and the game repeats until they realize they need more criteria to be fulfilled to get 'their' speaker. The way you describe the B&W fleet reminds me a lot on that and the way you want to find the 'best' driver (via parameters and kinda vote) supports that pretty much unfortunately.
The problem is, that way you won't find it because you are looking at the wrong criteria. It's much better to look for a concept you like and/or for drivers match on your most important criteria. For me ie, it's mostly about realistic dynamics, room impression, resolution, homogeneity. Even if tonality isn't criteria #1 for me (dynamics is), a jump of 8dB in the response in less than an octave in the critical range of 2,5-4kHz poses a clean 'fail' to me.
Okay, I'm not the reference (and I wouldn't want that at all) and I don't want to convince you to follow others' preferences but you have to become sure about what you want and what your most important criteria are and where you're willing to take a compromise, ie size, price etc and where not (room, WAF, fullrange or multi-way, design, whatever, just examples). I'm sure, if you realize what your criteria are, what you most like and dislike in a speaker, at least the half of the drivers you've listed in the table would immediately fall off the list.
ICG, you are reading my mind, my criteria is a good FQ response to suit my taste, but I need dynamics, details, maybe I can sacrifice dynamics because I have so many amplifiers within hands reach which can match the speakers.
JM likes more #9, however #5 has a slightly less difficult response, smaller and double cone mass, SAME specified suspension and magnet force, it loses sensitivity 2x less sensitive for a slightly better FQ response.
The #9 i never heard it, the #5 is similar to what they use in Pro-ac Resp D48 which is good to me: very realistic decay, attack is super.
JM likes more #9, however #5 has a slightly less difficult response, smaller and double cone mass, SAME specified suspension and magnet force, it loses sensitivity 2x less sensitive for a slightly better FQ response.
The #9 i never heard it, the #5 is similar to what they use in Pro-ac Resp D48 which is good to me: very realistic decay, attack is super.
As I understand it, the dynamics of a speaker are hardly determined by the amplifier. At high cone excursion, dynamics are limited by the linear range of the voice coil excursion (Xmax). At low excursion, dynamics are limited by the mechanical losses (Qms), which tend to be non-linear at low cone excursion.
In general, I don't understand your approach of designing a loudspeaker. A good speaker is the result of a good system design, where the system is good at doing those things that you want from the speaker. Looking at single drivers only does not seem right to me (except if the speaker is going to be a single-driver design). I'd suggest you make a list of things that your speaker must do well, and others that are not important (here's an example). This will help a lot to guide your design.
In general, I don't understand your approach of designing a loudspeaker. A good speaker is the result of a good system design, where the system is good at doing those things that you want from the speaker. Looking at single drivers only does not seem right to me (except if the speaker is going to be a single-driver design). I'd suggest you make a list of things that your speaker must do well, and others that are not important (here's an example). This will help a lot to guide your design.
That describes it pretty good, there are just two things missing. The first thing is, the distortion is very important. Especally k3 and k5 are harsh sounding and can appear in some frequency range even if the Xmax is not reached at all. It's of no use if there are distortion peaks (especally k3 and k5) appearing above a certain spl.
The second thing is the voice coil size which results in different power limits. And it's of no use if the Xmax is high but the driver got such a low spl that it needs tons of power and goes into power compression. Or if the crossover coils become saturated. In general, amps sound a lot better well below their maximum power too. Or if the amp of choice only got a low power output (Tube amps anyone?), then you have ditch all the Xmax monsters with just 83dB spl.
A lot of small sat speakers and subwoofers can't reproduce authentic, dynamic drums, no matter how much power you are pumping into them.
I see it the same way. And even if you take the best woofer and the best tweeter, it's still not sounding good if the sound characteristics don't fit together, like some aluminium cone woofers paired with silk dome tweeters (not all are a mismatch though) or a super clean ribbon with a full range driver.
That's exactly what I mean!
I forgot one very important point: A high excursion and high bandwidth don't go well with each other, it produces intermodulation distortion. A typical conflict of interest. To solve that, a larger membrane surface is needed, which in turn causes beaming at lower frequencies than a smaller driver and impacts the choice of the tweeter. Those are not the only opposing criteria.
None of them is a dedicated driver for mids.
You need a mid driver not a midwoofer driver. According with this you can exclude the 10in and maybe 8in drivers.
SB Acoustics :: 61/2” SATORI MR16P-4
This is what I am using in one of my systems. Designed by former Scan-Speak Engineers; these are probably as good as the Illuminator series; they certainly have similar desirable design and build characteristics. As I said before; I am unsure of the maximum SPL. These sound as good to me as just about any driver I have ever heard; certainly not perfect but they out perform just about anything else out there especially when you consider the price range. Others have had similar listening experiences with these and have also given very favorable results. Because they have a shorter voice coil than their MW mid-bass stable mates; the transient response and higher frequencies are more mid or even full-range like than most any woofer would likely be. Just for what it's worth; certainly deserves serious consideration... Cheers!
The response sounds very flat to my ears; I do not notice any peaks or dips when listening to music of many different kinds. The MW mid-bass version has not as smooth of a response as the MR midrange. There were some refinements made from the MW to the MR but maybe they left the suspension alone? I read somewhere the gluing technique was improved for the MR version. Anyway; Most people that have reported on the midrange version can not detect any anomalies whatsoever.
Exactly and my bet is #5 will play lower than #9 so if you're looking for more punchy low end this is your choice. All of the drivers you've chosen seem quite capable but most are designed to get low enough to not need a sub. The only ones I don't like are 1, 2 and 10 because of the Qes
The frequency response in an enclosure is pretty much dependent on the baffle size (-> baffle step (there might be other helpful links) and placement on it, so there has to be some kind of equalization anyway.
The human ear is not sensitive to narrow dips, peaks however, are perceived very quickly and as quite an impact on the SQ. With the correct baffle size dips can be 'filled'.
Why? For a midrange the suspension copilance is not very important since the midrange drivers aren't used at their fs. There are quite some midrange drivers with 'soft' suspension to lower the resonance frequency and extend the lower usable frequency range. That's mostly only important to real high spl/high dynamics midrange drivers (none of which you did include in the table, i.e. the 8MC50ND8 or the 6MCF20ND8 or TF0818MR/).
Yes, ICG you have a good knowledge, only the 10' (#8) has a very stiff suspension and can play at high levels.
Isn't it true that when you have 'dips' everything else becomes a peak
I don't like are 1, 2 and 10 because of the Qes
What is the problem with high Qes? because I want to use the drivers in the optimal box, closed or vented; driver 1 has a Qts of 0.44, the suspension is mostly dictating the sound;#2is very puzzling to me because it has less sensitivity, maybe the alnico magnet is the determinant factor in construction between 1 and 2?
#10 is a driver specific for midrange with stiff suspension perfect for a closed box, and it has a no problem XO, just needs baffle compensation , impedance filter and 2nd order high/low pass
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.