Dayton 5.25" AL vs. Dayton 5.25 paper for Lo-Mid opinions?

[netgeek]

If anyone here has any experience with the Dayton 5.25" Aluminum and the regular Dayton 5.25" - any noticeable differences? I want to use one or the other in a Lo/Mid application (i.e. from around 125 Hz to 2400Hz) and I'm wondering if the AL model might give better midrange performance (?).

The AL model can be found here: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshow...number=295-330

and the regular model can be seen here: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshow...number=295-301

Any opinions (however misguided or biased ) regarding the two (or aluminum-cone drivers in general) is most appreciated. Are there any advantages to the stiffer AL cone?
Thanks,
Bill

[454Casull]

Is there a reason you are restricting yourself to those drivers?

[netgeek]

Originally posted by 454Casull
Is there a reason you are restricting yourself to those drivers?

Yes. It's not a great reason because I realize that there are a great number of possibly better choices. But, my project is really a multi-stage experiment. At the start, I want to experiment with using active xovers and individual (e.g. "gainclone type") amps just to see what can be done. Eventually, I want to also try using a dsp-based xover/eq in place of the analog xovers. It's really just for "educational" purposes.

So, there are several reasons for sticking with the Dayton drivers. First, they're inexpensive (I can toast lots of them if need be
). Second, they're ubiqitious - consider the BR-1's, Dayton Budgets, Dayton IIIs, et. al..... That provides some point of reference and comparison - since many folks know what they sound like and have certain expectations regarding that. It should be easy to compare my results with some "known" quantity. Finally, the real goal is to try and see just how much can really be extracted from really inexpensive drivers - i.e. what are the limits, how much can be gained, at what cost/effort, etc. and what are the tradeoffs?

I'm not looking to build my personal "killer" set of speakers - or even anything near "ideal" at this point - I'd just like to see what's involved with some of the more "modern" techniques in order to try and get a feel for what's worth doing (or NOT worth doing) - and starting with inexpensive drivers that are "known" seems to be a reasonable thing to do - especially since they're CHEAP (so mistakes and other screw-ups don't cause much pain )...

I was thinking of using the AL drivers (and really controlling the passband tightly - to the mentioned 125 - 2400 Hz) as a first step in improving the midrange (maybe ). Seems that as long as I stay out of the area where there's breakup, the mids should be much better than using the "standard" driver - which seems to be an area of criticism for the BR1's and others.

So, the question remains on the table - any opinions on the use of AL-cone drivers?

Thanks,

Bill

[454Casull]

I would probably stay with the paper-coned Dayton. The frequency response is easier to control, seeing as there's no breakup, and there isn't a broad peak at 1.5kHz like the Al-coned driver.

Besides, the aluminum-coned Dayton has a pretty high distortion level. http://mfk-projects.com/7_in_test.htm

[netgeek]

Originally posted by 454Casull
I would probably stay with the paper-coned Dayton. The frequency response is easier to control, seeing as there's no breakup, and there isn't a broad peak at 1.5kHz like the Al-coned driver.

Besides, the aluminum-coned Dayton has a pretty high distortion level. http://mfk-projects.com/7_in_test.htm

Thanks for the pointer - unfortunately, the description there is for the Dayton "Euro" drivers - not the same driver I'm talking about. As for the freq. response - since I'm going active at the start, that shouldn't be a problem. I can "brick-wall" the driver at whatever upper and lower limits I want. The PE site shows the freq. response curves for the driver and yes, it's pretty ugly beyond about 3k or so but I'd plan to keep it in the "sweet spot" which appears to be in the range I mentioned (i.e. 150 to 2400 Hz). My real question is whether the paper or AL driver will sound better in this narrow range...

[sreten]

Originally posted by netgeek
Any opinions (however misguided or biased ) regarding the
two (or aluminum-cone drivers in general) is most appreciated.
Are there any advantages to the stiffer AL cone?
Bill

Originally posted by netgeek
So, the question remains on the table
- any opinions on the use of AL-cone drivers?
Bill

Originally posted by netgeek
My real question is whether the paper or AL driver
will sound better in this narrow range...
Bill

In this particular case there does not seem to be any evidence that the
aluminium cone driver is particularly stiffer than the paper cone driver,
(note stiffness is very dependent on effective cone
thickness - 3rd or 4th power of thickness I believe)

There is a significant difference in sensitivity - and thus
distortion, as distortion is very related to input power level.

Both driver seem to enter break up mode between 1 and 2 KHz,
with the paper driver being more controlled in this region.

In this case I'd go for the paper driver of the two Daytons.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=299-431

Now the above driver has the sort of thing you seem to be looking for.

sreten.

[454Casull]

Originally posted by netgeek


Thanks for the pointer - unfortunately, the description there is for the Dayton "Euro" drivers - not the same driver I'm talking about. As for the freq. response - since I'm going active at the start, that shouldn't be a problem. I can "brick-wall" the driver at whatever upper and lower limits I want. The PE site shows the freq. response curves for the driver and yes, it's pretty ugly beyond about 3k or so but I'd plan to keep it in the "sweet spot" which appears to be in the range I mentioned (i.e. 150 to 2400 Hz). My real question is whether the paper or AL driver will sound better in this narrow range...

Sigh... The second entry is: Dayton Aluminum cone 7" PE# 295-335

I know it's not the same size, but its characteristics should be roughly the same.