Came across this driver and it looks interesting on paper. Appears to have a nice flat mid band and reasonable efficiency, plus decent power handling. Contemplating on using this as a midrange in a large 3 way.
Anyone have experience with this driver.
Looking for some distortion measurements as well.
Anyone have experience with this driver.
Looking for some distortion measurements as well.
Attachments
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/297-106--morel-tscm-634-spec-sheet.pdf
Do you mean this midrange model? I tried them; they are certainly very well built but for the money; I didn't think that they were anything special at all. In fact, they sounded rather dull and lifeless to me. I am very partial to the SB Satori MR16 mid (also the MW16 MW). In my opinion, the MR16 is way more open, engaging, revealing of the finer details, etc. If you do want to try the Morel; ask the supplier if they offer a full refund if you don't like them. That is exactly what I did; I sent the Morels back and got the Satoris instead. There are some positive reviews on this Morel as well as the Satori. Don't just take my word, wait for others to chime in...FWIW
Do you mean this midrange model? I tried them; they are certainly very well built but for the money; I didn't think that they were anything special at all. In fact, they sounded rather dull and lifeless to me. I am very partial to the SB Satori MR16 mid (also the MW16 MW). In my opinion, the MR16 is way more open, engaging, revealing of the finer details, etc. If you do want to try the Morel; ask the supplier if they offer a full refund if you don't like them. That is exactly what I did; I sent the Morels back and got the Satoris instead. There are some positive reviews on this Morel as well as the Satori. Don't just take my word, wait for others to chime in...FWIW
I've used the TSCW636 woofers, and can inform that the midrange does not have higher HD. In fact, they've measured lower than any other midbass driver I've measured. I've attached the HD of a setup with the CAW634 as a comparison. (Not sure what the anomalie at 550Hz is, but the image contained it.)
The TSCM is an underhung driver, so the operation is a bit different, likely lending towards lower HD.
As to the Rohacell cones sounding less dynamic than a well designed paper cone, I can understand that mentality or opinion. However, carbon fiber cones are known for a dryer sound in general, and I get a deeper soundstage with the TSCW than with most everything else I've tried. The spaces between the notes are well damped and blacker with less noise. The Satori are not bad by any stretch and represent a great value, but the lower HD of the Supremes really set them apart in the midrange.
Later,
Wolf
The TSCM is an underhung driver, so the operation is a bit different, likely lending towards lower HD.
As to the Rohacell cones sounding less dynamic than a well designed paper cone, I can understand that mentality or opinion. However, carbon fiber cones are known for a dryer sound in general, and I get a deeper soundstage with the TSCW than with most everything else I've tried. The spaces between the notes are well damped and blacker with less noise. The Satori are not bad by any stretch and represent a great value, but the lower HD of the Supremes really set them apart in the midrange.
Later,
Wolf
Attachments
Thanks for the in depth analogy. Obviously we listen with our ears and its better to hear an educated listeners personal opinion than looking at a bunch of graphs and numbers.
It appears the TSCW/TSCM drivers are good at low level resolution, which is what I'm after. Most "interesting" sounding cone drivers get rough and cluttered sounding when pushed hard. I like paper drivers but most of them tend to have too much of this personality of their own. I want a driver that sounds the same at all volume levels. Underhung drivers usually have low THD in the lower midbass depending on how linear the motor system is. There was one guy on the parts express website who said he had repeat mechanical failures on multiple TSCM634s. If the motor system is very linear, i would tend to say it just behaved that way to a fault and ripped the suspension due to being pushed too hard. I would attribute that to operator error.
I really like some of the higher end Morel drivers. The CAT378 is my favorite 1" dome. I bet it would go well with the TSCM/TSCW drivers.
It appears the TSCW/TSCM drivers are good at low level resolution, which is what I'm after. Most "interesting" sounding cone drivers get rough and cluttered sounding when pushed hard. I like paper drivers but most of them tend to have too much of this personality of their own. I want a driver that sounds the same at all volume levels. Underhung drivers usually have low THD in the lower midbass depending on how linear the motor system is. There was one guy on the parts express website who said he had repeat mechanical failures on multiple TSCM634s. If the motor system is very linear, i would tend to say it just behaved that way to a fault and ripped the suspension due to being pushed too hard. I would attribute that to operator error.
I really like some of the higher end Morel drivers. The CAT378 is my favorite 1" dome. I bet it would go well with the TSCM/TSCW drivers.
FWIW, I had a mechanical failure on one of the initial pair I purchased as well. It's like the inside magnet shifted or something, and the coil/cone assembly was then at an angular operation. I don't know what caused it. I have heard another person did a commission build with them and had a DOA unit. Basically scratching or rubbing during excursion was the result. Mine was under warranty, and nothing untoward has happened with the replacement. I'm wondering if the copper sleeve came loose or something, but I was not allowed to disassemble to find out for warranty replacement.
Later,
Wolf
Later,
Wolf
I respect Wolf's opinion but I had the opposite experience. Maybe Morel has made some updates??? My TSCM mids just lacked definition and resolution, I found them very boring. I don't think mine had any defects. I gave them a full week to break in but they never really improved so maybe there was a lot that didn't meet specs or something. I was disappointed for sure because I thought the cone material would be better than most other designs. Quite possible something was just "off" with mine. Like I said earlier, don't just take my word. Also, if you do get them, make sure you can send them back if your experience is like mine...
Still on the fence about getting a pair, but if I do it will be from a reputable place. I pretty much exhausted all the paper cone options out there and for now ended up with b&c paper drivers. Efficiency is a tad low for my needs but I could make it work depending on HP filter Q. I'll let you guys know if I end up getting some TSCMs.
It was 2016 when I got the defective unit, so 5 years ago...
Got them from Meniscus. I used the TSCW, not the TSCM.
I do think the Textreme Satori will be in the same ballpark; dry, and very clean. This is how carbon fiber sounds.
FWIW, I did not like the SB Rohacell cone drivers. The Morels were much better.
Later,
Wolf
Got them from Meniscus. I used the TSCW, not the TSCM.
I do think the Textreme Satori will be in the same ballpark; dry, and very clean. This is how carbon fiber sounds.
FWIW, I did not like the SB Rohacell cone drivers. The Morels were much better.
Later,
Wolf
Wolf, so by "dry" do you mean "uncolored"? I was expecting that exact quality; natural, neutral, not adding anything artificial or taking away for that matter. There is an old saying about the perfect amplifier. A straight wire with gain. Well, we would like to have our drivers be that way as well. Pure reproduction...zero distortion; zero "coloring"...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.