Looks like the standard 75mm ATC mid to me. I'm not aware of any current production 100mm ATC mid domes.
Edit * upon further inspection, it could be a custom run or 3rd party design from ATC - I've seen this once before, but I'd be very skeptical as to their authenticity based on some other ripoffs I've come across. I bought some used 75s from a guy in Canada, one of which had 2 different sized fastener threads on the front flange. I sent one to ATC and they decided to keep it for closer inspection, claiming it was a fake.
Even if so, the acoustic upper cutoff on it would be around 2.5k and that wouldn't mate well with a 25mm tweeter, even with steep cutoff filters.
If anyone feels adventurous, I'd be tempted by this despite its origin and blatant ripoff. ATC could do licensing agreements on their 75mm mids to make it worth their while and at the same time make it less lucrative to produce Chinese copies. I wonder how much different (worse) this driver is than the original -
https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256804459287626.html
Attachments
Last edited:
Is this any good?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GAS8U20?ref_=cm_sw_r_apan_dp_2WFCTKAF69J85KKECPVR&language=en-US
This cheap Peerless was mentioned?
8,6 mm dome from what I can see on low resolution spec sheet.
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/peerless-by-tymphany-gbs-115n25al01-04.html
Cheers!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GAS8U20?ref_=cm_sw_r_apan_dp_2WFCTKAF69J85KKECPVR&language=en-US
This cheap Peerless was mentioned?
8,6 mm dome from what I can see on low resolution spec sheet.
https://www.soundimports.eu/en/peerless-by-tymphany-gbs-115n25al01-04.html
Cheers!
Last edited:
Yes, here, Post 219.
These are "disguised" cones with small 1" voice coils. Low power, low efficiency but still interesting!
79.99 is msrp? For the Powerbass:
https://powerbassusa.com/products/mobile-audio/2XL-3M 3-Soft-dome -Midrange/
https://powerbassusa.com/products/mobile-audio/2XL-3M 3-Soft-dome -Midrange/
No it is not. The ATC 100mm dome never made it into production as far as I am aware. I also thought the Boxer used a copy of the ATC 75mm dome identified by have four baffle mounting bolts instead of three?
It should also be understood that a significant part of the (wholly justified) folklore surrounding the ATC dome is as a result of its high reliability even in the most demanding high power applications. Such performance results not only from its design, but significantly also from ATC's proprietary manufacturing processes too. Just because it looks similar, does not mean it will perform the same - it certainly does mean it will last the same!
@soundbloke Yes, fully agree that a book can't be judged by its cover. Cheap Chinese knockoff stuff isn't going to use the same quality adhesives, materials and processes which by themselves and together will affect performance. The reputation of this ATC mid dome is proven from the many years its been in production.
You are however trading the last ounce of resolution for reliability and the double suspension has its pluses and minuses in that regard when comparing it with single suspension domes.
The main drawback of using a spider is unavoidable resonances affecting resolution and low level detail. In all sincerity, this driver's forte is its dynamic range and durability.
The Bliesma M74A/B are overall better performing drivers where it counts with superior detail and depth to the ATCs. I'd rate the D7608 better in those areas as well. The cost of the ATC is also outrageous for what you get in return and the final Achilles heel is its massive footprint, making tight CTC spacing difficult.
For these reasons alone I prefer the D7608 despite its drawbacks, which are not that significant if you don't need the last word in bandwidth or SPL. I've lived with the ATCs, Volts and ScanSpeak mids in various speakers I've owned over the years and came to the conclusion that I prefer the ScanSpeak and Bliesma (A and B version) for resolution and detail.
The D7608 is overall the smoothest and easiest to listen to for my ears. The PMCs I had with the D7608s sounded very open and transparent and had sufficient output in most mid field setup situations.
The Bliesma M74A/B are the most accurate 3" domes with the best being the Alu version. The Silk version is good too, but for the same price the M74A is a much better deal while oddly still being smoother. Its breakup peak is very easily dealt with, much more so than the M74B. I'd use the Be version with active filtering and supplement a passive HF notch to keep spurious DSP transient artifacts from exciting the breakup area.
You are however trading the last ounce of resolution for reliability and the double suspension has its pluses and minuses in that regard when comparing it with single suspension domes.
The main drawback of using a spider is unavoidable resonances affecting resolution and low level detail. In all sincerity, this driver's forte is its dynamic range and durability.
The Bliesma M74A/B are overall better performing drivers where it counts with superior detail and depth to the ATCs. I'd rate the D7608 better in those areas as well. The cost of the ATC is also outrageous for what you get in return and the final Achilles heel is its massive footprint, making tight CTC spacing difficult.
For these reasons alone I prefer the D7608 despite its drawbacks, which are not that significant if you don't need the last word in bandwidth or SPL. I've lived with the ATCs, Volts and ScanSpeak mids in various speakers I've owned over the years and came to the conclusion that I prefer the ScanSpeak and Bliesma (A and B version) for resolution and detail.
The D7608 is overall the smoothest and easiest to listen to for my ears. The PMCs I had with the D7608s sounded very open and transparent and had sufficient output in most mid field setup situations.
The Bliesma M74A/B are the most accurate 3" domes with the best being the Alu version. The Silk version is good too, but for the same price the M74A is a much better deal while oddly still being smoother. Its breakup peak is very easily dealt with, much more so than the M74B. I'd use the Be version with active filtering and supplement a passive HF notch to keep spurious DSP transient artifacts from exciting the breakup area.
Don't forget that the current specification ATC dome performs significantly better than those still available to the DIYer. As for ranking drivers in respect of different areas of performance, I would suggest we are on shaky ground. There is another thread on the forum discussing that very subject, where the conclusions appear only slightly less opaque than they were at the start
Not quite IMO, because power compression of drivers/speakers is still a thing and with low efficiency drivers this usually occurs at lower SPL than with higher efficient ones. And lower eff. drivers do sounds different than higher eff. ones if someone cares about this.
What is the current specification of the ATC?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I thought SM75-150S is no longer available to the DIYer.
The current specification has a different motor that substantially reduces current-dependent non-linearities.
I also apologise for any confusion my earlier message caused. What I intended to say was that the revised domes have never been available for DIYers and their introduction was actually the point at which the SM75-150S was removed from sale.
As pointed out numerous times before ( ), the ferrite motor is responsible for large CTC distance with the tweeter.
Heat absorbing capability of the ferrite motor might be advantageous in rough studio environments, but for domestic use a smaller neodymium motor is more attractive.
), the ferrite motor is responsible for large CTC distance with the tweeter.Heat absorbing capability of the ferrite motor might be advantageous in rough studio environments, but for domestic use a smaller neodymium motor is more attractive.
The gigantic motor is also the reason why this beast has to be rear mounted.
In a high performance low-signature cabinet, rear mounting makes things very complicated. First it means that the baffle that the mid is mounted into is limited to 18 mm thick. All my recent baffles have been 36 mm. Second, it means that either the baffle must be removable, or the rear wall must be removable. In my view, removable cabinet walls are a major complication because it is very difficult to maintain the high structural stiffness and effective load transfer through all the bracing. We must rely on mechanical fasteners rather than adhesive bonds, and adhesive bonds are more effective.
To me, this is the major drawback of the gigantic motor on both the Volt and the ATC. The driver spacing issue is not so important to me, because I would use a 1.2x wavelength criteria, and at 3k I think it would be fine. But rear mounting is almost a non-starter for me.
In a high performance low-signature cabinet, rear mounting makes things very complicated. First it means that the baffle that the mid is mounted into is limited to 18 mm thick. All my recent baffles have been 36 mm. Second, it means that either the baffle must be removable, or the rear wall must be removable. In my view, removable cabinet walls are a major complication because it is very difficult to maintain the high structural stiffness and effective load transfer through all the bracing. We must rely on mechanical fasteners rather than adhesive bonds, and adhesive bonds are more effective.
To me, this is the major drawback of the gigantic motor on both the Volt and the ATC. The driver spacing issue is not so important to me, because I would use a 1.2x wavelength criteria, and at 3k I think it would be fine. But rear mounting is almost a non-starter for me.