Hi, community.
What would you judge as the best (premium, but still somewhat affordable) 1" exit throat compression drivers of today? Along with a compact horn that would fit in a normal living room compatible speaker - meaning around 8" diameter max.
My first candidate pair would be an 18Sound NSD1095N on an XT120 horn. Probably hard to exceed that actually, according to its excellent Voice Coil test.
Regards
Stoneeh
What would you judge as the best (premium, but still somewhat affordable) 1" exit throat compression drivers of today? Along with a compact horn that would fit in a normal living room compatible speaker - meaning around 8" diameter max.
My first candidate pair would be an 18Sound NSD1095N on an XT120 horn. Probably hard to exceed that actually, according to its excellent Voice Coil test.
Regards
Stoneeh
I personally like the BMS 4552nd, it can be made sound very good in a domestic hifi.
The new B&C DH series drivers with fwd facing diaphragms might change everything for compact guides and home use…..time will tell once they’re in the wild. The tech is certainly interesting
I'd always prefer the Faital HF108 on the Visaton WG10. The HF108 can inherently he crossed low, even under 1k with a steep slope and lower SPL I successfully ran one.
Celestion cdx1-1430 is another great one, but can't be crossed under 1.8k unless you don't listen too loud. The Alu diaphragm makes the top end sound smooth, lively and plenty of detail. It only has a 35mm VC, so it won't go as low as the others.
Celestion cdx1-1430 is another great one, but can't be crossed under 1.8k unless you don't listen too loud. The Alu diaphragm makes the top end sound smooth, lively and plenty of detail. It only has a 35mm VC, so it won't go as low as the others.
There is a nice concise explanation of benefits of common materials at B&C Speakers website. Quoting:
So it depends on what you are looking for. For the best sound, I would stay with polyester (PET, Mylar) diaphragms. You can take a look at Lavoce drivers, I can recommend DN10.172M, it measures flat and has a very low distortion level. RCF ND350 could be on par. Celestion CDX1-1745 is also good when you want to save money.
Polyimid version DN10.172K goes slightly lower and has a rise at the top end, which indicates a controlled resonance. On the other hand, other polyimids and PEEKs are mostly somewhat peaky throughout the treble, such as Celestion CDX1-1747.
Check new RCF NDX495 and NDX595 (modified PEEK) too.
So it depends on what you are looking for. For the best sound, I would stay with polyester (PET, Mylar) diaphragms. You can take a look at Lavoce drivers, I can recommend DN10.172M, it measures flat and has a very low distortion level. RCF ND350 could be on par. Celestion CDX1-1745 is also good when you want to save money.
Polyimid version DN10.172K goes slightly lower and has a rise at the top end, which indicates a controlled resonance. On the other hand, other polyimids and PEEKs are mostly somewhat peaky throughout the treble, such as Celestion CDX1-1747.
Check new RCF NDX495 and NDX595 (modified PEEK) too.
Polyimide is not as clean as PEEK in the upper mids, which has higher internal damping properties, but handles less thermal stress. Regular polyester is a good compromise between the above mentioned two materials. What's slightly better yet is a combination of materials, so the diaphragms edge reflected radial resonances are better dampened.
The HF108 (non R) can play lower than most 1" outlet 44mm VC drivers, but youll need to add a few thousands of shims under the diaphragm for a little more clearance to the phase plug, otherwise it will bottom out at higher SPLs crossed lower than Faital's recommended spec. About 0.005" extra shim will do the job and won't noticeably raise THD. You can easily cross at 900 hz with a 3rd order slope, which also pushes the phase back far enough for better alignment of acoustic phase around xover overlap with a set back HF driver VC ie. when using a coax driver with rear mounted CD.
The Celestion CDX1-1745 sounds overall cleaner than the 1747 IMO. The difference between both is the diaphragm material - Polyimide for the 1747 and PEEK on the 1745. I'd avoid the screw on version CDs of the above models ( CDX1-1746 / 1748), as they add more throat depth and don't line up as well to the WG inlet as the bolt on models, plus most bolt on WGs have better strength and support for heavier drivers like these previously mentioned Celestions. The 1745 also can cross lower by a few hundred hz based on my previous experience with these drivers at roughly 1500 hz, but their very top end HF sounds a bit veiled in comparison to the HF108 (both versions). It should also be mentioned the 1745s I purchased had insufficient diaphragm clamping issues, showing up as noticeably higher distortion levels in the lower mids. To fix this, the rear chamber had to be sanded a little to increase clamping pressure. Not a major issue, but indicative of sloppy far east manufacturing. They're CDs are still great value for the cost, but they're not on the same quality level as Faital or B&C.
The RCF ND350 is a very clean performing CD. It has a very honest sound and doesn't hide as much being as smooth as it is.
The HF108 (non R) can play lower than most 1" outlet 44mm VC drivers, but youll need to add a few thousands of shims under the diaphragm for a little more clearance to the phase plug, otherwise it will bottom out at higher SPLs crossed lower than Faital's recommended spec. About 0.005" extra shim will do the job and won't noticeably raise THD. You can easily cross at 900 hz with a 3rd order slope, which also pushes the phase back far enough for better alignment of acoustic phase around xover overlap with a set back HF driver VC ie. when using a coax driver with rear mounted CD.
The Celestion CDX1-1745 sounds overall cleaner than the 1747 IMO. The difference between both is the diaphragm material - Polyimide for the 1747 and PEEK on the 1745. I'd avoid the screw on version CDs of the above models ( CDX1-1746 / 1748), as they add more throat depth and don't line up as well to the WG inlet as the bolt on models, plus most bolt on WGs have better strength and support for heavier drivers like these previously mentioned Celestions. The 1745 also can cross lower by a few hundred hz based on my previous experience with these drivers at roughly 1500 hz, but their very top end HF sounds a bit veiled in comparison to the HF108 (both versions). It should also be mentioned the 1745s I purchased had insufficient diaphragm clamping issues, showing up as noticeably higher distortion levels in the lower mids. To fix this, the rear chamber had to be sanded a little to increase clamping pressure. Not a major issue, but indicative of sloppy far east manufacturing. They're CDs are still great value for the cost, but they're not on the same quality level as Faital or B&C.
The RCF ND350 is a very clean performing CD. It has a very honest sound and doesn't hide as much being as smooth as it is.
Try this one, i think it sounds very good crossed above 2k.
https://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php-101.html?id=bms_4524
https://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php-101.html?id=bms_4524
I use 18Sound XT1086 and Celestion Cdx1-1720 and call it «TAD 2001 light». Yes, i had TAD 2001 before and have experience 🙂
High pass at 1400 Hz and Faitalpro 10pr300 4 Ohm with a LOT of EQ (dsp+biamp).
https://celestion.com/product/cdx1-1720/
High pass at 1400 Hz and Faitalpro 10pr300 4 Ohm with a LOT of EQ (dsp+biamp).
https://celestion.com/product/cdx1-1720/
Similarly, I am pleased with this horn from AliExpress - a copy of the horn used in Electro-Voice ELX112/ELX115. It is shallow (107 mm deep) with mostly conical flare which comes with lower efficiency at the low end but with good group delay since the roll-off is gradual as the frequency falls further with no abrupt attenuation below the cutoff point. Its directional behaviour is surprisingly good in both axes.
Here is a picture. The horn is made of plastic with textured front surface. Its mounting plate is not very thick so a heavy ferrite CD might need a support bracket.
Here is a picture. The horn is made of plastic with textured front surface. Its mounting plate is not very thick so a heavy ferrite CD might need a support bracket.
Subjectively, does the Celestion's sound character have a metallic aftertaste?
I asking because I don't have good experience with similar high-tier, poly surround + Ti diaphragm driver (18Sound ND1090 + XT120 horn).
Immedetialy answer: No, if correct implemented.
But:
Thats my biggest HiFi «to be or not to be» question:
Is beryllium sounding smoother than titanium/aluminum if breakup are out of mye hearing frequency (up to 13000 Hz, 54 year old)?????
I have JBL2451 with Truextent beryllium in my horn system. I also had in my different systems before TAD2001, Radian 475 beryllum and Bliesma T34BE. I have many time listened to TAD4001/2001 and even 4003/2002 huge systems. And lately Bliesma T34BE in waveguide in MTM with Bliesma beryllium midrange dome. Last weekend i even listened to Perlisten inwall speaker with beryllium dome.
Oh man i like beryllium. But maybee correct implemented titanium also sounds almost the same? Could it be bias?
I tested Seas DXT vs Bliesma T34BE in some small two way i builded and they was very similar. So similar that i maybe could be fooled in a blind test. But i «feel» that beryllium have a «silk oil church bell sound».
(And for the record, i choose Seas original paper woofer and not Audio Note 🤭)
But:
Thats my biggest HiFi «to be or not to be» question:
Is beryllium sounding smoother than titanium/aluminum if breakup are out of mye hearing frequency (up to 13000 Hz, 54 year old)?????
I have JBL2451 with Truextent beryllium in my horn system. I also had in my different systems before TAD2001, Radian 475 beryllum and Bliesma T34BE. I have many time listened to TAD4001/2001 and even 4003/2002 huge systems. And lately Bliesma T34BE in waveguide in MTM with Bliesma beryllium midrange dome. Last weekend i even listened to Perlisten inwall speaker with beryllium dome.
Oh man i like beryllium. But maybee correct implemented titanium also sounds almost the same? Could it be bias?
I tested Seas DXT vs Bliesma T34BE in some small two way i builded and they was very similar. So similar that i maybe could be fooled in a blind test. But i «feel» that beryllium have a «silk oil church bell sound».
(And for the record, i choose Seas original paper woofer and not Audio Note 🤭)
Last edited:
Okay, then what is the correct implementation of the CDX1-1720 to not sound Ti typical harsh/metallic? If I may ask.
A pleasent target curve is the main answer.
An 1 inch drivers break up is above 50 years old mens hearing.
BUT, one reservation is that beryllium have this smooth silky oil quality that alu/titan lacks.
An 1 inch drivers break up is above 50 years old mens hearing.
BUT, one reservation is that beryllium have this smooth silky oil quality that alu/titan lacks.
Okay, this could easily be the key.
Btw I tried everything that I could with the ND1090 but it never sounded acceptable to my ears and no matter what curve I used. Probably because what bothered me was not a frequency response problem.
The breakup in the HF may be above the human ear's range, but it can modulate down into the audible range and raise IMD. How much its raised depends on the SPL and diaphragm internal dampening properties.
There are substantial differences between the composition of Alu alloys used in diaphragms. Each one has a specific sound of its own around the breakup region. The Alu used by Celestion is on the softer side of sound. In the case of the CDX1-1425/1430, it has an Alu alloy diaphragm but it also has a polymer surround to dampen most of the breakup, so the combination of materials can make a big difference.
There's much more to the overall sound signature produced by various diaphragm materials. Some diaphragms have tapered thicknesses, reinforcement embossing, coatings and geometric shape profiles, which all affect sound. Titanium is the most lively sounding material with the most breakup modes, but is used due to its durability when operating at high SPLs. Alu generally sounds cleaner than Ti, at least to my ears.
There are substantial differences between the composition of Alu alloys used in diaphragms. Each one has a specific sound of its own around the breakup region. The Alu used by Celestion is on the softer side of sound. In the case of the CDX1-1425/1430, it has an Alu alloy diaphragm but it also has a polymer surround to dampen most of the breakup, so the combination of materials can make a big difference.
There's much more to the overall sound signature produced by various diaphragm materials. Some diaphragms have tapered thicknesses, reinforcement embossing, coatings and geometric shape profiles, which all affect sound. Titanium is the most lively sounding material with the most breakup modes, but is used due to its durability when operating at high SPLs. Alu generally sounds cleaner than Ti, at least to my ears.
Thanks for the active feedback guys.
The RCF ND350 was named twice in this thread. It performed well in JustDIY's large 1" comp. driver comparison. It is also currently available for a good offer at one of my favorite stores. So I suppose I'd like to test it.
I'm looking at coupling it to the H100 horn. Does anyone have any comment on that combination? Anything to speak against it?
I am also open to a 3D printed horn. I am able to print to up to 25 cm (10 inch) corner length.
The RCF ND350 was named twice in this thread. It performed well in JustDIY's large 1" comp. driver comparison. It is also currently available for a good offer at one of my favorite stores. So I suppose I'd like to test it.
I'm looking at coupling it to the H100 horn. Does anyone have any comment on that combination? Anything to speak against it?
I am also open to a 3D printed horn. I am able to print to up to 25 cm (10 inch) corner length.