Same here.
To my ears driver E sounded more neutral or accurate, but subjectively kept on preferring driver F - to use vague subjective terms, the music sounded more flowing on F, while with E just a slight bit more mechanical.
B and D didn't sound as good; though pleasant they did not have the level of detail or openness of E and F. Driver A sounded a bit bright.
+1
X, can you measure outdoors? It would be good to see a reflection free measurement of the drivers. Outdoors, 6-7 feet off the ground, mic at a distance of at least 5 times the width of the baffle, and away from any other reflecting surfaces is good enough to get an idea of the response down to 200 Hz. Or you could do a ground plane measurement indoors, if that's easier. I'm asking because there is a good 5-6 db step in the response between 600-700 Hz of all the drivers, except the PS95 (or is it the baffle step?). This would be very much audible, but I doubt it is in the actual response of the drivers. A clean measurement down to 200 Hz would reveal all.
Again, thanks for all your work!
Again, thanks for all your work!
Last edited:
Forthcoming when I get back to the speaker lab. I did not stress drivers to typical 90dB at 1m levels so HD may not be useful. I plan to do that for Round 5 now that I know it is of interest.
-- made my decision, TG9FD before the reference tracks were available and stubbornly stuck with it. With my headphones, TG9FD seemed to smooth out harsh harmonics of the squealing guitar while leaving a nice presentation on the male vocal. It sounded less like the (harsh) reference to me than several other drivers.
that little Dayton as GregB says is the cost effective winner and could be used to advantage with a K lens as illustrated by XRK971 in another thread - a passive low cost FAST would be nice. Would one want ~88-89dB woofer sensitivity - ?
that little Dayton as GregB says is the cost effective winner and could be used to advantage with a K lens as illustrated by XRK971 in another thread - a passive low cost FAST would be nice. Would one want ~88-89dB woofer sensitivity - ?
Now that the drivers are revealed, I think the PS95 is the true winner. Cuz i am cheap and it is only 23 bucks.
Lucky for me I prefer (by a large margin) the even cheaper TC9.
Impulse of PS95:
Impulse of TC9:
Combining this information with the fact that we "listened" to the PS95 at an off axis angle of 30 degree(!) is enough for me.
Different strokes for different folks I'm sure... I didn't like A on my headphones nor my arrays. Granted, the arrays are 50x TC9 so I am pretty biased.
Even 25x TC9 (with a lot of DSP power) is cleaner at 3 meter distance:
Last edited:
It's lower than the B80 was going. It was odd. I'm not at the computer but I can fft it later on if you want.
Thanks X,
It was fun
Is there a Scan Speak for each acurate rank winners ? (ahaaha not so bad for a first test and without having heard the true drivers nore having a headphone but an old 16 bits DAC ! If only it was a true Loto 
! )
Did you have the time to listen what I linked ? Any good for a test to come with new drivers
Which is the driver the closest to the PR Audio according to you ?
(PS : I knew for A : it was so a cheap sound, it could have been only a cheap driver.... ahahahha ! I half joke ! Seems the results were more a question of personal taste)
It was fun
Is there a Scan Speak for each acurate rank winners ?
(ahaaha not so bad for a first test and without having heard the true drivers nore having a headphone but an old 16 bits DAC ! If only it was a true Loto ! )Did you have the time to listen what I linked ? Any good for a test to come with new drivers
Which is the driver the closest to the PR Audio according to you ?
(PS : I knew for A : it was so a cheap sound, it could have been only a cheap driver.... ahahahha ! I half joke ! Seems the results were more a question of personal taste)
Although I picked the B80, I have a BIG smile on my face knowing that the TG9 has the flattest FR (since I've got them in several different systems I've built). The impulse response of the TC9 is quite good. What would be nice is to see non-linear distortion measurements at various levels. Thanks XRK for your efforts. It was a lot of fun.
That's a reasonable choice. An at 12 bux maybe this still is the bang/buck leader. None were dogs. Despite it being my least favorite overall, I thought it had the most balanced and listenable freq response. The others were all just slightly bright.
That's one thing the reveal revealed. It thought the TC9 was much clearer than the TG9, and I was honestly surprised that those two were from the same family.
Impulse response is certainly cleaner. Do you happen to have the TG9 too? I'd really like to hear all these in real life, as I implied in my earlier post.
The TC9 is 12 bucks. The TG9 is $22 bucks. These drivers have a minimal flange, allowing a tweeter to be mounted closer. Some of the drivers tested had wider flanges that would push the tweeter another half inch away. Having said that, with the TG9 I'm not real motivated to bother with a tweeter.
I built a system with an 8 inch kevlar woofer (closed box) and a TG9 mid/tweeter, bi-amp'd 4th order LR with X=500HZ, with an active EQ 10dB bump centered at 34 HZ (and fast rolloff below that), and I love it.
Thanks X,
It was fun
Is there a Scan Speak for each acurate rank winners ?
Did you have the time to listen what I linked ? Any good for a test to come with new drivers
Which is the driver the closest to the PR Audio according to you ?
(PS : I knew for A : it was so a cheap sound, it could have been only a cheap driver.... ahahahha ! I half joke ! Seems the results were more a question of personal taste)
If I had more 10F's I would give it to you for being the most accurate divinator of driver assignments.
You really did pretty much nail all of the drivers spot on. You did not name A though, but calling it "cheap" is almost correct. It was not the cheapest of the bunch.
I thought you used your slightly souped up Boston Acoustics Lynnfield 500's to listen? Those are supposed to have some very revealing aluminum cone drivers.
I don't have the TG9. I almost chose that one for my line arrays. But after investigating every comparison I could find online I relied on the fact that I always seem to come back to enjoying paper coned speakers. So I got 2 TC9's to test and the rest is history.
I do have a set of the 10F waiting for a nice project... earlier in this thread are some ideas of what I would like to do with them. They haven't moved from my desk yet so they inspire me to a worthy idea for a dream setup.
If I had more 10F's I would give it to you for being the most accurate divinator of driver assignments.
You really did pretty much nail all of the drivers spot on. You did not name A though, but calling it "cheap" is almost correct. It was not the cheapest of the bunch.
I thought you used your slightly souped up Boston Acoustics Lynnfield 500's to listen? Those are supposed to have some very revealing aluminum cone drivers.
Ahaha, thanks, Ccococorico (I do my french
) : my analyse were hiden by Mooly not to influence the further choices, but the short version of txt file said the same : they sound all different but two which are close : the Vifa I guessed (because close !). A & F was in my head cone paper, though F is defintly in a much more higher league than A (I could leave with F never with A...sorry !). But B,D,E are more precise, mostly E ! B&D are a little more casual (for me a better match than F for a more casual listening on the side of the personal taste of each here... and I agree : a more casual listening can give a top sepaker; I can understand that having 3 speakers : Lynnfield 400 L, Kef ref 104/2 (which is clearly in the casual side & I love this speaker) and a Proac D15 (ah same cone technology than the winner... though the Boston is surely above the two other one !)Near : Boston Lynnfield 400L (same alum mid (sandwich?) 125Hz to 2600 Hz (LR2) and tweeter (LR4): same X0, just a little more bass on the 500L (mine are 35 Hz) with a low impedance at 125 hz at 2 ohms
(mine is 2.5 ohms : aussi !). Though it sounds sweet in the mids I had to notch 4Khz from around 3 Khz to 5.5 Khz : passive (with the help of the Creator himself : John and the nice fellows from Diyaudio).Can such 5" from ScanSpeak output more than 100 DB spl without distorsion ? I think a little more each day to the PRV Audio you measured ! Neo6 should be a winner I believe in a test 5, but with the low EQ (600 hz minimum) : the measurement you made with the PRV is great (if sound is detailed enough : like the 10F !
).The big fun I have is to see a mp3 could do a difference on a reccorded speaker in a home room ! WOW !
If only someone can send you the B80 titanium cone version (I linked the pdf here somewhere) and a Neo6S for a further test ! When the bump of metal driver is damped, it can give a very detailed sound and sweet as well !
Last edited: