Many things. Regarding to sealed enclosure, think about compliance. After moving forward due to signal input, the cone must go back to it's resting position as nice as a good impulse response should be. The air behind the cone acts as "spring" in addition to driver's suspension.
@ Mondogenerator : thank you Greg. Yeap that was I asked.
@Jay : which climb too much (upper curve of the mid-treble = brighter)
soft reverb in my mind are the lowest spl détails which give the subjective (but hearable) feeling of the space where the event was reccorded and which seem to "excite" the room or the load of the instrument (if not reverb, maybe : weakest vibrations is a better word ?). for an acoustical instrument, always in my mind, it's the latest harmonics of a note after it was played : here the piano in the track I linked. (asc to be swap by mp3).
By large, I meaned : width (= large in french, sorry, a reflex !). Hummm, The flac track with harmonica doesn't sound harsch at home : just high and powerfull ! I have to listen the ref clip of clip 3 (female voice and also try it on my cheap headphone)
Last edited:
Eldam was wondering what the 5MR450NDY sounds like with the latest setup. Here it is with the 350Hz Harsch XO and mounted in the Nautaloss with RS225 woofer for bass. Same sound clips as Round 4. There is a BSC applied to flatten the rising response.
Here is the XO response, the sound clips are of the non-EQ'd response (light blue):
It may sound a bit bright. Let me know if you are interested in the other set of clips with just two gentle PEQ's applied.
Cool !
If you notch the 5K Hz peak with - 5 Db, is it always bright ? Or do you think it comes from the 1K to 2 K Hz range ?
I just checked the manual - YES. I think I am good then and will give it a try. Can handle up to 5v signals. Also has a function generator.
Yes software package has but when using DATS as the soundcard device we have no ground connection only the red and black leads which are hot mono I/O's and ground is not offered outside plastic house. And problem is if you shift to computers soundcard inside DATS software package there is no calibration so actual levels are not true.
You can go to trueaudio.com and download TrueRTA which is nearly same as DATS software packet, the free version is limited but that's only the RTA section that is limited to 1/octave. Oscilloscope and generator think will could do your job via computer soundcard but will need to be calibrated as manual can guide one thru to get precise readings. If you think of connect to speaker level drive voltage watch out to not overdrive soundcard by some padding network.
X,
Guess you want to measure drive voltage at driver terminal as requested by Barleywater for 10F, what about in Audacity make some sinus in 50-100Hz area then play them via your player and measure with cheap DMM at driver, readings with those frq range precision should be fine with cheap DMM compared FLUKE DMM.
Guess you want to measure drive voltage at driver terminal as requested by Barleywater for 10F, what about in Audacity make some sinus in 50-100Hz area then play them via your player and measure with cheap DMM at driver, readings with those frq range precision should be fine with cheap DMM compared FLUKE DMM.
I think I figured out how to use it as an O-scope on any signal: set the funcion generator output to a very low level (it won't work without some signal being generated) like -60dBU. The view the Left channel which accepts inputs. For example, here is the voltage generated by me tapping a driver diaphragm (acting as a mic).
Volts are calibrated using DATS precision 1.000kohm resistor and built in signal source.
Attachments
FU10RB sounds very good in LXmini type setup. SPL can be pushed to realistic levels for lots of music, but doesn't get 7th row levels for symphony listening at more than about 4ft away.
Last edited:
I think the main culprit is the 5k peak. The 1k-2k gives more presence but not annoying.
Here are some sound clips with two small PEQ's applied in the1-2k and the large cluster of peaks in the 10k range. So the sound now follows the dark blue response in the above xo plot.
I did not get rid of the 5k peak yet as that would be a rather "high Q" EQ and trying to avoid those for now.
! Can be 130 dB spl peaks in a symphonic concert ! With more 90 dB of dynamic heardroom above the noise floor in a concert room (around 30/35 Db when very calm !)!4' is more than enough for most of us
! What is the max spl of such hifi 5" ? 105 Db ? 110 dB max on a peak (not so bad!) ? And it's OB you even loose some spl ! It must play loud but with a minimal dynamic headroom ?@ X : thanks for the reccordings !
At home the notch I made on a similar peak at 4.5 K helped a lot...(width : around 3k to 6 k) ! Mine was measured with tone burst at listening position, maybe in the axe here this bump is less a problem ? I don't know!
Last edited:
The 10F might be sexier, and fun to show off to your friends, but is also more likely to run off with some other guy who's taller and richer than any of us. The TG9 with her trashy style may actually be more fun and stick around longer. The word on the street is that the TC9 is a total slut.
I wonder what an "LX Mini" would be like if done with an 8 inch hard cone woofer, actively EQ'd to be acoustically flat to 30HZ, with a 4 pole active xover at 500HZ to the 10F on top... (?) I'm thinking that could be tasty.
Also, I wonder if the distortion difference between the 10F and the TG9 might just be the magnet strength (?) The 10F has the Neodymium magnet. I believe the TG and TC have ceramic. The frame of the 10F might be more sturdy than the frame of the TG9 (metal vs. plastic), but once it's bolted down to the baffle panel (I always put silicone rubber glue all around when mounting as well), I would think the frame issue is pretty much buried. I would expect frame issues to show up as abrupt changes in the FR due to resonance, and the magnet strength issue to cause compression which would show up as more THD (?)
I wonder what an "LX Mini" would be like if done with an 8 inch hard cone woofer, actively EQ'd to be acoustically flat to 30HZ, with a 4 pole active xover at 500HZ to the 10F on top... (?) I'm thinking that could be tasty.
Also, I wonder if the distortion difference between the 10F and the TG9 might just be the magnet strength (?) The 10F has the Neodymium magnet. I believe the TG and TC have ceramic. The frame of the 10F might be more sturdy than the frame of the TG9 (metal vs. plastic), but once it's bolted down to the baffle panel (I always put silicone rubber glue all around when mounting as well), I would think the frame issue is pretty much buried. I would expect frame issues to show up as abrupt changes in the FR due to resonance, and the magnet strength issue to cause compression which would show up as more THD (?)
Regarding to "soft reverb" I thought you talked about a terminology that I didn't know, especially you talked about frequency that was too high for a reverberation.
Yes, when an instrument is playing certain note, there is harmonics above and beyond its frequency [which means can go above 20kHz when it is a violin], but I don't know if this is called reverberation [or if there is another terminology].
Reverberation is about reflection [or echo], such as "room reverberation", which you should not hear in an anechoic room. High frequency reflection is rarely "felt". The lower the frequency, the more it is "felt". As for your piano clip, of course it can go so low beyond my hearing and speaker capability.
What, TG9 frame is made of plastic??
About the silicone rubber, many against that approach. Better is to hold up the magnet.
Another issue with big magnet is restricting air flow behind the cone. With bigger "hole/exit" for back wave air flow, the midrange quality will be very different [I have tried and compared the effect side by side between two different approaches]. That's why I prefer mounting from inside/back.
It seems with TG9 we can improve it's performance? May be this is the true "winner" here. But I don't like it's look, sorry
[White color is hard to hide behind a thin cover].
What, TG9 frame is made of plastic??
About the silicone rubber, many against that approach. Better is to hold up the magnet.
Another issue with big magnet is restricting air flow behind the cone. With bigger "hole/exit" for back wave air flow, the midrange quality will be very different [I have tried and compared the effect side by side between two different approaches]. That's why I prefer mounting from inside/back.
It seems with TG9 we can improve it's performance? May be this is the true "winner" here. But I don't like it's look, sorry
You have never held a TC9 or TG9 in your hands then? They are plastic frames but it is a tough, not brittle plastic like some frames. It feels like glass filled polycarbonate or tough nylon not cheap ABS. I have never had one crack due to screws. The ventilation is pretty impressive on a TG9 - super open spider. If you look at the HD plots there is a peak in 3rd order at about 1.2kHz. I think this may be the ventilated pole piece harmonic.
Eldam: I was implying using an 8 inch instead of the 5 or 6 inch that Linkwitz used, so you could get more low bass extension at reasonable levels.What, TG9 frame is made of plastic??
About the silicone rubber, many against that approach. Better is to hold up the magnet.
Another issue with big magnet is restricting air flow behind the cone. With bigger "hole/exit" for back wave air flow, the midrange quality will be very different [I have tried and compared the effect side by side between two different approaches]. That's why I prefer mounting from inside/back.
It seems with TG9 we can improve it's performance? May be this is the true "winner" here. But I don't like it's look, sorry
Jay: I know Linkwitz thinks it's better to hold a driver by its magnet, and let the frame be only partially damped by foam rubber around the hole in the baffle panel, I guess so it doesn't cause the baffle panel to vibrate and emit its signature sound. Personally I think that's ridiculous. The frame needs to be solidly mounted and damped IMO. If baffle panel vibration/emmision is an issue (may well be), gluing 1/4 inch thick felt like material to the front of the baffle panel makes good sense to me. I did that with my open baffle system (1/2 inch actually), and I believe it works well. And I totally agree with you about the TG9 cone color and the rear ventilation due to the size of the magnet. A Neodymium magnet could be smaller, allowing more rear ventilation. Maybe that's why Scanspeak created the 10F.
Last edited:
Regarding the frame material of the various drivers (so many iterations I cant recall which is plastic)...
All else being equal (and it isn't, neo magnet being smaller etc), then I have no qualms at all about using a polymer framed driver, providing its well designed.
In my small collection I have Audax AP130ZO, AP100ZO, TW025, Fountek neoCD3.5H, alpair5, Tang band W2-800sl.
None of these drivers show any particular frame weakness, or objectionable resonance (or none that doesnt become moot once mounted).
The same is true of the few stamped steel framed drivers I own.
On the other hand, I have plenty of 'stronger' cast frame aluminum examples, which literally ring.
The only real downside to the more open basketed neo magnet drivers I have used, is that the basket refection issue is defeated, but for another issue to take its place; the longer wavelength rear panel reflections passing through the cone and to the listener.
I have found these open basket designs, whilst solving one issue, present another (perhaps more difficult) issue. They seem far more sensitive to rear chamber design, damping material distribution and clear air volume behind the driver.
This of course can be mitigated in non parallel walled enclosures (tetrahedron or pentahedron).
Its just a royal PITA to build one in anything more permanent than foam core especially in the case of a tetrahedron (which may have a slight edge over a pentahedron)
@X
For me (I may be alone here) it would make an interesting test to compare sound clips of your dagger box in foam core, with an identical box in something more substantial.
Foam core is great for rapid prototyping, but we all know how acoustically transparent paper and foam is.
I wonder how much these poll results reflect the enclosure and and less so the drivers themselves.
All else being equal (and it isn't, neo magnet being smaller etc), then I have no qualms at all about using a polymer framed driver, providing its well designed.
In my small collection I have Audax AP130ZO, AP100ZO, TW025, Fountek neoCD3.5H, alpair5, Tang band W2-800sl.
None of these drivers show any particular frame weakness, or objectionable resonance (or none that doesnt become moot once mounted).
The same is true of the few stamped steel framed drivers I own.
On the other hand, I have plenty of 'stronger' cast frame aluminum examples, which literally ring.
The only real downside to the more open basketed neo magnet drivers I have used, is that the basket refection issue is defeated, but for another issue to take its place; the longer wavelength rear panel reflections passing through the cone and to the listener.
I have found these open basket designs, whilst solving one issue, present another (perhaps more difficult) issue. They seem far more sensitive to rear chamber design, damping material distribution and clear air volume behind the driver.
This of course can be mitigated in non parallel walled enclosures (tetrahedron or pentahedron).
Its just a royal PITA to build one in anything more permanent than foam core
especially in the case of a tetrahedron (which may have a slight edge over a pentahedron)@X
For me (I may be alone here) it would make an interesting test to compare sound clips of your dagger box in foam core, with an identical box in something more substantial.
Foam core is great for rapid prototyping, but we all know how acoustically transparent paper and foam is.
I wonder how much these poll results reflect the enclosure and and less so the drivers themselves.
Last edited: