Unknown "Alien" drivers....!
Its been a bout 7 years since I got the drivers....2 lap tops ago!
I think there might be a spec sheet in one of the boxes, but by the time I find it Wesayso will have tested a driver and have all the answers!
He has first refusal but happy to give you a pair if he doesn't need them all, after all he won the competition!
Cheers
D.
Its been a bout 7 years since I got the drivers....2 lap tops ago!
I think there might be a spec sheet in one of the boxes, but by the time I find it Wesayso will have tested a driver and have all the answers!
He has first refusal but happy to give you a pair if he doesn't need them all, after all he won the competition!
Cheers
D.
Thank You, everyone,
That is more like it, thought provoking information we can all dig into and learn from. And prize winning contests too, now that is too cool!
I would really like to dig into that "kill zone" concept more, as I do not want to build my array too tall for the outer most driver by the ceiling falling outside that "kill zone" and being recognized as a "delayed" sound. I doubt this really going to be an issue, yet it would be good to know for sure.
Also, there seems to be a reason THX uses 80 Hz. I have found in my own experience that a sub-woofer placed away from the main speakers integrates better at 80 Hz or lower. If using a higher frequency, say 150 Hz, I found the only way it worked was to have the drivers "time aligned" with each other (main stacked on top of the sub). It seems also, that the array needs to work down to 80 Hz to have the "fullness" in near field listening. So if I do decide to cross the main array over at 250 - 300 Hz, a bass line is the only way to go, a single sub is not going to cut it. Norman Bates can validate that. Thanks for joining in, Norman
It would also seem that the bass line really should be as close as possible to the main line. Given that limitation, 10" and 12" drivers are bigger then I would like, but I would still like to try the concept of using a high quality, large format pro driver in a small cabinet with large amounts of EQ, just to hear the difference.
For the All Aspiring Array, I am thinking a bass line loaded with 6" - 8" drivers. I am thinking the Alpair 12 would be a good one, I would like to find a CSD. Also, with a bass line, I expect it to go down to 20 Hz, no sub-woofer required. So I think it is going to be a balancing act to find a "light" driver that does 300 Hz well and still hold it together for the 20 Hz stuff. Thankfully, being an array, half the battle is won already. Wesayso did it with 50 3 1/2" drivers, so I think my chances are looking good. (I may still need a sub or two for movie playback to extract the LFE channel though - but that is where the large format pro driver subs will be useful, (I could even go 18") if I prefer them over the "typical" Dayton subs.)
On that note, Congratulations to Wesayso! You might want to take Derek up on the twelve units, build a sub array as a table to lay across the front of your room. I think this would be a nice addition to your "Two Towers"
And last, but not least, Thanks Dave for the information regarding the "periods" plotted CSD. I will read up on that on one of my nights off.
So You all know: I am including the Fostex FF85wk, One of the SpeakScan 10Fs (8424 or 8414), and the Tectonic TEBM46 in the initial driver blow outs. The Aura NS2 and SB 65W will be included if I can find more information on them. The CSD must be clean down to 300 Hz to qualify for this system.
Sorry for the "Scattered" response, I am in between jobs, so this had to be a fly by the moment post.
Thanks again for your responses, now we are learning something!
Allen
That is more like it, thought provoking information we can all dig into and learn from. And prize winning contests too, now that is too cool!
I would really like to dig into that "kill zone" concept more, as I do not want to build my array too tall for the outer most driver by the ceiling falling outside that "kill zone" and being recognized as a "delayed" sound. I doubt this really going to be an issue, yet it would be good to know for sure.
Also, there seems to be a reason THX uses 80 Hz. I have found in my own experience that a sub-woofer placed away from the main speakers integrates better at 80 Hz or lower. If using a higher frequency, say 150 Hz, I found the only way it worked was to have the drivers "time aligned" with each other (main stacked on top of the sub). It seems also, that the array needs to work down to 80 Hz to have the "fullness" in near field listening. So if I do decide to cross the main array over at 250 - 300 Hz, a bass line is the only way to go, a single sub is not going to cut it. Norman Bates can validate that. Thanks for joining in, Norman
It would also seem that the bass line really should be as close as possible to the main line. Given that limitation, 10" and 12" drivers are bigger then I would like, but I would still like to try the concept of using a high quality, large format pro driver in a small cabinet with large amounts of EQ, just to hear the difference.
For the All Aspiring Array, I am thinking a bass line loaded with 6" - 8" drivers. I am thinking the Alpair 12 would be a good one, I would like to find a CSD. Also, with a bass line, I expect it to go down to 20 Hz, no sub-woofer required. So I think it is going to be a balancing act to find a "light" driver that does 300 Hz well and still hold it together for the 20 Hz stuff. Thankfully, being an array, half the battle is won already. Wesayso did it with 50 3 1/2" drivers, so I think my chances are looking good. (I may still need a sub or two for movie playback to extract the LFE channel though - but that is where the large format pro driver subs will be useful, (I could even go 18"
) if I prefer them over the "typical" Dayton subs.) On that note, Congratulations to Wesayso! You might want to take Derek up on the twelve units, build a sub array as a table to lay across the front of your room. I think this would be a nice addition to your "Two Towers"
And last, but not least, Thanks Dave for the information regarding the "periods" plotted CSD. I will read up on that on one of my nights off.
So You all know: I am including the Fostex FF85wk, One of the SpeakScan 10Fs (8424 or 8414), and the Tectonic TEBM46 in the initial driver blow outs. The Aura NS2 and SB 65W will be included if I can find more information on them. The CSD must be clean down to 300 Hz to qualify for this system.
Sorry for the "Scattered" response, I am in between jobs, so this had to be a fly by the moment post.
Thanks again for your responses, now we are learning something!
Allen
Yes, good point. Motor strength is same as "actuator authority" in controls theory. Aka "Oomph".
But the interaction with the myriad other parts of a driver means it cannot be reliably used as a measure of comparison when one is considering 2 different drivers.
dave
Bass array
Hi Guys,
On driver choice for the bass array I have found that the best compromise is to to sacrifice system efficiency (not driver sensitivity) as big pure power ( Hypex Ncore) is low cost.
But this means you have to start with a short list of the highest sensitivity drivers you can afford.
My "usual suspects" (Prize for most movie titles in a single post...?!) on the spec sheet are:
(1) Fabric surround....Never rubber!
(2) Low Qts / high Bl factor / low Mms.
(3) High power handling / large voice coil.
(4) Small sealed box with close as possible to 0.707
(5) Xmax is the least important spec.....Large Sd cures Xmax limitations. I believe in minimising cone travel by maximising surface area.
(6) On wall / shallow cabinet will give you a good 4 dB to 5 dB boost in output below 80Hz in most rooms. As this comes with a zero increase in distortion its fab! Plus on wall an on wall array will easily integrate with most rooms and avoid rear wall reflection issues.
Cheers
D.
Hi Guys,
On driver choice for the bass array I have found that the best compromise is to to sacrifice system efficiency (not driver sensitivity) as big pure power ( Hypex Ncore) is low cost.
But this means you have to start with a short list of the highest sensitivity drivers you can afford.
My "usual suspects" (Prize for most movie titles in a single post...?!) on the spec sheet are:
(1) Fabric surround....Never rubber!
(2) Low Qts / high Bl factor / low Mms.
(3) High power handling / large voice coil.
(4) Small sealed box with close as possible to 0.707
(5) Xmax is the least important spec.....Large Sd cures Xmax limitations. I believe in minimising cone travel by maximising surface area.
(6) On wall / shallow cabinet will give you a good 4 dB to 5 dB boost in output below 80Hz in most rooms. As this comes with a zero increase in distortion its fab! Plus on wall an on wall array will easily integrate with most rooms and avoid rear wall reflection issues.
Cheers
D.
8424 verses 8414
I think we all can agree this is the case between the 10F 8414 verses 10F 8424.
The 8424 would have more "authority and Oomph" over the 8414.
I think we all can also agree there are a lot of part differences between the TG9 and 10F models, besides magnet strength.
Actually, a listening comparison would be interesting between the TG9 and the 8414. On paper, there is not much difference between these drivers. (But these specs are from two different sources, so even this comparison is moot)
8414 specs: Qts 0.63, Bl 3.72, Mms 2.77 g. (Klang & Ton)
TG9 specs: Qts 0.73, Bl 3.32, Mms 2.5 g. (Peerless)
Qts is high on both of these.
Here are the published specs of the drivers I am considering:
8424 specs: Qts 0.41, Bl 4.93, Mms 3.42 g. (Klang & Ton)
FF85wk specs: Qts 0.55, Bl 3.93, Mms 2 g (Fostex)
TEBM46 specs: Qts 0.46, Bl 4.49, Mms 2.26 (Tectonic)
The 8424 seems to be more in line with the other drivers I am considering. Funny how the CSD shows slower response between 300 Hz and 350 Hz, compared to the 8414. Maybe the slightly heaver cone. The funny thng, if I do not try this driver, will I always wonder if I should?
The Tectonic does show some real promise if these specs are honest. This is going to be a pretty interesting comparison between a $95, $40, and $18 drivers. I think it would blow everyone's mind if the Tectonic performed better then the other two!
I have many other things to share after the last bit of work is done and maybe some sleep...
Yes, good point. Motor strength is same as "actuator authority" in controls theory. Aka "Oomph".
I think we all can agree this is the case between the 10F 8414 verses 10F 8424.
The 8424 would have more "authority and Oomph" over the 8414.
I think we all can also agree there are a lot of part differences between the TG9 and 10F models, besides magnet strength.
Actually, a listening comparison would be interesting between the TG9 and the 8414. On paper, there is not much difference between these drivers. (But these specs are from two different sources, so even this comparison is moot)
8414 specs: Qts 0.63, Bl 3.72, Mms 2.77 g. (Klang & Ton)
TG9 specs: Qts 0.73, Bl 3.32, Mms 2.5 g. (Peerless)
Qts is high on both of these.
Here are the published specs of the drivers I am considering:
8424 specs: Qts 0.41, Bl 4.93, Mms 3.42 g. (Klang & Ton)
FF85wk specs: Qts 0.55, Bl 3.93, Mms 2 g (Fostex)
TEBM46 specs: Qts 0.46, Bl 4.49, Mms 2.26 (Tectonic)
The 8424 seems to be more in line with the other drivers I am considering. Funny how the CSD shows slower response between 300 Hz and 350 Hz, compared to the 8414. Maybe the slightly heaver cone. The funny thng, if I do not try this driver, will I always wonder if I should?
The Tectonic does show some real promise if these specs are honest. This is going to be a pretty interesting comparison between a $95, $40, and $18 drivers. I think it would blow everyone's mind if the Tectonic performed better then the other two!
I have many other things to share after the last bit of work is done and maybe some sleep...
Last of the tough Love...
Okay, Night off, here goes...
Dave, I am curious to know how You are able to draw the conclusion to "bet" on the FF85wKen? I am not calling You out to start an argument or debt your claim. I am interested in learning with your many years of speaker building experience how You are coming to this conclusion. There is something You are seeing in the specs, or the building architectures, or the materials and parts used in these drivers, to make this assumption. Please share, lets dig in this a little bit...
Note: If anyone de-edifies Dave in anyway, I will ask You to remove yourself until You have something constructive to add. Differing options and questions are fine. Thing is, what I have seen on some of the other threads, is that both parties actually have valid points to their options, but, no one learns anything, as everyone gets discouraged due to the bickering. I believe if we hear each other out, we All are going to learn something.
I find this interesting, I believe this is a constructive observation from X considering the aspects of materials and build quality. Our listening tests in our own systems will reveal which is "better" to each of us. But I do agree with X, that the build quality of the 10F appears to be superior to the FF85wk. But does it work better? We will see...
I will also note here, that I believe what X and Dave looks for in the sound of a driver is different. Some people are tone based, others will sacrifice tone for dynamics or 3D soundstage. Of course, with today's tech, I believe we can have it all!
Bear in mind, I am getting the 10F and FF85wk for the driver blowouts. They are pretty evenly matched in a lot of ways. I believe I can run both full-range with enough EQ. Yet, based on both driver's CSD's, they both would benefit from a 300 Hz cross-over to a bass line. So that 200 Hz F3 cabinet Dave is designing might work. I can say, with all the Jazz the 10F is getting, I do not think Dave will have a problem selling the 10F design if he does not like it. Sure sounds good in X's system...
So lets bring on the learning...
Okay, Night off, here goes...
Dave, I am curious to know how You are able to draw the conclusion to "bet" on the FF85wKen? I am not calling You out to start an argument or debt your claim. I am interested in learning with your many years of speaker building experience how You are coming to this conclusion. There is something You are seeing in the specs, or the building architectures, or the materials and parts used in these drivers, to make this assumption. Please share, lets dig in this a little bit...
Note: If anyone de-edifies Dave in anyway, I will ask You to remove yourself until You have something constructive to add. Differing options and questions are fine. Thing is, what I have seen on some of the other threads, is that both parties actually have valid points to their options, but, no one learns anything, as everyone gets discouraged due to the bickering. I believe if we hear each other out, we All are going to learn something. I find this interesting, I believe this is a constructive observation from X considering the aspects of materials and build quality. Our listening tests in our own systems will reveal which is "better" to each of us. But I do agree with X, that the build quality of the 10F appears to be superior to the FF85wk. But does it work better? We will see...
I will also note here, that I believe what X and Dave looks for in the sound of a driver is different. Some people are tone based, others will sacrifice tone for dynamics or 3D soundstage. Of course, with today's tech, I believe we can have it all!
Bear in mind, I am getting the 10F and FF85wk for the driver blowouts. They are pretty evenly matched in a lot of ways. I believe I can run both full-range with enough EQ. Yet, based on both driver's CSD's, they both would benefit from a 300 Hz cross-over to a bass line. So that 200 Hz F3 cabinet Dave is designing might work. I can say, with all the Jazz the 10F is getting, I do not think Dave will have a problem selling the 10F design if he does not like it. Sure sounds good in X's system...
So lets bring on the learning...
Line source images...
Definitely, for me, the "tall" image is more "life-like", esp with movies and large scale, properly recorded music. Many sounds in everyday life are point sources by nature, yet as they exist in a "space" how ever far away from us, we hear them "colored" and spread out by that space. A point source in my room can not "recreate" that aspect of "space". See post #47 with my "window" analogy. Even with closed miced music, (pop and rock) the array gives me the impression of being at a disco or rock concert, were the sound is "larger" then life anyway, due to the amplification. Closed miced recording does not sound realistic anyway, and my listening room can not insert the original ambiance, so may as well carry the illusion to the extreme.
Dynamics and coherency are an added bonus.
It is going to be interesting what the future holds for us in terms of multi-channel sound recording becoming "object based" with the new Dolby Atmos and others. The application for that is placing speakers throughout the room for surround sound. But what if we could hook each speaker in our 32 driver arrays up to its own signal and amp? The Dolby Atmos cinema systems are designed for 64 channels, it just would be a matter of mixing the "object based" audio signal for a stereo pair of 32 driver/channel arrays.
Of course this may mess everything up, as we could lose our "near-field" effect and large listening area, as we would be giving up our line source for stacked multi-channel point sources.
It certainly is thought provoking, though...
Definitely, for me, the "tall" image is more "life-like", esp with movies and large scale, properly recorded music. Many sounds in everyday life are point sources by nature, yet as they exist in a "space" how ever far away from us, we hear them "colored" and spread out by that space. A point source in my room can not "recreate" that aspect of "space". See post #47 with my "window" analogy. Even with closed miced music, (pop and rock) the array gives me the impression of being at a disco or rock concert, were the sound is "larger" then life anyway, due to the amplification. Closed miced recording does not sound realistic anyway, and my listening room can not insert the original ambiance, so may as well carry the illusion to the extreme.
Dynamics and coherency are an added bonus.
It is going to be interesting what the future holds for us in terms of multi-channel sound recording becoming "object based" with the new Dolby Atmos and others. The application for that is placing speakers throughout the room for surround sound. But what if we could hook each speaker in our 32 driver arrays up to its own signal and amp? The Dolby Atmos cinema systems are designed for 64 channels, it just would be a matter of mixing the "object based" audio signal for a stereo pair of 32 driver/channel arrays.
Of course this may mess everything up, as we could lose our "near-field" effect and large listening area, as we would be giving up our line source for stacked multi-channel point sources.
It certainly is thought provoking, though...
I don't have first hand experience with FF85WK but if it is similar to larger FF105WK, I can get a good sense of differences in construction. The FF105WK is very high build quality - the choice of stamped thin steel basket vs a cast aluminum basket and use of ferrite vs Nd magnets for the motors are different. But if one doesn't think there is any meaning in xmax specs - there is nothing I can say there other than it corresponds to a physical alignment of how much voice coil overhang there is.
Did you ever have a chance to look at SB65WBAC25? It has a square bezel and is smaller for more drivers.
Did you ever have a chance to look at SB65WBAC25? It has a square bezel and is smaller for more drivers.
Last edited:
Never rubber eliminates a lot of drivers...
I find this interesting also. Most driver manufactures make it a bullet point that they use rubber for their surrounds. I am sure rubber is superior to foam. But maybe that is more in the light of longevity (although there is no guarantee on that either), instead of sound. Is rubber mainly selected for cost effective reasons? Even the supposed "high end" drivers praise their rubber surrounds:
The Tectonic is of course rubber.
The 10F features a SBR? rubber surround.
The Audience A3 is not disclosed, it is "patent pending".
The Fostex is a Polycarbonate Foam. Polycarbonate is polyester film and carbon. Different then rubber, but not fabric either.
The Celestion AN3510 uses an elastomer (polymer) surround.
I notice the Pro driver industry has drivers with fabric surrounds.
If fabric surrounds are superior, why is fabric not being used in supposed high end drivers? I can not see it being that expensive to implement.
This inquiry is not directed to just Derek, again, I am trying to find the truth to his experience. What is the deal here?
I find this interesting also. Most driver manufactures make it a bullet point that they use rubber for their surrounds. I am sure rubber is superior to foam. But maybe that is more in the light of longevity (although there is no guarantee on that either), instead of sound. Is rubber mainly selected for cost effective reasons? Even the supposed "high end" drivers praise their rubber surrounds:
The Tectonic is of course rubber.
The 10F features a SBR? rubber surround.
The Audience A3 is not disclosed, it is "patent pending".
The Fostex is a Polycarbonate Foam. Polycarbonate is polyester film and carbon. Different then rubber, but not fabric either.
The Celestion AN3510 uses an elastomer (polymer) surround.
I notice the Pro driver industry has drivers with fabric surrounds.
If fabric surrounds are superior, why is fabric not being used in supposed high end drivers? I can not see it being that expensive to implement.
This inquiry is not directed to just Derek, again, I am trying to find the truth to his experience. What is the deal here?
I think rubber surrounds are more compliant and softer and tend to be used for HiFi more. Cloth surrounds are more durable and stiffer but depends on the matrix applied to them - sometimes rubber or latex. Cloth surrounds need a lot of accordion folds to achieve xmax and not suited smaller 3in drivers - they would be large relative to rubber one with same excursion capability. I think the Fostex foam surrounds use polycarbonate (a hard plastic also known as Lexan - carbonate refers polymer having the "carbonate" C-O=O-C group not polyester with carbon) as an additive to polyurethane foam base material. I don't think it is "foamed" polycarbonate. Foam is less durable than either rubber or cloth, but Fostex's formulation does appear more durable than plain polyurethane foam. I personally like good rubber surrounds and think the rubber used in the 10F and Vifa's are a synthetic rubber that is very compliant yet durable. I also have a few pro audio 5in full range drivers with accordion cloth surrounds. They don't have anywhere near the same amount of motion as rubber ones.
Last edited:
SB65WBAC25-4
I found an independent test done by Voice Coil on the SB65WBAC25-4
http://www.daytonaudio.com/media/resources/ES140Ti-8 Voice Coil Review by Vance - January 2015.pdf
See pages 7 - 11
The CSD is not as clean as the other drivers I am considering, esp at 20kHz and in the 300Hz to 1 kHz area. But, the off-axis frequency response looks promising, 5 dB deviation at 6 KHz, then major drop at 9 kHz, then coming together again at 15 kHz with an 8 dB deviation. Pretty close to the manufacturer's. The reviewer did suggest EQing the upper response. As there is a mid-range valley centered at 600 Hz, I believe that is a good idea.
I like the off axis response, not so sure on the CSD.
Qts 0.54 (Voice Coil)
Qts 0.68, Bl 2.9, Mms 2.4 g (SB Acoustics)
Manufacturer was conservative with Qts, yet I would personally like to set more driving force (BL) to put it in the same bracket as the other drivers.
What do You guys think?
I found an independent test done by Voice Coil on the SB65WBAC25-4
http://www.daytonaudio.com/media/resources/ES140Ti-8 Voice Coil Review by Vance - January 2015.pdf
See pages 7 - 11
The CSD is not as clean as the other drivers I am considering, esp at 20kHz and in the 300Hz to 1 kHz area. But, the off-axis frequency response looks promising, 5 dB deviation at 6 KHz, then major drop at 9 kHz, then coming together again at 15 kHz with an 8 dB deviation. Pretty close to the manufacturer's. The reviewer did suggest EQing the upper response. As there is a mid-range valley centered at 600 Hz, I believe that is a good idea.
I like the off axis response, not so sure on the CSD.
Qts 0.54 (Voice Coil)
Qts 0.68, Bl 2.9, Mms 2.4 g (SB Acoustics)
Manufacturer was conservative with Qts, yet I would personally like to set more driving force (BL) to put it in the same bracket as the other drivers.
What do You guys think?
Wow, thanks X, sounds like You know some things about poly based compounds.
So in the case of the All Aspiring Array project, this would mean larger driver spacing, and possibly overall less Sd as one would not be able to fit as many drivers between floor and ceiling. Not necessarily a desirable trade off.
Despite the amount of motion, subjectively speaking, how impulsive was the sound? I am sure the motion affects the bandwidth, but did the cloth surround yield greater driver control with-in the driver's bandwidth?
Foam is less durable then rubber and cloth, but is there a quality to it that is beneficial to the sound aspect of a given driver...
This question is for Derek: You say never rubber, but how about polycarbonate enhanced foam?
So in the case of the All Aspiring Array project, this would mean larger driver spacing, and possibly overall less Sd as one would not be able to fit as many drivers between floor and ceiling. Not necessarily a desirable trade off.
Despite the amount of motion, subjectively speaking, how impulsive was the sound? I am sure the motion affects the bandwidth, but did the cloth surround yield greater driver control with-in the driver's bandwidth?
Foam is less durable then rubber and cloth, but is there a quality to it that is beneficial to the sound aspect of a given driver...
This question is for Derek: You say never rubber, but how about polycarbonate enhanced foam?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.