Many say they like the uniqueness of the Audax. It is already developing its own character by around 1600Hz and i'd guess it's probably going to be difficult to find another which sounds like it.
Audax is very special in some kind of way,
Don´t know if it´s the Aerogel in the Z-models or something else, but Albert Von Schweikert fell in love with these drivers and he used them in a vairuus of hes speakers over the time since the VR4-SR,.
Ivé used HM130z0, HM210z10 and PR170z0 and it´s hard to beat if their used right.
/ Jawen
I love the way the Aerogel cones sound in the upper mids. I have some HM100Z0 mids which are likely the best sounding in memory, especially paired with a planar tweeter.
interesting since my freq cut off is about 1600hz 🙂
im not looking for a driver that sounds like the audax, im looking for better!
I lowe the HM130Z0 and have used them in some of my DIY from about 280 hz up to 3k in MTM with different tweeters and ribbons/ATM
But Albert Von Schweikert had successfully used them from 200 hz in his upgraded VR4-SR speaker from 2001, and that speaker is one of the best speaker I've ever heard and owned, it playes everything extraordinary Hard rock/jazz/pop/techno and voices and, for example, acoustic guitar is like "the real thing"
Important that you dampen the midrange cabinet properly behind the cone, so that the sound does not reflect back out from the "inside" of the speaker, and perhaps use a relatively deep box (Alberts was 16cm x26cm x 42 cm W/H/D)
Latest DIY was with Audax HM210Z10 in MTM with Mundorf AMT29CM1.1R, HM210Z10 from 300-1850hz.
But that DIY was more for maximal SPL capacity (because im a 110dB listener) and wanted to have great headroom.
So systems can play 127dB with almost "top notch" Hi End qualities.
And HM130Z0 is a better "musical"midrange but with 92-93 dB sensivity if that is enough, Audax HM210Z10 is 99dB so it suited the Mundorf AMT29CM1.1R at 100dB better.
/Jawen
Attachments
It should also have a low loss cabinet (..as in: one with no real fiber around the interior walls or next to the driver).
The pro units (6" and 8") are about as close to a dynamic electrostat as you can get ..as long as the driver is "loaded" properly (as noted above) and the driver is "broken in".
My guess is that those who have tried these drivers and have instead chosen another driver have NOT loaded the driver properly.
Then no matter what driver you buy, you will always feel there can be something better? Maybe it's time to take back a little control? Damp that spider resonance. Identify and treat breakup modes. Tilt the response?
If a device has its own character I see that as a red flag. I need to adjust it, and make sure I'm not using it the wrong way.
Maybe it's character is based on some kind of distortion I need to identify... or is that actually what you like about it?
Really with his fairly low low-pass he is using the driver below the point of most "character" beyond it's own eff. and limitations with excursion and lower-freq. extension.
As long as it's loaded properly and used within that 400-1600 range (at reasonable levels of excursion), it's difficult to do "better" with a dynamic driver. The Z0 will provide slightly different sound but I'm hard-pressed to identify a dynamic driver that is absolutely better in a similar freq. range (with excursion limitations).
The real problem with most of these pro drivers is the amount of initial resistance from the suspension. Sort of a "two-steps-forward" with the higher sensitivity and "1.5 steps backward" with the stiff suspension.
As long as it's loaded properly and used within that 400-1600 range (at reasonable levels of excursion), it's difficult to do "better" with a dynamic driver. The Z0 will provide slightly different sound but I'm hard-pressed to identify a dynamic driver that is absolutely better in a similar freq. range (with excursion limitations).
The real problem with most of these pro drivers is the amount of initial resistance from the suspension. Sort of a "two-steps-forward" with the higher sensitivity and "1.5 steps backward" with the stiff suspension.
Allen, where did i say the audax have its own character? I use the audax mid from 300hz to 1.6khz, how exactly the audax would distort the sound?
the audax mid is the least coloured, most detailed and responsive midrange SQ ive had in my room.
Why stop there? isnt what diyaudio is all about? so much gear.... so little time 🙂
Last edited:
Epic build! very jealous of your wood skills.
do you prefer the PR170MO over the HM210 and HM130ZO?
Ive put denim foam in the enclosure for the audax mid. the mid enclosure is fully isolated from the woofer cabinet. I should probably try melamine foam in there and see which i prefer! ill also try to mod the audax mid with various methods.
You ask a few questions, I almost don't know where to start. You say there is no problem, OK. Maybe looking for a driver isn't what you need, but looking for a new set of acoustic conditions?
You also ask how above 1k6 can be a problem and I'd begin by calling on your crossover slope, but only you know if that's ok.
You also ask how above 1k6 can be a problem and I'd begin by calling on your crossover slope, but only you know if that's ok.
thx for your time!
Im actually completely happy with the sound of my system. I hear no problems hapilly, only awesomeness and im curious if theres even better in current available mid driver!
Im actually completely happy with the sound of my system. I hear no problems hapilly, only awesomeness and im curious if theres even better in current available mid driver!
Albert use 12 mm filt material glued all around inside cabinette walls, and also foam and lots of filling.
And this is what happend with the Audax HM130Z0 when you are a high level listener for 4-5 hour´s (and drink whiskey 😉)
Last time i blow up all 4 of them in my MTM ( test with Wiavave SRT-7 tweeter), but they played insanely good to the end.
And thats why i had to start the 2xHM210Z10/Mundorf-MTM-project.....Headroom!
/Jawen
Attachments
Thanks !
I pesonally haven´t used the M0 variant in my own DIY´s, but my DIY friend have so i have listened to them.
Xmax only +-0,5 mm so like a "stone", and MMS is 9,17 grams against HM130Z0 how is +-2 mm and MMS 5,9 grams
Only down-side to the HM130Z0 is "nominal power handling" at 50 W against 100 W for M0
What woofer do you use and what hornloaded ribbon ?
Have you tried driving the M0 up to 1,8-2 K ?
1-2 k is for humans very sensitive frequencies ( probably the most sensitive)
Thats why i ask if you have tried M0 up to 1,8-2k, maby you get a more "unanimously perceived sound" (Easy to try out)
And i think you also will love the HM130Z0 (5,35 inch), and use MTM in paralell if you need the 98dB sensivity
/Jawen
2 to 5k is most sensitve. 1 to 2k is the least sensitive range between 400 and 8k hz
err, all he is saying is that the PR170MO is excellent in his configuration and wonder's if there is something better than it. 😉
My answer is: in that size format over that bandwidth & excursion - finding something that's actually better will be very difficult.
IF you change the size/format a bit then perhaps 4 of the Audax HM100Z0 as a small vertical array (again, properly loaded and dependent on the crossover).