Yeah, or the 4552, perhaps nothing. Was checking out options in case there is some extra money left after holidays I might buy a pair for curiosity. I've got fine system but would like to compare to something else. So, kind of asking if its worth it to save and get the 4544. Hmm, actually could get 4550 for not too much more. 4552 is probably too expensive.
You mean the HF108 ? it was added quite recently, they also have measurements of FH10ak and HF105 on the same horn. HF146/XR1464 etc.
R version has a different diaphragm attachment than HF108, according to Faitlas R was designed for nearfield/monitor use.
But yes has a slightly lower min. impedance, with the same Re, and a higher FS.
Also from the measurements, the HF108R appears to be a slightly cleaner or smoother driver, which should not be a surprise since the diaphragms were altered to do so.
So there is a little tradeoff, make a choice depending on your priorities/preferences.
HF108 with STH100.
https://dibirama.altervista.org/hom...faital-hf108-driver-1-3-4-8-ohm-120-wmax.html
A decent comparison of them both on the 102 horn.
https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-faital-pro-hf108r-compression-driver
https://audioxpress.com/article/Tes...ession-drivers-coupled-with-LTH102-60-50-horn
Difference between 4544 and 4550 is in xmax says BMS distributor here
https://forum.speakerplans.com/1-compression-driver-suggestions_topic30781.html
"
With the BMS 1" drivers types 4538, 4544 and 4550 they basically are the same design but with differing amounts of Xmax to allow for a lower X-Over i.e. 4538-1.9K 4544-1.3K 4550-800hz.
The 4538 is a 38 dia noml. diaphragm and the other two are 44 dia. I find the sound quality to be remarkably similar accross the range with the 4544 probably just edging it.
The 4524 uses basically the same sort of annular diahragm but of a much smaller dia (25) . This reduction in mass also allows it to have a much smaller magnet assembly reducing weight and more importantly cost. It has a very flat response to 20K (in the right horn) and to my ears sounds much more like a good dome tweeter than a comp.
I use a these in my own X10 style speakers crossed at 2k and they have absolutely no problems keeping up at all without ever sounding ragged.
Crossed at around 3.5K as the OP has indicated they would give amazing performance for the money.
Tony"
So I would say for DIY speaker experiments 4550 would be more versatile while 4544 could save some money if crossover is always >1kHz
Last edited:
I was said in the case Xo is >1k2 Hz than the HF108 familly sounds a little more natural than the BMSs. But both are said to sounds good enough in relation to most CD drivers for hifi needs. The thing with the HF108 familly is it seems it is easy enough to use it without DSP EQ for the passive filter enthusiasts.
Mitchiba member that has an extended experience with PA driver likes a lot the BMS 4542 for its cleaness above for that range.
That's odd cause I found on the graphs I saw here and there than the 108 was smoother than the 108R ! I do not know what is meaning close field listening monitor with a horn ?! What is 3 meters distance ? Still monitor experience with PA horns ?.
Mitchiba member that has an extended experience with PA driver likes a lot the BMS 4542 for its cleaness above for that range.
That's odd cause I found on the graphs I saw here and there than the 108 was smoother than the 108R ! I do not know what is meaning close field listening monitor with a horn ?! What is 3 meters distance ? Still monitor experience with PA horns ?.
There are two factors which most obviously effect my preference of drivers -- extended frequency response, and diaphragm mass. The 4544 is a few db more rolled off than the 4550 and 4552. I would opt for either a 4550 or 4552 if you can swing it. Beyma also makes some 1 inch drivers which measure well.
With regards to the last post prior to this one and the HF108 sounding more natural than the BMS I am not certain I agree -- though I do not necessarily disagree haha.. I would say the BMS is a bit artificial sounding though so is the HF108. To me the HF108 is not as special as the BMS for this reason: the BMS and just a couple other drivers I tested sound very effortless, whereas the HF108 is just a driver that can play loud without crapping out. But there is a degree of weight, or congestion, or audible compression to the HF108 which the 4552 and likely the 4550 lack which I find make them special. The CP755ND has this in spades as do older drivers like the Altec 288 and likely TAD Beryllium drivers. That quality I attribute to the mass the diaphragm primarily. Another related metric to look at is power handling. Typically drivers of this nature with lower power handling will sound more refined.
Thanks. the curves of them do look similar. CP380M's curve seems to flatter than CP385ND. CP380M is 2x heavier, bigger, and yet cheaper than the other.
Do you guys know who sells the HF108R Faital diaphragms? I'd like to swap the standard HF108 diaphragm out for the R version to figure out the difference between rhe two, given that my assumption of both versions being compatible with the HF108 body.
The HF10AK is a familiar driver to me. It has some sparkle and extension others don't have, but the sparkle sounds a little too artificial and the other issue is its throat exit angle being more narrow than the HF108, which should be better on more shallow rapid expanding WGs.
The HF10AK is a familiar driver to me. It has some sparkle and extension others don't have, but the sparkle sounds a little too artificial and the other issue is its throat exit angle being more narrow than the HF108, which should be better on more shallow rapid expanding WGs.
they ship within 24h00 but I am sure there should be a shop nearer from you. Just in case : https://en.toutlehautparleur.com/catalogsearch/result/?cat=0&q=hf+108r+dia
I often use them for the choice of capacitance value and coils ; and they have the Tin SCR foil (the Solen ones are the same) caps
I often use them for the choice of capacitance value and coils ; and they have the Tin SCR foil (the Solen ones are the same) caps
The HF108R diaphragm maybe not compatible with the standard HF108 unit ore vice-versa.
Anyway, here it is the HF108R diaphragm: https://en.toutlehautparleur.com/diaphragm-faitalpro-hf108r-8-ohm.html
And the regular HF108, we can see that, this one is compatible with other HF units, but not the the HF108R: https://en.toutlehautparleur.com/diaphragm-faitalpro-hf103-hf108-hf109-8-ohm.html
Or you can ask Faital Pro about the compatibility to be sure.
You may be right. The rear chamber may be set up for different diaphragm termination points. The one big thing i noticed on the HF108R is the higher resonant frequency. This is counterproductive for using the driver at the lowest practically possible xover points, as you would try to stay out of operating in the resoant areas of the curve. I dont believe the R version is more suited to hifi use based on the description given by Faital, as a heavier diaphragm is worse at reproducing higher frequencies based on its increased mass alone. Plus a driver that needs more non-linear EQ to flatten is usually going to have more problems in general.
Voice Coil Magazine did a brief comparison and review on both versions of HF108s, but didn't go into much detail on differences, as they felt there were more similarities than differences. I dont agree, but those who want to know can read it for themselves. There is some differenc in the HF breakup based on FR and spurious impedance peaks associated with the R version. Here's the link -
https://audioxpress.com/article/Tes...ession-drivers-coupled-with-LTH102-60-50-horn
Voice Coil Magazine did a brief comparison and review on both versions of HF108s, but didn't go into much detail on differences, as they felt there were more similarities than differences. I dont agree, but those who want to know can read it for themselves. There is some differenc in the HF breakup based on FR and spurious impedance peaks associated with the R version. Here's the link -
https://audioxpress.com/article/Tes...ession-drivers-coupled-with-LTH102-60-50-horn
I find your comments about the CP755ND driver intriguing, especially when comparing it to Altec 288 which I am very familiar with. How would you compare the two, similarities and differences in sound, and which do you prefer? I suppose they require different horns since they have different throat geometries..
There are two versions of this driver, do you have the titanium or alu diaphragm version?
The 288 is a great driver. They are very musical. The CP755ND is a step up in all respects. It is more open sounding as if a veil was lifted. The only thing similar is a very well implemented electrostatic speaker. The long exit throat of the 288 compared with the 755ND I believe creates undesirable resonances within the throat of the driver -- something that most compression drivers suffer from. The CP755ND is a very shallow exit throat which yields greater clarity and cohesiveness in my observation. It also yields wider dispersion for midfield listening and when mated to a proper waveguide it is the best configuration around. The 288 is a great driver though and impressive given its age. I find the Altec better than nearly all contemporary drivers including contemporary JBL compression drivers. I would take a two way setup with a 288 all day over a three way setup that utilizes a mid driver and compression tweeter. That said CP755ND is superior for this same application.
Last edited:
Thanks milezone, your description makes me want to try the CP755ND
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said about Altec 288, they are very musical.
Have you tried both the titanium and alu diaphragms, I suppose they are interchangeable?
What horn/waveguide are you using, and how low can the Beyma's be used?