Accuton C90-T6 test

[Rick Craig]

I'm working with a C173N-T6-90 and if anyone is interested I'll share some thoughts. I don't want to overstep the rules here so Thomas can step in and moderate if needed.

[FrancoB]

Share the wealth!

[chasw98]

I would be interested to hear your thoughts Rick. Thanks.

Chuck

[ThomasW]

The only time there are problems associated with posting driver test results, is with small companies offering their own custom made drivers. Historically owners of some of these companies go postal when anything other than a glowing review or test data showing performance different than the mfgr's data is posted is posted.

Beyond that people are free to post whatever driver testing data they have...

[Rick Craig]

Ok, the replies indicate a thumbs up

When I first purchased the driver I had a few different applications in mind (after my wallet said ouch!). Someone had asked me about implementing it in a dipole design. I had suspected that the parameters and suspension wouldn't be favorable for dipole use and that proved to be true. Maybe if you want a highpass frequency well up into the midrange but it wouldn't make too much sense to operate a high $ driver over such a limited bandwith.

In my application I'm using it as a mid (sealed subenclosure) for a center channel. The target was higher sensitivity with good bandwidth and it's performed well in this design. The lower end crossover point can range from 300-500hz and upper end 1.5K to 3K. There's a breakup about 4.5K that is easily suppressed but will dictate your crossover point and slope. The limited excursion also comes into play with the lower crossover point and slope.

[Jed]

There's a breakup about 4.5K that is easily suppressed but will dictate your crossover point and slope. The limited excursion also comes into play with the lower crossover point and slope.

So where are the test pics? Distortion/FR/TS parameters/impedance etc? I had an opportunity to get these drivers from madisound not too long ago- but who knows when anyone will ever get them in stock again.

[Rick Craig]

So where are the test pics? Distortion/FR/TS parameters/impedance etc? I had an opportunity to get these drivers from madisound not too long ago- but who knows when anyone will ever get them in stock again.

Sorry - no specific tests. I just thought I would give some general guidelines for anyone interested in this driver.

[haralanov]

Rick,
could you post some detailed pics of the driver (back of the magnet system, damping rings, surround and ect...)
I'm sure it'll be highly appreciated from all of us :T

[JonMarsh]

There's a reason we have archived threads..... :W

Well, I'd better get this up at lunchtime today, because the way things are going I'm not going to have any time this week, maybe not next! Making a living is a real bear sometimes.






First plot is FR measured at 2.83V on a 24" by 24" baffle; note the dip at marketer 1 is a characteritic of this baffle and measurement method.




To get the "real" picture of the driver behavior, a near field measurement is done which essentially positions the mic co-planar with the front baffle.



Not too disimilar to the C88, and for the most part what I expected. This confirms my judgement going into this that 250 Hz to 2 kHz was probably the best case operating range for the C90. Note where the notch is at 5 kHz there is a bobble in the impedance curve (not shown).

Next to examine was FR + distortion at "nominal level"- which due to the high sensitivity of this driver, is more like 93 dB.

FR + HD2



FR + HD3


Very low 2nd harmonic. Might have been nice if 3rd had been a little lower, but it's still pretty good. How much will it get worse with increasing level?


OK, let's push it up to around 100 dB, which is not as much more drive as other more typical midranges I've tested require.

FR + HD2 100 dB



FR + HD3 100 dB


What about higher harmonics?

FR + HD4 100 dB


FR + HD5 100 dB



If I hadn't checked and re-checked the scale on the HD4, I wouldn't have believed it. :T HD5 is pretty good, though higher.


Well, I want a little more for my $460 each, so lets take it up to 105 dB.


FR + HD2 105 dB



FR + HD3 105 dB



FR + HD4 105 dB







Well, I'd certainly prefer it if the odd order stuff were a bit lower, but even at this level in the intended frequency range, the C90/T6 does deliver individual harmonic distortion spectra -50 dB or better, for the most part. Maybe I can live with that. :B

I'm certainly open to someone finding me something BETTER to test- and use- consider the doors thrown wide open. My main criteria is pistonic operation from 250 Hz to 2 kHz, and lower distortion. comparable sensivity would be a plus, but not mandatory.

Has anyone tested any of the AudioTechnology drivers, like the Flex Units or the C-Quenze 18 H 52? Or the ATD W18-4? ($595 at E-Speakers.COM)

Heck, I'll just go with these for now....

But I ought to look at the "lowly" Peerless 830883 at higher levels, too. It tests very well at 2.83 VRMS, 250 Hz to 2 kHz, 88-89 dB nominal. Wonder how it holds up at levels like the C90 will play at?

My opinion? It should be paired with a woofer than can run up to 300-400 Hz at least, without problems, and a tweeter crossover in the 2 kHz area, if crossed somewhat steep. Avalon uses it with the diamond equivalent to the C30N; if I was using it in the M12ta, I'd pair it with the C30N, but I'm using the C90 in my Isiris with a true waveguide/driver combo crossed at about 1800 Hz. My C30N's I intend to pair with my C89's.

~Jon

[Rick Craig]

Thanks Jon - your experience pretty much mirrors mine.

[Rick Craig]

Rick,
could you post some detailed pics of the driver (back of the magnet system, damping rings, surround and ect...)
I'm sure it'll be highly appreciated from all of us :T

Jon's pictures say it all - my unit is exactly the same.

[haralanov]

....