Dayton Neo3 PDR

[Amphiprion]

Looking at the Zaph Audio site, this looks like an excellent tweeter. Does anyone have any listening or use impressions of these? I'm thinking about using it in an upcoming speaker with the RS series drivers or maybe a Peerless Exclusive.

[Hank]

Mark, I'm thinking the same - your xover design skills could incorporate this bargain puppy into a fine MTM.

[Mudjock]

I have used the Neo3PDR with the Dayton RS150 in a small (0.38 cu. ft. internal) MT. The overall effect is a little more like the Dayton RS28a as opposed than the Seas 27 series tweeters. Where the Neo3PDR really seems to excel is when there is a lot of high treble energy (cymbols, glass shattering, etc...) The details in that region are better sorted out than with any dome I have heard (probably due to the cleaner waterfall behavior). Domes in general will have more dynamic capability in the mid treble region (see Jim Holtz's comments about the Seas H1212). Another way of describing it is that the attacks are not as pronounced, but the decays are much faster and cleaner.

The end result of my project was a detailed, yet relaxed sounding speaker. It would work best for those who are concerned about the RS woofers sounding too "metallic" or those running relatively "bright" sounding souce gear, or with a more reflective room. I am hoping to bring these to some DIY event this fall, so I can get more feedback from others...

[Amphiprion]

Hank,

Thanks for the comment about my xover design abilities. Unfortunately they're a little rusty - that whole "Let's become a doctor" thing shelved the hobby for 2.5 years. Passive stuff I'm still good with, but anything digital (ie using matlab) is having to be relearned

Mudjock,

Are you going to make it to the DIY Texas event?

[Irwin AR]

I have used the Neo3PDR with the Dayton RS150 in a small (0.38 cu. ft. internal) MT. The overall effect is a little more like the Dayton RS28a as opposed than the Seas 27 series tweeters. Where the Neo3PDR really seems to excel is when there is a lot of high treble energy (cymbols, glass shattering, etc...) The details in that region are better sorted out than with any dome I have heard (probably due to the cleaner waterfall behavior). Domes in general will have more dynamic capability in the mid treble region (see Jim Holtz's comments about the Seas H1212). Another way of describing it is that the attacks are not as pronounced, but the decays are much faster and cleaner.

Just how low did you cross the Neo3 ??

[Hank]

Mark: look at the picture of the dipoles I posted in the Arvo Part MkIII thread of Missions Accomplished on 6/18. That's the Rick Craig custom design for a local customer that I sliced and cut the cabinets for. That's a NEO 3PDR tweet. I'm not a tweeter golden-ear, but the mids were great! He's in an apartment, so he can't crank them up to live performance levels. When he moves into a house in August, I want to take an Austin Symphonic Band CD over and see what they'll do.

[Amphiprion]

Ah, I didn't realize they used the Neo. My only question is, will acetone take off those annoying BG labels?

[ThomasW]

My only question is, will acetone take off those annoying BG labels?

Yes and it will probably dissolve part of the plastic bezel as well.

[Amphiprion]

It's a small price to pay to remove blatant advertising

[Mudjock]

Mark,

I doubt I will make it to Texas (barring an unforseen business trip). I will probably attend Chicago Audiofest (less than 3 hours away) and/or an Iowa DIY event. I will get together a somewhat intelligible crossover schematic, so others can give them a test drive if interested.

Irwin AR,

After seeing that Dennis Murphy had revised his "Plop in the box" crossover for the Neo3 to about 2 kHz, I thought it might go low enough to be viable with the RS150. I am somewhere just above 1.9 kHz, but rolling the Neo3 pretty steeply (steeper than 4th order acoustic) below that.

[Mudjock]

Here is my crossover schematic - if anyone wants to try it. I built this in the Parts Express 0.375 cu. ft. box. For a two inch port, figure between 7 and 8 inches long (7 if you're putting these a few feet away from rear walls, 8 if you are closer.) The acoustic slopes are approximately 2 kHz LR6 on the tweeter and 2 kHz LR4 on the woofer, which gives a crossover point a little below 2 kHz.

[rj45]

Neo3 PDR proposed design

I'm loosely planning to build a 2.5 TMM using the NEO 3 PDR and
2 RS 180 mid-woofs per side in a 1 ft^3 box. 8)

Lou C has a "reference monitor" TM using an RS180 / Neo 3 PDR.
There are several xover variations, but the main one crosses at
2050 Hz, 2nd order.

Lou Corragio Cryolite TM

regards,
-Don

[Mudjock]

If you model Lou's crossover, it has 4th order acoustic slopes. I would expect the current version of the Cryolite to be considerably better than the original, which was crossed up around 2.5 kHz.... I chose to go a little lower and steeper with the Neo 3 to enable a lower crossover point and because the third order topology seemed to give a better-behaved roll-off in this case.

[Dennis H]

If somebody wanted to experiment with dipoles on the cheap, Dan Wiggins has a passive dipole design with 2 Extremis and and a Neo3. It needs a sub below 80 Hz.

http://www.adireaudio.com/Home/KITDDR.htm

http://www.adireaudio.com/Files/DDRDipoleDesign.pdf

[JoshK]

John Kr____ski has a less expensive dipole too, but if it were my $$ and I wanted to try a cheap dipole system, I'd try Davey's. His looks like the biggest bang/buck to my newbish eyes.

[Dennis H]

The thing is, if budget is a concern, both John's and Davey's designs require an active EQ and external amps. Dan's design is totally passive and can be run with an inexpensive receiver with its stock XO to a sub.

[Landroval]

Those of you who have more experience with the Neo3 would you say it's doable to cross it @2000Hz with LR2, or should I go 3rd or 4th order electrical? How about crossing lower than 2kHz?

[Jonasz]

I cross the neo3 at 1440 hz 4th order electric (monopole) and works wonderful. I can't hear any strain even at pretty loud passages.

[Landroval]

Ok, thanks. And I see Lou uses 2050Hz 2nd order electric, so the Neo3 seems to be quite tolerant to low xo. Cool.

[fjhuerta]

I'm using mine at 1.9 KHz, and am using the surface mount plates. No matter what I do, I can't get a good FR plot with them. I get a huge dip around 3 KHz. I suppose the mount plates are to blame.

I like a lot their sound, but they are more directional than I like. The sweet spot is really small.

[Landroval]

I'm using mine at 1.9 KHz, and am using the surface mount plates. No matter what I do, I can't get a good FR plot with them. I get a huge dip around 3 KHz. I suppose the mount plates are to blame.

What kind of crossover are you using at 1.9kHz? What kind of mid/woofer are you using with it?

[fjhuerta]

What kind of crossover are you using at 1.9kHz? What kind of mid/woofer are you using with it?

I'm using a simple 3rd order electrical x-over with an amp side resistor. The woofers are a pair of Focal 5N421's, and they are using a 2nd order electrical with a conjugate network in an MTM configuration. A very good thing about the Focals - they are perfectly smooth!

I'm also using them in a small tower with a pair of Tang Band W4-657SB in a 2.5 configuration. I've never really liked them, though - I didn't saw the edges off the Neo3 mounting plate, so the tweeter is quite far away from the midwoofers. Somehow, as I said, I've never been able to get a truly flat response out of the B&G's. I always thought my measurement practices were to blame - until I measured a cheap Peerless dome tweeter, and found out it was a lot flatter than the Neo3.

As I said, I think the mounting plate has a lot to do with this.