Aurasound 3-way (WMT)

[Jed]

Hi Jed,

JonMarsh did some testing on the Aurasound NS12. (I've found it :W ) I get the impression that his impressions on the NS12 don't quite equate to your experience with the NS10. Do you think you had a bad sample?

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=242114&postcount=265

Rgds,

Bukem

First of all weren't we talking about the NS12, and I never said they (the NS10) weren't good just others were better above a certain bandwidth....and then there is the issue of low sensitivity and low impedance. These issues are not ideal features for a woofer, rather acceptable for a subwoofer, which IMO is their intended passband.

And no the NS10 drivers I had were not defective. They just were beat by other drivers (including the RS270) above 200-300hz. Below 100hz the NS10 is exceptional and better than the RS270.

I guess you'll just have to decide for yourself to see where you will cross over each driver you put in this system, because pretty much all of the mentioned drivers can be made to sound good, given an expertly designed crossover that takes into consideration all of the issues in speaker design--- which by no means is simple task and there always will be tradeoffs.

Jed

[Bukem]

Hi Jed,

Thanks for your view on the matter. I'll bear it in mind should I decide to go for a 10".

Rgds,

Bukem

[dlneubec]

And how does the distortion profile look? especially in the 100Hz to 1 kHz area which is problematic for many larger drivers. What about off axis response? And what about those slight bobbles in the impedance curve at 400, 600, and 1500 Hz? One or more could be surround resonances, or ?

In a three way, of course, with crossover points at 400 Hz or thereabouts, the higher issues are a moot point. The frequency response does look smooth- a well engineered paper cone.

How does it model in Soundeasy or Unibox in the enclosure size you used for the baSSlines?

I'm embarrassed to say that I have yet to take the time to learn the proper methods of doing distortion testing in SoundEasy. It's on my list of things to do, but not at the top. I've been comfortable relying on the testing that so many others do. Unfortunately, no one has tested the Lambda's that I know of. I used these woofers without testing because I had heard them in a pair of prototype speakers designed by Jeff Bagby and Jim Salk, that they brought to the InDIYana diy event in April 2008. They were so exceptional that I wanted to try and make something for myself with them as my inspiration. They used a Lambda TD12H, 6-1/2" PHL mid and a Morel MDT33 tweeter. So, I had heard the Lambda and after talking to Jeff about it quie a bit, I didn't see anything out there that rivaled it, so I decided to try it based on Jeff's analysis and measurements and what I heard.

Also, as you menioned, I was crossing in the 400-500hz range, so I was not concerned about off axis and never measured it.

My measurement rig is down at the moment, since I lost my computer when I was laid off in March (was my laptop). When I get it back up and running, I'll do some more measurements of the TD12H and delve into the distortion mesurements in SE. I might want to update to v16 while I'm at it.

Below is a Unibox comparison I did using a 45l and 52l ported box, with 100w input. I ended up going with the 52L box and lower tuning. The F3 was about 35, IIRC.

[Bukem]

Hi Guys,

I noticed that there's not been a lot of response regarding the Visaton Ti100. Is that a lack of enthusiasm or a lack of availability...? Who has worked with this unit?

Cheers,

Bukem

[JonMarsh]

The sensitivity of the Ti100 is on the plus side, the somewhat low frequencies of the break up modes is on the minus side, as is the price. The rise in harmonic distortion from (probably) resonance amplification effects above 1 kHz makes the upper crossover frequency choice just as problematic as for the Seas W18, and it costs almost as much as the W18, for example. The Ti100 does some things well, but has some marked flaws, enough to not generate excitement in some quarters for using it as a midrange in a high end system.

These are very personal choices for each designer, after all.

Ponder this- for most people, the TB W4-1337s is a Ti100 done better in some regards- a better set of trade-offs, with the upper breakup mode pushed far higher, and though average distortion is higher, it doesn't rise suddenly further above 1 kHz. And the price makes it much more affordable, though to get the needed sensitivity, it may often may need to be used in pairs. At that point it's still much less expensive, and easier to work with.

[Bukem]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your much appreciated insight into the matter. Looking at the graphs for the Ti100's I figured that with a crossover frequency of say 1600Hz I would be far away enough of the first cone breakup. I'll add to this post later but let me post the charts first:

Image not available

Image not available

[Bukem]

Leaving all options discussed before aside for a minute, what would be the impact of using the aluminium 18cm illuminator midwoofer from Scanspeak. I know this unit is about to be released or has just been released and was wondering if some of the more expert guys on this board have been privy to some measurement data.

It also made me think of the high-end (Scar?) series from SB but I don't know what cone material they use.

Obviously going for an 18cm provides for easier integration with the 12" Aura but you lose some benefits of a real midrange driver.

I've included the link to the SS datasheet: 18WU-8747t00

Cheers,

Bukem

[JonMarsh]

You know, everyone has a different idea of what is a "midrange" unit, and where they like to cross it in and cross it out.

This little critter, with it's underhung motor and 9 mm Xmax, 85.5 dB sensitivity, and other parameters, looks to me to be intended for a wide range two way system as the midwoofer. Looking at the published response plots, when you see the kind of dip it has between 3 and 4 kHz, that's usually an area of significant energy storage and linear distortion prior to the break up modes up top- this is how it plays out with the Seas Excel series. I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant bump in HD3 at about 2 kHz with this drive, so given those considerations, I'd suggest a 1500 Hz crossover on top- doesn't give much time to get off the driver, but with LR4 plus a notch, or one of my unpatented cauer ellipticals, you should be able to stay away from the nasty stuff.

I wouldn't call this part a midrange driver. I don't even really consider the W15-CY001 a midrange driver, so I'm kind of "picky" about what I do like in that role.

[Bukem]

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your response. Presumably this is where experience counts and it shows, I'm very pleased people like you can steer me in the right direction.

The whole problem is that I have my mind set on a hard cone driver and each have their own inherent problem. We'll keep looking untill we find the one that has the least number of compromises.

You're right about the Scan, the midrange driver potential seems limited...

Thanks!

Bukem

[brucemck2]

You know, everyone has a different idea of what is a "midrange" unit .... I'm kind of "picky" about what I do like in that role.

What would be at or near the top of your list for a three way of reasonable (high 80s or better) overall system sensitivity?

[AJINFLA]

I wouldn't call this part a midrange driver.

What would you call this?

cheers,

AJ

[Bukem]

Nice find... curious to see what Jon's gonna make of this one.

[Bear]

Nice find... curious to see what Jon's gonna make of this one.

I suspect the hitch in the impedance curve at 1kHz may be identified as "less than desirable". You might want to look at the driver evaluation thread for some of Jon's own suspects.

[dlneubec]

What would you call this?

cheers,

AJ

:T Jeff Bagby picked up a pair of those as a door prize at the InDIYana event this year. He has been very complimentary about them as a midrange unit. He thought they had the potential to be one of the best midranges available.

[JonMarsh]

What would be at or near the top of your list for a three way of reasonable (high 80s or better) overall system sensitivity?

Of course, it depends on the budget. In the low cost area, I'd favor the RS-100 or the TB W4-1337s. These smaller ones may have to be paralleled, depending on the choice of three way target function and sensitivity of the other drivers. For example, in a Duelund style crossover, at the design center frequency, you have options for alignments like that used in the NeoD CC where the woofer and tweeter have some significant ouptut at the center frequency, and make up 2 - 3 dB of the midrange output at that point. With this alignment, you don't need as much voltage sensitivity in some cases. And of course, in the "budget range" I've voted once already for the RS52, which has a fine combination of characteristics for a dome midrange; while the Accuton C44 goes higher and has a higher frequency breakup mode, that's a moot point in a design with a useful/feasible crossover frequency based on wavelength spacing. The RS52 is quite easy to work with for an experienced designer, though I can see how some folks could get in trouble with it- I think that explains the "disillusionment" with it on the PE board.

For the less cost restricted designs, there are more options, but still some caveats may apply. The new 12MU Illuminator is a choice that may attract it's supporters. Another paper cone alternative is the Seas W12-CY003 nextel driver. Probably I'm finding it's hard to beat the combination of voltage sensitivity, controllable frequency response, relative ease of use, and distortion that the C79 Accuton has; it seems well suited to designs targeting about 100-105 dB output. For a higher output design, the C90-T6 Accuton tests rather well, though I haven't decided about a final configuration to put it in.

There are many other possible options; it's a bit like picking girl friends, it's also a matter of subjective taste and what catch's your fancy. There's nothing about these comments I intend to be definitive in any sense; it's more like, this is what I'm looking for (you may look for a different set of attributes), and here's why I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

I think it would be great if anyone with other ideas about their favorite midrange just post about what it is, how they've used it, where they see the strengths and weaknesses, and their thinking that led to an example design, including how the choice of drivers was interrelated or influenced by the choice of the midrange. That would deserve it's own thread, of course. Not to hijack this one!!

[brucemck2]

Of course, it depends on the budget ... it's a bit like picking girl friends

Ain't that the truth -- which also explains why I keep "changing my mind" and changing out my equipment. Over time I tire of them, and I suspect if my drivers could talk, they tire of me overdriving them and complaining about their faults.

[AJINFLA]

He thought they had the potential to be one of the best midranges available.

I don't know about all that , just thought these had potential to be a fit for this type project. The old Neofone would have been another recommendation, were Brian Cherry able to get them back in production.

cheers,

AJ

[TacoD]

I don't know about all that , just thought these had potential to be a fit for this type project. The old Neofone would have been another recommendation, were Brian Cherry able to get them back in production.

cheers,

AJ

I bought a quad of Neofone woofers as a lot of people wrote it was very good, but it wasn't up my interpretation of "very" good. First of all you need a tweeter, the breakup is smeared over a wide frequency so that you couldn't get rid of the "metallic sound".

From the photo's of the scar woofers it looks like the cone is a blend of paper.

[TacoD]

I think it would be great if anyone with other ideas about their favorite midrange just post about what it is, how they've used it, where they see the strengths and weaknesses, and their thinking that led to an example design, including how the choice of drivers was interrelated or influenced by the choice of the midrange. That would deserve it's own thread, of course. Not to hijack this one!!

One day I will show an Audiotechnology project .

I prefer the larger mids (180 mm) crossed < 2 kHz (3th order bessel). Those poly cones have good sensitivity. The shallow cone & stiff dust caps which I think result in good dispersion combined with a good top end. I also really like the low inductance motors, which result in good dynamics. Doesn't offer the resolution of a hard cone though.

Also tried the W18EX, Thiel C95 T6 (without the black dots) These are also nice performers, they need some additional work to get right. Some of the speakers (also commercial) do not get everything out of it. It can sound on the bright side when breakups are not handled. Or when the cabinet tuning is off the bass is not tight at all, the sound is on the warm side. When done properly you will not hear these units are there. For my taste the decay of sounds/ sonic picture/ resolution is to controlled.

[JonMarsh]

One day I will show an Audiotechnology project .

I prefer the larger mids (180 mm) crossed < 2 kHz (3th order bessel). Those poly cones have good sensitivity. The shallow cone & stiff dust caps which I think result in good dispersion combined with a good top end. I also really like the low inductance motors, which result in good dynamics. Doesn't offer the resolution of a hard cone though.

Also tried the W18EX, Thiel C95 T6 (without the black dots) These are also nice performers, they need some additional work to get right. Some of the speakers (also commercial) do not get everything out of it. It can sound on the bright side when breakups are not handled. Or when the cabinet tuning is off the bass is not tight at all, the sound is on the warm side. When done properly you will not hear these units are there. For my taste the decay of sounds/ sonic picture/ resolution is to controlled.

Very useful comments/thoughts.

Generally, I find that when I'm finally getting an area of the system tuned right, it's like you describe- you no longer no it's there- just the music, in whatever form, color, or size, is there.

That's what's funny about the NeoD project for me, combining a combination of plastic cone, metal cone, and cloth dome, it comes about as close as I've ever gotten to that. Hope to do even better next time out.

[AJINFLA]

I bought a quad of Neofone woofers as a lot of people wrote it was very good, but it wasn't up my interpretation of "very" good. First of all you need a tweeter, the breakup is smeared over a wide frequency so that you couldn't get rid of the "metallic sound".

Hi Taco. Every cone driver will be in breakup at HF. Q's of course differ. Can you explain why the Neofone in particular (or Alpair?) would be unsuitable as a midrange fit for this type 3-way project? I could not tell based on what you posted.

cheers,

AJ

[TacoD]

Hi Taco. Every cone driver will be in breakup at HF. Q's of course differ. Can you explain why the Neofone in particular (or Alpair?) would be unsuitable as a midrange fit for this type 3-way project? I could not tell based on what you posted.

cheers,

AJ

Most of these wide band units still require a tweeter, considering this, why not use a dedicated unit optimized for the frequency band you plan to use the unit in.

I just read the latest HobbyHifi which contains some tests of the Alpair 5, 6, 10 (gold/ grey) and I wasn't that impressed with the CSD plots. The breakup is simply smeared over the complete frequency domain making these units for me a big compromise. I have to say the xmax, freq extension is very impressive for such an unit.

Other drivers which are nice exceptions where,

Peerless 830987 (alu 3" mid ~ 28 euro)


Tangband W4 1337
Very clean CSD/ step response, HD2 somewhat higher than in test I've read on the Internet

Vifa TC9FD-18-08 - paper cone (15 euro)
Very low distortion > 200 Hz (better than the two mentioned above). Nice flat FR.


All these drivers have low sensitivity (~85 in midrange freq.).

[AJINFLA]

Aurasound 3-way (WMT)

Aurasound 3-way (WMT)

:banghead:

[johneboy]

Hi Guys,

I noticed that there's not been a lot of response regarding the Visaton Ti100. Is that a lack of enthusiasm or a lack of availability...? Who has worked with this unit?

Cheers,

Bukem

I've built systems with Accuton, SS rev, Seas Excell,TB 1337,Seas 17rcy as used in the original WATT and the ti100 and many others. I like them all but the ti100 would be my choice. Not the easiest to deal with and cross as low as you can.

John

[Bukem]

Hi John,

Thanks for sharing your experience. The million dollar question is of course what makes you prefer the visaton over the other worthy contenders?

Rgds,

Bukem

[johneboy]

Hi Bukem,
It comes close to what I consider the ultimate, an els with punch. I entered a design using it at DIY Iowa 2006 I believe. Not to brag as there were more knowledgeable people than me there, but it was the only time that I've seen the group break out in spontaneous applause after hearing it. I'm sure that it was Jim Holtz's inspiration for choosing the 1337 for his Statement line. Also Jim Salk ( Salk Sound) developed a design using it after hearing the feedback. The 1337 has a similar sound but is a completely different animal. Its a real wide range driver and cannot match the ti100 in the 100 to 1200 hz range imo. That's the subjective. Here's the objective.

http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/

John

[Theresa]

I like my Etons

I like my Eton 7 with the Ceramic/mag dome and the 7-200 midbass. I probably should have gone with ScanSpeak slit cone with the ScanSpeak Discovery HTS tweeter as in the ScanSpeak Rediscovery kit from Madisound which I am using for my center channel. It is several hundred dollars less expensive and distortion is much lower. I've become convinced that cone material doesn't matter as much as the motor but still my Eton 7 Symphony kit sounds really good. I don't worry much about distortion below 110 hz as I crossover at 90 Hz and this reduces the distortion below the low 1??'s quite a bit.