MDM55 vs RS52...Split from M8td3 thread

[Johnloudb]

Just curious, why is there so much space between the woofer and tweeter on the Mt8a? I'm guessing you didn't foresee adding a midrange to this at the time you designed it. But, it sounds like a very nice upgrade for those who've built these speakers.

What about one version that uses the Morel MDM55? I know it's more expensive, but maybe It'd be a nice upgrade(?) that would interest some. You probably don't have measure data on that, so maybe that's not possible?

EDIT by moderator. This discussion of the MDM55 vs RS52 was split from the M8td3 thread.

[Paul K.]

MDM55 vs. RS52AN

I probably shouldn't speak up but I can't resist. I've built four 3-way systems, two using the RS52 and two using the MDM55. For the RS52, one was mated with a Vifa XT19 ring-dome tweeter (and the woofer was an RS180-4 in a Deulund crossover), and the other mated with a Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbon tweeter (with a pair of RS180-8 woofers). For the MDM55, one was mated with the XT19 (with an RS225-8 woofer) and the other mated with a Fountek NeoCD1.0 (with an SS22W/8857T00 woofer). I prefered the midrange sounds of the systems with the MDM55s as did many other people who heard them at various DIY events. I didn't design any of these crossovers; 3 were designed by Rick Craig and the other by Pete Schumacher. Just my experience. I think the RS52 is very good and a great value, but I prefer the sound of the MDM55.
Paul

Hi John,

I may be the lone voice crying in the wilderness on this one, but other than the smaller footprint, I don't think the MDM 55 is superior to the RS52AN in any fashion. I know it's pretty popular in DIY circles, probably because of the mounting ease and Morel's reputation in past years. But whether you look at it in terms of frequency extension or non-linear distortion, the Morel doesn't match up. Morel's motors are nothing to write home about for linearity- HiVi spanks them in some categories, like 7" woofers. The RS52 is one of the best dome mids you can buy at any price.

90 dB


The only one I've seen or owned and tested that gives it a run for the money is the hideously expensive (in comparison) Accuton C50-8-44 (at $276).

The driver spacing is a function of having a near zero acoustic offset on the horizontal axis. There was no RS52 then, either, or it might have been a three way!! :B

[dlneubec]

FWIW, my experience echo's Paul's in regards to the MDM55. Based upon at least 4 implementations I recall hearing, it is much like what Jon says about the D2608, it needs to be heard to be appreciaed. It sounded great each time I've heard it. I've been listening to it in my Blades project for the last couple months. I think it is the best sounding 3way midrange driver I've used and one of the best I can recall hearing at DIY events over the last few years, regardless of price. Combine it with the D2608/HDS (or the Seas 22TAFG, for that matter) and you have the potential for some of the best sound for the dollar available, providing you pair it with the appropraite woofer.

I bet I've heard probably a half dozen or more implementations of the RS52 over the last few years. The best one that I recall was Paul and Pete's Deulund implementation. The others just didn't do anything for me personally, though I haven't heard Jon's yet. Perhpas the Deulund crossover is the secret to getting it to sound nice. It certainly measures great, but the results have generally belied the measurements, in my experience.

[SoundOfNothing]

Would you say the midrange sounded thin and lacked body in those designs using the RS52?

[Winter]

Mark K has tested both the Scanspeak D2608-9130 (as the Peerless 8109210) and the Dayton RS28F. Surprisingly, per Mark K's frequency response plots on his website the two tweeters have very similar dispersion characteristics.

Mark K's Website:

http://www.audioheuristics.org/default.htm

[JonMarsh]

As always Paul, a driver is only a driver. It's the implementation that is critical in all cases. Certainly a good implementation of an average driver will sound better than a poor implementation of an expensive high performance driver- I've heard some rather unfortunate systems in my day using Seas Excel drivers and Accuton.


I can only comment about my own implementation, or refer to those who have commented about it and the midrange performance.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470176&postcount=2

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470029&postcount=10

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480528&postcount=66

I'd also say, ask ThomasW or chasw98 what they think of it as a midrange, (Thomas has a pair of the Neo D CC, and Chas has listened to them extensively at Tom's during RMAF). Even Paul W had a chance to hear them at some length last October.

[Paul K.]

Jon, your comments seem to be implying that the crossovers designed Rick Craig and Pete Schumacher were not optimally implemented for the RS52 (but perhaps were for the MDM55!)? Yeah, I know that a really good crossover design for an average driver could likely end up with better sound than a poor crossover design for super-excellent drivers. In the end on the four designs I described there was just something about the midrange from the RS52 designs that I liked less than from the MDM55 designs.
Paul

As always Paul, a driver is only a driver. It's the implementation that is critical in all cases. Certainly a good implementation of an average driver will sound better than a poor implementation of an expensive high performance driver- I've heard some rather unfortunate systems in my day using Seas Excel drivers and Accuton.


I can only comment about my own implementation, or refer to those who have commented about it and the midrange performance.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470176&postcount=2

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470029&postcount=10

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480528&postcount=66

I'd also say, ask ThomasW or chasw98 what they think of it as a midrange, (Thomas has a pair of the Neo D CC, and Chas has listened to them extensively at Tom's during RMAF). Even Paul W had a chance to hear them at some length last October.

[---k---]

Jon,
I guess you're just going to have to be the lone voice in the wilderness on this one... I hope you have a better fate than the original.

[dlneubec]

As always Paul, a driver is only a driver. It's the implementation that is critical in all cases. Certainly a good implementation of an average driver will sound better than a poor implementation of an expensive high performance driver- I've heard some rather unfortunate systems in my day using Seas Excel drivers and Accuton.


I can only comment about my own implementation, or refer to those who have commented about it and the midrange performance.

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470176&postcount=2

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=470029&postcount=10

https://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480528&postcount=66

I'd also say, ask ThomasW or chasw98 what they think of it as a midrange, (Thomas has a pair of the Neo D CC, and Chas has listened to them extensively at Tom's during RMAF). Even Paul W had a chance to hear them at some length last October.

No one was saying that your implementation of the RS52 wasn't top notch, but you can't say how good the MDM55 might have sounded in the Neo D CC. Clearly the implementation is a key factor. However, both Paul and I have heard the RS52 in numerous speakers from very competent designers, including Rick Craig, as Paul mentioned, and Zaph (ZDT3.5) and I have yet to hear it sound as good as any of the MDM55 systems I've heard, most from less experienced designers. These thoughts echo comments I have heard from many other DIYers who have used or heard both the RS52 and the MDM55.

Unfortunately, the IowaDIY 2008 site is down or I would point you to the indpendent scoring results that put an MDM55 system, the Tzu-jan, at the top of its category, from a relatively inexperienced designer, and the two ZDT3.5 systems with the RS52 were in the last two places. I think it was also that year that Paul's CanTiLenas (Rick Craig xover), which use the MDM55, were the top scoring speaker in the unlimited category at Iowa. His CanTilenas also outscored Jed's Tombstones (Seas H1212 motor with DXT waveguide lens, Seas Excel W15CY, Seas Excel W26FX) at Dayton in 2008.

As you said in regards to the D2608, you have to hear a driver to determine how it will sound. The MDM55 is much like the D2608 in that respect. You might want to try it before you suggest it is no match for the RS52. Whether it matches up in measurements alone is less important to most than how it consistently sounds in the finished results.

[ThomasW]

I'd also say, ask ThomasW or Chas98 what they think of it as a midrange, (Thomas has a pair of the Neo D CC, and Chas has listened to them extensively at Tom's during RMAF).

Note, with the exception of different DACs, all the electronics used for these listening sessions were the same, Ayre K5xe, V5 xe, etc, etc, FWIW the system runs balanced cables from the DAC all the way to the power amps...

My most recent exposure to the MDM55 was listening to the final version of Brandon's Dueland XO based the Delphi's in the listening room where I keep the NeoDcc's.....

The Dephi's are very nice speakers. (I should move the design to the Missions Accomplished section) My impression of the midrange is that it's very polite. Sins appear to be those of omission. Through out the audition one was always aware they were listening to a 'loudspeaker', a very good loudspeaker. Unfortunately there weren't any of those instances where belief is suspended and one hears what sounds like live music...This leads me to believe the details were being 'homogenized' by the driver.

The NeoDcc has been around awhile so I'm very familar with it. I've always though it was singularly the most neutral, 'transparent' sounding design Jon's ever done with 'standard' (read non-exotic) drivers. The downside to the RS52 maybe that it's just too revealing of source material in some systems.

We used the NeoDcc in the Geezers do a DAC shootout, last fall. The RS52 is transparent and revealing enough we were not only able to differentiate the differences between the DACs; we were able to A/B the differences between I2S connection vs AES/EBU cable connections on the same components.



Since Jon, Chas, and I launched our all out assault to have large quantities of Hi-Rez source material, I'm hearing more and more of the instances where the speaker simply disappears and one thinks it's 'live' music. I don't believe it's a coincidence that this occurs with a speaker containing the RS52 mid...

My $0.02.....

[SoundOfNothing]

Jon looks like you're just going to have to design it for both the MDM55 and RS52 :B

Joking aside, that would be a very interesting comparison if you did and built a pair to compare side by side. OTOH you probably have too much work on your plate anyway.

[Paul K.]

To make a minor correction in what Dan said, my canTiLenas won the Unlimited Class at the 2007 Iowa DIY.

I can't take credit or blame for how the four systems I built sound regarding the crossover implementation, with one exception. Pete designed the Deulund crossover for the RS180-4, RS52 and XT19 3-way. After listening to those for quite a while, I heard the midrange as being a bit too forward, for lack of a better description, to my ears, so working with Pete I attenuated the signal from the RS52 a bit until I found the overall sound more balanced. Subsequently I took this pair of speakers (cenTiLana) to the 2008 Iowa DIY and while there, Dennis measured them. It turned out that my midrange crossover changes had lowered the RS52 output a dB or so. In any event, I still prefer the sound of the MDM55 (MDM33 Thomas?) and while I don't subscribe to the "all metal domes sound harsh" school, perhaps my ears simply prefer the sound of the fabric dome in the MDM55 over the metal dome in the RS52. The canTiLenas are still my personal reference speaker and the combination of MDM55 with NeoCD1.0 just allows the instruments's sounds they convey, especially percussion, to sound very real.
Paul

[Paul W]

I listen to RS52's almost daily in my surround speakers (22TAFG, RS52, RS180, 830669) and like them a lot. Since I heard Jon's during RMAF, I can attest to his implementation being absolutely top shelf...they played way above their price class with 192k source material.

Haven't heard the MDM55, so can't comment on SQ. For me, the thing the MDM55 has going for it is the small mounting flange...and there is a small round flange version??? If only SEAS made a small neo 22TAFG!

I would like to hear a side-by-side 52/55 comparison in systems otherwise as identical as practical. If/when I get around to another 4-way, I may give the 55 a shot.

[ThomasW]

MDM55 (MDM33 Thomas?)

Sorry for typo it's been fixed

[Paul K.]

Parts Express carries a round-faceplate version (CAM 558) of the MDM55 that is custom-made for them by Morel. While the round flange is easier to work with, its diameter is 4.09", whereas the square flange on the MDM55 is smaller at 3-7/16" allowing a bit closer spacing to a tweeter. I don't want anyone to misunderstand my opinions on the MDM55 and RS52. The RS52 sounds good but I think the MDM55 sounds better, at least in the 4 pairs of speakers I built that use the two.
Paul

I listen to RS52's almost daily in my surround speakers (22TAFG, RS52, RS180, 830669) and like them a lot. Since I heard Jon's during RMAF, I can attest to his implementation being absolutely top shelf...they played way above their price class with 192k source material.

Haven't heard the MDM55, so can't comment on SQ. For me, the thing the MDM55 has going for it is the small mounting flange...and there is a small round flange version??? If only SEAS made a small neo 22TAFG!

I would like to hear a side-by-side 52/55 comparison in systems otherwise as identical as practical. If/when I get around to another 4-way, I may give the 55 a shot.

[augerpro]

Tom my Delphi probably wasn't the best speaker to judge with (BTW it is unfinished so I never had a full build thread). That speaker is what finally made me realize just how much my final voicing for my lively room impacts the sound in other peoples' more typical rooms. The final response was slightly tipped down, which sounds great in my room, but perhaps a bit too "polite" in others' as you've noted. Compared to hearing the NeoDs in your room I would say my first impression is the NeoD sounds clearer and more open, which is expected given the response was probably much flatter and not tipped down. It sounded more as my own speaker does in my own room.

That said in the short time I heard the NeoD it was obvious it would take a lot time and a lot different listening material to uncover any flaws. Sounded very good. OTOH the MDM55 is one of those speakers that sound better than the measurements might indicate, although the measurements aren't poor in any way. They are great, and while the RS52 is better, it may be a point of diminishing returns and other factors- which aren't was easily measured- are impacting the subjective sound much more? Kind of like the HDS tweeter. One thing I really like is the MDM55 allows a much tighter spacing than the RS52. Not sure why the RS52 needs such a big flange. And the CAM55 version is much easier to mount with its square flange.

[ThomasW]

Hi Brandon,

I looked on your website but was unable to find any measurements of the MDM55. Do you have a link?

[augerpro]

You know I don't think I ever did any on my test baffle. I can probably find the raw response on the Delphi baffle though. I'll look. The one thing I don't like about the MDM55 is the Fs tends to be in the 600hz area, with a bit of variability between samples, and doesn't lend itself to 2nd order slopes as well as I had hoped. That is why I started looking at the TB 3" dome, which has the opposite problem of not being able to run very high, again impacting what I was trying to do with a mid dome in the first place, which was carry as much as I could of the midrange/lower treble in a single driver.

[dlneubec]

Here are my measurements for the MDM55 on the Blades baffle. Bear in mind it has a 5.5" wide baffle with 1" chamfers, so the flat surface area is only 3.5" wide, just over the width of the MDM55 flange. This, of course, makes the bottom end roll off sooner than it would on a wider baffle. The measurements have 1/6" octave smoothing, but it didn't change much due to the smoothing, as I recall. This was taken at 1 meter, 15º off axis, which is the design axis for that project, with a 5ms gated window. I have not done any distortion measurements. The green line is the driver with crossover in place.

[David G]

Actually you may want to run some distortion measurements on the mdm55.
Its low power handling in the 400Hz range was the deal breaker for me.

[Johnloudb]

Yeah, but David you like first order crossovers as I remember.

In Dans design his mid is already down -35dB at 400Hz. So, it's probably not an issue. But, it'd be interesting to see distortion measurements of the MDM55. If that's not too off topic.
Though, I don't think distortion measurements alone ever tell the whole story, and it is probably a subjective toss up between the two mids sonically.
I didn't mean to start an argument over these two mids, and don't really have an opinion as to which is better since I've never heard either.

[Silversmoky]

Here are some distortion profiles for these two mids. These were both tested at the same levels on the same baffle.

[dlneubec]

Actually you may want to run some distortion measurements on the mdm55.
Its low power handling in the 400Hz range was the deal breaker for me.

Hi David,

As John said, my crossover is LR4 at 900hz and I'm down about 36db at 400hz. I've heard the MDM55 crossed at 1khz, 2nd order and as low as 800hz 4th order and didn't detected any strain and this was playing quite loud in an auditorium setting, though they were limited, 10 minute auditions. I've been listening to my implementation, however, for a couple months now and have not noticed any problems at levels as loud as I go in my home. I do believe that the RS52 has a stronger low end than the MDM55. In crossing to dual RS180's at 900hz, with higher order slopes, I didn't feel I needed the stronger low end.

Silversmoky, thanks for posting the comparison graphs. Of course we miss what happens to the RS52 at its major breakup since it occurs at 13khz or so, though we may be looking at some of its effects with some of the sharp peaks in F3 and F4.

[Jim Holtz]

Mark K. tested the MDM-55 and RS52 along with others some time ago. HERE are the results. BTW, the prices for the MDM-55 is wrong in Mark's write up. It seems to me, the optimum range to use the MDM-55 in is 1000 Hz. - 4000 Hz. with a higher order slope on the bottom. I'm not a crossover guy though so what do I know? 8O

I've been a MDM-55 fan for a long time. My JH3 Reference design with a Rick Craig crossover tied with Jim SAlk's Veracity's for 1st place in the unlimited class at the 2003 Iowa DIY. It was a favorite design of mine. However, with the ability to cross 1" dome tweeters in the 1K - 1.2K range that we have now, is a mid dome a good choice anymore?

It makes me wonder.....

Subjectively though, I'm solidly with the MDM-55 for best sound quality over the RS52. I have heard designs using the RS52 by Zaph, Rick and Pete. I have not heard Jon's implementation. So, whose going to bring a pair to the Iowa DIY event this fall? We'll have a shoot out!:a>

Jim

[Jonasz]

Silversmoky, thanks for posting the comparison graphs. Of course we miss what happens to the RS52 at its major breakup since it occurs at 13khz or so, though we may be looking at some of its effects with some of the sharp peaks in F3 and F4.

But looking at the graphs the MDM55's third order distortion is constantly much higher than even the peaks in the RS52? (Apart from the 4,2kHz peak oc but most RS52's are crossed lower than that anyway).

[froste]

I'm a Noobie and don't know much, BUT

I've listen to the RS52 in my FCT3.5s (ZDT3.5 clones) for about a year, and reworked the XO about 6 times. I could never get the RS52 to sound "right" to me. So, I replaced the RS52 with the EM-1308 (the MDM55's more costly big brother, which has the same size face plate as the RS52), and reworked the XO for this driver. Now this speaker sounds much better (those at CKYDIY 2009 thought so too).
But the big thing to me is the RS52 plus XO parts cost more than the EM-1308 plus XO parts. It took much fewer parts for the BP circuit for the EM-1308 than the RS52 (6 vs 18 ).

I agree that with the right XO the RS52 can be made to sound very good, but the MDM55, CAM558 and EM1308 can be made to sound just as good (maybe better) with fewer XO parts. FWIW

[David G]

Hi David,

As John said, my crossover is LR4 at 900hz and I'm down about 36db at 400hz. I've heard the MDM55 crossed at 1khz, 2nd order and as low as 800hz 4th order and didn't detected any strain and this was playing quite loud in an auditorium setting, though they were limited, 10 minute auditions. I've been listening to my implementation, however, for a couple months now and have not noticed any problems at levels as loud as I go in my home. I do believe that the RS52 has a stronger low end than the MDM55. In crossing to dual RS180's at 900hz, with higher order slopes, I didn't feel I needed the stronger low end.

.

Thanks. As Johnloudg mentioned, I tend to use 1st order.
I'm sure it's not an issue at all in your setup.

[dlneubec]

But looking at the graphs the MDM55's third order distortion is constantly much higher than even the peaks in the RS52? (Apart from the 4,2kHz peak oc but most RS52's are crossed lower than that anyway).

This is true, however the MDM55 has a very broad hump in F3 rather than sharp peaks. It may be that the sharp F3 and F4 peaks in the RS52 are more noticible, since they stand out from the surrounding levels, I don't know.

One thing is absolutely certain to me personally, the MDM55 bests the RS52 in sound quality as well as ease of use, based on my experience with numerous different designers builds of both drivers, including my own. That opinion seems to be common among those who have similare experience with both drivers. I do notice that F2, though considered less significant, is higher in the RS52 from about 1khz and up, which covers almost all of its operating range.

[dlneubec]

I'm a Noobie and don't know much, BUT

I've listen to the RS52 in my FCT3.5s (ZDT3.5 clones) for about a year, and reworked the XO about 6 times. I could never get the RS52 to sound "right" to me. So, I replaced the RS52 with the EM-1308 (the MDM55's more costly big brother, which has the same size face plate as the RS52), and reworked the XO for this driver. Now this speaker sounds much better (those at CKYDIY 2009 thought so too).
But the big thing to me is the RS52 plus XO parts cost more than the EM-1308 plus XO parts. It took much fewer parts for the BP circuit for the EM-1308 than the RS52 (6 vs 18 ).

I agree that with the right XO the RS52 can be made to sound very good, but the MDM55, CAM558 and EM1308 can be made to sound just as good (maybe better) with fewer XO parts. FWIW

I agree Ed. The best implementation of the RS52 I've heard was in Paul's CenTiLana and that was a Deulund design. I would characterize the CenTiLana implemenation as sounding good, but not great, whereas I have heard several great sounding MDM55 designs. Perhaps the Deulund approach is the key to getting the most out of it, based on Jon and Thomas's experience, using it more as a filler driver, where it starts about 6db down.

[Silversmoky]

Silversmoky, thanks for posting the comparison graphs. Of course we miss what happens to the RS52 at its major breakup since it occurs at 13khz or so, though we may be looking at some of its effects with some of the sharp peaks in F3 and F4.

Sure, no problem! :T I have only worked with the Morel in an actual design so I really can't compare the sound. I have been really happy with the 55's in the center channel design I did with them. Have upcoming plans to use the RS52's in a WMTMW format with a sub on the bottom end, not to disimilar to your Blades design. Maybe then I can compare them a little more directly as far as sound preference. As far as testing, I think they both measure quite well and it is easy to see why both are popular and have strong followings.

[matt12v]

To put a few cents in as an owner of both the RS52 and CAM55 drivers I have to say I really prefer the CAM55 ;x( (MDM55). I have not heard a smoother, sweeter midrange than this.

[Rick Craig]

The preference for the MDM-55 may be due to the better internal damping of the dome. A stiff metal dome like the RS52 can have quite a bit of ringing and the resonant peak in the upper end response is quite strong.

[maynardg]

The implementation Dan describes below in the TzuJan, covered the range from about 1800 to 4200 using about 2nd LR slopes. I have the TzuJan's back out comparing with my newest, a 4-way version. The MDM55 really is very, very good. I agree with Dan, Paul, and others; the RS52 has not lived up to its measurement specs in the 6-8 implementations I have heard - most by very competent XO people. My impression only, blah, blah, but if that is the best sounding dome out there, I am saddened. Fortunately it is not.

Regarding scoring at events, don't get too hung up on it. The popularity contests might identify the top 3-4 with some rating dependability - no more. That said, it feels nice to win.

Unfortunately, the IowaDIY 2008 site is down or I would point you to the indpendent scoring results that put an MDM55 system, the Tzu-jan, at the top of its category, from a relatively inexperienced designer, and the two ZDT3.5 systems with the RS52 were in the last two places. I think it was also that year that Paul's CanTiLenas (Rick Craig xover), which use the MDM55, were the top scoring speaker in the unlimited category at Iowa. His CanTilenas also outscored Jed's Tombstones (Seas H1212 motor with DXT waveguide lens, Seas Excel W15CY, Seas Excel W26FX) at Dayton in 2008.

As you said in regards to the D2608, you have to hear a driver to determine how it will sound. The MDM55 is much like the D2608 in that respect. You might want to try it before you suggest it is no match for the RS52. Whether it matches up in measurements alone is less important to most than how it consistently sounds in the finished results.

[SoundOfNothing]

The implementation Dan describes below in the TzuJan, covered the range from about 1800 to 4200 using about 2nd LR slopes.

With the tweeters out there today, I don't see the point of using a "mid" from just 1800-4200hz.

[dlr]

I agree Ed. The best implementation of the RS52 I've heard was in Paul's CenTiLana and that was a Deulund design. I would characterize the CenTiLana implemenation as sounding good, but not great, whereas I have heard several great sounding MDM55 designs. Perhaps the Deulund approach is the key to getting the most out of it, based on Jon and Thomas's experience, using it more as a filler driver, where it starts about 6db down.

I'm just lurking here, I've never heard the Morel. One key area that I see not mentioned is the off-axis response, especially within the context of a design.

Edit: Dan did mention in post 19 that his design is at a specific off-axis angle.

Maybe these two are similar enough that it's not an issue, but for two similarly sized diaphragms, the off-axis (power response) could be the key, especially since it will be in the area of greatest sensitivity for our hearing for a true midrange driver. That off-axis response will likely have different deltas between axes as well. The first arrival at, say, 5-10 degrees off-axis may be different enough in final designs to be noticeable.

Just stoking the fire. :E

Dave

[cjd]

With the tweeters out there today, I don't see the point of using a "mid" from just 1800-4200hz.

Easy. Off-axis response. The top end on the tweeters that cross happily at 1800 rolls off more dramatically than a nice little 3/4" dome that needs a bit higher crossover point. Though, that's not saying you *should* do this.

I still consider revisiting the big 3-ways I have and pushing to a 4-way...

[maynardg]

With the tweeters out there today, I don't see the point of using a "mid" from just 1800-4200hz.

One of the great advantages of a 3 or 4 way is the ability to use drivers just within their sweet spot. More drivers, shallow slopes, fewer XO parts per driver... can be very nice sounding.

[BILLS]

just a noobie with an questionable thought...the Tang Band 75-1558se looks like it might be good competition and I have not seen it a build :W

[augerpro]

just a noobie with an questionable thought...the Tang Band 75-1558se looks like it might be good competition and I have not seen it a build :W

Got a year to wait? I might have one then

[Shonver]

At what HP frequency do you guys cross the MDM55 over? I somehow recall reading comments that this mid sounds its characteristic best when crossed over "too low". That is, lower than distortion plots and resonant frequency might suggest it should be done.