I've heard several pro drivers as mids, the B&G sounded quite good. Imo I'd split that $200 buy a better tweeter. Seems to me that I hear more of a difference from better tweeters than better mids ymmv...
@DanP said:
I'm honestly having a hard time coming up with a ton of 5 - 6" drivers that meet the 88dB sensitivity criteria, which then makes the "best of" question tough. The Scanspeak 15M/4624G Discovery, 5.5" Midrange and the Satori MR16P-4 are the only great mids that come to mind and fit the bill.
I hadn't been checking each one, but I went back and checked a few and wow that really is restrictive. I think a few of these have been 88db, but remember the original goal is 90db and 88db is a "maybe". Makes me appreciate the PM180 even more, not only is it 94db but at 8ohm.
@jhollander said:
Imo I'd split that $200 buy a better tweeter...
But I never said what tweeter... If I buy $225 (or even close) midranges I'd probably use Bozhen Q76b, Satori TW29RN, Revelator, or something of equal caliber. (And I don't necessarily mean expensive, despite those examples, just that I wouldn't skimp on the tweeter).
If you look long and hard you’ll find that it’s very hard to find a combination of high sensitivity, smooth response AND low distortion. All the pro/PA drivers use super light cones to offset the large voice coils so that the Mms is low, to get the high sensitivity. But then the break up starts. Some say they don’t mind a paper cone breakup, at least when compared to horrendous stiff cone breakup.
But it’s 2023; cone edge resonance has been solved by a few vendors. Smooth upper end up to 3KHz at least please. That’s why the other cone materials do matter, in terms of resonances and micro acoustics.
I’ll take the super stiff cone and deal with the bell mode resonance with a passive crossover notch filter ala JonMarsh or Purifi white paper.
@DanP said:
I'm honestly having a hard time coming up with a ton of 5 - 6" drivers that meet the 88dB sensitivity criteria, which then makes the "best of" question tough. The Scanspeak 15M/4624G Discovery, 5.5" Midrange and the Satori MR16P-4 are the only great mids that come to mind and fit the bill.
But what about the boost for a midrange in a 3 way configuration? That can add 1-1.5 dB passband for a mid
But Chahly - Stahkist don't want speakers that look good, Stahkist wants speakers that sound good!
@PWRRYD said:
I recall a thread over ar DIYAudio where their regular experts' general concensus was that dome mids are a stupid design choice. Never heard any of "their" stellar designs though.
I never understood the allure of domes mids until I built one. Had to cross it way high, but at high volumes, the RS270 started distorting before the Morel. Outstanding clarity.
But Chahly - Stahkist don't want speakers that look good, Stahkist wants speakers that sound good!
@rjj45 said:
But what about the boost for a midrange in a 3 way configuration? That can add 1-1.5 dB passband for a mid
One build I have in mind uses dual 90.4db woofers. From my understanding I'll get +6db for two wired in parallel, -5 to 6db baffle step loss, and minus a little more for to xo components. So I'm thinking I need 90 to 91 db sensitivity midrange. But I have heard about the midrange boost in a 3 way which is why I said maybe even 88 or 89 can be considered.
I'll be the guy who says don't discount paper cone drivers, they can be low distortion and sound very nice. The Faital that I used for a mid in the Mnemosyne build was actually pretty darn good, and efficient.
@DanP said:
I'm honestly having a hard time coming up with a ton of 5 - 6" drivers that meet the 88dB sensitivity criteria, which then makes the "best of" question tough. The Scanspeak 15M/4624G Discovery, 5.5" Midrange and the Satori MR16P-4 are the only great mids that come to mind and fit the bill.
I hadn't been checking each one, but I went back and checked a few and wow that really is restrictive. I think a few of these have been 88db, but remember the original goal is 90db and 88db is a "maybe". Makes me appreciate the PM180 even more, not only is it 94db but at 8ohm.
The PM180 definitely meets the sensitivity criteria. I don't think I've ever heard it though, so it can't make my personal best-of list.
@ugly_woofer said:
I'll be the guy who says don't discount paper cone drivers, they can be low distortion and sound very nice. The Faital that I used for a mid in the Mnemosyne build was actually pretty darn good, and efficient.
I'll second that... My recipe for good midrange is a lightweight paper cone.
Any opinions on AE TD6M? Retail is way beyond the price range of the OP here, but I did just find a 2nd hand pair that does fall in this price category. Very little information available, is this one of those things that’s too expensive so nobody buys it?
@dcibel said:
Any opinions on AE TD6M? Retail is way beyond the price range of the OP here, but I did just find a 2nd hand pair that does fall in this price category. Very little information available, is this one of those things that’s too expensive so nobody buys it?
When something comes from a startup or boutique vendor, and there’s just no detailed measurements of it available to the public, I always wonder why.
There’s probably a selection bias going on…
Who wants to publicly disclose bad measurements and potentially trash the startup/boutique vendor or small guy?
Easy to take aim at Goliaths like Apple or Bose, but who wants to take aim at AE; Audio Technology, Motus, Morel, Eton etc?
If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all…
I found the same. The issue I have with the response above is 10dB/div, making it look a lot smoother than it is. Traced and re-scaled for a proper 25dB/dec aspect ratio, there is a 4dB hole in the middle of the midrange, which isn't what I would call stellar for a high end mid range. But I will find out soon enough how problematic it really is, it might take a bit of sensitivity loss and a few passive components to pound the response into shape to really make this one shine.
From measurements I just took last night.
So you can see the B&W is 5dB more sensitive than the Purifi. For decades it's never had any cone edge resonance around 800-1000Hz, thanks to it's FST. Then B&W switch from Kevlar to Continuum and gone is the 3.5KHz cone resonance.
Smooth as a pancake out to 8KHz.
We can all thank Steve for uncovering the best midrange, bar none.
You give me far too much credit here tktran but I thank you for the kudo's for being a conduit in getting this data out there on this good forum.
I just saw the sweeps for those 5" B&W FST mids and went, "WoW! - I gotta get a pair of these some day - so much potential on the right baffle/enclosure; then you showed up and we conspired to make it happen . . .
I wonder how those 6" FST sweeps would look on a flat baffle in-room?
Comments
I agree that dome mids are somewhat niche in requirement, but they can sound spectacular.
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
I've heard several pro drivers as mids, the B&G sounded quite good. Imo I'd split that $200 buy a better tweeter. Seems to me that I hear more of a difference from better tweeters than better mids ymmv...
I hadn't been checking each one, but I went back and checked a few and wow that really is restrictive. I think a few of these have been 88db, but remember the original goal is 90db and 88db is a "maybe". Makes me appreciate the PM180 even more, not only is it 94db but at 8ohm.
But I never said what tweeter... If I buy $225 (or even close) midranges I'd probably use Bozhen Q76b, Satori TW29RN, Revelator, or something of equal caliber. (And I don't necessarily mean expensive, despite those examples, just that I wouldn't skimp on the tweeter).
If you look long and hard you’ll find that it’s very hard to find a combination of high sensitivity, smooth response AND low distortion. All the pro/PA drivers use super light cones to offset the large voice coils so that the Mms is low, to get the high sensitivity. But then the break up starts. Some say they don’t mind a paper cone breakup, at least when compared to horrendous stiff cone breakup.
But it’s 2023; cone edge resonance has been solved by a few vendors. Smooth upper end up to 3KHz at least please. That’s why the other cone materials do matter, in terms of resonances and micro acoustics.
I’ll take the super stiff cone and deal with the bell mode resonance with a passive crossover notch filter ala JonMarsh or Purifi white paper.
Or a different cone without all the resonances.
But what about the boost for a midrange in a 3 way configuration? That can add 1-1.5 dB passband for a mid
I never understood the allure of domes mids until I built one. Had to cross it way high, but at high volumes, the RS270 started distorting before the Morel. Outstanding clarity.
One build I have in mind uses dual 90.4db woofers. From my understanding I'll get +6db for two wired in parallel, -5 to 6db baffle step loss, and minus a little more for to xo components. So I'm thinking I need 90 to 91 db sensitivity midrange. But I have heard about the midrange boost in a 3 way which is why I said maybe even 88 or 89 can be considered.
Tang Band 75-1558SE (if the new ones sound like the old ones) is the answer IMHO.
Sehlin Sound Solutions
I'll be the guy who says don't discount paper cone drivers, they can be low distortion and sound very nice. The Faital that I used for a mid in the Mnemosyne build was actually pretty darn good, and efficient.
The PM180 definitely meets the sensitivity criteria. I don't think I've ever heard it though, so it can't make my personal best-of list.
I'll second that... My recipe for good midrange is a lightweight paper cone.
No Vapor Derecho? Those sounded great!
That said, you need a 3rd electrical to get a 2nd acoustic. I asked the person who did the xover....
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
Do you remember if that was before or after Vapor started using the sliced cone?
To my knowledge, the only thing that changed was Josh slicing the cones. The response still is wide band enough to require more parts to net the goal.
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
Nope, never heard that one...
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
Speaking of the one who did the crossover... has anyone heard from Pete in a while?
Any opinions on AE TD6M? Retail is way beyond the price range of the OP here, but I did just find a 2nd hand pair that does fall in this price category. Very little information available, is this one of those things that’s too expensive so nobody buys it?
He's doing okay, just a busy guy.
InDIYana Event Website
Wolfy's Photobucket
When something comes from a startup or boutique vendor, and there’s just no detailed measurements of it available to the public, I always wonder why.
There’s probably a selection bias going on…
Who wants to publicly disclose bad measurements and potentially trash the startup/boutique vendor or small guy?
Easy to take aim at Goliaths like Apple or Bose, but who wants to take aim at AE; Audio Technology, Motus, Morel, Eton etc?
If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all…
The Motus 5" is very good, but NLA
The SB standard line especially the coated paper versions have excellent midrange.
Apart from the prototype/initial run, I haven't heard anything negative on the TD6M. And the following has been posted:
I found the same. The issue I have with the response above is 10dB/div, making it look a lot smoother than it is. Traced and re-scaled for a proper 25dB/dec aspect ratio, there is a 4dB hole in the middle of the midrange, which isn't what I would call stellar for a high end mid range. But I will find out soon enough how problematic it really is, it might take a bit of sensitivity loss and a few passive components to pound the response into shape to really make this one shine.
Good point. Did you pick up that pair from the forums?
From Canuckaudiomart.
Yeah that doesn't look very impressive.
Here, let's compare:
The Purifi PTT6.5M04 on a 15.75" H x 8" W cabinet, the B&W Continuum 2nd generation 6" FST is on a 8" spherical enclosure.
Thank you @Steve_Lee for enabling this dataset.
These are the best 2 midranges I've measured.
What program are you using to display this data?
REW.
From measurements I just took last night.
So you can see the B&W is 5dB more sensitive than the Purifi. For decades it's never had any cone edge resonance around 800-1000Hz, thanks to it's FST. Then B&W switch from Kevlar to Continuum and gone is the 3.5KHz cone resonance.
Smooth as a pancake out to 8KHz.
We can all thank Steve for uncovering the best midrange, bar none.
You give me far too much credit here tktran but I thank you for the kudo's for being a conduit in getting this data out there on this good forum.
I just saw the sweeps for those 5" B&W FST mids and went, "WoW! - I gotta get a pair of these some day - so much potential on the right baffle/enclosure; then you showed up and we conspired to make it happen . . .
I wonder how those 6" FST sweeps would look on a flat baffle in-room?