|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.229.80.129
I was looking for ideas on a high efficiency PAPER tweeter. I am familiar with the JBL LE26 at around 95db and an older 2" German unit with no markings. The higher the efficiency the better. I was really hoping for 97db or better. While efficiency is important, tone and the lack of artifact is paramount. I don't think there is a modern unit being built but I would like to be wrong. I think PHY makes one but is more a supertweeter, made to be crossed +10k. So I guess it might have to be an older vintage driver. Any experiences?I would also add that I would expect the tweeter to carry upper midrange and up.
thank you.
Edits: 04/16/13Follow Ups:
Not modern but very good IMHO. Wharfedale Super 3. From 1956. If you have heard any of the later permutations you have not experienced what these can do. These are the ones made under GA Briggs' supervision Not The Rank co. I have tried the JBL le26, Foster horns yamaha ja691b Coral, Leak Bozak etc. The wharfedales are the best so far. Very hard to find though. They have felt surrounds or Foam with metal dust caps. I heard from a reliable source that there is no spider but a kind of foam or felt suspension. Large ANICO mags. Audio Nirvana makes a Super 3 that is FR not a tweeter but might work.
Regards,
Jason
I think there are still a few of these available. The sensitivity is about where you are wanting it to be if your crossover is up reasonably high, but these are incredibly expensive tweeters. (The cone is graphite coated paper)
Edits: 04/21/13
I have put up a curve of the Philips (2490?) cone tweeter vs the JBL cone tweeter, in my Gallery "RCA-fan"
bill
http://gallery.audioasylum.com/cgi/view.mpl?UserImages=21168&session=
Philips made a really excellent very small paper tweeter with a large magnet. Efficiency is high 90's. I can probably dig one out and get you a pic if you were interested.
Jonathan Weiss
Thank you Jonathan. Yes please, a photo would be great as well as any possible markings to identify it. Philips really has some gems for drivers in the past.
IIRC, WLM uses a Visaton paper tweeter in their LaScala (probably something like the ones linked in Hornlover's post below - possibly too low efficiency) and possibly, maybe, perhaps an Eminence in their more efficient coaxes, which I read as having paper cones, though I am not sure...
Also, the Altmann BYOB speaker system uses a paper tweet, but I am unsure of the efficiency, availability or origins...
Cheers.
“As long as we have any intention to be right… we should be wary. So long as words have the slightest ego attachment, they are dishonest.” Charlotte Joko Beck
Not paper but easy on the ears is the SB Acoustics 29s. Online measurements show a dominant 2nd order for nicer tone.
Otherwise keepchecking the bay
Thanks for the notice.
its not what Miab asked about but they are a worthy consideration and have a sweet tone. They're small enouth to roll your own coax too.
If a person wants the best sound stage they still have to go with CD horns.
These paper cone tweeters are available from Visaton. you could use 2 or 4 in a small line array and get about 96db or so.
Thank you Hornlover, I will look into them a little further although I was hoping to get by with a single > 97-98db one. Maybe not possible though.
I know....Bose...BUT IMHO, they are one of the better sounding
to me. They do have mounting issues, with no flange and just
a single threaded hole on the rear of magnet.
I just remembered that I have a case of NOS Sansui 2" paper
cone sealed back tweeters, I should get to it.
CONER
is a comp driver with a good horn out of the question for you? more efficiency than you need lots of bandwidth and lower distortion than any direct radiating tweeter can ever dream of. If ultra low distortion is your goal that would be the way to go but if it is the sound of a paper cone tweeter that you want then why not horn load one or more? you could do a synergy horn with paper mids and a paper tweeter get the efficiency you want and you could integrate the drivers perfectly. Just a thought. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
Hi Moray
Thanks, yes I have been there and am doing that in another room. I have many compression drivers from Tad's to Yamaha to Coral's and everything between. My use for the appropriate paper tweeter is in the very nearfield. Horn circumference whether compression driver or paper tweeter does not work for this close. Not in my experience. Drivers should be in as close proximately as possible. Not to mention the disconnect of an aluminum diaphragm with a paper woofer and a few more variables. I am also visiting the coaxial drivers and there might be a possible solution there.
from what I can see the synergy would appear to be the ultimate coax design. Physically crossed within a 1/4 wave distance at crossover what would be the issue of a horn and woofer? Piezo tweeters (Motorola) have some of the nicest paper cones I have ever heard they spent a fortune developing a whole series of them. When properly set up piezo tweeter with horns sound stunning and will get you fairly low but perhaps not as low as you would like. Hope this may be worth a thought. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
McIntosh used multiples to get sensitivity.
We all laughed at them; they were ubiquitous but actually very good.
.
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=279-405
Cheap enough to try out.
Oh, well ,,,
http://www.audioasylumtrader.com/ca/listing/Speakers-Raw-Drivers/Peerless/Vintage-Alnico/3-quot-Cone-tweeters-N.O.S./57168
Use multiples to get your efficiency?
here's a Taiwan Peerless paper cone copy vs a B&C DE-25-8 on a K-tube - both at the same drive level. A CTS/Motorola piezo could be used with a 25 volt matching transformer as a stepup and not be real expensive. The real Peerless didn't seem very sensitive when I had MET7 toy speakers.
Karlson Evangelist
Freddy when you see the response of a comp driver on a plane wave tube the response is so smooth. Do drivers on a K-tube show that same incredible smooth response like they do on a plane wave tube? Thanks best regards Moray James.
moray james
If the driver's PWT response is smooth, it'll likely be smooth on a K-Tube. It should look about the same, save for not exhibiting a drop in response (mass roll-off) above ~3kHz.
Re: high-sensitivity paper tweeters, you will quickly have to make some serious sacrifices in bandwidth and smoothness if you want reall high-sensitivity IMO. The Isophon 4" paper tweeters with a center screw (mechanical high-pass) are pretty loud, but the response is basically a 10dB peak at ~7kHz.
IG
hey Moray - a simple 1"ID pvc pipe cut to 5.3" with a half-ellipse slot is pretty smooth plus it sounds "airy" as there's not much surface area. It would be nice to have something like the JBL tweeter if priced affordable
BEST
Freddy
Karlson Evangelist
freddy can you direct me to the info on the Karlson site that gives details for a 5.3" one inch ID pipe with a half ellipse slot? I think I need to build some up and have a good listen. I just got a pair of PylePH12s which are actually Peavey horns similar (to me) in a lot of ways to the old EV HP64m but with tractrix profiles. I want to compare these to some K-tubes.. Plain wave tube response is sooo smooth not going to find a horn that smooth any time soon. Thanks for the direction. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
Moray - for a 1 inch ID k-tube you can make a pattern (maybe with a printer) for a half-ellipse based on full ellipse 10.6" long major axis with a a minor axis of (pi* pipe outside diameter)- 1/8" inch starting gap - use a Dremel cut wheel and eye protection. The result will be reasonably close to Transylvania Power Company's "The Tube". "The Tube" had ~2 degree downwards sidewall angle and a more narrow slot than a slotted cylinder. I did not double check snkby's pattern. You could make a really quick K-tube with rolled up paper and scissors.
Karlson Evangelist
Thanks Freddy: do you have a picture of the stub? If I recall correctly that is a cylindrical stud placed at right angles across the inside of the tube I take it that the stub is placed 1.75 inches into the tube? Thanks again Freddy. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
hi Moray - that so-called "stub" was just another piece of 1" ID pipe taped to the 5.3" long tube - it actually seemed to cause a dip in the response so I would omit it. One of Karlson's X15 tubes had a concentric piece - they graph rough from a single mic perspective - I think that's because of transition from 1" exit to 1.8" ID tube and the concentric sliced piece. Carl thinks Karlson did that deliberately to scatter the sound and that it would take a number of mic positions to get the whole picture.
Karlson Evangelist
Freddy: did you ever try a K-tube on a larger format driver 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 or even 2 inch exit driver? Best regards Moray James.
moray james
I have tried a one inch driver on a two inch -tube using a 1" to 2" conical taper horn adapter - a one inch ID K-tube is good for home use. Transylvania Power Company apparently made a 2" format version of "The Tube" for PA work. David A. Young made 2" plastic K-tubes and reported that they worked very well in PA usage - said a person could stand off to the sides of the speaker and still hear highs. I think sometimes he blended the two inch K-tube to a 2-12" cabinet. What I don't now is if the 2" format tube was ~10.6" long (double length of the TPC one-inch tube)or less (?) A larger K-tube can make a nice rear load
K-tube using 6"ID PVC
one of those tubes as a rear load as did Silvercore with a Lowther on top of their diy La-Scala midbass horn- there was no damping material in this pipe I graphed
Karlson Evangelist
Sorry for being thick Freddy but what's the significance of the 5.3 inch length of the original K-tube? Thank you for posting all this great info. Building a K-tube from the ground up is much more attractive than building a horn of any kind from the ground up. Thanks again Freddy. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
I'm not sure of why Transylvania Power Company choosing a 5.3" length for their K-tube but it seems to be one of the best choices and will work with a piece of pvc pipe.
Karlson Evangelist
Freddy: I just spent the last couple of hours listening to a pair of K-tubes 8.5" long made from a couple of pieces of writing paper and held onto my Klipsch (EV) K63KN neo drivers (2" aluminium). The tubes are kind of kinked in at the driver end and held on with some scotch tape. They sound so good I have not been able to take them off and put on better ones yet. I found the very worst way to run them is pointing out forward over the drive. Right now I I have then on top of a pair of H3 with the driver centred over the woofer to align the diaphragms and the tubes are parallel to the floor and angled from centre by about 12 degrees, slots facing each other left to right.
I am absolutely amazed. These are so very crude made in a couple of minutes with minimal effort. The sound is excellent. Stage and image are very good clarity is very good. Response is far better than I imagined it would be. I made the tubes 8.5" long and I think I will make another pair 11" long and see if that helps crossover is at 800 Hz. These things really mess with your head. I am kicking myself for not doing this in this size a long time ago. I played with a tweeter yea5s ago and was pleased but not amazed back than and I cannot recall just what I did. I am very pleased that I did give this a listen. The way these sound I could easily see myself not buying horns anymore it seems such a waste of money and space. Thank you Freddy. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
Haha, glad you liked the first taste! I think very few have bothered trying these, funny considering how little of a bother it can be to produce something decent. Post some pictures when you have a chance!
IG
I do and you are absolutely right. I just rolled a second pair of MKll tubes these are 11 inches long balance at the low end of voice is better. I have them on top of the H3 drivers lined up with the woofer and the tube is firing forward angled out from centre about 8 degrees with the tapers facing each other. I truly am wondering if I will ever bother with horns again and I just bought a pile of them. These have so much potential it is hard to believe. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
hahaha - I've only mentioned them since around 2000 -- - paper tubes have their own charm - - Carl gets fancy and laminates maple veneer - also he's trying oval tubes to match Karlson's waveguide patent
I've had the little 5.3" long Transylvania Tube on top of a double 15" JBL bass reflex bin and was surprised how nice that combo sounded.
Karlson Evangelist
The good old Transylvania thick aluminum casting is very solid and neutral. A modern version made of polymer or composite material would be just as good IMO. A one-piece bakelite unit would win for koolness though. :)
IG
did you play with positioning and orientation of your k-tubes? I have tried vertical on top of the cabinet centred over the woofer VC with the slot facing all four quadrants f b l r. Facing forward tilted down with slot up down left and right. Tube straight forward all four positions for the slot. Firing forward different left to right angles. On fop of the cabinet firing full left and right with all for directions foe the slot. About two hours of all manner of directions. Cool thing is the lef and right diffraction break the exiting wave makes off the edges of the slot allow for 180 degree radiation which can be positioned to achieve forward and backward radiation almost like a dipole. Stage and image are excellent. Only horn I have used that can generate this quality of spaciousness is my Peavey CH-1 which essentially is a half scale version of the EV HR9040 (the great white whale)and I prefer the sound quality of the tube more even in such a crude lash up as two thin rolls of paper. Not saying that I might never use a horn again but I would imagine that if I can achieve this level with two one inch rolls of paper I can't see why I could not better most horns with a little effort. A most impressive idea with tremendous potential for home use at least where you don't need any gain. Wow am I please I finally tried a tube. Sorry I took so long to do this on anything other than a tweeter Freddy. Best regards Moray James.
moray james
Hey Moray James,
You'll see I've started a thread to discuss K-tubes with some of my implementations.
IG
Some decades ago there was a Pioneer (I think?) paper tweeter with decent sound, something like 93dB if I recall correctly. It had a distinctive phenolic ring around the circumference, and no visible rim suspension - which may have helped the sound (no diffraction) but limited the excursion.
Today the only candidate I'm familiar with is the Fostex FE83, which at 87dB is not efficient - but it can cross pretty low!
The ScanSpeak Revelator ring radiator can cross fairly low; at least it is specified for T-S parameters including linear excursion as well as mechanical excursion. Not paper and doesn't sound like paper though.
OK, this has scrolled off the page and nobody will see it - but Dynavox has the old CTS (Not Pioneer!) tweeter:
http://www.dynavox.com/audio-driver-speaker/audio-tweeter-driver/cone-tweeter/4.25inch-Round-10-oz-8-ohm-20mm-VC-Phenolic-Ring-Tweeter
only 90dB though.
out of stock - maybe Parts Express bought them???
Karlson Evangelist
Parts Express sold these until the last year or so. It seems Pioneer has quit making them. Too bad, they actually were good performing tweeters, despite the low price. I have 10 of them I purchased a couple of years ago for a project I still have not had the time to do, but maybe someday.
Thank you Paul. I have seen the Pioneer tweeter I think you are mentioning. It looks like a good candidate but efficiency is a little low.I think, unfortunately, the paper tweeter has been ignored for many years. It is not high-fi enough or modern. A paper tweeter can have the extension of (most)modern types up top as well as add upper mid/high tonality. They can be very efficient as well. Nothing sounds like a nice paper tweeter along with a paper mid.
I have found one tweeter from the 60's that I like very much but I only have one and can't find another however hard I looked. It's efficiency is a little low as well though.
Edits: 04/17/13
I have the drivers and crossover from a stereo Ampex system - 12" woofer, 8" midrange, 3" paper tweeter. I couldn't get a Vas for the tweeter so can't get the efficiency. Probably 92dB; it's 8 ohms while the woofer and midrange are 16 ohm drivers with around 2% efficiency (95dB/watt but 92dB/2.83v). The tweeter has an aluminum plug - no dust cap. Resonance 970Hz, QT 1.2; it was crossed with just a 4uF series capacitor. There's no indication who made the components... It would make an interesting vintage system in a large sealed box, though I'll probably never get around to doing it. Too many toys, too little time!
The problem with an efficient tweeter is always that the voice coil mass must be very small in order to get the highest frequencies, making it difficult to get enough magnetic force. In theory a cone should help by adding diaphragm area faster than it adds mass, so I agree - in theory of course - a paper tweeter should be able to get better efficiency than any other direct radiator. In practice, ribbons and Heil drivers seem more readily available.
"tone and the lack of artifact is paramount."
The PHY-HP piezo tweeter is not for you, because it sounds very artificial. There are no good enough paper tweeters on the market, I have tried them all.
Hi Haralanov
Thanks for your reply. I was hoping you would reply as you have a lot of experience and build your own drivers. Is there not a tweeter that has the high efficiency that is somewhat capable of some tone? It might not be up to the standard of your tweeter but maybe "a little good"?
Miab, if you want your tweeter to have good tone down to upper midrange, it should be no smaller than 10cm (4"). Preferably with 12mm voice coil diameter. Also, keep in mind that measured efficiency and perceived efficiency are very different things. For example - if you compare Fostex T500a MkII (which has 110dB/W/m measured efficiency) with high quality 10cm paper tweeter (having 95dB/W/m measured efficiency), your ears will judge they have the same efficiency, despite the measured 15dB difference.
moray james wrote:
"lower distortion than any direct radiating tweeter can ever dream of"
This is extremely polarized generalization. Educate yourself before making such statements.
Thank Haralanov,
I shall digest your comments for a little longer but I would like to ask you quickly about the 4" tweeter in relation to HF extension. Until now I have been concentrating on cones around 2.5" for a balance of upper mid usability with extension as for up as I would need. The single 2.5" I am trying now goes very high and has just ok lower sound although much better than any tweeter I have used yet. How high have your tweeter experiments or tweeter builds been able to go in the 4" size? Have you needed a 'super'tweeter above?
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: