|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.114.153.191
In Reply to: RE: pictures posted by RCA-fan on July 12, 2008 at 07:21:18
The 604 horn has a peak in it. Even filtered, the peak is there in time.
The Tannoy is very smooth in the voice-- very smooth.
I should have said poor integration relative to the Tannoy.
I just happened to be in a position where someone was kind enough to let me test the Tannoy's, so I thought I post the results.
However, I have never got past the peak in the 604. When you take a 802, and put it on a good horn, it is a very nice driver... no peak.
Everything I say is backed up by measurements.
The 604 is a fine driver, just don't get in a shoot out in the voice range against a Tannoy
On a scale of 1-10 the Altec is a 7.5. the Tannoy is 8.5 in my opinion.
Another point Tannoy drivers are expensive and hard to get. If you own an Alnico 604, think of what it would cost to make that driver today. They are a deal each time I go to sell mine, this fact makes me reconsider.
Enjoy your speaker, you could be stuck with a dome tweeter.
Best, Bill
Follow Ups:
hi Bill - did you test any of P-audio's 15" coaxials? 15CXHA is superficially like Eminence's old C15cX and both sport a `3"x6" horn which is rough graph-wise on my Eminence example. P-Audio's 15CXA/B have cone fed termination. I"m considering a P-Audio 15 coax if they meet spec and sound decent Best!ps - that Eminence 3"x6" horn (and P-Audio's copy) resembles EV's ancient CDP front horn
Just my opinion, but I still use ( a couple of years on) and enjoy the 15CXHB's. I think they sound "decent" :-)I'm not sure what you mean when you describe them as having "cone fed termination".
Their spec suits what you have previously said you like in a driver - very light cone for a 15, plenty of dynamics. However, being bass shy, they need some help on the low end to really rock out, IMO.
mms 71.44g
Fs 50Hz
Qts .23
VAS 135.08l
no 7.03 %As for ruggedness, I've accidently put my shoulder pretty heavily into a cone of one (no discernable damage), and I accidentally played some Einstürzende Neubauten at full output of a pro amp through one* for about 10 secs with no damage (the amp was a Yamaha, rated at 800watts into 4 ohms, which is somewhat more than the speaker's specced power capacity).
My set-up is:
coax crossed at 2K (2nd order)
helper 15" (SN 15B) crossed I forget exactly where (looking at the X-over I'm mildly surprised to see I've set it up as about 300Hz, 3rd order)
==> both in a sealed box....and sometimes I use an active sub rolled in very low.
I don't pad the HF - I chop down the low end of the HF horn's output with eq on the computer.
*through just the cone section, with no X-over.
is there any diff between HB and HA? - Fs and Vas are higher/lower than some speakers but should work well in a Karlson - CXA has Tannoy type feed versus the ~3"x6" horn. Have you ever tried putting a foam or felt ring behind the horn and over the outer spider (where a dustcap would normally be)? - that cleared up my C15CX somewhat and could be seen on graphsfwiw here's 15cxha's published specs - dunno how accurate ~same specs are given to the hornless model (15cxa)
Thiele-Small Parameters
Resonant Frequency (Fs) 39 Hz
Impedance (Re) 5.6 ohms
Mechanical Q (Qms) 6.45
Electrical Factor(Qes) .25
Total Q (Qts) .24
Comp. Equivelant Vol. (Vas)9.09 ft3 / 257.5 Liters
Voice Coil Overhang (Xmax) 2.75 mm
Surface Area of Cone (Sd) .083 m2
BL Factor (BL) 18.45 T-M
I don't have the HA graphs handy... the pdf I kept has just the CXHB and CXB info. Of the various P-audio's, the CXHB is the one I went for, cos the 3"x6" horn types seemed to give better HF response, and the CXHB's cone section had the "best" specs. From what I can see, all of their coaxes need bass support, so minor differences in their low-end extension are pretty irrelevant... therefore, I decided I may as well get the one that takes the light weight / big magnet thing the furtherest.
I've felted the backs of my horns. It's a nearly invisible tweak, and was easy to do, so it doesn't really matter that there was no noteworthy improvement.
I tried the ring idea ages ago, didn't notice any difference. It looked silly, so I got rid of it. The ring of material was pretty light, and level with the horn mouth (that is, quite far forward of the outer spider). Perhaps I should give other arrangements a try. How is yours set up? What type of listening material does the foam ring make the most noticable improvement on?
- had the foam ring right against the secondary spider - took out some harshness which I attributed to C15cx's horn (which I assume is just like P-audio's copy) - down side is I sometimes play dynamic things loud and even in a Karlson the ring would get kicked forwards - it won't hurt to try other than waste a few minutes which is nothing in this hobby - -stock vintage 604 look about as messy as the ring I used which IIRC was around 4" diameter - their felt ring may be part of their success (???)well this was messier looking - Eminence C15cx from the 1990's- btw - if your lowpass slope is steep the ring might not matter much
Cheers. At the moment I'm using a 1st-order lowpass, so it's worth a go. I'm waiting on 3 pro amps so I can permanently install an active (steeper slopes) X-over setup, but the supplier keeps pushing back the delivery date.
That Eminence speaker is visually very much like mine. I just found a post where you gave specs. They look similar, except the Q values. Since the P-audio has the lower Qts, I guess it would sound relatively thin if dropped into the exact same configuration as the Eminence.
Eminence on left, P-audio specs pulled from a pdf file on my 'puter:
05-RE OHMS 6.39 // 6.1ohm
13-FS HZ 56.80 // 50Hz
06-LE MH .85 // ?? Not stated
14-MMS GMS 53.10 // 71.44g inc airload (approx 58g without airload)
07-QM 9.76 // 4.99 Qms
15-CMS mm/N .1479 // ??
08-QE .400 // .24 Qes
16-RMS NS/M 1.9423 ??
09-QT .390 // .23 Qts
17-VAS LTRS 152.29 // 135.08litres
10-XMAX MM 2.90 // 2.5mm
18-SD SCM 856.34 // 830cm^2
11-BL TM 17.37 // 23.96
19-EBP 141.4 ??
12-EFF % 6.70 // 7.03
20-SPL dB 100.3 // 100dB
But.........
Here is the one to beat..
http://www.rcfaudio.com/vediMacro.phtml/sLang/EN/IDMacro/4373/menuAttivo/2293/m1/0/LowFrequencyNeoWoofersCX15N351/product.htm
I have only seen test curves- but this is the best horn co-ax I have seen.
It is going to be tough to beat.
I don't know the price or a dealer.
Save your pennies.
Plus, the ergonomic design is second to none..none, with RCF stuff.
Bill
looks like ~$600 hereBMS has heavier cone coax from $250-$350 - are those decent? Freddy
The BMS has a terrific woofer, but the HF driver is a bit edgy, and the horn is not as good.
But I am surprised at the BMS price, and it is a good deal.
B&C makes some nice ones too. The 8" B&C is used by Danley.
Bill
some folks have put K-tubes in coaxial - but a little tube won't support lower xover - would do 'ok' at 1K8
811 vs 5 cent 1" pipe K-tube in-room with old CD8 Eminence driver - sorry about thee scale discrepencies
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: