# Usher 9845c's installed...impressions



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

First I'd like to say thank you to cheapboy for such great information and knowledge he shares via his testing and expertise in this forum.

I have the 9845c's from Zalytron, picked'm up for $45/pop. I removed the backing and threw them IB in my OEM kicks replacing some cheapo Peerless 2 "domes. Its a pretty confined kick area in terms of surface and seal- but has a few inches of airspace behind it, lined the back with polyfill. The kicks were rather flimsy after cutting out a larger opening to seat these, so in turn were carpeted in the exterior and reinforced behind them with some mat deadner-pretty sturdy now.

This driver as stated is very open sounding, and has been nothing but a pleasant upgrade. They mate well with my dynamic, lively Rainbow tweets. Whereas the Peerless they replaced were more muffled, uninviting in sound and thus the tweeters were the focus of attention due to their detail. While wiring around under neath the carpet in the pasenger footwell, i was listening to them and as i i turned them on/off axis away from me there is a very minute in every sense of the word, hardly worth mentioning difference- their off axis and overall dispersion is quite amazing. They stage well with little work.

They definitely added more dynamics to my fronstage as i quickly noticed upon listening to a trumpet quartet in one of the Focal tracks...the whole body of sound of the trumpets filled my cabin and was felt like never before-airy,vocal range also became more centered and pronounced-those backround vocals also increased in clarity, less breathiness.
The Peerless tonally were just not a good match. The clarity and pluck of bass is so much more refined now, and on the piano tracks of the Alpine F1 disk the lower piano parts exhibited more a higher and more realistic attack.

I have them at 500hz on a 24db slope to ~3.15k 6db slope. I've had them at 4k and 5k on first to second order slopes, but i think due to the arrangement of all my drivers-due to staging preferences they sound best at this xover point in my car. Currently my stage appears to be about 4" into the edge of the dash. By moving my tweeters forward into the sails (about 6" or so,AND 2" HIGHER) as soon as I can get a hold of some new door panels, i feel i can push the stage back to a more desirable point.

Like most DIY drivers thery came in a simple box, no literature. So other than cheapboy's review of the (9845M i dont know anything solid on them). They do have a very nice feel for them, strong grill. I didn't get a chance to listen to them with the plastic membrane on, first thing I did when I received them was remove them and surprisingly theres not much depth to these, smaller motor than the Peerless by a almost an inch mounting depth difference.
The positive and negative terminals are marked on the plastic backing itself, so note to keep this in mind to mark it on the magnet with say a sharpie upon removing it.
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_291_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_293_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_294_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_292_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_295_full.jpg
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/10/web/466000-466999/466763_296_full.jpg


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

nice review man

I was about to buy a pair of those till I ran into issues

i wanted to compare them to my dls ir3 dome mids, well maybe someday 

thx for the insight

why did you take the back of though?? thats the only part I didnt understand


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

who is this cheap boy?


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

cotdt said:


> who is this cheap boy?


npdang..


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

newtitan said:


> nice review man
> 
> I was about to buy a pair of those till I ran into issues
> 
> ...


Well npdang mentioned them working better lower with them off, as they tend to resonate when xover low. Also eca member NABBOY has some personal experience and use of the 9845c's and recommended it as well for the same reasons, and said to stuff some poly behind them.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Great review... we need more like this 

$45 a pop... that's a smoking deal too.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Is this the same Usher dome that you tested before Dang or is it a new one?


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Is this the same Usher dome that you tested before Dang or is it a new one?


He tested the 9845, i have the 9845C

two versions of the driver

9845- 92db efficient, FS 410hz, 20/30watts max input
9845c-88db efficient, FS 380hz,15/20watts max input, 85grams total heavier,120 gram heavier magnet

http://www.usheraudio.com/driver-9845C.html
http://www.usheraudio.com/driver-9845.html


----------



## Feyz (Sep 24, 2005)

3.5max6spd said:


> http://www.usheraudio.com/driver-9845C.html
> http://www.usheraudio.com/driver-9845.html


Looking at the specs, FR/Impedance, and distortion from those links, it looks to me 9845C has a faraday sleeve on the pole piece, and it is also possible it has ferrofluid as well. My guess on Faraday sleeve comes from the slow rising impedance of 9845C, its lower sensitivity due to widened air gap because of the space taken by the sleeve, even though it is compensated by using a bigger magnet (2cm magnet height vs 1.5cm), and the obvious lower 3rd order distortion vs the 9845. My guess on ferrofluid is coming from the damped impedance resonance peak vs 9845's peak; though I am not too certain on that, it may be due to some other difference in damping. But I can bet 9845C uses a Faraday sleeve on pole piece


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

So overall the C version can go just a little lower...but can't take as much power. How much different is the sound b/w the two....I'm still trying to widen my usable midrange pool to start testing them out soon. Looks to be a good choice, but sorta wondering about the power and low end on them.


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> So overall the C version can go just a little lower...but can't take as much power. How much different is the sound b/w the two....I'm still trying to widen my usable midrange pool to start testing them out soon. Looks to be a good choice, but sorta wondering about the power and low end on them.


I wouldn't be concerned with the power ratings, nor efficiency for that matter-these actually easily overpowered my fronstage , they required hefty attenuation via level control, and they are taking the approx 100rms per ch just fine(they'll never see half that at 8ohm anyhow) They do play very loud, while remaining crystal clear...but the true payoff is the elaborate midrange detail i know hear at lower listening volumes.

In my car , in those kicks...it appears i have some peakiness ~3500hz perhaps further exaggerated by reflections, and I actually resolved most of it by underlapping them with my tweets...now set a 2.5k 18db slope, while tweets at 4k 12 db...

Other than the obvious differences, they do look rather similar as far as freq response graph- i cant imagine their sound to be noticeably different.
Again at $45 each, I'm glad I decided to try them- i feel in ways the performance is worth much more.


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

How do these compare to the Dayton RS28A?


----------



## 10K2HVN (Mar 8, 2005)

cotdt said:


> How do these compare to the Dayton RS28A?


The Dayton RS28A is a 1" domed tweeter..

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=275-130

While the Usher 9845/c is a 2" domed MIDRANGE.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=276-620


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

Lol oops their similar looks and the review description made me think that it was a tweeter.


----------



## Nothingness (Mar 31, 2005)

3.5max6spd said:


> Well npdang mentioned them working better lower with them off, as they tend to resonate when xover low. Also eca member NABBOY has some personal experience and use of the 9845c's and recommended it as well for the same reasons, and said to stuff some poly behind them.


Make sure you have the kicks completely sealed off and do not stuff the polyfill into the driver. Allow the driver to breathe from behind or the backwave will get clogged by the polyfill. Basically, try and stuff/seal off the enclosure without getting the stuffing too close to the back of the driver. Just a sealed enclosure with NO polyfill, but dampened correctly with fiberglass/sealants/etc. so no air is getting out will sound great. I played with these a lot and they were not happy when I had the fiberglass close to them...but I pulled it back from them a ways, allowing the backwave some space to move, and boom, the polyglass absorbs the rest and what you have is a very clean and clear drive unit. I love this driver a lot.


----------



## Nothingness (Mar 31, 2005)

Just curious, what are the cons of the drivers and have you ever heard a Seas Excel driver by any chance? I'm curious if you've ever had a reference driver or speaker that you would compare these to to describe pros/cons.

BTW, sensitivity may be 88db, but the ones I had (not sure which version) got really loud with no power. Look at what the drivers are meant to have for power and you know they are efficient (i.e. 20W/30W, 15W/20W).


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

Can you post the link to the NABBOY thread. I couldn't find it.


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

ttt


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

mitchyz250f said:


> Can you post the link to the NABBOY thread. I couldn't find it.


Nabboy thread? We spoke via e-mail. Any questions you can reach'm via email on ECA


----------

