# Is Anybody Competing With Point Source Drivers?



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

Like the title says. I know there are a few good ones out there. Morel and Illusion probably being the most popular. Seems like all the most competitive cars out there are running a 2-way, usually with tweeters in the A-pillars or 3-ways.

Just curious if there are many point source fans out there and if so, who is actually competing with them and doing well?


----------



## DLO13 (Oct 24, 2010)

i think a smart car might....


----------



## 4thseason (Mar 31, 2013)

Don't forget the Kef UniQ's 

I'm pretty sure someone on here is running them and doing well..


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 7, 2010)

The papasin's use those....


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> The papasin's use those....


You're right. She is using the Illusion Carbons I believe.


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

4thseason said:


> Don't forget the Kef UniQ's
> 
> I'm pretty sure someone on here is running them and doing well..


That would be bikinpunk. Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to check his build thread. Seemed he was also running a large midbass in the doors but I could be way off.


----------



## DLO13 (Oct 24, 2010)

mires said:


> You're right. She is using the Illusion Carbons I believe.





DLO13 said:


> i think a smart car might....


Mrs. has 5s, Mr. has 4s


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL (Jan 31, 2011)

mires said:


> That would be bikinpunk. Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to check his build thread. Seemed he was also running a large midbass in the doors but I could be way off.


8" in the kicks is what he's running.


----------



## badfish (Dec 9, 2011)

I did okay with the morels last year


----------



## Navy Chief (Jun 14, 2010)

I won VA state finals using Dayton PS180-8s in the kick panels. I do use a tweeter in the a-pillar for stage height but they are crossed at 10K. I want to upgrade to the PS220-8 in the kicks at some point.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

My build will be using Alpair10's on the dash once it's all finished. But that doesn't help for right now does it.

Edit: I bet a few people are using bad coaxials and entering competitions... that'd technically count wouldn't it?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

I've seen enough examples of well executed point source installs (both in competition and non competition vehicles) to make me second guess my choice to go with a traditional 2 way component set. My installation works better in terms of day to day function and stealth *for me*. However, there is no doubt in my mind that I could get better staging and imaging with a point source on/above the dash and a dedicated mid-bass in my kicks. In fact, I have experienced it in the same exact type of vehicle that I drive every day.


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

stochastic said:


> My build will be using Alpair10's on the dash once it's all finished. But that doesn't help for right now does it.
> 
> Edit: I bet a few people are using bad coaxials and entering competitions... that'd technically count wouldn't it?


Will be looking forward to your thoughts on those. 

And no... bad coaxials don't count


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

rton20s said:


> I've seen enough examples of well executed point source installs (both in competition and non competition vehicles) to make me second guess my choice to go with a traditional 2 way component set. My installation works better in terms of day to day function and stealth *for me*. However, there is no doubt in my mind that I could get better staging and imaging with a point source on/above the dash and a dedicated mid-bass in my kicks. In fact, I have experienced it in the same exact type of vehicle that I drive every day.


That's the input I was looking for. You have heard Papasin's Smart Car haven't you? How do those Illusions sound on the dash?


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

mires said:


> Will be looking forward to your thoughts on those.
> 
> And no... bad coaxials don't count


I've hooked them up indoors in a box (paired with my sub) and I'm in love with them. Beautiful clarity. I'm a huge fan of point source stuff and run Tannoy Precision 6's as my nearfield monitors on my computer desk. I love the Alpairs enough that I may get a set of the 12's for my next home speaker build.

We'll see if I still love them after I fight to get them to fit nicely and discreetly on my dash. (wish me luck)


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yep. I have been running the concentrics from this speaker since the beginning of last year:
Hi-Fi Speakers - R Series - Fact Sheets - Floorstanding - R500 - KEF International

But they aren't sold individually. 


And yes, I'm running 8's in the kicks as mentioned previously.


What kind of detail and fawning do you want me to go in to over a _good _concentric? LOL.


Edit: Build log here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...edan-v-my-full-disclosure-build-tune-log.html


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> Yep. I have been running the concentrics from this speaker since the beginning of last year:
> Hi-Fi Speakers - R Series - Fact Sheets - Floorstanding - R500 - KEF International
> 
> But they aren't sold individually.
> ...


ive always wondered how you got those. did you just buy the floorstanding speakers and take those out?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I owned the towers for a while. Then I sold them and went DIY with the same driver.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

ErinH said:


> I owned the towers for a while. Then I sold them and went DIY with the same driver.


god damn you need your old username back. this is to weird :laugh:

but i thought they dont sell the drivers individually..?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

mires said:


> That's the input I was looking for. You have heard Papasin's Smart Car haven't you? How do those Illusions sound on the dash?


Yes. I have heard the Smart and the Civic on several occasions. I have also heard JT's xB, which is the same exact car I have. His install had the Illusion C5CX point source more up firing than cross firing and it still staged very well. He also had HAT Legatia 8s in his kicks. Papasin uses the C4CX in his pillars paired with JL ZR800s in his kicks. Seeing a pattern here? 

MrsPapasin breaks the trend with the C5CX on her dash and no mid-basses. Of course, she does have a C12XL in the passenger side foot well.  

I would think with a large enough point source, and the right sub implementation, you can get away without having a dedicated mid-bass. Going to the 4" point sources, I would think that the midbass would become more of a requirement. It really comes down to how much room do you have to install and in what locations? Also, how much of your dash/pillars are you willing to let grow into your field of view?


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> god damn you need your old username back. this is to weird :laugh:
> 
> but i thought they dont sell the drivers individually..?


They don't. 

ErinH has his methods.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

rton20s said:


> I would think with a large enough point source, and the right sub implementation, you can get away without having a dedicated mid-bass. Going to the 4" point sources, I would think that the midbass would become more of a requirement. It really comes down to how much room do you have to install and in what locations? Also, how much of your dash/pillars are you willing to let grow into your field of view?


It's a nifty idea... but the problem is even though it's a 4" (or larger) driver, the surface area is closer to a 3" driver after you account for the tweeter area. For example, my Kefs are a 5.25" driver. Typically, with a regular cone driver, you measure the 'effective' diameter as half-surround to half-surround. IF you did this with my Kef driver you'd get a diameter of about 9.9cm. The tweeter assembly takes up a diameter about 4.75cm which is about half the total effective diameter. So, the surface area (Sd) breakdown is:
Total driver: 76.97687399cm^2
Tweeter only: 17.72054606cm^2
*Midrange only: 59.25632793cm^2*

That's more in line with a 4-4.5" driver. 


Then you have to consider the excursion of the driver vs the output of the subwoofer and the crossover point. The more excursion you have (to play lower) means higher modulation distortion. Because the midrange cone acts as a waveguide for the tweeter in a concentric design, the surround and geometry of the cone relative to the tweeter has a HUGE impact on the tweeter's response. Case in point, look at the "Tweeter Response vs Woofer Position" data I got here:
http://medleysmusings.com/kef-q100-drive-unit-testing/

Here's the data, if you don't want to read. This is with the tweeter at rest, and then fixed out +3mm and -3mm, respectively.











In short, subwoofers behind you cause problems. I'm not going to say you can't blend a sub at 160hz behind to the front stage, but let's be real here: I have tried and tried and it still has aspects that make itself a clear problem. So, now you have to deal with trying to limit the excursion of a relatively small cone area to provide the output you need to match with a subwoofer that's crossed high to fill in the gap and thus causing attention to itself.


Summary:
It's a cool idea. Just practically, it's not easy by any stretch. If you don't have a sub behind you, different ballgame. I play my kefs down to about 350hz with an LR4 electronic crossover on them. My midbasses are low passed at about 200hz. The sub/midbass crossover is around 70hz.


----------



## Bluenote (Aug 29, 2008)

ErinH said:


> It's a nifty idea... but the problem is even though it's a 4" (or larger) driver, the surface area is closer to a 3" driver after you account for the tweeter area. For example, my Kefs are a 5.25" driver. Typically, with a regular cone driver, you measure the 'effective' diameter as half-surround to half-surround. IF you did this with my Kef driver you'd get a diameter of about 9.9cm. The tweeter assembly takes up a diameter about 4.75cm which is about half the total effective diameter. So, the surface area (Sd) breakdown is:
> Total driver: 76.97687399cm^2
> Tweeter only: 17.72054606cm^2
> *Midrange only: 59.25632793cm^2*
> ...


So Erin, what happens to the information in between 200hz to 349hz? Or is it negligible enough where it's not audible? I've never seen that big of a crossover gap. Just trying to learn...


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

Erin,

I think Dustin's point has to do with something you touched upon,



ErinH said:


> If you don't have a sub behind you, different ballgame.



which of the three installs he discussed, what you indicated falls right in line. 

- Richard


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

rton20s said:


> Yes. I have heard the Smart and the Civic on several occasions. I have also heard JT's xB, which is the same exact car I have. His install had the Illusion C5CX point source more up firing than cross firing and it still staged very well. He also had HAT Legatia 8s in his kicks. Papasin uses the C4CX in his pillars paired with JL ZR800s in his kicks. Seeing a pattern here?
> 
> One pattern I am seeing is that the Illusion carbons rock lol. I need to do some searching to see if I can find anyone using the 6.5's alone with no dedicated midbass.
> 
> ...


I'm using the Integra Ovation XO6 now but they are off axis in the doors. I am toying with the idea of building kicks for them to get them more on axis. They aren't midbass monsters but they blend very well with my subs.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Whatever newb.  Who is this ErinH guy anyway? 

Seriously though, I think we're actually in agreement. Even if you do have far more experience, knowledge, technical expertise and pretty graphs to back it up. I think the Smart build gets away with what it does because of the installation. Having that sub right up front seems like a huge advantage. I don't think you could get away with that in a more "traditional" install with the sub behind you. Hence the mid-basses implemented by Papasin (4" driver) and JT (5.25" driver).

Wow... maybe I should have quoted. That was a lot of responses in under 5 minutes!


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh, there's this other guy I think we know who had point sources on his dash and has taken home his share of championships. 



















...and currently, not running mid basses and just an up front sub. Seems to work pretty well.


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

papasin said:


> Oh, there's this other guy I think we know who has point sources on his dash and has taken home his share of championships.
> 
> 
> ...and currently, not running mid basses and just an up front sub. Seems to work pretty well.


Gonna need more information on this sir


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

mires said:


> Gonna need more information on this sir


Maybe Erin can convince he needs a name change too...cuz his new truck isn't red. Is that enough info?


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

papasin said:


> Maybe Erin can convince he needs a name change too...cuz his new truck isn't red. Is that enough info?


Yup, one of my favorite sodas  Thanks Papasin !


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2008)

At what point are they considered coaxials? Kef tweets seem to sit inside the voice coil more than these other brands.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Have Tannoy 8s slated to go in my car whenever I get able to build it.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Because KEF is one of a handful of companies who know how to make a proper coaxial.

KEF
Pioneer/TAD whose engineer came from KEF
Tannoy
B&C

Would be my Tier 1 coaxials based on engineering and design.



[email protected] said:


> At what point are they considered coaxials? Kef tweets seem to sit inside the voice coil more than these other brands.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

papasin said:


> Oh, there's this other guy I think we know who had point sources on his dash and has taken home his share of championships.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. His pods are huge.....not as big as Jon Whitledge's, but still huge.....wait a minute....hmmmmm.........pod size envy?????? lol

Too soon????


----------



## papasin (Jan 24, 2011)

Niebur3 said:


> Wow. His pods are huge.....not as big as Jon Whitledge's, but still huge.....wait a minute....hmmmmm.........pod size envy?????? lol
> 
> Too soon????


Nice one Jerry. Perhaps I should have charged for the conversation we had when you wanted advice on the OEM HU of your TSX...but then again, $800/day isn't exactly my rate.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

And the gloves are off!

If only a moderator was part of this discussion; he could nip it in the bud. 

*looks around*

Nope. None here. Carry on, fellas!


(Just kidding, in case it's not obvious)


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

papasin said:


> Nice one Jerry. Perhaps I should have charged for the conversation we had when you wanted advice on the OEM HU of your TSX...but then again, $800/day isn't exactly my rate.


What then what the hell did I send you those free Dyns for???? lol j/k



ErinH said:


> And the gloves are off!
> 
> If only a moderator was part of this discussion; he could nip it in the bud.
> 
> ...


I was only joking (couldn't help it). Keep the gloves on.....lol!

I think we are ll friends here. Aren't we?!? Wait....who the hell is ErinH?


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

ErinH said:


> And the gloves are off!
> 
> If only a moderator was part of this discussion; he could nip it in the bud.
> 
> ...


You're really enjoying not being a mod anymore aren't you? lol


----------



## bigbubba (Mar 23, 2011)

papasin said:


>


Are those speakers press fit?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

no take the gloves off! lets see the real Erin who doesnt hold back because he needs to be held to a higher standard lol


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

SkizeR said:


> no take the gloves off! lets see the real Erin who doesnt hold back because he needs to be held to a higher standard lol


I say we let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

WTF is going on in here!?!
Some guy named ErinH reported this thread....


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> WTF is going on in here!?!
> Some guy named erinH reported this thread....
> 
> 
> ...


:lol::angel:


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> At what point are they considered coaxials? Kef tweets seem to sit inside the voice coil more than these other brands.


Point source drivers encompasses two different driver types: Coaxials and Full-Ranges.

Good quality coaxials will have the tweeter hornloaded with the woofer's cone.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

coincident drivers would be point source. they have the same voice coil alignment, whereas typical "coaxial" speakers have different VC alignments, resulting in a difference in time arrival (among other downsides compared to coincident).

there are also drivers which look to be coincident and are not. and there are some drivers that just perform poorly due to poor mid cone geometry (again, remember the cone is the waveguide). seas' earlier iterations of coax designs were an example of a poor design, though the tweeter looked to be coincident, it was not and the edge termination of the tweeter to mid cone was poor, resulting in off-axis cancellation. which is the rub; the goal is power response and a dip in any axis due to cancellation will result in poor(er) power response. that said, seas' newer coaxial design looks to be an improved version. I'd like to test it out... and if it's good enough, may become used in a future install.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

ErinH said:


> It's a nifty idea... but the problem is even though it's a 4" (or larger) driver, the surface area is closer to a 3" driver after you account for the tweeter area. For example, my Kefs are a 5.25" driver. Typically, with a regular cone driver, you measure the 'effective' diameter as half-surround to half-surround. IF you did this with my Kef driver you'd get a diameter of about 9.9cm. The tweeter assembly takes up a diameter about 4.75cm which is about half the total effective diameter. So, the surface area (Sd) breakdown is:
> Total driver: 76.97687399cm^2
> Tweeter only: 17.72054606cm^2
> *Midrange only: 59.25632793cm^2*
> ...


I'm not quite sold on your explanation for a few reasons...

1) You assume the use of concentric drivers rather than a full range. This is what seems to limit the cone area for your woofer calculation and thus I might recommend better results with blending if you're tying a ~10cm fullrange with a sub (sans midbass).

2) There is debate amongst audiophiles as to the audibility of intermodulation distortion (the principle of high frequencies being pushed and pulled by lower frequencies) and Klipsch (among others) have done research that found horn-loading to be an excellent practical solution the problem. The woofer in concentrics horn-loads the tweeter. Your car's windshield, doors, and dash naturally horn-load it further. Here's a reference article: http://www.readresearch.co.uk/loudspeaker_papers/klipsch_modulation_distortion_article_2.pdf

3) The graph you show is theoretical at best. Keep in mind that if the woofer is being pushed out and back in to full excursion, it's doing so at 200x per second (at the slowest) so the frequency response of the tweeter is likely to realistically follow the black line in the middle of the graph quite tightly. Really, it's a moving target that's seriously dependent on quite a bit of physical constraints. If you (or whomever measured this speaker) want to measure the effect of the woofer on the tweeter's response then a pink noise signal is needed to be fed to the whole driver (crossover in place) in an anechoic room. This will give an accurate response curve.

I will also caution to take my critiques with a grain of internet salt as I've yet to complete my first car-audio install (still chipping away), so we'll see if my theories hold up in practice.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

stochastic said:


> 1) You assume the use of concentric drivers rather than a full range. This is what seems to limit the cone area for your woofer calculation and thus I might recommend better results with blending if you're tying a ~10cm fullrange with a sub (sans midbass).


Yes, that's the assumption, given the data and calculations I used... and the fact that I said concentric. 

FWIW, you'd have a harder time getting me to go with a full range than a decent coax/concentric design. Full ranges are problematic for two very basic reasons that plague ALL drive units:

HF breakup
Beaming





stochastic said:


> 2) There is debate amongst audiophiles as to the audibility of intermodulation distortion (the principle of high frequencies being pushed and pulled by lower frequencies) and Klipsch (among others) have done research that found horn-loading to be an excellent practical solution the problem. The woofer in concentrics horn-loads the tweeter. Your car's windshield, doors, and dash naturally horn-load it further. Here's a reference article: http://www.readresearch.co.uk/loudspeaker_papers/klipsch_modulation_distortion_article_2.pdf



Well, let's let the scientists debate... I know a lot of "audiophiles" that don't seem to know their head from a hole in the ground. But they are dang good at buying cables. 

as for the modulation distortion, I'm not talking about IMD. Two totally different things here. You'd understand that if you looked at my writeup and saw that I used a _fixed woofer_ position and swept the _tweeter_ response. Two completely different drive units and there's no non-linear distortion data provided. That's anything but an IMD test. 

Again, I'm talking about the movement of the cone and it's effect on the high frequency response due to the waveguide aspect. Again, the midrange cone is the waveguide. If it's moving, it's altering the tweeter output... (see below for further)




stochastic said:


> 3) The graph you show is theoretical at best. Keep in mind that if the woofer is being pushed out and back in to full excursion, it's doing so at 200x per second (at the slowest) so the frequency response of the tweeter is likely to realistically follow the black line in the middle of the graph quite tightly. Really, it's a moving target that's seriously dependent on quite a bit of physical constraints. If you (or whomever measured this speaker) want to measure the effect of the woofer on the tweeter's response then a pink noise signal is needed to be fed to the whole driver (crossover in place) in an anechoic room. This will give an accurate response curve.


theoretical at best? LOL.... dude, that's _my _data. with a _real _test. FWIW, I've talked with a Kef engineer about this. They do a similar test now after seeing my testing. Apparently they thought enough of it to contact me and are now using a similar method for some of their own testing purposes. 

I think you've taken what I posted as much more than was intended, which was to be a 'study' of sorts to show the HF delta if the woofer is allowed to move to extreme. It illustrates that the potential is indeed there to alter the HF response IF the woofer is pushed hard enough. This is the 'modulation' I referred to; again, NOT IMD as you have concluded. What you see is a snapshot in time; while it's not likely to translate to real world usage, the implication of the cone's position is quite telling of the HF response if someone is foolish and doesn't use a proper HPF. This is actually important for setups where the mid in a concentric is asked to play lower (ie; a 2-way setup). 

Your suggestion of having to use pink noise in an anechoic room is pretty telling of your experience with testing. I've been doing this stuff for years now with plenty of insight and advice from _well _regarded industry veterans (Patrick Turnmire, Vance Dickason, and a couple others). It's not like I just threw something together in my garage and attempted to make it gospel. Just sayin'.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Wait, free Dyns? Were mine lost in the mail or something?

And come on Erin, you did do those things in your garage...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, yes. But don't tell anyone the details! 

The emphasis was more on the "slapped something together". I still rember the first full sized IEC baffle I made. Good lord was that a PITA.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

I didn't mean to insult your testing capabilities Erin, I was merely being critical but probably using poorly chosen language to do so. Yes, that's the max/min of the waveguide response character but that max min will be taking place while the cone is under motion and thus nearfield IMD would be a better description of what is actually happening wouldn't it?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Again, IMD is not the subject here. You're talking about a test I didn't even perform. 

I fixed the woofer. I swept the tweeter. There is no inter modulation distortion test here. That would only occur for a driver playing both low and high frequencies; that wasn't the test objective and was not measured. 

I may be coming across rude. Definitely not trying to. I'm just trying to help you understand that what you're talking about isn't even a topic of discussion in my posts.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

ErinH said:


> <snip>Then you have to consider the excursion of the driver vs the output of the subwoofer and the crossover point. The more excursion you have (to play lower) means higher modulation distortion. </snip>


I'm also not trying to be rude. Glad we're on the same page. I'm pretty sure your post I was critiquing intro'd the graph with mention of modulation distortion (IMD).

I understand that your test was with a stationary woofer. I understand it was a swept sine in three different positions of the woofer. I'm acting under the assumption that the only time the woofer would deviate from the black line position in the graph would be while playing a low tone and thus modulating back and forth between some region above and below the black line (but not more than the blue or red lines) and thus creating IMD. I believe it's questionable if the ear would actually perceive this as a frequency response deviation or rather as a modulation distortion (if we can even hear it...). I also question how much deviation in practice occurs. I know I rarely can see my Tannoy woofers jump out much unless they're at great volumes and hitting in the 60-100Hz region.

...really, I may be threadjacking now so I'm happy to take this discussion to PM (I'd kinda like to learn more from you on these matters Erin, seems like you have some experience I don't).


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

stochastic said:


> modulation distortion (IMD).




I'll say this here just in case anyone else is in the same boat and then we can go PM if you are still confused. 

The problem is you have taken a portion of my post out of context and it's causing you to focus in on something that wasn't a topic of discussion, missing the point of why it was posted. 



I said modulation distortion, yes. I didn't say IMD. The woofer's _modulation_ results in _distortion _in the tweeter's linear response (not non-linear). That's what was meant and that's what the context of the post was. Next time I'll watch my words but I thought given the context of the post and the link to the test I provided, people would understand what was meant. 



If you go back and read that particular post, ignore the "modulation distortion" in it and focus on the context, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. The movement of the cone as a waveguide has an impact on the tweeter response. And in that particular section I noted the physical termination of the woofer to the tweeter as being a very important design feature. The example I gave was to illustrate these two things: 1) the cone does move which is a concern IF the HPF isn't taken in to consideration and 2) the static state of the woofer's position wrt to the tweeter. 



That particular post was more in regards to #2, though. Imagine if the Kef woofer was fixed at +3mm at rest. Or +2mm at rest. Or -2mm... or -1mm. You can interpolate the influence on the tweeter's response. Whether it's minimal or not depends on that position and isn't why I posted it. The reason why was simply to show that the woofer position wrt the tweeter has an impact and should be considered when shopping these kind of drivers. That was it. No mention and no data regarding non-linear distortion. Just regular ol frequency response. 

I hope that clears it up. If not, shoot me a PM and you and I can discuss further.







stochastic said:


> I'm also not trying to be rude.



You sure came on pretty strong in your first post. Especially with telling me how to test something I wasn't testing and the "theoretical at best" line. Maybe next time just ask instead of assuming. I'm fine for discussing but when someone jumps in and tells you you don't know what you're doing while missing the point of a post it's honestly frustrating and makes it hard to not fire back as evenly. I don't think you'd have appreciated it, either.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

rton20s said:


> Even if you do have far more experience, knowledge, technical expertise and pretty graphs to back it up.


lol. got jokes, huh?! 




Niebur3 said:


> I was only joking (couldn't help it). Keep the gloves on.....lol!
> 
> I think we are ll friends here. Aren't we?!? Wait....who the hell is ErinH?


I know. As was I. But, seriously, you both should get some real drivers... dyn and illusion are garbage compared to these new fangled alibaba drivers I've got in front of me.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

Erin,

Does placing a separate waveguide on the tweeter help to minimize the
affect your speaking of?
Modulation distortion!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I think the first question is, if it did: how would you implement it? since the woofer cone is the waveguide, your additional waveguide would have to move in syncopation with it. it would just cause more issues. the best way to address it is to simply keep the woofer cone barely moving... as in a fraction of a millimeter. that's why Kef uses a particular concentric in their 3-way designs and high passes it around 500hz.


----------



## jtaudioacc (Apr 6, 2010)

"syncopation" that's an awesome word right there. i'm going to work that in somewhere today.


----------



## UNBROKEN (Sep 25, 2009)

My chick says that's how I move in bed


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

LOL. that was supposed to say 'synchronicity'. auto-correct got me because I made it spell "syncopation" the other day when I was typing up a Billy Ocean song.


----------



## Jroo (May 24, 2006)

Navy Chief said:


> I won VA state finals using Dayton PS180-8s in the kick panels. I do use a tweeter in the a-pillar for stage height but they are crossed at 10K. I want to upgrade to the PS220-8 in the kicks at some point.


I have also looked at the PS220-8 and was pushed away from it. Earlier in the year I was kicking around the idea of a big point source/coax front stage and sub. People told me I would suffer from comb filtering by going with a 8" coax driver like the dayton. Since it looks like Navy Chief is on to the same idea, should I really worry about the comp filtering? Am I really going to be able to hear it? 

On paper what I was thinking looks very similar to Navy Chief, Big Coax down low (Dayton), tweeter xover very high in the A pillar (Infinity Ribbon), and a large sub (JL 18w6 sealed).


----------



## mires (Mar 5, 2011)

jtaudioacc said:


> "syncopation" that's an awesome word right there. i'm going to work that in somewhere today.


Bonus points if you can use it and amplificator in the same sentence.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

Jroo said:


> I have also looked at the PS220-8 and was pushed away from it. Earlier in the year I was kicking around the idea of a big point source/coax front stage and sub. People told me I would suffer from comb filtering by going with a 8" coax driver like the dayton. Since it looks like Navy Chief is on to the same idea, should I really worry about the comp filtering? Am I really going to be able to hear it?
> 
> On paper what I was thinking looks very similar to Navy Chief, Big Coax down low (Dayton), tweeter xover very high in the A pillar (Infinity Ribbon), and a large sub (JL 18w6 sealed).


I'm confused, the PS220-8 is a full-range not a coax or coincident/concentric. Who said there'd be comb filtering and under what context? Comb filtering is a problem of non-point-source multi-ways when the same frequency is reproduced by multiple sources/drivers at the crossover region and the path length differences cause phase cancellation.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

mires said:


> Bonus points if you can use it and amplificator in the same sentence.


Amplificator is romanian and syncopation is english. The only way to make your bonus point sentence grammatically correct is with a nested quotation sentence. 

Above the syncopation in the bassline, my buddy shouted "Acest amplificator este bun!"


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

ErinH said:


> I think the first question is, if it did: how would you implement it? since the woofer cone is the waveguide, your additional waveguide would have to move in syncopation with it. it would just cause more issues. the best way to address it is to simply keep the woofer cone barely moving... as in a fraction of a millimeter. that's why Kef uses a particular concentric in their 3-way designs and high passes it around 500hz.


If what you say is true, and I am not saying it is not. How then do Tannoy, BMS, and others using 10", 12", and 15" woofers in a concentric situation avoid that phenomenon. Certainly those woofers have a greater excursion then you sight.

G.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

They don't avoid it. But then again, they have a lot more surface area which requires less excursion than a smaller woofer. No one avoids it. Some designs and applications just mitigate the issue. 

I'm not sure why you'd fount what I say is true. It's pretty simple. The cone is a waveguide and therefore plays a huge role on tweeter response. I can find quotes from kef engineers stating the same if you really NEED proof.


----------



## garysummers (Oct 25, 2010)

I am not saying what you state is not true and I said that. I was merely wondering how some manufacturers utilizing the coincident technology get around the MD problem. Not questioning you! Just looking deeper into the theory!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Simplest terms: it's a function of woofer excursion. All things equal. 

Let me see if I can dig up an article I read about this.


Edit: sorry if I sound a bit defensive. Given what's already transpired in this thread, I must admit I am to some degree.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I've heard some tannoy concentrics that sounded phenomenal


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

this is an excerpt from an email exchange I had with a Kef engineer. I'm not going to reveal names, but hopefully you guys know me well enough to know I'm not making this up...



> The test you did with the MF is pretty revealing, and is something we have also done in the past. The interaction between the two drivers is a frequent criticism levelled at the Uni-Q driver. The effect is not that dramatic on the latest designs. *Having the stationary horn around the tweeter helps to mitigate a great deal of the effects. Obviously the other thing that helps is to minimize the movement of the MF/LF driver which is why we tend to use three way designs for our higher priced models.*


The test he's talking about is the one that's been discussed here. In bold is what I've been saying.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Velozity (Jul 6, 2007)

garysummers said:


> I am not saying what you state is not true and I said that. I was merely wondering how some manufacturers utilizing the coincident technology get around the MD problem. Not questioning you! Just looking deeper into the theory!






From the new Seas C18EN001 concentric midrange (that I really want one day):

_"The cone profile has been carefully designed to optimally load the tweeter’s radiation. A completely new rubber surround reduces resonances and prevents surround break up in the midrange band. The surround’s small inverted roll, combined with a profile that follows the shape of the cone, results in almost total elimination of diffraction effects on the tweeter’s output."_







-


----------



## Jroo (May 24, 2006)

stochastic said:


> I'm confused, the PS220-8 is a full-range not a coax or coincident/concentric. Who said there'd be comb filtering and under what context? Comb filtering is a problem of non-point-source multi-ways when the same frequency is reproduced by multiple sources/drivers at the crossover region and the path length differences cause phase cancellation.


guys, sorry. Long day at work. I meant to say suffer from beaming not comb filtering. I was told that all large fullranges or coaxs would all suffer from beaming. They said trying this would result in a narrowing and not sound good.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

But the Seas really doesn't do the tweeter to mid transition as well as the others.

Troels has used it in a design...I think. Or has at least reviewed it.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

They will. And your sweet spot will be pretty small.



Jroo said:


> guys, sorry. Long day at work. I meant to say suffer from beaming not comb filtering. I was told that all large fullranges or coaxs would all suffer from beaming. They said trying this would result in a narrowing and not sound good.


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> They will. And your sweet spot will be pretty small.


Do coaxials/concentrics beam to any significant amount? I was under the impression that all drivers beam at a certain point but coaxials should avoid this problem for the most part, right?

Certainly an 8" full-range will beam, but that Dayton does have a whizzer to mitigate the issue a bit.


----------



## Darth SQ (Sep 17, 2010)

stochastic said:


> Amplificator is romanian and syncopation is english. The only way to make your bonus point sentence grammatically correct is with a nested quotation sentence.
> 
> Above the syncopation in the bassline, my buddy shouted "Acest amplificator este bun!"


_Viagra is a phenomenal amplificator that allows me to continue syncopation
for hours on end_-Sting


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

ah yeah....

the ol' "does the cone as waveguide trump the conventional time-aligned baffle" debate.



this should be where lycan comes in and drops the whole "large and small" function, explanations.


the cone diameter is a large function of beaming, and the modulation from doppler distortion is a small function of distortion...


haha...


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

No and no.

It doesn't avoid it, no way to avoid it. What you can do with a good coax is match the dispersion of the mid and the tweeter at the XO point. But you can do that with seperate cones and waveguide domes too. This will help your power response.

But a coax will have equal horizontal and vertical polar response whereas a separate woofer and waveguide tweeter will not. Also there will be a hole in the polar response with the coax because the waveguide is axisymmetric.

And no, a whizzer doesn't mitigate anything with regards to what we are talking about now.



stochastic said:


> Do coaxials/concentrics beam to any significant amount? I was under the impression that all drivers beam at a certain point but coaxials should avoid this problem for the most part, right?
> 
> Certainly an 8" full-range will beam, but that Dayton does have a whizzer to mitigate the issue a bit.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

here's your whizzer cone:


Mega RARE Lowther DX4 Pair Rethm Modified | eBay


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

A bit of a thread resurrection, but I know there has been some discussion in the past about sourcing non-car audio point source and concentric drivers. I just happened upon what could be one of the cheapest options out there. Anyone giving it a shot would be an absolute guinea pig though. 

No T/S specs and not even an image of the raw driver. According to the manufacturer, this is a 3" "patented concentric design" with a wool paper cone mid and 0.75" PEI (plastic) tweeter in a ~0.05 cf ported enclosure with frequency response from 90Hz to 20 kHz. 

But at $40 a pair, it might be worth a shot if you have a decent midbass to pair it with. Anyone in California (especially those attending the Papasin GTG have a Dayton WT3 or DATS that we could use to pull T/S parameters? With free shipping and the 30 day return policy, I might just pick up a set out of curiosity. 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N8265I8?tag=mygapa-20


----------



## Justin Zazzi (May 28, 2012)

If you are really set on this project rton20s, you can measure the T/S parameters without too much effort. Try looking below for directions and a spreadsheet.

Measuring Loudspeaker Driver Parameters


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

I wouldn't really expect much from $40 pair of concentric bookshelves with plastic tweeters. But if they actually did perform "well enough" they could be a pretty cool diamond in the rough. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I am still looking at 8 and 10" coaxes...bought some Tannoy 8NFMIIs, but don't know if I am going to put them in the car or not.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

Do it. And install them like MrsPapasin did in her smart.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

thehatedguy said:


> I am still looking at 8 and 10" coaxes...bought some Tannoy 8NFMIIs, but don't know if I am going to put them in the car or not.


HOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Kelvin


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

One of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard were the Tannoy Churchills (without the supertweeters). 15 inch dual concentric drivers. Probably impossible to put them in a car. Oh and the 15G's for a pair outs it a little out of reach of me.  JPS


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

rton20s said:


> A bit of a thread resurrection, but I know there has been some discussion in the past about sourcing non-car audio point source and concentric drivers. I just happened upon what could be one of the cheapest options out there. Anyone giving it a shot would be an absolute guinea pig though.
> 
> No T/S specs and not even an image of the raw driver. According to the manufacturer, this is a 3" "patented concentric design" with a wool paper cone mid and 0.75" PEI (plastic) tweeter in a ~0.05 cf ported enclosure with frequency response from 90Hz to 20 kHz.
> 
> ...


That big ol surround is gonna cause some issues for the tweeter. I'd also be interested to see the termination of the tweeter. 

fwiw, I'm selling some of my Kef R-series concentrics. So if anyone wants to play with the best of the best, shoot me a PM.


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

ErinH said:


> That big ol surround is gonna cause some issues for the tweeter. I'd also be interested to see the termination of the tweeter.


That isn't all that surprising. Being only a 3" driver the surround does look pretty significant. I was thinking the surround on the Illusion and Morel drivers was just as large, but perhaps not. At $20 a pop including enclosure, binding post and cloth grill, I'm not sure how much we can expect.  

*Micca COVO-S*









*Illusion C4 CX*









*Morel Tempo Ultra Integra 402*









*Morel Hybrid Integra 402*









*KEF R50*











ErinH said:


> fwiw, I'm selling some of my Kef R-series concentrics. So if anyone wants to play with the best of the best, shoot me a PM.


GLWS


----------



## stochastic (Jan 24, 2012)

At $20 each, I'd bet that a full-range driver in the same price range would sound better.

Really, those have to be <$5 drivers when crossover parts, assembly, retail profit, etc.. are factored in. You can't hope for very much. I'd say just grab a pair of MA CHN-70 full rangers for only a few dollars more - though there are some at this exact price point that could outshine this driver handilly. I doubt they'd be any kind of improvement over a stock system.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

an Audience A3s, would probably blow it into the weeds...

but they come in enclosures with the box, for 995 a pair, not exactly par...


AUDIENCE THE ONE SPEAKERS (BLACK) at Music Direct


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

I was never claiming that the Micca would be some amazing option. Just wanted to bring it up because it is THE least expensive option I have seen in a coincident driver. Estimating the value of the driver at under $5 is a bit presumptuous. Obviously the driver are low cost, but economies of scale come into play. Who knows what they would sell for if they were available individually through Madisound or Parts Express. 

That being said, this was my reaction when I initially saw it. 

Hey that is interesting, a little coincident mount bookshelf speaker. I wonder how much they cost? 

$40 on Amazon for the pair?! They can't be good. But what if they are?

Plastic tweeter? They can't be good. But what if they are? 

Decent reviews on Amazon? They can't be right. But what if they are? 

Honestly, the likelihood is that they would be crap mounted in a car at this price point. But for $40 shipped and a 30 day return policy, it might be worth the money just to satisfy my own curiosity. If I do pick them up, I'll be sure to try and get some additional DIYMA members' ears on.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

rton20s said:


> I was never claiming that the Micca would be some amazing option. Just wanted to bring it up because it is THE least expensive option I have seen in a coincident driver. Estimating the value of the driver at under $5 is a bit presumptuous. Obviously the driver are low cost, but economies of scale come into play. Who knows what they would sell for if they were available individually through Madisound or Parts Express.
> 
> That being said, this was my reaction when I initially saw it.
> 
> ...


well, having never heard of Micca, it reminded me of Cowon or Changhuong, or some other brand that I've never heard of with something I might like being offered.

and I fully appreciate the sport of finding little gems in our hobby, stuff that works well outside of the buy-in bracket.

at 40 bucks the pair, I don't know how much I'd expect but like you say, economies of scale and these new companies, builders in China, ali-baba or whatever...

heck, there was a boner awhile back, some coincident 6.5" in curved cabinets, sold for a song over at Best Buy, Insignia I think?

got good reviews, even...


----------



## rton20s (Feb 14, 2011)

The only thing that brought Micca to my attention was their 3" bookshelves that I found when I was doing my shopping/comparison for 2"-3" drivers last year. That 3" bookshelf driver became another curiosity that I haven't pursued to date. 

The company's speakers tend to get high reviews on Amazon (I believe the only purchasing option) for what they are. Particularly the 4" MB42X model with upgraded crossover. That isn't too surprising, given their price point. And I still haven't heard anything myself from them.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

They have compression drivers though.




subwoofery said:


> HOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kelvin


----------

