# Technical comparison 12M, HAT L4, Faital Pro 4" (my take)



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

My take on:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/system-design-help-me-choose-equipment-my-car/77374-technical-comparison-hat-l4-vs-scan-12m.html

I tend to side with DS21 in that thread in the sense that the tests chosen were not exactly the most relevant performance metrics. Secondly, at the time there wasn't enough 3rd party testing to make any useful inference. The build-house honesty in published specs is often overwhelming in making successful comparisons. That's not to say there wasn't anything to learn from the thread, it will be 10X more useful than this as a learning exercise. Lycan is the man, read the thread above over this if you have to choose the best use of your time. 
*
Why the Faital?* We had an HT driver (12m), a car audio driver (L4), and now we have a PA driver (Faital). Battle is on!

From an objective point of view there are two types of tests that are most useful in a speaker comparison: *parameter testing* (small signal - here the WT, and large signal - here the Klippel), and *performance testing* (nonlinear distortion - here Sound Easy). There is also linear distortion but all three of these are fairly flat and we do have EQ. available for the rest. *I wrap up the tests with a simulation using some of the test results and intuition. *

*
Parameter Tests large signal/ Klippel:*
*12m Klippel:*
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/106897-scanspeak-12m-4631g.html

Key points:
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 3.2 mm 
X C @ C min=70% 3.1 mm 
X L @ Z max=10 % >3.6 mm 
X d @ d2=10% 13.7 mm 

*Xmax is therefore 3.1mm* suspension limited. The motor is just about as restrictive. Note that inductance is not a bottleneck, I for one do not care this is not an SD1 motor. Who cares when it tests as good as this? Centering and symmetry is rather poor.

*HAT L4*

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/106732-klippel-hybrid-audio-l4.html

X Bl @ Bl min=82% 2.4 mm 
X C @ C min=70% 3.4 mm 
X L @ Z max=10 % >4.7 mm 
X d @ d2=10% 14.0 mm 

*Xmax is therefore 2.4*, motor limited. The suspension is a bit more linear than the Scan but performance will mostly be hindered by the significantly more nonlinear motor compared to the Scan. Centering and symmetry is great.

*Faital Pro 4"*(not really 3rd party, I got these from Faital but I trust them):

Klippel Faital Pro 4.pdf

X Bl @ Bl min=82% 1.8 mm 
X C @ C min=75% 2.6 mm 
X L @ Z max=10 % >3.0 mm 
X d @ d2=10% 9.9 mm 

*Xmax is therefore 1.8 mm* motor limited. The suspension is quite a bit better. 

*
Conclusion:
The Scan Speak is most definitely the Klippel king.* The L4 does a better job everywhere but in the BL department. The Scan is a more rounded performer and pulls ahead. The Faital is the clear 3rd place, worse everything. Note that going by the manufacturer rated xmax can be very misleading here, the Scan is underrated, the rest are overrated by a decent margin. 

So that's it right, the Scan is the winner? Not quite, the Klippel test is fantastic but does not tell the whole story. 

*Small signal parameters combined with large signal:*
Next I use WinISD pro to combine the small and large signal parameters. The specs for the 12m and L4 are in the links above. The Faital is once again manufacturer given but to be trusted. The trust comes from the fact that Faital gave me test printouts not something typed in on a website and I verified the TS parameters with WT3. :
TS Faital Pro 4.pdf

This is what all the testing comes down to. In the next figure you will see a simulation of the SPL each of these speakers can muster holding distortion fixed at 10% at 200hz and Qtc fixed at .707. The assumptions are the speakers handle the power that is needed. This is the most realistic test for someone that is willing to make any size box needed, use whatever amplifier is needed etc, no constraints we are interested in the best speaker period. More on relaxing these assumptions at the end. This plot also shows power needed to get xmax at 200hz.

Legend:
12m Red
L4 Yellow
Faital Blue










*Conclusion:
Winner is Scan Speak 12m.* It manages to get close to 3db more output across the line before xmax at 200hz. This means that it should be able to get twice as loud for a given distortion target, here 10%. The Faital and L4 are actually tied 200hz and up. If one wishes to cross lower the L4 has a bit of an advantage down low. Both of them get slaughtered by the Scan. Therefore using the available data on these three drivers and no constraints such as box size power or power compression the Scan is the best driver by far. 

Here is another plot showing how I mached Klippel given xmax for all three drivers at 200hz. This plot also shows box size. 










In the world of car audio we are not all without constraints of course. I will list the best driver given some constraints (in the order I think is most important):

*Smallest mounting frame:
Faital* (at less than 4" outer diameter it's a little jewel, the truncated basket also means it's better for line arrays)

*Smallest box required:
12m *(needs about half the box the L4 needs and about a third of the box the Faital needs)

*Most efficient:
Faital *(needs less than a third of the power the other two need, Scan and L4 are tied, the Faital is also 8 ohms which means your amplifier is stressed less as well)

*Cheapest:
Faital* (at $40 it's 5 times less than the other two, roughly)

So my comparison comes to a completely different conclusion than Lycan's. Notice I don't care what the FS is or any one single parameter or build quality on it's own. What matters is the final product, that one simulation with SPL keeping variables fixed. It's key to have actual test data and plot drivers for their intended use.

Ok, so this was a simulation after all, or at least a hybrid. In all actuality you want a performance test as a check. Well we don't have all three drivers tested by anybody out there using the same parameters. Erin tests with Sound Easy which can be used for theL4. I have in car tests for the Faital, and Zaph has tests of the 12m. Since all of these cannot be combined we can only make educated guesses. The overall performance is likely to be approximated very well by the simulation above. What we are looking for are spot problems due to resonance. That is where build parts come into play. In my tests the Faital has some problems at 3khz. In Erin's tests the L4 has some problems at 2khz. *The Scan is very well behaved in Zaph's tests everywhere. *These are big picture items and will likely show in every test. Power compression is not likely to be a problem in the Faital, it's bellow the rated AES max. The other two only need 55 watts or so which is probably still good for the size coil they use but do note that 55W is well above their standard ratings. If compression turns out to be very important, and in a car there is more reason tho think it is, then the Faital could be kicking some ass. Odds are it is the louder driver given that it can at least double the power simulated here, it just won't be as low distortion as the Scan. 

*All in all in the performance tests that we have available the Scan is the winner*, again, but we really need all three on the test bench to see the FRs overlapped and THDs at similar power levels. 
*
If I had to make a decision to buy right now and I had NO constraints as listed above the Scan is the top choice by far.* You can see however that for someone that does have constraints the Faital is a good choice. The Scan does have the small box advantage and that is huge as well. The L4 only beats the Faital in distortion under 200hz, but that is a small victory for it gets killed in everything else by both competitors, and by the Scan in just about every way.

Recently I have been simply amazed with Scan Speak products. The more objective data I have on hand the more they prove themselves. My recommendation: buy the Scan product X if you don't want to look up data and can afford it. 

*Disclaimer about brand loyalty: *I don't have any. I went into this test not knowing which will come up on top. I thought it was going to be the Faital, I was wrong. I generally stay away from comparing car audio product as there is a lot of blind brand loyalty on the forum but I had no choice, it was a good comparison. Unlike most other car products HAT does make a decent effort to release competitive product. I did however have the lowest expectations for their woofer and it materialized. I do consider all speakers in this comparison to be some of the best there are, I was just impressed to see the Scan dominating so clearly.

EDITS:
*note about power ratings
*corrected parameter testing paragraph, corrected small signal - linear mistake.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

George, you have a lot of time on your hands. 

Be prepared for the can o worms you've opened up here. 

Oh, I'd you still have my number give me a call sometime. I'd like to talk about this. I don't have the time to discuss via forum as easily.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

I was initially going to p-m you on your impressions of the faital, but you took it to the next level by comparing 2 very popular 4 inchers to a very nice pro audio driver. Thanx man!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> George, you have a lot of time on your hands.
> 
> Be prepared for the can o worms you've opened up here.
> 
> Oh, I'd you still have my number give me a call sometime. I'd like to talk about this. I don't have the time to discuss via forum as easily.


I really don't, it's borrowed time that I should be spending on research. I'm just a spoiled bastard and do what I want too often, even when it doesn't pay. 

Bring on the can o worms. This thread is more useful if other heavyweights contribute and critique. I merely restarted the fire. :snacks:

You got a kid and all. You should call me I'm almost always available to take a break. Thanks for the invite though, I probably will call, too many times.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

George,

Thanks for taking the time to test and post.

I'm a little biased towards the Scan Speak, but I would have liked to see how the Hybrid L4SE did as well.


----------



## SymbolA (Jul 30, 2009)

yup , L4SE vs Scanspeak 12M would be intresting test , for my taste the stage 4 Legatia SE line is much improvment from stage 3.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

*meh*

Cool...based on and outdated and already replaced L4.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

sqcomp said:


> *meh*
> 
> Cool...based on and outdated and already replaced L4.


I personally know a dude who is raking up 1st place trophies, where-ever he parks that dodge caravan of his, and does it with heavily sun-faded "outdated" L4v1


----------



## Hertz5400LincolnLS (Mar 29, 2010)

Thanks for this review...I enjoyed reading it. From what I understand, the 10F's could be a contender in this group as well. Have any experience with them? I'm going to be building out my a-pillars for 10F's in the next few weeks. 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

Dodge Caravan...

I know that caravan. I know it's setup, and it's similar to mine. Let's have IASCA finals in KC and I'll meet him there. Is he in Pro/Am or Pro? I'd hate to step up two classes just for my satisfaction. 

The response fed into my meaning though. It's all very VERY subjective even given the testing done here. Numbers don't lie, but your ears are the real test meter.


----------



## IBcivic (Jan 6, 2009)

sqcomp said:


> Dodge Caravan...
> 
> I know that caravan. I know it's setup, and it's similar to mine. Let's have IASCA finals in KC and I'll meet him there. Is he in Pro/Am or Pro? I'd hate to step up two classes just for my satisfaction.
> 
> The response fed into my meaning though. It's all very VERY subjective even given the testing done here. Numbers don't lie, but your ears are the real test meter.


 pro-am


----------



## basshead (Sep 12, 2008)

sqcomp said:


> Dodge Caravan...
> 
> I know that caravan. I know it's setup, and it's similar to mine. Let's have IASCA finals in KC and I'll meet him there. Is he in Pro/Am or Pro? I'd hate to step up two classes just for my satisfaction.
> 
> The response fed into my meaning though. It's all very VERY subjective even given the testing done here. Numbers don't lie, but your ears are the real test meter.


lol, I'm in Pro/Am and I should be at SBN if you want to have a listen.

I might eventually upgrade to the L4SE if after retuning i don't get the sound i want, the smaller magnet on the SE might help the driver to breath a little better.


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

I think this is on the wrong section.... Review section would be better.....


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqcomp said:


> *meh*
> 
> Cool...based on and outdated and already replaced L4.


Well, just to be fair, the 12m is older than the L4. 

Still, I do agree to some point. The data is there for the L4SE. I think George probably chose the L4 because it actually tested better than the L4SE.


*runs the L4SE so don't bring up any bias *


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

Having run both myself, there's NO way you're going to convince me that the L4 sounds better than the SE.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqcomp said:


> Having run both myself, there's NO way you're going to convince me that the L4 sounds better than the SE.


I didn't say that.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

That also plays into listen to your ears instead of numbers. If the L4 has better numbers, why doesn't it sound as good?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

sqcomp said:


> That also plays into listen to your ears instead of numbers. If the L4 has better numbers, why doesn't it sound as good?


I can't answer that for you. 
I have ideas but I won't get sucked in to a debate about preference. 

Getting back OT, the 12m is an older driver than the L4.

George can explain his reason for choosing it. Actually, this may be nothing more than a spin off of Lycan's thread comparing the same two drivers.


----------



## sqcomp (Sep 21, 2009)

fair enough, we'll let that question remain.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqcomp said:


> Dodge Caravan...
> 
> I know that caravan. I know it's setup, and it's similar to mine. Let's have IASCA finals in KC and I'll meet him there. Is he in Pro/Am or Pro? I'd hate to step up two classes just for my satisfaction.
> 
> The response fed into my meaning though. *It's all very VERY subjective even given the testing done here. Numbers don't lie, but your ears are the real test meter.*



I don't mind adding new drivers to the comparison but first things first. The important thing here is to make sure we have the right comparison model, the best use of available test data on speakers to make informed decisions. The focus should be on *what is the best use of test data, how complete is it* (do we have enough information to call a winner), *how useful is manufacturer data if we don't have 3rd party testing* etc . 

When you say things like my comparison is very subjective I need to know exactly what it is so I can remove it. Ears can be used to obtain objective data, however they rarely are. Ultimately this thread is not about ears vs. test equipment. Personally I believe guys like Lycan are wasting their time when they try to persuade hobbyists to make use of objective data such as this one. Their time is better spent educating the few who make the switch on their own. Similarly I'm not going to try to persuade you that Klippel and Sound Easy are superior to your listening session. That's your personal conquest.

To get straight to the point, these are some of the claims in this thread vs. Lycan's:
1. Without Klippel results, manufacturer large parameter values (xmax) can lead to incorrect conclusions. The importance of xmax for modeling and therefore performance is far too great to trust the specs without testing. I would add xmax values are often far far away from the claimed abilities of speakers. Even if Lycan's approach was the best use of large signal parameters, starting with the wrong numbers can lead to bias rather quickly. 

2. Visual checks for build quality are only important as far as performance testing show them to be. Here harmonic distortion plots can reveal problems. Look at this post http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/985891-post4.html. The phase plug L4 has is only beneficial if it overcomes dustcap resonance in the Revelator design. Now look at Zaph's HD plots and tell me the Scan is poorly behaved. Does it need a phase plug? That is the thing, we cannot tell whether sliced cones, phase plugs, cast baskets or advanced cone materials made the difference in the HD or CSD plots. We can only guess. Looking at performance testing the Scan is better behaved and that's what ultimately matters. We don't need to guess. The HAT has resonance problems at 2khz and the Scan doesn't. CSDs and HD plots are key to make resonance behavior comparisons. From there one can guess as to what causes a resonance but it's not critical for the end consumer. One should be worried about the L4 2khz resonance. At the same time one cannot claim the sliced cone or the proprietary cast basket is the reason the Scan is well behaved. How would we know?


My basic approach in this thread is to use Klippel determined xmax values. Make a simulation of output at the same distortion level using 3rd party TS parameters. Combine the results with HD and CSD plots to determine whether the soft parts have resonance otherwise not visible. I don't believe this to be complete information on speaker behavior but I think at this point the evidence is overwhelmingly in the Scan's favor. 

If my conclusion is wrong, _where_ did I go wrong? How can we improve the process? Are we missing tests that would topple the Scan from the podium? If there HAT is the best driver where did I go wrong? There must be a mechanism if that is true and maybe we can get objective data on it. If the process goes unchallenged then we can go on and throw in other speakers in there like the L4SE, but only then.


----------



## vactor (Oct 27, 2005)

i love you CV, not least because we have almost exactly the same car and your way smart like. this and the install thread you have are pure gold !! thanks!!


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

vactor said:


> i love you CV, not least because we have almost exactly the same car and your way smart like. this and the install thread you have are pure gold !! thanks!!


Now we just need to turn you into a hot single lady haha. :sunny:


----------



## S3T (Sep 21, 2008)

*cvjoint*,

Could you please describe how faitals sound? Have you heard any comparable driver in sonic performance? How could you describe them against 12M or other drivers in the same 3-4" range?

I eager to try these faitals, 3" or 4", but overseas shipping puts me off, as well as my strict taste in midrangers.

Thanks for detailed comparison!


btw, 
i don't think that xmax is the limiting factor in midrange output performance. Typically, they are cut with highish slopes a bit higher than 200hz.
Then comes the battle of max thermal power Vs. efficiency vs power compression.
How loud will they go at max power?


----------



## GRIFTER9931 (Aug 30, 2009)

All things being equal install, car, positioning etc... Can the human ear pick up on the audible differences in a car while driving down the street? 

I am just asking because some of this would make sense in a very controlled setting but in a car 3-5% would seem to be indistinguishable to people with average hearing.

Just curious .....


----------



## S3T (Sep 21, 2008)

Let's say we have 2 drivers, measure them at particular SPL, 100db for a nice number.
#1: 0.1% thd
#2: 1% thd

ok, they pretty much okay at 100db, indistinguishable.
Then, kick-in some another 10db of SPL on top of our measurements. We get 1% for the #1, and 10% for 2#. 10% is already buzzing, while 1# still behaves nicely for our average (bleeding) ears.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I look at system design as a distortion minimizing exercise. A low distortion system doesn't really sound like anything. I got Revelators (15m) and the Faitals (line array) to sound fairly transparent in my applications. There is not much I can say about each driver's particular signature. The proof is in the tests above I would say. The Rev does look more promising. 

The Faitals are now $15 more expensive from what I can tell. Either way it should be cheaper than the Scans with international shipping and all. 

I find Xmax is really important even with a 200hz cross point on a 4" mid. Typically I see nonlinear distortion picking up right next to the HP filter. I tried lowering the crossover point to 160hz on my line array and the distortion doubled in the lower octave. I've seen this in my car as well as other cars with small mids. XMax is also 10% distortion, that's way to much. Typically I keep nonlinear distortion under 1% from 30hz up in my car. Practically that seems to be the audible threshold in my experience as well. 

The audible thresholds deserve a thread on their own but sufficit to say it shouldn't change the ordering of the speakers in our comparison. Lower distortion is better and it is cumulative. Unlike amplifiers we can make a tangible difference when selecting speakers. This is the focus of distortion control because speakers are the major distortion inducing component of sound reproduction. You can take some distortion hearing tests on Klippel's site but do keep in mind that is the upper bound of audible distortion. Better headphones and background noise levels will help you test even better.

The Faitals achieve an output of 104.5db at 30w in the simulation. It probably does less in real life due to power compression and motor nonlinearities so that is an upper bound for 30w. In a car there is some loading so you will see a lot more than this. I got my line array to at least 115db on test tones, roughly 109db each speaker if coupling gains are negligible. In car test of Faitals in a line array of two drivers:









Note the significant motor distortion at 200hz, and the resonance in soft parts at 3khz. Xmax is a limitation even in this midrange application with a 200hz high pass (24db slope).


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

interesting that the distortion drops off on the Faitals. Did they have a HPF on them at 200hz? If not, something's up because the distortion should never decrease like that.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> interesting that the distortion drops off on the Faitals. Did they have a HPF on them at 200hz? If not, something's up because the distortion should never decrease like that.


Yeah, they have a 200hz HP in the plot above. Move it to 160hz and distortion goes up, move it to 250 and distortion goes down. Pretty predictable.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Yea. Just making sure.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Yeah, they have a 200hz HP in the plot above. Move it to 160hz and distortion goes up, move it to 250 and distortion goes down. Pretty predictable.


Just wanted to share something... I was waiting for the perfect post in your 7" midbass comparo but it never came (yet)  

I noticed something while plotting some drivers... 

Did you guyz knew that by using a steeper slope while still keeping the same freq for the cut-off, you get more excursion??? 









^ I took the Exodus driver IB in door (3cuft) powered by 200 watts... 
As you can see the *LIGHT PINK* curve stays below the max Xmax with a 2nd order slope... 
Use a 4th order slope and you overexcurt the driver: *RED* curve 
In order to use a 4th order slope, you need to use a higher cut-off for your Highpass: 50Hz instead of 40Hz - *ORANGE* curve 

Since then, I retuned all my cars to have a 2nd order slope and it seems (hope I'm not biased) to me that I get even more impact and a less blotted sound from my midbasses now... Might be my eyes listenning :blush:

Kelvin 


PS: please note that the HP used is a Butterworth alignment - WinISD doesn't let you use another slope (4th) with a Linkwitz one...


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> Just wanted to share something... I was waiting for the perfect post in your 7" midbass comparo but it never came (yet)
> 
> I noticed something while plotting some drivers...
> 
> ...



Weird... I wonder why that is? Very interested in an explanaition to this.


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

S3T said:


> *cvjoint*,
> I eager to try these faitals, 3" or 4", but overseas shipping puts me off, as well as my strict taste in midrangers.



You should be able to find somewhere closer to you to place an order. They're built in Italy.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

sqcomp said:


> Numbers don't lie, but your ears are the real test meter.


Well said. However, when we did the 4" midrange shootout, the double blind subjective listening test, the Scan 12M scored well above the L4, so you are right....listening is everything .

No bias here, was not a dealer when the test was performed and a dealer now, HAT being one of my lines .


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

fish said:


> Weird... I wonder why that is? Very interested in an explanaition to this.


Instead of using a higher Xover point, it might actually be a good idea to try a shallower slope - if you're bottoming out or in order to minimize distorsion @ the highest Xmax peak... Try it, it's free afterall  

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

subwoofery said:


> Instead of using a higher Xover point, it might actually be a good idea to try a shallower slope - if you're bottoming out or in order to minimize distorsion @ the highest Xmax peak... Try it, it's free afterall
> 
> Kelvin


A steeper crossover takes the load off the coil, that's important too.


----------



## Shinju (Jul 11, 2008)

Curious, Any tests like this been done with the Dayton Audio RS100-4 4"?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> A steeper crossover takes the load off the coil, that's important too.


Yeah I understand that... 

On DIYMA, there's many people that believe that in order to achieve upfront bass they need to cross there midbass low - consequently they feel that they are safer with a much steeper slope (eg. 48dB/oct) when it's actually not the right way to think as shown in my post... 
I don't think it's "that" dangerous to use a steeper slope but going from 12dB to 24dB on the slope can make your driver overexcurt ; so just imagine going from 24dB to 48dB... 

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Instead of using a higher Xover point, it might actually be a good idea to try a shallower slope - if you're bottoming out or in order to minimize distorsion @ the highest Xmax peak... Try it, it's free afterall
> 
> Kelvin


Or you can keep the steep slopes and cut a bit in the 50-80hz range........



subwoofery said:


> Yeah I understand that...
> 
> On DIYMA, there's many people that believe that in order to achieve upfront bass they need to cross there midbass low - consequently they feel that they are safer with a much steeper slope (eg. 48dB/oct) when it's actually not the right way to think as shown in my post...
> I don't think it's "that" dangerous to use a steeper slope but going from 12dB to 24dB on the slope can make your driver overexcurt ; so just imagine going from 24dB to 48dB...
> ...


See above. Numbers and curves will not tell you how it will sound after you tune it. THAT is a big hurdle for 99.99% of people on most forums. 

FWIW, I use steep slopes on all my drivers. Helps a lot with the imaging.


----------



## denetnz (Jul 31, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Yeah I understand that...
> 
> On DIYMA, there's many people that believe that in order to achieve upfront bass they need to cross there midbass low - consequently they feel that they are safer with a much steeper slope (eg. 48dB/oct) when it's actually not the right way to think as shown in my post...
> I don't think it's "that" dangerous to use a steeper slope but going from 12dB to 24dB on the slope can make your driver overexcurt ; so just imagine going from 24dB to 48dB...
> ...


I'm struggling to understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify or link to the post you are reffering to?

Steeper slopes mean less LF output below the -3db point, hence less excursion. Are you referring to the higher excursion (<3db) over the small range of frequencies just above the -3db point that have more LF output with steeper slopes? Surely the effect of the former outweighs the effect of the latter? (unless resonance plays a part) Have I got this right?

If I understand this correctly, then steep slopes with a little eq cut above the -3db point would seem ideal.

Sorry, might be branching off topic a little here...


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Or you can keep the steep slopes and cut a bit in the 50-80hz range........
> 
> I thought it might work so I plotted it... Nope, not a good idea at all coz the result is the same...
> 
> ...


I do agree though that steep slope helps with imaging... 

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

Must you use these bright neon colours? My brain gets all frizzy trying to focus in . Don't you have to go to bed? Must be what 3am in your neck of the woods.....lemme see what you've posted up


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

denetnz said:


> I'm struggling to understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify or link to the post you are reffering to?
> 
> Steeper slopes mean less LF output below the -3db point, hence less excursion. Are you referring to the higher excursion (<3db) over the small range of frequencies just above the -3db point that have more LF output with steeper slopes? Surely the effect of the former outweighs the effect of the latter? (unless resonance plays a part) Have I got this right?
> 
> ...


Answered in the post below yours... EQ won't help a damn thing... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

sqnut said:


> Must you use these bright neon colours? My brain gets all frizzy trying to focus in . Don't you have to go to bed? Must be what 3am in your neck of the woods.....lemme see what you've posted up


I don't live in the US... It's 11.50PM here in Tahiti. 
I was up late coz I was watching the Rugby World Cup match. 

Kelvin 

PS: click on the image to make it bigger


----------



## denetnz (Jul 31, 2009)

Interesting. Sure, the purple line shows the highest excursion between 40 and 50Hz, but it also has higher higher SPL than all others by 2db.

If it were eq'd such that spl were lower at this point, then surely excursion would be lower also. How about 48db/octave with a 3-5db eq cut at 45Hz? (or perhaps I should get that flash program that you have. )


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

i dont think the 12m trumps this driver though

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/106896-hybrid-audio-l4se.html


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

sqnut said:


> Or you can keep the steep slopes and cut a bit in the 50-80hz range........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The big hurdle on these forums is that 99.99% of the people can't be bothered to learn how to read proper tests. The second biggest hurdle is that 99.99% of the above folks have no problem disparaging tests without really understanding them. 

On that note, how exactly do you tune out nonlinear distortion? If you claim some of the problems seen here, like the 2khz issues with the L4 can be tuned out, how do you do it? 



denetnz said:


> I'm struggling to understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify or link to the post you are reffering to?
> 
> Steeper slopes mean less LF output below the -3db point, hence less excursion. *Are you referring to the higher excursion (<3db) over the small range of frequencies just above the -3db point that have more LF output with steeper slopes? Surely the effect of the former outweighs the effect of the latter? (unless resonance plays a part) Have I got this right?*
> 
> ...


I think that hits the nail on the head. Imagine most folks play the speaker near xmax. That is roughly 10% distortion near the HP filter. Think about distortion as additional output over the fundamental, extra garbage. How much garbage do you clean out under the HP compared to how much you gathered before it? Overall distortion will be lower with a steeper slope because the garbage is minimized, but yes, not equitably for each frequency. Your method of using shallower slopes will only work if at most you reach say 1.5% distortion with the steep slope and then 1.0% with a shallow one just bellow audibility. In practice, on midbass heavy songs this may not apply. 

How likely is it that we play our mids constantly bellow audible distortion? Nearly 0 once in motion I would think. That is why I'm using a line array of these babies.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> On that note, how exactly do you tune out nonlinear distortion? If you claim some of the problems seen here, like the 2khz issues with the L4 can be tuned out, how do you do it?


the same way you did with your eq adjustments in your car George


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BigRed said:


> the same way you did with your eq adjustments in your car George


LOL! That's some 007 action right there. Sadly none of that EQ work helps with non-linear distortion.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

BigRed said:


> i dont think the 12m trumps this driver though
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/106896-hybrid-audio-l4se.html


The SE is one badass driver. Now that would be an interesting comparo!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BigRed said:


> the same way you did with your eq adjustments in your car George


Is that serious? Holy hell. Lol!


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> The big hurdle on these forums is that 99.99% of the people can't be bothered to learn how to read proper tests.


It depends on your point of view. The way I see it one of the biggest hurdles is that folks are too caught up with how it measures and thus maybe not focusing enough on how it sounds. Anyways, how much non linear distortion are we talking about? In %. If its audible can you describe how it would sound? 

Also we're talking about the very low end 30-40hz. You'd need a ton of distortion here for it to be audible, that too perhaps in its harmonics. So if I have 0.5%, chances are I'm not going to hear it.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^ the problem is that people don't realize how it measures can tell you A LOT about how it sounds. Sadly, no one seems to understand (or even want to understand) the correlation.
Therefore you get the camp that says "measurements" don't matter. Simple fact is, without measurements, you wouldn't have some of the drivers we know and love today. Take that to the bank.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

^the problem is nobody has been willing to really teach people that don't understand specs how to read them and what's truly important. I have asked that someone offer a class (can be for profit) to help teach people. It is hard to ask questions if you don't even know what to ask, and when you do, some act like you are stupid. 

I would love to learn more, at some point, it becomes very difficult!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niebur3 said:


> ^the problem is nobody has been willing to really teach people that don't understand specs how to read them and what's truly important. I have asked that someone offer a class (can be for profit) to help teach people. It is hard to ask questions if you don't even know what to ask, and when you do, some act like you are stupid.
> 
> I would love to learn more, at some point, it becomes very difficult!


I disagree, Jerry. The problem is people use that as a crutch and they don't attempt to educate themselves.

Nguyen and myself have linked numerous sites to help others learn. They're stickies in the test section. I can't make everyone read it. 
I just have to hope they do.

Here's a few:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...uency-response-harmonic-distortion-plots.html
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum.../1002-how-interpret-data-*read-me-first*.html

In the first link I provide about 9 links to other sites discussing how to interpret and understand the use of Linear (frequency response) and non-linear (harmonic distortion) distortion.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Oh, and note that I had _*one*_ reply to the sticky I gave on FR/HD data... and that was from my friend who felt sorry for me because no one gave a **** enough to really reply to the thread.

That's what aggravates me. People say no one is willing to teach... the problem is no one is (seemingly) willing to learn or bother to put forth some effort to teach themselves. The evidence is posted above and stands clearly on it's own as such.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I just hate excuses. I'd LOVE for people to reply to that thread and ask questions there. Let's talk about it. Instead they just pretend like no one is trying to help them. I've been pretty jaded by all the work I put in just to have a few people reply. I expected more, honestly, from a group of people who kept asking for data. So, again, I say the problem is that people don't understand or just don't care enough to understand.

I'll continue to use that one thread to back my claims (until people start replying to it).


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Oh, and note that I had _*one*_ reply to the sticky I gave on FR/HD data... and that was from my friend who felt sorry for me because no one gave a **** enough to really reply to the thread.
> 
> That's what aggravates me. People say no one is willing to teach... the problem is no one is (seemingly) willing to learn or bother to put forth some effort to teach themselves. The evidence is posted above and stands clearly on it's own as such.
> 
> ...


But lets remember, everyone leans in a different way. That is why my wife has to prepare every lesson plan to appeal to several different learning styles.

Reading definitions and information tells me only so much without know how to apply that knowledge to actual test data. What I mean is, when you know exactly what to look for and where to look, then you can apply the knowledge. 

With that said, I would absolutely agree that most people are lazy and just want to be told what to buy. Even so, most won't install what they buy properly and will then try to figure out the next thing to buy to fix what they don't like, whether it is a driver or install issue. 

I would love to learn all the specifics and do only have limited time (like all of us) but will check out the links above. However, without a source (unless you are volunteering) what do I do when I have 100 questions from what I read?

Also, is there any way to make some sort of chart for people who want to refer to the data, but can't learn everything they should? i.e. the interactive frequency chart (too much X equals y and not enough X equals z)


----------



## quietfly (Mar 23, 2011)

I've learned a lot by looking at the info Erin and others have posted in using test results to determine what type of sound you get from what type of test specs. My issue is really only having certain drivers to identify with those traits and not the entire gambit to recognize the similarities as well as the differences. 
I compare this to a chemist using the chemical composition of a wine to describe its flavor. Then giving the chemist a printout of a different composition and ask him based on his prior knowledge to guess what the new composition will taste like. He will most likely be Close, but i doubt he's be spot on. The more wines he tastes, and compositions he knows, the better/ closer his guess will be, but he'll never get all the way there. 
All in all i chalk it up to knowledge and tools. the test results give me the tools to make an educated guess at what properties the drivers i'm reading about will have. This guess will then prompt me to either take the next step and try them or move on. As with any tool they are only as efficient as the person/method using them is...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

The only way I can help you guys is to provide links. I can't assemble a class. 
If you want that done then that's something you'll have to pursue on your own. I wish I could, really. We're just scattered all over the place and my plate is full already. Really, the best place to start is with the links I gave. The best I can do is to lead you to the water. (Don't you just love that overused analogy?)




The links I provided actually do a great job of telling you what to look for and how to apply it. But, further info is great, which is why I started the thread. Discussion helps us learn. As you'll see, no one attempted to pick up the ball of discussion so I let it lie. 

Additionally, we've all started this hobby from 0. Look how much you've learned by reading and trying to apply what you've read. Understanding data is no diferent. You have to start. If you don't attempt it, you'll never gain any ground. I liken it to a job. You don't know everything your first day and if you don't ask or try to find the answer then you won't know anything in a year. But, if you do put forth effort and try to teach yourself while seeking help from others, you'll look back in a years' time and realize you've come a loooooong way. 

Remember when you didn't know how to tune a car? Remember when you didn't even know what look for in t/s parameters? It takes time. Moreso, it takes effort.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

quietfly said:


> As with any tool they are only as efficient as the person/method using them is...



I agree entirely. Complacency is what keeps us from evolving.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BigRed said:


> i dont think the 12m trumps this driver though
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/106896-hybrid-audio-l4se.html


I'm curious how the SE compares to the 12mu. I'm almost to the point of buying a pair myself just to see but the price is hiiiiigh (both drivers' MSRP's are above $500. ouch).


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I prefer the Santa Barbara syrahs to just about everything out there including the Napa cabs. However, a lot of my gfs would never like red wine. Who's right? 

Say we are trying to order the following monetary payoffs we found on the street in order from most desirable:

1. $4,000
2. $100
3. $2
4. $.02

Objectively this ordering is textbook correct, hopefully we all agree. I would pick up the $4,000 if I had the choice. Now here comes a car audio guy, audiobob, who doesn't care about the objective ordering. He decides to add descriptions for each sum:

1. $4,000 "a whole lot of money"
2. $100 "a good amount"
3. $2 "a couple of bucks"
4. $.02 "change"

Note that his ordering is the same yet he assigned a description to each sum. Any one of us reading the descriptions only would pick correctly without seeing the actual dollar amounts. I would go for "a whole lot of money" over the other. 

Now here comes car audio guy number2, Bill Gates. Here are his matching descriptions:

1. $4,000 "change"
2. "useless"
3. "useless"
4. "unknown"

Based on his ordering what do you pick? 

This is how I think of audiophile descriptions like "warm," "open", etc Somebody's "warm" can be someone else's "cold" and to some people both will sound "warm." That is the pitfall of taking something that is intrinsically quantifiable - it is a ratio level of measurement: Level of measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- and reducing it to something that is quite useless . The audiophile subjective dictionary is basically reducing the information rich ratio level to something that is often nominal. 

With nominal data we can't even order our preferences. See how Bil Gates cannot distinguish between $100 and $2 on the street. He will pick up neither. 

That is exactly what you guys are trying to do when you are assinging "warm" to something like non-linear distortion. You CANNOT go from the nominal description file to ratio. However, you can always go from ratio to nominal. Also note the ratio scale is the most information rich. Nobody says the ratio scale is easy to absorb but no doubt it is more useful. 

Do I care what 3.5% 2nd order distortion is at 100hz in audiophile lingo? Not one bit, it is what it is. Why dilute your information?


----------



## jimbno1 (Apr 14, 2008)

I know it doesn't make sense to take the time to test an out of production driver. I would still love to see a Klippel test of the JBL 400GTi. I expect it to have poorer high frequency response that the other drivers due to the 2" VC. But at least to my perception it is way louder than my 12M (Alpine F1 version) and doesn't seem suffer distress at very loud levels like the 12M. I suspect it has better low end freq response also. But it could also be just my perceptions and not reality. 



Jim


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Probably a more efficient driver. Thus louder and less power compression.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Oh, and note that I had one reply to the sticky I gave on FR/HD data... and that was from my friend who felt sorry for me because no one gave a **** enough to really reply to the thread.



I read a LOT more than I post... 

What really cooks my noodle is Geddes' investigation of distortion as a figure of merit but that is a whole 'nother can of worms.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I posted a few comments on the AP and HAT 3s that Erin tested. Might want to read those tests and see how (I think) the data correlates to what you might hear.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

SSSnake said:


> I read a LOT more than I post...
> 
> What really cooks my noodle is Geddes' investigation of distortion as a figure of merit but that is a whole 'nother can of worms.


I like this a lot. Bring on the Geddes discussion. That's actually useful.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I think Erin and I (and maybe Jason) discussed it in a previous thread. Let me see if I can dig up a link.

Otherwise this link give you the thoughts from the man hmself:

Perception


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

From his compression driver testing paper:



> One significant result from this study is that there is no reason to consider any aspect of compression driver design from a nonlinear distortion perspective.* In fact, one could argue that these results indicate that distortion could be substantially increased, in order to save money or tradeoff other aspects of the design for distortion (like sensitivity), without having a negative impact on the sound quality of the device.* Without access to the results presented in this report, the audio community would certainly have taken exception to this conclusion, and would likely object most strenuously.


In my mind the highlighted area is the most contraversial/enlightening. As a EE this runs counter to my thoughts and training concerning component design.

Another tidbit to whet your apetite:



> The root cause of distortion is the nonlinearity of the system and the correct way to discuss nonlinearity is with the orders of its nonlinear transfer function. When one views the distortion problem in this way, signal based distortion metrics (THD, IMD, etc.) become irrelevant.


Again, not what I was expecting. How can THD, IMD, etc. not effet what we hear? This just runs contrary to everything that I believed prior to reading his papers. The papers are definitely a very good read and may open peoples eyes about the way humans perceive sound and sound quality. 

The distortion masking subject is something that I would love to explore further. It may be the case that systems have gotten to the poiont that most of the audible distortion is masked by the primary signal (don't know need to do more digging).


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Geddes gets around this problem by not running the drivers anywhere near their limits.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

SSSnake said:


> I think Erin and I (and maybe Jason) discussed it in a previous thread. Let me see if I can dig up a link.
> 
> Otherwise this link give you the thoughts from the man hmself:
> 
> Perception


I've been looking at these papers since Patrick at RedRockA. posted them in the Klippel section. It seems to me that he still uses the backbone of the research thus far in non linear distortion. Scraping everything we know would be a mistake. Here's a quote for that:

_The
current metrics that are used for distortion are, Total
Harmonic Distortion (THD); Inter-Modulation
Distortion (IM), multi-tone inter-modulation, etc.,
which are all usually expressed as a percentage – the
ratio of the distortion by-products to the total system
output. In an absolute sense this view of distortion is
satisfactory. If our goal were to eliminate all
distortion then clearly any measure of its level is
adequate. But it is neither reasonable nor desirable to
set as our goal the complete elimination of all
distortion. From a cost effective standpoint, reducing
distortion below perceivable levels is a complete
waste of time and money. It may also be that we
might want a scale by which to compare two levels of
distortion in order to make tradeoff decisions_

I would sum up his critique in two sentences. Sometimes distortion is inaudible and reducing it past a point gives no tangible benefit. Relative comparisons using percent THD (and not the underling components ) for example can lead to wrong conclusions.

I think he is going a bit far with this since for the most part no experienced tester ever said you only need to look at % THD. In fact all of the seasoned veterans recommend at least three harmonics (up to fifth) in an HD plot and they all caution that higher order harmonics are more offensive. In that sense we have been looking at the relative importance of nonlinear distortion in orders, frequencies in addition to amplitude. Geddes' contribution is that he does this formally by creating a weight function that mirrors the human auditory mechanism even more closely and in it's totality. 

So let's get to the meat of it and see what his contributions are:
_Given these characteristics we will propose the
following three Distortion Perception Principles.
1. Distortion by-products that are created
upward in frequency are likely to be less
perceptible (masked to a greater extent) than
those that fall lower in frequency.
2. Distortion by-products that lie closer to the
excitation are less likely to be perceived
(they are masked) than those that lie farther
away (masking is a localized effect – it only
occurs in the vicinity of the masker).
3. Distortion by-products of any kind are likely
to be more perceptible at lower signal levels
than at higher signal levels._ 

All three are combined into a weighting function which is called the GedLee metric. 

I can use some of these ideas in the comparisons in this thread but I'm not sure how I would apply the GedLee metric directly.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> It seems to me that he still uses the backbone of the research thus far in non linear distortion. Scraping everything we know would be a mistake.


I hope I didn't suggest "scrapping everything we know", it was not my intent.

Assertion 2 does jive with the higher order harmonics being the more relevant and I do agree. 2nd order has never really been that much of a concern to me personally. I usually start looking critically at 3rd order and above (typically I only had gotten worried with 4th and 5th if it was near the same magnitude as 3rd order - I may have to revisit that philosophy).

Assertion 1 is a little harder for me to agree with. I have done listening tests myself tryng to pick up on subwoofer distortion and for me it is pretty tough. Assertion 1 would seem to contradict my experience. From listening tests I would have assumed midband distortion to be more of a culprit than LF stuff.

Assertion 3 I am just not really sure about. I tend to become more fatigued listening to high volume distorted signals than low volume. However, I have not varied drive level to try and determine if I am more capable of identifying distortion at lower or higher levels (something I guess I need to do).

The thing that I prefer about Geddes approach is discipline. Rather than throwing out general guidlines he is trying to resolve it to a figure of merit with concrete terms. This to me would be a very beneficial undertaking but the formulation of the equation may introduce a degree of subjectivity (how should we weight each of the factors). 

It has been several months since I read these documents so please take all comments with a grain of salt. I may not have remembered everything correctly.

If I have a chance, I will review them this weekend so I can speak more intelligently (but I really want to get my system install finished - don't we all want more time in our lives).


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

It was more of a critique of his conclusions. He states just about everywhere that THD and IMD are useless in speaker comparisons. In reality his metric is nothing more than a weighing function. We weigh the results adhoc already, the metric is just a formal way to combine all in one statistic. 

On top of that his research revolves around polar response, he doesn't mind bashing his own metric to market his waveguides:

Dr Earl Geddes Summa loudspeakers and kits - diyAudio

So how does he get by without considering the common metrics? He doesn't from what I can tell. The loudspeakers he markets are some of the lowest distortion kits out there using large B&C components. The reason why nonlinear distortion doesn't matter in his usage is because he has effectively done what's needed to insure it's not there. Nonlinear distortion is only a problem when the driver becomes nonlinear, no kidding ehh.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Zaph just posted results on the new Illuminator 4". It seems to beat the Revelator by quite a bit. If we could get our hands on a Illuminator Klippel test we could throw that one in the comparison along with the L4SE.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

yes! I actually asked about it the other day on tech talk and he said he'd have it up by the end of the week. Vance is e-mailing me scans of the July 09 VC mag so I can see his klippel results. Educated purchase... here I come.


----------



## less (Nov 30, 2006)

(edit) Lovely timing... I write this post about the 12MU (which has garnered little attention) and find two posts up that there's potential for more info on it soon. I'll leave the post though, since I'm still curious about the questions here. I think I"m going to start a post about best enclosures for the 12m in a car too.)

Does it seem odd to anyone else that Scan has offered an improved version of the 12m for about two years, and yet it gets almost no play in testing or in reviews... or for that matter, in people's cars that I can see. It's a bit deeper and clearly needs an enclosure that won't allow fibers and such in the very exposed internals, but I for one would love to know more about it. 

Have I missed something? Are people testing the 12MU and just neglecting to add the "U"? Is there some reason the driver isn't apparently popular?

Thanks to all who take the time to research this. 

(BTW - Bikin, it's very true that many people don't learn well from reading internet articles or just don't have even the basic understanding of the concepts and find it overwhelming. Others don't have the time and still more probably still feel that tests still don't translate well into describing how a driver will actually sound... so they aren't necessarily lazy. Don't take it personally - you are appreciated.)

Jim


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

The Illuminator soft parts didn't seem as well behaved as the Revelator counter parts in the larger units. See for example Zaphs review in the 7" section. My basic belief is that the motor is the heart of the speaker and both the Rev. and Ill. have very well behaved soft parts. The problem is that with only one low level HD test you don't get to see the better motor in the Illuminator. They both test the same in the lower octave at a couple of watts in the review.

Secondly diyers have developed a fetish for the sliced Revelator cone. The Illuminator line is available in plainer paper and aluminum only for diyers as far as I can tell. 

The Illuminators are the better drivers overall, with a clear focus on what's more important, a more linear motor and beefier coil to take advantage of it. I presume build houses have a large choice of cones for these too which makes it a no brainer.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, it seems just by looking at the data alone, the 12m rev version is the wiser choice if you want to cross high (both HPF and LPF) while the illuminator is better for a lower HPF and LPF. Impedance is overall lower, albeit with more of a rise, assumedly due to inductance. 

Well, it seems just by looking at the data alone, the 12m rev version is the wiser choice. Impedance is overall lower, albeit with more of a rise, assumedly due to inductance. 

Response is flatt_er_ overall and it looks to have more usable bandwidth out to nearly 8khz while managing to still hang in there until just past 10khz, where the illuminator drops hard 6khz. 

12m Revelator:









Illuminator:










The Illuminator looks to have better overall distortion results with a wider separatation between 3rd and 4th order <2khz, while the revelator looks to perform better above this range.

3rd order distortion is better on the illuminator throughout and the overall levels of each paraemter is lower on the illuminator.
If you cross at 200hz, you're down 50dB on the rev but 60dB on the Illuminator. Realistically, let's say you're crossing at 300hz: the Illuminator looks to win out by about 5dB or so, but not much more than that. 

HD Rev:









HD Illuminator:










The impedance results of the illuminator show a nasty little bump from 1-2khz. The rev doesn't show this, but that may just be the scale.





















According to the T/S specs, the illuminator has higher efficiency and higher Bl. Inductance is lower on the revelator. 

All in all, the application I had hoped to use the 12mu in looks like it might be better served by the revelator version. The advantage here for the illuminator looks to be better response below 2khz, but anything above that looks like the edge is given to the revelator. The way I had planned to try the illuminator was a more 'wideband' type application, thinking they would have done something to reduce overall induactance and get some more usable bandwidth, but I'm not seeing it here. 

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. This is a bit disconcerting. I'm not seeing anything that jumps out and says this is a grand step above the revelator and I had hoped it would be. Maybe their intended use is different than what I would use it for.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I've attached the 12mu data courtesy of Vance Dickason. He was nice enough to send me a scan and permitted me to share it with you guys.

The last page was corrupted somehow, so the 2nd attachment is of the last page. You'll see what I mean when you open the files.

I honestly won't have a chance to really look at the data in comparison until tomorrow but feel free to discuss. (maybe this should be moved to its own thread)

- Erin


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

wow...

I just went back over the 12m klippel data and.... I had the driver in the wrong polarity. 
I'm surprised no one caught it. :/ 

Now, before we get up in arms, this doesn't seem to affect the curves or the numbers as they stand; however, it does affect the "coil in"/"coil out" direction of the curves.
However, the condition of the driver wasn't new and all the other drivers I've tested have been either bnib or lnib. Less than 100 hours on them according to all owners. There is an unnamed driver I tested that was obviously worn out more than the owner let on and I never posted the data. That was the reason I've now started working with Madisound.

*So, with that, my ass is going to have to order a new 12m and test it fresh. * I'll have to wait a bit to get the extra coin to do it, though. Even at oem pricing they're over $200/each.
I'll leave the current test up. Who knows, it may be the same results but I don't feel good about the data being out there so I'll start a new thread when I get the new sample

Sorry, guys. I hope you understand. And now I hope you realize why I'm buying BNIB drivers from Madisound. I'll accept lnib drivers but anything that's over that or can't be confirmed, I won't touch.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

less said:


> (edit) Lovely timing... I write this post about the 12MU (which has garnered little attention) and find two posts up that there's potential for more info on it soon. I'll leave the post though, since I'm still curious about the questions here. I think I"m going to start a post about best enclosures for the 12m in a car too.)
> 
> Does it seem odd to anyone else that Scan has offered an improved version of the 12m for about two years, and yet it gets almost no play in testing or in reviews... or for that matter, in people's cars that I can see. It's a bit deeper and clearly needs an enclosure that won't allow fibers and such in the very exposed internals, but I for one would love to know more about it.
> 
> ...


Jim,
I think the real problem is the fact that they're not cheap. yes, people buy the 12m, but not many in the grand scheme and plus it's had a great name for itself for years. People do buy the HAT l4 drivers, which are close in price to the scans, but think about it: you're on a car audio forum. This isn't the DIY of the past where car audio mfg products were a rarity. They're becoming the norm, so, IMO, companies like HAT are going to get more exposure here now. At least, that's my rationale for why you see these kind of drivers getting more exposure.

On the DIYaudio forums and the like you'll see the 12mu's get attention. But, really, not a lot. Then again, the 12m is a tough driver to beat and it was until yesterday that the data really become tangible. I didn't even know Vance tested them 2 years ago until a couple days ago. So, if I went hunting hard and didn't know that, I'm sure others weren't aware either. 

I don't know... really, IMO, it's just cost prohibitive. Not many of us here want to spend $400-500 on mids. I know I certainly don't spend that on the drivers. I'm a networker. LOL. 
If I had to pay full retail for these drivers, I wouldn't even have them in my house. I just couldn't afford it. 
It's easy to not realize the illuminator isn't out there because there's not people hocking it everywhere. The 12m's are usually purchased on the used market by us folks. I've seen two pair of 12mu's come up for sale used in the past year and that is on diya.


As far as people not learning well from reading internet articles: are these the same people who came here a couple years ago, didn't know how to do jack with a car install or how to tune and are now resident experts? Surely they can make an effort to learn how to undersatnd what the data means. Truth be told, I just don't think they give a damn enough to.
Just sayin'.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

HOLLY MOLLY 4.7mm xmax on the little Illuminator! That's really an understatement given the 6mm throw on the motor! Scan Speak is wiping the floor with the competition in pure linear displacement.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

yep. it has some serious throw.

You know, I really like reading his reports. He has good narrative in there, especially regarding things about Kms being assymetrical, but not necessarily being an issue due to the likelihood of using it in bandpass. It's good perspective.
If you put weight in to that, then it's got 6mm Bl limited.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> yep. it has some serious throw.
> 
> You know, I really like reading his reports. He has good narrative in there, especially regarding things about Kms being assymetrical, but not necessarily being an issue due to the likelihood of using it in bandpass. It's good perspective.
> If you put weight in to that, then it's got 6mm Bl limited.


Yep, I like how he emphasizes how the asymetries vary with stroke. That's what Patrick taught us as well and you see that a lot of the Klippel tests in there are given by Patrick.


BTW on that last page there are some scary distortion numbers. What's going on here? EDIT: yeah, forgot these are still little dinky drivers, distortion is off the roof at only 94db 1m. Makes you wonder just how much distortion people put up with when using a single 3" for midrange that doesn't have half this built quality or surface area.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*Update: Scan Speak Illuminator 12mu, HAT L4SE and Dayton RS100-8*

*Large signal parameters*
*12mu*
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 6 mm 
X C @ C min=75% 4.7 mm

Note that the suspension limits set by Vance and the guys at Faital are more restrictive than the ones Erin sets. Until now the difference did not inhibit interpretation. In this case however we have to give the Scan product equal limits. A visual inspection of the Kms(x) graph reveals a 70% down point of roughly 5mm.

Xmax 5mm suspension limited.  There is quite a bit more throw in the motor and that means very low distortion. This is exceptional for a speaker this size, quite possibly the best out there. 

*L4SE*
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 1.5 mm 
X C @ C min=70% 1.7 mm 
X L @ Z max=10 % >2.0 mm 
X d @ d2=10% 10.8 mm

Xmax 1.5mm motor limited. This is the worst performer in the group so far. The suspension has similar limitations. 

Dayton RS100-8
X Bl @ Bl min=82% >2.3 mm 
X C @ C min=70% 2.3 mm 
X L @ Z max=10 % >2.3 mm 
X d @ d2=10% 11.6 mm

Xmax 2.3 suspension limited.  Seems like the motor is about as restrictive. 

The Klippel standings are as follows:
*1. 12mu*
2. 12m
3. RS100 and L4
4. Faital Pro 4"
5. L4SE

Scan 12mu is the Klippel king and not by a little. It's got more than 3 times the linear throw the L4SE has. 

*
Combining large and small signal parameters:*




















Simulation using test parameters standings:
*1. 12mu*
2. 12m
3. Faital and L4
4. RS100
5. L4SE

Discussion and performance tests comparisons coming next.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I always thought it was odd the 12m did not have any copper in the motor.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Holy muther of fawk, the 12m went from being an expensive to driver to being over priced as hell.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Holy muther of fawk, the 12m went from being an expensive to driver to being over priced as hell.


The thing is I wouldn't even care a 12m or 12mu existed that was quite a bit better than the rest for a truck load of money, if it was home audio. In HT there is enough room to always replace a single expensive 4" with two cheap 4" in a line array and get better performance for less $. In mobile audio space is at a premium, you gotta pay to play. I feel you though, I can't afford them either.




To continue the update, some of you may look at the last simulation and cry at the power requirements. The Faital gets only 17w while the Illuminator gets 220w. How on earth is that a fair comparison? It's not, I just hate to plug in power ceilings given by the coil capacity if I only have manufacturer data. To make it more fair, I think I'll have to use them, so there it goes. 

I plugged in the long term power in the white sheets. This is not as bad as it sounds since these are standard power ratings (IEC, AES, etc) a lot of the times and they are 30w for almost all drivers minus the Scans which are rated quite a bit higher. These also sort of follow the amount of wire on the former so it seems to pass the sniff test. 

Here is the new simulation with the power ceilings in place: 









*
Overall ranking SPL and crossover HP capabilities in one:
1. 12mu 107.5db / 75hz *
2. Faital 105db /220hz 
3. 12m 104db / 190hz
4. HAT l4 100db/220hz
5. Dayton and L4se 97db / 180hz

The basic idea is that output and distortion and intrinsically linked. The 12mu is easily the leader because it can achieve both the highest output and the lowest crossover point without exceeding it's long term power rating. Simple. It's much harder to see why the Faital is second place over the 12m. It seems like the Scan can get the lower crossover point at the expense of some output. that's not true, at 104db the Faital can achieve 190hz HP as well. However you can cross over higher if you wish and get more output whereas the 12m is thermally limited. Faital Pro gets the advantage. Hat L4 gets 4th place, less output at the highest HP. The Dayton and the L4SE wrap up the bottom with the lowest output by far. Even if they wanted to get more output with the high crossover they can't due to thermal limitations. Any of the higher ranked speakers can get 180hz HP at more than 97db output. Clearly they are last in the rankings.

*Performance rankings*
To get an even more accurate pictures of the rankings we need to include performance tests. Why? The simulations don't show us any soft parts and basket resonances. We need an actual test of non linear distortion to see if any major resonances exist. Zaph would tell you all non linear distortion differences matter. I personally think only large harmonic distortion problems are audible, so what we are looking for are big picture items. 

I can't really rank speakers based on harmonic distortion, it's too much info to rank. I will go over major comparisons. Based on Zaphs tests the 12mu strictly dominates the 12m. All types of distortion seem lower at just about every frequency. That's hard to do. Clear advantage Illuminator over Revelator. The Dayton has lower distortion than both the Scan drivers in the bottom octaves but higher in the top octaves. Going by Geddes' principles the Dayton has an advantage. However, we've seen in the simulation above that it has much lower output. At similar high power levels the Dayton is bound to have much more distortion. 

Based on Erin's tests the HAT drivers can be compared with each other. The L4SE has less distortion in the 2khz problem area but the test spl is also lower. It's unclear the SE has any advantage in non-linear distortion. L4 looks like a better driver to me. 

I don't have Sound Easy HD plots of the Faital. I can only go by whatever info I got on my own. It is clear based on Ominmic measurements there is a trouble spot at 3khz. It's also prominent in the impedance sweeps. 

Unless we get all these drivers on the same measuring bench it's tough to make a call but we do know two rankings, *12mu>12m, and l4>l4SE.* At higher output levels the differences should be even larger. Remember that performance measures like this one and parameters tests such as the simulation should paint about the same picture, and here they really do. I would venture to say the Dayton performs worse than the Scans and the Faital because the output difference will be huge. So here too the tests should agree.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> Well, it seems just by looking at the data alone, the 12m rev version is the wiser choice if you want to cross high (both HPF and LPF) while the illuminator is better for a lower HPF and LPF. Impedance is overall lower, albeit with more of a rise, assumedly due to inductance.
> 
> Well, it seems just by looking at the data alone, the 12m rev version is the wiser choice. Impedance is overall lower, albeit with more of a rise, assumedly due to inductance.
> 
> ...


It looks like the 12mu has the more extended response. It's true that it does have a wide dip after 6khz, but it picks up afterwards. Since this is linear distortion I would say it's not as important as the other problems we can look at such as non-linear distortion, output, and HP crossover. For a passive crossover this can be problematic. In a car where we have EQ., active crossovers, and we usually use these as pure midranges it's not a big deal. You can really get both flat to 20khz using EQ if you so wish. If you treasure polar response you will cross low anyway to prevent excessive beaming. 

The impedance curves are not comparable because one is zoomed in and the other is not. Apples and oranges. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the HD plots Zaph has around 1.5khz. The Illuminator has lower distortion there of all sorts.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Arc Audio 4" midrange results posted: http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/115828-arc-audio-black-series-4-0-midrange-klippel-results.html#post1453530

Seems to be the SB woofer 4". The motor is superb on this thing and only $55 (SB prices). How does it rank? The Faital and the Revelator category is where this would fit. It has a bit lower output than the Revelator and therefore Faital, so among the three SPL wise the Faital still has the edge. Crossover wise the Rev cross a tad bit lower than the Faital, think 200hz Faital, 180hz Scan. For the same amount of distortion the ARC can be crossed at 150hz or so, noticeably better. 

Practically the install is a pain, it's bigger than the shallow Scan and even more shallow Faital. It's a full inch larger in diameter than the Faital. Furthermore it needs a cubic foot or IB to shine. The Scan and Faital are great in small sealed. 

Overall I'd say you get a lower crosspoint at the cost of space and output. It's a fantastic bargain at Madisound for everyone that would consider the Revelator and has a load of room. The Illuminator goes unrivaled yet again, far better in every way.


----------



## madmaxz (Feb 11, 2009)

so the scan 12m would be the best choice for someone wanting the best performance in a small a piller mount crossed over at about 200-300hz -> 3-4khz.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

madmaxz said:


> so the scan 12m would be the best choice for someone wanting the best performance in a small a piller mount crossed over at about 200-300hz -> 3-4khz.


The Illuminator is the best if you can fit it depth wise, it requires an even smaller enclosure. The Rev is second, much shallower. The Faital gets a little louder than the Rev but requires more enclosure space (almost an inch less in diameter though) and the cone is not as well behaved as the Scans.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

*The Dynaudio Esotar2* mid results are now posted in the Klippel section. 

*Good:*
Seems to be a sensitive little brat more sensitive than the Scans but not as sensitive as the Faital. All due to the high motor force.

The brutish motor also means a very small box, .37 L for a Q of .7 is all you need. 

*Bad:*

Less excursion capability than the Scans or the ARC and really poor sensitivity under 300hz. That means you would have to use the Eq. to boost the low end but the motor is not linear enough to allow you to do it. The Faital for example doesn't really have a lot of excursion either but it models really well at least.

The inductance is quite non linear for a high end driver, it may be that it has higher IMD than the rest of the drivers we've looked at in this thread. In a mid is where you'd like this to be very linear and low. 

It has a fairly large wiggle in the impedance curve at 1,800hz. That's also not acceptable for a high end driver. It means that there might be some resonance in the parts at that frequency. 


*The Standings*

*The Illuminator remains king.* So now the Dyn is the smallest box midrange we have, the Scan can no longer hold that crown. But who cares, at less than 1L required it's still a tiny box mid. It's also like .5db less sensitive than the Dyn but it seems to cool down really well under power so the difference can be made up with sheer power. On the other hand it has the most composed cone, no wiggles, an outstanding motor, twice as good as the next speaker. That means it achieves the lowest crossover points and maintains lower distortion throughout. 

The REV is second with the ARC and Faital really close. The Dyn is bellow these from what I can tell. It needs a higher crosspoint than all three, the inductance is not as linear, and it has some issues at 1.8k. The only other not well behaved speaker is the Faital but at least it's wiggle is pushed a bit higher. 

For the purpose of future comparisons I'd like to keep talking about the top 4 performers at most for conciseness, so the Dyn, HATs and Dayton will get little coverage from now on.


----------



## madmaxz (Feb 11, 2009)

Interesting results when compared to the 4" listening test/roundup...


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

I won't attempt to give, or take away any credibility of this test, because it is your test, and you KNOW what you want in a 4-inch midrange (midbass). That's great. But what YOU want may not be what the general populous wants.

Reading your dialogue, you want a 4-inch midbass that "wipes the floor" with linear Xmax, low resonance, and high motor strength. That's awesome. But none of those were major design tenets for either the L4 or the L4SE. Our main design objectives included extremely extended FR, low moving mass, low inductance, and usefulness off-axis. The L4 nor the L4SE are 4-inch midbass drivers, so Xmax was only of marginal concern within respect of their intended use with a highpass crossover to limit IMD (notice I did not say bandpass crossover specifically). Furthermore, when looking at motor strength, one must also look at moving mass (which you decidedly omitted), and of course, moving mass related to Fs. All inter-related. A big motor is required to move more substantial Mms. The comparison can be made between a diesel truck with big motor but big mass, and a sports car, with smaller motor compliance and smaller moving mass. Discussing motor compliance without also discussing moving mass is like bragging about your car's horsepower without talking about its torque. Which one, the diesel truck or the sports car has better transient properties? I'm a sports car guy, myself. There is a fine balance between Cms, Mms, Qms, and Qts. Not to mention transiently fast impulse response rise and decay with lower moving mass, the effect of low inductance, and a bandwidth that "wipes the floor" (your words, not mine) with the competition. And finally, we compromised a bit on SPL because of less Sd, in order to get the bandwidth we needed. Give or take, but you can't have both.

I don't want, nor need a low resonance, long-excursion 4-inch midrange/midbass that plays 3 dB louder than what I have because of more Sd. These are all useless parameters to me. Give me extended bandwidth, class-leading on- and off-axis frequency response, usefulness off-axis, extremely low modulation of inductance with stroke, and maybe even sprinkle in a little bit of possibility of running "tweeterless." 

Brother CV, I love ya, but you have been extremely successful at one thing: comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> The Xmax sounds very low on the L4SE, and I wonder why that is. That is all.


For some reason I can't get the PDFs to open but presumably shorter coil, lower inductance, and better HF response.

Is it a benefit or hinderance, depends upon the application but getting the numbers out there for people to make informed decisions is key.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> The Xmax sounds very low on the L4SE, and I wonder why that is. That is all.


Looking at the Klippel report the asymmetries are not bad at all. Mostly under .5mm, so production variance or optimization doesn't seem to be a problem. You can't really squeeze more xmax out of this design by fine optimization and tight production standards. If you want more xmax you have to toll a new speaker, there physically isn't much much throw in either the motor or suspension.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott Buwalda said:


> I won't attempt to give, or take away any credibility of this test, because it is your test, and you KNOW what you want in a 4-inch midrange (midbass). That's great. But what YOU want may not be what the general populous wants.
> 
> I covered a lot, from crossover point, to output, to distortion, to box size, to mounting requirements, to group delay, to transient response, to resonances. The one thing I purposefully tried to not cover was price because 1. people don't need my thread to price shop 2. I was looking for performance comparison unweighted by affordability. If I didn't cover these speakers used in the top two octaves it is because I don't have off axis plots, CSD or burst tests, and harmonic distortion tests for all of them. But, and this is a big but, we are looking at the same thechnology -cone speaker- in the same size-4 inch- and roughly all of the speakers here have had really low LE. How different can they be in the top two octaves? Why would you use them that high when a tweeter is much much better?
> 
> ...


Give me CSD,burst performance, and off axis plots on all these speakers and I'll compare the top two octaves and transient response. There is not much to find there because all these drivers are roughly the same technology but my door is open to more information. I never shut that door.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Given Scott's critique above I have been chewing on a way to extend the comparisons on some of the features that were not given as much emphasis. There are a few aspects of sound reproduction that I haven't covered as vigorously, partly because there isn't a lot of data on it, partly because I think of them as secondary importance effects.

So far we have looked at:
*SPL
High pass crossover points
Part resonances (derived from impedance and HD plots)
Box requirements
Efficiency* 
in (this) order of what I think take be the most important traits for a midrange. 

Next I will look at:
*Off-axis response
Transient response (or decay, includes bandwidth)
IMD *
as per Scott's critique,
*Power compression*
the last, which to me is the elephant in the room. 


So let me just tackle the first for now. 
*Off-axis Response*
To start, we need a benchmark. What is considered bad dispersion? For the demanding enthusiast bad dispersion is the onset of beaming, the moment the speaker stops being omnidirectional. In layman's terms that means the response 15,30, 45... degrees of axis is noticeably different than the one on-axis. That is a bit stringent, most would agree. Some guys don't really mind using these up to 20khz without a tweeter. That is a bit to lenient, the polar response is by any metric...crap. As soon as you move your head the response will be vastly different. Somewhere there must be a good medium.

I'm going to set the benchmark as follows: a good point to implement a low pass crossover (due to poor off axis response) is -3db at 30 degrees with respect to on-axis. Why? Vance Dickason uses this rule of thumb in the Voice Coil mag. (see issue 2011 October). He is the writer of the the Loudspeaker Cookbook so he has loads of experience under his belt. I hope most of you will find this compelling enough. 

Looking across our comparison group at whatever off-axis information is available on the net the following ordering ensues:

*1.Hat L4SE ~5,800hz
2.Scan 12m, Scan 12mu, Hat L4, Faital Pro 4", Dyn. 430 ~4,800hz. *

Dayton RS 100-x N/A. If anybody knows of any off axis plots for this guy shoot.

*Discussion*
What should pop out at you is how similar these are. Off axis response in a cone speaker is driven primarily by cone size. Since we are looking at cone speakers in the same size the closeness of the results should be expected. Minor tweaks like phaseplugs and cone geometry add very little imo. 

Secondly, all of these can easily be crossed with a 3/4 dome. Say we did have a 4" cone that had good polar response up to 8khz. What exactly do you gain being able to cross at 8khz versus 5khz? A 3/4 dome can do 5khz - 20khz easily with our benchmark rule whereas all of these cones look atrocious after 10khz. If you can't use them as full range drivers, crossing past where a 3/4 dome can take over is not needed. A dome will also have better decay qualities. Cones of this size that have good on-axis response up to 20khz often do so thanks to their cone breaking up up top. Playing through cone breakup is not a desirable feature, it often creates time domain aberrations and those can't be EQ.d out. 


Most of the information comes from manufacturer provided plots. I don't think 3rd party tests look that much different. The reason for leaving this test out is supported by the results, all same size cones have VERY similar off axis dispersion. Conclusion: cross any of these 4" cones at 5khz or lower with a small tweeter if you care about off-axis response.


----------



## claytonzmvox (May 4, 2011)

news about this test?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

claytonzmvox said:


> news about this test?


I've been reading some research papers on the topics I meant to cover next. Still got a lot of work to do. If anyone wants to contribute with ways to advance this shoot.


----------



## claytonzmvox (May 4, 2011)

awaiting news!!! my friend!!


----------

