# audible physics AR3K vs tangband w3-1878



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Ok here goes. For over a few months now, I have read and re-read various claims and reviews on audible physics drivers. Claims by many of the more esteemed members of diyma praising the sound quality and overall fit and finish of Mark’s products has peeked my interest. But when I saw pictures of the ar3m and other various versions of this supposedly magical 3” full range driver, I was very impressed. Then it seems that just as fast as the lucky early buyers got them in their hands, an influx of glowing reviews came in. ” No need for a tweeter” seems to be the prevailing comment from everybody who has listened to these drivers. Thanks goes out to cheesehead (tom) for allowing wldock (walt) to audition the drivers. Also Wldock for having me over and turning me on to a beer called Sapporo and setting out a nice snack tray. Walt and his buddy Anthony had some diverse listening material which made for a more in-depth audition.

Ok here is the setup, Walt had made two sets of open back enclosures or shrouds. He even went so far as to stuff the back of the baffles with poly fill. Mounted to the baffles were a pair of ar3k and a pair of tang band w3-1878’s. I have to say when I first saw the ar3k I was impressed! These drivers have got some serious beef for a 3 incher…or so I thought. The tang band’s size wise are like comparing a jlw7 next to RE xxx woofers. The difference in depth is that dramatic. Amplifier being used is Walt’s personal favorite class g/h clarion amp. But enough of the babble, let’s get to the drivers…

The first cd was Lou Rawls. Not sure of the name of the track, but Lou sounded…technically right. No bloated lower end at all. I felt as if I was at a vegas lounge and there is crushed velvet furniture all around me. The low pass was set @ 250hz. This was just about right to my ears. I did notice though, even when I stood up to switch seat, there was no collapse of imaging. Not saying it stayed centered, but I could still detect that stereo sound. Nice! At this point I notice that I’m enjoying lou rawls…lol. Now time for the tang band’s, with the same track the tangs definitely have a much much fuller low end. It’s night and day. I felt that the low end was so full it was ridiculous. The tangs have the lower octave down pack, so much so that a quick a/b comparison brought to light the dramatic differences of the two drivers. Think muscle car versus a true sports car, with the audible physics being the latter. Walt at my request raised the x-over setting to 300hz. Big difference, I immediately noticed that the tang couldn’t be run as a true full range since I’m not being dazzled by the ridiculous low end. The phase plug design looks more like an old intel 486i heatsink than anything that could help with the upper range. But with a nice tweeter these would definitely replace my peerless 3” full ranges in my setup. And again for the price I would pick up a pair and try them out in my install.

Basically so far yes the ar3k are what I thought they would be…to an extent. I notice as I listened to some fusion jazz, pat metheny & physical therapy with the ar3k, that although they sounded good, I just didn’t get what every body was praising them about. Yes they have good extended range. Yes they have a nice transparent sound, but something wasn’t right. Then it dawned on me, I was listening to a subpar recording. Yes I have to admit those tracks had be copied at a less than full bitrate. There was no impact, no evoked emotion or smile like lou rawl did earlier. So I drop in quincy jones’ jook joint….Yes! the dynamics was there. Read this people the horns…omg the horns was so powerful and realistic sounding. And when the queen starts singing I finally sit back and close my eyes. (has anyone else noticed when playing jazz or classical music, whichever is the most prominent instrument, the ar3k’s reproduce them as if they are the lead singer? Not sure if I articulated that right, but it’s a pleasing quality)
Walt is tapping his feet and Anthony who isn’t even sitting on the couch is bobbing his head. This is dynamic big band jazz music being played via two 3” drivers! Later I tried this track with the tangs and just as I thought, the lack of a tweeter makes this track full at bottom and no excitement up top. Man Walt re-hooks up the ar3k and he just pulls out disc after disc. Autosound2000, and other various tuning disc just further prove what product mark has provided us.

I recognized that using full range class d/g/h amps leave a little off the “plate” when it comes to the lower end. Best way to describe it is to say the lower octaves are a little softer or thinner. So I inform the guys I have a brand new hertz ep4x still in the box out in my car (class a/b). I bring the amp in, walt does the install and after setting the x-over and gain we all sit down to listen to the drivers again….

Anybody who ever tries to discuss/argue with me about not hearing a difference between amp topolgy is crazy! I don’t care about stats, theories, and if you have a phd! All 3 of us noticed a big difference and I’m not talking spl, I’m talking about significant widening of the soundstage and increased clarity. I’m now hearing the valves opening and closing on a wind instrument on some tracks. It was there before, but not like it is now. I’m not a stranger to full range digital amps as I’m a former owner of 3 kenwood kac-x4r and I advocate anyone to get one if they can. But the hertz brought out details in the music. I’m really feeling these ar3k’s!!! I can only imagine how the beryllium versions would sound. I guess an even more extended albeit more sterile sound? Mark please tell me…lol. Anyway, we are all smiling and Anthony was the first to notice how wide the sound stage got as he was sitting dead center. For those who don’t know, anthony has a all out sq comp car running jbl power series and crown amps and focal Be 3-way speakers. And he was impressed, very impressed. It’s funny, at first I was thinking the ar3k would be a waste for anyone who only listens to instrumental music because with vocals reproduction from these drivers are near impossible to beat. But with the hertz amp I was dead wrong. The added detail is a giant leap ahead.
Next up the track by Tamia or as Walt pointed out “Grant Hills fine wife. I had already heard this track with the clarion amp and of course she sounded great, I swear these speakers got pixie dust on them cause that extra something is definitely there. But with the hertz amp…it’s not even up for debate. I will go on record and say it…these are by far the best drivers for what I believe to be the most important driver in any sq setup. I’m a guy who loves silk or ring tweeters and I felt no need for either. Point source is what its all about with these drivers. Mark as I’m typing notes on my phone during this listening session I keep thinking to myself, no lie, Martin Logan like sound. Please market these to the diy home theater crowd!

Now as far as cost, before I listened to the driver we all had a discussion about price of these and I must admit, I felt my money was too tight to even think about getting a pair. But now…well while I still can’t afford the list price, I can say these are my new dream equipment for my wish list…right up there with a pair of carver al-3 speakers… well there is always hope that mark will offer a package deal with his 8” midbass driver he is working on in the future…hint hint

I have pics but i can't post them from my cell


----------



## Ludemandan (Jul 13, 2005)

Well! Another glowing review, thanks for reinforcing my confidence in my pre-order. 

How did these sound off-axis, as far as high end extension? People say the angle makes a difference in the brightness.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Ok when I set off axis the higher frequency didn't drop...just changed. Tone wise they remained unchanged. But I think if these were too bright on axis then off axis would be perfect. But the problem is...there is no harshness on axis so off axis their just a hint subdued if I can say that. I literally stood up and noticed no tonal change, just center image change. Hope that helps...I will tell you this....be prepared to have to purchase and/or rerecord your music at a higher nitrate. These driver are full of promise


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Nice Review.
when you say ,Anthony, do you mean Davis?


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

I and my designer/builder would like to thank all of you guys for your honest reviews. We are glad you like the drivers and we will do our best to continue to bring you the best products we possible can. We just hope we can continue to improve on the designs. Hell I just glad I'm not deaf and you guys are hearing what I do.

I need to pick up a set of the Tang Band that driver is a monster. I just love great sounding drivers no matter who the manufacturer is.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Mic10is said:


> Nice Review.
> when you say ,Anthony, do you mean Davis?


Yep Mic, it was Anthony Davis


----------



## cheesehead (Mar 20, 2007)

Nice review Manish. I'm glad you were able to partake in the comparison!

After this review I really need to get these back from Walt and get them installed! :laugh:

I just bought a old school PG ZX450 to run bridged for the AR3K's. And I'm going to pair that up with another PG ZX450 to power my AR6K's. Should give them plenty of head room!!

Now we just need to hear Walt's impressions of these!

By the way is Anthony a member here as well? Maybe he could give his thoughts also.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Yep Davis. Those tangs are nice mark. I hope no one got the impression that I don't like them. On the contrary I found them really nice...as a midrange...the name of the game for your drivers is point source. Your drivers sounds like an exotic midrange and tweeter set but all coming from one place. To me the 3-way is dead.


----------



## Ludemandan (Jul 13, 2005)

We are still lacking an in-depth listening comparison of the AR3K and the XR3M.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

Great review. To be honest I think running tweeters PERIOD is dead. The impact a capable cone gives in the higher frequencies just can't be beat. If I can get a set of ar's in my dash the 6's will be ordered with them (when play money builds back up) and all hell should break loose in my truck in a good way


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

My 2" cones got the sparkle. Hope to hear the 3's with my own ears this weekend to judge for myself


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

cajunner said:


> what y'all smokin' up in here.....
> 
> 3" cone ain't never gonna put the sparkle at the top!
> 
> you guys is all runnin' glorified Bose, I tells ya..


Hey I don't smoke...lol man you just gotta hear them yourself.....


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> what y'all smokin' up in here.....
> 
> 3" cone ain't never gonna put the sparkle at the top!
> 
> *you guys is all runnin' glorified Bose, I tells ya*..


:laugh:Now that is funny, i really like that one.  I can tell you a few things about some of the new Bose stuff.:worried::blush:

Well it is more like 2.2" of Sd. LOL

But I would have to agree you on that, as what we call Sparkle of a tweeter or Airy sound is not what this design is suppose to do. What it is suppose to do I hope it does it :blush: is add the life like weight to the upper range. 

I go listen to the live concert at some to the local high schools as much as I can and I must say some these concert are amazing, man these kids have some real talent. I seat as close as they will allow me to and I have visited some of the class rooms. 

What I notice is when a cymbal strike is made it doesn't have what we call air or i guess sparkle, it has weight that I could feel even the extra resonance has some weight. Same for horns of all types. I listened to some flutes playing their solo part of a song and man I tell you I never thought flutes could be so dynamic. Ok it was like 5 of them at once, but it's a darn flute. 

This experience is what we where after. I could never just get that weight and dynamics for a small dome. Now is there a trade off, Yes. No way a large cone can match the Air or sparkle of a small super fast dome like a 19-27mm tweeter. Just not possible in this design. But which is right or which do you prefer? Hell I like both ways. I love me a dynamic and smooth yet detail tweeter, OW1 and OW2 are the first to come to mine. I also really like the Audison Thesis tweeter. 

What I'm saying and i have said it many times, we just can't beat Physics, but we can put up one hellva fight!!!!:::laugh:


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Hold up, when I say sparkle I'm not talking the sound you get with a metal tweeter and kid with the trbeble turn way up..lol let me try to articulate better what I mean. When comparing the ar3k to the tang there is more of a full upper register. The ar3k was just...how shall I say this...alive. I forgot that I was listening to drivers and just enjoyed the sound. You know your listening to something special when your not stareing at the drivers ESP when their not covered up. Live recording are to these drivers what 3d avatar is to a new 60" 3d plasma TV. I can't convey how much life like the vocal reproduction is. And you mention flutes....I listen to a track with a sax dead center and it sound not life like... it was surreal.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Ludemandan said:


> We are still lacking an in-depth listening comparison of the AR3K and the XR3M.


Someone on this board was nice enough to send me an AR3K. But, due to requiring signature, I didn't get it yesterday when delivery was attempted.

Expect to at least get some data from me regarding FR between the two drivers and hopefully distortion parameters by week's end.

I will also try to do some quick listening comparisons on the test baffle in MONO to see what I think about the subjective side of things. I hate doing this, but given as it's comparison I think I'm okay. 

Thanks to the member who sent me his driver. You know who you are. 

- Erin


----------



## kvndoom (Nov 13, 2009)

I can't wait till the day comes I get a car I know I'll keep for 5 or more years... I do want to try these!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> I know exactly what you're talking about, and although my comments were meant as tongue-in-cheek, Bose followed this same design philosophy as a natural offshoot of using trade-offs to achieve a response he was aiming for.
> 
> I have the original Bose drivers and have played with them in the manner in which these new drivers are being used for almost two decades, all the time hearing about how Bose doesn't have the upper end extension, Bose doesn't publish their frequency response graphs of their drivers, Bose this, Bose that...
> 
> ...


Now that was a mouth full

Not sure if you took what I said the wrong way or i'm reading and taking your reply in the wrong context, but what I meant was I just have some insight/inside info on the new Bose drivers, and I meant it in all and only great ways. I have always admired what Bose was and are able to do with such small drivers in their enclosure design. You know how many Bose system I have taken apart to see how they are able to do what they do. I bought a wave radio when it came and had it in my Kitchen for all of a week before it was out in the garage in pieces. 

But once the drivers where out side their enclosure they where just...ok drivers, the tunnel or transition line not sure what to call it, i'm not enclosure designer of guru, but what Bose is able to do with these drivers is amazing to me. 

But even Bose has to improve on the driver design they use in their enclosure and systems and believe me they have, I know this for a fact. 

I also agree and I welcome criticism, as it does one thing if it is use the way it should be used and is of the constructive nature. When it is of the constructive nature criticism should invoke a thought process of improvement or change. This is why my designer and I love feedback. We are continuously trying to improve on the designs and make them even better or to simply give the end user what they want from the driver. Transducer design has not changed very much for the start, the basics are the same. Just like a automobile engine. Basic are the same. Advances in materials and technology that allows the said materials to be used in different matter and a few tricks of the trade is what improves on the designs. Sometime just stepping outside the box is all it takes. 

My designer/builder is a chemist the guy is a mad scientist when it comes down to driver design. He designs and builds for many high-end mobile and home audio companies around the world. He does everything he can not build a driver that will cost $1200 a pair, but instead sound like they do without cutting on quality of parts and materials used. He has to our knowledge produced the very first Super wide-band transducer in the AR3K, also the same can the said about the Super wide-band BeM3 that use a Beryllium Alloy cone. He has a few tricks that makes the AR and XR 3" drivers have the top extension they do and makes them a very linear driver, Man I hope the Klippel says the same:worried:. 

Wow sorry went into a little rant zone there. But I'm with you sir!!


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

a bumble bee breaks the laws of physics every single day


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> so, *basically, there's more upper end extension with the more expensive drivers?* Or, have you found yourself amazed by speakers that somehow defy the laws of acoustics and are satisfied with paying the difference in cost?
> 
> I'm not sure I'm seeing what your putting down, here...
> 
> ...


You pricing is one of the most important factors in making a decision to purchase anything. Cars, you home, a soda, the new video game console and yes speaker. I can't and shouldn't speak for Manish, but if I understand him correctly, it not just the upper end extension that makes the AR3K a nice driver it the over all listening experience. Does the AR3K cost more the Tang Band yes, is it the most costly 3" on the market no not even close, not even at the MSRP and no one pays MSRP. 

But when we go out to purchase what you desire, lets just say a car. We look at a few different makes and models with same and different options. What is the option that makes you buy the Lexus ES350 over the Toyota Camry or GMC Yukon or the Chevy Tahoe, the Porsche or the Vette? the pairs are all in their respective classes, but there is just a little something special that makes you say, man I going to send that extra little bit to get this one, as it has that, that , that last little bit of what I looking for. Sometimes it just a name and to say, look check me out I have a Lexus, sometimes it because it performs better on the long curvy road home and invokes less fatigue on the long drive with the family on the weekends. What ever it is we are willing to pay a little more to get it. 

Now that i'm done with the BS above, least but it into perspective here. If the Tang Band was say a Focal driver what do you think the cost would be. As I said I love any driver that sounds nice and I have owned and some of the rarest drivers around. The Tang Band is a great bargain it seems like and hell i've said I going to buy myself a pair to play with.

But less look at it like this, I buy drivers in very small quantities and I use my own hard on earn funds to do it. If I could afford to buy as many as PE those at once man I could get a better price and pass it along to dealers and my friends here at Diyma. When I can I do my very best to give great deals. If I get them I give them. Hell my designer and I are basically giving the drivers in the Blow pre-sale away. Having to factor in shipping, import taxes and custom fees many things get crazy real fast. That is one reason I have a no bling approach. If it adds cost for me it will add cost of the dealers and end user alike, if does nothing for the sound it is not added, well about 95% of it. 

*I can say this my designer/builder is one of the easiest people to deal with and as those his best to work with me as he does what he does out of passion plain and simple. That passion is what keeps me and many around here going.*

But give me a couple more years I will get there I hope where I can afford to order 50-100 pairs at once and hit that price where I can afford to give even better deals. I hope is the people who listen to the Audible Physics and H-Audio OEM drivers are please with what they sent their hard to come by these days earnings. *If not give me the criticism so we can improve on the design.*


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

BigRed said:


> a bumble bee breaks the laws of physics every single day



Nice one, True!:laugh: 

to explain if someone doesn't know, by all rights a bee weighs to much to fly compared to the surface area of it's wings and the power available in it wings muscles to fly. Please don't tell the bees that, they may loss their confident . 

But if I remember correct it was proven it has something to do with their skeleton make up why it works, don't remember.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> I'm sorry if I made cost, a defense-worthy issue as I had no intention of doing so.
> 
> Your pricing is justifiable, if the gains are there and apparently from Manish's glowing review, they are there.
> 
> ...


No issue here sir, all is cool! I just like to talk sometimes ask anyone who has talked with me. Man I can talk and when it comes down to Audio your in for a long one. What I need to do is learn to proof read my posts before I post them, I'm the worst at that and Darn dude you have a way with words, you want to write my manuals?


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

cajunner said:


> so, basically, there's more upper end extension with the more expensive drivers? Or, have you found yourself amazed by speakers that somehow defy the laws of acoustics and are satisfied with paying the difference in cost?
> 
> I'm not sure I'm seeing what your putting down, here...
> 
> ...


Sorry its taking me awhile to respond, I'm at work and I just made an arrest. Ok now I can say that yes of course it had more extension. But I'm more incline to say I'm more than smitten with the ar3k's. For right now they are the "bumblebees" of the driver world. You guys gotta understand me and my audio philosophy that I live by. Must have a three way setup, must be active, must have silk tweeters, the midrange is the most important driver for a true sq setup. These drivers smashes 2 of my golden rules. And then there is the diminishing returns logic...which goes out the window here too. Yes these are worth the money, the cost factor is only a issue because of my financial status lol..
Now as far as listening material, maybe I wasn't clear my first initial conclusion was unless you listen to vocal based music then added cost wasn't worth it. But that was with the lower quality recorded music and a full class g/h amp. Once the Hertz amp was swapped in, I could then "hear" the instruments. Trust me jazz, big band, orchestra or any thing sans a poorly record rap album will sound as close to perfection as I have experience. But no these would be lost on a user who runs 4 15" subs and still play DJ majic Mike. These are those who enjoy the experience of music. Not trying sound like a audiophile snob but would the avg young listener who on listen to music via iPhone and the standard issue ear buds. No these are. Anybody which has the means and need for hearing it all.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Also cajunner don't forget that there are different variations of this driver and one maybe better suited for particular users taste or music selection.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Got the AR3K in from someone on the forum for testing.

Impedance sweeps are a given and I will do 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60* plots on the AR3K so you can get a feel for how it behaves on and off axis. 
As far as comparing to the xr3m, realistically, doing 5 charts of comparisons and posting each is a PITA and the charts get too cluttered to make sense of anything, so I'm only going to do 0 deg, and 30 deg. Unless popular choice is something else. 
Luckily the two drivers share the same geometry so it's a simple drop in replacement on the baffle.










I'll post a link to results once I run the tests and post the data.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

OK, I must give thanks:

*-To cheesehead (Tom) for lending me the AR3K's. (Your drivers will be on the way back this week)
-To manish (Eric) for coming to hang out and bringing the HERTZ EP 4X amp, WOW!
-To 2deep2 (Anthony Davis) for bringing his reference system over that features a very cool OPPP BDP 93 Blu-ray disc player and also for bringing those trained ears of his.*

Well, I was going to write up my own post but Manish pretty much covered many of my own thoughts. This all began for me through readings about some improvements in fullrange and wideband drivers. I thought it would be cool to build a simple but great sounding system in the car utilizing a wideband up top for obvious reasons. I had not heard many of these type drivers so I started out looking around and the TANG BAND W3-1878 really caught my eye as well as the Audible Physics 3” widebanders.

TANG BAND W3-1878
















AUDIBLE PHYSICS AR3K

































I'm glad that everything came together and I think all in the room this weekend had a good experience and pretty much came away with similar conclusions.

_*1.) Both of these drivers sound absolutely fantastic producing male and female vocals. However, differences are most notably heard with instruments and high frequency content.

2.) The TANG BAND driver is VERY capable but has less of an extended top end. The driver would make for a very nice wideband midrange with a small smooth silk neo tweeter crossed over high outside of the vocal range. Younger guys might be able to get away with this driver as is.

3.) The Audible Physics drivers have a substantial top end...no tweeter will be needed with these drivers. We were all wishing we had the Beryllium drivers there to test also.

4.) Both of these drivers had more dynamics than we all thought they would have. Not giving up too much to Anthony’s 5” reference bookshelfs.

5.) Eric’s HERTZ EP4X amp completely brought both of these drivers to life! Imaging was razor sharp, the stage widened, the center was more pronounced, and the amp completely performed much better than my Clarion DPX2251. Amps DO sound different….no scientific test needed*._


I had a great time and I'm glad the guys came out to have some fun with this. I hope this helped shed a little light on these drivers. I know it has given me some things to think about as for my build. Next, I plan to play a little with these in the car.


The listening loft!


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Walt I was made a believer Sunday. I'm sitting here now wonder about mark's future 8" drivers. I'm try in to scrap up some cash for a pair of the beryllium drivers as I type this...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

you guys flipped the towers over when you listened to each speaker, right?


----------



## fish (Jun 30, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> you guys flipped the towers over when you listened to each speaker, right?



Eeeww, good question.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I'm sure they did. Have to ask, though.


Test Data for XR3M-LE and AR3K posted:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...physics-xr3m-le-ar3k-drivers.html#post1285149

Certainly might explain why you were hearing an increased top end in the AR3K.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> you guys flipped the towers over when you listened to each speaker, right?





fish said:


> Eeeww, good question.





bikinpunk said:


> I'm sure they did. Have to ask, though.
> Test Data for XR3M-LE and AR3K posted:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...physics-xr3m-le-ar3k-drivers.html#post1285149
> Certainly might explain why you were hearing an increased top end in the AR3K.


Well, my original plan was to lay the enclosure horizontal but we all agreed on an upright location. However, after hearing both drivers the fist time......It was SO obvious that the AR had a more pronounced top end....we did not bother to flip it. The drivers sounded really different with the Clarion amps. However, with the Hertz amp the drivers were starting to sound similar....especially on vocals. But that top end was ever present on the AR's....just look at the graphs bikinpunk posted. So, height was not so much of an issue in this test an I think we all considered that but.....the drivers each had their own character....As good as the AR's were....I think the TB's would be awesome playing from 250-300Hz up to 6K-8Khz...whick will cover a large portion of the vocal range.

I think our main goal was to see if we could live with these drivers in lieu of a 2-way more so that an A vs. B comparison. AR=YES!, TB=NO, would be better with a small tweet.

OK, so now I have to get my hands on the XR3M drivers? MARK, you wanna swap a set with the Tang Bands so that we can both take a listen? Maybe bikinpunk can test them as well?


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> I'm sure they did. Have to ask, though.
> 
> 
> Test Data for XR3M-LE and AR3K posted:
> ...


As Walt stated after listening to them on the sides at first, it was apparent that the ar3k was in a different category. To me the tang couldn't match the upper frequency range. So much so that that part of the comparison was over with before it really got started. And btw my review is not a paid endorsement. I was ready to dismiss the ar3k as I couldn't believe these were all that. But I'm a believer now....so much so I'm contemplating taking out a small loan at my credit union for the beryllium set!


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Double post


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

manish said:


> As Walt stated after listening to them on the sides at first, it was apparent that the ar3k was in a different category. To me the tang couldn't match the upper frequency range. So much so that that part of the comparison was over with before it really got started. *And btw my review is not a paid endorsement.* I was ready to dismiss the ar3k as I couldn't believe these were all that. But I'm a believer now....so much so I'm contemplating taking out a small loan at my credit union for the beryllium set!


Who ever said that it was? 

If you take out a loan to buy speakers, I'm sure Mark would even tell you you're crazy.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

I think cajunner and others may feel I was/had. I actually think that if mark was gonna pay for a members endorsement, there are way credible members here...lol and please I'm saying this in a tongue and cheek fashion.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

*bikinpunk's measurements of the AR3K:*
AR3K at 0 Degrees solo (for clarity):









*Audioheuristics measument of the W3-1878:*








From: W3-1878 FR curves | Audioheuristics


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

WLDock said:


> *bikinpunk's measurements of the AR3K:*
> AR3K at 0 Degrees solo (for clarity):
> 
> 
> ...


Just to add Erin graph are at a higher resolution then most manufacture use and that it rolls/cuts off at 200hz. So here is the manufacture graph on the AR3K, hmmmm looks be about the same wouldn't you say. 










and the 500hz and up close up.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Yeah Mark.....those latter graphs look much closer to the Tangs.....but they sure do sound different up top.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

WLDock said:


> Yeah Mark.....those latter graphs look much closer to the Tangs.....but they sure do sound different up top.


Walt I'm sorry I wasn't directing that directly at you. I was just saying that Erin graph and the Manufacture graph are very close and that the difference Erin graph are of much higher resolution. 

But Ya the the driver graph look more alike when the resolution are close to each other.


----------



## 2DEEP2 (Jul 9, 2007)

What up Mic. Yeap I was there, great small speakers.

The TB phase plug looks like a B&K mic head. As stated by Walt it can play low and you could actually feel the lows but it needs a tweeter up high the overall response was much cleaner with the low cx point set at 300Hz verses 250Hz. 

The AR3K was clean with both 250 Hz and 300 Hz with the Clarion amp, but it did have some high frequency issues with the Hertz amp. My understanding is the Hertz amp low cx point 300 Hz and we did not listen to 250 Hz with the Hertz amp. I did not spend alot of time to know where the high frequency peak was coming in, but I guess 10k or higher.

Still if you like silk dome tweeters, you could live with the AR3K without a tweeter. The 3" does not have sparkle you get with hard dome or ribbon tweeter, but produces a good audible response to at least 18k Hz with all most everything we played. No we did not play any hard rock or DJ Magic Mike bass music. We played the Ultimate Demonstration disc, AudioNutz setup and percussion disc, Acapella, instrumental, etc.

The AR3K really made high mid range pop out. Something I like to do with with system, even if it bit me at USACi finals. Images had edge and sound real. Volume level was loud enough. We did not attempt to wake the dead.

With the Clarion amp the system lacked some dynamics and the perception of life dynamics provides, but the AR3K's still played high with no notable peak issues as found with the Hertz amp.

I did not know anything about a Hertz amp. We listen to the same CD tracks on my reference system while Walt switched amps and the Hertz amp WOW!

The Hertz was Night and Day over the Clarion. I think I scared Walt’s kids 
With the Hertz things got on par with the reference system, which was not happening with the Clarion.

We listen with the speakers side by side but I think that made a bigger difference than having them vertical. Even thou the TB's where lower they staged higher, especially with the Hertz amp.

The AR3K staged wider and deeper but height was no different than the TB even thou they were higher.

My reference system performed as normal, stage height was in between the speakers. I normally use a stand to place their stage at eye height. So both the TB and AR3K staged higher than the reference in the vertical position.

The reference system was Polk Audio RTi28 bookshelf speakers, Audio Refinement Complete integrated amp (about 80 watts per channel), OPPO BDP-93 Blue-ray player, Music Fidelity V-DAC with optical out from the BDP-93 and XIOS RCA's in to the amp and XIOS speaker wire. 

It would have been nice to compare my Focal Be3W2's.

I forgot to add one more comment.
For the most part we set up the speakers in an equilateral triangle listening for phase and image across the stage. Walt did set the AR3K with some serious toe in positions and images really did not change (something found with my Be3W2’s). You should be able to mount the AR3K’s on the sail panels with no tonal issues.

However you need to be close to the drivers. If you move too far back, the highs would fall off. Most mounting the speakers in a car forward of their front seats, should not have a problem while sitting in the front seat. If you have the speakers in the kick and you are in the third row of an SUV, or the like, you should experience the highs falling off.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Ant bring your extra set of focal berylliums for the next round. I'm curious as to how they will compare to the ar3m.


----------



## Mic10is (Aug 20, 2007)

Thanks for the input Anthony. Hopefully I'll see you at a show sometime in the near future


----------



## shinjohn (Feb 8, 2006)

Hey Guys,
Thanks for the reviews.
Just curious: was the Hertz amp run in 4 channel mode or bridged?


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

The Hertz was in 4 channel mode, just 2 channels used. We did not get technical with the setup and did not use a muti-meter to set the levels or anything. We just set things by ear and the gains were set pretty low on both amps as the Eclipse has a healthy output at about 3/4 volume.


----------



## ArG218 (Sep 2, 2009)

Nice reviews...

How long we need to break in for AP driver ?


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

WLDock said:


> The listening loft!


I see you have the little KEF eggs, too. Nobody compared those to the widebanders?

I've always wanted to try those baby Uni-Q's in my Miata. Considering how cheap the eggs are (~150 USD shipped a pop on eBay, including passive crossover for the UniQ and possibly baffle/grille) I'm surprised nobody else has glommed onto them either.

Can't figure out how to fit them without eye-catching interior mods, though. Maybe I should send one to Erin for measurement and Klippel analysis...



2DEEP2 said:


> It would have been nice to compare my Focal Be3W2's.


Hobby-Hifi measured the little Focals. They're nothing special, especially for the price.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Has anyone grabbed a pair of ar3m beryllium yet? I'm curious about the sq and highend extension.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

ArG218 said:


> Nice reviews...How long we need to break in for AP driver ?


Over two days, I ran a set a day from early morning until I got home later in the evening. I played a 100Hz tone at low levels off the AUTOSOUND 2000 CD104.



DS-21 said:


> I see you have the little KEF eggs, too. Nobody compared those to the widebanders?


 Well....I was going to include them but....we got a bit cought up with the other driver. Anyway, I did compare them myself during the week before our gathering. The KEF's are very nice speakers. I think the design does a lot in terms of sound coherence and balance. I was using them as computer speakers then TV speakers. I tried my Tang Bands in place of them and the top end was just not there at all in comparison. I did a short back and forth with them and the AR3K's and the KEF's sounded pretty good in comparison.


----------



## bertholomey (Dec 27, 2007)

Nice review manish - ok for it to be glowing if that was the impression that you had of the drivers.  I got in a Infinity G37 at Erin's G2G with the AR's on axis to the driver. After a track or two, I popped out of the car to ask Mark what type of tweeters Finney (I think that was his name) was running. I was quite surprised when Finney said he had the stock tweets in the sails, but they were not hooked up. These drivers are certainly capable of playing the upper octaves for many listeners to be satisfied. 

Jay, those KEF's would be awesome in the Miata!


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

bertholomey said:


> those KEF's would be awesome in the Miata!


Sigh. I know. If only the damn things would fit!


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Bring it up here to NC with that O2 Audio sub, and we'll get them in there.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

bertholomey said:


> Nice review manish - ok for it to be glowing if that was the impression that you had of the drivers.  I got in a Infinity G37 at Erin's G2G with the AR's on axis to the driver. After a track or two, I popped out of the car to ask Mark what type of tweeters Finney (I think that was his name) was running. I was quite surprised when Finney said he had the stock tweets in the sails, but they were not hooked up. These drivers are certainly capable of playing the upper octaves for many listeners to be satisfied.
> 
> Jay, those KEF's would be awesome in the Miata!


Fletcher was his name Jason. But ya after basic rewiring his car and we got it up and running with about a 10 min tune on it. It sound quite nice and will only get better. I was surprised when you asked me and more surprise at the look on your face.




cajunner said:


> anybody compare the Audience A3 to these yet? The 4 ohms are available for the same price at Meniscus as the 16 ohms on Parts Express. Just no free shipping I think.


I have, but I might not count:blush:. As I know few things about the Audience A3 . Very nice driver.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> your input is as valid as the next guy, and certainly more valid in some quarters...
> 
> I think since you made the connection, I'm just wondering if XBL technology is being licensed without advertising, and a superior driver is being produced on the sly, offering the same audible improvement without anyone catching on?
> 
> ...



Connection?:surprised::shocked2::thinking2:

Hmmmm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I will give it a shot. If you're asking if the Audible Physics AR3k and XR3M are using licensed XBL Technology in our design, the Answer is *NO SIR*!!!!!!

Honestly XBL is very good for the lower end response, not so much for the top-end response. But the Audible Physics transducer are using our own motor design. 

Lowered inductance ok,....1, go on, what else do you think?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

you know... we're speaking about lower inductance ... this can be seen in an impedance plot. Oddly enough, I supply those in the test data...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

you were really hot and then you went extremely cold. Try not to think too hard and you'll find the answer again. 

What you see in a typical impedance plot is:

On low frequency end (or before you near Fs), Impedance is roughly equal to Vc resistance
rise in impedance with phase going up (positive); driver looks inductive under fs
reaching fs, you're getting driver resonance (Re) _plus _suspension losses (Res). phase crosses through 0, heading negative.
shortly after fs as impedance spike falls, driver seems capacitive (phase is negative)
As phase goes back up, VC inductance forms series resonance with capacitive impedance of driver
After impedance spike has reached minimum, impedance continues to rise due to VC inductance

^ shortened version, paraphrased from one of my books.

So, what that means is that you can get an idea of how a driver will behave on the top end by looking at the impedance curve or vice versa.
You'd think this is pretty much common sense but it seems people miss it. If the resistance of the driver remains fairly low up through the 20khz, there's more indication that the driver can be used to a higher frequency. If the impedance increases pretty drastically (say, maybe 5+ ohm above Re) you can pretty much gather that the response of the driver rolls off at this same rate.

So, while you can almost tell exactly how a driver will roll off on either end via the impedance, one thing I've yet to find is correlation between pure *FR *and impedance - sans the resonance blips you sometimes see due to driver surround, basket, etc, etc.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I believe the xmax on the AP drivers is 3mm.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I think the split top plate is pretty much XBL, so if you were doing that and were caught, you would be in big legal trouble.

There might not be a patent on split coils though.

But I think any of those things would jump out at you if you looked at Bl over xmax curves.

The Fountek drivers were underhung motors...which would be a great way to do things on a small excursion speaker that needed to keep inductance and mms low.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Let's be careful not to insinuate a mfg is using an unlicensed design...


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

cajunner said:


> I didn't want to go there, but how about unlicensed XBL technology...:surprised:
> 
> 
> so your own motor design, then. From the side, it looks like a dual top plate with a concealing rubber magnet cover, or XBL and the curved backplate/pole uni-forged iron is reminiscent of JBL and their G home models.
> ...



Smiley doesn't make it ok.  *NO XBL, NO XBL* And that is the end of that. Not sure where and how you started down this road, but it is a very dangerous one. Stop digging as all i said was I know a thing or two about the A3. I have tested them as I have with many many drivers in my time. The A3 top-end is not very extended, about as extend as the old Trinity!! But the little beast will play quite low. 


The statement in bold is darn near insulting. We don't have to copy anyones designs as we do the designing and manufacturing/building. And honestly your looking to hard or seeing what you want too as from what I can gather you have never own either driver. You got all that from a picture? Really!

Once more we build for many and i mean many home and car audio companies. It doesn't have to say patent pending to be ours. Sometimes I truly wish I could reveal the history/true origin of some of the designs and topologies many think they know some much about. Most would be very surprise to know where and from whom they came/come from. 

Many say many things many ways, but none of it means anything when it just something that you have read somewhere. 

Many topologies and design are sold to other companies, after they have been in uses for awhile by said company.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

bertholomey said:


> Nice review manish - ok for it to be glowing if that was the impression that you had of the drivers.  I got in a Infinity G37 at Erin's G2G with the AR's on axis to the driver. After a track or two, I popped out of the car to ask Mark what type of tweeters Finney (I think that was his name) was running. I was quite surprised when Finney said he had the stock tweets in the sails, but they were not hooked up. These drivers are certainly capable of playing the upper octaves for many listeners to be satisfied.
> 
> Jay, those KEF's would be awesome in the Miata!


Thanks. I just re-read my review and I still feel the same. I also am still trying to wrap my head around not using a tweeter myself. Old habits I guess. But I like the fact I can personally apply the kiss rule.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

manish said:


> Thanks. I just re-read my review and I still feel the same. I also am still trying to wrap my head around not using a tweeter myself. Old habits I guess. But I like the fact I can personally apply the kiss rule.


Manish I would like to say sorry for the off topic in your review thread. Once more thanks for the review and taking you time out to listen and more so to write the review.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

Mark no need for apologies. Actually I'm rather enjoying myself. I love the technical conversation and my review did what I think it was suppose to do, and that is to give my impressions and then discuss the drivers.
Now can you please elaborate on the beryllium version. What is the difference from the others? And any info on the 8" midbass yet?


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

manish said:


> Mark no need for apologies. Actually I'm rather enjoying myself. I love the technical conversation and my review did what I think it was suppose to do, and that is to give my impressions and then discuss the drivers.
> Now can you please elaborate on the beryllium version. What is the difference from the others? And any info on the 8" midbass yet?



Manish the difference in the BeM3 is the Cone is a Beryllium Alloy and the larger Aluminium Phase plug. It is not quite as warm sounding as the XR3M. Quite open sounding. 




cajunner said:


> this is a discussion forum?
> 
> let's not forget that, when making the assumption that anything presented is factual and detrimental or somehow involving the reputation of your company.
> 
> ...





cajunner said:


> how is the motor design of your driver "off topic" if it relates to the reason why your drivers have such extended treble?
> 
> what we're doing here might seem like undressing your product and exposing the parts that make a difference (or, don't) in the sound of these drivers, but that's all part of it, you can't just make a bunch of subjective, adulating commentary without someone coming along and saying, "WELL, why? Why is it these drivers behave the way they do?"
> 
> ...




Not sure if your mis-understanding me or not, but it has nothing to do with a comparison. Compare all you like that is what the forum are for, try to undress the triples that is fine, but my drivers are not easy, no hanky panky on the first date:laugh:. But getting to first base is what I doubt we where heading when we started the inductance topic, but it went to into something totally different.

But here is the thing, You didn't just make a comparison or state similarities, you stated; *first thing comes to mind is that they are simply a copy.* At that point it is nearly an insult to my designer and to me. As he and i take great pride in our product. 

_I never said someone can't make a comparison of similarities from a picture, hell i do it myself, but to make blind blanket statements, like some is using unlicensed topologies and that they are copies is a other thing. Come on now sir stop picking things out and trying to twist them. My reply was to your copy statement and I was simply letting you know we don't have to copy, as we do the building and designing for many other companies and this fact is not secret as it is public knowledge and has been since I came on board. Do a search_ 

You said; *Finding similar-looking driver to the A3 aren't good*. I would have to say your wrong. They are out there and you would be surprise to find out how many. *Come on now your a smart guy, you know why anyone in my position can't start saying who build for who and what motor design is used where. It could be a conflict of interest and possible some legal matters.*

I don't know how to say this any other way. Your on the out side looking in. I'm on the outside also, but have a pass to come inside when ever i like. With knowing who builds for whom and who designs what, It is a touchy place to be and finding that line to what I can say or post is even harder. If you would just stop and think about it for a moment you would understand what I saying. 

Many drivers use and have similarities to each other in design, but are very much different. Because to driver motor look alike from the outside has no baring on what is going on inside. 

Next I don't do forum marketing, I don't come on the forums saying my drivers are the best in the world, or everyone should use my drivers. I state it do my best to ensure it is a fact. I let the drivers speak for themselves. At what point, anywhere have you seen me state that they are some revolutionary design, can you Point me to it? I don't have to hind anything, nor do i cry about any reviews or test, if some has a valid question and it I can honestly answer it i do. If I have a question I ask.

But, 

they do what many in there class can't and that is fact seen from all subjective listening section. Are they prefect not be a long shot. Do they do exactly what we want them to do yes. Are they pleasing there end users so fare yes. I'm not trying to be rude here nor combative, but your typing a lot with what a take with some good intent, but not saying much in the way of facts, just making some assumptions. 

Is the design a trade secret? Well think about it this way, do you think any manufacture would just come and reveal all design aspect of their new design and how it does exactly it dose. To do that they would just have to reveal the design of their new product for ours to borrow (nice way of saying it.) So no sir I just can't tell you how the parts work together to do what they do on the top end. 

Honestly sir I have no problem with the design aspect being brought hear, nor does manish, but all and all my all problem was the statement you made about them being copies. Maybe I took it to heart, but these are my babies, and they are only Replicas of themselves (AR3K, XR3M and BeM3) But I can only reveal so much in order to keep an edge for a little while over their competitors. 

Now back on topic;

Honestly I'm happy to be compare to any well known and great performing driver no matter the cost, as cost has no baring on performance, as that is what DIYMA was build on. Finding the great values. But again that is not the only thing you did. 

The AR3K and XR3M uses a flat 70mm neo under-hung motor with a slight bump back plate. This large neo motor was design to power one of our new 6.5" drivers, but found it way over to the these little beast. The drivers have 5mm of one-way xmax.

*The Audience A3 use a if i remember correctly a 50mm XBL motor*

The way the phase plug seats and how it is attached, the material it is made of and it's profile has a bite to do with what they are able to do. 

*The Audience A3 no phase plug or dust cap with a invert "S" shape surround.*

Cone profile and material plays a great part in it. 

Size of voice coil, which I think you mention above does have something to do with any wide-band driver design. Type of voice coil used does also, round, flat etc.... 

*The Audience A3 use a larger 1" voice coil*

Copper shorting ring and caps as we know have a bit do with it. How low do you what your distortion to be plays a part in some designs. As it as not been totally proven yet, but a little higher 2nd and 3rd is said to equate to a warmer sound.

The Audience A3 has a much taller basket and motor venting under the spider. T/S could not be more different between the 2 drivers. Well that Audience and the AR3K both have some what low sensitivity.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Let's face it, most every driver we see come from similar sources (ie: same mfg in China, same designer in Sweden, same plant in Wahapoi). 

for that, we can take just about any two drivers and dare to make the statement they are "essentially the same". Of course, on the surface that they happen to have the same cone materials they are. On the surface that they use the same motor, they are. On the surface that they happen to have the same xmax, they are.
These are bad assumptions. 

If we are going to generalize, what's to stop us from saying that every driver we see is in some form, a copy of another. They are all electro-mechanical devices, right?....


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> Let's face it, most every driver we see come from similar sources (ie: same mfg in China, same designer in Sweden, same plant in Wahapoi).
> 
> for that, we can take just about any two drivers and dare to make the statement they are "essentially the same". Of course, on the surface that they happen to have the same cone materials they are. On the surface that they use the same motor, they are. On the surface that they happen to have the same xmax, they are.
> These are bad assumptions.
> ...


I AGREE 1,000,000%


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

^hows that new door speaker install idea coming along?...


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

It all good cajunner.

But why would you think China is the build house for either driver? Man China is building to many products these days.

Next please and I ask please to everyone stop looking at a chart and thinking you know exactly how a driver is designed. I was guilty of this myself for some time and then my eyes where open, to the little trick of the trade.

Motor strength is only a part of what goes in to making a good wide-bander, but that is a fine line also. As to much motor and not enough suspension or a week cone is bad. The way the cone and/or dust cap or phase plug is attached to the yoke or voice coil makes a differences. The material the dust cap or dome and/or phase plug is made of makes a difference, the mass of them all makes a difference. Flat or round voice coils makes a difference.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

OK, the wife and kids went off to my sister-In-laws for Easter and I was supposed to meet up with them over an hour ago.

Been sitting here in a quiet house listening to the Tang Bands mated with some Blaupunkt tweeters from the Vc660 set I had laying around. I have the Tracy Chapman "New Beginnings" disc in. My Tang Bands can now give the AR3K's a run for their money! They really are some natural sounding drivers....The underhung motor mated with a littler higher crossover really makes this driver sweet and clean. But DAMN! I'am back where I started...a mid and a tweet!

I think the driver would be awsome mated with a really nice and detailed silk like the 3/4" Scan Illum crossed in the 6K and up range. But the $236 set of tweets might be overkill?

Like I said....I'm back right where I started....But at least I have a small midrange that sounds good yet can play a wider range than many. I wanted to run a cheap 3-way deck like the CD7200MKII but now I have that Pioneer P99 on my mind again....I don't want to mess with passive crossovers if I don't have to.

I guess there are many benefits to a wideband driver up top...so much less is needed. I need to hear the AR XR3M next to make up my mind what direction I want to go......


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> Let's face it, most every driver we see come from similar sources (ie: same mfg in China, same designer in Sweden, same plant in Wahapoi).


IMO, the "copycat" discussion is only interesting when we're talking about obvious rebadges at inflated prices. The first one that sticks in my mind is always the old "USD 12proB" subwoofer, which was a Tonegen-made NHT 1259 offered at 3x the hobbyist price for the 1259. More recently, Genesis and Xetec selling the Peerless XLS subs as their own for a whole lot more than the Madisounds, PE's, Meniscuses, and Solens of the world sell them. One could also argue (though Mark will scream) the Founteks compared to some of the drivers he used to sell.

That said, I do wonder if TC is actually licensing Aura's NRT motor for their expensive (and right now, it seems, QC-challenged) subwoofers, or if they're just assuming that if challenged (yet) another round of insolvency proceedings are always an option... 



cajunner said:


> I understand that the subject of what makes these drivers work differently from other drivers


I think you're starting from a faulty premise. I've seen nothing from the measurements to suggest that they work differently from other drivers. There are other firms offering 3" drivers with similar extension: Aura, Fountek, Ciare, Peerless/Vifa, and certainly others. They're a reasonable option on the marketplace, to be sure.

Also, re: the XBL discussion, keep in mind that generally speaking an underhung driver should have better HF extension than an XBL driver, because the underhung driver will have a shorter coil (entirely within the gap, whereas an XBL will be evenhung or overhung) and thus a higher mass corner. (Assuming same cone, etc.)

Also, the only thing that makes a stacked top-plate an XBL driver is a machined groove on the inside, between the plates. If there's a straight copper sleeve or something inside, there will not be multiple gaps.



cajunner said:


> It's an emerging area of car audio this wide-bander without a tweeter, or specialized 2-way.


Emerging? Some of us have been beating this particular drum since roughly 2004!


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cajunner said:


> and I'm aware of using different cone compositions, coil material, winding topologies, paper, kapton, aluminum formers, dust cap material, phase plug, all that.. as some of my interest is in instrument speakers and their voicing is all over the place.


being aware doesn't correlate to an understanding of how these differences affect the final outcome (as evidenced below)



cajunner said:


> but I'm thinking the phase plug material doesn't have an effect, wood is wood, basically. I'd like to see the response changes from using ironwood versus rosewood, and the theory behind why they should sound different.


If simply adding mass to a driver cone can decrease fs and increase Qts alone, then I'm not so sure I'd rest on the argument that a phase plug material change doesn't affect response. Though, I agree, the extent to which it does/can is uknown to me at this point.
I would think it's entirely plausible, among other things, that the density of the plug could change how sound is reflected off the plug itself. Of course, I know jack about driver engineering and I'm shooting from the hip, but if I can come up with that off the cuff, I'm sure others could come up with more rational merits of phase plug material changes alone. Then again, here we are... just some regular joes acting like we know what we're talking about. I guarantee you that if a true speaker designer saw this thread he'd laugh at the notion that we somehow think we know all there is to know about speaker design because we read a book. I equate it to the new college grad telling the technicians at his job that "because he's an engineer" he understands the system better. Then them losing all respect for him as they realize he has both no idea what he's talking about and no humility to understand that people have been doing this for years before him and just may have an idea of what they're talking about even though they didn't pay $40k for a degree that gives them entitlement...



cajunner said:


> and, if the secret is not in the measurements, then where are the secrets?


the secrets can probably be found in the measurements. You'd just have to know how to do the test (just so happens I've sunk my life in to this, lately) and have an understanding what to look for and LISTEN to see how what you see in data correlates to what you hear in the driver. It can be done. In fact, Mark has two versions of the XR3M. I own one pair. If someone can send me the other, we'll see what we can find.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

cajunner said:


> What I'm saying is that although the design is possibly not new, the measurements are saying high end extension and the manufacturer gives a 5mm Xmax, that's not the norm in Fountek or otherwise.


The Fountek FR89EX is also rated at 5mm xmax. (Man I love the way that driver looks, like a mini Aura sub with the pointy dustcap. If I could find two more Aura NS10-794-4A's I would totally do 2-way home LCR speakers using the FR89EX and an NS10 per side.) The Aura NS3 is in the same range, rated 4.75mm xmax. They're both underhung, mind. In the case of the Fountek that means a relatively tall (14mm) top plate. The Aura NRT motor is a bit more elegant, as the pole, top-plate, and bottom-plate are all one metal can, and the height of the magnets defines the height of the gap.

I also think that when you're seeing a multi-ring plate, you might actually be seeing a top-plate, plated neo ring-slug, and bottom plate. See, e.g., the Fountek FR89EX, which shares an architecture with Mark's older stuff at least.












cajunner said:


> Also, emerging is the arrival of the 3" frame as a superior compromise for auto-sound use,


Not necessarily. It depends on the car. Some people, unfortunately, can't fit a 3" driver without surgery. The superior compromise depends entirely on the supporting environment, and one's willingness to deviate from a stock appearance.

And, again, I'm surprised people looking at 3" drivers haven't glommed onto the little KEF eggs. All of the benefits of a widebander, with the addition of more treble sparkle. And, while they're expensive at ~150USD/pr right now compared to the Founteks, Vifas, Peerlesses, and Auras of the world at roughly half that, they're still quite a bit cheaper than the car-fi marketed stuff.



cajunner said:


> The Whisper is a great little wide-bander but it isn't in the Audience A3 category, or any of the newish product being brought to market within the last 6 months or so.


Unfortunately, from my perspective, there hasn't been a 2" driver that exceeds the performance of the Whisper. The 3" Auras are still IMO competitive, even though their cheap frames require some help.

The Audience A3 is several years old. For car use...look how deep it is! (Ditto the TB discussed supra.) The FR89EX (and I assume Mark's drivers) and Aura NS3, by contrast, are almost an inch less deep. That extra depth limits install flexibility quite a bit! (But of course for installs where it's not an issue, who cares.)


----------



## Fantaxp7 (Mar 20, 2010)

Sorry for this dumby of a question, but where can I buy a pair of AR3K's? 

I have a set of TB W3-1364SA's, I am wondering how these are in comparison to the AR3K's?


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Fantaxp7 said:


> Sorry for this dumby of a question, but where can I buy a pair of AR3K's?
> 
> I have a set of TB W3-1364SA's, I am wondering how these are in comparison to the AR3K's?


You have a PM.


----------



## brocken (Apr 26, 2010)

Fantaxp7 said:


> Sorry for this dumby of a question, but where can I buy a pair of AR3K's?
> 
> I have a set of TB W3-1364SA's, I am wondering how these are in comparison to the AR3K's?


A slightly used set here. 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/classifieds/103631-audible-physics-ar-duo-fs.html


----------



## cheebs (Apr 3, 2009)

Fantaxp7 said:


> Sorry for this dumby of a question, but where can I buy a pair of AR3K's?
> 
> I have a set of TB W3-1364SA's, I am wondering how these are in comparison to the AR3K's?


i am wondering about the W3-1364SA too? why were the W3-1878 used in this test? from all that i have read on this forum the W3-1364SA are the better widebanders. they are cheaper too.


----------



## DYNABLASTER (Oct 20, 2009)

people test this flat TB W3-1797S


you will not believe what you hear/feel  It's a driver from outer space, *new dimensions* 

Plays all kind of music good, but masters electronic music

*No beaming* (sweet spot is ultra wide)- so I dont know how it will play in car because of the reflexions
*amount of HF*- for some people too much, for me not


Cone is metal, Aliante-like

MMS is also too much, double then average, and it's unbeleivable that this driver could even perform, but what they make is ridiculous, it's a *magic driver!*

the protective grills have also function in dispersion, they act as a lense

I use them in F.A.S.T. arrangement from 400Hz as PC loudspeakers (for loud 600Hz/ for very loud 800Hz)

I'm in fullrange sound and have many good drivers, but this one are an exception in widerangers performance, what those can- can no other
they change the thickness of air, they shower you with sound

I see here are people without prejudice and open for good sound, so I felt free to tell you this 

some pics
























those behind are Coral Flat 5 II - have one of the sweetest midrange on planet, those and flat TB are my favourites in the moment
















believe it or not, I didn't "had time" to make normal enclosures (but I borrowed them to a friend for a listen and now he won't give them back aaaaaaaa! so he made after few months propper enclosures, and he told me, while he was watching a movie a sword has pierced the air in front of his nose, then watching some horror movie he felt from the chair, and he also listened on youtube to some spooky forest clip, and after this he got to get out of the house to catch some fresh air hahahahaha 
and why? because the whole room becomes a soundstage, depending on recording, it happens not just left and right in front of you, but also left and right from you, under, above, and behind listening place!!)

here in 12000 Euro Loudspeakers
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/boenicke2/sls.html
read the whole review, klick NEXT on bottom of page


PS: break-in time for a wideranger is much more than just 2 days


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

I'm definitely interested. Will check into these.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

DYNABLASTER said:


> people test this flat TB W3-1797S
> 
> 
> you will not believe what you hear/feel  It's a driver from outer space, *new dimensions*
> ...


all drivers beam. it's unavoidable. 

the FR doesn't look too hot. A huge 5dB jump @ 3khz, extending to 10khz with a pretty steep rolloff after 10khz, giving a 10dB difference between 3-10khz and 10-20khz. Yikes! To me, this certainly doesn't look like a good option for _wideband _use on-axis. 
Now, for 30* off axis, the plot looks better. I like this. Problem is you get a reduced top end going off-axis. Pick your poison.

The CSD shows a potential ringing @ 3khz. Probably a breakup node, which syncs with the FR as well as the impedance ripple you see here. 

Rolloff starts to get hard at 300hz. 

The THD figures show poor usefulness below 200hz. 300hz looks like a good spot to cross. At 200hz you're at ~ 3% THD which isn't terrible but this is where things start to get bad.
Now, look at the 3-5khz range distortion figures. 3% THD here. The scary thing is, this distortion test was performed at 90dB according the the heading. That's _bad_.
Of course, this is 2nd order distortion. 3rd order is the one typically referred to as the ugly one and in this regard, the results aren't terrible. But, again, this test is at 90dB. It's certainly going to be worse at 93db or 95dB and this is where you fellas are cranking the music.


My $.02.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Yeah the TB W3-1797S seems to have some of the issues with the cone design and resonance that the larger W4-1757S flat cone that Zaph measured. But the 4" seems to have better distortion measurements.



Zaph|Audio Blog said:


> *
> This is a well built flat honeycomb woofer with very low harmonic distortion, even in the bass. This would be a class leading 4" woofer if did not have a serious response hickup right at 2kHz. It's surely a result of resonance inherent to the flat cone. Other Tangband woofers using this nice motor with a more standard cone may have better usability . *


But what is interesting is the 6 Moons review had a lot of nice things to say about the Boenicke Audio SLS speakers in terms of a realistic soundstage. So maybe there is something interesting with the wide dispersion design of these drivers.



Sixmoons.com review said:


> *I enjoyed my time with the SLS so much—and how it stimulated thoughts about what is realistic sound—that I've acquired the review pair.*



But still does not sound like something one would want for the car? But who knows?


----------



## DYNABLASTER (Oct 20, 2009)

@ bikinpunk

yes, your theoretical 0.2 $ 

If you have read all what I have wrote than you would't be bothering with theory, I have this driver, and I have listened to it, theory one thing, praxis another 

I allready had much arguing with guys that did not hear it, but only looked at the numbers and graphs, and there is no point, I will just say it's bestbuy, and you can think what you want 

here some of those theorists who thinks they know all better:
How much does SQ cost? Seriously. - Page 10 - Car Audio Classifieds
What exactly is sq? - Car Audio Classifieds

I won't go further into debating, if someone has something to ask I would be glad to answer


Cheers from Serbia


----------



## DYNABLASTER (Oct 20, 2009)

WLDock said:


> Yeah the TB W3-1797S seems to have some of the issues with the cone design and resonance that the larger W4-1757S flat cone that Zaph measured. But the 4" seems to have better distortion measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that in SLS they don't give they maximum, because they act more as a high mid tweeters, and the strenght of those TB lies in, not 3D, but 4D sound, it's a new dimension and I can't decribe it, you got to hear it

In car I think they would not shine because they have too wide dispersion, maybe, but I can't tell

and I apologise now for going offtopic with my "magic" driver, but I had to tell you- so you can also enjoy in new dimensions 


I have jumped in because the Master of Audible Physics likes all good drivers and is happy to listen to it no matter what Brand it is, and I like to share my experience


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

DYNABLASTER said:


> @ bikinpunk
> 
> yes, your theoretical 0.2 $
> 
> ...




If it's all theoretical then why did you bother posting test data? Seems like a huge contradiction to me.


What I said is based on the DATA _you_ provided. I'm not arguing with anyone. I'm giving you fact based on data. 

You don't have to listen to it. In fact, I won't bother replying to you anymore so you won't have to worry about arguing with me. 
Enjoy your magic driver that doesn't beam. 


Edit:
Ironically, your reply is more aptly placed on the site you linked and try to get away from. The majority of folks here are fans of data and know how to use it to come to the same conclusions I did. I tried to help you. Too bad you're too biased to see it. 

Cheers,
Erin


PS: The "master of audible physics" is someone I call a good friend.


----------



## DYNABLASTER (Oct 20, 2009)

when you hear those, then we could talk... now it's all in accusations, and that has no sense = nonsense


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

DYNABLASTER said:


> when you hear those, then we could talk... now it's all in accusations, and that has no sense- nonsense


I feel the same about your posts. 

I have something to base my reply on (the data you provided). You just simply say "because I said so". 

Again, if the data means nothing why did you post it? 

Enjoy.


----------



## DYNABLASTER (Oct 20, 2009)

I have post the data because of politeness, not to have some theoretical tripping

If you don't believe what I say, okay, no problem for me, there are people that will believe what I said, and that only matters to me 

I'm enjoying thanks, I just wanted you also to enjoy, not to argue about something that you haven't even heard...


----------



## OSN (Nov 19, 2008)

I have heard these tang band, on-axis, in a car. They are way too harsh. They need to be off-axis, where you invite many reflection issues. F that.


----------

