# 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout. RESULTS Thread!



## Niebur3

This thread is dedicated to the discussion of the 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout performed in April 2010. If you would like information on how the test was performed or any discussion leading up to the test, please view this thread.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ge-comparison-shootout-dyn-scan-hat-more.html

Attached are the results. Please discuss and ask any questions you have.


----------



## IBcivic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

WOOHOO!


----------



## matdotcom2000

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

love it man cant wait


----------



## VaVroom1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I GOT IT!!!

















No, I did not.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

You've got mail!!!

Please email me if you did not receive it or would like to and I will get a copy out to you.

My email is [email protected]


----------



## kyheng

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Send 1 to me : [email protected] Thanks.


----------



## VaVroom1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> You've got mail!!!
> 
> Please email me if you did not receive it or would like to and I will get a copy out to you.
> 
> My email is [email protected]


Got it. Thank you Jerry.


----------



## Weightless

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Here we go...


----------



## less

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Hmm guess I get to make the first comment, having read it all... thats what I get for waking up when I heard the email hit my box lol. Curiousity!

Very nicely done test I'd say based on the steps involved - good job ought to be the first thing said, bearing in mind the limitations inherent in any such test. I'm glad and not at all surprised to see ALMOST every result though. Although the fact that I'm not surprised sort of surprises me =) It seems like (on a brief scan) one can almost say "you get what you pay for" with a few notable exceptions. 

I'm going to leave it at that and let others discuss the pass band choices and such... I'll just say that it seemed like a well reasoned decision designed to give the best possible test conditions to all drivers in the test. 

Thanks much for your time in testing. 

Jim/Less


----------



## 2LOUD2OLD

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

got it thanks
printing it out now


----------



## beerdrnkr

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Awesome review. Thanks for going through all the hard work. I was really interested in the Vifa NE speakers but actually ended up purchasing 2 of the scanspeak discovery 4's.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

just got home and read through the review quickly.

I was more impressed by the charts you provided. I really liked that.
Amazing how much the t/s parameters differed on the Hertz drivers. 28%?! Wow.
And they Dyns seemed to have the most accuracy from driver to driver. 


The WT3 results from the 'optimal' box are also interesting. You'll note that some drivers (such as the Alpine F1) have a double impedance spike, which I find a bit odd. I've only seen this in a ported enclosure. Just struck me as odd.

Also, something that caught my eye was the impedance/phase plot of the Morel 3" driver. Nearly ruler flat up to 3khz, yet ranked as one of the poorest drivers. Guess it goes to show you that even nominal results on a graph are no substitue for your ears. 


I'll have some more time to check it out tomorrow. I'd like to populate the data into excel and see if there's a relation to the % difference and how they ranked, and also the fs of the driver in the optimal enclosure to how it ranked. 
Hmmm...


Thanks again, Jerry (and crew).

- Erin


Edit: Question: You noted that you used two different sized boxes. You noted that you were shooting for a Qtc of .707. However, I didn't see in the review that you did, in fact, load or unload a box of needed size so that you would be able to get the Qtc you want. The data supports this by showing varying Qtc values for each WT3 sweep in the enclosure. This seems to be to be an inhibitor to the test. Can you explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nominal Qtc rating of .707, yet you did not desire to achieve it during the actual test? 

Sorry to start flinging poo already, but I found the emphasis placed on the nominal Qtc combined with the fact that you did not achieve this value or close to it in each test ironic. Maybe Gary of Jeff would like to field this, because I know they were helping you out with the test method. I could make arguments both for and against it. I'd just like to hear the rationale why you chose not to do this.


----------



## newtitan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

appreciate the work done folks, glad to see DIYMA is getting back to its roots to some degree

seems that the bandpass chosen would limit the potential of those drivers designed to play a wider band, just maybe

and why did you all decide not present the distortion data, and or frequency response info?

there is a lot of QUALITY subjective information, but it almost makes discussion impossible to a certain degree without presenting the FR data as a basis, to overcome say a) car vs home, wider bandpass, driver tuning, sensitivity vs power, and of course "he" heard vs "we" heard etc

very shocked at the tier 4/ and especially 5 drivers

stakes big guts though to take the time to do this work, and put it out there for consumption A+ folks


----------



## JDMRB1ODY

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

When you have a chance please send results to me please [email protected]


----------



## spag_bace

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

scan 12M never disappoints!!


----------



## Nass027

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

A masterful job Jerry.A ton of info to keep the mind spinning.Now it's time for bed so i can get up again in a few hours and read it all again!Again,great job!! :2thumbsup:


----------



## kilokhan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Any Kind Souls Send to me at
kilokhan @ hotmal.com


----------



## habagat

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Please send me the results as well. My email ad is [email protected]
Thanks!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I see you guys put in a lot of time and hard work on the test. Great job and a A+ for effort.

But Hmmmmm, I will comment later on the results.


----------



## gutz

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Got the results , Great test! 
GOOD JOB !

Can I post the results on our israeli main audio forum? ( carsforum.co.il )


----------



## matdotcom2000

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

You can click on it below.... THANKS FOR DOING THE TEST again!!!!!


----------



## WuNgUn

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

...and the winner is??


----------



## Miguel mac

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

WOOO!! , ESOTAR2 is the best


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Ok I read over the results some more and I have a few question about the subjective listening test part.

If a driver were tonally accurate but were unable to *create any real feeling or emotion *to the music, they were not overly detailed, and *did not produce an accurate sound stage. *An increase in the high pass crossover frequency or slope would seem to help.

How does it rank lower then a driver with the following subjective comments. Is it the info in Bold above?

play with some detail but lacked richness and depth, sounding very dead and lifeless on most musical passages.

or

Detailed but dry with not much more to offer aside from great looks. These are great to show off as long as the speakers stay off.

or

sound very distorted and therefore makes it almost impossible to decipher what you are hearing. There were some high frequency detail aspects during songs, but the overall detail was poor due to the muted and muffled instrumentation.

or

the speaker created an almost hollow quality to the music, struggled to produce an accurate soundstage with instrumentation overpowering the voices at inappropriate times. The only redeeming quality with these speakers was their ability to play male and female vocals with some sense of accuracy.

or even this comment

The sound stage seemed well placed with just a fair amount of depth. Male and Female vocals sounded good with a full, pleasant quality, although a little too gruff and flat sounding on lower vocals and music. There was nothing these seemed to do bad, but nothing really great either as the music was not real lively and lacked emotion. One tester noted, “nothing really wrong, but they put me to sleep.”


ect....

The reason I ask is Tonal Accuracy is what most look for and not being overly detailed.

If it is the comments in Bold here is my take.

Sound stage in mobile audio has tons more to do with install then the driver itself. Emotion Feel is a human emotion and as I have done tests on many drives, the ones that gave me the most Emotion feel were not even the best in the test. If I missed something in your comments please point them out.:blush:

Not being combative or knocking the results and anyone who knows me would tell you the same. I just would like to be a little clear on the subjective part of the test. Maybe there was something not being said, but I doubt it as seen from some of the other comments.

Also from my understanding it was supposed to be more a technical testing then a subjective one, but the ranking was done on subjective listening. The Tier is just another way of ranking or placement based on the subjective listening, Not based on technical info. 

So this quote seem not to be exactly true. Still some spoon feeding and not exactly tested on there own merits.
Nothing against you MiniVanMan just using your post as you had connect with the reviewers.



MiniVanMan said:


> Yeah, this wasn't a competition. Each driver was evaluated on it's own merits and will have comments published. I haven't seen the data, and I've only had it briefly explained, but it's going to be some sort of tier placement, that is categorical.
> 
> The initial idea was to do a "shootout" to see which was the best, and which ones performed to their price. Then as the process, and testers developed a more professional method for the testing it became apparent that there can't be a "best". That's too subjective and an extremely inaccurate way to evaluate a group of drivers that all have different strengths, weaknesses and need to be applied within a system uniquely. Which is essentially every driver.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think the individuals that like to be spoon fed will not be happy with the final data. They're going to have to read through a lot of information to find out which speaker meets their needs. There just won't be a "buy this speaker because it's the best".




and

x2 on this question: Can you explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nominal Qtc rating of .707, yet you did not desire to achieve it during the actual test? 

*But once more I still say great job and I truly thank you guy/gals for the effort it took to do this.*


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Nobody seemed too concerned when he revealed the reasoning behind the enclosure volumes 3 weeks ago.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1013237-post287.html

There was a lot of emphasis placed on Qtc in the report. I took it to mean that if you decide to go with this speaker, then this is the enclosure size you want to shoot for to get "optimal" results.


----------



## bkjay

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thanks for all the hard work.Bravo!!!


----------



## sands1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Well id just like to say my horse didn't place where I would have liked but im not getting teary eyed about it. Its making me think twice.  This undertaking was *epic* and the format in which you have presented the results is as professional as any I have seen before. I hope in the future others strive to reach the bar that you have set. Bravo!


:beerchug:


----------



## kyheng

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

We should learn how to appreciate other people's hard work. Sometimes it maybe abit biased but still it is a review, technical testing.
But I will conduct such test with a steeper slope(atleast -12dB or -24dB) as not all drivers will be happy with first order slope especially with higher FS values.


----------



## DAT

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Can someone send me a copy of the results?

Please 
*
[email protected]*


----------



## less

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Ok, after this has had some time to sink in, a few more things come to mind. I'm challenging myself to keep it short:

1. Blind testing! Very good - troublesome to do - hard to challenge and not so much subjective! thanks!

2. The same driver in 5 different enclosures/angles/installations can sound VASTLY different... this test (while well done) was necessarily limited and thus doesn't preclude a driver from the lower tiers performing much better in a different scenario... still a good starting point thoughl 

3. This test does indeed seem to confirm a long held belief that a spec sheet won't tell you how a driver will sound (although they have their uses). Loved this:


bikinpunk said:


> . Guess it goes to show you that even nominal results on a graph are no substitue for your ears.


4. Santana as a reference track? Always suspected he produces with ipod headphone listeners in mind. (one of the artists I've always wished would produce a couple audiophile discs - but hasn't) 

5. Currently gathering the test music (any sound tracks for sale? /smirk) - hoping to hear some acoustic instruments, percussion, dense passages & dynamics, in addition to vocals.

6. I listen to music quite loud in the car. I know my Scans handle high volume with very little to no signs of stress at high outputs - suspect that is an important factor for many - possibly category for future testers?

7. I'd love to hear the new Scan Illuminator 12MU's. New tech = a REAL winner? No one here using these yet?

Thanks again.
Jim

NOTE - I sent DAT the file, figured someone else has gotten the others.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



bikinpunk said:


> Edit: Question: You noted that you used two different sized boxes. You noted that you were shooting for a Qtc of .707. However, I didn't see in the review that you did, in fact, load or unload a box of needed size so that you would be able to get the Qtc you want. The data supports this by showing varying Qtc values for each WT3 sweep in the enclosure. This seems to be to be an inhibitor to the test. Can you explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nominal Qtc rating of .707, yet you did not desire to achieve it during the actual test?


The Qtc of .707 was modeled based on the manufacturer specs and the data shown was based on the WT3 specs. Due to the less than perfect way of testing the speaker using the WT3 (kitchen table in a house), the manufacturer specs were what we had to revert to. So, in short, the .707 was achieved according to the manufacturer specs and modeling.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



less said:


> Ok, after this has had some time to sink in, a few more things come to mind. I'm challenging myself to keep it short:
> 
> 1.* Blind testing! Very good - troublesome to do - hard to challenge and not so much subjective! thanks!
> *
> 2. The same driver in 5 different enclosures/angles/installations can sound VASTLY different... this test (while well done) was necessarily limited and thus doesn't preclude a driver from the lower tiers performing much better in a different scenario... still a good starting point thoughl
> 
> 3. This test does indeed seem to confirm a long held belief that a spec sheet won't tell you how a driver will sound (although they have their uses). Loved this:
> 
> 4. Santana as a reference track? Always suspected he produces with ipod headphone listeners in mind. (one of the artists I've always wished would produce a couple audiophile discs - but hasn't)
> 
> 5. Currently gathering the test music (any sound tracks for sale? /smirk) - hoping to hear some acoustic instruments, percussion, dense passages & dynamics, in addition to vocals.
> 
> 6. I listen to music quite loud in the car. I know my Scans handle high volume with very little to no signs of stress at high outputs - suspect that is an important factor for many - possibly category for future testers?
> 
> 7. I'd love to hear the new Scan Illuminator 12MU's. New tech = a REAL winner? No one here using these yet?
> 
> Thanks again.
> Jim
> 
> NOTE - I sent DAT the file, figured someone else has gotten the others.


#1 - So mobile competition is not subjective either then as most judges have no idea what drivers are being used. But most say it is very subjective as it is based on what one person hears over another. Just saying on point intended.

# 2 - I would have to agree with you there.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Hey Jerry:

Nice job, real nice. THANK YOU. Considering the parameters emposed, I think the scoring looks about right. The "dedicated" midranges clearly won out in the midrange test, as expected. As newtittan pointed out though, there's some more to the story that I'd like to personally flesh-out if I can be given the opportunity. So I sent you a personal e-mail requesting a tad bit more information. 

Scott


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> Hey Jerry:
> 
> Nice job, real nice. THANK YOU. Considering the parameters emposed, I think the scoring looks about right. *The "dedicated" midranges clearly won out in the midrange test, as expected. As newtittan pointed out though, there's some more to the story that I'd like to personally flesh-out if I can be given the opportunity.* So I sent you a personal e-mail requesting a tad bit more information.
> 
> Scott


You know what Scott you may be correct.


----------



## sam3535

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> You know what Scott you may be correct.


That's what I took from it; a 3" full range would be expected to be outperformed by most decent "quality" 4" midrangers. Thanks for putting the effort in Jerry.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



sam3535 said:


> That's what I took from it; a 3" full range would be expected to be outperformed by most decent "quality" 4" midrangers. Thanks for putting the effort in Jerry.


Yep, I just had questions about the wording and ranking based on the wording, as great care seem to be taken to ensure it was correct.


----------



## DAT

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Wow I will also review the testing info and see what I can come up with...

But I knew the Esotar 430's would probably be best sounding - hell they make some awesome home speakers so why not car audio speakers

Since I got a set of Scan 12m's for a friend 4 days ago ( used ) these speakers are amazing, I will not mention on here which speakers we replaced but the Scan's were a night and day improvement.

Wow on the Morel CDM 88's..... and I would have liked Mark to have had a true 4 or 4.5 speaker to test instead of the 3" Trinity.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



DAT said:


> Wow I will also review the testing info and see what I can come up with...
> 
> But I knew the Esotar 430's would probably be best sounding - hell they make some awesome home speakers so why not car audio speakers
> 
> Since I got a set of Scan 12m's for a friend 4 days ago ( used ) these speakers are amazing, I will not mention on here which speakers we replaced but the Scan's were a night and day improvement.
> 
> Wow on the Morel CDM 88's..... and I would have liked Mark to have had a true 4 or 4.5 speaker to test instead of the 3" Trinity.


Don't worry something is coming.


----------



## gdean83

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Jerry

I just sent an email requesting the results also.


----------



## t3sn4f2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> Hey Jerry:
> 
> *Nice job, real nice. THANK YOU. Considering the parameters emposed, I think the scoring looks about right. The "dedicated" midranges clearly won out in the midrange test, as expected.* As newtittan pointed out though, there's some more to the story that I'd like to personally flesh-out if I can be given the opportunity. So I sent you a personal e-mail requesting a tad bit more information.
> 
> Scott


x2

Just like a 1" tweeter would come out on top in a 1" fullrange comparo.


----------



## Stage7

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thank you for all of your efforts. I read it and it was a good read. The top performers were no surprises, however some of the lower tiers were consider the bandpass used. 

You took great care in explaining the testing parameters thus setting the context to frame the results. If more people focus on this, they can make better sense of the subjective portions of your test. With proper install, x-over point, eq, and expectations (ie: db level) more suited to their capabilities, some of the lower tier models would perform better than in the test.

Again, thank you all of your hard work! It definitely confirmed some of my own thoughts and opinions on drivers. In some cases, you do get what you pay for (in a good way).


----------



## DynaudioNut

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

[email protected] I'd love a copy


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> The Qtc of .707 was modeled based on the manufacturer specs and the data shown was based on the WT3 specs. Due to the less than perfect way of testing the speaker using the WT3 (kitchen table in a house), the manufacturer specs were what we had to revert to. So, in short, the .707 was achieved according to the manufacturer specs and modeling.


I think I understand...

Still have questions.

If you used the mfg specs to achieve the desired enclosure to achieve the 0.707 then why did you even use the WT3 at all, other than to show variance in driver matching from sample to sample? It seems to me that by using the mfg specs to build the box, you ignored the results given by the WT3, which to me says you don't trust the WT3 enough to build a box from and then it makes me wonder why you even used the WT3 at all; why not just give mfg specs?
And, once you built the box and put the driver in there (where it was no longer on the kitchen table), ran the sweep, and saw the results, why did you not make an effort to start adding/subtracting material to get the desired qtc as it is evident that it wasn't 0.707. This assumes, of course, you trust the WT3, which it seems from what you've said that you do not.


I'm really not trying to pick on you... I just find issue with the rationale here. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. 
And again, I'm not trying to be a douche. I HATE when I've spent hours working on something to help others only to have the naysayers come in. But, you have to realize that the purpose many of us go to the extent of reading and providing feedback is for the benefit of all of us. 



Secondly, all subjective results aside, it's very nice to have all the t/s parameters laid out for everyone to see free-air measurements and how driver to driver accuracy compares. There's really good info in those tables. I really appreciate the time you took to populate those tables. 



And to those saying "you can read why he chose XXX", don't tell me. I was involved in this discussion from day one. 


- Erin


----------



## DynaudioNut

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Great job!


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



bikinpunk said:


> And to those saying "you can read why he chose XXX", don't tell me. I was involved in this discussion from day one.


That was not directed at you. Many people will be coming into this thread just to get the results without having read the 450 odd posts that preceded them.


----------



## NSTar

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

are we gonna get a shootout 6.5" ???


----------



## Buzzman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



less said:


> . . .
> 4. Santana as a reference track? Always suspected he produces with ipod headphone listeners in mind. (one of the artists I've always wished would produce a couple audiophile discs - but hasn't)
> . . . .


Actually, "Supernatural" is a pretty well recorded album. And, yes, Santana has produced a couple of audiophile quality discs. Check out "Abraxas," one of the best sounding albums around, and "Santana" (No. 1 with the lion on the cover), also an excellent recording, though not as great sonically as Abraxas. 

Jerry, I just quickly read your review, and I wish to commend you and your team for the manner in which you conducted and reported your results. Very well done. As you knew from the beginning, this was a daunting task, and that your methodology would be subjected to criticism, questions, and so forth. I am surprised by some of the comments posted here because you clearly point out the limitations of your testing, the reasons why you and the team made the testing choices you implemented, and that a particular speaker may perform more acceptably in an application different than that used, etc. We knew going in that the testing process you implemented was not going to be perfect (and which one is). Yes, one might quibble with word choice used to describe the listener's subjective assessment of a particular speaker, and the consistency of certain elements of the report, but come on people. When was the last time you read a review like this on this forum, or any other for that matter? I am sure that some, perhaps many, are disappointed if their "favorite" speaker did not fare well with this group, in this test. But that shouldn't detract from the overall excellent work these folks did. After all, if YOU enjoy that particular speaker, do you really need validation from someone else?


----------



## DAT

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Next TEST let's try some Focal, Brax, Audison and the New Scan 12MU in the pics below


----------



## quality_sound

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> If will be to your emails tonight!


Hey Jerry, I didn't get the email. Can you hook me up? 

Thanks,
Paul


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



quality_sound said:


> Hey Jerry, I didn't get the email. Can you hook me up?
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul


Send me your email addy again


----------



## spag_bace

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Buzzman said:


> Jerry, I just quickly read your review, and I wish to commend you and your team for the manner in which you conducted and reported your results. Very well done. As you knew from the beginning, this was a daunting task, and that your methodology would be subjected to criticism, questions, and so forth. I am surprised by some of the comments posted here because you clearly point out the limitations of your testing, the reasons why you and the team made the testing choices you implemented, and that a particular speaker may perform more acceptably in an application different than that used, etc. We knew going in that the testing process you implemented was not going to be perfect (and which one is). Yes, one might quibble with word choice used to describe the listener's subjective assessment of a particular speaker, and the consistency of certain elements of the report, but come on people. When was the last time you read a review like this on this forum, or any other for that matter? I am sure that some, perhaps many, are disappointed if their "favorite" speaker did not fare well with this group, in this test. But that shouldn't detract from the overall excellent work these folks did. After all, if YOU enjoy that particular speaker, do you really need validation from someone else?


x2..


----------



## BMWTUBED

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

This report was well beyond what expected in terms of professional, methodical and unbiased. I am so glad this was done blind! I've always
lived by the adage, you get what you pay for. However, as in every
industry, there are over priced mediocre product as well. This test just
separated those and showed us a few good deals too. Hats off to the
ladies and gentlemen who conducted this test!


----------



## kappa546

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I want to thank everyone involved in the test and those who lent their drivers for the test. The amount of worked invested on this review was clearly substantial. Great job on ensuring it was a double-blind test, that there was ample space between and around the speakers, and providing what seemed to be a substantial enough baffle. 

However, I have two main issues with the test (one large and complicated, the other minor but noteworthy). First and foremost, the chosen filters. I fail to understand why a LP of 6300hz was chosen. "_It was believed that this relatively high choice of frequency would test each of the drivers for cone breakup, which is important and extremely detrimental to midrange driver performance._" Isn't this enough reason for choosing a more appropriate crossover point? What exactly were you looking to "test" in the cone breakup? That it's there? Well, I'm sure we all know that certain drivers definitely have them and, yes, they are indeed "detrimental". The manufacturer certainly didn't intend for those particular drivers to play at those frequencies, certainly not at a 1st order slope (more on slope later), and most users would be well aware of this and refrain from such use as well. In my opinion, a 3-4khz point would have been much more appropriate and typical of real world implementation. The point of a comparative test is to evaluate the drivers, all things being equal. This filter choice effectively flawed the test critically. Also, the point of using even or odd order slopes in the filter is to successfully blend the sound from different point-sources. Obviously, of no importance when testing a single driver. A steeper slope would have aided the test not hindered it. The HP of 500hz doesn't bother me so much other than it being implemented solely to aid the Morel dome midrange, the only one of it's kinda in the entire test vs. 15 dynamic cone midranges. Seems more productive to either eliminate that candidate from a test in which it doesn't fit in, or just use that point for that single driver. But again, sort of a minor gripe.

Secondly, I feel that using no enclosure would have been more effective if proper enclosures weren't going to be built to suit EACH driver. Unlike a few others, I feel the Qtc is irrelevant in this case given the 500hz HP, as opposed to the internal reflections of the enclosure. Some of the drivers tested have VERY light and thin diaphragms and said reflections would certainly blemish the drivers sonic contribution.

Once again, I applaud the obvious amount of work invested, I just wish a bit more attention to detail would have been implemented in the test parameters.


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Great job! 

It appears I may have sold the wrong mids letting the 12Ms go and keeping the F1s. But I did not want to break up the F1 set. 

Thanks again for doing this. It is part of what makes this site special.

Jim


----------



## t3sn4f2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



jimbno1 said:


> Great job!
> 
> *It appears I may have sold the wrong mids letting the 12Ms go and keeping the F1s.* But I did not want to break up the F1 set.
> 
> Thanks again for doing this. It is part of what makes this site special.
> 
> Jim


Or not.


----------



## OSN

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Excellent job, Jerry and crew!


----------



## bkjay

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Ok after reading the review my question is. If these drivers are installed in car, is install still key? Meaning a proper kick panel(or what works best in your car) install adding mid woofer,tweeter and some tuning can this make a tier 5 mid sound great?


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

the premise of this was to get a better understanding of how a driver performs with no processing.

DSP changes things entirely, and furthermore so do crossover points, alone. If the parameters of this test were changed up to allow nominal crossover points for each driver, the results would likely have been less dramatic, IMO. 

Not to say that this test is a wash, because it's not. Ideally you want the best driver you can get, given your desires. The simple fact is buying a driver with the intent and knowledge that you will HAVE to use an EQ to get desirable results is not the best way to pick and choose drivers. However, it's what we do given certain restraints (size, budget, etc). 


Install is always key. Why? Because a lot of the things we do to shape the system response via DSP is done because of poor install choices (ie: door mounted mids, off axis tweeters, etc) which, like the choices in drivers themselves, are sometimes not as optimal as we would like. The better the install, the less need to 'fix' these problems. Not to say that even an optimal install can't be improved upon in the car with some DSP.

My $.02.


----------



## bkjay

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Cool I get your point.


----------



## bassfromspace

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I have a question.

I found it interesting that the full range drivers finished at the bottom of the test.

Generally speaking, when it comes to speaker designs, what compromises must be made in order to increase the usable bandwidth of a 4" driver?

Excellent work!


----------



## mmiller

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thanks for all the Hard Work guys!!!

I figured the Scans would be the Best or close.... I am a little surprised at how the H-Audio placed.. But oh well.

There are many other contributing factors that can change a lot about how well a driver performs, besides The Enclosure.

I would like to have seen different slopes and x-over points... 

Please don't misunderstand my post as being ungrateful, this is/was a huge task... But would have it not been better to try to get the "most" out of each driver?? When you are crossing over the L4 at 500hz at 6/db for example, you are truly missing out part of where the L4 shines best.. you are not using the driver as it was intended to be used so to speak. I am sure that this applies to many of the other drivers tested as well...

I just would have like to have seen an hour or so setting up each driver, and getting the most out of it. But I guess we can't have everything...

This was an amazing Task, Hats off to the people involved!!!!


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I agree that the crossovers and slopes were not ideal for all drivers, which was made clear in the writeup. But some compromises had to be made. And I was certainly interested in how these mids performed in the given bandpass where a great majority of music resides. 

All speakers have different strengths. I am sure some of these speakers would have out performed their tier at either end of the frequency spectrum. If you are looking for a mid to play 200 Hz or 10 KHz, you still should be concerned how it performs at 500-6000 Hz right? 

I was certainly suprised at some of the conclusions, but if you read closely the evaluations seem fair and accurate. 

Also keep in mind that an audition even as extensive as this one was is not the same as living with a speaker over time. For instance lively may become fatiguing in the with time, and boring can sometimes become pleasing and smooth over the long haul. 

And anyway the MS-8 will fix all the flaws in any speaker right? So it doesn't really matter.


----------



## kyheng

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

If the terms used in the shootout is only transparent and not other subjective term used like warm, open or others, indeed it will be better. Because, most of the time, our brain is our biggest enemy, from the day we are born until we finishs our last breath. 
But if getting a driver with "relatively" flat response from 200-10000Hz, is the 500-6300Hz still a concern? Nope, it is not. I'm abit mad sometimes, as I'm still looking for drivers that will produce relatively flat response from 200-20000Hz.


----------



## gharu

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

guys would love to have a copy of the test done..please

my email add [email protected]

thanks u guys are GREAT !


----------



## rain27

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Tests like these are always going to be extremely difficult. I don't think there can ever be a definite answer to which speaker is the best. I have tested several high end drivers in the past year, and find it terribly difficult to point out which one is the best because there are too many variables involved. 

To make a final determination, you would have to tune each driver to its optimal point and take a listen. Getting to this optimal point is elusive to 99.9% of us because tuning at the highest level is a rare skill to have.

Given this, perhaps the MS-8 can be the great "equalizer" here. Letting it do its auto tune and taking a listen might put everything on the same playing field. But even then, crossover points still need to be selected, etc. Additionally, different people prefer different sounds and therefore would have different opinions anyway.


----------



## BMWTUBED

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I'm personally more than happy to know what these speaker sound like from 500 to 6300hz. Most will sound just as good well below 500, and above 6300 is of no concern to me personally. I can understand that for monitary reason, some need to question everything conducted in order to salvage their brands reputation, but this test was done as fairly as I can imagine it being done and it was blind. They had both genders listening and the age range was from 28 to 60 and they say they have no brand affiliation. ANY midrange should perform well from 500 to 6300 and if anything, the dedicated midranges should have more of a problem up in the 6300 range. I see no fault with this test what so ever. Again my hat is off to these guys and I appriciate their time very much! Everyone unhappy with the testing results, methology, crossover points slopes, etc should pull together and conduct your own test. I'm sure we would all read and consider it as well.


----------



## less

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Buzzman said:


> Actually, "Supernatural" is a pretty well recorded album. And, yes, Santana has produced a couple of audiophile quality discs. Check out "Abraxas," one of the best sounding albums around, and "Santana" (No. 1 with the lion on the cover), also an excellent recording, though not as great sonically as Abraxas.



Clarification: This selection, on second thought, might work well using only a bandpassed midrange driver. In my effort to be less wordy, I didn't really make my point clear. I've found Supernatural in particular to have a very bloated lower end which I suspect is ramped up to satisfy the masses. I've listened to iton a number of systems and the has only sounded "right" on stock car systems and open air dj set ups that had little ability to reproduce bass accurately. Its a business decision to mix like that, pretty much like Sony getting out of the high end and Pioneer putting flipper on their screens - appealing to the mass market where the money is. 

I own the original Sony Mastersound version of his first & an ultradisc of Santana (self titled). Both are decent recordings. I'd really love a remixed audiophile version of Supernatural and All That I Am, which both have some great tracks that I listen to often.

I may have to sell my 12m's and pitch in the difference to try out the 12MU's though - somebody has to report on those buggers lol. A hint though to 12m users - consider covering the backside in acoustically transparent mesh. I recently had a small piece of metal fall in my vc gap and make a mess. It was repairable, but I didn't know that until after I'd bought a replacement.

Jim


----------



## JayinMI

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Out of curiosity, could this be sent as a pdf, and then perhaps hosted somewhere, so everyone doesn't have to bug the guys to get it and fill up their inbox?

Or if you want to send me the results, I can see if I can host it on my seldom used Comcast account or something.

Installmgr at comcast dot com

Jay


----------



## The Drake

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

nvrmd


----------



## trevordj

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

It has also been hosted here since the day the results were released: post 442



matdotcom2000 said:


> You can click on it below.... THANKS FOR DOING THE TEST again!!!!!


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Is there a reason the Woofer Tester is suspect? Manf specs are rairly accurate from the reviews I have read in the past.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Okay, let's clear a few things up. I'm sure Jerry (Niebur3) is staying FAR away from this thread as he should for a little while.

First to address one question. The difference between dedicated midrange and wideband driver is pretty substantial. You're looking to get A LOT out of a small wideband driver. So, in design, you're going to have to sacrifice quite a bit. Not a single "wideband" driver made above Tier 3. That shouldn't surprise ANYBODY. It has NOTHING to do with crossover points. 

What makes a good wideband driver. Generally, we want as much bass extension as possible, while also able to articulate well above 10khz. So, let's look at the cone design. A heavily damped cone will drop Fs due to sheer weight, but you'll sacrifice top end clarity. You can add a very strong motor to a lighter cone to provide electrical braking of the driver on the bottom end, but that cone will still resonate creating an increased amount of Harmonic Distortion. Essentially, no matter what you do, when designing a wideband driver, you'll have to sacrifice either top end, or bottom end. By finding the happy medium between the two you sacrifice the entire passband.

It's just a simple truth. 

A dedicated "midrange" driver, designed to play a limited passband doesn't have to worry about the sacrifices that a widebander needs to make. Light, stiff cones, with enough damping to keep breakup nodes out of the passband, and a good motor will make for an excellent midrange driver. Midrange drivers don't need to worry about breakup nodes, as long as they remain out of the passband. Even the Dayton RS125, which belongs to Dayton's Reference series, which is infamous for their extreme break up nodes, keeps the breakup above 7khz. The RS125 still needs to be crossed over below 3khz to get a good flat response out of it, but breakup node is well out of it's passband.

Widebanders again, CANNOT exhibit a breakup node or it'll sound awful in full range usage. So, again, the cone needs to be damped. Damped cones result in a loss of clarity. 

Again, not a SINGLE wideband driver made it above Tier 3. It shouldn't have against the dedicated midgranges. The Aura NS4, which I'm not surprised did very poorly (I donated it, so I do own it), is a mislabeled wideband driver. It exhibits no breakup node because it's cone is so heavily damped. It has very good bottom end extension, and I'd be willing to bet if this was a "midbass" challenge amongst 4" drivers it would excel. It does so at the sacrifice of increased harmonic distortion on the bottom end, but it's extension down low is VERY GOOD for the size of cone. 

Again, though, it has NOTHING to do with crossover points. Granted if we opened it up full range, I can guarantee the RS125 would drop dramatically in the rankings, and the full range drivers would rise. The Tier 1 drivers would probably run middle ground. So, the passband has little to do with it. The question is to have a passband, or not to have a passband. They chose a passband because the test is centered on "midrange". 

So, before casting stones LOOK AT YOUR APPLICATION. Bikinpunk stated that it will still come down to installation. Understanding your application is EVERYTHING in interpreting these results for your usage. If you need an extended bandwidth, then look at the various Tier 3 drivers. All of them other than the RS125 are wideband drivers. In fact, the RS125 was shown to be weak among dedicated midranges.

Most of us would want a dedicated midrange in our applications. If you plan on utilizing a pass band in the 200-300 hz range up to about 5kish, then serious consideration should be be given to a driver like the Peerless Exclusive. It's unavailable unfortunately though. There are other gems out there though. The Peerless Exclusive is the winner in my mind out of this entire test. It once retailed for about $60.00 per driver, and it competed with drivers costing MUCH MUCH more. 

The Tang Band W4 that was tested was the winner amongst wideband drivers. Just by the sheer fact that it's the cheapest though heavy consideration should go to the Vifa that was tested as well. 

The interpretations made in evaluating the results are as subjective and personal as the interpretations made in evaluating the drivers. This test was VERY enlightening, IF you know what you're looking at.

To use the argument that each driver will perform better in it's own application is very accurate. However, remember that that works for both the cheap and expensive drivers. You can't just use that argument for the expensive drivers that didn't make Tiers 1 & 2.


----------



## DAT

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, let's clear a few things up. I'm sure Jerry (Niebur3) is staying FAR away from this thread as he should for a little while.
> 
> First to address one question. The difference between dedicated midrange and wideband driver is pretty substantial. You're looking to get A LOT out of a small wideband driver. So, in design, you're going to have to sacrifice quite a bit. Not a single "wideband" driver made above Tier 3. That shouldn't surprise ANYBODY. It has NOTHING to do with crossover points.
> 
> What makes a good wideband driver. Generally, we want as much bass extension as possible, while also able to articulate well above 10khz. So, let's look at the cone design. A heavily damped cone will drop Fs due to sheer weight, but you'll sacrifice top end clarity. You can add a very strong motor to a lighter cone to provide electrical braking of the driver on the bottom end, but that cone will still resonate creating an increased amount of Harmonic Distortion. Essentially, no matter what you do, when designing a wideband driver, you'll have to sacrifice either top end, or bottom end. By finding the happy medium between the two you sacrifice the entire passband.
> 
> It's just a simple truth.
> 
> A dedicated "midrange" driver, designed to play a limited passband doesn't have to worry about the sacrifices that a widebander needs to make. Light, stiff cones, with enough damping to keep breakup nodes out of the passband, and a good motor will make for an excellent midrange driver. Midrange drivers don't need to worry about breakup nodes, as long as they remain out of the passband. Even the Dayton RS125, which belongs to Dayton's Reference series, which is infamous for their extreme break up nodes, keeps the breakup above 7khz. The RS125 still needs to be crossed over below 3khz to get a good flat response out of it, but breakup node is well out of it's passband.
> 
> Widebanders again, CANNOT exhibit a breakup node or it'll sound awful in full range usage. So, again, the cone needs to be damped. Damped cones result in a loss of clarity.
> 
> Again, not a SINGLE wideband driver made it above Tier 3. It shouldn't have against the dedicated midgranges. The Aura NS4, which I'm not surprised did very poorly (I donated it, so I do own it), is a mislabeled wideband driver. It exhibits no breakup node because it's cone is so heavily damped. It has very good bottom end extension, and I'd be willing to bet if this was a "midbass" challenge amongst 4" drivers it would excel. It does so at the sacrifice of increased harmonic distortion on the bottom end, but it's extension down low is VERY GOOD for the size of cone.
> 
> Again, though, it has NOTHING to do with crossover points. Granted if we opened it up full range, I can guarantee the RS125 would drop dramatically in the rankings, and the full range drivers would rise. The Tier 1 drivers would probably run middle ground. So, the passband has little to do with it. The question is to have a passband, or not to have a passband. They chose a passband because the test is centered on "midrange".
> 
> So, before casting stones LOOK AT YOUR APPLICATION. Bikinpunk stated that it will still come down to installation. Understanding your application is EVERYTHING in interpreting these results for your usage. If you need an extended bandwidth, then look at the various Tier 3 drivers. All of them other than the RS125 are wideband drivers. In fact, the RS125 was shown to be weak among dedicated midranges.
> 
> Most of us would want a dedicated midrange in our applications. If you plan on utilizing a pass band in the 200-300 hz range up to about 5kish, then serious consideration should be be given to a driver like the Peerless Exclusive. It's unavailable unfortunately though. There are other gems out there though. The Peerless Exclusive is the winner in my mind out of this entire test. It once retailed for about $60.00 per driver, and it competed with drivers costing MUCH MUCH more.
> 
> The Tang Band W4 that was tested was the winner amongst wideband drivers. Just by the sheer fact that it's the cheapest though heavy consideration should go to the Vifa that was tested as well.
> 
> The interpretations made in evaluating the results are as subjective and personal as the interpretations made in evaluating the drivers. This test was VERY enlightening, IF you know what you're looking at.
> 
> To use the argument that each driver will perform better in it's own application is very accurate. However, remember that that works for both the cheap and expensive drivers. You can't just use that argument for the expensive drivers that didn't make Tiers 1 & 2.




MiniVanMan - you are so correct on these points. 

Thank You!


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

First of, thank you guys for quite a piece of work! It's no small task, and there will always be some controversy. Here's my comments from my "first read", might post more later after a more thorough study. I'll break my comments into the "philosophical" and the "factual" 

*Philosophical*

I don't really agree with the chosen crossover points. As I understand it, the crossover points ... particularly the high-pass ... were chosen to accommodate the _drivers_ ... especially, the most limited bandwidth drivers ... rather than the _application_. I think this is a bit of a mistake, and one I should have voiced earlier 

In my view, there's two _applications_ in a vehicle that strongly _benefit_, if not outright _require_, 4" midrange drivers to reach down to 200~250Hz. These are :

1. Center channel, for audio or audio + video. In most center-channel discussions on this board, you'll see some pretty good arguments in favor of a center that goes down to 200~250Hz. And many vehicles, I would speculate, just don't have room for a center channel larger than 4". Hence, the need for a 4" midrange that reaches this low.

2. Side bias. One of the best reasons for using a midrange, even in systems without a center channel, is to help combat the inter-aural phase inversion that occurs in most vehicles (with non-centered listeners) at around 200~250Hz. A simple phase inversion of _one_ midrange helps mitigate this issue, while still keeping midbass drivers in-phase for best midbass impact. It's a technique used by competitors & hobbyists for years.

I suppose you could summarize these two applications by making the argument that the midrange, in a vehicle, should capture most/all of the _human vocal spectrum_.

Had there been a ~~4" driver in the test that couldn't play worth a poop below 800Hz, would the high-pass have been raised to accommodate it? Know what I mean? Would it be unfair to this driver to keep it low, or unfair to all the others to raise it?

These points, i readily admit, are debate-able 

*Factual*

1. The crossover slopes should have been steeper. As already mentioned, the only _possible_ reason for a shallow slope is to keep the crossover to another driver "simple" (and it's a pretty weak reason). When there's no other driver being crossed-to, this becomes a non-issue altogether. And we must remember the rule of excursion : excursion increases with the _square_ of the frequency decrease. So a 12db/octave slope is the _minimum_ needed to keep the driver's excursion from increasing as frequency decreases.

I doubt this would have had a huge impact on the results, based on a quick glance of the chosen music.

2. Something really is screwy with the WT3 measurements, or the enclosures themselves  Anybody else notice that _most_ drivers ... but not all ... have the Fs _decrease_ when the driver is enclosed? To first order, we expect Fs to _increase_ by the same factor as Qts, when the driver is enclosed. Something is amiss ... it _may_ be reflections internal to the enclosures, but at this point i really don't know what to make of it  You guys should have taken me up on my offer to analyze the WT3 results before posting 

I offer this only as "constructive input", not complaints or criticism. All things considered with the enormity of the task, you guys did a great job ! 

(I've said it before, evaluating drivers in their piston range _only_ is difficult enough (this includes subs and most midbass drivers). When you go higher than this for midrange drivers, _at least_ two other dimensions emerge to the problem: cone resonance, and off-axis response.)

Thank you, good sirs & ladies!

Oh ... we need pics of Nichole, naturally.


----------



## azngotskills

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Maybe I should keep my Peerless Exclusives then


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, let's clear a few things up. I'm sure Jerry (Niebur3) is staying FAR away from this thread as he should for a little while.
> 
> First to address one question. The difference between dedicated midrange and wideband driver is pretty substantial. You're looking to get A LOT out of a small wideband driver. So, in design, you're going to have to sacrifice quite a bit. Not a single "wideband" driver made above Tier 3. That shouldn't surprise ANYBODY. It has NOTHING to do with crossover points.
> 
> What makes a good wideband driver. Generally, we want as much bass extension as possible, while also able to articulate well above 10khz. So, let's look at the cone design. A heavily damped cone will drop Fs due to sheer weight, but you'll sacrifice top end clarity. You can add a very strong motor to a lighter cone to provide electrical braking of the driver on the bottom end, but that cone will still resonate creating an increased amount of Harmonic Distortion. Essentially, no matter what you do, when designing a wideband driver, you'll have to sacrifice either top end, or bottom end. By finding the happy medium between the two you sacrifice the entire passband.
> 
> It's just a simple truth.
> 
> A dedicated "midrange" driver, designed to play a limited passband doesn't have to worry about the sacrifices that a widebander needs to make. Light, stiff cones, with enough damping to keep breakup nodes out of the passband, and a good motor will make for an excellent midrange driver. Midrange drivers don't need to worry about breakup nodes, as long as they remain out of the passband. Even the Dayton RS125, which belongs to Dayton's Reference series, which is infamous for their extreme break up nodes, keeps the breakup above 7khz. The RS125 still needs to be crossed over below 3khz to get a good flat response out of it, but breakup node is well out of it's passband.
> 
> Widebanders again, CANNOT exhibit a breakup node or it'll sound awful in full range usage. So, again, the cone needs to be damped. Damped cones result in a loss of clarity.
> 
> Again, not a SINGLE wideband driver made it above Tier 3. It shouldn't have against the dedicated midgranges. The Aura NS4, which I'm not surprised did very poorly (I donated it, so I do own it), is a mislabeled wideband driver. It exhibits no breakup node because it's cone is so heavily damped. It has very good bottom end extension, and I'd be willing to bet if this was a "midbass" challenge amongst 4" drivers it would excel. It does so at the sacrifice of increased harmonic distortion on the bottom end, but it's extension down low is VERY GOOD for the size of cone.
> 
> Again, though, it has NOTHING to do with crossover points. Granted if we opened it up full range, I can guarantee the RS125 would drop dramatically in the rankings, and the full range drivers would rise. The Tier 1 drivers would probably run middle ground. So, the passband has little to do with it. The question is to have a passband, or not to have a passband. They chose a passband because the test is centered on "midrange".
> 
> So, before casting stones LOOK AT YOUR APPLICATION. Bikinpunk stated that it will still come down to installation. Understanding your application is EVERYTHING in interpreting these results for your usage. If you need an extended bandwidth, then look at the various Tier 3 drivers. All of them other than the RS125 are wideband drivers. In fact, the RS125 was shown to be weak among dedicated midranges.
> 
> Most of us would want a dedicated midrange in our applications. If you plan on utilizing a pass band in the 200-300 hz range up to about 5kish, then serious consideration should be be given to a driver like the Peerless Exclusive. It's unavailable unfortunately though. There are other gems out there though. The Peerless Exclusive is the winner in my mind out of this entire test. It once retailed for about $60.00 per driver, and it competed with drivers costing MUCH MUCH more.
> 
> The Tang Band W4 that was tested was the winner amongst wideband drivers. Just by the sheer fact that it's the cheapest though heavy consideration should go to the Vifa that was tested as well.
> 
> The interpretations made in evaluating the results are as subjective and personal as the interpretations made in evaluating the drivers. This test was VERY enlightening, IF you know what you're looking at.
> 
> To use the argument that each driver will perform better in it's own application is very accurate. However, remember that that works for both the cheap and expensive drivers. You can't just use that argument for the expensive drivers that didn't make Tiers 1 & 2.


Nice post Minivanman and I agree mostly. 

Now lets face it. When you do any review your going to open yourself to some question on how it was done. Get defensive about your review all you like, it is just a fact when you do a review. No test is going to be perfect. Now bring what one person hears over the next (subjective) and you open yourself up to even more bull.

Some may think i'm defensive about the Trinity placing low, but I'm not it is what it is, but if I can't ask a question about the review and about the way something was worded, why write the review. I have own or test 85% of the drivers in the test and all of them have their strengths and weakness. This review is not tell all and there are many other reviews around this very forum on many of the drivers that may agree or not agree with the results in this test. So read and take what you would like from it or any other subjective review.

I have no doubt about what my product is capable of doing or the level of its performance and i'm sure every other manufacture in the test feels the same. When used as it was designed to be used The Trinity is a amazing little driver. Everyone *ELSE* who has listen to it can verify to that.

I also would like to ask as a 3/4 baffle was us to mount all the drivers, was care take to route the backside of the baffle at least at some sort of an angle so the shallow/smaller drivers would have adequate venting/ventilation. I didn't see it mention in the report. As we know if the baffle is to thick and not routed at an angle it will choke the small/shallow driver by forcing the pressure back on the rear of the cone. Just another question.

If the above was done great job.


----------



## mSaLL150

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



DAT said:


> Can someone send me a copy of the results?
> 
> Please
> *
> [email protected]*


Can you forward the results to me? THanks!

[email protected]


----------



## eggyhustles

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

out of the drivers tested, which were the loudest?

i'm currently using peerless sls 8's ib the doors bandpassed from 50-250 @18db and tang bang w3's sealed in the apillars from 315 to 20k @ 18db

driving the sls 8's is a jl audio hd 600/4 and driving the w3's is an mb quart dsc280. 

They sound great but don't get loud enough for me. Would adding a 4" mid in the kicks help out in the loudness department? i have a spare mb quart dsc2150 to use that does 150 x 2 @ 4.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



cajunner said:


> so what everyone seems to be saying now, is that the test divided the drivers based on whether they were designed to have a bad cone break-up or not?
> 
> I understand what minivanman is saying, and it does make a lot of sense as some of the metal cone woofers and high modulus carbon fiber drivers are always expected to run inside of the break-up region, as a design goal. Nobody would want to run an Excel up to 10k and then cross with a supertweeter, right?
> 
> seems like there was a lot of value in this test, but it wasn't until the results were put into a perspective that brings driver design into account, before it made sense.


Yes and no on the cone break up issue. The RS125 does exhibit an intense break up node in the 6-7kish range, which is RIGHT at the crossover point. I'm using this example because it finished middle road even in light of the crossover point. The break up node is wide and high. There's also about a 5-6 db null in response starting at 3k, moving up to the point where the driver starts to break up. 

I do think we can categorize this test into well damped, and lesser dampened cones. The offshoot of that can be break up nodes, but it's only the part of a whole. 

Like I said, the widebanders will generally have more damping. The widebanders that were described as being exhibiting more clarity are also not as capable on the bottom end as some of the others. 

This test can ONLY be utilized as a stepping stone in picking a driver for your application. It shows us quite a bit, but ABSOLUTELY can not be used as a definitive source of which driver performs the best.


----------



## kappa546

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



BMWTUBED said:


> I'm personally more than happy to know what these speaker sound like from 500 to 6300hz. Most will sound just as good well below 500, *and above 6300 is of no concern to me personally*. I can understand that for monitary reason, some need to question everything conducted in order to salvage their brands reputation, but this test was done as fairly as I can imagine it being done and it was blind. They had both genders listening and the age range was from 28 to 60 and they say they have no brand affiliation. *ANY midrange should perform well from 500 to 6300 and if anything, the dedicated midranges should have more of a problem up in the 6300 range. I see no fault with this test what so ever*. Again my hat is off to these guys and I appriciate their time very much! Everyone unhappy with the testing results, methology, crossover points slopes, etc should pull together and conduct your own test. I'm sure we would all read and consider it as well.


Do you realize they used 6db/oct crossovers?!? 



MiniVanMan said:


> It's just a simple truth.
> 
> A dedicated "midrange" driver, designed to play a limited passband doesn't have to worry about the sacrifices that a widebander needs to make. Light, stiff cones, with enough damping to keep breakup nodes out of the passband, and a good motor will make for an excellent midrange driver. Midrange drivers don't need to worry about breakup nodes, as long as they remain out of the passband. Even the Dayton RS125, which belongs to Dayton's Reference series, which is infamous for their extreme break up nodes, keeps the breakup above *7khz*. The RS125 still needs to be crossed over *below 3khz* to get a good flat response out of it, but breakup node is well out of it's passband.
> 
> Again, though, it has NOTHING to do with crossover points. Granted if we opened it up full range, I can guarantee the RS125 would drop dramatically in the rankings, and the full range drivers would rise. The Tier 1 drivers would probably run middle ground. So, the passband has little to do with it. The question is to have a passband, or not to have a passband. They chose a passband because the test is centered on "midrange".
> 
> So, before casting stones LOOK AT YOUR APPLICATION. Bikinpunk stated that it will still come down to installation. Understanding your application is EVERYTHING in interpreting these results for your usage. If you need an extended bandwidth, then look at the various Tier 3 drivers. All of them other than the RS125 are wideband drivers. * In fact, the RS125 was shown to be weak among dedicated midranges.*


Same as above. If only a proper filter (specifically LP, I don't have as big an issue with the HP) was used these statements wouldn't be so conflicting. Making use of the Pioneers 36db/oct filters would have been much more "fair" if you indeed wanted to test performance, as lycan stated, well out of midrange and into trebble territory. However with the slope used you are easily hearing to the upper limit of your ability.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



kappa546 said:


> Do you realize they used 6db/oct crossovers?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Same as above. If only a proper filter (specifically LP, I don't have as big an issue with the HP) was used these statements wouldn't be so conflicting. Making use of the Pioneers 36db/oct filters would have been much more "fair" if you indeed wanted to test performance, as lycan stated, well out of midrange and into trebble territory. However with the slope used you are easily hearing to the upper limit of your ability.


My problem with this is if it made SUCH a difference then the widebanders would have fared much better in this test than the dedicated midranges. Also the RS125 having to play well into it's break up node and 3.8k above it's usable range before cut off says quite a bit as well. 

I specifically sent 4 very different drivers in for testing. I expected the RS125 to do very poorly in test due to it's midwoofer status. It doesn't qualify as either a midrange or widebander. 

We can fault the test all we want. Fact is, it's an impossible test. It's an impossible test that requires accounting for an infinite number of variables.

In light of that, you're allowed to say the test is invalid, but in the same vein it needs to be acknowledged that subjective testing is extremely flawed, and thus, recommendations based on subjective, personal interpretation are extremely flawed. Not something H-Audio, HAT, or many other manufacturers want you doing. 

See, for years, many of us have been told that objective testing is flawed and that it comes down to how something sounds and that can't be objectively measured. Now a subjective test has been presented, and it is being called flawed as well due to the lack of accounting for the infinite variables present that are derived from objective measuring. HOWEVER, on this board, and any other board, there are many that will state something as fact, and that it is superior to something else based on personal interpretation, absent of ANY facts. 

We can't have it both ways.

This test has SHOWN, without a doubt that utilization of a driver is MUCH more important than the driver itself. Even H-Audio and Hybrid are saying as such by stating their drivers were not utilized properly for the test. Some drivers WILL perform better under different circumstances. However, this is true of ANY driver, regardless of price point. Again, we can't have it both ways. 

I have for years been saying people need to worry more about utilization and less about the speaker itself. People have laughed at me and called me an idiot. Now a test like this comes out and people are saying that each driver wasn't utilized properly and that it's unfair. Well, which is it? Is it the speaker or the utilization of the speaker?

Once you make that decision, then you can pick apart the test. It's easy to do. There are many, many flaws in the test. IT'S A SUBJECTIVE TEST!!!! It's flawed by nature. 

People are mad that a volunteer has not produced a perfect test that is considered impossible by industry standards due to the infinite number of variables present, and the subjective interpretation of a human beings. Go figure. 

So, let's pick it apart instead of learning what we can from it, which is quite a bit, and quite invaluable if you know what you're looking at.


----------



## rockondon

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

First....Thanks to Niebur3 and others who made this possible. 
I enjoyed waiting and reading your findings.

And MiniVanMan for that fine example of objectivity.

Unfortunately many do "want it both ways"


----------



## kappa546

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I think we're arguing the same thing here. I am not arguing for or against any drivers, it doesn't surprise me one bit that a 4.5" dedicated midrange fared better than a 3" fullrange. However, this test did many drivers a disservice (keep in mind I neither use or have a bias towards any of the drivers tested). A simple push of a button and turn of a knob would have done a lot against a major variable in the experiment... but it wasn't done. Now, inevitably, there will be scores of people incorrectly citing and quoting this test as gospel in favor or against a certain driver. That bugs me.


----------



## dBassHz

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Many thanks to Niebur3 and the others that contributed to this small driver evaluation! 



azngotskills said:


> Maybe I should keep my Peerless Exclusives then


Yes, it will save you the hassle of buying a 3rd pair! I shouldn't have sold my pair but then again I did just win another pair on eBay!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> My problem with this is if it made SUCH a difference then the widebanders would have fared much better in this test than the dedicated midranges. Also the RS125 having to play well into it's break up node and 3.8k above it's usable range before cut off says quite a bit as well.
> 
> I specifically sent 4 very different drivers in for testing. I expected the RS125 to do very poorly in test due to it's midwoofer status. It doesn't qualify as either a midrange or widebander.
> 
> We can fault the test all we want. Fact is, it's an impossible test. It's an impossible test that requires accounting for an infinite number of variables.
> 
> In light of that, you're allowed to say the test is invalid, but in the same vein it needs to be acknowledged that subjective testing is extremely flawed, and thus, recommendations based on subjective, personal interpretation are extremely flawed. Not something H-Audio, HAT, or many other manufacturers want you doing.
> 
> See, for years, many of us have been told that objective testing is flawed and that it comes down to how something sounds and that can't be objectively measured. Now a subjective test has been presented, and it is being called flawed as well due to the lack of accounting for the infinite variables present that are derived from objective measuring. HOWEVER, on this board, and any other board, there are many that will state something as fact, and that it is superior to something else based on personal interpretation, absent of ANY facts.
> 
> We can't have it both ways.
> 
> This test has SHOWN, without a doubt that utilization of a driver is MUCH more important than the driver itself. Even H-Audio and Hybrid are saying as such by stating their drivers were not utilized properly for the test. Some drivers WILL perform better under different circumstances. However, this is true of ANY driver, regardless of price point. Again, we can't have it both ways.
> 
> I have for years been saying people need to worry more about utilization and less about the speaker itself. People have laughed at me and called me an idiot. Now a test like this comes out and people are saying that each driver wasn't utilized properly and that it's unfair. Well, which is it? Is it the speaker or the utilization of the speaker?
> 
> Once you make that decision, then you can pick apart the test. It's easy to do. There are many, many flaws in the test. IT'S A SUBJECTIVE TEST!!!! It's flawed by nature.
> 
> People are mad that a volunteer has not produced a perfect test that is considered impossible by industry standards due to the infinite number of variables present, and the subjective interpretation of a human beings. Go figure.
> 
> So, let's pick it apart instead of learning what we can from it, which is quite a bit, and quite invaluable if you know what you're looking at.


Ok let me make this clear once more and please don't take this the wrong way. First I ask questions about the wording as the ranking seem to be base on it. 

Next I ask if the baffle itself was routed at an angle on the backside so not to restrict air flow on the small and/'or shallow drivers, as it would affect every driver in the test that could not clear the baffle thickness enough for unrestricted ventilation. Would the ranking/subjective/even in enclosure measurements been different? Maybe, maybe not, but good info to know.

You sir say lets learn from it and I agree with you, learn from the great parts of the review, but if there is other parts that are flawed, our less knowing members (none spec and chart readers) will read and take the ranking and subjective review for its face value. 

So why not point out what could have been done differently and could have been a difference maker. There is a lot of great info in this report and I don't think anyone is debating that. But go back and read some of the comments/post that have been made already about the drivers in the test and they are base on the ranking and what was said in the subjective review.

Once again I knew all the small drivers in the test was at a big disadvantage from the start, but at the same time when something could have been done a little different to improve the test why not point it out so we can all learn from that also. I mean just like my question about the baffle, how many of the new guys know to do that on when mounting a small driver or any driver for that fact if baffle is to thick, and that it helps the air flow of the driver and with small drivers it does make a noticeable difference when going from restricting the air flow to not restricting it.

I'm not Bi***ing one bit and please don't take my question that. I'm fine with the results and as I stated I'm very confident in my products and their ability to perform at a high-level. I never complained about slopes or crossover points or any of that, Just had a couple questions, honest and I think legitimate questions. In no way shape or form was I turning to discredit the reviewers or the test.

*Also please acknowledge that recommendations based on subjective, personal interpretation is flawed as we should all know this by now, I always tell people to listen first or do your best to find someone who ear you trust and/or have similar test in sonic requirements and that has heard the product. I'm not your normal manufacture and don't want to be included in your statement about don't wanting people to know, as I guess you have never read any of my post on anything in the post. I have not change the way I think now because I have my own speaker line, hell I will tell them it is flawed. I don't sugar coat or hide or hide behind anything. You like it or you don't, it is that simple for me and that is reality. But when the masses (as in 75-90% of the people who has heard or used the product) say something it pretty good, it usually is. But just remember you can't please everyone and no manufacture should fool themselves thinking they can.*

*And on the utilization part I have also been the exact same way for ever and totally agree with you 100%. Everyone should know I not a spec guy, I'm put it in the real world/install in the car in the correct and intend matter and then tell me what it sounds/performs. So man I with you there.*

And still and will always say. At the end of the day no matter what products you choose

*"It's All About What Sounds Right"​*


kappa546 said:


> I think we're arguing the same thing here. I am not arguing for or against any drivers, it doesn't surprise me one bit that a 4.5" dedicated midrange fared better than a 3" fullrange. However, this test did many drivers a disservice (keep in mind I neither use or have a bias towards any of the drivers tested). A simple push of a button and turn of a knob would have done a lot against a major variable in the experiment... but it wasn't done. *Now, inevitably, there will be scores of people incorrectly citing and quoting this test as gospel in favor or against a certain driver. That bugs me.*


Agree as my point above, just go back and read some of the comment already made.

Done with this now.

Back to concentrating on Team H-Audio and their 7 first place and 2 second place finishes from their first showing in the lanes in MECA and USAC 6 weeks ago. O ya, they all are using the Trinity and yes competition is subjective, but a lot of different judges are saying the same thing; "H-Audio wins". Sorry for the plug.:blush:


----------



## 86mr2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> Done with this now.


Thank god!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



86mr2 said:


> Thank god!


----------



## less

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Unsubscribing now - thanks again for doing this test and for being clear about why you did what you did. As pointed out in the beginning, its simply not possible to make everyone happy. You took the trouble to do what no one else has and you spent a ridiculous amount of free time to set it up. You used a set of parameters that would help you deliver a result that would show how the drivers performed within certain practical restraints and you reported it well. The fact that some drivers would be favored and others would not be was fairly clear and those submitting the drivers could surely have opted out ahead of time... and didn't. 

Its called a 4" midrange comparison/shootout. I simply encourage anyone who doesn't understand the limitations inherent in this test to contact someone reasonable that they trust to help them clarify the differences, and why drivers that might be rated lower on the chart could still produce good quality sound had other parameters (slopes/xovers/enclosures) been used. 

Personally, I'm most disappointed that the tester didn't make it clear that he wouldn't be using the $20,000 Nordost power cord to connect to the powers supply! 

For the person who asked about how loud they get, look up efficiency ratings on any driver you consider and then keep in mind that its very challenging for a very small driver to generate loud output at lower frequencies or... buy GIANT amplifiers & beef up your electrical system because doubling the power only yields a 3db increase in sound


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



less said:


> Unsubscribing now - thanks again for doing this test and for being clear about why you did what you did. As pointed out in the beginning, its simply not possible to make everyone happy. You took the trouble to do what no one else has and you spent a ridiculous amount of free time to set it up. You used a set of parameters that would help you deliver a result that would show how the drivers performed within certain practical restraints and you reported it well. The fact that some drivers would be favored and others would not be was fairly clear and those submitting the drivers could surely have opted out ahead of time... and didn't.
> 
> Its called a 4" midrange comparison/shootout. I simply encourage anyone who doesn't understand the limitations inherent in this test to contact someone reasonable that they trust to help them clarify the differences, and why drivers that might be rated lower on the chart could still produce good quality sound had other parameters (slopes/xovers/enclosures) been used.
> 
> *Personally, I'm most disappointed that the tester didn't make it clear that he wouldn't be using the $20,000 Nordost power cord to connect to the powers supply! *
> 
> For the person who asked about how loud they get, look up efficiency ratings on any driver you consider and then keep in mind that its very challenging for a very small driver to generate loud output at lower frequencies or... buy GIANT amplifiers & beef up your electrical system because doubling the power only yields a 3db increase in sound


Now that was funny. Nice post and I agree.


----------



## rain27

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Let me know if my assumption is correct:

H-Audio, Hybrid, and any other respectable speaker manufacturer has already done its own comparison tests against all of the other notable drivers out there. This would make the most sense to me. Otherwise, how would one know how their speakers match up to the competitor's?


----------



## 86mr2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



rain27 said:


> Otherwise, how would one know how their speakers match up to the competitor's?


By believing their own marketing bumpf. In one prominent case, ESL bumpf from an amateurish website.


----------



## Robin W.

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I think this was a great test, and for this many sets of speakers, and the logistics and planning that went into it must have been virtually overwelming, good job to the review group! Like any review, the results are only valid within the context of the review setup.
I'm sad to see that the H-Audio drivers didn't test so well in this "home audio" setup. Mark, you'll just have to prove your drivers are the best in a "car audio" setup! 

The one thing that I would have liked to see tested, and I should have gotten involved in the thread and suggested it if someone else didn't. Off axis response, something extreme like 60-70deg off axis to simulate a common install. Or for ease of testing, simply rotate the baffles 90deg and face the drivers directly at eachother, which is how virtually all door speakers are mounted, as well as many kick panels.

This is only a tiny gripe, and I hope the backlash from this test doesn't stop others from taking on a similar task for other speakers/amplifiers/head units.

Incase it hasn't been mentioned, I think the writing of the test results was well done, nicely organized and simple to follow. Well done.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Hey guy, 

I am glad most of you liked the write-up about the test. I have had various questions on the forum or emailed personally that I would like to answer/clarify.

Before I do so, I need to clarify a few things for everyone. I don't mind people discussing or questioning aspects of this test due to the fact that this test we deemed "impossible" by most everyone in the audio industry. If said people had known that we were trying to test/compare 16 different pairs of drivers (16, think about that for a moment), ranging from 3"-4" (but under the parameters of 4"), with wide-band drivers and dedicated midrange, well, I think we would had been committed to the insane asylum. We spent many days and countless (volunteer, away from our family) hours on this test trying to make it the very best we could, considering what we were trying to test. All the 3" drivers were at a huge disadvantage, and it was noted several, several times throughout the document. I don't know how to make that point any more clear! As far as the widebanders are concerned, I think Scott summed it up the best when he said that the dedicated midrange speakers should win a midrange test. I don't really understand the problem many are having with the passband we used. I thought we explained it well in the write-up. For the people saying 500Hz was not low enough, that is why a 6dB slope was used, and as far as 6.3kHz, well, we did have many wideband speakers in the test, which were helped by this. No matter the passband used, someone would have had issue with it. For instance, the L4's had the widest bandwidth and best high-frequency response, as stated in the write-up, and may have faired better with a different passband. The Trinity may have faired better as well, but trying to test 16 different speakers with 16 different passbands/slopes and listen for only the midrange would have been impossible. Install is key. 

Anyway, there is always "Bonus" material and "Behind the Scenes" when you purchase a DVD, as there is also for this test. If you would like the additional info, please send a check/money order to.....j/k. Yes, we played with these when the test was done. We played with different passbands and even did some A/B testing, with 1 speaker in 1 side and 1 in another (still level matched). We played with everything, volume, slopes, stuffing it with clay, running IB with a small sealed speaker, etc. But we did not play with all the speakers in this manner, so it was not fair to include it in our report. I would love to share all these "behind the scenes" and I guess I can, it just might upset some or raise more questions.

To answer some questions that some have asked that was NOT included in the write-up:
- A chamfer was used for all the speakers. 
- We had 16 pairs, we did NOT have the ability or means to break-in the speakers, some were new and some were used, while some we couldn't tell.
- The Scans appeared in new condition, the Dyns were used and properly broke in.

Anyway, I would be happy to answer QUESTIONS if anyone has any. Please read this multiple times because the answer may already be in the write-up.

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I chimed in on post #455, and mentioned how I had a few questions for Jerry and would wait for his reply. He’s probably still on DIYMA hiatus, which I don’t blame him one bit, but I truly did one to provide my response to the testing before this thread got all muddied up, and/or too many people stopped subscribing. So here it is, based upon my perception of how the testing was conducted, and obviously reserve the right to alter this post should Jerry chime in with information that I am not aware of, or didn’t understand.

To begin, I *think* I am the only one replying to this test that is a designer of one of the sixteen midranges tested. This is not to pump up my chest or anything, it’s simply to point out that I feel I can be an asset to understand how my midrange performed. If I forgot someone, I do not mean to disrespect. For those not aware, I designed the Hybrid Audio Technologies Legatia L4, from the ground up. It is not a rebadged or relabeled product, nor can you find its equivalent in any on-line parts supplier. From this standpoint, I hope to offer some insight on the testing, perhaps flesh out some things that could have been done differently and/or better in this evaluation, and to clarify a few things.

A big thanks to Jerry and his entire crew. When I asked Jerry a few questions in e-mail Saturday morning, I also made it a point to tell him that I thought the test was great, was remarkably well laid out, the end product was easy to read and understand, and that I actually pretty much agreed with the results, considering the methods, testing apparatus’, the mechanical and electrical variables that were imposed, and etc. I did have a few questions, of course in particular about the L4’s subjective evaluation.

The perfect scientific experiment has one variable. Jerry and I spoke about this on the phone a few times near the first of April. I explained my point of view that there has to be one variable, and that is the speaker itself. Everything else needs to be a constant. A good way to get to this state of “constant” is to test the speakers by AES protocol. I guess it was deemed impractical or “unfair” to do it the way all good speaker manufacturers test their products, and that is in near-field, well-damped environment, in a rigid baffle of certain dimension, with no electronic filtering. It is also done after an exhaustive run-in of the speakers comprising at least 25 hours, and more preferably 100 hours of play-time before testing. Alas, the test did seem to be skewed slightly, such as a game of golf would be handicapped for the weaker players. On to my analysis of the data, and specifically that of the L4:

When looking at the Legatia L4’s WT3 results, it appears that the L4’s were not broken-in adequately to allow for parameters to equilibrate, and for the resonant frequency to “settle” to my specifications. The L4’s were sent as brand new, and were not burned in. It appears the L4 was simply not ready to listen to critically.

Even more importantly, I also note some strange T/S parameters once the L4 is enclosed, which would indicate to me that the enclosure was having an adverse affect on the L4’s T/S parameters and ultimately its performance. A Qts value of 0.9415, an increase of 62% (!!!!!!!!!) should have been a massive red flag, and testing should have been stopped immediately and the L4 made happier in its surroundings. The L4 was definitely NOT happy. In my brief glimpse of Qts as tested free-air and enclosed, not one speaker came close to having a shift of 62%. The Q of the enclosed L4 was critically overdamped. The Fs skyrocketed 12% from measured free-air, and almost 20% from manufacturer’s specification. This may be due to restricted access to the enclosure’s volume (such as not chamfering the inside of the mounting hole), or perhaps any number of other issues, including box volume. 

On the flip side, the enclosure actually probably helped a few of the speakers. I see the Hertz benefited from an unreasonably high Q factor by design by being placed into an enclosure; the enclosure actually helped to at least minimize an already critically overdamped situation. The Rainbow 100 Vanadium and Dynaudio Esotar seemed also to be quite happy in their enclosures. The only slight “wild card” is the Pioneer speaker which probably wasn’t so happy either…that, or perhaps it’s just a QA/QC issue, with parameters shifting from manufacturer specification to as reported by 10%+ in many cases.

Nota Bene: I hate enclosures. Enclosures should either be infinitely small, or infinitely large. Since infinitely small is clearly unobtainable, they must be infinitely large. The enclosures were simply adding too much variable to the test to make it defensible.

The reviewers said about the L4 that the “mid to lower midrange frequencies seemed to lack the richness of other offerings and actually felt a little boring. Comments from the testers described these speakers as being ‘flat’ and ‘technically good’ with no major problems, but also ‘no life’.” I submit that the reviewers definitely heard correctly; they got it spot-on. Judging by the parameters, as tested, the L4’s would definitely not have any robust output in the lower midrange frequencies, and would indeed be technically good but lack “life.” I was, however, quite appreciative of the statement “the L4…extend(ed) higher than any other speaker tested…” which would have remained a constant, even considering the terrible enclosed Qts and inordinately high Fs which effected bottom-octave performance. 

Nota Bene: The passband severely limited wide-band drivers in the test. But I knew this before I sent the L4's in to be tested, so there can be no regrets on my end. But I'd love to see how the L4 fares with the passband limitations removed. Actually, we all know how they'd perform, as many users on this board are using the L4 effectively without tweeters. In a car, it is incredibly desirous attribute to be able to play 7+ octaves with minimal or “soft” cone break-up, and thereby capturing the entire human vocal range from 160 Hz to 7,000 Hz.

All in all, it was a good review; probably the best that I have seen on this forum. Major kudo’s to Jerry and crew for taking on this monumental task. I am not complaining at all with the placement of the L4, considering the framework that the test was conducted within and what the T/S parameters were telling the reviewers before listening tests began. I just PRAY that people in the market for a good midrange don’t just read the conclusion statements, without REALLY digging into what the empirical data says. I am convinced in any other circumstance, including ability to play an incredibly wide bandwidth, the L4 will be at the top of anyone’s list. My last statement is what I truly believe: put the L4 in the right environment, and I’d put it against any midrange in the world.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Robin W. said:


> I think this was a great test, and for this many sets of speakers, and the logistics and planning that went into it must have been virtually overwelming, good job to the review group! Like any review, the results are only valid within the context of the review setup.
> *I'm sad to see that the H-Audio drivers didn't test so well in this "home audio" setup. Mark, you'll just have to prove your drivers are the best in a "car audio" setup! *
> 
> The one thing that I would have liked to see tested, and I should have gotten involved in the thread and suggested it if someone else didn't. Off axis response, something extreme like 60-70deg off axis to simulate a common install. Or for ease of testing, simply rotate the baffles 90deg and face the drivers directly at eachother, which is how virtually all door speakers are mounted, as well as many kick panels.
> 
> This is only a tiny gripe, and I hope the backlash from this test doesn't stop others from taking on a similar task for other speakers/amplifiers/head units.
> 
> Incase it hasn't been mentioned, I think the writing of the test results was well done, nicely organized and simple to follow. Well done.


We have a winning post. We unfortunately don't have a winner of the pool because the bolded comment was made well after the last pool entry.

Much win in the above post.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Oops, better go read Jerry's post. 

[edit] OK, its all good. The only edit to my above post is the hole chamfering. [/edit] 

Scott


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> I chimed in on post #455, and mentioned how I had a few questions for Jerry and would wait for his reply. He’s probably still on DIYMA hiatus, which I don’t blame him one bit, but I truly did one to provide my response to the testing before this thread got all muddied up, and/or too many people stopped subscribing. So here it is, based upon my perception of how the testing was conducted, and obviously reserve the right to alter this post should Jerry chime in with information that I am not aware of, or didn’t understand.
> 
> To begin, I *think* I am the only one replying to this test that is a designer of one of the sixteen midranges tested. This is not to pump up my chest or anything, it’s simply to point out that I feel I can be an asset to understand how my midrange performed. If I forgot someone, I do not mean to disrespect. For those not aware, I designed the Hybrid Audio Technologies Legatia L4, from the ground up. It is not a rebadged or relabeled product, nor can you find its equivalent in any on-line parts supplier. From this standpoint, I hope to offer some insight on the testing, perhaps flesh out some things that could have been done differently and/or better in this evaluation, and to clarify a few things.
> 
> A big thanks to Jerry and his entire crew. When I asked Jerry a few questions in e-mail Saturday morning, I also made it a point to tell him that I thought the test was great, was remarkably well laid out, the end product was easy to read and understand, and that I actually pretty much agreed with the results, considering the methods, testing apparatus’, the mechanical and electrical variables that were imposed, and etc. I did have a few questions, of course in particular about the L4’s subjective evaluation.
> 
> The perfect scientific experiment has one variable. Jerry and I spoke about this on the phone a few times near the first of April. I explained my point of view that there has to be one variable, and that is the speaker itself. Everything else needs to be a constant. A good way to get to this state of “constant” is to test the speakers by AES protocol. I guess it was deemed impractical or “unfair” to do it the way all good speaker manufacturers test their products, and that is in near-field, well-damped environment, in a rigid baffle of certain dimension, with no electronic filtering. It is also done after an exhaustive run-in of the speakers comprising at least 25 hours, and more preferably 100 hours of play-time before testing. Alas, the test did seem to be skewed slightly, such as a game of golf would be handicapped for the weaker players. On to my analysis of the data, and specifically that of the L4:
> 
> When looking at the Legatia L4’s WT3 results, it appears that the L4’s were not broken-in adequately to allow for parameters to equilibrate, and for the resonant frequency to “settle” to my specifications. The L4’s were sent as brand new, and were not burned in. It appears the L4 was simply not ready to listen to critically.
> 
> Even more importantly, I also note some strange T/S parameters once the L4 is enclosed, which would indicate to me that the enclosure was having an adverse affect on the L4’s T/S parameters and ultimately its performance. A Qts value of 0.9415, an increase of 62% (!!!!!!!!!) should have been a massive red flag, and testing should have been stopped immediately and the L4 made happier in its surroundings. The L4 was definitely NOT happy. In my brief glimpse of Qts as tested free-air and enclosed, not one speaker came close to having a shift of 62%. The Q of the enclosed L4 was critically overdamped. The Fs skyrocketed 12% from measured free-air, and almost 20% from manufacturer’s specification. This may be due to restricted access to the enclosure’s volume (such as not chamfering the inside of the mounting hole), or perhaps any number of other issues, including box volume.
> 
> On the flip side, the enclosure actually probably helped a few of the speakers. I see the Hertz benefited from an unreasonably high Q factor by design by being placed into an enclosure; the enclosure actually helped to at least minimize an already critically overdamped situation. The Rainbow 100 Vanadium and Dynaudio Esotar seemed also to be quite happy in their enclosures. The only slight “wild card” is the Pioneer speaker which probably wasn’t so happy either…that, or perhaps it’s just a QA/QC issue, with parameters shifting from manufacturer specification to as reported by 10%+ in many cases.
> 
> Nota Bene: I hate enclosures. Enclosures should either be infinitely small, or infinitely large. Since infinitely small is clearly unobtainable, they must be infinitely large. The enclosures were simply adding too much variable to the test to make it defensible.
> 
> The reviewers said about the L4 that the “mid to lower midrange frequencies seemed to lack the richness of other offerings and actually felt a little boring. Comments from the testers described these speakers as being ‘flat’ and ‘technically good’ with no major problems, but also ‘no life’.” I submit that the reviewers definitely heard correctly; they got it spot-on. Judging by the parameters, as tested, the L4’s would definitely not have any robust output in the lower midrange frequencies, and would indeed be technically good but lack “life.” I was, however, quite appreciative of the statement “the L4…extend(ed) higher than any other speaker tested…” which would have remained a constant, even considering the terrible enclosed Qts and inordinately high Fs which effected bottom-octave performance.
> 
> Nota Bene: The passband severely limited wide-band drivers in the test. But I knew this before I sent the L4's in to be tested, so there can be no regrets on my end. But I'd love to see how the L4 fares with the passband limitations removed. Actually, we all know how they'd perform, as many users on this board are using the L4 effectively without tweeters. In a car, it is incredibly desirous attribute to be able to play 7+ octaves with minimal or “soft” cone break-up, and thereby capturing the entire human vocal range from 160 Hz to 7,000 Hz.
> 
> All in all, it was a good review; probably the best that I have seen on this forum. Major kudo’s to Jerry and crew for taking on this monumental task. I am not complaining at all with the placement of the L4, considering the framework that the test was conducted within and what the T/S parameters were telling the reviewers before listening tests began. I just PRAY that people in the market for a good midrange don’t just read the conclusion statements, without REALLY digging into what the empirical data says. I am convinced in any other circumstance, including ability to play an incredibly wide bandwidth, the L4 will be at the top of anyone’s list. My last statement is what I truly believe: put the L4 in the right environment, and I’d put it against any midrange in the world.


My question is, how was the box wrong for the L4, when it was built to the specifications I talked to you about over the phone prior to the test? 

Again, this test was about midrange clarity and accuracy in which there were 2 very clear winners, no ifs, ands or buts. I would like to accommodate everyone with this and I still have the L4's, Vanadiums, Dyns, and Scan. If you would like, I can do more testing with these changing the parameters and rematching the drivers. 

Or Scott, if you would like, you can go ahead and send me the L4se's (in lieu of the L4's) and we can do a test of those 4 speakers.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I don't know what happened on the in-box Qts, but you have to agree a 62% climb into critically damped territory definetely hurt the driver's performance. Have I told you lately I hate speaker enclosures? 

I'd honestly like to get the L4's back and test them on my LMS just to check the repeatability of the WT3. I took those drivers off the shelf and threw them into a shipping box; I didn't do any testing before I shipped to you; perhaps I was remiss for not doing that. I'd also like to test on LMS after burned-in. I think the burn-in part was pretty critical, and clearly the speakers didn't like the enclosure either. 

Once all figured out, I'd also like to send them back, with the L4SE's (when they are available) for a re-match!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> Hey guy,
> 
> I am glad most of you liked the write-up about the test. I have had various questions on the forum or emailed personally that I would like to answer/clarify.
> 
> Before I do so, I need to clarify a few things for everyone. I don't mind people discussing or questioning aspects of this test due to the fact that this test we deemed "impossible" by most everyone in the audio industry. If said people had known that we were trying to test/compare 16 different pairs of drivers (16, think about that for a moment), ranging from 3"-4" (but under the parameters of 4"), with wide-band drivers and dedicated midrange, well, I think we would had been committed to the insane asylum. We spent many days and countless (volunteer, away from our family) hours on this test trying to make it the very best we could, considering what we were trying to test. All the 3" drivers were at a huge disadvantage, and it was noted several, several times throughout the document. I don't know how to make that point any more clear! As far as the widebanders are concerned, I think Scott summed it up the best when he said that the dedicated midrange speakers should win a midrange test. I don't really understand the problem many are having with the passband we used. I thought we explained it well in the write-up. For the people saying 500Hz was not low enough, that is why a 6dB slope was used, and as far as 6.3kHz, well, we did have many wideband speakers in the test, which were helped by this. No matter the passband used, someone would have had issue with it. For instance, the L4's had the widest bandwidth and best high-frequency response, as stated in the write-up, and may have faired better with a different passband. The Trinity may have faired better as well, but trying to test 16 different speakers with 16 different passbands/slopes and listen for only the midrange would have been impossible. Install is key.
> 
> Anyway, there is always "Bonus" material and "Behind the Scenes" when you purchase a DVD, as there is also for this test. If you would like the additional info, please send a check/money order to.....j/k. Yes, we played with these when the test was done. We played with different passbands and even did some A/B testing, with 1 speaker in 1 side and 1 in another (still level matched). We played with everything, volume, slopes, stuffing it with clay, running IB with a small sealed speaker, etc. But we did not play with all the speakers in this manner, so it was not fair to include it in our report. I would love to share all these "behind the scenes" and I guess I can, it just might upset some or raise more questions.
> 
> To answer some questions that some have asked that was NOT included in the write-up:
> - A chamfer was used for all the speakers.
> - We had 16 pairs, we did NOT have the ability or means to break-in the speakers, some were new and some were used, while some we couldn't tell.
> - The Scans appeared in new condition, the Dyns were used and properly broke in.
> 
> Anyway, I would be happy to answer QUESTIONS if anyone has any. Please read this multiple times because the answer may already be in the write-up.
> 
> Thanks for the comments.


Thank you for answering my question. I would like to thank you guy/gals for taking the time out of your busy schedules to do this for Diyma. Great job!


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> it’s simply to point out that I feel I can be an asset to understand how my midrange performed. If I forgot someone, I do not mean to disrespect.


You said a lot in your post, but this is what I want to focus on.

You market your L4 very much like a full range, but call it a midrange here. Granted, by nature, it's suitable as a midrange as it's usable bandwidth extends far beyond typical "midrange" applications.

I'm getting a little irritated here, and not at you Scott, but in general at the constant picking at the test and not the one VERY clear thing this test showed us. 

This is the perfect opportunity to step up and discuss speaker damping. It's evident to anybody with half an audio brain that Hybrid uses a well damped cone. The lack of cone breakup says this. Your L3 displayed an elevated level of harmonic distortion on the bottom end, and maybe I can assume the L4 does as well. It's pretty simple, and I explained that earlier, how, and why this is important in midrange design when trying to find the happy medium between low end extension, high end extension and inherent harmonic distortion due to both. 

Perfect opportunity to discuss how a more damped speaker can be beneficial in a car. Perfect opportunity to discuss the benefits of lower, and higher extension than a typical midrange specific driver exhibits. These are debatable points, but worthy of debate. 

I'd really like to see you and your ilk step up and offer some insight into your approach to designing a speaker that "works well in a car". Sorry, I just choked on my own vomit saying that last sentence, but there's a case to be made. Maybe I should say, "insight into your approach to designing a speaker that works well, out of the box, in a car". 

As a wideband driver your L4 did well in the test. As a midrange it fared somewhat poorly. Instead of picking apart the test, let's discuss why this could be the case. A lot to discuss. Semantics on enclosure size just looks like damage control. When I see no need for damage control. I see a perfect opportunity to showcase why your driver is a top tier wideband driver that comes close to competing with dedicated midrange drivers, while having an extended bandwidth.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> This is the perfect opportunity to step up and discuss speaker damping.


I'll do it! I have exhausted my internet posting time for today, so let me work on something in the off-hours, and I'll back with something worthwhile!

Scott


----------



## Stage7

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

good stuff. looking fwd to this.


----------



## bassfromspace

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thanks for your response to my earlier question MVM.

I suspected cone damping would was one of the culprits in determining bandwidth.

Of all the T/S parameters, which would be directly related to damping? Why not create a test that created a range of tiers based on damping and implement the test from there?


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

guys, i'll say it agian ... there really IS something weird with the WT3 measurements.

Why did enclosing some speakers cause the resonant frequency to _drop_? That is unexpected. To first order, we expect Fs to _increase_ by the same factor as Qts, when the driver is enclosed in a sealed enclosure.

This has nothing to do with crossover freqs or slopes, in-car versus out-car testing, or comparing midranges to wide-banders.

Is it a broken WT3? Drivers that weren't broken-in (assuming that break-in _increases_ compliance, break-in will then _decrease_ Fs ... this could help explain a Fs drop after enclosed)? Or some strange enclosure reflections?

This is _not_ a criticism ... but it's also _not_ a trivial point.


----------



## KLoNe

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Oops - very late here. Could I please grab the results?

c.maier [at] qut.edu.au

Thank you


----------



## bkjay

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Look back a few pages. There is a link for test.


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



less said:


> I've found Supernatural in particular to have a very bloated lower end which I suspect is ramped up to satisfy the masses.


Jim, I couldn't agree more. I really like the song El Farol on that album but it has an extremely bloated bottom end. Almost to the point it's unlistenable. But on a system that lacks bottom end it's quite pleasing. 



Scott Buwalda said:


> When looking at the Legatia L4’s WT3 results, it appears that the L4’s were not broken-in adequately to allow for parameters to equilibrate, and for the resonant frequency to “settle” to my specifications. *The L4’s were sent as brand new, and were not burned in. It appears the L4 was simply not ready to listen to critically.*
> 
> I was, however, quite appreciative of the statement “the L4…extend(ed) higher than any other speaker tested…” which would have remained a constant, even considering the terrible enclosed Qts and inordinately high Fs which effected bottom-octave performance.
> 
> Nota Bene: The passband severely limited wide-band drivers in the test. But I knew this before I sent the L4's in to be tested, so there can be no regrets on my end. But I'd love to see how the L4 fares with the passband limitations removed. Actually, we all know how they'd perform, as many users on this board are using the L4 effectively without tweeters. In a car, it is incredibly desirous attribute to be able to play 7+ octaves with minimal or “soft” cone break-up, and thereby capturing the entire human vocal range from 160 Hz to 7,000 Hz.


I know when you sent me the L4's for testing I had the exact same thoughts. The drivers really came alive after the breakin period. It should also be noted that they had some AMAZING top end detail. I was very impressed with the top end if I didn't make that clear. 

My pair of CSS EL70's that I was running in some home cabinets sounded utterly flat and lifeless when I first put them in. After I got about a month on them they were completely different drivers with clarity that was plain phenomenal. 



MiniVanMan said:


> We have a winning post. We unfortunately don't have a winner of the pool because the bolded comment was made well after the last pool entry.
> 
> Much win in the above post.


I agree the bolded statement is very important. When I had a chance to test the L1v2 tweeters from Scott we didn't think too highly of them mounted in a flat baffle. However, when we got them in the car they were *fantastic.*



Niebur3 said:


> My question is, how was the box wrong for the L4, when it was built to the specifications I talked to you about over the phone prior to the test?


Please don't think I'm answering for Scott...but I'd imagine that the box specs he gave you were for a driver that had been broken in fully.


----------



## Buzzman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I thought I had said all I wanted to regarding this thread, but as I read more posts, I felt compelled to add more.



Niebur3 said:


> Ok guys....there has been some major changes to the test parameters that I would like to share to make sure everyone is okay (well, I don't really care if everyone is okay, but most). We have talked with many forum members regarding these changes and I thought I would post for everyone else to comment and express any objections.
> 
> *We have realized that this test is impossible to implement properly inside a car and frankly each car makes the speakers sound worse, just in a little different way. So, we are using the home, which would be the best testing environment we have easily accessible.
> 
> *We discussed in great length how in reality speakers would be utilized in a car. Most, if not all people, would either use an IB installation or small sealed enclosure in a vehicle. A medium to large sealed enclosure is just not feasible. With that said, using the WinISD program, all 18 speakers we have fit in either the small box or IB configuration. So, we have a large sealed box to act as an IB (.30 cu feet) for the drivers that perform well in IB and we are using a small sealed enclosure (.05 cu feet - using the mean, mode, median, and range to determine size) for the drivers that model better for small sealed.
> 
> *We are mounting the enclosures to baffles that are 3/4" thick and is 32" by 48".
> 
> *We are changing the frequency range. We originally tried the range at 250-5K with 36dB slope and changed right away to 250-6.3K with 12dB slope. Well, didn't work so good. We came to realize that if the speakers are doing what they are supposed to be doing...it will sound like ass (this realization has been confirmed in the last 2 days by several industry people). Any one speaker in your system would if it is playing only a certain passband. If anyone does not believe us, try listening to your mid range only between those frequencies. We played around and opened up the speakers to 16K and found the mid range part of the speaker to be much more pleasing even on speakers with a recommended frequency range much much lower and most importantly, we were now able to hear the speaker image, have depth, etc, etc. After again talking with many, it seems that 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are revealed. Now, this basically allows us to better tell if the speaker is doing all the "things" it is supposed to be doing (imaging, depth, width, staging, clarity etc.). We will not be looking at the extension and if the speaker can play high frequencies such as cymbals, etc., but just the midrange portion of the speaker. Tonality will be commented on, but will be a very minor factor as tonality can be corrected with an equalizer. Any speaker that does everything it should in the frequency range will still be doing what it should if you change the passband to add a tweeter. This is the only way to hear what we need to to be able to tell if the speaker is doing everything as it should and present usable results without adding other speakers (such as tweeters) into the mix.
> 
> *Also, I believe my last count is 17 or 18 pairs. We will be using scoring sheets based on various factors. When we post the results, the write up will include lots of info on each driver, but we are going to refuse to rank them 1-17 or 18. We will instead be classifying them in groups based on our internal scoring system. I just can rank 1 speaker above another because it won/lost by 1 or 2 points. We will allow all testers to name their overall favorite based on the results and possibly which one they would purchase taking the cost factor into it.
> 
> Please post any questions and if you do not like these new parameters and want your speakers pulled from the test...now is the time to speak up. All this learned information has taken lots of time to discover and process and we will be hoping to perform the test with these new parameters sometime within the next 2 weekends.


The post above was made by Jerry *3 weeks ago*, see post 287. Obviously, anyone having their (or a particular) speaker tested had ample opportunity to say, "whoa, don't test my speakers under those parameters," or "make sure my speaker is properly broken in before testing," or "I don't think speaker X will perform best under these parameters." Other than Lycan offering some wise words of caution, I don't recall reading any responses like that. Now, the results are published, and all sorts of criticism of the methodology, testing parameters, etc. surface. I can appreciate thoughtful questions about the validity of certain measurements because they seem inaccurate based on pure science. But, let's call a spade a spade: there is just too much sour grapes and defensiveness masquerading for thoughtful, fair responses to the test results. Question, would the objections/concerns we have read from those partial to a particular speaker been voiced if the subjective assessment of the reviewers were more favorable? Hell No!!


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Buzzman said:


> The post above was made by Jerry *3 weeks ago*, see post 287. Obviously, anyone having their (or a particular) speaker tested had ample opportunity to say, "whoa, don't test my speakers under those parameters," or "*make sure my speaker is properly broken in before testing*," or "I don't think speaker X will perform best under these parameters." Other than Lycan offering some wise words of caution, I don't recall reading any responses like that. Now, the results are published, and all sorts of criticism of the methodology, testing parameters, etc. surface. I can appreciate thoughtful questions about the validity of certain measurements because they seem inaccurate based on pure science. But, let's call a spade a spade: there is just too much sour grapes and defensiveness masquerading for thoughtful, fair responses to the test results. Question, would the objections/concerns we have read from those partial to a particular speaker been voiced if the subjective assessment of the reviewers were more favorable? Hell No!!


Don't get me wrong, I think Jerry did a better job than anyone could have. And I mean that. He took the time to justify everything he did. Nothing was done without just cause and I like that. Hell, we did a tweeter test two summers ago and our tests and results weren't an 1/16th as thorough and that I know for sure. So my hat is off to him and his group BIG time. 

The only thing I'd have altered about the test is making sure that all the drivers had been properly broken in. That's not something you need to be told to do; it's a given. Everyone knows that drivers open up more as time goes on.

Grapes don't make wine as soon as you put them into the bottle. They need time to mature. Same goes for speakers. It doesn't surprise me that the high priced, well broken in dedicated mid won this comparison.



So Jerry...you keeping any of these for your own?


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Buzzman said:


> I thought I had said all I wanted to regarding this thread, but as I read more posts, I felt compelled to add more.
> 
> The post above was made by Jerry *3 weeks ago*, see post 287. Obviously, anyone having their (or a particular) speaker tested had ample opportunity to say, "whoa, don't test my speakers under those parameters," or "make sure my speaker is properly broken in before testing," or "I don't think speaker X will perform best under these parameters."


Whoa tiger, if this was directed at me, I had PLENTY of verbal conversations and e-mails with Jerry about this test. Just because I didn't post my thoughts for _you_ to analyze on this board, doesn't mean they weren't verbalized. In fact, I spent about 40 minutes on the phone with Jerry during my spring break vacation with my wife and kids as we walked through a South Florida nature preserve, to work through some of this stuff (much to the chagrin of my wife). I was not in favor of any enclosure from the get-go, and made that quite clear. Enclosures are evil. Only when it was apparent that enclosures would *have* to be used, so as to not unfairly handicap drivers that required a small box, I relented, VERY reluctantly. But I did say that the enclosure needed to be at least three-times the Vas of the highest Vas driver, and even then, it was a guess at best, not based in any scientific measurement. I also clearly specified that the brand new drivers MUST be broken in. MUST. 



Buzzman said:


> Now, the results are published, and all sorts of criticism of the methodology, testing parameters, etc. surface.


My God, why does everyone think I was being critical suddenly? Is that how we're predisposed to think when someone posts on this damn board? And it's no wonder no "guru's" hang out here anymore; it's only a matter of time before lycan is run off. I wrote my post and re-read several times to taste my own words so that even the most sensitive DIYMA forum reader would see genuine feedback and not a tirade. I agree with the results, based upon the how the testing was conducted.



Buzzman said:


> Question, would the objections/concerns we have read from those partial to a particular speaker been voiced if the subjective assessment of the reviewers were more favorable?


If I thought a speaker got an unfair shake, hells yeah I would. I am a scientist first and foremost and business man secondary. 

Why is it so hard to own up to the fact that certain parameters seem suspect at best, like Fs rising when enclosed, or Fs being 20% off from manufacturer specification, or Qts increasing by 62%? That's scientific logic, my friend, and if you think that's sour grapes, you need to check yourself at the door.

Why can't someone embark on technical discussion on this forum anymore, without being suspect of ulterior motives or immediately made to be torn down? Guilty until proven innocent, and it sucks. I am* PLEASED AS PUNCH *that the L4 did as well as it did with an ungodly in-box Qts, a terrible in-box Fs, and a passband that covers _less than _1/2 of the L4's ability. My God, I am elated!!!

I thanked Jerry once by private e-mail, once up above, and I'll do it again. THANK YOU JERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Considering the testing sequence, I am elated that the L4 fell into the teir it did, as the highest-ranked tier of wideband midranges, considering the testing sequence and its parameters.

There, that's my "sour grapes."

Scott


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> I thanked Jerry once by private e-mail, once up above, and I'll do it again. THANK YOU JERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Considering the testing sequence, I am elated that the L4 fell into the teir it did, as the highest-ranked tier of wideband midranges, considering the testing sequence and its parameters.


I'm glad you're saying this. If enough of us try to pound the real message of the test home, then maybe some will get off the idea that these drivers were ranked in any way. 

I keep saying this, there's a lot this test can show us. The test isn't flawed if it teaches us some important facts. It does. We need to focus on those.

Anyway, I'm going to be working on modeling up the low end frequency response of the tested drivers for the enclosures they were used in, and posting the resulting graphs. It should shed some light on the matter a bit.


----------



## rain27

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I think it's reasonable that Scott would defend the performance of his L4 because he's probably done comparison tests of his own against other notable drivers and had favorable results against them. How else would you gauge the performance of the drivers you create unless you heard what the competition sounded like? I think it's fair to assume Scott has spent countless hours testing his speakers along with the competition's and therefore could expect a certain result in a test like this?


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



cajunner said:


> An explanatory addendum that divides the speakers by classification would be nice.
> 
> I am left wondering where one would install "dedicated" midranges in a car, that would not be better served by wide/full range drivers.
> 
> Is this test favoring the A-pillar install, maybe?
> 
> At home, you could use a driver that runs from 500 hz on up, but in a car where the physical placement is normally a location that is some distance from the mid-bass, where a pre-packaged crossover is very rarely "right" because install design is unknown when separating mids from the midbass, where splitting the vocal range in some of the most sensitive frequencies we can hear, here, is where the test loses it's punch to me.
> 
> I did get a lot out of the subjective portions, but from what I'm seeing it just doesn't equate to the physics of an in-car test.
> 
> I also believe that a lot of people will want to Cliff notes the whole thing, and it seems that some driver manufacturers will have a greater demand at the dealers, based on the results, subjective and "caveats" included or not.


Yeah, you're right. That's the main question that is now being brought into light. Widebander vs. dedicated midrange? Are the sacrifices in sound quality worth the advantages a widebander would have in a car? 

I have an opinion on this, but I really want to see some possibilities with reasonable debate. 

We can also add "woofer" to the mix as in the RS125 that ranked well in a test designed for midranges. The RS125 isn't any good above 3k, and requires a steep slope at 2.5k to be really effective. It would need a much better tweeter, and you lose some of the value it presents over the full range drivers. 

Full range driver with a less capable tweeter due to the increased top end extension, with some decent bottom end to avoid phase shifts in the bottom portion of the vocal range but at the cost of increased harmonic distortion. Woofer, like the RS125 with a VERY capable tweeter, that needs to be mounted vertically, right above the woofer to avoid phase shifts in the upper vocal range, but better sound quality throughout. Or a dedicated midrange, phase shifts be damned for the best sound quality throughout it's bandwidth?

These are VERY good questions.

The debate will illuminate how each needs to be utilized, and that will be invaluable.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> Anyway, I'm going to be working on modeling up the low end frequency response of the tested drivers for the enclosures they were used in, and posting the resulting graphs. It should shed some light on the matter a bit.


Do it!

This is where my curiosity now lies, on this whole topic. I'm subscribed 

Watch what happens to Fs and Qts as you enclose a driver (sealed). To first order, the enclosed parameters (Fc and Qtc) are _larger_, by the same factor (that factor being a simple function of Vas and enclosure volume).

I'm interested to see how your modeling compares to the measured results.


----------



## Gonadman2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Bummer no Focal Be 3W2...


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I am curious, I have not been to an IASCA or other type event and many years. Do they blindfold the judges scoring SQ? If not I think it would be a great idea. Just lead them to a seat, play them pre-determined music and ask them to record their scores for each vehicle. 

The reaction to this audition has been fierce. As expected when people's livelyhood is involved. But I really think that Jerry and company provided as fair test for these drivers as could be reasonably expected. 

Again can someone explain to me why in a midrange test show each driver performed in the 500-6K range is not valid. That is where a great majority of us are looking for a midrange to play. So the RS125 is more of a woofer than a midrange. It is therefore a special application driver and should not be expected to fare well in this test. I am still confused why widebanders should not excel at this bandpass. This is in their wheelhouse. As it should be for ANY midrange. 

Some drivers can play higher, some can play lower. But if the the driver does not perform as well in this bandpass, the fundamental job of any midrange, then it is lacking in my opinion. 

Of course there are a myriad of factors which affect the sound of a driver in a car. And it is true that many of these drivers have won multiple car audio competations which trumps anything on DIYMA. 

I knew this would not be received well. Let's face it this comparison is calling somebody's baby ugly. Beauty is only skin deep, but Ugly is to the bone!

If we shoot the messenger every time somebody volunteers to do some type of evaluation then we will never get anyone to do another test.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



jimbno1 said:


> Again can someone explain to me why in a midrange test show each driver performed in the 500-6K range is not valid.


i've already offered my answers ... here's ONE of them:

Are you planning a center channel? How many drivers, what size, and ... are you satisfied with a center channel that's high-passed at 500 Hz?

That's why i offered the critique that the possible _applications_ should drive the passband, rather than the weakest driver in the test.

EDIT : having said that, i also agree with the view that the PRIMARY thing we should take-away from this test is : INFORMATION ... information, that we should apply to our own application, to determine which drivers might best suit _our own_ needs. Maybe, you don't even have a center channel ... in which case, one of my arguments is completely irrelevant to you.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



jimbno1 said:


> So the RS125 is more of a woofer than a midrange. It is therefore a special application driver and should not be expected to fare well in this test. I am still confused why widebanders should not excel at this bandpass. This is in their wheelhouse. As it should be for ANY midrange.


The RS125 did fare well. That was a complete surprise by me. I offered it up as an example of working within a passband. Kind of blew up in my face, and it did very well.

The whole widebander thing has been discussed by me already. There are always sacrifices when trying to extend the performance of any one aspect of any driver, regardless of size. Widebanders focus on a wide, usable bandwidth. You have to give up something to get something. Fact of life here. 

Once I get the graphs completed and up, we'll be able to illustrate a bit better what's happening on the bottom end. I don't want to speculate on this. There are others that would be better at the speculation. 

I don't think anybody, other than a few knuckleheads are saying the test is invalid. It's a HUGE opportunity to really display what's going on with our midranges.


----------



## Stage7

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

This site really amazes me sometimes. 

Jerry (and those who helped) took the time to not only perform a test that's most likely never been done at this scale, but also write a review that's probably better than any I've read in a magazine. 

Not only that, but he shaped the test with weeks of input from everyone here beforehand. He explained his methods beforehand, and explained the context in detail again in his review. 

I'm not saying there were not legitimate questions in the mix (there were), but the overall tone smells of sour grapes from some here. It's unfortunate.

I just wanted to say thank you to Jerry (again) for taking the time to perform and write an excellent review.


----------



## kappa546

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> I don't think anybody, other than a few knuckleheads are saying the test is invalid. It's a HUGE opportunity to really display what's going on with our midranges.


 I don't think anyone, including myself, has said the test was invalid. Actually I would retract nearly every word if just the *slope* of the LP was increased. Everyone keeps saying the passband was 500-6000hz just because that's where the crossover point were centered... goes to show how poorly people understand filters. 

I came across something interesting while reviewing the test results and your statements about widerange vs midrange drivers and their respective diaphragm dampening vs "detail"... does anyone else find it interesting that two of the most well damped cones (SS and Dyn) of the bunch were the ones noted to have brought out details unheard by other rigid cones (ie: rss125's). I don't bring that up to discredit your hypothesis because I tend to agree with you, however, it goes to show that in the test there were outside variables besides the drivers contributing to the sound... like a few other birds have been chirping. I'll leave my opinions out of this since those who fail to get the picture just think this is a dung-slinging post. Instead, I'll leave the thinking up to you to devise your own conclusions.

By the way, since it seems I didn't make my gratitude clear enough the first time... THANK YOU to all of those involved in the test and in the donation of the drivers for the test. This is easily the most involved review posted on this site and has incited great conversation.

_"We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't." _Frank A Clark


----------



## pork soda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Got my Hertz HL70's back today, thanks Jerry.
The T/S parameters that were measured on this set are a cause for concern for me. A local fellow will "LMS" them when I can find some time to drop them off, and I'll post the results.For those of you that have used a WT3, have you ever measured THAT much of a difference in specs between 2 drivers from the same set? 
FWIW, this set was BNIB and had never seen power before the test.


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



pork soda said:


> Got my Hertz HL70's back today, thanks Jerry.
> The T/S parameters that were measured on this set are a cause for concern for me. A local fellow will "LMS" them when I can find some time to drop them off, and I'll post the results.For those of you that have used a WT3, have you ever measured THAT much of a difference in specs between 2 drivers from the same set?
> *FWIW, this set was BNIB and had never seen power before the test.*


I think you answered your own question there bud.


----------



## pork soda

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



ItalynStylion said:


> I think you answered your own question there bud.


So, we can assume that after a break-in period these drivers' T/S will equalize somehow?Pretty wild swings IMO.Meh.. maybe they were a Friday afternoon set, and someone from quality control was watching the soccer game on a smuggled in TV.


----------



## Buzzman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Scott Buwalda said:


> Whoa tiger, if this was directed at me, I had PLENTY of verbal conversations and e-mails with Jerry about this test. Just because I didn't post my thoughts for you to analyze on this board, doesn't mean they weren't verbalized. In fact, I spent about 40 minutes on the phone with Jerry during my spring break vacation with my wife and kids as we walked through a South Florida nature preserve, to work through some of this stuff (much to the chagrin of my wife). I was not in favor of any enclosure from the get-go, and made that quite clear. Enclosures are evil. Only when it was apparent that enclosures would *have* to be used, so as to not unfairly handicap drivers that required a small box, I relented, VERY reluctantly. But I did say that the enclosure needed to be at least three-times the Vas of the highest Vas driver, and even then, it was a guess at best, not based in any scientific measurement. I also clearly specified that the brand new drivers MUST be broken in. MUST.
> My God, why does everyone think I was being critical suddenly? Is that how we're predisposed to think when someone posts on this damn board? And it's no wonder no "guru's" hang out here anymore; it's only a matter of time before lycan is run off. I wrote my post and re-read several times to taste my own words so that even the most sensitive DIYMA forum reader would see genuine feedback and not a tirade. I agree with the results, based upon the how the testing was conducted.
> If I thought a speaker got an unfair shake, hells yeah I would. I am a scientist first and foremost and business man secondary.
> 
> Why is it so hard to own up to the fact that certain parameters seem suspect at best, like Fs rising when enclosed, or Fs being 20% off from manufacturer specification, or Qts increasing by 62%? That's scientific logic, my friend, and if you think that's sour grapes, you need to check yourself at the door.
> 
> Why can't someone embark on technical discussion on this forum anymore, without being suspect of ulterior motives or immediately made to be torn down? Guilty until proven innocent, and it sucks. I am PLEASED AS PUNCH that the L4 did as well as it did with an ungodly in-box Qts, a terrible in-box Fs, and a passband that covers less than 1/2 of the L4's ability. My God, I am elated!!!
> 
> I thanked Jerry once by private e-mail, once up above, and I'll do it again. THANK YOU JERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Considering the testing sequence, I am elated that the L4 fell into the teir it did, as the highest-ranked tier of wideband midranges, considering the testing sequence and its parameters.
> 
> There, that's my "sour grapes."


Whoa Phil (get it, Tiger, Phil? ). My post clearly did not identify you by name, and if I intended to single you out I would have. I am not shy. There were a number of posters in this thread to whom my comments were directed, and if my comments apply to you, then they do. In any case, you misinterpreted and overreacted to my post. So let me repeat my position for clarity:

1. The conditions under which the speakers would be tested were well known.
2.	Everyone had an opportunity to question, challenge, and offer thoughts on how to “improve” the testing parameters to be used.
3.	It was also known that the test parameters were not designed to offer each speaker ITS ideal conditions for purposes of testing, and that the testers were going to make compromises for reasons made known to everyone. 
4.	It’s entirely appropriate to question the validity of technical measurements made by the reviewers, particularly if those measurements may affect the listener’s subjective assessment of a speaker.
5.	It’s not appropriate to challenge or question the subjective assessment of the reviewers by stating that the reviewers’ opinions should be qualified because speaker X wasn’t tested under ideal conditions. That argument could be made for every speaker tested. See point 3 above. 

I appreciate your enlightening us about all the conversations and emails you had with Jerry about the test. By your very own comments you knowingly allowed your speakers to be tested under conditions that you suspected or knew were less than ideal. You have clearly stated that given the limitations of the testing procedures, you are pleased, no “elated,” with the reviewers’ assessment of your speakers. [Perhaps that sentiment will trickle down to those who hold your speakers in high regard and in this thread have sought to defend the merits of your speakers in the wake of this test.] But, notably, you temper your “elatedness” by stating “put the L4 in the *right* environment, and I’d put it against any midrange in the world.” (Emphasis added.) Hmmm. The “right” environment. I wouldn't be surprised if a copy of this review hasn't already been sent to Emilios at Dynaudio. I wonder if he thinks this test was the "right" environment for his speaker. 

You have properly, in my view, questioned the validity of technical measurements made by the reviewers (see my point 4 above), but have also stated that it does not appear that your speakers were broken in before testing as you requested, thereby adversely affecting their performance. Fair enough. And, it would certainly be interesting to learn the reviewers’ opinions after a “proper” breaking in period. However, based on other comments I have read, the same claim can be made regarding other speakers reviewed in this test. This issue highlights the pitfalls of participating in a test like this, and leads to the following question: should breaking in the speakers be the responsibility of the testers, or the manufacturer (or person submitting the speaker for testing, as the case may be)? I think that’s a fair question. After all, “breaking in” is one performance variable the manufacturer knows best, and in a test like this I would think would want to control given the other variables over which it did not have control.

Finally, I am at a loss as to how my position, as stated in this thread, threatens anyone’s ability to engage in relevant, sensible technical discussion on this forum. Again, I never said that questionable technical results shouldn’t be noted and challenged. I think it’s very healthy that a number of people have addressed these issues, and pointed out what really should be taken away from a test like this, and how the results should be interpreted so that proper decisions can be made about a particular speaker and how it fits a user’s intended application. This point is especially important because it’s undeniable that for many the results of this test were a means of validating whichever product choice they made, or are considering making. Just look back at all the comments to the effect of “speaker X was the best! Yeah.” or “I am glad I bought speaker Y." As I stated in a previous post, why should you [the generic "you"] care what this panel of reviewers think about your favorite speaker if you enjoy what your speaker is doing in your *car*? After all, you might be using it in the “right” application and in the “right” environment.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



MiniVanMan said:


> Anyway, I'm going to be working on modeling up the low end frequency response of the tested drivers for the enclosures they were used in, and posting the resulting graphs. It should shed some light on the matter a bit.


Any progress on the modeling VanMan? The Fs _decrease_ (for some drivers, but not all) after enclosing remains perplexing to me ...

For others ... this is not some academic exercise that's disconnected from how the drivers actually "sound". Resolving this mystery is pretty important, in my view.


----------



## HIS4

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I'm just trying to get a copy of the results. I emailed for it but haven't heard anything for a week.


----------



## trevordj

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



HIS4 said:


> I'm just trying to get a copy of the results. I emailed for it but haven't heard anything for a week.


Go to post 442; the results have been available for download here since the day they were released. 



matdotcom2000 said:


> You can click on it below.... THANKS FOR DOING THE TEST again!!!!!


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I swear....if one more person asks for results....!


----------



## HIS4

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



ItalynStylion said:


> I swear....if one more person asks for results....!


Thanks, but honestly, I followed this post for maybe the first 7 pages and got tired of all the bitching and moaning.


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

The thread search function that is used to search within the thread is gold. I use it all the time.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> The Fs _decrease_ (for some drivers, but not all) after enclosing remains perplexing to me ... Resolving this mystery is pretty important, in my view.


I can only comment on the Esotar 430.

My WT3 results are below

Fs - free air - 94.2Hz (30Hz above mfr spec)
Fs - 2.5L sealed - 123.1Hz


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



eng92 said:


> I can only comment on the Esotar 430.
> 
> My WT3 results are below
> 
> Fs - free air - 94.2Hz (30Hz above mfr spec)
> Fs - 2.5L sealed - 123.1Hz


Fs _increase_ after enclosing makes sense. Variation to manufacturer specs is one issue (may be partly explained by breaking-in, which loosens/increases compliance and therefore decreases Fs), but a separate issue is why some speakers would actually see a _decrease_ in Fs after enclosing.

Your results are not a mystery to me ... at least the Fs moves in the expected direction


----------



## Buzzman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> Fs _increase_ after enclosing makes sense. Variation to manufacturer specs is one issue (may be partly explained by breaking-in, which loosens/increases compliance and therefore decreases Fs), but a separate issue is why some speakers would actually see a _decrease_ in Fs after enclosing.
> 
> Your results are not a mystery to me ... at least the Fs moves in the expected direction


I am following this to see what you conclude here. Perhaps it might help facilitate the analysis if those speakers that exhibited a decrease in Fs after enclosing were listed (so that we don't have to go back and read the report each time), and some attempt was made to determine what commonalities they share in terms of design, etc.? Or, perhaps, whether there was something in the evaluation process that was done consistently with these speakers and not the others? I know you have asked whether the WT3 used might possibly be defective, but short of having Jerry send it back for testing, perhaps steps like the ones I suggested might help lead to an answer. Just a thought.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> Any progress on the modeling VanMan? The Fs _decrease_ (for some drivers, but not all) after enclosing remains perplexing to me ...
> 
> For others ... this is not some academic exercise that's disconnected from how the drivers actually "sound". Resolving this mystery is pretty important, in my view.


The mystery remains ...

And if the WT3 measurements are indeed valid, it really does call into question the enclosures themselves ... and consequently any listening tests using those enclosures.

Again ... this strange behavior of Fs _decreasing_ after some drivers are put in sealed enclosures is _not_ a mere academic exercise, disconnected from real "listening". Quite the opposite, really ... it suggests, perhaps, something strange with the enclosures that would _dramatically_ impact the listening sessions.

After some thought, the only things i can think of are :

1. Driver break-in. The Fs of a driver is expected to drop as it breaks-in (due to increasing compliance). Were some drivers breaking-in, _during_ the testing sequence?

2. Enclosure reflections/resonances.

3. Enclosure vibrations.

And i honestly don't know how to quantify the last two, other than summarily categorize them as "non-ideal".


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I am not sure what could have happened regarding the enclosures. They were made of 3/4" and just basic square boxes. They mounted to the back of the baffle with 4 screws with a layer of weather stripping in between. The front baffle was built the same way.

I hooked the WT3 to the end of the speaker wire going up and into the box connecting the speaker. 

Now, we used alligator clips to connect the wire to some speakers and spade connectors for others. I did not calibrate the connectors or wire...could this be the cause??? I would really love to figure out why the data is wrong, because I know the test enclosures were solid.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> I am not sure what could have happened regarding the enclosures. They were made of 3/4" and just basic square boxes. They mounted to the back of the baffle with 4 screws with a layer of weather stripping in between. The front baffle was built the same way.


square boxes 

Apologies if it's already in your report, but what were the box dimensions? We can then estimate the resonant modes that the enclosures might support. I know the volumes were listed, could you post the box dimensions?

Probably too small to impact performance near 100~200Hz, though ...


----------



## Arezump

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

What an excellent review i must say! been craving for this kind of review actually..  but, i wonder on how the final result will be if Seas Lotus/Excel have this kind of 4 inch midrange format? will they share the podium too?


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> Any progress on the modeling VanMan?


Sorry, I've been VERY busy lately and haven't gotten to it. I'll get some time on it in the near future.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> square boxes
> 
> Apologies if it's already in your report, but what were the box dimensions? We can then estimate the resonant modes that the enclosures might support. I know the volumes were listed, could you post the box dimensions?
> 
> Probably too small to impact performance near 100~200Hz, though ...


2 1/2 X 7 X 7 for the small box (outside measurements) and 9 1/2 in^3 for the large box (outside measurements). Remember, these were made with 3/4 inch wood and mounted to the back of a 3/4 baffle. Square ? I don't know how many times I asked about doing a sphere or transmission line. Everyone said a square enclosure was fine.


----------



## ItalynStylion

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



lycan said:


> square boxes


My first thought as well but I don't know that it would be a huge deal with a midrange test. On the other hand, I have no numbers to back up that statement.


----------



## kyheng

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

As far as I know, volume and port tuning does matters. Shape I don't think it will affect much.


----------



## HIS4

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Just for clarification, I'm assuming the Peerless Exclusives tested here is the old 830881 that has been discontinued. Correct?


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



kyheng said:


> As far as I know, volume and port tuning does matters. Shape I don't think it will affect much.


shape absolutely matters: for frequencies where ~1/2 wavelength is less than an enclosure dimension. Standing waves & resonances can be supported, for frequencies that satisfy this requirement.

Almost never a concern for subwoofers, for obvious reasons. But definitely a concern for midrange drivers.


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



HIS4 said:


> Just for clarification, I'm assuming the Peerless Exclusives tested here is the old 830881 that has been discontinued. Correct?


Yes but there are some sources outside of the US that still have stock.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I cobbled together an enclosure today that matches the dimensions for the small test enclosure that Jerry provided above. (7"x7"x2.5" external + a 3/4" front baffle) 



















My WT3 results









Fs (free air) 92.2 Hz
Fs (0.87L sealed) 166.9Hz

The trend is consistent with the larger 2.5L enclosure I previously tested where the Fs was 123.1 Hz


EDIT - I should add that the WT3 was calibrated with a 1K +/- 0.1% resistor (purchased separately) and the speaker wire was shorted with the test leads for the test lead calibration.


----------



## jimbno1

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

That makes me fell a little better. I was about ready to return my WT3 which they used in the shootout.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



jimbno1 said:


> That makes me fell a little better. I was about ready to return my WT3 which they used in the shootout.


The shootout WT3 results went the opposite way for this particular driver.
Fs (free air) 98.3Hz
Fs (sealed) 87.5 Hz


----------



## quality_sound

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I know I've done it before, but maybe the results simply got fat-fingered and it really DID raise the Fs in the enclosure.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I guess I did not read the report carefully enough the first time around.

"_Electrical Testing:
All speakers were individually tested in free air and a single driver was tested in the listening test enclosure using the WT3 Woofer Tester. During the free air test the drivers were tested *basket side down on the kitchen table*."_

The Esotar 430 driver is vented out the rear. I know when I was doing some intial WT3 testing I would get a higher Fs result if I sat it basket down on the table compared to if I just held it in my hand.
I am sure there must be other drivers where testing in this manner would have a similar effect. 

If you look at the results of all the drivers that were tested in small enclosures (9 units), in all cases, the Fs in the enclosure went down. It looks to me like the WT3 results in the report were all for drivers mounted in the baffle with no enclosure behind (ie. IB) 

Also "small" changes in the WT3 measured value of Fs, say < 8 Hz, are not uncommon for the same driver tested on different days. I have seen my results change by easily 4-6Hz with changes in environment (temp, %RH)


EDIT
The actual mfrs published value for Fs for the Scan 12M driver is 75Hz http://www.scan-speak.dk/datasheet/12m_4631g00.htm and not 155Hz as indicated in the report. I thought that was awful high compared to the other drivers. It also corresponds exactly to the Fs measured in the enclosure. This further adds credence to the assertion that the published WT3 results are all for drivers tested IB.


----------



## lycan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

eng92, thanks for helping to resolve these mysteries concerning the measured results  

I'm not sure that all the weird discrepencies have been explained, but i'm glad to see someone else taking these issues seriously.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



eng92 said:


> "_Electrical Testing:
> All speakers were individually tested in free air and a single driver was tested in the listening test enclosure using the WT3 Woofer Tester. During the free air test the drivers were tested *basket side down on the kitchen table*."_ I know when I was doing some intial WT3 testing I would get a higher Fs result if I sat it basket down on the table compared to if I just held it in my hand.
> I am sure there must be other drivers where testing in this manner would have a similar effect.


Agreed. I've noticed the same. T/S parameters and impedance will be different when the vent pole is blocked vs. when it is allowed to vent. Because of this, I either hold my in my hand or set it facing down on a spacer ring of some sort to allow the vent to do it's job.


----------



## mmiller

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Would the people involved in this Test be willing to do a 3 inch shootout??? Like the Tangband, hat L3.. H-Audio Trinity.. ect...


----------



## DAT

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



mmiller said:


> Would the people involved in this Test be willing to do a 3 inch shootout??? Like the Tangband, hat L3.. H-Audio Trinity.. ect...


It would be great if Jerry and the others would but I don't see them doing these as quite a few members acted like an ass about the results.

But you never know.


----------



## Buzzman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



mmiller said:


> Would the people involved in this Test be willing to do a 3 inch shootout??? Like the Tangband, hat L3.. H-Audio Trinity.. ect...


They might if you buy them Kevlar vests and Alka Seltzer. :laugh:


----------



## bigabe

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Well, I read this whole thread, and the review PDF. All I can say is... well... AWESOME write-up... entertaining bitching and moaning, and my Dynaudio boner just grew a little.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Buzzman said:


> They might if you buy them Kevlar vests and Alka Seltzer. :laugh:


Yeah, they were initially willing to work for beer, but they quickly found out that there's not enough alcohol to **** that ***** anymore.


----------



## WLDock

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



mmiller said:


> Would the people involved in this Test be willing to do a 3 inch shootout??? Like the Tangband, hat L3.. H-Audio Trinity.. ect...


It would have been cool if these could have made it:

FOCAL Utopia 3W2 Be 
Scan-Speak Discovery 10F/4424G
SB Acoustics SB12NRXF25-4

3" and 4" groupings would have been nice but I guess the better drivers would shine regardless of the grouping.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



cajunner said:


> if 92 is to 166,
> 
> maybe 98 is to 187.5?
> 
> maybe a 1 was simply omitted in the data entry?


The WT3 curves support the tabulated values as being accurate for the conditions the drivers were tested under.


----------



## eng92

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



cajunner said:


> then I'm missing a part of the puzzle.
> 
> if it says "free-air" then it's free air.
> 
> if it says "in the enclosure" then it's in the enclosure.
> 
> how can Fs go down when you put it in a box?


In post 576 above, I made the assertion that all the published WT3 results for the drivers in "small" enclosures were actually obtained from the drivers mounted in the baffle plate with no enclosure in behind.

The free air results were taken with drivers sitting basket down on a table. This can increase the measured value of Fs if it interferes with the ability of the driver to vent properly.


----------



## mmiller

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



DAT said:


> It would be great if Jerry and the others would but I don't see them doing these as quite a few members acted like an ass about the results.
> 
> But you never know.




I actually though there would be a lot more BS than there has been.... Not that I am condoning the BS that some did start....

It should be Private... Results be emailed Privately, and sworn not to be mentioned on any forum.... and you should have to pay 10-15 Bucks.... Its just like buying a Magazine, only over the Net.

I dunno, maybe this is a Stupid idea???


----------



## npdang

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I applaud and greatly appreciate the effort that went into this. It was a tremendous amount of work to write all that up and go through all the testing, listening, measuring, building, shipping, etc. Trust me I know!

That being said and without reading through all the pages here, I found the results to be pretty interesting. Given the source material, output level, and choice of filtering points, the results come as absolutely no surprise to me. As I see it smooth and wide power response becomes the primary/critical factor in determining where a speaker ranks in this test. I believe the results clearly bear this out. 

However, a different test such as one where the drivers are fully and optimally integrated with a tweeter... or one which used distortion/tone bursts may have yielded significantly different results. For example if you had tested the Seas Excel W15ch under those conditions it would have sounded downright awful, but notch the breakup and lower the lowpass filter an octave with a steeper filter and it would sound amazing.


----------



## MiniVanMan

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



npdang said:


> For example if you had tested the Seas Excel W15ch under those conditions it would have sounded downright awful, but notch the breakup and lower the lowpass filter an octave with a steeper filter and it would sound amazing.


This exact thing was an eyebrow raiser for me when I read the results.

The RS125 is in the group and it did very well. I sent him the RS125 _because_ it had a significant break up node for almost a full octave on the top end, but it still did very well. 

It was an interesting result, and obviously not one that I expected. 

In interpreting the results, I have garnered that the RS125 is a tremendous driver when used within it's operating bandwidth, which would mean almost a full octave below the low pass that's set in this test.


----------



## GlasSman

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



mmiller said:


> It should be Private... Results be emailed Privately, and sworn not to be mentioned on any forum.... and you should have to pay 10-15 Bucks.... Its just like buying a Magazine, only over the Net.
> 
> I dunno, maybe this is a Stupid idea???


There are no stupid ideas.....but that wasn't too bright.


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Wow, I'm truly impressed with the exercise. For a subjective test this is about as good as I've seen it get. Hopefully all the wannabe competitions will adopt the blindfold now although I doubt it. 

I find it funny there is so much arguing over fullrange vs. midrange when imo the crossover is somewhere between, it should favor none. I mean who runs these filters? Anybody?

A first step would be to try to replicate the exercise. If this is to build and scientific momentum it would be nice to see if the any other judges would come to the same conclusion. Even a retest with the same judges would be interesting. It's not that I know any of these guys but they are still human, how do we know this is not just an artifact? 

Second step would be to use different filters. I mean, FWIW once you add filters and an enclosure the test becomes just that, the best driver for this particular application. 

Third step is to integrate with tweeter and possibly woofer.

Keep on going, this is great!  With no Klippel testing what else is worth a penny?


----------



## BLD MOVS

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

So I was checking my email this morning and received my subscribed email from Dynaudio which included a small tidbit on their mobile audio line including information about this post on DIYMA.com. In it included a clickable link to a pdf that is on Dynaudio’s website. I just wanted to say congratulations and thanks to Jerry, Alex and all of the others that made this test possible and to make it into the Dynaudio newsletter. I have met and talked to both Jerry and Alex and respect both of their opinions when it comes to high end car audio/home theater. Oh, and let me know if you need help sweeping the floors or cleaning the toilets over there at Home Theaters Etc. 

http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/download/Midrange_Test_USA.pdf

Home Theaters Etc - Omaha's Premiere Home Electronics Firm - Home Theaters Omaha


----------



## t3sn4f2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Does anyone know which sound or part of the song is it that is referred to in the listening test as "the chair moving" in the Damien Rice's "9 crimes"? And just to make sure, the song is the first version on the album and not last one label "9 crimes (Demo)" correct?

Is it the creeks in the soft parts at the beginning of the track?


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Yes, there are several creeks and some speakers made this very noticeable, while others it was barley audible. Correct on the version.


----------



## t3sn4f2

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> Yes, there are several creeks and some speakers made this very noticeable, while others it was barley audible. Correct on the version.


Ah ok, thanks Jerry. 

By the way, beautiful job on those kick panels.


----------



## edouble101

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Good read, thanks


----------



## LS2Ttype

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I like Boston Pro 4.4's and 4.5's i have a set of new 4.5's that are going in the rear deck of my 87 Buick t type.

Back in the day i had MB quarts 4" components, my friend had ADS 4" in his dash of his S-10 Blazer , his system was very impressive , to date the best i ever heard,


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

I nearly forgot about this. Now that I've grown in y understanding of drivers, i have different opinions than I once did. 

I must say, I'm still impressed at how this testing was provided and there certainly was a lot of thought that went in to it. Im considering hosting a GTG next year and picking up where this left off... But with some twists. 

Anyway, I wanted to bump this; this is one of other better threads on this site if for nothing else than the undertaking of the task.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thanks Erin. I appreciate the kind words. This was a tremendous undertaking and I have heard other words similar to yours in email form from other members. Unfortunately many seem to not understand what actually went into this and the time involve. Thankful you do!


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

every now and again I remember this thread. 

I tested the Dyn 430 about a month ago on the klippel and was honestly pretty impressed by its performance as a midrange driver. Pretty dang good frequency response. Probably one of the best I've seen for a pure midrange, recalling by memory.
You can see my testing here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...cs/120414-dynaudio-esotar-2-430-take-2-a.html

The Scanspeak 12m, which took 2nd place, also has a very, very good frequency response on-axis, evidenced by Zaph's results.
http://www.zaphaudio.com/smalltest/Scanspeak-12M4631G-FR.gif
Though, it would be good to see off-axis measurements of the 12m to see how that might have influenced the results of the test. 

Back to the 430:
The harmonic distortion is below 1% THD above 400hz at 102dB @ 0.5m. This is pretty dang good as well. IMO, it means you don't really have to sweat it. The volume tested is higher than any other tester uses and is pretty much a balls to the wall sweep. Have you ever listened to music above 99dB in your car, _legitimately_? 
It has a rising 3rd order distortion that shows up above 2khz which may or may not give some coloration and unnaturalness to the sound but, to be honest, there's no one who has really successfully tied subjectivity to various orders of distortion. 

Overall, I actually think that Jerry's testing might very well be backed up by my measurements. It's certainly interesting to consider. 
The more I test, the more I find that having as near a flat frequency response in a given passband is by far a much more important aspect in quality reproduction. It seems that as long as you're in a nominal passband for a given driver (ie: as long as you use a midrange as a midrange and not as midbass or a tweeter), the HD is typically nothing to fret. HD is a good pointer toward crossover, but let's say for the sake of argument that you're using a reasonable crossover... in these cases HD isn't terribly high. This just further gives me more incentive to not really worry about it other than to help determine a good passband; and in this passband to focus more on the frequency response and find the driver that performs most linearly (yes, I said linear, not flat, for a reason).


Worth noting, too, is that Jerry's testing shows significantly higher quality control from driver to driver (evidenced by his % differences measured with the woofer tester). I understand as much as anyone that conditions make accurately measuring a driver's T/S parameters tough, but reading through the report, I believe Jerry covered his bases. 
So, given that, it also makes you wonder if the other drivers tested more poorly than the 430 in their subjective tests due to quality control "issues" (for a lack of a better word). 


And, again, I must thank Jerry for taking the time to do this.

Hopefully as I go, I can provide more data on some of the drivers Jerry tested for further comparison. That, or Jerry can do this again with some drivers I have already tested or will be able to test soon.


- Erin


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Thanks for posting this Erin. I am glad that the technical data seemed to support the subjective data. I think the important part in all this is that we understand why we like one speaker over another and maybe be able to one day see the Klippel data and know if that speaker is right for the particular install or not.

I totally agree with you that the passband makes such a vast difference in the subjective performance of the driver. The true midrange drivers scored highest in the midrange test. The others, not so much. It is VERY important to use a particular driver for its intended purpose, with placement and passband being a very important aspect.

It would be fun one day to group the like drivers and do further testing, including some newer drivers that have just come out.

I am proud to be a Dynaudio/Rainbow/HAT dealer and be apart of a forum with some of the best car audio minds in the industry. I am humbled almost on a daily basis. Thanks for all the Klippel testing you do Erin. You are an asset to this community.


----------



## WLDock

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> It would be fun one day to group the like drivers and do further testing, including some newer drivers that have just come out.


OK, we're waiting.

I would donate my Tang Band W3-1878 drivers to the mix and would like to see that new CSS VWR126X XBL widwband driver tested.


----------



## Lorin

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

when speaking of the importance of running a driver within its passband, how are you determining the passband? So many of todays new drivers are being touted as "wide-banders" with the ABILITY to play a large range of frequencies. I would speculate that although it may have the ability, it may not play the farther ends of the spectrum in a linear and\or flat manner? How then to determine frequencies best used? Say a 3 inch widebander that says it plays from 200-20000 hz. It would seem that 200 hz is squarely in the meat of the mid-bass area, but that doesnt mean that the driver will perform in a linear manner to that point. That said, what are your thoughts?


----------



## ErinH

Look at my reply above. I mentioned using HD to determine a good band pass region. Couple that with the FR in all axes and you have a very good understanding of a nominal passband.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



WLDock said:


> OK, we're waiting.
> 
> I would donate my Tang Band W3-1878 drivers to the mix and would like to see that new CSS VWR126X XBL widwband driver tested.


Hmmmmm. Ultimately, I would love to do a 2nd test, but this time limit the number of drivers to a more manageable level so that I can spend more time with each driver.


----------



## CDT FAN

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



Niebur3 said:


> Ok, update:
> 
> The test results (20 pages worth) are being proof read and results will be available on Tues or Wed. I would like to start sending back speakers tonight and tomorrow. If anyone is willing to donate to cover return shipping charges (thanks to all that have already), please send what you can ASAP to [email protected].
> 
> Thanks again!


I have been reading through the thread, but I didn't see the results posted. Can we still get a copy of the report?


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Yep, just PM me your email address.


----------



## kizz

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*

Maybe a subwoofer test should be next. He He He


----------



## Niebur3

I am bumping this just to let everyone know that Erin was able to add the results .pdf for this thread as well on page 1 and he split the original thread so it is a very similar fashion as the mid-woofer test.

Thanks Erin!


----------



## lizardking

Where are the results?


----------



## Niebur3

Ask Erin (bikinpunk)


----------



## ErinH

Not sure why it didn't stick to the OP when I split the thread. Ill fix it tomorrow, though. Long day doing daughters birthday stuff and I'm not up to it tonight.


----------



## ErinH

fixed. results attached to OP.


----------



## lizardking

That CSS midrange is very interesting and seems to have some great reviews. I wonder how that would stack up as well.


----------



## Golden Ear

2&1/2 years later and this is still a very relevant test. Nice job Jerry and co.! I'm subscribing because as of right now my next purchase will be the 2nd place winner but I want to make sure that doesn't change.

Scott said earlier (around 2 years ago now) that all the gurus have gone, where can I find them?


----------



## Schramm

Voice Coil Magazine did some scientific testing on the 12MU/4731T00 in the April 2012 issue. It is a worthwhile read and will introduce you to the more technical side of driver testing. Voice Coil Magazine | AudioAmateur


----------



## WestCo

Niebur3 said:


> This thread is dedicated to the discussion of the 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout performed in April 2010. If you would like information on how the test was performed or any discussion leading up to the test, please view this thread.
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ge-comparison-shootout-dyn-scan-hat-more.html
> 
> Attached are the results. Please discuss and ask any questions you have.


Thank you very much for your time and hard work. I understand why I have not been happy with my HAT products...

I will be on the look out for Dyns and Scans.
I would like to know your thoughts on audiable physics as well!


----------



## neo_styles

Great comparison and breakdown. This makes me want to play around with that 5" Dayton mid all the more. Crazy that it performs so well at its price point in comparison.

That being said, out of those of you who have played around with that mid, what did you end up BP-ing it to and were you successful running it without a dedicated midbass? I'm planning a SQ build for a couple years from now and debating between doing the RS180 with the 4" mid and either a set of LCY ribbons or RS textile dome tweets for a 1st gen Tahoe.


----------



## xtremekustomz

*Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More*



t3sn4f2 said:


> Does anyone know which sound or part of the song is it that is referred to in the listening test as "the chair moving" in the Damien Rice's "9 crimes"? And just to make sure, the song is the first version on the album and not last one label "9 crimes (Demo)" correct?
> 
> Is it the creeks in the soft parts at the beginning of the track?


I picked up on chair movement 7 times: 1:07, 1:14, 1:20, 1:27, 2:01, 2:07 and 2:14. This was in the factory dash locations in my 2008 Altima with Fountek FR88EX's powered by a us amps usa200x. Factory 6 1/2's in doors were also powered with a 200x and w200/h701 processor. Overall I'm quite pleased. I heard good reviews about the little 3's so I wanted to give them a shot. I also wanted to see how the factory 6 1/2's would sound with some power going to them. The real install should be coming up soon. Idq 8's in kicks, idmax 12's in the rear and still working on what I'm going to do for midrange. More than likely Hybrid L3's.


----------



## Melis

Hi Mr. Niebur, I have been waiting anxiously in hopes that you would do another magazine quality review like the midrange test, and midbass test you did more recently. I can't stress enough how well thought out, written and enjoyable your tests have been to me ! Really loved the midbass test too, pictures and write up were awesome. Wish it had a little more information on the midbass detail in the test like what songs did what in each midbass brand. Regardless, i enjoyed it and ask that you will do more?

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ve-listening-shootout-dyn-hat-scan-focal.html

I am a little older and your write ups remind me of the good old days when I read CA&E and my favorite Car Stereo Review. I was so hoping you kept this going as a regular installment or maybe an Ezine. You mention in your midbass test you will have an amp review? Please update, as I am an observer on this site but find it a little on the boring side lately (please no one attack me). So you know I have recently added a dedicated midrange to my car and it is a little tough to dial in the system but once you do, you are correct, big difference! 

I am hoping to save my money and upgrade to the Dynaudio or Scan speak systems one day soon but your dedicated midrange suggestion has made a nice change in my vehicle. Please update us...please.


----------



## Niebur3

Thanks man, I really appreciate the kind words. Posts like this makes we want to start testing again.


----------



## Miguel mac

Hi all.

Any people send me PDF with results for [email protected]

Thanks


----------



## Miguel mac

BLD MOVS said:


> So I was checking my email this morning and received my subscribed email from Dynaudio which included a small tidbit on their mobile audio line including information about this post on DIYMA.com. In it included a clickable link to a pdf that is on Dynaudio’s website. I just wanted to say congratulations and thanks to Jerry, Alex and all of the others that made this test possible and to make it into the Dynaudio newsletter. I have met and talked to both Jerry and Alex and respect both of their opinions when it comes to high end car audio/home theater. Oh, and let me know if you need help sweeping the floors or cleaning the toilets over there at Home Theaters Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/download/Midrange_Test_USA.pdf
> 
> Home Theaters Etc - Omaha's Premiere Home Electronics Firm - Home Theaters Omaha



The link no work


----------



## Niebur3

Sent


----------



## Miguel mac

niebur3 said:


> Sent



Thank you, guy


----------

