# Domes & Cones Midrange questions



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

I am planning to go 3-way. I am looking into the difference in cones and domes....midrange only


Here is what I know.


Cones
pros: plays lower than a dome(~250hz lower), but can play just as high; and cheaper
cons: off-axis response isnt so great; takes up more space to an extent


Domes: 
pros: Better off-axis response, smaller, maybe smoother sound
Cons: doesnt play lower(like lower than 500hz); expensive 


For a cone driver i am highly considering the TG9

For a dome i was thinking of using an Irridium, havent decided if i should use the 3" one or the smaller one. I was also thinking to use morel domes or DYnaaudios

another dynaaudio


Im not sure which one i want to use  your advice will be appreciated.

They will be glassed into the A-pillars(in an accord sdn 00) along with my Hertz hsk165s Tweeter. Im leaning towards the dynaaudios(not sure which ones though, that 3" one is heavy on price though). but the tg9 would do good playing lower, im thinking it will bring stage height higher but im not sure if that low is necessary to achieve the height.

~mir ali~


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

That much separation between the midbass and the midrange drivers will not do well for a dome (IMO). Mainly due to the highish crossover point you'll need to use. The crossover point will be smack in the middle of both of male and female vocals (1st and 2nd harmonics for female, and 2nd and 3rd for males). 

So, I'd go with the TG9. Nice little driver. You can also look at some of the Tangband offerings. Many of them get good reviews.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> That much separation between the midbass and the midrange drivers will not do well for a dome (IMO). Mainly due to the highish crossover point you'll need to use. The crossover point will be smack in the middle of both of male and female vocals (1st and 2nd harmonics for female, and 2nd and 3rd for males).
> 
> So, I'd go with the TG9. Nice little driver. You can also look at some of the Tangband offerings. Many of them get good reviews.


The X-over point that you're talking about for the dome mids? Roughly what frequency are you talking about? Is that the 500Hz range? I'm just curious here as I know that the DLS IR3 dome mid can be crossed as low as 300Hz with a 36dB/oct slope and I was curious if that would be low enough to avoid the problem you mentioned. Thanks in advance.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Boostedrex said:


> The X-over point that you're talking about for the dome mids? Roughly what frequency are you talking about? Is that the 500Hz range? I'm just curious here as I know that the DLS IR3 dome mid can be crossed as low as 300Hz with a 36dB/oct slope and I was curious if that would be low enough to avoid the problem you mentioned. Thanks in advance.


Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as I kind of made it sound. So, in general, yeah, 500 hz is the low end of where you'd cross a lot of domes. The IR3 probably can handle 300 hz with a 36db slope, but that's a very steep slope, and probably quite a few domes can handle that range with that kind of slope. The Dayton RS52 can get down close to that far as well. I don't know if I recommend it though. 

To the other question, yeah, 300 hz is better than 500 hz, but still not great. My personal opinion is to keep the crossover point below 250 hz. Now understand, that while I say this, I have a pair of Adire SF7s, mated to a pair Dayton RS52s in my wife's car crossed in the 600 hz range. The RS52 are in kicks, ran relatively on the same axis as the SF7s, making the crossover point a bit more seamless IMO. It still to A LOT of tuning around the crossover point to get it right. Messing with the 2nd and 3rd harmonics of a vocal reproduction can really kill the overall sound, and throwing a crossover point in there doesn't help. 

So, I guess, if you have a ton of tuning capability (i.e. I use the DCX-730), then you can accomplish a lot more than if you're using even a high end head unit for all your tuning. 

I know the RS52 is a fantastic sounding driver, however put it in a car and it seems to want to tear your head off. Domes generally behave similarly, but when implemented well, can sound really great. Like I said though, plan to tune, tune, and tune some more to get them tamed, and normalized. 

While domes may extend higher than coned drivers, with the challenges in car audio, I don't think the benefits outweigh the sacrifices. A good coned driver will cover the critical midrange ranges just fine, and the upper end extension lost by not going with a dome is not nearly as detrimental as the low end lost by not going with a coned driver. Especially, when the two drivers will be separated by the amount the OP is talking about. That much separation just wreaks havoc on your staging, and imaging when you have a crossover point in the 500-700 hz range.


----------



## DonutHands (Jan 27, 2006)

+ most domes come with an enclosure


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

im leaning towards the dynas so i dont have to mess with imaging and no need to take up more space for airbag to deploy


----------



## Luke352 (Jul 24, 2006)

Of interest talking of xover points for domes, I know the xover point on the DLS UR2.5 passive xover is actually 450hz @6db.

I would go with the DLS or Morel Domes, these are both able to be crossed lower then the Dyn dome which uses a factory xover of about 900hz I believe, but I could be wrong.


I don't agree that most cones will play as high as a Dome, most cone mids will still only play upto 3k there are exceptions of course, but in a wider sense most domes will play higher 5k-6k. 

Luke


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

Luke352 said:


> I don't agree that most cones will play as high as a Dome, most cone mids will still only play upto 3k there are exceptions of course, but in a wider sense most domes will play higher 5k-6k.


And thats due to the concept of "beaming"


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Yea

Beaming is a *****.

My next order i'm grabbing up a pair of the TG9's as well, for future use.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Well, crap...I thought the tg9's were a dome? I thought cones were the ones that had that weird cone in the center of the speaker.

Someone care to explain the physical differences, since my previous assumption seemed to be wrong?


FWIW, I have the tg9's on-axis and they seem to perform pretty well. My only complaint about them is that they have a little bit of trouble "keeping up" with the rest of my setup, and I assume that it's due mainly to its low sensitivity.


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

Saying that "domes have better off-axis response" is too generalized a statement and can be shown to be inaccurate. You need to consider the size of the cone and, quite possibly, it's shape. 

Has anyone checked the manufacturer's FR curves for the TG9's and, for example, the Dyns... to my old eyes it looks as though 60 degree off-axis response for the TG9's is only down around 7 db at 5 kHz versus the Dyns which are down substantially more... closer to 18 db...


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

What about the ATC domes though?  LOL j/k please go on with the discussion


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

Luke352 said:


> Of interest talking of xover points for domes, I know the xover point on the DLS UR2.5 passive xover is actually 450hz @6db.
> 
> I would go with the DLS or Morel Domes, these are both able to be crossed lower then the Dyn dome which uses a factory xover of about 900hz I believe, but I could be wrong.
> 
> ...


Well i was reading an older thread about the tg9 compared to the l3. that it can be run without a tweeter and wouldnt sound soo "terrible". but yes playing low and playing high is a hard task to accomplish at the same time.  

and the Dyna md140/2 can be played from 500hz-6khz


kevin k. said:


> *Saying that "domes have better off-axis response" is too generalized a statement and can be shown to be inaccurate.* You need to consider the size of the cone and, quite possibly, it's shape.
> 
> Has anyone checked the manufacturer's FR curves for the TG9's and, for example, the Dyns... to my old eyes it looks as though 60 degree off-axis response for the TG9's is only down around 7 db at 5 kHz versus the Dyns which are down substantially more... closer to 18 db...


I am sure you are right. BUT, _most_ cases its true...


I just realised those dynas are priced each and not a set  I read that the Daytons RS52an would be a good dome? but only downside i can see is they are 8ohms and i dont have an amplifier to supply the power for it.


----------



## kevin k. (May 5, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> I am sure you are right. BUT, _most_ cases its true...


I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that "most" domes have better off-axis response than cones. Would you please elaborate? Your statement is based on what real world experience? Have you used the domes in question? Have you had the chance to measure them compared to different midrange cone drivers? In the same environment / install?

I have owned and tested the Dyn MD140's, DLS IR3's, and currently have ATC SM75-150 domes in my car... all used and tested in the same car.

In that same car I have had the good fortune to use various cone mids... AudioTechnology C-Quenze H15's, Accuton C89/T-6's, Seas Excel 15's, Lotus RM110's, Scan Speak 12M Revelators and 15W Revelators, HAT Legatia 3's, Focal Utopia 136's and I forget what else right now.

I was able to measure all of them at various times utilizing a Bruel and Kjaer Type 2250 and an AudioControl RTA.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

kevin k. said:


> I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that "most" domes have better off-axis response than cones. Would you please elaborate? Your statement is based on what real world experience? Have you used the domes in question? Have you had the chance to measure them compared to different midrange cone drivers? In the same environment / install?
> 
> I have owned and tested the Dyn MD140's, DLS IR3's, and currently have ATC SM75-150 domes in my car... all used and tested in the same car.
> 
> ...


To be honest no i havent used any dome midranges personally(hence this thread ). But from reading and researching it seems that domes have better off-axis _compared_ to a cone. a cone seems to be more directional. Ya feel me?

I think you are going above and beyond the way you are talking about sound. I dont have golden ears like you, My expectations/standards are a little bit lower when it comes to SQ lol.


I read great things about that tg9 but i just dont want to make my pillars stick out that much. the dome seems to "look cooler" and suppose to sound great too. You had me scared about separation but it occured to me that my car isnt a full blown SQ vehicle just yet. my substage will probably drown in some(i know, sounds dumb)


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

kevin k. is quite correct.
The reason domes are "known" for their off axis response is because ON axis they are terrible. The shape has little to do with off axis response, the main precursor is the radiating diameter.(beaming)

There is no area where drivers of similar capabilities, that a cone cannot easily out perform a dome. The enclosures on a dome may be thought of as an advantage (space), however you pay a high price because of the back wave induced distortion.

Use a dome only if you have no other choice.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

More info and advice below I recieved from Ambolech when I was doing my search for cone or dome. I deicided to use a cone in the end.

Dome mid ranges are poor compared to cone mid ranges in just about every aspect. The off axis response (power response) non linear distortion etc are demonstratively superior on a cone. Since I got away with mentioning closed termination systems on the sound deadening thread, I will push my luck on this one.

A cone radiating driver uses the apex (centre) as the motor driver termination. The dome uses the outside of the dome as the primary termination for the motor.

Why not have the best of both worlds and drive both the centre and the outer?
This would be relatively trivial to do. It comes back to resonance and modal lines. If you drive both the centre and outer you have a closed termination baffle. The modal lines will travel to the outer, where they will be reflected back to the centre. To say this would wreak havoc is an understatement. I guarantee you this would not be a pleasant experience.

Every radiating cone driver systems use an open termination system, and a decoupler. On a cone this decoupler is the surround, on a dome the decoupler is the dome dampening material. IE The dome itself dampens. What happens on a dome is the modal lines converge on the centre and reflect back to the outside (closed termination system). THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR DOMES OFF AXIS LISTENING ADVICE. IE it SUCKS on axis. Have a listen to a dome on axis, it will hardly resemble the original source.

Well I won't be listening to it on axis anyway so why does it matter?
Well logically if are driving a dampening material, it cannot discern the "real" from the resonance. IE it must dampen BOTH the original source and the indirect.

Point
The response on a dome is demonstratively worse than a cone. The transient response and the over shoot (ringing) are MUCH poorer. Open termination devices produce pleasant even order harmonics. (Example, triangle, xylophone,cymbals etc.) Closed termination devices can produce odd order harmonics, unless carefully managed and/or dampened. (Drums for example).

There is Little doubt the these domes have carefully managed closed termination, but coupled with excessive response times and the back wave of the built in enclosure they CANNOT compete with their cone cousins.


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Genxx, Thanx for the informative post ^^^^^


----------



## Hernan (Jul 9, 2006)

I have used the RS52 at the kicks. I had them mounted with a swivel pod for testing. I like them more off axis.
Now I have mount them at the sail panels (pretty forward), facing each other and I'm very happy, much smoother than on axis at the kicks.
Don't worry about the high xo point. I usually use a 2nd order at 630hz and they blend nice with the midbass at the doors.


----------



## tRidiot (Jun 29, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> Well, crap...I thought the tg9's were a dome? I thought cones were the ones that had that weird cone in the center of the speaker.
> 
> Someone care to explain the physical differences, since my previous assumption seemed to be wrong?


Here are some examples for you. It's easier to visualize than explain.

DLS IR3 dome midrange
http://www.autosound.cz/media/good/normal_699.jpg

Dyn dome midrange
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/peh1/D76 outside of box.jpg

Morel CDM-88 dome midrange (a thing of beauty)
http://www.morelhifi.com/products/images/components_tweeters_cdm88_1.jpg


Seas cone midrange w/phase plug
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/w26fx002.jpg
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/w22ny001.jpg
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/madisound/product/W18EX-001.jpg

Peerless cone midrange w/phase plug
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/madisound/product/830883.jpg

Peerless-V (Vifa) cone midrange with standard dustcap
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/madisound/product/PL22WR09_04.jpg
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/images/madisound/product/MG14WK09.jpg

Vifa TG-9 Cone midrange with standard dustcap
http://www.baysidenet.biz/bsnshop/images/tg9fsd10-04.jpg


Hope that helps.


----------



## Bluto Blutarsky (Apr 1, 2007)

kevin k. said:


> I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that "most" domes have better off-axis response than cones. Would you please elaborate? Your statement is based on what real world experience? Have you used the domes in question? Have you had the chance to measure them compared to different midrange cone drivers? In the same environment / install?
> 
> I have owned and tested the Dyn MD140's, DLS IR3's, and currently have ATC SM75-150 domes in my car... all used and tested in the same car.
> 
> ...


 Kevin, I knew you had tried many different midrange speakers, but, wow. Please tell us about the qualities of these different speakers, I am all ears. What differences did you note between a dome and mid? Are the current ATC domes the best yet? which cone sounded best? I value your opinion greatly.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

How come DLS, Dyna, & Morel are using Domes? I thought they reproduce high quality accurate sound? 

Are you suggesting the TG9 is the better route to go through for off-axis response? (im not trying to put words in your mouth, i am just wanting a little bit direct response )


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

I have some drivers that i have sitting in a box. i have never used them

one set is an A/D/S Al4









the other is an Audex 

























Anybody know if they are any good?


----------



## Fellippe (Sep 15, 2006)

Megalomaniac said:


> How come DLS, Dyna, & Morel are using Domes? I thought they reproduce high quality accurate sound?
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Abmolech (Nov 2, 2006)

> Domes seem to get a bad rap on the boards for some reason. My only question is, why should they even exist if cones are hands down superior in every way?


Because like everything else, it is choice.
Domes have their place, but not in any of my setups.
If we talk about toroidal on tweeters, that may be an interesting concept. But on mid range, the energy is to great for the dome material to dissipate.


----------



## johnny52 (Sep 7, 2007)

Some mentioned that the dome need less space then the cone. 

For example, how many litres TG9 need for a sealed enclosure?


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

johnny52 said:


> Some mentioned that the dome need less space then the cone.
> 
> For example, how many litres TG9 need for a sealed enclosure?


litres? you lost me im a yank :blush:


seriously though i dont know how this translates to cubic ft but heres what madisound gives for the shield tg9 version

Recommended box:

2 to 5 liters sealed and stuffed


btw guys im still not convinced to use a cone yet, im really leaning at domes...


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

If we start with the TG9's. They are a redicilously good speaker for what they can be had for. Few driver of any price can match it in two areas:
Usable frequency range and for a lack of a better word -direcness.
It has a very "fast", airy, detalied sound but the flipside of that coin is that it can sound harsh. 

The frequency reange is the killer app though, installed and tweaked ciorrect, you don't get any real phase issues and even male voices are coherent, coming frome one speaker.

Some points on a succsessful installation with them:
1. Don't put these on axis! They where never designed for that, but they excel off-axis.
2. They like to breathe. An infinite baflle on top of the dash is what we usually do. 
3. Any backwaves in the box will be heard! The cone is "made out of high-tech spiderweb" as someone put it and is really light. Use polyfil!
4. If you have an eq, use it liberally to cut around 2.5kHz.. Usually 315 Hz can do with a bit of reduced output aswell, but that is more related to the car then the driver. A few extra decibels at around 12 kHz and most people will never beleve you don't have any tweeters. They do lack in resolution in the higher frequencies though if you compare them to a real tweet.

Now for dome vs cone. None is superior. It is only a matter of what fits your application and is most pleasing to your ears. But in cars where you place the mid high and the mid bass low you do want to get down below 200 Hz in order to get a stable sound stage, and that cannot be done with a dome. 
If you like mr K use mids in kickpanels with an adjacent (door) midbass a dome is an excellent choise.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

Rbsarve said:


> ... The frequency reange is the* killer app though,* ...


So Maddox was right.. people actually use this expression outside of the computer software world. That's funny.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Rbsarve said:


> Some points on a succsessful installation with them:
> 1. Don't put these on axis! They where never designed for that, but they excel off-axis.
> 2. They like to breathe. An infinite baflle on top of the dash is what we usually do.
> 3. Any backwaves in the box will be heard! The cone is "made out of high-tech spiderweb" as someone put it and is really light. Use polyfil!
> 4. If you have an eq, use it liberally to cut around 2.5kHz.. Usually 315 Hz can do with a bit of reduced output aswell, but that is more related to the car then the driver. A few extra decibels at around 12 kHz and most people will never beleve you don't have any tweeters. They do lack in resolution in the higher frequencies though if you compare them to a real tweet.



From my experience with these:
1. Mine are on-axis and sound very nice to me. I tried off for a little bit but didn't really like it as much.
2. I have mine in an Aperiodic enclosure, breathing into the dash. I believe my size is about 1.5 liters. I agree with you here.
3. YES! I used polyfill & even ensolite. That made a WORLD of difference.
4. My eq is all over the map with these speakers, lol. But, that's always listener dependent anyway.


For the money, the tg9's are AWESOME! Really.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

I have one question: almost everybody seems to focus on FR curves and cutoff points but what about how do these drivers OP mentioned actually sound compared to each other? The price difference is about 5x and even more in favor of TG9, it's very difficult for me to believe that the cheaper driver will get even close to the expensive drivers in producing good sound.
Haven't personally heard any of the drivers mentioned, just curious.

Tõnu


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

MantaOwner said:


> I have one question: almost everybody seems to focus on FR curves and cutoff points but what about how do these drivers OP mentioned actually sound compared to each other? The price difference is about 5x and even more in favor of TG9, it's very difficult for me to believe that the cheaper driver will get even close to the expensive drivers in producing good sound.
> Haven't personally heard any of the drivers mentioned, just curious.
> 
> Tõnu


I can't help you there. My first & only driver is this tg9. I have nothing to compare it to.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

MantaOwner said:


> I have one question: almost everybody seems to focus on FR curves and cutoff points but what about how do these drivers OP mentioned actually sound compared to each other? The price difference is about 5x and even more in favor of TG9, it's very difficult for me to believe that the cheaper driver will get even close to the expensive drivers in producing good sound.
> Haven't personally heard any of the drivers mentioned, just curious.
> 
> Tõnu


I'll put it this way. Most people over here that has tried the Trius (based on the TG9) instead of their DLS 2,5" dome (basically the same size) never put the DLS unit back in...  

A car using Triuses without tweeters and an Alpine 9855 (limited eq to say the least) came 2nd in his class on this year´s EMMA european championships.  

And for those of you who are thinking of spending $10k on an B&O sound system for your Audi A8 will be getting some very familliar 3,5"ers in the doors...  

But not all cars are the same...
I have a friend with a Scanspeak 12m in his dash. That's a faily expensive midrange and one of my favorites. Sounds terrible. Nothing wrong with the surrounding equip or with the install, that driver simply doesn't work there.
So those kinds of wierd stuff occur.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

MantaOwner said:


> I have one question: almost everybody seems to focus on FR curves and cutoff points but what about how do these drivers OP mentioned actually sound compared to each other? The price difference is about 5x and even more in favor of TG9, it's very difficult for me to believe that the cheaper driver will get even close to the expensive drivers in producing good sound.
> Haven't personally heard any of the drivers mentioned, just curious.
> 
> Tõnu


Cost isn't everything. In car audio especially, driver selection is more install dependent than anything. Like Rbsarve's example with the Scans, just because they're more expensive doesn't mean they sound better all the time. 

Hell, I'm not even convinced that the real benefit that a lot of these expensive drivers boast about, which is lower distortion, is really that relevant in most of our cars. The Scan Speak drivers are a perfect example.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

here is what I THINK i am going to do. since the TG9s are relatively cheap(and some say it can outperform an L3 in an enclosed place) i probally will buy these drivers.

1.Do you think the shielded version is better to buy than the unshielded, its only a few $$ difference?

2.Can anyone else confirm that the tg9 does well off-axis?

I dont intend on aiming much for 2 reasons
- I want my airbags to be able to deploy without speakers hitting me in the face godforbid anything ever happens, and _if_ I were to compete I wouldnt want points taken off for saftey. 
- Takes up more space visually, i would rather look at them off-axis, IMO they look better that way.

3.Tweeters dont get effected from backwaves do they? 
- I dont deed to put them in a separate hambers, correct?


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

Megalomaniac said:


> here is what I THINK i am going to do. since the TG9s are relatively cheap(and some say it can outperform an L3 in an enclosed place) i probally will buy these drivers.
> 
> 1.Do you think the shielded version is better to buy than the unshielded, its only a few $$ difference?
> 
> ...


im considering putting some of these in my kicks and wondering if anyone has more to say on putting them ON axis?


----------



## ///Audience (Jan 31, 2007)

and according to the thread on ECA about aperiodic enclosures, the TG9's would be very bad in an AP environment. Any views on this? 
(qts of 0.68)


----------



## mikechec9 (Dec 1, 2006)

The IR3 will not play under 315 no matter what you cross it at. 
If you want it to go lower, I have heard of good results from deadening the enclosure.

Also, Scott replied on the subject here when I raised the same issue:
http://www.buwaldahybrids.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1371&highlight=domes


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> here is what I THINK i am going to do. since the TG9s are relatively cheap(and some say it can outperform an L3 in an enclosed place) i probally will buy these drivers.
> 
> 1.Do you think the shielded version is better to buy than the unshielded, its only a few $$ difference?
> 
> ...


Okay, since off-axis is being thrown around a lot here, and it's one of my BIGGEST pet peeves as it's not very well understood. Take a look at this link, then you can form your own conclusions.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7107


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> here is what I THINK i am going to do. since the TG9s are relatively cheap(and some say it can outperform an L3 in an enclosed place) i probally will buy these drivers.
> 
> 1.Do you think the shielded version is better to buy than the unshielded, its only a few $$ difference?
> 
> ...


1. Not really, it's only harder to fit due to the added depth.

2. If you do use them fully off axis, complement it with a small tweet. I think it's dayton that has a $5 tiny thing that is a really good way up and should be a great match, and just showing up at a competetion with a good 3-way set with THAT pricetag is so hillarious.  

3. Normal tweeters are working with internally enclosed chambers and are not affected by backwaves.


----------



## MantaOwner (May 15, 2007)

> Cost isn't everything. In car audio especially, driver selection...


Yes, but still no one has answered my question.
According to my personal experience there is a some sort of a relationship between good sound and the price of drivers, better drivers tend to cost more.

Tõnu


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, since off-axis is being thrown around a lot here, and it's one of my BIGGEST pet peeves as it's not very well understood. Take a look at this link, then you can form your own conclusions.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7107


what does that have to with my airbags deploying and knocking my speakers in my face?  

Seems like that thread was just explaining crossover points and nothing about the tg9....

did i miss something, was there a particular segment you wanted me to read?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BassBaller5 said:


> and according to the thread on ECA about aperiodic enclosures, the TG9's would be very bad in an AP environment. Any views on this?
> (qts of 0.68)


Mine are aperiodic. LIke I said, I don't have any other midrange experience to compare with, but being dead honest, I don't think there's much else I could do to make me have a better midrange. These speakers sound great to me; nevermind all the "for the money", these speakers flat out sound nice. 

It's funny you read that, because I read here that AP was the way to go.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> what does that have to with my airbags deploying and knocking my speakers in my face?


Unless you have the only car on Earth where the airbags in the a-pillars fire across the windshield instead of across the door glass, you'll be fine.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

quality_sound said:


> Unless you have the only car on Earth where the airbags in the a-pillars fire across the windshield instead of across the door glass, you'll be fine.


no i meant the airbag on passenger side on dash, i dont want the a pillar over lapping that area(where its marked) im too scared.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> no i meant the airbag on passenger side on dash, i dont want the a pillar over lapping that area(where its marked) im too scared.



The airbag fires forward and then inflates. It shouldn't go up onto the dash much, if at all. Even if the seam for the flap goes a ways up the bag won't go that far back.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> what does that have to with my airbags deploying and knocking my speakers in my face?
> 
> Seems like that thread was just explaining crossover points and nothing about the tg9....
> 
> did i miss something, was there a particular segment you wanted me to read?


Okay, I'll bite, as you didn't really do what I suggested. So, I'll go ahead and do the research for you.










If you look at the graph it will tell you everything you need to know about the off-axis response of the TG9. In fact, many of the drivers that we promote here on DIYMA have these graphs available, and really help with driver selection.

The thread I linked to earlier was a tutorial (my post on there, about 4 or 5 posts down) that explained how to interpret the graphs.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

There's the graph. I was going to reference it as showing that it does have better on-axis response.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, I'll bite, as you didn't really do what I suggested. So, I'll go ahead and do the research for you.
> 
> image removed*
> 
> ...


ok now its making more sense, i sent you a pm btw. 

so the tg9 performs well off-ax around the 30degree range, but anything around 60degrees off-axis it starts to plumit and on on-axis it becomes too peaky? am i interpreting this correct from your tutorial?

i saw somebody who did an unique install(imo) on the same gen accord as mine, i pm'd asking how it sounds,im awaiting response. but i may do something like that if space is truly an issue. but it worries me that if the mids down there will my stage fall to the floor?


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> ok now its making more sense, i sent you a pm btw.
> 
> so the tg9 performs well off-ax around the 30degree range, but anything around 60degrees off-axis it starts to plumit and on on-axis it becomes too peaky? am i interpreting this correct from your tutorial?
> 
> i saw somebody who did an unique install(imo) on the same gen accord as mine, i pm'd asking how it sounds,im awaiting response. but i may do something like that if space is truly an issue. but it worries me that if the mids down there will my stage fall to the floor?


Yeah, sounds like you're getting the concept. PM replied to.


----------



## MiloX (May 22, 2005)

Megalomaniac said:


> but it worries me that if the mids down there will my stage fall to the floor?


Your stage height should be fine.


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

MiloX said:


> Your stage height should be fine.


here is some small info that may help you guys understand some more, i probally should have mentioned it earlier

currently my mids(soon to be dedicated midbass) are in my doors and my tweets are in a pillars. now will my stage fall if i were to place mids like that photo?


----------



## Megalomaniac (Feb 12, 2007)

i got in touch with the guy with the tg9 in his cord. he said with the tweets in pillars and mids in kicks it shouldnt/didnt suffer much with stage height (loosly speaking)


----------

