# Dyn Esotar2 430 Midrange Klippel Testing



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Full report attached via PDF.

Edit:
I would like to thank Mat and Jerry for hooking me up with these drivers to test. Mat (BuickGN) purchased a set from Jerry (Niebur3) and offered to send them in for testing but was worried about warranty. Jerry contacted Dyn regarding this and the folks at Dyn said they would warranty the drivers if I damaged them during testing. I'm not sure I can name many other companies that would be willing to do this so props to Dyn are due.

*Driver:*
Dyn Esotar2 430
Dynaudio - Authentic Fidelity

*Pictures:*


















*Impedance and T/S Parameters:*









Re = 4.1062 ohms
Fs = 84.0135 Hz
Zmax = 30.6913 ohms
Qes = 0.2936
Qms = 1.9011
Qts = 0.2544
Le = 0.1025 mH (at 1 kHz)
Diam = 79.3750 mm ( 3.1250 in )
Sd = 4948.3152 mm^2( 7.6699 in^2)
Vas = 2.4071 L ( 0.0850 ft^3)
BL = 6.1872 N/A
Mms = 5.1860 g
Cms = 692.0024 uM/N
Kms = 1445.0817 N/M
Rms = 1.4400 R mechanical
Efficiency = 0.4567 % 
Sensitivity= 88.6147 dB @1W/1m
Sensitivity= 91.5112 dB @2.83Vrms/1m


*Klippel Distortion Parameters Limited Xmax:*

X Bl @ Bl min=82% 2.6 mm
X C @ C min=75% 3.1 mm


*Klippel Results Sample:*


----------



## elparner (Oct 20, 2007)

all data aside, did you liked them?

Thanks for the test results


----------



## bginvestor (Jan 13, 2008)

Hey Erin,

Not much of plateau on the BI curve, huh?

Any chance if you compared w/ the Scanspeak Illuminator18wu since you recently completed some testing of those (listening tests)?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

you mean 12mu? the 18wu is a different animal. figure you just made a typo.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I must say, I really was saddened to see there is no shorting method employed on this driver. At it's MSRP, I don't see why such a cheap part _wasn't_ employed in the design/build.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I wonder if Dynaudio could/would comment on that. With the price of these, I can't imagine a $1 part not being included if it would have made a difference.

I'm not that good at understanding klippel results but it looks like the rated xmax and the klippel are almost dead on.


----------



## el_chupo_ (May 27, 2007)

its the really high red squigly line. its bad.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

I really thought this test would generate more discussion. Come on all you esotar lovers, what do you think?


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

I will say it actually ISN'T as bad as I expected. In fact, I don't think it's really bad at all. It also looks like Dyn's T/S is pretty honest about what you're getting, if you take their p-p XMAX it is pretty close to the 1-way Erin got. Even though the curves are offset, they still look pretty symmetrical. LE shows it wouldn't be a good contender as a widebander, but I don't think Dyn claims that either.

If I had to venture a guess as to why these get such rave reviews:

1.) You just spent $1,600, you WANT it to sound good and it probably WILL.

2.) The QTS is extremely low. If you run these "IB" they are "critically damped" meaning that it SHOULD lead to a very clean/tight sound. Combine that with a paper cone and you can get some "warmth" people tend to like. 

Having said that, I don't think I could justify spending $1,600 on these. I know I said performance wasn't bad, but there are several speakers that cost 1/2 this price and perform better (Scan 12mu is an easy example). I mean, the Scan's aren't cheap, and they are bargain compared to what Dyn wants us to pay.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

John, I agree.

Symmetry on these drivers is good. There's small offset with both Bl and Kms but that could be on purpose or simply production error (this is where I agree with Mat; it would be great to get input from the mfg here). 

The only thing that really bothers me is Le(x). And, honestly, the differential between coil in/out isn't much (0.15mH) so it's not the number that gets me... it's the simple fact that on a $1600 set of speakers they didn't employ some sort of shorting technology. Maybe they simply didn't feel the need. Like you said, this isn't intended to extend far on the top end.

You hit something I have mentioned in private with others; the purpose of these drivers aren't quite what we use some of the other, more beefy, 4" midranges for nor is it to be used as a wideband driver. This driver is truly a dedicated midrange. The user of these drivers likely wouldn't (and probably doesn't need to, depending on dynamic range desired) cross these much below 300hz, maybe 250hz at most on the low end and around this range, I start to put less stock in xmax and begin putting more weight in to driver characteristics such as build parts, geometry, etc. Do the soft parts cause audible resonances? What's the FR curve? What's the nominal bandwidth? Those kind of things. On the other end of the spectrum, how high will they extend? Well, beaming is going to be an issue around 4khz or so (just ballparking, you do the math ). Some like that (higher directivity = less reflection off surrounding surfaces). Some don't. Personally, I'd take these up to around 3500hz and mate them with a tweeter as part of a 3-way front stage from around 300-3500hz, give or take. 

All in all, this driver seems to be good. It's got a nice form factor and very small enclosure space needed. Symmetry is really nice, and FR (published) is nice for the most likely passband. So, the real purchase decision is burdened by the cost; not so much performance.

My $.02.


*Edit:
Yes, I've listened. What I've said above, objectively, actually pretty much sums up my subjective thoughts as well.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

And I agree with you again. For me though, it's hard to justify the cost. In fact, it's damn near impossible. After "dumbing down" the build in my Maxima, I have less than $1600 invested in the entire setup, and I can guarantee my stereo sounds better than these speakers off h/u power. 

If I had to assign "importance" to getting a great sounding 3-way setup, I would pick midrange as the #1 factor, closely followed acoustic treatments for the midbass. So it is clearly important to me, and these may very well be the holy grail of midranges. Sadly, my pockets aren't deep enough to ever find out.

I will say one last time though, they look to be good performers and anybody who owns them should be happy. As long as you didn't break the bank to get them, otherwise feel free to have buyers remorse for not buying the Scan 12mu, 18wu, D2004, and then taking your wife out to dinner to Ruth's Chris.


----------



## bginvestor (Jan 13, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> *Edit:
> Yes, I've listened. What I've said above, objectively, actually pretty much sums up my subjective thoughts as well.



Good job on the Klippel test reports! :thumbsup:

This is very interesting as well as frustrating since all my speakers are already bought! These reports make want to try a few speakers to just play around with..


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I was looking at these Drivers thinking (I think the FS was 64) would be a great choice for Crossing at 200Hz, but sadly the laws of Physics come into play.


I see a few guys crossing 3" Drivers that low, but IMO it sounds like $()^%!


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

Thanks for the testing Erin!! I can definitely agree with you that these are NOT widebanders and IMO absolutely sound amazing IF you keep them in the passband they were designed for (and even better in a very small enclosure). 

The other aspect we have to look at is the viability of installation and what is required t get the most out of the drivers. These quite possibly could be the easiest to install due to their size and insanely small enclosure requirements which may allow you to physically locate the drivers in a better spot in the car aiding in sq advantages. 

(I am now technically biased because I am a Dyn dealer and have them in my car. I was not a dealer and there was no bias during the midrange test where "blind", they finished first.)


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> Thanks for the testing Erin!! I can definitely agree with you that these are NOT widebanders and IMO absolutely sound amazing IF you keep them in the passband they were designed for (and even better in a very small enclosure).
> 
> The other aspect we have to look at is the viability of installation and what is required t get the most out of the drivers. These quite possibly could be the easiest to install due to their size and insanely small enclosure requirements which may allow you to physically locate the drivers in a better spot in the car aiding in sq advantages.
> 
> (I am now technically biased because I am a Dyn dealer and have them in my car. I was not a dealer and there was no bias during the midrange test where "blind", they finished first.)


I do agree that from a true midrange branded for car audio standpoint, these really look great. I love the fact that the low Qts allows for a small enclsoure. 

The only thing that comes close IMHO is the HAT L4/L4SE but Scott recommends those IB AFAIK. I don't car much for IB in the pillars (where a 3-4" mid usually goes) since usually all you get other than the baffle is the plastic from the pillar to seperate the front and back waves. While that may suffice for keeping the waves from cancelling, it doesn't do much to block the sound itself which is out of phase with the front wave. If you do put them in an inclosure to combat this, Qtc goes up, which can hurt the transient response.

The problem as I see it is that it's still VERY expensive and for a DIY crowd there are raw speakers (like the Scans) that will do as well/better for less $$. But in terms of speakers sold as car audio drivers, I think this would be a top contender for best midrange (when used as a true midrange).

Lastly, since I haven't actually said it yet, it does seem crazy to me too that shorting rings weren't used to help lower Le a bit. I'm sure the margin on these is insane and spending just a few bucks to help have a great low end transient response (Qts) and high end roll-off (Le) seems like a given to me.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Someone remind me why LE asymmetries don't matter for a dedicated midrange? When are you most likely to get a different inductance on the front vs. the rear excursion? Isn't it at high xmax? Isn't that low in the midrange? Seems to me like it matters everywhere in a midrange or wideband application. It makes me cringe to see differentials like this outside of the subwoofer segement. I mean cones have crappy LE already. Look at a BG planar to get an idea of how it should look like. 

For all practical purposes we don't know whether Dyn used a shorting ring or not. They may have but it wasn't implemented properly. It's also not that cheap since it requires the tooling of the motor. With that said, a $45 Peerless SLS 7" woofer has one and it is properly implemented. 

I thought the cone was plastic not paper? 

I think a great way to get this kind of performance cheap might be the SB 4" midrange. With SB you also get the 4" woofer to cross low if you want. There is also the Faital. Both are less than $60 each. 

Some of your money goes toward the magnet in this guy. That's what gives you the sensitivity and small box requirement. That I do like.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> I think a great way to get this kind of performance cheap might be the SB 4" midrange. With SB you also get the 4" woofer to cross low if you want. There is also the Faital. Both are less than $60 each.


performance aside, the one thing the Dyn has going for it is form factor. that makes or breaks a lot of people using something like the SB or Scan drivers.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Someone remind me why LE asymmetries don't matter for a dedicated midrange? When are you most likely to get a different inductance on the front vs. the rear excursion? Isn't it at high xmax? Isn't that low in the midrange? Seems to me like it matters everywhere in a midrange or wideband application. It makes me cringe to see differentials like this outside of the subwoofer segement. I mean cones have crappy LE already. Look at a BG planar to get an idea of how it should look like.


I'm still playing catch up with some of you guys on these things, but I thought LE was mostly a function of a driver's natural "low pass" filter -aka- high end roll-off. As long as the roll-off occurs 2x higher than where you choose to cross the speaker, it will have no real affect on the speaker.

I gleaned this information from Lycan/Werewolf in the "Fast Bass, Slow Bass" thread.

If my above comments are true, it becomes quite important with subs since the LE needs to be low enough to not affect the midbass transition. I know when I was considering the Polk MM 15", LE was bad enough in modeling that I would either have to HP at like 40hz or deal with an odd phase shift from the "natural HP" cascading with my selected HP in a pretty critical transition. In midrange, however, you aren't as sensitive to phase shifts at the HP (try swapping the polarity on one tweeter and see how noticeable it is) so I could see where it is less critical there than in midbass and sub selection. I'm not saying it isn't important or noticeable, but I can see where more focus is put on the subs and midbass drivers.




cvjoint said:


> I think a great way to get this kind of performance cheap might be the SB 4" midrange. With SB you also get the 4" woofer to cross low if you want. There is also the Faital. Both are less than $60 each.
> 
> Some of your money goes toward the magnet in this guy. That's what gives you the sensitivity and small box requirement. That I do like.





bikinpunk said:


> performance aside, the one thing the Dyn has going for it is form factor. that makes or breaks a lot of people using something like the SB or Scan drivers.


I agree. 



pionkej said:


> The problem as I see it is that it's still VERY expensive and for a DIY crowd there are raw speakers (like the Scans) that will do as well/better for less $$. But in terms of speakers sold as car audio drivers, I think this would be a top contender for best midrange (when used as a true midrange).


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

pionkej said:


> I'm still playing catch up with some of you guys on these things, but I thought LE was mostly a function of a driver's natural "low pass" filter -aka- high end roll-off. As long as the roll-off occurs 2x higher than where you choose to cross the speaker, it will have no real affect on the speaker.
> 
> I gleaned this information from Lycan/Werewolf in the "Fast Bass, Slow Bass" thread.
> 
> ...


There are two aspects of inductance which are mixed in this thread, one is magnitude, where a lower inductance tells you the vc stores less energy, and the variance with excursion. It's the latter that's the problem with the Dyn. and that is manifested greatly over larger excursions.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> There are two aspects of inductance which are mixed in this thread, one is magnitude, where a lower inductance tells you the vc stores less energy, and the variance with excursion. It's the latter that's the problem with the Dyn. and that is manifested greatly over larger excursions.


How would this problem show itself? Heat? Power hungry? Not wanting to play up high at higher excursions?

As for the rest of this thread it seems like most are using these from 220hz to 250hz with good success. I know of a couple that are running them from 6khz and one at 7khz. The 650s have good top end so 300-350hz would be my goal. However, I would like to play them up to 6khz. The higher I crossed the 142s, the smoother the tweeters got. They're far from harsh even at the current 2,200hz but they undoubtedly sound better high passed up higher.

We need to have another meet soon so you guys can hear these things. It seems like no one has heard them in the So Cal area. Like them or hate them, at least you'll be able to hear them and see how the subjective listening compares to the Klippel results. Oh, and there better be a 427" S2000 by the next meet.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I'm not sure if there's a first generation Esotar, but Todd W. has the 3" Esotar in his Car.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> How would this problem show itself? Heat? Power hungry? Not wanting to play up high at higher excursions?
> 
> As for the rest of this thread it seems like most are using these from 220hz to 250hz with good success. I know of a couple that are running them from 6khz and one at 7khz. The 650s have good top end so 300-350hz would be my goal. However, I would like to play them up to 6khz. The higher I crossed the 142s, the smoother the tweeters got. They're far from harsh even at the current 2,200hz but they undoubtedly sound better high passed up higher.
> 
> We need to have another meet soon so you guys can hear these things. It seems like no one has heard them in the So Cal area. Like them or hate them, at least you'll be able to hear them and see how the subjective listening compares to the Klippel results. Oh, and there better be a 427" S2000 by the next meet.



Inductance is a very complicated subject. John at AE uses full copper sleeves to not only reduce the magnitude of the inductance but also linearize it over stroke. Since that's the major selling point of his woofers and he is a fountain of knowledge his post bellow is probably the most accurate description that I could find:

AVS Forum - View Single Post - New Custom John Janowitz Speaker Project - Feedback wanted

If that doesn't do it, in layman's terms there is more output in one cone direction versus the other. Since you need both of the movements to get your sound wave it ends up distorted. Effects are greatest out of the subwoofer region and at high SPL. It will manifest itself as a difficulty on the part of the speaker to handle complex and dynamic music passages.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Inductance is a very complicated subject. John at AE uses full copper sleeves to not only reduce the magnitude of the inductance but also linearize it over stroke. Since that's the major selling point of his woofers and he is a fountain of knowledge his post bellow is probably the most accurate description that I could find:
> 
> AVS Forum - View Single Post - New Custom John Janowitz Speaker Project - Feedback wanted
> 
> If that doesn't do it, in layman's terms there is more output in one cone direction versus the other. Since you need both of the movements to get your sound wave it ends up distorted. Effects are greatest out of the subwoofer region and at high SPL. It will manifest itself as a difficulty on the part of the speaker to handle complex and dynamic music passages.


So, with the efficiently of this driver and the fact it performs best in a VERY small sealed enclosure (.009 ft^3) in a certain passband, is the variance with excursion with the driver really a problem? Seems to me like it would be plenty loud based on the above reasons I mentioned without very much excursion. 

I have had these drivers for a while now and I have yet to hear a flaw in their reproduction of music.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Inductance is a very complicated subject. John at AE uses full copper sleeves to not only reduce the magnitude of the inductance but also linearize it over stroke. Since that's the major selling point of his woofers and he is a fountain of knowledge his post bellow is probably the most accurate description that I could find:
> 
> AVS Forum - View Single Post - New Custom John Janowitz Speaker Project - Feedback wanted
> 
> If that doesn't do it, in layman's terms there is more output in one cone direction versus the other. Since you need both of the movements to get your sound wave it ends up distorted. Effects are greatest out of the subwoofer region and at high SPL. It will manifest itself as a difficulty on the part of the speaker to handle complex and dynamic music passages.


Thanks. I love reading John's stuff, he's very good at making complicated things easy to understand. I think my 15s have about the same inductance as a lot of mids. It really showed when I had them low passed at 2,200hz and they sounded surprisingly good all things considered.

Everyone I've talked to have loved the 430s and they've been called dynamic. That's why I would like to get someone educated on the subject such as yourself to listen to them to see if what we're seeing on the klippel translates to what you hear with them bandpassed from 300hz to 6khz.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> So, with the efficiently of this driver and the fact it performs best in a VERY small sealed enclosure (.009 ft^3) in a certain passband, is the variance with excursion with the driver really a problem? Seems to me like it would be plenty loud based on the above reasons I mentioned without very much excursion.
> 
> I have had these drivers for a while now and I have yet to hear a flaw in their reproduction of music.


It depends on output level, program material, crossovers, hearing ability, your minimum level of satisfaction etc. I don't think folks who buy Dyns are easily satisfied, but I may be wrong. Maybe they all buy for the small box requirement and a good enough sound.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

IMO, 'dynamic' is all in the tune/setup and less in the driver.

caveat: larger driver allows you to crank it higher... depends on how you define dynamic. But, like I said: tune/setup. 1-4khz is critical for 'dynamic'.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

There were Esotar dome midranges and tweeters a long time ago- the M560D dome midrange and the T300/T330 tweeter.




michaelsil1 said:


> I'm not sure if there's a first generation Esotar, but Todd W. has the 3" Esotar in his Car.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Maybe they all buy for the small box requirement and a good enough sound.


I think you know that's not true.

I'm not worried about it sounding amazing. Since it won the blind listening test in the midrange shootout, I just wanted to see how the subjective compares with the objective.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> I think you know that's not true.
> 
> I'm not worried about it sounding amazing. Since it won the blind listening test in the midrange shootout, I just wanted to see how the subjective compares with the objective.


Depends on what subjective test you are using in the comparison. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who thinks the Dyns sound bad. How often do you find Klippels that disagree wildly? 

Anywho, bring that baby to the meets again I'll bring my music test cd. I'm not that good with words though.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Depends on what subjective test you are using in the comparison. I'm sure there is at least one person out there who thinks the Dyns sound bad. How often do you find Klippels that disagree wildly?
> 
> Anywho, bring that baby to the meets again I'll bring my music test cd. I'm not that good with words though.


I'm sure there are plenty that don't like Dyns. I happened to fall in love with their sound about a year ago and hopefully this mid does not disappoint. Speaking of which I need to find out when they're going to arrive, I know one person that might not be happy to find another Dynaudio box sitting at the door.

Not sure about the klippel, I haven't heard many of the speakers tested to compare. As I said before, this is more for entertainment value for me but not something I would base a purchasing decision off of.

I'll have them next time but I have to come up with a different processor. The MS8 just doesn't agree with the 650s so it has to go.

The subjective test was this one: http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/download/Midrange_Test_USA.pdf

One thing that is very neat in that test is the TS parameters are the most consistent from driver to driver by a long shot.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

I like my esotar2 430 very much. Is it the end of all midranges? Probably not... Not for everyone, but for me, it suites my taste well. Again, the best is a very subjective term.


----------



## rawdawg (Apr 27, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> I'm not sure if there's a first generation Esotar, but Todd W. has the 3" Esotar in his Car.


Also, Tom of Beach Autosound has them in one of his set-ups.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

rawdawg said:


> Also, Tom of Beach Autosound has them in one of his set-ups.


I forgot about Tom.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

rawdawg said:


> Also, Tom of Beach Autosound has them in one of his set-ups.


Isn't Tom Using the 430? 

Kelvin


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

subwoofery said:


> Isn't Tom Using the 430?
> 
> Kelvin


Tom's setup is a four way all Esotar if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

michaelsil1 said:


> Tom's setup is a four way all Esotar if I'm not mistaken.


Hmm... Only remembered 3 drivers upfront... MD+TW on-axis on the dash and 6.5" in the doors. Where was the 4th one? 
Last I listenned to his Infinity was back in October 2010 if I'm not mistaken. 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

subwoofery said:


> Hmm... Only remembered 3 drivers upfront... MD+TW on-axis on the dash and 6.5" in the doors. Where was the 4th one?
> Last I listenned to his Infinity was back in October 2010 if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Kelvin


I believe he means 4-way (3-way front stage + sub).


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> IMO, 'dynamic' is all in the tune/setup and less in the driver.
> 
> caveat: larger driver allows you to crank it higher... depends on how you define dynamic. But, like I said: tune/setup. 1-4khz is critical for 'dynamic'.


I think you bring up a good point.

To me, when a *system* is dynamic, it is capable of accurately portraying both the quiet and loud passages of a dynamic track. That usually takes plenty of power and displacement to accomplish.

To me, again, when a *driver* is referred to as dynamic, it means it is capable of resolving everything it plays accurately. That means a snare hit, trumpet blast, whatever sounds like it should. 

I would think being "critically damped" with such a low Qts that the 430 is doing the latter when referred to as being dynamic. It doesn't mean it can't be involved in a system to achieve the former, just that it excels at reproducing the signal it is sent and then stopping (AKA great transient response with little overshoot or ringing).

Just my .02


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Used as a midrange, from say 200-250 and up exactly how much excursion do you guys think we would see from it?

Yeah there is no copper in the motor but it does have a neo magnet. From what I understand you can fix the BL in the gap better with neo. The Revelator 4 has no copper in the motor either...but it's half the price (geez and it's ungodly expensive) of the Dyn.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> Used as a midrange, from say 200-250 and up exactly how much excursion do you guys think we would see from it?
> 
> Yeah there is no copper in the motor but it does have a neo magnet. From what I understand you can fix the BL in the gap better with neo. The Revelator 4 has no copper in the motor either...but it's half the price (geez and it's ungodly expensive) of the Dyn.


My answer would be A LOT. Say you wanted a crossover point of 200hz. The Dyn is -6db down at 200hz. If you wanted to get a proper flat response down to 200hz you would have to use Eq. to boost. How much excursion do you need to go up 6 db? 3 times more! You also need more power to get that excursion as well, which means more power compression etc.

In this class driver, 4" high end, other drivers are usually .5db to 2db down at 200hz in the same Q box. For the same amount of distortion at your high pass point you can cross a Revelator and Faital at 200hz, an Illuminator at 100hz and a Dyn at 400hz. That means the Dyn. has to be crossed one octave above the Rev. and Faital and TWO octaves above the Illuminator. That's A LOT.

It's actually worse because we don't use brick filters. If you wanted the output below the HP filter to be the same across these drivers you'd need even more excursion from the Dyn. to compensate for the low bottom end efficiency. With a p99 like mine I can't even Eq. separate drivers (only left and right separately) so it makes matching the midbass and a midrange in a serious rolloff mode absolute hell. My .02 cross it high.


I use "dynamic" as the ratio between peak output and average output in the program material. Modern songs for example are less dynamic than a Pink Floyd track because this crest factor is reduced significantly.









Source:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/we_need_more_power_captain_but_how_just_how_much_amplifier_power_is_needed/


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> My answer would be A LOT. Say you wanted a crossover point of 200hz. The Dyn is -6db down at 200hz. If you wanted to get a proper flat response down to 200hz you would have to use Eq. to boost. How much excursion do you need to go up 6 db? 3 times more! You also need more power to get that excursion as well, which means more power compression etc.
> 
> In this class driver, 4" high end, other drivers are usually .5db to 2db down at 200hz in the same Q box. For the same amount of distortion at your high pass point you can cross a Revelator and Faital at 200hz, an Illuminator at 100hz and a Dyn at 400hz. That means the Dyn. has to be crossed one octave above the Rev. and Faital and TWO octaves above the Illuminator. That's A LOT.
> 
> It's actually worse because we don't use brick filters. If you wanted the output below the HP filter to be the same across these drivers you'd need even more excursion from the Dyn. to compensate for the low bottom end efficiency. With a p99 like mine I can't even Eq. separate drivers (only left and right separately) so it makes matching the midbass and a midrange in a serious rolloff mode absolute hell. My .02 cross it high.


But, if it is in a small sealed enclosure (like it was designed for), wouldn't that change your answer?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Kerry,
Using an online box calculator I came up with an f3 at about 250hz in an enclosure with Q @ 0.6. 
For the scan illuminator I came up with an f3 around 150hz for nearly the same Q. 

The difference being the scan enclosure is nearly twice as large. 

Recalling all the above from memory.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> But, if it is in a small sealed enclosure (like it was designed for), wouldn't that change your answer?


I plotted all in the box required for .7 Q. Naturally the Dyn will need the smallest box. In the same box the answer changes but I figure the Scans and Dyn need fairly small boxes and the proper box can be built for all three with little intrusion in the cabin. Then the transient qualities will be matched well with a proper box. The Faital needs a rather large box by comparison.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

bikinpunk said:


> Kerry,
> Using an online box calculator I came up with an f3 at about 250hz in an enclosure with Q @ 0.6.
> For the scan illuminator I came up with an f3 around 150hz for nearly the same Q.
> 
> ...


Then take into account the fact that the Illuminator has twice the throw and you end up a couple of octaves apart.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

So it looks like I'll be fine with a crossover point of 300hz. Can't wait to get them.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I plotted all in the box required for .7 Q. Naturally the Dyn will need the smallest box. In the same box the answer changes but I figure the Scans and Dyn need fairly small boxes and the proper box can be built for all three with little intrusion in the cabin. Then the transient qualities will be matched well with a proper box. The Faital needs a rather large box by comparison.


Possibly, but with the 12M, the required enclosure was 2.5X larger than the 430 and while in a kick, it shouldn't be an issue, but up in the pillar??? Again, I think some of this information leads us to better understanding of how our driver will react in the environment we are planning on putting it in. If I put a 12m in an enclosure the size of the Dyn, it raises the QTC to 1.01. Oh, and the 12MU in the same enclosure would raise it's QTC to 1.27.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Then take into account the fact that the Illuminator has twice the throw and you end up a couple of octaves apart.


I might be looking at the wrong scan but it looks like both linear and mechanical excursion are very close.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> I use "dynamic" as the ratio between peak output and average output in the program material. Modern songs for example are less dynamic than a Pink Floyd track because this crest factor is reduced significantly.


I agree and it follows what I said. A "dynamic system" needs to be able to play "dynamic music" (like you are referencing).

I do think my assumption about calling an individual speaker "dynamic" may actually be referring more to it's resolution or how well it can play different sounds. If a person (think athlete) is called dynamic, it's because they can do many things well. That's what I'm thinking of when the 430 is called "dynamic".



Niebur3 said:


> But, if it is in a small sealed enclosure (like it was designed for), wouldn't that change your answer?


No, a small enclosure would make things worse in theory. A small enclosure will typically induce an even earlier rolloff. A small inclosure will also increase the power required to get low-end extension but NOT increase power handling. That means that you are more likely to increase power compression as you try to get the same output, or worse, exceed the thermal power handling abilities of the driver and fry it.

That being said, I don't always see the need to hit 200hz with a small midrange. I have set a crossover point in the 300-400hz range many times without ill results. 



bikinpunk said:


> Kerry,
> Using an online box calculator I came up with an f3 at about 250hz in an enclosure with Q @ 0.6.
> For the scan illuminator I came up with an f3 around 150hz for nearly the same Q.
> 
> ...


And Erin brings up the importance of tradeoffs. You can get lower extension with the Illuminator but at the cost of enclosure size (although probably still relatively small itself). If you try and put the Illuminator in a smaller box, it will roll off earlier, have a peak, and also bump up the Q (all bad things in my opinion).

It seems the 430 was designed to be in a VERY small enclosure and be crossed from 400-4khz or so. If that meets your system needs, it is still a good candidate.

I point this out because I don't think anybody is saying it's a "bad" driver, just that it's a good driver that may not be quite "$1600 retail good".


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> Possibly, but with the 12M, the required enclosure was 2.5X larger than the 430 and while in a kick, it shouldn't be an issue, but up in the pillar??? Again, I think some of this information leads us to better understanding of how our driver will react in the environment we are planning on putting it in. If I put a 12m in an enclosure the size of the Dyn, it raises the QTC to 1.01.


And even in some kicks like mine where I did not want to lose any foot room, not a single inch, the enclosure matters. You did a great job of building them and even with this mid in an enclosure I actually gained a little foot room on the passenger side.


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

Niebur3 said:


> Possibly, but with the 12M, the required enclosure was 2.5X larger than the 430 and while in a kick, it shouldn't be an issue, but up in the pillar??? Again, I think some of this information leads us to better understanding of how our driver will react in the environment we are planning on putting it in. If I put a 12m in an enclosure the size of the Dyn, it raises the QTC to 1.01.


Exactly, see my post above about trade-offs. You can put these in a small enclosure in the pillars and still keep the Qtc low...but don't expect it to extend as low as the 12M would in the kicks with the larger (but very manageable) enclosure.

So a person has to decide what matters more in THEIR build. Location or extension in this case. Answer that and go from there.


----------



## Eric Stevens (Dec 29, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> My answer would be A LOT. Say you wanted a crossover point of 200hz. The Dyn is -6db down at 200hz. If you wanted to get a proper flat response down to 200hz you would have to use Eq. to boost. How much excursion do you need to go up 6 db? 3 times more! You also need more power to get that excursion as well, which means more power compression etc.


I think you are failing to account for the fact that if you are crossing over the driver at 200 Hz the response is NOT flat to 200 Hz it is 6dB down at the corner frequency. So its output requirement at the corner frequency is -6dB already so very little to no EQ would most likely be needed. Add to this the transfer function of most any vehicle adds 4 to 6 dB more energy in this area as further food for thought

Eric


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

This is starting to get interesting....


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> I might be looking at the wrong scan but it looks like both linear and mechanical excursion are very close.


Look at the part that states: 
_Klippel Linear Xmax Values:
X Bl @ Bl min=82% 
X C @ C min=75% 
X L @ Z max=10 % 
X d @ d2=10% _ 

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

subwoofery said:


> Look at the part that states:
> _Klippel Linear Xmax Values:
> X Bl @ Bl min=82%
> X C @ C min=75%
> ...


Thanks. I was going from the published specs on the scan, I'll take a look at the klippel now.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

FWIW, I've never crosses my midranges below 250hz (any of them). The car is a bear between 200-300hz in my ride. I actually leave a gap here to some degree.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

As i've said before, a driver raw with no reflective / absorption considerations reads differently than a driver in a vehicle.

As Eric pointed out, most of the time there is a rise in the 200-250 range in most vehicles. How does it react in your vehicle? Couldn't tell you. 

This is where science comes up short. Predictability is an over-achieving statement at best 

Regardless of how the dyn tests, or the comments by individuals that it is "the best".. The fact is it is THE most expensive set of small midrange drivers I know of  There is no argument there


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

I don't think you are going to see as much excursion when used as a midrange as you think you would. In 03 I ran midranges that had 1/2mm (yes a half a mm) of excursion down to 175 hertz and you could not see them move at wide ass open.

And if you XO at a sane point, it really doesn't matter what the Q of the enclosure is, the electrical slope will come before and take care of the acoustical slope making them the same.

FWIW, my SDX7s will take 200 watts with a 4th order crossover at 100 hertz to get 2mm of excursion at 200 hertz. Bump the XO up to 200hz 4th order and you get 1mm of excursion.

So you pop this driver (or any other midrange) in a bandpass crossover, there will not be much of a need for large displacement and BL(x). The copper might could help in the HD profile. But if you were building some bookshelf speakers, a BLH, or some other home project where they will be running fullrange...then you would start to need the variations over displacement.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

thehatedguy said:


> I don't think you are going to see as much excursion when used as a midrange as you think you would.
> 
> So you pop this driver (or any other midrange) in a bandpass crossover, there will not be much of a need for large displacement and BL(x). The copper might could help in the HD profile. But if you were building some bookshelf speakers, a BLH, or some other home project where they will be running fullrange...then you would start to need the variations over displacement.


agreed. And Pat actually analyzes things the same for VC mag. When band passed these issues become less important (not entirely unimportant). 

This is why I hope to get a new measurement rig and do full scale testing again with an entire suite of data. I place less emphasis on klippel data the higher you go in response. we need a way to analyze not only the hardware, but the soft part effects as well.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> I don't think you are going to see as much excursion when used as a midrange as you think you would. In 03 I ran midranges that had 1/2mm (yes a half a mm) of excursion down to 175 hertz and you could not see them move at wide ass open.
> 
> And if you XO at a sane point, it really doesn't matter what the Q of the enclosure is, the electrical slope will come before and take care of the acoustical slope making them the same.
> 
> ...


This is about expectations of your midrange. My expectations must be 4.5x larger than someone who crosses this Dyn. at 200hz. If I were to cross a single 4" Faital at 200hz I would be 6db higher at 200hz than a Dyn crossed there. The Dyn has 50% more xmax so let's say the difference once you account for that is 4.5db less output in the Dyn. That's really modest in my opinion, this argument is all about opinions the way you phrased it. 

How do I know that the Dyn is not sufficient for me? For one a single Faital is not enough for me and that one is 4.5db higher at 200hz, that's 150% louder, or lower distortion depending how you put it. With two of them I have an extra 6db of output available. We are now at a differential of 10.5db, it is monumental. Even then I tried crossing at 160hz and it didn't sound right to me. I tested my line array at 160hz and 200hz. The distortion doubles near the HP when I lower it to 160hz, even at only 105db (which I expect on good quality music) I don't ever see my mids moving but I could still hear the distortion from going to 160hz and I verified it with my mic. In short I get more than quadruple the output of a Dyn at 200hz so MY expectations are much higher, 4.5x like I said in my first line. This may not be you or anyone in this thread. Heck some may even be fine with oem or wall mart speakers. 




Eric Stevens said:


> I think you are failing to account for the fact that if you are crossing over the driver at 200 Hz the response is NOT flat to 200 Hz it is 6dB down at the corner frequency. So its output requirement at the corner frequency is -6dB already so very little to no EQ would most likely be needed. Add to this the transfer function of most any vehicle adds 4 to 6 dB more energy in this area as further food for thought
> 
> Eric


Eric,

I'm not buying it. If the output is down 6db at 200hz AS IF a crossover is applied then we won't use a crossover to sum flat. Ok, now switch to the other midranges. With a midrange that is flatter at 200hz, say a Rev. that is only down .5 you use a crossover. The crossover reduces the excursion demands on the Rev. by the amount you have to compensate to mimic the response you need to sum flat. What you have in the end is the same relative comparison I made earlier. You can't escape the simple fact that the other mids have a lot more output down low. For the same target response the excursion and therefore the distortion for the other mids is lower by at least a factor of 2 at 200hz. 

Your other point about there being cabin gain of sorts near the HP factors in to the comment I gave Jason above, what satisfies you. It has nothing to do with relative comparisons between speakers because the gain is there whether you use a Rev. or a Dyn. In practice there really isn't enough gain at 200hz to satisfy me, and at the same time you can always get lower distortion using the Rev. 



Niebur3 said:


> Possibly, but with the 12M, the required enclosure was 2.5X larger than the 430 and while in a kick, it shouldn't be an issue, but up in the pillar??? Again, I think some of this information leads us to better understanding of how our driver will react in the environment we are planning on putting it in. If I put a 12m in an enclosure the size of the Dyn, it raises the QTC to 1.01. Oh, and the 12MU in the same enclosure would raise it's QTC to 1.27.


Technically I can't disagree with you and so far I haven't. The box requirement is what it is, it is much less for the Dyn. 

Practically I think the big picture is that the Scans and the Dyn. are all very small box speakers. So the Dyn needs half a liter, the Illuminator needs a full liter. That's not impossible to get in a pillar. 

Secondly think about how much you get for that extra box size. To equal the output down low at 200hz some high excursion 3" might match the Dyn and get an even smaller box requirement. 

In other words I would look at magnitudes not just percentage differences, and secondly at ratios, how much more output do I get per tenth of a liter increase going from a Dyn to a competitor midrange. I'm thinking an output density measure. There is tradeoff here that has to be acknowledged.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

A Linkwitz-Riley crossover by it's nature is -6dB down at the crossover point. And a Butterworth by it's nature is -3 dB down at the crossover point.

4.5dB is a little more than double the output, but it's not double the perceived volume level.

IMO for midrange output surface trumps excursion.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

thehatedguy said:


> A Linkwitz-Riley crossover by it's nature is -6dB down at the crossover point. And a Butterworth by it's nature is -3 dB down at the crossover point.
> 
> 4.5dB is a little more than double the output, but it's not double the perceived volume level.
> 
> IMO for midrange output surface trumps excursion.


Agreed on all three. Was this addressing something I said earlier because I don't see if it changes the conclusions in any way?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

Uh, mmm...I don't know...lol.


----------



## SSSnake (Mar 8, 2007)

> Uh, mmm...I don't know...lol




Great debate here! In my mind this primarily comes down to desired xover freq, desired output level at the xover freq , and acceptable distortion level at the desired output level and freq.

The argument about enclosure space requirements seems somewhat overblown in my mind assuming you have access to EQ. The Q is only defined/applicable at the resonant freq of the speaker/box system. Provided you keep the Fs out of the passband why do you care? If it has to be in the passband then use an AP vent. If either is not a possibility then OK you have an issue. IMO buying this driver (with its incredible cost) over the scan because you can use it in a smaller box seems to be a poor use of resources (again IMO). But again this comes down to what Xover freq do you need for your system and can this driver do it at the volume and distortion levels that are acceptable to you. If the answer is yes then great, buy it. If the answer is yes but it's going to put a helluva pinch on my wallet then I am sure you can find drivers out there for much less that will do the job this mid does.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

I kept meaning to post this earlier but didn't think about it when I had the chance...


I would like to thank Mat and Jerry for hooking me up with these drivers to test. Mat (BuickGN) purchased a set from Jerry (Niebur3) and offered to send them in for testing but was worried about warranty. Jerry contacted Dyn regarding this and the folks at Dyn said they would warranty the drivers if I damaged them during testing. I'm not sure I can name many other companies that would be willing to do this so props to Dyn are due.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

SSSnake said:


> The argument about enclosure space requirements seems somewhat overblown in my mind assuming you have access to EQ. *The Q is only defined/applicable at the resonant freq of the speaker/box system. *Provided you keep the Fs out of the passband why do you care? If it has to be in the passband then use an AP vent. If either is not a possibility then OK you have an issue. IMO buying this driver (with its incredible cost) over the scan because you can use it in a smaller box seems to be a poor use of resources (again IMO). But again this comes down to what Xover freq do you need for your system and can this driver do it at the volume and distortion levels that are acceptable to you. If the answer is yes then great, buy it. If the answer is yes but it's going to put a helluva pinch on my wallet then I am sure you can find drivers out there for much less that will do the job this mid does.


You know what... I needed that kick in the head. As much as I talk about Q of enclosures and Fs given @ Q, I often forget that the Fs is outside the passband of most drivers (especially when discussing midrange) that it almost becomes moot. Almost because it still affects the rolloff, depending on the shape/number of Q.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> I kept meaning to post this earlier but didn't think about it when I had the chance...
> 
> 
> I would like to thank Mat and Jerry for hooking me up with these drivers to test. Mat (BuickGN) purchased a set from Jerry (Niebur3) and offered to send them in for testing but was worried about warranty. Jerry contacted Dyn regarding this and the folks at Dyn said they would warranty the drivers if I damaged them during testing. I'm not sure I can name many other companies that would be willing to do this so props to Dyn are due.


Thanks Matt,


I'm sure he will be happy once he installs them.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

Beautiful speakers, and very good sounding maybe the best? it's all up to you and where you hear them, worth the $1600 ? Not sure only your wallet can tell.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Hopefully I'll get to find out today.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

DAT said:


> Beautiful speakers, and very good sounding maybe the best? it's all up to you and where you hear them, worth the $1600 ? Not sure only your wallet can tell.


Are you impressed with these for the price point?


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

cvjoint said:


> Are you impressed with these for the price point?



Not even close, great speakers, tons of other options for Less. With decent speakers and placement you can have something really close.

Now to those that have the Esotar2 430's you Lucky SOB's  enjoy they are a gem.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

DAT said:


> Not even close, great speakers, tons of other options for Less. With decent speakers and placement you can have something really close.
> 
> Now to those that have the Esotar2 430's you Lucky SOB's  enjoy they are a gem.


Would you say an SB Acoustics 4" could get close? A little bit better or a little bit worse with the same placement?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I should have mine installed in a couple hours from now...


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

cvjoint said:


> Are you impressed with these for the price point?


For the price? Absolutely not.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

DAT said:


> Not even close, great speakers, tons of other options for Less. With decent speakers and placement you can have something really close.
> 
> Now to those that have the Esotar2 430's you Lucky SOB's  enjoy they are a gem.


How would you like them if say they cost $200? Price get brought up every time they're mentioned. They had no impact on my wallet whatsoever so if price was not a factor as it wasn't for me, how would you rate these things?


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

BuickGN said:


> How would you like them if say they cost $200? Price get brought up every time they're mentioned. They had no impact on my wallet whatsoever so if price was not a factor as it wasn't for me, how would you rate these things?


... and called Silver Flute Esotar2 430  

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Got them in. Still have a lot of tuning to do but right out of the box the system sounded better. Very, very promising first impression. They may take a few years to break in though. They're playing from 300 to 5000hz IB and theres no visible excursion. I may take the highpass down a little.


----------



## duckymcse (Mar 15, 2009)

Congrat on your 430 midrange. If I am still single, I would bought one of those for sure. I am sure it sound awesome once you got it dial in. Your setup looks impressive. Looking forward to hear your car audio on the next Socal meet.
Just my opinion. Are you happy with the MD102 tweeters? To me it is a good tweeters, but it sound kind of lifeless to me. If you still got more money to burn, might as well upgrade to the Esotar 110 tweeters 




BuickGN said:


> Got them in. Still have a lot of tuning to do but right out of the box the system sounded better. Very, very promising first impression. They may take a few years to break in though. They're playing from 300 to 5000hz IB and theres no visible excursion. I may take the highpass down a little.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

duckymcse said:


> Congrat on your 430 midrange. If I am still single, I would bought one of those for sure. I am sure it sound awesome once you got it dial in. Your setup looks impressive. Looking forward to hear your car audio on the next Socal meet.
> Just my opinion. Are you happy with the MD102 tweeters? To me it is a good tweeters, but it sound kind of lifeless to me. If you still got more money to burn, might as well upgrade to the Esotar 110 tweeters


Thanks. I was thinking of the 130 tweeters as well for a 3-way setup. I've been told the real advantage to the 110 is in a 2-way where it will play lower frequencies. I heard the 110s in John's Magic Bus and they were so smooth and life-like but I've never heard the 130s. He also highly recommends the 130s.

I'm happy with the 102 in the 3-way setup. It sounds good in a 2-way but really good in a 3-way. Highpassing at 5k and above it's just so smooth and sounds more detailed. I can't make up my mind if it's necessary or not in the 3-way. I do boost in the 10k-20k area to liven them up a little. I'm one of those weird people that can hear 20khz so it matters to me. If I had a 2-way it would have been upgraded to the 130 or 110 already. Some of it will depend on where my final low pass ends up on the 430s. I started at 5khz but I'm going to go lower and higher to see where it's happiest. If it ends up being substantially lower I'll probably upgrade the tweeters. Hopefully I can get some opinions at the next meet.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

I would go with the Esotar 110 Tweeter and cross @ 3kHz


I believe that most of musical information is in the Mid Range, but a 3" is only capable of outputting so much.


----------



## Se7en (Mar 28, 2007)

I know that each install is different. I ended up with 3250 @24db. With my 110/430. Combo.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

michaelsil1 said:


> but a 3" is only capable of outputting so much.


What do you mean by this? I'd understand if you meant on the low end but you're talking about up high. Just curious what exactly you mean here.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> What do you mean by this? I'd understand if you meant on the low end but you're talking about up high. Just curious what exactly you mean here.


Same here... 

Kelvin


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> What do you mean by this? I'd understand if you meant on the low end but you're talking about up high. Just curious what exactly you mean here.


If you Cross down to 200Hz and up to 5kHz I don't think you can crank on it that much. You can cross any Driver wherever you like, but it limits how much output you can get before nasty things start happening.

I wasn't just talking about the high end.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

I have been told the 330's sound better than 110's. But then again his personal opinion.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Se7en said:


> I know that each install is different. I ended up with 3250 @24db. With my 110/430. Combo.


That 110 is much more capable down low than my 102, not that 3250 is that low. I had the Esotec 3-way at 90/900/6000hz. The top end sounded better each time I raised the tweeter's high pass and since I'm running the same tweeter now I figured I would start out pretty high. I've only had a few hours of listening time, practically no tuning but today I'm going to start experimenting. Currently running it at 80/300/5k. The domes I had before played 6khz very well. Not sure if the 430 will or not but it's rated frequency response is to 7khz where the domes were to 6khz, not sure if that means anything or not.

So how do you like that combo? I heard the 110s in the Magic Bus and that's the smoothest tweeter I've ever heard. I'm very interested in your combo. If I'm going to upgrade, it's between the 130 and 110. The 130 is half the price but I don't want upgrade again in 6 months. I think I'm at the point of not knowing what I'm missing so it's hard to get motivated to upgrade.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> If you Cross down to 200Hz and up to 5kHz I don't think you can crank on it that much. You can cross any Driver wherever you like, but it limits how much output you can get before nasty things start happening.
> 
> I wasn't just talking about the high end.


I agree. That's why I was watching excursion and it's not visible at 300hz. I don't see the need to go lower, the 650s were designed for a 2-way, they do midrange pretty well and I don't know if I would gain anything by going down to 200hz. I can only guess but based off of what I saw at 300hz I can't imagine hitting xmax at 200hz unless you send some serious power to them.

Now one question I've had for a while, so you're no where near xmax but you like to run the mid up high like I do. Can you still muddy up the midrange by high passing it too low?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

This is why you really need additional information such as HD plots at XdB. Zaph posts this and it gives clear indications of where drivers' usable bandwidth is limited in both ends. 
My guess for this particular driver is that the low end distortion rises around 400hz, based in other similar drivers. However, that doesn't mean it's where it has to be crossed and it doesn't mean it's true. Dyn may have been able to design it so the distortion is stayed a bit longer. But if I'm betting money, I'm betting it performs similarly to most other 3-4" midranges based in the klippel results seen here.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

This is the kind of stuff you don't admit on the internet but I had them out of phase. It might explain the weirdness I was getting between 1-2khz and the dip at 5k, I don't know. Going to switch it around right now and retune.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Speaking of HD and other needed info...

I've reached out to the folks at klippel and have asked about possibly donating additional module licenses and hardware to give me the ability to measure FR, HD, and CSD. We're talking a few grand in product so cross your fingers.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> This is why you really need additional information such as HD plots at XdB. Zaph posts this and it gives clear indications of where drivers' usable bandwidth is limited in both ends.
> My guess for this particular driver is that the low end distortion rises around 400hz, based in other similar drivers. However, that doesn't mean it's where it has to be crossed and it doesn't mean it's true. Dyn may have been able to design it so the distortion is stayed a bit longer. But if I'm betting money, I'm betting it performs similarly to most other 3-4" midranges based in the klippel results seen here.


400Hz is probably where I would cross them as well and I was thinking 3kHz on top. A 3" has physical limits and you can run into problems when going a little overboard; with the above Crossover points you should really be able to lean on them without any noticeable distortion. I know of people Crossing a 3" down to 160Hz and up to 7kHz, but IMO it sounds like A$$.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

Right now i can bring it up to uncomfortable levels and stare at the cone from a foot away and barely detect movement. Is there any reason to raise the high pass in this case? They're obviously way below xmax and the 21mm p to p mechanical limit.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

If it matters, the passenger side is on axis and the driver's side is maybe 15 degrees off axis.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> I agree. That's why I was watching excursion and it's not visible at 300hz. I don't see the need to go lower, the 650s were designed for a 2-way, they do midrange pretty well and I don't know if I would gain anything by going down to 200hz. *I can only guess but based off of what I saw at 300hz I can't imagine hitting xmax at 200hz unless you send some serious power to them.*
> 
> *Now one question I've had for a while, so you're no where near xmax but you like to run the mid up high like I do. Can you still muddy up the midrange by high passing it too low?*


You don't want them to hit xmax, not even close. At xmax distortion from the motor alone is predicted to be 10%. Add to that distortion induced by suspension and inductance non-linearities and you listening to a lot of garbage. That is why I emphasize the importance of a good motor in the low octaves. Audiophiles drool over cone technology in vain, the motor prowess is the leading source of distortion with low cross points and small drivers. 

The "muddy" business you talk about is the spearker's inability to reproduce two tones or more without significant nonlinear distortion at harmonics and between. What you are looking for are two tone IMD tests. These are very rare, see Mark K. primer on intermodulation distortion half way down the page:
Nonlinear distortion testing of loudspeaker driver units

Odds are you'll never see this test on your Dyn but you can infer how well it will do if you think about what causes intermodulation distortion and whether the Dyn is any good in that respect. That brings me to my next point: IMD is driven largely by variations of inductance over stroke, LE(x) graph in Erin's tests. The Dyn. designer dropped the ball on inductance management in this speaker which makes it a rather poor choice for low crosspoints. 

Here's another good source on your response, Linkwitz is again one of the few to evaluate IMD distortion and how it related to driver design: "...if a low frequency signal is present together with the high frequency signal, then the large low frequency voice coil displacements can cause large amounts of intermodulation distortion products near the high frequency signal due to the large low frequency variation of Le(x). "

This page traces out his experiment and connects it to Klippel methodology. From there you can use Erin's results and see that the Dyn. doesn't look so hot in this respect:

Midrange distortion

When you combine the poor inductance performance under excursion with the poor modeling (from TS parameters) bellow 400hz you can see why I don't recommend this driver be crossed low.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> Right now i can bring it up to uncomfortable levels and stare at the cone from a foot away and barely detect movement. Is there any reason to raise the high pass in this case? They're obviously way below xmax and the 21mm p to p mechanical limit.


If you look at the Specs you should be able to Cross @ 128Hz (Werewolf's Rule: don't cross below double the fs).


----------



## pionkej (Feb 29, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Speaking of HD and other needed info...
> 
> I've reached out to the folks at klippel and have asked about possibly donating additional module licenses and hardware to give me the ability to measure FR, HD, and CSD. We're talking a few grand in product so cross your fingers.


I've had my fingers crossed since yesterday. :thumbsup:


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> You don't want them to hit xmax, not even close. At xmax distortion from the motor alone is predicted to be 10%. Add to that distortion induced by suspension and inductance non-linearities and you listening to a lot of garbage. That is why I emphasize the importance of a good motor in the low octaves. Audiophiles drool over cone technology in vain, the motor prowess is the leading source of distortion with low cross points and small drivers.
> 
> The "muddy" business you talk about is the spearker's inability to reproduce two tones or more without significant nonlinear distortion at harmonics and between. What you are looking for are two tone IMD tests. These are very rare, see Mark K. primer on intermodulation distortion half way down the page:
> Nonlinear distortion testing of loudspeaker driver units
> ...


They're not muddy in the slightest, just wondering. They're actually the cleanest, clearest midrange I've had the pleasure of listening to. It took a little getting used to. The 142s would occasionally get a little bright but the detail was nice. These are so neutral yet more detailed than the 142s. It's easy for me to associate brightness with detail. The only word I can think of to accurately describe the midrange is real or life like. Not bright or dull, it sounds like you have a human singing in the car with you. The snare drum is so much more life like and a lot more pop. I'm still fighting the damn MS8 though, making back to back comparisons difficult. It makes the mids overpower the rest of the system. It's a normal part of a retune to turn the level down at the amp each time.

Excursion is barely visible at an SPL level I'm not comfortable listening at for more than a minute or so. At moderately loud volumes there's no visible excursion. I tried them down to 200hz and up to 400hz. At 200 they sound fine. At 400 they sound fine. Probably going to bring the lowpass up to 6k. I went back to 300hz as my highpass. After a week I might lower it and after another week I might raise it. Numbers are great and all but in the end, these things sound great in the car on music, nothing I would change about them. Right now just trying to get some time under my belt before I give it a full review.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

Matt,

Did you use an RTA to make sure you're getting a flat response from your Mid Range?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> Matt,
> 
> Did you use an RTA to make sure you're getting a flat response from your Mid Range?


Yeah, the "real rta" on my droid lol. I need to buy some tools and i plan to as soon as i get a different processor. Right now its so frustrating to try and hear an a b difference. I might have to run 2-3 tunes before i'm satisfied and sometimes i don't know if the change is due to something i changed or something the MS8 changed.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> Yeah, the "real rta" on my droid lol. I need to buy some tools and i plan to as soon as i get a different processor. Right now its so frustrating to try and hear an a b difference. I might have to run 2-3 tunes before i'm satisfied and sometimes i don't know if the change is due to something i changed or something the MS8 changed.


How big were some of the dips and peaks?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> How big were some of the dips and peaks?


I had nearly 6db peak in the 1-2khz area and a 6db dip in the 5khz. Once I reconnected the mids in phase those went away.:blush:

Everything is surprisingly flat now. Before turning the midrange gains down the entire midrange was +3db but I'm sure it's the MS8 screwing me. With the addition of the 650s and now the 430s, I feel I'm better off with the processor bypassed and using the gains and EQ to "tune". It hates those speakers.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I had nearly 6db peak in the 1-2khz area and a 6db dip in the 5khz. Once I reconnected the mids in phase those went away.:blush:
> 
> Everything is surprisingly flat now. Before turning the midrange gains down the entire midrange was +3db but I'm sure it's the MS8 screwing me. With the addition of the 650s and now the 430s, I feel I'm better off with the processor bypassed and using the gains and EQ to "tune". It hates those speakers.


the mfg's plot looks pretty good on these drivers. I actually don't mind taking some mfg's word for it in many cases. Until I'm able to test it myself, I'll have to anyway.

There's a lot to be said for using a driver in it's intended passband that has a great FR to start with. The car really screws things up but it's nice to have a good place to start. Thus, the reason I'm going with a driver I am now (likely) going with.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I had nearly 6db peak in the 1-2khz area and a 6db dip in the 5khz. Once I reconnected the mids in phase those went away.:blush:
> 
> Everything is surprisingly flat now. Before turning the midrange gains down the entire midrange was +3db but I'm sure it's the MS8 screwing me. With the addition of the 650s and now the 430s, I feel I'm better off with the processor bypassed and using the gains and EQ to "tune". It hates those speakers.


The MS-8 hated mine as well! :lipsrsealed:


The P-99 is a much better match for me.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I just made a huge discovery. I did a couple tunes with the engine off. The weirdness I've been having with the subs, cutting 40-63 by 8db and boosting 20-32 by 6-10db is no longer needed. The subs have completely disappeared. The midbass is back so much that I plan on pulling the door panels just to make sure I'm not over driving them. The midrange is smoother and the tweeters are unchanged.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

So when are you going to debut your Esotar's?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

When you send me $1600 to buy them.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

bikinpunk said:


> When you send me $1600 to buy them.


I'll trade you the Esotar's for the Accuton D20-6 3/4" Diamond Dome Tweeter's.


I really want to try those!


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

bikinpunk said:


> When you send me $1600 to buy them.


Come over to the darkside... besides, I'm sure you can find them for less than full retail.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> Thanks for the testing Erin!! I can definitely agree with you that these are NOT widebanders and IMO absolutely sound amazing IF you keep them in the passband they were designed for (and even better in a very small enclosure).
> 
> The other aspect we have to look at is the viability of installation and what is required t get the most out of the drivers. These quite possibly could be the easiest to install due to their size and insanely small enclosure requirements which may allow you to physically locate the drivers in a better spot in the car aiding in sq advantages.
> 
> (I am now technically biased because I am a Dyn dealer and have them in my car. I was not a dealer and there was no bias during the midrange test where "blind", they finished first.)


If Dynaudio actually designed this speaker with ease of installation in mind, what the hell were they thinking when they designed the Esotar2 tweeter to mate it with?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

rain27 said:


> If Dynaudio actually designed this speaker with ease of installation in mind, what the hell were they thinking when they designed the Esotar2 tweeter to mate it with?


It's all about winning the sexy competition! I think most of their money goes into designing baskets, not $1,000 worth of course, a few dollars.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> It's all about winning the sexy competition! I think most of their money goes into designing baskets, not $1,000 worth of course, a few dollars.


That is such a non-founded ******** statement!

Sure, cause Dyn has show over the years they really care about being sexy over sounding good .

I mean, they have only used the same basic basket design for only like 20 years now. Man that was an absolute idiotic statement. I expect much better from you cvjoint!

I don't think sexy has anything to do with why they produce a large format tweeters, which Rain27 is referring to. It being large is what I am taking that he is referring to, not the face with the screw holes the way they are.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> That is such a non-founded ******** statement!
> 
> Sure, cause Dyn has show over the years they really care about being sexy over sounding good .
> 
> ...


You mean they didn't even change the basket? They just trimmed it? I didn't know that would cause such ruckus. Fine. Let's talk about the advancements made in this driver. I'll retract my statement if you give me a couple of engineering marvels in this speaker.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

And which speaker are we talking about here??? The 430 that is brand new??? The 110 or the 650? 

And where does me NOT giving you "engineering marvels" validate your asinine statement about the baskets?? What exactly is your question here? What engineering marvels have been brought forth by any speaker manufacturers lately.....it's not like they are making rockets here, they are in fact making speakers.....and have a history of doing so at high level.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> And which speaker are we talking about here??? The 430 that is brand new??? The 110 or the 650?
> 
> And where does me NOT giving you "engineering marvels" validate your asinine statement about the baskets?? What exactly is your question here? What engineering marvels have been brought forth by any speaker manufacturers lately.....it's not like they are making rockets here, they are in fact making speakers.....and have a history of doing so at high level.


Well, this is the Dyn 430 thread so it would be nice to talk about this one. My statement was a simple one, I don't see Dynaudio is a top notch innovator in the field. I can look at Tang Band and give you at least 10 easy clever tweaks for speaker design. You can call it being conservative but I'm not buying it, this is science after all.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> Well, this is the Dyn 430 thread so it would be nice to talk about this one. My statement was a simple one, I don't see Dynaudio is a top notch innovator in the field. I can look at Tang Band and give you at least 10 easy clever tweaks for speaker design. You can call it being conservative but I'm not buying it, this is science after all.


Sure, and is that why the Tang Band W4 did so good in the "midrange shootout"?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> Sure, and is that why the Tang Band W4 did so good in the "midrange shootout"?


Since when is the midrange shootout the industry standard? This is still the Klippel forum last time I checked. It seems to me you are avoiding the question. I think if you started with a few speaker design bits from the Esotar we could make this into a nice discussion. The Klippel is about parameter testing and optimization, how different parts come together to form a system. It's prime time for motor design talk.

Here's one to kickstart:
A vented pole piece is nothing new. See this patent application that improves some of its aspects filed in 1982, nearly 30 years ago:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4508941.html

The vented pole piece itself is who knows how old. I personally prefer the XLS method of venting the duscap that does not require one. A vented pole piece requires a deeper enclosure and in car audio that's a big negative. It can also make noise and take in dirt and debris.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I think we're forgetting that measurements are only part of this game. I submitted the 430 for testing for fun not really caring about how it measures. Theres plenty info the klippel does not give that can effect the thing that matters most.....how the speaker sounds. In the end I put more weight on a blind listening test than how it *should* perform based on its measurements. Its fun to try and find the correlation between the numbers and the sound but I don't think we're 100% there yet. 

I knew going into this there would be attacks based solely on the price and thats fine. I personally love the sound of the Dyns and I knew if I tried some of the cheaper mids I would still end up back here. It has no effect on my finances so why wouldn't I buy the mid I know will have the sound I'm looking for, the one that won the midrange shootout, and the one that has recieved nothing but glowing reviews. After a month with them despite fighting the MS8 the whole way I'm thoroughly happy with my purchase.

Lets also remember that at the 310hz highpass theres only visible excursion at higher spl than I can comfortably listen to and even then you have to put your face right up to them to see the 1 mm or so of movement.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

The midrange shootout is not the industry standard, I am just saying you are contesting that all these technical advances ultimately lead to a better sounding driver. I am contesting that there is more to it than shorting rings and underhung motors. Many of the drivers we listened to were "technically" more advanced than the Dyn or even the Scan 12m, and yet all of them performed worse in the blind subjective listening test. 

What is that saying??



cvjoint said:


> Since when is the midrange shootout the industry standard? This is still the Klippel forum last time I checked.


You are right, this is the Klippel forum. That is why I was so surprised about your blatantly attacking comment regarding the basket design. You are the one that opened the door outside this forum....am I right?? So, I am wrong for walking through it??

We can have a nice discussion. Tell me what technical advances the Scan 12M has.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Niebur3 said:


> The midrange shootout is not the industry standard, I am just saying you are contesting that all these technical advances ultimately lead to a better sounding driver. I am contesting that there is more to it than shorting rings and underhung motors. Many of the drivers we listened to were "technically" more advanced than the Dyn or even the Scan 12m, and yet all of them performed worse in the blind subjective listening test.


Well, on the other hand, the two TB drivers I've tested thus far had little to no symmetry in both Bl and Kms. They both do use a shorting ring, though. Given that, I'm not so sure I'd expect stellar results from either of them. 

That said, after talking with Patrick about this, I realize the real meat and potatoes of midrange testing is in the FR/HD testing for linear/non-linear distortion. The Klippel results still show how the design of hardparts will influence the sound (Bl/Kms offset giving even order distortion that could be pleasurable; Le(x) leading to 3rd order distortion that is described as the most unpleasant, especially when it supersedes 2nd order). Hopefully when I get the mic in, I can start syncing up these ideas. In fact, if you're willing, I'd love to be able to fully test this driver via IMD and FR. It will be no more taxing than the Klippel testing itself. 
I think that would go a long way to explain why people like this driver, all psychoacoustics aside. We often make the mistake of placing all our analysis in the measurements. Companies surely (giving the benefit of the doubt) do their own subjective evaluations with listening groups. The design can often be based solely around specs, solely around subjectivity, or it can be a combination of both (giving offsets and some minor tradeoffs in 'perfect' results). Hopefully it's the latter. Of course, driver use will likely play a large role here as well. Without having measurements, the designer can't fully know what hardware changes affected the audibility and resulted in the listening group's pluses and minuses.
The goal here is for us to ultimately determine how the measurements show us what the driver will sound like. 


Going a bit OT:
The more research I've done on A/B testing the more I find it's not as simple as I once thought, either. The research I've done suggests proper testing must be VERY fast. That's why guys like Toole and Dickason (and others) use a turntable to rotate a speaker around. I've been told by Dickason directly that the amount of time to "swap" speakers needs to be no higher than 3 seconds. So, I've kept this information in my head since then. Not saying your results were invalid. Just saying that there's still the element of hearing memory that is fundamentally at fault here and can very well influence results in listening comparisons.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

bikinpunk said:


> Going a bit OT:
> The more research I've done on A/B testing the more I find it's not as simple as I once thought, either. The research I've done suggests proper testing must be VERY fast. That's why guys like Toole and Dickason (and others) use a turntable to rotate a speaker around. I've been told by Dickason directly that the amount of time to "swap" speakers needs to be no higher than 3 seconds. So, I've kept this information in my head since then. Not saying your results were invalid. Just saying that there's still the element of hearing memory that is fundamentally at fault here and can very well influence results in listening comparisons.


That is why I had my wife involved. She has proven many times to co-workers and others that she has an "audiographic memory", if there really is such a thing....lol. But seriously, here audible memory is truly stunning and she has proved it time and time again. I have even tested her by Not changing a setting in the car, telling her I did and she has never failed. IT IS CRAZY!!!!!


----------



## jpswanberg (Jan 14, 2009)

It must be something about wives. Mine is the same way. What takes me 15 minutes of listening, she gets in 15 seconds. The problem is that she couldn't care less about any song that is longer than 3 minutes, or that doesn't have lyrics that couldn't have been written by a 5 year old. And no, my wife doesn't follow this hobby or web site, but if she did, she would laugh, agree and then go scrapbook some more . Oh for her ears though. JPS


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> The midrange shootout is not the industry standard, I am just saying you are contesting that all these technical advances ultimately lead to a better sounding driver. I am contesting that there is more to it than shorting rings and underhung motors. Many of the drivers we listened to were "technically" more advanced than the Dyn or even the Scan 12m, and yet all of them performed worse in the blind subjective listening test.
> 
> What is that saying??
> 
> ...


I never said R&D or patents for that matter always work. I simply said that in my view it seems like Dyn. is spending most of their effort on good looks. I think I have come up with far more believable support for my argument than you have. 

How a driver ranks in your "shoutout" practically says nothing to me. That was supposed to be a classical experimient using the ear as a tool. A few things wrong with that setup, but mostly it's just really OT in this thread. The way the test was actually carried out raises a lot of concerns to external validity. If you are using the test as your guiding light I think you are making a big mistake. Ultimately this is my last word on this here out of respect for W.Klippel and Erin's work. I can start a thread at a latter time giving my .02 on why the "shoutout" fails to achieve stated purposes. That is the better way to go.

Getting back to our actual discussion, I don't see anything wrong with spending money to make a speaker look good. That's why I was surprised to see you blow up like this. I often make choices of gear based on how good they look. For one I would never buy a car that looks ugly, I will give up a lot of performance to have something nice to look at inside and out. Nothing wrong with that. 

I also don't mind supporting it the other way around, that the Dyn brand doesn't scream of R&D, ingenuity, or advancement.

The 12M is easily supported. Here are two bits:
1. At the time it came out it was the highest excursion woofer of that size. That means Scan not only developed their motor very well but also their suspension.
2. The slit cone design is an effort to reduce cone modes. Whether it works or not is another question but the obvious effort to advance speaker design is clearly present. I tend to think it worked too since the Rev. cones are some of the best behaved cones ever made.

So when are you going to come up with something in support of the Dyn? You are basically 3 points behind.


----------



## SouthSyde (Dec 25, 2006)

For ME the selling point was that dyn finally designed a low mass moving driver which allows it to be in a tiny enclosure. Made installing the driver in its perfect enclosure much easier than other midranges.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> The 12M is easily supported. Here are two bits:
> 1. At the time it came out it was the highest excursion woofer of that size. That means Scan not only developed their motor very well but also their suspension.
> 2. The slit cone design is an effort to reduce cone modes. Whether it works or not is another question but the obvious effort to advance speaker design is clearly present. I tend to think it worked too since the Rev. cones are some of the best behaved cones ever made.
> 
> So when are you going to come up with something in support of the Dyn? You are basically 3 points behind.


I'm not sure how important excursion is in this category. I can't see my 430s move with a 310hz crossover point.

I believe the use of the abnormally large VC is Dyn's effort to reduce cone modes.

You'll get a chance to hear them at the meet in December, my only fear is the MS8 screwing with things but I'll give everyone free reign over the EQ.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

SouthSyde said:


> For ME the selling point was that dyn finally designed a low mass moving driver which allows it to be in a tiny enclosure. Made installing the driver in its perfect enclosure much easier than other midranges.


send me some pics, Love to see the new updates..


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> I'm not sure how important excursion is in this category. I can't see my 430s move with a 310hz crossover point.
> 
> I believe the use of the abnormally large VC is Dyn's effort to reduce cone modes.
> 
> You'll get a chance to hear them at the meet in December, my only fear is the MS8 screwing with things but I'll give everyone free reign over the EQ.


In the car setting it's second only to the car acoustics. A large dip in response even if high in frequency can lead to a trouble spot after equalization is implemented. The cabin dynamics are crucial and of utmost importance. However, not many of us can change our car interiors severely so that remains a fixed aspect. The second highest source of distortion is the high pass filter choice. 300hz may not place great demands on your speaker but many users cross mids much lower. The lower crossover point has implications for sound staging, phase distortion, group delay etc. Third order effects are cone resonances, at it's worse - cone breakup. That is generally easily circumvented by your choice of a low pass filter and it's generally not a concern if you use a tweeter with a mid this small. So how important is low end performance? Very. Especially if your cabin has a null right at the high pass point. 

I'm not sure how the VC size related to cone modes. Subwoofers have larger coils and they usually have worse cone modes. But is that causation or correlation? VC size is also determined by length, winding gaps, layers etc 



Not sure I made this clear enough but the Dyn. has very poor low end extension. Yes you get a smaller box requirement and sensitivity but in return you trade off low frequency extension. Hoffman's iron rule flavor kinda. I see this as a design tradeoff, some may like one some the other.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> In the car setting it's second only to the car acoustics. A large dip in response even if high in frequency can lead to a trouble spot after equalization is implemented. The cabin dynamics are crucial and of utmost importance. However, not many of us can change our car interiors severely so that remains a fixed aspect. The second highest source of distortion is the high pass filter choice. 300hz may not place great demands on your speaker but many users cross mids much lower. The lower crossover point has implications for sound staging, phase distortion, group delay etc. Third order effects are cone resonances, at it's worse - cone breakup. That is generally easily circumvented by your choice of a low pass filter and it's generally not a concern if you use a tweeter with a mid this small. So how important is low end performance? Very. Especially if your cabin has a null right at the high pass point.
> 
> I'm not sure how the VC size related to cone modes. Subwoofers have larger coils and they usually have worse cone modes. But is that causation or correlation? VC size is also determined by length, winding gaps, layers etc
> 
> ...


What do you consider low frequency? I'm trying to understand why you're saying this mid has poor low frequency extension. I'm sure at some point with a given excursion a 3.5" will lose to a 4" or larger but down to 300hz it's great so far. 

I'm just getting started trying different stuff but I've found no lack of low frequency extension so far. Keep in mind I've been using these IB up until a few days ago. We'll see what happens when I go lower. 

I have the Esotar 650s in the doors which play midrange very well so I'm not too concerned with taking the 430s lower. Part of the reason I went from the 162 to the 650 was to gain a few mm of xmax and xmech and it was designed with a 2-way setup in mind and really stands out in it's midrange abilities. Or in other words, I don't feel the need to high pass lower right now. 

According to Dyn and Klippel I have a few mm of good excursion before xmax so the plan is to take it down (if I take it lower) until I hit a few mm of excursion at maximum SPL and stop there. I'll update when I find that point.

During my research before I had ever bought a Dyn driver I read about the large diameter VC used for cone modes. It talked about attaching the VC to the mid section of the cone vs the inner diameter. I wish I could remember if it was Dynaudio or HT forums, maybe I have it bookmarked at home.


Sorry for this mixed up post but I only have a minute to post it.


----------



## subwoofery (Nov 9, 2008)

cvjoint said:


> In the car setting it's second only to the car acoustics. A large dip in response even if high in frequency can lead to a trouble spot after equalization is implemented. The cabin dynamics are crucial and of utmost importance. However, not many of us can change our car interiors severely so that remains a fixed aspect. The second highest source of distortion is the high pass filter choice. 300hz may not place great demands on your speaker but many users cross mids much lower. The lower crossover point has implications for sound staging, phase distortion, group delay etc. Third order effects are cone resonances, at it's worse - cone breakup. That is generally easily circumvented by your choice of a low pass filter and it's generally not a concern if you use a tweeter with a mid this small. So how important is low end performance? Very. Especially if your cabin has a null right at the high pass point.
> 
> I'm not sure how the VC size related to cone modes. Subwoofers have larger coils and they usually have worse cone modes. But is that causation or correlation? VC size is also determined by length, winding gaps, layers etc
> 
> ...


If I had to guess, Engineers from Dynaudio might think that most users are going to be using the door location for midbasses. Cancellation usually happens around 500Hz-630Hz - Therefore crossing the E²430 around 315Hz-400Hz takes care of the problem. 
Tradeoff taken care of and no need to create a midrange that goes too low... 

Just an assumption really  

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> What do you consider low frequency? I'm trying to understand why you're saying this mid has poor low frequency extension. I'm sure at some point with a given excursion a 3.5" will lose to a 4" or larger but down to 300hz it's great so far.
> 
> I'm just getting started trying different stuff but I've found no lack of low frequency extension so far. Keep in mind I've been using these IB up until a few days ago. We'll see what happens when I go lower.
> 
> ...


I'm down to hear about the coil advantages, I presume it's a weight distribution thing.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> I'm down to hear about the coil advantages, I presume it's a weight distribution thing.


I'll try and find it for you. It was about supporting the cone somewhere near mid diameter with the VC. In a way, I could see it adding rigidity to the cone.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

This I found with a quick search, it's not what I had in mind but it sort of covers it. This is from 6 moons reviews on the Focus system:

*"Dust cap wouldn't capture it insists Dynaudio. That is glued to a membrane to create material discontinuity with sonically deleterious side effects. The Danes prefer crafting their membrane from one piece inclusive of the dome to eliminate the transition issue. This Ø 7.5cm dome doesn't merely hint at the overdimensioned voice coil behind it but, as per Dynaudio, also optimizes the radiation pattern of the driver whereby its upper coverage band is primarily handled by the "dome within the cone" whereas bass involves the entire surface. The membrane is made of a composite Magnesium Silikat polymer (MPS) to combine the three desirable traits of self damping, low mass and superior stiffness. Why the voice coil diameter for the Focus 110A ended up this gargantuan was explained by product manager Herr Hoffmann:

"As they do with most their mid/woofers, Dynaudio relies here on their so-called Center Magnet System. The magnet is central, the voice coil surrounds it. This creates a very large and even magnetic field and thermal linearity is much improved. Usually this size coil diameter would create a very heavy lazy voice coil but every Dynaudio model relies on very thin pure aluminum windings. Contrary to the ubiquitous heavy copper, this allows very lightweight coils of unusually large cross section at twice the size of copper without mass increase. Advantages include optimized transfer of voltage input to movement output, i.e. motion is far better controlled and tracks the amplifier signal with precision."*

From "Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity":

*The mid-bass unit can be mistaken for none other than a Dynaudio original. You see, their driver designs call for dramatically oversized voice coils. A 3” coil is considered large for some subwoofers. For a 6” driver it is downright gargantuan. This is the reason for the cone’s appearance as not a cone but very nearly a dome. Referring to the diagram above and photo of the driver you can get a sense of how unusual this is. A traditional driver employs a cone diaphragm driven by a voice coil that moves through the center hole of a “doughnut” magnet. The Dynaudio driver’s diaphragm can’t be called a cone at all, and its voice coil moves over the outside of the doughnut. The advantages to doing so are numerous: The diaphragm has optimum drive and more control for greater speed and dynamics. But this begs the question, “why aren’t all speaker drivers made this way?" The biggest challenge presented by the design, and met by Dynaudio, is that the larger voice coil and former would normally result in substantially more mass and therefore a slower response, negating the positives of the design. By using unconventional material and a special hexagonal cut aluminum coil wire, Dynaudio creates a short but dense coil in a tight gap. Centering the magnet inside this coil further benefits the system by making better use of the magnetic energy. The shape of the diaphragm is no accident either. That’s not an oversized dust cap you see, it's all one piece. Dynaudio tells me that it is geometrically design for optimum response and dispersion. In a way, it is tuned: the “center” radiates the highest frequencies of the driver, the outer portion the lower tones. The circle of “notches” you see are where the voice coil former is attached."*

Basically says the same thing but with a few more details.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

From this thread:What are the benefits/disadvantages of a larger voice coil? - diyAudio

*If you're talking about deflection under load, IMO, one of the big advantages of a perimeter-driven dome is that as the cantilever distance increases (from the driven edge toward the unsupported center), decreasing amounts of mass are added. This is an improvement over an apex-driven cone where most of the mass is located at the end of the cantilever farthest from the VC, putting greater deflection loads on less material. *

I know it says domes but I think some of it can be applied to a large VC cone.


----------



## tonesmith (Sep 8, 2011)

1 mol of aluminum weighs about 27grams , 1 mol of copper is like 64 grams. What is this talk about Al being heavier? I Beleive Cu and Al are functionally used as pure elements.

Also, at the meet Matt, I'm not even going to listen to your dyns, I have already decided they LOOK to sound terrible


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Some of the stuff I believe, in particular the diy argument. It's all in the distribution of mass like I was thinking. In return the spider has less area to provide linear restoring force.

The voicecoil material choice seems to be based on design goals. B&C uses aluminum for their sensitive high extension drivers but copper for the bass drivers. Copper is a better conductor and can handle more power. Aluminum dissipates heat quicker and is lighter.

What about this part:
"Usually this size coil diameter would create a very heavy lazy voice coil but every Dynaudio model relies on very thin pure aluminum windings."

What if you use thin pure aluminum windings on a conventional small diameter coil? Would that make for a harder working coil? Why is lazy in the lexicon anyway?


"The mid-bass unit can be mistaken for none other than a Dynaudio original. You see, their driver designs call for dramatically oversized voice coils."




























All of these have "oversized" aka large diameter coils. None of them are Dyn.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

tonesmith said:


> 1 mol of aluminum weighs about 27grams , 1 mol of copper is like 64 grams. What is this talk about Al being heavier? I Beleive Cu and Al are functionally used as pure elements.
> 
> Also, at the meet Matt, I'm not even going to listen to your dyns, I have already decided they LOOK to sound terrible


Lol. I'm going to sell the Dyns since they can't sound good. I guess my imagination got the best of me. I need to inform John W to swap out those Dyns in the Magic Bus for some $20 drivers as well.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> Lol. I'm going to sell the Dyns since they can't sound good. I guess my imagination got the best of me. I need to inform John W to swap out those Dyns in the Magic Bus for some $20 drivers as well.


LOL

the drivers sound great!!!!

But you don't need them to sound good, hell when is the last time you heard someone with these drivers ever win a World Championship in car audio, let alone see anyone with these at a show in their rides???

I know a few that have the esotar2 setup but no big wins yet.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

Nobody is saying they can't sound good. I'm sure they sound different then most quality drivers (cheap and expensive) because they make engineering tradeoffs for high crossover points. The emphasis here is on tradeoffs. I suppose most see Dyn's marketing as an improvement over current design whereas I think they are making different choices with commonly available technology. 

I've been saying this for half a decade now, if you like the Dyn approach you will love Skaaning even more. They take a similar design and add very appealing improvements:

1. better technology through the use of high linearity motors and topologies, heavy use of copper in the motor...

2. full customization. That way you can have your speaker designed to fit your needs. 

This is a story of information asymmetries, never underestimate the power of marketing.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> Nobody is saying they can't sound good. I'm sure they sound different then most quality drivers (cheap and expensive) because they make engineering tradeoffs for high crossover points. The emphasis here is on tradeoffs. I suppose most see Dyn's marketing as an improvement over current design whereas I think they are making different choices with commonly available technology.
> 
> I've been saying this for half a decade now, if you like the Dyn approach you will love Skaaning even more. They take a similar design and add very appealing improvements:
> 
> ...


What's this marketing you're talking about? I've read the spec sheet. Haven't seen much in the way of marketing. You're assuming I'm so ignorant that I blindly follow marketing (that I've never seen) and can't make a decision based on anything else. You've hinted numerous times that I think the price tag makes the speaker. Let's just get this in the open instead of beating around the bush.

Technology- Who says there's no new technology in the Dyns? So you can't see it from the outside. I can say I've never heard a speaker that can keep it's composure like these when fed twice the recommended power.

Customization- Why? Install them properly and you're fine.

I wanted the most realistic sound I could get. One reason I got rid of the 142 for the 430 mid was it was just a little on the bright side. Dyns are not harsh or dull, just life like. I've heard a lot of great systems especially over the past year and constantly try and hear more to gain knowledge about different setups out there and so far I'm still very happy with my setup with the exception of the MS8. 

How many Dyn speakers have you run in your car? It's nice to guess where they should be highpassed at but until you run them in your car you're only guessing. Somewhere along the way you sadly put more emphasis on numbers than what you hear and somewhere along the way you forgot that no one has yet put a number on sound quality.

Go buy yourself a set of Esotars, install and tune them in your car and if you still hate them I'll have nothing else to say. Trashing them based on numbers alone is retarded.

I've never denied I own Dynaudio equipment so I think you should come out and say you have a bias against Dynaudio for full disclosure. This is starting to seriously piss me off now. You defend the new Vifa that was just tested and say it's just a few adjustments from being good when it tested terribly. You get a Dyn klippeled that tests pretty good and every post of yours is a reason why it can't sound good. I thought this kind of stuff would end once I got rid of the 12W6s but apparently Dynaudio has the same type of following. Anyone who spends more than a few bucks gets the rich ignorant dumbass label by default. I hate having to defend a brand because it makes everyone involved sound ignorant but enough is enough.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> What's this marketing you're talking about? I've read the spec sheet. Haven't seen much in the way of marketing. You're assuming I'm so ignorant that I blindly follow marketing (that I've never seen) and can't make a decision based on anything else. You've hinted numerous times that I think the price tag makes the speaker. Let's just get this in the open instead of beating around the bush.
> 
> Technology- Who says there's no new technology in the Dyns? So you can't see it from the outside. I can say I've never heard a speaker that can keep it's composure like these when fed twice the recommended power.
> 
> ...


I had the 3 ways with the dome midrange. I really believe that setup needs all 3 drivers to be mounted very close to one another considering you have to cross the dome higher than a cone. The set sounded the best in this configuration to me 

Are you coming to the meet on the 10th Buick? I'd love to hear your new setup


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> What's this marketing you're talking about? I've read the spec sheet. Haven't seen much in the way of marketing. You're assuming I'm so ignorant that I blindly follow marketing (that I've never seen) and can't make a decision based on anything else. You've hinted numerous times that I think the price tag makes the speaker. Let's just get this in the open instead of beating around the bush.
> 
> Technology- Who says there's no new technology in the Dyns? So you can't see it from the outside. I can say I've never heard a speaker that can keep it's composure like these when fed twice the recommended power.
> 
> ...


I don't defend the Vifas. Not by a long shot. I've been very transparent about their strengths and weaknesses. In fact when people have asked me in private about getting one of the NE series I flatly said it's the weakest choice in their list. I like the 12s based on a pure output and sound quality per lb. The 12s are also very well optimized compared to the smaller siblings. If I were to blindly follow brand identity I'd recommend the Vifa NE in any size to anybody but that's hardly the case. When weight is not a factor I make completely different recommendations. 

If you took one second here to look at the facts you would see that you have been the only one making this a personal attack. My comments have been primarily about this particular speaker, and Dyn. brand image and innovation. I never tied your choices in, I don't care why you bought it and it doesn't define you as a person for me. I try to appeal to the DIYMA enthusiast, to become better informed as a method to achieve the best possible speaker purchase. It seems that you have a different way of going about it, buying everything and installing it in your car, that's a method too. But why are you bashing the Klippel approach? When you come out and say you can't quantify any aspect of speaker performance you are in fact bashing the scientific approach. 

In terms of acquisition costs, you have made it painfully obvious that monetary costs are not an issue to you. That's great. Some of us prefer to understand the underlying mechanisms and save some money by reducing "plug and chug" type approaches. We may have a lower cost of getting information, or a lower cost for time, but a higher cost in terms of pure currency. There's plenty of room for everybody in this hobby. Why bash the informational approach?

Marketing is deeply rooted in the American culture. It's so effective and subtle that often we have no idea we are even exposed. Whenever folks get speakers free from the manufacturer it presents a way to market. It's a display. Whenever you tie brands to outcomes in competitions it's a form of marketing. Whenever you add any subjective statements on a white sheet it's marketing. I've personally fallen in that trap a few times. I came out and openly said I made a mistake. Marketing is not always a drag of course, it can be informational, but often times it's manipulative. If it makes a difference I fight the manipulative ways outright and wouldn't mind sharing my bad encounters.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DAT said:


> LOL
> 
> the drivers sound great!!!!
> 
> ...


I am soooo disappointed in you Dave. Do you really think the only cars that sound amazing show up in the lanes at competitions? Furthermore, do you really believe the best sounding cars always win? If so, you haven't competed much, have you???

I have personally heard many cars at finals that won their division and sounded like crap, but technically scored enough on a score sheet to win.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

BigRed said:


> I had the 3 ways with the dome midrange. I really believe that setup needs all 3 drivers to be mounted very close to one another considering you have to cross the dome higher than a cone. The set sounded the best in this configuration to me
> 
> Are you coming to the meet on the 10th Buick? I'd love to hear your new setup


I think so. I heard your setup pretty well from about 50 feet away but it would be nice to hear it from the inside this time lol. Yours as well as Gary's are two I really wanted to hear but didn't get a chance. I'm halfway considering swapping processors beforehand since I have a feeling I'm going to be under the gun.


----------



## DAT (Oct 8, 2006)

Niebur3 said:


> I am soooo disappointed in you Dave. Do you really think the only cars that sound amazing show up in the lanes at competitions? Furthermore, do you really believe the best sounding cars always win? If so, you haven't competed much, have you???
> 
> I have personally heard many cars at finals that won their division and sounded like crap, but technically scored enough on a score sheet to win.


Jerry, now don't start acting silly, No all judges are different, i agree some of the cars i have heard were not the best to me, sometimes guys that get 2nd or 3rd sound best IMHO. 

I have access to Dyn's , and while I love them they are only for a select few. And no not all cars that have great systems come to shows to compete.

I have done many a system for guys and none of them ever competed, because of work or family or whatnot.

It would be nice to see some of the other big companies have someone at some big shows for support. Thats one of the reason's HAT does so well. Scott is great at Tuning.


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> I am soooo disappointed in you Dave. Do you really think the only cars that sound amazing show up in the lanes at competitions? Furthermore, do you really believe the best sounding cars always win? If so, you haven't competed much, have you???
> 
> I have personally heard many cars at finals that won their division and sounded like crap, but technically scored enough on a score sheet to win.


Surely there are competitions based solely on sound. If we can't trust these competitions to tell us what sounds best, what weight do we give any listening tests of any kind for that matter?

And at what point do we accept one person's opinion over that of another?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

I heard a system with all Dyn speakers and it was one of the best I've heard to date and it just had a quick tune that was far from "dailed in". The tonality this system had was what put in on my top five list. It had Esotar cone midrange and dome tweets in kicks, lower level midbass in doors (fitment issues with the Esotar midbass iirc), and Esotar sub IB. If I had the money and wasn't so loyal to H-Audio/Audible Physics Dyn Esotar would be a big possibility for me. Audio Technology would probably win out though.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

rain27 said:


> Surely there are competitions based solely on sound. If we can't trust these competitions to tell us what sounds best, what weight do we give any listening tests of any kind for that matter?
> 
> And at what point do we accept one person's opinion over that of another?


So tell me how I am supposed to trust a judge's opinion about my system when he admits his reference home system is a BOSE? Really? I don't think all judges are trained to know what to listen for. 

I would much rather pick a handful of people on DIYMA to listen to my car. I trust them more, not only because of their point of reference, but thier knowledge of car audio as a whole. 

Sound is subjective and that is what make this "sport" so insanely difficult, not to mention the environment we get to install speakers in. 

And finally, have neither you or DAT been to a competition where the cars from the shop sponsoring the competition seem to all win? I have!! As a matter of fact, at finals, I saw the head sound judge get out of the car and shake hands with the owner of the shop that built the car. That owner also happened to be sponsoring Finals. The owner of the car was right there as well, so the shop was not showing the car, just making sure the comments validated the large price tag the customer had to pay. I listened to the car right after and was shocked on how terrible it sounded. It got 2nd place. There was at least 50K into that car. Politics play a big role.....so no, I have no faith in all competition cars being the best sounding (some are). Again, I would much rather have a select few on DIYMA judge me car any day of the week. 

BTW, why feel the need for someone else to validate what you think sounds good? I compete to meet people and try to further my business.


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

DAT said:


> It would be nice to see some of the other big companies have someone at some big shows for support. Thats one of the reason's HAT does so well. Scott is great at Tuning.


I do COMPLETELY agree with everything about this statement!!!


----------



## rain27 (Jan 15, 2009)

Niebur3 said:


> So tell me how I am supposed to trust a judge's opinion about my system when he admits his reference home system is a BOSE? Really? I don't think all judges are trained to know what to listen for.
> 
> I would much rather pick a handful of people on DIYMA to listen to my car. I trust them more, not only because of their point of reference, but thier knowledge of car audio as a whole.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt some unjust competitions existing, but are there no legitimate ones?

And no, I don't need anyone's validation regarding what sounds good to me. But you have referred to the midrange shootout on several occasions to point out which sounds the best. Should those results be invalid as well because I myself did not take part in it?


----------



## Niebur3 (Jul 11, 2008)

rain27 said:


> Should those results be invalid as well because I myself did not take part in it?


It is easy for me to say no, since I headed the test. But I think that fact that we used males/females, old/young, some with/without audio experience and averaged the scores, should be sufficient for most. But everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion (as long as they agree with me of course....j/k). 

I wonder how scores would change in sound competitions if the judges were blindfolded? We couldn't see the speakers in the blind test and placement remained the same. Judges are also influenced by vehicle, location of drivers (if they can seem them) and brand of speakers (if they can see them), which leads to bias, hell....I know that if my car is too hot or cold during judging, it can lead to lower scores. We tried to remove all bias in our test, temp was just right .


----------



## SoundJunkie (Dec 3, 2008)

Funny that all of this talk about competition and fairness came up here. I decided to enter the USACi world finals this year, in modifiedQ, at the request of some friends. These individuals heard my vehicle at a GTG earlier this year and thought that it would do well in competition. So, I received a special invite and off I went to finals without a clue. My truck was inside the Atrium of the convention center surrounded by big name shops promoting the latest forum boner gear. I don't have anything in my system, with the exception of the MS8, that is even in production any longer. So I was quite intimidated by the high dollar builds and fancy displays to say the least. I had the opportunity to go around and make some friends and demo quite a few of the vehicles in my class, as well as some of the other classes, before judging. I was not really that impressed with much of what I heard to be honest. I was there with a close friend whose ears I also trust and he was of the same opinion as me. So it was obvious that it was either going to come down to a political win or the actual best sounding vehicle was going to win. Needless to say, when the score sheets were handed out and the big shop owners and equipment manufacturers started to show up and want to listen to my ride it was obvious that the better system had won! I think the judging this year at this event was extremely fair and very non biased. The same judge did all of the sound judging for every vehicle at finals and I believe that my truck was his personal favorite. So, sometimes the underdog comes out on top when the event is judged based on sound alone and not just whose gear is in it and who is paying the tab!!

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Keep it OT. I don't need competition talk in a technical thread. 

Thanks.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> I don't defend the Vifas. Not by a long shot. I've been very transparent about their strengths and weaknesses. In fact when people have asked me in private about getting one of the NE series I flatly said it's the weakest choice in their list. I like the 12s based on a pure output and sound quality per lb. The 12s are also very well optimized compared to the smaller siblings. If I were to blindly follow brand identity I'd recommend the Vifa NE in any size to anybody but that's hardly the case. When weight is not a factor I make completely different recommendations.
> 
> 
> If you took one second here to look at the facts you would see that you have been the only one making this a personal attack. My comments have been primarily about this particular speaker, and Dyn. brand image and innovation. I never tied your choices in, I don't care why you bought it and it doesn't define you as a person for me. I try to appeal to the DIYMA enthusiast, to become better informed as a method to achieve the best possible speaker purchase.


You're saying people that buy Dyns buy them based on marketing, not on what's best for their needs. I bought a couple sets of Dyns. I know you're not talking about me specifically but you've been making blanket statements and assumptions.


cvjoint said:


> It seems that you have a different way of going about it, buying everything and installing it in your car, that's a method too. But why are you bashing the Klippel approach? When you come out and say you can't quantify any aspect of speaker performance you are in fact bashing the scientific approach.


Whoa, back up a second. I've never bashed the Klippel approach. Unfortunately I feel the need to bring up the fact that it's but one of a few tools for evaluating speakers. Why do I have to bring this up? Because you're putting way too much weight on the results and ignoring the real life experiences installed in a car.


cvjoint said:


> In terms of acquisition costs, you have made it painfully obvious that monetary costs are not an issue to you.


Yes, because I'm tired of hearing them bashed because of their price. The original point was to show that not everyone is looking for the absolute cheapest speaker that will perform adequately. Don't try and make it sound like I'm on here bragging about how expensive my speakers are. I wish they cost $20 but unfortunately they don't. I don't like throwing money away and I don't have much of it but I didn't have to sell my first born to buy them either. I've determined that the speakers that sound best to my ears are worth the asking price, I'm not sure what's so wrong with that.



cvjoint said:


> That's great. Some of us prefer to understand the underlying mechanisms and save some money by reducing "plug and chug" type approaches. We may have a lower cost of getting information, or a lower cost for time, but a higher cost in terms of pure currency. There's plenty of room for everybody in this hobby. Why bash the informational approach?



So if I buy a higher end set, that means I understand nothing of car audio and the guy that spends $100 for his whole system is the smartest guy ever. I don't buy it. I like to know why things work more than most people do. I'm not bashing the informational approach, I'm bashing looking at only one area and ignoring others. 

The more information the better but whether you like to believe it or not, this hobby is just as much subjective as objective. Maybe one day we will be able to better correlate numbers to sound but right now that's just not the case, too many variables. The data collected by the klippel is valuable now but might be more valuable in the future. I do believe there's a scientific explanation behind everything we hear but at this time we just don't understand every variable or how they interact in a car. I leave that stuff up to guys like you and Erin. At the same time you have to take a step back and realize there are likely things going on and interacting that you don't fully understand or that you're not aware of. I don't have the knowledge base nor will I ever have it. Racing is my primary hobby and I'm not about to invest enough time nor do I have the time to invest trying to understand everything there is to know about car audio. This is a stress relief for me or at least it's supposed to be.


cvjoint said:


> Marketing is deeply rooted in the American culture. It's so effective and subtle that often we have no idea we are even exposed. Whenever folks get speakers free from the manufacturer it presents a way to market. It's a display. Whenever you tie brands to outcomes in competitions it's a form of marketing. Whenever you add any subjective statements on a white sheet it's marketing. I've personally fallen in that trap a few times. I came out and openly said I made a mistake. Marketing is not always a drag of course, it can be informational, but often times it's manipulative. If it makes a difference I fight the manipulative ways outright and wouldn't mind sharing my bad encounters.


I've heard a couple competition cars that did well that I would prefer my stock system with a sub over. I would have a set of HATs if that were the case. That's not a jab at HAT, they have a reputation for winning, that's all. I don't like marketing, I don't like sales people, it really turns me off to a product. I feel like most marketing schemes insult my intelligence, facts would be the preferred "marketing" technique. 

I don't mean for this to be an attack, you were a nice guy in person, I wish I had a chance to hear your setup. But I see a lot of bias here. You made no comments about the dome "dustcap" or the mention of better cone control via the larger VC, wouldn't cone control have a lot to do with the way a speaker sounds? How about power handling? Instead of digging into it yourself you've taken an anti-Dyn stance.

Why would an engineering type like Jon W use all Dyn drivers in the Magic Bus? You know the incredible attention to detail in that thing. I have to believe he would only use the best drivers. That's not meant to drag Jon into this, I know he does not want to be a part of this type of discussion.


I can find this stuff all day on the internet: iew Full Version : Oversized voice coils - what's the point?
*N2Audio
11-14-2007, 05:31 PM
Looking for a pair of 6.5 woofers to replace my current ones which have deteriorated through 3-4 yrs of use.

I came across a pair of replacements from the same brand with a 3" voice coil...on a 6.5??

I'm not much on speaker mechanics, but I wouldn't think that's a very effective way to get good sound from a 6.5.

What are the benefits of a large diameter voice coil? What are the costs?
BTW - it's supposedly a 250w rms 6.5". I will be running it with 180.
DonaldRyanCrouch
11-14-2007, 06:08 PM
I believe it's increased power handling and lower distortion.
werewolf
11-15-2007, 03:22 PM
yep, possible benefits include :

- more power handling from larger mass voicecoil
- better cone control, from driving at a radius that may better control flexing, reflections, standing waves

possible costs include :

- larger inductance
ULTRASUBS
11-15-2007, 03:58 PM
yep, possible benefits include :

- more power handling from larger mass voicecoil
- better cone control, from driving at a radius that may better control flexing, reflections, standing waves

possible costs include :

- larger inductance
Well Sir, you could have been a little more clear on this issue :hand:.
O.K., depending on HOW the driver is built is the issue here. Some drivers may use a 3" coil in different ways, one may be an overbuilt turd, using a way to large motor more for a sales benefit than actual performance .
The other may be using it more effectively.
The difference is the better one uses it to make the coil shorter to keep the inductance in check as far as a BL to power ratio and offer more linearity in the gap and also help in thermal dissipation.
Morel and DynAudio seem to layout their drivers in this manner.
Sometimes it may have been applied to lowering distortion than having anything to do with power handling.*


----------



## Se7en (Mar 28, 2007)

I assume that you're talking about my car. If so, thanks for the compliment.

I do run 430s in the kicks, almost 90 degrees off axis, partially obscured, and I really couldn't be happier with the sound. Please also note, that this positioning was decided after almost 3 days of expirimentation. They're pretty incredible off axis.

Fwiw, the mid bass in the doors are mw182s.

I have been reading this thread but have avoided comment, due to the technical content, where most of my views are subjective.

I had to save for a long time to get the esotars, but I'm very happy with my choice and don't see myself upgrading soon or easily.

-Gabe



Hillbilly SQ said:


> I heard a system with all Dyn speakers and it was one of the best I've heard to date and it just had a quick tune that was far from "dailed in". The tonality this system had was what put in on my top five list. It had Esotar cone midrange and dome tweets in kicks, lower level midbass in doors (fitment issues with the Esotar midbass iirc), and Esotar sub IB. If I had the money and wasn't so loyal to H-Audio/Audible Physics Dyn Esotar would be a big possibility for me. Audio Technology would probably win out though.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I'm not going to sit here and talk about Jon's bus and his decisions. I'm also not here to talk about the ratio of theory versus listening that I have. This thread is not about Jon, me or you. Do you understand the kind of position you put me in when you say things like this?

Understand also that I can't comment on everything you find on the internet. Sometimes I don't know sometimes I just don't have an opinion. Why does it have to be a bias story? Do you require everyone else on this this thread to answer you in whole? 

Please don't try to make this personal. The goal is not to verify whether you made a good purchase decision. I'm not your agent and I don't sit behind my keyboard doing a cost benefit analysis on your decisions, I don't think anybody is. 

Now let's talk about the speaker, that's what it is about. It seems to me that voice coil diameter is often confounded with thermal handling and overall size when it comes to this design. If I were to have just one turn of wire as a voicecoil and it was 3" in diameter is that going to reduce power compression at all compared to conventional long, multiple layer coils?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I see, so we're only picking out the things that might suit our argument now, instead of trying to understand why Dyns have the sound that they have. The Dyns have more than one turn on the vc so again it's irrelevent, nothing to do with the discussion at hand. 

I'm not worried about my purchase decision in the slightest. If I end up with buyer's remourse I can always sell my Dyns and buy just about any forum boner out there with the money.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

It all ties in. Voice coil length, layers, and material are design choices. When I see a 3" coil I don't automatically think this can handle some serious power. It may or may not depending on the other aspects of sizing a coil. That's where customization is key as well. When I said Audio Technology can do this and it's a fantastic benefit that's what I mean. I don't think of weaved basket spokes and rounded screw posts. A special order on the coil properties, Q, throw and sensitivity can have huge benefits for any application. 

Think of the opposite. I want a high output 4" to use mainly as a bass driver but the raw driver I can order has a single layer, short aluminum coil that suffers from heavy compression with a lot of power input. In addition it has a high FS, high Q and high sensitivity. When buying raw drivers the choices should really be based on design goals first, but because you can't customize we often end up with drivers that are built for compromised uses, not quite a fantastic sealed box unit or a fantastic vented driver. Does it really matter who makes it and how well it is built if you get the wrong driver for the application? It's a speaker that doesn't meet my design criteria. Enter Audio Technology. I tell them I need this 4" to do x and y. An engineer makes all the design choices that help this 4" shine in the application I use it in. 

When I look at the Dyn. design I see there is an emphasis on pure midrange duty. It trades off low end response for top end. I don't think that's game changing, it's simply a matter of choice. You get the small box but you trade off the low end sensitivity. You get the high sensitivity for low distortion up top but again you get very little low end sensitivity. Then there are questions about how well the speaker can carry on the intended duty. The inductance should be flatter across stroke to reduce IMD for a pure midrange. If that 3" coil works to reduce cone modes drastically why is there still a wiggle in the impedance curve?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> It all ties in. Voice coil length, layers, and material are design choices. When I see a 3" coil I don't automatically think this can handle some serious power. It may or may not depending on the other aspects of sizing a coil. That's where customization is key as well. When I said Audio Technology can do this and it's a fantastic benefit that's what I mean. I don't think of weaved basket spokes and rounded screw posts. A special order on the coil properties, Q, throw and sensitivity can have huge benefits for any application.
> 
> Think of the opposite. I want a high output 4" to use mainly as a bass driver but the raw driver I can order has a single layer, short aluminum coil that suffers from heavy compression with a lot of power input. In addition it has a high FS, high Q and high sensitivity. When buying raw drivers the choices should really be based on design goals first, but because you can't customize we often end up with drivers that are built for compromised uses, not quite a fantastic sealed box unit or a fantastic vented driver. Does it really matter who makes it and how well it is built if you get the wrong driver for the application? It's a speaker that doesn't meet my design criteria. Enter Audio Technology. I tell them I need this 4" to do x and y. An engineer makes all the design choices that help this 4" shine in the application I use it in.
> 
> When I look at the Dyn. design I see there is an emphasis on pure midrange duty. It trades off low end response for top end. I don't think that's game changing, it's simply a matter of choice. You get the small box but you trade off the low end sensitivity. You get the high sensitivity for low distortion up top but again you get very little low end sensitivity. Then there are questions about how well the speaker can carry on the intended duty. The inductance should be flatter across stroke to reduce IMD for a pure midrange. If that 3" coil works to reduce cone modes drastically why is there still a wiggle in the impedance curve?


Can't answer you about the impedance curve but I do have a question about the low end sensitivity. Is this based on an enclosure with a .707 Qtc? I ran them IB for a while but I'm currently trying them with a very small enclosure, unfortunately Qtc is unknown. Bringing up a point made by Matt long ago, what if these are made to produce a fairly flat response in car as opposed to a large room. Maybe they're not lacking at all on the low end. Down to 300hz so far and I haven't noticed anything lacking.

VC diameter on the 430 is only 34mm. It's the rest of the Dyn automotive lineup that's 3".


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

BuickGN said:


> Can't answer you about the impedance curve but I do have a question about the low end sensitivity. Is this based on an enclosure with a .707 Qtc? I ran them IB for a while but I'm currently trying them with a very small enclosure, unfortunately Qtc is unknown. Bringing up a point made by Matt long ago, what if these are made to produce a fairly flat response in car as opposed to a large room. Maybe they're not lacking at all on the low end. Down to 300hz so far and I haven't noticed anything lacking.
> 
> VC diameter on the 430 is only 34mm. It's the rest of the Dyn automotive lineup that's 3".


I changed the simulation from a Qtc of .7 to pure IB and it's still 5db down at 200hz. Moving it to pure IB is probably not going to give you noticeable improvements in low end sensitivity. 

If you are lucky enough to have the car bump up the low end that's great. On the other hand if you put in a competitor 4" speaker in there you would have to EQ. down those frequencies which make the competitor speaker much lower distortion. 

That VC diameter is still large for a small mid, mines only have 18mm diameter and the average mid has 26mm or so. The question is what happens if you increase the coil diameter keeping everything else fixed. 

As for the dustcap being dome shaped and larger than other speakers not sure what to say. If you look at the off axis plots they are very much like any 4" cone out there. The larger dustcap probably requires a bit more venting under. It's not clear to me it has any tangible benefits or drawbacks. 

The former attaching to the cone with various indents is also ambiguous. Most speakers have the former connected without obvious indentation. Seems like a fashion statement imo. 

The dustcap and dome as one piece is something you find in the new Illuminator series and it's equally perplexing. On the one hand the Revelator cone has slits that are glued together and yet on the Illuminator they purposefully make it all one piece. Seems counterintuitive.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

cvjoint said:


> I changed the simulation from a Qtc of .7 to pure IB and it's still 5db down at 200hz. Moving it to pure IB is probably not going to give you noticeable improvements in low end sensitivity.
> 
> If you are lucky enough to have the car bump up the low end that's great. On the other hand if you put in a competitor 4" speaker in there you would have to EQ. down those frequencies which make the competitor speaker much lower distortion.
> 
> ...


I can agree with most of that and the rest I don't understand. About the dustcap could the attachment points provide a minute weight savings, venting, or to create or control resonance? The 12" sub does not use these slits and as far as I know it's the only Dyn speaker that does not use them. After looking closely at the 650, it looks as if half of these slits go to the former and half go to the dustcap. Maybe that was obvious but I've never looked that close before.

Last, if you are interested in hearing these on Dec 10th, what crossover points would interest you the most? I'm assuming the extreme on both ends, say 200-6,000hz?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> I can agree with most of that and the rest I don't understand. About the dustcap could the attachment points provide a minute weight savings, venting, or to create or control resonance? The 12" sub does not use these slits and as far as I know it's the only Dyn speaker that does not use them. After looking closely at the 650, it looks as if half of these slits go to the former and half go to the dustcap. Maybe that was obvious but I've never looked that close before.
> 
> Last, if you are interested in hearing these on Dec 10th, what crossover points would interest you the most? I'm assuming the extreme on both ends, say 200-6,000hz?


I would like to hear them Dec. 10th. I would also like to take an RTA reading and look at how much you had to EQ them.


BTW

I'm not a fan of crossing a 3" that low I haven't heard one yet that sounds good @ 200Hz Judges like it I don't.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> I would like to hear them Dec. 10th. I would also like to take an RTA reading and look at how much you had to EQ them.
> 
> 
> BTW
> ...


You're welcome to RTA and do anything you like to it but don't get too excited, the freaking MS8 is still controlling the show. Maybe using the bypass could get an accurate RTA reading?

The enclosures I made are very easy to take off. Maybe we could RTA with and without the enclosure?

Whatever you want to try, I'm game. We can do 200hz just to see what happens if you like. Currently they're at 300hz to 4,500hz and I'm very happy. I might try something different tonight.


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> You're welcome to RTA and do anything you like to it but don't get too excited, the freaking MS8 is still controlling the show. Maybe using the bypass could get an accurate RTA reading?
> 
> The enclosures I made are very easy to take off. Maybe we could RTA with and without the enclosure?
> 
> Whatever you want to try, I'm game. We can do 200hz just to see what happens if you like. Currently they're at 300hz to 4,500hz and I'm very happy. I might try something different tonight.


300Hz-4500Hz is fine. Unfortunately mine break up crossed @ 300Hz at high volume. 
I'm very familiar with the MS-8 and what it does I had one.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

michaelsil1 said:


> 300Hz-4500Hz is fine. Unfortunately mine break up crossed @ 300Hz at high volume.
> I'm very familiar with the MS-8 and what it does I had one.


Hopefully putting it in bypass will undo all auto eq but I think I remember reading that it does not. Maybe you know the answer to this?

What are your mids crossed at if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## michaelsil1 (May 24, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> Hopefully putting it in bypass will undo all auto eq but I think I remember reading that it does not. Maybe you know the answer to this?
> 
> What are your mids crossed at if you don't mind me asking?


It does, but we don't have to do that.

My Mid Range is Crossed @ 400Hz - 4000Hz 18db Slopes.


----------

