# dome vs. cone drivers



## burrometer (Aug 7, 2005)

I've tracked down a few points here and there about advantages and disadvantages of both dome and cone midrange in an automotive application. (In particular for kicks) First hand experience is something I'm lacking.

Anyone willing to share their experience?
Any pros and cons would be ideal.

Thanks,
-Frank


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Well i have no first hand experience just yet.

Generally:

Domes have much better off axis response than a regular cone driver.
Domes are usually self contained, don't really need that much of an enclosure in any at all.
Cone drivers with phase plugs usually are better off axis than without.
Cone drivers need to be mounted much more on axis, even with a phase plug.
Cone drivers need an enclosure to get best response.

I know i missed a few but generally those are the differences i know of betweeen cones and domes....Domes being a little closer to my favorite for kicks....as they can be mounted really off-axis and not really have that much of a loss in response.


----------



## burrometer (Aug 7, 2005)

how difficult is it to get a reasonably solid soundstage with domes?


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

IMO it seems much easier than a normal driver......BUT most domes lack the lower end to them, and are really only good to around 400hz, possibly a tad lower....

With that said, door midbasses can easily carry that range, but its optimal to try to keep midranges to play to a good 150-200hz for the lowest of voices, as you'd really want to keep your voices down to 1 driver if possible, to keep the xover transitions clean.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Almost all domes lack a spider... so they're not really suitable for low frequency use.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Generally:
> Domes have much better off axis response than a regular cone driver.


True, but this is not always an advantage in a kickpanel. It depends if you are going for a single seat, on-axis approach where a driver with a beamier reproduction can be advantageous. There is no absolutes though, I have succsessfully competed in Pro Ultimate over here with 8" cone drivers of axis as mids in kickpanels  



demon2091tb said:


> Domes are usually self contained, don't really need that much of an enclosure in any at all.


This is beacuse most domes has no output below 400 Hz (the piston range) and hence do not need an enclosure volume.



demon2091tb said:


> Cone drivers with phase plugs usually are better off axis than without.


They have better MEASURED frequency response off axis. Phase plugs do however introduce a lot of other nasty things. On most driver solutions I prefer these solutions in order:
1. Foam plug
2. Inverted dome dust cap
3. Phase plug shaped dust cap
4. Normal dust cap
5. Phase plug



demon2091tb said:


> Cone drivers need to be mounted much more on axis, even with a phase plug..


Not neccesary true, it depends on the driver used.



demon2091tb said:


> Cone drivers need an enclosure to get best response.


If you want to play below 400 Hz, any driver needs an enclosure.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Just pick through my comments, its ok lol.  But in all seriousness i was just talking about generality, not really getting down deep, because i don't really know the differences tooooo well, but getting there. Alot of good info you introduced  But its ok, you just picked through my comments and tore them apart.

J/k



Rbsarve said:


> True, but this is not always an advantage in a kickpanel. It depends if you are going for a single seat, on-axis approach where a driver with a beamier reproduction can be advantageous. There is no absolutes though, I have succsessfully competed in Pro Ultimate over here with 8" cone drivers of axis as mids in kickpanels
> 
> 
> This is beacuse most domes has no output below 400 Hz (the piston range) and hence do not need an enclosure volume.
> ...


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

what are the sonic differences between domes and cones, or does it depend on the particular model?


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

I know it's desireable to have only one driver playing the vocal frequencies. Yet, I'm thinking that this is really only necessary in a car environment where we're messing with different axis' for each driver. You don't want lower vocal frequencies coming from down low, and off axis while your mid to upper vocals are coming from a more on-axis location.

What's your guy's opinion on this? I'm thinking that if you can put your midbass and dome midrange on the same axis your transistions between crossovers points would sound more seamless. This is an option for me seeing as I'm doing a custom door panel, and doing a complete Dayton setup is sounding more and more like a great idea.


----------



## cotdt (Oct 3, 2005)

If you use extremely steep crossovers you can separate your mids from your tweeters. In theory vocals should not contain the crossover region, but I think it is perfectly OK as long as the crossover is a good one. Besides, vocals go up to 8kHz in reality, so it's not practical nor all that beneficial to have all vocals come from the mids.

I think mounting in the rear or the ceiling > doors. I don't know why people like to mount them in the doors, to me rear and ceiling-mounting is easier to do and sounds better too.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

demon2091tb said:


> Alot of good info you introduced  But its ok, you just picked through my comments and tore them apart.
> J/k


Sorry, didn´t mean to be mean. Just used my standard take down technique.


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

MiniVanMan said:


> I know it's desireable to have only one driver playing the vocal frequencies. Yet, I'm thinking that this is really only necessary in a car environment where we're messing with different axis' for each driver. You don't want lower vocal frequencies coming from down low, and off axis while your mid to upper vocals are coming from a more on-axis location.
> 
> What's your guy's opinion on this? I'm thinking that if you can put your midbass and dome midrange on the same axis your transistions between crossovers points would sound more seamless. This is an option for me seeing as I'm doing a custom door panel, and doing a complete Dayton setup is sounding more and more like a great idea.


As we are on the subject. The ideal would be a single driver reproducing the whole acoustical spectrum, but the technincal limitations of all drivers makes this impossible at present. So we are left with the best compromize. 
In my experience, that leaves us with two choises:
1. A two way system with both drivers mounted next to eachother. 
Mid frequency range from 60 to 2.5-3 kHZ, tweeter capable of playing from 1.5-2 kHz and up. Keeping the x-over as low as possible.

2. A 3-way system with the mid and tweet close to eachother. Midbass capable of playing 40 to 400 Hz. Midrange capable of playing 150 - 8k Hz and a good sounding tweet above that.

I have earlier been a strong proponent of system 1 and built several cars with it with good results. But by now I have shifted into 3-way systems. Note that 150 Hz requirement on the mid. If you can go lower you will gain less coloration to the sound. What usually drags image down is resonances from the panels around the bass drivers.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

MiniVanMan said:


> I know it's desireable to have only one driver playing the vocal frequencies. Yet, I'm thinking that this is really only necessary in a car environment where we're messing with different axis' for each driver. You don't want lower vocal frequencies coming from down low, and off axis while your mid to upper vocals are coming from a more on-axis location.
> 
> What's your guy's opinion on this? I'm thinking that if you can put your midbass and dome midrange on the same axis your transistions between crossovers points would sound more seamless. This is an option for me seeing as I'm doing a custom door panel, and doing a complete Dayton setup is sounding more and more like a great idea.


 Ideally, that would be nice. But for most people it's pretty difficult to get one driver to play the entire vocal range... small drivers have problems reproducing dynamics down low, and large drivers just sound poor in small, severely underdampened enclosures.

Generally, I think you're ok past 600-800hz or so with mid/bass in the doors. Above that the response tends to get a bit rough from door panel diffraction and directivity of the driver.


----------



## burrometer (Aug 7, 2005)

Assuming an ideal crossover point is going to be difficult to achieve, what would be the better option for midrange?

1 150-200hz up to 2500hz
2 400-500hz up to 7000hz

Would a crossover point be more obvious in the lower or upper regions of the vocal frequency range?


----------



## cam2Xrunner (Apr 30, 2005)

burrometer said:


> Assuming an ideal crossover point is going to be difficult to achieve, what would be the better option for midrange?
> 
> 1 150-200hz up to 2500hz
> 2 400-500hz up to 7000hz



I would think 150hz up to 4-6khz.


----------



## Nothingness (Mar 31, 2005)

What tweeter will you be using? Tweeter plays to 2.5khz, use a cone midrange. The only con to using a cone mid in the kicks is if you cannot fit one. If you can, go for it.


----------



## burrometer (Aug 7, 2005)

In hopes of using a small kick, I've been following the small cone driver threads for a few months. SPL seems to be a concern with most of the offerings as well as the ability cross them much below 300hz. With domes working close to 400hz and having decent spl they’ve caught my attention.

My debate has been to use a 5”mid like the Dayton RS, a wide range 4”cone driver such as the Peerless Exc./TB Bamboo or a dome mid. Each has their compromises…

Thanks,
-Frank


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

I'm in the same current delima.....i would like to try the DLS IR3 dome midrange though, but with the price of it, it would be difficult for me to afford.

But some of the cone drivers that Dang has been testing seem very nice to me, though the Bamboo hasn't tested as well as i was hoping, as dang said in that thread. But theres others out there to be tested before choosing.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

This is why I'm waiting for 'dang to finish testing the drivers I sent him. Currently, I have a pair of Morel MW266-4 8" mids, and a pair of CDT HD 4" drivers. Tweeter will get played with till I find one I like. Very likely the Dayton RS tweeter. I just want to know how these drivers test out, so I can a relative level of confidence before I build an entire install around them. Until then I keep second guessing and wondering if going another route would be better.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Hey man i feel ya onthe RS tweet....that huge dip in it scares me, Just looks to me like it wouldn't sound good, that is in its upper registers above 10k.....But i may be completely wrong.

Has Dang even tested one of the RS' tweets, really intrested in how they measure out....for both car and home use....As i'm thinking of using some for HT?


----------



## Nothingness (Mar 31, 2005)

I don't see how one cannot get a 4-5" driver down to 200hz in the kicks. I'd take a midrange that can cover 200-2.5khz over anything that can play down to 400-500hz. I'd never use a dome mid down to 400hz unless you have money for the ATC.


----------



## FocusInCali (Jul 3, 2005)

Has anyone used dual 4" in kicks?
Those Peerless would fit close to each other with that frame.


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

Which peerless are you referring too, the 830881? As i've heard they are supposed to be pretty nice drivers, i may eventually try out a few.


----------



## FocusInCali (Jul 3, 2005)

yup

I haven't seen anyone with dual midrange drivers, so I'm wondering why... besides space issues.


----------



## |Tch0rT| (May 7, 2005)

FocusInCali said:


> yup
> 
> I haven't seen anyone with dual midrange drivers, so I'm wondering why... besides space issues.


I've heard that dual midrange (or any number of drivers) playing the same freq's are more prone to cancellations and bad imagining. I would think that if both drivers shared the same baffle and faced the same direction then the chance of that would lessen but I don't know for sure (I'll be the first to say I need to learn more). I've ran dual 5.25"'s before and it sounded pretty good at the time (my current system kills that one for the record) but I had them facing different directions so I'm sure that smeared the imaging... I'm sure dual mids can be done right (like home MTM's) but in a car it's gotta be hard and expensive to do right.

Ryan


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

burrometer said:


> Assuming an ideal crossover point is going to be difficult to achieve, what would be the better option for midrange?
> 
> 1 150-200hz up to 2500hz
> 2 400-500hz up to 7000hz
> ...



Depends on the mounting locations and tweeter used I´d say. I would probably go for option 2 as it would leave the dangerous 2,5 kHz (sybliant heaven) and even worse 4 kHz (phase hell ;-) out of the picture. I found it much easier to live with a bit of low placed drums/bass and dark voices then a problem in the middle of the female volcal range.
But if you handle your x-over right a 2,5 kHz x-over piont can actually be useful to remove sybliant character in the driver och cars acoustic.


----------

