# RS100, TG9, TC9, L3 and 830986 review.



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Man I first somewhat detailed review!! A little scared here. :blush:


OK "Here-I-Come" with the battle of the 3-3.5” wide-band drivers. First I will say I wouldn’t use any of them fullrange. I know some poeple will have different opinions of the drivers here, hell everyone may, but these are my opinions and just that an opinion and like an A**hole we all have one and must of the time it is full of S**t. We all know how subjective SQ can be so here we go. O ya I must say I have never been a fan of small drivers, but these have open my eyes. I see how wideband drivers are changing things, I'm one of those guys who don't like to run tweeters below 3.5-4 khz and please don't start with this one, PLEASE!

I tested all in a 1.5 liter sealed enclosure running active off an Eclipse 8053. The power source was a old school Soundstream D100II, the mid was on one channel and the tweeter on the other. They all were matched up with the Hertz Audio ML28/Space 1 tweeter with the large camber installed. I will give a honorable mention to the ML28/space 1 here before I start. This is a great tweeter,it will do just anything you ask of it. Its very detailed, accurate, crisp and clean, with great space (air as some call it). A little laid back just the way I like it.

My point of reference was the GMC truck I built sometime back. I listen to it for about 2 hours. The system in the truck is as follows:

Head unit: DRZ9255
Tweeters: DLS Nobelium 1
Mids: DLS Nobelium 5
Midbass: DLS Nobelium 6
Subs: 2 C-Mass LS122
Rears. DLS 425 coax
Tweeter and Mid amp: DLS A4
Midbass amp: DLS A3
Subs amp: DLS A6 
Rears amp: DLS A1

Rears was tuned of for listening

With that said I will let everyone know my taste in music reproductions. I like a smooth, natural and detailed presentation with a great sense of space between individual instruments and vocalist. I love vocals, tenor sax and acoustic and string instruments


Here are the drivers in the Test:

*Dayton Audio RS100*








http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=295-378


*Peerless 830986*








http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/830986.pdf


*Hybrid Audio L3*








http://www.hybrid-audio.com/downloads/Hybrid Audio Legatia L3 Users Manual.pdf



*Peerless/Vifa TG9*








http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/TG9FD-10-04.pdf


*Peerless/Vifa TC9*








http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/TC9FD-18-08.pdf






























No driver were used below 160hz and above 6.3khz for critical listening. These are the lower and top limits of the all important MIDRANGE. Because the 8053 couldn't be crossed over higher then 200hz @ 24DB's on the midrange highpass, to help with the drivers that did not like 200hz and below @ 24DB's I use the EQ to lower 160 and 250 down until the sound became tight and crisp. Bass and Treble tones was set at 0 and loudness off. 


Here are the tracks I used:

1.	Fever by Jennie Bryson (for the great lows)

2.	Grandma’s hand by Livingston Taylor (for the very nice midrange)

3.	Hotel Cali Live by The Eagles (great around track)

4.	Let Me Hold Your Hand Keb Mo’ ( great vocals)

5.	Silly by Denise Williams (if a system can smooth this recording out so I can stand to listen to the entire song its going something right)

6.	Lately unplugged and live by Jodeci ( great vocals)

7.	Made Up My Mind by Lyfe (great vocals)

8.	I Care 4 You by Aaliyah (Tons of layering in this track. It has a someone beat boxing in the back ground and on bad system he sounds like a bad high-hat or a bad sneer drum, but a good system you should be able to tell its some one beat boxing) 

9.	Billy Jean by Michael Jackson (I just love the intro of this one)

Scores: Max points 100

Overall SQ (max 25 points)
Tonal Balance (max 20 points)
Low-Frequency Extension (max 15 points)
Clarity @ low volume (max 10 points)
Clarity @ low volume (max 10 points)
Listening fatigue (max 10 points)
Easy of Use (max 10 points)

All scores are base on this group!!!

*DAYTON RS100*

The Dayton RS100 has the great low-end (down to 125 at moderate volumes, but 160 at 24DB is best)and great detail, This thing plays loud and say clean doing it and handles power very well. But because of the low-end it can make the midrange sound a little fat and make thing run together a little, but it was easy to fix (EQ out or back in the separation). I loved strings instruments on this driver. I would keep it around 5-6khz on the top-end, above that you well need some very good EQing skills, but it is just a great all around driver and the most dynamic in the group. 

Overall SQ: 23
Tonal Balance: 19 
Low-Frequency Extension: 15
Clarity @ low volume: 7
Clarity @ high volume: 9
Listening fatigue: 8
Easy of Use: 6

Total: 87


*PEERLESS 830986*

The Peerless 830986, man I wanted to not like this driver, but I was most surprised with this driver, man this thing detailed, smooth and delicate, I mean this is one great sounding driver. It plays low and has outstanding space and separation. It is really fun how the smallest and largest driver in the group has the best low-end. It can be crossed over at 160 @ 24DB, but just doesn't do it as well as the RS100, a couple of DB' down at 160 and its tight, but with this one you just can't make the midrange sound fat. It just stays detail. I would keep it around 5-6khz on the top-end also it starts to get bright and beams above that. The down side of this one is it can be a little light in is over all delivery.

Overall SQ: 23
Tonal Balance: 21
Low-Frequency Extension: 12
Clarity @ low volume: 7
Clarity @ high volume: 8
Listening fatigue: 9
Easy of Use: 6

Total: 86


*HYBRID AUDIO L3*

The Hybrid L3 just don't handle low-end very well, cross it over at [email protected] and what you are rewarded with is a silky smooth, fast(attack and decay), robust and detailed driver(but to be fair here the L3 is design for IB use and being in the enclosure could have hurt the low-end) . It had very good separation and space, but not as good as the 830986, but slightly better then the RS100, but a little more dynamic then the 830986, not as dynamic as the RS100. It just sound great on everything I through at it. This one sound good out to around 8khz, but I would keep it around 6-7khz.

Overall SQ: 21
Tonal Balance: 18
Low-Frequency Extension: 12
Clarity @ low volume: 7
Clarity @ high volume: 8
Listening fatigue: 9
Easy of Use: 6

Total: 81

*EDIT:*

After write the review i decide this morning to put the L3 in a also 4 liter box (well iron pot with rammat all over it, man my wife is going to kill me) this is over 3 times the vas so it should have been OK, please correct me if I'm wrong! And wow the low-end was allot better, but still not at the level of the RS100, but i would have to say it did come very close to the 830986 with a little more snap, but not quite the feeling of bass. *So add 4 points to the L3 for a 78 and one more for Clarity at high volume (I will explain below) for a total of 79.

I give the L3 one more 1 for Clarity at high volume because with the lower crossover point it give the sense of more volume, clean volume. And I add 2 points for Tonal Balance. I had to do this because with the low end the add it sound was more blanaced for total of 81*


*PEERLESS/VIFA TC9*

The Vifa/Peerless TC9 is just smooth and accurate and laid back. This should be a Dynaudio driver. Cross it over at 250 or above @24DB and she comes to life. This one is a mixture of the 830986 and L3, but just could exceed them. But I really like it because it is so laid back. This one sound very good out to around 8khz, but I would keep it around 6-7khz also, but it sound best in group this high. Match this one with the D26 vifa tweeter and you will have one smooth sounding system. But because it is so smooth for some it may be a little dark, but not to me. Give me some old school love making R&B and the wife better run, because it baby making time.

Overall SQ: 20
Tonal Balance: 16 
Low-Frequency Extension: 7
Clarity @ low volume: 6
Clarity @ high volume: 7
Listening fatigue: 10
Easy of Use: 6

Total: 72



*PEERLESS/VIFA TG9*

The Vifa/Peerless TG9 is a very dynamic driver with very good detail. It has the best sensitivity out of this group, it gets loud with out a lot of power needed. Cross it over at [email protected] or higher and it starts to shine. Good space and strings instruments sound very nice on this one also. This one sounded good out to around 8khz, but I would keep it around 5-7khz, depends on who is listening. The problem I had with this one is, it was to in your face. I just couldn’t get it to smooth out like the other drivers in the group. I thought it was going to the RS100 that I would have this problem with, but it was this one. This one seem to have the best attack and decay in the great.

Overall SQ: 20
Tonal Balance: 15 
Low-Frequency Extension: 8
Clarity @ low volume: 7
Clarity @ high volume: 7
Listening fatigue: 5
Easy of Use: 5

Total: 67

The detail reviews are a little short, but to the point I hope.


I also must give mad props to the individuals who judge at competitions and review for magazines. This is one tiring process.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

I will post pictures of the actual drivers later today.


----------



## KAP (Mar 18, 2007)

Great review. I have a set of the peerless 830986 drivers and cant wait to try them out now. Again thanks for the review.


----------



## Genxx (Mar 18, 2007)

Nice review. Really glad to see you do a comparison test of the smaller drivers.

If you had to put one in your vehicle which one would you pick for your overall taste?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Thanks for catching that the L3 needs to be IB to get low. When I saw you put all drivers in a box the first thing I thought was that you just killed the L3 out the gate. But, at least you understand the effect and made sure to note it.

FWIW, I steadily crossed the L3 @ 200hz and even at full tilt it performed just fine in an IB type setup.



I agree with your review on the TG9, though I'll say that I'd give it a lower rating on "clarity at high volume" than the L3.


Anyway, just wanted to add my $.02.

Thanks for the review.


----------



## unpredictableacts (Aug 16, 2006)

Wasnt there some issues before with the L3.....and the fact that it needs to be broken it a bit?


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

yes. But, it seems to me the OP has had these speakers a while. I don't know why I think that, though.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

unpredictableacts said:


> Wasnt there some issues before with the L3.....and the fact that it needs to be broken it a bit?



The L3 I bought used and they was installed for awhile so they were broken in quite well. 

I will add this:

After write the review i decide this morning to put the L3 in a also 4 liter box (well iron pot with rammat all over it, man my wife is going to kill me) this is over 3 times the vas so it should have been OK, please correct me if I'm wrong! And wow the low-end was allot better, but still not at the level of the RS100, but i would have to say it did come very close to the 830986 with a little more snap, but not quite the feeling of bass. *So add 4 points to the L3 for a 78 and one more for Clarity at high volume (I will explain below) for a total of 79.*

On the Clarity at high levels with the TG9 and L3 the TG9 just need less volume to get to the same level of the others. And it was clean, but if i tried to push it pass the volume up more it started to fall apart. *I give the L3 one more 1 for Clarity at high volume because with the lower crossover point it give the sense of more volume, clean volume. And I add 2 points for Tonal Balance. I had to do this because with the low end the add it sound was more balanced for total of 81*

Which would a chose for my car if I had to choose one of these. Thats a hard one. I will have to get back to you, because it going to take some time to write it up, but it depends on want I was building the system for and what drivers will be around it.

I also looked of my sheet and I add one point to the RS100 for Tonal Balance I had a 9 over the 8 in 18, it was really 19. That should be it I look over it 6 times already now looking for anything else that I missed. I did a lot of marking and scratching over stuff.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Fair enough. I'm just thinking that a box with a large sealed space isn't really IB. That's the only thing I'll note. When you talk IB you mean everything around it is sealed from back waves/front waves mingling (mingling is a cool word). So, putting it in a box with a large opening doesn't quantify IB to me.

Honeslty, I'm not picking on you. I have no 'fanboy' motives here (heck, I sold my L3 last month). Just trying to make sure that the people reading this understand how the L3 is to implemented, at least in the terms I was told.



I agree with the 'less power to be loud' thing on the TG9. That is true. The biggest difference I noticed in this department is that the L3 can take much more power, thus can get louder while being more controlled.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

bikinpunk said:


> Fair enough. I'm just thinking that a box with a large sealed space isn't really IB. That's the only thing I'll note. When you talk IB you mean everything around it is sealed from back waves/front waves mingling (mingling is a cool word). So, putting it in a box with a large opening doesn't quantify IB to me.


Could you explain this a little more. 

IB to me is not having the box small enough to control the suspension of a driver, in the simplest terms I can think of now I'm falling asleep, been up all night. Free Air is a infinite volume of air behind the driver. Say venting it out side the vehicle. Both require back waves and front waves to be total isolate from each other.

Don't worry about the fanboy, if anyone is one I'm one. I have known Scott for a long time and have work with him a couple of time on the White 240sx. I learn a lot from him and some other greats out there.


----------



## ErinH (Feb 14, 2007)

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding but to me a true IB setup would be one where you've completely sealed off the rear waves/front waves and have a very large backing.

But, I guess you covered that with a large enclosure. In my case, my pillars were the 'enclosure', and the seal, too. So, when I was thinking of it, there was a HUGE space behind the driver and a VERY WIDE 'baffle'. 

I guess it's just semantics, really.


----------



## Beau (Oct 8, 2005)

I loved this review/write up. Kudos to you.


----------



## Soundsaround (Apr 22, 2006)

Thanks for doing this review, I got a lot out of it.
Peerless continues to impress by squeezing so much performance into a tiny $15 driver.


----------



## backwoods (Feb 22, 2006)

I'd put the hivi driver in there as well...

nice comparison!


----------



## Rbsarve (Aug 26, 2005)

Having played with all these driver exept the Dayton, I'm agree with most of the OP's findings.

The little Peerless is really one great little driver.

And the TG9 pleases the detail freaks. These can really sing correctly installed (they would also need a 4 litre box as the L3) and with careful eq.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Rbsarve said:


> Having played with all these driver exept the Dayton, I'm agree with most of the OP's findings.
> 
> The little Peerless is really one great little driver.
> 
> And the TG9 pleases the detail freaks. These can really sing correctly installed (they would also need a 4 litre box as the L3) and with careful eq.



I will have to give them a listen in the pot (since my wife already founded out about it) and see if this changes my opinion of this one. Thanks for the info. 

Yep the little 830986 really surpised me. Man if they would make a 4-4.5" in this one with the same openness, detail, and smoothness, but with the added output and dyanamics that should come with the added cone area you would have a midrange that would the very hard to top at any price range. 

Oh wait a min, that sounds like the HAT L4 from what I hear.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

O I found one more thing wrong just now. *The track "Bady Let Me Hold Your Hand", is by Ray Charles not Keb Mo'. The Keb Mo' track i used was "Am I Wrong".*


----------



## KAP (Mar 18, 2007)

I installed the Peerless 830896 in my a pillars IB and they sound pretty darn good. If I make an enclosure in my a pillars it will well under the recommended size, so am I better off just leaving them IB down to 200 hz.


----------



## Soundsaround (Apr 22, 2006)

Here-I-Come said:


> Yep the little 830986 really surpised me. Man if they would make a 4-4.5" in this one with the same openness, detail, and smoothness, but with the added output and dyanamics that should come with the added cone area you would have a midrange that would the very hard to top at any price range.
> 
> Oh wait a min, that sounds like the HAT L4 from what I hear.


I'm planning on using 2 or 3 of them per side. Arrays can be a very good thing in the car, and 6 of 'em still comes in at under $100.


----------



## Scott Buwalda (Apr 7, 2006)

Hey Mark:

I'd love to hear what you think of the L3's in a purely infinite baffle situation, preferably in a car. Any chance of doing this? Perhaps in a pillar install? I think you'll find once they graduate from the cooking pot you'd add a few points to the total score...just sayin'. 

Good review though!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Scott Buwalda said:


> Hey Mark:
> 
> I'd love to hear what you think of the L3's in a purely infinite baffle situation, preferably in a car. Any chance of doing this? Perhaps in a pillar install? I think you'll find once they graduate from the cooking pot you'd add a few points to the total score...just sayin'.
> 
> Good review though!


Ya, I'm trying to get the GMC back so I can try all of them in the kicks. The kicks are vent into the area behind them which runs down the side of the of the Truck. I'm also building some a-pillar pods for my wifes jeep so I can give them all run there also, well in the pillars the RS100 is going to be a little hard, to are little-big monsters. Its hard to tell from the pictures but that are beefy for their size and built like a tanks.


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

Thanks for the review.


----------



## paintrodsey (Nov 15, 2006)

Great review. I've been using a set of RS100 for about a month now and I think they are great speakers. They can play really low for being so small, but I don't like using them above 2kHz because they start to sound a little colored. On zaph's website, the distortion graphs show a large rise in the distortion above 2k which is probably why they sound better down low.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

paintrodsey said:


> Great review. I've been using a set of RS100 for about a month now and I think they are great speakers. They can play really low for being so small, but I don't like using them above 2kHz because they start to sound a little colored. On zaph's website, the distortion graphs show a large rise in the distortion above 2k which is probably why they sound better down low.



Well, I didn't notice it. I'm not a graph person really, the only graph I really look at is frequency response graph. If you start looking a lot of graph before you listen, your mind always has this in back of your head and the brain is fooled into thinking your hearing something that is really not noticeable. The Hybrid L3 is a prefect example of this. I did not measure well, but this is one great sounding driver. Not saying this is the case with you, but out of all the review I have read you are the first to say 2khz most say 5-6khz and I would have to agree with them. I did not like it above 6.3khz 5khz worked best for me, but you could be right.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I like the review. If you have the time (or rather, the memory), I'd be interested in hearing how you'd assess their high frequency extension. You made a few comments about that for most of them, but I'm wondering if you could provide more detail about their attributes above ~5kHz. I realize that for many installations using them up that high is not wise, mostly because of poor off-axis performance... but for windshield-firing installs they could potentially be quite useful.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> I like the review. If you have the time (or rather, the memory), I'd be interested in hearing how you'd assess their high frequency extension. You made a few comments about that for most of them, but I'm wondering if you could provide more detail about their attributes above ~5kHz. I realize that for many installations using them up that high is not wise, mostly because of poor off-axis performance... but for windshield-firing installs they could potentially be quite useful.



I will post my thoughts tonight. 

You also have a PM.


----------



## bafukie (Nov 23, 2007)

nice review


----------



## dejo (Jan 3, 2006)

very nice review, as I am considering some of these drivers as we read


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

Have you had the chance to listen to a Dayton RS125 driver? How does it come to the Dayton RS100?


----------



## demon2091tb (May 30, 2005)

This review of the RS100 makes me want to brush off my working gloves and change out my dome kicks for those cones......1.5L you say sealed? 160hz 24db....Seems like it would go well with the extremis, and LPG's i have. And a little easier, can drop lower, and less fatiguing as the domes i currently have......

Really wondering how the HD 3rd order spikes affects the sound, looks sorta severe on zaphs page, but dosent come through on the FR plot. Any ideas? The domes i currently have are very low in 3rd orders from 500-5k, but peaky as all hell.

1.5L is .05cf, wtf kinda enclosure is that, how much does the driver displace? were looking at a 4.5"^3 cube for .05cf.

Damn you people, i've been so good at staying away from this addiction lol.


----------



## JMachan (Jul 3, 2008)

Nice review...

I had a pair of these in my last car...they were pretty impressive...and funky lookin', too. I was lucky that I had enough room under them to mount them.

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=121&products_id=1372

9.5mm Xmax...19mm excursion Those little guuys bounced quite a bit...fun to watch...when you're not driving, of course.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Would be nice to get the PRS 4" mid in here. PM sent.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

are those (PRS 4" mid ) available yet? if so i could scrap my plans and run a complete prs setup


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

WLDock said:


> Would be nice to get the PRS 4" mid in here. PM sent.


PM sent back.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

here-I-come have you listened to a pair of Tang band W3-1364's? I'm still looking for a mid to run with a pair of alpine spx-pro tweets and a pair of 
sls 8's. I was set on the peerless 830986 3.5 mids, but upon some reviews i saw using the search, i came across the bamboo mids. I just wanted to know what is your impression of these or anybody else who has heard both the peerless and the tangbang


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

manish said:


> here-I-come have you listened to a pair of Tang band W3-1364's? I'm still looking for a mid to run with a pair of alpine spx-pro tweets and a pair of
> sls 8's. I was set on the peerless 830986 3.5 mids, but upon some reviews i saw using the search, i came across the bamboo mids. I just wanted to know what is your impression of these or anybody else who has heard both the peerless and the tangbang


Not yet, I was looking at them a last week, and doing some reading on them, I have are supposed to be very nice sounding drivers, very smooth and accurate. From what I have i've seen most say the 4" is very nice.


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Mark,

Do you have any plans to test the L4? And did anything ever come around about testing that PRS 4" mid? Thanks in advance.

Zach


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

Yeah, I'd be interested in an L4 test. Mine are in my pods but I still don't have the amp rack in so I can't mess around with them.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

Yes, I'm planning a 4-4.5" review soon. Just getting the funds together to buy the ones I would like to test and some other things I need. I'm planning to test the following:

Hybrid L4
Tang Band W4-1337SA
Tang Band W4-1720
Tang Band W4-1658SB
Pioneer PRS 4 (if can get my hands on them)
Scan 12M (man this thing cost to much)
Vifa PL11

I have a nice 4.5 cubic feet enclosure ready for IB testing. It use to have 2 15 in it, I sealed off one side and made a few plates for the other side for mounting the drivers. This should be more then enough room to simulate an IB environment for such small drivers. I also have a few different small sealed enclosures ready also.


----------



## AAAAAAA (Oct 5, 2007)

If you want to test another 3 inch, I can send you a paire of these:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=264-842

Let me know and we can arrange it.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Here-I-Come said:


> Yes, I'm planning a 4-4.5" review soon. Just getting the funds together to buy the ones I would like to test and some other things I need. I'm planning to test the following:
> 
> Hybrid L4
> Tang Band W4-1337SA
> ...


How would the baffle on a big box like that affect the sound compared to the other drivers in their relative tiny boxed baffles. Maybe you could cut a hole in the box and mount the smaller boxes in the box somehow so they would all share the same baffle size. Or mount the small boxes through a hole on a baffle the size of the face of the big box.

Might have to redo the whole listening test for all of them I imagine.


----------



## POLKAT (Jan 10, 2007)

Here-I-Come said:


> Yes, I'm planning a 4-4.5" review soon. Just getting the funds together to buy the ones I would like to test and some other things I need. I'm planning to test the following:
> 
> Hybrid L4
> Tang Band W4-1337SA
> ...



Did you get the Peerless 830987 (concave surround version of the 830986) yet? According to UPS, mine should be sitting on my front porch when I get home.


----------



## EricP72 (Mar 23, 2008)

POLKAT said:


> Did you get the Peerless 830987 (concave surround version of the 830986) yet? According to UPS, mine should be sitting on my front porch when I get home.



please post your impressions of those driver when you get them installed.


----------



## POLKAT (Jan 10, 2007)

manish said:


> please post your impressions of those driver when you get them installed.


It will be a while yet before I get them installed, but I suppose the least I can do is toss them in a couple small bowls with a towel inside to absorb the back wave and see how they sound on the dash of the Trailblazer. 
I also have some Dayton RS 100's on the way and I will be choosing my favorite out of the two.


----------



## WLDock (Sep 27, 2005)

Here-I-Come said:


> Yes, I'm planning a 4-4.5" review soon. Just getting the funds together to buy the ones I would like to test and some other things I need. I'm planning to test the following:
> 
> Hybrid L4
> Tang Band W4-1337SA
> ...


The 4" PRS mids are on the way out to member Shinjohn in Cali for testing in his kicks in comparison to his 4" Scans.... That should be a good one!

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42964

From there I will have him send them to you Mark.... so get that ball rolling man.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

t3sn4f2 said:


> How would the baffle on a big box like that affect the sound compared to the other drivers in their relative tiny boxed baffles. Maybe you could cut a hole in the box and mount the smaller boxes in the box somehow so they would all share the same baffle size. Or mount the small boxes through a hole on a baffle the size of the face of the big box.
> 
> Might have to redo the whole listening test for all of them I imagine.


Smart guy here folks, Get out of my head man. That is exactly what I'm doing. Thats way I made a few different baffles, so I will be able to attack all the smaller enclosures to a large baffle so the playing field will be even. All the small enclosure will flush mount in one of the baffles. All of the back side of face plate of the small enclosure was routed so not to restricted to back Waves of the small drivers. Its funny has something so small can effect the performance of the the drivers. Still need to route the large baffles.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

WLDock said:


> The 4" PRS mids are on the way out to member Shinjohn in Cali for testing in his kicks in comparison to his 4" Scans.... That should be a good one!
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42964
> 
> From there I will have him send them to you Mark.... so get that ball rolling man.



Can't wait. This should be good.


----------



## Dr.Telepathy SQ (Nov 17, 2007)

Here-I-Come said:


> Give me some old school love making R&B and the wife better run, because it baby making time.


LOL love it!! too funny. Don't forget to play some Luther V in there too. Great,great,great review by the way as well!


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

Hey Mark how did the 830986 sensitivity compare to the RS100 and the TG9? Have you gotten the chance to play around with a RS125 yet? I'm hoping the RS100 doesn't sound anything like them.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Fully optimized (taking into account xover/baffle optimisation, frequency response correction), or fully unoptimized (testing drivers only, removal of room, enclosure and baffle effects), how do you feel about these same drivers


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

dBassHz said:


> Hey Mark how did the 830986 sensitivity compare to the RS100 and the TG9? Have you gotten the chance to play around with a RS125 yet? I'm hoping the RS100 doesn't sound anything like them.



It was better then the RS100, but close to the TG9. I built a home entertainment system using the 6 RS125, 2 RS225's, 3 RS28's and 1 RSS390HF for a customer and I now wish the RS100 was available when I did. The customer was very happy and it did sound nice, but the RS100 is just a more transparent driver, so IMHO will say no, they don't sound the same.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Mark,

Do you know what the displacement is of the RS100? I'm gonna built some pods out of PVC tomorrow for the RS100 and I'm trying to figure this out. I'm aiming to go with your 1.4L recommendation, which is a 3.25x2.75" cylinder. Seeing that the speaker is just over 2" deep my guess is that a cylinder of that size will not be large enough. If I do 3.25x3 that'll give me about 1.6L, would that be a good size to aim for considering driver displacement?

For reference, I'm wanting the RS100 to play from about 150-200hz up to 4-5khz.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic (Oct 10, 2005)

bass_lover1 said:


> Mark,
> 
> Do you know what the displacement is of the RS100? I'm gonna built some pods out of PVC tomorrow for the RS100 and I'm trying to figure this out. I'm aiming to go with your 1.4L recommendation, which is a 3.25x2.75" cylinder. Seeing that the speaker is just over 2" deep my guess is that a cylinder of that size will not be large enough. If I do 3.25x3 that'll give me about 1.6L, would that be a good size to aim for considering driver displacement?
> 
> For reference, I'm wanting the RS100 to play from about 150-200hz up to 4-5khz.


Sorry man I have no idea on the displacement of the driver. 

I would keep them around 200hz they are much cleaner around there. And your 1.4 enclosure will be fine. That is what the ones I use was (1.4-1.5). I even tried around a l liter and they still played down to 200hz with on problem, but like the larger 1.4-1.5 better for all the drives and the RS100 played down to 160 with no problem in the large enclosure, but they sounded best @ 200hz and higher.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

bass_lover1 said:


> Mark,
> 
> Do you know what the displacement is of the RS100? I'm gonna built some pods out of PVC tomorrow for the RS100 and I'm trying to figure this out. I'm aiming to go with your 1.4L recommendation, which is a 3.25x2.75" cylinder. Seeing that the speaker is just over 2" deep my guess is that a cylinder of that size will not be large enough. If I do 3.25x3 that'll give me about 1.6L, would that be a good size to aim for considering driver displacement?
> 
> For reference, I'm wanting the RS100 to play from about 150-200hz up to 4-5khz.



Find a large thin walled zip-lock bag (fill it with air, seal it, and squeeze to make sure there are no holes). Place the driver butt down in it and then place the bag and driver on a surface and seal the zip of the bag enough so that you can inhale the air out of the bag enough so that it conforms to the majority of the driver (lower part below the baffle is the only part this step is important for). Leave enough slack around the middle of the bag so that there is enough to get pulled into the area between the cone and the spider when you pull out the air. 

Close it off quickly and then submerge the driver up to the baffle edge (butt down still) in a tall beaker of water (preferably one with measured indentations). Measure the amount of water displaced. That should give you a good enough approximation.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Here-I-Come said:


> Sorry man I have no idea on the displacement of the driver.
> 
> I would keep them around 200hz they are much cleaner around there. And your 1.4 enclosure will be fine. That is what the ones I use was (1.4-1.5). I even tried around a l liter and they still played down to 200hz with on problem, but like the larger 1.4-1.5 better for all the drives and the RS100 played down to 160 with no problem in the large enclosure, but they sounded best @ 200hz and higher.


Thank you. I'm gonna go with one 3.25x3" and just use driver displacement to get it closer to 1.4L.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

How would these work in a free-air environment?

A 1.4L enclosure isn't fitting on my dash 


EDIT: By these, I mean the RS100.


----------



## mitchyz250f (May 14, 2005)

What about testing some of the 2" Peeless and TB drivers?


----------



## Xtreme03 (May 27, 2006)

bass_lover1 said:


> Thank you. I'm gonna go with one 3.25x3" and just use driver displacement to get it closer to 1.4L.



I know this is old, but I'm curious how you came up with 3.25"x3" pvc enclosure being 1.4L?

I just bought a couple PVC caps that measure 3.5"ID, and roughly 2.875" deep in the center. I filled them with water, and then dumped them into a measuring cup and they were not even .5L.

At that volume, will my RS100s be ok? I'm not planning on crossing them at 200hz...more like 500.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Xtreme03 said:


> I know this is old, but I'm curious how you came up with 3.25"x3" pvc enclosure being 1.4L?
> 
> I just bought a couple PVC caps that measure 3.5"ID, and roughly 2.875" deep in the center. I filled them with water, and then dumped them into a measuring cup and they were not even .5L.
> 
> At that volume, will my RS100s be ok? I'm not planning on crossing them at 200hz...more like 500.


Volume of a cylinder is pi*r^2*h. Your cap is 3.50 DIAMETER, which is why you came up with less than .5L when doing the water thing. 

Not sure how they'll sound in that situation, your best bet is to try it and take a listen.


----------



## Xtreme03 (May 27, 2006)

I know how to calculate the volume of a cylinder, but mathematics are irrelevant here because I used a physical method of determining the volume of my caps.

What I'm saying is that, based on the dimensions you gave (3.25" diameter x 3" depth), the volume would not be 1.4L....it would be 0.4L.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Xtreme03 said:


> I know how to calculate the volume of a cylinder, but mathematics are irrelevant here because I used a physical method of determining the volume of my caps.
> 
> What I'm saying is that, based on the dimensions you gave (3.25" diameter x 3" depth), the volume would not be 1.4L....it would be 0.4L.


I never said the cap was 3.25" diameter, read it again. And mathematics aren't irrelevant, how do you think they came up with that nifty measuring cup?


----------



## Xtreme03 (May 27, 2006)

bass_lover1 said:


> I never said the cap was 3.25" diameter, read it again. And mathematics aren't irrelevant, how do you think they came up with that nifty measuring cup?


I didn't say that mathematics are irrelevant...read it again. The mathematics were irrelevant on MY part because I didn't need to actually calculate the volume of my caps. Anyway...here are your words. I think you need to read them again since you thought I did.



bass_lover1 said:


> Do you know what the displacement is of the RS100? I'm gonna built some pods out of PVC tomorrow for the RS100 and I'm trying to figure this out. I'm aiming to go with your 1.4L recommendation, which is a 3.25x2.75" cylinder. Seeing that the speaker is just over 2" deep my guess is that a cylinder of that size will not be large enough. If I do 3.25x3 that'll give me about 1.6L, would that be a good size to aim for considering driver displacement?


Tell me, just what doyou mean by a '3.25x2.75" cylinder'? Technically, you never SAID "diameter", but you did say "cylinder." One would assume that the 3.25" would be a diameter, and the 2.75" is a depth measurement. At least that's the way most of us read measurments for a cylinder. Based on the specs you gave...that's only .4L. Not many people would assume that to mean anything but diameter.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

I'm confused, you seem almost annoyed that I made a mistake in typing out my response?

I mean, it should be pretty obvious that the cup you bought, thinking was 1.4L, couldn't fit anywhere NEAR to half of the liquid in a 2L soda bottle.

Sorry if you misread what I wrote, or I improperly worded it, but common sense goes a long way, no?


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

How do I get an auto dupe, two minutes after the original? 

Ant, you need to fix that shiz mang!


----------



## Xtreme03 (May 27, 2006)

bass_lover1 said:


> I'm confused, you seem almost annoyed that I made a mistake in typing out my response?
> 
> I mean, it should be pretty obvious that the cup you bought, thinking was 1.4L, couldn't fit anywhere NEAR to half of the liquid in a 2L soda bottle.
> 
> Sorry if you misread what I wrote, or I improperly worded it, but common sense goes a long way, no?



I was annoyed, because you seemed to get smart with me instead of answering the question.

About common sense...you just never know about people...I thought mabye you were misguided, but then you wouldn't set things straight, so I thought you were even crazier. 

BTW...I knew the cups I bought wouldn't be 1.4L...common sense.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

Xtreme03 said:


> I was annoyed, because you seemed to get smart with me instead of answering the question.
> 
> About common sense...you just never know about people...I thought mabye you were misguided, but then you wouldn't set things straight, so I thought you were even crazier.
> 
> BTW...I knew the cups I bought wouldn't be 1.4L...common sense.


Then I apologize for my poor typing skills, ok not typing in general just poor choice of words.


----------



## quality_sound (Dec 25, 2005)

MY E-PEEN IS BIGGER THAN BOTH OF YOURS'!


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

quality_sound said:


> MY E-PEEN IS BIGGER THAN BOTH OF YOURS'!



I hope you enjoy your stay with Hans while in Germany, psh e-peen


----------



## oldloder (Nov 30, 2005)

I made the same mistake when I was trying to see if I could fit an enclosure for the rs100's I want to get. The mistake I made was using the diameter in place of the radius in the formula - radius squared x pi x height = volume. When I used the radius I got a 3" (I.D)x 13" for 1.5L not accounting for driver displacement. I think I'll just eyeball it and add an inch or something as sealed volume enclosures are pretty forgiving for small % errors like that. And for what it's worth, these little guys are supposed to sound terrific even just mounted on a baffle without an enclosure, so I feel good just dropping them into my dash until i get a chance to make up the enclosure.  

May be only a week or so away 'til getting them.


----------



## Xtreme03 (May 27, 2006)

They wouldn't play as low mounted IB, and the power handling would probably be reduced...I'd be afraid it would struggle to keep up with midbass and tweets.


----------



## oldloder (Nov 30, 2005)

You're right, they wouldn't play as low and power handling will be down. I'll be using them full range with a small TB sub or two ... maaaaaybe some tweets but it'll be a low power low fuss setup for me. I did recently read someone saying they got as low as 70 Hz with them mounted on a cardboard baffle, lol ...

diyAudio Forums - Dayton RS100S-8 4" Reference Shielded Full-Range Drivers? - Page 1


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

oldloder said:


> You're right, they wouldn't play as low and power handling will be down. I'll be using them full range with a small TB sub or two ... maaaaaybe some tweets but it'll be a low power low fuss setup for me. I did recently read someone saying they got as low as 70 Hz with them mounted on a cardboard baffle, lol ...
> 
> diyAudio Forums - Dayton RS100S-8 4" Reference Shielded Full-Range Drivers? - Page 1


While I use and love the RS100's I wouldn't recommend them as a full range driver. They get some nasty break up past 6KHz. They do place nice and low with plenty of output though. I have mine in .8L pods and they play beautifully from 250Hz up to 4KHz (though I recently changed the LP point to 3KHz 6db/oct to better mate with my tweets) with more than enough output. Hope that helps some.

Zach


----------



## Effusion (Aug 7, 2007)

Hey. I sent you a PM.


----------



## BigRed (Aug 12, 2007)

I play my L3's down to 80hz no problem. That's with 5 zuki watts though!! lol


----------



## Boostedrex (Apr 4, 2007)

Effusion said:


> Hey. I sent you a PM.


You didn't send me a PM. Unless that was directed towards someone else.

80Hz huh Jim?? What kind of output level are you getting from them at that crossover point?


----------



## thsiow10 (Nov 16, 2007)

sorry to bring out old thread.

A bit confuse..
Trius 3.5" midrange is refer to this Vifa TG9??

L3 vs Trius 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/member-product-reviews/2974-legatia-3-vs-trius-3-a.html


----------



## circa40 (Jan 20, 2008)

Thanks Mark! Im glad I kept the Peerless


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

No. The Trius is the paper version, T*C*9...which Madisound has a special on by the way. The TG9 is a composite cone version, more detail but less smooth basically, same motor, basket, surround as far as I'm aware, just a different cone material.

The TC9 will be smoother sounding and easier to work with. The TG9 will be more lively but harder to dial in.

And you still have choices from Peerless, Tang Band, Dayton, Hi-Vi, and Aura too that would surely fit the bill as a cone type midrange. LOTS of choices.

The particular interest in the TG9/TC9 is that it has good sensitivity AND good powerhandling AND high xmax AND a wide frequency response range. With a lot of products in this size range, you're generally stuck having a limiting factor somewhere. About the only thing better fitting and more output capable then the Vifas is Peerless' 4" woofers.


----------



## thsiow10 (Nov 16, 2007)

mvw2 said:


> No. The Trius is the paper version, T*C*9...which Madisound has a special on by the way. The TG9 is a composite cone version, more detail but less smooth basically, same motor, basket, surround as far as I'm aware, just a different cone material.
> 
> The TC9 will be smoother sounding and easier to work with. The TG9 will be more lively but harder to dial in.
> 
> ...


Oh, thanks.
But from the review on Legatia 3" vs Trius 3", the cone for Trius 3" more look like TG9 (white Fiber glass) instead of TC9 (paper cone).










TG9 from Madisound









TC9 from Madisound


----------



## mvw2 (Oct 2, 2005)

Hmm...not sure. There's the TC9 and TG9. I _thought_ the Trius was the paper version, but it has been a while since I looked at that thread.


----------

