Why a co-axial 2inch driver (Orphean)

by Jacobus @, Sunday, June 03, 2007, 12:35 (3883 days ago)

Dear all and Bert,

I was wondering why you are using a co-axial compression driver in the Orpheans and not a good normal 2inch driver, there are several that make it all the way up to 20kHz. Did you also experiment with these? And why the 4592 and not the 4590, what are the differences here.

Cheers,

Jacob

Tags:
0

Avatar

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by Bert @, Sunday, June 03, 2007, 13:53 (3883 days ago) @ Jacobus

Hi Jacob,

I was wondering why you are using a co-axial compression driver in the
Orpheans and not a good normal 2inch driver, there are several that make
it all the way up to 20kHz. Did you also experiment with these? And why
the 4592 and not the 4590, what are the differences here.

nname one that can be used down to at least 300Hz (crossover frequency)...

The 4592 has better output in the highest frequencies and gives more options to tune it optimally to the Orphean.

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by Jacobus @, Sunday, June 03, 2007, 15:22 (3883 days ago) @ Bert

Hello,

the Radian 950PD, or the JBL2446 are examples. they both are also very extended.

What is are the benefits of the 4592 vs the 4590?

regards,

Jacob

Tags:
0

Avatar

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by Bert @, Sunday, June 03, 2007, 18:01 (3883 days ago) @ Jacobus

the Radian 950PD, or the JBL2446 are examples. they both are also very
extended.

Very well extended but not useable. After EQ there is only 95dB useable sensitivity left and then still, how will it hold when playing frequencies down to 300Hz (read the previous answer once more....)?

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by Jacobus @, Sunday, June 03, 2007, 19:25 (3882 days ago) @ Bert

ah ok, problem with EQ is clear. I think though that the mentioned drivers go to 300Hz as least as good as the BMS. but the loss of eff. is indeed a problem

Tags:
0

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by GC, Monday, June 04, 2007, 11:48 (3882 days ago) @ Jacobus
edited by GC, Monday, June 04, 2007, 11:52

ah ok, problem with EQ is clear. I think though that the mentioned drivers
go to 300Hz as least as good as the BMS. but the loss of eff. is indeed a
problem

Hi Jacob

When you claim the mentioned drivers to be at "least" as good as the BMS at 300 Hz or whatever, it caNot be so. The BMS's shows extreeme P-P displacements and incredible low distortion in the lows.
The drivers you refer to doesn't comply here. Hence an unbearable distortion at 300Hz and only distortion if cut lower.

It is to my knowledge only GOTO drivers and alike that reach very low freq. and those dedicated for that, doesn't have any response towards the highs.

However good reputed JBL/TAD etc 2" and 4" compression drivers are, neither of them have any usefull response at the very highs if a given horn should load them even down to 300 Hz. The treble will die travelling through the horn.
A dedicated driver for those "missing" freq. has to be applied for max resolution. And where to place it at optimum?

IMO the BMS's drivers with their incorporated treble horn are just "bulls-eye", as a one point source is acheived by the construction itself. 200 - 25.000 Hz from one point!!!
In a horn like the Orpheans the treble breaths out uncut until mass controlled roll off tell them to quiet at 25 KHz.

That it is an art to make the drivers response to perfection is a magic from those who knows how to make it happen.


General question: Is it a problem that BD-Design's version of the BMS drivers and applied front horn is sounding better than all others?


GC :grin:

Tags:
0

Why a co-axial 2inch driver

by Jacobus @, Monday, June 04, 2007, 22:09 (3881 days ago) @ GC

Hi GC,

Just trying to learn. I did some more searching and understand now your statements regarding the high. freq and the low freq.

Cheers,

Jacob

Tags:
0

RSS Feed of thread