Best midrange ever? Worst?!

[RaymondLeggs]

worst Midrange: Bose and many of the HTIB speakers

Best: Shannon Elizabeth.

Sorry I just had too!

 

[lab]

I'd say it's a tie between Infinity's higher end models of the Emit/EMIM era and Acoustat electrostats I've heard. I've heard very few electrostats or wide range ribbons, like Apogee, which probably have effortless mids as well.

Probably has to do with the extemely low mass of the diaphragms responding quickly and the fact that they're driven over so much of their area as opposed to simple cones which are driven only at the apex and therefore can flex and distort. But that's just my opinion of course.

 

[dnewma04]

Probably has to do with the extemely low mass of the diaphragms responding quickly and the fact that they're driven over so much of their area as opposed to simple cones which are driven only at the apex and therefore can flex and distort. But that's just my opinion of course.

I would say that it probably has nothing to do with the the mass and AFAIK, resonances/distortion are usually a more difficult problem to deal with in ribbons and planar magnetics then they are in dome style tweeters.

 

[wineslob]

I'd say it's a tie between Infinity's higher end models of the Emit/EMIM era and Acoustat electrostats I've heard. I've heard very few electrostats or wide range ribbons, like Apogee, which probably have effortless mids as well.

Probably has to do with the extemely low mass of the diaphragms responding quickly and the fact that they're driven over so much of their area as opposed to simple cones which are driven only at the apex and therefore can flex and distort. But that's just my opinion of course.[/QUOTE]

It absolutely does. an Ap ribbon MR/T (midrange/tweeter) has less mass than most dome tweeters, which adds up to VERY good transient response and LOW distortion (below 1%). Resonances are a non issue also, because of the "tuning" of the ribbon.

 

[GordonW]

As far as commercially-sold speakers, IMHO, the Tannoy Kensington wins by far. Followed closely by the Tannoy Glenair.

UPDATE: We just did a hot-rodded crossover network on the Tannoy Glenair (15" dual concentric). SOMEONE (we won't name names) sent us a clandestine "black project" schematic from someone at Tannoy, and we built it... it's a bit more complex than the factory unit, but BOY... oh my god. This thing is SCARY good now. I think its midrange is now BETTER than the Kensingtons!

As for planars- when they make a planar/panel/electrostatic speaker with the DYNAMIC OUTPUT RANGE of the Tannoy dual-concentrics, then the planars will, IMHO, be able to go head-to-head with anything. Until that happens, no dice, at least for me...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[dnewma04]

I'd say it's a tie between Infinity's higher end models of the Emit/EMIM era and Acoustat electrostats I've heard. I've heard very few electrostats or wide range ribbons, like Apogee, which probably have effortless mids as well.

Probably has to do with the extemely low mass of the diaphragms responding quickly and the fact that they're driven over so much of their area as opposed to simple cones which are driven only at the apex and therefore can flex and distort. But that's just my opinion of course.[/QUOTE]

It absolutely does. an Ap ribbon MR/T (midrange/tweeter) has less mass than most dome tweeters, which adds up to VERY good transient response and LOW distortion (below 1%). Resonances are a non issue also, because of the "tuning" of the ribbon.

All measured distortion testing I've run across has always indicated that ribbons/planars tend to have higher levels of harmonic distortion then even moderately priced dome tweeters. These aren't lowend ribbons like the Dayton quasi ribbons, these are ribbons/planars from the likes of LCY, Raven, Fountek, Hi-Vi, Bohlender Graebener, Aurum Cantus, included. Some of the established high end drivers in the group have notch filters published in their own documentation to deal with some of the resonances (BGs).

Ribbons like the Ravens, Founteks, etc are very dynamic, extremely detailed and just flat out amazing sounding when properly implemented, but they won't win many distortion measuring contests.

It's not the mass alone, its the ration of mass to motor strength and I'd argue that inductance (which is particularly low with planars) that is allowing the outstanding transient response, not the mass (by itself).

EDIT: Also, I don't believe it hurts many of the planar speakers that they are dipoles which do a damn fine job of reducing room problems that many monopole speakers have. The reduced reflection problems help reduce room induced artifacts that tend to smear imaging.

 

[dnewma04]

UPDATE: We just did a hot-rodded crossover network on the Tannoy Glenair (15" dual concentric). SOMEONE (we won't name names) sent us a clandestine "black project" schematic from someone at Tannoy, and we built it... it's a bit more complex than the factory unit, but BOY... oh my god. This thing is SCARY good now. I think its midrange is now BETTER than the Kensingtons!

As for planars- when they make a planar/panel/electrostatic speaker with the DYNAMIC OUTPUT RANGE of the Tannoy dual-concentrics, then the planars will, IMHO, be able to go head-to-head with anything. Until that happens, no dice, at least for me...

Regards,
Gordon.

Are you stating that DYNAMIC OUTPUT RANGE is the MOST IMPORTANT attribute of a loudspeaker, IYE?

 

[wineslob]

Measured in-room, the speaker delivered linear frequency responses on the listening axis, with good integration shown between the two drivers. No nasty spuriae were found. Driven hard, some distortion was evident in the bass, mainly doubling, but this was only significant in context of the rest of the frequency range where the distortion was very low, much lower than in competing moving coil designs, for example. In fact the ribbon section has lower distortion than a number of good power amplifiers

From a review of the Duetta Sig.
It's the main reason Apogees are so damn hard to "match" electronics with.

All measured distortion testing I've run across has always indicated that ribbons/planars tend to have higher levels of harmonic distortion then even moderately priced dome tweeters. These aren't lowend ribbons like the Dayton quasi ribbons, these are ribbons/planars from the likes of LCY, Raven, Fountek, Hi-Vi, Bohlender Graebener, Aurum Cantus, included. Some of the established high end drivers in the group have notch filters published in their own documentation to deal with some of the resonances

Actually I've read exactly the opposite, but maybe true for the makers you mention? :scratch2:

 

[dc270]

My votes per catagory would be-

Cone type; ElectroVoice VMR
Modest Prices Horn; EV 8HD w/ 1823/4M drivers
Dome; ADS 2" domes
Planar; Emims from Infinty

Depending on HOW you like your mids & application any of the above would suit me quite well. Personally I like my mids brought in under 150hz and rolled off around 3 khz with first order networks. The Dayton 7" aluminum cone models have also worked very well for me in tandum arrangements as have some pro 6.5" from Eminence.

My least favorite mids have been the metal closed models from the "Kabuki" days of audio.
DC

 

[dnewma04]

Just like with conventional coil in gap motors, there are methods of reducing distortion. Trying not to go for a design with a lot of exursion is a good step crossing over at higher freq is another step up. Any published distortion data I've seen usually has smallish planar magnetics and top notch dome tweeters measuring in the .5-1% distortion range, very highend ribbons tend to be on the high side of that range and the others that were previously mentioned tend to be in the 1-1.5% range. Long line sources tend to be hard to measure but more surface area = less excursion = less distortion, but the same could be accomplished with a line array of tweeters (as far as lowering distortion goes). I'd love to see some distortion plots that show them being better than coil in gap technologies or even planar magnetics. In 15 years, I haven't run across it and being a big fan of ribbons, i'd sure like to have the numbers to point to. Thus far, they have eluded me.

 

[soundmotor]

I know more 2 ways with incredible midrange than any other design...does Rogers LS 3/5A ring any bells. I could make a list a mile long of 2 ways with incredible midrange.

That pretty much sums up my feelings as well.

As far as QUADs go, they have a quality to them that makes me feel like I am lost & falling into them, so captivating they are.

I've had that same feeling with nearly every electrostatic I've ever heard.

 

[BrassTeacher]

My first post.

Best midrange:

KEF 101 Reference Model (1978)

Welcome!

I have a pair of those as well, and I love them! After my wife heard them, she had no objection to me hunting down the pair of KEF 104/2 that I've always wanted!

Well, actually, she had no objection as long as I could find them cheap . . .

 

[wineslob]

Just like with conventional coil in gap motors, there are methods of reducing distortion. Trying not to go for a design with a lot of exursion is a good step crossing over at higher freq is another step up. Any published distortion data I've seen usually has smallish planar magnetics and top notch dome tweeters measuring in the .5-1% distortion range, very highend ribbons tend to be on the high side of that range and the others that were previously mentioned tend to be in the 1-1.5% range. Long line sources tend to be hard to measure but more surface area = less excursion = less distortion, but the same could be accomplished with a line array of tweeters (as far as lowering distortion goes). I'd love to see some distortion plots that show them being better than coil in gap technologies or even planar magnetics. In 15 years, I haven't run across it and being a big fan of ribbons, i'd sure like to have the numbers to point to. Thus far, they have eluded me.

Gimme a bit of time, I've got a review somewhere with some numbers.


Here:

The spectrum analyser was pressed into service for some distortion measurements. Given that 30Hz is the main resonance, when driven at this frequency to the usual higher 96dB sound level (8.9V RMS) the distortion was likely to be at its worst. Here 3rd-harmonic predominates with a satisfactory reading of 10% (-20dB). The 4th-harmonic is down at 1%, with no significant higher modes. Given that full acoustic output was available to 30Hz, this is a good result - below the threshold for audibility on programme and comparing well with the industry average at this frequency. Only very large woofer systems can surpass it. By 55Hz the Duetta shows improving linearity, with an inconsequential level of -32dB for the 2nd harmonic, and higher overtones at -60dB (0.1%) or better. Remaining at 96dB and moving up the range to 500Hz, 2nd was moderate at I% and 3rd very low at 0. 15%, while at 2kHz the tweeter ribbon results were excellent at 0.1% of 2nd and little else, with 2nd harmonic held to 0.12% at 8kHz These frequencies were not specifically chosen and illustrate the exceptional performance of this large panel design, while when the sound output was reduced to a cruising level of 86dB the speaker showed even lower levels of distortion, down into the regions associated with purely electronic devices.

 

[GordonW]

Are you stating that DYNAMIC OUTPUT RANGE is the MOST IMPORTANT attribute of a loudspeaker, IYE?

It's certainly the MOST IGNORED aspect of design, by many "modern" speaker designers. The whole "smaller is better" lie that we've been fed by many speaker manufacturers. Even planar manufacturers like Martin-Logan have fallen into this trap...

You can have the best frequency response and lowest distortion ever... but if you can't do the "slew rate" in the third dimension (ie changes in AMPLITUDE done ACCURATELY in SCALE from soft to loud), then it won't amount to much, IMHO... It's EQUALLY as important as flat frequency response, even time/phase response and freedom from distortion...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[SpeakerLabFan]

Favorite midrange? DIY?

I'm in the horn camp with the speakers I've had pleasure to listen to, and my favorite is the K-horn midrange. Given the right amplification, I think it's a wonderful musical experience. :thmbsp:

 

[RaymondLeggs]

I wish I had some of the smaller kabuki speakers

 

[wineslob]

It's certainly the MOST IGNORED aspect of design, by many "modern" speaker designers. The whole "smaller is better" lie that we've been fed by many speaker manufacturers. Even planar manufacturers like Martin-Logan have fallen into this trap...

You can have the best frequency response and lowest distortion ever... but if you can't do the "slew rate" in the third dimension (ie changes in AMPLITUDE done ACCURATELY in SCALE from soft to loud), then it won't amount to much, IMHO... It's EQUALLY as important as flat frequency response, even time/phase response and freedom from distortion...

Regards,
Gordon.

Have to agree there. I saw some ML's a year or so ago that were about 3' tall. The sound was diminutive as well.

:yes: Good luck finding recordings today that preserve the dynamic range. Flim and the BB's come to mind.................

 

[Lady Ayeka]

indeed, midrange makes all the difference. my CS-G503 4-ways have mids unlike anything i have yet experienced. good mids are seductive!!

 

[dnewma04]

Gimme a bit of time, I've got a review somewhere with some numbers.


Here:

Thanks, that goes along with what I have found pretty consistently. Typical ribbons have high levels of 3rd harmonics at low freq that tail off as the freq rises. 3rd order being the most objectionable, it's probably why i've had best lucking crossing over ribbons a good bit higher then the recommended crossover frequency from the mfg. 2nd harmonics tend to either rise slightly with freq or stay fairly flat as freq rises but aren't objectionable sounding. In the case of the review, I assume the speaker used a large ribbon driver, therefore minimizing distortion and probably crossed over high enough to get out of any potential trouble zones.

That said, if you have a small ribbon tweeter that you cross over the typical 1 octave over where it starts to rolloff and compared it to a dome tweeter (or planar magnetic) crossed over similarly, I'd put my money on the latter having lower distortion. Crossover 2 octaves above and things start to get a lot closer in distortion measurements. Large line source ribbons are an interesting lot that is hard to measure and should address some of the issues i've mentioned. But, I would hold to my comment that low inductance and in some cases, the dipolar arrangement of many, is the reason for their magic, not low distortion measurements or a light diaphragm. YMMV, IMHO, No Offense, to each his own, USE LE14s and BMS!, econowaveguide, et all.

 

[dnewma04]

It's certainly the MOST IGNORED aspect of design, by many "modern" speaker designers. The whole "smaller is better" lie that we've been fed by many speaker manufacturers. Even planar manufacturers like Martin-Logan have fallen into this trap...

You can have the best frequency response and lowest distortion ever... but if you can't do the "slew rate" in the third dimension (ie changes in AMPLITUDE done ACCURATELY in SCALE from soft to loud), then it won't amount to much, IMHO... It's EQUALLY as important as flat frequency response, even time/phase response and freedom from distortion...

Regards,
Gordon.

As far as speaker attributes go, I rank dynamics fairly high on my list of priorities, I just wanted a little clarification. Obviously, every speaker has to have some compromises and the Tannoys are one of the best you've heard because of what you value in a loudspeaker. That said, if the music/volume you listen to doesn't require big dynamic speakers, I can see why others might not value dynamics like you and I. In that case, speakers with a greater focus on something other than dynamics might be better suited to a listener because it might excel in some other area. Dynamic range is important but the degree of it's importance is highly variable.