Senal ASM-5

[test1223]

Could you state some concrete examples? And does that mean that K+H/Neumann copied them? They were all squared boxes with waveguides, Genelec used in the past spherical waveguides while K+H rather elliptical ones. Also with that logic Genelec copied Neumann with their new cardioid sub as K+H had a cardioid bass monitor in the 60s...

First copy and inspiration are not the same. Second the older Genelecs waveguides where elliptical. Have a look at the Genelec 1029a from 1996...
The few years later introduced K&H O 104 and even the newer Neumann KH 120 are very similar to the 1029a.

I was the one who noticed the SP dip more than a year ago https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nn-kh120a-or-genelec-8030c.11109/#post-314241 , on the other hand the Genelec 8030 is less flat on axis and has the DI peak just higher in frequency and the KH120 waveguide has a smoother DI on the last octave https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...20a-or-genelec-8030c.11109/page-8#post-551248 , everything is a compromise.

You have some pro and cons of cause. The DI of the Genelec is way more linear and you can see that the wave guide and box are better optimized so that there is less diffraction and unwanted behavior in the frequency response. You see with the KH 80 that neumann is getting better with the optimization of this and comes closer to the older genelecs.

Genelec, Geithain you mention all use up to 5" mid drivers on their best regarded monitors.

The Geithain ML 811K1 is their "best" monitor and it has a 10" midrange driver. You use cherry picking to support your claim.
@Zvu is right there are multiple solutions to get perfect mids.

 

[thewas]

The DI of the Genelec is way more linear

Except the larger DI peak of the KH120 its actually smoother:

The Geithain ML 811K1 is their "best" monitor and it has a 10" midrange driver. You use cherry picking to support your claim.

You do, their 811 is just their biggest monitor, their best and most famous and used in studios is the 901K.

@Zvu is right there are multiple solutions to get perfect mids.

Such thing as perfection doesn't exist and never will, everything is a compromise.

 

[Zvu]

Such thing as perfection doesn't exist and never will, everything is a compromise.

Exactly. So no size of midrange is perfect, no midrange fits all especially if misused, regardless of price of loudspeakers.

 

[thewas]

Exactly. So no size of midrange is perfect, no midrange fits all especially if misused, regardless of price of loudspeakers.

Sure, but smaller drivers are generally better than larger ones in terms of sound quality the higher we go in frequency, membrane breakup is just physics.

 

[Zvu]

Sure, but smaller drivers are generally better than larger ones in terms of sound quality the higher we go in frequency, membrane breakup is just physics.

Are you saying that smaller drivers sound better if you are misusing them compared to larger drivers ?

Why would you use larger drivers close to their breakup ? That is beyond their passband, limited by physics of course.

 

[thewas]

Are you saying that smaller drivers sound better if you are misusing them compared to larger drivers ?

No, I clearly say that if sound quality is more important then SPL then smaller drivers are the better choice for mids and highs and are also the standard in high quality audio reproduction from our known reference companies. If higher SPL needed often it is also better to use several smaller than one large driver.

Why would you use larger drivers beyond their passband, limited by physics of course ?

That exactly, a large mid driver has its first break up in the mid region or too close to it. And to pose the question similarly why would you use unnecessarily large drivers when smaller ones are sufficient in terms of SPL? Why did Genelec and KEF not use a larger coax for their bigger models, especially when KEF has one which its uses only for its entry series?

 

[Zvu]

No, I clearly say that if sound quality is more important then SPL then smaller drivers are the better choice for mids and highs and are also the standard in high quality audio reproduction from our known reference companies. If higher SPL needed often it is also better to use several smaller than one large driver.

That exactly, a large mid driver has its first break up in the mid region or too close to it. And to pose the question similarly why would you use unnecessarily large drivers when smaller ones are sufficient in terms of SPL? Why did Genelec and KEF not use a larger coax for their bigger models, especially when KEF has one which its uses only for its entry series?

Well, i'll just have to disagree with you that 5" is the perfect midrange size for high quality reproduction. It may be for those concepts you mention but there are lots of reasons one would want larger or smaller midrange. I'll just name a few that did it on purpose:

Dutch&Dutch 8C
Grimm LS1
Geithain RL903K
Geithain ML811K1
Revel Ultima Salon 2
Linkwitz LXmini
Linkwitz LX521
GedLee Harper/Nathan/Abbey/Summa
Neumann KH420
Taipuu 3 way
...

 

[HorizonsEdge]

When speakers go bad you get great TV!

 

[thewas]

Well, i'll just have to disagree with you that 5" is the perfect midrange size for high quality reproduction. It may be for those concepts you mention but there are lots of reasons one would want larger or smaller midrange. I'll just name a few that did it on purpose:

Dutch&Dutch 8C
Grimm LS1
Geithain RL903K
Geithain ML811K1
Revel Ultima Salon 2
Linkwitz LXmini
Linkwitz LX521
GedLee Harper/Nathan/Abbey/Summa
Neumann KH420
Taipuu 3 way
...

You misunderstood me there partially, I never stated that 5" is perfect, but rather the upper limit on a high end audio mid driver compromise of sound quality vs. SPL., there can be also great smaller ones (like also some in your above list).

From the ones you mention above I have listened to the 8C and I personally liked the mids of the KH310 (same 3" dome mid driver like the KH420 you also mention in that list) a bit more in a direct comparison in the same room to which I have also have posted some MMM measurements but that can be also just coincidence. But if you plot the mid sizes of the world best hifi loudspakers you will see a statistical scattering between 3" and 5" like you will see for 0,75"-1" tweeters. Like you say there can be few excellent exceptions, but in the end exceptions prove the rule.

 

[Zvu]

but in the end exceptions prove the rule.

I've had few very good talks with my university professor about that saying. Serbs have it/use it also

 

[thewas]

I've had few very good talks with my university professor about that saying. Serbs have it/use it also

Its a small world.

Also examples like the D&D8c with a crossover to the tweeter at 1250 Hz are not really what I personally mean with a "full range mid driver" which plays the whole mid region up to 2-3 kHz, but rather "low mids", if playing only up to approximately 1 kHz you can of course go higher in drive size since the break up is more far away.

 

[Zvu]

I see that lots of people make that distinguish between a mid driver crossed at 100Hz and the one crossed at 500Hz. For me, if you are using one driver in a certain passband, it counts.

Two way that has F3=80Hz is practically unlistenable without a woofer. For me that counts as a three way, but someone else will call it a two way and a sub.

if playing only up to approximately 1 kHz you can of course go higher in drive size since the break up is more far away.

That's exactly what i was aiming at. If you cross it low enough and directivity between mid/tweet doesn't suffer - size actually doesn't matter

 

[thewas]

That's exactly what i was aiming at. If you cross it low enough and directivity between mid/tweet doesn't suffer - size actually doesn't matter

Only that imho you can't really call it a mid driver anymore. For me for example the JBL M2 is rather a woofer-lowmid and mid-tweeter combination to take it to the extreme but it seems our definitions are different. So to clarify in my statements above about optimal sizes, I was referring to drivers being able to playing to what I understand with mids, thus up to approximately 3 kHz.

 

[Zvu]

So to clarify in my statements above about optimal sizes, I was referring to drivers being able to playing to what I understand with mids, thus up to approximately 3 kHz.

In that context i agree with you completely.

 

[restorer-john]

Only that imho you can't really call it a mid driver anymore. For me for example the JBL M2 is rather a woofer-lowmid and mid-tweeter combination to take it to the extreme but it seems our definitions are different. So to clarify in my statements above about optimal sizes, I was referring to drivers being able to playing to what I understand with mids, thus up to approximately 3 kHz.

View attachment 121470

That's a great graphic.