High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Uwe,

What drive levels resulted in 10% distortion on HF drivers in an active (not pasive crossover) HF driver in the Production Partner magazine ?

I would have liked to compare the 920 and the 755 to the EVDH1A, but from what I can see (and hear) from the comparative results of the DE82, looks like they would still be no better in terms of ouput/vs distortion.

Art

Hi Art,

sorry for the late reply, Im buried with work,
actually I dont know drive levels, PP mag is plotting SPL versus frequency at 3 and 10% THD.

When there is time, I will measure the 920 in respect to distortion at high drive levels and post some results

Uwe
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Art,
How do you find the consistency between your DH1A's is? I measured a bunch of these that came out of some nearly 20 year old deltamax boxes and the response of each driver was quite significantly different (found the smaart screenshots, amazed I still had these). I don't know the history on the drivers I measured, but just wondering how these have aged for you. They are certainly a very stout driver in all senses.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Art,
How do you find the consistency between your DH1A's is? I measured a bunch of these that came out of some nearly 20 year old deltamax boxes and the response of each driver was quite significantly different (found the smaart screenshots, amazed I still had these). I don't know the history on the drivers I measured, but just wondering how these have aged for you. They are certainly a very stout driver in all senses.
Jeff,

Nine of ten DH1AMT I have used since 1992 are still probably all within a few dB of each other, and their response still looks like the published charts.
One pair looked a bit different, after cleaning the gaps and swapping the diaphragms between the pair, both looked better but the "most different" response followed the diaphragm, rather than the driver.

Diaphragms made at different times may have slight differences, and drivers that have been dropped may loose some magnetism, a dirty old road system probably would show more differences than a system that had light duty hanging in a church.

When taking pictures of the drivers, I found rocks and dirt to have enough ferrous content to stick to the magnets. Systems used outdoors in windy dusty conditions could collect enough particles in the gap to change response.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Hi,
I have measured quite a few BMS drivers for Harmonic distortion along with other brands.
The one trend I see the most is at low voltage the BMS driver have more distortion then other drivers.
But once you start putting more voltage into the measurement the BMS driver has less distortion.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Hi,
I have measured quite a few BMS drivers for Harmonic distortion along with other brands.
The one trend I see the most is at low voltage the BMS driver have more distortion then other drivers.
But once you start putting more voltage into the measurement the BMS driver has less distortion.
Too Tall,

The BMS 4550 and 4552 had more distortion at all drive (voltage) levels than the cheaper Eminence PSD 2002 as you can see (and hear) in my test results. Even the 50 (guessing) year old Jensen Hypex had less distortion than the BMS drivers.

What other brand drivers had more distortion than the BMS drivers?
Could you post the distortion measurements you took?

Art
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I used DH1A's for a long time and about 8 years ago switched to the Neo version NDYM1 and the later ND6x. How do you you think the Neo versions would compare to your findings. Have you ever tried any of the slightly heavier / thicker diaphragms in them like the 84234XX or 84233XX depending on your needed impedance verses the standard 81256XX or 81320XX.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I don't know if HF drivers were included, but I remember hanging out at the Rat shop one time while Dave was working on Microwedge settings. We got onto the topic of drivers. Dave mentioned that drivers (I'm assuming cones) are audibly and measurably inconsistent from one to the next even when they're from the same run of manufacturing. Sometimes the differences are really noticeable. He and Brian Rat were surprised when they first made the discovery in the early days of Rat when they started building a lot of cabinets. I guess they're sort of like "a box of chocolates." Has that been your experience at all Art?
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I just thought of something that may cause a slight measurement difference with the EV diaphragms. I have cut the diaphragm out of some of the back cap assemblies over the years. While most have about a 1/4 inch thick piece of foam glued to the inside of the cap a couple of them did not, just the hard plastic was exposed. If I can find any of those caps I'll check the serial numbers to see if there is some pattern to those with and with out. ( I have no idea why I keep old diaphragms!)
For what's it's worth the biggest failure I've seen with them is cracking in the surround at the point where the voice coil is glued to the diaphragm.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I used DH1A's for a long time and about 8 years ago switched to the Neo version NDYM1 and the later ND6x. How do you you think the Neo versions would compare to your findings. Have you ever tried any of the slightly heavier / thicker diaphragms in them like the 84234XX or 84233XX depending on your needed impedance verses the standard 81256XX or 81320XX.
Mike,

I compared the N/DYM1 to the DH1A about 20 years ago, as the specs show it had slightly smoother response and slightly less 3rd harmonic distortion than the DH1A.

I have not tried any other diaphragms in the DH1A.

Your observation about some diaphragms lacking foam fill would certainly explain a difference in sound.
Also, certain types of foam break down over time, a pile of foam dust in the bottom of the diaphragm would sound different than a 1/4" foam cover on the compression chamber.

Art
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I don't know if HF drivers were included, but I remember hanging out at the Rat shop one time while Dave was working on Microwedge settings. We got onto the topic of drivers. Dave mentioned that drivers (I'm assuming cones) are audibly and measurably inconsistent from one to the next even when they're from the same run of manufacturing. Sometimes the differences are really noticeable. He and Brian Rat were surprised when they first made the discovery in the early days of Rat when they started building a lot of cabinets. I guess they're sort of like "a box of chocolates." Has that been your experience at all Art?
Greg,

Back in the "olden days" we used RTA for measurement, I only saved a few printouts, but there were differences in both cones and HF drivers, some from the factory, some over time from road use and abuse.

I have a lot of Eminence Alpha 8A and Lab 12 cones, they all measure remarkably consistent (within 1 dB) regardless of age purchased.
The Eminence PSD2002 and APT tweeters are not as consistent, with unit to unit variations of more than 3 dB.
When designing passive crossovers for those drivers, I have had to use an average between units.
To reach more consistency I matched and numbered the four pairs of APT tweeters used in my stage monitors, that way at least each pair will work together with one EQ.

Art
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Also, certain types of foam break down over time, a pile of foam dust in the bottom of the diaphragm would sound different than a 1/4" foam cover on the compression chamber.

The JBL 2440/2441 drivers in my boxes are well aged and the foam inside the back covers is really old and crumbly. Low and behold, JBL still makes the foam! Picked up a set of new ones and I'm replacing them as I change out diaphragms over time. I suppose I should do a measurement of a before and after foam replacement and see if there's an improvement. I suspect there are some resonances that improve with the new foam.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

The JBL 2440/2441 drivers in my boxes are well aged and the foam inside the back covers is really old and crumbly. Low and behold, JBL still makes the foam! Picked up a set of new ones and I'm replacing them as I change out diaphragms over time. I suppose I should do a measurement of a before and after foam replacement and see if there's an improvement. I suspect there are some resonances that improve with the new foam.
Although I prefer the 3" diaphragm DH1A over the 4" JBL, being able to replace the foam is a good thing.
Wonder if the new foam is more stable than the old, foam surrounds for speakers have been vastly improved over the years.
The DH1A diaphragm and back chamber (with or without foam according to Mike Caldwell) are a one piece assembly, no way to get to the foam without cutting up the diaphragm.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

I changed out the foam on 2 JBL drivers yesterday whilst replacing diaphragms on 2 TAD TD2001 drivers (ouch). I was in a hurry and didn't have time to setup measurement. I've got one more driver to change foam on so I'll do it then. One the JBLs was getting "kazooy" with sine wave so I put a new diaphragm in that one too. Radian JBL drop-ins are a heck of a lot cheaper than the TADs. I really which Radian would make diaphragms for those. Hear that Radian?! $100 is a lot cheaper than $550.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

With a music playback, when pushed hard, even with a 1250 crossover, the "s" sounds in the word “cities” seemed to get the most “spitty” with the BMS drivers, and the harmonics of the flute seemed a bit odd.

Hi Art, is it your opinion that this is a driver distortion byproduct?


The BMS 1” drivers have extended clean HF response, but require fairly high crossover points if high volume, low distortion response is desired. The BMS 4552 is by far the highest output for size and weight of the drivers tested. The small size lends itself to line array applications, the close driver spacing reducing the complexity of the driver/wave guide interface.

Art Welter

The 4552 still has a conical output, the same as any conventional driver. So kind of moot.
For line array BMS has a planar output driver with a 4"x1" exit, and true flat front wavefront, not just a conical exit driver mounted to a rectangular guide. 4510. It does use the same VC/membrane as the 4552, but in a much different configuration.

Regards, Jack
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Hi Art, is it your opinion that this is a driver distortion byproduct?

The 4552 still has a conical output, the same as any conventional driver. So kind of moot.
For line array BMS has a planar output driver with a 4"x1" exit, and true flat front wavefront, not just a conical exit driver mounted to a rectangular guide. 4510. It does use the same VC/membrane as the 4552, but in a much different configuration.

Regards, Jack
Jack,

Each driver tested varies from the original recording, the variance from the recording is the particular distortion "signature of the driver under test.

How would you describe the sound of the BMS drivers compared to the others in the test?
Did you get any answers from BMS regarding the questions I previously asked?

Art
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

My thanks to Bennett Prescott, U.S. Sales Manager for B&C speakers for guiding me to the proper driver for my application from the huge variety that B&C makes.

Thanks to Charlie Tappa of Pro Sound Service Inc. (Pro Sound Service AV Sales Service Install 877-776-7631) for providing that B&C driver for evaluation, with prior knowledge of the abuse I would subject it to.

Thanks to Jack Arnott of Assistance Audio (Welcome to Assistance Audio) for providing the BMS drivers with prior knowledge that they most likely would not fit my needs.
For years I had wanted to hear BMS drivers, which use polyester diaphragms, a material primarily associated with awful clothing from the 1970s.

Finally, thanks to Bonnie T, love of my life who put up with my obsessions over the last month in particular, and the last four years in general.

This HF compression driver evaluation was undertaken for three basic reasons:

1. Advances in materials and design has led to higher power handling which may correspond to additional available output and lower distortion.

2. The DH1AMT / DH1A drivers presently in my speaker cabinets weigh 23 pounds, a weight savings of 10 to 20 pounds per 50 pound cabinet could be realized with other drivers.

3. Most of my sound work presently is in the dry high desert of New Mexico, HF air losses in hot summer temperatures require far more acoustic power to overcome those losses compared to similar heat at high humidity.
HF air losses are in addition to the inverse distance 6 dB per doubling of distance.
For example, at 90 degrees, 80 % relative humidity, HF air loss is only 2.4 dB per 100 feet, while at 20% humidity, 22.9 dB loss occurs.
To achieve the same HF response at 100 feet in the desert would requires a 20 .5 dB increase in SPL, over 20 times the power (without considering power compression).
Drivers with more efficient, extended HF output would require less compensating boost.

In the past two decades, LF driver technology has made large advances in linear excursion capability and power handling, resulting in more clean LF output per driver, although requiring more power to achieve that goal.

Thiele -Small parameters for cone transducers make comparison of cone speakers relatively easy, allow allowing reasonably reliable predictions of response in a particular cabinet alignment.

HF compression driver manufacturers do not publish TS parameters, at best one gets power, Fs (resonant frequency) diaphragm size and composition, exit diameter and response on a specific horn or plane wave tube, sometimes with harmonic distortion figures derived from a single frequency sweep at a small fraction of rated power.

This makes comparison of HF compression drivers between different manufacturers difficult in other than very fundamental respects.
Even comparing within the same company can be difficult, the newer EV DH7 can’t be compared to the older DH1AMT on paper, they used different horns in testing.

Having heard dozens of different HF drivers on dozens of different horns in different venues ranging from home theaters to arenas, with different arrays driven with various playback material and mixes by different engineers mixing different bands through different consoles, processing, and amplification, about the only conclusion drawn were various HF drivers can sound quite good or lousy.

The EV DH1AMT and DH1A HF drivers presently in my PA were chosen back in 1992 after extensive side by side testing comparing them to the JBL 2445 and 2425 drivers in use at the time.
A single DH1A had more extended, clean response than the pair of JBLs, at a considerable weight, size, and cost advantage, both in reduction of driver cost and elimination of a crossover point and amp channels.

In 2000, after comparison, Jack Arnott replaced his JBL 2450 drivers with BMS, and later became the North American distributor for BMS product.

I designed a series of tests that involves elimination of as many variables described above to determine how a variety of drivers compare to each other at different drive levels, all driven with the same program material through the same electronics chain. Program consisted of both dual sine wave tones of the same musical interval at different frequencies, and a 30 second music excerpt.
The dual sine wave tones have accompanying RTA screen shots so the difference in each driver’s harmonic and intermodulation distortion can be compared visually as well.

The results of the tests were recorded and normalized for level and are available for download.

The “Full Monty” report with all the facts and figures is here:
High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation - diyAudio

Since you are a busy professional, I’ll cut to the chase and give you the results of what consumed 50.25 hours of testing, then another 84.75 hours to mix, analyze, write up and post the findings, a total of 135 hours of work in this project spent over the last month.

To be continued next post.

1A = EVDH1A
02= Eminence PSD2002
50= BMS 4550
52= BMS 4552
82+ B&C DE82
“DRPA630HiOutOnly” is a recording of the DSP HF output driven by a Phillips CD player.
The recordings below are an excerpt from Ed Kabotie’s song, “7 Cities of Gold”
Ed Kabotie Freedom Songs - DreamCatcher.com
with voice, acoustic guitar and wood flute used to compare the output of the various HF drivers all fitted to the same type horn.

The drivers were equalized as flat as possible from 630 to 16K using the three PEQ and 1/3 octave filters afforded by the DBX DriveRack PA. Each driver also used a specific delay compensation to align it with the LF track, slightly different delay and EQ were required for the 1250 Hz alignment.
The process was akin to aligning a dozen different PA systems, no small feat in itself.
The process “babied” the 1” drivers, allowing for the LF track to carry some extra “weight” around the 630 Hz crossover point. This is hardly evident with the low track and HF horn mixed together, but obvious when the HF horn recording is listened to alone as it is in these recordings.

The actual SPL and power levels for the recordings are:

1An0630 0, 630 Hz (7.3 watts, 116.7 dBA peak)
1Ap1363 +13, 630 Hz ( 146 watts, 128.9 dBA peak)
1Ap1763 +17, 630 Hz (367 watts, 132.4 dBA peak, oops)
1Ap1312 +13, 1250 Hz (73 watts, 127.8 dBA peak)

02n0630 0, 630 Hz (7.3 watts, 110.3 dBA peak)
02p0125 0, 1250 Hz ( 11.5 watts 113.8 dBA peak)
02p10125 +10, 1250 Hz (115 watts 118.9 dBA peak)
02p15 125 +15, 1250 Hz (367 watts 125.8 dBA peak, oops)

50n0630 0, 630 Hz (7.3 watts, 114 dBA peak)
50p13125 +13, dBA 1250 Hz (36.6 watts, 125.5 dBA peak)

52n0630 0, 630 Hz (7.3 watts, 116.3 dBA peak)
52p13125 +13, 1250 Hz( 36.6 watts 124.6 dBA peak)

82n0630 0, dBA 630 Hz (7.3 watt 113.2 dBA peak)
82p1363 +13, 630 Hz (146 watts 126.3 dBA peak)
82p1312 +13, 1250 Hz (73 watts 121.6 peak)

Not wanting to run the risk of burning up this antique driver, it was given less power:
PAp363 +3, dBA 630 Hz ( 14.6 watts 96.3 dBA peak)
PAp912 +9, dBA 1250 Hz (46 watts, 99.5 dBA peak)

More recordings are included in Posts # 2 and 3.
I suggest downloading "DRPA630HiOutOnly" (the high output of the crossover used for testing the HF drivers), first as a comparison to hear what the high end of the song sounds like before being recorded from the output of the HF drivers.
The sound files are in mp3 format, to open them change the suffix < .pdf > to <.mp3 >, then open with your mp3 app.

Art Welter

Hi Art,
First apologies for taking so long to reply. I was behind on something and would not do a comprehensive search till I finished.

As for method I used Praxis with stepped sine waves.

There is a huge difference between what you did and the data I have.
I collected Harmonic Distortion to see where I could put a crossover frequency. I never thought of using them in such a project as yours.
Mostly because I don’t get the wide sweep of drivers you tested.
About 2/3rds or more were BMS drivers on a variety of horns.

One of the favored drivers is the 4552ND (1” throat)

As for how valid my conclusions are, they are an impression I have come to over near a decade of working with BMS drivers and that driver in particular.

One of my glaring faults is the lack of skill in storing my data so that I can find them later if needed. As I said before the tests I did were done for a very different purpose and attention to detail may have been lost.
I do not recall throwing away distortion data for any of the tests I did, but I can not find more than one or two.
I did switch computers so all the data may be saved in my external back-up drive. That said it should still have found it in a search.

As time permits I will keep looking since it has become an irritation.

So in absence of solid data on my part we have you with data and me with a recollection that the BMS 4552ND did better at higher levels.
That married to a good horn and a very nice BMS 12” it sounded very nice indeed.

At near 60 years of age and many years of narcotic pain killers makes my memory less then reliable.
Thanks for the work.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

"That married to a good horn and a very nice BMS 12” it sounded very nice indeed."

Curtis, are you referring to our Bold Audio BA12 box?

Art, comparing any BMS driver with PSD2002, is really a joke to me. Maybe 2002 can go lower, but how loud can it go before the driver dies? Also that driver dont have any high end. I still have like 24 of those collecting dust somewhere in the shop. Those are the worst hf drivers i have ever heard in my life.
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

Art, comparing any BMS driver with PSD2002, is really a joke to me. Maybe 2002 can go lower, but how loud can it go before the driver dies? Also that driver dont have any high end. I still have like 24 of those collecting dust somewhere in the shop. Those are the worst hf drivers i have ever heard in my life.
Marjan,

You are correct, the tests show the Eminence PSD 2002 goes quite a bit lower, but not as high as the BMS 4550 and 4552.
The series 1 diaphragm have a roll surround, the series 2 have a kind of rectangular oval pattern in the surround.
The series 2 diaphragm goes to about 15kHz (the series 1 about 12.5 kHz) but has rougher response.
I have to admit that most of what goes on above 12.5 kHz makes little difference to me, as 16 kHz unfortunately is the upper end of my hearing, and my sensitivity is quite a bit less above 12.5 kHz.

The PSD 2002 does require more EQ to get a flat response than the BMS drivers.
No joke, the comparisons show the bolt on PSD 2002 (with a series 1 diaphragm) can go louder with less distortion than the two BMS drivers tested.
The Eminence PSD 2002 survived some serious power in the tests I conducted, and I have had only one failure (and that was with the series 2 diaphragm) in many years of use. The Yamaha club series uses PSD2002 and does not seem to have any more problems with the driver dying than is usual for cheap cabinets used (and abused) by inexperienced operators.

Are your PSD 2002 thread on or bolt on, and what series diaphragm?

Listening to the BMS music and sine wave recordings, do you think the BMS drivers sounded better than the PSD 2002?
If so, what is it that sounds better or worse to you?

Art
 
Re: High Frequency Compression Driver Evaluation

If the PDS2002 is in fact what's in a Yamaha Club Series, they sound decent at lower power but very quickly get harsh and brittle at higher volumes. Probably the same "grainy" effect Art noticed.