johnnyrichards
12-01-2011, 03:01 AM
Standard disclaimer here: not SPL accurate, are not anechoic or quasi-anechoic, I do not have FRD files, they are all taken under identical conditions for comparative purposes only. The baffle is 9.25"W x 15"H. measured at 19" from the mic. All drivers were surface mounted.
First up is the GRS poly cone unit sold by PE:
http://i.imgur.com/6vlkl.png
Second is the MCM poly cone (part number 55-2970):
http://i.imgur.com/IeyYd.png
Third is the Focal/JM Lab paper cone buyout from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/1jMVG.png
Fourth is the generic 6.5" buyout subwoofer from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/Pc8Wh.png
Fifth is the silver cone Bravox (12 ohm) buyout from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/ups88.png
Last is the NLA Realistic 40-1011A polypropylene woofer from Radio Shack:
http://i.imgur.com/wvhDC.png
The GRS, MCM, Focal, and subwoofer are all neck-and-neck WRT outward build quality. All four have thin, stamped steel frames and rubber surrounds - although the Focal has a smaller diameter surround than the others. The Focal lacks any voice coil venting, but has a bumped back plate. The GRS has a vented back plate, but lacks the bumping. The MCM has a vented and bumped back plate, as does the subwoofer. The Bravox is built way better than the other four drivers, with under dustcap and under spider venting, a bumped back plate (but no back plate vent), and a nice, open molded chassis.
The cones on the GRS and MCM are similar in construction and appearance, but not the same as I thought they might be when I ordered them. Obviously the MCM has a semi-inverted dustcap, and the GRS has a traditional dustcap. They both sport a medium soft foam gasket, as opposed to the cardboard the subwoofer uses. The Focal has no gasket. The Bravox has a cosmetic molded frame that is also truncated. The silver cone of the Bravox looks striking against my black test box, as well.
The Focal cone has a slight cast to it, might be just a touch of green in it. Hard for me to say, I have trouble with certain color ranges sometimes. Very old school looking driver with the smooth, untreated paper cone. It is better looking than the subwoofer, but the GRS and MCM are better looking than both of the paper cone units. The Bravox is better looking than all of them. Obviously, this is entirely subjective and YMMV.
Obviously the test box has an effect on the measured responses, but you can see that manifested in all five measurements. The primary one is a wide hump between 1 and 2k. You can subtract about 3db out of that region to get an idea.
Again, this is intended only for comparative purposes.
I did do some distortion testing on all five, but I am not going to publish those results. One of the drivers fared pretty poorly compared to the others, and one of them did much better compared to the others. To be honest, I am going to avoid the controversy so feel free to speculate :)
*Added 12/26/2011* The Realistic has a very attractive cone. It loses a build quality point or two because of the foam surround (longevity, not sound quality) and the lack of any voice coil venting. It also lacks a bumped back plate. The stamped frame is in the same class as the other drivers. The impulse response was the second best of the group so far, for whatever that is worth.
First up is the GRS poly cone unit sold by PE:
http://i.imgur.com/6vlkl.png
Second is the MCM poly cone (part number 55-2970):
http://i.imgur.com/IeyYd.png
Third is the Focal/JM Lab paper cone buyout from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/1jMVG.png
Fourth is the generic 6.5" buyout subwoofer from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/Pc8Wh.png
Fifth is the silver cone Bravox (12 ohm) buyout from PE:
http://i.imgur.com/ups88.png
Last is the NLA Realistic 40-1011A polypropylene woofer from Radio Shack:
http://i.imgur.com/wvhDC.png
The GRS, MCM, Focal, and subwoofer are all neck-and-neck WRT outward build quality. All four have thin, stamped steel frames and rubber surrounds - although the Focal has a smaller diameter surround than the others. The Focal lacks any voice coil venting, but has a bumped back plate. The GRS has a vented back plate, but lacks the bumping. The MCM has a vented and bumped back plate, as does the subwoofer. The Bravox is built way better than the other four drivers, with under dustcap and under spider venting, a bumped back plate (but no back plate vent), and a nice, open molded chassis.
The cones on the GRS and MCM are similar in construction and appearance, but not the same as I thought they might be when I ordered them. Obviously the MCM has a semi-inverted dustcap, and the GRS has a traditional dustcap. They both sport a medium soft foam gasket, as opposed to the cardboard the subwoofer uses. The Focal has no gasket. The Bravox has a cosmetic molded frame that is also truncated. The silver cone of the Bravox looks striking against my black test box, as well.
The Focal cone has a slight cast to it, might be just a touch of green in it. Hard for me to say, I have trouble with certain color ranges sometimes. Very old school looking driver with the smooth, untreated paper cone. It is better looking than the subwoofer, but the GRS and MCM are better looking than both of the paper cone units. The Bravox is better looking than all of them. Obviously, this is entirely subjective and YMMV.
Obviously the test box has an effect on the measured responses, but you can see that manifested in all five measurements. The primary one is a wide hump between 1 and 2k. You can subtract about 3db out of that region to get an idea.
Again, this is intended only for comparative purposes.
I did do some distortion testing on all five, but I am not going to publish those results. One of the drivers fared pretty poorly compared to the others, and one of them did much better compared to the others. To be honest, I am going to avoid the controversy so feel free to speculate :)
*Added 12/26/2011* The Realistic has a very attractive cone. It loses a build quality point or two because of the foam surround (longevity, not sound quality) and the lack of any voice coil venting. It also lacks a bumped back plate. The stamped frame is in the same class as the other drivers. The impulse response was the second best of the group so far, for whatever that is worth.