Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMT2-4 versus Neo CD 1.0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • augerpro
    replied
    I may do a low cost proof-of-concept for this design first, what do you guys think of the Beston RT001A in this app?

    Leave a comment:


  • jhollander
    replied
    Originally posted by humphreyblowdart View Post
    Is there some reason you're not considering the Dayton PTMini-6?
    Max x-o is in the 6K to 7K range...and really not in the same league imo

    Leave a comment:


  • augerpro
    replied
    Didn't know it existed!

    Leave a comment:


  • humphreyblowdart
    replied
    Is there some reason you're not considering the Dayton PTMini-6?

    Leave a comment:


  • jhollander
    replied
    FWIW if vertical was not a of concern I'd use the AMT 2-4 for the lower distortion. I'm going from memory as I can't find my measurements...

    Leave a comment:


  • augerpro
    replied
    Yeah very small mids. At this point it's all conceptual since I can't do any wood work atm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mayhem13
    replied
    From a measurement perspective the Fountek is the better driver for your intended purpose IF you can cross that high? I'm suspecting a tightly spaced MTM with small mids is where you're headed with this?

    Leave a comment:


  • dynamo
    replied
    In looking at factory graphs it looks like horizontally the cd1.0 at 45deg is within about 6db of 0 at 15k and 8db at 20k, where the amt is about 13db at both points. Both are good horizontally but the fountek is better. Fountek also publishes vertical measurements.

    As a whole the amt starts rolling off sooner than the fountek as well. I'm sure the amt is nice, but I feel the cd1.0 is a good value for a true ribbon.

    Leave a comment:


  • dynamo
    replied
    Originally posted by augerpro View Post
    I'm actually looking for some vertical directivity. How much I don't know yet, I have to model the polars on the woofers and mids. The design criteria are very wide horizontal dispersion and *somewhat* limited vertically.
    Sounds like you just described the cd1.0 exactly. The ribbon is only about 1/4 to 3/8" wide so horizontal dispersion is incredible, while vertical is limited somewhat but not locked in like a ribbon several inches long would be.

    Leave a comment:


  • augerpro
    replied
    I'm actually looking for some vertical directivity. How much I don't know yet, I have to model the polars on the woofers and mids. The design criteria are very wide horizontal dispersion and *somewhat* limited vertically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul K.
    replied
    One of the benefits of the Neo CD1.0 is that it does have significantly better vertical dispersion than most ribbon tweeters (presumably due to its shorter ribbon length). I cannot compare it to the AMT2-4 but I've used it several times, and Paul Carmody used it in his Speedsters. In my canTiLena it was crossed at 4.8 kHz to a Morel MDM55, and my recommendation would be to not cross it below 4 kHz (which is where Carmody crossed it IIRC).
    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • dynamo
    replied
    I haven't measured the vertical dispersion of my cd1.0, but at listening distance the vertical off axis sounds (to me) just fine when standing. I probably spend more time listening while walking around doing things than sitting in the sweet spot. I have not heard the amt to compare it. Mine is crossed at 5k, 3rd order electrical. No buzzing on my smaller amt, sounds like it was a defect. also, I would be cautious in removing the top screen area of an amt as I believe it is part of the magnetic circuit.
    Last edited by dynamo; 11-27-2016, 01:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • isaeagle4031
    replied
    Ive heard the Neo 1 but it has been some time ago. So I would hesitate to make a direct comparison. It sounded good with no apparent issues that I can remember. No idea where it was crossed at though.

    As far as buzzing issues with the AMT, I've not heard anything of the sort and I tested mine at 90+db at 1m. With a 4th order electrical filter, they are crossed very steep. I used this filter mainly because of the phase alignment. It crossed fine with a 3rd order for a flat response. The last coil just brought in an additional level of "smoothness" to the integration between the drivers. I use an Adcom GFA555 (about 250w/ch) and they have had no issues taking power from it with the volume control over the halfway mark.

    Leave a comment:


  • augerpro
    replied
    That's encouraging. Have you used or heard the Neo CD 1.0 at all? I've used the 2.0 a number of years ago and liked it. I've heard some of the new AMT's at RMAF, Often impressive with a liveliness, but sometimes had a sort of buzz. I experienced this when designing a speaker for a friend and had to remove the screen that covered the diaphragm so the buzzing would stop.

    Leave a comment:


  • isaeagle4031
    replied
    I used the amt2-4 in my MidNite Magics build crossed at about 3.5k. I did not measure vertical directivity but can tell you the horizontal was beyond my expectation. The z axis with the surface mounted tweeter was in the .009 range. They also well exceeded my expectations.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X