Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

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

  • Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

    I'd like to hear the opinions of some of those out there who have worked with both dome and cone midranges. I'm thinking of buying a couple of dome midranges...most likely the Daytons. However, in reading the reviews posted by several people on these and other dome midrange drivers it seems that dome midranges are just too overpowering. What are your thoughts?

    These would be mated with the Dayton Ribbon Tweeter and 12" woofer.

    Thanks,
    Leonard

  • #2
    Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

    I've always preferred cones over domes, it's subjective.
    To me, dome midranges are just overgrown dome tweeters.


    Originally posted by rogoll View Post
    I'd like to hear the opinions of some of those out there who have worked with both dome and cone midranges. I'm thinking of buying a couple of dome midranges...most likely the Daytons. However, in reading the reviews posted by several people on these and other dome midrange drivers it seems that dome midranges are just too overpowering. What are your thoughts?

    These would be mated with the Dayton Ribbon Tweeter and 12" woofer.

    Thanks,
    Leonard

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

      On the commercial side some of my favorite speakers Dynaudio Confidence 5 and ATC Anniversary 50's and SCM-150's have dome mids. So whatever makes them sound different I like it.

      AE is right about the 2" Dome mids being big tweeters and if your treat them as such you will great results.

      I use the Morel MDM55 and on a small baffle in the PE .25 cuft box with the Morel MDT22 and Dayton RS125, in this config I can use 1 cap and 1 inductor with a resistor for the entire mid crossover. The off axis response at 30 degrees is very smooth and flat through the midrange frequencies (250 -1400). I also have a design with the Dayton RS180, these are good but not as good as the smaller .25's because the baffle requires I add components to the mid crossover. I'm working on new baffles for these speakers to allow the tjust the three components. Like tweeters Dome mids will reveal phase changes and other malladies much more than cone speakers of similar price and performance expectation.

      If you're going to use a 12" driver (based on the one serious try I've made trying to mate a 2.5" dome to a 10" driver) I think you will need a 3" dome mid like the Vifa 75. The much greater output capacity of the 12" driver will stress these smaller mids (I know it will the MDM55, others?) or will require a crossover frequency to high to where the dome mid really is just a tweeter anyway.

      With smaller 2" mids like the Dayton or the Morels I would use the 12's in an active subwoofer capacity and place a smaller 5", 6" midbass driver as a transition from the dome mid. This does add complexity to the system but as you can see in the current JohnK thread on "dipole bass without dipoles" having some flexibility in the placement of your LF drivers is a very good thing.

      I use a BSS 366 to manage the eq, delay and crossover for subwoofer integration with the main speakers which rolloff at 12db at -6 @ 84hz in my room. Using the delays and multiple subwoofers my in room response is very smooth from 30hz to 22khz. I currently do not run any eq or crossover filter on the monitor speakers just delay

      This setup works for me, hopefully you will get other working models to help choose what you want to do.
      Yeah I built a couple speakers....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

        Originally posted by rogoll View Post
        I'd like to hear the opinions of some of those out there who have worked with both dome and cone midranges. I'm thinking of buying a couple of dome midranges...most likely the Daytons. However, in reading the reviews posted by several people on these and other dome midrange drivers it seems that dome midranges are just too overpowering. What are your thoughts?

        These would be mated with the Dayton Ribbon Tweeter and 12" woofer.

        Thanks,
        Leonard
        Leonard,

        Several years ago, Rick Craig (Selah Audio) and I came up with an inexpensive monitor sized 3-way that was called the JH3. It was based on a Vifa M21 8" woofer, Dayton 2" mid dome and a Morel MDT-12 tweeter. It turned out quite nice but is over shadowed by the Dayton Reference series designs available today. Check HT Guide for a lot of RS designs that have been well vetted at the DIY events.

        BTW, Dayton doesn't have a ribbon. It's a planar that works better in a line array than a smaller speaker.

        I'm posting a picture and the crossover of the JH3 if anyone is interested. BTW, I have the ones pictured for sale if anyone is interested in an inexpensive speaker. I've only used them as surrounds.

        Jim
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

          The main drawback of dome mids is limited frequency range--they just can't cross as low to the woofer as a good 4" or 5" cone. A 12" woofer might not sound that good running up to 500Hz or higher, and it would put the crossover right in the range where the ear is most sensitive.

          OTOH, they can go higher with good dispersion, allowing use of a smaller tweeter.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

            Originally posted by rogoll View Post
            I'd like to hear the opinions of some of those out there who have worked with both dome and cone midranges. I'm thinking of buying a couple of dome midranges...most likely the Daytons. However, in reading the reviews posted by several people on these and other dome midrange drivers it seems that dome midranges are just too overpowering. What are your thoughts?
            I've done two designs with domes, three with "cones". The dome designs took a lot more massaging. IMO because the crossovers needed to be higher (800-1000) and because the domes I used had limited xmax. They are typically higher sensitivity & self contained.

            Cones can usually cross lower, (200-500) so you have more flexibility on driver placement and bandwidth for tweaking.

            With a 12" woofer, I'd suggest 3-5" cone (or wide range) driver in it's own sealed chamber. It's a bit tough finding cones with enough sensitivity, but they are out there.
            Lou's Speaker Site [speakers.lonesaguaro.com]
            "Different" is objective, "better" is subjective. Taste is not a provable fact.
            Where are you John Galt? I may not be worthy, but I'm ready.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

              Originally posted by LouC View Post

              With a 12" woofer, I'd suggest 3-5" cone (or wide range) driver in it's own sealed chamber. It's a bit tough finding cones with enough sensitivity, but they are out there.
              I hear that! I modeled my budget 3 way with the RS100 but found that the sensitivity couldn't match the classic 10". I am still looking for the frd/zma for the dayton rs125-4. This looks like it has the guts to cross a little lower (300hz.) 88db @ 1w. I tried modeling the rs150 for the job but the breakup is pretty nasty and the extra size will contribute to beaminess.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                Doesn't the 3" TB dome perform well crossed at 600Hz?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                  Originally posted by mike1234 View Post
                  Doesn't the 3" TB dome perform well crossed at 600Hz?
                  Depending on a number of things, like baffle width, 600Hz would be fine, but system sensitivity would necessarily be reduced as the response is falling off below 600Hz
                  R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                  Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                  95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                    Originally posted by brianpowers27 View Post
                    I hear that! I modeled my budget 3 way with the RS100 but found that the sensitivity couldn't match the classic 10". I am still looking for the frd/zma for the dayton rs125-4. This looks like it has the guts to cross a little lower (300hz.) 88db @ 1w. I tried modeling the rs150 for the job but the breakup is pretty nasty and the extra size will contribute to beaminess.
                    The RS150 can manage a 2000Hz LR4 with a third order electrical that puts the resonance down substantially. The Dreydel or its RS28 cousin are testament to that.
                    R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                    Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                    95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                      Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post
                      The RS150 can manage a 2000Hz LR4 with a third order electrical that puts the resonance down substantially. The Dreydel or its RS28 cousin are testament to that.
                      I need a good strong and efficient mid to reach into the 300hz range. In my application I am hoping to run the driver from 300hz to about 3000-3500hz bw3(acoustic). The rs150 doesn't appear to be the correct driver for the job.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                        Originally posted by brianpowers27 View Post
                        I need a good strong and efficient mid to reach into the 300hz range. In my application I am hoping to run the driver from 300hz to about 3000-3500hz bw3(acoustic). The rs150 doesn't appear to be the correct driver for the job.
                        Look like one of the 5" TB mids is what you need then.
                        R = h/(2*pi*m*c) and don't you forget it! || Periodic Table as redrawn by Marshall Freerks and Ignatius Schumacher || King Crimson Radio

                        Byzantium Project & Build Thread || MiniByzy Build Thread || 3 x Peerless 850439 HDS 3-way || 8" 2-way - RS28A/B&C8BG51


                        95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                          ^^^ The TB W5-704D's are the few drivers I'm not selling along with some ND16's. These perform well and are priced very competitively compared to others of the same quality. I'll be building 6.1 MTM's with the MCM bi-amp plates. I don't even need to mod the x-over... easy easy!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Midrange Drivers -- Dome vs. Cone

                            The fogey says they are of another era and repeats everyone here. go with a small cone driver.

                            The old A.D.S. dome was nice and naturally dyns and others but small drivers were not being dealt with in those days ,good small mid woofers led to being able to have subs -thus smaller speakers.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X