Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

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

  • Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

    I've been having serious quality control problems with a certain ribbon tweeter I'm using in several commercial designs, and I'm trying to find a suitable replacement with more consistent measurements. I ordered a
    NeoCD3 to test, and found the frequency response a fairly close replica of the factory plot. I couldn't find an impedance plot (and didn't see one on Zaph's site either), but it's listed as 7 ohms. Mine measures about 9 ohms. Has anyone else measured impedance on these puppies? Thanks.

  • #2
    Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

    Dennis:
    I just went to the Fountek website (www.fountek.net) and there they show an impedance line along with the SPL response on the same graph. From 2 kHz to 10 kHz, the impedance is very flat and a bit below 6 ohms. It rises from that impedance to a bit above 6 ohms at 20 kHz.
    Paul

    Originally posted by framus View Post
    I've been having serious quality control problems with a certain ribbon tweeter I'm using in several commercial designs, and I'm trying to find a suitable replacement with more consistent measurements. I ordered a
    NeoCD3 to test, and found the frequency response a fairly close replica of the factory plot. I couldn't find an impedance plot (and didn't see one on Zaph's site either), but it's listed as 7 ohms. Mine measures about 9 ohms. Has anyone else measured impedance on these puppies? Thanks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

      Originally posted by Paul K. View Post
      Dennis:
      I just went to the Fountek website (www.fountek.net) and there they show an impedance line along with the SPL response on the same graph. From 2 kHz to 10 kHz, the impedance is very flat and a bit below 6 ohms. It rises from that impedance to a bit above 6 ohms at 20 kHz.
      Paul
      Thanks Paul. Wel, I just retested mine, along with an 8 ohm resistor to check calibration, and my measurements are dead on. So now I'm worried. Has anyone else tested one or more of these?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

        If you are capable of doing your own impedance measurements, why worry?

        I'd be concerned if the impedance was lower than stated, but if it is higher, it makes the fountek a remarkably efficient driver.
        I am trolling you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

          Originally posted by MSaturn View Post
          If you are capable of doing your own impedance measurements, why worry?

          I'd be concerned if the impedance was lower than stated, but if it is higher, it makes the fountek a remarkably efficient driver.

          Because I don't build these speakers. I just design the crossovers, and a small factory hundreds of miles away builds them and ships them out. Each completed speaker is measured, but I can't fine tune the crossover long distance for every unit. I gotta have some consistency here. If they all measure 9 ohms, fine. But that's what I'm trying to find out. The other ribbon we're using is all over the place, and we can't even count on them being wired correctly for polarity. Dennis Murphy

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

            Originally posted by MSaturn View Post
            If you are capable of doing your own impedance measurements, why worry?

            I'd be concerned if the impedance was lower than stated, but if it is higher, it makes the fountek a remarkably efficient driver.
            well if the impedence vaires that much from unit to unit, I don't think he's going to want to design a custom xover for each speaker if this is for a commercial design - thats my guess anyway

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

              Ok, I understand the concern now.

              Fountek is a more reliable and consistent company than most, from what I've heard of their ribbons and others. I've used the Neo3CD once, and its impedance was higher than what was listed, but I don't know how much, exactly. My guess is you're looking at a tolerance of +/- .5 ohms centered around 8.5. That's probably better than most ribbons.

              This is perhaps evidence of where the costs and QC are cut in ribbons; that is, the transformer (not to mention the distortion profile...) Perhaps you should move to a more consistent driver TYPE, like planars? Or perhaps you aren't a fan of the B&G Neo3.
              I am trolling you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                i have 2 of them at home... but i dont know how to take any measurements other than frequency right now.


                Actually Rick Craig uses them a lot - I'm sure he'd know

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                  Originally posted by MSaturn View Post
                  Ok, I understand the concern now.

                  Fountek is a more reliable and consistent company than most, from what I've heard of their ribbons and others. I've used the Neo3CD once, and its impedance was higher than what was listed, but I don't know how much, exactly. My guess is you're looking at a tolerance of +/- .5 ohms centered around 8.5. That's probably better than most ribbons.

                  This is perhaps evidence of where the costs and QC are cut in ribbons; that is, the transformer (not to mention the distortion profile...) Perhaps you should move to a more consistent driver TYPE, like planars? Or perhaps you aren't a fan of the B&G Neo3.
                  Thanks--if it's only +/- .5 ohms, that would be fine. I know there are fans of the B&G Neo3, but I've never had much luck with it. But I do intend to do a design with the Neo8 as a super mid.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                    Dennis,
                    I went back through my records and I found the .zma plots of the NeoCD3.0 I measured back in '07 for the Statement design. My plots look identical to the Fountek impedance plot Paul pointed you to. They measured a flat 5.8 ohms between roughly 2.5K and 9K, with a gradual rise above and below that.

                    Perhaps your measurements reflect not so much a QC issue as a production change. Obviously this would be better than the impedance varying by batch, etc. The transformers should be quite consistent in impedance as long as the turns, wire gauge, and turns ratio remain constant.

                    FWIW, with all the Statement family designs out there, I've not been made aware of any variations in tweeter level or timber.

                    C
                    Curt's Speaker Design Works

                    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
                    - Aristotle

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                      It'd be nice if fountek would update their schematics to show a production change ..

                      From a practical standpoint, I believe fountek's ribbons are the best in the business, at least in a sane price category. I'd rather have the effect of 2 ohms of variance in a fountek than elsewhere! This isn't the first complaint I've heard about ribbon consistency - I think perhaps cost concerns are forcing manufacturers to take detrimental steps as far as ribbons go. They're already more expensive and fragile than most drivers, and that means not only do costs go up, but demand goes down.
                      I am trolling you.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                        Originally posted by curt_c View Post
                        Dennis,
                        I went back through my records and I found the .zma plots of the NeoCD3.0 I measured back in '07 for the Statement design. My plots look identical to the Fountek impedance plot Paul pointed you to. They measured a flat 5.8 ohms between roughly 2.5K and 9K, with a gradual rise above and below that.

                        Perhaps your measurements reflect not so much a QC issue as a production change. Obviously this would be better than the impedance varying by batch, etc. The transformers should be quite consistent in impedance as long as the turns, wire gauge, and turns ratio remain constant.

                        FWIW, with all the Statement family designs out there, I've not been made aware of any variations in tweeter level or timber.

                        C


                        Thanks for taking the trouble, Curt. So let's see. The factory pdf says 7 ohms. But your and their curves show a little less than 6, and I'm measuring 9 ohms. I dunno. But at least this one wasn't wired backwards. So that's progress.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                          At the very least, you're assured of impedance LINEARITY at or below your crossover point - how low are you using it, anyhow?
                          I am trolling you.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                            Originally posted by MSaturn View Post
                            It'd be nice if fountek would update their schematics to show a production change ..

                            This isn't the first complaint I've heard about ribbon consistency - I think perhaps cost concerns are forcing manufacturers to take detrimental steps as far as ribbons go. They're already more expensive and fragile than most drivers, and that means not only do costs go up, but demand goes down.
                            You're making a lot of generalized statements that aren't backed up by the experiences Curt, I and many others have had with Fountek ribbons or by any facts that I'm aware of. The fact is, the NeoCD3.0 is VERY robust and can be handled similar to any dome tweeter. It does not have the fragile ribbon element other competing ribbons have. It'll also play extremely loud without issue.

                            EDIT: There also isn't any evidence that any production changes have been made.

                            If you have verifiable sources that Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbons have consistency, reliability or any other type of issue, please post them.

                            I'm not trying to start a fight but IMHO ribbons get unfairly picked on if they're implemented correctly. The key phrase there is implemented correctly. ;)


                            Jim

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Question for Fountek NEOCD3 users, testers

                              Originally posted by Jim Holtz View Post
                              You're making a lot of generalized statements that aren't backed up by the experiences Curt, I and many others have had with Fountek ribbons or by any facts that I'm aware of. The fact is, the NeoCD3.0 is VERY robust and can be handled similar to any dome tweeter. It does not have the fragile ribbon element other competing ribbons have. It'll also play extremely loud without issue.

                              EDIT: There also isn't any evidence that any production changes have been made.

                              If you have verifiable sources that Fountek NeoCD3.0 ribbons have consistency, reliability or any other type of issue, please post them.

                              I'm not trying to start a fight but IMHO ribbons get unfairly picked on if they're implemented correctly. The key phrase there is implemented correctly. ;)


                              Jim
                              And I'm not trying to pick on ribbons (I know you weren't replying to me). One ribbon in particular has had some QC problems, but others I've used haven't. The Fountek element looks very robust, and it appears to be a bargain. But there's no question that this particular Fountek is measuring high. I certainly would have no problem if all of the current batch are also 9 ohms.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X