A 1" compression driver designed for near field listening

[xmax]

Very interesting...

http://www.audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-faital-pro-hf108r-compression-driver

[civit]

I don't really understand how the driver's optimizations lend themselves to near field use.

[dcibel]

I think perhaps xmax's use of the "near field" term is home/studio use, rather than a concert. It's a good compression driver, but I wouldn't say anything about it is specifically designed for near field use.

[dcibel]

A bit more cost effective, the new Tymphany compression drivers have very good performance, I would choose a different horn than the one used in this testing, however.

http://www.audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-peerless-by-tymphany-dfm-2544r00-08-compression-driver

[xmax]

"The HR108R is a solid performer. I think it’s great that Faital Pro crafted a compression driver specifically intended for close monitoring situations."

[dcibel]

I think Vance may be making some assumptions about the design intent of this driver, to be honest.

"Compared to the HF108 compression driver, the HF108R incorporates a more rigid clamping system on the diaphragm. This creates a more subtle listening experience when the distance between the enclosure and the target audience is limited (as in a bar / club / restaurant or for a home listening situation) since it is typical for the compression drivers to be somewhat overwhelming when listened to in the near field. This requires additional machining in the gap as well as the alternative clamping method."

Does that paragraph make sense to anyone? Clamping on the diaphragm? I would think that any feature of a compression driver to make it more suitable for near field would be in the coupling of the driver to the horn throat, and the selection of the horn/waveguide, but I don't know everything about compression driver design.

[wavefunction]

Here's my take on it. I have tried out the HF108 (the older, non R version), and also the LTH102 horn. Some time ago, I read that the R version had laser-cut holes in the surround of the diaphragm that resulted in lower distortion, but I think they resulted in lower output. But I can't remember where I read this... wait, it could have possibly been on the US Speaker website. So lower distortion and lower output would give a more 'near field' use case. But I find it curious that the audioXpress review does not mention this. I will say I am not a fan of the LTH102 horn. There are other horns, particularly the SEOS 12, that I prefer. Too bad PE stopped selling them.