Best Midrange?

is this to help your company in its next speaker design?

 

Pmc Ib2

 

in that case try the jordan jx92 driver in a sealed enclosure 6 L or a more exotic 1/4 TL or ... - robert has reservations but he doesn't know everything

best partnered with an additional sub or 2

JX92 point source, no crossover to mess things up, spookily real realism & 3D .. apparently comparable to electrostatics but I've never heard any of those.

If you want some unique designs I have a portfolio full of them

 

ESL57 from those listed.

Probably the most startlingly real mid I've heard.
There are many technical reasons why.

 

Me or someone else?
I like them very much.

 

You need to make your mind up Robert - I recall your criticism of them a few years back

But glad you changed your opinion.

 

A 1 to 1.5L enclosure would suit the small driver & yes they are very good & formed part of Jordans higher spec range
a new version is out shortly. (also shielded)

 

Really? - I wonder if its the same model.
I heard Ian (SSBs) kit speaker using a Jordon a few years ago and liked them.
Not perfect by any means but nothing is., so yes I might have had criticisms

A bit like Martin's mini mini minimonitor project.

 

http://www.esotericaudiodevices.com/Drive_Units.html

 

Quad ESL 57s — still my reference for mids.

Joe

 

My PMC IB2s are driven by a bryston amp i.e they are passive. The domed midrange is PMC's own; it is similar to ATC's midrange unit.
Jim

 

Of the poll choices, has to be the ESL57. For one listener and a narrow band of acceptable level!

I do think it's not the straightforward choice it appears. I had some nice serviced ESLs and ultimately got rid because I actually preferred the H2s presence, and energy over a wider range of material. Of course that doesnt make them more right though! Think I'm suggesting that its the overall balance which matters more to the individual.

Anyway I've enjoyed Quads 63s, 988s, 989s especially and 2905s . Think I'd take 989s overall for my desert-island speaker.

I certainly do think that passive XOs can do the job more than well enough. I do not think that active XOs and separate amps are any kind of panacea or requirement for achieving 'better' at all.

BTW I cannot abide the small Beeb boxes , LS3/5 etc. For all they do well I cannot live with the rest. And while I've always enjoyed big DC Tannoys, they do have a certain oddness/obvious discontinuity smack in the midrange that sems a bit too obvious to me. Oh, and big ATCs (though I like them a lot) do not quite give all they might here either, but I think that's the on-board amps...

 

+1 ..... other than the ATCs because I've very little experience of them.

Can't abide the LS3/5 but love the larger 3/6.
I think thin wall needs a large cabinet, which makes sense if you think about it.
Complex circuits in themselves don't usually ring alarm just because they are complex, but the 3/5 crossover is very intrusive IMO. Far too much secondary response shaping over and above the basic slopes.

 

I voted other: Proper horn implementation = compression drivers that are not trying to cover too wide a freq range - means you end up with 5 way... Massive bass horn or tapped, Mid bass, Mid range horn, upper mid horn, tweeter.
No radiating soultion or hybrid can top them for me.
There is little point in focusing on just one area - that's not music reproduction. You need full range and each part to be top notch performance.

You need to follow all the good horn implementation rules - throat, mouth, length, resonance, time alignment, reflection and positioning to get good image and integration.

 

I agree, just ordered my four way horns, I would have five but my room is simply not big enough.
4x 16" should be enough.
KR Keith

 

Squeeze them in and EQ it!