Aluminum vs Paper --- Dayton Audio RS100 vs RS100P

In this blog post I directly compare two identical 4" fullrange drivers with the exception of the diaphragm material. This afforded a great opportunity to look at the differences between the two materials both in terms of test data and subjective listening.
Blog Post: josephcrowe.co...
Customer Testimonials
josephcrowe.co...
Business Description
Joseph Crowe Custom Audio Products is owned and operated by Troy J. Crowe located in Ontario Canada. We are a direct sales business model manufacturing custom high end horn speaker music systems for the home. Our business has been operating for five years.
Troy J. Crowe has a background in Mechanical Engineering Technology with extensive experience in both the Audio Industry and the Automotive Industry. He does all his own design work and CNC machining.
Our made to order speakers designs are featured at the link below. Our site is in USD currency. josephcrowe.co...
Order Lead Time
Since all of our products are fully CNC machined from solid hardwood, typical lead time is currently around four months from the order date. We typically require a 50% down payment with the balance due at shipping. Payment is made via checkout link by email (after quoting) with a variety of payment methods available, or ordering can be done directly on our product pages. Please contact before ordering directly our site.
Shipping
We have a special arrangement with FedEX Air Economy where our speakers are shipped globally at reasonable costs. We delivery the speakers fully crated to the Ottawa Airport where they are loaded directly onto the aircraft. Sometimes the shipment arrives the next day! Please contact us for a shipping quote to your region.
Testing
Speaker Testing: josephcrowe.co...
Electronics Testing: josephcrowe.co...
Social
Intagram: / joseph_crowe_diy
Facebook Business Page: / josephcrowediy
Facebook Group: / 19tszh5npm
Contact
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Contact Page: josephcrowe.co...

[@johnm3544]

I've wondered about these drivers as a mid range , so thanks for your in depth look at them.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

They are definitely worth considering!

[@machwind3266]

I always like the sound of paper drivers better. Sounds quicker and more natural, to me. Aluminum may sound better in enclosed speakers to some, probly because it can be more opaque and block sound inside the speaker from exiting thru the cone before it goes thru the port. This is regarding mid drivers and bass drivers. Tweeters are another story.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

I prefer the paper as well.

[@impuls60]

@@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding Have you listened to the SB acoustics 6" alu driver? The one that has very good measurements.. It sounds very transperent and I think you would change your mind ;) I bought a pair after looking at all available 3.rd party measurements online and infact it is as good at the measurements say. High sens and 9kHz breakup, whats not to like :).

[@ropeburn6684]

In the end it's preference, but there's certainly something to be said about a proper speaker design using paper and silk tweeters. It's just... nice.

[@Рашка-у8й]

​@@impuls60not particularly high sensitivity though. Most measurements suggest the ballpark of 86ish db 1w/m

[@brucermarino]

Superb. Thank you!

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

You’re welcome! 🙂

[@proffessasvids]

Brilliant! Thankyou joseph! Xx

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

You are so welcome

[@jamesoneil9757]

A cohesive driver review that wraps around some fundamental sound quality topics, just up to, but not quite prescriptive of the necessary directivity for good sound. Alluded to here but understating how powerfully convenient the VituixCAD In room response plot can be. VituixCAD is calculating the in room response, which I might colloquially say as power response, just from a few polar measurements, or many. And, all Xover circuit designs are simulated into this in room response. This visualization gives the designer the option to target the Xover EQ to the on axis response or to the more total ambient response or power response to whatever degree the designer likes. It’s really well implemented in the software and I think it makes a bit of an arcane aspect into something almost intuitive. Certainly visual.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Yes, VituixCAD is a powerful tool for speaker design.

[@superspeeder]

How do you relate the beaming of a driver based on its size compared to the baffle width of the enclosure? If they are independent of each other, would the lack of spaciousness apply to any full range driver used without a tweeter? Would it also play into the treating of a room? Meaning, if you have the direct reflection areas of a room treated it would reduce the spaciousness of a two-way design and push towards the more directed sound of a larger diaphragm full range design, no?

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Baffle width is not a associated with directivity, only the width of the source. Other variables are listening distance (further away means more reflected sound reaching the listening position), along with toe-in (less toe-in is more spacious but treble rolls off).

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Treating the room is extremely important regardless. My room is fully treated and it actually helped with spaciousness. I have absorbent panels covering 30%-40% on all surfaces.

[@superspeeder]

@@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding interesting, thanks for the insight!

[@vgstb]

Great analysis! Thank you very much!

[@ZegaracRobert]

Superb work, thank you! subbed!

[@Mikexception]

Thank you for informative test because it is widely discussed . Generaly I observe that material of driver diaphragm has less decisive role than rest construction aspects because as we see ovarall irregularities for both cases repeat and excess those unveiled for very different materials

[@477BravoJuliet]

Great information. Thank you!

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Thank you!

[@allanflippin2453]

Thanks for the interesting video! I'm curious, did you get hold of a second RS100P driver? I'm asking because I suspect that the thin paper cone might be hard to maintain uniformity in production. I've learned the hard way a couple times that just because one sample of a driver performs a certain way doesn't mean that all consistently perform that way. I'm not thinking of a "magic bullet" that cleans up the upper midrange of the RS100P, but I do wonder if other samples might match the manufacturer response data closer than your one sample.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

We had a pair for each material but I understand your point and I should do some quality checks such as impedance. I remember impulse audio’s channel did this and it was informative.

[@soniclab-cnc]

Ive used both drivers in many builds... subjectively I prefer the paper

[@CarlVanDoren61]

GRS RT3.0-8 Hi-Res Neo Ribbon Tweeter

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Maybe a smaller ribbon and higher crossover point?

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

The test baffle is poorly implemented though as there is a thick smaller baffle that will introduce edge diffractions.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Yes, it will have a small impact but this was a comparison video between the same setup of two drivers.

[@trevorbartram5473]

I'm concerned about edge diffraction of the mounting board? Was the mounting hole rear beveled to allow unimpeded air flow?

[@Leo18596]

Nice Video!

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Thank you! 👍

[@ke4uyp]

Comparing the aluminum to paper graph on axis, the aluminum is 6 DB more sensitive above 10 khz than the paper and goes 6 khz higher in frequency before breakup. That's a 60% improvement in high frequency response on axis.

[@RennieAsh]

Would it be better to flush mount the driver as well as the adapter plate? They'd cause diffraction a bit I'd have thought

[@jamesoneil9757]

Vance Dickason treats this topic thoroughly and with original research in his Cookbook. The cover is deceiving, it is jam packed with really great information, a lot of which is as good as AES research papers, but condensed.

[@Anders357]

My first thought at 02:19, looking at the frequency response, was that neither driver was suitable for much of anything. Both starts breaking up at 1-1.5 kHz, and ideally you want your mids to go flat to at least 3 khz. You can find a number of competing brands 4" drivers that will cover a larger frequency band for less money. Not sure how these Daytons get all their rave reviews.

[@demetriussour5771]

Great video!

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Thanks!

[@gerhardwestphalen]

I'm curious to compare the Purifi woofers as I only have experience with the paper ones and haven't liked any other aluminum woofers I've heard. For the listening test, I'd suggest low passing them so that the breakup is effectively filtered out and you're only judging other subjective differences. A lot of the time you'll prefer paper's breakup because it's lower Q. It's effectively smearing detail over a wider range and that's less offensive than a very small band having the resonance peak. When that's filtered out things might be a different story

[@gordondyer6310]

I built 3-way open baffle speakers with these as broad mid range, 200Hz-6kHz using active DSP and tri-amps. I love their sound and prefer the more natural sound of the paper cones. The hf peak needs to be filtered to flatten it if you are using the top end frequencies of these speakers. I have also used the PS95 driver in the same speakers and that is also clear, fast and very natural sound.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I’m sure they would make great midrange drivers. Now you’re probably wondering if the 5” textreme is a worthwhile upgrade!

[@ericstefko4852]

Hi I would love to hear your thoughts on transmission line loudspeakers. I recall reading somewhere that they are extremely difficult to get right and the computations are complex. But if done right some people claim they are the pinnacle for box speaker designs.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

Yeah I can believe that. I suspect the 2314 BLH isn’t too far off from a TL. There’s a lot of overlap in the design principles. Bass and mid-bass are excellent. I plan to use this configuration in future designs, maybe even using the 5” textreme midrange.

[@n.lyndley.9889]

Sanders Sound Systems has a white paper on this topic on their website. British speaker manufacturer PMC will have information about their ATL too.

[@318ishonk]

Thanks for sharing! Makes me wonder if maybe there's a big directivity difference between the Markaudio 10.3 (metal diaphragm, smooth FR but a bit boring sounding) and the Tang Band W5 2143 (bamboo paper diaphragm, phase plug, underhung motor - FR bit more lively but also more dynamic, more spacious sound). I've used them both in the Frugel-Horn XL with a bit of FR compensation in Wiim Pro Plus. The Tang Band W5 is my absolute favourite.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

There’s definitely differences between similar size drivers that could impact spaciousness. If you look at the off-axis coloured polar plots on the FE108EZ vs FE108NS then you’ll see there’s potential for decently wide coverage at certain frequencies…7kHz is about 80 degree listening window for the FE108NS. Perhaps the whizzer cone is acting as a small point source in this instance. josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/fostex-fe108ez-versus-fe108ns

[@johnstuchlik5828]

Good video.l always wanted know the difference in sound of paper vs metal rs 100 a few years back before paper rs 100 available,i did listening comparison in small seal enclosure .driver connected direct to amp no filter.metal rs 100,metal hi vi b3, and peerless tymphany fr9 3.5 paper 8 ohm. Each speaker had it's own strength and weakness.the rs100 had the best low end response, surprisedly deep and punchy but i also found the top end veiled,now i know why(poor off axis response). Need tweeter.the b3 bass was not as good and sound like it needed filter 6-8 khz.but overall good.the tympany fr9 bass not as low and as tight as rs 100 but ever thing else good very open sound.wish i could find small fr driver with rs 100 bass and everything else like the tympany,any suggestions?

[@johnm3544]

Sadly the Peerless NE123W-08 is obsolete. In my opinion it was an absolute gem. If you can find some new old stock somewhere grab them.

[@johnstuchlik5828]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be on the lookout.edit the peerless model that I listened to and liked was the tc9fd18-08 it's still available like alot of driver has increased in price.

[@johnstuchlik5828]

Woops I meant peerless tc9fd18-08

[@Ichsehdich-p2v]

Why are the Scale on the Speaker Test's always Different, also on the 8" Test.

[@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding]

For the harmonic distortion measurement, close mic position raises the input at the mic.

[@Ichsehdich-p2v]

@@JosephCrowesDIYSpeakerBuilding Fail answer

[@bojanperko]

Excellent, thank you. I 3D printed enclosures for these and they sound quite good. These drivers also feature on the Barefoot footprint 01 that are 4.500 USD a pair, which to me sounds like a rip-off.

[@mikets42]

Please excuse my naivety, but how a 4" driver may have a DI dip at 500Hz ?

[@ZegaracRobert]

90x90cm probably baffle step

[@mikets42]

@@ZegaracRobert well could be, the wavelength on 500Hz is ~680mm, as well as other reasons. It's a pity that the "measurement" results are not checked vs physics, nor vs anechoic reference, nor accompanied by confidence bounds, etc, and the real results become widely mixed with mere artifacts.

[@BogdanWeiss]

You misspelled Floyd Toole & he ain't no Tool !!!