GRS-3 vs Neo 3

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 14198 times.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #100 on: 31 Oct 2020, 07:00 pm »
Interesting. It seems that the price-to-sound ratio is so high that manufacturers and the DIY community will likely flock to design speakers with them. Imagine a $750 monitor with Neo3's & 10's.

It's definitely a well designed tweeter & performs quite well and can reach down pretty low often in the 1k range, esp with a wave guide.

That said, a neo3+10 setup does exist, tho due to availability issues of the Neo10, it's definitely expensive.. and even with the GRS10, wich is 1/3 the cost but doesn't seem to play all that low. Even with a winged baffle.. it measures down to 150-200Hz in near field, but loses its impact below 400-500hz. So it would work great for a 3-way but not too well on its own in an OB setting.

Early B.

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #101 on: 31 Oct 2020, 08:08 pm »
It's definitely a well designed tweeter & performs quite well and can reach down pretty low often in the 1k range, esp with a wave guide.

That said, a neo3+10 setup does exist, tho due to availability issues of the Neo10, it's definitely expensive.. and even with the GRS10, wich is 1/3 the cost but doesn't seem to play all that low. Even with a winged baffle.. it measures down to 150-200Hz in near field, but loses its impact below 400-500hz. So it would work great for a 3-way but not too well on its own in an OB setting.

Oh, I see. I saw HAL earlier in this thread with a set of these as OB monitors and assumed it could be get down to 150-200 Hz cleanly and allow a pair of OB subs to take over from there. Thanks for clarifying.

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #102 on: 31 Oct 2020, 08:44 pm »
It's definitely a well designed tweeter & performs quite well and can reach down pretty low often in the 1k range, esp with a wave guide.

That said, a neo3+10 setup does exist, tho due to availability issues of the Neo10, it's definitely expensive.. and even with the GRS10, wich is 1/3 the cost but doesn't seem to play all that low. Even with a winged baffle.. it measures down to 150-200Hz in near field, but loses its impact below 400-500hz. So it would work great for a 3-way but not too well on its own in an OB setting.

I'm not sure where you are getting that the GRS 10" doesn't go as low as the Neo10. Studiotech has measurements over at diyaudio.com (I think he linked to it earlier in this thread) directly comparing them and the GRS looks very close in response.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #103 on: 31 Oct 2020, 08:48 pm »
I mean, it might be able too? But from my own results im not seeing anything that says it can get much lower than 300hz. But there may be details/info I'm missing in my measurements that would lead me to believe they can.

But even looking back at the official BG Neo 10 graph, it's sensitivity is pretty low in the 200-500Hz, and maybe thats what im missing? Esp if it's able to be used reliably with the Neo 3 in the past..

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #104 on: 31 Oct 2020, 09:43 pm »
I'm certainly no expert on the Neo10 but just based on the comparison measurements that Studiotech did, I think the GRS can play down to 200 Hz with about 90db efficiency without a wavequide just like the Neo10. It has a rising response starting around 500Hz just like the Neo10 but with a larger peak at around 9kHz to deal with. I believe he did measurements with no baffle so maybe that could impact each differently when loaded by one.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #105 on: 31 Oct 2020, 10:45 pm »
Managed to snag a deal on a pair of older, used Neo3 PDR tweeters for $75 on ebay. They're some kinda ugly "chrome" models, that used the older bodyframe before the more recent 6-rivet design.



I'm curious to test them since they're different aesthetically, but more similar to the GRS-3 where it counts. Hopefully their age/condition won't be too much of a factor in their results, cuz i do know that older models are known for failing prematurely.

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #106 on: 1 Nov 2020, 12:38 am »
Nice score, considered those myself but have a pair waiting already to another design I'm contemplating.  :thumb:

HAL

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4760
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #107 on: 1 Nov 2020, 01:56 am »
Just to clarify my measurement, the GRS 10" planar does go down to 200Hz at 9dB down in the Super Mini baffle.  It does not have the same response in the baffle as the BG NEO10.  That is why I stated the existing open baffles and XO would need to change from the stock drivers.  If you are doing it passively, then it would need to be 6dB down at 200Hz to crossover to the servo subs, which is what the BG NEO10 does.

If you use a dspMusik XO as I do, it can be EQ'd to work. 

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #108 on: 1 Nov 2020, 02:15 am »
Just to clarify my measurement, the GRS 10" planar does go down to 200Hz at 9dB down in the Super Mini baffle.  It does not have the same response in the baffle as the BG NEO10.  That is why I stated the existing open baffles and XO would need to change from the stock drivers.  If you are doing it passively, then it would need to be 6dB down at 200Hz to crossover to the servo subs, which is what the BG NEO10 does.

If you use a dspMusik XO as I do, it can be EQ'd to work.

Okay so I'm not entirely wrong then. Cuz I did some more testing the other day, with a bigger wing & some spare norez to better simulate a Super mini baffle, and I could still only get down to about 300-ish Hz fairly reliably. Near-field, it can easily hit 150-200Hz, but it falls off pretty hard beyond a foot or so.

Tho i am curious how the GRS10 will handle a sealed enclosure... And how it will change the overall response. But i do want to test it without a baffle/pseudo waveguide, as well a few other ideas ive had in my head lately.

HAL

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4760
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #109 on: 1 Nov 2020, 03:21 am »
Then something is different, as my 50" on axis measurement shows results to 200Hz at -9dB, so not dropping like a rock.  It is 3dB lower than a BG NEO10, but not unusable at 200Hz as the Super Mini was designed.  An array of GRS 10" might get to 150Hz at -6dB down with this type of baffle.  Simple EQ can bring one GRS 10" response up to match at 200Hz.   

The 12" OB servo subs will work well up to 200Hz, and I use mine that way with my DSP XO version of the Super Mini's with the BG NEO10 and GR-NEO3.  The GRS 10" would need changes to work that way in this type of baffle.   

How it sounds is the question doing the changes.

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #110 on: 1 Nov 2020, 01:52 pm »
Just to clarify my measurement, the GRS 10" planar does go down to 200Hz at 9dB down in the Super Mini baffle.  It does not have the same response in the baffle as the BG NEO10.  That is why I stated the existing open baffles and XO would need to change from the stock drivers.  If you are doing it passively, then it would need to be 6dB down at 200Hz to crossover to the servo subs, which is what the BG NEO10 does.

If you use a dspMusik XO as I do, it can be EQ'd to work.

When you say 9db down, are you talking from about 100db where its efficiency is from around 1.5-6k before it stats to peak? So could it achieve 90db down to 200Hz if the rest if the response was tilted to match it?

HAL

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4760
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #111 on: 1 Nov 2020, 03:40 pm »
I used the average around my 1.2KHz measurement for this driver and then look at LF rolloff in this baffle.  If the measurement shown for the GRS 10" in the specs is about 90dB at 1.2KHz at 1 meter, then it should be about 81dB@2.83v/1m at 200Hz in this baffle.

The hump in the response from specs at about 200Hz looks like a panel resonance from the response in the impedance plot also shown.  I do not see it farfield in the measurements of this baffle.   As Hobbsmeerkat has shown he sees it in nearfield measurements.  Since no baffle type is stated for the GRS measurement, it is hard to tell, but the data looks scaled from nearfield measurements.  You need to measure it in the baffle design to see what really happens.

Lifting the response with EQ 9dB near a resonance is not a good thing to do. 

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #112 on: 1 Nov 2020, 04:12 pm »
I used the average around my 1.2KHz measurement for this driver and then look at LF rolloff in this baffle.  If the measurement shown for the GRS 10" in the specs is about 90dB at 1.2KHz at 1 meter, then it should be about 81dB@2.83v/1m at 200Hz in this baffle.

The hump in the response from specs at about 200Hz looks like a panel resonance from the response in the impedance plot also shown.  I do not see it farfield in the measurements of this baffle.   As Hobbsmeerkat has shown he sees it in nearfield measurements.  Since no baffle type is stated for the GRS measurement, it is hard to tell, but the data looks scaled from nearfield measurements.  You need to measure it in the baffle design to see what really happens.

Lifting the response with EQ 9dB near a resonance is not a good thing to do.

No baffle was used for those measurements but it shows the Neo10 with the same measurement setup.
I wasn't talking about raising the lower frequency to match the upper, more the opposite. Bottom line is I'll have to do as you suggest and just buy a couple and measure in a baffle. Thanks

Don

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #113 on: 5 Nov 2020, 04:57 pm »
Got my Chrome Neo3 PDR tweeters yesterday!
They're actually kinda pretty once you wipe off the finger prints and smudges... lol





I also did some A-B testing with each chromed Neo 3 to see how they measure.

SPL:


THD:

Yeahh.. One of these are definitely blown out, it sounds horrendous... at least I got one working model thats somewhat similar to the GRS 3.. :P
it doesn't appear to be torn/shredded like my Neo 3 or original GRS3 tho, so possibly a tensioning issue with the disaphram?

SPL:

THD:

Purple: Neo3 PDR      Green: GRS3

The GRS3 is about 5dB more effecient (not shown here), has a better response top-end except for the dip around 10K, & the THD is cleaner below 1500Hz.

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #114 on: 5 Nov 2020, 10:34 pm »
Well that stinks. They are pretty cool looking though.

Don

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #115 on: 7 Nov 2020, 06:59 pm »
Well that stinks. They are pretty cool looking though.

Don

They're still pretty cool even if they're not usable, but i didnt expect too much out of them considering their age.

I worked on a design for a faceplate that mimics the stock BG faceplate. As well as a fun design that covers the outer two rows, narrowing the width of the waveguide to see if that can remove the 10dB drop around 10K Hz.



I also printed out the faceplate, hopefully i can test it tomorrow, and print the narrow waveguide tonight.




Hobbsmeerkat

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1954
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #116 on: 6 May 2021, 12:58 am »
Danny did some quick testing today with the GRS-10 clone in the Super Mini baffle.
He said it was a workable alternative, it just needs a notch filter to bring down a hump around 600-700Hz by a couple dB, but seems to measure better than in my own testing.

I believe some wanted to use them to make a LineForce since they're fairly priced & BG Neo10s haven't been available, especially lately, and they should work pretty well once the changes to the crossover are made.  :thumb:

I'll update once Danny has a chance to email the measurements.

DA

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #117 on: 6 May 2021, 12:11 pm »
Thats great to hear. Would like to try out the Super Mini with the GRS drivers. Thanks

david45

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #118 on: 6 May 2021, 03:38 pm »
Danny did some quick testing today with the GRS-10 clone in the Super Mini baffle.
He said it was a workable alternative, it just needs a notch filter to bring down a hump around 600-700Hz by a couple dB, but seems to measure better than in my own testing.

I believe some wanted to use them to make a LineForce since they're fairly priced & BG Neo10s haven't been available, especially lately, and they should work pretty well once the changes to the crossover are made.  :thumb:

I'll update once Danny has a chance to email the measurements.

Thank you for posting this. Can’t wait to hear more from Danny   :)

SoCalWJS

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #119 on: 6 May 2021, 04:04 pm »
Danny did some quick testing today with the GRS-10 clone in the Super Mini baffle.
He said it was a workable alternative, it just needs a notch filter to bring down a hump around 600-700Hz by a couple dB, but seems to measure better than in my own testing.

I believe some wanted to use them to make a LineForce since they're fairly priced & BG Neo10s haven't been available, especially lately, and they should work pretty well once the changes to the crossover are made.  :thumb:

I'll update once Danny has a chance to email the measurements.
Good News!

I hope they work out. Brings a whole bunch of speaker designs back as options.