The Durga is my successor to the Darbari, now that I do not have the Darbari and I have learned a lot and wish to move to something (I hope) better. So, it’s best to describe the thinking of the Durga by referring to the Darbari. But first, what are the similarities?
- Both are large floorstanders. They visually dominate the living room.
- Both use active crossovers, and stem from the belief that low frequency crossover points using passive circuits are a 19th century idea. (Midrange to tweeter crossovers are okay if passive.)
- Both are 3-way.
- As a fallout of the active crossover thing, both have sealed woofers.
Now, what’s changed?
- The Darbari had 3-way active crossovers. For the Durga, I felt that 2-way active is enough. The woofer-to-rest-of-spectrum crossover needs to be active, but the second-level split between midrange and tweeter can easily be passive. It cuts down one pair of amp channels in a stereo setup, which is nice. It also opens up many more digital active crossover modules for use, which have only four outputs. 6-output and 8-output DSP active xo are far fewer.
- The Darbari’s woofer was under-powered, the Durga uses the SB34NRX75-6. The Darbari’s woofer has 100W rated power and 6.6mm Xmax, the Durga’s woofer has 200W power and 17mm Xmax. The Xmax limitation was the bigger problem.
- The Darbari adopted an all-metal-cone strategy with metal cone woofer and midrange, and fabric dome tweeter. The Durga adopted coated paper cones for woofer and midrange and the option of (a) an expensive metal dome or (b) a fabric ring radiator for its tweeter. This should change the texture of the sound. (I have not abandoned the idea of metal cones, but may use more modern metal cone drivers for future high-end projects.)
- The midrange driver of the Durga is seriously high-end, with extremely low cone noise, distortion, etc, while the Darbari used a comparatively more ordinary midwoofer.
- The Darbari used a two-box enclosure, while the Durga uses a one-box design.