True, only a one piece cone with no dust cap, ribs, etc., is without them, so what's more important, a few minor 'potholes in the road' along the way or complex 'bridges to cross' at each end of it?
GM
Good point. And a whole lot better than a lot of more recent attempts at something similar. Just dug out the original patent, which I hadn't run across before. Badmaieff again -why does that not surprise me?
Given the major response issues all the flat-cone dynamic drivers I can think of possess (arguably bar the smallest of TB's units), I know which I'd rather go with... you ever get the feeling we're heading for another 'what once was old...'
Last edited:
Just dug out the original patent, which I hadn't run across before. Badmaieff again -why does that not surprise me?
you ever get the feeling we're heading for another 'what once was old...'
Not the original, which was around '51? for the 408, 412, 415 I posted earlier, but for the later 420 series that was designed for sealed alignments, lower output impedance amps to compete with the new acoustic suspension alignments, what with the AR1 using a 755A for the mids/HF, so AB basically grafted a 755-like diaphragm to a 'weak' motor 803 and stuck a spun alum. dust cap on to get some top end 'snap' to outdo the AR and earlier bi-flexes.
All the time......like Tom Danley has quipped 'the ancients keep stealing all his inventions'. The pioneers were so brilliant and basically had unlimited budgets, so often wonder what might have been had they already had cheap high power and advanced chemistry, etc., to allow them more design flexibility.
GM
Thanks! Looks nice, though if all I saw was its response plot I'd think it was loaded with a truncated horn, what with the choppy, humped, HF response.
Phew! They were right proud of it, weren't they?
GM
This link. We could order from Vietnam
Got you. Thanks. I can't find the original on a brief search, but I'll have another look this evening.
I guess that's what you get with no cost restraints and some of the top engineers of the time. I reckon if they'd had access to the materials we had, the SOTA would be a whole lot further on than it is now.
Depends on what criteria you use for defining 'good' but I certainly don't think so. Judging by K&Ts measurements, the technical performance is mediocre at best, especially given the price. No problem with high prices, providing you get the performance to justify it, and this thing looks to me to be beaten by units at a far lower point. YMMV as always of course.
Last edited:
Possibly the latter. As I say, the performance appears mediocre given that several far cheaper units appear to at least equal or exceed its performance, making it lousy VFM as far as I'm concerned. On a positive note, the waterfall plot looks reasonable for what it is, but the response is still pretty much unworkable from my POV. However, bashing this particular driver wasn't my intention; I originally mentioned it simply because it has a somewhat different means of decoupling the central dome from the main cone.
Back OT for the whizzerless AN, providing it conforms to the spec. sheet, then I've seen worse & if I were in the market for an 8in AN, I'd take it over their other size-equivalent units.
Back OT for the whizzerless AN, providing it conforms to the spec. sheet, then I've seen worse & if I were in the market for an 8in AN, I'd take it over their other size-equivalent units.
Last edited:
I'd say both companies' drivers are very good bangs for the buck. They're simply apples and oranges.
Obviously there have been drivers available for many years that are full range without a whizzer or phase plug. Jordans, various Fostex, Bandors, Babbs, Fertins, etc. The ad copy is ridiculous. The new AN driver is interesting, but the hyperbole is off putting.
Indeed! I cheated a bit by referring [erroneously to the LC-9A] LC-1A since it's a true coaxial with a separate cone [super] tweeter embedded in the woofer motor with a 1st order XO designed for a nominally flat frequency, phase response both on and off axis out to >10 kHz and only -3 dB/>15 kHz @ ~20 deg off axis according to Harry Olson's early polar response measurements.
Haven't researched all the 'FR' and coaxes available, but I'm not aware of any available today except the Synergy concepts that perform this well or better, and even then they don't go anywhere near this low, so tend to think of it in terms of a nominally flat, ~35-15 kHz 15" 'FR' point source when driven with a period correct output impedance.
GM
True, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, just that MA's products seem to be a more popular 'deal' overall based on just periodically browsing this forum.
GM
GM< did you ever get your hands on that driver or hear one? Just as soon as that driver was hinted at, it seemed like Babb flopped and it was never available. I've seen some "DC Gold" company marketing some of those products, but no way I would ever dream of spending the money they ask for with no graphs or specs.
Ye gods, shows how much attention I was paying (focusing too much on Anglo-Russian naval rivalries in the Far East ~1900 at the moment) -I didn't even notice, just took it as read you were talking about the driver without paying much attention to the nomenclature. So if it's any consolation, you're not alone Greg.
Last edited:
Yes, extensively to an original pair. Long story short, Alan did ultimately post links on the original 'full-range' forum to some design details and well done measurements that mirrored what me and others heard at an Atlanta DIY Meet demo many years ago, but AFAIK the links were never listed on the Babb website.
I saved them all, but unfortunately they're on a damaged HD that won't let me access the partition where the folder is, so all I have available are his averaged measured specs of the units I have and the pdf [with specs] of the slightly later, revised 'as released' design.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.