yeah.
I honestly lack the imagination to determine what these will actually sound like. I am leaning towards the "some of the most incredible speakers i would have ever heard" camp though.
considering the HIFI aspect of these drivers for full range use, in the super twelve arena and then the bass output and quality they are purported to being able to give in a PORTED box.
horns are very QTS dependant as well. alot of the sims for the BIBs I notice do not really account for this somehow.
I built a 4.5 inch generic BIB a while back. tried out the fx120 (qts~.46), fe108esII (qts~.33), fe103e (false baffle (qts,~.35)), fe127e (qts .46), and fe126e (qts, .26). they are currently outfitted with the 126e, as those give probably the best balance of everything, though being a little bass shy.
I felt that regardless of driver size or seemingly the other specs, the bass output was almost completely determined by the qts. with fx120 and fe127e dominating.
The output varied TREMENDOUSLY as well. it was totally not subtle.
in a high qts driver, there seems to be on an absolute scale, less "quality" of bass sound overall. meaning simple transient speed. that the high q drivers had lots of bass quantity, in whichever enclosure you put them in, but it was not as well defined as the low q drivers.
a horn will let you see everything that a driver is doing, it is kinda like a microscope that performs a macroscopic operation. this can frequently be a bad thing from a sound quality standpoint when considering horn loading for most drivers...
this renders the super accurate drivers stricktly into the back loaded horn realm. as they need a large horn in order to supplant the low qts and to take every last ounce of energy it produces and to point it at the listener. this is the realm, for instance, of the fe206es-r.
additionally, considering the fe166es-r (qts, .21)/fe167e (qts .33) in a different and larger BIB, I found better results with the 167e.
mid q just does better in the BIB I feel. like between .3 and .45 ish.
In general, and from a HIFI standpoint, I tend to feel that the mid q drivers in their corresponding encolsure paridigm are probably the most versatile "floor standing" type speakers. really, I am talking about a sonic "paridigm" here. commenting on all types of speakers. these mid q ones going into the transmission line, voight pipe, baby horn, reflex horn, small back loaded horn, and VERY efficient bass relfex realm. of course, as well, the BIB is in this category...
these systems tend to have moderately high efficiency, like between 90 and 96 allowing one to understress an amp (that usually has a decent amount of power in the first place), though not letting us into the special realm of the 45 tube, etc, and not confining us to large watt solid state specifically. to most people as well, these systems tend to sound more like a recognizable stereo system, while posessing the dynamics and detail to make a critical listening session productive. The hyper efficient stuff tends to almost dissappear to much and drown out conversation and dominate attention span from all of its weird and addictive effects.
with qts of .51, and a diameter of 12 inches, these things promise to be monstrous in both quantity, and definition of bass. I would feel that in the larger driver realm, the higher q would not scare me very much, as it has a natural propensity at being well defined in this arena.
In most PA setups, even indoor ones, truely low frequencies reproduced with perceivable quantity and definition tends to be a rare thing.
I feel this is caused by people trying to make bass reflex bins do a horn's job. they will tend to tune a reflex cabinet far too low such that at truely high power levels the chuffing produces its own frequency and power dependant tuning of the box. this comes out as massive poopy sounding distortion and lack of transient speed.
instead of deal with the added weight of each horn style cabinet andhave fewer total cabinets, they will have a huge array of like 18 inch ported cabinets so that their crew can more easily life each one.
it seems to me that in general, regarding almost all speakers, when stressed, bass reflex tends to break down in sound quality, whereas horns finally start to sound like music. truely high spls of bass are the realm of the horn, pure and simple. sure, any design concept can be maxed out with corresponding operating parameters like super crazy amps and acoustic tunings, and sheer quantity of cabinets, but in the end, I feel that when trying to get super high bass spls, that it is CHEAPER to do with horns, all things considered. especially considering the LABHORN style of bass horn.
for outdoor, high volume setups, if I was on a budget, considering this paridigm, I would not aim any lower than 60 - 80 hz from my subs to maintain powerhandling and definition. bass relfex can work well within that realm. I would put the rest of the money into getting a beautiful midrange (very lacking in most setups nowadays). If I had the budget, I would build the LABHORN to get 40hz. if I needed to go halfway, then an array of "J-bins" which are sortof a reflex-horn to get 50.
in this setup, it seems you will have just 2 cabinets which will make a really hardcore sounding 20ish hz in great quantity. the anomolies above that which are predicted by the worksheets i would not worry about in the slightest. the room will deal with them, and they will posess such an immense inherent speed that the only thing you will notice is the detail that will be there, not the slight lack of frequency flatness.
the thing to worry about will be very low frequency feedback issues with the turntables and micophones...while they can be a big problem, it is a luxury to be able to deal with them.
I cannot wait for feedback on your project, so as I can try my hand at making a pair. I will probably go with the ft17h, rolled in with a 1.0 cap. I feel that it will most likely be able to handle the power of my friend's setup. if they die, then we will get bigger ones.
sorry to ramble so much here. lots of opinions.
Clark
I honestly lack the imagination to determine what these will actually sound like. I am leaning towards the "some of the most incredible speakers i would have ever heard" camp though.
considering the HIFI aspect of these drivers for full range use, in the super twelve arena and then the bass output and quality they are purported to being able to give in a PORTED box.
horns are very QTS dependant as well. alot of the sims for the BIBs I notice do not really account for this somehow.
I built a 4.5 inch generic BIB a while back. tried out the fx120 (qts~.46), fe108esII (qts~.33), fe103e (false baffle (qts,~.35)), fe127e (qts .46), and fe126e (qts, .26). they are currently outfitted with the 126e, as those give probably the best balance of everything, though being a little bass shy.
I felt that regardless of driver size or seemingly the other specs, the bass output was almost completely determined by the qts. with fx120 and fe127e dominating.
The output varied TREMENDOUSLY as well. it was totally not subtle.
in a high qts driver, there seems to be on an absolute scale, less "quality" of bass sound overall. meaning simple transient speed. that the high q drivers had lots of bass quantity, in whichever enclosure you put them in, but it was not as well defined as the low q drivers.
a horn will let you see everything that a driver is doing, it is kinda like a microscope that performs a macroscopic operation. this can frequently be a bad thing from a sound quality standpoint when considering horn loading for most drivers...
this renders the super accurate drivers stricktly into the back loaded horn realm. as they need a large horn in order to supplant the low qts and to take every last ounce of energy it produces and to point it at the listener. this is the realm, for instance, of the fe206es-r.
additionally, considering the fe166es-r (qts, .21)/fe167e (qts .33) in a different and larger BIB, I found better results with the 167e.
mid q just does better in the BIB I feel. like between .3 and .45 ish.
In general, and from a HIFI standpoint, I tend to feel that the mid q drivers in their corresponding encolsure paridigm are probably the most versatile "floor standing" type speakers. really, I am talking about a sonic "paridigm" here. commenting on all types of speakers. these mid q ones going into the transmission line, voight pipe, baby horn, reflex horn, small back loaded horn, and VERY efficient bass relfex realm. of course, as well, the BIB is in this category...
these systems tend to have moderately high efficiency, like between 90 and 96 allowing one to understress an amp (that usually has a decent amount of power in the first place), though not letting us into the special realm of the 45 tube, etc, and not confining us to large watt solid state specifically. to most people as well, these systems tend to sound more like a recognizable stereo system, while posessing the dynamics and detail to make a critical listening session productive. The hyper efficient stuff tends to almost dissappear to much and drown out conversation and dominate attention span from all of its weird and addictive effects.
with qts of .51, and a diameter of 12 inches, these things promise to be monstrous in both quantity, and definition of bass. I would feel that in the larger driver realm, the higher q would not scare me very much, as it has a natural propensity at being well defined in this arena.
In most PA setups, even indoor ones, truely low frequencies reproduced with perceivable quantity and definition tends to be a rare thing.
I feel this is caused by people trying to make bass reflex bins do a horn's job. they will tend to tune a reflex cabinet far too low such that at truely high power levels the chuffing produces its own frequency and power dependant tuning of the box. this comes out as massive poopy sounding distortion and lack of transient speed.
instead of deal with the added weight of each horn style cabinet andhave fewer total cabinets, they will have a huge array of like 18 inch ported cabinets so that their crew can more easily life each one.
it seems to me that in general, regarding almost all speakers, when stressed, bass reflex tends to break down in sound quality, whereas horns finally start to sound like music. truely high spls of bass are the realm of the horn, pure and simple. sure, any design concept can be maxed out with corresponding operating parameters like super crazy amps and acoustic tunings, and sheer quantity of cabinets, but in the end, I feel that when trying to get super high bass spls, that it is CHEAPER to do with horns, all things considered. especially considering the LABHORN style of bass horn.
for outdoor, high volume setups, if I was on a budget, considering this paridigm, I would not aim any lower than 60 - 80 hz from my subs to maintain powerhandling and definition. bass relfex can work well within that realm. I would put the rest of the money into getting a beautiful midrange (very lacking in most setups nowadays). If I had the budget, I would build the LABHORN to get 40hz. if I needed to go halfway, then an array of "J-bins" which are sortof a reflex-horn to get 50.
in this setup, it seems you will have just 2 cabinets which will make a really hardcore sounding 20ish hz in great quantity. the anomolies above that which are predicted by the worksheets i would not worry about in the slightest. the room will deal with them, and they will posess such an immense inherent speed that the only thing you will notice is the detail that will be there, not the slight lack of frequency flatness.
the thing to worry about will be very low frequency feedback issues with the turntables and micophones...while they can be a big problem, it is a luxury to be able to deal with them.
I cannot wait for feedback on your project, so as I can try my hand at making a pair. I will probably go with the ft17h, rolled in with a 1.0 cap. I feel that it will most likely be able to handle the power of my friend's setup. if they die, then we will get bigger ones.
sorry to ramble so much here. lots of opinions.
Clark
Very encouraging!
OK might be a good idea to think about the tweeter crossover.
In the link below to Hammer info, it is clear that some people like the FT17 with the 12" driver that we are using.
http://melhuish.org/audio/super12.html#forum
Here is some stuff from that link I think I observe in the hammer crossover, reactions to it, and suggested improvements by people that have used the FT17
One thing the Hammer crossover has to do is deal with the rising response of the driver. I think possibly we won't have to do this because we have augmented the bass well up through the midbass with this horn so the highs produced by the 12 won't be much if any higher than the rest of its response. Worst case, the bass is strong, the midrange is a bit rolled off, then the high end rises back a little bit.
Rather than guess, I think it might be best to not try to correct the response. OK how about the impedence correction network, is this gonna help or is our horn too different to use the same one? I don't know, what do people think?
Finally some people were saying that an lpad to cut off one or 2 dB from the Fostex FT 17 sounds better.
I think this might be a great idea, because it will considerably increase the power that can be pumped into the speaker without blowing the tweet. BUT the Hammer has the upper 12" driver response rolled off to fight its rising response. If we don't roll it of as I am suggesting we don't above, then maybe the 2 dB cut isn't necessary. I'm tempted to put it in just to give the extra protection...
The tweeter will be crossed pretty higher than for a normal big midrange, - 4-5k, right? so that gives a lot of protection too...
While most full range helper tweeters use a first order crossover, I''m a little worried in this case. The crossover would be a lot lower than the 10k for smaller full range drivers. More in the 5k range maybe? Maybe second order is safer here?
the advantage of the FT 17 over a Selenium horn driver and horn or slot tweeter. is that it has flat response all the way to 20k and much higher. This is more high fi and there were some saying that we weren't taking a hi fi enough approach to this speaker. TYhe FT 17 is also about half the cost of a Seleenium horn driver and a horn.
The Selenium slot tweeter is a similar price to the FT17 and tougher, but more ragged response and it rolls off much earlier. Probably quite noticible to a 15 yr. old.
So I prefer to stick with the Fostex FT17.
Yet some are using it with a 2 mfd cap only to cross it to the 12" That would be easy , and the guy swears it sounds great....
OK might be a good idea to think about the tweeter crossover.
In the link below to Hammer info, it is clear that some people like the FT17 with the 12" driver that we are using.
http://melhuish.org/audio/super12.html#forum
Here is some stuff from that link I think I observe in the hammer crossover, reactions to it, and suggested improvements by people that have used the FT17
One thing the Hammer crossover has to do is deal with the rising response of the driver. I think possibly we won't have to do this because we have augmented the bass well up through the midbass with this horn so the highs produced by the 12 won't be much if any higher than the rest of its response. Worst case, the bass is strong, the midrange is a bit rolled off, then the high end rises back a little bit.
Rather than guess, I think it might be best to not try to correct the response. OK how about the impedence correction network, is this gonna help or is our horn too different to use the same one? I don't know, what do people think?
Finally some people were saying that an lpad to cut off one or 2 dB from the Fostex FT 17 sounds better.
I think this might be a great idea, because it will considerably increase the power that can be pumped into the speaker without blowing the tweet. BUT the Hammer has the upper 12" driver response rolled off to fight its rising response. If we don't roll it of as I am suggesting we don't above, then maybe the 2 dB cut isn't necessary. I'm tempted to put it in just to give the extra protection...
The tweeter will be crossed pretty higher than for a normal big midrange, - 4-5k, right? so that gives a lot of protection too...
While most full range helper tweeters use a first order crossover, I''m a little worried in this case. The crossover would be a lot lower than the 10k for smaller full range drivers. More in the 5k range maybe? Maybe second order is safer here?
the advantage of the FT 17 over a Selenium horn driver and horn or slot tweeter. is that it has flat response all the way to 20k and much higher. This is more high fi and there were some saying that we weren't taking a hi fi enough approach to this speaker. TYhe FT 17 is also about half the cost of a Seleenium horn driver and a horn.
The Selenium slot tweeter is a similar price to the FT17 and tougher, but more ragged response and it rolls off much earlier. Probably quite noticible to a 15 yr. old.
So I prefer to stick with the Fostex FT17.
Yet some are using it with a 2 mfd cap only to cross it to the 12" That would be easy , and the guy swears it sounds great....
correction
of course, I have hardly heard this system yet.
I would tend to say do not correct. the more bodies that are in the room the more the high frequencies will be soaked up, if this system is indeed for a dance party. to me, the goal is to get the music to liquify at high volumes. this means as little constriction/high efficiency as possible.
my experience with l-pads so far is that they tend to add lots more distortion than they should, and keeping the budget, is less more?.... if you can do it with just a cap, the extra zing again, I think would be eaten up by bodies. rolling the tweeter in so low.... (4-5k is looooow for a supertweeter) might pose a problem with powerhandling I would think. while I am sure it sounds good, the notion of blowing the little suckers really scares me. to me, if the model predicts 8k response, then I would roll the tweeter in at 8 ish k. value of 1.5? then again, I have not built these things yet.
eh, in the end the only thing to do is try.
Clark
of course, I have hardly heard this system yet.
I would tend to say do not correct. the more bodies that are in the room the more the high frequencies will be soaked up, if this system is indeed for a dance party. to me, the goal is to get the music to liquify at high volumes. this means as little constriction/high efficiency as possible.
my experience with l-pads so far is that they tend to add lots more distortion than they should, and keeping the budget, is less more?.... if you can do it with just a cap, the extra zing again, I think would be eaten up by bodies. rolling the tweeter in so low.... (4-5k is looooow for a supertweeter) might pose a problem with powerhandling I would think. while I am sure it sounds good, the notion of blowing the little suckers really scares me. to me, if the model predicts 8k response, then I would roll the tweeter in at 8 ish k. value of 1.5? then again, I have not built these things yet.
eh, in the end the only thing to do is try.
Clark
So far the function of these speakers is:
To play music at reasonable volumes, but when a couple of his friends come over he wants to turn them up loud and impress them with "loud, booming bass. "
We figure we have the loud figured out, booming- well that's hard to define, but as long as its loud, I think we're OK, and on an absolute scale-better quaity...
Any idea about dance parties or DJ work or anything like that is something we on this thread made up. I am one of those responsible because I know that if you have great , loud speakers people will want to use them for parties. BUT , now that this speaker is so huge, I wonder how often it will be moved.
I need to look at the Hammer crossover more, but the Eminence is a big driver, and doesn't cover the highs as well as a small Fostex or similar right? , so I would think we need to cross it a bit lower.
Also, a first order crossover allows sound quite a bit lower than the crossover frequency. This puts a lot of stress on the tweeter. I was just suggestion that a second order crossover would help preserve it better...
Maybe for Punkrocker, the selenium slot tweeter would be better. because it will be a lot more rugged. But it is more efficient I believe so will require more padding. And it probably isn't super good sounding..certainly rolls off the upper treble..
To play music at reasonable volumes, but when a couple of his friends come over he wants to turn them up loud and impress them with "loud, booming bass. "
We figure we have the loud figured out, booming- well that's hard to define, but as long as its loud, I think we're OK, and on an absolute scale-better quaity...
Any idea about dance parties or DJ work or anything like that is something we on this thread made up. I am one of those responsible because I know that if you have great , loud speakers people will want to use them for parties. BUT , now that this speaker is so huge, I wonder how often it will be moved.
I need to look at the Hammer crossover more, but the Eminence is a big driver, and doesn't cover the highs as well as a small Fostex or similar right? , so I would think we need to cross it a bit lower.
Also, a first order crossover allows sound quite a bit lower than the crossover frequency. This puts a lot of stress on the tweeter. I was just suggestion that a second order crossover would help preserve it better...
Maybe for Punkrocker, the selenium slot tweeter would be better. because it will be a lot more rugged. But it is more efficient I believe so will require more padding. And it probably isn't super good sounding..certainly rolls off the upper treble..
Here is the 12" driver response curve.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/290-409s.pdf
Other common drivers which seems to match the 12" best?:
FE 207E
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/fostexdrivers/FE207E.pdf
FT 17 tweeter:
Note that with the FE 207E they recommend a 1.5uF capacitor
Weirdly , on the FE 207 spec sheet they seem to recommend a .68-.33uF cap but that is with a different tweeter, the T90A, which is quite expensive.
Seems inconsistant, but I guess the tweeters are different enough?
So, my point is to see how the 207 response is similar to ourr driver's response and adjust the crossover cap accordingly. I guess a single cap is OK since Fostex seems to love it...
OK one more speakrer The FE 208E:
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/fostexdrivers/fe208ez.pdf
they recommend a 1uF cap....
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/290-409s.pdf
Other common drivers which seems to match the 12" best?:
FE 207E
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/fostexdrivers/FE207E.pdf
FT 17 tweeter:
Note that with the FE 207E they recommend a 1.5uF capacitor
Weirdly , on the FE 207 spec sheet they seem to recommend a .68-.33uF cap but that is with a different tweeter, the T90A, which is quite expensive.
Seems inconsistant, but I guess the tweeters are different enough?
So, my point is to see how the 207 response is similar to ourr driver's response and adjust the crossover cap accordingly. I guess a single cap is OK since Fostex seems to love it...
OK one more speakrer The FE 208E:
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/fostexdrivers/fe208ez.pdf
they recommend a 1uF cap....
I think the Selenium slot tweeters would be a good choice. Perhaps more rugged than the Fostex. Maybe more dynamic. Either tweeter should be fine.
That the Seleniums have a downward slope is no big deal, a single cap across the L-PAD can pull the curve back up. And of cource the L-PAD will mean they are getting less power, so that helps.
2nd order seems like a good idea for this system. Just need to figure out where to cross it. 5K? 8K?
That the Seleniums have a downward slope is no big deal, a single cap across the L-PAD can pull the curve back up. And of cource the L-PAD will mean they are getting less power, so that helps.
2nd order seems like a good idea for this system. Just need to figure out where to cross it. 5K? 8K?
I checked out the Seleniums again; they actually have a reasonably straight response but drooping at the top. As panommaniac mentions, that can be, and is commonly fixed with a cap.
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/264-360.pdf
They are only $28 ea. and I'll bet they sound decent.
Because they are slot loaded, they will have good dispersion which will work for Punkr because his room isn't huge...
They are 103db sensitivity, but the cap will cut off response down low where the sensitivity is so with the shaping cap they will be about 100dB which is about right.
I think we are all a bit concerned about the FT 17 tweeters holding up with Punkrockr's use.
I now declare that this is the tweeter to use. Anyone object terribly strongly?
rated 80 watts at 8k SECOND ORDER crossover,
rated 40 watts at 5k SECOND ORDER crossover
http://www.partsexpress.com/pdf/264-360.pdf
They are only $28 ea. and I'll bet they sound decent.
Because they are slot loaded, they will have good dispersion which will work for Punkr because his room isn't huge...
They are 103db sensitivity, but the cap will cut off response down low where the sensitivity is so with the shaping cap they will be about 100dB which is about right.
I think we are all a bit concerned about the FT 17 tweeters holding up with Punkrockr's use.
I now declare that this is the tweeter to use. Anyone object terribly strongly?
rated 80 watts at 8k SECOND ORDER crossover,
rated 40 watts at 5k SECOND ORDER crossover
Seems like we are getting 98dB out to 7k with the 12"
So, how about someone designs a high pass crossover at 7k or 8k second order (12dB/octave) that incorporates shaping the droopy upper response. The shaping should also give a lot more power handling.
MAYBE:
an adjustable L-pad? . The adjustable means that there is a chance Punkrockr will turn it down a bit giving even a bit more security.
OR:
should we hardwire in a 2 or 3 dB l-pad with resistors? 3dB would give us twice the power handling, no?
Or maybe BOTH !!!???
What do you think Pano?
So, how about someone designs a high pass crossover at 7k or 8k second order (12dB/octave) that incorporates shaping the droopy upper response. The shaping should also give a lot more power handling.
MAYBE:
an adjustable L-pad? . The adjustable means that there is a chance Punkrockr will turn it down a bit giving even a bit more security.
OR:
should we hardwire in a 2 or 3 dB l-pad with resistors? 3dB would give us twice the power handling, no?
Or maybe BOTH !!!???
What do you think Pano?
still lookin for wood, imporeted birch/oak is $43 a sheet and I'm seeing how the aruaco 7 ply looks sometime soon because it's only $23 a sheet. I can't really blow my budget up past $250 - $300 alyogether cause I'm saving up for that Yamaha I showed you guys earlier (long story short my my dad card I got the reciever orignally on was revoked cause his bak limmit is $3000 and he didn't realize that, lol) so I'm keepin al my money in cash and I estimate with the $500 or so I got now I'll have around $200 - $250 left after the BBBIB speakers are completed which I can't wait for. 
He He, Don't I remember you saying weight didn't matter!!????
Well, you are right, its going to be awfully heavy in MDF, so the ply is probably better. Truthfully, the 3/4" is pretty thin for a horn that sized, but don't worry- after you get it built, and if you love it, it will be a simple matter later, when you have more money to double the thickness of the back panel to start with for instance and later make the whole thing double thickness maybe, by adding a layer on the outside. This will make it sound a bit better.
Imported Birch at $43 is a fair price so you might be stuck. But you can try it out without the tweeters and crossover, so you could save some money there... at first...Hope something works out.
Well, you are right, its going to be awfully heavy in MDF, so the ply is probably better. Truthfully, the 3/4" is pretty thin for a horn that sized, but don't worry- after you get it built, and if you love it, it will be a simple matter later, when you have more money to double the thickness of the back panel to start with for instance and later make the whole thing double thickness maybe, by adding a layer on the outside. This will make it sound a bit better.
Imported Birch at $43 is a fair price so you might be stuck. But you can try it out without the tweeters and crossover, so you could save some money there... at first...Hope something works out.
Basically Punkrockr, you have to make the choices. You have just lowered the budget again. Maybe you just can't afford a loud audio system. Maybe you should just quit. Or earn some more money. Or buy an old powerful stereo receiver at a thrift shop.
If you don't have the money you could make it with the $23/ sheet plywood, which might be fine. This is DIY, so that would be a decent experiment, and might come out fine or it might buzz a little . There is no way to know. Or you could make it with the MDF which is heavy.
You keep lowering the price so you keep lowering your options....
If you don't have the money you could make it with the $23/ sheet plywood, which might be fine. This is DIY, so that would be a decent experiment, and might come out fine or it might buzz a little . There is no way to know. Or you could make it with the MDF which is heavy.
You keep lowering the price so you keep lowering your options....
I gotta agree with Mr. Tech.knockout on this one. It does seem like a strange choice for what he wanted. But we've been thru soooo many designs that were more "party speaker" and this is 1st one that Punkrokr has actually agreed to build.
The BBBIB should get plenty loud in his room without burning up. The new version of the Beta 12 LTA has much more X-Max than the old version, so that's a good thing. This beast sure won't be easy to move, -and- it's not going to work outside or in a big room. It HAS to have ceiling and/or corner loading. That's how it works. Using it for a PA is not going to be practicle.
However, it should sound really good, judging by reports from builders of smaller BIBs and the buddy of mine who put the same driver (older version) in a Voigt pipe.
Worse case senario: Mr. P does not like it. He will at least have plenty of lumber and a pair of great midranges and tweeters to start another project. Maybe the 1812 will at last see the light of day. =)
The BBBIB should get plenty loud in his room without burning up. The new version of the Beta 12 LTA has much more X-Max than the old version, so that's a good thing. This beast sure won't be easy to move, -and- it's not going to work outside or in a big room. It HAS to have ceiling and/or corner loading. That's how it works. Using it for a PA is not going to be practicle.
However, it should sound really good, judging by reports from builders of smaller BIBs and the buddy of mine who put the same driver (older version) in a Voigt pipe.
Worse case senario: Mr. P does not like it. He will at least have plenty of lumber and a pair of great midranges and tweeters to start another project. Maybe the 1812 will at last see the light of day. =)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.