Fane also have non-coaxial vintage-like alnico guitar-models, the Axiom AXA.10 and AXA.12, and seem to be very nice. The specs. claim usability to 6/5.5kHz and have a 1.75" VC. A BL of 19 /24.2, Qts 0.52/0.65 and a gms of 31/53 gms respectively. Sadly I see no curves.
here is a link of the 15" Fane coaxial I mentioned before http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly/DX15HE.pdf
Here more (lots of) Alnicos at very good pricing (what about modding?): https://taweber.powweb.com/weber/ (at least they show an Alnico driver doesent have to cost so much) I read somewhere they are made by Eminence.
Given that Eminence can build drivers up to specs in small quantities (even a Group-buy would probably do), and that they work with Alnicos, it could be a very nice community project under Olsons lead. (A bit of fantasy: two design teams 1) motor and chassis team 2) cone material/profile + surround and spider team, plus membmer distributors in America and USA....it would be a great project). Even a little (but very little) overprice could be directly distributed among the participants/designers. I would be in for distribution in Europe as my technical abilities don´t allow for much more.
here is a link of the 15" Fane coaxial I mentioned before http://www.prodance.cz/protokoly/DX15HE.pdf
Here more (lots of) Alnicos at very good pricing (what about modding?): https://taweber.powweb.com/weber/ (at least they show an Alnico driver doesent have to cost so much) I read somewhere they are made by Eminence.
Given that Eminence can build drivers up to specs in small quantities (even a Group-buy would probably do), and that they work with Alnicos, it could be a very nice community project under Olsons lead. (A bit of fantasy: two design teams 1) motor and chassis team 2) cone material/profile + surround and spider team, plus membmer distributors in America and USA....it would be a great project). Even a little (but very little) overprice could be directly distributed among the participants/designers. I would be in for distribution in Europe as my technical abilities don´t allow for much more.
Hi Russell,
When I was working with Mille Nestorovic, we discovered that if we used the same 2" polycarbonate dome, that was used on the midrange driver, for the next frequency band and attached it directly to the end of the voice coil, 2" by design, with the voice coil end protruding through the cone center just far enough that the "surround" of the dome was firmly seated in the still moist PVA that coated the entire cone, we had greatly reduced aberrant behavior in upper frequency response areas. Very smooth roll off and a surprising lack of phase induced peaks and valleys. When we applied the EnABL process to just this dome even those remaining shallow hills and dales disappeared. This was an 8 inch driver with edge wound voice coil on a Kapton former, and worked from 20 Hz out to 2 kHz, crossed over to a 10 inch on the bottom with Mille's patented cross over that turned the 10 inch into a passive radiator at about 60 Hz, in a gradual slope.
This EnABLed polycarbonate dome was a very expensive solution and so we continued to experiment. Eventually we found that a smooth, .040 thick coat of RTV caulking, spread on the inside of the felted domes, provided the same performance, once also coated on the outside with the PVA that covered the rest of the cone, as that of the bare polycarbonate dome. The felted dome was attached to the cone surface very close to the voice coil former and the RTV was in intimate contact with the end of the voice coil former, to keep the energy left there from ringing in storage. Really quite a problem getting the tinsel strands and coil wires into that small area smoothly and safely tucked away under the dust cap.
None of this approached the fully enabled driver, with poly carbonate dome, for audible performance or measurement purposes, but the cost factor was perhaps 1/20th in time required to process the post construction treatments. Even so, the performance of the PVA coated cone and dome, with RTV applied, was enough to walk away with best sound in show at numerous European audio shows. Mille especially liked attending one held in France.
We experimented with phase plugs throughout this time. Nothing we used caused us to change from what we were doing. The shapes ranged from spike to mushroom door handle in contour. The phase plugs always created a new problem while solving the one we were after. Just killing all possible can resonance and center pole piece resonance and brutally enforcing a continuous boundary layer across the dome and cone provided extraordinary results sonically and measurement wise. Again not to the level of refinement available with the EnABL process, but Mille was very concerned about legal encumberence if we used that, at the time, unpatented process. He was even more concerned about a legal fray if I did patent it.
Bud
When I was working with Mille Nestorovic, we discovered that if we used the same 2" polycarbonate dome, that was used on the midrange driver, for the next frequency band and attached it directly to the end of the voice coil, 2" by design, with the voice coil end protruding through the cone center just far enough that the "surround" of the dome was firmly seated in the still moist PVA that coated the entire cone, we had greatly reduced aberrant behavior in upper frequency response areas. Very smooth roll off and a surprising lack of phase induced peaks and valleys. When we applied the EnABL process to just this dome even those remaining shallow hills and dales disappeared. This was an 8 inch driver with edge wound voice coil on a Kapton former, and worked from 20 Hz out to 2 kHz, crossed over to a 10 inch on the bottom with Mille's patented cross over that turned the 10 inch into a passive radiator at about 60 Hz, in a gradual slope.
This EnABLed polycarbonate dome was a very expensive solution and so we continued to experiment. Eventually we found that a smooth, .040 thick coat of RTV caulking, spread on the inside of the felted domes, provided the same performance, once also coated on the outside with the PVA that covered the rest of the cone, as that of the bare polycarbonate dome. The felted dome was attached to the cone surface very close to the voice coil former and the RTV was in intimate contact with the end of the voice coil former, to keep the energy left there from ringing in storage. Really quite a problem getting the tinsel strands and coil wires into that small area smoothly and safely tucked away under the dust cap.
None of this approached the fully enabled driver, with poly carbonate dome, for audible performance or measurement purposes, but the cost factor was perhaps 1/20th in time required to process the post construction treatments. Even so, the performance of the PVA coated cone and dome, with RTV applied, was enough to walk away with best sound in show at numerous European audio shows. Mille especially liked attending one held in France.
We experimented with phase plugs throughout this time. Nothing we used caused us to change from what we were doing. The shapes ranged from spike to mushroom door handle in contour. The phase plugs always created a new problem while solving the one we were after. Just killing all possible can resonance and center pole piece resonance and brutally enforcing a continuous boundary layer across the dome and cone provided extraordinary results sonically and measurement wise. Again not to the level of refinement available with the EnABL process, but Mille was very concerned about legal encumberence if we used that, at the time, unpatented process. He was even more concerned about a legal fray if I did patent it.
Bud
Swak , et al;
perhaps a bit OT, but interesting gadget from the Weber site
http://www.webervst.com/blocker.html
Reminiscent of the diffuser dome on the rear of suspended tweeter pod on Stew Hegeman's speaker (latest incarnation via Morrison)
http://www.morrisonaudio.com/morrison_loudspeakers.htm
perhaps a bit OT, but interesting gadget from the Weber site
http://www.webervst.com/blocker.html
Reminiscent of the diffuser dome on the rear of suspended tweeter pod on Stew Hegeman's speaker (latest incarnation via Morrison)
http://www.morrisonaudio.com/morrison_loudspeakers.htm
Believing your 12" Tone Tubby open baffle as a "base" to be your best bet in achieving what you want..
How about:
High Freq.s:
Two BMS 4540ND's per side.
Radial compound configuration (one driver facing up, the other driver about an inch above facing down to the lower driver).
Nice wood waveguide limiting vertical dispersion (looking like two nice wood round platter bottoms facing each other - the center of a very stubby "hourglass" shape having two shiney 1" compression drivers in the "interior" center).
Crossover in just about any configuration you want, the only real limit being ultimate spl's.
The Tone Tubby would be the limiting factor with respect to linear decay.
Freq. extension to 30 kHz.
Custom autoformer from Dave at intact audio to pad the thing down.
Midbass freq.s:
Supplement open baffle loss.
1 Supravox 285 GMF.
Low mass high eff. driver to complement the character to the Tone Tubby. It has a "natural" freq. response needed to support the Tone Tubby for open baffle loss compensation. (..good linear decay character in this lower midrange as well.)
Use driver with magnet facing forward.
a 1st order electrical ".5" filter for it around 200 Hz. If a parallel crossover you could use a Mundorf Zero Ohm inductor.
Target baffle 13.5 inches in width. Height - dependent on listener's preference. Ear height should match top of baffle.
Tone Tubby pushed all the way to the top and one side of the baffle's edges. The Supravox on the same side at the bottom of the baffle similarly situated. On top of baffle is the radial tweeter assembly.
How about:
High Freq.s:
Two BMS 4540ND's per side.
Radial compound configuration (one driver facing up, the other driver about an inch above facing down to the lower driver).
Nice wood waveguide limiting vertical dispersion (looking like two nice wood round platter bottoms facing each other - the center of a very stubby "hourglass" shape having two shiney 1" compression drivers in the "interior" center).
Crossover in just about any configuration you want, the only real limit being ultimate spl's.
The Tone Tubby would be the limiting factor with respect to linear decay.
Freq. extension to 30 kHz.
Custom autoformer from Dave at intact audio to pad the thing down.
Midbass freq.s:
Supplement open baffle loss.
1 Supravox 285 GMF.
Low mass high eff. driver to complement the character to the Tone Tubby. It has a "natural" freq. response needed to support the Tone Tubby for open baffle loss compensation. (..good linear decay character in this lower midrange as well.)
Use driver with magnet facing forward.
a 1st order electrical ".5" filter for it around 200 Hz. If a parallel crossover you could use a Mundorf Zero Ohm inductor.
Target baffle 13.5 inches in width. Height - dependent on listener's preference. Ear height should match top of baffle.
Tone Tubby pushed all the way to the top and one side of the baffle's edges. The Supravox on the same side at the bottom of the baffle similarly situated. On top of baffle is the radial tweeter assembly.
swak said:
The Weber 12A125 looks interesting - lots of ribs for progressive decoupling, AlNiCo magnet, and a fun sound clip by The Heard Mentality, too!!!
At the risk of completely disorganizing the Loudspeakers forum, I have foolishly gotten two threads moving in parallel. The other thread, though, is more about horn/dipole integration, and brings ScottG's insights about drivers in the pro world.
Ha.. 11 ounces.
I'll see your 11 and raise you 24 more for about the same price:
http://www.eminence.com/guitar_speaker_detail.asp?model=REDFANG16&speaker_size=12&SUB_CAT_ID=4
Ummm..
Don't look to hard at the upper freq. response though. (..and its likely the same story for the weber.)
I'll see your 11 and raise you 24 more for about the same price:
http://www.eminence.com/guitar_speaker_detail.asp?model=REDFANG16&speaker_size=12&SUB_CAT_ID=4
Ummm..
Don't look to hard at the upper freq. response though. (..and its likely the same story for the weber.)
I went through pretty much all the electric guitar speakers at Eminence and they all have very peaky (usually a couple of peaks) hi ends. The high end we're talking about is around 2k , not really very high in terms of what we have discussed.. The Cannibus Rex is pretty smoooth until it goes wacky.
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/cannabisrex.pdf
Might make a good "helper" speaker to support the low end of the main driver?
Here is a pretty well behaved curve that then rises 10 db in half an octave!
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/blackpowder.pdf
and here is an "acoustic" guitar speaker with hemp cone:
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/acoustinator-nh2008.pdf
Makes it hard to believe that the Tone Tubby is very flat at the high end also. Which makes one wonder how it can work for hifi without serious eq. Maybe there's things more important than flat response?
MAybe the TT actually is flatter? Maybe again, it works as a "helper" driver..
Makes the hifi Hemp Acoustics more intriguing than ever...
Especially if that tweeter on the coax is really a Radian (just a guess but it would help explain the high price...)
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/cannabisrex.pdf
Might make a good "helper" speaker to support the low end of the main driver?
Here is a pretty well behaved curve that then rises 10 db in half an octave!
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/blackpowder.pdf
and here is an "acoustic" guitar speaker with hemp cone:
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/acoustinator-nh2008.pdf
Makes it hard to believe that the Tone Tubby is very flat at the high end also. Which makes one wonder how it can work for hifi without serious eq. Maybe there's things more important than flat response?
MAybe the TT actually is flatter? Maybe again, it works as a "helper" driver..Makes the hifi Hemp Acoustics more intriguing than ever...
Especially if that tweeter on the coax is really a Radian (just a guess but it would help explain the high price...)
ALNICO and others
Hi,
some interresting facts and opinions about different magnet materials under:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=605033#post605033
"http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=605033#post605033"
greetings
Michael
Hi,
some interresting facts and opinions about different magnet materials under:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=605033#post605033
"http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=605033#post605033"
greetings
Michael
Variac said:
Makes it hard to believe that the Tone Tubby is very flat at the high end also. Which makes one wonder how it can work for hifi without serious eq. Maybe there's things more important than flat response?
Virtually all of the guitar drivers are based on the original Jensen stuff. Here is a fairly faithful reproduction from the "new" Jensen:
http://www.jensenvintage.com/p12n.htm
Some might say though that the Celestion versions actually bettered the design - for the guitar.
Now Tone Tubby IS different, and Lynn did the measuring here:
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/MLS/MLS6.html
Also carefully read his comments, particularly the fact that the measurement isn't averaged (i.e. is "unsmoothed").
Re: ALNICO and others
What they didn't mention is that overtime as you increase the magnetization of the magnet, that Alinco is the worst for loosing field strength with most "blends". Neo is the best. For instance a Lowther with an Alinco magnet may well have gauss reduced by up to 20% after about 5 years - far worse still IF you have another similar magnet near them. The same is not true if the Lowther uses one of the newer neo based motors.
They also didn't discuss field precision/uniformity beyond extreme temperatures and counter current flux modulation.
Consider that Alinco is HIGHLY processed and the crystal structure of the magnet is both small and uniform. Neo is somewhat similar. Your average ceramic magnet is FAR worse.
IMO, if you combine counter current flux modulation resistance along with a highly uniform crystalline magnet structure and very high guass - you *can* get really good sound (..particularly clear and natural sounding provided other factors are "worked out").
Counter current flux modulation (and the resulting heat build up) is perhaps best reduced with the method that 18 Sound uses for their "Active Impedance Series".
Alternatively there are electromagnets, which *can* have greater field uniformity at least at lower input levels. A particular problem here is heat though, but it is less about heat as it alters the magnet and more about heat as it alters the VC.
mige0 said:
What they didn't mention is that overtime as you increase the magnetization of the magnet, that Alinco is the worst for loosing field strength with most "blends". Neo is the best. For instance a Lowther with an Alinco magnet may well have gauss reduced by up to 20% after about 5 years - far worse still IF you have another similar magnet near them. The same is not true if the Lowther uses one of the newer neo based motors.
They also didn't discuss field precision/uniformity beyond extreme temperatures and counter current flux modulation.
Consider that Alinco is HIGHLY processed and the crystal structure of the magnet is both small and uniform. Neo is somewhat similar. Your average ceramic magnet is FAR worse.
IMO, if you combine counter current flux modulation resistance along with a highly uniform crystalline magnet structure and very high guass - you *can* get really good sound (..particularly clear and natural sounding provided other factors are "worked out").
Counter current flux modulation (and the resulting heat build up) is perhaps best reduced with the method that 18 Sound uses for their "Active Impedance Series".
Alternatively there are electromagnets, which *can* have greater field uniformity at least at lower input levels. A particular problem here is heat though, but it is less about heat as it alters the magnet and more about heat as it alters the VC.
I had the mentioned disadvantage of demagnetization of alnico in mind (other than the high price) when I asked Lynn if he misses the immediacy he finds with alnico with neo magnets. Most pro audio manufacturers sell their neo drivers for about the price of the ceramic magnet versions, while hi-fi manufacturers (fostex for example) have exorbitant price tags on their alnico models.
As i seriously question that measured parameters can tell everything about a driver, better asking someone with good ears and with lots of experience hearing many systems. For example, I don`t think even spectral decay plots can point a warm "woody" cone like the hemp cones are said to be.
As i seriously question that measured parameters can tell everything about a driver, better asking someone with good ears and with lots of experience hearing many systems. For example, I don`t think even spectral decay plots can point a warm "woody" cone like the hemp cones are said to be.
I stand corrected on the tone Tubbies- amazing!
The "Holy Grail" Celestion Blue's are flatter and go out quite high, alnico, handle 15 watts, 100db efficient
http://professional.celestion.com/guitar/products/pdfs/Celestion Blue.pdf
The Gold model is supposed to just handle more power, 50 watts, without blowing up, probably a good idea in that the blue is maxed out at 15 watts and distorting a lot. From reading the reviews, the gold doesn't break up as soon, so would be a lot cleaner, but is a somewhat different curve:
http://professional.celestion.com/guitar/products/alnico/detail.asp?ID=32
The "Holy Grail" Celestion Blue's are flatter and go out quite high, alnico, handle 15 watts, 100db efficient
http://professional.celestion.com/guitar/products/pdfs/Celestion Blue.pdf
The Gold model is supposed to just handle more power, 50 watts, without blowing up, probably a good idea in that the blue is maxed out at 15 watts and distorting a lot. From reading the reviews, the gold doesn't break up as soon, so would be a lot cleaner, but is a somewhat different curve:
http://professional.celestion.com/guitar/products/alnico/detail.asp?ID=32
Variac said:
The resemblance of the Celestion Blue to the 12" Alnico Tone Tubby is startling! You don't get that sort of near-identical response, especially from something as ragged as a guitar speaker, by accident. The people who designed the TT are obviously no fools.
As for the Gold, eh, not so pretty. They discarded the paper voice-coil former and went for something else (Nomex? Kapton? Aluminum?) and it shows in the FR curve as added roughness in the critical midrange region. The choice of material of the VC former, and the method of attaching it to the base of the cone, are extremely critical to the overall sound of the speaker, since this is the area where the impulse from the magnetic system is mechanically transferred to the cone. When the material of the former has a substantially different speed-of-sound from the cone, that creates a reflection at the are of the join. Reflections in the VC area are probably the most important of any part of the speaker.
That, by the way, is the source of much of the coloration in the 2 ~ 10 kHz region, and the reason "wonder cones" don't always match their voice-coils - the materials are too dissimilar, which creates reflections. A soft rubber or felt dust-cap that is precisely joined to the VC former can help things by absorbing some of the reflection, but the best approach is to select VC formers that are acoustically compatible with the cone.
Oddly enough, very few VC formers are chosen for this reason - the main thing for most speaker manufacturers is resistance to destruction, not subtle sonic details in the midrange. And as mentioned earlier, dustcaps are mostly for looks and a place to put a big silk-screened logo.
Lynn Olson said:
..this mirrors the Mother of Tone site on their speaker page..
Funny, but that site takes a lot of flack, much of it undeserved by people who think they know better. (..i.e. your typical I "live and die by my commonly available measurements".) Considering how incredibly mechanically flawed a moving coil loudspeaker is - you would THINK they would know better.
ScottG said:
It's hard to put this in a "nice" way, but I think the desire to create speakers and amps that are "perfect" reflects a certain lack of maturity. You do this gig long enough, you realize there's always going to some form of coloration that's left over, no matter what you do, how good you think you are, or how much money you throw at it.
In a way, it's funny to read the propaganda from big companies like JBL, B&W, Revel, Wilson, etc. etc. With MLSSA and its successors, it's been a level playing field for some 15 years now. They measure the same things we do, and make dumb, obvious mistakes. The terrible measurements we see in $tereophile are testament to that.
Of course, it doesn't help that $tereophile measures the wrong distance (50 inches) when the industry standard has been 2 meters (80 inches) for many decades. Even for minimonitors, the wavefront doesn't "gel" until you get a minimum of 1.5 meters away - and the distance is correspondingly larger for large speakers.
Loudspeakers are grossly imperfect devices, and optimizing one parameters steals from others. There's just no way around that, no matter how much money and time are thrown at the problem.
Linear-phase speakers with 1st-order crossovers pay a terrible price in tweeter IM distortion and complex lobing in the vertical plane. No way around it, unless you multi-amp and use digital correction, a whole can of worms by itself. Speakers that are the last word in flatness tend to be overdamped, inefficient, and not very good at rendering vivid tone colors. Speakers that are optimized for ultralow IM distortion and sky-high efficiency contend with PA-type colorations. The MBL, remarkable as it is, suffers from astoundingly low efficiency and the assorted colorations of diaphragm materials forced to operate in "bending mode".
The Mother of Tone website has the great merit of reminding people why we build hifi systems in the first place - these are machines for creating musical illusions, nothing more, nothing less. And it turns out that is very hard to do, since hearing and musical enjoyment are extraordinarily complex phenomena, by no means fully understood by the research community.
Some of the questions about perception and emotional responses to music are as infinitely deep as "what is consciousness?" - something philosophers, religions, and mystics have been wrestling for millennia.