planet10 said:
Yes I know that.... I only mention the PR as the Feastrex one looks to be outstanding and would be a better choice than going BR in my opinion, more $ though....
I guess I'm just thinking that if I could get a pair of the drivers one day one thing I wouldn't want to put them in is a BR box.. To me that is so cookie cutter boring and everyone does it... If you could walk into 100 houses that have a stereo system I'd bet you would find that almost all of them have ported speakers as mains and or a sub with a port, yawn!! Now some are better than others but still yawn!!
My 2 cents with my small paycheck
DaveBTW everybody I`m not an enclosure designer at all, Im just not fond of BR cabs. It`s only just my personal opinion and I think the Feastrex deserve to not go there........
DaveCan said:
I've been doing quite a bit more listening on the Feastrex PR... here's my take on the BR vs PR ..
The BR sound is slightly more punchy, drums have a wee bit more kick. But the PR version gives lower bass with better articulation.... the cellos and double bass have more body... the sound with the PR is much closer to that of a sealed box..
Personally I much prefer the PR, yes, more money.. but you get better quality bass with a much bigger soundstage. However do note that the BR type box that I have.. is based on the Feastrex smaller orginal BR type box... Perhaps a ML-TL like the D9e type box will give better results with the D5nf as compared with the orginal BR type ..
I agree that a BR box doesn't represent very advanced thinking. Yet personal experience has convincingly demonstrated to me that a well executed BR can serve the music quite well. Additionally, I'm dealing with the space constraint of a smallish listening room. At the very least, I could see throwing the drivers into a simple box as described to begin their break-in while plotting out a more ambitious design.
It may be telling that a number of the most musical sounding speakers I've ever heard happen to share the attribute of a wide baffle. Coincidence or not, a 14- to 18-inch-wide BVR would pique my interest, but I don't know if such a configuration would *work*.
Dave: The black boxes currently lined up on my equipment rack *scream* boring to the eye, but so what? When I listen with my ears I find myself engaged in the music like never before. Personally, I'd have no problem living with a couple of unobtrusive 9nf-BR boxes if they were to blow my mind each and every time I were to spin a disc.
Chris/BTW:
I'm a late arrival. Can you help me with any information (links, internal dimensions?) on the simpler Feastrex BR boxes you've alluded to and, in BTW's case, derived a design from? It might help me to see things from the beginning.
Chris:
I seem to recall reading that Teramoto recommends a quad of PB9s if you're going the PR route with D9 series drivers. Can you confirm this for me? It does up the ante a fair bit. Joe Cohen reports strong bass from his D9e in the floorstanding cabinet he's running, so maybe the 9s don't need the same PR boost as the 5s to achieve a satisfyingly full sound.
Also, are any steps being taken to verify the measurement data of the 9nf?
Scott:
I agree that simply winging it won't do. To that end I wonder if I could prevail upon you to run a FR test for my proposed design like you did in post #346 for the Teramoto cabinet? Or is the design too rough in its present form? Perhaps this is something best discussed via email. I'm a relative newcomer to diyA and don't yet have PM privileges, but if you're game you can contact me at > mark (dot) heitman (at) verizon (dot) net <. Thanks.
It may be telling that a number of the most musical sounding speakers I've ever heard happen to share the attribute of a wide baffle. Coincidence or not, a 14- to 18-inch-wide BVR would pique my interest, but I don't know if such a configuration would *work*.
Dave: The black boxes currently lined up on my equipment rack *scream* boring to the eye, but so what? When I listen with my ears I find myself engaged in the music like never before. Personally, I'd have no problem living with a couple of unobtrusive 9nf-BR boxes if they were to blow my mind each and every time I were to spin a disc.
Chris/BTW:
I'm a late arrival. Can you help me with any information (links, internal dimensions?) on the simpler Feastrex BR boxes you've alluded to and, in BTW's case, derived a design from? It might help me to see things from the beginning.
Chris:
I seem to recall reading that Teramoto recommends a quad of PB9s if you're going the PR route with D9 series drivers. Can you confirm this for me? It does up the ante a fair bit. Joe Cohen reports strong bass from his D9e in the floorstanding cabinet he's running, so maybe the 9s don't need the same PR boost as the 5s to achieve a satisfyingly full sound.
Also, are any steps being taken to verify the measurement data of the 9nf?
Scott:
I agree that simply winging it won't do. To that end I wonder if I could prevail upon you to run a FR test for my proposed design like you did in post #346 for the Teramoto cabinet? Or is the design too rough in its present form? Perhaps this is something best discussed via email. I'm a relative newcomer to diyA and don't yet have PM privileges, but if you're game you can contact me at > mark (dot) heitman (at) verizon (dot) net <. Thanks.
DaveCan said:Would anyone know the ballpark figure in Canadian $ for a pair of the same drivers and passives shown here.. Dave
Yeah, they would be "out of the ballpark" I'm afraid. You might be able to justify the cost due to the fact that the Feastrex units with their leather surrounds and ultra-high-grade artisan paper will outlive their owner, but the cost is a few times what one would pay for other high-end fullrange drivers from Europe.
For details on pricing you would have to email The Lotus Group.
figby said:
I'm away from my computer where I store that information, but I think William (BTW) has PDF files showing the dimensions of the Feastrex enclosures that he could upload here. Feastrex no longer recommends the use of their passive radiators with their larger drivers -- you do need to double the quantity and it turns into too much money. The units produce such great bass even without PRs that they don't feel the additional cost is justified. Obviously if someone wants to go that route anyway they won't refuse to cooperate; excellent results can surely be obtained but at a high price.
Confirmation of D9nf measurements is a high priority for next year . . .
figby said:
Hi Figby,
I have the drawing but due to my poor computer skills I can't seem to upload it... Drop me an email I'll send the file to you.
The external dimensions of the box are roughly W 310mm x D 250mm x H 880mm and 18mm plywood is recommended, do note that my box is actually taller as it has a false bottom as I did not want to fabricate additional spk stands. The box's volume works out to a 47L box. Tuning Weights were provided for the PB9 bass radiators but I basically followed Mr Teramoto's recommendation of using 1 large and 1 small weight per PR ... it work very well, so I left it at that.
I spent yesterday and today getting familiar with woofer tester 2's idiosyncracies. I have run a few trial runs today and starting to get some consistency in the results. I hope to have best data possible (from WT2) posted by the end of the weekend. First glance shows that Chris' original specs are not too far off.
Rich
I have run a few trial runs today and starting to get some consistency in the results. I hope to have best data possible (from WT2) posted by the end of the weekend. First glance shows that Chris' original specs are not too far off.Rich
BTW:
William,
>I have the drawing but due to my poor computer skills I can't seem to upload it... Drop me an email I'll send the file to you.<
Thanks, I'd like to take you up on your offer. Unfortunately, as a diyA newbie, I don't yet have PM privileges. But you can email me at:
mark(DOT)heitman(AT)verizon(DOT)net
Your cabinets look great, even with the less-than-optimal lighting. Good call to build in a weighted base and raise the drivers. I've been quite interested to read your comments as you get to know your new speakers.
Your comment about the PR tuning weights sailed right over my head. Can you offer a brief explanation in your email?
Chris:
Given the cost involved in doubling up on an already expensive pair of PRs, it's a relief to hear their updated recommendation to forego entirely.
Have you logged any more time with either/both the D9nf and the D5nf/PB9 combo? Any further impressions?
BTW, thanks for your continued efforts on this forum to keep us informed. The confirmation measurements on the two *nf* drivers will be greatly appreciated.
William,
>I have the drawing but due to my poor computer skills I can't seem to upload it... Drop me an email I'll send the file to you.<
Thanks, I'd like to take you up on your offer. Unfortunately, as a diyA newbie, I don't yet have PM privileges. But you can email me at:
mark(DOT)heitman(AT)verizon(DOT)net
Your cabinets look great, even with the less-than-optimal lighting. Good call to build in a weighted base and raise the drivers. I've been quite interested to read your comments as you get to know your new speakers.
Your comment about the PR tuning weights sailed right over my head. Can you offer a brief explanation in your email?
Chris:
Given the cost involved in doubling up on an already expensive pair of PRs, it's a relief to hear their updated recommendation to forego entirely.
Have you logged any more time with either/both the D9nf and the D5nf/PB9 combo? Any further impressions?
BTW, thanks for your continued efforts on this forum to keep us informed. The confirmation measurements on the two *nf* drivers will be greatly appreciated.
I divested my stereo system a few months ago to finance the repair of one of our pianos that suddenly developed a crack in the cast iron frame (or plate or harp or whatever you call it). Converting the stereo into cash was a necessary step for me since my kids are all studying music seriously and we needed to get the piano repaired despite the considerable expense involved. Currently I listen to music on a boombox.
I'm now saving up for a pair of Feastrex 5-inch field coil drivers which I expect to be able to acquire before spring . . .
-- Chris
I'm now saving up for a pair of Feastrex 5-inch field coil drivers which I expect to be able to acquire before spring . . .
-- Chris
Richidoo said:I spent yesterday and today getting familiar with woofer tester 2's idiosyncracies.
Rich
Hi Rich,
I also picked up a WT2 a while back and have swapped a fair number of emails with Keith Larson regarding it's use. I've done numerous measurements on the D5nf drivers but have not added any weight to the cone to do further testing of Vas, etc. I've decided the best possible method is to use a sealed box for the second round of measurements. Keith suggested around 5 liters would be good based on (his) limited information on the D5nf.
I'd be interested to hear your results.... especially if you're adding weight to the cone for testing.
Regards, KM
Greets!
Hmm, well, he knows his test gear, but it sure doesn't jive with the standard Vas sealed box measurement where you must raise Fs at least 50 %, which isn't going to happen if the original Vas measurement is even in the 'ballpark'.
Anyway, based on folk's comments about this driver's detail/clarity/BW, adding weight to measure it doesn't seem like any better a plan than adding it to an ultralight HF compression driver's Al or Be diaphragm. Indeed, I have to wonder about even subjecting it to a small enough sealed box..........
GM
Hmm, well, he knows his test gear, but it sure doesn't jive with the standard Vas sealed box measurement where you must raise Fs at least 50 %, which isn't going to happen if the original Vas measurement is even in the 'ballpark'.
Anyway, based on folk's comments about this driver's detail/clarity/BW, adding weight to measure it doesn't seem like any better a plan than adding it to an ultralight HF compression driver's Al or Be diaphragm. Indeed, I have to wonder about even subjecting it to a small enough sealed box..........
GM
OK, here is the data. I tested them as carefully as possible. The tester has a personality, but we eventually got along. I have pretty good confidence in these numbers up to the limit of the tester's accuracy. I did many practice runs and the results remained consistent no matter what I did to screw them up. I was pleased to see that they mostly jibe with Chris' previous tests. Slight differences between my two drivers can be seen, and could explain the larger differences to Chris' test drivers, different batch, evolved design, etc.
Vas test was done with a penny. Turning down the juice kept it from rattling. The software told me I was within 10% of the ideal weight. Finding optimum mass and drive took a while. Perhaps the results would be more accurate if driver was driven to higher level with adhesive mass, but this will have to be good enough. If you want the air sprung test, I will build a box of MDF for it. Please advise how to estimate the interior volume with the driver installed. And no, I will not fill it up with sand or rice. hahaha I can just do my best guess, try to remember some geometry.
Attached is jpg of spreadsheet. Have fun!
Rich
Vas test was done with a penny. Turning down the juice kept it from rattling. The software told me I was within 10% of the ideal weight. Finding optimum mass and drive took a while. Perhaps the results would be more accurate if driver was driven to higher level with adhesive mass, but this will have to be good enough. If you want the air sprung test, I will build a box of MDF for it. Please advise how to estimate the interior volume with the driver installed. And no, I will not fill it up with sand or rice. hahaha I can just do my best guess, try to remember some geometry.
Attached is jpg of spreadsheet. Have fun!
Rich
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.