planet10 said:
Oh, okay! That's good to know. I think I might just try those little guys out, or maybe the Zigmahornet. That one is even simpler and doesn't require stands.
BTW, I just upped the resistor value to 4.7 ohms. From what I can tell, it has helped a bit more in taming the midrange. The treble still remains the same and the upper mid bass has improved a little as well, rounding them out a tad bit more. These babies are really starting to come alive!
Looks like an interesting design. So are those pretty much the final dimensions? Also, when damping, how would one keep the stuffing up towards the top of the chamber without it falling down? And what about something directly behind the driver to deflect the reflected sound elsewhere other than back at the driver?
Another update...
I am back to the 2.49 ohm resistors as the 4.7 ohm ones had an extreme "suck-out" right in the middle of the vocal range. Sounded like someone took the 1.2kHz slider on an EQ and yanked it all the way down to -15dB! It wasn't noticeable with pipe organ and orchestra music, but as soon as someone sang... YUCK!
Also, I just inserted a tube preamp into the mix. It's my brother's BEZ Model Q4B preamp, and I have to say that it has made a HUGE improvement in the sound of the FE103E drivers. They now sound truly natural and full. I would say 95% (if not more) of that midrange harshness is gone, unless of course it is in the recording.
So this is what the entire system consists of right now...
Since I have roughly 250 hours on these drivers and now a tube preamp in the system, I will no longer be running them during the night or during the day while at work. They are probably about as broken-in as they're going to get, plus I don't like the idea of tube equipment running unattended.
BTW, with these speakers sounding this good in these cardboard boxes, I can't wait to hear what they can do in real enclosures, especially something like those Vampyr's!
Anyway, here's a pic of my bro's preamp that I'm borrowing for a while.
I am back to the 2.49 ohm resistors as the 4.7 ohm ones had an extreme "suck-out" right in the middle of the vocal range. Sounded like someone took the 1.2kHz slider on an EQ and yanked it all the way down to -15dB! It wasn't noticeable with pipe organ and orchestra music, but as soon as someone sang... YUCK!
Also, I just inserted a tube preamp into the mix. It's my brother's BEZ Model Q4B preamp, and I have to say that it has made a HUGE improvement in the sound of the FE103E drivers. They now sound truly natural and full. I would say 95% (if not more) of that midrange harshness is gone, unless of course it is in the recording.
So this is what the entire system consists of right now...
- BEZ Model Q4B preamp
- Teac PD-D2200 CD changer
- Sonic Impact T-amp (original version)
- Dayton Audio C1500K kit subwoofer
- Fostex FE103E drivers with 2.49 ohm series resistors
Since I have roughly 250 hours on these drivers and now a tube preamp in the system, I will no longer be running them during the night or during the day while at work. They are probably about as broken-in as they're going to get, plus I don't like the idea of tube equipment running unattended.
BTW, with these speakers sounding this good in these cardboard boxes, I can't wait to hear what they can do in real enclosures, especially something like those Vampyr's!
Anyway, here's a pic of my bro's preamp that I'm borrowing for a while.
Scottmoose said:
Who said anything about stuffing?Intitially, I'd line the back wall, top & base (don't block the throats) with something like 1/2in wool felt.
How large are the throats supposed to be anyway? Also, are those "reflectors" in the mouths supposed to come out flush with the face of the baffle or be slightly recessed as in the drawing?
From the size of these, it looks like I might be able to cut everything needed from one 4 x 8 sheet of wood.
Oh, I imagine with that super narrow baffle, I would need BSC, correct?
larkinrulez said:
larkinrulez said:When I take a look at the frequenzy-response...there seems to be the BSC "included"
Since this is a new design of Scott's with none built yet AFAIK, don't forget those graphs are "just"* modeled - measured real world performance could well be different.
Further, I'd dare say there are more than a few DIY and commercial products with specs that could be similarly "worrisome" to some folks that are never-the-less very musically enjoyable.
*with apologies to Scott et al
Really? With what purpose in mind?
Yup. And also to account for the layout. It's only an anechoic graph that takes no account of the speaker's configuration, polar response or the room's influence upon these. The MathCAD worksheets are a lovely tool, but you have to remember what they do not show as well as what they do.
Knew I'd forget to include something in the drawing. Apologies. 1/2in deep apiece. Strike plates 45 degrees, 5in tall x 5in deep.
Doddle.
Re BSC, nope, unless you stand them in the middle of a room. They're designed to be used reasonably close to a rear wall & with separate bass modules. A 4in FR driver with very little excursion does some things very well, but LF is not one of them.
Exactly. Same with any speaker, below ~300Hz the room dominates the response.
Not a problem. Just wanted to make sure.
Will do!
That is perfect. I really didn't want to have to use any circuits of any kind in the chain if I could get away with it. to me, it kind of defeats the purpose of single driver designs.
I have a Rane AC22B crossover that I can use on these if I need to. I also have an AudioSource Amp 100 that I can use to power a pair of DIY subs if I wanted to do stereo subs. What kind of subs would you recommend to complement the Vampyr's? Possibly something like a TL or horn or using passive radiators? I'm thinking maybe a good pair of 6" or 8" drivers?
I'm already looking around for wood and such for the Vampyr's, so we might find out sooner than later as far as how they actually measure and sound in real life.
chops said:
Well, let's call them stereo woofers not "subs" - as you'd likely be crossing them over much higher than 100Hz to achieve the maximum benefit with a FR driver as limited in low end power as the FE103E. Full 2-way XO circa 200Hz or so (rather than just lo-pass fill) makes sense to me - both to significantly reduce the bump in the modeled response curve, and to substantially increase total SPL limits.
Due to the very small footprint of the Vampyr (or Zigmahornet for that matter), I'd be inclined towards the smallest woofer enclosure possible. As it turns out, the CSS SDX7 is a stellar performer in a teeny sealed box ( thanks to Dave for the correction on my estimated enclosure volume posted elsewhere).
Particularly with an outboard amp to drive the woofers, you can get away with a box that's not a lot larger than the carton in which the drivers are shipped - i.e. 3/4 ft ^3 ( 21.26 liters)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.