Hi all,
I'm quite interested in the FF85K designs this guy has published recently. He calls them angular spiral horns.
http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~hanbei/eng-angular.html
I'm thinking of building the Helix AG-100 or AG-100M shown on this page, primarily because the FF85K appeals to me (although I've never heard it) and the enclosure looks interesting.
From the AG-100 section:
The measurements of frequency responses and impeadance characteristics indicate the lower limit is about 54 Hz and bass reflex behavior still acts an important role.
The sound is clear and crisp with sufficient lower level.
He also shows some bookshelf sized enclosures using the FF85K.
What do you guys think of these designs?
Best regards,
Andrew.
I'm quite interested in the FF85K designs this guy has published recently. He calls them angular spiral horns.
http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~hanbei/eng-angular.html
I'm thinking of building the Helix AG-100 or AG-100M shown on this page, primarily because the FF85K appeals to me (although I've never heard it) and the enclosure looks interesting.
From the AG-100 section:
The measurements of frequency responses and impeadance characteristics indicate the lower limit is about 54 Hz and bass reflex behavior still acts an important role.
The sound is clear and crisp with sufficient lower level.
He also shows some bookshelf sized enclosures using the FF85K.
What do you guys think of these designs?
Best regards,
Andrew.
Could we please stay away from the just dumb luck school of modifying drivers? There are plenty of other threads for this. Sometimes what goes on in some of these threads and Web sites seems so irrational. Sorry, but just not my cup of tea.
Does anyone have high resolution measurements for some of the tranducers suggested? While I have not measured the particular NS driver mentioned, others using that same cone design have not been particularly desirable by my standards. Of course, I have really high standards for minimum performance.
I would be interested in trying to select a couple of price/performance points for possible transducers. But I would suggest we base this upon evidence and not just personal preference or outside economic interest.
Best to all,
Mark
Does anyone have high resolution measurements for some of the tranducers suggested? While I have not measured the particular NS driver mentioned, others using that same cone design have not been particularly desirable by my standards. Of course, I have really high standards for minimum performance.
I would be interested in trying to select a couple of price/performance points for possible transducers. But I would suggest we base this upon evidence and not just personal preference or outside economic interest.
Best to all,
Mark
I'd like to recommend Salas' TB3 bipole design.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=57210&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
This has been a favorite of mine for a while now.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=57210&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
This has been a favorite of mine for a while now.
happy.gringo said:
Mark is really the master at searching out and destroying cone resonances... anytime he is willing to share imformation i listen
I don't know how i would approach the NS3. The 3-layer constrained layer cone is something i have not encountered before (i know it is such because i was asked to do a phase plug experiment on them.
dave
Ah yes! The little Aurasound. Those things are wicked cool.
I created a WinISD Pro model for the NS3-193-8A is anyone's interested:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_ZonE/index.php?topic=2751.0
Seems quite accurate compared to my results with sweep tests on the completed unit.
I did a project with them, but added a helper tweeter:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_ZonE/index.php?topic=2545.0
The NS3 I used has some nasty little peaks above 10K if used FR. If you cross it at 6K, that's the maximum frequency for a simple crossover for taming those nasties. Nothing special about the helper tweeter. One of those ones Steve at Apex Jr. has works fabulous.
If you want a pure FR with no helper tweet in there, perhaps cone treating is the answer.
Cheers!
I created a WinISD Pro model for the NS3-193-8A is anyone's interested:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_ZonE/index.php?topic=2751.0
Seems quite accurate compared to my results with sweep tests on the completed unit.
I did a project with them, but added a helper tweeter:
http://geek.scorpiorising.ca/GeeK_ZonE/index.php?topic=2545.0
The NS3 I used has some nasty little peaks above 10K if used FR. If you cross it at 6K, that's the maximum frequency for a simple crossover for taming those nasties. Nothing special about the helper tweeter. One of those ones Steve at Apex Jr. has works fabulous.
If you want a pure FR with no helper tweet in there, perhaps cone treating is the answer.
Cheers!
Wow Geek! Those are beautiful. I plan on using Aura NT1-204-8D tweeters. The ones Zaph tested recently. What if I stick with 6khz for crossover, but just use a standard linkwitz-riley second order from one of the online calculators for the front NS3 and tweeter and leave the rear NS3 fullrange?
happy.gringo said:
The idea is to roll off the HF nasties on the NS3 (even as small as they are). The Aura tweeter is a nice size, but the huge nasty break-up mode is going to defeat the entire purpose of what Gregg is doing with the tweeter.
I can fairly confidently suggest that the 50 cent tweeter from ApexJr is going to be quite a bit better than the Aura in this application.
dave
I like the look of the NS3 but have not heard it but I own both the B3S and 871S. Is it worth giving up high frequencies for more bass? I started out with the B3S and moved on to the 871S because the Tang Band sounded a bit better. I'm actually using them in the Zaph boxes that I built for the HiVi's and the TB's sounds really good in these cabinets.
Hi,
Thank you much!
I didn't try a L-R crossover. Give it a whirl. I'd be interested in hearing your results!
The standard crossovers are definately easier to design from experience. I tried a series crossover spreadsheet and online calulator.... bah! Breadboard it, sweep it, swap parts, sweep again ad nauseum until it's right
happy.gringo said:
Thank you much!
I didn't try a L-R crossover. Give it a whirl. I'd be interested in hearing your results!
The standard crossovers are definately easier to design from experience. I tried a series crossover spreadsheet and online calulator.... bah! Breadboard it, sweep it, swap parts, sweep again ad nauseum until it's right
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay in responding so I may be out of sequence. I just cannot devote the time to diyaudio.com that some moderators are able to.
In response to my asking about high resolution tests of the NS transducer Dave suggested, Dave suggested the Zaph mini test site.
I do not want this to sound like a criticism. It is not. It is just that, as we all should know, not all testing is the same.
I have tested some of the same transducers as Zaph. Parts Express, during their high resolution days, used their CLIO system to test transducers they sold and that Zaph tested. It appears that Zaph shows only about one-half the magnitude resolution that I or Parts Express used to publish.
Just something to keep in mind when trying to use others' testing to choose a transducer. Also good to realize that Zaph doesn't seem to list transducers that are below average. Every transducer is good or better and usable. Here too, I tend to have higher minimum standards.
As to testimonial standards, there are too many personal testimonials for transducers and loudspeakers on diyaudio.com that I can't even listen to and certainly would not recommend. Just be careful when someone says, "I like the way this sounds" or "This sounds better than that."
I do not know if this helps for this thread, but I subscribe to something called rational choice theory. It is about making informed choices. It is based upon the availability of comparable data.
So, does anyone have high resolution test results of some of the transducers suggested in this thread. If so, would you post it? It might not help, but I cannot see how it would hurt the project.
Best to all,
Mark
Sorry for the delay in responding so I may be out of sequence. I just cannot devote the time to diyaudio.com that some moderators are able to.
In response to my asking about high resolution tests of the NS transducer Dave suggested, Dave suggested the Zaph mini test site.
I do not want this to sound like a criticism. It is not. It is just that, as we all should know, not all testing is the same.
I have tested some of the same transducers as Zaph. Parts Express, during their high resolution days, used their CLIO system to test transducers they sold and that Zaph tested. It appears that Zaph shows only about one-half the magnitude resolution that I or Parts Express used to publish.
Just something to keep in mind when trying to use others' testing to choose a transducer. Also good to realize that Zaph doesn't seem to list transducers that are below average. Every transducer is good or better and usable. Here too, I tend to have higher minimum standards.
As to testimonial standards, there are too many personal testimonials for transducers and loudspeakers on diyaudio.com that I can't even listen to and certainly would not recommend. Just be careful when someone says, "I like the way this sounds" or "This sounds better than that."
I do not know if this helps for this thread, but I subscribe to something called rational choice theory. It is about making informed choices. It is based upon the availability of comparable data.
So, does anyone have high resolution test results of some of the transducers suggested in this thread. If so, would you post it? It might not help, but I cannot see how it would hurt the project.
Best to all,
Mark
I am a supporter of diy. For me, however, that means interdependence and not dependence. With interdependence you have a group of people capable of working independently who choose to work together. In contrast, with dependence, you have many who have to rely upon the few because they are incapable of working independently.
Now, I would prefer many diyaudio members capable of doing their own high resolution testing.
While I may be willing to do some testing for the benefit of bringing rational choice to this thread, if I do, the terms of that testing will be harsh. I only want to commit my billable hours if people are serious.
More details will follow, but what I would be looking at would be sender to pay for and complete shipping labels for both ways. In addition, I would not be responsible for any damage in shipping or testing. Further, without return postage or labels, I just won't be bothered and will do nothing.
I cannot say strongly how much I don't want to do this. If necessary, however, there may be a possibility.
Lastly, a reply to a real old post (number 16) that is a little off topic and this is really for Scott. There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think. If interested, contact me and I may be able to provide references.
Best to all,
Mark
Now, I would prefer many diyaudio members capable of doing their own high resolution testing.
While I may be willing to do some testing for the benefit of bringing rational choice to this thread, if I do, the terms of that testing will be harsh. I only want to commit my billable hours if people are serious.
More details will follow, but what I would be looking at would be sender to pay for and complete shipping labels for both ways. In addition, I would not be responsible for any damage in shipping or testing. Further, without return postage or labels, I just won't be bothered and will do nothing.
I cannot say strongly how much I don't want to do this. If necessary, however, there may be a possibility.
Lastly, a reply to a real old post (number 16) that is a little off topic and this is really for Scott. There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think. If interested, contact me and I may be able to provide references.
Best to all,
Mark
Mark,
"high resolution test results"
What do you mean by high resolution tests? Are you talking about computer based measurements over RS SPL meter measurements?
"There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think."
I am interested in this topic. Can you post or e-mail me a description or reference for this effect?
"high resolution test results"
What do you mean by high resolution tests? Are you talking about computer based measurements over RS SPL meter measurements?
"There is a well documented acoustical/physics property that will interfere with effectively BL loading small diameter transducers. When this is in play, your mathematical (electrical) model may be less accurate than you think."
I am interested in this topic. Can you post or e-mail me a description or reference for this effect?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.