GM said:
Hi GM,
Roughly like this?
With diminishing returns being what they are, is this actually better sounding than if the same design were allowed to be twice as big? Is that why it's quite this small, or was the objective to see how tiny you can get it? Really, this is an amazing achievement, but it's OK if it were not quite as small if that could achieve anything in sound.
-jerry
Attachments
VanJerry said:
Hi VanJerry, I think that's because it's so easy to mate a FR to a big woofer (and it can even be pretty cheap, too.)
However, I totally appreciate your quest for minimalism! At my house, we're also on a minimalist quest, having ripped out the whole system, to be replaced by in-wall speakers for home theater, freeing up some room for horns for two-channel. I wish you success, sir!
VanJerry said:
Greets!
Right, though again my brace/'foot' went all the way to the top to 'kill three birds with one stone' (I hate to do any more woodworking than absolutely necessary).
Well, we've relieved it of the majority of the high excursion BW, so don't need much acoustic efficiency, especially with such a low mass corner (2*Fs/Qts = ~149.3 Hz which will be lower in use), i.e. the cab's BW is < an octave wide.
That said, until the cab is at least as big as its Vas, bigger is better (BIB) rules for the most part, so in a side by side comparison the larger one will in theory sound slightly more 'full'/'relaxed', though impulse response actually degrades a bit due to the cab not controlling the driver quite as much (weaker air spring) and why I gave you the smallest practical version for a ~80 Hz XO point. Personally, the former outweighs the latter until it becomes audibly under-damped, but as always YMMV.
Anyway, doubling the two areas at the same length makes whatever the smaller one's width, depth dims 1.4142x larger = ~4.066 ft^3.
GM
VanJerry said:
This has been my situation for ~eight years now and there's others here and other forums also with the only difference being I wasn't anywhere near the technical 'newbie' status of most folks who gravitate to the various forums.
There is, or at least use to be, but I don't know if DC Gold is still offering the late (Babb) Loreleis. In a 1 ft^3 sealed cab it's nominally flat from ~ 40-20+ kHz with a ~24 Hz Fs, so with a bit of room gain will have no trouble getting down to 20 Hz with authority at loud enough levels at low enough distortion to outperform Jim Griffin's original ~'infinite' Linus Array in a fairly large Hotel conference room. They probably could have drowned them out, but we only had JG's 250 W amp available whereas Alan (Babb) said he'd reliably tested them with 400 W.
Amazing what a compression loaded ~5.25" can do with a 1.2" Xmax and tiny Vas.
Not that it matters though since you claim not to be able to ante up its relatively high 'entrance fee'. GM
GM said:
So, you understand...
GM said:There is, or at least use to be, but I don't know if DC Gold is still offering the late (Babb) Loreleis. In a 1 ft^3 sealed cab it's nominally flat from ~ 40-20+ kHz with a ~24 Hz Fs, so with a bit of room gain will have no trouble getting down to 20 Hz with authority at loud enough levels at low enough distortion to outperform Jim Griffin's original ~'infinite' Linus Array in a fairly large Hotel conference room. They probably could have drowned them out, but we only had JG's 250 W amp available whereas Alan (Babb) said he'd reliably tested them with 400 W.
Amazing what a compression loaded ~5.25" can do with a 1.2" Xmax and tiny Vas.
GM
WOW GM!!
I need to do some deep reading elsewhere but I just read everything on dcgoldaudio.com and their Reference Neo beryllium models look fantastic. No TS parameters but these are designed for high end marine so they have low VAS and if the BABB Lorelei is any indication: large Xmax.
And critically, these are affordable versions of those very expensive drivers I knew were beyond reach. I can swing $430 - $475 per pair for a larger 6x9", 7" or 9.5" - that leaves me enough for a timbre matched Reference center and 5" surrounds as well (maybe Classics.)
David from DC Gold:
The Lorelei is on the shelf while being re-designed. They were expecting end '07 so I can tell I shouldn't be counting on that one for a bit yet. But there's all those larger models anyway! Designed for impulse and dynamics at low VAS! This could be the ticket for an ideal single driver HT solution.
Reference Models:
Use aluminum/beryllium cones and vented neodymium magnets
N69R: The 6 X 9 size breaks up cone resonance. 35 - 20 KHz +/- 3 dB 93db
N7R: Utilizes a new open cast aluminum basket. 40 - 20 KHz +/- 3 dB 93db
N9.5R: 35 - 17 KHz +/- 3 dB 95db
The company describes how they used to use Gold Ribbon, Manger, Dynaudio, etc but wanted to do better. Currently built in the USA, they have no spider, use ferrofluid and:
What d'ya think?
-Jerry
I could not find any detailed specs presented for any of the drivers. There are no measured impedance or SPL response plots for any of the drivers. There are only a minimal number of words describing a couple of the key parameters. They may be everything they claim to be, but without any real information presented you would be taking a hige risk spending that kind of money on an unknown driver. Manufacturer's specs should be taken with a grain of salt, it is very hard to tell which are accurate without measuring the driver yourself.
How would you design an enclosure based on the information provided on the DC Gold site?
Also, I believe the prices I saw on the site were per driver.
I think it's per pair -certainly for the classics at any rate, but the text isn't particularly clear in the reference line, so it'd need confirming.
It's a heck of a punt to take without any parameters or performance graphs though. Pity the Lorelei's are no longer around -that was a pretty impressive unit by all accounts.
It's a heck of a punt to take without any parameters or performance graphs though. Pity the Lorelei's are no longer around -that was a pretty impressive unit by all accounts.
Hi MJK and Scottmoose,
I understand and appreciate your concerns in this case.
Yes, at least for the N9.5R, N69R and the N4R the prices are per pair.
I'm doing my due diligence with the business and I am emailing David at DC Gold for the specs. I'm not any much less comfortable not having them. And I knew I could not expect any specific assistance from the forum without them.
However, after all the patience you've expended on my newbie behalf thus far, you'll be relieved that being high end marine they are designed for small simple sealed cabinets. In fact, tiny.
In their recent newsletter colorful Norh seems to feel that they are powerful for bass and that the F9.5 can be used to effectively displace a subwoofer in a large nightclub:
http://www.norh.com/news.html
-jerry
I understand and appreciate your concerns in this case.
Yes, at least for the N9.5R, N69R and the N4R the prices are per pair.
I'm doing my due diligence with the business and I am emailing David at DC Gold for the specs. I'm not any much less comfortable not having them. And I knew I could not expect any specific assistance from the forum without them.
However, after all the patience you've expended on my newbie behalf thus far, you'll be relieved that being high end marine they are designed for small simple sealed cabinets. In fact, tiny.
In their recent newsletter colorful Norh seems to feel that they are powerful for bass and that the F9.5 can be used to effectively displace a subwoofer in a large nightclub:
http://www.norh.com/news.html
-jerry
Scott,
Add one to the cart and then recheck the price and quantity. I might be mistaken but it looks like a per driver pricing system. If that is the case, you need to double the cost for a pair.
VanJerry,
I have watched you follow up on a lot of different driver and enclosure recommendations. It must be getting a little frustrating trying to keep track of all the good recommendations and then trying to decide which one will meet your requirements best. It makes my head hurt, I can see option paralysis setting in at some point. So I am going to outline my thinking and make a recommendation, you can take it or leave it as you wish.
1) You have a fairly small room. I doubt you want speakers so big that they dominate everything else in the room. Personally I have that same situation, my big two channel OBs are great but they are killing my ability to change things around and try other speakers in my system. So they will be replaced in the next month with something smaller and hopefully better. If you want 5 channel HT, I am not sure a large set of enclosures make sense.
2) You have a sub which relieves the requirement for producing bass below 100Hz. This really frees up a lot of options, you don't need your full range driver system to cover the deepest bass. I think this will enhance the final performance, the mids and highs will be better and can play more accurately without the need to superimpose bass output using the same cone. This also eliminates the requirement for a large full range driver.
Following that logic, my recommendation is to use a Fostex FE-167E six inch full range driver. It has a great midrange and does a decent job of the high frequencies. An eight inch driver will add more bass at the expense of high frequencies, with a sub I don't think that an eight inch driver is the best match. The FE-167E can be used in a moderately sized enclosure and will play beautifully at lower volume levels, it is a very flexible driver when it comes to enclosure options and amplifiers. If you put it in a sealed enclosure you probably can tune it to naturally roll-off and acoustically cross over to your sub. If it is against a wall or in a corner you might eliminate the need for any BSC filter so that you have the ultimate (according to the purists) full range configuration, amp to wire to driver. If you put it in a ported enclosure or TL, then you can get bass to 40 Hz and for some situations enjoy it without the sub even being turned on. A smaller driver will not do this as well hence I don't recommend one of the four inch Fostex drivers. Enclosure size and placement is more compatible with your room with the FE-167E driver. A bigger or smaller driver just does not make much sense to me given your room and the sub.
Bottom line for the Fostex FE-167E :
Well known and widely used driver.
Cost and enclosure size effective.
Simple and high performance enclosure designs.
Works well with a SS or tube amp.
Minimal risk of failure.
It is very easy to get bogged down in all of the options and potential trade-offs. At some point you just need to jump in and make something. I really think that the FE-167E would be an excellent starting point.
Add one to the cart and then recheck the price and quantity. I might be mistaken but it looks like a per driver pricing system. If that is the case, you need to double the cost for a pair.
VanJerry,
I have watched you follow up on a lot of different driver and enclosure recommendations. It must be getting a little frustrating trying to keep track of all the good recommendations and then trying to decide which one will meet your requirements best. It makes my head hurt, I can see option paralysis setting in at some point. So I am going to outline my thinking and make a recommendation, you can take it or leave it as you wish.
1) You have a fairly small room. I doubt you want speakers so big that they dominate everything else in the room. Personally I have that same situation, my big two channel OBs are great but they are killing my ability to change things around and try other speakers in my system. So they will be replaced in the next month with something smaller and hopefully better. If you want 5 channel HT, I am not sure a large set of enclosures make sense.
2) You have a sub which relieves the requirement for producing bass below 100Hz. This really frees up a lot of options, you don't need your full range driver system to cover the deepest bass. I think this will enhance the final performance, the mids and highs will be better and can play more accurately without the need to superimpose bass output using the same cone. This also eliminates the requirement for a large full range driver.
Following that logic, my recommendation is to use a Fostex FE-167E six inch full range driver. It has a great midrange and does a decent job of the high frequencies. An eight inch driver will add more bass at the expense of high frequencies, with a sub I don't think that an eight inch driver is the best match. The FE-167E can be used in a moderately sized enclosure and will play beautifully at lower volume levels, it is a very flexible driver when it comes to enclosure options and amplifiers. If you put it in a sealed enclosure you probably can tune it to naturally roll-off and acoustically cross over to your sub. If it is against a wall or in a corner you might eliminate the need for any BSC filter so that you have the ultimate (according to the purists) full range configuration, amp to wire to driver. If you put it in a ported enclosure or TL, then you can get bass to 40 Hz and for some situations enjoy it without the sub even being turned on. A smaller driver will not do this as well hence I don't recommend one of the four inch Fostex drivers. Enclosure size and placement is more compatible with your room with the FE-167E driver. A bigger or smaller driver just does not make much sense to me given your room and the sub.
Bottom line for the Fostex FE-167E :
Well known and widely used driver.
Cost and enclosure size effective.
Simple and high performance enclosure designs.
Works well with a SS or tube amp.
Minimal risk of failure.
It is very easy to get bogged down in all of the options and potential trade-offs. At some point you just need to jump in and make something. I really think that the FE-167E would be an excellent starting point.
MJK said:
Large cabs, no, large drivers, yes since as I previously noted the smaller drivers (including the 167) don't have enough directivity down low to properly do HT except in a very small one (close viewing distance) and virtually all 'FR' drivers have too much up high, so a super tweeter 'kills two birds with one stone', filling in the large driver's weak top end and providing a better off axis power response up high. The fact that the vast majority of speaker systems marketed as HT compatible doesn't meet this basic requirement doesn't mean we DIYers should just dismiss it out of hand IMO.
GM
VanJerry said:
For two channel music, could be if their redesign doesn't change its basic layout and they increase its directivity and smooth out its HF ringing, otherwise you'll need a padded cell to reduce reflections since the demo pair I auditioned sprays sound everywhere and has a high Q resonance that makes my teeth hurt. It would make a good corner loaded mono system down into the nether regions with a bit of EQ though.
WRT Be Vs Alum., any audible performance differences have been debated ever since TAD introduced its Be compression driver and at best it's considered a marginal improvement, so considering this is a horn loaded one that will amplify any difference far more than any direct radiator can, I'm skeptical of its costly benefits.
As always though, YMMV.
GM
VanJerry said:
Hi GM,
I'm a bit confused.
(...uh...)
I mean I'm a bit more confused than usual...
I'm not trying to cross-examine you but - this below says to me: 'yes there is' and it's pretty cool...
GM said:There is, or at least use to be, but I don't know if DC Gold is still offering the late (Babb) Loreleis. In a 1 ft^3 sealed cab it's nominally flat from ~ 40-20+ kHz with a ~24 Hz Fs, so with a bit of room gain will have no trouble getting down to 20 Hz with authority at loud enough levels at low enough distortion to outperform Jim Griffin's original ~'infinite' Linus Array in a fairly large Hotel conference room. They probably could have drowned them out, but we only had JG's 250 W amp available whereas Alan (Babb) said he'd reliably tested them with 400 W.
Amazing what a compression loaded ~5.25" can do with a 1.2" Xmax and tiny Vas.
GM
And this says to me: 'not' - in fact it's just so full of problems its unlistenable...
GM said:
But the Loreleis is an old Babb model. And a small one.
...Is there anything in Dmason's description of the latest 7" I quoted from his audiocircle post in my post#169 above to indicate there may be change from your earlier experience? Was the Loreleis a no spider design? Did it have a grill? Those grills are intended for outdoor use only where if they sprayed there would be less to bounce off of.
And... you're talking about your experience with the small driver. Might the 6x9 shape not break up cone resonance. Might the 9.5 not be smoother and spray less?
I need to get the Qts from these people...
-jerry
Greets!
What I didn't think to point out is that Alan didn't want to increase its directivity because his principal Lorelei market was high end (well damped) HT with them mounted in the walls, hence the ultra wide power response.
For HIFI and the vast majority of HT apps it needs greater directivity.
Hopefully this brings your confusion factor back to its status quo.
Right, no spider, hence the potential for a long Xmax and all Babbs AFAIK came with a grill cum phase plug to get the wide power response and in at the Lorelei's case it wasn't removable. Indeed, its design/construction didn't allow it to be re-coned. Fortunately, as best I could tell it was designed/built to outlast the Energizer Bunny.........
WRT Babb (old) style drivers in general, they were a bit harsh, though being designed for car audio/marine apps, this was OK, but HIFI, not so much without serious room treatment, so it'll be interesting to see if they can make them the best of all three 'worlds'.
I like oblong drivers and believe their pluses far outweigh their downside, but for serious HIFI you'll have to have a very linear suspension to make them work, so historically its excursion must be kept low. With today's CAE, etc. systems combined with the rapid advance of materials/manufacturing technologies in recent decades I imagine this issue has been resolved.
GM
What I didn't think to point out is that Alan didn't want to increase its directivity because his principal Lorelei market was high end (well damped) HT with them mounted in the walls, hence the ultra wide power response.
For HIFI and the vast majority of HT apps it needs greater directivity.
Hopefully this brings your confusion factor back to its status quo.
Right, no spider, hence the potential for a long Xmax and all Babbs AFAIK came with a grill cum phase plug to get the wide power response and in at the Lorelei's case it wasn't removable. Indeed, its design/construction didn't allow it to be re-coned. Fortunately, as best I could tell it was designed/built to outlast the Energizer Bunny.........
WRT Babb (old) style drivers in general, they were a bit harsh, though being designed for car audio/marine apps, this was OK, but HIFI, not so much without serious room treatment, so it'll be interesting to see if they can make them the best of all three 'worlds'.
I like oblong drivers and believe their pluses far outweigh their downside, but for serious HIFI you'll have to have a very linear suspension to make them work, so historically its excursion must be kept low. With today's CAE, etc. systems combined with the rapid advance of materials/manufacturing technologies in recent decades I imagine this issue has been resolved.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.