Oh, that is a different TG9 than I was used to seeing from PE. I think the TC9FD is a fine performer above 10kHz - almost as good as a tweeter. Here are my measurements of one in a spiral sealed TL (the Nautaloss Ref Monitor) - basically goes to 18 kHz:
And distortion is basically -50 dB through the range.
And distortion is basically -50 dB through the range.
Last edited:
Here you can download specs for all Peerless/Tymphany full range drivers: Full Range | Tymphany
X; Certainly a lovely response for the paper driver:Spiral Horn seems to have done a great smoothing job. Hope the TABAQ will do the same. I suspect with a lower fs the glass driver may have a stronger back end, if that be the case then a "Back-to-Back TabaQ" (bi-Polar) using both units might be a way to go. Will find out as soon as the builds are complete.
erk; thanks so much for the link, sure came in handy.
Pete
erk; thanks so much for the link, sure came in handy.
Pete
Tabaq BMod
Hi
Just wanted to share info on my own, modified version, of B Johanssens design. This modified version of the widespread standing TabaQ design incorporates some changes to the original design. The changes can be summarized as:
a) These are built in 16mm mdf. Easier to work with, to glue and to put screws in. Less vibrations.
b) The TB 3 inch is replaced by the 4 inch W4-1320 SIF for better all-round capability. The larger cone will lead to some decreased dispersion in the high-frequencies because of the larger cone but this is somewhat handled through the shelving circuit as described below.
c) The loudspeaker cabinet is rotated so that the W4-1320 is placed at the wider side while the port is still to be found at the narrow side. Therefore the port ends up at the side of the loudspeaker and not at the front. This is done by building them mirrored so that both ports face inwards (or outwards). The purpose is to get some more room for the 4 inch W4-1320 and for some additional baffle support. It is also easier to tailor the bass response in your room by aiming the ports from or towards adjacent walls/corners.
d) The loudspeaker leans backward with approx 3dgr. The purpose is to tilt the beaming of high-frequencies upwards towards the listener and also to reduce early hf floor reflections.
e) The shelving circuit is changed with an added MKP capacitor of 4,7 mF in paralell with the other components to enhance the top end of the sound spectrum. Most of the listening is supposed to be done with the speakers turned slightly inwards and therefore off-axis so the cap is needed but it is also due to personal preferences. The baffle step compensation is approx 5db with an Inductance of 1,4 mH (which is of 0,8 mm air core copper to raise QTS). The resistor is 6 ohm (and 10w).
f) The centre of the W4-1320 is placed 20 cm down from the top of the loudspeaker. I could not place it closer to the top due to stability concerns and also due to suppression of resonance.
g) The W4-1320 is placed 1 cm closer (mirrored) to one long side of the speaker (the ported side) to mitigate baffle diffraction.
h) Stuffing is reduced, compared with the original version, due to lower QTS in W4-1320 than in the original TB 3 inch and therefore less need but also due to personal preferences.
pics
https://app.box.com/s/8ro3tlmi88mhbmn1f0ll
kind regards
Bjorn
Hi
Just wanted to share info on my own, modified version, of B Johanssens design. This modified version of the widespread standing TabaQ design incorporates some changes to the original design. The changes can be summarized as:
a) These are built in 16mm mdf. Easier to work with, to glue and to put screws in. Less vibrations.
b) The TB 3 inch is replaced by the 4 inch W4-1320 SIF for better all-round capability. The larger cone will lead to some decreased dispersion in the high-frequencies because of the larger cone but this is somewhat handled through the shelving circuit as described below.
c) The loudspeaker cabinet is rotated so that the W4-1320 is placed at the wider side while the port is still to be found at the narrow side. Therefore the port ends up at the side of the loudspeaker and not at the front. This is done by building them mirrored so that both ports face inwards (or outwards). The purpose is to get some more room for the 4 inch W4-1320 and for some additional baffle support. It is also easier to tailor the bass response in your room by aiming the ports from or towards adjacent walls/corners.
d) The loudspeaker leans backward with approx 3dgr. The purpose is to tilt the beaming of high-frequencies upwards towards the listener and also to reduce early hf floor reflections.
e) The shelving circuit is changed with an added MKP capacitor of 4,7 mF in paralell with the other components to enhance the top end of the sound spectrum. Most of the listening is supposed to be done with the speakers turned slightly inwards and therefore off-axis so the cap is needed but it is also due to personal preferences. The baffle step compensation is approx 5db with an Inductance of 1,4 mH (which is of 0,8 mm air core copper to raise QTS). The resistor is 6 ohm (and 10w).
f) The centre of the W4-1320 is placed 20 cm down from the top of the loudspeaker. I could not place it closer to the top due to stability concerns and also due to suppression of resonance.
g) The W4-1320 is placed 1 cm closer (mirrored) to one long side of the speaker (the ported side) to mitigate baffle diffraction.
h) Stuffing is reduced, compared with the original version, due to lower QTS in W4-1320 than in the original TB 3 inch and therefore less need but also due to personal preferences.
pics
https://app.box.com/s/8ro3tlmi88mhbmn1f0ll
kind regards
Bjorn
Hi Bjorn
Good comments!
I use the 4" TB in my TABAQ and you are right. Stuffing could be reduced to 70g due to the lower Qts. I do preffer the 100g stuffing.
It depends on your room an personal taste.
Please note that you can mount the driver 5 cm higher up without any problems.
Hi from
Bjørn
Good comments!
I use the 4" TB in my TABAQ and you are right. Stuffing could be reduced to 70g due to the lower Qts. I do preffer the 100g stuffing.
It depends on your room an personal taste.
Please note that you can mount the driver 5 cm higher up without any problems.
Hi from
Bjørn
Hello Bjorn and others!
I've build one set of TABAQs with Tang Band W3-593, and they are excellent. Now I'm thinking of building another set with 4" drivers, and I was thinking about the "HiEND" drivers you can find from ebay that are sold per pair. The technical specs are linked as a picture.
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/847/977/096/1096977847_504.jpg
Could someone please simulate if this driver would work in a TABAQ?
Best Regards,
Simo
I've build one set of TABAQs with Tang Band W3-593, and they are excellent. Now I'm thinking of building another set with 4" drivers, and I was thinking about the "HiEND" drivers you can find from ebay that are sold per pair. The technical specs are linked as a picture.
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/847/977/096/1096977847_504.jpg
Could someone please simulate if this driver would work in a TABAQ?
Best Regards,
Simo
Sorry for the double post, but I am really interested in this. Could you please specify what sizes are the cutouts for the boards?
BR,
Simo
With 1mm xmax it wont sound any good in the low frequency range. A datasheet that does not show the manufacturer and model number can not be trusted.
Another Guide Sound unit from the looks of the data sheet.
Re Xmax, a point to remember is that there is no industry standard definition as to what it actually is. There are many different definitions and just as many different ways of putting a number to it, most of which will give different values (sometimes radically different) for the same drive unit. Since very few manufacturers (or 3rd parties for that matter) ever state which they happen to use, its value is at best limited unless you define it yourself, and either electrically or physically disassemble & measure it depending on what method you happen to favour.
Re Xmax, a point to remember is that there is no industry standard definition as to what it actually is. There are many different definitions and just as many different ways of putting a number to it, most of which will give different values (sometimes radically different) for the same drive unit. Since very few manufacturers (or 3rd parties for that matter) ever state which they happen to use, its value is at best limited unless you define it yourself, and either electrically or physically disassemble & measure it depending on what method you happen to favour.
Last edited:
Scottmoose,
I know you have mentioned the lack of standard in stated xmax before. It seems that we need a DIY way to measure this ourselves. Would a good definition of xmax be the maximum cone displacement that a driver achieves while staying below a specified harmonic distortion value? This would have to be HD in a standard test baffle or maybe sealed box of recommended volume based on Vas? I think the alignment can affect a drivers HD but we have to standardize on something.
So measure the freq response and HD at various drive levels and measure the drive level with rms voltmeter. Look at which drive level corresponds to the maximum HD one wants to use to define xmax, say 10% THD or whatever. Then use a precision micrometer dial gauge on a translating stage and measure the rest position of the dust cap and back it off and slowly back it in while applying the same drive voltage at the freq where the HD was greatest and of interest. Of course the driver and dial gauge need to be firmly mounted to be accurate to 0.1mm accuracy.
So there appears to be the question of what freq is one interested in for the xmax measurement and what levels of HD should be used. We know HD typically starts to rise below a drivers fs as drive voltage goes up. Maybe 0.7x fs can be used to define freq to look at HD and hence define xmax.
What freq and HD levels would you use to define xmax?
I know you have mentioned the lack of standard in stated xmax before. It seems that we need a DIY way to measure this ourselves. Would a good definition of xmax be the maximum cone displacement that a driver achieves while staying below a specified harmonic distortion value? This would have to be HD in a standard test baffle or maybe sealed box of recommended volume based on Vas? I think the alignment can affect a drivers HD but we have to standardize on something.
So measure the freq response and HD at various drive levels and measure the drive level with rms voltmeter. Look at which drive level corresponds to the maximum HD one wants to use to define xmax, say 10% THD or whatever. Then use a precision micrometer dial gauge on a translating stage and measure the rest position of the dust cap and back it off and slowly back it in while applying the same drive voltage at the freq where the HD was greatest and of interest. Of course the driver and dial gauge need to be firmly mounted to be accurate to 0.1mm accuracy.
So there appears to be the question of what freq is one interested in for the xmax measurement and what levels of HD should be used. We know HD typically starts to rise below a drivers fs as drive voltage goes up. Maybe 0.7x fs can be used to define freq to look at HD and hence define xmax.
What freq and HD levels would you use to define xmax?
There's unlikely to be much consensus on this, so my views aren't worth the print on a £1 bank note. I'm basically rather wary about what is always going to be a fairly arbitrary figure, so out of preference I'd go with Gander's physical measure (take absolute value of the magnetic gap height - VC winding height & /2) since it's a quick & dirty method that is constant across all units & doesn't get bogged down in the minefield that crops up if distortion is used as a baseline. But in many cases, it's not practical for end users to take those physical measurements.
Assuming a fixed level of distortion is going to be baseline, with electrodes to testicles I'd in the abstract probably set a 10% threshold. Either a fixed point below Fs or within the driver's actual operating BW. But that's several large cans of worms. What distortion? THD is the obvious one, but it doesn't tell you much of value unless you get 2nd - 5th (as a minimum) provided separately since not all distortion is created equal. So you could pick whichever is highest at that point, but without stating which it is, again, it's not necessarily all that valuable & consistency goes out the window. Then you hit a few more issues. We can put a number to it, but it doesn't necessarily hold that all is sunlight & roses below that point, and the skies fall in above it. How badly distortion increases depends on motor & suspension design. And so on.
Can you tell I don't much like Xmax sans additional data?
Give me a proper set of distortion measurements any day. As a simple number, Xmech might be more useful since it's a fixed point of maximum travel.
Assuming a fixed level of distortion is going to be baseline, with electrodes to testicles I'd in the abstract probably set a 10% threshold. Either a fixed point below Fs or within the driver's actual operating BW. But that's several large cans of worms. What distortion? THD is the obvious one, but it doesn't tell you much of value unless you get 2nd - 5th (as a minimum) provided separately since not all distortion is created equal. So you could pick whichever is highest at that point, but without stating which it is, again, it's not necessarily all that valuable & consistency goes out the window. Then you hit a few more issues. We can put a number to it, but it doesn't necessarily hold that all is sunlight & roses below that point, and the skies fall in above it. How badly distortion increases depends on motor & suspension design. And so on.
Can you tell I don't much like Xmax sans additional data?
Give me a proper set of distortion measurements any day. As a simple number, Xmech might be more useful since it's a fixed point of maximum travel.
I like the xmechanical - because that lets me design to keep the driver from being blown up - the distortion one gets is dependent on volume drive level and that can be adjusted to suit taste and needs. I have only seen a couple of manufacturers give xmechanical - mostly PA drivers where people are concerned about blown drivers due to over driving.
I may make the measurement myself out of curiosity to see what xmax of 2.5 mm on a TC9FD corresponds to in HD. Maybe one should use 3rd order HD as that is more egregious? I know at moderate drive levels of 70 to 75 dB I get -35dB THD down to 55 Hz.
I may make the measurement myself out of curiosity to see what xmax of 2.5 mm on a TC9FD corresponds to in HD. Maybe one should use 3rd order HD as that is more egregious? I know at moderate drive levels of 70 to 75 dB I get -35dB THD down to 55 Hz.
Of 2nd or 3rd, I'd agree the latter is more likely to offend than the former, so that'd be the one I'd pick. An arbitrary choice, but one that I suspect most would consider fairly reasonable, even if they don't necessarily agree. Some do prefer it of course though, so we can't really 'win' on that score! Higher orders = a big issue, but are more likely to be at lower levels, at least for these purposes. (Just watch the exceptions come rolling in now... )
)Vifa TG9WD-10-08
I am more than a bit confused with the Vifa/Peerless driver options and which is recommended. I found this discontinued one available at a good price and the fs is 87hz.
http://www.tymphany.com/files/resources/dvifa/TG9WD-10-08.pdf
How would this one do in the TABAQ or is it better to stick to a current model? Thanks!
I am more than a bit confused with the Vifa/Peerless driver options and which is recommended. I found this discontinued one available at a good price and the fs is 87hz.
http://www.tymphany.com/files/resources/dvifa/TG9WD-10-08.pdf
How would this one do in the TABAQ or is it better to stick to a current model? Thanks!
Hi giantstairs
Several 3 and 4 inch drivers are doing well in TABAQ. I have simmed a lot of drivers and have tested several. I know which one I would label the best small driver, but that is a "trade secret"
My own TABAQ speakers are now mounted with Tang Band 4 inch bamboo drivers 1320SA, and I am very pleased with these. I use the BSC filter and the original stuffing.
I would try any good quality driver, using these rules of thumbs.
3 inch driver should have a Qts around 0.5 or higher and Fs not higher than 100 Hz.
4 inch driver should have a Qts around 0.4 - 0.35 and Fs not higher than 75 Hz.
Please note the driver can be mounted 5 cm higher than the original drawing. A 4 inch driver can do with 70 gram stuffing instead of 100 gram if you prefer. It is a matter of your personal taste.
Hi from
Bjørn
Several 3 and 4 inch drivers are doing well in TABAQ. I have simmed a lot of drivers and have tested several. I know which one I would label the best small driver, but that is a "trade secret"
My own TABAQ speakers are now mounted with Tang Band 4 inch bamboo drivers 1320SA, and I am very pleased with these. I use the BSC filter and the original stuffing.
I would try any good quality driver, using these rules of thumbs.
3 inch driver should have a Qts around 0.5 or higher and Fs not higher than 100 Hz.
4 inch driver should have a Qts around 0.4 - 0.35 and Fs not higher than 75 Hz.
Please note the driver can be mounted 5 cm higher than the original drawing. A 4 inch driver can do with 70 gram stuffing instead of 100 gram if you prefer. It is a matter of your personal taste.
Hi from
Bjørn
Hi Scott
It is picked based on listening tests. And of course there will be drivers just as good or better. But at some point you have to make a choice. Driver replacement will always be an option but terms and conditions are important parameters as well.
Of course this is not a party speaker but has all the well known properties known from TABAQ.
At the moment we are improving the look of the foot and top.
Hi from
Bjørn
It is picked based on listening tests. And of course there will be drivers just as good or better. But at some point you have to make a choice. Driver replacement will always be an option but terms and conditions are important parameters as well.
Of course this is not a party speaker but has all the well known properties known from TABAQ.
At the moment we are improving the look of the foot and top.
Hi from
Bjørn