Gerroffit
Dave,
<<The "need" to keep turning a system up to make it sound right is a big symptom of lack of DDR.>>
You´re preaching to the deaf when trying to sell what you´re building.
Boxes nowadays have to be postcard sized, cost less than 50 in any money and do a grand orchestra at pedal-to-the-metal SPL.
Back to the drawing board, old boy.
Dave,
<<The "need" to keep turning a system up to make it sound right is a big symptom of lack of DDR.>>
You´re preaching to the deaf when trying to sell what you´re building.
Boxes nowadays have to be postcard sized, cost less than 50 in any money and do a grand orchestra at pedal-to-the-metal SPL.
Back to the drawing board, old boy.
Right -- Parts express. Specs off of my pair of 1772's are reasonably close. I doubt that you will get a true mached pair unless you buy a dozen or so and do your own matching.
Bob
hi im lost here.
The A12 is a 8 inch right? not a 6.5?
EDIT: Ive got my answer. its a 6.5 inch
I have a question then. Im looking at 8 inch FR because I want as more puch in the kick drum department: 80-120 hz. would the A12 delivers that?
What do you prefer from the A12 compare to the W8-1772?
Last edited:
can anyone confirm? I have received contradictory information. Im going for a 8inch FR especially because I want to get the best bass possible...
for example completely contradictory then you planet 10 seem to say that the A12 is a better driver all around but may be less good then the tang band in the bass department.
In fact your the first to tell me that the bass of the tang band might be poorer then the A12...
I have had all 3, W8 1808, W8-1772, A12. A12 has more finesse and DDR and higher build quality (by just a bit on the latter). TB with bigger cone should go lower with more impact (between A10.2 & A12, A10.2 actually goes lower). And now that the price of neo magneted drivers has really messed with the value for the dollar, that pushes things even more in favour of A12.
Bit if you want really solid bass that goes low you need helper woofers, and let the FR do what it does best. Going to a FR that gets more & lower in the LF has you giving up mid & top end finesse.
dave
Well, if you bother to sim them, then on paper, using published specs the W8-1772 is the clear winner in the mid-bass with the A12 holding up a bit better below either driver's Fs, so theoretically will have more protection against bottoming out due to its greater Xmax. The W8 OTOH appears to have a somewhat rising rate suspension and claims an under-hung motor, so will probably just flatten out/extend the lowest octaves [euphonic harmonic distortion] and roll off quicker as the VC leaves the gap like is typical with vintage HE drivers, making it my choice if mid-bass performance was the tie breaker.
Regardless, neither is going to give you any appreciable kick drum 'punch' unless either BLH or Karlson loaded, otherwise you'll need another 10 -12 dB on top of the W8's peak output to thump your chest and what the HE 15" co-ax studio monitor units [$$$] are for.
edit: Seems to me I read somewhere that MA drivers shouldn't be compression loaded, so this leaves the TB as the only viable single driver option of the two.
GM
Last edited:
>>> I think w8 1772 should have been made with less xmax
The 1808 does seem to move in and out a lot more than some of the other drivers i have on hand and their surround is a very thin material. Makes me nervous to push them. And they do seem more delicate than the other drivers too. I'd imagine Lowther, Feastrex and other expensive fullrangers all have that delicate feel/appearance.
Fred, did you blow one?
The 1808 does seem to move in and out a lot more than some of the other drivers i have on hand and their surround is a very thin material. Makes me nervous to push them. And they do seem more delicate than the other drivers too. I'd imagine Lowther, Feastrex and other expensive fullrangers all have that delicate feel/appearance.
Fred, did you blow one?
no -Zilla - I ain't popped a 1772 - its added xmax really doesn't do anything useful in a Karlson vs FE206EN and tends to overshoot quicker than the Fostex. 1772 could have been designed with a bit more sensitivity - whether that would sound worse = ? does 1808 give up any sensitivity vs W8 1772? A good 8" speaker system should play a decent lower pitched drum to sound something like "real"
So.. over this past summer (7 months ago) I built some open baffles with the 1808's on the top and some of Dayton's 15" subs on the bottom.. I'm using the good daytons.. don't remember off the top of my head... HF or something...
Anyway I'll post some pictures later... but the top and bottom are separate pieces... 1808's are in a 24" baffle that's shaped kind of like this (top view) \_/ and the woofers are in an "H" frame... it's going through a minidsp to two separate amps... 200wpc (probably 300w for the 4ohms though) to the woofers and about 70wpc for the 1808's....
Crossover is at 180hz..
It sounds awesome.... I've got it tuned to nearly flat with a little high end roll off... (the woofers have the most changes in the dsp.. 1808's are almost left alone)...
Anyway I'll post some pictures later... but the top and bottom are separate pieces... 1808's are in a 24" baffle that's shaped kind of like this (top view) \_/ and the woofers are in an "H" frame... it's going through a minidsp to two separate amps... 200wpc (probably 300w for the 4ohms though) to the woofers and about 70wpc for the 1808's....
Crossover is at 180hz..
It sounds awesome.... I've got it tuned to nearly flat with a little high end roll off... (the woofers have the most changes in the dsp.. 1808's are almost left alone)...
Interesting thread.
I've been keeping my eye on the 1772 and 1808 for a while now, waiting until I have a bit of spare cash to buy a pair, hoping to finally find a modern driver to fill a similar role to my Coral Flat 8 II's, (terrific drivers, but can't get any more to build new projects...) and having been mightily disappointed a few years ago with the FE206E/FE207E as possible substitutes, I'm understandably cautious. (Anyone want a barely used pair of FE207E ?
)
However although I'm happy with what I've seen and read about these two Tang band drivers, I can't decide between the 1772 and the 1808.
At first glance the difference appears to be just the motor design (high sensitivity low Q vs low sensitivity high Q) with the same cone design used - much like the difference between an FE206E and an FE207E, however closer inspection of the frequency response and impedance curves suggests that the cones are not the same as there are significant differences in the response from 1Khz upwards. (Quoted moving mass is also different)
I'm not talking about one having more of an upwards sloping treble than the other, I'm talking about significant bumps in dips in the response being at different frequencies between the two models, suggesting differences in cone damping/treatment.
I have a number of potential different applications in mind depending on the actual measured performance of the drivers - true full range in a bass reflex, 2 way bass reflex with a ribbon tweeter and fairly high crossover point, and wide range high sensitivity midrange driver in a small (approx 10 litre) sealed midrange enclosure as part of a large multi-way system. (covering about 250Hz to 4Khz)
Obviously the low Q 1772 isn't that well suited to a bass reflex design unless you can accept a rather small box with a very high cut-off frequency, meaning that for any of the bass reflex designs the 1808 is probably the only choice. I also notice the 1808 has a 5mm xmax while the 1772 is 3mm. (Mind you the Coral's are only about 3mm and produce surprisingly good bass)
I don't intend to be making any backloaded horns, so the only potential use for the 1772 for me might be in the wide range midrange driver application where it would be in a 10 litre sealed enclosure and crossed over at 250Hz to a woofer. (With the lower Q model having less peaking at its fundamental resonance in the small enclosure, perhaps avoiding the need for an RLC resonance compensator in the crossover ?)
For the wide range midrange driver application excursion isn't as much of an issue and smoothness of the midrange and in particular the upper midrange is of paramount importance, and it's here that the 1772 looks a bit smoother than the 1808 based on the spec sheets, but is this really the case or are we just seeing unit to unit variations in the measurements ?
My current Coral drivers have T/S parameters that more closely match the 1808 than the 1772, and are currently in a 45 litre box tuned to 43Hz, giving an early gradual roll off response that is about 6dB down at 40Hz not counting room gain. SIM's for the 1808 don't look as favourable as the Coral driver with a bit less extension and sensitivity for the same box size, but are within the same ball park.
So is there anyone who has both the 1772 and 1808 who has measured their response, or can comment on the relative smoothness of the midrange of the two models ? Are the cones identical or are there subtle differences ? How about the surround ? Do they both have low inductance copper shorting rings ? What is different about the motor design, other than the field strength and gap height ?
For maximum versatility the 1808 seems to be the better choice, has greater xmax, and is still about the same sensitivity as my Coral's, (well, 1dB less) but if the midrange is not as smooth as the 1772 then I'm a little bit torn.
If they're as good as they appear to be I'll probably build more than one of the above projects eventually.
Any suggestions ? I can't really afford a pair of both models at the moment.
I've been keeping my eye on the 1772 and 1808 for a while now, waiting until I have a bit of spare cash to buy a pair, hoping to finally find a modern driver to fill a similar role to my Coral Flat 8 II's, (terrific drivers, but can't get any more to build new projects...) and having been mightily disappointed a few years ago with the FE206E/FE207E as possible substitutes, I'm understandably cautious. (Anyone want a barely used pair of FE207E ?
)However although I'm happy with what I've seen and read about these two Tang band drivers, I can't decide between the 1772 and the 1808.
At first glance the difference appears to be just the motor design (high sensitivity low Q vs low sensitivity high Q) with the same cone design used - much like the difference between an FE206E and an FE207E, however closer inspection of the frequency response and impedance curves suggests that the cones are not the same as there are significant differences in the response from 1Khz upwards. (Quoted moving mass is also different)
I'm not talking about one having more of an upwards sloping treble than the other, I'm talking about significant bumps in dips in the response being at different frequencies between the two models, suggesting differences in cone damping/treatment.
I have a number of potential different applications in mind depending on the actual measured performance of the drivers - true full range in a bass reflex, 2 way bass reflex with a ribbon tweeter and fairly high crossover point, and wide range high sensitivity midrange driver in a small (approx 10 litre) sealed midrange enclosure as part of a large multi-way system. (covering about 250Hz to 4Khz)
Obviously the low Q 1772 isn't that well suited to a bass reflex design unless you can accept a rather small box with a very high cut-off frequency, meaning that for any of the bass reflex designs the 1808 is probably the only choice. I also notice the 1808 has a 5mm xmax while the 1772 is 3mm. (Mind you the Coral's are only about 3mm and produce surprisingly good bass)
I don't intend to be making any backloaded horns, so the only potential use for the 1772 for me might be in the wide range midrange driver application where it would be in a 10 litre sealed enclosure and crossed over at 250Hz to a woofer. (With the lower Q model having less peaking at its fundamental resonance in the small enclosure, perhaps avoiding the need for an RLC resonance compensator in the crossover ?)
For the wide range midrange driver application excursion isn't as much of an issue and smoothness of the midrange and in particular the upper midrange is of paramount importance, and it's here that the 1772 looks a bit smoother than the 1808 based on the spec sheets, but is this really the case or are we just seeing unit to unit variations in the measurements ?
My current Coral drivers have T/S parameters that more closely match the 1808 than the 1772, and are currently in a 45 litre box tuned to 43Hz, giving an early gradual roll off response that is about 6dB down at 40Hz not counting room gain. SIM's for the 1808 don't look as favourable as the Coral driver with a bit less extension and sensitivity for the same box size, but are within the same ball park.
So is there anyone who has both the 1772 and 1808 who has measured their response, or can comment on the relative smoothness of the midrange of the two models ? Are the cones identical or are there subtle differences ? How about the surround ? Do they both have low inductance copper shorting rings ? What is different about the motor design, other than the field strength and gap height ?
For maximum versatility the 1808 seems to be the better choice, has greater xmax, and is still about the same sensitivity as my Coral's, (well, 1dB less) but if the midrange is not as smooth as the 1772 then I'm a little bit torn.
If they're as good as they appear to be I'll probably build more than one of the above projects eventually.
Any suggestions ? I can't really afford a pair of both models at the moment.
Last edited:
P10 has both and prefers the 1808 I only have the 1772 because it is more suited to the type cabinets I build. The 1772 works very well in a 45L BR. I did a MLTL design for a fellow. He reports that it worked out, but it was 48" tall and 100L -- too big for what I do. My MLTL for the 1772 is 40" tall and 65L.
It seems that a lot of the 1808 implementations are OB. I don't do OB, not yet anyway, but I can't wrap my head around using a large driver OB. I think that a small driver and sub are the way to go. I am going to put my toe in that pool soon. I just received the drivers for a pair of 18" H-frames and I will probably use the Alpair 7.x on top.
Bob
It seems that a lot of the 1808 implementations are OB. I don't do OB, not yet anyway, but I can't wrap my head around using a large driver OB. I think that a small driver and sub are the way to go. I am going to put my toe in that pool soon. I just received the drivers for a pair of 18" H-frames and I will probably use the Alpair 7.x on top.
Bob
Go for it. Snag some 1808's. Plenty smooth in the midrange and flexible. (open baffle, bass reflex, mltl)
The 1808 is incredibly revealing of micro detail in recordings. Even more so than some of the smaller Fostex drivers I own, which is surprising, being an 8 inch driver.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.