Qts can be tuned low by very soft suspension and the low fs it causes.
Which would make a perfect hifi woofer for closed box design
So, it's possible that a driver with higher Q has a stronger motor than a driver with lower Q.
I dont think that will be by such a large margin as you imply
In some horn related articles, we can read the same driver recommendation -- low Q + high fs. This more or less guarentee a strong motor.
And where does mms fit in ?
Isnt that only partly true
You are leaving out many variables
Last edited:
Sorry, I know this isnt the right thread for this, but anyway
CLS, this woofer is the only one I know that may fit your theory with soft suspension, low Fs, low Qts, yet have a weak looking magnet
Mind you, the size of a magnet doesnt tell the whole story
Different kinds of magnet quality
Magnet/motor designs can be magnetized to differnt levels, achieving any Qts, within limits ofcourse
http://www.monacor.dk/produkter/hoejttalerenheder-hifi10-12/vnr/101350/
This German 10" is by some regarded as very good for closed design, and some would even say its hard to find better
Soft suspension/low Fs is the key to a good working closed design
It would, like you imply, sort of, probably be a big mistake to use it for BR designs, even though Qts appears to be low
VAS is like GM said, quite big
I know of no other woofer with such specs
Back to fullrange
CLS, this woofer is the only one I know that may fit your theory with soft suspension, low Fs, low Qts, yet have a weak looking magnet
Mind you, the size of a magnet doesnt tell the whole story
Different kinds of magnet quality
Magnet/motor designs can be magnetized to differnt levels, achieving any Qts, within limits ofcourse
http://www.monacor.dk/produkter/hoejttalerenheder-hifi10-12/vnr/101350/
This German 10" is by some regarded as very good for closed design, and some would even say its hard to find better
Soft suspension/low Fs is the key to a good working closed design
It would, like you imply, sort of, probably be a big mistake to use it for BR designs, even though Qts appears to be low
VAS is like GM said, quite big
I know of no other woofer with such specs
Back to fullrange
Attachments
Last edited:
tinitus,
> Sorry, I know this isnt the right thread for this, but anyway <
Why not? "Fullrange" doesn´t have to be "single driver" - "most important driver" might hit the spot.
So, if you don´t mind Monacor (I keep waving their flag whenever I can) spending your money on quality rather than on cosmetics, and they are available in your part of Sol3...1000DK ~140€? Combine it with
http://www.monacor.dk/produkter/hoejttalerenheder-hifi-4/vnr/104400/
Xover low and, if you don´t mind the size, you might have some fun.
> Sorry, I know this isnt the right thread for this, but anyway <
Why not? "Fullrange" doesn´t have to be "single driver" - "most important driver" might hit the spot.
So, if you don´t mind Monacor (I keep waving their flag whenever I can) spending your money on quality rather than on cosmetics, and they are available in your part of Sol3...1000DK ~140€? Combine it with
http://www.monacor.dk/produkter/hoejttalerenheder-hifi-4/vnr/104400/
Xover low and, if you don´t mind the size, you might have some fun.
OK, here I got 2 examples for comparison:
Data of A is Lowther DX4 measurement obtained here somewhere (I remember it's tested by MJK). Data of B is published specs which I have some problem opening the file of my own measurement file (by WT3)... It's a 7" Focal mid.
Both are good for horn loaded (Oris 150, at least). I've been using the B. About DX4, I don't have 1st hand experience, but I have listened to PM4, which is excellent and should be similar to this DX4...
As can be seen on the table, both have very light Mms, and quite strong BL (for their sizes).
While Qes = ( 2 * pi * fs * Mms * Re ) / (BL ^2 )
So if all others being equal (or very close), then fs is directly proportional to Qes. Before this, fs is controlled by mass and compliance (Mms and Cms).
Here we can see the fs : Qes of A vs B:
58.3 Hz : 0.218 vs 119.9 : 0.414
They look very proportional. In my eyes, the major difference is the compliances of their suspensions. One is (relatively) softly sprung, the other is much stiffer. This alone makes the fs 2-fold, then the Qes follows.
It's possible to make a driver with very compliant suspension (or heavier Mms)to get a same Qes of B unit (0.414), then its fs must be way lower and the motor must be much weaker.
This is what I previously meant, Q number can be misleading in judging if the unit is suitable for horn loaded.
Data of A is Lowther DX4 measurement obtained here somewhere (I remember it's tested by MJK). Data of B is published specs which I have some problem opening the file of my own measurement file (by WT3)... It's a 7" Focal mid.
Both are good for horn loaded (Oris 150, at least). I've been using the B. About DX4, I don't have 1st hand experience, but I have listened to PM4, which is excellent and should be similar to this DX4...
As can be seen on the table, both have very light Mms, and quite strong BL (for their sizes).
While Qes = ( 2 * pi * fs * Mms * Re ) / (BL ^2 )
So if all others being equal (or very close), then fs is directly proportional to Qes. Before this, fs is controlled by mass and compliance (Mms and Cms).
Here we can see the fs : Qes of A vs B:
58.3 Hz : 0.218 vs 119.9 : 0.414
They look very proportional. In my eyes, the major difference is the compliances of their suspensions. One is (relatively) softly sprung, the other is much stiffer. This alone makes the fs 2-fold, then the Qes follows.
It's possible to make a driver with very compliant suspension (or heavier Mms)to get a same Qes of B unit (0.414), then its fs must be way lower and the motor must be much weaker.
This is what I previously meant, Q number can be misleading in judging if the unit is suitable for horn loaded.
Last edited:
This is what I previously meant, Q number can be misleading in judging if the unit is suitable for horn loaded.
I'm sorry, but your conclusion makes no sense to me. Consider that Prof. Leach's compression horn math only uses Fs, Vas, Qes, i.e. *effective* motor strength, and since normally you only horn load the driver's point source BW, its gain BW is from Fs to 2*Fs/Qes. So from this, how can it be misleading?
GM
Ah! you beat me. And thanks for pointing that out.
I should say "Q number *alone* can be misleading..... " (it'd look better now)
I feel sorry for these posts. Now it seems an even bigger hole by trying to make up the previous careless mistakes.
I think you, Mr. GM, are hard to be misled, but believe me, and you know it, people are constantly looking for simple rules and easy ways to get things done...
------------
OK, then, how about a horn without compression? The [2*fs/Qes] still holds?
I don't have any hard evidence (precise measurement) to prove, but what I've experienced is quite differe from the [2*fs/Qes] upper limit. And please forgive my ignorance, is the gain by directivity control (projecting into limited space) considered by that equation?
I'm not sure if the copy here is legal, for your reference:
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/bruce-edgar-horn-pdf.html
The <Edgar Midrange Horn> can be seen there. I believe almost everyone here has read that article.
I was encouranged (or seduced) to step into the horn world by that. Mr. Edgar also mentioned in the article that the performance of a real horn in the real world can be somewhat beyond what that equation describes. I concur that according to my own experiences.
I believe many other things get involved here, except the 'real horn loading', there are also the gain by directivity control, and the free escaping sound waves from the driver... etc. All these contribute to the overall outputs.
I'll dig out some of my previous measured data to see if I can make it clearer....
I should say "Q number *alone* can be misleading..... " (it'd look better now)
I feel sorry for these posts. Now it seems an even bigger hole by trying to make up the previous careless mistakes.
I think you, Mr. GM, are hard to be misled, but believe me, and you know it, people are constantly looking for simple rules and easy ways to get things done...
------------
OK, then, how about a horn without compression? The [2*fs/Qes] still holds?
I don't have any hard evidence (precise measurement) to prove, but what I've experienced is quite differe from the [2*fs/Qes] upper limit. And please forgive my ignorance, is the gain by directivity control (projecting into limited space) considered by that equation?
I'm not sure if the copy here is legal, for your reference:
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/bruce-edgar-horn-pdf.html
The <Edgar Midrange Horn> can be seen there. I believe almost everyone here has read that article.
I was encouranged (or seduced) to step into the horn world by that. Mr. Edgar also mentioned in the article that the performance of a real horn in the real world can be somewhat beyond what that equation describes. I concur that according to my own experiences.
I believe many other things get involved here, except the 'real horn loading', there are also the gain by directivity control, and the free escaping sound waves from the driver... etc. All these contribute to the overall outputs.
I'll dig out some of my previous measured data to see if I can make it clearer....
I wonder how the the TB compares to the Seas full ranger for sonics?
The TB might be a bargain or the Seas might be overpriced?
Meanwhile i am totally enjoying B20s with dustcaps removed. I even turned off the tweeter (temporarily) bc i hear enough treble... a blind test between B20, TB and Seas would be fun. All these driver can be stuck into simple sealed or ported boxes.
Godzilla
The TB might be a bargain or the Seas might be overpriced?
Meanwhile i am totally enjoying B20s with dustcaps removed. I even turned off the tweeter (temporarily) bc i hear enough treble... a blind test between B20, TB and Seas would be fun. All these driver can be stuck into simple sealed or ported boxes.
Godzilla
There are many more but here are three full range drivers sure to please ranging in price from around $30 to $900... I must admit I have been enjoying the B20 without dustcap for the last few weeks even without a tweeter and they are very satisfying. Not perfect, but enjoyable and musical. I like how this driver is tweakable... the TB looks fully tweaked already and the Seas i wouldn't dare cut up.
Personally, i think my standards (while pretty high) have been reduced as i listen to music more for enjoyment than critically. The full range driver 'thing' really lets you relax into the music when the right driver/cabinet combo is in place. From cheap TB and Pioneer's to more expensive Fostex hearing nice mids really satisfies... even if it isn't perfect. But nothing is. IMO, adding crossover components to even very expensive drivers at around 2k just spoils everything. I've given up on it for quite some time.
Good sound can be had for cheap these days... but it can still be expensive. As a community, we've begun to drive the market to produce these lovely drivers. I expect a trickle down effect from the Seas and TBs in the coming years. Just hope it's before my hearing goes.
Godzilla
Personally, i think my standards (while pretty high) have been reduced as i listen to music more for enjoyment than critically. The full range driver 'thing' really lets you relax into the music when the right driver/cabinet combo is in place. From cheap TB and Pioneer's to more expensive Fostex hearing nice mids really satisfies... even if it isn't perfect. But nothing is. IMO, adding crossover components to even very expensive drivers at around 2k just spoils everything. I've given up on it for quite some time.
Good sound can be had for cheap these days... but it can still be expensive. As a community, we've begun to drive the market to produce these lovely drivers. I expect a trickle down effect from the Seas and TBs in the coming years. Just hope it's before my hearing goes.
Godzilla
Attachments
Jeff, the paradox of course is that by the time the average DIYer might have sufficient disposable income to actually consider any of the higher priced esoteric drivers ( e.g., items like Feastrex, PHY, Fertin, et al make even the SEAS and TBs pictured look low-rent), our faculties may well have deteriorated to the point of not "hearing" the difference.
OTOH, 40+ yrs in "the life" can accrue enough ennui that "so what? - lemme just enjoy the freakin music"
at our recent get together, there were handed out a few of those STFU cards - hell, I even got one myself while washing dishes when others were trying to conduct some "serious listening" - at a DIY party, what were they thinking?
OTOH, 40+ yrs in "the life" can accrue enough ennui that "so what? - lemme just enjoy the freakin music"
at our recent get together, there were handed out a few of those STFU cards - hell, I even got one myself while washing dishes when others were trying to conduct some "serious listening" - at a DIY party, what were they thinking?
I find that more and more, I'm enjoying the design and build, but when it comes down to it, the stuff I make is all pretty darned good (I've accumulated some pretty awesome stuff over the years) and I don't critically listen much to any of it, unless I'm reviewing. A couple of my favorite albums goes a long way towards relieving the pains of reality!
Current are JBL LE8T in Nelson's TL design for the B20, with some customization, and a Heil AMT1 supertweeter rolled in at 10k (Really 22k but that's how I dealt with the sensitivity disparity).
Current are JBL LE8T in Nelson's TL design for the B20, with some customization, and a Heil AMT1 supertweeter rolled in at 10k (Really 22k but that's how I dealt with the sensitivity disparity).
OK, then, how about a horn without compression? The [2*fs/Qes] still holds?
I don't have any hard evidence (precise measurement) to prove, but what I've experienced is quite differe from the [2*fs/Qes] upper limit. And please forgive my ignorance, is the gain by directivity control (projecting into limited space) considered by that equation?
I'm not sure if the copy here is legal, for your reference:
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/bruce-edgar-horn-pdf.html
Like most things, it depends. I mean if all you want to do is control a driver's directivity above its mass corner up to some beaming point such as 90 deg, then of course it doesn't apply.
The formula only tells us ~the point where a driver switches from a point source (acceleration/rising response BW) to a mass controlled one (declining/~flat response BW), i.e. the box controlled BW and since a horn is basically just another vented alignment..........
FYI: BE 'legal' downloads: http://www.volvotreter.de/dl-section.htm
Haven't read them though, so not sure what you're referring to unless his and other folks commenting that a horn's HF response is somewhat > design formulas predict, which is true, though we're talking about two different BWs, the horn's gain BW that the formulas are for and its rising on axis response due to driver beaming and increasing directivity control (DI) that WG theory predicts. If you BW limit a horn to its gain BW, then the formulas do predict its HF response as defined by 2*Fs/Qes.
GM
This is what I previously meant, Q number can be misleading in judging if the unit is suitable for horn loaded.
Again, until Qes is > ~0.707, any Q number is suitable for horn loading over some BW, so I don't see them as misleading at all and even then it's not really the limit since you can invert the design routine to horn load > ~0.707 Qes drivers to ~ 'critically' damp them.
GM
Thanks for clarifications.
I think we were discussing the overall and final performance of a cone driver+horn combo. And of course there'd be LOTS of variables including directivity control, drivers' inherent rising responses... etc. We hear them as a whole.
So, is there any real case of a horn loaded high Q driver performing well? I mean, reasonably flat response over a wide usable midband.
I think we were discussing the overall and final performance of a cone driver+horn combo. And of course there'd be LOTS of variables including directivity control, drivers' inherent rising responses... etc. We hear them as a whole.
So, is there any real case of a horn loaded high Q driver performing well? I mean, reasonably flat response over a wide usable midband.
Meniscus Audio (http://meniscusaudio.com/index.php) picked them up too, but they also sold out both 1772 and 1808. That's why I'm on hold too.
Vadim
Vadim
Guys, I hate to hijack this thread, but I got a surprise today. The TB 1772 isn't supposed to be available from PE until December, but here comes the Fredex guy with my backordered pair. The mdf panels for a Brines Acoustics TT-2000 are already cut, and Bob has sent me a schematic for his proprietary bsc filter for the 1772.
Speakers - FredT300B's Photos
Speakers - FredT300B's Photos
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Full Range
- Tang Band W8-1772 Impressions.