Anyone use a filter of any kind?
Omega doesn't make them anymore, but I thought I remember reading that they didn't have any electronic components in them.
I was playing around with WinISD and came up with a box of 12.3l A tad bigger then the omega design, but the gain came out flat. Group delay spikes at 15ms. I forget at what point bass starts to sound muddy. I'm still a newb.
Omega doesn't make them anymore, but I thought I remember reading that they didn't have any electronic components in them.
I was playing around with WinISD and came up with a box of 12.3l A tad bigger then the omega design, but the gain came out flat. Group delay spikes at 15ms. I forget at what point bass starts to sound muddy. I'm still a newb.
I just finished a truncated array of four of these with a vifa OEM tweeter. All four share the same volume and are in a bassreflex enclosure. Crossover is a no frills 12dB at 3500Hz. I have no experience in crossover design.
Anyway I really like them a lot more then as full rangers. I don't think I'm sold on the full range thing at least not entirely. I like having the midrange cover as much bandwith as possible (don't know what this means yet but I'm guessing min 3000- max 5000Hz) and then have a real tweeter. My design was aimed at high SPL for two reasons, 1 for fun and 2 to allow for not having to pad down the tweeter. Anyway I have become a huge fan of the Tang Band stuff given their bang for the buck.
Anyway I really like them a lot more then as full rangers. I don't think I'm sold on the full range thing at least not entirely. I like having the midrange cover as much bandwith as possible (don't know what this means yet but I'm guessing min 3000- max 5000Hz) and then have a real tweeter. My design was aimed at high SPL for two reasons, 1 for fun and 2 to allow for not having to pad down the tweeter. Anyway I have become a huge fan of the Tang Band stuff given their bang for the buck.
While I started the glue mod of the 1052SA I do not know if anyone is following that mod or not.
I have no idea what you are doing now. I know I stopped supporting any mods for the 1052SA some time ago.
If you are going to continue to mod the transducer, it is probably best that you get the instructions from the source. I will think about reassembling the instructions and making them available. If and when I do I will post an announcement here.
I do agree with a couple of comments made here. The 1052SA is very limited as a full range transducer. It is less limited than Fostex transducers costing twice as much, but it is still limited. For true full range bass you will need a sub woofer. But this is also true of all small diameter full range transducers (you can also add the bigger Jordan to the list).
You also have to be careful to measure the T/S specifications before doing simulations. There is too much variability from published specs. It will make a difference if you simulate with published specifications. Again, however, the Fostex transducers of the same size are no better than the 1052SA at having measured T/S specifications match published specifications. The vast majority have Fo significantly higher in frequency than published specification. And even after extended breakin, Fo does not decrease to published specification.
It is true that neither the original nor my modified versions sound like say the Fostex FE 126 or 127. And that is a good thing. If you like the sound of the Fostex better, that is fine for you, but it also means I will not trust any of your reviews. You have trained your ears and brain to like some badly altered sound. I would suggest an extended period of listening to live, unamplified acoustic music. If after this deconditioning experience you still like your Fostexs, then there is just no hope for you. You have my pity.
Mark
I have no idea what you are doing now. I know I stopped supporting any mods for the 1052SA some time ago.
If you are going to continue to mod the transducer, it is probably best that you get the instructions from the source. I will think about reassembling the instructions and making them available. If and when I do I will post an announcement here.
I do agree with a couple of comments made here. The 1052SA is very limited as a full range transducer. It is less limited than Fostex transducers costing twice as much, but it is still limited. For true full range bass you will need a sub woofer. But this is also true of all small diameter full range transducers (you can also add the bigger Jordan to the list).
You also have to be careful to measure the T/S specifications before doing simulations. There is too much variability from published specs. It will make a difference if you simulate with published specifications. Again, however, the Fostex transducers of the same size are no better than the 1052SA at having measured T/S specifications match published specifications. The vast majority have Fo significantly higher in frequency than published specification. And even after extended breakin, Fo does not decrease to published specification.
It is true that neither the original nor my modified versions sound like say the Fostex FE 126 or 127. And that is a good thing. If you like the sound of the Fostex better, that is fine for you, but it also means I will not trust any of your reviews. You have trained your ears and brain to like some badly altered sound. I would suggest an extended period of listening to live, unamplified acoustic music. If after this deconditioning experience you still like your Fostexs, then there is just no hope for you. You have my pity.
Mark
I have answered this question before. The choice is really up to you. If it does not work, do you have the ability to tell that it did not work?
If not, then I do not advise your doing it. It is hard to work on the underside of the cone. It is hard to get at the cone. It is hard to control the amount of glue or the positioning of the glue bead when working through the basket openings.
Theoretically, there is no difference in the vibration modes or the way the glue couples to this cone front or backside (that is not the case with all cones however). The problem is whether or not you can apply the glue ring with enough precision to the underside for the modification to work.
If you can't tell, then it is not wise for you to mess around with the modification.
If not, then I do not advise your doing it. It is hard to work on the underside of the cone. It is hard to get at the cone. It is hard to control the amount of glue or the positioning of the glue bead when working through the basket openings.
Theoretically, there is no difference in the vibration modes or the way the glue couples to this cone front or backside (that is not the case with all cones however). The problem is whether or not you can apply the glue ring with enough precision to the underside for the modification to work.
If you can't tell, then it is not wise for you to mess around with the modification.
I have put together a pdf of the old modification graphs, photo, and circuit designs.
I hope this is of some use to those wanting to try out the modification.
The pdf is located at:
http://madspeaker.com/extras/W4-1052SAgluemod.pdf
Mark
I hope this is of some use to those wanting to try out the modification.
The pdf is located at:
http://madspeaker.com/extras/W4-1052SAgluemod.pdf
Mark
I am a new member, however I have been reading posts for quite some time and I really appreciate your honesty. My design uses a 17L box, (2) 1052s, and a Dayton ND20 horizontally offset by 1.5". I would like to cross the system at 3500. Would you recommend applying your modifications to the 1052s? Thanks in advance.
Like my MarkMcK's Tang Band thread, this thread is getting old. It is now clear that it is also stale.
I just received a new sales flyer from Parts Express, the North America distributor of Tang Band. In the flyer Parts Express now lists the transducer as the W4-1052SD. They also claim that the transducer now features the "twin-roll surround." If this is true, then my information regarding stock performance and modification performance for the W4-1052SA does not apply to the new model.
Mark
I just received a new sales flyer from Parts Express, the North America distributor of Tang Band. In the flyer Parts Express now lists the transducer as the W4-1052SD. They also claim that the transducer now features the "twin-roll surround." If this is true, then my information regarding stock performance and modification performance for the W4-1052SA does not apply to the new model.
Mark
I checked both Tang Band's and Parts Express' Web sites. The photos are the same and Tang Band has changed the model number on their spec. sheet (good for them).
The molded pattern on the cone looks the same as it always has. There is a patent on this pattern and it is not mine. It also doesn't work, which is why I presented a modification for the transducer.
While checking the two Web sites, I also saw that the two photos do not show the twin-roll surround. I also noticed that the frequency response claimed by Tang Band and claimed by Parts Express differ by a couple of kHz on the top end.
Its seems hard enough to make purchasing decisions based only on spec sheets without complicating the process with contradictory (and perhaps false claims)?
Unless someone purchases every model change and measures it, you cannot be sure of what you are buying. I just don't feel like making it my task to redo a possible modification every six to 12 months.
Mark
The molded pattern on the cone looks the same as it always has. There is a patent on this pattern and it is not mine. It also doesn't work, which is why I presented a modification for the transducer.
While checking the two Web sites, I also saw that the two photos do not show the twin-roll surround. I also noticed that the frequency response claimed by Tang Band and claimed by Parts Express differ by a couple of kHz on the top end.
Its seems hard enough to make purchasing decisions based only on spec sheets without complicating the process with contradictory (and perhaps false claims)?
Unless someone purchases every model change and measures it, you cannot be sure of what you are buying. I just don't feel like making it my task to redo a possible modification every six to 12 months.
Mark
Oh, so you only added the ring. I see.
I haven't checked Parts Express web site, but if they use the CLIO system as I recall, then it might result in difference in response. I have never came up with the same measurement result as LMS system. So I always use my measurements. As a matter of fact, I have never came up with measurements the were exactly the same as manufacturer published data. From what I read around the web, this seems to be a common issue.
I don't know, but maybe buy a lot to last 24 months?
I thought the twin roll surround was quite weird for such a small driver, perhaps typo by PartsExpress?
I haven't checked Parts Express web site, but if they use the CLIO system as I recall, then it might result in difference in response. I have never came up with the same measurement result as LMS system. So I always use my measurements. As a matter of fact, I have never came up with measurements the were exactly the same as manufacturer published data. From what I read around the web, this seems to be a common issue.
I don't know, but maybe buy a lot to last 24 months?
I thought the twin roll surround was quite weird for such a small driver, perhaps typo by PartsExpress?
MarkMCK,
Would you be willing to discuss your "technology to map the material vibration modes of a loudspeaker diaphragm under dynamic conditions"?
I have some information and a device that controls some of the portions of a drivers interactions that may not be apparent to an educated but casual observer. You do not appear to be casual.
Soongsc also has further investigated what I offer and has surpassed what I know to do. Would you PM me, please. I do have a couple of threads active on the subject on this Forum and a very large closed thread. I am in need of some further information and I do not know how to obtain it. Your quoted comment and others from your site lay exactly parallel to the path I have taken in my investigations. This gives me hope.
Bud
Would you be willing to discuss your "technology to map the material vibration modes of a loudspeaker diaphragm under dynamic conditions"?
I have some information and a device that controls some of the portions of a drivers interactions that may not be apparent to an educated but casual observer. You do not appear to be casual.
Soongsc also has further investigated what I offer and has surpassed what I know to do. Would you PM me, please. I do have a couple of threads active on the subject on this Forum and a very large closed thread. I am in need of some further information and I do not know how to obtain it. Your quoted comment and others from your site lay exactly parallel to the path I have taken in my investigations. This gives me hope.
Bud
Not to be too pessimistic, but I believe Parts Express may not be quite as careful or as hands on as they used to be. For example, they are not doing their own measurements on most of the transducers they sell.
They mostly provide either nothing or the manufacturer's information. Recent "problems" tend to suggest they also are having problems copying manufacturer claims into their own copy. I have noted several problems in addition to what we have already talked about in this thread.
Also, for the casual home speaker builder, the manufacturer not documenting performance changes like the ones that have been seen in previous production runs of Tang Band branded transducers may or may not be a problem. For what I have tried to do to dramatically improve performance, it is a problem.
As I have time I will check out Bud's threads. There is the best way to use Laser spectrometry and then there is the way everyone else seems to be using it. Few, however, have access to such equipment.
Mark
They mostly provide either nothing or the manufacturer's information. Recent "problems" tend to suggest they also are having problems copying manufacturer claims into their own copy. I have noted several problems in addition to what we have already talked about in this thread.
Also, for the casual home speaker builder, the manufacturer not documenting performance changes like the ones that have been seen in previous production runs of Tang Band branded transducers may or may not be a problem. For what I have tried to do to dramatically improve performance, it is a problem.
As I have time I will check out Bud's threads. There is the best way to use Laser spectrometry and then there is the way everyone else seems to be using it. Few, however, have access to such equipment.
Mark
MarkMcK,
Thank you for the note in your reply on the TB drivers. We do have an individual, a fluid dynamics pro, with access to a laser interferometer and a desire to find out what is going on. He has a treated and untreated pair of drivers for a first cut and considerable experience in ordinary testing and enclosure design.
No one is really sure how to find what we can hear, though a number of smart and experienced people are helping with looking. Any help you can provide will be appreciated.
By the by, this EnABL pattern would not step on the toes of what you are doing. It would work in concert with it, very nicely, though.
The two current threads are here and they provide a link to the monster.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460031#post1460031
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460032#post1460032
Bud
Thank you for the note in your reply on the TB drivers. We do have an individual, a fluid dynamics pro, with access to a laser interferometer and a desire to find out what is going on. He has a treated and untreated pair of drivers for a first cut and considerable experience in ordinary testing and enclosure design.
No one is really sure how to find what we can hear, though a number of smart and experienced people are helping with looking. Any help you can provide will be appreciated.
By the by, this EnABL pattern would not step on the toes of what you are doing. It would work in concert with it, very nicely, though.
The two current threads are here and they provide a link to the monster.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460031#post1460031
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1460032#post1460032
Bud
I've been working with some students on doing some analysis work. Not easy to get them to do the right things, but it's a learning process for me as to how to work with the young generation these days
I know the feeling well. As i am trying to get out of the field and find someone to "hand the torch off to" there is little to chose from. The young expect easy answers, and there is not any. Structure load analysis is complicated and you have to be devoted to find answeres. There is little devotation.
This applies in any field ,be it acoustics or whatever.
ron
I know the feeling well. As i am trying to get out of the field and find someone to "hand the torch off to" there is little to chose from. The young expect easy answers, and there is not any. Structure load analysis is complicated and you have to be devoted to find answeres. There is little devotation.
This applies in any field ,be it acoustics or whatever.
ron
Hi, everyone.
I've bought a pair of these drivers, and am planning to use them in a pair of bass-reflex, monitor-style enclosures. Is it absolutely necessary to tame the gently rising response of these drivers? Should I design the enclosure with a slight midbass 'bump' to complement the rise? I'm interested in gathering plenty of insight before I embark on this project (though I've already bought the drivers, so I'm stuck there.)
W4-1052SD Datasheet
I've bought a pair of these drivers, and am planning to use them in a pair of bass-reflex, monitor-style enclosures. Is it absolutely necessary to tame the gently rising response of these drivers? Should I design the enclosure with a slight midbass 'bump' to complement the rise? I'm interested in gathering plenty of insight before I embark on this project (though I've already bought the drivers, so I'm stuck there.)
W4-1052SD Datasheet
I going to respond to a couple of questions in this post.
Starting with the most applicable to the thread.
I do not know for certain, but available evidence is suggesting that the 1052SD may be very close to the 1052SA. If so, then the original modification may still be valid. I have not, however, verified this.
The technical data sheet linked to this thread is still using the identical Bode plot of the 1052SA. It also features the identical photo of the 1052SA.
Should you wish to try the old modification on the new model number, proceed at your own risk. That risk, however, is very small. The glue ring, using the specified glue, is removable.
Next, I am trying to get through the massive amount of posting on the "EnABL" thing. Bud, is this your invention?
The first problem for me is the use of terminology. A lot of statements are being drawn from a wide variety of specialties. I have some knowledge of several of these fields and find terms oddly changed in meaning for the "EnABL" context. Professionals, working in these fields usually know one another professionally. Unfortunately, we often rely on these personal associations to decipher each other's writings. I do not know any of the people posting to the "EnABL" threads and have found myself lost trying to figure out what the "heck" posters are talking about.
Trying to get past those problems, I believe that the theory I operate from and the theory or theories founding "EnABL" are very different. Despite this, our spheres of operation do seem to touch. If you are familiar with the philosophy of solid geometry, then you have a good idea of the size of the area of concurrence or congruence.
As just a kindly suggestion, try to be as clear as you can about causes and effects. I realize this does become complicated. For example, while material vibration modes (ringing) and boundary effects are different, they do impact each other. Boundary phenomena can either cause or control cone material vibration modes, for example.
As a second kindly suggestion, try examining responses in the transient or impulse domains. If a given problem is caused by a part of the speaker or transducer with a specific location (an outside cone edge for example), then it will produce a change in expected impulse response with an extremely specific time delay from excitation. In contrast, if the cone material is ringing, then you will see this effect spread over a considerable amount of time after onset.
Impulse responses allow the experimenter separate what is a transducer problem from what is an enclosure problem. With sufficient resolution, you can also separate a diaphragm from a surround, from a dust cap. You can also separate a bell mode from a shear vibration.
Mark
Starting with the most applicable to the thread.
I do not know for certain, but available evidence is suggesting that the 1052SD may be very close to the 1052SA. If so, then the original modification may still be valid. I have not, however, verified this.
The technical data sheet linked to this thread is still using the identical Bode plot of the 1052SA. It also features the identical photo of the 1052SA.
Should you wish to try the old modification on the new model number, proceed at your own risk. That risk, however, is very small. The glue ring, using the specified glue, is removable.
Next, I am trying to get through the massive amount of posting on the "EnABL" thing. Bud, is this your invention?
The first problem for me is the use of terminology. A lot of statements are being drawn from a wide variety of specialties. I have some knowledge of several of these fields and find terms oddly changed in meaning for the "EnABL" context. Professionals, working in these fields usually know one another professionally. Unfortunately, we often rely on these personal associations to decipher each other's writings. I do not know any of the people posting to the "EnABL" threads and have found myself lost trying to figure out what the "heck" posters are talking about.
Trying to get past those problems, I believe that the theory I operate from and the theory or theories founding "EnABL" are very different. Despite this, our spheres of operation do seem to touch. If you are familiar with the philosophy of solid geometry, then you have a good idea of the size of the area of concurrence or congruence.
As just a kindly suggestion, try to be as clear as you can about causes and effects. I realize this does become complicated. For example, while material vibration modes (ringing) and boundary effects are different, they do impact each other. Boundary phenomena can either cause or control cone material vibration modes, for example.
As a second kindly suggestion, try examining responses in the transient or impulse domains. If a given problem is caused by a part of the speaker or transducer with a specific location (an outside cone edge for example), then it will produce a change in expected impulse response with an extremely specific time delay from excitation. In contrast, if the cone material is ringing, then you will see this effect spread over a considerable amount of time after onset.
Impulse responses allow the experimenter separate what is a transducer problem from what is an enclosure problem. With sufficient resolution, you can also separate a diaphragm from a surround, from a dust cap. You can also separate a bell mode from a shear vibration.
Mark
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.