If I were using the 168Sigma (old model) I'd probably have them in this re-worked version over the original suggestion I did for the Zilla pages.
Line=125in
Sl=86.625in^2
Zdriver=27.125in
It's tuning them a little lower than published Fs indicates, but the unit has a reasonable amount of excursion, so it should do OK.
Frankly, I wouldn't get too worked up over the dimensions. Yes, they'll all sound different, but pipe-horns by their nature are not the most exact of enclosures as their ultimate performance depends to a large extent on the room in which they find themselves, so 'optimising' is a bit of a moot point. Especially given that we often have to base the sizing for web purposes on manufacturers claimed parameters, which 9 times out of 10 appear to have been created by Tolkien rather than a bloke with measuring gear in a white coat. The design formulas GM created based on some existing math will give a fine enclosure, if you wanted to do it from scratch, as will any of the suggestions on the Zilla pages or here. They'll all sound good, so personally, I'd pick whichever I fancied most, build that, stick my feet up and enjoy the music.
Line=125in
Sl=86.625in^2
Zdriver=27.125in
It's tuning them a little lower than published Fs indicates, but the unit has a reasonable amount of excursion, so it should do OK.
Frankly, I wouldn't get too worked up over the dimensions. Yes, they'll all sound different, but pipe-horns by their nature are not the most exact of enclosures as their ultimate performance depends to a large extent on the room in which they find themselves, so 'optimising' is a bit of a moot point. Especially given that we often have to base the sizing for web purposes on manufacturers claimed parameters, which 9 times out of 10 appear to have been created by Tolkien rather than a bloke with measuring gear in a white coat. The design formulas GM created based on some existing math will give a fine enclosure, if you wanted to do it from scratch, as will any of the suggestions on the Zilla pages or here. They'll all sound good, so personally, I'd pick whichever I fancied most, build that, stick my feet up and enjoy the music.
Given that they'll be eating signal from a Garrard 401/Decca International Unipivot/Shure M97 and then a push pull el84 triode connected amp they're not going to be being fed the last iota in hifi exactness.
But, from my experience thus far, all these items, while maybe not being pure fidelity, are musical and get my foot tapping or me shuffling around the room enjoying the music.
If I want to deafen the neighbours then I have the 75wpc solid state digital home theatre amp with a wonderful set of numbers on the spec sheet.
But for my straight up "vinyl for fun" system the garrard / el84pp / Fe168Sigma should do splendidly.
And I can always go ultralinear if I want more volume I guess, but I'm thinking that it's going to stay triode connected for a long time...
Hell, if I was chasing a dead flat response I guess I wouldn't be playing with single drivers at all, but sometimes the numbers just don't tell you the whole story when it comes to music.
But, from my experience thus far, all these items, while maybe not being pure fidelity, are musical and get my foot tapping or me shuffling around the room enjoying the music.
If I want to deafen the neighbours then I have the 75wpc solid state digital home theatre amp with a wonderful set of numbers on the spec sheet.
But for my straight up "vinyl for fun" system the garrard / el84pp / Fe168Sigma should do splendidly.
And I can always go ultralinear if I want more volume I guess, but I'm thinking that it's going to stay triode connected for a long time...
Hell, if I was chasing a dead flat response I guess I wouldn't be playing with single drivers at all, but sometimes the numbers just don't tell you the whole story when it comes to music.
FE208ESigma BIB
Not being able to decide whether to build a FF165K or FE168ESigma BIB, I dismantled my Nagaoke D3II.1 BLH and decided to build a "test"-BIB for my FE208ESigmae from particle board. If I like them a lot, I might rebuild them in a better material.
First impression : incredible bass from these things, WAY better than the smallish BLH (smallish in comparison, that is).
As expected, I couldn't get by without a supertweeter though. Put them on the floor for the moment. This also puts them somewhat offaxis, which I prefer.
The midband seems comparable to the one from the D3II.1 Maybe it would be worth to try to put the 208s on a suprabaffle.
Concerning acceptability : my better half thinks almost everything is acceptable in our living room, except for the 1 m^2 OBs I used for breaking in the 208s a year ago. (see FE208ESigma break-in)
Not being able to decide whether to build a FF165K or FE168ESigma BIB, I dismantled my Nagaoke D3II.1 BLH and decided to build a "test"-BIB for my FE208ESigmae from particle board. If I like them a lot, I might rebuild them in a better material.
First impression : incredible bass from these things, WAY better than the smallish BLH (smallish in comparison, that is).
As expected, I couldn't get by without a supertweeter though. Put them on the floor for the moment. This also puts them somewhat offaxis, which I prefer.
The midband seems comparable to the one from the D3II.1 Maybe it would be worth to try to put the 208s on a suprabaffle.
Concerning acceptability : my better half thinks almost everything is acceptable in our living room, except for the 1 m^2 OBs I used for breaking in the 208s a year ago.
(see FE208ESigma break-in)Attachments
Nice.
Re the Garrard et al setup, actually, in some ways, I'd say that's potentially very accurate, not inaccurate. The 401 has far better performance than most belt-drives you'll come across, assuming it's in a good high-mass plinth & well maintained (rumble? what rumble? Most of the problems stemmed from far too many people shoving them in resonant plinths back in the 1960s / 70s).
The Decca unipivots were always good if set up well & have relatively low arm-tube resonance IIRC. And the EL84 is a nice tube -very linear indeed, especially run triode, though I'm no amp-expert. So long as the OPTs are up to the drill, you should be fine.
If I had to pick a weak point, I'd suggest the Shure, which although it won't damage your vinyl is a bit boring. Mind, I've got one on my Goldring GL78, and it's perfectly acceptable. As idlers aren't as smooth at the top end as belt drives (just about the only thing they give away) and as FR units have similar issues, that's likely quite a good match. Still, when funds permit, if you can, junk it for a DL103. Get the old Denon loaded right (needs some fiddling, but well worth it) and it'll sing. Bass is explosive & the midrange detailing is good. Moving up a touch, a DL304, or one of Dynavectors' cheap MCs are a good bet.
Enjoy.
Re the Garrard et al setup, actually, in some ways, I'd say that's potentially very accurate, not inaccurate. The 401 has far better performance than most belt-drives you'll come across, assuming it's in a good high-mass plinth & well maintained (rumble? what rumble? Most of the problems stemmed from far too many people shoving them in resonant plinths back in the 1960s / 70s).
The Decca unipivots were always good if set up well & have relatively low arm-tube resonance IIRC. And the EL84 is a nice tube -very linear indeed, especially run triode, though I'm no amp-expert. So long as the OPTs are up to the drill, you should be fine.
If I had to pick a weak point, I'd suggest the Shure, which although it won't damage your vinyl is a bit boring. Mind, I've got one on my Goldring GL78, and it's perfectly acceptable. As idlers aren't as smooth at the top end as belt drives (just about the only thing they give away) and as FR units have similar issues, that's likely quite a good match. Still, when funds permit, if you can, junk it for a DL103. Get the old Denon loaded right (needs some fiddling, but well worth it) and it'll sing. Bass is explosive & the midrange detailing is good. Moving up a touch, a DL304, or one of Dynavectors' cheap MCs are a good bet.
Enjoy.
Ah, yes, the Shure.
I know it's the weak point. There was this wife dusting type incident with my Ortofon MC20 Supreme you see... and with an 18 month old in the house...
Yeah, once I get it all going it should provide sweet sounds again.
Been too long since the vinyl has been playing at our place.
I know it's the weak point. There was this wife dusting type incident with my Ortofon MC20 Supreme you see... and with an 18 month old in the house...
Yeah, once I get it all going it should provide sweet sounds again.
Been too long since the vinyl has been playing at our place.
Well I've been enjoying my fe108ez inverted BIB's for quite sometime now. ''Ripple'' what ripple!! Excellent sound with my 6watt sep amp, and when watching movies through a Marantz HT amp the bass from these little drivers is nothing short of amazing, not to mention the clarity to actually hear the dialog..
Anyhow I've been wondering if size wasn't a factor what would a BIB sub only cab look like? Maybe a pro sound driver 15'' or maybe even a fe208 just for bass duty? Has anyone made a BIB just for subwoofer duty that gets an honest 20hz or lower? Perhaps a driver like this? http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=290-570 Dave
Anyhow I've been wondering if size wasn't a factor what would a BIB sub only cab look like? Maybe a pro sound driver 15'' or maybe even a fe208 just for bass duty? Has anyone made a BIB just for subwoofer duty that gets an honest 20hz or lower? Perhaps a driver like this? http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&PartNumber=290-570 Dave
Greets!
Now you know why all mine were floor or apex corner loaded.
Big.
I've posted some BIB 'sub' alignments already, both here and on other threads, but to date none have been built AFAIK. Anyway, make them long/big enough and they will tear your house apart.
Yes, this is an excellent driver, though being built to handle bass-horn compression loading it's overkill for a BIB app IMO. These are dirt cheap and should work fine for both BIB and its tapped horn variant: http://www.mach5audio.com/index.php?cPath=48&osCsid=654fccbf1f622f8ea89815cba4d9e4b0
GM
Now you know why all mine were floor or apex corner loaded.
Big.
I've posted some BIB 'sub' alignments already, both here and on other threads, but to date none have been built AFAIK.
Anyway, make them long/big enough and they will tear your house apart. Yes, this is an excellent driver, though being built to handle bass-horn compression loading it's overkill for a BIB app IMO. These are dirt cheap and should work fine for both BIB and its tapped horn variant: http://www.mach5audio.com/index.php?cPath=48&osCsid=654fccbf1f622f8ea89815cba4d9e4b0
GM
Thanks GM. One thing I love about the BIB and why I think it works so well is that it follow's the KISS principle. It is about as easy as making a sealed box yet works so well, TC was a genius. It would definately be cool to make a BIB sub just for fun.. Dave
Ps. yes those Mach5 drivers look like a good deal, I'm thinking on trying them for an IB set up sometime...
Ps. yes those Mach5 drivers look like a good deal, I'm thinking on trying them for an IB set up sometime...
I am almost in a similar situation. I built a BIB for the FE166ES-R a few months ago and have been enjoying ithem. I liked the look of the Austin A166 so built a pair. I prefered the BIB, It goes a lot lower and is punchier (I know the A166 was built for a different speaker and tried to accomodate).
Now, I have a pair of Jerico horns with the original FE208 Sigma's which are my refererence speakers. This weekend I seriously started thinking about BIB cabinets for them.
Once you go BIB you never go BACK.
Here are some bass BIBs to ponder.
http://www.zillaspeak.com/BibBassHorns.asp
Sometimes I wonder if perhaps a no-holds-barred system would consist of BIB mains (pick a driver, any driver) standing right beside a pair of BIB bass horns.
Here are some bass BIBs to ponder.
http://www.zillaspeak.com/BibBassHorns.asp
Sometimes I wonder if perhaps a no-holds-barred system would consist of BIB mains (pick a driver, any driver) standing right beside a pair of BIB bass horns.
Perhaps the next BIB "frontier" will be a dual driver enclosure with both a woofer and fullrange. Since the BIB enclosure is somewhat of a compromise then if we could find complimentary woofers and fullrange (right!). Or, maybe a "split" BIB, two BIB's in a single enclosure.
I remember when I first saw this enclosure in one of the Fostex handbooks many years ago, l and thought to myself "whats that weird tqwp".
I remember when I first saw this enclosure in one of the Fostex handbooks many years ago, l and thought to myself "whats that weird tqwp".
Godzilla said:
That would be sweet... I love the quality of the bass I hear from the BIB's and I'm only using fe108's... Having BIB mains and BIB bass horns at the same time could be amazing...
I've been wondering about the fe206esr in a BIB, could that driver be the best of both worlds in a single driver?, anyone heard them in a BIB? Dave
Scottmoose said:
A bit of help here please:
If I keep a WxD ratio of 1.4142 (or as close as I can figure) I cannot for the life of me come up with GM's suggested Sm of 303"^2. The closest I get are the following and I'm wondering which is better to fudge on, the WxD ratio or the Sm?
14,1/2 x 20,7/8"=1:1.4396 Sm=302.6875"^2
or
14,3/4 x 20,7/8"=1:1.4152 Sm=307.9063"^2
or
am I way off to begin with?
Got the Hemp drivers a while back, got the wood just recently and want to get these put together so I can hear what all this BIB business is all about! My audio nirvana? I hope so.
Well, I wouldn't personally loose much sleep over a 0.3125in^2 loss, with is all you'll loose with the first one. The volume loss will be very small and pipe horns are not about hitting 'perfect' alignments. OTOH, bigger is better, so the 2nd will also work fine.
Generally the WxD ratio can be fudged a fair bit without too much, if any, audible detriment to the sound. The original used a 1:2.2 ratio, I've used 1:3 in the past with no audible problems, but as ever YMMV. I'd stick close to the 1:1.4142 ratio though if possible -as GM says, why compromise more than you need to?
Generally the WxD ratio can be fudged a fair bit without too much, if any, audible detriment to the sound. The original used a 1:2.2 ratio, I've used 1:3 in the past with no audible problems, but as ever YMMV. I'd stick close to the 1:1.4142 ratio though if possible -as GM says, why compromise more than you need to?
Good to know. Much thanks to the both of you. BB is so pricey enough that I didn't want to make *too* many mistakes along the way. I've read ALMOST every post within this thread...and I did notice that the overall theme seems to be...."go with your guys' spec'd sims and do what you want...BIB can handle a little error, one of it's beauties" but just wanted to make sure my error wouldn't waste the close to $300 i had to drop for BB. Off to the shop!