There was a time when I thoroughly enjoyed what I'm getting ready to suffer through, but that time is past.
My 'problem' is that for a variety of reasons I've been forced to let my house, etc., fall into serious disrepair and I'm just now getting back into a financial and physical position to begin doing something about it, but not well off enough to pay to have hardly any of it done, so with my physical limitations it's going to be a long, frustrating, relatively uncomfortable series of DIY projects.
What's really frustrating is that everything that needs repairing or replacing is stuff that took me along with the occasional 'extra hand' of a GF or neighbor probably six weeks total of after work/weekends during the Spring/Summer of '77 to repair/build/install without having any real impact on my lifestyle.
Anyway, thanks for the kind thoughts and offer! Yes, swinging a hammer, etc., is a problem for me now, so I imagine by the time I'm done I may need a computer that responds to voice commands because I'm already down to just two finger typing and haven't even started yet.
GM
My 'problem' is that for a variety of reasons I've been forced to let my house, etc., fall into serious disrepair and I'm just now getting back into a financial and physical position to begin doing something about it, but not well off enough to pay to have hardly any of it done, so with my physical limitations it's going to be a long, frustrating, relatively uncomfortable series of DIY projects.
What's really frustrating is that everything that needs repairing or replacing is stuff that took me along with the occasional 'extra hand' of a GF or neighbor probably six weeks total of after work/weekends during the Spring/Summer of '77 to repair/build/install without having any real impact on my lifestyle.
Anyway, thanks for the kind thoughts and offer! Yes, swinging a hammer, etc., is a problem for me now, so I imagine by the time I'm done I may need a computer that responds to voice commands because I'm already down to just two finger typing and haven't even started yet.
GM
Hi GM, that's a drag. We are also renovating over here, slowly because likewise, there is no budget.
OT but if you ever want someone to build you a website with your designs, insights, etc. I could crank that out in a jiffy. Who knows, it might have some intangible benefit down the road...
OT but if you ever want someone to build you a website with your designs, insights, etc. I could crank that out in a jiffy. Who knows, it might have some intangible benefit down the road...
rjbond3rd said:
I think he will miss us.
You can't hammer nails all day and all night.
How about a 'barn raising for GM' from readers in Georgia?
As to 2 finger typing and arthritis, I'm rheumatoid myself. I use a hand car to move my BIB's around cuz can't lift 'em. Smaller MLTL's I cradle
in my arms to carry securely.
Everything I own is on wheels.
nuttin' honey
Ah, new life for the BIB thread.
As promised I installed one my 50 cent Pioneer K!VA8 in the double baffle BIB made for the FE127e.
This is hooked up to a modded boom box from Sharp. It plays loud enough for me on about .25 of the volume. Fun to play with.
The goal is to use the BIB calculator with the numbers avaialbe at
Parts Express on their item 269-568. Item discontinued after they
sold them out at 50 cents.
Bill Fitzmaurice used these 50 centers with a tweeter he pulled out and
broke from something else.
I call this subject 'nuttin' honey' because I failed to come up with anything on search (as usual) for any additional info on this.
I know from PE that it only goes to 15k hz. Over the run of this experiment I don't know if that will be a big deal.
From PE here are the specs:
This lovely 4" driver is an all-around great performer that offers excellent full-range performance in a small, fully-shielded package. These drivers are great for many different types of designs, from dipole surround speakers to center channels, and are even perfect for line arrays! Driver features: 3/4" V.C. on paper former, large flat spider, paper cone, rubber surround, and a paper dustcap.
Specifications: *Power Handling: 5 watts RMS/10 watts max *VCdia: 3/4" *Le: .60 mH *Znom: 8 ohms *Re: 7.50 ohms *Frequency range: 75-15,000 Hz *Fs: 105 Hz *SPL: 86 dB 2.83V/1m *Vas: .08 cu. ft. *Qms: 5.0 *Qes: .90 *Qts: .76 *Xmax: 1 mm *Driver Dimensions: Overall Diameter: 4", Cutout Diameter: 3-11/16", Mounting Depth: 2-1/4".
Mounting hole is a pain and I may have to invest in another hole cutter.
Initial impression is that the dimension from the FE127e BIB is muddying the lows because it is too big.
It remains to be seen what the new calculator tells me.
Ah, new life for the BIB thread.
As promised I installed one my 50 cent Pioneer K!VA8 in the double baffle BIB made for the FE127e.
This is hooked up to a modded boom box from Sharp. It plays loud enough for me on about .25 of the volume. Fun to play with.
The goal is to use the BIB calculator with the numbers avaialbe at
Parts Express on their item 269-568. Item discontinued after they
sold them out at 50 cents.
Bill Fitzmaurice used these 50 centers with a tweeter he pulled out and
broke from something else.
I call this subject 'nuttin' honey' because I failed to come up with anything on search (as usual) for any additional info on this.
I know from PE that it only goes to 15k hz. Over the run of this experiment I don't know if that will be a big deal.
From PE here are the specs:
This lovely 4" driver is an all-around great performer that offers excellent full-range performance in a small, fully-shielded package. These drivers are great for many different types of designs, from dipole surround speakers to center channels, and are even perfect for line arrays! Driver features: 3/4" V.C. on paper former, large flat spider, paper cone, rubber surround, and a paper dustcap.
Specifications: *Power Handling: 5 watts RMS/10 watts max *VCdia: 3/4" *Le: .60 mH *Znom: 8 ohms *Re: 7.50 ohms *Frequency range: 75-15,000 Hz *Fs: 105 Hz *SPL: 86 dB 2.83V/1m *Vas: .08 cu. ft. *Qms: 5.0 *Qes: .90 *Qts: .76 *Xmax: 1 mm *Driver Dimensions: Overall Diameter: 4", Cutout Diameter: 3-11/16", Mounting Depth: 2-1/4".
Mounting hole is a pain and I may have to invest in another hole cutter.
Initial impression is that the dimension from the FE127e BIB is muddying the lows because it is too big.
It remains to be seen what the new calculator tells me.
New BIB calculator
Thanks to the developers of the new BIB calculator.
The pre-made specifications for the Fostex line is much appreciated and will be well received.
Just on methods of construction I can see a difference in the way mine are made with reference to the calculator.
My front baffle board, slant and back are all the same width. Those three pieces plus the bottom are a sandwich between the 2 sides.
If the bottom is used to reference width and depth then the measure for the width of the front baffle would be identical with the front baffle but the overall length might be different.
It would decrease in cutting. But I'm not aware of how these measures would effect the final build.
The upshot is that my best BIB (the 127e BIB that sounds best) is still narrower than the refined calculations.
As this build is refined I hope to have a better build next time.
Currently I'm using some of the Pioneer K1VA8s, one in a way oversized BIB. I may be able to use up some of those cheapies
in the newer calculated BIB which is slimmer and shorter and may be able to be made with some stock boards.
Thanks to the developers of the new BIB calculator.
The pre-made specifications for the Fostex line is much appreciated and will be well received.
Just on methods of construction I can see a difference in the way mine are made with reference to the calculator.
My front baffle board, slant and back are all the same width. Those three pieces plus the bottom are a sandwich between the 2 sides.
If the bottom is used to reference width and depth then the measure for the width of the front baffle would be identical with the front baffle but the overall length might be different.
It would decrease in cutting. But I'm not aware of how these measures would effect the final build.
The upshot is that my best BIB (the 127e BIB that sounds best) is still narrower than the refined calculations.
As this build is refined I hope to have a better build next time.
Currently I'm using some of the Pioneer K1VA8s, one in a way oversized BIB. I may be able to use up some of those cheapies
in the newer calculated BIB which is slimmer and shorter and may be able to be made with some stock boards.
Plotting the expansion - how important?
GM has said at least a dozen times that these should be built to the proper aspect ratio - depth = 1.4 x width and this will preserve the expansion properly.
I am beginning glueing on a bib inspired pipe horn probably later today or tomorrow, but as it is, the depth = ~ 2x width. Is this enough to throw off my expansion rate?
Couldn't sleep last night so I went over this ad nauseum in my head and can't figure how it will make any noticeable difference.
Please advise before I make this possible mistake permanant with elmer's wood glue.
GM has said at least a dozen times that these should be built to the proper aspect ratio - depth = 1.4 x width and this will preserve the expansion properly.
I am beginning glueing on a bib inspired pipe horn probably later today or tomorrow, but as it is, the depth = ~ 2x width. Is this enough to throw off my expansion rate?
Couldn't sleep last night so I went over this ad nauseum in my head and can't figure how it will make any noticeable difference.
Please advise before I make this possible mistake permanant with elmer's wood glue.
Terry Cain's original BIB used an aspect ratio of 1:2 so you should not have any reason to loose any more sleep.
1.4 has been suggested as a good ratio, but I have seen no simulations or measurements that document this to be a critical factor.
Bruce Edgar was at some time recommending 2:1 as optimum aspect ratio (for midrange horns), and has later found that 1.6 is even better.
I would say go ahead and glue those pieces together so you can play some music.
SveinB.
1.4 has been suggested as a good ratio, but I have seen no simulations or measurements that document this to be a critical factor.
Bruce Edgar was at some time recommending 2:1 as optimum aspect ratio (for midrange horns), and has later found that 1.6 is even better.
I would say go ahead and glue those pieces together so you can play some music.
SveinB.
Bend ratio depends on several things, so there's no one 'perfect' ratio beyond a 1:SQRT(2) appears to be it for a BIB if I figured it right, though IIRC Scott did some comparison sims shortly after I posted it and I saw nothing that struck me as obviously audibly different between mine & T.C.'s. Regardless, I imagine the room's effect would swamp any differences.
GM
GM
Thank you kind sirs.
I was only moderately worried about this as it pertains to this project. The thing that got me really thinking though, is how it will impact my next project, which will be a 206 pipe/horn with multiple folds (if this one works out ok). It struck me that with multiple folds, there's no way ALL the bends can be 1:1.4. And since I've seen multiple folds discussed several times and never heard a cautionary note about bend expansion rate in these cases as a dealbreaker, I thought it would all work out in the end no matter how much sleep I lose over it. Just wanted to check though.
I'll have pics for you at some point. After much deliberation, the specs of this project are:
driver - fostex 108e sigma
line length - 95.5 inches
mouth area - 85 square inches
driver location - .417 line length (40.6 inches IIRC)
baltic birch, driver hole chamfered, back firing corner design (no k slot, not bottom bottom firing, so this is not similar to p10's iBIBk)
Checking with the calculators and the reference material at zillaspeak.com, it would seem that my mouth area is almost 3x too big. Why?
Several reasons, and I can explain them all if anyone wants, but if for any reason the 108 doesn't work out, I have a pair of 126 that should be very happy in there, and if even the 126 think the box is too big the $10 pioneer a11 will feel right at home in there for sure. The way I see it, this is a no lose experiment so I'm not scared to use my nice (expensive) baltic birch without making cheap prototypes first.
Anyway, pics and review will be in a separate thread so as not to dilute this (massive) thread any further with my BIB style variants, but as a final note that somewhat pertains to the BIB subject, I would encourage builders that make inverted BIB's with the driver further down the line (~40%) than the upward firing BIB driver location might consider making the mouth a bit bigger than suggested, due to the fact that this driver location results in less emphasis on the fundamental harmonic (less bass). Check MJK's alignment tables and you can see this effect described with pictures. Making it too big is no good, but a bit bigger than suggested might help.
I was only moderately worried about this as it pertains to this project. The thing that got me really thinking though, is how it will impact my next project, which will be a 206 pipe/horn with multiple folds (if this one works out ok). It struck me that with multiple folds, there's no way ALL the bends can be 1:1.4. And since I've seen multiple folds discussed several times and never heard a cautionary note about bend expansion rate in these cases as a dealbreaker, I thought it would all work out in the end no matter how much sleep I lose over it. Just wanted to check though.
I'll have pics for you at some point. After much deliberation, the specs of this project are:
driver - fostex 108e sigma
line length - 95.5 inches
mouth area - 85 square inches
driver location - .417 line length (40.6 inches IIRC)
baltic birch, driver hole chamfered, back firing corner design (no k slot, not bottom bottom firing, so this is not similar to p10's iBIBk)
Checking with the calculators and the reference material at zillaspeak.com, it would seem that my mouth area is almost 3x too big. Why?
Several reasons, and I can explain them all if anyone wants, but if for any reason the 108 doesn't work out, I have a pair of 126 that should be very happy in there, and if even the 126 think the box is too big the $10 pioneer a11 will feel right at home in there for sure. The way I see it, this is a no lose experiment so I'm not scared to use my nice (expensive) baltic birch without making cheap prototypes first.
Anyway, pics and review will be in a separate thread so as not to dilute this (massive) thread any further with my BIB style variants, but as a final note that somewhat pertains to the BIB subject, I would encourage builders that make inverted BIB's with the driver further down the line (~40%) than the upward firing BIB driver location might consider making the mouth a bit bigger than suggested, due to the fact that this driver location results in less emphasis on the fundamental harmonic (less bass). Check MJK's alignment tables and you can see this effect described with pictures. Making it too big is no good, but a bit bigger than suggested might help.
I wouldn't loose any sleep over it -if you want sleepless nights, I can think of many far worse (and better ) causes.
TC's / Fostex's original was 1:2.2 to be really pedantic. He also prototyped a box which IIRC had a 1:3 ratio.
Anyway, ideally the 1:1.414 GM advises is the one to use. However, pipe-horns aren't really about forensic accuracy, especially given that they're corner-loaded designs so the room has an even greater influence than it does on other boxes. I ran some MathCAD models as far as was possible & differences appeared to be minimal. So while I'd stick to Greg's recommendation for preference, unless taken to extremes, room effects will probably swamp any minor variations.
) causes. TC's / Fostex's original was 1:2.2 to be really pedantic. He also prototyped a box which IIRC had a 1:3 ratio.
Anyway, ideally the 1:1.414 GM advises is the one to use. However, pipe-horns aren't really about forensic accuracy, especially given that they're corner-loaded designs so the room has an even greater influence than it does on other boxes. I ran some MathCAD models as far as was possible & differences appeared to be minimal. So while I'd stick to Greg's recommendation for preference, unless taken to extremes, room effects will probably swamp any minor variations.
measure twice, cut maybe
I did some conversions from inches to centimeters to get better accuracy for my cheapie BIB build.
At least I'm getting better at learning the terms.
Also wary of transposing numbers. I did that but caught the error while remeasuring some things from the BIB calculator.
For a-b-c measurement I made a simple spacer cut as close as I could to a-b-c. The resulting spacer at B where B is the bottom of the enclosure made my slant too long for the given dimension.
Since the BIB is pretty forgiving and since I only bought a couple
pieces plus using up scraps, my BIB calculator BIB will be used to compare what a 4 incher sounds like in a BIB that is waaay too big
(a cabinet I'm reusing) and this one made to measure.
So the advice is to double check everything.
What I'm going to do since a-b-c is critical is go off of that measure and trim what I have to at the top.
For reference, I'm using .625 for 5/8 in stock for front, slant, back and bottom.
I did some conversions from inches to centimeters to get better accuracy for my cheapie BIB build.
At least I'm getting better at learning the terms.
Also wary of transposing numbers. I did that but caught the error while remeasuring some things from the BIB calculator.
For a-b-c measurement I made a simple spacer cut as close as I could to a-b-c. The resulting spacer at B where B is the bottom of the enclosure made my slant too long for the given dimension.
Since the BIB is pretty forgiving and since I only bought a couple
pieces plus using up scraps, my BIB calculator BIB will be used to compare what a 4 incher sounds like in a BIB that is waaay too big
(a cabinet I'm reusing) and this one made to measure.
So the advice is to double check everything.
What I'm going to do since a-b-c is critical is go off of that measure and trim what I have to at the top.
For reference, I'm using .625 for 5/8 in stock for front, slant, back and bottom.
Like dancing with a dump truck
While gluing up my small BIB, I hoisted the big one up on a stool and
scrunched into the corner nice and tight. Lifting that thing is like dancing with a dump truck. (Thank you Rod McKuen.)
Saturday is a good music day for getting lots of different classical and world sounds on my public radio.
I've become attached to the big one for those pleasant piano lower registers. The newer one built with the calculator will maybe sharpen up the string bass solos on jazz.
The real is is the organ recital.
While gluing up my small BIB, I hoisted the big one up on a stool and
scrunched into the corner nice and tight. Lifting that thing is like dancing with a dump truck. (Thank you Rod McKuen.)
Saturday is a good music day for getting lots of different classical and world sounds on my public radio.
I've become attached to the big one for those pleasant piano lower registers. The newer one built with the calculator will maybe sharpen up the string bass solos on jazz.
The real is is the organ recital.
No organ recital testing yet but the BIB Jr. is together and playing a bit.
Right now there is nothing inside: no stuffing anywhere. I do not know if this will be an advantage or no.
I request that peeps with BIB Q's please bring them in here. If you look at the BIB thread some of these Q's are answered or modeled already.
Right now there is nothing inside: no stuffing anywhere. I do not know if this will be an advantage or no.
I request that peeps with BIB Q's please bring them in here. If you look at the BIB thread some of these Q's are answered or modeled already.
http://www.zillaspeak.com/bib-howtobuild.asp
scroll down to see stuffing strategies.
Godzilla
PS. I put wings on my BIBs to good effect. When i get a chance i will post pics and my listening impressions. I will say that they do improve the overall sound but are not necessary to enjoy your BIBs. They add weight to male vocals and other instruments in those frequencies.
scroll down to see stuffing strategies.
Godzilla
PS. I put wings on my BIBs to good effect. When i get a chance i will post pics and my listening impressions. I will say that they do improve the overall sound but are not necessary to enjoy your BIBs. They add weight to male vocals and other instruments in those frequencies.
ghpicard said:
Well the most I've ever done is stuff up the peak, thin felt behind the driver and a square of fiber fil at the bottom.
After this listen with nothing in there, I'm going to proceed to the peak and the bottom. The peak I stuff pretty tight rather than loose.
The BIB Jr. is more compact for those who have those space needs or
the BIB calculators gives the same for your build.
Still, the big box likes those lower piano registers. After tweaking the
BIB Jr. I'm going to try it in a corner to see if that gives the added oomph in comparison with the ib brother BIB.
I intend to try some driver mods too since these Pioneers are expendable.