You're welcome!
If you're tuning to Fs you will and in the pioneer days of audio, cabs were typically sized/tuned to ~1.6*Fs to take max advantage of the cab's efficiency at Fb and driver efficiency at Fs to protect/extend its response below it. Final tuning was done by adjusting the field coil's input voltage to set its effective Qts/system Q. Later, when permanent magnets became the standard a variable damping control circuit (bass, treble boost) was incorporated into the amp/receiver.
Anyway, my response was predicated on the BIB's standard one octave below Fs tuning, but if your CCS amp has enough adjustment, i.e. at least 8 ohms of output impedance (preferably more), then I recommend cobbling together a ~64 Hz tuned BIB from scrap wood/heavy cardboard/whatever if having a cut-off around Fs is acceptable (sub required below it with a sharp filter) to see if it's a viable alignment for you since tuned to Fs the driver will potentially be severely over driven in the BW where you need all the efficiency you can muster for kick drums, bass guitar, etc..
GM
If you're tuning to Fs you will and in the pioneer days of audio, cabs were typically sized/tuned to ~1.6*Fs to take max advantage of the cab's efficiency at Fb and driver efficiency at Fs to protect/extend its response below it. Final tuning was done by adjusting the field coil's input voltage to set its effective Qts/system Q. Later, when permanent magnets became the standard a variable damping control circuit (bass, treble boost) was incorporated into the amp/receiver.
Anyway, my response was predicated on the BIB's standard one octave below Fs tuning, but if your CCS amp has enough adjustment, i.e. at least 8 ohms of output impedance (preferably more), then I recommend cobbling together a ~64 Hz tuned BIB from scrap wood/heavy cardboard/whatever if having a cut-off around Fs is acceptable (sub required below it with a sharp filter) to see if it's a viable alignment for you since tuned to Fs the driver will potentially be severely over driven in the BW where you need all the efficiency you can muster for kick drums, bass guitar, etc..
GM
I have been tying a few different amps with my 208/T90 BIBs and just thought I would post my observations. The speakers themselves have "loosened up" over time and I am very happy with them, not contemplating another speaker build for a while!
Originally I had been using a modified 41Hz AMP11 (T-amp), since then I have build an RH84 which is a single ended EL84 5watt amp and a Mini Aleph which is a DIY version of one of Nelson Pass's amps, single ended MOSFET with about 10watts classA.
The RH84 immediately sounded like it had a lot more bass than the AMP11 tho after more listening it was clearly not as tight. Overall presentation was more laid back and relaxed. The imaging seemed to come from behind the speakers rather than in your lap with the AMP11. Very detailed and airy as well as relaxed - very enjoyable. I also made a similar RH84 for a friend with 168 BIBs, he was not so keen on the bass so we changed the output transformers to much more expensive ones - this cleaned up things immensely and he is very happy with the combo now. He listens to music very loudly on occasion and feels he is pushing the EL84 to the limit at times whereas with my 208s I never feel the amp is lacking power.
My curiosity lead me build the solid state version of a single ended class A amp in the form of a Mini Aleph. This seems to fit between the T-amp and the RH84. Imaging is somewhere between the 2, bass is best yet, it has that airy single ended sound but greater dynamics than the RH84. Downside - I don't feel it is as relaxed as the tube amp, I am tempted to tune the T90 crossover cap to tame the sound. The Mini - A is the amp I am using at the moment.
One of the main reasons I chose these 2 amps to build is the low damping factor and they are both intended for use with speakers of this type, the do seem to be the best suited amps I have tried with the BIBs.
My next amp (yes I am building another!) is a single ended EL34 with high quality OPTs, this is the Tubelab Simple SE. I feel tubes just have the edge over mosfets and I hope this amp will do it!
Originally I had been using a modified 41Hz AMP11 (T-amp), since then I have build an RH84 which is a single ended EL84 5watt amp and a Mini Aleph which is a DIY version of one of Nelson Pass's amps, single ended MOSFET with about 10watts classA.
The RH84 immediately sounded like it had a lot more bass than the AMP11 tho after more listening it was clearly not as tight. Overall presentation was more laid back and relaxed. The imaging seemed to come from behind the speakers rather than in your lap with the AMP11. Very detailed and airy as well as relaxed - very enjoyable. I also made a similar RH84 for a friend with 168 BIBs, he was not so keen on the bass so we changed the output transformers to much more expensive ones - this cleaned up things immensely and he is very happy with the combo now. He listens to music very loudly on occasion and feels he is pushing the EL84 to the limit at times whereas with my 208s I never feel the amp is lacking power.
My curiosity lead me build the solid state version of a single ended class A amp in the form of a Mini Aleph. This seems to fit between the T-amp and the RH84. Imaging is somewhere between the 2, bass is best yet, it has that airy single ended sound but greater dynamics than the RH84. Downside - I don't feel it is as relaxed as the tube amp, I am tempted to tune the T90 crossover cap to tame the sound. The Mini - A is the amp I am using at the moment.
One of the main reasons I chose these 2 amps to build is the low damping factor and they are both intended for use with speakers of this type, the do seem to be the best suited amps I have tried with the BIBs.
My next amp (yes I am building another!) is a single ended EL34 with high quality OPTs, this is the Tubelab Simple SE. I feel tubes just have the edge over mosfets and I hope this amp will do it!
Patience
I always planned to thank Scott, Daniel, Gaston, Cris, GM, Godzilla, and all, for the existance of my 208/T90A BIBs, along with a picture. I figured I would redo the front baffle according to Gaston's findings (I have a plan) but have been both very busy, and waiting for just a little extra cash. Hopefully it will happen very soon! Once that is all done, I can finish/paint them and take a picture.
In the meantime, I have done a lot of listening! The amp I have used has mostly been a Cary Rocket 88. I tried my modified Sonic Impact, and it did have better control of the base, but over all, the Cary takes the cake by a wide margin for me. I would like to try some SETs some day!
I got some Russian paper/oil caps (about 0.52uf) to replace the Bennic caps I was using. I was concerned at first, because at first they seemed to be less clear, though I knew they sound was "easier on the ears". I felt I needed a bit more capacitance still, so I have ordered four .01uf Russian P/O to play with. After a few days the BIBs REALLY started to sound good.
There are some (not so good) recordings that cause me to think I should maybe try some kind of a paralel trap filter like Dick Olsher uses in the Basszilla speaker, to knock down the 208's break up mode in the upper-mid range just a tiny bit, but I would not know how to figure out the values I might need, and I am afraid I might kill what makes the speaker special to begin with. On a lot of (good) recordings the BIB's sound "just right" to me (unless I over crank them).
When I started, I was adding more and more damping material for awhile, thinking I was making it better, and latter realized that I was killing what was special about the speaker. I took a lot of it back out.
I don't know just what my final baffle will do, (I have 4" wide boards leaned against the inside of each speaker now) but I am VERY happy with them at this point. Thanx Daniel M, Scott L, and all!
Sincerely,
Benjamin
I always planned to thank Scott, Daniel, Gaston, Cris, GM, Godzilla, and all, for the existance of my 208/T90A BIBs, along with a picture. I figured I would redo the front baffle according to Gaston's findings (I have a plan) but have been both very busy, and waiting for just a little extra cash. Hopefully it will happen very soon! Once that is all done, I can finish/paint them and take a picture.
In the meantime, I have done a lot of listening! The amp I have used has mostly been a Cary Rocket 88. I tried my modified Sonic Impact, and it did have better control of the base, but over all, the Cary takes the cake by a wide margin for me. I would like to try some SETs some day!
I got some Russian paper/oil caps (about 0.52uf) to replace the Bennic caps I was using. I was concerned at first, because at first they seemed to be less clear, though I knew they sound was "easier on the ears". I felt I needed a bit more capacitance still, so I have ordered four .01uf Russian P/O to play with. After a few days the BIBs REALLY started to sound good.
There are some (not so good) recordings that cause me to think I should maybe try some kind of a paralel trap filter like Dick Olsher uses in the Basszilla speaker, to knock down the 208's break up mode in the upper-mid range just a tiny bit, but I would not know how to figure out the values I might need, and I am afraid I might kill what makes the speaker special to begin with. On a lot of (good) recordings the BIB's sound "just right" to me (unless I over crank them).
When I started, I was adding more and more damping material for awhile, thinking I was making it better, and latter realized that I was killing what was special about the speaker. I took a lot of it back out.
I don't know just what my final baffle will do, (I have 4" wide boards leaned against the inside of each speaker now) but I am VERY happy with them at this point. Thanx Daniel M, Scott L, and all!
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Hi Benjamin,
Be interested to see where you end up with your cap value for the T90A. I had settled on .54uf (pair of .27uf Sprague Vit-Qs in //) after starting at 1uf and working down. Just recently I decided to try less capacitance so yeaterday added a Russina 1uf cap in series (the Spragues are inside the cabinet not so not easity accessed) which is about .35uf. This results in somewhat less presence in the mids and the sound is more relaxed which is what I was after with the Mini-A, the top end has no less clearity and sparkle. I may go down to a single Sprague .27uf and see how that works.
Yes, those Russian PIO caps are great and good value, use them a lot tho I do prefer the Spragues (maybe just because of the Vit-Q reputation!).
Cheers
Be interested to see where you end up with your cap value for the T90A. I had settled on .54uf (pair of .27uf Sprague Vit-Qs in //) after starting at 1uf and working down. Just recently I decided to try less capacitance so yeaterday added a Russina 1uf cap in series (the Spragues are inside the cabinet not so not easity accessed) which is about .35uf. This results in somewhat less presence in the mids and the sound is more relaxed which is what I was after with the Mini-A, the top end has no less clearity and sparkle. I may go down to a single Sprague .27uf and see how that works.
Yes, those Russian PIO caps are great and good value, use them a lot tho I do prefer the Spragues (maybe just because of the Vit-Q reputation!).
Cheers
Capacitance
Hi Chris,
I am flattered that you are interested in what capacitance I end up with. I have been influenced by your posts. My 208/T90A BIBs are my second stab at building a pair of speakers. My first pair was a pair of Voigt Pipes with the Fostex FE166E. Nevertheless, I will try to explain where I have been so far. Maybe we all will season the soup a little different, but I think we both must be in the ball park. I only have my ears to measure with so far.
I played my BIBs without the tweet. I played with the 208 and T90A before I built the cabs. Fist I thought, "the Tweet does not do much."
At some point I had four caps per speaker wired to a rotory switch so that I could try each set of caps, and change on the fly. I had a .047(Bennic), a 0.68(GE), a 1.0(Bennic), and a 1.5(Bennic). For me, the 0.68 seemed to be the obvious choice.
Much later, I wired a couple of the Bennics in series for about 0.6uf, and liked it better. I had planned to get the .056uf Mundorf Silver/Oilers, but on impluse asked a friend if he had any caps he could sell me. I ended up with these two Russian P/O caps that look kind of like a cigarette lighter. According to his measurements they were 0.518uf and 0.52uf. My meter said 0.52, and 0.53.
I put one in the left speaker first. When I put my ear up to the tweeter, it did not sound as clear as the 0.6uf worth of cheap Bennics in the right speaker, but it was easier on the ears, which is important to me. I was concerned, but went ahead and did the other speaker. I liked what I heard, but figured I needed some more capacitance back in the circuit, albeit less than 0.6uf. Like I said, I am waiting for four 0.01uf caps from Russia. After about the third day, the sound from the tweets got more clear. Cymbals started to sound the most natural to me yet. This is the best my BIBs have ever sounded.
I find it interesteting that such a small difference can make such a big difference! I had read people saying the T90A is sweet, but I did not really think sweet, until now. With the 0.68 the cymbals sounded small and cheap, though louder. Now the cymbals sound way bigger, and well, like real cymbals, though more laid back. The more I play them, the more I think that maybe I don't need any more capacitance. I will put the ones I've ordered in when I get them, of coarse, and will post.
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Hi Chris,
I am flattered that you are interested in what capacitance I end up with. I have been influenced by your posts. My 208/T90A BIBs are my second stab at building a pair of speakers. My first pair was a pair of Voigt Pipes with the Fostex FE166E. Nevertheless, I will try to explain where I have been so far. Maybe we all will season the soup a little different, but I think we both must be in the ball park. I only have my ears to measure with so far.
I played my BIBs without the tweet. I played with the 208 and T90A before I built the cabs. Fist I thought, "the Tweet does not do much."
At some point I had four caps per speaker wired to a rotory switch so that I could try each set of caps, and change on the fly. I had a .047(Bennic), a 0.68(GE), a 1.0(Bennic), and a 1.5(Bennic). For me, the 0.68 seemed to be the obvious choice.
Much later, I wired a couple of the Bennics in series for about 0.6uf, and liked it better. I had planned to get the .056uf Mundorf Silver/Oilers, but on impluse asked a friend if he had any caps he could sell me. I ended up with these two Russian P/O caps that look kind of like a cigarette lighter. According to his measurements they were 0.518uf and 0.52uf. My meter said 0.52, and 0.53.
I put one in the left speaker first. When I put my ear up to the tweeter, it did not sound as clear as the 0.6uf worth of cheap Bennics in the right speaker, but it was easier on the ears, which is important to me. I was concerned, but went ahead and did the other speaker. I liked what I heard, but figured I needed some more capacitance back in the circuit, albeit less than 0.6uf. Like I said, I am waiting for four 0.01uf caps from Russia. After about the third day, the sound from the tweets got more clear. Cymbals started to sound the most natural to me yet. This is the best my BIBs have ever sounded.
I find it interesteting that such a small difference can make such a big difference! I had read people saying the T90A is sweet, but I did not really think sweet, until now. With the 0.68 the cymbals sounded small and cheap, though louder. Now the cymbals sound way bigger, and well, like real cymbals, though more laid back. The more I play them, the more I think that maybe I don't need any more capacitance. I will put the ones I've ordered in when I get them, of coarse, and will post.
Sincerely,
Benjamin
>>> I find it interesteting that such a small difference can make such a big difference!
It is interesting! Stuffing BIBs and caps on tweeters take time to figure but when you dial it in just right you can enjoy the music for years to come.
I love Cary products and it doesn't surprise me the Rocket 88 sounds so good. I also love those little digital amps from Sonic Impact. They sound flatter and have less bass (my unmodified one does anyway) but they are clear and have amazing imaging IMO. Solid state has left me cold these last few years.
208 + t90 BIB (or back horn) is an amazing speaker. There are MANY amazing speakers out there these days!
Godzilla
It is interesting! Stuffing BIBs and caps on tweeters take time to figure but when you dial it in just right you can enjoy the music for years to come.
I love Cary products and it doesn't surprise me the Rocket 88 sounds so good. I also love those little digital amps from Sonic Impact. They sound flatter and have less bass (my unmodified one does anyway) but they are clear and have amazing imaging IMO. Solid state has left me cold these last few years.
208 + t90 BIB (or back horn) is an amazing speaker. There are MANY amazing speakers out there these days!
Godzilla
Happy (and somewhat flattered myself) that my posts have been helpful Benjamin. Not that that in any way puts me in the league of Scott, GM, Godzilla and co. (and of course TC) who should continue to get thanks for uncovering and evolving this gem of a speaker design.
The other thing that surprised me is that the crossover cutover (or -3db) point has to be so high. For a .54uf cap this is a first order crossover with cutover at around 35,000hz - just a little out of my hearing range!
So I did a bit of calculating. Given the T90 is 9db more efficient than the 208 (106 as opposed to 97db) the crossover cap has to both drop the T90 down in level and match it into the 208. This is simply achieved by having a very high -3db cutover point and assuming that the frequencies above say 15-18k are dealt to by our ears falling response. If I have worked it out correctly, using a .54uf cap with a 6db/octave slope, the T90A will be about 3-4db down from the 208s 97db at around 10,000hz. The 208 seems to be about 3 db down at 10khz from the published frequency response curve dropping at about 6db/octave. So having arrived at about .54uf by ear seems to be backed up by these numbers. Of course both our ears and room (my room is very bright and lively) mean there is a lot of room for "local" tuning.
The simplicity of the single cap crossover means you can adjust the response very simply to your own taste/room. I do find tho that what I feel is well balanced varies somewhat with different music types and even CDs which in turn comes down to personal taste I guess.
The other thing that surprised me is that the crossover cutover (or -3db) point has to be so high. For a .54uf cap this is a first order crossover with cutover at around 35,000hz - just a little out of my hearing range!
So I did a bit of calculating. Given the T90 is 9db more efficient than the 208 (106 as opposed to 97db) the crossover cap has to both drop the T90 down in level and match it into the 208. This is simply achieved by having a very high -3db cutover point and assuming that the frequencies above say 15-18k are dealt to by our ears falling response. If I have worked it out correctly, using a .54uf cap with a 6db/octave slope, the T90A will be about 3-4db down from the 208s 97db at around 10,000hz. The 208 seems to be about 3 db down at 10khz from the published frequency response curve dropping at about 6db/octave. So having arrived at about .54uf by ear seems to be backed up by these numbers. Of course both our ears and room (my room is very bright and lively) mean there is a lot of room for "local" tuning.
The simplicity of the single cap crossover means you can adjust the response very simply to your own taste/room. I do find tho that what I feel is well balanced varies somewhat with different music types and even CDs which in turn comes down to personal taste I guess.
Cool To Have This 3-Way Conversation
Chirs, thanx, I did not even know how to do the math. The six 0.01uf came from Russia! I plan to shoot for 0.54uf on each speaker, and see what happens. I figured I might end up at something less than 0.68uf in the beggining, based on a conversation with Madisound when I first ordered my parts. The guy on the phone told me that thier BK-16 speaker kit which uses the F165/T90A has a 0.068uf cap. The value was derived using thier LEAP computer system. The 165 goes up higher than the 208. If I have caps left over, I plan to put them in // with the coupling caps of my bottlehead Foreplay II pre-amp.
GM, I feel very fortunate to have the Rocket 88. I was doing some work for an audiophile guy. He had a bad motorcycle accident, and did not have money to pay me, so he gave me the amp, which was worth far more than what he owed me. My wife was less thrilled, but I was more happy with the amp!
I used to have an H.H. Scott 208 until my kids......that is another story. After that I listened to the Sonic Impact I got from Parts Express for about $28. for a long time. I had been reading about mods at http://www.michael.mardis.com/ for a long time, but did not trust myself with those surface mount components. They are smaller than a wingless fruit fly! Eventually, I wore out the "speaker binding posts" by using too heavy of solid core wire to my speakers, and decided to take the plunge.
The mod I did back then envolved heating four of those surface mount componants (2 resistors and 2 caps) up with a fine pointed soldering tip, and "flicking them off" the board. The "holes" where the resistors where was than bridged by filling the small gap in with solder, while the "bass limiting" caps were replaced. I also got rid of the volume control since I had the Foreplay pre-amp, replaced the speaker binding posts with some heavy duty ones, and converted to a wall wart for power, all in a project box. Later Michael Mardis pointed me to a regulated wal wart which was about seven bucks, and sounded better than the 3 times as expensive one I started with.
Sorry if you already know all this, but the geeks on the chip amp forum discovered that the designers of the SI used a couple caps to block DC from getting into part of the circuit. They found that by tweaking the value of those caps, that the job could still be done, but without choking the bass that lurks within. Michael said there are many other mods, but tweaking the value of those two caps would be the first thing to do. I was worthwhile!
I like tubes because of the mid-range. However, the modded SI does some things better than my Rocket 88. The Cary does still go deeper, but the bass is subjectively better with the SI. With the mod, the bass is not lacking, and it is much more taut.
I will look for the great colored pics I used as a guide back then if you want. I wanted to respond before we get busy again. We have had car trouble for over a week. I have not followed anything since I did the mod. So far, in my effort to find the directions I used, I see that Michael's web site has changed and evolved a great deal. He sells an amp with all of his latest mods, of coarse.
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Chirs, thanx, I did not even know how to do the math. The six 0.01uf came from Russia! I plan to shoot for 0.54uf on each speaker, and see what happens. I figured I might end up at something less than 0.68uf in the beggining, based on a conversation with Madisound when I first ordered my parts. The guy on the phone told me that thier BK-16 speaker kit which uses the F165/T90A has a 0.068uf cap. The value was derived using thier LEAP computer system. The 165 goes up higher than the 208. If I have caps left over, I plan to put them in // with the coupling caps of my bottlehead Foreplay II pre-amp.
GM, I feel very fortunate to have the Rocket 88. I was doing some work for an audiophile guy. He had a bad motorcycle accident, and did not have money to pay me, so he gave me the amp, which was worth far more than what he owed me. My wife was less thrilled, but I was more happy with the amp!
I used to have an H.H. Scott 208 until my kids......that is another story. After that I listened to the Sonic Impact I got from Parts Express for about $28. for a long time. I had been reading about mods at http://www.michael.mardis.com/ for a long time, but did not trust myself with those surface mount components. They are smaller than a wingless fruit fly! Eventually, I wore out the "speaker binding posts" by using too heavy of solid core wire to my speakers, and decided to take the plunge.
The mod I did back then envolved heating four of those surface mount componants (2 resistors and 2 caps) up with a fine pointed soldering tip, and "flicking them off" the board. The "holes" where the resistors where was than bridged by filling the small gap in with solder, while the "bass limiting" caps were replaced. I also got rid of the volume control since I had the Foreplay pre-amp, replaced the speaker binding posts with some heavy duty ones, and converted to a wall wart for power, all in a project box. Later Michael Mardis pointed me to a regulated wal wart which was about seven bucks, and sounded better than the 3 times as expensive one I started with.
Sorry if you already know all this, but the geeks on the chip amp forum discovered that the designers of the SI used a couple caps to block DC from getting into part of the circuit. They found that by tweaking the value of those caps, that the job could still be done, but without choking the bass that lurks within. Michael said there are many other mods, but tweaking the value of those two caps would be the first thing to do. I was worthwhile!
I like tubes because of the mid-range. However, the modded SI does some things better than my Rocket 88. The Cary does still go deeper, but the bass is subjectively better with the SI. With the mod, the bass is not lacking, and it is much more taut.
I will look for the great colored pics I used as a guide back then if you want. I wanted to respond before we get busy again. We have had car trouble for over a week. I have not followed anything since I did the mod. So far, in my effort to find the directions I used, I see that Michael's web site has changed and evolved a great deal. He sells an amp with all of his latest mods, of coarse.
Sincerely,
Benjamin
HeHe! I Found It!
Go to:
http://www.michael.mardis.com/sonic/start.html
In the column on left click on Input
Mods
You can enlarge the pictures by clicking on them. I basically did the VERSION 3 "STEALTH" version, leaving out the volume control. Sometimes I wish I had left it in or one could replace it with a better one. I used AudioCap Theta's on mine on recommendation of someone (maybe Michael Mardis).
Sincerely,
Benjamin
Go to:
http://www.michael.mardis.com/sonic/start.html
In the column on left click on Input
Mods
You can enlarge the pictures by clicking on them. I basically did the VERSION 3 "STEALTH" version, leaving out the volume control. Sometimes I wish I had left it in or one could replace it with a better one. I used AudioCap Theta's on mine on recommendation of someone (maybe Michael Mardis).
Sincerely,
Benjamin
cheap and easy bib!
Dayton RS100-4's from PE. Cheap, good FR response, not too sensitive, but Tripaths can pump more watts into 4 ohms.
BIB calculation works out amazingly for these drivers:
3/4" thick wood.
5.5" x 42.5" (4 of these, front, back, and sides)
4" x 39.75' (internal divider)
4" x 5.5" (for the top/bottom piece)
You can have most of the cutting done at the store, since 5.5" is what most stores carry as "6 inch nominal" board stock. Front and back and sides work out to the same panel size, very easy.
So far I've made a couple, out of poplar and cedar. Pick coming up soon.
Cheers,
Mitch
Dayton RS100-4's from PE. Cheap, good FR response, not too sensitive, but Tripaths can pump more watts into 4 ohms.
BIB calculation works out amazingly for these drivers:
3/4" thick wood.
5.5" x 42.5" (4 of these, front, back, and sides)
4" x 39.75' (internal divider)
4" x 5.5" (for the top/bottom piece)
You can have most of the cutting done at the store, since 5.5" is what most stores carry as "6 inch nominal" board stock. Front and back and sides work out to the same panel size, very easy.
So far I've made a couple, out of poplar and cedar. Pick coming up soon.
Cheers,
Mitch
Mitch,
What line length/tuning are you shooting for? I know I'd really love to know how these sound. I've got a pair of RS100-8s that I've been using in OB for the last several months, but I've always thought to try putting them in a BiB, see if I could get away without any sort of help down low with one.
Kensai
What line length/tuning are you shooting for? I know I'd really love to know how these sound. I've got a pair of RS100-8s that I've been using in OB for the last several months, but I've always thought to try putting them in a BiB, see if I could get away without any sort of help down low with one.
Kensai
>>> 5.5" x 42.5" (4 of these, front, back, and sides)
>>> 4" x 39.75' (internal divider)
>>> 4" x 5.5" (for the top/bottom piece)
Just make sure you have enough room to clear the back of the driver once the inside baffle is in place. Otherwise, yes, it's a great size for a speaker to tuck away in corners. Out of the way but provides big sound (for such a small driver).
Peace,
Godzilla
>>> 4" x 39.75' (internal divider)
>>> 4" x 5.5" (for the top/bottom piece)
Just make sure you have enough room to clear the back of the driver once the inside baffle is in place. Otherwise, yes, it's a great size for a speaker to tuck away in corners. Out of the way but provides big sound (for such a small driver).
Peace,
Godzilla
Here's an exerpt of the bib calculator spreadsheet from http://www.zillaspeak.com/bib-howtobuild.asp
The nice result is using the "rounded dimensions" and the automatic cut calculations at the very bottom.
Attached some pics of the results in cedar.
Driver Brand dayton
Driver Model Rs100-4
Fs 80.2
Vas (cu. Ft) 0.07
Qts 0.48
Line Length 83.944
Folded Height 41.972
Vb 0.567
Sm 23.358
Depth (internal) 5.747
Width (internal) 4.064
zdriver 18.216
a-b-c 2.874
Conversion
Liters
1
Cubic Feet
0.04
Cabinet
Wood Width 0.750
Outside Dimensions
Width (external) 5.564
Depth (external) 7.247
Height (external) 42.722
Rounded Dimensions
Width (external) 5.500
Depth (external) 7.000
Height (external) 42.5
Cut Boards Per Box
Front/Back 2 each
Width 5.500
Length 42.500
Sides 2 each
Width 5.500
Length 42.500
Slant 1 each
Width 4.000
Length 39.750
Bottom 1 each
Width 4.000
Length 5.500
The nice result is using the "rounded dimensions" and the automatic cut calculations at the very bottom.
Attached some pics of the results in cedar.
Driver Brand dayton
Driver Model Rs100-4
Fs 80.2
Vas (cu. Ft) 0.07
Qts 0.48
Line Length 83.944
Folded Height 41.972
Vb 0.567
Sm 23.358
Depth (internal) 5.747
Width (internal) 4.064
zdriver 18.216
a-b-c 2.874
Conversion
Liters
1
Cubic Feet
0.04
Cabinet
Wood Width 0.750
Outside Dimensions
Width (external) 5.564
Depth (external) 7.247
Height (external) 42.722
Rounded Dimensions
Width (external) 5.500
Depth (external) 7.000
Height (external) 42.5
Cut Boards Per Box
Front/Back 2 each
Width 5.500
Length 42.500
Sides 2 each
Width 5.500
Length 42.500
Slant 1 each
Width 4.000
Length 39.750
Bottom 1 each
Width 4.000
Length 5.500
Attachments
Add HD3P to Neofone BiB
Folks
After a few more weeks running in, my Neofone BiB is now sounding so good I'm not sure I want to try this, but I always planned to this, so that's what is pushing me on with this experiment.
Please take a look at the KLS3 Crossover schematic , noting just the top section only, which is the separate crossover board for the Audax HD3P Piezo Electric Treble unit.
I've already removed the impedance correction circuit for use with the KLS3's, so that's gone already.
My question is this. If I change the series 4.7uF cap for something like a .68uF, will that push the freq up, bringing the treble unit into action ~10Khz or even higher?
I do think the BiB sounds great but at the start it seemed to lack a bit of sparkle that now doesn't seem to be an issue, however, I think we can be fooled by adjustments our brain makes over prolonged listening, this may drag that little bit more from them. This treble unit is very, very smooth sounding and may make a good addition but I want to cut it in high up.
Thoughts appreciated.
Ta
Brian
Folks
After a few more weeks running in, my Neofone BiB is now sounding so good I'm not sure I want to try this, but I always planned to this, so that's what is pushing me on with this experiment.
Please take a look at the KLS3 Crossover schematic , noting just the top section only, which is the separate crossover board for the Audax HD3P Piezo Electric Treble unit.
I've already removed the impedance correction circuit for use with the KLS3's, so that's gone already.
My question is this. If I change the series 4.7uF cap for something like a .68uF, will that push the freq up, bringing the treble unit into action ~10Khz or even higher?
I do think the BiB sounds great but at the start it seemed to lack a bit of sparkle that now doesn't seem to be an issue, however, I think we can be fooled by adjustments our brain makes over prolonged listening, this may drag that little bit more from them. This treble unit is very, very smooth sounding and may make a good addition but I want to cut it in high up.
Thoughts appreciated.
Ta
Brian