We can sim a floor loaded BIB in Hornresp to get a frequency response approximation, but you'll need to measure your build in room with REW or similar to tweak/EQ each channel.
Interactive instrument, vocals and human hearing charts.
Yes, you can do a BIB sub with the tweeter in a sealed back box mounted on/in the BIB at the desired ear height. Research 'FAST' for a slew of designs for any 'gotchas', though no clue if any are BIB based.
Re driver choice, I'm strictly a 'talking head' that doesn't keep up with all the 'latest and greatest' in the marketplace, but if you decide to jump in the Way back Machine to the glory days of the real Altec, et al.............
Re Fhm, yes there is a lower cutoff (Flc = Fs*Qts'/2), though TTBOMK it's only used for reactance annulled BLHs, so normally don't post it as it can confuse all but the (most) advanced 'hornies'.
Normally though it's either the driver's natural 2nd order acoustical roll off or the box design roll off with only the 0.5 Qtc' sealed being transient perfect unless using some form of filter to electronically shape it.
Re peculiar, to the acoustical novitiate it's a very 'peculiar' science to my way of understanding it, so if interested in understanding the fundamentals of resonance/resonant columns (various pipe/horn theory) here's plenty to keep you occupied for awhile.
Sound power expands exponentially, so here's the octave math I used for the 3 octave example:
Fh = Fl*2^n
Fl = Fh/2^n
n = ln(Fh/Fl)/ln(2)
where:
Fh = upper frequency
Fl = lower frequency, or the XO point in this case
n = octave spread
ln(2) = 0.6931
Interactive instrument, vocals and human hearing charts.
Yes, you can do a BIB sub with the tweeter in a sealed back box mounted on/in the BIB at the desired ear height. Research 'FAST' for a slew of designs for any 'gotchas', though no clue if any are BIB based.
Re driver choice, I'm strictly a 'talking head' that doesn't keep up with all the 'latest and greatest' in the marketplace, but if you decide to jump in the Way back Machine to the glory days of the real Altec, et al.............
Re Fhm, yes there is a lower cutoff (Flc = Fs*Qts'/2), though TTBOMK it's only used for reactance annulled BLHs, so normally don't post it as it can confuse all but the (most) advanced 'hornies'.
Normally though it's either the driver's natural 2nd order acoustical roll off or the box design roll off with only the 0.5 Qtc' sealed being transient perfect unless using some form of filter to electronically shape it.
Re peculiar, to the acoustical novitiate it's a very 'peculiar' science to my way of understanding it, so if interested in understanding the fundamentals of resonance/resonant columns (various pipe/horn theory) here's plenty to keep you occupied for awhile.
Sound power expands exponentially, so here's the octave math I used for the 3 octave example:
Fh = Fl*2^n
Fl = Fh/2^n
n = ln(Fh/Fl)/ln(2)
where:
Fh = upper frequency
Fl = lower frequency, or the XO point in this case
n = octave spread
ln(2) = 0.6931
Flc = Fs*Qts'/2
= 45Hz*0.264/2
= 5.94Hz
Seems to me not quite right and shouldn't be applied in this case.
We know Fh is 336Hz, therefore:
Fl = Fh/2^n
= 336Hz/2^3
= 42Hz
Which is interesting as the same as Fs. The splitting headache is back again, so maybe missing something. Edit, duh, they are reciprocal. So how do we know Fl is equal to Fs?
This is interesting as the first BBBIB with a FS of 45Hz got down to 17,2Hz. Ten more were built, though further information, other than a crossover schematic and specifications.
4 Octaves
Fl = Fh/2^n
17,2Hz = Fh/2^4
17,2Hz = Fh/16
17,2*16=Fh
Fh = 275,2Hz
This seems a logical answer. Though as you stated and I agree, in room testing is required.
I only read through the BBBIB thread, not once was WAW mentioned. I suspect since its design purpose for the original was only for a one time parade and then thrown in the trash, seems sound quality was not given great attention. Furthermore, the tweeter was a tweeter as I recall, not a full range.
Looking over WAW, there are no horns and doesn't seem to be what I am intending, they are using a midrange starting at 300Hz whereas I am the opposite: a full range as a tweeter and a subwoofer up to 1.000Hz (the BBBIB used a 1,2μF capacitor, if understanding correctly, as a high pass filter); the driver for the BBBIB gets un-flat/messy at 1.000Hz and the Faital Pro starts dropping off at this point.
"but if you decide to jump in the Way back Machine to the glory days of the real Altec, et al............. "
I do have early 1960s Jensen bookshelf speakers, forget the model, they were the kind to be finished at home. They were rescued from the trash, original owner couldn't believe anyone would want them. I have never had a great soldering iron and never done a re-cap, so figured since of no value, good place to start. Any interest in helping? I am considering upgrading and see if the sound quality is choked by the crossovers, as the Jensen speakers in the German console sounded good (especially for 1964).
Have you done re-coning or re-winding?
= 45Hz*0.264/2
= 5.94Hz
Seems to me not quite right and shouldn't be applied in this case.
We know Fh is 336Hz, therefore:
Fl = Fh/2^n
= 336Hz/2^3
= 42Hz
Which is interesting as the same as Fs. The splitting headache is back again, so maybe missing something. Edit, duh, they are reciprocal. So how do we know Fl is equal to Fs?
This is interesting as the first BBBIB with a FS of 45Hz got down to 17,2Hz. Ten more were built, though further information, other than a crossover schematic and specifications.
4 Octaves
Fl = Fh/2^n
17,2Hz = Fh/2^4
17,2Hz = Fh/16
17,2*16=Fh
Fh = 275,2Hz
This seems a logical answer. Though as you stated and I agree, in room testing is required.
I only read through the BBBIB thread, not once was WAW mentioned. I suspect since its design purpose for the original was only for a one time parade and then thrown in the trash, seems sound quality was not given great attention. Furthermore, the tweeter was a tweeter as I recall, not a full range.
Looking over WAW, there are no horns and doesn't seem to be what I am intending, they are using a midrange starting at 300Hz whereas I am the opposite: a full range as a tweeter and a subwoofer up to 1.000Hz (the BBBIB used a 1,2μF capacitor, if understanding correctly, as a high pass filter); the driver for the BBBIB gets un-flat/messy at 1.000Hz and the Faital Pro starts dropping off at this point.
"but if you decide to jump in the Way back Machine to the glory days of the real Altec, et al.............
"I do have early 1960s Jensen bookshelf speakers, forget the model, they were the kind to be finished at home. They were rescued from the trash, original owner couldn't believe anyone would want them. I have never had a great soldering iron and never done a re-cap, so figured since of no value, good place to start. Any interest in helping? I am considering upgrading and see if the sound quality is choked by the crossovers, as the Jensen speakers in the German console sounded good (especially for 1964).
Have you done re-coning or re-winding?
...and yet it is and no, we don't as I previously noted.
.......because we started with Fl = Fs.
FAST and WAW are fundamentally the same, just have differing design goals WRT how its BW is divvied up.
Re 1 kHz XO for LF drivers, drivers are fundamentally 5 octave devices since above this point distortion ~rapidly increases, though in recent decades (relative to the history of sound reproduction beginning in the 1920s) the Multi-way folks ignore this for the most part, which in turn complicates XOs as an acceptable trade-off for better overall pattern control, smaller bulk over a wider arc with only point source drivers Vs the pioneers large/expensive horn systems.
Example: 20 Hz Fs *2^5 = 640 Hz XO upper limit or 1 kHz/2^5 = 31.25 Hz Fs lower limit.
Re Jensen...... Help how? I mean caps go bad, some designs quicker than others, but an upgrade would be the pioneer's consumer PIO (once 'dirt' cheap due to sheer quantity made, but now are boutique/esoteric = $$$), so might want to consider the still reasonably priced pioneer's original choice (AKA 'motor run'). Their old surrounds will likely need either replacing or cleaned/softened and re-broken in. No clue why you'd want to rewind the VCs unless burned up.
Re soldering irons, I'm still using some of my late '60s era Ungars (some of which have soldered 100s of 1/24th scale and quite a few 1/32nd scratch built pro slot car chassis plus a few HO scale 'ground breaking' prototypes till $@#$%! took them away from 'us', citing so called patent infringement; (I'll leave it to the 'gentle reader' to decide
what very $uccessful model it became), not to mention the 100s of motor swaps, chassis, etc., racing repairs simply because I only use Stay-Brite silver solder and appropriate flux combined with a rheostat to control power to only the amount of heat required and clean with soft water to avoid mineral deposits as much as practical, then tinning for storage. Regardless, like most things, even cheap irons do fine when properly used/cared for.
Never had the need to do either in my active years, though for a variety of reasons have quite a few used, NOS drivers that need new foam surrounds as the OEMs have turned to fine powder.
and no, we don't as I previously noted. .......because we started with Fl = Fs.
FAST and WAW are fundamentally the same, just have differing design goals WRT how its BW is divvied up.
Re 1 kHz XO for LF drivers, drivers are fundamentally 5 octave devices since above this point distortion ~rapidly increases, though in recent decades (relative to the history of sound reproduction beginning in the 1920s) the Multi-way folks ignore this for the most part, which in turn complicates XOs as an acceptable trade-off for better overall pattern control, smaller bulk over a wider arc with only point source drivers Vs the pioneers large/expensive horn systems.
Example: 20 Hz Fs *2^5 = 640 Hz XO upper limit or 1 kHz/2^5 = 31.25 Hz Fs lower limit.
Re Jensen...... Help how? I mean caps go bad, some designs quicker than others, but an upgrade would be the pioneer's consumer PIO (once 'dirt' cheap due to sheer quantity made, but now are boutique/esoteric = $$$), so might want to consider the still reasonably priced pioneer's original choice (AKA 'motor run'). Their old surrounds will likely need either replacing or cleaned/softened and re-broken in. No clue why you'd want to rewind the VCs unless burned up.
Re soldering irons, I'm still using some of my late '60s era Ungars (some of which have soldered 100s of 1/24th scale and quite a few 1/32nd scratch built pro slot car chassis plus a few HO scale 'ground breaking' prototypes till $@#$%! took them away from 'us', citing so called patent infringement; (I'll leave it to the 'gentle reader' to decide
what very $uccessful model it became
), not to mention the 100s of motor swaps, chassis, etc., racing repairs simply because I only use Stay-Brite silver solder and appropriate flux combined with a rheostat to control power to only the amount of heat required and clean with soft water to avoid mineral deposits as much as practical, then tinning for storage. Regardless, like most things, even cheap irons do fine when properly used/cared for.Never had the need to do either in my active years, though for a variety of reasons have quite a few used, NOS drivers that need new foam surrounds as the OEMs have turned to fine powder.
The first sentence I am not sure what you are referencing.
If the frequency curve is smooth, would this be indicative of low distortion? It has been said the 12FH500 does well in higher frequencies, though not that it should be used as the only driver in a system.
So a 1 kHz XO prevent a BIB from reaching the 22,5Hz previously calculated? If correctly understanding, how then was the 17,2Hz happening? Clearly confused...
I am still sick, not getting any better, and the Jensens are in storage. This and the other two questions are to simply understand what you are able and maybe willing to help with.
Are you saying the Jensens are not even worth practicing on?
The question about re-winding was the aforementioned Grundig floor speakers, my friend and I were not aware they are rated to 6 watts and the amplifier is 70 watts. They were meant to be used for a console, however, some dense heathen cut the legs off and switched the connectors to the bare wire type. They sound absolutely amazing for a vintage speaker so small (14cmx21cm) and like to get them working again, drive them with an about eight watt amplifier.
Oh? Any iron will do? I used to have this one (lost in the evacuation): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JACYTUU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1, seemed tips get instantly dirty and tinning do no favors. How are you keeping the tips bright and shinny?
Any preference on flux? I used what I used to have on hand, same stuff used for sweating pipes (I use the good lead solder, by the way, much safer for repair work as don't have to get the pipe nearly as hot).
Guess see if there is something similar, even had a temperature control wheel.
If the frequency curve is smooth, would this be indicative of low distortion? It has been said the 12FH500 does well in higher frequencies, though not that it should be used as the only driver in a system.
So a 1 kHz XO prevent a BIB from reaching the 22,5Hz previously calculated? If correctly understanding, how then was the 17,2Hz happening? Clearly confused...
I am still sick, not getting any better, and the Jensens are in storage. This and the other two questions are to simply understand what you are able and maybe willing to help with.
Are you saying the Jensens are not even worth practicing on?
The question about re-winding was the aforementioned Grundig floor speakers, my friend and I were not aware they are rated to 6 watts and the amplifier is 70 watts. They were meant to be used for a console, however, some dense heathen cut the legs off and switched the connectors to the bare wire type. They sound absolutely amazing for a vintage speaker so small (14cmx21cm) and like to get them working again, drive them with an about eight watt amplifier.
Oh? Any iron will do? I used to have this one (lost in the evacuation): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JACYTUU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1, seemed tips get instantly dirty and tinning do no favors. How are you keeping the tips bright and shinny?
Any preference on flux? I used what I used to have on hand, same stuff used for sweating pipes (I use the good lead solder, by the way, much safer for repair work as don't have to get the pipe nearly as hot).
Guess see if there is something similar, even had a temperature control wheel.
BIB Project
Hello All,
Just getting ready to build a new set of BIB with Tang Band W8 1772 drivers:
Fs 42 hz
Vas 3.335 cu. ft.
Qts 0.27
According to the calculator -
Line Length 160.29
Folded Height 80.15
Vb 12.98
Sm 279.93
Depth 19.9
Width 14.07
zdriver 34.78
a-b-c 9.95
Is this optimal box for them or it can be reduced to small one?
Room 6 / 4 m, ceiling 255 cm.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback…
Hello All,
Just getting ready to build a new set of BIB with Tang Band W8 1772 drivers:
Fs 42 hz
Vas 3.335 cu. ft.
Qts 0.27
According to the calculator -
Line Length 160.29
Folded Height 80.15
Vb 12.98
Sm 279.93
Depth 19.9
Width 14.07
zdriver 34.78
a-b-c 9.95
Is this optimal box for them or it can be reduced to small one?
Room 6 / 4 m, ceiling 255 cm.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback…
![TB W8-1772 BIB [202020] ~12.98 cuft Vs ~8.17 cuft.PNG](/community/data/attachments/1060/1060482-8da30061c20c4769dfef71e97fe088bb.jpg)
Greets!The first sentence I am not sure what you are referencing.
If the frequency curve is smooth, would this be indicative of low distortion? It has been said the 12FH500 does well in higher frequencies, though not that it should be used as the only driver in a system.
So a 1 kHz XO prevent a BIB from reaching the 22,5Hz previously calculated? If correctly understanding, how then was the 17,2Hz happening? Clearly confused...
I am still sick, not getting any better, and the Jensens are in storage. This and the other two questions are to simply understand what you are able and maybe willing to help with.
Are you saying the Jensens are not even worth practicing on?
Oh? Any iron will do? I used to have this one (lost in the evacuation): https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01JACYTUU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1, seemed tips get instantly dirty and tinning do no favors. How are you keeping the tips bright and shinny?
Any preference on flux? I used what I used to have on hand, same stuff used for sweating pipes (I use the good lead solder, by the way, much safer for repair work as don't have to get the pipe nearly as hot).
Guess see if there is something similar, even had a temperature control wheel.
Was responding to your "Seems to me not quite right and shouldn't be applied in this case.", i.e. TTBOMK actually quite true, but irrelevant as I noted.
Seems reasonable, but frankly have never researched driver distortion per se since I design based on the pioneer's works which keeps distortion low.
Hmm, at this point I'm not quite sure what your point is; I mean my response was based solely on limiting a driver to (5) octaves, so 22.5 Hz*2^5 = 720 Hz upper limit and 17.2 Hz (how low the BIB loaded a 45 Hz Fs driver) = ~550 Hz, so assume some sort of fever related brain fart; or mine as I'm currently feverish.
That said, just realized you were comparing the BIB acoustic mass loading the driver to a lower Fs to a calculated one based on its T/S specs lower mass corner, so an 'apples n' oranges' comparison, i.e. totally irrelevant.
Hope you're all well now! Just now seeing your post only because of new posting.
No, not making any Jensen judgement calls. 'Willing' in what way?
Evacuation?
Hmm, designed for wood burning, but it otherwise seems fine, mentions jewelry welding, so soldering tip quality, heat range should be good enough for any speaker related electrical soldering, general hobby stuff, but with the problems you're having, makes me wonder. Do you put conductive anti-seize on the threads when putting on tips to ensure good heat transfer?
Well, as I noted I use Stay-Brite silver solder, associated flux and historically (wipe) clean with 4/0 SS wool, though in recent cleanings been using some sort of bright 'washed' flat tin foil 'string' ball that someone gave me decades ago. When 'forced' to use water it's distilled.
That said, I've historically need(ed) a solder designed for high mechanical strength even for electrical connections such as slot/RC cars, etc., motorcycles, anything that vibrates or gets abused, so overkill for most hobby, electrical soldering, ergo any decent silver bearing rosin based solder will do.
Thank you, GM
What box would you build for yourself with this driver? Which would be best optimal?
I use your calculator and get the original box of 12.98 cub. ft has a height of 210.8 cm and the driver will be about 122.45 cm off the floor which is tall for me, around 105 cm would be very good. What solutions do we have if we build the 12.98 cub ft box?
1 – to tilt it a few degrees forward
2 - to build as shown in the files, keeping the volume at 12.98 cu. ft., but then the a-b-c changes, they don't fall in the middle of the line
3 - set to 48.78 hz, keeping the volume, the driver is 106.85 cm from the floor
4 – to adjust to 48.78 hz by reducing
Fs ratio = 42/48.78 hz = ~0.861 and Qts reduction = 0.317*0.861 = ~0.23247 Qts
the driver is 106.33 cm from the floor with volume of 10.77 cub ft.
What box would you build for yourself with this driver? Which would be best optimal?
I use your calculator and get the original box of 12.98 cub. ft has a height of 210.8 cm and the driver will be about 122.45 cm off the floor which is tall for me, around 105 cm would be very good. What solutions do we have if we build the 12.98 cub ft box?
1 – to tilt it a few degrees forward
2 - to build as shown in the files, keeping the volume at 12.98 cu. ft., but then the a-b-c changes, they don't fall in the middle of the line
3 - set to 48.78 hz, keeping the volume, the driver is 106.85 cm from the floor
4 – to adjust to 48.78 hz by reducing
Fs ratio = 42/48.78 hz = ~0.861 and Qts reduction = 0.317*0.861 = ~0.23247 Qts
the driver is 106.33 cm from the floor with volume of 10.77 cub ft.
Attachments
You're welcome!
'Optimal' depends on the needs of the app, so for me would have normally been a classic BR (Vb = measured Vas/1.44, Fb = actual in room Fs, so each tuned individually as a cheap/quick way to somewhat deal with room modes interaction) or morphed into a ~ equivalent tower/column alignment (aka MLTL nowadays) and if I wanted more bass, then add (sub) woofers XO'd at 120 Hz.
WRT the BIB, the goal was to make a simple BLH that was flexible enough to modify, so WRT dropping the driver down all it does is change the intensity of the pipe's peaks/nulls, which is somewhat ameliorated by listening distance, stuffing location/density, so in your case would just put it where you want it vertically.
If wanting to shrink it too, then just reduce Qts till you get the desired net Vb and accept the higher LF roll off as I showed as an example.
'Optimal' depends on the needs of the app, so for me would have normally been a classic BR (Vb = measured Vas/1.44, Fb = actual in room Fs, so each tuned individually as a cheap/quick way to somewhat deal with room modes interaction) or morphed into a ~ equivalent tower/column alignment (aka MLTL nowadays) and if I wanted more bass, then add (sub) woofers XO'd at 120 Hz.
WRT the BIB, the goal was to make a simple BLH that was flexible enough to modify, so WRT dropping the driver down all it does is change the intensity of the pipe's peaks/nulls, which is somewhat ameliorated by listening distance, stuffing location/density, so in your case would just put it where you want it vertically.
If wanting to shrink it too, then just reduce Qts till you get the desired net Vb and accept the higher LF roll off as I showed as an example.
Hi GM,
What do you think of the new BIB tuning parameters for Tang Band W8 1772? And would you compare with the full size simulation? I also have place for the original box, but I think the bass will be more than necessary and I prefer to use a little damping. Тhe driver will be about 100 cm off the floor which is ОК for me. I will use BIB for music, movies and TV. I listen to almost any kind of music. My amplifier for now is SS.
Line Length 160.29 / 138.01 in
Folded Height 80.15 / 69.01 in
Vb 12.98 / 7.97 cub. ft.
Sm 279.93 / 199.48 in2
Depth 19.9 / 16.8 in
Width 14.07 / 11.88 in
zdriver 34.78 / 29.95 in
abc 9.95 / 8.4 in
The result is about the size of a BOFU BIB with Pioneer B20 driver.
What do you think of the new BIB tuning parameters for Tang Band W8 1772? And would you compare with the full size simulation? I also have place for the original box, but I think the bass will be more than necessary and I prefer to use a little damping. Тhe driver will be about 100 cm off the floor which is ОК for me. I will use BIB for music, movies and TV. I listen to almost any kind of music. My amplifier for now is SS.
Line Length 160.29 / 138.01 in
Folded Height 80.15 / 69.01 in
Vb 12.98 / 7.97 cub. ft.
Sm 279.93 / 199.48 in2
Depth 19.9 / 16.8 in
Width 14.07 / 11.88 in
zdriver 34.78 / 29.95 in
abc 9.95 / 8.4 in
The result is about the size of a BOFU BIB with Pioneer B20 driver.
Hello everyone.
What would be the optimal size of a BIB with a Tang band W8 1772 driver? My only request is that the driver be about 100 - 105 cm from the floor. The size of the box doesn't matter. Should the original box expansion be kept according to the 367 liter calculator? The question is for everyone here...
What would be the optimal size of a BIB with a Tang band W8 1772 driver? My only request is that the driver be about 100 - 105 cm from the floor. The size of the box doesn't matter. Should the original box expansion be kept according to the 367 liter calculator? The question is for everyone here...
Scottmoose, GM?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ose-fostex-craft-handbooks.66173/post-1191596
Considering that there's been several different BIB calculators over the years, surprised no one bothered to note this transcribing error, especially me since in a search I've used the corrected formula in all my later postings.
Sm = 2.10804*1728/96.175 (s/b 48.09) = 75.751"^2
Considering that there's been several different BIB calculators over the years, surprised no one bothered to note this transcribing error, especially me since in a search I've used the corrected formula in all my later postings.
Sm = 2.10804*1728/96.175 (s/b 48.09) = 75.751"^2
Hmmm, I'm currently building a set of BIBs, and I have a few questions:
How big of a role does the mounting height (Z) of the speaker play? According to the excel-spreadsheet with my measurements, it should be 84cm. Would it change the sound much if I mounted the speaker 2-3-4cm(1-2inches) higher or lower?
How big of a role does the mounting height (Z) of the speaker play? According to the excel-spreadsheet with my measurements, it should be 84cm. Would it change the sound much if I mounted the speaker 2-3-4cm(1-2inches) higher or lower?
Ha, okay. So I've built a pair of BIBs with Tang Band W8 2145s, and a pair of double horns (Sachikos) with the Fostex 206NVs.
Having listened to the two for a few months now I can say the following:
I was looking for a metaphor and the only real fitting one is the following:
The double horns/Sachikos' speed and punchiness remind me of Bruce Lee. Insanely dynamic, quick on their feet and yet incredibly punchy. (so more like a Muhammad Ali?) Me likey.
The BIBs' sound in comparison has much more body, maybe like a Mike Tyson? The sound is fuller, but not always stronger. More linear and clear.
Ultimatively, the Sachikos are more fun, especially when listening to nice, clean oldschool heavy metal like Priest or Dio and classical music where the entire orchestra is involved.
For me personal use and enjoyment, the Sachikos fit the bill 100%. But I still like the BIB due to their sheer volume. That volume is useful for classical music where organs and the like are involved. But despite their physical size the BIBs are less punchy and less "in your face" then the Sachikos, their sound is more balanced and "restrained", linear.
Having listened to the two for a few months now I can say the following:
I was looking for a metaphor and the only real fitting one is the following:
The double horns/Sachikos' speed and punchiness remind me of Bruce Lee. Insanely dynamic, quick on their feet and yet incredibly punchy. (so more like a Muhammad Ali?) Me likey.
The BIBs' sound in comparison has much more body, maybe like a Mike Tyson? The sound is fuller, but not always stronger. More linear and clear.
Ultimatively, the Sachikos are more fun, especially when listening to nice, clean oldschool heavy metal like Priest or Dio and classical music where the entire orchestra is involved.
For me personal use and enjoyment, the Sachikos fit the bill 100%. But I still like the BIB due to their sheer volume. That volume is useful for classical music where organs and the like are involved. But despite their physical size the BIBs are less punchy and less "in your face" then the Sachikos, their sound is more balanced and "restrained", linear.
Last edited:
The difference you describe are at least partly caused by using different drivers for the different enclosure types. But I think the different enclosure types do have some of the effect you describe. These specific Tangband drivers are known for a good frequency response and relatively laid back sound compared to Fostex drivers. You might want to mount the Fostex drivers in the BIB and get the awesome best of both worlds that way!
I am ready to build again. By now, I have a garage workshop with a big assembly table and some decent power tools that allow cutting large panels, angled cuts, etc etc etc. I could finally build those patrician corner horns, or those Voigt Home Constructor's Horns. But my mind keeps drifting off and thinking of new BIBs.