I haven't done any DIY amp yet, but I'm following what's happening on a global scale. The bottom amp on the picture is a DIY amp member koldby build, a Goldmund Telos 400 clone, it stayed here after he and member BYRTT visited me. I just couldn't say goodbye to it
.He had an assortment of DIY amps with him and the Goldmund clone and the Fetzilla he also brought with him sure made a positive and lasting impression.
The only DIY I did on an amp was some small tweaks on the Goldmund, adding a start-up delay and correcting some minor faults on the original design (helped out by koldby to figure it all out).
It's 2x 350 watt into 8 ohm power house and was noticeably different (more refined and stronger) than the old and tired Pioneer A757 Mark II it replaced.
Well, wesayso, not only is your efforts impressive with regards to both your extraordinary DIY speakers and this thread Thanks, for all info and contributions!
It has made me realize that I do not have the time to my own DIY-speakers... Not now when you set the standard!
Respected regards
Thanks, for all info and contributions!It has made me realize that I do not have the time to my own DIY-speakers... Not now when you set the standard!
Respected regards
Well, wesayso, not only is your efforts impressive with regards to both your extraordinary DIY speakers and this thread
It has made me realize that I do not have the time to my own DIY-speakers... Not now when you set the standard!
Respected regards
Don't worry!
DIY audio is not a race! Everybody has his/her own pace.
As for evidence... the many years since this thread has started!
What's important is to find the time to listen to the music and enjoy.
My own experience...
I've had a number of 50/100W D amp boards, and they were cute. But they can't hold a candle to AB amps when pushed a bit harder. AB have a lot more grunt and presence/imaging than D amps.
D amps are perfect for background music where low power is needed to drive them. At least, the ones I tried.
Well, wesayso, not only is your efforts impressive with regards to both your extraordinary DIY speakers and this thread
It has made me realize that I do not have the time to my own DIY-speakers... Not now when you set the standard!
Respected regards
Thank you for your kind words!
In all honesty, I did mean to inspire others to pursue a dream, not to scare anyone from trying.
I still have enough time to make up my mind. I'm going to start on the subwoofers first. After that it will be a toss up between trying front ambience or trying a single center tweeter which would have the single job of playing the parts of the spectrum that get obscured due to the cross talk between our ears. It would have to have strong output starting at 1750 Hz and above and be small enough for me to get away with it (WAF). Something like a Sausalito lens able to play low enough...
An excellent candidate for 3D printing...
Attachments
Last edited:
In a way, I'm hoping to have cleared the path to start working on my subwoofers. I'm still off work this week, doing chores around the house, one of them is to clean out the garage. This will hopefully lead the way to do some actual work in there again.
I always have to many plans and things to try and will need to focus again to get anything done. Anyone else have this same problem? Always running out of time? Worst thing is the long, but very enjoyable listening sessions eating up the time to do something useful
Doing more ambient exercises would require more amplifiers and building extra cabinets. I still have 2 unused TC9 drivers, I was thinking of using the small 10F's for front ambience duty and making slightly bigger, ported enclosures for the back. Then again, I've often thought of different spots to hide them (I'd have to hide them as my girlfriend already thinks I'm crazy as is, saying: no more speakers or damping panels!)
It's not that she does not like the outcome, but she reminds me this is a living space first and foremost. She'd love for me to have a dedicated listening space where I could go crazy, as would I. Our house just doesn't have the room.
How I would love to go really wild and crazy. However, part of this challenge is how far I can get things with these restrictions, which already is getting me further than I ever imagined. But the need to see how far I can go with it does not seem to end just yet.
It's too much fun, getting lost in the music in the listening sessions and getting an education out of it.
I'll try and get the focus back on one project at a time, but I cannot promise anything
Meanwhile, any suggestions on amps to use for 4 ambient channels, of about 60 watt each? I still remember the Fetzilla with fond memories
Hi Ronald
I would probably go for a hypex
Hypex Electronics B.V.
for the subs and build them inside the subwoofer enclosure. These are 250W power amps with integrated SMPS and the add a signal sensing power on system. Then you dont have to worry about any WAF factor
For the ambient system I would try to find a cheaper class d maybe only 30watt, but again integrate them in the speaker enclosure and with a signal sensing on system
Do Hypex sell these OEM amps to private persons like me? I'd likely upgrade to the 500 watt variant to have headroom, if I can get my hands on them.
They do have some 30 watt UcD amps on sale.
There's always this one: Hypex Electronics webshop, even though it has way more features than I need.
They do have some 30 watt UcD amps on sale.
There's always this one: Hypex Electronics webshop, even though it has way more features than I need.
Last edited:
I can get them for you, if you would like that. The 30 watt UcD would be excellent for the ambient channels, I guess. Here is a link to an automatic signal power up :
Project 38
Lavoce Italiana FSF041.00: Worthy contender/successor to Tymphany TC9FD18-08?
I recently received an email from Parts Express announcing they would begin carrying the Lavoce Italiana line of speaker drivers in mid-September 2018. Looking at their products I noticed a 4” driver with the same frame style as the TC9 and thought I’d check it out. Here are the links to both product pages:
Tymphany TC9FD18-08:
Peerless by Tymphany TC9FD18-08 3-1/2" Full Range Paper Cone Woofer
PDF spec sheet: https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1062--tymphany-tc9fd18-08-spec-sheet.pdf
Lavoce FSF041.00:
LaVoce FSF041.00 4" Ferrite Full-Range Woofer 8 Ohm
PDF spec sheet:
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/293-709--lavoce-fsf041.00-specifications.pdf
A quick glance makes the newcomer seem like a promising contender. Due to its size you would use 20 or 21 per cabinet vs 25 TC9s as 25 Lavoces would exceed a standard 8 ft (2.44 m) ceiling height. Even so, at 20 per side it has a combined Sd of 1080 cm2 vs the 908 cm2 of 25 TC9s. Somewhat surprisingly (to me), the Xmax is 2.2 mm vs the TC9 at 2.6 mm. Sensitivity is 89 dB vs 84 dB for the TC9.
X, wesayso, fluid, BYRTT, the usual suspects: would anyone be willing to run some sims for 20 Lavoces per cabinet? A somewhat educated guess on my part would think about 3 liters per driver would work but I’d like to see the science behind the possibilities. At its retail price of $15 USD you’d be looking at $600 for 40 Lavoces. I haven’t checked into quantity pricing yet but even the retail pricing doesn’t seem unreasonable. Is it as promising as it seems?
I recently received an email from Parts Express announcing they would begin carrying the Lavoce Italiana line of speaker drivers in mid-September 2018. Looking at their products I noticed a 4” driver with the same frame style as the TC9 and thought I’d check it out. Here are the links to both product pages:
Tymphany TC9FD18-08:
Peerless by Tymphany TC9FD18-08 3-1/2" Full Range Paper Cone Woofer
PDF spec sheet: https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1062--tymphany-tc9fd18-08-spec-sheet.pdf
Lavoce FSF041.00:
LaVoce FSF041.00 4" Ferrite Full-Range Woofer 8 Ohm
PDF spec sheet:
https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/293-709--lavoce-fsf041.00-specifications.pdf
A quick glance makes the newcomer seem like a promising contender. Due to its size you would use 20 or 21 per cabinet vs 25 TC9s as 25 Lavoces would exceed a standard 8 ft (2.44 m) ceiling height. Even so, at 20 per side it has a combined Sd of 1080 cm2 vs the 908 cm2 of 25 TC9s. Somewhat surprisingly (to me), the Xmax is 2.2 mm vs the TC9 at 2.6 mm. Sensitivity is 89 dB vs 84 dB for the TC9.
X, wesayso, fluid, BYRTT, the usual suspects: would anyone be willing to run some sims for 20 Lavoces per cabinet? A somewhat educated guess on my part would think about 3 liters per driver would work but I’d like to see the science behind the possibilities. At its retail price of $15 USD you’d be looking at $600 for 40 Lavoces. I haven’t checked into quantity pricing yet but even the retail pricing doesn’t seem unreasonable. Is it as promising as it seems?
Volume displacement capabilities becomes very close between 20x Lavoces or 25x TC9. (combined Sd x X-max)
What I like about the TC9 is it's low moving mass, the somewhat smaller size, it's frequency response, the non stamped steel basket, the shorting rings and of course the fact that a lot more real life data was available for it (like IR response and FR curves from a lot more sources globally).
I'd still pick the TC9 in this comparison for array duty. Or choose an even smaller driver with enough x-max to compensate for it's smaller size. (or use subs underneath)
Are you serious about using this driver in an array? What would make you pick it over the TC9? I'd suggest buying samples from both and just listen. Whatever you like (or dislike) you'll get back on steroids in an array.
What I like about the TC9 is it's low moving mass, the somewhat smaller size, it's frequency response, the non stamped steel basket, the shorting rings and of course the fact that a lot more real life data was available for it (like IR response and FR curves from a lot more sources globally).
I'd still pick the TC9 in this comparison for array duty. Or choose an even smaller driver with enough x-max to compensate for it's smaller size. (or use subs underneath)
Are you serious about using this driver in an array? What would make you pick it over the TC9? I'd suggest buying samples from both and just listen. Whatever you like (or dislike) you'll get back on steroids in an array.
I don't have any reason to pick it over the TC9 at this point. It's a new driver and I was wondering how it might compare through simulations to the TC9, which you have proven is at the top of the heap in bang-for-the-buck line array drivers. PE is out of stock on the TC9 until October but I'm not in a hurry. Line arrays are intriguing to me, in large part because of what you have wrung out of the TC9 over the last few years. It may take me a couple of years to put a line array together. If Tymphany decides the TC9 should go end-of-life before I make the decision to proceed it would be nice to have another driver alternative to hand.
I appreciate your suggestion to try a couple of each. Small-scale testing as a predictor of large-scale results.
CraigSu
Hi CraigSu
Thanks sharing info for that new device, that said think TC9 will always has it low cost blah blah blah against it as reason for let customers doubt its worth and probably wesayso and Pano would agree on that point, think most important is TC9 raw response is one of the smoothest in class then add a serius dead frame with excelent ventilation plus shorting ring feature, only if i have seen is a personal test with 4 other full rangers where the only one that had 3rd order harmonics depressed below 2nd order harmonic distortion was 10F, but wouldn't hang my hat on result without further investigation because it was a big cardboard baffle that maybe could flap a little and also i used a very old LUXMAN reciever as amp that could be responsible for some of that distortion profile. If you read xrk971 and my subjective review linked into post 1 and also read when ra7 had vistors from local HiFi club over his TC9 based array build thread it should be obvius this low cost driver can perform excelent.
Think 10F is too expensive in higher numbers than a pair, should i come to think of other that maybe could be brought up to TC9 like performance and be interesting is Faital Pro 3FE22 but in 16 ohm version, it needs only 2 liters for a 0,7071 Qts and is relative smooth provided its superior effiency that will make up for the less Xmax compared to TC9, one day i buy a pair of these to see if it corrected can reach up to TC9/10F and reason is as for member mitchba i think i become subjective familar how dampening influence sound and being 16 ohm we get better ratio into this feature provided amp can swing the higher voltage that was a everyday spec back in time, also it did compete subjective and objective well over at xrk971's comparison threads.
Below is simulation for sealed enclosure 1 watt input for TC9/FSF041.00/3FE22 (16ohms), FSF041.00 can also reach Qtc of 0,7071 and a bit lower extension but it will take 25 liters then so used 3 liters as volume for simulation.
Thanks sharing info for that new device, that said think TC9 will always has it low cost blah blah blah against it as reason for let customers doubt its worth and probably wesayso and Pano would agree on that point, think most important is TC9 raw response is one of the smoothest in class then add a serius dead frame with excelent ventilation plus shorting ring feature, only if i have seen is a personal test with 4 other full rangers where the only one that had 3rd order harmonics depressed below 2nd order harmonic distortion was 10F, but wouldn't hang my hat on result without further investigation because it was a big cardboard baffle that maybe could flap a little and also i used a very old LUXMAN reciever as amp that could be responsible for some of that distortion profile. If you read xrk971 and my subjective review linked into post 1 and also read when ra7 had vistors from local HiFi club over his TC9 based array build thread it should be obvius this low cost driver can perform excelent.
Think 10F is too expensive in higher numbers than a pair, should i come to think of other that maybe could be brought up to TC9 like performance and be interesting is Faital Pro 3FE22 but in 16 ohm version, it needs only 2 liters for a 0,7071 Qts and is relative smooth provided its superior effiency that will make up for the less Xmax compared to TC9, one day i buy a pair of these to see if it corrected can reach up to TC9/10F and reason is as for member mitchba i think i become subjective familar how dampening influence sound and being 16 ohm we get better ratio into this feature provided amp can swing the higher voltage that was a everyday spec back in time, also it did compete subjective and objective well over at xrk971's comparison threads.
Below is simulation for sealed enclosure 1 watt input for TC9/FSF041.00/3FE22 (16ohms), FSF041.00 can also reach Qtc of 0,7071 and a bit lower extension but it will take 25 liters then so used 3 liters as volume for simulation.
Attachments
Last edited:
BYRTT, thanks for running the sims. I realize this is run on manufacturer's data alone but we have to have a starting point for comparison, don't we? I had just finished reading the entire thread again (it's taking much longer each time) and I appreciate the reviews provided by you and Xrk971. I have no doubt the TC9 has proven itself as something way beyond a "TV speaker" when used in careful application by Ronald, ra7, fluid, Perceval, Pano, yourself, and many others. The TC9 is truly a gem.
As a hopeful signal, the TC9 is produced in batches as far as I know. I remember I had to wait quite a while for my order to come trough. I'm hoping this gem will stay in production for quite a while.
I've often looked for alternatives, but it isn't easy to find one. Especially if the goal is to really run it full range. As you see from BYRTT's sim, the TC9 would love a bigger enclosure too, as it's QTS is rather high to start with. I "only" have it in about a 2.1/2.2 litre enclosure space per driver.
I've often looked for alternatives, but it isn't easy to find one. Especially if the goal is to really run it full range. As you see from BYRTT's sim, the TC9 would love a bigger enclosure too, as it's QTS is rather high to start with. I "only" have it in about a 2.1/2.2 litre enclosure space per driver.
Knowing your A4-sized footprint was a self-imposed design constraint due to room size and WAF (GAF?) what would have been your optimal space per driver without those constraints?