I think what I need to do for the next few days is stop listening to the speakers and start listening to the music again. Just as when I am involved in any other project, whether writing or photography, etc, there comes a point at which you get so invested and involved that you lose perspective and a break is needed in order to give your senses an opportunity to refresh. So no more highs, mids, or lows for a while - just melody, lyrics and artistry. I have a feeling that a lot more will be revealed to me that way.
So my personal prescription for this week is maybe 2-3 new CDs - maybe the new Marc Cohn and Lyle Lovett; maybe The Chris Potter Underground's new disc.
bobtrancho said:
Bob,
When I read your statement: "So no more highs, mids, or lows for a while - just melody, lyrics and artistry" , I have to admit I became confused. The first part seemed to indicate you were going to listen to Bo$e speakers, but the second half of your statement contradicted that.
BTW: nice job on your speakers, they look very nice.
Best Regards,
TerryO
bobtrancho said:
Regards brightness and such, have you done comparison listening with the Tangband?
I've put Tangband W871 s (or whatever the number is) in several long line designs and was always happier with larger speaks. Far as test cd's go, I favor solo acoustic guitarist Martin Taylor's "Artistry" album.
You have to start out remembering that the Half Changs (HC from now on) are perhaps 4x the physical volume of the Needles, a good 8-9 db more sensitive, and 8" vs. 3". The Needles give VERY nice sound for their package, and in a small room playing jazz/chamber type classical they can really surprise.
Taking all that into account:
The Needles' Tangbands LF suffer in comparison to the HC's FE206 - as you might well imagine. More power and heft - smoother.
The HC's mids are about the same, a bit more detailed. I'm just now realizing (to give you an idea of just how much a noob I am to serious audio) that some of what I'd been ascribing to the FE206s highs is actually more the upper mid range - 2k Hz or so.
The Tangband's highs (using the notch filter recommended by Cyburg) are more delicate. My FE206s are now pretty close to where I'd like them to be with the highs, with more detail (some might say "sharper") than the Tangs.
I have a fairly large living room (@18'x16') that opens on one wall to a large cathedral ceilinged foyer and on another to the dining/kitchen which is 26' x 14'. The Needles had to be pushed pretty hard to fill that space. The HCs do it with much less effort.
bobtrancho said:
FYI, I've never seen an official scale designation, but here are two oft used by the magazine reviewers (or at least use to), which as you can see show considerable variance as to what constitutes mids and highs:
"Complete Guide to High End Audio."
20-40 Hz: deep bass
40-80 Hz: midbass
80-160Hz: upper bass
160-320Hz: lower midrange
320-640Hz: (middle) midrange
640-1280Hz: upper midrange
1280-2560Hz: lower treble
2560-5120Hz: middle treble
5120-10240Hz: upper treble
10240-20480Hz: top octave
This following was from "How to Read The Absolute Sound"
reprinted in Guide to HighEnd Audio Components 1992/1993 (it has been printed infrequently over the years):
below 32 Hz: Extreme bottom
20-40 Hz: low bass; bottom octave
40-80 Hz: mid bass
80-160Hz: upper bass
160-320Hz: lower midrange
320-2560Hz: midrange
2560-5120Hz: upper midrange
5120-10240Hz: highs; lower highs
10240-20000Hz: extreme highs; top octave
FWIW, since the early studies on human hearing research at Bell Labs defined the ear's mid frequency BW as 200 - 4 kHz, I don't care for either one of them.
Looking very nice, I do think the phase plugs make the Fostex drivers much more sexy looking (Oh and much better sound wise),
like the light biege, black, light biege, black contrast, nice clean lines.
Thanks for the tip on spraying the horn mouths, worked great,
black satin looks good and hides a lot more than gloss black.
like the light biege, black, light biege, black contrast, nice clean lines.
Thanks for the tip on spraying the horn mouths, worked great,
black satin looks good and hides a lot more than gloss black.
I went to hear Bob's Half Changs along w/ Martin this afternoon. I did bring my FE108 Esig Metronomes along for comparison.
First, thanks to Bob for inviting us. It was a fine way to spend a rainy day.
The HCs are every bit as beautiful in person as they are in the photos. First class workmanship.
But what about the sound? AH, yes, the sound! We initially listened to them w/ 4 ohm series resistance: excellent bass, decent mids and highs. Then Martin inserted the BSC (1 mH inductor & 4 ohms resistance.) And the sound was GREAT! I am still totally convinced that the secret to making a superb single driver FR speaker is the BSC. How impressed was I w/ Bob's speakers? Enough that I have warned my wife that there is a pair of them in our future. I can't think of a stronger endorsement.
How do they compare w/ the Mets? The HCs have way more bass: deeper & fuller. The mids and highs are a bit different, but I can't really decide which I would prefer, largely because the Mets needed a sub. A sub does more than just add a bit of thump to the bottom. The low tones are important for sound stage and imaging. If I listen to the Mets w/o sub, then turn the sub on, it's like the speakers grow larger; the sound stage has more depth and the imaging improves. At least that's how I hear it. YMMV
Cheers, Jim
First, thanks to Bob for inviting us. It was a fine way to spend a rainy day.
The HCs are every bit as beautiful in person as they are in the photos. First class workmanship.
But what about the sound? AH, yes, the sound! We initially listened to them w/ 4 ohm series resistance: excellent bass, decent mids and highs. Then Martin inserted the BSC (1 mH inductor & 4 ohms resistance.) And the sound was GREAT! I am still totally convinced that the secret to making a superb single driver FR speaker is the BSC. How impressed was I w/ Bob's speakers? Enough that I have warned my wife that there is a pair of them in our future. I can't think of a stronger endorsement.
How do they compare w/ the Mets? The HCs have way more bass: deeper & fuller. The mids and highs are a bit different, but I can't really decide which I would prefer, largely because the Mets needed a sub. A sub does more than just add a bit of thump to the bottom. The low tones are important for sound stage and imaging. If I listen to the Mets w/o sub, then turn the sub on, it's like the speakers grow larger; the sound stage has more depth and the imaging improves. At least that's how I hear it. YMMV
Cheers, Jim
Thanks Jim - I was in the middle of composing my post when your's popped up.
It was great to put faces to names and spend some time with folks who share your interests and whose opinions you respect.
I agree that the BSC rounded out the sound very nicely. Martin mentioned that the sound was a bit darker - I'd use warmer - but the effect was quite noticeable and a definite improvement. I also noted no real effect from the shaving of a few db in sensitivity (on my 50 wpc Amp10). I'm also hearing improvement in female vocals. Martin was kind enough to lend me the BSCs to play with for a while so I'll fiddle around with them for a few days and then place an order for the parts needed to complete my own BSCs.
Also interesting was the comparison between the HCs, the Metronomes, and the Needles. Some of what Scott has predicted was definitely true - the HCs had superior bass and the Mets had strong mids (some of this has to be put in the context that the speakers set up in less than ideal circumstances - we didn't spend much time positioning them and the Mets were 2-3 feet out from the wall). What struck me was how my initial impression of the HCs and the HF that was bothering me was actually a reaction to having gotten used to the Needles. Martin almost immediately mentioned that they rolled of at the high end and I believe that what I took for too much HF in the Half Changs was really just a restoration of what was supposed to be there to begin with.
All in all a nice afternoon - entertaining and educational. I'm very pleased with the Half Changs and (after 2 sets of speakers and an amp within 3 months) will settle down now to enjoy them.
Again - thanks Jim and Martin for coming by and sharing your ears with me - and a big thanks to Scott for the design. It's another winner.
It was great to put faces to names and spend some time with folks who share your interests and whose opinions you respect.
I agree that the BSC rounded out the sound very nicely. Martin mentioned that the sound was a bit darker - I'd use warmer - but the effect was quite noticeable and a definite improvement. I also noted no real effect from the shaving of a few db in sensitivity (on my 50 wpc Amp10). I'm also hearing improvement in female vocals. Martin was kind enough to lend me the BSCs to play with for a while so I'll fiddle around with them for a few days and then place an order for the parts needed to complete my own BSCs.
Also interesting was the comparison between the HCs, the Metronomes, and the Needles. Some of what Scott has predicted was definitely true - the HCs had superior bass and the Mets had strong mids (some of this has to be put in the context that the speakers set up in less than ideal circumstances - we didn't spend much time positioning them and the Mets were 2-3 feet out from the wall). What struck me was how my initial impression of the HCs and the HF that was bothering me was actually a reaction to having gotten used to the Needles. Martin almost immediately mentioned that they rolled of at the high end and I believe that what I took for too much HF in the Half Changs was really just a restoration of what was supposed to be there to begin with.
All in all a nice afternoon - entertaining and educational. I'm very pleased with the Half Changs and (after 2 sets of speakers and an amp within 3 months) will settle down now to enjoy them.
Again - thanks Jim and Martin for coming by and sharing your ears with me - and a big thanks to Scott for the design. It's another winner.
Bob and Jim,
Definitely a great afternoon, thanks for having us Bob.
The Half Changs are a definite winner. I think that the bigger mouth, compared to a ported ML TL, helps the bass cover a wider low frequency range then is typically covered by a simple port. These speakers are about the same size as my Lowther ML TL but I think that the bass output was definitely stronger. The Fostex FE-206E has similar properties to the Lowthers and we used a lot less resistance in the BSC circuit to balance out the upward tilted SPL response that is typical of this type of driver. As Bob said, the impact on efficiency was minimal. I have to look harder at this enclosure concept.
I also really liked the way Bob finished his two sets of speakers. The black painted baffle and top made a nice contrast with the light wood stained sides. They looked good in the pictures and better in person.
Scott did a terrific job on this design, I cannot even begin to imagine what it would sound like as a double horn.
Definitely a great afternoon, thanks for having us Bob.
The Half Changs are a definite winner. I think that the bigger mouth, compared to a ported ML TL, helps the bass cover a wider low frequency range then is typically covered by a simple port. These speakers are about the same size as my Lowther ML TL but I think that the bass output was definitely stronger. The Fostex FE-206E has similar properties to the Lowthers and we used a lot less resistance in the BSC circuit to balance out the upward tilted SPL response that is typical of this type of driver. As Bob said, the impact on efficiency was minimal. I have to look harder at this enclosure concept.
I also really liked the way Bob finished his two sets of speakers. The black painted baffle and top made a nice contrast with the light wood stained sides. They looked good in the pictures and better in person.
Scott did a terrific job on this design, I cannot even begin to imagine what it would sound like as a double horn.
half chang with b20 pionneer
I am contemplating building the half chang using the half changs' plan using the pioneer B20 with dayton neo tweets ala Gychangs' Changs. Do you guys think this is a good idea? Whew!! That's a lot of chang! If it is doable what modifications if any should I do?
Thanks in advance people of DIY!
I am contemplating building the half chang using the half changs' plan using the pioneer B20 with dayton neo tweets ala Gychangs' Changs. Do you guys think this is a good idea? Whew!! That's a lot of chang! If it is doable what modifications if any should I do?
Thanks in advance people of DIY!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.