what exactly do you want ?
I noticed no one helped your last question.
Perhaps is was due to the "worse half" comment............
What is a Vampyr cabinet ?
The Tang Band is a 4" driver with a 3.5mm xmax.
If I remember they wanted a .2ft3 box with an f3 near tuning of 80hz.
The xmax of a 103 is .35mm while the bamboo is 3.5mm but a long coil can override that.
The bamboo has a shorting ring and is underhung.
The bamboo also has a peak at 6khz (I've never been bothered by it).
The 103e has a peak at 8khz that I'm sure adds mucho to s's and t's.
Then again the fostex is 2 grams while the bamboo is 3.5 grams.
I own the tang band (no lead free) but do not have a 103e to compare it to.
Most of this stuff is flavorings. "This does this better with this." It is unusual that there is no clean cut winner but there may be some clear cut losers.
Looking at the qts and fs, I think both would do similar bass response but I bet the tang band would do better and sound harsh at louder volumes than the fostex due to the xmax.
Norman
I noticed no one helped your last question.
Perhaps is was due to the "worse half" comment............
What is a Vampyr cabinet ?
The Tang Band is a 4" driver with a 3.5mm xmax.
If I remember they wanted a .2ft3 box with an f3 near tuning of 80hz.
The xmax of a 103 is .35mm while the bamboo is 3.5mm but a long coil can override that.
The bamboo has a shorting ring and is underhung.
The bamboo also has a peak at 6khz (I've never been bothered by it).
The 103e has a peak at 8khz that I'm sure adds mucho to s's and t's.
Then again the fostex is 2 grams while the bamboo is 3.5 grams.
I own the tang band (no lead free) but do not have a 103e to compare it to.
Most of this stuff is flavorings. "This does this better with this." It is unusual that there is no clean cut winner but there may be some clear cut losers.
Looking at the qts and fs, I think both would do similar bass response but I bet the tang band would do better and sound harsh at louder volumes than the fostex due to the xmax.
Norman
norman bates said:
Hi Norman. Thank you for the response. The "worse half" thing is a inside joke between my wife and I and by the way she agrees with me. She says I am a much nicer person than she is.
I am looking to build a nice set of speakers for my "worse half" to be used with a non inverting 3875 gainclone and yet to be determined preamp. I think that I will just go with a Tabaq, only I will be using a tweeter crossed over with a first order as I like crisp highs. That is unless someone has a better suggestion. Hint Hint!
As I asked in the 2nd post of this thread: any decent specs? I can't answer your question without knowing something about the driver, and I don't have time to go a-searching for driver parameters just for someone else's benefit. No offense, just stating fact. I take a (very) brief look when I had a spare 5 minutes, but couldn't even find a manufacturer data sheet; about all that turned up was the incomplete and increasingly questionable information on the Parts Express site.
Ah, ok........................
Flashy guitar guy pic, after reading that comment, I initially thought "screw this guy."
I see you've chatted on this b4....................
Someone named solve liked them in a tabaq................
The newer 4" bamboos have the same specs as the older ones.
I think the difference is the use of lead free solder and non round frame.
PE's specs
Qts = .37
Fs = 75hz
Vas = .21ft3
I run mine in a qtc .45 sealed box (basically IB).
You don't want to do that because f3 is near 190hz.
And the box provides zero cone motion control.
I ran an active crossover with a piezo at 5khz to the bamboos.
That made for crispier highs and better highs dispersion.
And louder volumes.
I also crossed to a compression driver at 1khz, worked really well.
My buddy said they'd make a nice midrange.
I think the highs are good, not the crispiest, but very good.
And if you use it for mp3's or movies, the lack of high end is easier on your ears..............
Looking at the response, the climbing response sounds fine further than 5' away (in the far field) due to lack of dispersion.
If you measure far field, I think it'll do well till 7khz, then roll off a bit.
That explains why it isn't the crispiest.
But the shorting ring and underhung coil makes for clean sound.
I love it.
http://www.tb-speaker.com/tbn.htm
select the w4-1320sd
norman
Flashy guitar guy pic, after reading that comment, I initially thought "screw this guy."
I see you've chatted on this b4....................
Someone named solve liked them in a tabaq................
The newer 4" bamboos have the same specs as the older ones.
I think the difference is the use of lead free solder and non round frame.
PE's specs
Qts = .37
Fs = 75hz
Vas = .21ft3
I run mine in a qtc .45 sealed box (basically IB).
You don't want to do that because f3 is near 190hz.
And the box provides zero cone motion control.
I ran an active crossover with a piezo at 5khz to the bamboos.
That made for crispier highs and better highs dispersion.
And louder volumes.
I also crossed to a compression driver at 1khz, worked really well.
My buddy said they'd make a nice midrange.
I think the highs are good, not the crispiest, but very good.
And if you use it for mp3's or movies, the lack of high end is easier on your ears..............
Looking at the response, the climbing response sounds fine further than 5' away (in the far field) due to lack of dispersion.
If you measure far field, I think it'll do well till 7khz, then roll off a bit.
That explains why it isn't the crispiest.
But the shorting ring and underhung coil makes for clean sound.
I love it.
http://www.tb-speaker.com/tbn.htm
select the w4-1320sd
norman
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.