Vampyr Cabs for Tang Band W4-1320SJ? - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th March 2009, 06:56 AM   #1
G is offline G  United States
diyAudio Member
 
G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belleville, IL.
Default Vampyr Cabs for Tang Band W4-1320SJ?

Would the Vampyr cabs work with the Tang Band W4-1320SJ? The only major difference that I can see between the W4-1320SJ and the FE103 is the Xmax.
__________________
Gavin
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2009, 12:12 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Maybe. I can't find any reasonable specs for it though, so I'm loath to pass comment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2009, 03:26 AM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
norman bates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: iowa
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2009, 06:06 AM   #4
G is offline G  United States
diyAudio Member
 
G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belleville, IL.
Quote:
Originally posted by norman bates
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

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!
__________________
Gavin
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2009, 08:43 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2009, 09:42 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
norman bates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: iowa
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2009, 10:27 AM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Hmm. Assuming that a/ it is indeed basically the same as the SD unit, and b/ TB's published parameters are not as fictional as most driver manufacturers are, then yes, it will go into Vampyr[e].
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tang Band W3-593SF vs. Tang Band W3-926SD Zaputh Full Range 17 5th June 2009 11:37 PM
Tang Band 593sf ? norman bates Full Range 6 16th October 2008 08:32 PM
Tang Band MTM ? wrenchone Multi-Way 11 21st November 2007 06:39 PM
8 x 12 Tang Band troystg Subwoofers 3 2nd February 2007 03:37 AM
Tang-band 2-way (W3+W8) haffe Multi-Way 10 31st January 2007 11:11 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2