Zobel for Tang Band W8-1808? - 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 11th September 2010, 11:19 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Default Zobel for Tang Band W8-1808?

For my first full-range speaker project, I have purchased a pair of Tang Band W8-1808 drivers, and have settled upon a simple bass reflex box as the cabinet.

I would appreciate hearing from others who have used this driver as to whether the use of a Zobel network is necessary. I would prefer not to use one, but am open to suggestions from those who have achieved better results with a Zobel than without. Please relate the network component values that worked for you, and if you prefer the driver without a Zobel, I would appreciate hearing that, too.

I am building a custom preamp with switchable baffle step equalization built in, so I will not apply BSC to the driver itself. Thanks to all who respond.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2010, 01:50 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
The primary purpose of a zobel is to flatten the high frequency end of the impedance curve so that the driver will work correctly with a cross over network. If the 1808 is anything like the 1772, you will have no need for a tweeter, and most folks let the full-ranger run wide open anyway.

On a single-driver speaker, a zobel is used to control the rising response of the driver, if any. In essence, the zobel is simply a contour filter and the component values won't necessarily be textbook values. I find a zobel mandatory on Fostex 166/206 but not on the 167/207 (now a mute point). You will simply have to listen to your speakers to decide if you need to tame the top end or not.

I will put a contour filter on a speaker in a heartbeat. I find that a balanced response far outweighs any deleterious effects of the passive components. However, I believe that the best approach is to do the contour shaping digitally or at least at line level as you have done with our BSC filter. None of my personal speakers have any passive components in the boxes.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2010, 10:02 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Uncle Meat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rhön (Germany)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
I will put a contour filter on a speaker in a heartbeat. I find that a balanced response far outweighs any deleterious effects of the passive components. However, I believe that the best approach is to do the contour shaping digitally or at least at line level as you have done with our BSC filter. None of my personal speakers have any passive components in the boxes.

Bob
Hmm,
when I see sometimes 3 notch filters in series with the FR speaker,
Same feeling I have when "nothing is done", which seems to be preferred in the US.

Bobs approach makes sense

Joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2010, 11:38 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Godzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York
IMO the 1808 is somewhat hot but i listen to it without any filters and enjoy it firing straight ahead into my listening room. They are not perfect but they are very good filling my room with broad strokes, a big sound stage and stable imaging.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 02:43 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzilla View Post
IMO the 1808 is somewhat hot but i listen to it without any filters and enjoy it firing straight ahead into my listening room. They are not perfect but they are very good filling my room with broad strokes, a big sound stage and stable imaging.
So try a zobel. You can put it straight across the external terminals. Let us know.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 02:04 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
A nearby enthusiast has a pair of these drivers in a 40L ported cabinet, with BSC. It was definitely needed. Without it, the sound was too forward, and sounded very lean. Adding the BSC brought the bass back in line, with a more balanced listen overall.

These are extremely good drivers.
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 02:18 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
1808s or 1772s? If it's Colin's speakers we're discussing, it's the latter, which is a different driver. Q on the 1772 is about 40% lower, while Vas & B*L are both rather higher than the 1808.

Last edited by Scottmoose; 12th September 2010 at 02:20 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 06:48 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Bob Brines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hot Spring Village AR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottmoose View Post
1808s or 1772s? If it's Colin's speakers we're discussing, it's the latter, which is a different driver. Q on the 1772 is about 40% lower, while Vas & B*L are both rather higher than the 1808.
Indeed! The 1772 will work in 40L, although I prefer 50L. The 1808 will need at least 60L, and any reasonable implementation of a box this size will have serious quarter wave issues.

Bob
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 07:32 PM   #9
diyAudio Member
 
chris661's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sheffield
Blog Entries: 8
Ah-ha! Good point.

I always think it's the 1808, but now you've mentioned it, I'm sure Colin's are 1772s, rendering my previous post irrelevant.

Have a nice day.
__________________
"Throwing parts at a failure is like throwing sponges at a rainstorm." - Enzo
My setup: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...tang-band.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2010, 11:42 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Brines View Post
Indeed! The 1772 will work in 40L, although I prefer 50L. The 1808 will need at least 60L, and any reasonable implementation of a box this size will have serious quarter wave issues.

Bob
Which is why I'm probably just putting mine in a 1.25 cf sealed box as soon as I can get around to it. I'm hoping someone will do the testing for me and post some good values for a Zobel so I can try it both with and without.

I am still toying with the idea of an open baffle with a couple of Emi Alpha 15"ers, but they're just so BIG, and I'm not sure they're going to sound that much better than sealed boxes on top of my Klipschs.
  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 W8-1808 Cabinet majerjack Full Range 35 8th October 2013 06:20 PM
Tang Band 1808 in Madisound BK-20 cab? Racket Scientist Full Range 1 25th February 2012 06:45 PM
How well would the Tang Band 1808 work in this cab? Racket Scientist Full Range 5 25th August 2010 04:24 AM
Tang Band W8-1808 open baffle impressions Racket Scientist Full Range 3 23rd May 2010 03:47 PM
Tang Band W8-1808 8" Neodymium New $220 Pair Michael Rothacher Swap Meet 2 1st April 2010 06:57 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 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