I know a comparison was done between two of the above and the frugelhorn awhile back but these all used the smaller Fostex speakers. Which of the above is likely to give the smoothest response in a Fostex 167 type speaker. I guess one could get lucky with the room response to smooth things out a bit but the BIB always models with big dips and yet people like the sound.
There was a tapped horn done on this or one of the other forums with two 6"
speakers which was quite compact and went quite low. Would this be a better answer than the above types with something else, what?, above about 80Hz
mounted on top of two of these tapped horns. Probably to be used in a small room, about 140 sq. ft. for jazz ( small groups and big bands, 60s - 70s rock, some classical including full orchestra and opera. Pipe organ music occasionally
though big pipes will be challenge. Using solid state at present but hope to look at SETs of about 8 -10 Watts a bit later on. Mainly CDs for source.
jamikl
There was a tapped horn done on this or one of the other forums with two 6"
speakers which was quite compact and went quite low. Would this be a better answer than the above types with something else, what?, above about 80Hz
mounted on top of two of these tapped horns. Probably to be used in a small room, about 140 sq. ft. for jazz ( small groups and big bands, 60s - 70s rock, some classical including full orchestra and opera. Pipe organ music occasionally
though big pipes will be challenge. Using solid state at present but hope to look at SETs of about 8 -10 Watts a bit later on. Mainly CDs for source.
jamikl
The whole thing about BiB's having terribly ragged dips is (a) a myth, and (b) based on totally outdated information.
BiB actually does not model with those dips using Martin's latest work. The old graphs were made from MJK's earlier work which made the simplifying assumption that the driver and terminus were coincident.
Then later, MJK did a separate study (and worksheet) taking into account the actual BiB geometry. And the results are -completely- different and more accurate (and match subjective listener impressions).
So definitely check out is paper here: http://www.quarter-wave.com/General/Fostex_FE-167E_BIB_Design.pdf
The main difference between all those boxes is size. But also, the BiB has an "airy, open" horn sound which is very different from the (very enjoyable, some would argue superior) ML sound.
Although the ML technique is arguably the way to get deeper bass in a smaller cabinet (and is perhaps more flexible), if you (a) have perfect corners, (b) don't mind something big, (c) have an appropriate driver, (d) are willing to experiment and tweak, and (e) you prefer that "airy, open" sound, then BiB's are a must-try in my opinion.
Also, when looking at Martin's paper, note that his sim is just one sim! He could have measured off-axis, stuffed it more or less, and pulled it out further from the wall for "less bass" (but who wants that?!) In other words, he could have created many different graphs which could have been smoother. But that one sim he provided is basically very close to what my BiB's sound like, and seems close to the subjective listening impressions I've read
If you are curious to simulate your own, definitely consider getting MJK's worksheets (bargain of the century and they provide hours and hours of fun and learning). That will basically let you fine-tune and simulate based on the exact driver you choose (assuming accurate specs) and your exact room / ceiling height / intended positioning.
So I vote BiB
BiB actually does not model with those dips using Martin's latest work. The old graphs were made from MJK's earlier work which made the simplifying assumption that the driver and terminus were coincident.
Then later, MJK did a separate study (and worksheet) taking into account the actual BiB geometry. And the results are -completely- different and more accurate (and match subjective listener impressions).
So definitely check out is paper here: http://www.quarter-wave.com/General/Fostex_FE-167E_BIB_Design.pdf
The main difference between all those boxes is size. But also, the BiB has an "airy, open" horn sound which is very different from the (very enjoyable, some would argue superior) ML sound.
Although the ML technique is arguably the way to get deeper bass in a smaller cabinet (and is perhaps more flexible), if you (a) have perfect corners, (b) don't mind something big, (c) have an appropriate driver, (d) are willing to experiment and tweak, and (e) you prefer that "airy, open" sound, then BiB's are a must-try in my opinion.
Also, when looking at Martin's paper, note that his sim is just one sim! He could have measured off-axis, stuffed it more or less, and pulled it out further from the wall for "less bass" (but who wants that?!) In other words, he could have created many different graphs which could have been smoother. But that one sim he provided is basically very close to what my BiB's sound like, and seems close to the subjective listening impressions I've read
If you are curious to simulate your own, definitely consider getting MJK's worksheets (bargain of the century and they provide hours and hours of fun and learning). That will basically let you fine-tune and simulate based on the exact driver you choose (assuming accurate specs) and your exact room / ceiling height / intended positioning.
So I vote BiB
I am using Fostex Fe166en in BIBs in a 168 sq ft room, and the music is very enjoyable.
Corner/back wall placement is important though. At first I had them at a distance from the walls and bass was weak. Now I have one speaker near the corner, the other near the back wall (don't have 2 corners which I can use), bass is greatly improved.
Handles most type of music well except heavy metal, and I guess techno with a lot noise/distortion in it. Acoustic and jazz really shine and so does new age stuff (Medwyn Goodall, Enya). Listening gives that "one more track" feeling... and yes, the sound is open and airy, sounds natural. People who have listened to the setup have used words like "sound like live performance" to describe the feeling.
Also very easy to build! Only caveat can be the size... footprint is kind of ok (my one is 11" x 16") but pretty tall at 65"... makes it a BIG cabinet. the removable front panel makes it very easy to tune to your room or to your taste, and I have had good results playing around with the stuffing.
Fostex should do great with 8-10 watts. My BIB really sings with 9 watt amp and does decent even with the 3.5 wpc Miniwatt.
So I vote BIB too!
-Zia
Corner/back wall placement is important though. At first I had them at a distance from the walls and bass was weak. Now I have one speaker near the corner, the other near the back wall (don't have 2 corners which I can use), bass is greatly improved.
Handles most type of music well except heavy metal, and I guess techno with a lot noise/distortion in it. Acoustic and jazz really shine and so does new age stuff (Medwyn Goodall, Enya). Listening gives that "one more track" feeling... and yes, the sound is open and airy, sounds natural. People who have listened to the setup have used words like "sound like live performance" to describe the feeling.
Also very easy to build! Only caveat can be the size... footprint is kind of ok (my one is 11" x 16") but pretty tall at 65"... makes it a BIG cabinet. the removable front panel makes it very easy to tune to your room or to your taste, and I have had good results playing around with the stuffing.
Fostex should do great with 8-10 watts. My BIB really sings with 9 watt amp and does decent even with the 3.5 wpc Miniwatt.
So I vote BIB too!
-Zia
Thanks rjbond3rd and zman01. As far as I am aware I was using the current MJK sheets in a full version of Mathcad.
I should read the article though. I have had the MJK sheets since they were free and have had the paid version for
a couple of years. Still modeled the BIB with lots of dips but I will keep working on it.
jamikl
I should read the article though. I have had the MJK sheets since they were free and have had the paid version for
a couple of years. Still modeled the BIB with lots of dips but I will keep working on it.
jamikl
Last edited:
>>> you prefer that "airy, open" sound, then BiB's are a must-try in my opinion.
Right. If the BIBs are in or near corners they provide a great musical bass/mid bass traveling upwards that fills the room in a way that enlarges the image. The BIB images BIG!
IMO you can only get a more airy presentation with open baffle but then you lose the interesting characteristic BIB sound. Open baffle sounds a bit 'dryer' than the BIB, which sounds full and bouncy. Closed boxes or ones with small ports on them sound smaller in scale to me than OB and BIBs. I've not heard Fonkens but imagine they'd offer their own special seasoning.
Right. If the BIBs are in or near corners they provide a great musical bass/mid bass traveling upwards that fills the room in a way that enlarges the image. The BIB images BIG!
IMO you can only get a more airy presentation with open baffle but then you lose the interesting characteristic BIB sound. Open baffle sounds a bit 'dryer' than the BIB, which sounds full and bouncy. Closed boxes or ones with small ports on them sound smaller in scale to me than OB and BIBs. I've not heard Fonkens but imagine they'd offer their own special seasoning.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.