Cabinet for Tang Band W3-871S - 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 13th January 2004, 01:42 AM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
coolkhoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston
Send a message via AIM to coolkhoa Send a message via MSN to coolkhoa Send a message via Yahoo to coolkhoa
Default Cabinet for Tang Band W3-871S

I may want to use the widely-recommended TB W3-871S wide-range drivers in a future multimedia speaker project. The problem is that its T/S parameters are somewhat odd. If I use a sealed box with the normal Q of 0.707, the "optimum" volume is a large 16.7 L (0.59 cubic ft.) I'm leaning towards the acoustic suspension box as opposed to the bass reflex, but if either can be made small enough (<3 L or 0.10 cubic feet) and be optimum, I can accept it. I realize that there are DIY projects on the web using the W3-871, but which one is "optimum"?
If it can be made to fit in a 8.5"x5"x6" (hwd) box and be near optimum, that'd be great!
BTW would it be wise to power the 30-watt-max TBs with 40-watt-per-channel (RMS) amplifiers just for sheer headroom?

Thanks for any advice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th January 2004, 02:21 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Timn8ter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
The single driver Elf 1.0 from CSS uses a vented box that's 6.5"x7.5"x6.25" external. Also, check this design.
John R's TBand
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2004, 08:41 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
coolkhoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston
Send a message via AIM to coolkhoa Send a message via MSN to coolkhoa Send a message via Yahoo to coolkhoa
I want to focus on a sealed box just for the sake of simplicity. With a system Q of 0.707, the internal enclosure volume for the W3-81S is about 3.8 L (0.135 cubic feet), which is a little too big for me. I understand that the 871 doesn't have a very good Xmax, and too small a box can lead to it reaching the excursion limit.

Has anyone used the 871's in higher-Q (i.e. smaller) boxes? Is 0.8 acceptable?

BTW the enclosure sizes I gave earlier were based on incorrect specs given by Creative Sound Solutions (CSS) of Canada, not from TB. Someone should tell them...
__________________
KTK. Kool To the Kore.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2004, 09:15 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
seangoesbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by coolkhoa
BTW the enclosure sizes I gave earlier were based on incorrect specs given by Creative Sound Solutions (CSS) of Canada, not from TB. Someone should tell them...
Actually, the T/S Parameters given on the CSS website are actual measured specs. The specs on the Tangband website are less accurate.
__________________
My girlfriend's sub is bigger than mine...
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2004, 10:00 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
coolkhoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston
Send a message via AIM to coolkhoa Send a message via MSN to coolkhoa Send a message via Yahoo to coolkhoa
Quote:
Originally posted by seangoesbonk


Actually, the T/S Parameters given on the CSS website are actual measured specs. The specs on the Tangband website are less accurate.

Do you happen to know how many units CSS tested to obtain this info?
__________________
KTK. Kool To the Kore.
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2004, 10:24 PM   #6
SQ Kid is offline SQ Kid  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
Send a message via AIM to SQ Kid Send a message via MSN to SQ Kid Send a message via Yahoo to SQ Kid
hey, i just finished building a set of speakers based off of that link. i built the taller ones and they are farely close to your .707 (i think its around .72). i just started auditioning them about 20 min ago and very impressed so far. i understand there will be little to no bass from these, but mated with a small sub, they sound very nice (might run off of my creative/cambridge soundworks 4.1 pc system for the time being. gotta find out the stock speaker's ohms). here's a pic.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg mvc-013s.jpg (20.9 KB, 2613 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2004, 10:26 PM   #7
SQ Kid is offline SQ Kid  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MA
Send a message via AIM to SQ Kid Send a message via MSN to SQ Kid Send a message via Yahoo to SQ Kid
a better one...
Attached Images
File Type: jpg mvc-014s.jpg (19.4 KB, 2661 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 01:53 AM   #8
frugal-phile(tm)
diyAudio Moderator
 
planet10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5
Quote:
Originally posted by seangoesbonk
The specs on the Tangband website are less accurate.
Yes, use the CSS specs... any specs on the TB site are, unfortuneatly, suspect.

dave
__________________
community sites t-linespeakers.org, frugal-horn.com, frugal-phile.com ........ commercial site planet10-HiFi
p10-hifi forum here at diyA
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 02:57 AM   #9
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
>I may want to use the widely-recommended TB W3-871S wide-range drivers in a future multimedia speaker project. The problem is that its T/S parameters are somewhat odd. If I use a sealed box with the normal Q of 0.707, the "optimum" volume is a large 16.7 L (0.59 cubic ft.)

====

Using measured specs and somewhat less simplified formulas I get 0.95ft^3.

====

>I'm leaning towards the acoustic suspension box as opposed to the bass reflex, but if either can be made small enough (<3 L or 0.10 cubic feet) and be optimum, I can accept it. I realize that there are DIY projects on the web using the W3-871, but which one is "optimum"?

====

'Optimum' depends on what the app. is, and in your case, the smallest I recommend is a 0.8Qtc with a 2nd order XO at 500hz or 4th at 250Hz to realize all of what little dynamic headroom the driver's capable of. 0.14ft^3 plus driver, then reduce actual Vb to 0.8x and stuff it with 1.0lb/ft^3.

Unfortunately, this doesn't meet your size criteria, so build it the size you want and accept whatever performance you get.

====

>BTW would it be wise to power the 30-watt-max TBs with 40-watt-per-channel (RMS) amplifiers just for sheer headroom?

====

It's always better to have too much power (within reason) than not have it and clip the amp and either have it sound compressed and/or damage the driver.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2004, 03:44 AM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Killjoy99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
When looking at John's TB site how would his designs change if I wanted to add 2 speakers per box, or more? Would the Filter values change? I would like to build a center channel with the W3-871's. Thanks
  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
WTB a Tang Band 871S joeybutts Swap Meet 14 19th November 2009 04:56 PM
Fs: Tang Band W3-871s drivers norman bates Swap Meet 17 13th November 2008 09:44 AM
I want your tang band w3-871s !!!!!!! norman bates Full Range 0 15th September 2008 06:43 AM
FS: Tang Band 871s jmikes Swap Meet 1 21st March 2007 03:34 AM
Tang Band W3-871S with KEF B139 anannra Multi-Way 2 14th January 2004 10:11 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 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