>>> Godzilla, do you listen with the speakers so close to the back wall?
The picture shows my speakers about a foot and a half from the back wall and about eight to ten inches from the side walls. Truth is, I didn’t have much room in that room. Currently I have the speakers about a foot and a half from the back and side wall. I don’t notice a lack of bass or problems with imaging. In fact, everything sounds great as is. When I have a chance to move things around I will see if pulling the speakers out improves things.
Here’s my Vifa project. It’s a nice driver. My 50 year old ears don’t hear anything above 16kHz so I may be boosting high frequencies more than necessary to compensate.
One thing that concerns me about smaller baffles like yours is that the driver won’t reach low enough into the mid bass/bass to integrate with the woofer. In reality, I notice this is less of a concern than the simulations indicate so I expect you will have a good result due to boundary reinforcement and other in-room factors. How do you feel about this and do you notice any ‘holes’ in the mid bass?
https://speakerprojects.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/vifa-tc9-plus-helper-tweeter-on-open-baffle/
The picture shows my speakers about a foot and a half from the back wall and about eight to ten inches from the side walls. Truth is, I didn’t have much room in that room. Currently I have the speakers about a foot and a half from the back and side wall. I don’t notice a lack of bass or problems with imaging. In fact, everything sounds great as is. When I have a chance to move things around I will see if pulling the speakers out improves things.
Here’s my Vifa project. It’s a nice driver. My 50 year old ears don’t hear anything above 16kHz so I may be boosting high frequencies more than necessary to compensate.
One thing that concerns me about smaller baffles like yours is that the driver won’t reach low enough into the mid bass/bass to integrate with the woofer. In reality, I notice this is less of a concern than the simulations indicate so I expect you will have a good result due to boundary reinforcement and other in-room factors. How do you feel about this and do you notice any ‘holes’ in the mid bass?
https://speakerprojects.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/vifa-tc9-plus-helper-tweeter-on-open-baffle/
Godzilla, I finally found I needed to click on "Home" to get to all your designs... I initially tried the other menus but they were a dead end regarding comment and designs.
I had a quick listen to the TC9s today. They were a bit more "flat" than my 1772, but I must admit that the 1772 needed a lot of EQ work, and the TC9s were used "as is". So, kudos to the TC9s for playing nicely without any tweaking.
I will need to measure the TC9 setup and adjust before judging them, but right off the bat, I'd say the 1772 have a better 3D imaging.
You mention you have the 1808, but there's no comment about them on your site.
About the small OB baffles.... I'm trying different things. It was induced by the Nola Brio, which have minimal baffles and yet had the "best sound" at one of the latest audio show... whatever that means. I don't feel there are holes in the mid bass (as indicated with the 1772 frequency sweep, maybe because I aim a little higher with the bass XO at 500Hz, and the full range XO at 300Hz.
I have to agree with what you said on your site.... OB has proven to give the best sound and the best imaging I've heard... to my ears anyway. I would've known until I tried it. I'm sold.
Do give your setup a little breathing room. In my case, having the drivers a bit farther away from the back wall improved the imaging from a little fuzzy, to pin point location.
I had a quick listen to the TC9s today. They were a bit more "flat" than my 1772, but I must admit that the 1772 needed a lot of EQ work, and the TC9s were used "as is". So, kudos to the TC9s for playing nicely without any tweaking.
I will need to measure the TC9 setup and adjust before judging them, but right off the bat, I'd say the 1772 have a better 3D imaging.
You mention you have the 1808, but there's no comment about them on your site.
About the small OB baffles.... I'm trying different things. It was induced by the Nola Brio, which have minimal baffles and yet had the "best sound" at one of the latest audio show... whatever that means. I don't feel there are holes in the mid bass (as indicated with the 1772 frequency sweep, maybe because I aim a little higher with the bass XO at 500Hz, and the full range XO at 300Hz.
I have to agree with what you said on your site.... OB has proven to give the best sound and the best imaging I've heard... to my ears anyway. I would've known until I tried it. I'm sold.
Do give your setup a little breathing room. In my case, having the drivers a bit farther away from the back wall improved the imaging from a little fuzzy, to pin point location.
Well, after a couple of days, I'm back to the 1772.
The TC9s are a crazy deal at $11, one gets a lot of good sound for that little price. But, the 1772 are just better... They should be at the price they sell!
Going to visit the local wood factory this afternoon to see what I can get.
Slowly moving along....
The TC9s are a crazy deal at $11, one gets a lot of good sound for that little price. But, the 1772 are just better... They should be at the price they sell!
Going to visit the local wood factory this afternoon to see what I can get.
Slowly moving along....
Was there a difference in the measured IR?
Haha that IR devil is probably close to same when scaling into first 50uS but after that the far cheaper one of the two is much closer to what comes in comes out if that is a wish.
Here is a test build xrk971 did in past with W5-876SE paired TC9 and think it sounds fantastic on his shared sound clips even he used traditional IRR XO, attach xrk971's soundclips so you can give it a listen on headphones or near field monitor and see if you agree.
Had a look at W8-1363SBF datasheet and can imagine you had better first experience integrate TB than VIFA, TC9 is not as strong as 1772 in lows and with W8-1363SBF crude impedance rise it seems start natural LP 1st order roll off from 60Hz area and upwards in frq and also sensitivity is general low.
Based above info plus you got subwoofers out in room got to think about what about next test including TC9 then pair it to 1772 that will never see more than 4 watts meaning low distortion to keep up to TC9's spl of 100dB.
Based above info plus you got subwoofers out in room got to think about what about next test including TC9 then pair it to 1772 that will never see more than 4 watts meaning low distortion to keep up to TC9's spl of 100dB.
Attachments
suggest try something ala that with FIR XO in JRiver set to 300Hz 48db/oct LR and the correct delay for offset. 
Thanks you two.
Right now, I am running without subs.
My sub collection is a Yamaha 10" box, and a W8-740Q in a front firing horn.
None of them goes extremely low, so the dual sealed subs I have under the full range drivers do as good a job as the subs I have.
In an ideal world, I would like to try a couple of Eminence 15 in H frames, a la Godzilla, but that's impossible at the moment.
I was also considering this woofer from TB:
W8-1722 - 8? Paper Woofer - TB SPEAKER CO., LTD.
Right now, I am running without subs.
My sub collection is a Yamaha 10" box, and a W8-740Q in a front firing horn.
None of them goes extremely low, so the dual sealed subs I have under the full range drivers do as good a job as the subs I have.
In an ideal world, I would like to try a couple of Eminence 15 in H frames, a la Godzilla, but that's impossible at the moment.
I was also considering this woofer from TB:
W8-1722 - 8? Paper Woofer - TB SPEAKER CO., LTD.
It has come to my attention that I worded a post I made in haste and forgot to add some important information.
I said:
That just came out wrong.
I wrote the post, and I was in haste... I should remember to never do that, but that one slipped.
I really wanted to say that I prefer the 1772 AT THE MOMENT because I put so much work on it to make it sound better to MY ears, but I mostly just plugged-and-played with very minor tweaks the TC9, which still sounded good, and it is a credit to it's awesome behavior.
I'm sure if I spent as much time as I spent on the 1772, the TC9 would surely sound really good as well. And that is the plan in the coming days/weeks. I took out the TC9s to make a slightly bigger baffle for them, as I think it will improve on the very narrow ones they are in at the moment.
I know many of us are getting tired trying to defend the TC9 that so many are bashing on price alone, thinking it can't be as good as higher priced drivers.... believe me, I had no intention in attacking the TC9. It just came out wrong...
I said:
That just came out wrong.
I wrote the post, and I was in haste... I should remember to never do that, but that one slipped.
I really wanted to say that I prefer the 1772 AT THE MOMENT because I put so much work on it to make it sound better to MY ears, but I mostly just plugged-and-played with very minor tweaks the TC9, which still sounded good, and it is a credit to it's awesome behavior.
I'm sure if I spent as much time as I spent on the 1772, the TC9 would surely sound really good as well. And that is the plan in the coming days/weeks. I took out the TC9s to make a slightly bigger baffle for them, as I think it will improve on the very narrow ones they are in at the moment.
I know many of us are getting tired trying to defend the TC9 that so many are bashing on price alone, thinking it can't be as good as higher priced drivers.... believe me, I had no intention in attacking the TC9. It just came out wrong...
Alright, so this time, I'm going to stick to what I can hear and measure.
It's not so easy. I usually have about one hour of quiet time, and I have to pull all the setup out, dampening panels, mic, etc... So, I barely have time to try a few things at a time.
I made baffles of 30cm x 30cm for the TC9s, which is the same as the W8-1772 baffles.
Here's the 1772 Frequency sweeps, one with the 1772s by themselves, the other using the woofers as well. There's a room node at 55Hz, and another one around 200-300 Hz, that's for the woofers. One other node I realised was at 2.8kHz. As I tried to lift it up by 2 or 3dB, I noticed nothing had changed. I went extreme and added a 10dB boost, and it still didn't change. So, as much as I try to give it, it cancels itself there. I didn't have time to move the mic to see if the cancellation was only at the listening position, or around the room.
I then tried to EQ the TC9s, which was a bit easier to do than with the 1772s. A funny thing here, the 2.8kHz cancellation is not present. So, it was driver related, and not position related.
Here's without and with woofers.
Finally, the piece de résistance... The impulse of the 1772s and the TC9s, without the woofers. Yes, the TC9s are a lot cleaner there.
So, what does it all mean so far?
Well, the 1772s down slope and the nodes make it sound darker... but not unpleasant. It's a setup I could listen all day and not feel ear fatigue.
The TC9, I was able to make the Freq flatter, and sound of course, brighter, more air as some would say.
So, the TC9 feel cleaner, but I have a lean to the darker 1772s. Also, with the 8" cones, there's more meat to the sound.
I have come to the conclusion that BYRTT (thank you and sorry to take so long to realise... but I had to try!) might have been on to something, mixing the W8-1772 in the sealed box, and the TC9 in OB on top. It should give me the meat of the 1772, and the cleanliness of the TC9.... hopefully!
So, that will be next test. Move the 1772 to a sealed box, and place the TC9 on top.
It's not so easy. I usually have about one hour of quiet time, and I have to pull all the setup out, dampening panels, mic, etc... So, I barely have time to try a few things at a time.
I made baffles of 30cm x 30cm for the TC9s, which is the same as the W8-1772 baffles.
Here's the 1772 Frequency sweeps, one with the 1772s by themselves, the other using the woofers as well. There's a room node at 55Hz, and another one around 200-300 Hz, that's for the woofers. One other node I realised was at 2.8kHz. As I tried to lift it up by 2 or 3dB, I noticed nothing had changed. I went extreme and added a 10dB boost, and it still didn't change. So, as much as I try to give it, it cancels itself there. I didn't have time to move the mic to see if the cancellation was only at the listening position, or around the room.
I then tried to EQ the TC9s, which was a bit easier to do than with the 1772s. A funny thing here, the 2.8kHz cancellation is not present. So, it was driver related, and not position related.
Here's without and with woofers.
Finally, the piece de résistance... The impulse of the 1772s and the TC9s, without the woofers. Yes, the TC9s are a lot cleaner there.
So, what does it all mean so far?
Well, the 1772s down slope and the nodes make it sound darker... but not unpleasant. It's a setup I could listen all day and not feel ear fatigue.
The TC9, I was able to make the Freq flatter, and sound of course, brighter, more air as some would say.
So, the TC9 feel cleaner, but I have a lean to the darker 1772s. Also, with the 8" cones, there's more meat to the sound.
I have come to the conclusion that BYRTT (thank you and sorry to take so long to realise... but I had to try!) might have been on to something, mixing the W8-1772 in the sealed box, and the TC9 in OB on top. It should give me the meat of the 1772, and the cleanliness of the TC9.... hopefully!
So, that will be next test. Move the 1772 to a sealed box, and place the TC9 on top.
Attachments
Last edited:
Thanks for posting your results. Measurements are a puzzling thing. I have the 1808 (similar to the 1772) and the TC9. On the same size baffle (supported by H-frames for bass) and they sound totally different in my room. Your measurements show the TC9 measures flatter. I have no doubt that's the case. To my ears the TC9 is less fatiguing and can be enjoyed for extended listening sessions. The 1808 sounds AMAZING for about 20 minutes and then the honeymoon fades for me. I wonder if the impulse response is the key and if it can be examined differently? Can the larger peaks/dips be the reason for my fatigue? Meanwhile, the frequency response shows the TB driver being less fatiguing based on its downward slope. I think xrk discussed this 'ringing' in previous threads especially when it came to one of the Mark Audio drivers.
Perceval, for the sake of experimentation is it possible to EQ the TC9 so that the frequency response slopes down to match the response of the 1772 and then listen to them both? I'm curious as to whether the shape of the 1772s response is giving the impression of a fuller sound. No axe to grind- I don't own either drive unit- but often frequency response seems to be a (the?) major factor influencing perceived sound quality. Put another way it would allow something closer to an 'apples to apples' comparison.
Godzilla, the 1772 as is, without any kind of EQ, is way too bright and needs those extra peaks tamed. Easier done by computer than passive. But the curve I have at the moment is way too steep, being over 15dB difference between bass and highs. I still don't know if it's the driver's behavior in my room and OB, or if it's a glitch in my computer settings (JRiver).
The TC9 is a lot easier to live with without any EQ, just as a plug and play driver.
BTW, what's your baffle and H frame sizes?
Toaster, so far, I can't get the 1772 to match the TC9 freq response.
There's some acoustical damping happening and I could only do it by taking -10dB off the bass and mid bass.
Getting the TC9 like the 1772 should be a lot easier.
The TC9 is a lot easier to live with without any EQ, just as a plug and play driver.
BTW, what's your baffle and H frame sizes?
Toaster, so far, I can't get the 1772 to match the TC9 freq response.
There's some acoustical damping happening and I could only do it by taking -10dB off the bass and mid bass.
Getting the TC9 like the 1772 should be a lot easier.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.