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 31st January 2005, 10:50 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Harrisburg, PA
I can't seem to get the link to work.

The cabinets are 22: High x 10.25" wide x 6.5" deep. Port is 3" diameter x 4" long. Driver is located 1/2 way down. Models real nice using MJK's mathcad worksheets for a MLTL. The F3 is about 60hz.

I haven't done a critcal comparison between the small MLTL and Bob's FT1600, but feel that they are comparable. The major difference is that the small MLTL doesn't go as ddep, which isn't an issue in the HT system. Overall I am very happy with both systems.


http://community.webshots.com/scripts/editPhotos.fcgi?action=showMyPhoto&albumID=1485748 96&photoID=148576108&security=NIepyl
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 12:22 AM   #12
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Default Small Driver SPL Capability

Morbo,

Tony Gee states that you should not expect much bass or high SPLs from his design that was referenced by Percy. Frankly, using any of the small Fostex drivers with 0.35 mm Xmax in a bass reflex or even a sealed box is certainly not where these small drivers are comfortable. They will need a back horn or such to do anything basswise. Otherwise the the Fostex drivers should be used as midrange drivers in a sealed or BR box. Percy would be unhappy with their performance in his proposed application and box size.

Except for Percy's low budget the CSS WR125S would be ideal if the roll off at 15 kHz or so was acceptable. The Jordan JX92S would be perfect except for its $150 each cost. Either of these drivers would do in the 50's Hz F3 point in a 7 liter box and delivery adequate SPLs. The JX92S would be perfect as it does everything that he said that he wanted and can cover the entire frequency band.

Jim
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 02:20 AM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Josephjcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wisconsin
If you have a smallish budget, but are looking for something that can handle higher SPLs I would go with something like the Tang-Band W4-656SB in a small sealed enclosure. In an enclosure of 1.6L you should be fine up to around 97dB, at which point you'll start to push them past their x-max. This won't go all the way to 80Hz. It will have an -6dB around 100Hz. Still I would rather have good clean sound with a dip between 80Hz and 100Hz, than be constantly pushing the drivers past their x-max. My friend asked me to help him with a budget home theater set-up for cheap, this seemed to be the best. It's not built yet, but I've got high hopes for him.
Certainly the Jordans or the CSS WR125S would be better, but you can have five channels of the Tang-Band for less than the price of a single Jordan or two CSS WR125S.
Joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 02:30 AM   #14
percy is offline percy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MN
Quote:
Originally posted by morbo
thanks for the link Percy. I had a look, but don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for there

Well I just wanted to indicate that the speaker is said to have an F3 of 85hz and it is small in size.
Speaking of which, what is the F3 of the monopole speaker ? - the diyaudio reference project thread started by GG.

The main reason I wanted to explore fullrange speakers was to reduce cost and space as compared to - say a 2-way bookshelf. So far, it appears to be highly unlikely.

What about the FW137 - a 5.5" driver ? Keep in mind though that I am not looking for deep thumping bass or anything. Thats what the subwoofer will do. I just need it to go upto 80hz with reasonable response.

So now how do the makers of commercial HT sets manage to build such small satellite speakers ? They must be crossing over to the subwoofer much higher than 80-90hz, I guess ?

<edit>
Joe, I will check out your suggestion. and also rethink about the WR125S.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 02:52 AM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
Josephjcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Yeah it's a slight compromise, but I think that dips in the frequency are much less noticable than peaks. Speaker building is filled with compromises, especially when a budget and size limitation are included.
Unless you can remove the lower frequency out of the signal for you "satellite" speakers (some HT amps have this option) I would stick with a sealed design, which will have a higher power handling than an exquivalent size ported box, and since you have a sub you don't need the extra bass extension that the ported designs can give you. If you go for the Tang-Band I would certainly check this out as well.http://madspeaker.com/Projects/656Sgluemod.htm
Joe
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 04:55 AM   #16
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYS
Hi Percy- Sorry if I've missed or misread your criteria. Cheap, small, loud and clear, right?

The CSS WR125 is small, loud and clear...and goes low... a very nice monitor.

The FE127E TL single driver is small(ish), cheap and clear (very detailed is more apt), but I wouldn't push it loud or too low. BUT... the Bipole TL does get loud and low. Head and shoulders above the WR125 alone at about the same price.

But the questions remain, how small do you want, how many speakers are you building and what's your budget?

At the moment, I seem to be the only one who's built the three speakers noted above, and I'm really just waiting for others to chime in with their impressions before posting again in the "reference" thread, but if I were thinking a 5.1 system, I'd build the bipoles for fronts and the single FE127 for center and surrounds. My experience says you'll get the best, snappy, gut-punching, bang for your buck. Their overall sounds are quite different however. Wouldn't it be nice to hear them both?

If you want, buy both a pair of 125's and four 127's (for the bipoles) and I'll buy whichever ones you don't want to keep. How's that?

Edit: Actually, with the 127E's, you won't need a center.
__________________
onasis
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 05:04 AM   #17
navin is offline navin  India
diyAudio Member
 
navin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Mumbai (Bombay), India
Send a message via MSN to navin Send a message via Yahoo to navin
the FW137 is made ot be mated to the ff85K. by itself the FW137 would be very HF limited.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 03:44 PM   #18
percy is offline percy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MN
What kind of enclosure size are we looking at for a WR125S to achieve that kind of F3 ? Can you direct me to some designs ?

Just went over to TB's website and in the fullrange section there a bunch of 4" drivers. but I dont see the 817,656,1052 so I assume they are older models and these are the newer ones ?? Anybody tried any of these ?
W4-616S
W4-654S
W4-655SA
W4-657SC
W4-927SA
W4-930SA
W4-937SA
W4-1129
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 04:26 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Josephjcole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Wisconsin
The 656 is a new driver and I couldn't tell you why they don't have it on the tang-band website. Parts express carries it:
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshow...number=264-820

If I read the specs right for the WR125S it will need a fairly large box if you want to go sealed ~1cubic foot. That seems really big to me, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Fairly high Q though so that could be correct. Either way that would get an F3 of around 70Hz.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st February 2005, 04:54 PM   #20
percy is offline percy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MN
Their (CSS) website has a spec document that suggests a 7lt vented box tuned to 50hz.

http://www.creativesound.ca/pdf/WR125S.PDF
  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
DSP and the Single-Driver Speaker Bob Brines Full Range 178 15th October 2011 06:53 AM
psu power rating suggestion for 1.2F car capacitor milen007 Parts 5 14th March 2009 07:13 PM
Assessing driver power rating / procedures hunter audio Multi-Way 0 13th February 2004 09:08 AM
nice small single driver trans. lines JRKO Full Range 1 27th December 2003 04:09 AM
does someone know the max rms power rating of the Blueprint 1503 driver? pkgum Multi-Way 3 9th December 2001 01:50 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18 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