Cheers! I know this is the full range forum but have a look on these for the BIB. Healthy X-max of 5 mm however lower qts than ideal?
I don`t know if I`m going to be burned by the "tuboholics" for this but have anyone tried UCD 180 amps together with BIB or rather with fullrangers?
I`m planning to build one when time allows?!!!?
I don`t know if I`m going to be burned by the "tuboholics" for this but have anyone tried UCD 180 amps together with BIB or rather with fullrangers?
I`m planning to build one when time allows?!!!?
Width changes
GM,
Scott's first take on a BIB enclosure for the Hempsters had the following external dims: W 10"
D 17"
H 70"
XO 39" from base
Internal baffle terminated @ 7 6/16"
3/4" build material
Are you suggesting that it is necessary to increase the width by almost a factor of 3 to 27.53"? Damn that's a big box. Probably too large for my listening room. Do you have any other suggestions for an enclosure for the Hempsters that has a smaller footprint, is efficient, and doesn't require a BSC circuit. As always thanks for your input.
James
GM,
Scott's first take on a BIB enclosure for the Hempsters had the following external dims: W 10"
D 17"
H 70"
XO 39" from base
Internal baffle terminated @ 7 6/16"
3/4" build material
Are you suggesting that it is necessary to increase the width by almost a factor of 3 to 27.53"? Damn that's a big box. Probably too large for my listening room. Do you have any other suggestions for an enclosure for the Hempsters that has a smaller footprint, is efficient, and doesn't require a BSC circuit. As always thanks for your input.
James
Peter
I bought the Supravox from Germany to have a look at their non-whizz style and size of driver, having heard nothing about it, except for an obscure Swiss audio outfit that offered them in a BR/TL? load, looked quite nice, and was around the time this thread got started up. Build quality is ~okay, perhaps not the same attention paid as to their bread and butter drivers, a stain on the back of the cone looking for all the world like red wine, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, ...but the big, heavy mass loading bezel and frame, all chunky cast iron are VERY nice indeed, finished with a turned brass cup over the magnet. Highs are abit rolled, but the things arent burned in at all, eventually I will decide whether to return them to Wolfgang for a credit as per agreement.
It was determined that the driver mounting height for a Supra 165 BIB would be too low for normal, sitting in a chair useage, and later, if you read, and again today, that there is a BIG suckout right around the critical midrange, if I recall. I will say they are even sounding, and could easily be micro-powered. I may keep them.
I bought the Supravox from Germany to have a look at their non-whizz style and size of driver, having heard nothing about it, except for an obscure Swiss audio outfit that offered them in a BR/TL? load, looked quite nice, and was around the time this thread got started up. Build quality is ~okay, perhaps not the same attention paid as to their bread and butter drivers, a stain on the back of the cone looking for all the world like red wine, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, ...but the big, heavy mass loading bezel and frame, all chunky cast iron are VERY nice indeed, finished with a turned brass cup over the magnet. Highs are abit rolled, but the things arent burned in at all, eventually I will decide whether to return them to Wolfgang for a credit as per agreement.
It was determined that the driver mounting height for a Supra 165 BIB would be too low for normal, sitting in a chair useage, and later, if you read, and again today, that there is a BIG suckout right around the critical midrange, if I recall. I will say they are even sounding, and could easily be micro-powered. I may keep them.
Hmm! To much red wine. Forgot the link in post 141. 
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w5-938sa.htm
http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w5-938sa.htm
dmason
Thanks for the reply, the real reason I`m asking is that I have troubles with French manufactoring in my bread and butter business. No offence to French people, they make excellent wine
However I like what you are saying about the highs, that is exactly what I`m loking for. A bit tired of `screaming`loudspeakers.
Thanks for the reply, the real reason I`m asking is that I have troubles with French manufactoring in my bread and butter business. No offence to French people, they make excellent wine
However I like what you are saying about the highs, that is exactly what I`m loking for. A bit tired of `screaming`loudspeakers.
Re: Width changes
Greets!
You need to recheck your math against what I wrote. The 27.33" assumes the depth doesn't change, while Scott's does. A smaller cab means less acoustic gain and/or LF BW, so unless it's against the wall or in a corner it will need either BSC and/or a sub.
So, how much performance are you willing to give up for a reduced size and/or what's the largest footprint/height your room can accommodate?
GM
jimmyd53 said:
Greets!
You need to recheck your math against what I wrote.
The 27.33" assumes the depth doesn't change, while Scott's does. A smaller cab means less acoustic gain and/or LF BW, so unless it's against the wall or in a corner it will need either BSC and/or a sub. So, how much performance are you willing to give up for a reduced size and/or what's the largest footprint/height your room can accommodate?
GM
Assumptions
GM,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were modifying Scott's enclosure, not Terry's original.
The following are my working assumptions/requirements:
1. 12' x 16' listening room
2. 8' floor to ceiling height
3. desired foot print on the order of 12"Wx18"D
4. speaker to be in corner and/or up against wall
5. if building BIB would angle cut top, front to back to increase mouth area
6. driver cost in the $100 USD each range
7. efficiency in the 90 db plus inorder to use with SET amp
8. avoidance of BSC circuit if at all possible
I generally like the demensions of MLTL and TQWT better than other designs. I thought the two designs you did for the Jordans were very elegant. I especially liked the possible use of a triangular cross section. Not only would it reduce standing waves, but would allow placement in a corner and the utilization of corner loading.
I like the Hemp FR8 and would like to try it. I was under the impression the it was a good candidate for the BIB enclosure.
Thanks for the help.
James
GM,
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were modifying Scott's enclosure, not Terry's original.
The following are my working assumptions/requirements:
1. 12' x 16' listening room
2. 8' floor to ceiling height
3. desired foot print on the order of 12"Wx18"D
4. speaker to be in corner and/or up against wall
5. if building BIB would angle cut top, front to back to increase mouth area
6. driver cost in the $100 USD each range
7. efficiency in the 90 db plus inorder to use with SET amp
8. avoidance of BSC circuit if at all possible
I generally like the demensions of MLTL and TQWT better than other designs. I thought the two designs you did for the Jordans were very elegant. I especially liked the possible use of a triangular cross section. Not only would it reduce standing waves, but would allow placement in a corner and the utilization of corner loading.
I like the Hemp FR8 and would like to try it. I was under the impression the it was a good candidate for the BIB enclosure.
Thanks for the help.
James
Sorry for any confusion. I tend to use smaller sizes & favour altering the depth more than the width due to my assumption for corner placement.
I agree with Greg's view on the suitability of the 8" hemps; however, from the sims I've run, and assuming corner positioning, I've also seen much worse, and I reckon they'll be worth a shot. If you use your maximum dimensions and ram them into corners you'll stand a chance. Better to go with the max square dims Greg suggests though... 5.5" isn't so much extra on the width over the 12" you mention after all...
The little Monacor looks like it could be the long-awaited replacement for the 1354 BTW guys -I was running a few sims on it earlier. Great little driver, especially at the price. I'll have to look at their other units.
Dan -those Acuhorn things are rather interesting -mentioning the Monacor reminded me. How did you find out the 125 was a BIB, & do you know anything else about them?
Best
Scott
I agree with Greg's view on the suitability of the 8" hemps; however, from the sims I've run, and assuming corner positioning, I've also seen much worse, and I reckon they'll be worth a shot. If you use your maximum dimensions and ram them into corners you'll stand a chance. Better to go with the max square dims Greg suggests though... 5.5" isn't so much extra on the width over the 12" you mention after all...
The little Monacor looks like it could be the long-awaited replacement for the 1354 BTW guys -I was running a few sims on it earlier. Great little driver, especially at the price. I'll have to look at their other units.
Dan -those Acuhorn things are rather interesting -mentioning the Monacor reminded me. How did you find out the 125 was a BIB, & do you know anything else about them?
Best
Scott
Remember, what it SIM's like and what it winds up sounding like are often two different things. OneSpeed put the Fostex 168EZ into that rather large TQWT meant for Supravox 215RTF, and it worked extremely well, with plenty of balance and bass. The same driver shouldn't work as well as it does in the BIB, but it surely does, and is, as I write. I would not be surprised if the Hempster wasnt a champ.
Scott -- I found the US Dist for Acuhorn off Audio-Gone, and asked him why I couldnt see any mouths or vents like the others, and he explained that it was a simple folded, floor loaded horn. So it is BIB upside down, I guess. If it is impressing so many people in using the Monacor...
Scott -- I found the US Dist for Acuhorn off Audio-Gone, and asked him why I couldnt see any mouths or vents like the others, and he explained that it was a simple folded, floor loaded horn. So it is BIB upside down, I guess. If it is impressing so many people in using the Monacor...
Greets!
Ah, I didn't realize he had already done a design.
Good size, the room I'm sitting in is very close to these dims so know the acoustics well.
Thanks, glad you liked them! I'm a big fan of corner loading, especially with triangular cabs, which among other things will negate the need for any BSC.
Yes, it is, if it has enough Vb. Shrinking it to your dims makes it too small IMO though.
Anyway, do you know the amp's DF or actual output impedance? It can make a big difference in the design, especially with a medium Q driver.
GM
Ah, I didn't realize he had already done a design.
Good size, the room I'm sitting in is very close to these dims so know the acoustics well.
Thanks, glad you liked them! I'm a big fan of corner loading, especially with triangular cabs, which among other things will negate the need for any BSC.
Yes, it is, if it has enough Vb. Shrinking it to your dims makes it too small IMO though.
Anyway, do you know the amp's DF or actual output impedance? It can make a big difference in the design, especially with a medium Q driver.
GM
dmason said:
Greets!
Oh so true, but there's no way you're going to overcome the effects of a grossly too small pipe, but too large OTOH is almost impossible, so little wonder 168 did OK in the 215's pipe. Indeed, as I previously noted, my pre-T/S designs were all made under the assumption that the cab's Vb was theoretically too large since it's easier to damp a cab than it is to enlarge it.
GM
So Bigger is Definitely Better!!
This means that the 168EZ perhaps represents an even BETTER candidate, because @ 66X15X7.5 it isnt all that large, and in fact its width, in aspect, seems to narrow. Perhaps it needs to be rebuilt (by someone) wider than the existing design, perhaps taller as well.
...listening to the very occasional rock recording, (Yes Live at the House of Blues) and the durn things are KICKING, definitely a Rickenbacker bass in the other room; all with 2 wpc Parafeed, built, incidently, by Terry Cain & Co. A surprisingly good, BIG sounding speaker, let there be no doubt. His original encouragement was "just build it." Now we are into the real stuff.
Thanks as always Greg for the enlightenment.
This means that the 168EZ perhaps represents an even BETTER candidate, because @ 66X15X7.5 it isnt all that large, and in fact its width, in aspect, seems to narrow. Perhaps it needs to be rebuilt (by someone) wider than the existing design, perhaps taller as well.
...listening to the very occasional rock recording, (Yes Live at the House of Blues) and the durn things are KICKING, definitely a Rickenbacker bass in the other room; all with 2 wpc Parafeed, built, incidently, by Terry Cain & Co. A surprisingly good, BIG sounding speaker, let there be no doubt. His original encouragement was "just build it." Now we are into the real stuff.
Thanks as always Greg for the enlightenment.
Those who don't believe that bigger cabinets (and drivers, let's be honest) properly applied, will take a small ones to the cleaners should take a listen to Tannoy's monster Westminster, or it's direct ancestor, the GRF Autograph... I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't impressed.
Dan -given the amount we've learned from Greg over the last week, and the fact that thanks to Andrew, I've finally got the original plans, I can confirm your suspicions: you can go larger. Comparing the dimensions for Terry's box to the Fostex original, they are basically identical, being fractionally enlarged in TC's case to account for his using 1" material rather than the 18mm. The Fostex original is just over 1" longer too, again because it's metric, not Imperial (Aha! The Dark Side!). However, that box was for the FF125K. With that dinky little thing Sm=6.4209Sd. So a heck of a lot more cab volume. Keeping the same Fostex ratio, these would give the 'required' Vb: 11" x 14.75" (WxD external, assuming 3/4" material) or juggle to suit. I'd keep it at 66" tall (1/2 Fs), though you could try going up a bit. Your existing one should still be streets clear of the original version with this driver though, expecially if mounted in corners. It would also explain why my FF165K versions were not exactly lacking in the LF department.
Floor venting? I was wondering as the cab volume looked a bit small. I'll see what I can come up with for the 8" Monacors BIB-wise.
Cheers
Scott
Dan -given the amount we've learned from Greg over the last week, and the fact that thanks to Andrew, I've finally got the original plans, I can confirm your suspicions: you can go larger. Comparing the dimensions for Terry's box to the Fostex original, they are basically identical, being fractionally enlarged in TC's case to account for his using 1" material rather than the 18mm. The Fostex original is just over 1" longer too, again because it's metric, not Imperial (Aha! The Dark Side!). However, that box was for the FF125K. With that dinky little thing Sm=6.4209Sd. So a heck of a lot more cab volume. Keeping the same Fostex ratio, these would give the 'required' Vb: 11" x 14.75" (WxD external, assuming 3/4" material) or juggle to suit. I'd keep it at 66" tall (1/2 Fs), though you could try going up a bit. Your existing one should still be streets clear of the original version with this driver though, expecially if mounted in corners. It would also explain why my FF165K versions were not exactly lacking in the LF department.
Floor venting? I was wondering as the cab volume looked a bit small. I'll see what I can come up with for the 8" Monacors BIB-wise.
Cheers
Scott
And now for one especially for Dan.
Supravox 165LB time. Well, you'll certainly have a suckout in your existing boxes, fine though the are for the FE168ESigmas. Here's one which doesn't though (well, OK, it drops about 4db, which is around 1/5 the loss of the other combinations I've tried). It won't go as low as the 168ESigma, obviously, given it's 65Hz Fs, but it still reaches down to ~28Hz, and with room-gain from corners, it should be usable to 40Hz.
53" tall (106" total line length)
9" wide (external)
16" deep (external)
31.8" up from internal base.
Terminate internal baffle 6.875" from front and rear walls and internal base.
As usual, you can juggle the WxD to suit your own taste and room, so long as Vb stays the same. This is Sm=5Sd if you're interested. Only one I've found with an acceptable mid-bass in the sims for this driver.
Onward!
Scott
Supravox 165LB time. Well, you'll certainly have a suckout in your existing boxes, fine though the are for the FE168ESigmas. Here's one which doesn't though (well, OK, it drops about 4db, which is around 1/5 the loss of the other combinations I've tried). It won't go as low as the 168ESigma, obviously, given it's 65Hz Fs, but it still reaches down to ~28Hz, and with room-gain from corners, it should be usable to 40Hz.
53" tall (106" total line length)
9" wide (external)
16" deep (external)
31.8" up from internal base.
Terminate internal baffle 6.875" from front and rear walls and internal base.
As usual, you can juggle the WxD to suit your own taste and room, so long as Vb stays the same. This is Sm=5Sd if you're interested. Only one I've found with an acceptable mid-bass in the sims for this driver.
Onward!
Scott
This might be the best thread over this forum. I have been quite impressed with all I have read so far, gone several times over what Scott, Martin, Terry, GM and others had to say about the BIB, nice contributions, thanks guys.
Even though I have made quite a number speaker projects in the past I’m not a qualified designer (not smart enough as Nelson puts it) and have follow others ideas with not very good results in my opinion. I see I have to try harder.
Some 4 years ago I tried the FE164’s on a BR box, the big ones suggested by Fostex with poor results on the low end, they start to roll off at 200Hz and the BSC didn’t help much either.
After reading this thread I was wondering how these FE164 would do on a BIB box, Can someone give me a hand to figure this out? I would like to try these seemingly strange boxes.
FE164 parameters as published by Fostex are;
Fs 50 Hz
Qts 0.31
Qms 4.0
Qes 0.34
Vas 32.2 L
Xmax 1.0 mm
Even though I have made quite a number speaker projects in the past I’m not a qualified designer (not smart enough as Nelson puts it) and have follow others ideas with not very good results in my opinion. I see I have to try harder.
Some 4 years ago I tried the FE164’s on a BR box, the big ones suggested by Fostex with poor results on the low end, they start to roll off at 200Hz and the BSC didn’t help much either.
After reading this thread I was wondering how these FE164 would do on a BIB box, Can someone give me a hand to figure this out? I would like to try these seemingly strange boxes.
FE164 parameters as published by Fostex are;
Fs 50 Hz
Qts 0.31
Qms 4.0
Qes 0.34
Vas 32.2 L
Xmax 1.0 mm