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 21st July 2008, 09:52 PM   #4191
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Appleton, WI
Default mp3 test tones

http://users.swing.be/hdepra/home/P22/E-sounds.html

A quick and dirty test from this test tone site using only
40, 50 and 60 hz.

I then switched the leads on the channels. This effectively
gave the sound level a switch. The problem may be in my SS
receiver. But I want to do another test with a direct dvd input
which doesn't use the soundcard.

I have some more test tones on a cd. The prblem with those is when I
burned then to disk, the file names did not give any tone numbers.


One more levels test and I'll report back.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2008, 10:02 PM   #4192
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Appleton, WI
Default Noises off :-)

Well the sound level was the same using a cd played with the
dvd player.


I have another variable to check.

I'm going to rewire the two speakers the same. Currently the BIB
has the thin wire tweak... not quite magnet wire but pretty thin.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2008, 11:25 PM   #4193
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Appleton, WI
Got the wire changed. Check.

Did a test using the RP U100 white noise generator in a sweep. Check.

Things sound pretty good. *But* I still have to retest with tones.
The tones were way off.

Next I swap the drivers. But I think all of this is just
confusing me. If the tone level swaps sides that means it's the
BIB.

To review: in tones (40, 50, 60) MLTL side louder, BIB not so good.

As it stands, I at least I don't think my amp/receiver or FE127es are bad. On the HD FM music stream through the soundcard things sound pretty good.

  Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2008, 11:42 PM   #4194
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Howdy Lon, do you have BSC on the MTLT?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 02:24 AM   #4195
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Appleton, WI
Quote:
Originally posted by rjbond3rd
Howdy Lon, do you have BSC on the MTLT?
Nope. I have never made an xo in my life.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 09:20 AM   #4196
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
I though he was talking about BSC?
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 01:39 PM   #4197
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Looavull
rjbond3rd ,
Do you have pics of your build yet?
__________________
Fliping Switches, Pushing Buttons, and Turning Knobs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 02:01 PM   #4198
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Hi guys,

Scott, I'm totally stumped as to why Loninappleton's MLTL w/o BSC could have more bass than his BiB. Do you have a theory?

Zayne, do you mean in-progress pics? If so, I will take them. If you mean final pics, I will have those by the end of next week. I'm limited by only having four clamps. They won't be beautiful (!) but it will be interesting to test the FE166ES-R's in them (Paba, are you out there?)
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 04:07 PM   #4199
GM is offline GM  United States
diyAudio Member
 
GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chamblee, Ga.
Default Re: some tweakage is needed

Quote:
Originally posted by loninappleton

Interior treatment is similar but not identical.

The BIB original is giving a better midrange whereas the
double front baffle (one cutout 4 in, the interior cutout 5 in)
gives the mids coming out the front a muted effect.

So suprabaffle on these.

I do not think minor surgery such as chamfering the inside baffle
would change this.

The original 'good sounding' BIB currently has the thin wire
tweak on it but here again I think this is minor.

Both use FE127e. Both are about the same same size and the
newer sibling is closer to the calculator measures.

What concerns me is what's coming out the front and less so
what is coming out the top.
Hmm, until all the variables of driver performance, etc. are accounted for, you can't really know much about the cab's performance and if I'm understanding you there's more differences between the cab than just a double thickness front baffle, further diluting the ability to pinpoint any perceived differences.

WRT chamfering Vs using a stepped flare, my measurably hearing impaired 65 yr old buddy recently had no problem perceiving the difference when I made some adapters to convert his RS 40-1354 MLTL over to CSS FR125S drivers, though as always YMMV.

Anyway, when you say 'mids', this can mean different BWs to different folks, so please expand on what you mean since it can cover from ~160 - 1280 up to ~5120 Hz depending on the source with only ~ an octave of it being in the pipe's passband.

GM
__________________
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2008, 04:16 PM   #4200
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Hi GM, may I ask if you saying that the stepped flare is an improvement because it gets the driver's magnet and basket further out of the horn / pipe? Or rather, that chamfering is smoother and sounds better than stepped flare?
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 PM.


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