Hi all,
I am new to this forum but a loooong time speaker builder.
I am finishing up a T-amp and am looking for some small single driver speakers to use with it in my office together with a subwoofer. John Krutke's Tang Band W3-871S design seems like the best alternative for me. He has a new pair that he says is better and has superceded the Tang-Band design, so has pulled all the TB design data from his sight. However, I would like to build these anyway. They may not sound quite as good as the new speakers but I feel that I need to accept that in order to get higher efficiency.
Does anyone have a copy of this design?? Or at least a schematic of the notch filter ?? I can handle the enclosure design on my own if that is not available, but it would be a huge time saver if someone already has at least the notch filter schematic, if not the complete design, that they can share.
Thanks much,
AudioSteve
I am new to this forum but a loooong time speaker builder.
I am finishing up a T-amp and am looking for some small single driver speakers to use with it in my office together with a subwoofer. John Krutke's Tang Band W3-871S design seems like the best alternative for me. He has a new pair that he says is better and has superceded the Tang-Band design, so has pulled all the TB design data from his sight. However, I would like to build these anyway. They may not sound quite as good as the new speakers but I feel that I need to accept that in order to get higher efficiency.
Does anyone have a copy of this design?? Or at least a schematic of the notch filter ?? I can handle the enclosure design on my own if that is not available, but it would be a huge time saver if someone already has at least the notch filter schematic, if not the complete design, that they can share.
Thanks much,
AudioSteve
Zach,
Thanks for your response.
I have tried looking everywhere.
Vikash's site has everything BUT the notch filter. And the box dimensions are different (same volume though) as Johne Krutke's design; so the baffle step effect could be different on his box vs. Krutke's and the notch filter effect could also be a little different. Not 100% sure on that point though as I haven't crunched any numbers on it.h. The fail safe way to go would be to find both the original box and notch filter designs.
Thanks very much,
Steve
Thanks for your response.
I have tried looking everywhere.
Vikash's site has everything BUT the notch filter. And the box dimensions are different (same volume though) as Johne Krutke's design; so the baffle step effect could be different on his box vs. Krutke's and the notch filter effect could also be a little different. Not 100% sure on that point though as I haven't crunched any numbers on it.h. The fail safe way to go would be to find both the original box and notch filter designs.
Thanks very much,
Steve
The Wayback Machine
http://www.archive.org/index.php
It's maddening when old info goes missing. The WayBack Machine
(thanks you Jay Ward) is a tool to search the internet archive.
It may be a job of looking but there's the possibility that if the
link was not specifically requested to be removed from the
archive of all past and present websites it's there.
I have a page printed on paper related to Zaphs projects for the
WS 871.
Copied off by hand it is:
http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/audio-speaker11-box1.gif
It's a series of gifs that somewhere include the xo. I never built the
xo myself.
Happy hunting and enjoy The Wayback Machine.
http://www.archive.org/index.php
It's maddening when old info goes missing. The WayBack Machine
(thanks you Jay Ward) is a tool to search the internet archive.
It may be a job of looking but there's the possibility that if the
link was not specifically requested to be removed from the
archive of all past and present websites it's there.
I have a page printed on paper related to Zaphs projects for the
WS 871.
Copied off by hand it is:
http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/audio-speaker11-box1.gif
It's a series of gifs that somewhere include the xo. I never built the
xo myself.
Happy hunting and enjoy The Wayback Machine.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
from: http://www.plastichead.net/audioworks/redir.php?m=speakers/speakmenu.htm&p=speakers/needles/w3s-871.htm
In my opinion the notch-filter for the Cyburgs Needle will be well suited tfor most narrow baffle cabinets with the W3-871s. Just change the resistor and capacitor values to 6.8 as per Cyburgs corrected design.
The purpose of the notch is primarily to dampen a peak in the drivers response around 2.5 Khz. This filter also happen to roughly coincide with a suitable baffle-step compensation for narrow baffle cabinets.
SveinB
The purpose of the notch is primarily to dampen a peak in the drivers response around 2.5 Khz. This filter also happen to roughly coincide with a suitable baffle-step compensation for narrow baffle cabinets.
SveinB
I'm looking at the W3-871 for a computer speaker myself, gonna put 'em in a 6L box on my desk and power 'em with a chip amp. I can't figure why John likes the HiVi better, looking at the specs; of course specs don't tell all.
Here's what I have for the 871 in my files:
Aloha,
Poinz
Here's what I have for the 871 in my files:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Aloha,
Poinz
Guys, the notch filter values used are here: http://www.vikash.info/audio/W3-871S/costs.asp. All from Zaph's design.gychang said:
Re: The Wayback Machine
I don't visit the full range forum often, but I thought I'd comment on this.
The old info isn't missing, it's removed specifically to make it no longer available. Additionally, nothing on any of my web sites (ancient or current) is available on the wayback machine.
My standards of excellence may change, something better may come out and ultimately I may decide that I don't want to distribute a design any longer. This is not only a distribution issue, I may actually determine that I don't like a design I've done, and I don't want my name attached to it any longer. Designs should die when they get old, and I've killed many in the last 10 years. Rest assured that something better and more competent takes it's place.
I'm going to make a comment here that rubs a few in this forum the wrong way, and then I'm never going to come back. I'm going to start generalizing.
Higher sensitivity is never a good indicator of performance, and in general, the higher the sensitivity, the worse the performance. It has to do with motor design and materials science. Flexing hysteresis of lightweight cones, limited output of low Xmax drivers (or zero Xmax in the case of some drivers), no faraday sleeves in the gap, etc. There are many compromises to be made by making a speaker very sensitive, and few gains.
I hope this post doesn't make me too much of a party pooper.
loninappleton said:
I don't visit the full range forum often, but I thought I'd comment on this.
The old info isn't missing, it's removed specifically to make it no longer available. Additionally, nothing on any of my web sites (ancient or current) is available on the wayback machine.
My standards of excellence may change, something better may come out and ultimately I may decide that I don't want to distribute a design any longer. This is not only a distribution issue, I may actually determine that I don't like a design I've done, and I don't want my name attached to it any longer. Designs should die when they get old, and I've killed many in the last 10 years. Rest assured that something better and more competent takes it's place.
I'm going to make a comment here that rubs a few in this forum the wrong way, and then I'm never going to come back. I'm going to start generalizing.
Higher sensitivity is never a good indicator of performance, and in general, the higher the sensitivity, the worse the performance. It has to do with motor design and materials science. Flexing hysteresis of lightweight cones, limited output of low Xmax drivers (or zero Xmax in the case of some drivers), no faraday sleeves in the gap, etc. There are many compromises to be made by making a speaker very sensitive, and few gains.
I hope this post doesn't make me too much of a party pooper.
Hmmm......
Perhaps a 0.5 way is the best way to help the sensitivitity.
Two B3S in the same Zaph enclosure (3L) would be fine, you
would lose the lower baffle step amount options but gain 3dB
in real sensitivity and 1 to 2 dB in T-amplifier output.
2 x B3S is only slightly more than 1 x W3-871S.
For Poindexters application Zaph points out the NS3 is a better option.
/sreten.
Perhaps a 0.5 way is the best way to help the sensitivitity.
Two B3S in the same Zaph enclosure (3L) would be fine, you
would lose the lower baffle step amount options but gain 3dB
in real sensitivity and 1 to 2 dB in T-amplifier output.
2 x B3S is only slightly more than 1 x W3-871S.
For Poindexters application Zaph points out the NS3 is a better option.
/sreten.
Zaph,
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your position. It's your design and if you would prefer that your name no longer be associated with it then that is fine. We can refer to the design as the 'Orphan' or something like that.
I didn't say I wanted to build these because they are 'better' than your current design or because I think a speaker with higher efficiency would necessarily be qualitatively better. I just want something a little more efficient, that's all. I understand the tradeoffs and am willing to live with them. Your comments do not at all rub me the wrong way. All other things being equal in a driver design, what you said is a statement of fact. But I'm willing to live with the facts. No biggie.
BTW: I also ordered all the components necessary for your new design as well. I am going to build both and see what shakes.
Thanks for the contributions you have made and I sincerely hope that this thread I started will not cause you to be "never going to come back". You are valuable to this community and highly regarded. I would sincerely hope you do not abandon us.
Thanks,
Steve
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your position. It's your design and if you would prefer that your name no longer be associated with it then that is fine. We can refer to the design as the 'Orphan' or something like that.
I didn't say I wanted to build these because they are 'better' than your current design or because I think a speaker with higher efficiency would necessarily be qualitatively better. I just want something a little more efficient, that's all. I understand the tradeoffs and am willing to live with them. Your comments do not at all rub me the wrong way. All other things being equal in a driver design, what you said is a statement of fact. But I'm willing to live with the facts. No biggie.
BTW: I also ordered all the components necessary for your new design as well. I am going to build both and see what shakes.
Thanks for the contributions you have made and I sincerely hope that this thread I started will not cause you to be "never going to come back". You are valuable to this community and highly regarded. I would sincerely hope you do not abandon us.
Thanks,
Steve
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.