Hmmm, great minds think alike.
Two weeks ago, I built the zigma boxes, and had the good luck to get in on Dave's last shipment of drivers. Now all I'm waiting for is a terminal cup for the back...
Here is a picture. Not the best, they look better in reality. I used 1/2" (12mm) oak veneered mdf. I cant wait to finish them. I'll post after a listen or two...
Two weeks ago, I built the zigma boxes, and had the good luck to get in on Dave's last shipment of drivers. Now all I'm waiting for is a terminal cup for the back...
Here is a picture. Not the best, they look better in reality. I used 1/2" (12mm) oak veneered mdf. I cant wait to finish them. I'll post after a listen or two...
Attachments
zig with FE107E?
I have nearly finished my pair, I have cut enough wood for 4 zigs (one with baltic birch, another set with Lowe's plywood). I have a pair of FE107E available.
Anyone see any particular problem with the FE107Es in Zigmahornet? Scott mentioned FE103 is not ideal... This time I will put extra antiresonant cement layer inside to stiffen the cabinet.
gychang
I have nearly finished my pair, I have cut enough wood for 4 zigs (one with baltic birch, another set with Lowe's plywood). I have a pair of FE107E available.
Anyone see any particular problem with the FE107Es in Zigmahornet? Scott mentioned FE103 is not ideal... This time I will put extra antiresonant cement layer inside to stiffen the cabinet.
gychang
finished!!
somewhat clumsy cabinet making (no close ups).
Used original Dave Merrill's speaker as reviewed here. Same specs etc.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/zigmahornet/zigmahornet.html
whole cabinet is surprisingly light, used to more bulky cabinets and usually use cement backer to kill the resonance (non used here). Of course no electronics at all.
Sounds overall good, nothing spectacular compared to my BIB's from Tangband and Pioneer. Definitely worthwhile in right room decor, minimal boominess in the bass so far. Only had it running for 5 hours.
gychang
somewhat clumsy cabinet making (no close ups).
Used original Dave Merrill's speaker as reviewed here. Same specs etc.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/zigmahornet/zigmahornet.html
whole cabinet is surprisingly light, used to more bulky cabinets and usually use cement backer to kill the resonance (non used here). Of course no electronics at all.
Sounds overall good, nothing spectacular compared to my BIB's from Tangband and Pioneer. Definitely worthwhile in right room decor, minimal boominess in the bass so far. Only had it running for 5 hours.
gychang
Attachments
Hi Yall.
Nice finish Gychang! I like the black tops.
I haven't stained/lacquered my zigmas yet, I couldn't wait. They are up and running - and I like them, quite a bit.
At first they were very harsh up top, with no bass. But after several hours, they have come into their own. They give a very good sense of spaciousness, side to side and front to back, which I enjoy a lot, and was really hoping to get from these speakers. They are very direct: they are detailed, probably because of the emphasis on the highs. Some people might find them fatiguing, but I haven't. The high detail gives an interesting perspective on the players emotion. Kind of high-contrast. They don't do loud/rock, they lack low end power, and the distortion builds quickly at higher volumes. But I would say frequency response is respectable for how little went into them. They won't impress people who are after neutrality, but I very much agree with the 6moons review: small ensembles sound great, and their localization is very enjoyable. Definitely a high value speaker.
They seem like they would be great for older music - I think they have the same sonic signature as early Elvis...
Nice finish Gychang! I like the black tops.
I haven't stained/lacquered my zigmas yet, I couldn't wait. They are up and running - and I like them, quite a bit.
At first they were very harsh up top, with no bass. But after several hours, they have come into their own. They give a very good sense of spaciousness, side to side and front to back, which I enjoy a lot, and was really hoping to get from these speakers. They are very direct: they are detailed, probably because of the emphasis on the highs. Some people might find them fatiguing, but I haven't. The high detail gives an interesting perspective on the players emotion. Kind of high-contrast. They don't do loud/rock, they lack low end power, and the distortion builds quickly at higher volumes. But I would say frequency response is respectable for how little went into them. They won't impress people who are after neutrality, but I very much agree with the 6moons review: small ensembles sound great, and their localization is very enjoyable. Definitely a high value speaker.
They seem like they would be great for older music - I think they have the same sonic signature as early Elvis...
gychang, could you do a comparison between the BIB and the Zigmahornet? Where do you prefer one over the other?
When I get my Pluto's back, I could do one, if anyones interested. I can tell you the Zigmas have better depth, while the Pluto's have more all around strength: power handling, neutrality...
When I get my Pluto's back, I could do one, if anyones interested. I can tell you the Zigmas have better depth, while the Pluto's have more all around strength: power handling, neutrality...
cuibono said:
Zigs seems to have more airiness and better localization. BIB tends to have more force and better bass. I wanted to keep the BIB with 4.5" Pioneer, but wife preferred Zigs cabinet, so I gave away my BIB to a friend. I have too many speakers in house. One in garage being built...
gychang
Thanks gychang! Thats just what I wanted to hear. I've been reading your other posts, and really appreciated them - I too built the DelSols (which aren't getting much use), and was considering a BIB. People seem to talk mostly about the BIB's bass, but I'm more into the sensation of space between instruments, so your comparison is really helpful. I think if there were a way to drop the Zigma's distortion (a lot), I wouldn't ask for much more.
Could someone describe 'pipe sound' - someone criticized the zigmas for it, and I don't really have any good comparison to distinguish it with...
Could someone describe 'pipe sound' - someone criticized the zigmas for it, and I don't really have any good comparison to distinguish it with...
I'm trying now to work up a BSC circuit for the Zigmas (with Dave's drivers), but I'm a little confused about something. In Martin King's quick BSC calculation PDF (posted somewhere around here), one of the equations uses the voice coil impedance, but he shows an example with the value of .4mH. Now, my drivers have a DC resistance of 6.7ohms, and have printed on the back something saying 16ohms, which should be the impedance, right?
How do I get from ohms to henries???
BTW, the speakers still sound great, but I think they could use some BSC - the sound 'spicy and quick', as someone here put it.
How do I get from ohms to henries???
BTW, the speakers still sound great, but I think they could use some BSC - the sound 'spicy and quick', as someone here put it.
BTW, so far I've calculated that the BSC should use a 1.1mH inductor and 2.7ohm resistor in parallel. The Zobel network should use a 8.4ohm resistor in series with a capacitor, the value of which will be determined by the unknown voice coil impedance (inductance?) Maybe I should skip the zobel?
cuibono said:
OK, I know VERY little about this, except that I just finished a pair of Metronomes w/ FE108E(sigma) drivers. The BSC is what made the Metronomes sound not just good but GREAT. With the FE108 the voice coil inductance is so low that the zobel is unnecessary. Don't know the T/S parameters of your drivers, but if you look at the specs for the FE108, you will see that the VC inductance is an order of magnitude lower than the value used in Martin's example on his quarter--wave.com site in his BSC calculator. Look here for the calculator:
http://www.quarter-wave.com/General/BSC_Calculator.xls
I have no idea how much larger the inductance value could be and still get away w/o using the zobel.
In the BSC, the inductor will control the frequency while the resistor will control the magnitude. I used a 1 mH inductor and have been experimenting w/ resistors of 3 ohms and 3.5 ohms.
Cheers, Jim
I wouldn't get too hung up about the value of the zobel parts. I have no idea what the various Fostex drivers' Le is, but I don't care. I run an impedance test of a driver then model the zobel parts that make the impedance curve flat. That usually works out to be ~ 6.8uF and 10 ohms. I will then play with the zobel parts and the series resistance to flatten out the frequency response. (Most Fostex drivers, indeed most full-rangers, have a rising response that must be delt with, particularly if using an SS amp or a low-Z tube amp.
Bob
Bob
I have nearly completed another set of ziggies, this time I have FE103E speakers at hand instead of my other set which has the Merrills drivers as featured here.
YouTube - T-amp clone/Zigmahornet demo
I have several questions with FE103Es.
1. Scootmoose recommends adding stuffing on the bottom to dampen bass, how much and how close to the port on the bottom?
2. Anyone with FE103E feel must have an electronic circuit (notch or BSC) to modify sound? If necessary exactly which parts to be soldered to the + speaker lead? (I now nothing about electronics...)
thanks,
gychang
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.