Any body heard anything on these new Tang Bands? - Page 7 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 16th April 2004, 11:06 AM   #61
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In a house
Quote:
Originally posted by navin
regarding fullranges i have a few questions.

seems that a driver that can operate from 100Hz to 20k is dificult to find (the Manger is XOed about 300Hz and the Fostex 6" and 8" and Jordan JX92 have limited hf response).

in that case there are 2 options. find a driver than can operate from the bass to about 6-8k and then augment the hf response of this driver (JX92, Fostex 103, 206 etc...) or find a driver that can operate from 250Hz to 20k and augment the bass response of this driver (JX53, TB 871, etc...). which would u prefer.

the more i think about it I would prefer the later as teh XO freq between the 2 drivers would be at longer wavelengths than the c-c distance of teh 2 drivers.

can anyone recomend drivers that have better hf dispersion & more neutral midrnage than the 871 or jx53 and can operate down to 250Hz (6db)?
Navin;
That's pretty much the same conclusion I've drawn. Seems 3" is the magic size for full range from 250 Hz up. I'm currently putting together a line array of cheap Monacar 3" to handle from 250 on up but I'm not expecting it to be to HiFi & it's just for stage monitor side fill. If you want better HF dispersion that pretty much dictates going to even smaller than 3" drivers which then you run into more bass limitation from not enough Xmax x SD product. Those TB 2"x3" look interesting but I'm not sure how linear their response is.
__________________
You thought I had it!?... I thought you had it!
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2004, 06:17 AM   #62
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
I dont think the 2x3 TB would be much good.

Initially i thought about a 4 x JX53 line array (open baffle) supported by either 4 x JX125 in a push push box or 2 x Peerless CSX cone or 4 x

I was told that interference between the JX53s wouldlimit hf response so i scrapped that idea and went to a single Fostex 6" or 8". but then theissue of beaming arose so that idea was scrapped too.

next idea considered was 4 x Fosex 103 or Jordan JX92 crossed over at about 6k to a ribbon tweeter. however this would require a more complicated crossover.

Now I am back to scratch.

my requirements.

the speaker must have very high waf (thin, small, and maybe wall mountable).
amplifier 30W rms EL84 PPP (parallel push pull)
i can biamp and use one amp below 300hz and one above if the design were a 2 way using a bass driver and a full range/wide range like the jx53 or Tb 871.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2004, 07:39 AM   #63
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: In a house
Quote:
Originally posted by navin
.
Initially i thought about a 4 x JX53 line array (open baffle) supported by either 4 x JX125 in a push push box or 2 x Peerless CSX cone or 4 x

I was told that interference between the JX53s wouldlimit hf response so i scrapped that idea and went to a single Fostex 6" or 8". but then theissue of beaming arose so that idea was scrapped too.
That's actually what interest's me about the TB 2"x3" drivers. The 2" dimension would be nice for a line array as they wouldn't have as much HF problem as an array with a 3" (like the JX53"s). Stacking them as close as possible with the 2" dimension on the vertical axis would mean it would be good up to about 13 KHz before any serious cone filtering started showing up & that's high enough that it's really not an issue anyway as room reflections & your own positional movements between a stereo field have more effect . There response graph at 1st glance doesn't look all that great but looking closer it looks like it would be pretty easy to EQ to something pretty nice & the 1 mm Xmax isn't bad, but I've not heard them & they could be crap.
__________________
You thought I had it!?... I thought you had it!
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2004, 03:50 PM   #64
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: flyover country
The 2 x 3" looks intriguing to me also as a possible center channel speaker for HT (using several). IMO, if Tang-Band pushed its Xmax up to 2mm, lowered its Qts and Fs by about 30% and 40% respectively (and perhaps lost a db or two efficiency to allow all this), they'd have a really exceptional small speaker for array or low level full range use.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th April 2004, 04:33 AM   #65
diyAudio Member
 
thomas997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver
You may want to ask RAW

If you check out his site: http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/wrn...lding/id1.html

It says at the bottom: "The new 2"x3" I will get those tests done in time."

  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2004, 02:47 AM   #66
MarkMcK is offline MarkMcK  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Default Xmax/power results and 2 by 3 tests

Greetings all,

I would like to express my appreciation for those who have corrected my misconception of the relationship between Xmax and frequency. Frequency is a tightly coupled variable. As such it was easily seen in the experimental data.

Now, no theory or model/simulation means anything unless it is tested. And all models are simplifications of the real. The Xmax formula Dan provided is no different. Under ideal conditions, with all assumptions provided in place, the equation will get you close (whether acceleration is SPL or velocity displacement is SPL). This driver (or any other) does not provide the ideal and so deviates from time to time of predicted values.

For this test of a real driver there is only one assumption: no unusual backside loading. This means either free-air or nearly infinite baffle loading. Not applicable to acoustic suspension or ported enclosure designs.

Results:

At driver resonance, an excursion of 3 mm (Xmax) is produced when a 67 Hz sine wave of 3.95 volts peak (2.8 volts RMS) is applied. This is a mere .14-watt RMS. Double the frequency to 134 Hz and the formula predicts Xmax at 15.84 volts peak (11.2 RMS). As measured, the voltage for a 3 mm excursion was 11.45 volts peak (8.1 RMS). This is still a very low 7.29 watts RMS. Between 130 and 200 Hz, however, the measured results coincide very nicely with prediction when based upon the 134 Hz measured performance. Xmax is not reached until 29.7 volts peak (21 volts RMS). This is now a very high 63 watts of power dissipation, exceeds rated maximum and cannot be sustained for very long. We also transition from Xmax limit to power dissipation limit in this frequency range. Above 150 to 170 Hz, the driver limit is power dissipation related and not dependent upon Xmax.

Underlying reasons:

Why is frequency a tightly coupled variable for Xmax? This is really a Homer Simpson “DOH!” moment. I won’t waste time going into the explanation, but the clue to why is found in the change in mechanical impedance with frequency. The algorithm for mechanical impedance is a bit more complicated than the acceleration algorithm, but produces predictions a bit closer to the experimental results. Factor in the increasing motor efficiency as we approach resonance and we get even closer.

What does it all mean?

A full-range driver at large SPL value is hard to do. A very large Xmax will also mean a large undriven mass and high inductance, both limiting to the high frequency reproduction of the driver. Yet, unless Xmax is very large, for a 3-inch diameter cone, as suggested by the extremely small drive required to reach Xmax, the differences in acoustic output amongst drivers with only small differences in Xmax is going to be minor. If, however, you are willing to supplement the lowest frequencies with a woofer or sub woofer crossing over at about 160 Hz, then the higher frequency driver’s Xmax is not going to be the limiting condition, instead it will be power dissipation. Thus it would seem that the solution is to choose the “full-range” driver with the best overall performance and supplement the bass with a larger driver handling frequencies below 160 Hz.

Lastly, I tested the Tang Band 2 by 3 drivers and posted to this forum a long time ago. You can find the results at:

http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthrea...peaker+testing


Again, thanks to everyone who helped out with this,

Mark
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2004, 06:44 AM   #67
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
i think of a few full range drivers that can produce high SPL not via having a large Xmax but have high sensitivity.

this analysis would also explain why many full range drivers are best designed for horns (which boost the bass).

and there is an added advantage of using a 2-4" widerange+bass v/s using a 6-8" widerange+tweeter. At the XO freq. between the 2 drivers the wavelenghts are still long enough so as not to agrravate lobing.
__________________
...still looking for the holy grail.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2004, 07:27 AM   #68
diyAudio Member
 
Hybrid fourdoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
Recently I used the W3-881s in my sphere speakers. They seem pretty good so far. They don't go down to much in terms of bass (volume limited I'm sure), but they play loud enough so far, and have normal sensitivity. Pretty good HF considering they don't use the fancy phase plugs the other do. Next time I'll probably try 871s that everybody raves about.
__________________
I enjoy my organic shapes.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th June 2004, 09:12 PM   #69
MarkMcK is offline MarkMcK  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Default Early results from modification

Hi all,

Here is a graph of the W4-1052SA utilizing one mechanical modification to the cone to take care of the huge sharp output spike just under 10 K and a three component prefilter or equalizer to flatten the response.

This is not the final modification. The mechanical modification causes a dip in response a little over 8 kHz that prevents a true plus or minus three db rating. Sensitivity is not changed below 2 KHz and minus 3 db is pushed out to about 19 kHz.

This modification, however, may make this the best performing full range 4 inch available. There are problems comparing tests and all, but the other drivers out there will show problems in excess of what is seen here when placed into the same test setup.

This is the usual one meter response.

Mark
Attached Images
File Type: gif modified1052.gif (4.9 KB, 433 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2004, 02:16 AM   #70
MarkMcK is offline MarkMcK  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ohio
Hi all,

I have posted details of the W4-1052SA modifications to my Web site.

You can only get there by following the links I post to this forum. I will duplicate this message on my Tang Band mod thread.

The modification is simple, inexpensive, and can be undone. This will not void warranties or anything else. The sensivity of the driver after modification is unchanged. In its stock state the rise in upper mid to treble response is greater than specified sensitity. Also, so little mass is added to the cone that T/S specs change no more than the difference between Tang Band's T/S published spec and actual measured specs. In other words, it is unimportant should you want to listen to the sound of the box air mass in resonance and port the enclosure.

After modification, the driver sounds accurate. The improvement is easily heard and brings the performance and accuracy to a level that is equal to any four inch on the market.

Here is the link:

http://madspeaker.com/Projects/TBW4-1052SA.htm
  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
4 inch Tang Bands..... type Full Range 17 19th September 2006 10:56 AM
More Zaph's Tang Bands cj.9 Multi-Way 0 1st January 2006 08:56 PM
EBS Aligned Tang Bands? sharpi31 Full Range 4 27th November 2005 11:16 PM
Zaph's Tang Bands ? cj.9 Multi-Way 5 21st June 2005 11:52 PM
Resistance box for Tang Bands Eccu Multi-Way 1 25th November 2004 07:33 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 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