I just replaced the surrounds on my new Super 12/FS/AL FRD's and man,3 watts blows me out of the room.These must be wicked sensitive.Wish I knew how much.
Anyway,my question is has anyone built a proper cabinet for these?I have not been able to find any info on them.Maybe a Metronome or BIB would work for them?I know absolutly nothing of speaker design.
Thanks!
Doug
Anyway,my question is has anyone built a proper cabinet for these?I have not been able to find any info on them.Maybe a Metronome or BIB would work for them?I know absolutly nothing of speaker design.
Thanks!
Doug
Doug,
According to Wharfedale's catalogue section from 1960; the Super 12/FS/AL was described as
having "extremely high sesitivity and and excellent damping. Especially recommended for use in a 9 cu.ft. sand-filled or brick enclosure..." My guess is the sensitivity is in the high 90's.
Tech info: 12/15 omhs.
Flux density 17,000 gauss
1 3/4" dia centre pole
Aluminium voice coil
Max. input 15 watts. 30 watts peak
Frequency range 30-14,000
I've heard a vintage 10" the W10/FSB and the sound was superb.
As to a suitable speaker design I think I'll pass over to more able posters.
Cilla
According to Wharfedale's catalogue section from 1960; the Super 12/FS/AL was described as
having "extremely high sesitivity and and excellent damping. Especially recommended for use in a 9 cu.ft. sand-filled or brick enclosure..." My guess is the sensitivity is in the high 90's.
Tech info: 12/15 omhs.
Flux density 17,000 gauss
1 3/4" dia centre pole
Aluminium voice coil
Max. input 15 watts. 30 watts peak
Frequency range 30-14,000
I've heard a vintage 10" the W10/FSB and the sound was superb.
As to a suitable speaker design I think I'll pass over to more able posters.
Cilla
Yep, sensitive they are. My Super 10RSDDs with shortened VCs do about 103 dB/W/M. IIRC about 96 db /w with the original 16 ohm coils.
Best results will be in 3 or 4 cub ft aperiodic cabs. I have dimensions for the large sand filled if you want to go that big.
Good luck finding a tweeter to keep up with them. I don't think they need back loaded horn to augment the bass.
Geoff.
Best results will be in 3 or 4 cub ft aperiodic cabs. I have dimensions for the large sand filled if you want to go that big.
Good luck finding a tweeter to keep up with them. I don't think they need back loaded horn to augment the bass.
Geoff.
Thanks for the info guys.I'm definitley interested in those plans.They are currently in RJ enclosures and measure 24"wide,21"tall and 10"deep.They are vented in a way I've never seen before.The drivers are mountd on an inner baffle set back from the front with about 1" blocks so it is vented through the speaker opening.The opening is smaller than the drivers and shaped something like a back to back rain drop.I would think the reflections back at the drivers could do some harm but they sound very good anyway.
As far as adding a tweeter,I could happily live without.Ive had tinnitus for a few years now and high frequencys kind of bother me.
As far as adding a tweeter,I could happily live without.Ive had tinnitus for a few years now and high frequencys kind of bother me.
Different... It is like the original Helmholtz resonator, except the hole in the front baffle would be the same diameter as that of the speaker baffle.
The front opening may have been to provide wide dispersion of the mids and highs, or it could be artistic license.
The sand filled enclosure dims I have are for the 15RS. I have plans for the 12RS, but I think the tuning will be off. IIRC the RS range had lower resonance and longer stroke.
The 2.4 cub ft cab for the Super 12RS is 28" x 16" x 10" external, 3/4" panels, tuned with a 12" x 3/4" slot.
Geoff.
The front opening may have been to provide wide dispersion of the mids and highs, or it could be artistic license.
The sand filled enclosure dims I have are for the 15RS. I have plans for the 12RS, but I think the tuning will be off. IIRC the RS range had lower resonance and longer stroke.
The 2.4 cub ft cab for the Super 12RS is 28" x 16" x 10" external, 3/4" panels, tuned with a 12" x 3/4" slot.
Geoff.
IIRC = If I Remember / Recall Correctly.
I seem to remember Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale discussing this type of loading in one of his books. It's similar in a sense to one of the concepts forwarded by Thuras of Bell Labs in their original reflex patent of 1930 (see attached) in that it's attempting to have the back radiation coming from ~the same place.
For books, Vance Dickinson's The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook is a good start. The old Badmaieff / Davis text How to Build Speaker enclosures, despite being superceeded on many levels, is still a useful guide in many ways (some things never change).
I seem to remember Gilbert Briggs of Wharfedale discussing this type of loading in one of his books. It's similar in a sense to one of the concepts forwarded by Thuras of Bell Labs in their original reflex patent of 1930 (see attached) in that it's attempting to have the back radiation coming from ~the same place.
For books, Vance Dickinson's The Loudspeaker Design Cookbook is a good start. The old Badmaieff / Davis text How to Build Speaker enclosures, despite being superceeded on many levels, is still a useful guide in many ways (some things never change).
Attachments
Yes, Scott, Briggs did describe one, although he did not call it an "RJ" enclosure. He said ..,." spacing the unit a short distance away from the baffle got rid of most of the effects of ( too) small an enclosure, and avoided a sharp rise in resonance frequency."
"In short, the arrangement makes the speaker into a free-edge cone type, except that the very low resonance of the free cone is not obtained.......I now think it is hard to beat for small models and can be looked upon a useful stone which the builders rejected."
He gave a design for an 8"unit, resonance not higher than 65 Hz.
Cabinet 1 cub ft, (24" x 11" x 9" outside), , with speaker on small sub-baffle 3/4" back from front baffle. If no sub-baffle used he suggested space of about 1/4". Front hole circular but could be slot to reduce directional effects from driver.
I tried one, and it certainly reduce the boom from the very small enclosure, and results were better than I expected, but of course not as good as a properly matched, larger, enclosure.
"In short, the arrangement makes the speaker into a free-edge cone type, except that the very low resonance of the free cone is not obtained.......I now think it is hard to beat for small models and can be looked upon a useful stone which the builders rejected."
He gave a design for an 8"unit, resonance not higher than 65 Hz.
Cabinet 1 cub ft, (24" x 11" x 9" outside), , with speaker on small sub-baffle 3/4" back from front baffle. If no sub-baffle used he suggested space of about 1/4". Front hole circular but could be slot to reduce directional effects from driver.
I tried one, and it certainly reduce the boom from the very small enclosure, and results were better than I expected, but of course not as good as a properly matched, larger, enclosure.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.