I picked up a pair of these venerable full=rangers, mint condition and still in their boxes, off Ebay and am trying to decide what to do with them. AFAIK these have usually been used in vented cabinets, but when I tested the T/S parameters using DATS V3 these are the results I got:
Fs: 79.5 Hz
Qts:: 1.095
Vas: 20.94 L
To my limited knowledge, for a bass reflex enclosure the Qts is ideally below 0.5, and a value of 1.1. would make it out of the question.
Am I right about that? If so, does anyone have thoughts on what these would work with?
Fs: 79.5 Hz
Qts:: 1.095
Vas: 20.94 L
To my limited knowledge, for a bass reflex enclosure the Qts is ideally below 0.5, and a value of 1.1. would make it out of the question.
Am I right about that? If so, does anyone have thoughts on what these would work with?
HI,
From what I've read it's a contender for Open Baffle or sealed box. You might try OB as its just a panel then you can move to sealed box with little hassle.
Jeremy
From what I've read it's a contender for Open Baffle or sealed box. You might try OB as its just a panel then you can move to sealed box with little hassle.
Jeremy
You have the most advanced model, congrats. After a (very) long run-in the bass is supposed to improve nicely. The "official" cabinet was sort of a ~20L BR-OB hybrid with large front vent of nearly no-depth, that leaked back-wave including those bouncing off the shallow cabinet's back. Odd eh? Treble rolled off quite early which was the Japanese preference. One of the sweetest extended midrange drivers. I only have a rather faithful alnico clone that accentuated those early "classic" traits; the MB last anniversary version likely more modern-sounding.
(picture of cab https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...d-options-recommendations.388862/post-7087076)
At first I used my alnico clone as midrange in a 3-way. Then I found a very inexpensive non-alnico version by the same engineer, released ten years later under his own (by now pretty successful) brand called "Correct", that had excellent clarity and top/bottom extension (played raw open-air its bass matched the alnico in aforementioned official cabinet) -- but missing the midrange magic. So I stacked the two and it worked!
Last edited:
So I wonder if that is something like the one given in the documentation that accompanied the drivers (see below). I guess no need for me to reinvent the wheel if that works well with them. I was mostly just curious as to why a driver with a Qts>1 would work in a bass reflex. From what you wrote, it seems these are not really BR's. Just boxes with holes in them and that don't really follow the math that describes how a BR enclosure works.
Attachments
There seem to be a lot of Diatone clones. The Qt of the set you got make them harder to use. But do keep in mind that given what you measured them with the resultant number you get is actually higher than “reality”.
I did a monster miniOnken for (i guess) a different clone, it had easier to use T/S
dave
I did a monster miniOnken for (i guess) a different clone, it had easier to use T/S
dave
Worked well for the Japanese taste at the time, possibly modernized a little. A fellow on China's bbs.hifidiy.net has posted many semi-pro audioclips of his beloved MB -- both ends still rolled-off some, though not as much as my alnico clone did. He always seemed reluctant to show or describe his diy "small cab", but I can try to ask....
Technically somewhat lower actually once any series resistance is factored in. 😉
T/S max flat alignment: Vb = Vas, Fb = Fs, Qts' = ~0.403
net volume (Vb) (L) = 20*Vas*Qts'^3.3
box tuning (Fb) (Hz) = 0.42*Fs*Qts'^-0.96
(Qts') = (Qts) + any added series resistance (Rs): http://www.mh-audio.nl/Calculators/newqts.html
Depends on ones expectations. 😉 Did a lot of high Qt BRs way back when based on the pioneer's conclusion that for BR, Vas/1.44 was the proper balance when tuned to (Fs). Made the box out of lossy materials, thin panels or corrugated cardboard to 'absorb' some of its high Qt 'ringing'. Tuning was always a baffle thickness slot the width of the driver cutout and damping consisted of critically damping the vent.
HIFI? Obviously not; entertaining, yes, in that they were a step up from the typical consumer AM/FM radio, mono TVs, inexpensive record players of the times.
If wanting a bit more HIFI, then use proper box construction, insulation and use some form of EQ to flatten its mid-bass peaking.
Attachments
I did repeat the measurements several times. But, yes, I am noob and DATS is not the absolute most reliable way to measure a driver, is that is what you mean.
If you want to try listening to the MB here's a master link (content in Chinese but links are links... pan.baidu.com is a cloud-drive, bilibili is like youtube but has audio clips as well)
http://bbs.hifidiy.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1433537
(with scan of the instruction sheet showing Q = 0.7)
I believe his cab has a 10" Hivi speaker used as passive radiator to which he also added weights. He recorded hand-held using a Sony PCM-D100.
http://bbs.hifidiy.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1433537
(with scan of the instruction sheet showing Q = 0.7)
I believe his cab has a 10" Hivi speaker used as passive radiator to which he also added weights. He recorded hand-held using a Sony PCM-D100.
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Mine came with the same documentation. Is "Q" to be understood as Qts?
Last edited by a moderator:
DATS, according to the author, estimates the T/S from the impedance curve as opposed to directly measuring the detail. And none of the inexpensive T/S measure kit used by diyers collapse the T/S curves into scalar at the same place as the typical gear used by the factories. Factory numbers, in my experience, and assumming some integrity from the OEM, are more useful for designing boxes.
The kit we use is good for matching drivers but not great for designing boxes. Every box i have designed using numbers i have measured i would like to try again (and typically make a bit bigger).
dave