To some extent, it may be simpler to list the one that won't work. Do you have measurement capability?
The W4-1337SD is outstanding in the midrange but does require a notch filter to control the break-up. The bamboo drivers are nice and have less breakup to deal with. The W4-1052 has shown to be admirable if you don't mind a minor drop in output above 15kHz. There is a new one available to us in the States that looks very intriguing, W3-1401D.
Of course, I will once again plug the Mark Audio CHR-70. It is wonderful and just as cheap as the better TBs.
The W4-1337SD is outstanding in the midrange but does require a notch filter to control the break-up. The bamboo drivers are nice and have less breakup to deal with. The W4-1052 has shown to be admirable if you don't mind a minor drop in output above 15kHz. There is a new one available to us in the States that looks very intriguing, W3-1401D.
Of course, I will once again plug the Mark Audio CHR-70. It is wonderful and just as cheap as the better TBs.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I'm afraid that it is very slow progress at my end in terms of a FAST speaker design and now that it's holiday season ...
Anyway, looking at the miniTysen 0v7 design it is the Full-range driver that gets the TL treatment with the woofer in the sealed cavity. This is the opposite way around to what I had expected - where the woofer would enjoy TL loading for extended bass and the full-range would sing nicely in a sealed box.
I see an issue that for the TL for a woofer means lower frequency which drives a longer line and so it implies more box volume to get enough folded TL length -
what are your thoughts ?
Anyway, looking at the miniTysen 0v7 design it is the Full-range driver that gets the TL treatment with the woofer in the sealed cavity. This is the opposite way around to what I had expected - where the woofer would enjoy TL loading for extended bass and the full-range would sing nicely in a sealed box.
I see an issue that for the TL for a woofer means lower frequency which drives a longer line and so it implies more box volume to get enough folded TL length -
what are your thoughts ?
Bigun said:
Well, if that's open to the floor, the specific drivers were chosen for synchronistic performance:
1) we're big fans of the the SDX7, and chose it precisely because it works very well in small sealed enclosures (indeed, if using a single as a powered sub, the funnest part can be getting some plate amps to fit in the same box)
2) as Dave posted earlier, the TL was chosen for the FF85K (another driver on our personal "short list") to smooth its operational impedance load
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1827952#post1827952
Bigun said:
The issue with the SDX7 is that like a few XBL drivers it has a abrupt stop when pushed past its limits as it bangs intot he back plate. A sealed box provides an air cushion to compensate. After doing a TL for the SDX7 (actually 2 per box) and then having to stuff the terminus till it was almost sealed, i'm sticking with sealed for this driver.
dave
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Thanks guys, that's very helpful and give me a bit more food for thought. I guess a sealed box is also better suited for EQ as well, providing there's enough Xmax.
Here's a question, Dave - would using two woofers (shallow mounting) magnet to magnet be better?? - you talked of colouration, and having a woofer at each side of the box would stop the box vibrating... provided there's enough bracing.
Chris
Chris
A pr of push-push woofers would certainly have advantages.
To keep the current size they'd need to be smaller & quite shallow). A pair of Silver Flute W14s are too deep for instance.
dave
To keep the current size they'd need to be smaller & quite shallow). A pair of Silver Flute W14s are too deep for instance.
dave
a pair of something like these from our friend mr Wiggins could be interesting, but the minimum order requirements...
http://www.acousticdev.com/cms/inde...t-sub-woofer&catid=38:uncategorized&Itemid=60
What if they were slightly offset?
We could practically do a desktop Tyson with them 🙂
Cheers!
Ok, I've been messing around with this idea (who wouldn't)
I started out with a pair of small (>1L) sealed cabs with (see who can guess) a Visaton FRS 8 in each. For bass I used my Mission 760is (XO at 300Hz, 2nd order, passive). Bi-amped them (serious difference in efficiencies) and got some good results - Stereo imaging in particular was good.
Next, an OB FRS 8, 8" baffle width. Midrange sounds nicer in some ways, but definately has a hole there somewhere... Other than that, sounds very nice.
When I make some of these properly, I'll be using 2 (or 4) or the FR drivers, to get efficiency up, then 2 woofers per side (around 5"), push-push, possibly slightly offset, though not sure if it should be height offset or front-back offset...
Anyone tried something similar?
Chris
I started out with a pair of small (>1L) sealed cabs with (see who can guess) a Visaton FRS 8 in each. For bass I used my Mission 760is (XO at 300Hz, 2nd order, passive). Bi-amped them (serious difference in efficiencies) and got some good results - Stereo imaging in particular was good.
Next, an OB FRS 8, 8" baffle width. Midrange sounds nicer in some ways, but definately has a hole there somewhere... Other than that, sounds very nice.
When I make some of these properly, I'll be using 2 (or 4) or the FR drivers, to get efficiency up, then 2 woofers per side (around 5"), push-push, possibly slightly offset, though not sure if it should be height offset or front-back offset...
Anyone tried something similar?
Chris
That is one of the things being considered.
Like this?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1833349&postcount=32
dave
Dat's da vun!
That one's more suited to the smaller speeks.
Maybe we'll have something funky to go with a DynaMutt-II next year? 😎
Cheers!
I knew I'd seen something similar to a desktop version...
http://www.yugatech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lg-speakers.jpg
LG speakers, MTM on the front, woofer on the side...
I had a look in the loft today, turns out, I have a pair of boxes from the old 3-way era, but they only use one (8") cut out, and mounts the rest of the drivers on a plastic frame (time aligned). Might put a 3" hole in the side...
Chris
http://www.yugatech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/lg-speakers.jpg
LG speakers, MTM on the front, woofer on the side...
I had a look in the loft today, turns out, I have a pair of boxes from the old 3-way era, but they only use one (8") cut out, and mounts the rest of the drivers on a plastic frame (time aligned). Might put a 3" hole in the side...
Chris
chris' pet pieve and the lunacy of super high power and/or efficiency
I agree with chris completely on this one. I once drove my old Oxfords with my B-2 (Yamaha) with 10 watts. I didn't want to stay in the room at all---and I don't think the old Oxfords were that efficient.
One of the signatures to a good hifi is how good it sounds at low level. Loud is easy. Loud and good is not. And there are limits to what makes sense in a domestic situation, as chris stated. Even speaker dork admits that, and he doesn't really shy away from large speakers 🙂
I agree with chris completely on this one. I once drove my old Oxfords with my B-2 (Yamaha) with 10 watts. I didn't want to stay in the room at all---and I don't think the old Oxfords were that efficient.
One of the signatures to a good hifi is how good it sounds at low level. Loud is easy. Loud and good is not. And there are limits to what makes sense in a domestic situation, as chris stated. Even speaker dork admits that, and he doesn't really shy away from large speakers 🙂
Made one speaker (see attached), by using the boxes I mentioned earlier, with an old 8" Pioneer, comming from the old 3-way era, and 2x FRS 8 (vertically arranged), with a sloped front baffle, with "stepped angle adjuster", being a bunch of CD cases (empty), got both drivers equidistant to my ears, and pressed play. As I only have one so far, I can't say anything on stereo imaging, but it sounds nice as is. The integration of the drivers is very good - smooth run from fairly low to 15kHz (big dip there).
Now to go make the other one...
Be back later with more listening impressions.
Chris
Now to go make the other one...
Be back later with more listening impressions.
Chris
Attachments
Not at the moment, as these are simple, proof of concept designs.
For the final ne (if I can justify this to parents), I plan on using 2x W130S per cab (again, visaton), which are 5" woofers, and shallow mounting enough to go push-push, and get to 50Hz in a 26L vented enclosure. Those woofers are fairly cheaply available (£19 each), then I'll need to get more components for the passive XO (it's a mish-mash of active sub XO and passive for the mid/high). And another FRS 8 (put one in a 2-way thingy and painted the basket, doesn't look so good now).
With the full-rangers' relative lack of efficiency, should I opt for 4 of them in series/parallel or just keep it 2 per cab in parallel (they're 8ohm each)? - I know this will keep efficiency theoretically the same, but more is always more, right? 🙂
Chris
For the final ne (if I can justify this to parents), I plan on using 2x W130S per cab (again, visaton), which are 5" woofers, and shallow mounting enough to go push-push, and get to 50Hz in a 26L vented enclosure. Those woofers are fairly cheaply available (£19 each), then I'll need to get more components for the passive XO (it's a mish-mash of active sub XO and passive for the mid/high). And another FRS 8 (put one in a 2-way thingy and painted the basket, doesn't look so good now).
With the full-rangers' relative lack of efficiency, should I opt for 4 of them in series/parallel or just keep it 2 per cab in parallel (they're 8ohm each)? - I know this will keep efficiency theoretically the same, but more is always more, right? 🙂
Chris