Ciao Rese,
thanks for providing the measurements, pics and link. Really looks intersting at that price close to unbeatable for what I like, horn and big membrane(s), also midrange closed is a nice choice. Might actually build those.
A question though. You used the LaVoce WSF152.50 instead of the WSF152.02 due to availabillity, as you stated in the article, if I understood correctly.
Have you tried using the WSF152.02 on any further tests. The 02 seems to be about 15-20% cheaper, €78.50 vs. €92.50 each and the 02 at least in Italy is easier to get. Were there any other reasons apart from power handling? The 02 has Qts of 5.3, Fs=43 calculated sensitivity 96.4 vs. Qts=5.0 Fs=46, calculated sensitivity 95.6 for the .50. More volume for the 02? Not exactly a great difference but that could get the build including materials under 500€, maybe.
Curious how the LaVoce sound, but I like the Hertz speakers in Car Audio and believe that is the same company, maybe even same manufacturing sites?
Using them in a closed cabinet the 02 would appear to be a slightly better match and cheaper, but I have not done any calculations and obviously you did the tests.
Have the rebuilders or you used this option or just the wsf 152.50? If yes how does it compare
Cheers
thanks for providing the measurements, pics and link. Really looks intersting at that price close to unbeatable for what I like, horn and big membrane(s), also midrange closed is a nice choice. Might actually build those.
A question though. You used the LaVoce WSF152.50 instead of the WSF152.02 due to availabillity, as you stated in the article, if I understood correctly.
Have you tried using the WSF152.02 on any further tests. The 02 seems to be about 15-20% cheaper, €78.50 vs. €92.50 each and the 02 at least in Italy is easier to get. Were there any other reasons apart from power handling? The 02 has Qts of 5.3, Fs=43 calculated sensitivity 96.4 vs. Qts=5.0 Fs=46, calculated sensitivity 95.6 for the .50. More volume for the 02? Not exactly a great difference but that could get the build including materials under 500€, maybe.
Curious how the LaVoce sound, but I like the Hertz speakers in Car Audio and believe that is the same company, maybe even same manufacturing sites?
Using them in a closed cabinet the 02 would appear to be a slightly better match and cheaper, but I have not done any calculations and obviously you did the tests.
Have the rebuilders or you used this option or just the wsf 152.50? If yes how does it compare
Cheers
Peerless has both a 1.4" and a 1.75" dome diameter CD with a 1" exit. I have noticed the 1.75" dome which supports a lower crossover frequency is often used on the SEOS-15 waveguide and the B52 = QSC low cost horns at Parts Express.
DFM-2544R00-08
1.75" diameter dome
Half Space Sensitivity db@2.83V/1M dB 103.64
DFM-2535R00-08
1.4 inch diaphragm dome
Half Space Sensitivity db@2.83V/1M dB 107.7
Test Bench: Peerless by Tymphany DFM-2544R00-08 Compression Driver | audioXpress
Test Bench: Peerless by Tymphany DFM-2544R00-08 Compression Driver | audioXpress
DFM-2544R00-08
1.75" diameter dome
Half Space Sensitivity db@2.83V/1M dB 103.64
DFM-2535R00-08
1.4 inch diaphragm dome
Half Space Sensitivity db@2.83V/1M dB 107.7
Test Bench: Peerless by Tymphany DFM-2544R00-08 Compression Driver | audioXpress
Test Bench: Peerless by Tymphany DFM-2544R00-08 Compression Driver | audioXpress
Hello Tubeglow,
you are right, I wanted to use the LaVoce WSF152.02 first because it works a little better in the closed box. Unfortunately, it was not available at the time of construction.
The differences are very small, however, the WSF152.50 has the slightly larger coil and can handle a bit more power.
I haven't tested the .02, so I can't recommend it, even if the woofers are very similar. Risking an uncertain result to save 28 € is not a very good idea I think.
Both drivers and the horn are very cheap at TLHP in France:
Compression driver Peerless DFM-2535R00-08, 8 ohm, 1-inch throat
Speaker Lavoce WSF152.50, 8 ohm, 15 inch
Horn Celestion H1-9040P, throat diameter 1 inch
So you should be able to stay below € 500 without any problems.
Yes, LaVoce and Hertz, together with Audison, belong to Elettromedia Italy.
In terms of sound, I am very surprised by the LaVoce. I honestly didn't expect him to play that well. It was originally planned to make a version with a better woofer, but the 152.50 plays so well that I don't see any need for it.
@LineSource:
Both Tymphany are acoustically very similar. The little one can be crossed just as deep, but because of the smaller voice coil, it cannot handle as much power. But it is more than sufficient for home use.
For example, the bigger one is in the K.O .:
Knock-Out-Knock-Out
The two drivers are very cheap, but they sound excellent. The developer at Tymphany used to work for a well-known PA manufacturer.
you are right, I wanted to use the LaVoce WSF152.02 first because it works a little better in the closed box. Unfortunately, it was not available at the time of construction.
The differences are very small, however, the WSF152.50 has the slightly larger coil and can handle a bit more power.
I haven't tested the .02, so I can't recommend it, even if the woofers are very similar. Risking an uncertain result to save 28 € is not a very good idea I think.
Both drivers and the horn are very cheap at TLHP in France:
Compression driver Peerless DFM-2535R00-08, 8 ohm, 1-inch throat
Speaker Lavoce WSF152.50, 8 ohm, 15 inch
Horn Celestion H1-9040P, throat diameter 1 inch
So you should be able to stay below € 500 without any problems.
Yes, LaVoce and Hertz, together with Audison, belong to Elettromedia Italy.
In terms of sound, I am very surprised by the LaVoce. I honestly didn't expect him to play that well. It was originally planned to make a version with a better woofer, but the 152.50 plays so well that I don't see any need for it.
@LineSource:
Both Tymphany are acoustically very similar. The little one can be crossed just as deep, but because of the smaller voice coil, it cannot handle as much power. But it is more than sufficient for home use.
For example, the bigger one is in the K.O .:
Knock-Out-Knock-Out
The two drivers are very cheap, but they sound excellent. The developer at Tymphany used to work for a well-known PA manufacturer.
Last edited:
Hello Rese,
of course for those just building the speaker along your plans switching the 02 for the 50 would be very, very counterproductive, unless you really know what you are doing.
Not trying to save 30€ here, just that the nephew of my GF for/with whom I might build that is running low watt tubes.
If you have some time maybe you could ask the German distributor to loan you a second pair of WSF152.02. The Moving mass of the 02 is 69.2g vs the 90,3g that is what stikes me. That is 30% more mass! That would probably make a lot of difference in dynamics, PRAT and how well it plays bass with lower wattage amps. By asking the wholesaler you could have a version with the 02 best suitable for tube and Class A SS amps, such as the First Watts with 25W and less. Also likely with a senistivity closer to 94db/2.83, where you get into the magic of high efficiency speakers with class A. And then you could have the version with the 50 for those that run heavy SS, class D or AB, hypex, purifi, etc. that through sheer power will have a iron grip and where the powerhandling of the 50 would be really good on 100W plus and get the magic of efficiency plus a lot of power, plus more Xmax.
This would result in more sales of the LaVoce for the reseller since he would sell more chasis overall because your speaker would have an even larger audience since the Asathor in two versions would be better adaptable to various amps.
Seeing the Qts, higher sensitivity, Fs, lower mass, hmn I think in a closed configuration this 02 Asathor could very likely rival the Calpamos with the vented 15pr400 in mid/bass. Maybe better low midrange and bass speed and dynamics, obviously not min frequency and low end character But also with less size and a fith of the price those a tradeoffs a lot of people might make. Not heard the Timphany horn, but it got good responses here.
Obviously Tony at Humble Hifi has a assembled kit, and as is well known is quite good in crossovers and mixing and matching caps, coils and resistors to tune the sound to best integrate the drivers (I know you do not believe)
Just my 02 cents, but it would likely literally be swapping the woofer and tweeking the crossover if the volume is similar. If not for too much volume either add some boards internally or borrow some extra space from the horn chamber . I think its always best the original designer gets to do this instead of someone else running with your design and you cannot take the credit. Keep up the good work.
Cheers
of course for those just building the speaker along your plans switching the 02 for the 50 would be very, very counterproductive, unless you really know what you are doing.
Not trying to save 30€ here, just that the nephew of my GF for/with whom I might build that is running low watt tubes.If you have some time maybe you could ask the German distributor to loan you a second pair of WSF152.02. The Moving mass of the 02 is 69.2g vs the 90,3g that is what stikes me. That is 30% more mass! That would probably make a lot of difference in dynamics, PRAT and how well it plays bass with lower wattage amps. By asking the wholesaler you could have a version with the 02 best suitable for tube and Class A SS amps, such as the First Watts with 25W and less. Also likely with a senistivity closer to 94db/2.83, where you get into the magic of high efficiency speakers with class A. And then you could have the version with the 50 for those that run heavy SS, class D or AB, hypex, purifi, etc. that through sheer power will have a iron grip and where the powerhandling of the 50 would be really good on 100W plus and get the magic of efficiency plus a lot of power, plus more Xmax.
This would result in more sales of the LaVoce for the reseller since he would sell more chasis overall because your speaker would have an even larger audience since the Asathor in two versions would be better adaptable to various amps.
Seeing the Qts, higher sensitivity, Fs, lower mass, hmn I think in a closed configuration this 02 Asathor could very likely rival the Calpamos with the vented 15pr400 in mid/bass. Maybe better low midrange and bass speed and dynamics, obviously not min frequency and low end character
But also with less size and a fith of the price those a tradeoffs a lot of people might make. Not heard the Timphany horn, but it got good responses here. Obviously Tony at Humble Hifi has a assembled kit, and as is well known is quite good in crossovers and mixing and matching caps, coils and resistors to tune the sound to best integrate the drivers (I know you do not believe
) Just my 02 cents, but it would likely literally be swapping the woofer and tweeking the crossover if the volume is similar. If not for too much volume either add some boards internally or borrow some extra space from the horn chamber . I think its always best the original designer gets to do this instead of someone else running with your design and you cannot take the credit. Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Hello Markbakk,
as you correctly guessed I am more a working audiophile than acoustic engineer and use a combo of experience and my limited understanding. I will now attempt a quote form Linesource whose general philosophy I share regarding the "perception" of bass speed and also relates to PRAT. In general the less comb filtering and the better integration of mids and bass the better the PRAT in a speaker, higher perceived dynamics, and perceived bass speed in my experience.
It is already tricky to integrate the horn straight to the 15", doing so with a higher mass and higher inductance driver is even harder, IMO.
Le(50) =.77mH > Le(02)=.63; MMS(02) 69,2g vs. MMs(50)=90,3g
I was probably not very good in explaining what I meant, I appologize for the confusion, and for me, it's too late 1:30 or a discussion on radiation impedence vs. diameter, frequency.
For higher frequencies radiation impedance raises, but due to the inertia of the diaphragm mass the movement’s amplitude decreases at similar rate. But if we increase the cone diameter, the air will need to accelerate aside faster. That means, there will be more pressure buildup in front of the cone, equivalent to more impedance – and efficiency.
As soon as the diameter gets larger than one-half wavelength of the frequency under consideration, the sideways-pressure release will not be fast enough: A strong pressure wave is radiated forward.
Is that what you are asking? Hope this explains it better, just want to avoid essays always.
Got to get some sleep, long week ahead.
Cheers
as you correctly guessed I am more a working audiophile than acoustic engineer
and use a combo of experience and my limited understanding. I will now attempt a quote form Linesource whose general philosophy I share regarding the "perception" of bass speed and also relates to PRAT. In general the less comb filtering and the better integration of mids and bass the better the PRAT in a speaker, higher perceived dynamics, and perceived bass speed in my experience.It is already tricky to integrate the horn straight to the 15", doing so with a higher mass and higher inductance driver is even harder, IMO.
Le(50) =.77mH > Le(02)=.63; MMS(02) 69,2g vs. MMs(50)=90,3g
I was probably not very good in explaining what I meant, I appologize for the confusion, and for me, it's too late 1:30 or a discussion on radiation impedence vs. diameter, frequency.
For higher frequencies radiation impedance raises, but due to the inertia of the diaphragm mass the movement’s amplitude decreases at similar rate. But if we increase the cone diameter, the air will need to accelerate aside faster. That means, there will be more pressure buildup in front of the cone, equivalent to more impedance – and efficiency.
As soon as the diameter gets larger than one-half wavelength of the frequency under consideration, the sideways-pressure release will not be fast enough: A strong pressure wave is radiated forward.
Is that what you are asking? Hope this explains it better, just want to avoid essays always.
Got to get some sleep, long week ahead.
Cheers
That's clear, thx. The things Linesource mentions do show up in measurements. And I can't help thinking this (or any) 15" woofer is breaking up higher in it's passband, probably first at 500Hz when I look at the DS. Not only because of cone mass, but also due to air that won't go out of the way. Even more: breaking up is a design objective. And then, where does Mms come into the equation?
You got the radiation impedance thing quite right btw
You got the radiation impedance thing quite right btw
A very interesting idea Tubeglow. It should be noted that the higher Mms comes from the larger coil. The coil is driven directly and thus also ensures more power transmission. You can't automatically infer diaphragm control from Mms (I don't like the term speed in this context).
In the simulation it therefore only makes a difference of 0.6dB. You can also see this in the data sheets. The .02 only has a little more SPL above 500Hz, but the baffle step correction is already effective here. Both woofers are almost equally loud in the bass.
If you really want to do that, you would have to give the .02 significantly more volume.
So for that I would have to build completely new cabinets and I don't think it's really worth it.
The Asathor comes to about 93dB / W and I run it on a Marantz with 2x50 watts. With this combination you can easily fill birthday parties with sound. Even if only 10 watts are available, it is really loud. If you hear extremely loud, you usually don't buy a tube amp.
In the simulation it therefore only makes a difference of 0.6dB. You can also see this in the data sheets. The .02 only has a little more SPL above 500Hz, but the baffle step correction is already effective here. Both woofers are almost equally loud in the bass.
If you really want to do that, you would have to give the .02 significantly more volume.
So for that I would have to build completely new cabinets and I don't think it's really worth it.
The Asathor comes to about 93dB / W and I run it on a Marantz with 2x50 watts. With this combination you can easily fill birthday parties with sound. Even if only 10 watts are available, it is really loud. If you hear extremely loud, you usually don't buy a tube amp.
Hi all here
While this seem's offtopic within the driver vs. spl going on right now, just wanna tell that i have all part's on hand, building slowly this AsaThor spk.
I'am trying to make the finish look as close as possible to the original Jbl, with
oblique some ~30 degrees on the corners. I bought some veneer in Germany to try with some samples using the Ms. iron along with glue method, seem's to be doable (never ever tried it before)
A snip translated from German to English ::
Just to tell... Rgds; Jesper.
While this seem's offtopic within the driver vs. spl going on right now, just wanna tell that i have all part's on hand, building slowly this AsaThor spk.
I'am trying to make the finish look as close as possible to the original Jbl, with
oblique some ~30 degrees on the corners. I bought some veneer in Germany to try with some samples using the Ms. iron along with glue method, seem's to be doable (never ever tried it before)
A snip translated from German to English ::
Just to tell... Rgds; Jesper.
Attachments
I am very happy that you will build the Asathor. If you have any questions, just contact me.
I have already done the ironing method successfully with real veneer, also on the Asathor. It depends on the wood and how hot it is ironed. I always use medium temperature. And I use parchment paper to protect the veneer, otherwise there may be discoloration from the iron.
I have already done the ironing method successfully with real veneer, also on the Asathor. It depends on the wood and how hot it is ironed. I always use medium temperature. And I use parchment paper to protect the veneer, otherwise there may be discoloration from the iron.
@prarieboy some of the nicest veneers don't have paper backing. If you want to make sure and veneer for the ages, first saturate the wood veneers on both sides with diluted glue to stabalize it, then press it flat between shrink wrap with boards. Then use the iron. Last and super important if you want long lasting veneers is using a veneering hammer to pull/push out any air bubles and excessive glue, giving it consistent adhesion to the speaker. These air bubbles and irregularities with movement of the wood cause the cracking. Sand and then apply your prefered finish.
How it is done right on a cracked, damaged, warped and dried out veneer
Hammer Veneering Part One - YouTube
This should hold many decades. You can also get a veneer scraper instead of a hammer (around 10€, but you need to apply more force) that will remove excess glue and airbubbles, it is all very easy and if you use expensive veneers spend the extra time it will save you heartache. I have also done shortcuts and had "issues" and wasted a lot of money.
Paper backed will be less prone and is pre stabalized (still need to avoid air bubbles) but if you want some very fancy veneers, or less expensive, that is not always an option. It's really easy and has been done with the hammer for centuries for the centuries
Of course have a very smooth sanded and spackled surface, especially if you use plywood this is crucial. Plywood preferably veneered perpendicular to grain for additional strength.
Good luck on the build
How it is done right on a cracked, damaged, warped and dried out veneer
Hammer Veneering Part One - YouTube
This should hold many decades. You can also get a veneer scraper instead of a hammer (around 10€, but you need to apply more force) that will remove excess glue and airbubbles, it is all very easy and if you use expensive veneers spend the extra time it will save you heartache. I have also done shortcuts and had "issues" and wasted a lot of money.
Paper backed will be less prone and is pre stabalized (still need to avoid air bubbles) but if you want some very fancy veneers, or less expensive, that is not always an option. It's really easy and has been done with the hammer for centuries for the centuries
Of course have a very smooth sanded and spackled surface, especially if you use plywood this is crucial. Plywood preferably veneered perpendicular to grain for additional strength.
Good luck on the build
@Markbakk
"And I can't help thinking this (or any) 15" woofer is breaking up higher in it's passband, probably first at 500Hz when I look at the DS. Not only because of cone mass, but also due to air that won't go out of the way. Even more: breaking up is a design objective. And then, where does Mms come into the equation? "
Again a bit late, past 1:30 am, and me being tired, so not sure if I understood the statement and/or question, and probably my brain is just giving up
But if other people read this maybe I will try turn my unsureness and what I think you mean into something where someone can learn something, quote of Mr. Evil that I think speaks about what you are refering to regarding design choices and break up frequencies? Or am I on the completely wrong boat/train?
Could you rephrase the statement and question, thanks I will try to give it a go tomorrow and good night.
"And I can't help thinking this (or any) 15" woofer is breaking up higher in it's passband, probably first at 500Hz when I look at the DS. Not only because of cone mass, but also due to air that won't go out of the way. Even more: breaking up is a design objective. And then, where does Mms come into the equation? "
Again a bit late, past 1:30 am, and me being tired, so not sure if I understood the statement and/or question, and probably my brain is just giving up
But if other people read this maybe I will try turn my unsureness and what I think you mean into something where someone can learn something, quote of Mr. Evil that I think speaks about what you are refering to regarding design choices and break up frequencies? Or am I on the completely wrong boat/train?
Could you rephrase the statement and question, thanks I will try to give it a go tomorrow and good night.