what ya think ?
Tang Band W4-1337SDF 4" Titanium Full Range Speaker 264-916
Madisound Speaker Store
I may be able to build a 9 driver focused array, but I'm on fence over which driver.
To me, with a circuit for above 7khz, the titanium should be more electrostatic in sound. Then again, the ff125wk has received some praise lately.
Norman
Tang Band W4-1337SDF 4" Titanium Full Range Speaker 264-916
Madisound Speaker Store
I may be able to build a 9 driver focused array, but I'm on fence over which driver.
To me, with a circuit for above 7khz, the titanium should be more electrostatic in sound. Then again, the ff125wk has received some praise lately.
Norman
Last edited:
Regarding Tang Band there seems to be quite a bit of resonance between 10kHz and 20kHz, depending on what your hearing is like you might need a notch
Almost 15dB spike at 15kHz
Last edited:
Looks like the list increased rapidly. 
John Krutke (Zaph) rates the 1337 generally, including for FR use if notched above 10KHz, despite the so-so HD. YMMV on that score; the pair I heard were decent though I'd agree with John's conclusions.
The 125 is good; beats the old 127 & 125, nicely balanced & easy to work with. Less linear travel than the TB, but Fostex units tend to overload in a reasonably benign fashion, so I probably wouldn't put that as a heart-breaker; shallower profile cone than the TB, so slightly better off-axis. If you're concerned about materials, remember the top end of the Fostex is largely from the (metal) dustcap attached to the VC, so there's the metal you want still in place.
The 315 is a different ballgame given it's a much smaller driver. Usual tradeoffs for a smaller driver; it won't go as low. OTOH, it's about half the price, so you could buy more & Eq the bottom end if you felt so inclined. For the same money as 9 x 1337, you could get 16 x 315s. Personally I'd use a straight column with the 315s though rather than a focused array, assuming nearfield listening.
John Krutke (Zaph) rates the 1337 generally, including for FR use if notched above 10KHz, despite the so-so HD. YMMV on that score; the pair I heard were decent though I'd agree with John's conclusions.
The 125 is good; beats the old 127 & 125, nicely balanced & easy to work with. Less linear travel than the TB, but Fostex units tend to overload in a reasonably benign fashion, so I probably wouldn't put that as a heart-breaker; shallower profile cone than the TB, so slightly better off-axis. If you're concerned about materials, remember the top end of the Fostex is largely from the (metal) dustcap attached to the VC, so there's the metal you want still in place.
The 315 is a different ballgame given it's a much smaller driver. Usual tradeoffs for a smaller driver; it won't go as low. OTOH, it's about half the price, so you could buy more & Eq the bottom end if you felt so inclined. For the same money as 9 x 1337, you could get 16 x 315s. Personally I'd use a straight column with the 315s though rather than a focused array, assuming nearfield listening.
I've chosen the titanium (with notch) due to the comments on its detailed sound. I'm looking for electrostatic clarity.
Based on my success of 4 x 4" focused array, I've moved and now need more intelligibility at low volumes. The 1052 is poly (yuck to my ears) and I've seen not so pretty graphs, but I like the stiffening ribs ideas.
like this, but with 9 x 4", not the 16 x 3".
I'm hoping for fonken box in the fall for the 125wk's.
Norman
Based on my success of 4 x 4" focused array, I've moved and now need more intelligibility at low volumes. The 1052 is poly (yuck to my ears) and I've seen not so pretty graphs, but I like the stiffening ribs ideas.
like this, but with 9 x 4", not the 16 x 3".
I'm hoping for fonken box in the fall for the 125wk's.
Norman
You probably need electrostatics if you want 'electrostatic clarity.' However, I suspect you'll like the TB.
FWIW, you might want to have a quick look at the most recent MA CHR-70, which has a similar response curve & is also cheaper. Off hand, I can't think of any other quality metal cone alternatives of ~these dimensions.
FWIW, you might want to have a quick look at the most recent MA CHR-70, which has a similar response curve & is also cheaper. Off hand, I can't think of any other quality metal cone alternatives of ~these dimensions.
Last edited:
I have a pair of the ff105wk the 4 inch version and I have to say that I'm impressed. They are much smoother than the Fe127e while keeping the highs sounding crisp and really natural, without being harsh. There's no annoying accentuation of "ess" sounds; the highs are really nice on these. I've owned compact 2 ways that didn't have highs as good as this and mine have barely 100 hours on them. They're in cabinets that are way too small for them right now, so I can't really comment on bass, but what bass there is has enough substance to make me think they'd sound nice in a properly designed cabinet.
I have another pair of those just arrived... the 1st pair got scooped up before i could audition them.
I'm hoping it is a case of the smaller the better. FF85wk is fantastic, FF125wk is good but not without some issues that need dealing with. If 105wk is more towards the FF85 i'll be happy.
dave
If you look at "What's the attraction" you will see that the FF125 is a terribly difficult driver to deal with due to it's breakup being so powerful and low. If it is easier to deal with than the older version, wow. Might also check out Planet10's WEB about his modified drivers. Basically, unmodified I think it sounds horrible. I am working on materiel to deal with the cone resonances, not that I think I can out do P-10, but it is fun. If you look at the FOSTEX spec sheet, you will see the larger and smaller ones are not as bad. Pay close attention to the gentleman from Canada. I would add that even with the resonance brought in line, you still had better deal with baffle step ( depending on where they sit) to balance across their range.
Hey Norman
Before you put the notch in make sure you listen to them first without it.
I concur 100% with Nelson when he says go for half of what is required.
I have just been playing with DEQ2496 and a mic using auto EQ and it absolutely kills the sound. I am just using increased EQ <100Hz at the moment.
I have reset treble back to 0 and it sounds much better.
Get an EQ they are so much easier to use than passive notch filters. You can always put a passive filter in later if you want.
Before you put the notch in make sure you listen to them first without it.
I concur 100% with Nelson when he says go for half of what is required.
I have just been playing with DEQ2496 and a mic using auto EQ and it absolutely kills the sound. I am just using increased EQ <100Hz at the moment.
I have reset treble back to 0 and it sounds much better.
Get an EQ they are so much easier to use than passive notch filters. You can always put a passive filter in later if you want.
The extra output from resonance, which of course is 100% distortion, gives some illusion of output in the upper registers. It is a balancing act for perception. Measurements are not the last word. I too find every auto-eq I have ever heard to result in a flat restrained and un-natural sound. Probably because I have ears,not E8000's sticking out of my head.
If you are going through the trouble to do active notch, might as well do the BSC at the same time and gain a lot of efficiency.
Just did the first layer of doping to a test Sony surplus driver.
Melon, I'd just use the ultracurve without a mike. Just use your own ears to see what you like and dislike. Also eq settings may change a bit depending on volume levels.
Seems the an10 has that 10db climb past 1khz, like the stamped frame one I have.
I'll temporarily use a 10 band equalizer I have, but ambio4you and/or mini-dsp may be in my future.
We do adapt to our speakers. But a direct comparison (speakers, headphones) can show flaws/differences very quickly.
I don't trust auto eq. The fletcher munson curve hits us square in the ears, especially when listening at say 80db and lower. We like the smile shape on a 10 band equalizer. I have a buddy that was selling speakers through a saloon years ago. His 3 ways had a 3db lower midrange than woof / tweet. People liked it.
Melon Head,
Does the deq remove any magic from the speakers sound ?
Or is it basically a straight wire not affecting the sound quality when set to flat ?
Norman
Seems the an10 has that 10db climb past 1khz, like the stamped frame one I have.
I'll temporarily use a 10 band equalizer I have, but ambio4you and/or mini-dsp may be in my future.
We do adapt to our speakers. But a direct comparison (speakers, headphones) can show flaws/differences very quickly.
I don't trust auto eq. The fletcher munson curve hits us square in the ears, especially when listening at say 80db and lower. We like the smile shape on a 10 band equalizer. I have a buddy that was selling speakers through a saloon years ago. His 3 ways had a 3db lower midrange than woof / tweet. People liked it.
Melon Head,
Does the deq remove any magic from the speakers sound ?
Or is it basically a straight wire not affecting the sound quality when set to flat ?
Norman
Yes that is exactly what I am doing now.
The microphone appears to be no where near linear. I will take it to work and see how bad it is.
I don't see that in the FR plot
Nothing obvious at all, but I was not trying to see what the difference is - I was too busy just learning how to operate it and having fun. Need to properly verify that though. I am running analogue out at the moment. I should also try the digital out from cd player.
I adjusted the EQ with a live frequency plot running and the improvement was very significant using the Dayton calibrated mic (not behringer)
.
One thing that is very useful with DEQ2496 is that you can store different EQ settings for different speakers, rooms etc etc, but really what I like, it is very nice to switch between no eq and your adjusted settings, because it becomes very bloody obvious whether you are moving forward, backwards or just sideways.
Conclusion:
1) The behringer mic, or auto eq, or both is a joke.
2) The DEQ2496 is a very useful bit of equipment that can make a dramatic improvement to your speakers
Last edited:
I do: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/120747-audio-nirvana-super-10-super-12-a.html#post2697607 Also in the factory data sheet, but less immediately apparent since the AN data sheets aren't all that well presented (look like rather mediocre scans of hard copy to me).
Last edited:
Almost any time you are notching out driver resonances you'll find that you need to make an opposite overall broadband change in level in the same vicinity to compensate for the change in tonal balance.
The common mistake with a driver with a high Q peak in the response is to notch it out then say "oh that sounds dead without it" then take the notch back out again and conclude notching the resonance was a "failure".
As an example, say that you have a driver with a narrow (less than 1/3rd octave) 6dB peak at 4Khz. At that frequency increased output will make the sound "bright" and "alive", and almost hyper real... But the narrow spike in the response will also cause harshness which will be unbearable on some music. (usually the music will get blamed too, but it's the speaker...)
Let's say you carefully and exactly notch out that peak (assuming its a symmetrical shape that lends itself to a single PEQ) then the harshness will typically go away, but the sound may, compared to before, loose it's "life" and sound dead. It doesn't take much of a loss of output in the presence region to kill the sound.
All that you need to do is introduce a relatively small, gradual increase in response over a wider frequency range - say an increase of half to 1dB from 2Khz to 6Khz or so in this example. (try it with a graphic EQ, or a 1-1.5 octave PEQ)
What your ear "liked" about the original spike in the response is that when it was 1/3rd averaged it had a pleasing overall tonal balance. When you fixed the spike in the response there was not enough overall output over that frequency range, but that balance can be addressed without reintroducing a narrow, harsh, high Q resonance. You can eliminate the harshness of the resonance without making the speaker dead sounding.
The basic approach is to carefully and accurately notch the high Q resonances that are troublesome, (not all resonances lend themselves to this) making sure centre frequency, width, and amplitude are correct. (especially centre frequency)
Once that is done, if necessary apply very broad gentle correction in the other direction. For example a -6dB 1/4 octave notch accurately correcting a resonance at 4Khz might be followed up with a +1dB 1.5 octave wide peaking PEQ centred at the same frequency to restore apparent tonal balance.
High Q resonances should always be avoided above 2Khz as they add harshness to the sound, however low Q, (>1 octave wide) broad, gradual changes can be used to tweak the overall tonal balance without adding harshness, that's the key to smooth but not dead/lifeless sound.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.