chops said:
Oliva has been upgraded to the point where we have decided to gibe it a new name instead of just Oliva 2v0... Venom.
dave
planet10 said:
You wouldn't happen to have plans or a write-up on it, would you? What all was upgraded on it?
And how about the Saburo?
Scott, the one you just posted seems to have less bass output than the Oliva. Am I missing something?
Scott, the one you just posted seems to have less bass output than the Oliva. Am I missing something?
Yes. The latter is not an especially good design, with poor control over the wavefront. I've never been happy with it.
As I keep saying, don't take the FR graphs at face value. They don't tell you much for these boxes. In fact, from this point on, I'm not going to post graphs, and I shall remove them from the plans for my boxes on the FH site as they just cause confusion.
Saburo is for the 126. It will not work with the 127.
As I keep saying, don't take the FR graphs at face value. They don't tell you much for these boxes. In fact, from this point on, I'm not going to post graphs, and I shall remove them from the plans for my boxes on the FH site as they just cause confusion.
Saburo is for the 126. It will not work with the 127.
Scottmoose said:
Probably would have been a good thing to wipe out all the FR graphs for all the BIB cabs too, then the ripple would have been no concern to anyone most likely. But then again doesn't everyone demand graphs and measurements every time someone shows up with a new speaker or cab design on the forums?
Dave🙂
Scottmoose said:
Probably a good idea... the sims just can't take everything into account, and unless (and even if*) you know how to morph them to consider, the aspect of the port and the other loading can easily be mis-interpreted.
*(in the end you still have to build a couple to confirm -- or not -- that they do morph things as expected)
All of the Chang have high aspect vents (and then these are "horn" loaded) so it is like hanging a variable resistance into the math for the effect of the vents.
Attached is an approximation of how this R will affect the LF performance. And on top of that this still leaves the room and the widely spaced vents out of the equation. ie in room response estimated into the 40s with a little bit of a bump near the bottom to give the illusion of a bit more bass than there is, but not enuff to get in the way (althou it might well if you push them close into a corner)
dave
Attachments
I know you guys are going to think I'm like a yo yo, but after doing some of the car install yesterday, it turns out that the 103's will not fit in my dash, so now they are back in my room in my second system.
Honestly, I'm kind of glad they didn't fit because for one, I hated the idea of them baking in the Florida sun, especially in the dash, and two, they just sound so darn good in my home system.
With that in mind, I am going to hold off on getting the 126/127 and stay with these little guys for now. Now I can go ahead and build the Vampyr's for them. Besides, I'd really like to see how far I can take the 103's. If I can get them to sound this good in cardboard boxes, I can't even begin to imagine what I can do with them in real enclosures purpose built just for them.
Honestly, I'm kind of glad they didn't fit because for one, I hated the idea of them baking in the Florida sun, especially in the dash, and two, they just sound so darn good in my home system.
With that in mind, I am going to hold off on getting the 126/127 and stay with these little guys for now. Now I can go ahead and build the Vampyr's for them. Besides, I'd really like to see how far I can take the 103's. If I can get them to sound this good in cardboard boxes, I can't even begin to imagine what I can do with them in real enclosures purpose built just for them.
Been doing some more thinking lately... 😱 LOL
What are the Vampyr's mainly designed for, fullrange reproduction, midrange purity, absolute imaging and sound staging, etc, etc...?
The reason I ask is because I think my main concern with the 103's is to get the best possible midrange and treble possible out of them, in the range of 150-200Hz on up. Of course, imaging and sound staging is a given. Are the Vampyr's going to be the best choice for this?
I have also been thinking about the frequencies below said 150-200Hz. I have two options I can go with, either go with the CSS SDX7's in small sealed enclosures OR go with open baffle bass with my trusty old Pyle Pro PPA15 drivers that I still have sitting around.
If I were to go with the PPA15's, I would automatically be saving $400, they are a lot more efficient than the SDX7's, work excellent in OB and would lack any kind of enclosure coloration as well as being "fast" enough to easily keep up with the tiny 4" drivers of the 103's.
As far as crossover, amp and EQ are concerned, I already have all of that on hand. The PPA15's would require very little power from my AudioSource AMP 100 amp (60W x 2 @ 4 ohms) and very little compensation from the EQ, even on small baffles.
Even though the Dayton kit sub I'm using ATM keeps up well with the 103's, it does have that typical "box" sound to it, especially in its upper range. However, if I do the OB idea and have them extend down to the low 30-40Hz range, I can set the Dayton to its 40Hz crossover point and let it take care of the rest, where it does perfectly fine with little to no added coloration while getting me down to roughly 18-20Hz in-room.
I'm actually quite excited about the thought of having those PPA15's up and running again. If I go this route, all I have to purchase is wood for both the Vampyr's and OB's!
Any thoughts on any of this, guys?!
What are the Vampyr's mainly designed for, fullrange reproduction, midrange purity, absolute imaging and sound staging, etc, etc...?
The reason I ask is because I think my main concern with the 103's is to get the best possible midrange and treble possible out of them, in the range of 150-200Hz on up. Of course, imaging and sound staging is a given. Are the Vampyr's going to be the best choice for this?
I have also been thinking about the frequencies below said 150-200Hz. I have two options I can go with, either go with the CSS SDX7's in small sealed enclosures OR go with open baffle bass with my trusty old Pyle Pro PPA15 drivers that I still have sitting around.
If I were to go with the PPA15's, I would automatically be saving $400, they are a lot more efficient than the SDX7's, work excellent in OB and would lack any kind of enclosure coloration as well as being "fast" enough to easily keep up with the tiny 4" drivers of the 103's.
As far as crossover, amp and EQ are concerned, I already have all of that on hand. The PPA15's would require very little power from my AudioSource AMP 100 amp (60W x 2 @ 4 ohms) and very little compensation from the EQ, even on small baffles.
Even though the Dayton kit sub I'm using ATM keeps up well with the 103's, it does have that typical "box" sound to it, especially in its upper range. However, if I do the OB idea and have them extend down to the low 30-40Hz range, I can set the Dayton to its 40Hz crossover point and let it take care of the rest, where it does perfectly fine with little to no added coloration while getting me down to roughly 18-20Hz in-room.
I'm actually quite excited about the thought of having those PPA15's up and running again. If I go this route, all I have to purchase is wood for both the Vampyr's and OB's!
Any thoughts on any of this, guys?!
I've warned you about thinking before. No good ever came out of thinking. Look where it's got us. Even coming down from the trees wasn't such a great idea. 😉
OK, back on planet Earth, as retreating to the treetops and gorging ourselves on banana, papayas, magos etc., is no longer an option, Vampyr is a compromise, like any other speaker. I went for the maximum extension that I consider to be practicable (rather than maximum possible), & aiming for the best soundstaging / imaging I could get. They're intended for small piece music at modest SPLs if run solo. Support them below 150Hz & they should do OK on more demanding pieces so long as live Motorhead isn't on the adgendum.
OK, back on planet Earth, as retreating to the treetops and gorging ourselves on banana, papayas, magos etc., is no longer an option, Vampyr is a compromise, like any other speaker. I went for the maximum extension that I consider to be practicable (rather than maximum possible), & aiming for the best soundstaging / imaging I could get. They're intended for small piece music at modest SPLs if run solo. Support them below 150Hz & they should do OK on more demanding pieces so long as live Motorhead isn't on the adgendum.
Scottmoose said:
Hahaha!! Funny stuff Scott!
So even with those rather large chambers of the Vampyr's, they shouldn't hinder midrange purity at all with the 103's?
I realize this setup isn't for all-out blasting, but for the particular room they are in, they get pretty darn loud, even playing fullrange. I wouldn't want or need them to go any louder than this.
It's beginning to sound like you should look into Martin J King's OB for the FE103. Check it out at his site: quarter-wave.com. There are also a couple threads that have discussed it. If you have the right room for them, OB's can be fabulous--and they couldn't be a much simpler build!
Cheers, Jim
Cheers, Jim
I'm not aiming for huge SPL's at all with these little dudes, but they do get pretty loud in my room surprisingly enough.
BTW, I got larger boxes for them last night. They are now in 0.50cf. I'm still using the same "ports" (1.5" x 1"L), so tuning is roughly 67Hz, but I have them stuffed so much with poly, it's probably more of an aperiodic tuning now.
Here's a few pics just for fun. Sorry for the quality as my iPhone 3G doesn't like low-light situations too well and I'm too lazy to go get the normal digi-cam. 😀
Take note of the series resistor dangling in the breeze! LOL
BTW, I got larger boxes for them last night. They are now in 0.50cf. I'm still using the same "ports" (1.5" x 1"L), so tuning is roughly 67Hz, but I have them stuffed so much with poly, it's probably more of an aperiodic tuning now.
Here's a few pics just for fun. Sorry for the quality as my iPhone 3G doesn't like low-light situations too well and I'm too lazy to go get the normal digi-cam. 😀
Take note of the series resistor dangling in the breeze! LOL
Charles, that's too cool - particularly the pleated ports
much better resolution on the phone's camera than I would have thought
much better resolution on the phone's camera than I would have thought
chrisb said:
Hi Chris, thanks!
Speaking of better resolution, I'm highly impressed with these new enclosures for the 103's. After fine tuning the poly-fill, there is zero boxy sound. They are very natural/neutral sounding. Also, I think having the drivers mounted off to one side of the baffles helps with their imaging. Or at least it seems to have helped. With the right recordings, they completely disappear.
As for the iPhone's camera (3mp), it does very well in good lighting conditions such as outdoors during the day. These were taken about a month ago when a large group of us went to Disney (obviously) to visit and hang out with some old friends from when most of us used to work there.
My old place of employment as lead prep chef...
chops said:
10:1 close to aperiodic TL, in a low diffracrtion box should make it to 200 Hz, probably 150 Hz.
dave
PS: The Dayton sub kits use an MDF box?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.