With a voight style of box, 1/2 wavelength design, the answer is much more bass than you would think possible, the strange part is the mid bass sounds far more natural than any bass reflex design I have ever heard.
Then again I do think porting is a bit silly as it only has one sound level, ie does not get louder as you pump more amp power at it ect. ( yes this is true ) .
Anyway its a horn loaded design, Klipsch is famous for there horns! I after 12 years still use my 6.5 inch 1/4 wavelength voight design as my main system, I have used it as a reference point for all the speakers I have built , whether for friends or the large cinema systems I have designed and built. I love them and am very curious to find out how awsome these 12" are going to be😀
Then again I do think porting is a bit silly as it only has one sound level, ie does not get louder as you pump more amp power at it ect. ( yes this is true ) .
Anyway its a horn loaded design, Klipsch is famous for there horns! I after 12 years still use my 6.5 inch 1/4 wavelength voight design as my main system, I have used it as a reference point for all the speakers I have built , whether for friends or the large cinema systems I have designed and built. I love them and am very curious to find out how awsome these 12" are going to be😀
You would think Punkr would have accepted by now that it isn't just the diameter of the driver that determines the sound output. It depends on how that driver is used. In the proper horn a 12" could put out more bass that an 18" without a horn. 🙄
well I was exactly talking about the Klipsch speakers just the peformance of their sub. anyways, about the 18/12, 21/12, 21/1010, 18/1010 whatever I have a photograph of the back of MY new Yamaha HTR-5890 A/V receiver (which I am quite pleased with by the way, it's my first Yamaha and I was doubtful of it cause my dad speaks very badly of Yamaha), anyways when I do get to building ap air of 7 ft tall beasts would it be possible for me to hook some sort of active crossover up through this receiver and give me a temporary amp solution until I can afford the real thing?
I think I can because it has coax channel inputs. Not sure though.
I think I can because it has coax channel inputs. Not sure though.
It looks possible, but not through the coaxial input, unless you're a real computer whiz.
That receiver looks plenty powerful enough to drive the BIB to some really loud levels. For day-to-day listening it will be more than loud enough. Keep in mind that most home speakers are maybe 85-90 db efficient, at best. If you use these pro drivers and everything works out, you're looking at 95-98 db efficiency in your room. This amp will make your speakers go significantly louder than it would make most speakers.
So, here's what I suggest:
-Stick with this receiver for a while. It'll get the job done.
-Build the BIB with a pro diver, tweeter, and passive crossover.
My personal preference would be for the Eminence Beta 12 CX coaxial, or else the Selenium 12 coaxial... but you should go with whatever you can afford and what the guys here will help you with.
That receiver looks plenty powerful enough to drive the BIB to some really loud levels. For day-to-day listening it will be more than loud enough. Keep in mind that most home speakers are maybe 85-90 db efficient, at best. If you use these pro drivers and everything works out, you're looking at 95-98 db efficiency in your room. This amp will make your speakers go significantly louder than it would make most speakers.
So, here's what I suggest:
-Stick with this receiver for a while. It'll get the job done.
-Build the BIB with a pro diver, tweeter, and passive crossover.
My personal preference would be for the Eminence Beta 12 CX coaxial, or else the Selenium 12 coaxial... but you should go with whatever you can afford and what the guys here will help you with.
thanx Joe, as for being a computer whiz I'm in the process of building my own computer right now, but it's pretty easy to build a computer. It probably is possible and I have been taking things apart and messing with them since I was 2 and so I think I could modify it. I'l see about it.
What you would need to do is find a way to encode the digital audio stream that goes out of your sound card over the coaxial line such that you have your high-pass and low-pass sperated and explicitly sent to your front and surround channels. This would all be done in software, and I really don't know of any existing software (other than Pro Tools) that is likely to do that for you.
Looking at it some more, I think that the inputs labeled "Multi-Channel Input" would do it, too. To be sure, I'd want to get a cheap full-range speakers (talking about something ripped out of a television or boom-box) and a signal generator (you can download those for free) and verify that there is good channel separation so that you don't let bass leak from the desired channel into the tweeter channel.
Going this route looks possible, but likely to blow a tweeter. Select a tweeter with replaceable diaphragms, and you might go far with this. Doing the crossover in the computer could give you a lot of benefits by allowing you to do some room correction, equalization, and experimental crossover slopes.
Still, my recommendation stands. These guys will design a passive crossover for you. You have what looks like a fancy home theater amp, and if you want to use it for home theater then using the front and surround channels to drive just one pair of speakers won't do you much good.
Looking at it some more, I think that the inputs labeled "Multi-Channel Input" would do it, too. To be sure, I'd want to get a cheap full-range speakers (talking about something ripped out of a television or boom-box) and a signal generator (you can download those for free) and verify that there is good channel separation so that you don't let bass leak from the desired channel into the tweeter channel.
Going this route looks possible, but likely to blow a tweeter. Select a tweeter with replaceable diaphragms, and you might go far with this. Doing the crossover in the computer could give you a lot of benefits by allowing you to do some room correction, equalization, and experimental crossover slopes.
Still, my recommendation stands. These guys will design a passive crossover for you. You have what looks like a fancy home theater amp, and if you want to use it for home theater then using the front and surround channels to drive just one pair of speakers won't do you much good.
I know that it is best used as a home theather amp and I don't plan to use it to power one piar of speakers. Iwas just doing the full range speaker thing and running it off my pc with my WMP plug in which lets me create high and low pass filters.
But it certainly would work fine powering just the two BBIB's . HOw much power per main channel?
120 watts rms across the frequency range and 140 watt @ 1000 Hz per channel. Not bad for the $400 I stole it for.
perfect, that will give you plenty of headroom, which generally translates to happy drivers...😀
So at around half power with the BBBIB you should be up around 117 dB full range.
Should be adaquate...😉
Should be adaquate...😉
If you ever do build a giant 1812 or whatever system, that Yamaha amp could be a good start.
You can probably use an outboard active crossover, just like with your dad's Denon. Trying to run a software crossover is gonna be a P.I.T.A. But there are better and better ways to do it all the time. Possible, but not easy. It's software, not hardware.
But with the overgrown BIB, you'll just be using a simple passive filter in the speaker, so no worries. Use those extra channles for surround speakers.
You can probably use an outboard active crossover, just like with your dad's Denon. Trying to run a software crossover is gonna be a P.I.T.A. But there are better and better ways to do it all the time. Possible, but not easy. It's software, not hardware.
But with the overgrown BIB, you'll just be using a simple passive filter in the speaker, so no worries. Use those extra channles for surround speakers.
joe carrow said:
haha, that's is one way but I meant speaker wise. he's my primary concern as far as competition. Idoubt the 18/12 design will be able to keep up with 10 15" woofers and 2 15" subs even though it could be louder.
sorry to butt in, but can the dispersion of a 10" match the average 8" if the driver/10" cone is designed for midrange production?
I have a 10"(18sound 10nda610) that seems to have comparable/better 45 degree off axis curves(manfg graphs, not my measurements) to some 8"s.
The 45 degree off axis is around -7db at 2khz, and -10db at 3khz before it dives down and breaks up.
Or is this propaganda?
Also, what range of crossover frequencies is usually used on a 10" so that the power response can match a typical 1" PA horn tweeter?
Im going for something probably similar to whats been talked about here (can play 120db/1/w), minus the obsession with high spl bass.
I have a 10"(18sound 10nda610) that seems to have comparable/better 45 degree off axis curves(manfg graphs, not my measurements) to some 8"s.
The 45 degree off axis is around -7db at 2khz, and -10db at 3khz before it dives down and breaks up.
Or is this propaganda?
Also, what range of crossover frequencies is usually used on a 10" so that the power response can match a typical 1" PA horn tweeter?
Im going for something probably similar to whats been talked about here (can play 120db/1/w), minus the obsession with high spl bass.
The Altec research back in the 60's - 70's seems to say that the off axis reponse was a function soley of driver diameter. Didn't matter about cone shape.
Of course they were testing pro drivers, but that's what we are talking about here.
Does anyone know any different?
For the horn I guess you would want to find one that has the same off axis reponse as the 10" at the crossover frequency you want to use. A 10" is said to start beaming at about 1700 Hz, but crossing a 1" driver that low is gonna by tough. Depends on the horn. Of course a lot of designs cross well above the "beaming" point.
Of course they were testing pro drivers, but that's what we are talking about here.
Does anyone know any different?
For the horn I guess you would want to find one that has the same off axis reponse as the 10" at the crossover frequency you want to use. A 10" is said to start beaming at about 1700 Hz, but crossing a 1" driver that low is gonna by tough. Depends on the horn. Of course a lot of designs cross well above the "beaming" point.
Two things to keep in mind-
First, a larger diameter paper driver starts to break up at high frequencies, acting less like a piston. The paper bends and undergoes ringing vibrations, and it starts to lose coherency. This can (so they say) give the effect of a smaller radiating diameter at higher frequencies. This would be very driver dependent.
Next, horn loading will increase the low frequency directivity of a small diameter tweeter. The woofer may be more or less beaming at 2 khz (compared to 200 hz), but if it's a good match in directivity to the horn at that point, then it's a happy match.
If omnidirectional dispersion at low frequency is desired, then the consensus seems to be that a slowly changing directivity with no discontinuities will give the best in-room response.
If you go to Linkwitzlab.com, there's some intelligent discussion of this topic.
First, a larger diameter paper driver starts to break up at high frequencies, acting less like a piston. The paper bends and undergoes ringing vibrations, and it starts to lose coherency. This can (so they say) give the effect of a smaller radiating diameter at higher frequencies. This would be very driver dependent.
Next, horn loading will increase the low frequency directivity of a small diameter tweeter. The woofer may be more or less beaming at 2 khz (compared to 200 hz), but if it's a good match in directivity to the horn at that point, then it's a happy match.
If omnidirectional dispersion at low frequency is desired, then the consensus seems to be that a slowly changing directivity with no discontinuities will give the best in-room response.
If you go to Linkwitzlab.com, there's some intelligent discussion of this topic.
As far as I've read, they do- but that's not their primary purpose.
Phase plugs do a lot of good things. They eliminate the small area of air trapped behind the dust cap, thus eliminating the possibility of resonances or nonlinearity from the air being pushed out through the pole-piece. Phase plugs also often act as heat sinks, aiding cooling of the voice coil.
The primary goal of a phase plug, as I understand it, is to occupy space in the middle of the radiating area that would (if it were moving with the cone) allow cavity resonance and lack of phase coherence. Bullet tweeters are an example of a phase plug in a horn.
Sorry I don't have my primary sources to site- I really could have things a little mixed up. Hopefully this is enough for people to google some of the concepts and make up their own minds.
So, to sum it up- most phase plugs for 10" and larger drivers won't do much for dispersion.
Also, a side note.... most paper cone drivers will have poor time domain distortion at higher frequencies since the cones tend to ring for a while after the signal is gone. Yes, I'm in the "pistonic motion" camp. You can make things plenty good and plenty loud without nitpicking about pistonic driver behavior, but to get the very best- I don't believe there's any other way.
Phase plugs do a lot of good things. They eliminate the small area of air trapped behind the dust cap, thus eliminating the possibility of resonances or nonlinearity from the air being pushed out through the pole-piece. Phase plugs also often act as heat sinks, aiding cooling of the voice coil.
The primary goal of a phase plug, as I understand it, is to occupy space in the middle of the radiating area that would (if it were moving with the cone) allow cavity resonance and lack of phase coherence. Bullet tweeters are an example of a phase plug in a horn.
Sorry I don't have my primary sources to site- I really could have things a little mixed up. Hopefully this is enough for people to google some of the concepts and make up their own minds.
So, to sum it up- most phase plugs for 10" and larger drivers won't do much for dispersion.
Also, a side note.... most paper cone drivers will have poor time domain distortion at higher frequencies since the cones tend to ring for a while after the signal is gone. Yes, I'm in the "pistonic motion" camp. You can make things plenty good and plenty loud without nitpicking about pistonic driver behavior, but to get the very best- I don't believe there's any other way.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.