Hey frank!
I think an even better idea is to do a 18 driver focused array using the via tc9 paper cone.
More directionallity, smaller box and the drivers are 10 bucks each. They will get down to 80 cycles easily.
I can highly recommend this driver because I'm using them in my reference speaker.
You will need just a little eq on the bottom, not much.
I think an even better idea is to do a 18 driver focused array using the via tc9 paper cone.
More directionallity, smaller box and the drivers are 10 bucks each. They will get down to 80 cycles easily.
I can highly recommend this driver because I'm using them in my reference speaker.
You will need just a little eq on the bottom, not much.
Has anyone compared the tc9 paper cone vs. the fiberglass cone. I would like to know witch is best. I have been looking at the Tangband W4-1052SDF to do the job
.
.
I've never heard either but.
I'd stay away from that driver for a few reasons.
It has a rising response.
It has peaks (resonances).
And it has a poly cone (yuck).
Polys sound soggy to me, eventhough some are measuring quite flat.
Speaker companies are mixing material with poly cones now for excellent results, like the morel mw144 (poly with mica or talc powder).
The F3's look really good with that TB 1052 cone.
Then again, the F3 is useless to me due to the sheer cone size.
Some people like it, but I wouldn't even try it.
I like the idea of the stiffening ribs, I bet they really needed them.
My ears could hear a little slight scratchyness on a fiberglass cone with ribbon 2-way I had, like glass creaking, but it wasn't objectionable at all.
But the tg9's may be better or worse.
I'd heard that to hear the noise a cone makes, slowly drag the back of a finger nail across the cone.
I looked closely online between the 2 vifas and found car audio guys preferred the tc9 over the tg9.
The tc9 is half the price of the tg9 over here, and paper cones are usually easier on the ears compared to metallic materials (it is an art to making cones).
People like the tc9 over the pond, I think it is called something else though.
Norman
I'd stay away from that driver for a few reasons.
It has a rising response.
It has peaks (resonances).
And it has a poly cone (yuck).
Polys sound soggy to me, eventhough some are measuring quite flat.
Speaker companies are mixing material with poly cones now for excellent results, like the morel mw144 (poly with mica or talc powder).
The F3's look really good with that TB 1052 cone.
Then again, the F3 is useless to me due to the sheer cone size.
Some people like it, but I wouldn't even try it.
I like the idea of the stiffening ribs, I bet they really needed them.
My ears could hear a little slight scratchyness on a fiberglass cone with ribbon 2-way I had, like glass creaking, but it wasn't objectionable at all.
But the tg9's may be better or worse.
I'd heard that to hear the noise a cone makes, slowly drag the back of a finger nail across the cone.
I looked closely online between the 2 vifas and found car audio guys preferred the tc9 over the tg9.
The tc9 is half the price of the tg9 over here, and paper cones are usually easier on the ears compared to metallic materials (it is an art to making cones).
People like the tc9 over the pond, I think it is called something else though.
Norman
Last edited:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/193015-stupid-cheap-line-array-6.html#post2760943
I have measured the paper cone and it does not have a rising response as it shows there.
but, it shows the comparison......they are more or less the same as far as FR
I have measured the paper cone and it does not have a rising response as it shows there.
but, it shows the comparison......they are more or less the same as far as FR
Last edited:
I'd stay away from the W4-1052SDF for a different reason: it's hideously ugly. To be sure, it's a speaker, not an oil painting. Or (the gorgeous) Sarah Smart. So looks take a back seat. Nevertheless, I wouldn't fancy being faced by a line of cones that look like a pharaoh's mummified testicle.
I doubt he is measuring them on a big big baffle.
I don't see where the fiberglass would sound different, but here is a shootout between tc9, tg9, l3, rs100, and a peerless 830986.
RS100, TG9, TC9, L3 and 830986 review. - DIYMA Car Audio Forum
I don't see where the fiberglass would sound different, but here is a shootout between tc9, tg9, l3, rs100, and a peerless 830986.
RS100, TG9, TC9, L3 and 830986 review. - DIYMA Car Audio Forum
Well, Jon.....
He put them all in the same size box and used a tweeter.
I tell you, if that Dayton was cheaper, that's all I would ever use.
He put them all in the same size box and used a tweeter.
I tell you, if that Dayton was cheaper, that's all I would ever use.
yea, I was hoping even the dayton 6.5" would measure better than it does.
It would give fostex a run for its money.
It would give fostex a run for its money.
That's a nice review, have been looking at the Dayton to. I am even more confused now in selecting the drivers. I have been thinking maybe I should use a larger cone, the Fountek FR135EX look nice... but in less numbers of curse.
I am using a Tact room correction system and this will take care of any peaks and bump of the room and speakers as well, it's operate both in level and time domain. This makes me believe that I need a unit with the following specs. I should be very fast....high Xmax and a respond that is decent smooth without to high peaks, suggesting break-up of the cone.
Any thoughts.
I am using a Tact room correction system and this will take care of any peaks and bump of the room and speakers as well, it's operate both in level and time domain. This makes me believe that I need a unit with the following specs. I should be very fast....high Xmax and a respond that is decent smooth without to high peaks, suggesting break-up of the cone.
Any thoughts.
Dayton.
If you want to spend the dough.
Check out this....
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...at-you-mean-about-theatres-2.html#post3249264
I'm using them for the near field. I have them eq'd down to 40Hz and they are great!
They will have pistonic behavior all the way up to the break up which is at 12kHz.
If you want to spend the dough.
Check out this....
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...at-you-mean-about-theatres-2.html#post3249264
I'm using them for the near field. I have them eq'd down to 40Hz and they are great!
They will have pistonic behavior all the way up to the break up which is at 12kHz.
Sounds like a remarkable driver, given that moving coil widebanders produce the majority of their BW through oscillatory rather than pistonic behaviour (i.e. controlled resonance / 'breakup')
Sure, most WB drivers cater to high sensitivity, which means lighter cones, tighter VC gaps and smaller x-max.
Which leads to larger cones to achieve any kind of bass extension.
With large light cones you get a lot of flexing.
For most this is the price you pay with FR units.
But if used in multiples......
Higher sensitivity, more SD.
But the only way to do this is with a focused array.
Or maybe the one I'm planning on building.
The FR omni Line array!
😉
Hmm. Not sure about some of that I'm afraid. Even small widebanders produce the majority of their BW through oscillatory rather than pistonic action. At least, the ones I'm familiar with. Same applies to most MC tweeters at the top end of the audible BW for that matter. It's a question of how well controlled that resonance is rather than whether it exists or not (which is all but inevitable).
Not convinced by the omni-directional line-source bit. Willing to be convinced, but if you're going to disperse all the output I can't see why you'd arrange them in a vertical array in the first place? That said, I don't like omnidirectional speakers very much, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious.
Not convinced by the omni-directional line-source bit. Willing to be convinced, but if you're going to disperse all the output I can't see why you'd arrange them in a vertical array in the first place? That said, I don't like omnidirectional speakers very much, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious.
Oh, you were being sarcastic in your earlier reply....
🙄
Nothing is completely pistonic, but my reasoning still stands.
You will get more pistonic behavior with heavier stiffer cones.
I don't mean to speak in absolutes.
Nobody is convinced of my omni line source, including me.
I'm trying to conceive a crossoverless line source that is free from CTC lobing.
Also, this approach will produce even-power-response.
I'm not huge on omni's either, or line sources for that matter.
This is just something interesting and new for the spirit of DIY.
Isn't that the point of this forum? Not just replicating proven designs.
I am bored to tears with those threads......
As far as I'm concerned, if we are not challenging ideas or creating something new, what's the point of DIY?
that's a bit uncharacteristic of Scott, no?
I couldn't agree more, and for whatever reasons we disagree with one another, we can certainly be civil in our discourse
made my self laugh there
Oh I agree 100% regarding doing something different. Just not sure what the end result could be called. 😉 I'll watch with interest though. As I say, I'm willing to be convinced.
Still not sure I agree with your reasoning WRT the cones. The fact is, the vast majority of the BW produced by any widebander is through resonant, not pistonic action. As in above a couple of KHz, give or take. I'm not all bothered when I'm listening though whether it's piston or oscillatory action providing it's controlled. Trouble is, I can think of a few where is isn't. Make that more than 'a few.' 😉
One of these days I might return to focused arrays. I like the principle (and results) well enough, and for reasons that go beyond home audio, but I can't use them at present for tedious practical reasons. I'm hoping to go to a modest line-source in the new year though, which I also like & will be more useable for me at present.
Still not sure I agree with your reasoning WRT the cones. The fact is, the vast majority of the BW produced by any widebander is through resonant, not pistonic action. As in above a couple of KHz, give or take. I'm not all bothered when I'm listening though whether it's piston or oscillatory action providing it's controlled. Trouble is, I can think of a few where is isn't. Make that more than 'a few.' 😉
One of these days I might return to focused arrays. I like the principle (and results) well enough, and for reasons that go beyond home audio, but I can't use them at present for tedious practical reasons. I'm hoping to go to a modest line-source in the new year though, which I also like & will be more useable for me at present.
Last edited:
I´ve been through straight line arrays to CBTs but am not happy at all with the results, so before I give up and return to my ribbons I thought I'll try the focused line array.
The one depicted here seems like a really good start.
A couple of questions though:
The one depicted here seems like a really good start.
A couple of questions though:
- Shall the CTC still be kept to a minimum,
- Is a focal point a foot (that´s 25 cm for me) behind sweetspot enough,
- Any limit of number of elements,
- Other thoughts or caveats.
Last edited:
Hey solhaga.....
Sure, try a FA, why not?
To answer your questions.
1. Sure, to fit as many drivers as you can.
2. Yes
3. No, the more the better. More drivers = less distortion and less ceiling and floor reflections lower in frequency.
4. If you have any questions as far as construction goes, just ask. I'm always available.
Sure, try a FA, why not?
To answer your questions.
1. Sure, to fit as many drivers as you can.
2. Yes
3. No, the more the better. More drivers = less distortion and less ceiling and floor reflections lower in frequency.
4. If you have any questions as far as construction goes, just ask. I'm always available.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.