I came across these new woofers from Tang Band W4-2089, W5-2053 (seem to be almost identical) and W8-2022. All of them have a dual flat membrane and no spiders http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/tech-diagrams/Tang Band RBM Subwoofer Cutaway.pdf. They are also designed for small volumes. Their mayor drawback is their very low sensitivity in spite of using neodymium magnets.
Did anyone have any experience or independent measurements of these woofers?
Did anyone have any experience or independent measurements of these woofers?
No spider, but there're double surrounds.
Yeah, maybe the low sensitivity issue is largely connected to spider-less, which can't stablize the lateral position of VC effective enough, thus easily rubbing. So it needs larger gap...
Yeah, maybe the low sensitivity issue is largely connected to spider-less, which can't stablize the lateral position of VC effective enough, thus easily rubbing. So it needs larger gap...
Those are ferrite magnet drivers, not neo. The under surround acts as the spider, and the dual-flat-cone is said by TB to have properties similar to Isobaric style dual driver arrangements so the Vas becomes smaller. They've only been out maybe 2-4 months, and are a very recent addition at PE stateside. On the PETT board a member has purchased one of the larger units for use in a mini-3-way. We'll have to wait and see.
Later,
Wolf
Hi,
the only similarity with Isobaric occuring to me is the use of a double membrane.
It´s missing on the second drive and the coupling air volume between the two membranes remains constant.
So I regard the TB as a single-membrane, double-surrounding, spider-less driver.
Using a single membrane or a two-membrane-air-sandwich of same weight wouldn´t make a difference, apart probabely from manufacturing issues.
Relying only on the surroundings I assume that the surrondings require to be of a quite lossy type (low Qms) ... a probate measurement to generate lame sound impression.
The reason for and issue of large airgap have been mentioned alrady.
Imho, the drivers are pricey toys, but no serious stuff.
Another proof that beeing patented doesn´t mean beeing something new or beeing good at all.
jauu
Calvin
the only similarity with Isobaric occuring to me is the use of a double membrane.
It´s missing on the second drive and the coupling air volume between the two membranes remains constant.
So I regard the TB as a single-membrane, double-surrounding, spider-less driver.
Using a single membrane or a two-membrane-air-sandwich of same weight wouldn´t make a difference, apart probabely from manufacturing issues.
Relying only on the surroundings I assume that the surrondings require to be of a quite lossy type (low Qms) ... a probate measurement to generate lame sound impression.
The reason for and issue of large airgap have been mentioned alrady.
Imho, the drivers are pricey toys, but no serious stuff.
Another proof that beeing patented doesn´t mean beeing something new or beeing good at all.
jauu
Calvin
I would guess that as well. The two surrounds are relatively close together, further minimizing twist resistance over what could have been achieved.
As to Isobarik, it is really a bogus principal (unless you need a woofer with the combined parameters of two), so this should really just be considered a conventional woofer with 2 portions of cone mass.
Still, no reason why the design can't perform well.
David
Preliminary spec, not available yet.
The design team at Tymphany just sent me these....
If you are looking for shallow woofers, these look rather nice...
I will be getting some beta testers later in the summer and probably selling them as part of some DIY kits ( mostly featuring BMR's) . They should be available to OEM's by October.
Cheers
Derek.
The design team at Tymphany just sent me these....
If you are looking for shallow woofers, these look rather nice...
I will be getting some beta testers later in the summer and probably selling them as part of some DIY kits ( mostly featuring BMR's) . They should be available to OEM's by October.
Cheers
Derek.
According to Tang Band's spec sheet W8-2022 (83dB/Wm)has ferrite but W4-2089 and W5-2053 (80dB/Wm) has neo magnets. It would be nice to know the gap width. I am not specifically interested in shallow built but I found the dual flat membrane/ surround an interesting design. TB claims extremely linear excursion. So is it better than conventional designs with Spiders? The main difference is that spiders are (semi) acoustically transparent.
The Torus subwoofer from Wilson Benesch is a dual membrane design but seems to also have spiders. The advantage of that system is a dual symmetrical motor system.
The Torus subwoofer from Wilson Benesch is a dual membrane design but seems to also have spiders. The advantage of that system is a dual symmetrical motor system.
Checked the attachments...
Oh boy, now I see what a "break-up" looks like, almost 40dB😱
I wonder what would be the special duty for these?
Try using use drivers within bndwidth...
Just a guess....Probably as woofers covering 50Hz to 200Hz for on wall / in wall shallow cabinets.
No trace of break up at all when used correctly....Never good idea to use woofers as midrange or midrange as woofers!
Just a guess....Probably as woofers covering 50Hz to 200Hz for on wall / in wall shallow cabinets.
No trace of break up at all when used correctly....Never good idea to use woofers as midrange or midrange as woofers!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.