454Casull, my bad it is FH not HF...that s why you don t find it, sorry for my confusion above...
It's FH520 😀
Btw, all the FH5xx are good choice imo, a friend of mine uses a 15FH500 with satisfaction. It have even lower Rms than the 520 and a slightly stronger motor due to lack of demodulation ring.
Btw, all the FH5xx are good choice imo, a friend of mine uses a 15FH500 with satisfaction. It have even lower Rms than the 520 and a slightly stronger motor due to lack of demodulation ring.
Last edited:
😀 I prefer when italians give names to their products...easier.
Giuletta, Testarossa, Mona Lisa, Gina big Lolo Bridgida...
Giuletta, Testarossa, Mona Lisa, Gina big Lolo Bridgida...
But the 500 is 40 Fs...beginns to be high for a vented design and no sub... PR400 is 38 hz before massage...and the FH520 is 35 hz...yup maybe demodulation ring is not mandatory for home use...average spl level stays often 75 db to 85 db.
Ah yes less watts means easier for transcients for our non PA amps...didn t think to that...
Ah yes less watts means easier for transcients for our non PA amps...didn t think to that...
Last edited:
The Fh500 have the lowest Fs from Faital 15" range with 35Hz, along with the PR400 and the FH510. At least on paper.
Btw, if you want the lowest bass (and good quality) from it, aim for lowest F10 value with as minimal ripple down-low as possible and place your speakers not too far from the walls.
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | 15FH500
Btw, if you want the lowest bass (and good quality) from it, aim for lowest F10 value with as minimal ripple down-low as possible and place your speakers not too far from the walls.
FaitalPRO | LF Loudspeakers | 15FH500
Last edited:
5 hz... not so much, but maybe a lot as it's in the low end, at least end of the first octave... 35 hz vs 40 hz is not exactly the same wave length to say !
My bet is it maters because they are PA speakers with datas for a vented cabinet mainly... sealed will ask I assume to be nearer from the Vas to a infinite load.
For vented, my understanding is the best sound is from a cabinet with a higher resonance that the driver Fs... half an octave is quite high : 40 hz gives a cabinet tuned at 60 hz ! With - 18 db slope iirc.
But great info YSDR, indeed I don' tknow about - 6db and - 10 db in relation to the room, rooms modes, nore how I can get these datas ! 🙁
Btw, forgive me if I write silly things, my understanding is quite low and just theorical from readings.
My bet is it maters because they are PA speakers with datas for a vented cabinet mainly... sealed will ask I assume to be nearer from the Vas to a infinite load.
For vented, my understanding is the best sound is from a cabinet with a higher resonance that the driver Fs... half an octave is quite high : 40 hz gives a cabinet tuned at 60 hz ! With - 18 db slope iirc.
But great info YSDR, indeed I don' tknow about - 6db and - 10 db in relation to the room, rooms modes, nore how I can get these datas ! 🙁
Btw, forgive me if I write silly things, my understanding is quite low and just theorical from readings.
Now, if the whole spl curve is gently diving from the bass to the treble in the listening room for our home needs, I'm confident a f3 at 40 hz to 50 hz with a 15" is enough... I surmise the slope below the resonant frequency must not be too much big per octave. your input makes me think about that as well. (I have a sealed system with F3 35 hz, no idea but most of th etime sealed gives -12 dB slope below -F3 ? + the big mistery : room gain. But roo gain gives spl, not a note that the speaker can't play (low end of the grabd piano, rare though, like big organs pipes...I can live without)
Please diyiggy, where did you get that half octave higher vent tuning than Fs? It's really a nonsense imo. The best bass alignment in theory is the flat as possible with as little ripple as possible. But in reality for home situations, imo the objectively best bass is the one which matches the room gain towards lower frequencies, of course if we want to exploit that room-gain. I don't mention room modes because it can be almost anything.
For a general idea, check that little calculator that you can download from here:
Port Calculation
For a general idea, check that little calculator that you can download from here:
Port Calculation
Last edited:
Drivers with lower Qts are usually tuned with fb > fs and Vb < Vas. But Drivers with highish Qts are often tuned with fb < fs and Vb > Vas. Some say that the first situation gives better (tighter) bass than the second one if speakers with the same cutoff frequency are compared. I guess this is what he refers to.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
You are right - this would be quite a extreme cases like the Beyma 15p80 models for instance.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Half an octave was a little rock'n roll assertion indeed. What I wanted to say and phase_acurate noted is it's sounding most of the time better if the cabinet is tuned above the driver Fs. So not the flater and lower curve where the Fb is tuned on the Fs. The first is smoother and often like a sealed has a better integration with our room. Mostly inpulse response is better. I assume this rule of thumb suffers from exceptions and indeed we have to measure in our rooms. I surmise any constructors with their cheaper model only targett the lowest tunning to get the best f3 the driver is able to for hifi reviews... so even worse they tune the cabinet resonance below the driver Fs... Mybe the youngest like it for noise and today heavy bass loaded music, dunno !
Thanks for the link 🙂.
I don't know in real life but more and more I lurk towards this Faital 15FH520... high Qms (perhaps less distorsion), Qts around 0.4 (good bass ? but less detail or transcient than a 0.2 Qts ?) and certainly more higher Qts in reality as often with most of brands. EBP is 93, a little high for a sealed but still possible... while the cabinet size is certainly no WAF compatible with a sealed !
Not the biggest Vas of the group again. PA home friendly ?! Just as noted y YSDR: the 600W it is rated for perhaps inplies it needs much more watts for transcients on 6db and higher very short high dynamic spl demands. At least more than the 400W 15PR400 ! Almost same price than the 15PR400 and in my budget , i.e. below 200 euros/unit.
I also saw watching at the Humblehomemade Calapamos Loudspeaker that he Faital 15pr400 which is 99 db beyond 150 hz (more 90 db at 35 hz on an IEC bafle) is given for 93 db average spl... Do you understand that if we consider the room gain in the low and only a coil with a little 0.2 ohms only ???
Is it the Lpad or // LCR that lowish the 99 db/2.83V of the raw driver ? Or the litlier bafle than the IEC ? Mystery to me...
Hope I am not too much off topic and stay in the PA discussion of the original poster.
The Faital 12PR400 12" has very good review :T. Gravsen for illustration with Faital 3WC... but I remember howsounds a 15" with Onkens and others, also modern B&W 801 which had a 15" and was impressive on bass !
Thanks for the link 🙂.
I don't know in real life but more and more I lurk towards this Faital 15FH520... high Qms (perhaps less distorsion), Qts around 0.4 (good bass ? but less detail or transcient than a 0.2 Qts ?) and certainly more higher Qts in reality as often with most of brands. EBP is 93, a little high for a sealed but still possible... while the cabinet size is certainly no WAF compatible with a sealed !
Not the biggest Vas of the group again. PA home friendly ?! Just as noted y YSDR: the 600W it is rated for perhaps inplies it needs much more watts for transcients on 6db and higher very short high dynamic spl demands. At least more than the 400W 15PR400 ! Almost same price than the 15PR400 and in my budget , i.e. below 200 euros/unit.
I also saw watching at the Humblehomemade Calapamos Loudspeaker that he Faital 15pr400 which is 99 db beyond 150 hz (more 90 db at 35 hz on an IEC bafle) is given for 93 db average spl... Do you understand that if we consider the room gain in the low and only a coil with a little 0.2 ohms only ???
Is it the Lpad or // LCR that lowish the 99 db/2.83V of the raw driver ? Or the litlier bafle than the IEC ? Mystery to me...
Hope I am not too much off topic and stay in the PA discussion of the original poster.
The Faital 12PR400 12" has very good review :T. Gravsen for illustration with Faital 3WC... but I remember howsounds a 15" with Onkens and others, also modern B&W 801 which had a 15" and was impressive on bass !
Last edited:
Many professional woofers are suitable for 'hi-fi' applications.
The thread title seems a bit misleading imo, because it's precisely the non-hi-fi specifications that are attractive.
Typical, so-called wide-band, hi-fi woofers (low F's, sloppy suspension etc.) often suffer from large amounts of IMD.
Shorting rings / caps are nice to have, but not a necessity. Low-ish Le is important and I tend to look for η₀ of at least 2.5%,
as some (sub)woofers require ridiculous amounts of power to breathe life into the cones.
The thread title seems a bit misleading imo, because it's precisely the non-hi-fi specifications that are attractive.
Typical, so-called wide-band, hi-fi woofers (low F's, sloppy suspension etc.) often suffer from large amounts of IMD.
Shorting rings / caps are nice to have, but not a necessity. Low-ish Le is important and I tend to look for η₀ of at least 2.5%,
as some (sub)woofers require ridiculous amounts of power to breathe life into the cones.
Last edited:
What if a driver had both high Le and extremely high sensitivity? It would need very little current to produce sound, so it’s Le(i) would be very flat within its expected power.
As for subs, the box has a huge effect on the sensitivity in the bass.
I have had the same feeling. I was wondering what is the ideal objective spec of "high-end hifi" woofer...
Woofer sensitivity can be deceiving, because it's usually measured over the freq. range in which the driver is most efficient (> 100 Hz).
Efficiency:
According to Hofmann's "Iron Law" (even big) subwoofer drivers in small cabs tend to be very inefficient and therefore require considerable power.
If one wishes to build a highly efficient 2 or 3 way, horn loading, big cabs or multiple drivers (for an OB) are required.
As regards to your (hypothetical) example of a high value of 'flat' Le; I'm not sure whether this would be possible or desirable.
According to Joseph D'Appolito:
"Voice coil inductance is another difficult parameter to measure, primarily because it is not constant, but varies with frequency."
Last edited:
No need to confuse the issue...
As for high Le that is flat vs excursion and current, yes, I feel pretty confident about it. An underhung coil with lots of shorting ring efficacy (but not a shorting sleeve) should get you something fairly flat for Le(i) and Le(x), at least relative to a traditional overhung without a pole extension. Then, just use a bigger coil (think 16 ohm version) to bump up the Le.
You can start with section 3.1.3 here: https://www.klippel.de/fileadmin/_m...linearities–Causes_Parameters_Symptoms_01.pdf
Last edited:
As regards to motor structures, we have seen numerous variants over the past 100 years, some of which are patented but never made it into production.
Until recently, Harman/JBL lead the way.
Your concept, might be worth a shot 😉
Obviously, I'm familiar with the Klippel papers. Here's another one.
Until recently, Harman/JBL lead the way.
Your concept, might be worth a shot 😉
Obviously, I'm familiar with the Klippel papers. Here's another one.
Interesting comparison of three professional 12" woofers.
The 'traditional' Beyma holds up fairly well against the more expensive BMS and 18Sound which have shorting rings.
The 'traditional' Beyma holds up fairly well against the more expensive BMS and 18Sound which have shorting rings.