Yes, that review as well as others seems to buttress other recommendations that perhaps these drivers would be better suited as a MR driver in a more elaborate system IMO...
This fellow did not document the set-up he obtained the FR data he publishes......
Yes, we can see the baffle step rear its ugly head here, did he do a generous radius on the baffle edge, did he locate the driver on the panel as to "The Edge" to minimize diffraction? preferably so that one doesn't need to implement "correction"?
Note the date at 2011 and it is not the "SAF" version......I would think he would have written W5-1611SAF ....this might be an updated version & he was testing an 'old' model.
The factory response curve doesn't have the acute roll-off on the high end that he notes.
__________________________________________________Rick.........
Yes, we can see the baffle step rear its ugly head here, did he do a generous radius on the baffle edge, did he locate the driver on the panel as to "The Edge" to minimize diffraction? preferably so that one doesn't need to implement "correction"?
Note the date at 2011 and it is not the "SAF" version......I would think he would have written W5-1611SAF ....this might be an updated version & he was testing an 'old' model.
The factory response curve doesn't have the acute roll-off on the high end that he notes.
__________________________________________________Rick.........
Attachments
You could construct same with nothing other than a $10 miter saw and a jig saw or drill with a hole saw. At $200 for basically $100-120 in parts, you got ripped off, but not as much as people who buy expensive speaker cables....
You could get some precut 2'x4' plywood, make a hole and mount them in it.
Hadn't noted his graph was set to 100K! why did he set it that high????
The TS parameters he published really aren't close to "factory specs".......yes, yes I know there is going to be some variation..........but an Fs of 60 Hz. vs. 80....Hz.?? I can see a published 60 Hz. with a tested 62.55 Hz.....but this?
________________________________________________Rick.............
The TS parameters he published really aren't close to "factory specs".......yes, yes I know there is going to be some variation..........but an Fs of 60 Hz. vs. 80....Hz.?? I can see a published 60 Hz. with a tested 62.55 Hz.....but this?
________________________________________________Rick.............
Last edited:
Is that supposed to be a useful remark? How about supporting it?
Speaking for myself, while the 1611SA isn't my favourite driver in the world (not by a long chalk) I've run across far worse & it does make a neat midbass.
Re the measurements, these might be somewhat skewed if a low-voltage was used. Manufacturers tend to test at higher levels than home users which can significantly affect the end result. Also, it depends which figures are put out by the manufacturer, and what the production tolerances are (few manufacturers state this, & TB, to the best of my knowledge, are no exception). Some use batch averages, which is why T/S figures for a driver sometimes appear inconsistent with each other when back-calculated. Some pick a high or low point. There isn't an industry wide QC tolerance standard for components / drivers, although the mid-price companies appear to use about 10% +/-.
Speaking for myself, while the 1611SA isn't my favourite driver in the world (not by a long chalk) I've run across far worse & it does make a neat midbass.
Re the measurements, these might be somewhat skewed if a low-voltage was used. Manufacturers tend to test at higher levels than home users which can significantly affect the end result. Also, it depends which figures are put out by the manufacturer, and what the production tolerances are (few manufacturers state this, & TB, to the best of my knowledge, are no exception). Some use batch averages, which is why T/S figures for a driver sometimes appear inconsistent with each other when back-calculated. Some pick a high or low point. There isn't an industry wide QC tolerance standard for components / drivers, although the mid-price companies appear to use about 10% +/-.
Last edited:
+1 This measurement showing it dying at 10 kHz is enough for me to agree with sreten: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/237166-help-best-enclosure.html#post3517399
GM
Hey, OP wanted to hear what all the OB hype was about, too !
The wood is not a very good substrate for making a loudspeaker, not that one in that fashion, as everybody said.
The wood is not a very good substrate for making a loudspeaker, not that one in that fashion, as everybody said.
what ?
those speakers will hardly be any good for evaluating OB speakers
I think that issue is better answered in other threads
(unless you want to turn it into a troll's topic)
those speakers will hardly be any good for evaluating OB speakers
I think that issue is better answered in other threads
(unless you want to turn it into a troll's topic)
Paul's measurements look similar to a lot of Full Range speakers. In fact, it looks better than many. Paul's comments seem to be geared towards a break up distortion of some kind. Not a top octave drop, which like I say, is extremely common.
And for the comment about diffraction and placing the speaker on the baffle the way EDGE predicts, Richard, this is moot. I've had this discussion before. It's hardly a factor at all with 5" full range drivers. The only baffle concern, is the overall size and where that puts baffle step.
And as for the T/S specs. I'm pretty sure Paul uses a WT3 or similar. These are low voltage and often read a very high Fs compared to manufacturer's specs. I get that all the time.
For frequency response, I think it measures pretty good for a full ranger. But I think Paul is saying it's loaded with distortion, which he didn't measure.
And for the comment about diffraction and placing the speaker on the baffle the way EDGE predicts, Richard, this is moot. I've had this discussion before. It's hardly a factor at all with 5" full range drivers. The only baffle concern, is the overall size and where that puts baffle step.
And as for the T/S specs. I'm pretty sure Paul uses a WT3 or similar. These are low voltage and often read a very high Fs compared to manufacturer's specs. I get that all the time.
For frequency response, I think it measures pretty good for a full ranger. But I think Paul is saying it's loaded with distortion, which he didn't measure.
My own summary for the drivers in question for which I was pilloried, could be "inoffensive, but uninspiring" - in other words, I could think of several other candidates in the same price range.
While "real" OBs are not for everyone - i.e. size/placement issues, they are not inherently better/worse than any other type of "enclosure" - it's always a matter of least objectionable compromise for any particular application, but I doubt the sculpture shown in original photo could to any driver justice
Right. There are far worse units out there & it doesn't strip the gums off your teeth, but I think sreten, GM, yourself & myself have a similar take when it comes to outright performance, run wideband.
Ive accepted the seller's kind offer for a full refund including shipping costs. I appreciate everyone who helped me come to this decision. Ill see you all around as I plan to try my own hand at a simple fullrange OB speaker.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.