Hi Magnetar,
The removal of Lil' Buddy dust cap. Is it to fix the nasty 5dB peak around 2K?
You seems to have move from short horn to 'super' short horn. Is the Eminence APT80 horn sound better or because it fit the baffle?
Sam
The removal of Lil' Buddy dust cap. Is it to fix the nasty 5dB peak around 2K?
You seems to have move from short horn to 'super' short horn. Is the Eminence APT80 horn sound better or because it fit the baffle?
Sam
Re: Re: Sensitive Wide Range OB - Update - Tonemaster
They are explained in this thread - 16 ohm Madison Warrior
The peak on my pair was not as bad as the Eminence graphs indicate but was there. There was also a hole between 2.5 and 3.5K. The mod brought the level up above 2K and lowered the magnitude of the peak at 3.55K. They have a smoother roll off now.
I can build any size baffle and could have used much larger horns. The little Eminence horn has the right response range and dispersion to match the top end of the midrange. It also by chance happens to be closely aligned with the mid treble coils. I'm not done with this mid treble baffle. I plan on adding some felt to lower defraction, as well as isolating it better from the bass panel.
I like the sound of the single midrange on the open board (no wings) over the horn. It has a more cohesive transition in the critical low mid to bass region due in part to being a true dipole like the bass drivers. Next I'm going with less wing on the bass panels to try and clear up a reflection resonance in the bass. With this configuration (using the sub horn) and the high QTS bass drivers I don't think the wings are doing the sound much good.
Francois G said:
They are explained in this thread - 16 ohm Madison Warrior
SamL said:
The peak on my pair was not as bad as the Eminence graphs indicate but was there. There was also a hole between 2.5 and 3.5K. The mod brought the level up above 2K and lowered the magnitude of the peak at 3.55K. They have a smoother roll off now.
I can build any size baffle and could have used much larger horns. The little Eminence horn has the right response range and dispersion to match the top end of the midrange. It also by chance happens to be closely aligned with the mid treble coils. I'm not done with this mid treble baffle. I plan on adding some felt to lower defraction, as well as isolating it better from the bass panel.
I like the sound of the single midrange on the open board (no wings) over the horn. It has a more cohesive transition in the critical low mid to bass region due in part to being a true dipole like the bass drivers. Next I'm going with less wing on the bass panels to try and clear up a reflection resonance in the bass. With this configuration (using the sub horn) and the high QTS bass drivers I don't think the wings are doing the sound much good.
Nice work Magnetar. No doubt the sound is a real tour de force.
Wish I'd got the room for something as purposeful as that.
Wish I'd got the room for something as purposeful as that.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Thanks - they really aren't that big. I've been listening to them without the sub and the bass is there, just not as low distortion or deep.
Picture of the back of your open baffle
Magnetar:
That is a very interesting project. Could you post a photo of the backside for us inquiring minds?
I have read some of your posts regarding JBL and TAD..have you tried a project such as this with a driver like the TAD 1201?
Thanks!
Magnetar:
That is a very interesting project. Could you post a photo of the backside for us inquiring minds?
I have read some of your posts regarding JBL and TAD..have you tried a project such as this with a driver like the TAD 1201?
Thanks!
Re: Picture of the back of your open baffle
Thanks, in a post above I have a link to more pictures
The 1201 TAD on an open baffle 4' wide only goes down to 600 Hz!
I would only use the TAD driver in a large midbass horn. Used this way it is serious. The QTS is like .19 where an open baffle driver needs to be .7 or higher unless you want to take away efficiency and pad the midrange and upper bass down. Spending big money on expensive pro drivers is the wrong way to go for open baffle bass.
homebuilder said:
Thanks, in a post above I have a link to more pictures
The 1201 TAD on an open baffle 4' wide only goes down to 600 Hz!
I would only use the TAD driver in a large midbass horn. Used this way it is serious. The QTS is like .19 where an open baffle driver needs to be .7 or higher unless you want to take away efficiency and pad the midrange and upper bass down. Spending big money on expensive pro drivers is the wrong way to go for open baffle bass.
Magnetar,
I am building an open baffle WMTMW configuration, I have decided on the MTM and still deciding on the woofer. I am currently using 4 cheap woofers for the configuration, their response seem slow. I need to upgrade the woofer.
I can get access to 4 units(good price), eminence 15in beta, fs=36 and qts=0.58. The qts appears to be a bit low, I need at least 0.7. Actually I prefer 12" woofer or smaller. I wonder whether using 10" warrior would be more suitable, qts=0.85. maybe warrior may sound "faster" than the beta.
what do you suggest?
thanks.
I am building an open baffle WMTMW configuration, I have decided on the MTM and still deciding on the woofer. I am currently using 4 cheap woofers for the configuration, their response seem slow. I need to upgrade the woofer.
I can get access to 4 units(good price), eminence 15in beta, fs=36 and qts=0.58. The qts appears to be a bit low, I need at least 0.7. Actually I prefer 12" woofer or smaller. I wonder whether using 10" warrior would be more suitable, qts=0.85. maybe warrior may sound "faster" than the beta.
what do you suggest?
thanks.
ttan98 said:
The warriors are available in 8 ohm but they'd have to be shipped to you. That would cost a lot of money. If the beta is close in price and with a little EQ it would be the better choice. I would use 4 per channel though.
Magnetar,
I forget to ask, if I use 4*10" warrior, ie 2 per side, would it sufficient to produce the bass that is low enough, say flat till 50-60 hertz, the fs is only 65hz?
My guess it would not, MK s/w would be able to predict., your 5 units in parallel , what did you get?
thanks.
I forget to ask, if I use 4*10" warrior, ie 2 per side, would it sufficient to produce the bass that is low enough, say flat till 50-60 hertz, the fs is only 65hz?
My guess it would not, MK s/w would be able to predict., your 5 units in parallel , what did you get?
thanks.
ttan98 said:
Because of the compliance of the warrior drivers they are not well damped at resonance and you will get a hump in the bass centered at the FS. It will extend the bass below FS at the expense of the bass getting a bit out of control there. For the best sound and higher power handling I use a high pass filter to smooth this out. A pair of these per side is not enough output for me (maybe fine for most, although a compromise) - too much excursion for the levels I sometimes want to produce. If my panel is placed close to the side wall and not elevated in the front it will easily do 40 HZ - but that doesn't sound best to me. It still sounds good, less artificial resonant then a bass reflex monopole. The high pass on the bass and the horn sub does a much better job as a whole in the bass though.
Nice to see your progress with these Magnetar.
I'm contemplating using an array of those 10" Warrior's on an OB from 500-50 Hz but it looks like you can't get the 16 ohm version anymore.
One option would be to wire them up in a combination of series & parallel, but as was discussed in your last thread, that will introduce multiple impedance peaks.
So taking a step back, the question is why use an array? Is it primarily to lower distortion by spreading the work over multiple drivers? Or is it equally important to achieve high sensitively?
As an example, your paralleling 5 16ohm woofers and the result is @ 2.something ohm load and 99 (or so) db/w/m.
How would that compare to running 2 pairs of 2 woofers wired in parallel per side (2 x 4ohm load & 93db/w/m approx), driven by two channels of amplification perside in an active setup.
Not sure if I'm making sense, so here is a crappy sketch of what I'm talking about. The Sketch represents a single channel.
I'm contemplating using an array of those 10" Warrior's on an OB from 500-50 Hz but it looks like you can't get the 16 ohm version anymore.
One option would be to wire them up in a combination of series & parallel, but as was discussed in your last thread, that will introduce multiple impedance peaks.
So taking a step back, the question is why use an array? Is it primarily to lower distortion by spreading the work over multiple drivers? Or is it equally important to achieve high sensitively?
As an example, your paralleling 5 16ohm woofers and the result is @ 2.something ohm load and 99 (or so) db/w/m.
How would that compare to running 2 pairs of 2 woofers wired in parallel per side (2 x 4ohm load & 93db/w/m approx), driven by two channels of amplification perside in an active setup.
Not sure if I'm making sense, so here is a crappy sketch of what I'm talking about. The Sketch represents a single channel.
Attachments
Magnetar,
you never stop to amaze us...
I was wondering. Would the RedFang Alnico guitar speaker be a good choise as a midrange? It is about 103dB, not as linear in frequency as the Lill'Buddy but close.
How would you compare the sound of your actual midrange to a good horn design? Don't you miss the transients, the dynamics?
And the last one: Did you tried the 10" eminence midrange in the waveguide I saw in your picture? Do you have the intention to try it?
Good luck and many more projects like this
you never stop to amaze us...
I was wondering. Would the RedFang Alnico guitar speaker be a good choise as a midrange? It is about 103dB, not as linear in frequency as the Lill'Buddy but close.
How would you compare the sound of your actual midrange to a good horn design? Don't you miss the transients, the dynamics?
And the last one: Did you tried the 10" eminence midrange in the waveguide I saw in your picture? Do you have the intention to try it?
Good luck and many more projects like this
SunRa said:Magnetar,
you never stop to amaze us...
I was wondering. Would the RedFang Alnico guitar speaker be a good choise as a midrange? It is about 103dB, not as linear in frequency as the Lill'Buddy but close.
How would you compare the sound of your actual midrange to a good horn design? Don't you miss the transients, the dynamics?
And the last one: Did you tried the 10" eminence midrange in the waveguide I saw in your picture? Do you have the intention to try it?
Good luck and many more projects like this
Hello, the reason for it's sensitivity is it's not too linear. I think it's too costly to just 'try' -
I think a horn midrange sound best with other horns (bass treble ect)- and an open baffle midrange sounds best with an open baffle bass - the dynamics are there just not quite as present or in your face with the dipoles
The picture is a 15" coaxial, i have listened too it lots
Thanks!
ttan98 said:
Jaycar make a cheap 10" (specs attached)
8ohm
87db 1w1m
fs=31
qms = 2.898
qes = 1.057
qts = .775
vas = 115 liters
XMAX = they don't say but probably $h!t
it is available locally and is only AU$24 for 10 or more.
Magnetar your work is inspiring to me - love it! ...currently looking at something similar to your creation based on this 10" Jaycar woofer perhaps 4-8 per channel, what do you think?
cheers DB
Attachments
broughd said:
Thanks, a few points to note:
1. these speakers are inefficient. need high powered plate amp(100w/channel) to drive.
2. these speakers are not proven, I am using cheap($20 each via Aust. Ebay!) 12" woofers now, there are ok but not professional std. a little slow. I like something better.
Hello Magnetar,
Thank you for the reply. Just to eliminate any confusions I was refering to the new 10" RedFang, not the bigger version. The little one is more linear, and it doesn't have that nasty dip before the breake-up region. It's also somehow cheaper...
Regarding the coax driver, it appeard to me that is 10" and that the waveguide would match the LittleBuddy.
Cheers!
ttan98 said:
True, they are inefficient. Should be able to bring the efficiency up by 9db or so by using 8 or so per side though.
I expect all thing being equal you are right that these will not be as fast as as pro speakers with low resistance suspension. My understanding is that as a generalisation high Qts drivers (> 0.8?) will be 'slow' and low Qts (<0.6) will be 'fast' Also 12" cones flex more and usually have higher MMS making the upper frequency response slower, that is why I suggested a 10". Perhaps I will go and buy some and if it doesn't work out they can go in an IB sub!
You are probably right that higher efficiency and xmax drivers with better motor will give improved results, the motor can't be too strong though or Qts goes down and you have to boost the lower frequencies...
BTW sorry for the threadjack perhaps we should move this conversation to a new thread if it continues?
cheers, DB
Mike
Nice work, impressive; I too knew I was into something very different when I owned the omega superhemps awhile back. I found those drivers were waaay too musical, and subtle to be yoked to a reflex box-situation....
I have ordered a pair of the Lil' Buddies, a pair of the Tone Tubby Alnico 10, and a pair of Tone Tubby SuperBoy 15 bass drivers, and have no idea as to what I could expect from the latter, as they still have no published specs on these, against my better judgment, however, I believe a 15 inch Tone Tubby bass monster can't but be a good thing. If the Buddies come close to the ALnico, I will keep those. Implementation is far more important than magnets, but I love ALnico with SET, and can easily power the Tubbies + some treble implementation on 2 watts or so.
It would be helpful if you could discuss your integration of the 10 with the B&C @ 2500Hz, if you would. And thanks again, glad to hear the Hemp is an arrival for yourself. Big, that.
Nice work, impressive; I too knew I was into something very different when I owned the omega superhemps awhile back. I found those drivers were waaay too musical, and subtle to be yoked to a reflex box-situation....
I have ordered a pair of the Lil' Buddies, a pair of the Tone Tubby Alnico 10, and a pair of Tone Tubby SuperBoy 15 bass drivers, and have no idea as to what I could expect from the latter, as they still have no published specs on these, against my better judgment, however, I believe a 15 inch Tone Tubby bass monster can't but be a good thing. If the Buddies come close to the ALnico, I will keep those. Implementation is far more important than magnets, but I love ALnico with SET, and can easily power the Tubbies + some treble implementation on 2 watts or so.
It would be helpful if you could discuss your integration of the 10 with the B&C @ 2500Hz, if you would. And thanks again, glad to hear the Hemp is an arrival for yourself. Big, that.
Magnetar, it seems like you've tried every driver under the sun. So here's a quick question for you and anyone else that wants to chime in:
What's your take on the classic Altec 414 (either in pairs or singly) vs the Li'l Buddy/Tone Tubby in the 200 Hz to 1 kHz range? Both the Altec and hemp cones are described as having "Technicolor Midrange". This is something I would fully agree with the Tone Tubbies (I listened to them more or less full-range), but I'm not as deep into the Altec thing as others - but I have to admit I have heard Altecs sound very very good with the highest-level systems.
Even though cone drivers are nominally flat in this range, they have plenty of tone color nonetheless, and the choice of midbass driver determines the entire personality of the speaker. Some drivers are drab and colorless, while others are thrilling, lively, and musically expressive with great subtlety and delicacy - and this doesn't show in measurements. The things that seem to matter are subtle differences in magnet construction (underhung vs overhung and field geometry in the gap) and the type of surround and spider.
What's your take on the classic Altec 414 (either in pairs or singly) vs the Li'l Buddy/Tone Tubby in the 200 Hz to 1 kHz range? Both the Altec and hemp cones are described as having "Technicolor Midrange". This is something I would fully agree with the Tone Tubbies (I listened to them more or less full-range), but I'm not as deep into the Altec thing as others - but I have to admit I have heard Altecs sound very very good with the highest-level systems.
Even though cone drivers are nominally flat in this range, they have plenty of tone color nonetheless, and the choice of midbass driver determines the entire personality of the speaker. Some drivers are drab and colorless, while others are thrilling, lively, and musically expressive with great subtlety and delicacy - and this doesn't show in measurements. The things that seem to matter are subtle differences in magnet construction (underhung vs overhung and field geometry in the gap) and the type of surround and spider.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.