Which to use?
Hi TABAQ Fans,
I am going to start building my first pair of TABAQs tomorrow. I have on hand a pair of W3 1053 drivers and a pair of W3 315E drivers as well. Which of these would best the best overall performer, with an emphasis on the best bass? Input from those familiar with either, but preferably both, would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jay
Hi TABAQ Fans,
I am going to start building my first pair of TABAQs tomorrow. I have on hand a pair of W3 1053 drivers and a pair of W3 315E drivers as well. Which of these would best the best overall performer, with an emphasis on the best bass? Input from those familiar with either, but preferably both, would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jay
My first build (which I am still enjoying), I used the W3-315E, 12mm Baltic Birch plywood for enclosure, and used the original port design. I am quite happy with how they sound. Most who hear these cannot believe the sound and the sound stage produced. Now bass is a personal preference on what one thinks is enough. I like what I hear on these. But to you, you might want more bass. I am using a DAC which might help a bit with the sound, but I haven't tried these without the DAC either, so only assuming it helps. Bjorn's design is amazing in the sound it produces from a 3" full range driver. Hope this helps some.
Perceval,
MA Pluvia 7 maybe? But the specs are different from CHR-70, for which Bjorn has kindly done a modification to the original design:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/88787-tabaq-tl-tang-band-90.html#post4073872
Or CHR 70.3?
MA Pluvia 7 maybe? But the specs are different from CHR-70, for which Bjorn has kindly done a modification to the original design:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/88787-tabaq-tl-tang-band-90.html#post4073872
Or CHR 70.3?
Last edited:
I don't own both models but I did build in 2012 a "double TABAQ" with the W3 1053SC and I opted for this driver (price related) in order to have double the surface area in the hope that it gets things done bellow 100hz, otherwise the general reputation of the driver was that it had very good highs (confirmed - no harshness no resonances) but bass was weak, using it as just one per enclosure (just out of curiosity for 10 minutes or so) I can also confirm that it is modest. Mine only work in a small room (that's 2 x 2drivers) and I don't complain about bass, but the larger 4 inch drivers should be the no' one option in such cases - I personally wanted those highs to be intact and good dispersion so I skipped the 4 inch option - which would have been Mark Audio CHR70.
I'm really sorry, but I have no experience with any MA drivers. Never heard one in real life. I tried to get a few pairs, but there were complications, so it didn't work.
Qts of the Pluvia 7 looks good, but Fo being so low, volume of the TABAQ and length of the vent might be different. Would probably need Bjørn's input on that one.
Sorry!
Revised VS. original sonic differences
Hi Gents,
My first set of TABAQs are up and running and sounding very nice. I was not initially too impressed with them, but with 10 hours of break in, 80 grams of stuffing and a 1 Mh, 5 Ohm BSC they sound truly excellent. I decided to use the W3 315E drivers and they are definitely doing the job!
So, given the rewards of the project, I'm eager to build another pair with better cosmetics and perhaps even a little better sound. What I'm wondering is if anyone has actually listened to the Original model VS. the revision in which the port is modified by adding the block of wood to the bottom, back corner of the cabinet.
Many years ago I was involved with developing racing cylinder heads using a flow bench. Based on that experience, the revised model looks more restrictive to air flow despite its theoretical improvement. I realize that air resonance is different than flow volume but wonder if anyone has done a head to head comparison of the two using an identical 3 inch driver to see what the "real world" differences are.
Bjorn in a previous post said he thought any differences would be small, but if there is an audible improvement in the low frequencies with no treble penalties it would be worth doing. Otherwise, it is one less step to deal with in the build.
Thanks to Bjorn and all the helpful contributors here.
Jay
Hi Gents,
My first set of TABAQs are up and running and sounding very nice. I was not initially too impressed with them, but with 10 hours of break in, 80 grams of stuffing and a 1 Mh, 5 Ohm BSC they sound truly excellent. I decided to use the W3 315E drivers and they are definitely doing the job!
So, given the rewards of the project, I'm eager to build another pair with better cosmetics and perhaps even a little better sound. What I'm wondering is if anyone has actually listened to the Original model VS. the revision in which the port is modified by adding the block of wood to the bottom, back corner of the cabinet.
Many years ago I was involved with developing racing cylinder heads using a flow bench. Based on that experience, the revised model looks more restrictive to air flow despite its theoretical improvement. I realize that air resonance is different than flow volume but wonder if anyone has done a head to head comparison of the two using an identical 3 inch driver to see what the "real world" differences are.
Bjorn in a previous post said he thought any differences would be small, but if there is an audible improvement in the low frequencies with no treble penalties it would be worth doing. Otherwise, it is one less step to deal with in the build.
Thanks to Bjorn and all the helpful contributors here.
Jay
Hi Jay
My folded version have the correct port, but I have not done any A/B test with the original TABAQ as these are mounted with 4 inch drivers and the foldet version has a 3 inch driver. This makes it physical difficult to compare with same driver.
The commercial version has the correct port.
For any build in the future I would use the correct port layout. I am not sure your would hear any difference, but it will feel correct.
There is not problems with air flow in TABAQ.
For cosmetic reasons I have used black acrylic in some constructions, and I am planning to use black glass in my next TABAQ.
http://www.coolcat.dk/bjoern/TABAQ_MICRO_2_inch.pdf
Hi
Bjørn
My folded version have the correct port, but I have not done any A/B test with the original TABAQ as these are mounted with 4 inch drivers and the foldet version has a 3 inch driver. This makes it physical difficult to compare with same driver.
The commercial version has the correct port.
For any build in the future I would use the correct port layout. I am not sure your would hear any difference, but it will feel correct.
There is not problems with air flow in TABAQ.
For cosmetic reasons I have used black acrylic in some constructions, and I am planning to use black glass in my next TABAQ.
http://www.coolcat.dk/bjoern/TABAQ_MICRO_2_inch.pdf
Hi
Bjørn
I do love my glass, polished marble, slate, etc. 
I am interested in building the TABAQ and have been reading the various posts in the thread. But I have not been able to read all 174 pages.
I have several questions before deciding which way to go and will appreciate any suggestions.
This will most likely be used in my bedroom that is 18ft x 14ft. I will listen from 6 feet and from 12 feet. The speakers will play both music and video. I do not listen loud and do not really need anything below 60Hz. I am actually quite happy with my current setup of the TB 1364 sealed with NO sub; this has almost no output below 150Hz.
I am planning to build the standard version, but there seems to be two variations of the standard size TABAQ.
Question 1: The standard version is 12.4cm x 15.2 cm x 83.2cm. I tried to attach the drawings I downloaded from my computer but I cannot seem to attach files from my computer.
One version has the speaker opening 20.3 cm down from the inner top. Another version has the speaker opening 26cm down from the top. Which version sounds better with a 4 inch Tang Band W4 driver?
Question 2: I would like to use either Tang Band W4-1320SIF or Tang Band W4-2142. Any suggestions as to which would sound better? I have build both TB W3 1364 (sealed) and TB W3 2141 (vented). The TB W4 1320 is in the same family as the W3 1364, and the TB W4 2142 is in the same family as the W3 2141. My impressions of the two TB W3s is the 1364 is a bit clearer in the middle frequencies but has almost no bass and the TB 2141 is better balanced overall but has a bit more mid character. Both W3s seem to be very directional with hi hats and cymbals. But I have not heard the 1320 SIF or the 2142. Will the TB 1320 SIF have enough bass? The TB 2142 should be able to go down to 55HZ.
Question 3: Any other suggestions for drivers other the two I listed. I have read about a MA Alpair 5 or 6, and both are possibilities. The reviews I have read suggest that MA drivers have better high frequency than the TB, but the TB are clearer in the midrange. I suspect that I will like the TB drivers better.
Question 4: I am thinking of changing the build so that the front baffle cut is 12.4 cm wide and the side wood cut is 12.8. This will make the dimensions basically the same. I will probably use 1/2 inch Baltic birch plywood instead of suggested 12mm MDF and I will not need to cover the MDF. The modified dimensions equal to 4.9 inch wide wood cut for the front baffle and 5 inch wide wood cut for the side. The outer width will be 4.9 (12.4 cm) and the depth will be 6 inches (15.2cm). If I go with a front 5 inch front baffle instead of the 4.9 inch front baffle, will this make any difference? I suspect that a .1 inch extra width will have no impact on the sound. It will be easier for me to get the shop to cut to 5 inches.
Thanks, Ron
I have several questions before deciding which way to go and will appreciate any suggestions.
This will most likely be used in my bedroom that is 18ft x 14ft. I will listen from 6 feet and from 12 feet. The speakers will play both music and video. I do not listen loud and do not really need anything below 60Hz. I am actually quite happy with my current setup of the TB 1364 sealed with NO sub; this has almost no output below 150Hz.
I am planning to build the standard version, but there seems to be two variations of the standard size TABAQ.
Question 1: The standard version is 12.4cm x 15.2 cm x 83.2cm. I tried to attach the drawings I downloaded from my computer but I cannot seem to attach files from my computer.
One version has the speaker opening 20.3 cm down from the inner top. Another version has the speaker opening 26cm down from the top. Which version sounds better with a 4 inch Tang Band W4 driver?
Question 2: I would like to use either Tang Band W4-1320SIF or Tang Band W4-2142. Any suggestions as to which would sound better? I have build both TB W3 1364 (sealed) and TB W3 2141 (vented). The TB W4 1320 is in the same family as the W3 1364, and the TB W4 2142 is in the same family as the W3 2141. My impressions of the two TB W3s is the 1364 is a bit clearer in the middle frequencies but has almost no bass and the TB 2141 is better balanced overall but has a bit more mid character. Both W3s seem to be very directional with hi hats and cymbals. But I have not heard the 1320 SIF or the 2142. Will the TB 1320 SIF have enough bass? The TB 2142 should be able to go down to 55HZ.
Question 3: Any other suggestions for drivers other the two I listed. I have read about a MA Alpair 5 or 6, and both are possibilities. The reviews I have read suggest that MA drivers have better high frequency than the TB, but the TB are clearer in the midrange. I suspect that I will like the TB drivers better.
Question 4: I am thinking of changing the build so that the front baffle cut is 12.4 cm wide and the side wood cut is 12.8. This will make the dimensions basically the same. I will probably use 1/2 inch Baltic birch plywood instead of suggested 12mm MDF and I will not need to cover the MDF. The modified dimensions equal to 4.9 inch wide wood cut for the front baffle and 5 inch wide wood cut for the side. The outer width will be 4.9 (12.4 cm) and the depth will be 6 inches (15.2cm). If I go with a front 5 inch front baffle instead of the 4.9 inch front baffle, will this make any difference? I suspect that a .1 inch extra width will have no impact on the sound. It will be easier for me to get the shop to cut to 5 inches.
Thanks, Ron
Here's a couple of things.
The driver can be placed 5cm higher than the original drawings. Usually easier to have the driver at ear level or closer anyway.
The W4-1320SIF, like many 4" drivers from TB fall short on the higher range. I think it also has a peak that will need to be addressed via a notch filter or EQ. Most of the W4 will drop completely after 15kHz. Makes for a warm sounding speaker, not shouty and listenable for hours... But lacking a little air. Since my hearing also falls off after 15kHz, it's not an issue for me.
I'm sure the W4-2142 will need a bigger enclosure, and that means a new simulation from Bjorn.
So, the W3s will reach higher, but also will not go as deep as the W4s. It's the trade off.
And yes, minute variations of 0.1" will not affect the overall performance of the design. The TABAQs are quite forgiving actually.
The driver can be placed 5cm higher than the original drawings. Usually easier to have the driver at ear level or closer anyway.
The W4-1320SIF, like many 4" drivers from TB fall short on the higher range. I think it also has a peak that will need to be addressed via a notch filter or EQ. Most of the W4 will drop completely after 15kHz. Makes for a warm sounding speaker, not shouty and listenable for hours... But lacking a little air. Since my hearing also falls off after 15kHz, it's not an issue for me.
I'm sure the W4-2142 will need a bigger enclosure, and that means a new simulation from Bjorn.
So, the W3s will reach higher, but also will not go as deep as the W4s. It's the trade off.
And yes, minute variations of 0.1" will not affect the overall performance of the design. The TABAQs are quite forgiving actually.
I am experimenting with a number of different drivers in the basic TABAQ cabinet. I have built an ugly but well sealed box which has removable sections so that different drivers and stuffing amounts can be easily changed.
I am running frequency response checks with a radio shack SPL meter, listening to a variety of music and taking lots of notes as I go. My reference speakers are standard TABAQs using the TB315 E drivers. Preliminary results so far:
The Tectonic HiBm65C 20F will play louder and has great off axis response but does not sound as clean or go as deep as the 315 E. It does MUCH better in a ported 7L cabinet than in the TABAQ configuration, despite its promising specs.
The TB 1052 SD is outstanding in the TABAQ cabinet and bests the TB 315 E in transparency, bass depth, maximum volume and imaging although its off axis response is not quite as good.
In the next few days I'll be testing the Dayton RS 100, the Dayton PS 95 the Aurasound NS3 and the TB 1320 and will post the findings.
A question for Bjorn. Given the superior results of the TB 1052 in the TABAQ cabinet which was not optimized for it, what changes in the cabinet or vent would help this driver do even better? My test box uses the revised version of your cabinet with the higher speaker placement and the centrally located inner slot for the port. I'm thinking with its Fs of 63, the TB 1052 SD might benefit from a longer port and a bit more cabinet volume to give a lower tuning frequency. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jay
I am running frequency response checks with a radio shack SPL meter, listening to a variety of music and taking lots of notes as I go. My reference speakers are standard TABAQs using the TB315 E drivers. Preliminary results so far:
The Tectonic HiBm65C 20F will play louder and has great off axis response but does not sound as clean or go as deep as the 315 E. It does MUCH better in a ported 7L cabinet than in the TABAQ configuration, despite its promising specs.
The TB 1052 SD is outstanding in the TABAQ cabinet and bests the TB 315 E in transparency, bass depth, maximum volume and imaging although its off axis response is not quite as good.
In the next few days I'll be testing the Dayton RS 100, the Dayton PS 95 the Aurasound NS3 and the TB 1320 and will post the findings.
A question for Bjorn. Given the superior results of the TB 1052 in the TABAQ cabinet which was not optimized for it, what changes in the cabinet or vent would help this driver do even better? My test box uses the revised version of your cabinet with the higher speaker placement and the centrally located inner slot for the port. I'm thinking with its Fs of 63, the TB 1052 SD might benefit from a longer port and a bit more cabinet volume to give a lower tuning frequency. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Best,
Jay
Last edited:
Thanks for the answers.
Okay, I will probably build the TABAQ with the driver about 21.5 cm from the top (equals to 20.3cm from the inner top). I don't see any peak in the TB 1320 SIF, except the peak at 16k HZ. I probably cannot hear that high so no issues with me. The TB 1320 SIF is on sale until Sunday so I might the 1320 (and maybe the 2142 as well). I can put one of them in a regular box and one in a TABAQ. Or try them both and build a second TABAQ for rear.
So the W4 1052 Sd is a possibility. The reviews on PE suggests that it has a dropping higher frequency and needs some filters.
Mark Audio drivers supposedly have better higher frequencies, but 2 dB lower sensitivity than the comparable TB. I read somewhere that the TB bamboo paper has a cleaner mid than the MA Alpair paper, but I may have mistaken the Alpair paper with the Alpair metal driver.
Okay, I will probably build the TABAQ with the driver about 21.5 cm from the top (equals to 20.3cm from the inner top). I don't see any peak in the TB 1320 SIF, except the peak at 16k HZ. I probably cannot hear that high so no issues with me. The TB 1320 SIF is on sale until Sunday so I might the 1320 (and maybe the 2142 as well). I can put one of them in a regular box and one in a TABAQ. Or try them both and build a second TABAQ for rear.
So the W4 1052 Sd is a possibility. The reviews on PE suggests that it has a dropping higher frequency and needs some filters.
Mark Audio drivers supposedly have better higher frequencies, but 2 dB lower sensitivity than the comparable TB. I read somewhere that the TB bamboo paper has a cleaner mid than the MA Alpair paper, but I may have mistaken the Alpair paper with the Alpair metal driver.
I'm also happy with 1052. I can hear to 20 kHz, but the fall off doesn't bother me.