Hi everyone,
I guess this question is directed mainly to the gurus of the great Chang-series of cabinets...
I have a pair of Tang Band W8-1808 which I have been using for about a year in a makeshift open baffle setup. I love the sound of them and had Fostex 207e before them, in BR cabinets, which are now in the closet (awaiting another project). The open baffles are supplemented by a sub, so there is plenty of kick. I do feel, however, that I am missing something in the upper bass, somewhere between the sub crossover point around 100 and perhaps 250 where I lose the TB driver's energy in the open baffle.
So, I've been thinking for a while that I would try capturing some of the TB's formidable energy in a cabinet somehow, to smooth out the response. Of course, I've now gotten accustomed to the OB spatial dynamics, and am hoping to avoid a "box" sound again. Thus the thought of going into horn territory. Slippery slope, I know...
I like the scale and appearance of the G-Chang kit, but want to make sure the design will work with the parameters of the drivers I have. I'm a bit challenged to do the math to calculate this, and hoping someone can help me in this respect, understanding that the Chang is designed for specific drivers. I've read that my drivers are good for open baffle but not necessarily good in a BLH design, but you guys would know better than me about this. I'm curious too about the Sumiko cabinet, which is similar in scale and design but more of a BLH rather than a BVR (but you knew that already...).
Here are the specs on the W8-1808:
DIAPHRAGM MTL Paper
SURROUND MTL Fabric
NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 W
DCR IMPEDANCE 6.8 W
SENSITIVITY 1W/1m 93 dB
FREQUENCY RESPONSE 45Hz-20K Hz
FREE AIR RESONANCE 45 Hz
VOICE COIL DIAMETER 38.5 mm
AIR GAP HEIGHT 14 mm
RATED POWER INPUT 30 W
MAXIMUM POWER INPUT 60 W
FORCE FACTOR, BL 5.28 TM
MAGNET WEIGHT ( oz) Neodymium
MOVING MASS 9.43 g
FERRO FLUID ENHANCED No
SUSPENSION COMPL. 1282 uMN-1
EFFEC.PISTON AREA 0.022 M2
Levc 0.048 mH
Zo 26 ohm
X-max 5 mm
Vas 88.14 Litr.
Qts 0.44
Qms 1.33
Qes 0.66
So, thanks in advance for your advice, and if anyone has had success in other cabinet types for these drivers, I'd be grateful to read about your experiences.
Cheers
I guess this question is directed mainly to the gurus of the great Chang-series of cabinets...
I have a pair of Tang Band W8-1808 which I have been using for about a year in a makeshift open baffle setup. I love the sound of them and had Fostex 207e before them, in BR cabinets, which are now in the closet (awaiting another project). The open baffles are supplemented by a sub, so there is plenty of kick. I do feel, however, that I am missing something in the upper bass, somewhere between the sub crossover point around 100 and perhaps 250 where I lose the TB driver's energy in the open baffle.
So, I've been thinking for a while that I would try capturing some of the TB's formidable energy in a cabinet somehow, to smooth out the response. Of course, I've now gotten accustomed to the OB spatial dynamics, and am hoping to avoid a "box" sound again. Thus the thought of going into horn territory. Slippery slope, I know...
I like the scale and appearance of the G-Chang kit, but want to make sure the design will work with the parameters of the drivers I have. I'm a bit challenged to do the math to calculate this, and hoping someone can help me in this respect, understanding that the Chang is designed for specific drivers. I've read that my drivers are good for open baffle but not necessarily good in a BLH design, but you guys would know better than me about this. I'm curious too about the Sumiko cabinet, which is similar in scale and design but more of a BLH rather than a BVR (but you knew that already...).
Here are the specs on the W8-1808:
DIAPHRAGM MTL Paper
SURROUND MTL Fabric
NOMINAL IMPEDANCE 8 W
DCR IMPEDANCE 6.8 W
SENSITIVITY 1W/1m 93 dB
FREQUENCY RESPONSE 45Hz-20K Hz
FREE AIR RESONANCE 45 Hz
VOICE COIL DIAMETER 38.5 mm
AIR GAP HEIGHT 14 mm
RATED POWER INPUT 30 W
MAXIMUM POWER INPUT 60 W
FORCE FACTOR, BL 5.28 TM
MAGNET WEIGHT ( oz) Neodymium
MOVING MASS 9.43 g
FERRO FLUID ENHANCED No
SUSPENSION COMPL. 1282 uMN-1
EFFEC.PISTON AREA 0.022 M2
Levc 0.048 mH
Zo 26 ohm
X-max 5 mm
Vas 88.14 Litr.
Qts 0.44
Qms 1.33
Qes 0.66
So, thanks in advance for your advice, and if anyone has had success in other cabinet types for these drivers, I'd be grateful to read about your experiences.
Cheers
I know nothing about how this driver would sound in a half-chang, but here's a project with it in a one. Half Chang Project Build
Mike
Mike
OOPS... Well I guess that's, um........ Midwifecrisis can get any questions he has answered by the author. 😱
Curious...
I read your description of the build, lovely cabinets indeed. Was it just that the bass response wasn't as low as you'd expected? Did they sound bad in any other respect? I'm just trying to get a handle on what would work, if the Half-Chang didn't? Or, rather, how to dimension the cab properly (presumably it has to be bigger, but just how big?)?
Another option I've considered for them was, ala MJ King or the Lampizator guy, adding a couple of 15" woofers in H-frames, but this means another level of commitment (more drivers, passive crossovers, etc.). And a BIB enclosure doesn't seem right either, too massive for what could otherwise be an elegant solution. And as handsome as Bob Brines' work is, I'm shying away from a bass reflex cabinet for them, mainly since I'm curious to experience a horn sound with these drivers.
Another option, just to make this more complicated: anyone tried something akin to the Saba Cello / Auditorium 23 style of cabinet? That was intriguing, but I'm not sure I have the tools for it. Aside from the looks, the idea of a semi-open cabinet in a non-box shape is compelling.
Picture attached showing my system with one of my speakers, to show what I'm playing with. Sorry it's crooked, was trying to get it all into the frame.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Jon. Were you able to get other drivers to work in the cabs you made, at least?
Best,
Sean
I read your description of the build, lovely cabinets indeed. Was it just that the bass response wasn't as low as you'd expected? Did they sound bad in any other respect? I'm just trying to get a handle on what would work, if the Half-Chang didn't? Or, rather, how to dimension the cab properly (presumably it has to be bigger, but just how big?)?
Another option I've considered for them was, ala MJ King or the Lampizator guy, adding a couple of 15" woofers in H-frames, but this means another level of commitment (more drivers, passive crossovers, etc.). And a BIB enclosure doesn't seem right either, too massive for what could otherwise be an elegant solution. And as handsome as Bob Brines' work is, I'm shying away from a bass reflex cabinet for them, mainly since I'm curious to experience a horn sound with these drivers.
Another option, just to make this more complicated: anyone tried something akin to the Saba Cello / Auditorium 23 style of cabinet? That was intriguing, but I'm not sure I have the tools for it. Aside from the looks, the idea of a semi-open cabinet in a non-box shape is compelling.
Picture attached showing my system with one of my speakers, to show what I'm playing with. Sorry it's crooked, was trying to get it all into the frame.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Jon. Were you able to get other drivers to work in the cabs you made, at least?
Best,
Sean
Attachments
The driver sounds very good in a small sealed cabinet too. It did not sound thin at all in approx a .5cf box. Add your sub and you may get the sound you like. I'd put it into a larger sealed box based on simulations but the point is i put it into a box i had lying around, stuffed it lightly and the 1808 sounded great.
Just another option to explore before building unusual cabinets with your fingers crossed.
Zilla
Just another option to explore before building unusual cabinets with your fingers crossed.
Zilla
Just to point out, as Dave mentions, the Chang design per se is solid for what it is. If you try to use it with a driver that it was not designed for, and is basically unsuitable, that's hardly the fault of the cabinet is it? The 1808 will need a larger box.
Last edited:
agreed
Indeed, I'm trying to avoid such mistakes myself. My problem is, I don't have any experience designing speakers, and wish to adapt an existing design to suit the drivers I'd like to use. I'm curious whether something like the G-Chang might be suitable with the TB driver, if it's properly scaled. For your wise counsel, I'd be humbly obliged... 🙂
Indeed, I'm trying to avoid such mistakes myself. My problem is, I don't have any experience designing speakers, and wish to adapt an existing design to suit the drivers I'd like to use. I'm curious whether something like the G-Chang might be suitable with the TB driver, if it's properly scaled. For your wise counsel, I'd be humbly obliged... 🙂
Arghhh! The dread 'scaling' word (for 'scale' read 'redesign for different unit'). 😉
I'm at work now, but I'll look into it when I have time later.
I'm at work now, but I'll look into it when I have time later.
Last edited:
Exactly, I stand corrected. Without euphemisms, then, I'd be grateful for your assistance to design a proper cabinet for the aforementioned driver, at your convenience, of course. 😉
Many thanks,
Sean
Many thanks,
Sean
Everyone is right, but i was wrong...but still like the driver just wish less money
Everyone's statement here is correct. The cabinet if used with the correct driver, which is not what i did the first time, is great. I really like the TB drivers even though they have the rise in the top end, that is easily fixed. The Chang cabinet is great and the build on it is masterful. There was not enough bass on the low end, yes you need a larger air space and yes that means "alterations" modifications, new design. I would love it if someone would spend some time with those and design some other cabinets. My failure was fine, I popped out the TB and put in a 225 fostex which even though it runs off at the top end, sound a ton better at the low end. The bass was back and very smooth. If you have seen the pictures, these were for my 11 year old, i really don't care if it rolls off a little at 17 or 18k, he doesn't know the difference and i have other pairs in my room so we are good. Now, if you like the cabinet design, try a fostex in it, either the chang or smaller with a 6inch or 8inch version. If you are gong to keep the TB, you will need to figure out the volume for the driver (i forget how many liters you needed) base it on the port calculation and try to "modify the volume of the chang to mimic what you would need for the TB and then calculate the port opening based on the opening at the bottom of the chang. THIS IS NOT PERFECT i know, but i may get you where you want to go.. I think you need to increase the chang internals by 30-40 liters....
Everyone's statement here is correct. The cabinet if used with the correct driver, which is not what i did the first time, is great. I really like the TB drivers even though they have the rise in the top end, that is easily fixed. The Chang cabinet is great and the build on it is masterful. There was not enough bass on the low end, yes you need a larger air space and yes that means "alterations" modifications, new design. I would love it if someone would spend some time with those and design some other cabinets. My failure was fine, I popped out the TB and put in a 225 fostex which even though it runs off at the top end, sound a ton better at the low end. The bass was back and very smooth. If you have seen the pictures, these were for my 11 year old, i really don't care if it rolls off a little at 17 or 18k, he doesn't know the difference and i have other pairs in my room so we are good. Now, if you like the cabinet design, try a fostex in it, either the chang or smaller with a 6inch or 8inch version. If you are gong to keep the TB, you will need to figure out the volume for the driver (i forget how many liters you needed) base it on the port calculation and try to "modify the volume of the chang to mimic what you would need for the TB and then calculate the port opening based on the opening at the bottom of the chang. THIS IS NOT PERFECT i know, but i may get you where you want to go.. I think you need to increase the chang internals by 30-40 liters....
jonparkhurst
I'm using my Tangbands 1772 in open baffle supported by 15 inch drivers, active support with LP-filter.
It's easy to do, and you will get an idea what dipole can do.
If you have an digital EQ you don't need any more than a 50 cm x 90 cm baffle with two holes for the drivers.
Try it, you might like it, I do 🙂
I'm using my Tangbands 1772 in open baffle supported by 15 inch drivers, active support with LP-filter.
It's easy to do, and you will get an idea what dipole can do.
If you have an digital EQ you don't need any more than a 50 cm x 90 cm baffle with two holes for the drivers.
Try it, you might like it, I do 🙂
I thought the 1772 was more box, and the 1808 more open baffle... ?? My TB's are gone and now replaced with Fostex 225. I like the driver, but the cost is an issue. maybe the w4 or w5 from PE on sale...
midwifecrisis
Hello,
look my sat horns and the double horns,
a few are good driven by the 1880,
may be a translation of the measurements
and feedbacks would help,
please read "about what"
about what
Hello,
look my sat horns and the double horns,
a few are good driven by the 1880,
may be a translation of the measurements
and feedbacks would help,
please read "about what"
about what
Attachments
Hörst,
Hello, I'm happy to hear from you, since I've been studying your double-horns very carefully, and thought too that these Tang Band drivers might work with it. My main concern was whether my other drivers, Fostex 207e, might work in combination with them for the back drivers. I might have to try it out and see what happens! I'm intrigued by the concept of the double horns having an "interlacing effect." I also like that it functions like a dipole, sending the sound back and up in addition to forward. I take it this might contribute to the open quality that I like about my open baffle arrangement.
There is one small issue, though, which is the weight of the speakers. My listening room is upstairs, and the only access is a small spiral staircase. Anything large and heavy can be a problem. But I'll figure this out. Thank you.
Hello, I'm happy to hear from you, since I've been studying your double-horns very carefully, and thought too that these Tang Band drivers might work with it. My main concern was whether my other drivers, Fostex 207e, might work in combination with them for the back drivers. I might have to try it out and see what happens! I'm intrigued by the concept of the double horns having an "interlacing effect." I also like that it functions like a dipole, sending the sound back and up in addition to forward. I take it this might contribute to the open quality that I like about my open baffle arrangement.
There is one small issue, though, which is the weight of the speakers. My listening room is upstairs, and the only access is a small spiral staircase. Anything large and heavy can be a problem. But I'll figure this out. Thank you.
Hello,
thanks,
the double horns are bipole constructions,
next month i made a new construction the TWOHORN,
two parts each double horn, useful for a small staircase.
A good invers back driver would be
the Monacor SPH-210 or similar.
thanks,
the double horns are bipole constructions,
next month i made a new construction the TWOHORN,
two parts each double horn, useful for a small staircase.
A good invers back driver would be
the Monacor SPH-210 or similar.
OK, now the TWOHORN is something else to look forward to! If you are ready to release the plans, I could make a test pair...😉
Many thanks, keep up the good work!
Many thanks, keep up the good work!
jonparkhurst
Every driver will work in Open Baffle.
But, not every driver will have enough bass extension. In fact no one does, at least no one that I'm aware of, maybe an 15 inch coaxial would be ok, but that would, either way need:
a very wide baffle or, some sort of EQ to compensate for the roll off.
An 8 inch driver will never be able to get you descent bass output.
So, it really doesn't matter whether you use the 1772 or the 1808. You still have to support the bass with at least one (pair) of dedicated bass drivers to get usable SPL.
The pros about the 1772 vs 1808, is that you get away with a smaller box with the 1772 to get the same bass extension if aiming for a BR, BVR, or BLH.
Every driver will work in Open Baffle.
But, not every driver will have enough bass extension. In fact no one does, at least no one that I'm aware of, maybe an 15 inch coaxial would be ok, but that would, either way need:
a very wide baffle or, some sort of EQ to compensate for the roll off.
An 8 inch driver will never be able to get you descent bass output.
So, it really doesn't matter whether you use the 1772 or the 1808. You still have to support the bass with at least one (pair) of dedicated bass drivers to get usable SPL.
The pros about the 1772 vs 1808, is that you get away with a smaller box with the 1772 to get the same bass extension if aiming for a BR, BVR, or BLH.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.