I waited for those HiVi drivers to become available, and then I waited to see if someone would actually use them and report back. They look ideal for a BiB, though I am a bit concerned by the high Fs for this size driver. A BiB should be able to get good, solid bass from them, just not as low as alot of the other similarly sized drivers that have been used so far.
Please, please, please take lots of pictures and listen to the finished product, a lot.
Kensai
Please, please, please take lots of pictures and listen to the finished product, a lot.
Kensai
Kensai said:
I felt the same way, They are actually closer to the size of a 4 incher as far as piston area. I just keep drooling over them. And since my friend wanted something nice, and he is kinda a mine is better than yours type, It was no challenge talking him into it. I will definetly take pics.
Maybe that will mean it will only require ~96" line length and an easily manageable mouth size. You might still need subs for full on HT, but then again, inwall may boost things a bit.
Another thing, the Trinities don't come with factory crossovers as far as I know. We'll definitely be wanting to know what you come up with for that, too.
Good luck,
Kensai
Another thing, the Trinities don't come with factory crossovers as far as I know. We'll definitely be wanting to know what you come up with for that, too.
Good luck,
Kensai
Kensai said:
Well, that is the interesting side of things. Can not fing any published figures or graphs for that driver. As at this point, band pass between 800-8k for the mid, 8k-20k for the high, and going to leave the low alone for now. There should be no need for BSC since they will be in wall, but not sure if any zobel circuts will be needed. Plus, not much experience with x-overs anyway.
apassgear said:
Greets!
You're welcome!
Without the box dims about all I can say is that unless BIBs are corner loaded and carefully damped to suit there will be some audible ripple, though all the reviews I've read said it wasn't a big deal overall, but as always YMMV.
Just 'running the numbers' using the formulas in post #3180, I get an alignment close enough to use the 'stock' BIB height and driver location, though with a larger Sm = ~135"^2. This should have a resonant structure very close to T.C.'s and many other same line length/height alignments that folks seem pleased with.
GM
Re: New BIB Project
Greets!
OK you did the math right, but I assume these will have the mouth capped off and a cutout added to the front for half space loading, so the ripple will be nearly as bad as the sim predicts, with no useful loading below ~100 Hz, so what you see is ~what you get if not at least corner loaded, ergo at least an 80 Hz XO will be required for HT, defeating much of the BIB's tonal benefits.
GM
zayne742 said:
Greets!
OK you did the math right, but I assume these will have the mouth capped off and a cutout added to the front for half space loading, so the ripple will be nearly as bad as the sim predicts, with no useful loading below ~100 Hz, so what you see is ~what you get if not at least corner loaded, ergo at least an 80 Hz XO will be required for HT, defeating much of the BIB's tonal benefits.
GM
Attachments
Well, imagination is still a good thing to have, but reality sometimes ruins things. I do not think there would be a way to corner load these, unless mounted in a corner, which may be a good idea. You were correct about the top port, Extend the box the whole height of the back wall, and maybe an ange piece as a guide to the port. The port would be as at least the depth of the box, and as wide, if not more. May need to look into a more robust driver for the low end. If I could only talk my friend into adding a few pieces of "art" into the room. Then the problem would be solved. Yet, no clutter is the motto. Still would like to see this driver in action, so maybe a MLTL!?
>>> I just want to see those drivers in action!
Yeah, i wonder how those drivers sound too. They have a cool factor. Reminds me of the very expensive Cabasse drivers. Maybe they should simply be put into round enclosures and connected to a sub for best performance. A poor mans Cabasse?
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/Cabasse450.jpg
Yeah, i wonder how those drivers sound too. They have a cool factor. Reminds me of the very expensive Cabasse drivers. Maybe they should simply be put into round enclosures and connected to a sub for best performance. A poor mans Cabasse?
http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/Cabasse450.jpg
GM said:
Thanks for your kind replay.
Here are the set of dimensions given by Scott buried some place in this huge thread but I had save a hard copy of it.
Quoting Scott answer:
“Tony, two ideas you could try for the FE164, a “small” and a “large”.
Small version:
65.75” tall
Driver 26.25” down from top
14.75” deep
8.5” wide
Large version:
65.75” tall (131.5 total line length)
Driver 26.25” down from top
17.75” deep
10” wide
These both assume ¾” material as usual and W&D are external”.
Greets!
You're welcome!
OK, using these specs:
Fs 50 Hz
Qts 0.31
Qms 4.0
Qes 0.34
Vas 32.2 L/1.137132 ft^3
Re 7.1 ohms
dia 13 cm/5.1181"
Xmax 1.0 mm
calc'd:
Sd 132.732 cm^2/20.573"^2
BL 7.1743 N/A
eff/sens 92.59 dB/W/m
The BIB I suggested:
L = 138"
Sm = ~135"^2 (9.75" W x 13.81" D)
a-b-c = 6.905"
zdriver = 30"
All dims i.d., not o.d. like Scott's.
GM
You're welcome!
OK, using these specs:
Fs 50 Hz
Qts 0.31
Qms 4.0
Qes 0.34
Vas 32.2 L/1.137132 ft^3
Re 7.1 ohms
dia 13 cm/5.1181"
Xmax 1.0 mm
calc'd:
Sd 132.732 cm^2/20.573"^2
BL 7.1743 N/A
eff/sens 92.59 dB/W/m
The BIB I suggested:
L = 138"
Sm = ~135"^2 (9.75" W x 13.81" D)
a-b-c = 6.905"
zdriver = 30"
All dims i.d., not o.d. like Scott's.
GM
Attachments
Greg, that was really nice from you even plotting Scott’s proposed boxes to add in my understanding.
This fine tuning really gives me confidence on building these fairly large boxes and helps overcome my insecurity gained after some “failures” over the years of building my contraptions, even following others designs.
Appreciate your time and effort in these and also to Scott for those hard times I gave.
I’ll report back as soon as I get going with the Bib’s.
This fine tuning really gives me confidence on building these fairly large boxes and helps overcome my insecurity gained after some “failures” over the years of building my contraptions, even following others designs.
Appreciate your time and effort in these and also to Scott for those hard times I gave.
I’ll report back as soon as I get going with the Bib’s.
Both bigger boxes show some more bass extension and spl which I’d prefer and the one you proposed has a smaller foot print so that will be it, guess all of them will be more or less the same regarding ripple.
What do you mean by Toss-up? Healthier low frequency? Or a flip of a coin on the two bigger ones?
Thanks again
What do you mean by Toss-up? Healthier low frequency? Or a flip of a coin on the two bigger ones?
Thanks again