What do you think about Tangband W4-657s?

[mokus]

Hello,

What do people think about the Tangband W4-657s driver?
The details for this driver can be found at www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w4-657sc.htm

I'm planning to build a pair of small full range speakers(first diy speaker project).

I'll be using them with a Yamaha reciever (circa 1978) for now.

I was originally looking at the Tangband 3-871S (http://www.tb-speaker.com/detail/1208_03/w3-871s.htm) and building the speakers with the trapezoid front described on http://home.new.rr.com/zaph/audio/audio-speaker11.html

Can anyone suggest a cabinet design for the W4-657s? As space is limited, I'd like the cabinets to be relatively small.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions

 

[dvdvideo]

I just got a set of the exact same speakers, in the same boat as you.

Put them in cardboard boxes and I am impressed considering what they are in.

I was wondering though, if anyone has heard these compared to the creativesound WS125?

 

[rdf]

I played around with the 'SB' versions in a pair of short mass loaded lines, probably closer to long bass relfex boxes than TLines. The 657 has a wonderful midrange in some preferable to the Jordan JX92S as currently set up in my system (flimsy cabinets for burn in.) Their biggest failing is the ~10 dB peak at 8 kHz which the scaling of TB's published curves tends to hide. It's high and narrow enough to have little effect on all but the most sibilant vocal recordings. Cymbals, brass, violons - anything with significant HF energy - don't fare as well and come off as 'dirty' rather than bright.

It's possible the 'SC' version is better in this regard, I haven't heard them. Still huge bang for the buck. I'd be inclined to use them in a 2-way crossed over high. Another possible option is treating the cone. Someone on the board has posted the effect of modifications to a number of other TB drivers, maybe one will work on the 657.

 

[thomas997]

I think they are great.. nice bass as well. Use them in a 2-way center, going to build the 2-way towers to go with it eventually.

rdf what do you mean by high? 4-5khz?

Someone else recommended to cross lower, around 2-4kHz.

 

[jleaman]

I like mine.. There small and clean sound.

 

[Nicks]

I use them in a Fostex recommended horn. They are great! But its true about the peak about 7-8khz. Its not very nice. But i have an old eq so i removed it with that. I think it is a little weak at the top so i use a tweeter to help. No x-over on the TB, just using x-over for the tweeter. Ok, it is a really bad piezo **** one, but it still helps. i will replace it some time in the future.

Best regards

Nicks

 

[MarkMcK]

I agree that the 657 driver shows promise. It is far and away better in sound quality than the Fostex FE126 or 127. I did post a response graph of the 657 to the full range reference thread. This driver, while very good, does have three problems. The 8 kHz peak is one. The extreme top end is also defined by a second cone vibration mode. And finally, there is a smaller vibration mode at about 1 kHz. The impact of the 8 kHz vibration mode is not narrow. Indeed, it is filling in the region between 1 and 8 kHz and hiding the 1 kHz vibration mode. You cannot pick up the 1 kHz mode until you have controlled the 8 kHz mode.

It is also a four-inch driver and will begin to roll off in the 150 to 200 Hz region. Like most of the small full range drivers it will produce a suggestion of bass instead of actual bass. If you want to keep the system simple, you would be better served to use a sub woofer with this driver. And if you went with a sub woofer, then the dimple moded 881S (as described in the AudioXpress article) will serve even better. And if you were going to use it as a center channel loudspeaker in a surround sound set up using a subwoofer, then again, the dimple moded 881 will serve up better sound.

I do have an entirely mechanical modification for this driver that takes care of the 8 kHz peak, but it is not something for the do it yourself crowd. This is much better handled at the manufacturing level. Metal is just really hard to work with.

In sum, while the 657 cone mass is high and the sensitivity is relatively low, the driver shows great promise. I just do not think it is ready for prime time yet.

Thomas, you have played around with the 1052 glue mod, Yes? If so, what is your perspective on how this driver compares to the modified 1052? Obviously the modified 1052 is not good enough or you would not continue to experiment with other drivers, right?

Good designing and good building,

Mark

 

[rdf]

rdf what do you mean by high? 4-5khz?

Guess that depends on filter order and complexity. I didn't have a specific point in mind and don't want to imply any experience, just thinking it would be advantageous to preserve as much of that midrange as possible. Low or high the design has to content with that peak.

It is far and away better in sound quality than the Fostex FE126 or 127.

No kidding?

I did post a response graph of the 657 to the full range reference thread.

Thx! I'll check it out.

 

[thomas997]

Thomas, you have played around with the 1052 glue mod, Yes? If so, what is your perspective on how this driver compares to the modified 1052? Obviously the modified 1052 is not good enough or you would not continue to experiment with other drivers, right?

Good designing and good building,

Mark

I haven't bought or listened to a 1052.. mostly because the local place doesnt sell them, only PE.

I got the response charts of the 657 off of you a while ago, that was about it.

thanks