Tang Band W8-1772 Impressions.

[freddi]

much appreciated Bob - Best, Freddy

[FredT]

Hey, Bob, everybody's turning blue holding our breath waiting for some listening impressions.

[Bob Brines]

Well, OK. I have had little time to A/B's with the other drivers because they all go into the same cabinet, but I do have some good impressions as to overall sound. I did compare to FE207E's in a pair of BR's.

The overall sound of the 1772 is more relaxed than the 207, I presume because the 2.5kHz is much smaller. If fact, the sound is more like the F200A than the FE207E. The top end of the 1772 is much more extended, particularly off axis. This is the first 8" driver I have seen that it essentially flat out to 30* off axis. You can walk around the speakers and the sound remains the same. For general listening, I applied 3dB of BSC and 5dB of treble taper through DSP. (I have looked at a passive filter, but I think that will remain proprietary.)

There is a sweet spot. I have my speakers set on the corners of an 8' equilateral triangle and toed-in 10*. Imaging and sound stage are super. The sound stage is deeper than the 207. Singers are up front (a lot of this, well, all of this is the recording engineer's doings, but the drivers recover it well).

All in all, I like the 1772 better than the 207. Jury is out on a comparison to the DX3 as the sound is so different, and both drivers need to be in the same cabinets. Detail is adequate compared to the DX3 (as I remember!). Girl-and-a guitar and baroque violin/archlute are breathtaking. With the 1772, there is no need for a tweeter unless you are a bat.

Bottom line -- unless you are committed to doing things on the cheap, get a pair of 1772's. Strong recommendation.

(You can ignore everything below 1kHz on the graph as this is box and room related. The fact that the two plots lay on top of each over confirms that in this application, the the 1772 is a drop-in for the 207.)

Bob

[Ling Gowa]

I'm not too familiar with full range. How is the power handling?

[mp9]

Originally Posted by Bob Brines

... The fact that the two plots lay on top of each over confirms that in this application, the the 1772 is a drop-in for the 207.)

Would it be a reasonable assumption that it'll also be a drop in for the Spawn Bruce BVR along with the G, Curvy and 1/2 Chang too?

Will be interesting to see how it compares with other new offerings within it's price range such as the new 8" L. CAO Alnico and AN super 8 Alnico.

Many thanks to you Bob B. for all of the great work thus far ☆☆☆☆☆

[Bob Brines]

Originally Posted by Ling Gowa

I'm not too familiar with full range. How is the power handling?

If the modeling is correct, a stereo pair of MLTL's should produce ~105dB/w/m @ 80Hz, where Xmax begins to be exceeded. Power required is 10w/ch.

Bob

[Bob Brines]

Originally Posted by mp9

Would it be a reasonable assumption that it'll also be a drop in for the Spawn Bruce BVR along with the G, Curvy and 1/2 Chang too?

Probably not. A MLTL is much more tolerant to driver parameters than a BR. While the 207 works well in 35L, the 1772 requires 40L. I would presume that any of the Spawn BVR's would require a larger reflex chamber to operate properly with the 1772.

Bob

[Defo]

How would this driver work in a front horn like the Azura 204?

[VadimB]

Have anybody here tried the 1808? Is it safe to assume that the cone, the wizzer and the phase-plug are the same and the difference is in the motor?

Vadim

[badman]

Originally Posted by Bob Brines

If the modeling is correct, a stereo pair of MLTL's should produce ~105dB/w/m @ 80Hz, where Xmax begins to be exceeded. Power required is 10w/ch.

Bob

Just a little point of nagging- 105dB/w/m, you oopsed including the "w", it's not THAT efficient. If we could achieve that in TLs that size, we'd be