I think the Vifa 9BGS and the TG9FD are probably very similar.
Germany renames the Vifa drivers for their own market. The TC9FD-18-8 is called the 9BN 119/8 for example and also known as FR35/8. http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/vifa/vifa9BN1198.html
The S in BGS stands for shielded though, it's probably the same driver Roger Russel used in his IDS-25. He gets custom runs on special order but the shielded version is discontinued.
The 9BG is available in Germany with the same spec's as the BGS but as said, probably identical to the TG9FD: http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/vifa/vifa9BG1198.html
The specs vary greatly between the available spec sheets. Hard to get a handle on what's right.
Germany renames the Vifa drivers for their own market. The TC9FD-18-8 is called the 9BN 119/8 for example and also known as FR35/8. http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/vifa/vifa9BN1198.html
The S in BGS stands for shielded though, it's probably the same driver Roger Russel used in his IDS-25. He gets custom runs on special order but the shielded version is discontinued.
The 9BG is available in Germany with the same spec's as the BGS but as said, probably identical to the TG9FD: http://www.spectrumaudio.de/breit/vifa/vifa9BG1198.html
The specs vary greatly between the available spec sheets. Hard to get a handle on what's right.
Last edited:
I did find an article about the 9BG compared to the BGS, no proof yet if they are indeed similar/same as the TG.
http://www.rsr-concepts.com/diyma/HOBBY-HiFi_2009-2.pdf
You don't want to know how many different specs I have seen on the TC9....
http://www.rsr-concepts.com/diyma/HOBBY-HiFi_2009-2.pdf
You don't want to know how many different specs I have seen on the TC9....
You have to squint to make out the dimensions but it is possible as I had enough info to model it for a sim. It is a nice design with surprising bass extension. Alternatively, print it out and use dial calipers to get dimensions that you can't see.
http://www.hifisound.de/oxid/out/oxbaseshop/html/0/dyn_images/TZ/HOB-3004009.gif
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Some values are still very hard to read but with this good resolution dwgs of the Pico Lino (original) I'll be OK. Many measurements looks very similar or are off by 2-3mm, nothing to worry about.
I wanted to check the TABAQ but the designer use 82Hz instead of 113Hz, seems like the 8 ohm version is 82Hz and the 4 ohm version is 113Hz. Is the design of the TABAQ with TG9FD1004 OK ?
Now, I have the possibility of buying the TC9FD localy.
Thanks,
Eric
I wanted to check the TABAQ but the designer use 82Hz instead of 113Hz, seems like the 8 ohm version is 82Hz and the 4 ohm version is 113Hz. Is the design of the TABAQ with TG9FD1004 OK ?
Now, I have the possibility of buying the TC9FD localy.
Thanks,
Eric
Attachments
Last edited:
Measurements on a real pair
I was lucky enough to find a pair of Pico Lino 2 boxes fitted with FF105WK drivers at last year's ETF. The FF105WK is a horrible driver with an aluminium dust cap, so it measures and sounds exactly as you would expect - a 7dB peak at 6.3kHz. But I knew I had some Radio Shack 40-1197 (FE103 clone), and that was why I bought the (very nicely made) boxes.
With 40-1197 fitted, plus 6dB of baffle step equalisation centred on 647Hz (done by a Behringer DCX2496), they measured surprisingly well, and sounded nice. None of the articles I've seen seemed to implement baffle step properly. I limited my drive to the peak voltage that would correspond to 2W (I had a future amplifier in mind), so they weren't loud, but civilized. As a previous poster has hinted, with an extremely limited linear excursion, FE103 clones won't go loud without a lot of distortion. But that's not what they're for. They're for chamber music in your den, or maybe loudspeakers you take with you when you have to stay in hotels.
Measured response agreed with a baffle simulator (Edge; finite element analysis) and showed a slight peak below 2kHz. The Edge suggests that turning the box through 90 degrees and putting the driver on the side would cure that problem. Another advantage of putting the driver on the side should be that not quite as much baffle step equalisation is needed. And every dB saved is a saving in distortion.
By the way, although I'm keen on modelling, loudspeakers very rarely have Thiele-Small parameters that actually meet the manufacturer's specifications.
I was lucky enough to find a pair of Pico Lino 2 boxes fitted with FF105WK drivers at last year's ETF. The FF105WK is a horrible driver with an aluminium dust cap, so it measures and sounds exactly as you would expect - a 7dB peak at 6.3kHz. But I knew I had some Radio Shack 40-1197 (FE103 clone), and that was why I bought the (very nicely made) boxes.
With 40-1197 fitted, plus 6dB of baffle step equalisation centred on 647Hz (done by a Behringer DCX2496), they measured surprisingly well, and sounded nice. None of the articles I've seen seemed to implement baffle step properly. I limited my drive to the peak voltage that would correspond to 2W (I had a future amplifier in mind), so they weren't loud, but civilized. As a previous poster has hinted, with an extremely limited linear excursion, FE103 clones won't go loud without a lot of distortion. But that's not what they're for. They're for chamber music in your den, or maybe loudspeakers you take with you when you have to stay in hotels.
Measured response agreed with a baffle simulator (Edge; finite element analysis) and showed a slight peak below 2kHz. The Edge suggests that turning the box through 90 degrees and putting the driver on the side would cure that problem. Another advantage of putting the driver on the side should be that not quite as much baffle step equalisation is needed. And every dB saved is a saving in distortion.
By the way, although I'm keen on modelling, loudspeakers very rarely have Thiele-Small parameters that actually meet the manufacturer's specifications.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.