how is the dispersion with this design please thinking about doing this with my 15300tcI didn't bother to measure, but it did well in the little Karlson 12 - I had a resistive pad of bonded Dacron over the 6-slit vent - no boom (no low bass either)- no weird stuff from the front chamber - so a K12 - Fane might work well with a sub. K12s are 24.5"H x 16.75"W x 13.75"D
It played rap all by itself in my Karlsonator 12 (5.3 cubic foot bulk, Fb ~37Hz) but imagine there was some LF peaking
I'm currently thinking about purchasing the Fane 12-250TC and putting them in my BIB-speakers.
The BIBs are tuned and made primarily to fit the Tang Band W8 1772s and W8 2145, but they're definitely not on the smaller side. (Measurements from the top of my head: ~2m tall, almost 40cm wide and about 55cm deep).
Now. Has anyone ever done this, the 250 triple cones in a BIB? I can and will add damping material, as much is needed.
I'm just interested in how much of a ruckus these things could make, if put into BIBs.
If it doesn't work out and they sound awful in them, I can still put the W8 2145s back in and build a separate enclosure for the 250TCs, then.
The BIBs are tuned and made primarily to fit the Tang Band W8 1772s and W8 2145, but they're definitely not on the smaller side. (Measurements from the top of my head: ~2m tall, almost 40cm wide and about 55cm deep).
Now. Has anyone ever done this, the 250 triple cones in a BIB? I can and will add damping material, as much is needed.
I'm just interested in how much of a ruckus these things could make, if put into BIBs.
If it doesn't work out and they sound awful in them, I can still put the W8 2145s back in and build a separate enclosure for the 250TCs, then.
Thank you very much for the sim! However I have to admit, sadly I haven't gotten around to get close with sims and big programs... The basis T/S-parameters, some bassreflex-calculators and the BIB-calculator is as far as I've gotten.
I opened the .txt and there's a lot of data in there, I see see that.
But I don't really know what it tells me, I'm afraid :/ Is it possible to explain it in "HiFi-layman's terms"? What do you mean by shifting the driver down to the 50% point? Do you mean "Z", aka the height from the floor?
Because that would be easy to do. In fact, it would be even easier than replacing the Tang Bands with the Fanes, as I would have to modify the added baffle and cutout, etc.... I could just cut a new hole below the TangBand's place and add a new baffle while closing the upper, TangBand-baffle with screwed on MDF (I always like to add nuts inside so I can screw speakers so I can tinker with them and add stuffing if need be)
As you may notice. Things don't have to look pretty as far as I'm concerned, as long as they function properly
Last edited:
Zero is the pointy start of the BIB. The driver is off-set in the line and by 50% he means halfway down the BIB.
You mean the deep bass below 50hz?
Could be.
With a smaller box you get more upper bass. Usually you get a ripple in the frequency response with less volume.
With a bit of EQ this is corrected easily:
See
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...fication-to-current-drive.389985/post-7197710
And
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...fication-to-current-drive.389985/post-7198146
With closed box or low tuned reflex port and less max output you can go lower like 30hz.
Corner placement with EQ helps a lot. Dsp and measurement assisted its easy to do because fullrange drivers can be measured in the nearfield like 20cm and you get good results.
Much more difficult with multi way speakers.
Thought I'd already modded the sim.....i.e. instead of ~88.34 cm down from the top i.d. for W8, it should be (s/b) ~193.3 cm down relative to a ~407.14 cm pipe length = 0.475:1, but you can move it up/down a bit if in the fold/whatever or make the pipe longer/shorter as basic damping will smooth it out. Corrected sim attached:
Ha, now I understand, sorry if I'm slow to pick up on it. Hmm.
If I moved the driver down 50% of the total BIB length, then it would sit ~20cm (7-8 inches) from the ground up. That's a bit low. Am I reading this right and is my brain computing this right? But anyhow, yeah. I think I will definitely mount them below the Tang Bands.
Over the last few days I've read through this thread and another one in both their entirety (https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=7242&start=180). People's reviews and reactions convinced me that a BIB is not necessarily needed to get a lot of sound out of the Fanes (although I'm intrigued to find out how much they can do in a BIB, hehehe)
Maybe after experimenting with these 12" full-rangers, in the long run might be "better" or more useful to build a specific cabinet for them, like some in this forum suggested? @Scottmoose, your plans come to my mind, because while quite like the BIBs, I wouldn't mind smaller speakers that I can transport or shift around on my own, if need be
@GM After I had downloaded Hornresp, I gave WinISD a try and played around with the Fanes a little bit. A bass-reflex box with ~200-230L volume should be good for down to 30-50Hz. (Am I reading this right?)
Last edited:
Well, I'd always suggest building an enclosure designed to a given driver spec. whenever possible. That's accepting it isn't always possible, and the design in question might have been done with different priorities in mind of course.
I agree with a point GM made elsewhere -for the price, if you can tweak them up & cope with the size, the Fanes should flatten most compact 2-ways (or any other compact design) you can get for the price. Possibly, if you picked the latter well, not quite the refinement, but that's just views plucked out of the air without having any specific models in mind.
Caveat (there's always one of those): 'if you can tweak them up'. And how well. To be honest, when I've heard these things, unmodified, even 45 degrees off-axis and on a very sympathetic amplifier, I felt like my ears were being reamed out with a dentist drill. 'Piercing' doesn't even come close to it. The one time I found them acceptable was at very low levels, playing a Tinariwen album in the background. Still, mechanical solutions to mechanical problems: I didn't have my measurement gear with me at the time, so I couldn't home in on it, but some suitable targeted cone / sub-cone damping & possibly (and I don't often say this) a conformal coating should help. The old tin-foil lamination that GM and others have / still sometimes use may be a good approach, though as it's a non-reversible process, you're on 'a wing and a prayer'. I doubt, if you're careful, you're likely to make them any worse, & probably would improve matters, but it's still trusting a bit to luck. That's the advantage of electrical EQ, as it's non-invasive, though the mechanical approach is usually going to give better results as it's fixing the cause rather than compensating for it. YMMV of course.
I agree with a point GM made elsewhere -for the price, if you can tweak them up & cope with the size, the Fanes should flatten most compact 2-ways (or any other compact design) you can get for the price. Possibly, if you picked the latter well, not quite the refinement, but that's just views plucked out of the air without having any specific models in mind.
Caveat (there's always one of those): 'if you can tweak them up'. And how well. To be honest, when I've heard these things, unmodified, even 45 degrees off-axis and on a very sympathetic amplifier, I felt like my ears were being reamed out with a dentist drill. 'Piercing' doesn't even come close to it. The one time I found them acceptable was at very low levels, playing a Tinariwen album in the background. Still, mechanical solutions to mechanical problems: I didn't have my measurement gear with me at the time, so I couldn't home in on it, but some suitable targeted cone / sub-cone damping & possibly (and I don't often say this) a conformal coating should help. The old tin-foil lamination that GM and others have / still sometimes use may be a good approach, though as it's a non-reversible process, you're on 'a wing and a prayer'. I doubt, if you're careful, you're likely to make them any worse, & probably would improve matters, but it's still trusting a bit to luck. That's the advantage of electrical EQ, as it's non-invasive, though the mechanical approach is usually going to give better results as it's fixing the cause rather than compensating for it. YMMV of course.
Scott, I have the 15" Fanes. They sound very good, not pearcing at all. They do have a certain unrefined edge, I left them untreated and it was indeed there. Acoustic measurements and involved iterations with DSP made it a lot better, but I would do that occasionally. To fully integrate that into my system would take too much money and effort. The Audyssey MultiEQ on my receiver proved adequate to get 80% of the possible result, so I left it at that for daily use. Could the 12" version be that much harder to get to sing?
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too...Well, I'd always suggest building an enclosure designed to a given driver spec. whenever possible. That's accepting it isn't always possible, and the design in question might have been done with different priorities in mind of course.
I agree with a point GM made elsewhere -for the price, if you can tweak them up & cope with the size, the Fanes should flatten most compact 2-ways (or any other compact design) you can get for the price. Possibly, if you picked the latter well, not quite the refinement, but that's just views plucked out of the air without having any specific models in mind.
Caveat (there's always one of those): 'if you can tweak them up'. And how well. To be honest, when I've heard these things, unmodified, even 45 degrees off-axis and on a very sympathetic amplifier, I felt like my ears were being reamed out with a dentist drill. 'Piercing' doesn't even come close to it. The one time I found them acceptable was at very low levels, playing a Tinariwen album in the background. Still, mechanical solutions to mechanical problems: I didn't have my measurement gear with me at the time, so I couldn't home in on it, but some suitable targeted cone / sub-cone damping & possibly (and I don't often say this) a conformal coating should help. The old tin-foil lamination that GM and others have / still sometimes use may be a good approach, though as it's a non-reversible process, you're on 'a wing and a prayer'. I doubt, if you're careful, you're likely to make them any worse, & probably would improve matters, but it's still trusting a bit to luck. That's the advantage of electrical EQ, as it's non-invasive, though the mechanical approach is usually going to give better results as it's fixing the cause rather than compensating for it. YMMV of course.
May I ask why you mentioned in your plans for the 12" Fane that you pad the insides of the box, but one side double, one side only once? That kinda intruiged me.
I almost exclusively listen to music via PC and I have already played around with an equalizer (Equalizer APO with the Peace UI) to fine-tune the Tang Bands, so fiddling around with the 12" Fanes will be doable.
Treating the symptoms might not fix the core problem, but if I should have the same reaction as you (which I doubt... I don't really have finely tuned "golden ears" as some on this forum
I can make out details and things, but as long as the speaker is halfway decent, I can enjoy listening to it ). I think I could get by with the equalizer for the time being.I have read about working on the hardware of the speaker, thinned wood glue, tin foil, accoustic tissue around the whizzer, etc. But I haven't really read much up on it, that's still to come.
No, not really, I confused the issue by not posting the corrected design.
Huh! Per the sim the driver is 211.84 cm/2.54 = 83.4" i.d. from the bottom, so up near an 8 ft ceiling if only a single fold.
In a hard up against a wall sim (1 pi space); 1.0 W = ~105 dB/m/25 Hz peaking at ~110 dB/m/55 Hz out to ~110 Hz and depending on how much over Xmax the driver can handle at low distortion all this bumps up another 10 dB/10 W, so > THX full size cinema LFE channel reference and add another +10 dB down low if hard in a corner.
I assume from your locale your home is very well constructed/insulated for the harsh Winters, so the limiting factor with these numbers is whether or not there's sufficient acoustic power to 'support' this driver's relatively weak motor (high Qt), i.e. how close to spec are your drivers vs published specs, which are often higher Qt, lower Vas than published.
Re BR alignment: T/S max flat alignment (0.0 ohms Rs), but using HR's 'corrected' 0.66 Qts to make the published specs 'jive' with each other:
Vented net volume (Vb) (L) = 20*Vas*Qts'^3.3 = 395.78 L
(Ft^3 = (Vb)/~28.31685) = 13.98 ft^3
Vented box tuning (Fb) (Hz) = 0.42*Fs*Qts'^-0.96 = 31.29 Hz
F3 (Hz) = Fs*0.28*Qts'^-1.4 = 25.05 Hz
(Qts'): (Qts) + any added series resistance (Rs)
........but we can cut (Vb) in half as long as we maintain tuning, though of course the vent will be a lot longer, which in turn ideally requires 'critical' damping to quell the vent's pipe organ modes comb filtering with the driver's output, rolling off the LF even more, though often a good compromise in a small room and/or corner loaded; or if we maintain the same vent length/higher tuning it too may need 'critical' damping due to being too under-damped in a lively room.
Attachments
Just about upping the overall damping to the desired level; the whole box needs lagging but doubling up one side gets the total up where it needs to be & kills off any eigenmodes without needing to resort to trying to find a different material thickness.
Good way of experimenting.
Neither have I. I'm not an audiophile, and I'm not very interested in what 'hi-fi' has become -at least not in the commerical sense. I like the 'real' engineering, but the drivel that surrounds it I can do without. It's ultimately just a means to an end. When I say they were physically painful for me to listen to, I was speaking literally -I actually left the room to give my ears a rest.Treating the symptoms might not fix the core problem, but if I should have the same reaction as you (which I doubt... I don't really have finely tuned "golden ears" as some on this forum
I'm sure: done well, they can be very effective.
Only the occasional mild bout, on & off, thank goodness -I know it's a miserable thing to suffer from. Those things were just ear-splitting -I really wish, looking back, I'd taken at least Omnimic with me that day (ARTA / Holmimulse setup is a bit less portable) so I could see exactly what they were up to. OTOH -thinking about it, some of this comes with caveats. I was with three friends who have about 20 years on me, and I know at least one has hearing damage, and these things were being cranked a bit. They were in Steve's highish Q sealed box, so even though they're a pro-audio item, I'm starting to wonder if the air-load was over-stressing the suspension or cone. The impression I had was that the main culpret was the outer two whizzers & their immediate interactions, but may be wrong, & even if not, could have been a consequence rather than cause itself. Either way, I still think the drivers have potential but for home audio (for me anyway! ) they need a fair amount of work.
Those things were just ear-splitting -I really wish, looking back, I'd taken at least Omnimic with me that day (ARTA / Holmimulse setup is a bit less portable) so I could see exactly what they were up to. OTOH -thinking about it, some of this comes with caveats. I was with three friends who have about 20 years on me, and I know at least one has hearing damage, and these things were being cranked a bit. They were in Steve's highish Q sealed box, so even though they're a pro-audio item, I'm starting to wonder if the air-load was over-stressing the suspension or cone. The impression I had was that the main culpret was the outer two whizzers & their immediate interactions, but may be wrong, & even if not, could have been a consequence rather than cause itself. Either way, I still think the drivers have potential but for home audio (for me anyway! ) they need a fair amount of work.