scale, size and physical impact...
I have used the RS 1197s which are similar to the 103’s. It’s my opinion you can use these drivers in cabinets that maximize their bass response, hear all the notes and enjoy but… a sub is a nice upgrade. Specifically, a sub adds scale and size to the music. The bottom registers of a piano played thru these drivers alone do not accurately portray the size of the instrument… add a sub and presto, you’ve gone from a smaller sounding piano to a grand (assuming a grand is being played).
Bottom line, without sub you will hear everything… with sub you will also ‘feel’ everything.
I have used the RS 1197s which are similar to the 103’s. It’s my opinion you can use these drivers in cabinets that maximize their bass response, hear all the notes and enjoy but… a sub is a nice upgrade. Specifically, a sub adds scale and size to the music. The bottom registers of a piano played thru these drivers alone do not accurately portray the size of the instrument… add a sub and presto, you’ve gone from a smaller sounding piano to a grand (assuming a grand is being played).
Bottom line, without sub you will hear everything… with sub you will also ‘feel’ everything.
As my moniker suggests, I'm pretty new to all this...hopefully building my first pair of DIY speakers over the holiday weekend (Cyburg Needles). Been eagerly lurking this thread because of course, I'm already trolling for my next project.
That said, I've got a few thoughts I'd love to have shot down for the pedestian tripe they probably are:
In Terry's write-up on the fullrange site, he never mentions "half the wavelength of the driver fs", or tuning the cabinet, or Qms, or Xmax, or anything except "bigger is better" and "the design shown here tends to debunk a lof of currently accepted design methodology". Best clue he gives as to why this design works is that it loads the ceiling.
Now, he doesn't say how high the ceiling is in his room, but the 70" heights seems like it would do the job nicely in a typical 8 footer like I have. Lowering the back of the cabinet seems like it might get a little more of that front corner working for you, but other than that I don't think shortening the cabinet is the way to go. I like this:
Seems like a big, forgiving cabinet could be just as happy with a 4" as with a 6" or 8". Any thoughts?
Another question: is the circular baffle a critical contributor to the sound, or is that just a design element that Terry throws in to remind us that we'll never be able to do woodwork as well as him? If not, I think a removeable baffle ala Godzilla would be the way to go, especially with all these great $20-$40 drivers around.
That said, I've got a few thoughts I'd love to have shot down for the pedestian tripe they probably are:
In Terry's write-up on the fullrange site, he never mentions "half the wavelength of the driver fs", or tuning the cabinet, or Qms, or Xmax, or anything except "bigger is better" and "the design shown here tends to debunk a lof of currently accepted design methodology". Best clue he gives as to why this design works is that it loads the ceiling.
Now, he doesn't say how high the ceiling is in his room, but the 70" heights seems like it would do the job nicely in a typical 8 footer like I have. Lowering the back of the cabinet seems like it might get a little more of that front corner working for you, but other than that I don't think shortening the cabinet is the way to go. I like this:
Shoog said:
Seems like a big, forgiving cabinet could be just as happy with a 4" as with a 6" or 8". Any thoughts?
Another question: is the circular baffle a critical contributor to the sound, or is that just a design element that Terry throws in to remind us that we'll never be able to do woodwork as well as him? If not, I think a removeable baffle ala Godzilla would be the way to go, especially with all these great $20-$40 drivers around.
For all, what is the best material for a set of BIB's 3/4 MDF or Plywood? On smaller cabs say bookshelf has anyone used solid wood ie: apple wood made like you wood a cabinet door 2" strips biscuit and glued together. I realize this is not a FR speaker question per say but the cab is for single drivers. All your thoughts are greatly appreciated!
TC, I don't know if this falls under eng. but here goes, since your a master cabinet maker ( I've seen your site beautiful work) IF... I choose to use plywood Maple good one side for a set of BIB's how can you get rid of the plywood look (talking about the edges here) short of ripping the edges at 45 deg. through out. I would prefer not to show the edges at all. This only applies to the front panel of course, the back I'm not concerned with.
PS: dmason >>can't seem to translate www.spectrumaudio.de with google through firefox?? Ideas?? Have you purchased a pair yet if so how much deliverd to your door?
Mark
TC, I don't know if this falls under eng. but here goes, since your a master cabinet maker ( I've seen your site beautiful work) IF... I choose to use plywood Maple good one side for a set of BIB's how can you get rid of the plywood look (talking about the edges here) short of ripping the edges at 45 deg. through out. I would prefer not to show the edges at all. This only applies to the front panel of course, the back I'm not concerned with.
PS: dmason >>can't seem to translate www.spectrumaudio.de with google through firefox?? Ideas?? Have you purchased a pair yet if so how much deliverd to your door?
Mark
Airframe
There are English links on the site. The important stuff is numbers and prices and FR plots anyway. "Breitband" button means broadband (driver,) in German.
Don't know what TC will have to say but FWIW, I recently built a second pair of BIB, these for the Fostex FE168ESigma. I used 3/4 void free Birch ply. I felt this is a very good place to use the good stuff because of the opportunity for the line to resonate, or not, depending on material used. Besides, MDF is the WORST material for speaker enclosures. Sounds like you have access to some Annapolis Valley fruitwoods ...... I had a shop do the cuts, who had a full size table, these are some 66 inches tall, also to rout 3/4 roundovers to wrap the works in some Cherry veneer I had stashed for such a project. Tall, slender and elegant, the finished product is very handsome in my living room right now. I am meaning to turn some concentric baffles for them, (yes they do work, and in no subtle way, having owned the Abbys, and heard the Bens,) but the finished BIB's as they are are so nicely finished, I am loathe to change anything, really.
There are English links on the site. The important stuff is numbers and prices and FR plots anyway. "Breitband" button means broadband (driver,) in German.
Don't know what TC will have to say but FWIW, I recently built a second pair of BIB, these for the Fostex FE168ESigma. I used 3/4 void free Birch ply. I felt this is a very good place to use the good stuff because of the opportunity for the line to resonate, or not, depending on material used. Besides, MDF is the WORST material for speaker enclosures. Sounds like you have access to some Annapolis Valley fruitwoods ...... I had a shop do the cuts, who had a full size table, these are some 66 inches tall, also to rout 3/4 roundovers to wrap the works in some Cherry veneer I had stashed for such a project. Tall, slender and elegant, the finished product is very handsome in my living room right now. I am meaning to turn some concentric baffles for them, (yes they do work, and in no subtle way, having owned the Abbys, and heard the Bens,) but the finished BIB's as they are are so nicely finished, I am loathe to change anything, really.
airframe,,, you can use a rabetted joint that leaves a 1/4x1/4 slot tobe filled with solid wood and then rounded. Or you can mitre and rout the groove later for 1/4" solids. I like just a mitred edge as it is also fastest. ANother thing is you can make the front out of solid wood and cover the ply end panels.
I avoid mdf like the plague. Bad for sonics, health, and just well, bad. Also biscuits ar best for mitred framing and corner work. I avoid them when doing most joinery. In edge glued panels they actually weaken assemblies.
TC
I avoid mdf like the plague. Bad for sonics, health, and just well, bad. Also biscuits ar best for mitred framing and corner work. I avoid them when doing most joinery. In edge glued panels they actually weaken assemblies.
TC
Hey guys, I have been reading through this forum and trying to figure out the best BIB to build. Lots of input and lots of choice between speakers and cabinet sizes. Still I am wondering, it seems like an issue with this speaker, and the Voight Pipe for that matter, is that the SO ends at zero. It seems the general consensus is that this is not a good thing. The Abby added area to the top of the speaker and this was deemed a good thing. The BIB is basically the same thing only folded in half. Yes, or close anyway? Well could it help the speaker to add some area where SO=0? Sort of like an upsidedown Cyburg Needle? I would like to hear some thoughts on this and not the "hey try it out see if it works". I would like to have some supporting opinions to justify the build time and expense.
Mathcad Help: I would like to model this, I used the TQWT sheet to model a Voight, but The BIB doesn't have a port so what do I do with those numbers on the sheet? Also is it possibe to even model what I have described? Also what will need to be changed as far as cabinet geometry for the BIB? Thanks for listening. TOM
Mathcad Help: I would like to model this, I used the TQWT sheet to model a Voight, but The BIB doesn't have a port so what do I do with those numbers on the sheet? Also is it possibe to even model what I have described? Also what will need to be changed as far as cabinet geometry for the BIB? Thanks for listening. TOM
'Voigt', please, not 'Voight' -P.G.A.H. Voigt you know. Not that he had anthing to do with the vile 'Voigt Pipe'.
Terry's BIB on the other hand is basically one of Voigt's own designs, somewhat modified. It looks like a long Lowther Club of Norway Voigt pipe, folded in half, but in reality, it does not work in the same way. It's a folded, corner back-horn you see, with no mass-loading applied. It uses the rear boundary conditions of the room to flatten its response and produce lower bass, which the other type does not do.
Although they are both So=0 designs, in the case of the BIB, the mouth placement mitigates against the problems that would otherwise occur -see the last post on the first page of this thread by Martin. Interestingly, I've tried increasing the area of So, and it actually causes some problems the So=0 pipe dioes not have.
To answer how to accurately simulate these in MathCad -you can't. Yet. I do some simulations in it, using the TL offset driver sheet, and the rear-loaded horn sheets, but the response looks vile -that's where empirical knowledge comes in. Based upon my own experience with building several different versions of these pipes, I know when and where response issues will occur, and what to do to counter them if possible. Martin will eventually get around to adding a facility for modelling vertical ports or mouths, but he's a busy man, so don't hold your breath for a while.
General response is pretty good. They're no monitors, but if you wanted that, you wouldn't be looking at these, would you? They have a dip at around 100Hz (average), though it's never as bad as the giant hole the simulation suggests: 4db is about the lot, which isn't too bad (that's a consequence of the driver placement -nothing you can do about it). Bass is astonishing for a horn -from 6 1/2" drivers, expect an easy 30Hz in-room. Above 300Hz or so, they're pretty flat, ripple is contained to about 3db at the most. Below that is a bit ragged, but as GM points out, at lower frequencies, our hearing accuity drops off and we key off the peaks, being amplitude based animals, so you don't rreally notice. They're not for everyone. But they're great fun, and they make music, and let it breath like few other speakers. They are the one, and the only exception I make to my cardinal rule of speaker enclosure design, which is that enclosures should always be modelled done in Martin's MathCad sheets.
Best
Scott
Terry's BIB on the other hand is basically one of Voigt's own designs, somewhat modified. It looks like a long Lowther Club of Norway Voigt pipe, folded in half, but in reality, it does not work in the same way. It's a folded, corner back-horn you see, with no mass-loading applied. It uses the rear boundary conditions of the room to flatten its response and produce lower bass, which the other type does not do.
Although they are both So=0 designs, in the case of the BIB, the mouth placement mitigates against the problems that would otherwise occur -see the last post on the first page of this thread by Martin. Interestingly, I've tried increasing the area of So, and it actually causes some problems the So=0 pipe dioes not have.
To answer how to accurately simulate these in MathCad -you can't. Yet. I do some simulations in it, using the TL offset driver sheet, and the rear-loaded horn sheets, but the response looks vile -that's where empirical knowledge comes in. Based upon my own experience with building several different versions of these pipes, I know when and where response issues will occur, and what to do to counter them if possible. Martin will eventually get around to adding a facility for modelling vertical ports or mouths, but he's a busy man, so don't hold your breath for a while.
General response is pretty good. They're no monitors, but if you wanted that, you wouldn't be looking at these, would you? They have a dip at around 100Hz (average), though it's never as bad as the giant hole the simulation suggests: 4db is about the lot, which isn't too bad (that's a consequence of the driver placement -nothing you can do about it). Bass is astonishing for a horn -from 6 1/2" drivers, expect an easy 30Hz in-room. Above 300Hz or so, they're pretty flat, ripple is contained to about 3db at the most. Below that is a bit ragged, but as GM points out, at lower frequencies, our hearing accuity drops off and we key off the peaks, being amplitude based animals, so you don't rreally notice. They're not for everyone. But they're great fun, and they make music, and let it breath like few other speakers. They are the one, and the only exception I make to my cardinal rule of speaker enclosure design, which is that enclosures should always be modelled done in Martin's MathCad sheets.
Best
Scott
If you are looking for refined, true full range sound, your very best bet would be either the Fostex FF225K, or the Hemp Acoustics 8FR.
Fostex FE168Sigma is also extremely musical, and a smaller load than the aformentioned 8 inchers, @ 66X7.5. HP @ 70Hz and add a sub. Uber dynamics.
Turns out hemp as cone material is about as good as it gets. My vote goes with the hemp. Pair of 'em playing in the background, as worthy a contender for SET as they come IMO.
Fostex FE168Sigma is also extremely musical, and a smaller load than the aformentioned 8 inchers, @ 66X7.5. HP @ 70Hz and add a sub. Uber dynamics.
Turns out hemp as cone material is about as good as it gets. My vote goes with the hemp. Pair of 'em playing in the background, as worthy a contender for SET as they come IMO.
Could this be the next reference project?
For the longest time I didn't really know what
was going on with this design, now I'm intrigued.
Could the design be modified for standard board widths?
The original cab is 14 in deep.
With a different driver could the design be worked up
for 12 in and 6 or 8 in. lumber? I think Aspen comes in
those dims.
For the longest time I didn't really know what
was going on with this design, now I'm intrigued.
Could the design be modified for standard board widths?
The original cab is 14 in deep.
With a different driver could the design be worked up
for 12 in and 6 or 8 in. lumber? I think Aspen comes in
those dims.
Greets!
Not really. I mean I've posted at least a hundred sims from 'mild to wild' across various forums/threads, but don't have time to browse them, and the ~obvious one, the CSS FR125S, too easily bottoms out in the design I did according to others, so Caveat Emptor.
Same here! I (eventually) responded to your emails and re-sent some of them when you didn't respond.......... Anyway, just passing through, I'm in Dental 'doc-in-a-box' Hell right now.
GM
MuaDibb said:
Not really. I mean I've posted at least a hundred sims from 'mild to wild' across various forums/threads, but don't have time to browse them, and the ~obvious one, the CSS FR125S, too easily bottoms out in the design I did according to others, so Caveat Emptor.
dmason said:Good to see you Greg!
Same here! I (eventually) responded to your emails and re-sent some of them when you didn't respond.......... Anyway, just passing through, I'm in Dental 'doc-in-a-box' Hell right now.
GM
In reply to the other questions -yes, generally they can be modified. THe size depends on the driver used of course. Me, I've loved my pipes with the FF165K most. They work well in the original. Better still when widened fractionally to give more volume. Dan loves his FE168ESigma pipes (I can't afford Sigmas 
). I note with interest his liking for the FF225K. Now I've tried that as well in a very large pair I built for some friends, to superb effect. My personal favourites tend to be whizzerless drivers. That's more a reflection of my own taste though.
A version with the B200 is a wild-card, though I'd need to do some more work with that, and some DSP is probably necessary.
). I note with interest his liking for the FF225K. Now I've tried that as well in a very large pair I built for some friends, to superb effect. My personal favourites tend to be whizzerless drivers. That's more a reflection of my own taste though. A version with the B200 is a wild-card, though I'd need to do some more work with that, and some DSP is probably necessary.