Sure, find it attached! Thank you
Ciao cyruz, ma dai sono bellissime complimenti, the corners are perfect and they looks like come out from factory....bravo !!! ....enjoy the music with a good glass of wine
Grazie paesano
Your help and perceval's one has been fundamental.
They really deliver! Thanks perceval
Attachments
Just a quick post with the final version of my TABAQ...
The painting quality wasn't good, so I used some sticky plastic with wood effect to finish them.
I'm 70% satisfied with the result. The sound is great as anticipated in my previous post.
Thanks everybody for the help
Hey cyruz,
Complementi, un bel lavoro. Can you post the link to the sticky wood effect plastic you used? I'm interested in that option for finishing mdf boxes.
Sure, hope it's not against forum rules though:
https://www.amazon.it/gp/aw/d/B0823NV1WF/ref=yo_ii_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It's china made, I guess you will find it easily everywhere. Just be aware that I used it on painted mdf. I think it will be ok on plain mdf, maybe even better.
One more thing, this one is very delicate and the corners will move if you don't handle it with care. In my case I had to replace 2 sheets because the corners were messed up.
So in the end I built 2 sets from 1 sheet of 12mm mdf using Faital Pro 4FE32 (8) and PLS P8309P87 both to the 30 inch/3.8 inch port spec and both with 100g stuffing. Been up and running for a month now and both sound fantastic. Indeed both pairs sound like I expected but even more so. The PLS P8309P87 have such a tonal purity and 'rightness' to the sound, nice punchy bass and great detail. The 4FE32 pair are a fraction less sweet but make up for this with a bit more warmth and weight to the bass. The 4FE32 can sometimes go a bit over the top treble wise depending on the recording even with a BSC, only time will tell if I get used to this.
The best compliment that I can pay to this design is that I have consigned to the loft 2 highly regarded designs using Mark Audio Alpair 10.3M and Fostex 127e. Both of these were much trickier builds and required much more expensive birch ply. The low cost and simplicity of the build is a bonus as is the tiny footprint but it is the sonics that stand out at any cost. Indeed, when I swapped between the massive (by comparison) Alpair floor standers and the TABAQs, the Alpairs sounded quite rough! (but with obviously more bass warmth). In short, a real winner, I just wish that i had read the thread 14 years ago!!
Thank you captain for posting your findings! I am particularly interested in the comparison between these two drivers in the TABAQ. I've built a set with the P830987 drivers and they sound wonderful. My next build will be the 4FE32 drivers in Birch ply.
As a matter of interest - what amp do you use? The P830987 drivers need a lot of power I found.
Yes, birch ply or thicker mdf crossed my mind for next time just out of interest, but I'm in no hurry!!
I've tested with diy First Watt F5, TPA 3255 and TPA 3116 (with Paul Hynes power supply), with either a passive pre amp or First Watt B1 - tbh all sound great and differences are subtle with these speakers.
Still couldn't say which are my absolute favorites, the slight occasional brightness of the Faital Pro is something I will look at but both are great
I've tested with diy First Watt F5, TPA 3255 and TPA 3116 (with Paul Hynes power supply), with either a passive pre amp or First Watt B1 - tbh all sound great and differences are subtle with these speakers.
Still couldn't say which are my absolute favorites, the slight occasional brightness of the Faital Pro is something I will look at but both are great
Dear TABAQ and other MLTL builders,
I had discussion in other forum member about how our TABAQ's sound. We are using completely different drivers, different folding, different vent types, driver position and mine is even a bit of different dimensions.
One question in the discussion for me stood out - in the original TABAQ such as seen on TABAQ Tang Band Quarter Wave | audioXpress I see the slot port length is 15,2cm, cross section area is 16sq cm, which is the same as ~4,5cm diameter round port.
While using often referenced http://techtalk.parts-express.com/filedata/fetch?id=1166271&d=1456922034 K correction values of the port 0,7 and 2,2 I get the port tuning values from Subwoofer Vent Length Calculators - Diameter of Vent, Number of Ports, Volume of Box, Tuning Frequency, End Correction Factor 51Hz and 43.5Hz.
The questions are:
1) What was the intended by calculations original port tuning frequency of the v1 TABAQ (the one I refecenced in the link)? In other words, what is the K in the calculations: 0,7 or 2,2 or smth in between?
2) What is the port tuning frequency as built of the TABAQ speakers with exact slot port? In other words, what we, all of the builders actually got?....
I had discussion in other forum member about how our TABAQ's sound. We are using completely different drivers, different folding, different vent types, driver position and mine is even a bit of different dimensions.
One question in the discussion for me stood out - in the original TABAQ such as seen on TABAQ Tang Band Quarter Wave | audioXpress I see the slot port length is 15,2cm, cross section area is 16sq cm, which is the same as ~4,5cm diameter round port.
While using often referenced http://techtalk.parts-express.com/filedata/fetch?id=1166271&d=1456922034 K correction values of the port 0,7 and 2,2 I get the port tuning values from Subwoofer Vent Length Calculators - Diameter of Vent, Number of Ports, Volume of Box, Tuning Frequency, End Correction Factor 51Hz and 43.5Hz.
The questions are:
1) What was the intended by calculations original port tuning frequency of the v1 TABAQ (the one I refecenced in the link)? In other words, what is the K in the calculations: 0,7 or 2,2 or smth in between?
2) What is the port tuning frequency as built of the TABAQ speakers with exact slot port? In other words, what we, all of the builders actually got?....
I thought I had posted this... seems not. I'm getting old....
My extension based on my time with the TABAQs I made. This FAST or WAW, is a MLTL for the low end, and the SB65 for the wide range.
Tha TABAQ really made me fall in love with the MLTL design.
I still have work to do on the XO but this is slowly coming along.
My extension based on my time with the TABAQs I made. This FAST or WAW, is a MLTL for the low end, and the SB65 for the wide range.
Tha TABAQ really made me fall in love with the MLTL design.
I still have work to do on the XO but this is slowly coming along.
Attachments
Perceval, you are talking about 55Hz of the port tuning or the MLTL line?
Even if we are talking slot port of only 90mm length, without the unintentional extension with the fold and K = 2.2 it is still ~50Hz. Maybe this is the reason they sound so deep?
port tuning.
They sound deep because they have the right drivers that can be tuned to that frequency.
Put in a TC9 for example, and the bass will be gone.
Drivers specs play a big role in a working MLTL.
You can't just slap any driver in there, say it's got a 50Hz tuning and expect they will all sound the same.
They sound deep because they have the right drivers that can be tuned to that frequency.
Put in a TC9 for example, and the bass will be gone.
Drivers specs play a big role in a working MLTL.
You can't just slap any driver in there, say it's got a 50Hz tuning and expect they will all sound the same.
port tuning.
They sound deep because they have the right drivers that can be tuned to that frequency.
Put in a TC9 for example, and the bass will be gone.
Drivers specs play a big role in a working MLTL.
You can't just slap any driver in there, say it's got a 50Hz tuning and expect they will all sound the same.
Nonono! I am not questioning the driver selection - my question is only about port tuning, specifically K coefficient. I can calculate all day long with different online and offline calculators, but that slotted port makes my head scratch. If we assume K = 2.2 then port seems to be tuned much deeper than 55Hz.
