navin said:
Navin;
That's pretty much the same conclusion I've drawn. Seems 3" is the magic size for full range from 250 Hz up. I'm currently putting together a line array of cheap Monacar 3" to handle from 250 on up but I'm not expecting it to be to HiFi & it's just for stage monitor side fill. If you want better HF dispersion that pretty much dictates going to even smaller than 3" drivers which then you run into more bass limitation from not enough Xmax x SD product. Those TB 2"x3" look interesting but I'm not sure how linear their response is.
I dont think the 2x3 TB would be much good.
Initially i thought about a 4 x JX53 line array (open baffle) supported by either 4 x JX125 in a push push box or 2 x Peerless CSX cone or 4 x
I was told that interference between the JX53s wouldlimit hf response so i scrapped that idea and went to a single Fostex 6" or 8". but then theissue of beaming arose so that idea was scrapped too.
next idea considered was 4 x Fosex 103 or Jordan JX92 crossed over at about 6k to a ribbon tweeter. however this would require a more complicated crossover.
Now I am back to scratch.
my requirements.
the speaker must have very high waf (thin, small, and maybe wall mountable).
amplifier 30W rms EL84 PPP (parallel push pull)
i can biamp and use one amp below 300hz and one above if the design were a 2 way using a bass driver and a full range/wide range like the jx53 or Tb 871.
Initially i thought about a 4 x JX53 line array (open baffle) supported by either 4 x JX125 in a push push box or 2 x Peerless CSX cone or 4 x
I was told that interference between the JX53s wouldlimit hf response so i scrapped that idea and went to a single Fostex 6" or 8". but then theissue of beaming arose so that idea was scrapped too.
next idea considered was 4 x Fosex 103 or Jordan JX92 crossed over at about 6k to a ribbon tweeter. however this would require a more complicated crossover.
Now I am back to scratch.
my requirements.
the speaker must have very high waf (thin, small, and maybe wall mountable).
amplifier 30W rms EL84 PPP (parallel push pull)
i can biamp and use one amp below 300hz and one above if the design were a 2 way using a bass driver and a full range/wide range like the jx53 or Tb 871.
navin said:
That's actually what interest's me about the TB 2"x3" drivers. The 2" dimension would be nice for a line array as they wouldn't have as much HF problem as an array with a 3" (like the JX53"s). Stacking them as close as possible with the 2" dimension on the vertical axis would mean it would be good up to about 13 KHz before any serious cone filtering started showing up & that's high enough that it's really not an issue anyway as room reflections & your own positional movements between a stereo field have more effect . There response graph at 1st glance doesn't look all that great but looking closer it looks like it would be pretty easy to EQ to something pretty nice & the 1 mm Xmax isn't bad, but I've not heard them & they could be crap.
The 2 x 3" looks intriguing to me also as a possible center channel speaker for HT (using several). IMO, if Tang-Band pushed its Xmax up to 2mm, lowered its Qts and Fs by about 30% and 40% respectively (and perhaps lost a db or two efficiency to allow all this), they'd have a really exceptional small speaker for array or low level full range use.
You may want to ask RAW
If you check out his site: http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/wrnch2/diyspeakerbuilding/id1.html
It says at the bottom: "The new 2"x3" I will get those tests done in time."
If you check out his site: http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/wrnch2/diyspeakerbuilding/id1.html
It says at the bottom: "The new 2"x3" I will get those tests done in time."
Xmax/power results and 2 by 3 tests
Greetings all,
I would like to express my appreciation for those who have corrected my misconception of the relationship between Xmax and frequency. Frequency is a tightly coupled variable. As such it was easily seen in the experimental data.
Now, no theory or model/simulation means anything unless it is tested. And all models are simplifications of the real. The Xmax formula Dan provided is no different. Under ideal conditions, with all assumptions provided in place, the equation will get you close (whether acceleration is SPL or velocity displacement is SPL). This driver (or any other) does not provide the ideal and so deviates from time to time of predicted values.
For this test of a real driver there is only one assumption: no unusual backside loading. This means either free-air or nearly infinite baffle loading. Not applicable to acoustic suspension or ported enclosure designs.
Results:
At driver resonance, an excursion of 3 mm (Xmax) is produced when a 67 Hz sine wave of 3.95 volts peak (2.8 volts RMS) is applied. This is a mere .14-watt RMS. Double the frequency to 134 Hz and the formula predicts Xmax at 15.84 volts peak (11.2 RMS). As measured, the voltage for a 3 mm excursion was 11.45 volts peak (8.1 RMS). This is still a very low 7.29 watts RMS. Between 130 and 200 Hz, however, the measured results coincide very nicely with prediction when based upon the 134 Hz measured performance. Xmax is not reached until 29.7 volts peak (21 volts RMS). This is now a very high 63 watts of power dissipation, exceeds rated maximum and cannot be sustained for very long. We also transition from Xmax limit to power dissipation limit in this frequency range. Above 150 to 170 Hz, the driver limit is power dissipation related and not dependent upon Xmax.
Underlying reasons:
Why is frequency a tightly coupled variable for Xmax? This is really a Homer Simpson “DOH!” moment. I won’t waste time going into the explanation, but the clue to why is found in the change in mechanical impedance with frequency. The algorithm for mechanical impedance is a bit more complicated than the acceleration algorithm, but produces predictions a bit closer to the experimental results. Factor in the increasing motor efficiency as we approach resonance and we get even closer.
What does it all mean?
A full-range driver at large SPL value is hard to do. A very large Xmax will also mean a large undriven mass and high inductance, both limiting to the high frequency reproduction of the driver. Yet, unless Xmax is very large, for a 3-inch diameter cone, as suggested by the extremely small drive required to reach Xmax, the differences in acoustic output amongst drivers with only small differences in Xmax is going to be minor. If, however, you are willing to supplement the lowest frequencies with a woofer or sub woofer crossing over at about 160 Hz, then the higher frequency driver’s Xmax is not going to be the limiting condition, instead it will be power dissipation. Thus it would seem that the solution is to choose the “full-range” driver with the best overall performance and supplement the bass with a larger driver handling frequencies below 160 Hz.
Lastly, I tested the Tang Band 2 by 3 drivers and posted to this forum a long time ago. You can find the results at:
http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19685&highlight=loudspeaker+testing
Again, thanks to everyone who helped out with this,
Mark
Greetings all,
I would like to express my appreciation for those who have corrected my misconception of the relationship between Xmax and frequency. Frequency is a tightly coupled variable. As such it was easily seen in the experimental data.
Now, no theory or model/simulation means anything unless it is tested. And all models are simplifications of the real. The Xmax formula Dan provided is no different. Under ideal conditions, with all assumptions provided in place, the equation will get you close (whether acceleration is SPL or velocity displacement is SPL). This driver (or any other) does not provide the ideal and so deviates from time to time of predicted values.
For this test of a real driver there is only one assumption: no unusual backside loading. This means either free-air or nearly infinite baffle loading. Not applicable to acoustic suspension or ported enclosure designs.
Results:
At driver resonance, an excursion of 3 mm (Xmax) is produced when a 67 Hz sine wave of 3.95 volts peak (2.8 volts RMS) is applied. This is a mere .14-watt RMS. Double the frequency to 134 Hz and the formula predicts Xmax at 15.84 volts peak (11.2 RMS). As measured, the voltage for a 3 mm excursion was 11.45 volts peak (8.1 RMS). This is still a very low 7.29 watts RMS. Between 130 and 200 Hz, however, the measured results coincide very nicely with prediction when based upon the 134 Hz measured performance. Xmax is not reached until 29.7 volts peak (21 volts RMS). This is now a very high 63 watts of power dissipation, exceeds rated maximum and cannot be sustained for very long. We also transition from Xmax limit to power dissipation limit in this frequency range. Above 150 to 170 Hz, the driver limit is power dissipation related and not dependent upon Xmax.
Underlying reasons:
Why is frequency a tightly coupled variable for Xmax? This is really a Homer Simpson “DOH!” moment. I won’t waste time going into the explanation, but the clue to why is found in the change in mechanical impedance with frequency. The algorithm for mechanical impedance is a bit more complicated than the acceleration algorithm, but produces predictions a bit closer to the experimental results. Factor in the increasing motor efficiency as we approach resonance and we get even closer.
What does it all mean?
A full-range driver at large SPL value is hard to do. A very large Xmax will also mean a large undriven mass and high inductance, both limiting to the high frequency reproduction of the driver. Yet, unless Xmax is very large, for a 3-inch diameter cone, as suggested by the extremely small drive required to reach Xmax, the differences in acoustic output amongst drivers with only small differences in Xmax is going to be minor. If, however, you are willing to supplement the lowest frequencies with a woofer or sub woofer crossing over at about 160 Hz, then the higher frequency driver’s Xmax is not going to be the limiting condition, instead it will be power dissipation. Thus it would seem that the solution is to choose the “full-range” driver with the best overall performance and supplement the bass with a larger driver handling frequencies below 160 Hz.
Lastly, I tested the Tang Band 2 by 3 drivers and posted to this forum a long time ago. You can find the results at:
http://diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19685&highlight=loudspeaker+testing
Again, thanks to everyone who helped out with this,
Mark
i think of a few full range drivers that can produce high SPL not via having a large Xmax but have high sensitivity.
this analysis would also explain why many full range drivers are best designed for horns (which boost the bass).
and there is an added advantage of using a 2-4" widerange+bass v/s using a 6-8" widerange+tweeter. At the XO freq. between the 2 drivers the wavelenghts are still long enough so as not to agrravate lobing.
this analysis would also explain why many full range drivers are best designed for horns (which boost the bass).
and there is an added advantage of using a 2-4" widerange+bass v/s using a 6-8" widerange+tweeter. At the XO freq. between the 2 drivers the wavelenghts are still long enough so as not to agrravate lobing.
Recently I used the W3-881s in my sphere speakers. They seem pretty good so far. They don't go down to much in terms of bass (volume limited I'm sure), but they play loud enough so far, and have normal sensitivity. Pretty good HF considering they don't use the fancy phase plugs the other do. Next time I'll probably try 871s that everybody raves about.
Early results from modification
Hi all,
Here is a graph of the W4-1052SA utilizing one mechanical modification to the cone to take care of the huge sharp output spike just under 10 K and a three component prefilter or equalizer to flatten the response.
This is not the final modification. The mechanical modification causes a dip in response a little over 8 kHz that prevents a true plus or minus three db rating. Sensitivity is not changed below 2 KHz and minus 3 db is pushed out to about 19 kHz.
This modification, however, may make this the best performing full range 4 inch available. There are problems comparing tests and all, but the other drivers out there will show problems in excess of what is seen here when placed into the same test setup.
This is the usual one meter response.
Mark
Hi all,
Here is a graph of the W4-1052SA utilizing one mechanical modification to the cone to take care of the huge sharp output spike just under 10 K and a three component prefilter or equalizer to flatten the response.
This is not the final modification. The mechanical modification causes a dip in response a little over 8 kHz that prevents a true plus or minus three db rating. Sensitivity is not changed below 2 KHz and minus 3 db is pushed out to about 19 kHz.
This modification, however, may make this the best performing full range 4 inch available. There are problems comparing tests and all, but the other drivers out there will show problems in excess of what is seen here when placed into the same test setup.
This is the usual one meter response.
Mark
Attachments
Hi all,
I have posted details of the W4-1052SA modifications to my Web site.
You can only get there by following the links I post to this forum. I will duplicate this message on my Tang Band mod thread.
The modification is simple, inexpensive, and can be undone. This will not void warranties or anything else. The sensivity of the driver after modification is unchanged. In its stock state the rise in upper mid to treble response is greater than specified sensitity. Also, so little mass is added to the cone that T/S specs change no more than the difference between Tang Band's T/S published spec and actual measured specs. In other words, it is unimportant should you want to listen to the sound of the box air mass in resonance and port the enclosure.
After modification, the driver sounds accurate. The improvement is easily heard and brings the performance and accuracy to a level that is equal to any four inch on the market.
Here is the link:
http://madspeaker.com/Projects/TBW4-1052SA.htm
I have posted details of the W4-1052SA modifications to my Web site.
You can only get there by following the links I post to this forum. I will duplicate this message on my Tang Band mod thread.
The modification is simple, inexpensive, and can be undone. This will not void warranties or anything else. The sensivity of the driver after modification is unchanged. In its stock state the rise in upper mid to treble response is greater than specified sensitity. Also, so little mass is added to the cone that T/S specs change no more than the difference between Tang Band's T/S published spec and actual measured specs. In other words, it is unimportant should you want to listen to the sound of the box air mass in resonance and port the enclosure.
After modification, the driver sounds accurate. The improvement is easily heard and brings the performance and accuracy to a level that is equal to any four inch on the market.
Here is the link:
http://madspeaker.com/Projects/TBW4-1052SA.htm
Navin,
As stock, it is not equal. Either in stock or modified condition, however, you CAN judge for yourself. That is the point of my publishing the modification. The modification is fully documented. It shows before and after conditions. All that is left is for you to use your own ears and brain to decide if you like it or not. As stated, the modification is non destructive and inexpensive. If you don't like it, the specified glue will just peel off leaving the PPM unmarred. You could probably even return the TB drivers for a refund as long as you have not marred them.
A test of the JX92 was posted on the DIYAUDIO forum some months ago. The test was done at the extremely favorable distance of 10 cm and the driver still showed resonance problems. Read Jordan's design philosophy. He is not trying for accuracy of reproduction. He embraces cone resonances to extend the frequency response. There are consequences to doing so. I believe cone resonances "distort" the sound. Jordan apparently does not believe this.
It is alright if you like the Jordan's better. It won't hurt my feelings any. I have not posted any of my own tests of the Jordan's because I do not want to go to the "mine is better than yours" place.
Lastly, I never said it was better or that you would like it better. I just said that by the criterion of performance and accuracy it was as good as.
This is just another choice. You can make it or not. I believe it is called "free will."
Mark
Hi,
Sorry you are having problems with the picture. The center of the glue ring is nine mm in from the inside diameter of the surround. The glue ring is two mm wide. Lay down a 1.5 to 2 mm bead of the GemTac glue.
My response to your array design is that the better the driver you use the better the final array. Using lots of bad drivers does not produce good sound. Also, there is a world of differences amongst drivers called ribbons. Some of them are much better than others.
Although Navin is cynical (not skeptical), if the modified TB driver is better than your alternate choice, then using it would make your array better.
Regardless, my advice is to audition the drivers you plan to use.
Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy the cast of characters,
Mark
Postscript:
My own interest in wide-range drivers is their potential of transient coherence. Crossing over to a tweeter and making large vertical arrays will not preserve transient coherence. You get a sound with large arrays that some like. They are not, however, any more accurate. But "like" is good. If you like it, then you must be happy and what is wrong with happy?
MarkMcK said:
The JX92 from what i hear has it's limitations and besides is a bit expensive for me. I have not had the chance to hear it (although atleast one DIYer in Bombay has invited me to listen to them). I hate to pass judgement without using my ears. I was only cynical becuase Ted and Fostex have such good reputations earned over so many years in the business that you wonder if someone could really do better. In the end it our ears that decide. the single biggest reason i am active on this forum is that i respect the opinions (or you can say i am comfortable with the opinions) of some of the members. living in india you dont the chance to listen to a lot of drivers leave alone such "exotics" as jordan, fostex and tangband. what i buy depends solely on the collective opinion of the "respected diyaudio forum members".
MarkMcK said:
I first ran into this phenomenan while playing with some "TV speakers". Then started out looking at fullrange drivers that would be even better. First the "famous" TB W3 871, then I thought if I am gonna spend time and energy in this why not look at "better" drivers and hence started investigating fostex (FE103/107), Jordan (JX53,92,125). my investigations continue.
what i am looking for is....
1. the transient coherrence of a fullrange
2. reasonable bass response (95db @2m @100Hz)
3. A cabinet volume about 10-12 liters (or using 2 drivers in a 1.5 way each in a 6 liter box).
4. a top end comparable to a atleast soft dome tweeter of the same cost ($30 for a fostex, $100 for jordan etc..)
Navin and all others,
I was interested in your four point wish list at the end of your last post. Just in case others might be interested too, I thought I would try to respond to some of them. What I am saying here is not preference, but rather opinion (that is proposition supported by evidence).
Last first....Even the best and most expensive tweeter is not something you want if transient coherence is your goal. If you run dirac impluse testing you see that the lower frequency response of all dome tweeters (often everything below 10 kHz) is from the decay portion of the impulse response. It is not inverse microphone reproduction. It is something the tweeter is producing on its own and not the original signal. Dome tweeters all sound different for other reasons, but they all share this fault. Plus, the onset response of the vast majority of $30 to $100 dome tweeters is not any better than the onset performance of the W4-1052. I have online a number of tests showing this troubling response character of dome tweeters.
3. All the drivers, including the W4-1052 meets this criteria.
2. If any of them can do 95 db @2m @100HZ, then they all can.
1. The only way you can achieve the transient coherence of a full-range is to avoid a high frequency crossover. If you want to cross without damaging the sound you achieve with transient coherence, then you cross low. Not only is the ear insensitive, but you can control slope response better if you are not dealing with cone breakup resonant structures. A second advantage of using a separate bass driver is in power. These small drivers (even the three inch Fostex's) will play "music" at over 100 db if you limit the lowest frequency drive.
As a bonus response, you also posted to another thread the idea that drivers with rising high frequency response are better for use in vertical arrays because "interference" will cancel the rise. Sorry, but this is demonstrably false. All you are doing is blurring the high frequency signature and destroying whatever coherence the drivers had on their own. You can fool some types of test instruments this way, you cannot fool an educated ear/brain. Remember that the drivers are beaming at the highest frequencies and there really is little or no interference.
I tend to assume that the decision making process of others is rational. But sometimes it is really hard to be rational. Look at Jordan's Web site for the "92." His Xmax specification is peak to peak. This makes it hard to convert without knowing the gap height or winding length. Also compare the frequency response graph with the first couple of MLSSA waterfall response lines (the ones all the way in the back). The first graph line should be identical to the conventional frequency response graph. Yet the MLSSA graphs show problems much more severe than can be seen in the frequency response graph. Which is more accurate?
Mark
I was interested in your four point wish list at the end of your last post. Just in case others might be interested too, I thought I would try to respond to some of them. What I am saying here is not preference, but rather opinion (that is proposition supported by evidence).
Last first....Even the best and most expensive tweeter is not something you want if transient coherence is your goal. If you run dirac impluse testing you see that the lower frequency response of all dome tweeters (often everything below 10 kHz) is from the decay portion of the impulse response. It is not inverse microphone reproduction. It is something the tweeter is producing on its own and not the original signal. Dome tweeters all sound different for other reasons, but they all share this fault. Plus, the onset response of the vast majority of $30 to $100 dome tweeters is not any better than the onset performance of the W4-1052. I have online a number of tests showing this troubling response character of dome tweeters.
3. All the drivers, including the W4-1052 meets this criteria.
2. If any of them can do 95 db @2m @100HZ, then they all can.
1. The only way you can achieve the transient coherence of a full-range is to avoid a high frequency crossover. If you want to cross without damaging the sound you achieve with transient coherence, then you cross low. Not only is the ear insensitive, but you can control slope response better if you are not dealing with cone breakup resonant structures. A second advantage of using a separate bass driver is in power. These small drivers (even the three inch Fostex's) will play "music" at over 100 db if you limit the lowest frequency drive.
As a bonus response, you also posted to another thread the idea that drivers with rising high frequency response are better for use in vertical arrays because "interference" will cancel the rise. Sorry, but this is demonstrably false. All you are doing is blurring the high frequency signature and destroying whatever coherence the drivers had on their own. You can fool some types of test instruments this way, you cannot fool an educated ear/brain. Remember that the drivers are beaming at the highest frequencies and there really is little or no interference.
I tend to assume that the decision making process of others is rational. But sometimes it is really hard to be rational. Look at Jordan's Web site for the "92." His Xmax specification is peak to peak. This makes it hard to convert without knowing the gap height or winding length. Also compare the frequency response graph with the first couple of MLSSA waterfall response lines (the ones all the way in the back). The first graph line should be identical to the conventional frequency response graph. Yet the MLSSA graphs show problems much more severe than can be seen in the frequency response graph. Which is more accurate?
Mark
MarkMcK said:
i know the Fe103 for example can even work in a smaller box (6 liters or so) but I am not sure how loud it can get.
this post has an approximate calculation of max SPL at 100Hz
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=431467#post431467...what i am trying to say in this post is...
lets assume a FE103 at 88db/1w/1m. put it in a 6-9 liter box. add a 3 db worth of BSC that drops the sens to 85db/1w/1m. at 100Hz I assume Xmax will limit power to about 20W (13dbm). so at 20W the 103 will produce 98db/1m. at 2m this drops by about 6db. so the 103 will produce 92db/20w/2m.
TO produce 100db one would have to limit low freq. much more. in a typical sub-sat senario where the sub is not very close to the sat this will mar imaging as the "sub" in question wil be producing a significant ammout of SPL. On the other hand if one were to buld a "2 way" using a fullrange and a woofer then a smaller fullrange (like the Fostex FF85k or W3-871 or JX53 or a W2-xxx) might be a better option (with a XO of about 300-500Jz). The single biggest advantage of using a fullrange of the order of the fostex 103, tb w4 1052 is that the XO can be about 100Hz below which 1 or more discretely placed subs can be used.
Hi all,
A forum member recently e-mailed me and said that the performance increases I document in my before and after graphs were an inspiration. I like that. This is a diy forum and taking inspiration and then “doing it yourself” is the thing. In the spirit of inspiration I am posting performance results for my modification two. Sometimes all the inspiration that is needed is to know that something is possible.
With modification two, I have finished my redesign work on the W4-1052SA driver. While a prefilter/equalizer remains, the glue ring is gone and a nonreversible cone modification has taken its place. The suck-out caused by the glue ring is gone. The driver may now be easily rated plus or minus 3 db, and best of all; the decay response has improved by five to six db on average and as much as 15 db.
With modification one, a modification I provided to readers of this forum, I stated that the driver was equal to any four-inch driver available along the dimensions of performance and accuracy. With modification two, the W4-1052SA is better than it was before. I will leave it to the reader to fill in the blank for what that means when comparing it to other drivers.
Although part-time, I was a professional audio critic for years (being one of the few paid for reviewing). I can hear and describe the audible performance of audio equipment, both the positive and the negative. I can say that even with mofication two, above 300 Hz the 1052 is not the best driver. There are some aspects of its performance that could be better. My own mad.6T driver outperforms it and sounds smoother doing it. My .6T, however, resonates at a higher frequency and so does not go as low and I would not use it as a stand-alone loudspeaker. The 1052, with its sub 70 Hz Fs and larger cone area, can be used as a stand-alone. I can also say that there is no four-inch driver that I would rather listen to whether augmented with a woofer or running full-range. With modifcation two, the driver's sound is getting into the realm of amazing.
Over the coming days or weeks (whenever I have time) I will be adding to the performance documentation for the 1052SA mod 2.
As another forum member state about a driver he had used, "I thoroughly recommend this driver."
Mark
A forum member recently e-mailed me and said that the performance increases I document in my before and after graphs were an inspiration. I like that. This is a diy forum and taking inspiration and then “doing it yourself” is the thing. In the spirit of inspiration I am posting performance results for my modification two. Sometimes all the inspiration that is needed is to know that something is possible.
With modification two, I have finished my redesign work on the W4-1052SA driver. While a prefilter/equalizer remains, the glue ring is gone and a nonreversible cone modification has taken its place. The suck-out caused by the glue ring is gone. The driver may now be easily rated plus or minus 3 db, and best of all; the decay response has improved by five to six db on average and as much as 15 db.
With modification one, a modification I provided to readers of this forum, I stated that the driver was equal to any four-inch driver available along the dimensions of performance and accuracy. With modification two, the W4-1052SA is better than it was before. I will leave it to the reader to fill in the blank for what that means when comparing it to other drivers.
Although part-time, I was a professional audio critic for years (being one of the few paid for reviewing). I can hear and describe the audible performance of audio equipment, both the positive and the negative. I can say that even with mofication two, above 300 Hz the 1052 is not the best driver. There are some aspects of its performance that could be better. My own mad.6T driver outperforms it and sounds smoother doing it. My .6T, however, resonates at a higher frequency and so does not go as low and I would not use it as a stand-alone loudspeaker. The 1052, with its sub 70 Hz Fs and larger cone area, can be used as a stand-alone. I can also say that there is no four-inch driver that I would rather listen to whether augmented with a woofer or running full-range. With modifcation two, the driver's sound is getting into the realm of amazing.
Over the coming days or weeks (whenever I have time) I will be adding to the performance documentation for the 1052SA mod 2.
As another forum member state about a driver he had used, "I thoroughly recommend this driver."
Mark
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Mark; I have just completed two ML TQWT Bipolar enclosures designed for a 4" driver with an FS of 70-80 HZ. The W4 1052SA has been of interest for some time. Is this new mod available on line as I would be interested in trying it.
Thanks for reporting your results, your experimentation is what makes this hobby much fun.
Regards
Pete
Thanks for reporting your results, your experimentation is what makes this hobby much fun.
Regards
Pete
Good jb Mark and thanks for being so honest. when u say "I can say that even with mofication two, above 300 Hz the 1052 is not the best driver." are u comparing the 1052 to other "popular" fullranges or to drivers that are dedicated to a smaller freq. range (like say the jx53, ff85k, etc...)?
your above statement made me think .....
what if one takes 2 1052s and makes a 1.5 way. would you recomend that or would you recomend that the second driver be a driver that is better (above 300Hz) than the 1052.
what ammount of volume does the 1052 require?
my need for a small fullrange is for a wall mounted box about 10 liters (like B&W VM1 or KEF's KHT).
I live in India where Bose is considered a religon. If you don t have Bose speakers then anything else is crappy. Plasma TVs are also getting very popular here in Mumbai mainly because it frees up much needed space in our shoe box sized apartments. The number of Bose - Plasma and VM1 - Plasma combos I have seen of late is alarming.
My goal is to build a speaker that has the same WAF as bose or plasma and compete with my ScanSpeak 8546-9900 in sound quality if not SPL.
i am aware that wall mounting a speaker severly limits that imaging esp front to back imaging but I intend to do my best.
I am not in the audio business I just like to build somethig that outperforms the big names. I can guarantee that i wont be building more than 1 set (front and rear and maybe center).
your above statement made me think .....
what if one takes 2 1052s and makes a 1.5 way. would you recomend that or would you recomend that the second driver be a driver that is better (above 300Hz) than the 1052.
what ammount of volume does the 1052 require?
my need for a small fullrange is for a wall mounted box about 10 liters (like B&W VM1 or KEF's KHT).
I live in India where Bose is considered a religon. If you don t have Bose speakers then anything else is crappy. Plasma TVs are also getting very popular here in Mumbai mainly because it frees up much needed space in our shoe box sized apartments. The number of Bose - Plasma and VM1 - Plasma combos I have seen of late is alarming.
My goal is to build a speaker that has the same WAF as bose or plasma and compete with my ScanSpeak 8546-9900 in sound quality if not SPL.
i am aware that wall mounting a speaker severly limits that imaging esp front to back imaging but I intend to do my best.
I am not in the audio business I just like to build somethig that outperforms the big names. I can guarantee that i wont be building more than 1 set (front and rear and maybe center).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.