Anyone heard anything about these yet?
TANG BAND W4-1052SA 4" DRIVER 4 OHM
Parts Express number 264-828
Looks like an interesting design, wish they would post some graphs.
Also did anyone else notice they got rid of the woofer common application chart in the new PE catalog...kinda sucks, because that can help determine whether or not it fits your application.
Maybe a open baffle dipole with two in series...for 8 ohms
TANG BAND W4-1052SA 4" DRIVER 4 OHM
Parts Express number 264-828
Looks like an interesting design, wish they would post some graphs.
Also did anyone else notice they got rid of the woofer common application chart in the new PE catalog...kinda sucks, because that can help determine whether or not it fits your application.
Maybe a open baffle dipole with two in series...for 8 ohms
Funny, I recently exchanged mail with Bob Reimer at CSS and he mentioned a new 4' driver that would be released in Feb 04. Wonder if this is the unit? He mentioned that the present design only went to 10k htz and they wanted to get to twenty. With the availability of inexpensive ribbons from the Chinese I'd be happy with ten, better bass respnse, and a cross at 6-10K.
Pete
Pete
I am somewhat interested in the Tangband 4" driver. It looks like the driver uses a trick similar to the Bose-made "StarDriver" which has a rubber surround that has the normal profile, but the rubber part extends out onto the cone and is not cutout in a round shape but instead in a star shape. I think this helps prevent cone edge distortions. In the case of the Tangband, I can guess that it helps keep the cone itself from breaking up as frequencies go higher.
Tang Band W4-1052SA, here 'tis. 
Well there can't be to many 4" & 3" full range high excursion drivers to choose from in my book. That Tang Band W4-1052SA response graph looks mighty good though & with 3.5 mm excursion to boot. It would make a fine system without a tweeter if it lives up to the specs & graph. I would rather see a square frame similar to the W4-616S though as the reduced frame width on the sides allows for tighter spacing of multiple drivers. Does anyone know of any currently readily available to DIY 4" driver that can rival that response & excursion combo? Certainly nothing from Fostex.
W4-1052SA independent testing
I like the idea of full-range. The fuller the range the better. The idea of going down to 65 or so is cool. Yet it seems we are pushing the top end about as far as is physically possible with the 3 inch (2 inch cone). The mass of a 15 watt three quarter inch voice coil limits transient reproduction to just under 20 kHz. The 4 inch models (3 inch cone) with one inch voice coils and 25 to 40 watt ratings are dying faster and messier.
The W4-1052SA is no exception. At a reasonable range of output variation, the driver has less bandwidth than advertised. The driver shows problems in my testing that are not shown in Tang Band's published response graph. But then, what else is new. What is new, particularly compared to the W4-654S, is a lower frequency for the major, high Q cone resonance (about 3 kHz lower) and a broader and greater bump in output in the midrange to mid treble region. Compared to the average 1 kHz output, the driver is up 6 db from 4 kHz to 14 kHz. It is not exactly "flat."
Since the W4-1052SA cone is polypropylene, I may be able to modify it. I can't promise anything (and it may take up to six months to complete), but I am going to at least do some preliminary research on the cause of the response problems. Regardless, the little ribs molded into the cone are not doing that great of a job.
Mark
I like the idea of full-range. The fuller the range the better. The idea of going down to 65 or so is cool. Yet it seems we are pushing the top end about as far as is physically possible with the 3 inch (2 inch cone). The mass of a 15 watt three quarter inch voice coil limits transient reproduction to just under 20 kHz. The 4 inch models (3 inch cone) with one inch voice coils and 25 to 40 watt ratings are dying faster and messier.
The W4-1052SA is no exception. At a reasonable range of output variation, the driver has less bandwidth than advertised. The driver shows problems in my testing that are not shown in Tang Band's published response graph. But then, what else is new. What is new, particularly compared to the W4-654S, is a lower frequency for the major, high Q cone resonance (about 3 kHz lower) and a broader and greater bump in output in the midrange to mid treble region. Compared to the average 1 kHz output, the driver is up 6 db from 4 kHz to 14 kHz. It is not exactly "flat."
Since the W4-1052SA cone is polypropylene, I may be able to modify it. I can't promise anything (and it may take up to six months to complete), but I am going to at least do some preliminary research on the cause of the response problems. Regardless, the little ribs molded into the cone are not doing that great of a job.
Mark
Attachments
TB Quality
I have had a rep from TB Speaker at our place in California. I was quite impressed with their dedication to quality. They are speaker people first and business people second. Compared to many Asian uick buck companies, their depth of knowledge on what makes a good speaker was the deepest of any Asian speaker company I have seen and they really want to make the best products they can.
Of the samples they sent us, when we measured them on our equipment, taking care to replicate their enclosure sizes, all of them matched the published curves within the margin of error of the equipment. I cannot voich for all of them but the ones we are thinking of putting in our products met our expectations. They are not the cheapest Asian supplier but they are good enough that there are possibilities there.
I have had a rep from TB Speaker at our place in California. I was quite impressed with their dedication to quality. They are speaker people first and business people second. Compared to many Asian uick buck companies, their depth of knowledge on what makes a good speaker was the deepest of any Asian speaker company I have seen and they really want to make the best products they can.
Of the samples they sent us, when we measured them on our equipment, taking care to replicate their enclosure sizes, all of them matched the published curves within the margin of error of the equipment. I cannot voich for all of them but the ones we are thinking of putting in our products met our expectations. They are not the cheapest Asian supplier but they are good enough that there are possibilities there.
An Addendum
Dear Tang Band fans and companies that have a financial stake in lots of people being fans of Tang Band,
As I have state previously on this forum, I like Tang Band. That is, of course, a statement of preference. Statements of preference are different than opinions.
I have also stated that Tang Band’s test graphs generally represent the performance of their drivers. This last is a statement of opinion. For the evidence to support this opinion you can look at one of my early posts on loudspeaker testing. Or you can compare my graphs and Stephen D’s repost of Tang Band’s on page one.
If Tang Band rated magnitude as well as bandwidth (and they do not), then by their graph you would rate from 100 Hz to 17 kHz plus or minus 5 db. By my graphs you would rate the two drivers shown from 100 Hz to 18 kHz plus or minus 7 db. These are close. As I stated earlier, Tang Band’s published frequency response graphs seem to be honest (is this last a statement of preference or opinion?). Tang Band’s graphs, however, do not show the fine detail of their driver’s performance. This is a problem for the industry. Few manufacturers have ever published high detail frequency response graphs. There are both historical and psychological/marketing reasons for why this detail was lacking in the past and why it continues to be excluded.
It is possible that Tang Band’s engineer does not even know that their testing is not revealing important response detail. All of my information comes through Diana. I had sent her some test results of a different driver and she replied that she had shown them to their engineer and he had made a comment that she passed on to me. That comment, now filtered through one translation and one intermediary, could be interpreted as showing that the engineer perhaps did not know that his testing was squashing detail. (Just as an aside and please do not read too much into this. I am not trying to brag, it is just that too many people hold to suspect ideas of who knows what. Jean Anyon wrote a very interesting article on “Social Class and Knowledge” examining schools and teaching/learning about twenty years ago. While her methodology has been questioned, particularly her assigning knowledge to definable classes, if we apply her research to individuals and self-defined collections of individual [also called sub cultures] her question set and the population of answers to that question set still seem valid and powerful. Over the years I have spoken with and even been consulted by designers at other loudspeaker manufacturers on how to use their own test equipment. This was just one of the negatives of writing reviews and serving as technical editor for a popular press magazine.)
Anyway, here are a couple of more statements. I will let the reader decide if they are statements of preference or opinion.
Tang Band makes interesting products.
I love those tiny, lightweight neodymium motors.
The W4-1052SA has potential (if it did not I would not waste my time researching modifications).
Drivers with the same rated frequency response, but with tolerances of plus or minus 3 db instead of plus or minus 5 or plus or minus 7 db both test as more accurate and sound more neutral and accurate.
When all else is held equal, I would choose a driver that is performing plus or minus 3 db over one performing plus or minus 5 or plus or minus 7 db.
As members of diyaudio, our communal knowledge and skill base is both broad and deep enough that we can improve the performance of some commercially available drivers.
Information posted to this forum has as its intent to set baselines and starting points for improved ends-in-view. They are supplied as no more and no less than means to a better end.
Best regards,
Mark
Dear Tang Band fans and companies that have a financial stake in lots of people being fans of Tang Band,
As I have state previously on this forum, I like Tang Band. That is, of course, a statement of preference. Statements of preference are different than opinions.
I have also stated that Tang Band’s test graphs generally represent the performance of their drivers. This last is a statement of opinion. For the evidence to support this opinion you can look at one of my early posts on loudspeaker testing. Or you can compare my graphs and Stephen D’s repost of Tang Band’s on page one.
If Tang Band rated magnitude as well as bandwidth (and they do not), then by their graph you would rate from 100 Hz to 17 kHz plus or minus 5 db. By my graphs you would rate the two drivers shown from 100 Hz to 18 kHz plus or minus 7 db. These are close. As I stated earlier, Tang Band’s published frequency response graphs seem to be honest (is this last a statement of preference or opinion?). Tang Band’s graphs, however, do not show the fine detail of their driver’s performance. This is a problem for the industry. Few manufacturers have ever published high detail frequency response graphs. There are both historical and psychological/marketing reasons for why this detail was lacking in the past and why it continues to be excluded.
It is possible that Tang Band’s engineer does not even know that their testing is not revealing important response detail. All of my information comes through Diana. I had sent her some test results of a different driver and she replied that she had shown them to their engineer and he had made a comment that she passed on to me. That comment, now filtered through one translation and one intermediary, could be interpreted as showing that the engineer perhaps did not know that his testing was squashing detail. (Just as an aside and please do not read too much into this. I am not trying to brag, it is just that too many people hold to suspect ideas of who knows what. Jean Anyon wrote a very interesting article on “Social Class and Knowledge” examining schools and teaching/learning about twenty years ago. While her methodology has been questioned, particularly her assigning knowledge to definable classes, if we apply her research to individuals and self-defined collections of individual [also called sub cultures] her question set and the population of answers to that question set still seem valid and powerful. Over the years I have spoken with and even been consulted by designers at other loudspeaker manufacturers on how to use their own test equipment. This was just one of the negatives of writing reviews and serving as technical editor for a popular press magazine.)
Anyway, here are a couple of more statements. I will let the reader decide if they are statements of preference or opinion.
Tang Band makes interesting products.
I love those tiny, lightweight neodymium motors.
The W4-1052SA has potential (if it did not I would not waste my time researching modifications).
Drivers with the same rated frequency response, but with tolerances of plus or minus 3 db instead of plus or minus 5 or plus or minus 7 db both test as more accurate and sound more neutral and accurate.
When all else is held equal, I would choose a driver that is performing plus or minus 3 db over one performing plus or minus 5 or plus or minus 7 db.
As members of diyaudio, our communal knowledge and skill base is both broad and deep enough that we can improve the performance of some commercially available drivers.
Information posted to this forum has as its intent to set baselines and starting points for improved ends-in-view. They are supplied as no more and no less than means to a better end.
Best regards,
Mark
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.