A try for Visaton FRS 5
Hi Bjohannesen
I have a pair of Visaton FRS5
Visaton FRS 5 8 OHM Fullrange Paper kaufen bei hifisound.de
& a piece of plywood 9mm thick. I like to make a try to built up (copy your plans) for the small 2" TB, TABAQ . Do I have any possibility to make something that it worths ?
Elias
Hi Bjohannesen
I have a pair of Visaton FRS5
Visaton FRS 5 8 OHM Fullrange Paper kaufen bei hifisound.de
& a piece of plywood 9mm thick. I like to make a try to built up (copy your plans) for the small 2" TB, TABAQ . Do I have any possibility to make something that it worths ?
Elias
Hi all,
Out of curiosity, would the Faital Pro 3FE25 be a worthwhile upgrade from the Visaton FRS8?
Basics:
Visaton - Fs 120 Hz, Qts 1,04
Faital Pro - Fs 110 Hz, Qts 0.7
I am really enjoying my Tabaq's with the Visatons, but am tempted to build another pair!
Is the general consensus that "you get what you pay for"?
As an example, would the often mentioned Tang Band's (about twice the price) blow away the speakers mentioned above in sound quality?
Thanks
Chris
Out of curiosity, would the Faital Pro 3FE25 be a worthwhile upgrade from the Visaton FRS8?
Basics:
Visaton - Fs 120 Hz, Qts 1,04
Faital Pro - Fs 110 Hz, Qts 0.7
I am really enjoying my Tabaq's with the Visatons, but am tempted to build another pair!
Is the general consensus that "you get what you pay for"?
As an example, would the often mentioned Tang Band's (about twice the price) blow away the speakers mentioned above in sound quality?
Thanks
Chris
Hi Bjorn
Sheeking for my mane hi-fi system I'm thinking to replace my 2-way (+ passive radiator) speaker with your design
TABAQ LARGE for W51611 #482
but I'm wondering if the newer Tang Band W5-2143 will performe maybe a little better mainly due to
_______________________1611________ 2143
Cone Material ________ Poly________ Bamboo Fiber / Paper
Surround Material ____Rubber______Santoprene®
Voice Coil Former___________________Kapton® / Polyimide
Basket / Frame________Polymer_____Cast Aluminum
but
Qts_____________________0,44_________0,38
Vas_____________________0.41 ft.³_____0.671 ft.³
and due to they claim that "the W5-2143 5" full range from Tang Band has impressive response from 55 to 20,000 with very low distortion".
Do you have any experience with this last driver (2143) ?
Good afternoon
Elias
Sheeking for my mane hi-fi system I'm thinking to replace my 2-way (+ passive radiator) speaker with your design
TABAQ LARGE for W51611 #482
but I'm wondering if the newer Tang Band W5-2143 will performe maybe a little better mainly due to
_______________________1611________ 2143
Cone Material ________ Poly________ Bamboo Fiber / Paper
Surround Material ____Rubber______Santoprene®
Voice Coil Former___________________Kapton® / Polyimide
Basket / Frame________Polymer_____Cast Aluminum
but
Qts_____________________0,44_________0,38
Vas_____________________0.41 ft.³_____0.671 ft.³
and due to they claim that "the W5-2143 5" full range from Tang Band has impressive response from 55 to 20,000 with very low distortion".
Do you have any experience with this last driver (2143) ?
Good afternoon
Elias
Last edited:
Hi guys,
I have the idea of building the TABAQ with TB W3-315 or any of the other 3" inch TB speakers. I want to make the baffles from 18mm thick MDF and not 12mm. I made some calculations and I am trying to keep the internal volume the same but I am facing one small problem. If the internal baffle is made from 18mm thick MDF it lowers the internal volume by 6mm x 90mmx 100mm if i leave the size of the baffle to be 100x90 mm. There is also one more interesting thing. Because of the thicker MDF the front opening is now 6mm longer than before which increases the internal volume with 6x16x100mm. So my question is - is there any need to compensate the lost volume by the internal baffle by making it shorter (for example 100x70), should I just make the internal baffle 12mm thick or i can leave the things as they are and the difference in the sound won't be noticeable?
Here is the draft of my calculations in millimeters.
I have the idea of building the TABAQ with TB W3-315 or any of the other 3" inch TB speakers. I want to make the baffles from 18mm thick MDF and not 12mm. I made some calculations and I am trying to keep the internal volume the same but I am facing one small problem. If the internal baffle is made from 18mm thick MDF it lowers the internal volume by 6mm x 90mmx 100mm if i leave the size of the baffle to be 100x90 mm. There is also one more interesting thing. Because of the thicker MDF the front opening is now 6mm longer than before which increases the internal volume with 6x16x100mm. So my question is - is there any need to compensate the lost volume by the internal baffle by making it shorter (for example 100x70), should I just make the internal baffle 12mm thick or i can leave the things as they are and the difference in the sound won't be noticeable?
Here is the draft of my calculations in millimeters.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
There is a bit of play when it comes to sizing the TABAQs, so exact measuring is not so critical.
But, I don't follow what you say, also your pictures doesn't show. You may be overthinking this.
Just measure from the inside, then adjust to outside to match. And remember, measure twice (or in my case 5 times) and cut once!
But, I don't follow what you say, also your pictures doesn't show. You may be overthinking this.
Just measure from the inside, then adjust to outside to match. And remember, measure twice (or in my case 5 times) and cut once!
I was thinking of exactly the same approach. Maybe I'll do the same but I was just curious if using the thicker board for the inner part as well will change the sound noticeably.
Wow I am intrigued
Bjorn thanks for the additional information. As the title expresses I am strongly thinking about building this to go with my TABAQs which I used W3-315E's. They do sound amazing but I have been struggling with "do I build 4" or do I go with adding a sub." I am leaning to the sub. With my setup a Raspberry Pi with a hat configured D amp (2 x 35W) and DAC the manufacturer told me it is ok to have the speakers use the amp connection and use the dac for the sub (but the sub amp needs a line level input. Living in Canada sources for drivers are minimal so I use PE. I can source the Peerless from them. Why did you go with a different driver later from the Peerless?
Bjorn thanks for the additional information. As the title expresses I am strongly thinking about building this to go with my TABAQs which I used W3-315E's. They do sound amazing but I have been struggling with "do I build 4" or do I go with adding a sub." I am leaning to the sub. With my setup a Raspberry Pi with a hat configured D amp (2 x 35W) and DAC the manufacturer told me it is ok to have the speakers use the amp connection and use the dac for the sub (but the sub amp needs a line level input. Living in Canada sources for drivers are minimal so I use PE. I can source the Peerless from them. Why did you go with a different driver later from the Peerless?
Thanks Bjørn.
Would you say that the hidden TL sub is as compliant to many different drivers as the TABAQs are? Assuming they share the same T/S parameters or close enough.
The Peerless was about Qts 0.5, as with most successful TABAQ builds, but the ScanSpeak is much lower at Qts of 0.3.
Would you say that the hidden TL sub is as compliant to many different drivers as the TABAQs are? Assuming they share the same T/S parameters or close enough.
The Peerless was about Qts 0.5, as with most successful TABAQ builds, but the ScanSpeak is much lower at Qts of 0.3.