I don't know exactly how tall wesayso's is but the actual cabinet part of mine is 2160mm the base and spikes etc would be on top of that. I should imagine it is similar as the majority is due to the 25 drivers but mine are mounted frame to frame with no gap.
Send me a PM with the details, I might need an extra one or two in the future if any of mine turn out to be defective.
My cabinets are 2.25 M tall, driver to driver spacing is 85.5 mm in my case.
I had to factor in some movement from the cabinet which is why there is a small gap between the drivers.
The epoxy/glass matt took care of the shrinking/expansion problem which was real. I agree with the 70% number as a rule of thumb.
Bigger/longer lines are possible if you can find a decent impedance wiring combination.
Drop me a PM gassit, one never knows
.
Fluid: check each driver with an impedance test. This will help check them for error.
I had to factor in some movement from the cabinet which is why there is a small gap between the drivers.
The epoxy/glass matt took care of the shrinking/expansion problem which was real. I agree with the 70% number as a rule of thumb.
Bigger/longer lines are possible if you can find a decent impedance wiring combination.
Drop me a PM gassit, one never knows
.Fluid: check each driver with an impedance test. This will help check them for error.
Last edited:
I think the availability of flexible EQ and FIR options has made taming the issues arrays present a much more realistic proposition. Frequency dependant windowing also helps to show that the combing is more of problem for the eye than the ear
I think that your towers took the concept to a much more refined place both aesthetically and sonically. Certainly they were the main inspiration for me to try my own
Comb filtering at the top is happening though. It will not be as severe as many assume it to be and it may not even be a disadvantage, if one compares to the combing problem inherent in Stereo listening. It may actually help to average out that Stereo problem.
The best place to see it would be the early waterfall plots. That's also a great place to check your DSP/FIR correction.
I could not see any combing issue when I looked at your near perefect step response.
That IR/STEP could be made to look even better at that exact microphone position. But then I wouldn't get as good a measurement slightly off axis.
There is a reason for me to do EQ after the FIR correction. Not to get a flatter curve overall, but to avoid over correction for that single measurement position. Does that make sense to you guys?
If/when I bring out my microphone again sometime soon I'll do some explaining of what I'm getting at. Don't trust everything blindly. Not even correction software, as that software can't fully know what's going on.
It's our job to guide it and/or correct it.
Koldby, count me out... My pockets aren't deep enough, I'm sad to say.
I'm still curious to see a 'one on one' comparison between the 8 ohm TG9 and the TC9. Same goes for the Scan Speak 10F, though we won't see that one at affordable prices like these I guess.
Glad to hear the TG9 FD10-08 can still be ordered though. I was afraid it would be gone forever after dropping off of several listings. The 4 ohm version has a slightly lesser performance and wouldn't be on my list of things to get.
I heard somewhere that the factory that makes the TG9's moved from somewhere like Denmark to India... (?) There may have been an interruption in production that caused some dealers to drop it. The 8 ohm TG9 is perhaps my favorite midrange driver down here in 3 way speaker land. Here in the u.s. Parts Express or Madisound had them last time I checked.
I had a hard time back in 2011 to decide between those two, the 8 ohm TG9 FD10-08 and the TC9 FD18-08. In the end I went with paper. But that doesn't mean I sometimes still wonder about it, what if... .
It had been off the radar on the Tymphany site for a while, but I'm happy to see it's back in their catalogue. With the rise of a lot of new pressed steel full rangers I was worried they would slowly kill off al these marvels.
But luckily I see it's back up again, as is the 16 ohm version of the TC9, the TC9 FD15-16.
The move from Denmark was quite a while ago I assume, Scan Speak and Peerless/Vifa first started parting ways back in 2008. More info here.
.It had been off the radar on the Tymphany site for a while, but I'm happy to see it's back in their catalogue. With the rise of a lot of new pressed steel full rangers I was worried they would slowly kill off al these marvels.
But luckily I see it's back up again, as is the 16 ohm version of the TC9, the TC9 FD15-16.
The move from Denmark was quite a while ago I assume, Scan Speak and Peerless/Vifa first started parting ways back in 2008. More info here.
Strange thing about the pricing of the TG9 as it is almost twice the price @ Madison (and have always been more expensive) than the TC9 ...
No secret in that it is DigiKey that have the low price on the TG9 when buying 2016 pcs.
The TC9FD18-08-ND is $7,5 when buying 500 pcs!!
Wonder what the price would when ordering 2016 of these. I think I will check with them.
No secret in that it is DigiKey that have the low price on the TG9 when buying 2016 pcs.
The TC9FD18-08-ND is $7,5 when buying 500 pcs!!
Wonder what the price would when ordering 2016 of these. I think I will check with them.
I'm not sure which graph to believe, and I don't have a known good enough calibrated mic and RTA (Behringer) or anechoic chamber, but the published graphs I've seen from Peerless/Vifa/Tympany show that the TG9 has a significantly flatter high end response than the TC9. For another graph on the TC9, here's a link to page at Zaph Audio, where he measured a TC9FD. Scroll down about 1/6 the way.
Zaph|Audio
Zaph|Audio
I've seen those, and many, many others like it. I've also looked at off axis measurements to see what is happening there and what "could be" EQ-ed.
It's not like I rushed into that decision. Up until 15 degree angle off axis of the TC9 is following the on axis response very close all the way up to 16 KHz. The TC9 has a rising response compared to the TG9, this is a plus for a line array.
I've looked at waterfall plots and many other things before making my final decision.
So it's not that I think I've made the wrong choice here, I'm just wondering "what if" from time to time.
I've shared some of the plots I collected in that big TC9 thread. I might even have linked some on this thread.
Most important to me was paper vs fiberglass cone. I chose paper. Never intended to run it without EQ.
On paper, they are almost identical after EQ. The TG is better if you use it without any EQ, a flatter natural response.
Look at how close they measured in round 4 of xrk971's listening tests:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/279352-subjective-blind-comparison-2in-4in-drivers-round-4-a-37.html#post4452354
If the frequency response in that round had been the same as it was in round 2, I'd be curious which one I would have chosen.
In round 2 I picked the 10F over the TG9. In round 4 I went with the B80 (the only one that wasn't as tilted upwards below 10 KHz). Of the 3 almost identical curves from the Vifa/Scan Speak trio in that round my preference was the TC9, 10F and then TG9.
Round one: TC9 won, without any doubt.
They are close siblings. All three of them. I wouldn't use any of them (or any other driver for that matter) without FIR correction. These 3 drivers are all excellent performers. With a little help they are even better. With a lot of help, like in arrays they are excellent!
It's not like I rushed into that decision
. Up until 15 degree angle off axis of the TC9 is following the on axis response very close all the way up to 16 KHz. The TC9 has a rising response compared to the TG9, this is a plus for a line array.I've looked at waterfall plots and many other things before making my final decision.
So it's not that I think I've made the wrong choice here, I'm just wondering "what if" from time to time.
I've shared some of the plots I collected in that big TC9 thread. I might even have linked some on this thread.
Most important to me was paper vs fiberglass cone. I chose paper. Never intended to run it without EQ
.On paper, they are almost identical after EQ. The TG is better if you use it without any EQ, a flatter natural response.
Look at how close they measured in round 4 of xrk971's listening tests:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/279352-subjective-blind-comparison-2in-4in-drivers-round-4-a-37.html#post4452354
If the frequency response in that round had been the same as it was in round 2, I'd be curious which one I would have chosen.
In round 2 I picked the 10F over the TG9. In round 4 I went with the B80 (the only one that wasn't as tilted upwards below 10 KHz). Of the 3 almost identical curves from the Vifa/Scan Speak trio in that round my preference was the TC9, 10F and then TG9.
Round one: TC9 won, without any doubt.
They are close siblings. All three of them. I wouldn't use any of them (or any other driver for that matter) without FIR correction. These 3 drivers are all excellent performers. With a little help they are even better. With a lot of help, like in arrays they are excellent!
Last edited: