Dayton DIY Speaker Event Comments *PIC*

[jimgriffin]

http://homepage.mac.com/tlinespeakers/FAL/box-plans/griffin-bipole-tn.jpg

Provided Link: ML-TL Bipolar Speakers (http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FRWRBIPOLE)


Clearly, as others have stated, we had a great time this weekend at the Dayton DIY event. Meeting the names behind the posting names was a pleasure. It was fun to hang around fellow speaker nuts for a couple of days. Perhaps next year we'll have another parking lot faceoff of car audio systems plus an extreme SPL contest.

Several of you had favorable comments on the sound of the my new line arrays. My wish it that you realize the benefits of room corrections. Eventhough you can calibrate a speaker to have perfectly a flat frequency reponse, once you place them in a room their sound changes. A few minutes to EQ the room modes, insert a slight BBC dip, and correct several higher frequency peaks converted a bright sounding speaker to a great sounding one.

Several of you asked about the ML-TL bipolar speakers that I brought along. A parts kit for these speakers can be obtained via Creative Sound Solutions at:

<A HREF="http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FRWRBIPOLE">http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FRWRBIPOLE</A>

The parts kit costs $260. The plans are accessed via the Cabinet Designs link at the above site or you can go directly to:

<A HREF="http://www.planet10-hifi.com/boxes.html">http://www.planet10-hifi.com/boxes.html</A>

Next click on the picture of my speakers for a .pdf file which contains the enclosure drawings. I accidently left off the port tube from the list of parts in the .pdf but it is a P-E #260-404 cut to 3" length. That part should be in the kit though. Let me hear how you like it.

Finally, I appreciate the help that Shawn and Paul gave me Friday afternoon for both room set-up and in dialing in the room corrections.

We'll do it again next year!

Jim

[romanbednarek]

Provided Link: RJB Audio Projects (http://www.rjbaudio.com)


> Clearly, as others have stated, we had a
> great time this weekend at the Dayton DIY
> event. Meeting the names behind the posting
> names was a pleasure. It was fun to hang
> around fellow speaker nuts for a couple of
> days. Perhaps next year we'll have another
> parking lot faceoff of car audio systems
> plus an extreme SPL contest.

> Several of you had favorable comments on the
> sound of the my new line arrays. My wish it
> that you realize the benefits of room
> corrections. Eventhough you can calibrate a
> speaker to have perfectly a flat frequency
> reponse, once you place them in a room their
> sound changes. A few minutes to EQ the room
> modes, insert a slight BBC dip, and correct
> several higher frequency peaks converted a
> bright sounding speaker to a great sounding
> one.

> Several of you asked about the ML-TL bipolar
> speakers that I brought along. A parts kit
> for these speakers can be obtained via
> Creative Sound Solutions at:

>
> <A HREF="http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FRWRBIPOLE">http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=FRWRBIPOLE</A>
> The parts kit costs $260. The plans are
> accessed via the Cabinet Designs link at the
> above site or you can go directly to:

> <A HREF="http://www.planet10-hifi.com/boxes.html">http://www.planet10-hifi.com/boxes.html</A>
> Next click on the picture of my speakers for
> a .pdf file which contains the enclosure
> drawings. I accidently left off the port
> tube from the list of parts in the .pdf but
> it is a P-E #260-404 cut to 3" length.
> That part should be in the kit though. Let
> me hear how you like it.

> Finally, I appreciate the help that Shawn
> and Paul gave me Friday afternoon for both
> room set-up and in dialing in the room
> corrections.

> We'll do it again next year!

> Jim

Hi Jim. Ever since building my Tang Band W4-1320SB fullrange speakers I've had a one track mind and I'm curious about your experiences with the FR125. What do you think of the sound in general? I looked at the published frequency response plot and it looks very good but also looks like a lot of smoothing was used. Not that I'm dissatisfied with the performance of the Tang Band I'm wondering if I should have spent the extra money and gone with the FR125s instead (they seem to have better bass extension at the cost of lower sensitivity). The only thing that bothers me with the Tang Bands is the high frequency off axis performance as you might have gathered by reading some of my other posts. How does the FR125 do in this category? I would assume that it is similar because it uses a similar cone type and size but I would still like to hear your comments. Did you happen to take any off axis measurements of the design? I have some posted on my site under the Bandit project and the response gets pretty bad once you get beyond 15 degrees. Any information would be appreciated... TIA.

[chrism]

http://www.madspeaker.com/Projects/4-1052/Illustration2.gif


Jim,

As you know, my wife asked me to build your bipole design for our living room. I was interested in your opinions in using the Tang Band W4-1052SA driver on both the back and front of the cabinet instead of the driver you used. I have a design for a sort of "equalization circuit" for the W4-1052SA that smooths out the response. I used this driver in a Voight pipe design with the EQ circuit. The EQ cirucit makes a night and day difference in the response curve.

Would you consider this driver for this application? The Fs number is consistent with the drivers you used but only play up to 15 kHz. I can't hear much higher than that anyways so this isn't an issue for me.

Below is a graph of the improvement in flatness of the frequency response of the driver with the addition of the EQ circuit.

[jimgriffin]

Roman,

Thanks for the message. I'll try to answer below:

1. "What do you think of the sound in general?

I like the sound of the CSS FR125S overall. it provides good bass for its size and the only quibble is the highs are not as good as from a dome tweeter. Overall I can live with them for most of my listening.

2. "... looked at the published frequency response plot and it looks very good but also looks like a lot of smoothing was used. Not that I'm dissatisfied with the performance of the Tang Band I'm wondering if I should have
spent the extra money and gone with the
FR125s instead (they seem to have better
bass extension at the cost of lower
sensitivity). The only thing that bothers me
with the Tang Bands is the high frequency
off axis performance as you might have
gathered by reading some of my other posts.
How does the FR125 do in this category? I
would assume that it is similar because it
uses a similar cone type and size but I
would still like to hear your comments.

I haven't played with the T-B 4"/4.5" drivers so it is difficult for me to compare except from their specs. I think that the The T-B's and the CSS uses essentially the same frame basket but I did note a different cone taper when I looked at these two drivers side by side. The T-B versions have a little more sensitivity but less Xmax than the CSS FR125S so you would a bit more bass from a small monitor with the CSS driver. One concern about the FR125S if used in a small MT is that with its low sensivitity (86 dB SPL) and you add some baffle step comp, then you are talking of speaker sensivitity in the low 80's dB SPL. Hence, it may not play loud enough if in a large room or for a person who is heavy on the volume control.

3. "Did you happen to take any off axis measurements of the design? I have some posted on my site under the Bandit project and the response gets pretty bad once you get beyond 15
degrees."

No, I have not measured off axis but just like you have found with the small T-Bs you likely will not get the dispersion of a good dome tweeter in the upper two octaves. I'll see if I can take some more data in the future. As my ML-TL is a bipole, I will have to attenuate the rear wave a bit or gate the measurement to make sure that I'm looking at only the forward radiation.

Jim

[raw]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a300/reelaudiophile/DIY%20DAYTON%202005/100_0012.jpg


> Roman,

> Thanks for the message. I'll try to answer
> below:

> 1. "What do you think of the sound in
> general?

> I like the sound of the CSS FR125S overall.
> it provides good bass for its size and the
> only quibble is the highs are not as good as
> from a dome tweeter. Overall I can live with
> them for most of my listening.

> 2. "... looked at the published
> frequency response plot and it looks very
> good but also looks like a lot of smoothing
> was used. Not that I'm dissatisfied with the
> performance of the Tang Band I'm wondering
> if I should have
> spent the extra money and gone with the
> FR125s instead (they seem to have better
> bass extension at the cost of lower
> sensitivity). The only thing that bothers me
> with the Tang Bands is the high frequency
> off axis performance as you might have
> gathered by reading some of my other posts.
> How does the FR125 do in this category? I
> would assume that it is similar because it
> uses a similar cone type and size but I
> would still like to hear your comments.

> I haven't played with the T-B
> 4"/4.5" drivers so it is difficult
> for me to compare except from their specs. I
> think that the The T-B's and the CSS uses
> essentially the same frame basket but I did
> note a different cone taper when I looked at
> these two drivers side by side. The T-B
> versions have a little more sensitivity but
> less Xmax than the CSS FR125S so you would a
> bit more bass from a small monitor with the
> CSS driver. One concern about the FR125S if
> used in a small MT is that with its low
> sensivitity (86 dB SPL) and you add some
> baffle step comp, then you are talking of
> speaker sensivitity in the low 80's dB SPL.
> Hence, it may not play loud enough if in a
> large room or for a person who is heavy on
> the volume control.

> 3. "Did you happen to take any off axis
> measurements of the design? I have some
> posted on my site under the Bandit project
> and the response gets pretty bad once you
> get beyond 15
> degrees."

> No, I have not measured off axis but just
> like you have found with the small T-Bs you
> likely will not get the dispersion of a good
> dome tweeter in the upper two octaves. I'll
> see if I can take some more data in the
> future. As my ML-TL is a bipole, I will have
> to attenuate the rear wave a bit or gate the
> measurement to make sure that I'm looking at
> only the forward radiation.

> Jim

Jim
When you are at the DIY did you have chance to listen to the HT1 Shawn built?

Al

[romanbednarek]

> Roman,

> Thanks for the message. I'll try to answer
> below:

> 1. "What do you think of the sound in
> general?

> I like the sound of the CSS FR125S overall.
> it provides good bass for its size and the
> only quibble is the highs are not as good as
> from a dome tweeter. Overall I can live with
> them for most of my listening.

> 2. "... looked at the published
> frequency response plot and it looks very
> good but also looks like a lot of smoothing
> was used. Not that I'm dissatisfied with the
> performance of the Tang Band I'm wondering
> if I should have
> spent the extra money and gone with the
> FR125s instead (they seem to have better
> bass extension at the cost of lower
> sensitivity). The only thing that bothers me
> with the Tang Bands is the high frequency
> off axis performance as you might have
> gathered by reading some of my other posts.
> How does the FR125 do in this category? I
> would assume that it is similar because it
> uses a similar cone type and size but I
> would still like to hear your comments.

> I haven't played with the T-B
> 4"/4.5" drivers so it is difficult
> for me to compare except from their specs. I
> think that the The T-B's and the CSS uses
> essentially the same frame basket but I did
> note a different cone taper when I looked at
> these two drivers side by side. The T-B
> versions have a little more sensitivity but
> less Xmax than the CSS FR125S so you would a
> bit more bass from a small monitor with the
> CSS driver. One concern about the FR125S if
> used in a small MT is that with its low
> sensivitity (86 dB SPL) and you add some
> baffle step comp, then you are talking of
> speaker sensivitity in the low 80's dB SPL.
> Hence, it may not play loud enough if in a
> large room or for a person who is heavy on
> the volume control.

> 3. "Did you happen to take any off axis
> measurements of the design? I have some
> posted on my site under the Bandit project
> and the response gets pretty bad once you
> get beyond 15
> degrees."

> No, I have not measured off axis but just
> like you have found with the small T-Bs you
> likely will not get the dispersion of a good
> dome tweeter in the upper two octaves. I'll
> see if I can take some more data in the
> future. As my ML-TL is a bipole, I will have
> to attenuate the rear wave a bit or gate the
> measurement to make sure that I'm looking at
> only the forward radiation.

> Jim

Thanks for the response Jim. It really looks like a great design and well thought out. It takes care of some of the sensitivity issues with the FR125 by using the rear driver to reinforce some of the baffle step losses instead of attenuating the mid/top end of the driver as would be required with a single driver system. If you get around to taking additional measurements let me know because I'd be interested in seeing them.

[jimgriffin]

> Jim,

> As you know, my wife asked me to build your
> bipole design for our living room. I was
> interested in your opinions in using the
> Tang Band W4-1052SA driver on both the back
> and front of the cabinet instead of the
> driver you used. I have a design for a sort
> of "equalization circuit" for the
> W4-1052SA that smooths out the response. I
> used this driver in a Voight pipe design
> with the EQ circuit. The EQ cirucit makes a
> night and day difference in the response
> curve.

> Would you consider this driver for this
> application? The Fs number is consistent
> with the drivers you used but only play up
> to 15 kHz. I can't hear much higher than
> that anyways so this isn't an issue for me.

> Below is a graph of the improvement in
> flatness of the frequency response of the
> driver with the addition of the EQ circuit.

Chris,

Now my ML-TL was specifically designed to the CSS drivers' T/S specs so I would encourage you to consider the differences between the two drivers CSS vs. T/B and change the box if enough differences are apparent. While the T/B drivers would likely work just fine, it would be worth a look before cutting wood. As you saw at the event, the frame of the T/B drivers and the CSS drivers look the same so either would mount in the box.

I suspect that the equalization circuit would have to be changed if you use the T/B drivers. The drivers are in parallel so the impedance changes from nominal 8 to 4 ohms. Plus the EQ circuit may include some baffle step or frequency contouring that would be different for the new bipolar configuation. With the bipole connection you get built-in BSC by design.

Let me hear how you proceed on this. Connie has good taste.

Jim

[jimgriffin]

> When you are at the DIY did you have chance
> to listen to the HT1 Shawn built?

Al,

I did have a chance to hear Shawn's speakers. I like their sound but you know that I am a sucker for that little Aurum Cantus ribbon married to a small wide range woofer. It performs very close to the Jordan JX92S/A-C G2si combo that I built. Both the HT1 or the Jordan combo are excellent speakers with few faults other than perhaps their slightly low sensitivity and the fact that they need another octave of bass. Otherwise they are killers.

Jim

[shawn_a]

I didn't really hear much input at the event but then again, by that time in the day my brain was starting to drift to thoughts of cold beer.

At home I usually run them off of my Yamaha receiver with the speaker setting on small. This really helps the WR125's survive some of the kick drum bass transients. I still do feel that they are some really nice speakers even without the extra octave of bass you mentioned. They just need to be ran with a appropriate subwoofer for full sound.

After hearing Dave Zachary's RS125 based 2-ways, I would love to hear an RS125 with an AC tweeter. If that is possible I think it would sound very nice. Still I gotta say, Al has a great speaker design in the HT1.

shawn

[jimgriffin]

Shawn,

I thought that your speakers were one of the best looking pair at the event. Good luck on your next project.

Jim