TB 3"/4" speakers

[darkkhild]

In your guys' means what do you think is the better of the TB 3"s and 4"s in the selection that PE has to offer? I may be opening a can of worms here but I am curious....

TIA
-B

[paul_n_oneal]

> In your guys' means what do you think is the
> better of the TB 3"s and 4"s in
> the selection that PE has to offer? I may be
> opening a can of worms here but I am
> curious....

> TIA
> -B

I dunno, but they also have a bunch under extended range cone drivers. I just got this guy working in a three way.

<A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-816">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-816</A>

It's the cheapest they have unless you get down to 2 or 3 inches. What you see is what you get. A paper cone with no coating, rubber surround, shielded, and decent sounding. I have no idea how the distortion plots would look like but I'd be curious to see. So this is the only one I've used and it's not bad but definitely not the super duper mid of a high end system. But then again, $17 isn't bad. I've also used the W3-871S IIRC. It was a nice little extended range driver too but I did prefer the $10 B3S over it. Dunno why, I just thought it sounded better to my ears. RomanB has used the Bamboo and IIRC he like the sound it provided. Might want to email him and see if he doesn't respond.

Paul

[Chris Roemer]

> I dunno, but they also have a bunch under
> extended range cone drivers. I just got this
> guy working in a three way.

>
> <A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-816">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=264-816</A>
> It's the cheapest they have unless you get
> down to 2 or 3 inches. What you see is what
> you get. A paper cone with no coating,
> rubber surround, shielded, and decent
> sounding. I have no idea how the distortion
> plots would look like but I'd be curious to
> see. So this is the only one I've used and
> it's not bad but definitely not the super
> duper mid of a high end system. But then
> again, $17 isn't bad. I've also used the
> W3-871S IIRC. It was a nice little extended
> range driver too but I did prefer the $10
> B3S over it. Dunno why, I just thought it
> sounded better to my ears. RomanB has used
> the Bamboo and IIRC he like the sound it
> provided. Might want to email him and see if
> he doesn't respond.

> Paul

PE has data files for 10 TB drivers from 2" to 4".

2 2"
W2-880 part # 264-806
W2-852 # 264-808

5 3"
W3-879 264-810
W3-315 -811
W3-881 -812
W3-594 -814
W3-1364 -884

and 3 4"
W4-654 -816
W4-656 -820
W4-992 -824

Take a look at the FR plots. Dump the data onto a spreadsheet or use "XOverSim" from the FRD Consortium.

In general, none of the 4"ers can do tweeter duty, or woofer duty either, for that matter. Going by the "book specs", I told my buddy to use a pair of the W4-656 for small surrounds. The "specs" say they're good from 65 Hz to 15 kHz.

Yeah. From a "nominal" (certainly NOT smooth) SPL of 87dB, they're 3dB down at 190 Hz, and -15 to -16dB at 65 Hz. Porting them for bass (which I suggested - but this WAS 4 years ago) was a waste of space. From what I heard about the "limited" bandwidth sent to surrounds, I figured a top end of 15k wouldn't be too bad. Well, that driver spikes +9dB at 7kHz, then like a rock to -3dB at 10kHz and -13dB at 15kHz. That's a 22dB drop in just over ONE octave, yeow! So, in reality, they're useable like more from 200 Hz to 10kHz.

That doesn't mean I won't try the 3"ers though. I think the W3-879 looks to be the smoothest of the bunch. I'd seal and stuff it. This one WILL generate some output right up to 20k. I'm thinkin' they could make a pretty good 2.1 system using a stereo pair with the 8"DVC sub.

The 2"ers just seem too small and frail to me. Low power handling, low Xmax, and low sensitivity.

Bye.

[tomzarbo]

I've used the 4" full range/woofer that Paul O'Neal gave a link to. I used two of them for an under the counter stereo system that I made for my Mother's kitchen. Two seperate enclosures ported with (I think) a 1" radiused port. I used a 12V power supply and an el-cheapo car CD stereo player (Don't laugh, car stereo's generally get better reception in my opinion than many home receivers!) OK, you can laugh!

About the 4"ers, I think if you're looking for a good listening speaker, these probably won't do the trick w/o major tweaking, but for just background music, or just to tinker with, they do OK IMHO.

TomZ

[chrism]

> PE has data files for 10 TB drivers from
> 2" to 4".

> 2 2"
> W2-880 part # 264-806
> W2-852 # 264-808

> 5 3"
> W3-879 264-810
> W3-315 -811
> W3-881 -812
> W3-594 -814
> W3-1364 -884

> and 3 4"
> W4-654 -816
> W4-656 -820
> W4-992 -824

> Take a look at the FR plots. Dump the data
> onto a spreadsheet or use
> "XOverSim" from the FRD
> Consortium.

> In general, none of the 4"ers can do
> tweeter duty, or woofer duty either, for
> that matter. Going by the "book
> specs", I told my buddy to use a pair
> of the W4-656 for small surrounds. The
> "specs" say they're good from 65
> Hz to 15 kHz.

> Yeah. From a "nominal" (certainly
> NOT smooth) SPL of 87dB, they're 3dB down at
> 190 Hz, and -15 to -16dB at 65 Hz. Porting
> them for bass (which I suggested - but this
> WAS 4 years ago) was a waste of space. From
> what I heard about the "limited"
> bandwidth sent to surrounds, I figured a top
> end of 15k wouldn't be too bad. Well, that
> driver spikes +9dB at 7kHz, then like a rock
> to -3dB at 10kHz and -13dB at 15kHz. That's
> a 22dB drop in just over ONE octave, yeow!
> So, in reality, they're useable like more
> from 200 Hz to 10kHz.

> That doesn't mean I won't try the 3"ers
> though. I think the W3-879 looks to be the
> smoothest of the bunch. I'd seal and stuff
> it. This one WILL generate some output right
> up to 20k. I'm thinkin' they could make a
> pretty good 2.1 system using a stereo pair
> with the 8"DVC sub.

> The 2"ers just seem too small and frail
> to me. Low power handling, low Xmax, and low
> sensitivity.

> Bye.

I have a set of W4-1052SA's mounted in voight pipes using only a filter running full range. They put out an amazing amount of bass given the size of the drivers. The upper range is pretty decent as well. I would also like to mention that they image better than any other speaker I have ever used. I'll be bringing these to DIY Dayton.

[paul_n_oneal]

> I have a set of W4-1052SA's mounted in
> voight pipes using only a filter running
> full range. They put out an amazing amount
> of bass given the size of the drivers. The
> upper range is pretty decent as well. I
> would also like to mention that they image
> better than any other speaker I have ever
> used. I'll be bringing these to DIY Dayton.

The paper images well too it's just a bear of a driver to work with. It didn't measure like the PE data when I put it on my baffle unfortunately. It had a lower end rise of about 6db IIRC. I agree that it's not the best sounding mid I've heard but it's not to intrusive either with a lot of xover work :).

Paul

[shawn_a]

I do like the 1052 a lot. The first time I used them was doing a "let's see what happens if we..." kind of project on my buddy's XM Sky-Fi boom box. I had to do some crafty Dremel wielding to the flange to make them fit but it was a big improvement over the stock whizzer-cone speaker. I was worried about the lower impedance killing the amp but after 2 years it's still going strong. Makes for a nice garage radio. I might ask ole' Donald if I can borrow it from him for the DIY just for kicks and giggles. It looks kind of menacing with those silver phase plugs staring out from behind the grilles.

shawn