Fullrangedriver Forum

doggy wrote:

Just some ramblings. I just wonder if you couldn't make your own cone, and experiment with different papers or other materials. A standard motor and frame can be used; It would be really interesting to find out how a speaker[driver] is manufactured.

Just as a sidenote the hm-alto double horn I built works very well, is clean sounding with smooth bass. From what I have heard myself,a dedicated sub type loaded horn works better than trying to get it all from one driver. I have lived the single driver route for many years. Also in a convential 2 or 3 way, most are not horn loaded. I doubt anyone will build the hm-alto[ my fe108ez version] or HM Saxaphon because they are unconventional and also a lot of work!!-2 horns in one cab.

some more construction pics.: http://community.webshots.com/user/PrincetonDoggy

I called the guy venice dickson if I am saying it right. he said if I do not have a voice coil machine and testing machines and other thingd this would be point less. I would also need he said about  $500,000 dollars for him to get me started and on track for my drivers. Phil

JohninCR wrote:

karlsonkab wrote:

Hi JohnInCR - do you think 10 offers any advantage over a 12"?  I didn't get super impressed with 10cx/b102 although ok - trying to mate B102 at 7-10Khz leaves a big hole in the power response

Eminence's old 15 were ok - that 3x6 horn is old type - P-Aduio still does them.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1566 … jpgul8.jpg
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1083/coaxrjpgxx7.jpg

KK,

I'm just fishing for what I want.  I think a 10" can move enough air for what I need, so saving 2" of cab width is all I'm after with a 10 vs a 12.  Hemp is supposed to be coming out with a 10" coax, so we'll see how much Dan Wiggins took my request to heart last year.

yes they are and you need to be a dealer to get a pair is what they told me. They are also going for $900.00 dollars a pair. Phil

doggy wrote:

Just some ramblings. I just wonder if you couldn't make your own cone, and experiment with different papers or other materials. A standard motor and frame can be used; It would be really interesting to find out how a speaker[driver] is manufactured.

Just as a sidenote the hm-alto double horn I built works very well, is clean sounding with smooth bass. From what I have heard myself,a dedicated sub type loaded horn works better than trying to get it all from one driver. I have lived the single driver route for many years. Also in a convential 2 or 3 way, most are not horn loaded. I doubt anyone will build the hm-alto[ my fe108ez version] or HM Saxaphon because they are unconventional and also a lot of work!!-2 horns in one cab. :)

some more construction pics.: http://community.webshots.com/user/PrincetonDoggy

Cool nice cabnet work! Good idea with the 8 inch tang band driver. How does that driver sound or put out? Phil

EM should be reasonably priced.  one might have to "sit on" some units.  I'm not a businessperson (nor good with tech). one would also have to decide on practical parameter and cone type tradeoffs within their stock. 

Bastanis, Hemp, Hawthorne , Zu and others go EM - some modify further with secret sauces


ney mike - maybe
EM could hold summit with Revere ?  :^)

Last edited by karlsonkab (2007-01-27 20:14:32)

its just that I think "some" of those cheap drivers are clever including cone doping.  Eminence does pretty good work for larger cone and build with good precision. Whos got the most hip transducer engineers?

Eminence are pretty tough - thought might had blown a 12 coax when stupic pc EQ got stuck and made bad noise on 250W amp

Last edited by karlsonkab (2007-01-27 21:15:15)

kinda like LE8 (?) - if price low and Eminence had right stuff to make similar then could be fun - does Eminence still have their JBL-type (other than low qes) guitar drivers?

karlsonkab wrote:

mike - maybe
EM could hold summit with Revere ?  :^)

If they meet on top of a plastic cone

ghpicard wrote:

JohninCR wrote:

btw, next week we're going to build on of those BIB's, but with the mouth near the floor and K-slot venting that will hopefully reduce the ripple.

I was thinking to do something similar (to use the back of the BIB as the K-coupler) when it was mentioned that a BIB is a corner horn. As such, it uses the corner of a room as the next section of a bigger horn, so if I released the energy in a smoother way, like a K-coupler does, that leaves no energy at the terminus, then the desired effect would be thwarted.
Perhaps a smoother curved mouth like the one Ron designed into his Austins, and the one of the Frugel's would be better. I'm trying to figure out how to try it in a reversible way when I build my FE166E BIB's...

Gastón

Gaston,
Planet10 has plans drawn up for the BIB I'm talking about.  He calls it the ibibk FE12XE and has a link in post #5 here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthre … genumber=1 .  No one has built it and I want a new home for my FE127's that does more bass than the reference project MLTL .  There is no bottom plate, so the terminus is somewhat open, with some early venting with the K-slot on the rear panel.  Kind of a shot in the dark, but I like the idea, so why not?

--i'd like another regular Karlson-type (kan't learn)

so far, there were several variants to K15 bulk. (32x20x20.5 with 30 degree and 3 panel reflector;32x16x21.25 with 23 degree and 10 degree reflector and 42x16x22.5 with 23 degree)   K15 of course did well against all although one small 18/15  with enlarged gap was something tonally I liked and 18 give phat easy listening - no 18 coax athough P-Audio were on sale for $250 - shouda grabbed em but can cheat with slotted tube.

karlsonkab wrote:

EM should be reasonably priced.  one might have to "sit on" some units.  I'm not a businessperson (nor good with tech). one would also have to decide on practical parameter and cone type tradeoffs within their stock. 

Bastanis, Hemp, Hawthorne , Zu and others go EM - some modify further with secret sauces


ney mike - maybe
EM could hold summit with Revere ?  :^)

I will try to. Thanks phil

Phil wrote:

...how does the driver sound or put out?

The driver I use are the mcm 55-2421 with 11mm x-max. The tang band is the current replacement. Terrible sounding as a full range but used in a dedicated compression bass horn,-a killer! imho, clean and powerfull bass. I credit Bill Fitzmaurice for my bass horn knowledge and also hm for his insightful designs.

For a coax the paudio are well priced for the build quality from what I can see. Have not heard these, anyone audition these? commonsenseaudio sell them.

Blake,

I'm not sure how 1/4 wave theory fits in, except that if you delay the rearwave by 1/4 wavelength then the front and rear waves are only 90deg out of phase and the rear wave neither cancels nor reinforces the front wave.  This point is called Fequal, termed by Linkwitz, and is the point where SPL equals monopole. 

Do yourself a favor and forget the front of the cone to the rear of the cone concept, because it's not correct.  The front and rear waves start out directly out of phase, so where they have travelled the same distance, they're still 180deg out and still net 2 zero.  There is no destructive cancellation, so waves bending around the front or back pass right thru each other.  It is the phase relationship of the front and rear waves as they reach your ears that determines how much bass you hear.  As you delay the rear wave by making it travel a longer distance you get more bass.

Let's say you have a 1ft wide baffle with the driver in the center.  To get to your ears the front wave travels directly, but the rear wave has to travel an extra six inches to get around the baffle and go to your ears.  Add another foot of total width and you get 6 more inches of delay around each side.

Now lets say you want to make the rear wave travel rearward first before it clears the baffle to head forward to your ears.  You build a baffle the width of the driver and put 3" deep sides on each side.  This also delays the rear wave by 6" around either side.  It goes rearward 3" then forward 3" before the remaining distance is the same as the front wave, so a delay of 6".  Now if we add 3" more depth we pick up an additional 6" of delay.  Therefore, an additional 12" of width equals 3" of additional depth, or a 4/1 ratio.

Doing these U-baffle variations does come with issues that you must deal with.  On the front side you have some baffle step type issues because the front baffle no longer supports the same frequency of 1/2 space wave launch.  On the backside you now have a cavity and can create 1/2 wave resonances between parallel panels and 1/4 wave resonances based on depth of the cavity.  Also to get the full delay, you may need damping material inside the cavity to prevent that air mass from acting as a lumped mass and moving in unison at low frequency.  This can cause the rear wave to be sourced not at the driver, but at the mouth of the cavity. and you lose that extra delay distance.

Now you too can prove how 1" equals 4".  I've tried to explain it to my wife, but she's not falling for it.

Last edited by JohninCR (2007-01-28 17:46:09)

hitsware wrote:

Seems then that one could mount the driver
on the edge of a single baffle
(driver facing listener, mounted (centered)
on edge of baffle (baffle edge rather than
face towards listener)) and not have the
pipe or parrallel walls problems......

You must like the Guinness...Brilliant!