Another sub-bass option
 

Dave Plowman wrote:

: In article ,
: Arny Krueger wrote:
: If money is tight, auction off the B139s and use the cash to buy a real
: subwoofer driver.
:
: Oh, and if you are building a subwoofer, forget transmission lines. They
: are basically a waste of good box volume.
:
: More sacrilege from Arny. But true. I've never come across a pro
: transmission line speaker, and for good reasons.

Well, more straight talk from Arny ... a loosely chosen entry point!
OTOH, I've been following the thread, as I've a pair of B139's too;-)

AAMOF I hauled them out of a pair of small "TL"s I bought (with early
T27 variant, B110 (unknown label-off variant)) and reduced the cases
to face-down "speaker stands" interim because they sounded so bad,
with old stuffing etc, and besides I needed a temporary replacement
for the one blown T27's in my kitchen Kef 104ab set - but I digress!

Straight talk or not, I've total sympathy with the OP's desire to do
what he can with what he has, especially with budget considerations,
and I'm saving the B139's (and the B110's in case an alternate idea
for a better cabinet arrangement .... looking at the really basic TL I
bought, it could be turned sideways and possibly extended ... as per
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/design/foldings/tttl.html ... maybe ...

But my main point was going to be ... and I hold this out as a
potential future project of my own, all comments appreciated;- -
what about considering the "coffin" dual TL supposedly sub at
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/classics/coffin/
and especially, obviously the details at the "Perfectionist Audio"
link therein,
http://www.hogheaven.com/diyaudio/su...PATL/patl.html
as a possibility for using a spare pair of B139's up?

OK, it requires a little work in the timber dept, but why not?
It might seem to have capabilities beyond the usual, anyway.

[Cheers!]

RdM

"Big is better, and biggest is best" (;=}))
William S. Burroughs as lead dinosaur in some song skit, somewhere

[and the reason I'm delaying mine is because I'd never get it down the
stairs on a move ... but it's definitely a considered future project!]

Another sub-bass option
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'm not whining. I also wasn't looking for new drivers. Arny
suggested the JL ones, but the UK price turned out to be too dear.

You'll find that Volt drivers are also expensive. Good bass drivers
*are* both large and expensive. They're also *necessary*, if you want
clean bass at high levels.

At no point did I say I wanted clean bass at high levels. In an earlier
thread, about bi-amping, I said that I rarely use my 20Wpc amp over half
volume for full program material. I gather an isobaric enclosure needs more
power than one using a single driver, but I don't think my needs would
dictate something in the multiple hundreds of Watts category - maybe
30-40Wpc?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Another sub-bass option
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'm not whining. I also wasn't looking for new drivers. Arny
suggested the JL ones, but the UK price turned out to be too dear.

You'll find that Volt drivers are also expensive. Good bass drivers
*are* both large and expensive. They're also *necessary*, if you want
clean bass at high levels.

At no point did I say I wanted clean bass at high levels. In an earlier
thread, about bi-amping, I said that I rarely use my 20Wpc amp over half
volume for full program material. I gather an isobaric enclosure needs more
power than one using a single driver, but I don't think my needs would
dictate something in the multiple hundreds of Watts category - maybe
30-40Wpc?


--
Wally
www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Another sub-bass option
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:06:26 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'm not whining. I also wasn't looking for new drivers. Arny
suggested the JL ones, but the UK price turned out to be too dear.

You'll find that Volt drivers are also expensive. Good bass drivers
*are* both large and expensive. They're also *necessary*, if you want
clean bass at high levels.

At no point did I say I wanted clean bass at high levels. In an earlier
thread, about bi-amping, I said that I rarely use my 20Wpc amp over half
volume for full program material. I gather an isobaric enclosure needs more
power than one using a single driver, but I don't think my needs would
dictate something in the multiple hundreds of Watts category - maybe
30-40Wpc?

Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Another sub-bass option
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:06:26 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'm not whining. I also wasn't looking for new drivers. Arny
suggested the JL ones, but the UK price turned out to be too dear.

You'll find that Volt drivers are also expensive. Good bass drivers
*are* both large and expensive. They're also *necessary*, if you want
clean bass at high levels.

At no point did I say I wanted clean bass at high levels. In an earlier
thread, about bi-amping, I said that I rarely use my 20Wpc amp over half
volume for full program material. I gather an isobaric enclosure needs more
power than one using a single driver, but I don't think my needs would
dictate something in the multiple hundreds of Watts category - maybe
30-40Wpc?

Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Another sub-bass option
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.


Can I have a little rant?

This thread was about KEF B139s.

If you look at a B139, not with rose-tinted glasses,
but as the woofer in a domestic hi-fi setup, it is excellent.

Maybe it doesn't work as an AV sub to reproduce helicopters
and explosions at window shattering levels but in a reflex box
with -3dB at ~32 Hz or a TL with -10dB at ~20Hz it sounds
pretty damn' good on all of my CDs and vinyl.

What's more, a B139 still works after 30 years, unlike foam-surround
woofers that are dead at 10 years or other newish materials that lose
their shape and fall off (some sort of Goodmans loudspeaker)

So I may buy new speakers, but KEFs will be playing at my funeral. :-)

Thanks,

Roger.

Another sub-bass option
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.


Can I have a little rant?

This thread was about KEF B139s.

If you look at a B139, not with rose-tinted glasses,
but as the woofer in a domestic hi-fi setup, it is excellent.

Maybe it doesn't work as an AV sub to reproduce helicopters
and explosions at window shattering levels but in a reflex box
with -3dB at ~32 Hz or a TL with -10dB at ~20Hz it sounds
pretty damn' good on all of my CDs and vinyl.

What's more, a B139 still works after 30 years, unlike foam-surround
woofers that are dead at 10 years or other newish materials that lose
their shape and fall off (some sort of Goodmans loudspeaker)

So I may buy new speakers, but KEFs will be playing at my funeral. :-)

Thanks,

Roger.

Another sub-bass option
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:59:29 +0100, Old Fart at Play
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.

Can I have a little rant?

This thread was about KEF B139s.

If you look at a B139, not with rose-tinted glasses,
but as the woofer in a domestic hi-fi setup, it is excellent.

Um, it's a decent woofer, but was overtaken many years ago by more
modern constructions, viz KEFs own 'racetrack' woofers in their
current range.

Maybe it doesn't work as an AV sub to reproduce helicopters
and explosions at window shattering levels but in a reflex box
with -3dB at ~32 Hz or a TL with -10dB at ~20Hz it sounds
pretty damn' good on all of my CDs and vinyl.

Granted, it was never designed for subwoofer duties, and comes from an
era when reproduction below 30Hz was almost an irrelevance, i.e. the
days when vinyl was king.

What's more, a B139 still works after 30 years, unlike foam-surround
woofers that are dead at 10 years or other newish materials that lose
their shape and fall off (some sort of Goodmans loudspeaker)

Well, that's true of any other speaker with a rubber surround. In
fact, over forty years or so of audiophilia, and several dozen pairs
of speakers, I don't think I have ever owned speakers with a foam
surround. The 'other newish materials' you sweepingly denigrate are in
the main responsible for great advances in sound reproduction.
Goodmans haven't made a decent speaker in 30 years, so they are hardly
a good target.

So I may buy new speakers, but KEFs will be playing at my funeral. :-)

Ah now, a *real* audiophile would have gone for Quad '57s! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Another sub-bass option
 

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:59:29 +0100, Old Fart at Play
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Nope. If you look at the volume of air you need to shift at 20Hz to
obtain even 100dB (not a particularly loud peak level), then you need
a *lot* of power! This is why decent commercial subs invariably have
several hundred watt amps, some go up to a kilowatt!.

Can I have a little rant?

This thread was about KEF B139s.

If you look at a B139, not with rose-tinted glasses,
but as the woofer in a domestic hi-fi setup, it is excellent.

Um, it's a decent woofer, but was overtaken many years ago by more
modern constructions, viz KEFs own 'racetrack' woofers in their
current range.

Maybe it doesn't work as an AV sub to reproduce helicopters
and explosions at window shattering levels but in a reflex box
with -3dB at ~32 Hz or a TL with -10dB at ~20Hz it sounds
pretty damn' good on all of my CDs and vinyl.

Granted, it was never designed for subwoofer duties, and comes from an
era when reproduction below 30Hz was almost an irrelevance, i.e. the
days when vinyl was king.

What's more, a B139 still works after 30 years, unlike foam-surround
woofers that are dead at 10 years or other newish materials that lose
their shape and fall off (some sort of Goodmans loudspeaker)

Well, that's true of any other speaker with a rubber surround. In
fact, over forty years or so of audiophilia, and several dozen pairs
of speakers, I don't think I have ever owned speakers with a foam
surround. The 'other newish materials' you sweepingly denigrate are in
the main responsible for great advances in sound reproduction.
Goodmans haven't made a decent speaker in 30 years, so they are hardly
a good target.

So I may buy new speakers, but KEFs will be playing at my funeral. :-)

Ah now, a *real* audiophile would have gone for Quad '57s! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Another sub-bass option
 

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...


So I may buy new speakers, but KEFs will be playing at my funeral. :-)

Ah now, a *real* audiophile would have gone for Quad '57s! :-)

But you can't be buried in an ESL57.

http://www.t-linespeakers.org/classics/coffin

Roger.