| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Another sub-bass option
Rather than the idea I mooted recently about making compact tranmission
lines using Kef B139s and driving them with a filtered signal to provide lift where the speakers roll off, I have another option - I have a total of four B139s, two in the existing speakers, and two bought as spares and/or drivers for the future bass units. Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Wally wrote:
Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? Been reading this... http://www.maximacar.com/isobaric.htm It says that having the drivers facing towards or away from each other, as opposed to facing the same way, gives the "benefit of push-pull operation". Does this have something to do wth the driver having a different response when the cone moves away from the magnet compared to towards the magnet, such that having the pair of drivers doing one half of each movenment reduces the variation in a single driver. Ie, a bit like the idea of matched valves in a push-pull amplifier giving less variation between the +ve and -ve halfs of the waveform? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Wally wrote:
Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? Been reading this... http://www.maximacar.com/isobaric.htm It says that having the drivers facing towards or away from each other, as opposed to facing the same way, gives the "benefit of push-pull operation". Does this have something to do wth the driver having a different response when the cone moves away from the magnet compared to towards the magnet, such that having the pair of drivers doing one half of each movenment reduces the variation in a single driver. Ie, a bit like the idea of matched valves in a push-pull amplifier giving less variation between the +ve and -ve halfs of the waveform? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Wally wrote: Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? Been reading this... http://www.maximacar.com/isobaric.htm It says that having the drivers facing towards or away from each other, as opposed to facing the same way, gives the "benefit of push-pull operation". Does this have something to do wth the driver having a different response when the cone moves away from the magnet compared to towards the magnet, such that having the pair of drivers doing one half of each movenment reduces the variation in a single driver. Ie, a bit like the idea of matched valves in a push-pull amplifier giving less variation between the +ve and -ve halfs of the waveform? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Wally wrote: Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? Been reading this... http://www.maximacar.com/isobaric.htm It says that having the drivers facing towards or away from each other, as opposed to facing the same way, gives the "benefit of push-pull operation". Does this have something to do wth the driver having a different response when the cone moves away from the magnet compared to towards the magnet, such that having the pair of drivers doing one half of each movenment reduces the variation in a single driver. Ie, a bit like the idea of matched valves in a push-pull amplifier giving less variation between the +ve and -ve halfs of the waveform? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
Chris Morriss wrote:
Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Chris Morriss wrote:
Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Chris Morriss wrote: Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Chris Morriss wrote: Got it in one! Exactly analogous to push-pull cancelling out even harmonics in a class-A amp. So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
Chris Morriss wrote:
So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. Got the idea. Many years ago, I once heard a pair of Linn Isobariks in Russ Andrews and thought the bass was amazingly solid and clear. Someone else was auditioning, I was just milling about. I think it was a jazzy track with acoustic bass. Maybe this isobarik idea is worth pursuing instead of the transmission lines... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Chris Morriss wrote:
So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. Got the idea. Many years ago, I once heard a pair of Linn Isobariks in Russ Andrews and thought the bass was amazingly solid and clear. Someone else was auditioning, I was just milling about. I think it was a jazzy track with acoustic bass. Maybe this isobarik idea is worth pursuing instead of the transmission lines... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Chris Morriss wrote: So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. Got the idea. Many years ago, I once heard a pair of Linn Isobariks in Russ Andrews and thought the bass was amazingly solid and clear. Someone else was auditioning, I was just milling about. I think it was a jazzy track with acoustic bass. Maybe this isobarik idea is worth pursuing instead of the transmission lines... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Never experimented with Isobarics. It's a good way of getting the Q low in a small cabinet, but the efficiency is very low too. I like transmission lines, but they do have to be big and if the line isn't adequately damped they have a pronounced wavy ripple in the response. I used to have a pair of the old TLS50 speakers and they were excellent if raised off the floor by 4 inches or so. (Sitting directly on the floor the bass was a bit muddy). Now 'muddy' I understand as a bass description, still wondering about 'slam' though :-) I'm sure that TL speakers are far too genteel to have slam! -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
In message , Wally
writes Chris Morriss wrote: So, improved fidelity of the bass waveform, then. Do drivers typically have inconsistencies in response that are dependent on the direction the cone moves in? Well they shouldn't have of course! In general the magnetic flux isn't symmetrical each side of the cone resting position, so drivers do produce even-order distortion even at low levels. At high levels more non-linearities come into play of course as the cone hits mechanical limits, and the coil comes out of the main flux area of the magnet gap. Got the idea. Many years ago, I once heard a pair of Linn Isobariks in Russ Andrews and thought the bass was amazingly solid and clear. Someone else was auditioning, I was just milling about. I think it was a jazzy track with acoustic bass. Maybe this isobarik idea is worth pursuing instead of the transmission lines... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. Never experimented with Isobarics. It's a good way of getting the Q low in a small cabinet, but the efficiency is very low too. I like transmission lines, but they do have to be big and if the line isn't adequately damped they have a pronounced wavy ripple in the response. I used to have a pair of the old TLS50 speakers and they were excellent if raised off the floor by 4 inches or so. (Sitting directly on the floor the bass was a bit muddy). Now 'muddy' I understand as a bass description, still wondering about 'slam' though :-) I'm sure that TL speakers are far too genteel to have slam! -- Chris Morriss |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message ... Rather than the idea I mooted recently about making compact transmission lines using Kef B139s and driving them with a filtered signal to provide lift where the speakers roll off, I have another option - I have a total of four B139s, two in the existing speakers, and two bought as spares and/or drivers for the future bass units. Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. 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. |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message ... Rather than the idea I mooted recently about making compact transmission lines using Kef B139s and driving them with a filtered signal to provide lift where the speakers roll off, I have another option - I have a total of four B139s, two in the existing speakers, and two bought as spares and/or drivers for the future bass units. Am I right in thinking that some sort of push-pull set up will give me a shallower roll-off for a given size? What design approaches are there, and how do they compare? The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. 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. |
Another sub-bass option
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. -- *It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Another sub-bass option
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. -- *It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. If money is tight, auction off the B139s and use the cash to buy a real subwoofer driver. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. Oh, and if you are building a subwoofer, forget transmission lines. They are basically a waste of good box volume. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. If money is tight, auction off the B139s and use the cash to buy a real subwoofer driver. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. Oh, and if you are building a subwoofer, forget transmission lines. They are basically a waste of good box volume. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
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. Is that a synonym for 'trollage'? But true. I've never come across a pro transmission line speaker, and for good reasons. For reasons of volume, as Arny states? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
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. Is that a synonym for 'trollage'? But true. I've never come across a pro transmission line speaker, and for good reasons. For reasons of volume, as Arny states? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html If money is tight, auction off the B139s and use the cash to buy a real subwoofer driver. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. Oh, and if you are building a subwoofer, forget transmission lines. They are basically a waste of good box volume. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: The simple fact is that by modern standards, B139s are pretty mediocre subwoofer drivers. They were never much more than fairly good plain old woofers. Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. *real* subwoofer drivers don't need kludges like "isobaric" cabinets to outperform any reasonable requirements. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html If money is tight, auction off the B139s and use the cash to buy a real subwoofer driver. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. Oh, and if you are building a subwoofer, forget transmission lines. They are basically a waste of good box volume. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. A bit of both. I've had my Kefs for years (20+) and I like their overall sound. The B139s are generally held in good regard, and sounded very good when I heard them in the Linns, and that would seem to be an indication of their potential. I'm not interested in sound quality to the extent of striving for some abstract notion of perfection. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. I don't own Linns, but I do subscribe to the idea of staying within sensible limits in the diminishing returns game. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html Thanks. I'll have a look. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to the B139s that are in the existing speakers. I'll clarify: I have two pairs of B139s, one pair in the existing speakers, and a spare pair. The plan is to experiment with a new bass enclosure without impacting the existing boxes. That way, if it doesn't work out, I can go back to the stuff I've used for 20-odd years without sacrifice. So, I take the spare B139s and build an isobaric cab to try it out. If I like it, I build a pair of small mid/top cabs and a second isobarik using the drivers from the existing speakers. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to my transmission line fantasies. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. A bit of both. I've had my Kefs for years (20+) and I like their overall sound. The B139s are generally held in good regard, and sounded very good when I heard them in the Linns, and that would seem to be an indication of their potential. I'm not interested in sound quality to the extent of striving for some abstract notion of perfection. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. I don't own Linns, but I do subscribe to the idea of staying within sensible limits in the diminishing returns game. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html Thanks. I'll have a look. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to the B139s that are in the existing speakers. I'll clarify: I have two pairs of B139s, one pair in the existing speakers, and a spare pair. The plan is to experiment with a new bass enclosure without impacting the existing boxes. That way, if it doesn't work out, I can go back to the stuff I've used for 20-odd years without sacrifice. So, I take the spare B139s and build an isobaric cab to try it out. If I like it, I build a pair of small mid/top cabs and a second isobarik using the drivers from the existing speakers. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to my transmission line fantasies. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. A bit of both. I've had my Kefs for years (20+) and I like their overall sound. The B139s are generally held in good regard, and sounded very good when I heard them in the Linns, and that would seem to be an indication of their potential. I'm not interested in sound quality to the extent of striving for some abstract notion of perfection. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. I don't own Linns, but I do subscribe to the idea of staying within sensible limits in the diminishing returns game. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html Thanks. I'll have a look. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to the B139s that are in the existing speakers. I'll clarify: I have two pairs of B139s, one pair in the existing speakers, and a spare pair. To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. The plan is to experiment with a new bass enclosure without impacting the existing boxes. That way, if it doesn't work out, I can go back to the stuff I've used for 20-odd years without sacrifice. So, I take the spare B139s and build an isobaric cab to try it out. If I like it, I build a pair of small mid/top cabs and a second isobarik using the drivers from the existing speakers. To clarify, I think that Isobarik is spinning one's wheels, as is trying to make true subs out of B139s. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to my transmission line fantasies. Enjoy! |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: Where does it say that I have to adhere to modern standards? That depends what's most important to you: sentimentality or sound quality. I'm not being snide, it's a choice you get to make and one that I can't criticize. A bit of both. I've had my Kefs for years (20+) and I like their overall sound. The B139s are generally held in good regard, and sounded very good when I heard them in the Linns, and that would seem to be an indication of their potential. I'm not interested in sound quality to the extent of striving for some abstract notion of perfection. I 'eard 'em in the Linns and they sounded better than my room can do justice to, so why should I want to go even better? Ah, a rare audophile whose stereo sounds good enough. I don't own Linns, but I do subscribe to the idea of staying within sensible limits in the diminishing returns game. Name a driver, and enclosure design/volume, that you recommend instead. These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ Here's the relevant part of the JL Audio web site: http://www.jlaudio.com/subwoofers/w7.html Thanks. I'll have a look. If I did that, there'd be big holes in my present speakers. I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to the B139s that are in the existing speakers. I'll clarify: I have two pairs of B139s, one pair in the existing speakers, and a spare pair. To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. The plan is to experiment with a new bass enclosure without impacting the existing boxes. That way, if it doesn't work out, I can go back to the stuff I've used for 20-odd years without sacrifice. So, I take the spare B139s and build an isobaric cab to try it out. If I like it, I build a pair of small mid/top cabs and a second isobarik using the drivers from the existing speakers. To clarify, I think that Isobarik is spinning one's wheels, as is trying to make true subs out of B139s. Looks like I'll have to scupper the Nautilus copies built out of plywood and car body filler, then... I was referring to the new subwoofer. I was referring to my transmission line fantasies. Enjoy! |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? What's happening on eBay with them these days? |
Another sub-bass option
"Wally" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: These guys can tell you where to buy JL Audio products in the UK: http://www.bbg-av.com/ To clarify, I was always talking only about the spares. I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? What's happening on eBay with them these days? |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! For reference, the prices for the W7 range at BBG are... 8 - 350 10 - 500 12 - 700 13 - 900 That's inches diameter and UK pounds. Since they're aimed at young blades who like their mobile audio jewelry, I guess they can charge a premium. I'm sure they're very good units, but I really don't think I need to spend that kind of money to get an improvement over what I already have. Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? What's happening on eBay with them these days? Varies, I'd guess about 80 quid a pair on a good day, up to 120-140 or so. I went through a flurry of buying up spares about a year ago, and got Kef bass, mid, treble, xovers, for about 200 quid all-in, various deals. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Arny Krueger wrote:
I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! For reference, the prices for the W7 range at BBG are... 8 - 350 10 - 500 12 - 700 13 - 900 That's inches diameter and UK pounds. Since they're aimed at young blades who like their mobile audio jewelry, I guess they can charge a premium. I'm sure they're very good units, but I really don't think I need to spend that kind of money to get an improvement over what I already have. Where can I flog a pair B139s for that kind of money? What's happening on eBay with them these days? Varies, I'd guess about 80 quid a pair on a good day, up to 120-140 or so. I went through a flurry of buying up spares about a year ago, and got Kef bass, mid, treble, xovers, for about 200 quid all-in, various deals. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:46:12 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! For reference, the prices for the W7 range at BBG are... 8 - 350 10 - 500 12 - 700 13 - 900 That's inches diameter and UK pounds. Since they're aimed at young blades who like their mobile audio jewelry, I guess they can charge a premium. I'm sure they're very good units, but I really don't think I need to spend that kind of money to get an improvement over what I already have. Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Another sub-bass option
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:46:12 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: I had a look. The smallest W7 driver costs 350 quid. Whao baby! I've heard about UK prices, but this! For reference, the prices for the W7 range at BBG are... 8 - 350 10 - 500 12 - 700 13 - 900 That's inches diameter and UK pounds. Since they're aimed at young blades who like their mobile audio jewelry, I guess they can charge a premium. I'm sure they're very good units, but I really don't think I need to spend that kind of money to get an improvement over what I already have. Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Another sub-bass option
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. 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. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. 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. -- Wally www.makearatherlonglinkthattakesyounowhere.com Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light. |
Another sub-bass option
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:59:03 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. 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. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Another sub-bass option
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:59:03 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Check out car engines. To get twice the power, you have to spend a lot more than twice the money! Why would other mechanical devices be different? IOW, check out UK-made Volt drivers, then stop whining. 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. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
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!] |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk