How about a wood drum using 4" Tang Band driver?

nathanm · « **on:** 19 May 2003, 09:28 pm »

Michael: I was thinking it would be cool to have a wood drum like the 3.0 but using the Tang Band W4-616S 4" driver instead of the 3". I am assuming the drum volume would have to be bigger, but the 4" does handle more power. How much louder this would translate into the real world I don't know for sure, but I thought I would raise the question. Any thoughts on this?

What I really think would be cool would be a coaxial or full range driver that takes up the entire front with no extra baffle at all. My guess is that one would have to elongate the drum in order to get the desired volume.

Just throwing this out there...

JoshK · « **Reply #1 on:** 19 May 2003, 09:46 pm »

How about the drum enclosure does a 90º turn so that the port is pointing down? Then the speakers could be hung on the wall. I personally think that would be cool and potentially has a huge market for people looking for viable surround speakers.

nathanm · « **Reply #2 on:** 22 May 2003, 06:24 pm »

It would be tricky to mount the driver to the curved surface, there would have to be a recess or maybe they could hammer the metal against the drum?

(kidding)

Something like this?

Heck, with the upwards facing drum you could have a hole in the top for your wife's knick knacks or whatever. You've basically got yourself a vase then. Maybe you could stick flowers in there? Awww...

This is my concept of sorts. Looks kinda like a jet engine! Heh! Obviously a larger driver would have to be used. I just used the TB for kicks.

JoshK · « **Reply #3 on:** 22 May 2003, 06:49 pm »

I actually meant that the drum would be folded 90º

Maybe a bit hard to visualize and I am no good at photo shop.

nathanm · « **Reply #4 on:** 22 May 2003, 09:28 pm »

Ahh, I see. Like a Salvador Dali speaker?

Probably would have to mold that one, unless they feel like hand carving out some twisty logs. Not really sure what the point is, but it would be interesting.

mbarnes · « **Reply #5 on:** 23 May 2003, 07:18 pm »

We have experimented with the 4 inch Teng Beng. There are several models and I can't remember them off the top of my head. The TB 4 inchs drivers have excellent bass for such a small driver. The problem is they roll off at 13,000 Hz. There is a new unit that rolls off at about 16,000 hz. It sound very good but the 3 inch performs better in the midrange. The 3 inch also goes out higher.

I had considered a 4 inch Teng Beng with a series crossover at 8Khz. The issue is that the current Vifa combination has worked so well that we simply can't find something to replace it. Believe me, with the Euro being as high as it is, I would love an Asian replacement. Unfortunately, the Vifa combination we use in the 4.0 is very difficult to match at the price.

mbarnes · « **Reply #6 on:** 23 May 2003, 07:22 pm »

We have tried the 4 inch TB speakers. They have good bass but roll off a bit too early. As we would need to add a tweeter and a crossover, there isn't much of an advantage. The 3 inch also is a bit smoother sounding in the midrange.

JoshK · « **Reply #7 on:** 23 May 2003, 07:33 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

Ahh, I see. Like a Salvador Dali speaker?

Probably would have to mold that one, unless they feel like hand carving out some twisty logs. Not really sure what the point is, but it would be interesting.

Yeah that is what I was thinking. The point is so they can be mounted to the wall on the back. Better for surround application.

nathanm · « **Reply #8 on:** 23 May 2003, 07:53 pm »

True, the treble performance of the TBs is pretty bad when compared to speakers with tweeters, but I think I do kinda like the rolled off nature of them. It's not "hifi" but it's very smooth and easy on the ears. Colored yeah, but that doesn't bug me too much.

My idea was that perhaps the W4-616S would play louder before the cones starts clapping, as the 3.0s do. Would the 4" work in a 3.0 drum if I routed a bigger hole or would there not be enough air to damp the cone?

I honestly think that drum shape is a real good design. For example, the same drivers in the Pyramid shape sound like umm...shit! Sorry Mr. Barnes, but I personally think they do. No offense meant, just one guy's opinion that's all. (my pair are awaiting future rear surround sound duty. I hope they will be more appropriate in that application)

I think a coaxial driver filling the entire baffle of a drum-shaped cabinet would rock. In my humble system the 3.0s have so far provided the most holographic imaging effect I've heard.

Perhaps with even less diffraction it would be even better?

JackStraw · « **Reply #9 on:** 23 May 2003, 10:27 pm »

Hey, here's something similar in a plastic drum...

By the way, I've been doing some research into computer speakers. I'm eagerly awaiting more news on Michael's offering...

nathanm · « **Reply #10 on:** 24 May 2003, 04:08 am »

Man, that's kind of obnoxious looking! Reminds me of those over the top boomboxes they're selling these days. Might not be bad it they lost that bar over the midrange.

Great example of an interesting design whose execution makes it look cheap and tacky instead of stylish. Well, to me anyway.

RuSsMaN · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 Jun 2003, 11:57 am »

I think the 3" is driver is a much better than the 4". I've experimented with the 4" in small enclosures, and like MB said, the mid/high end just isn't there.

The inherent problems with the 3" are effciency, and power handling. Both these problems could improve by using two 3" drivers, in parallel. Yes, we would be looking at a 4ohm speaker, but that shouldn't be an issue for most amps.

A little better effciency, a little more power handling are my vote. (see the pyramid).

Cheers,
Russ

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 01:30 am »

Have you heard the Pyramids?

RuSsMaN · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 02:08 am »

dup post, sorry

RuSsMaN · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 02:09 am »

Unfortunately, no, but I have heard the 3" TB driver in an array.

Cheers,
Russ

nathanm · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 06:37 am »

Well, in my opinion it does not sound very good in the pyramid-shaped cabinet. In all honesty it is one of the worst sounding speakers I've ever heard. It has a cheap boombox kind of sound to it. Muffled and indistinct, like if you put a bare driver underneath a cardboard box. And the thing is, I actually tried burning them in - they played the Stereophile burn-in track for a WEEK straight without any improvement.

I tried them as mains which proved to be hopeless. Soon I will be trying them out in a rear surround application for movies. Might work better there. They also might work mounted on the ceiling. On the other hand, the same drivers in the 3.0s I really like a lot. Weird. I would imagine the array would sound better than the Pyramids. I don't know why it doesn't work, but for whatever reason it just doesn't.

JohnR · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 07:28 am »

Out of curiosity, it is possible to position the speaker so that the tip of the pyramid is pointing towards you? How does it sound that way?

nathanm · « **Reply #17 on:** 12 Jun 2003, 10:54 pm »

It won't stand up by itself in that position but I have propped it against walls in such a manner. Still doesn't sound very good. Once I hooked them up in parallel with the main speakers in a pseudo-quad configuration and this was somewhat interesting. You could move around the room easier and still get a full soundfield. But by themselves they sound dead awful IMO. It sounds like the drivers are mounted inside the cabinet instead of on it! People usually describe "veils" in regards to sound - well if so the Pyramids' have veils made of lead! An extremely recessed, closed-in sound. The Tang Bands in the drum cabs are SO much more natural sounding I think. Just a shame they can't go a bit louder. The 3.0s are still the best-imaging speaker I've had in my system.