[zipidachimp]

My first OB (and first home-built speaker in 45 years) was built with a 3" tangband FR and a no-name 8" woofer and sounded pretty decent, better even than my paradigm atoms.
However, not willing to leave well enough alone, I wanted to try a tweeter in place of the FR. replaced the FRs with HI-VI tweeters and ended up with
a system where the tweeters were way forward in sound, irritating even.
Added an L-pad to each side and that problem has gone away.
Now the dilemma: using the accumulated wisdom on this forum, I want to build my final 'proper' OBs, do I go with tweeters again, or with better FRs?
the FRs sound nice and I'm leaning that way. Woofers will be eminence 8"s or 10"s. Any suggestions ?

[jkelly]

If your open to suggestions, this design will save you a lot of time and money:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=47314.0

Jeff

[D OB G]

Both Sigried Linkwitz and JohnK, very (make that extremely) knowledgable, and commercially successful builders of open-baffle speakers, use tweeters.

I have tried a number of full-rangers, but find that I can't get the results I want without a tweeter (I seem to require a flat response to at least 20 kHz, rather than the rising, lumpy, responses of drivers such as Lowthers, Fostex, and (perhaps) the Viston B200, which usually only really make it to about 15 kHz).

I'm about to use a PHY-HP 8" driver, which is very flat to 10 kHz, but as a midrange, with a tweeter (some commercially successful speakers use it as a full-range).

However... I'd put my money on most respondents recommending a full-ranger, and I've got to admit a gaping hole in my education- I haven't heard the B200s.

We'll see!

David

[mcgsxr]

Though I am biased, and live quite happily (ignorance is bliss?) with the treble from my phase plugged b200's, I would say this about open baffle fun - you should run what you like.  If you like the sound of a certain combination of drivers, and baffle configuration, build a better version, and see where it takes you.

I have had a number of people over to listen to my setup, and none of them to date has complained about the treble that the b200 give, with the Planet 10 phase plugs.  There has been criticism (published around here if you dig) of the integration of the subs, and the b200 (for phasey reasons) but nothing but surprise at the treble.

Good luck, it is the journey, and customization that is fun, in my opinion.

[JeffB]

I have a Visaton B-200 and a tang-band w3-871S(3" FR driver).
I have been waiting to acquire some sort of equilization before commenting about these drivers, but I think I will comment a little bit here.
I once stated in a thread that I liked the B-200 much better, but with a little cross-over tweaking my opinion has changed greatly.

I really don't like the rising response of the B-200.  I have an 18" wide baffle with them centered.  All I can think is that other people don't have the kind of response problem with them that I do.  Maybe the response is improved by wider baffle, tube amps, phase plugs, baffle treatments or whatever.
Certain music sounds very good on the B-200, but I have plenty of things that are darn right completely unlistenable on it.

So in frustration one day, I hooked up the w3-871S again and started to adjust my electronic cross-over and volume controls on my amplifier trying to get them to balance properly with my 15" Warrior.  Properly dialed in they don't sound too bad.  However, these also need equilization.  I have measured peaks on my RatShack meter +10db between 1 and 1.6kHz and another +10db peak at 5kHz.  I also find these peaks quite annoying, but not nearly as annoying as the B-200.  It is interesting to me that the Tang-Band graph shows the peak more around the 3kHz area where my RatShack meter shows a flat response here.  I think it may be related to the size of the baffle used.

Aside from the frequency response problems this is how I compare the two.
w3-871S: 
Better upper frequency detail than B-200
Better imaging in the upper frequencies than B-200
Smoother response than B-200.
Slower sounding than B-200.
Slightly closed in compared to B-200.

B200:
More dynamic than w3-871.
More open sounding than w3-871.
Better low midbass response.
Better imaging in the low midbass area.
Certain sounds really hit explosively fast with the B200.
I imagine this is because the cone is bigger and just moving more air.
However, it might also be related to the rising response and more of an ear trick because of this response than any real speed.

Neither driver plays high frequencies as well as a tweeter, but the w3-871 seems better than the B-200 in this regard.
Both play high frequencies well enough where one could live without a tweeter but would have a faint sense of being able to do better with a tweeter.
Neither driver really plays bass on an 18" baffle, a sub-woofer is definitely required.

I ultimately desire to try a Linux based software EQ solution whenever I get all the software installed.
I am really curious how these drivers will sound corrected.
However, I am really suspicious of what can be done with EQ.  Using the EQ. on my JVC RX-D201 destroys the sound far more than it fixes response problems.

With all the buzz lately about the $3000 Emerald Physics CS2 being such a great buy, I can't help but think that one can get most of the way there with
a $40 pair Tang-Band w3-871 and in my case a $80 a pair Warrior 15".  I do think that with the same Behringer dcx 2496 for $270 and some tweaking one could get close.  However, by the time I am done experimenting and have a nice looking baffle, I may have spent $3000 and a lot of time.

[nodiak]

I made this waveguide and have mated it with the 8" Hemp, and soon some other drivers. It works great to blend the drivers outputs as the waveguide is close in size, shape and depth to 6-8" midwoofers. A very coherent sound results. The Hemps beam otherwise, at least in my universe, even with phase plugs (which helped).
http://www.zaphaudio.com/Waveguidetmm.html
I would guess the full zaph design used as OB would need some xo adjustments, and don't know how low it would go. His "Minimalist" crossover looks good.
I use a sub so only need 70 hz or so from mains, which makes OB mains more possible.
I like the TMM idea and have used it since the 80's when I learned it from Speaker Builder mag. IMO better midrange focus than MTM still with efficiency gains. Great for low powered amps.
TMM is also called 2.5, and what Richard did is a 1.5. I've used the Hawthorne Augie with several different widerangers in 1.5, using large coil on Augie/bass and large caps on midwoofer. This style of design opens up OB to conventional midwoofers, with bass augmentation.
I'm a hobbyist and would suggest to use Martins and other experienced folks ideas to come up with a nice system if interested.
Don

[ttan98]

JeffB,

I am doing similar to you trying to get the sound quality similar to CS2, I use DCX2496, and currently using 2 Seas woofers and 1 Seas tweeter, couple to a no name twin woofers mounted on an U frame. The sound is no bad, what I need now is a better 6 channels amplifier, that will solve many problems.

I am considering making a final system using high efficiency woofer(2 in parrallel to get close to 96dB) in conjuction with a compression driver at close to 107dB. Switch cheap woofer to a JBL woofer, bought second hand cheap and set up for a system operating at about 95-96dB efficiency. The sound quality will be better than above. The money I spend will be far less than $3000, and lot more fun...

BTW your B200(92-94dB) and TB(87dB) have very different efficiencices, how will you match them effectively? Also your TB has a peak at around 8-10KHz if I remember correct. I have a few units on hand. I cannot get TB's sound stage(very small sound stage compared to my woofer) right when it operates as OB.


cheers.

[nodiak]

If I had the $ now I would like to try TMM with Radian tweeter and B200's, or other woofers with proper qts. - like budget Alpha 10's at .58 qts. Sounds very dynamic for a tastey little tube amp! OB sub with high power SS or digital amp...

[markC]

My current b200 build includes a visiton tweet. The result, I feel, is very realistic but will not blow you away with huge dynamics and high power hadling capability. I'm running a 3rd order x-over with baffle step crossed @ 2100 hz. I like it! And that's what matters. right?

[zipidachimp]

wow! didn't expect all the responses. thanks

I really like the OB FR sound, Diana Krall singing right next to me, but I've been using them for 2 months, and only used the padded tweeters for 3 days.
I need some more time with the tweeters, but I'm still leaning toward FR. I'm also going to follow the recs of MJK as far as configuration goes and later decide on FR vs tweets.

What really amuses me now, is seeing people shell out vast amounts for boxed speakers. ha ha, fools!   OBs really need to be publicized more.

p.s. has anyone done a direct comparo of tangband vs. fostex vs. whatever? the tangbands appear well made, I like them a lot. too bad there is no canuck dealer.

[nodiak]

It's the use of 2 woofers per side that will give higher dynamics and power handling, works well for tube amps. 

[JeffB]

ttan98,

I am mating either the Tang-Band w3-871 with a Warrior 15" or
the B-200 with the Warrior 15".
I have an electronic cross-over and a bass amp with an additional volume control.
So, I have no trouble matching drivers with different efficiencies.

[JeffB]

I think I am getting an in-room response to 30Hz with my Warrior 15" on an 18" baffle.
I have enough odd peaks and dips on my RatShack meter that it is difficult to know where to draw the base line to measure from +/- db from.  However, from the looks of things with a little EQ, it will be flat at 30Hz.  I think that maybe the perceived bass speed could be improved using two smaller drivers per side.
I am not making anymore changes until I get some EQ and re-evaluate the system.

Two mids per side and a tweeter though is certainly interesting.

I also own an Athena F2.2.  A tweeter with two 8" drivers in a ported box.  The Athena's two 8s are no match for the Warrior 15" on open baffle.
The Athena just does not grab me.  I don't know what it is exactly.  Perhaps the cross-over.  Perhaps a higher quality pair of woofers would help.  Finally, it is just not open baffle bass.

[zipidachimp]

the TB I'd like to try is the W4-657SH.  Anyone tried it?

[planet10]

If you are looking at 3" as mid-tweeters with woofer support, the Fostex FF85k (admittedly i never listened to them before modifying them) is by far the best one i've tried. I haven't done a direct compare, but i would not be surprised if these go head to head with dedicated tweeters costing a lot more. With any 3" you will compromise dynamics if you keep the XO low to get the most seemlessness.

dave

[ttan98]

Two mids per side and a tweeter though is certainly interesting.

I use MTM configuration with 2 woofers and 1 tweeter also I am getting high effciency, 95-96dB.

[JeffB]

"With any 3" you will compromise dynamics if you keep the XO low to get the most seemlessness."[Planet 10]

This agrees with my experiment with the 3" Tang Band.

But why is it that a 3" driver that is rated +/-3db down to 110Hz not have dynamics at 110Hz?
The simple answer is that it doesn't move enough air.  I don't understand this though, because it has the desired SPL at the listening position and I would think the off axis response of the lower frequency would be good.

How would one know where to the place the cross-over point to maintain the dynamics?
Would something like 500Hz be better?
I need a different electronic cross-over to experiment with this.

[ttan98]

JefffB,

You have twin TB 871S in parallel, I have tried this arrangement and I found it does have enough soundstage, ie the soundstage is too small in an OB configuration. I drop the idea and move on to a different mid-driver(not full range but cheap), the sound now is totally different, large sound stage and very efficient, 95-96dB. I use them in conjunction with compression driver. The combination is very dynamic and reasonably priced. I need more tweaking to get the cross right. If you are interested let me know. I will let you the brand names I use.

This will be my final combo for an OB design. I still need to integrate to my woofer.

Cheers.

[JeffB]

I just have one TB w3-871 per channel.
I also have one 15" Warrior per channel.

I am going to stick with what I have until I get some E.Q. and re-evaluate.

[D OB G]

Linkwitz believes that to achieve believable dynamics at 100 Hz requires an 8" driver with good Xmax (and mandatory equalization).
(Funny that Visaton B200, Supravox, PHY-HP, Fertin, some Fostexes, an Audio Nirvana, Lowther e.t.c. e.t.c. are 8" drivers).

I tried to use the Jordan JXr 6HD (2" driver) with an Xmax of +/- 3mm down to its recommended lower cut-off of around 120 Hz (for a single driver).
There was no way that it could cope.  I would now cross over steeply at 500 Hz, with the limitation that it would have to be in a box.  The back wave sounds terrible, and is a reminder to look for an unobstructed chassis, and to audition the sound of the back wave.

Admittedly, Ted Jordan has never advocated open-baffle alignments, and recommends a line array of four of the drivers, which might move enough air.

David