"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I do trust JBL recones.

I probably would trust JBL too.
But what happens here is that ppl blow up their speakers
and turn cones inside out etc and they don't like JBL replacement costs.
So they take them to some guy who does generic repair jobs, and after the
repair
it cannot be the same speaker
at all; different voice coil, cone material, suspension, etc.
There are a few cowboys in the speaker repair industry.

With domestic speakers, complete re-coning is seldom worth the effort;
The most common speaker I often repair is 8", and its the surround that
needs
the fix,
and once done the speaker will go another 20 years with luck if teenagers
are
kept
away from the volume control and bass boost of dad's old system.

Where the voice coil is stuffed, I always buy new drivers which are
usually
better than the originals
for most hi-fi speakers that are now 20 years old.
But I have never had to buy new JBL drivers. This would be a costly
exercise.

One guy I know had large JBL monitors with 2 x 15" woofers per speaker
unit in
different volume ported
boxes with a bipolar horn loaded tweeter shaped like a mans' bum in the
front
baffle,
to go from 1khz to 20 kHz.
One had a cracked titanium diaphragm, and it cost the client aud $700
to get it fixed by the authorized JBL repairer here in Oz.

But the owner was very happy with the sound, once the repair was made,
even
though he had two yamaha 2200 amps
with biamping and active JBL Xover.

Patrick Turner.

We have cowboys over here too, and many people get suckered in. I worked
for a JBL recone center and someine actually tried to bring a basket in for
warranty repair that a cowboy botched up.

JBL is VERY finiky on this stuff and would rather never sell you another
product than to repair it under warranty!

Chad

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:29:57 -0500, "Chad Wahls" wrote:

Done all the time in pro audio

Public address systems aren't high fidelity systems.




www.meyersound.com

Hi !
Well, Altec Lansing A7 VOTT sounds OK for my ears.
Best wishes,

--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop


"François Yves Le Gal" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:29:57 -0500, "Chad Wahls" wrote:

Done all the time in pro audio

Public address systems aren't high fidelity systems.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:25:30 -0500, "Chad Wahls" wrote:

www.meyersound.com

And your point is?



For years "hi-fi" speakers have been produced with larger drivers going up
pretty high in the spectrum. Some of the most sought after designs in
vintage electronics do also.

Now I understand that the term "hi-fi" is completely subjective, therefore
I'm not going to get into a ****ing match about what one considers fidelity.

Meyer is a highly regarded professional loudspeaker company that has made
many units, including studio monitors that use larger diameter woofers
crossed to a horn or tweeter. Many other respected monitor companies such
as Urei (back in the day) TAD, and Westlake also design monitors with large
woofers. I do classify a studio monitor as the be-all of fidelity.

So my point is that many have and still will produce 2 way loudspeaker
systems that incorporate 15" low freq units. I don't understand why one
would assume that the diameter of a speaker will limit it's useful output to
a mere 150 cycles.

Chad

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop

"François Yves Le Gal" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:04:26 +0200, "iga" wrote:

Well, Altec Lansing A7 VOTT sounds OK for my ears.

The A7 isn't a PA system.
:-)

Oh, thanks Francois !
:-)
--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop


"François Yves Le Gal" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:18:38 +0200, "iga" wrote:

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

It's not, even if the Altec's 416 and 515 have very light membranes and
show
very little breakup below 800 Hz or so.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 10:29:57 -0500, "Chad Wahls" wrote:

Done all the time in pro audio

Public address systems aren't high fidelity systems.

This isn't always the case.

Many PA systems have wide bandwith, 20Hz to 20kHz,
have a flat response, and low noise and low distortion.

What may make them non hi-fi is the reverberant venue they are in,
or very limited BW to prevent microphone feedback.

But a cathedral may be very reverberant. Wwe record someone playing an organ
there,
and a bunch of monks at a gregorian chant, and do we say that recording
isn't hi-fi?

But the guy was right about crossing over to horns at 500Hz.

Patrick Turner.

Chad Wahls wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

I do trust JBL recones.

I probably would trust JBL too.
But what happens here is that ppl blow up their speakers
and turn cones inside out etc and they don't like JBL replacement costs.
So they take them to some guy who does generic repair jobs, and after the
repair
it cannot be the same speaker
at all; different voice coil, cone material, suspension, etc.
There are a few cowboys in the speaker repair industry.

With domestic speakers, complete re-coning is seldom worth the effort;
The most common speaker I often repair is 8", and its the surround that
needs
the fix,
and once done the speaker will go another 20 years with luck if teenagers
are
kept
away from the volume control and bass boost of dad's old system.

Where the voice coil is stuffed, I always buy new drivers which are
usually
better than the originals
for most hi-fi speakers that are now 20 years old.
But I have never had to buy new JBL drivers. This would be a costly
exercise.

One guy I know had large JBL monitors with 2 x 15" woofers per speaker
unit in
different volume ported
boxes with a bipolar horn loaded tweeter shaped like a mans' bum in the
front
baffle,
to go from 1khz to 20 kHz.
One had a cracked titanium diaphragm, and it cost the client aud $700
to get it fixed by the authorized JBL repairer here in Oz.

But the owner was very happy with the sound, once the repair was made,
even
though he had two yamaha 2200 amps
with biamping and active JBL Xover.

Patrick Turner.

We have cowboys over here too, and many people get suckered in. I worked
for a JBL recone center and someine actually tried to bring a basket in for
warranty repair that a cowboy botched up.

JBL is VERY finiky on this stuff and would rather never sell you another
product than to repair it under warranty!

Quite understandable, I would feel the same about anything I sold.
But not to the point where I'd refuse to sell to them in future.
If someone alters a product, then expects me to make a repair,
then there may be a cost of undoing the alteration.
But not if I thought there was goodwill to be reaped by ripping out the
alteration in 2 seconds and making the right repair if I saw fit, and doing the
free
repair under warranty, if it was obvious there was a failure within the
warranty period.
One cannot blame a customer for attempting to fix something
in a less than proper manner; anyway, I have had no failures of anything
I have sold within the 2 year warranty period, so the issue don't arise.
But I have to warrant old radios and all other repairs I do,
and 99% just come back if something else goes wrong after an initial fix,
no problems, I sort it out.

Customer is king around here.





Chad

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:02:04 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Linkwitz, in addition to conceiving a useful, practical, real-
world model of idealized drivers combining in imperfect spacial
relationships (all included in his earlier WW and AES papers)
also describes a simple inverting stage that *anyone* can use
to make any driver in any sealed box have any desired F and Q.

To explain what you have said so any of us here could understand would
take a page or two and a few drawings, no?

Hence the reference. Siegfried is immaculately clear and complete.
Read it or don't; it's your gig.

Correction on my earlier post: the
Speaker Builder articles are all in the 1980 quarterly frame.
AFAIK, no internet versions are available; sorry. There were no
1979's.

I don't even have any picture frames let alone 1980 quarterly frames....

_Speaker Builder_ is a quarterly that began with the first quarter
of 1980. They sell reprints/whatever in whole years' worth, I think.
All of the Linkwitz is in the 1980 year's worth.

Speaker designs, like everything else for we poor mortals, must
begin by simplifying; for speakers, we begin by idealizing drivers
as rigid pistons; this is the take-off point for Linkwitz's
work. Joe D'Appolito followed up with a geometric solution to
the summing problem that Linkwitz raised; another story.

Well simple pistons or complex ones, it don't matter.
What the driver makers make we are stuck with,
so like many things, we take in hand and make what we can of it.

Indeed; and the delicate tradeoffs of drivers and boxes
are NOT something inviolate and only subject to hand-wringing.
It's simple algebraically modelled stuff, easy to measure
and easy to understand. We don't disagree about these points.


Man sure ain't a perfect concept, and as for woman,
well, that's incomprehensible.

Arf! "Just like a man, only moreso."

I don't like sealed box subwoofers like Linkwitz, but
that's only a dislike, I am sure there must be good bass possible with a
sealed box,
maybe with a little eq to make it go a little lower than it wants to
without any eq.

Linkwitz actually promotes open-baffle ("bi-polar") woofers, and
sometimes midrange drivers, on his website. Please don't rush to
judgement.

Hey, don't take my word for it. See fer yerownsef.
Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Chad Wahls wrote:

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 13:25:30 -0500, "Chad Wahls" wrote:

www.meyersound.com

And your point is?



For years "hi-fi" speakers have been produced with larger drivers going up
pretty high in the spectrum. Some of the most sought after designs in
vintage electronics do also.

Now I understand that the term "hi-fi" is completely subjective, therefore
I'm not going to get into a ****ing match about what one considers fidelity.

There are those who have strict standards about what is/isn't hi-fi.

But one would have to say some PA systems don't come near hi-fi standards
since there is a grossly unlevel response, serious thd /imd distortions,
very restricted bandwidth, and so on.


Meyer is a highly regarded professional loudspeaker company that has made
many units, including studio monitors that use larger diameter woofers
crossed to a horn or tweeter. Many other respected monitor companies such
as Urei (back in the day) TAD, and Westlake also design monitors with large
woofers. I do classify a studio monitor as the be-all of fidelity.

So my point is that many have and still will produce 2 way loudspeaker
systems that incorporate 15" low freq units. I don't understand why one
would assume that the diameter of a speaker will limit it's useful output to
a mere 150 cycles.

I have heard too many good sounding 15" speakers to condemn them all.

People will say the beaming is worse with a large woofer at a lower F than if
you use a smaller
woofer.
What about a line array, with the effective height of the driver being say 7'?

But at a client's house when I measured his 15" which crosses to an Altec
cellular horn
at 500Hz, I didn't measure anything strange, just a basically flat response.
It sounded very well too.



Chad

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:18:38 +0200, "iga" wrote:

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

It's not, even if the Altec's 416 and 515 have very light membranes and show
very little breakup below 800 Hz or so.

Whether something is kosher or not is for the rabbis to decide.

It isn't for me to, and I sometimes eat parts of a pig.
My intestines are not religious, and take nourishment from whatever I eat.


But I am a heathenistically retired ex-catholic, and a cathode follower at that.

Anyway, just what you get with any given 15", 12", 8" or any other size speaker
isn't always known, universally experienced, universally or simplistically
valid for all sizes, so why do folks condemn anyone who wants a woofer to go
from 20Hz to 500 Hz?

I quite like the 1969 Tannoy 15" dual concentric in 6 Cu.Ft ported boxes.
A friend has a pair which sound quite beautiful driven with 300B SET.

Patrick Turner.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:02:04 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Linkwitz, in addition to conceiving a useful, practical, real-
world model of idealized drivers combining in imperfect spacial
relationships (all included in his earlier WW and AES papers)
also describes a simple inverting stage that *anyone* can use
to make any driver in any sealed box have any desired F and Q.

To explain what you have said so any of us here could understand would
take a page or two and a few drawings, no?

Hence the reference. Siegfried is immaculately clear and complete.
Read it or don't; it's your gig.

Fair enough...



Correction on my earlier post: the
Speaker Builder articles are all in the 1980 quarterly frame.
AFAIK, no internet versions are available; sorry. There were no
1979's.

I don't even have any picture frames let alone 1980 quarterly frames....

_Speaker Builder_ is a quarterly that began with the first quarter
of 1980. They sell reprints/whatever in whole years' worth, I think.
All of the Linkwitz is in the 1980 year's worth.

Speaker designs, like everything else for we poor mortals, must
begin by simplifying; for speakers, we begin by idealizing drivers
as rigid pistons; this is the take-off point for Linkwitz's
work. Joe D'Appolito followed up with a geometric solution to
the summing problem that Linkwitz raised; another story.

Well simple pistons or complex ones, it don't matter.
What the driver makers make we are stuck with,
so like many things, we take in hand and make what we can of it.

Indeed; and the delicate tradeoffs of drivers and boxes
are NOT something inviolate and only subject to hand-wringing.
It's simple algebraically modelled stuff, easy to measure
and easy to understand. We don't disagree about these points.

Man sure ain't a perfect concept, and as for woman,
well, that's incomprehensible.

Arf! "Just like a man, only moreso."

Well, a man can do a lot.

But, a woman can do a hell of a lot more








damage.



I don't like sealed box subwoofers like Linkwitz, but
that's only a dislike, I am sure there must be good bass possible with a
sealed box,
maybe with a little eq to make it go a little lower than it wants to
without any eq.

Linkwitz actually promotes open-baffle ("bi-polar") woofers, and
sometimes midrange drivers, on his website. Please don't rush to
judgement.

Hey, don't take my word for it. See fer yerownsef.
Good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Time permitting, I will go back to his site.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:43:50 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

"Well, a man can do a lot.

But, a woman can do a hell of a lot more








damage."

Saved as a future .sig. Very cool,
Thanks,

Chris Hornbeck
"He thought so little they rewarded he,
By making him the ruler of the Queen's Navy".

Same when I was in the prosumer repair biz .Make them happy. I once
had an irate customer that brought in a brand new mixer that would not
work in the "owe-awf-awf" position. After wiring across the power
swithch they were quite happy (got some winners around here). Never got
my warranty repair check for that one

Chad

Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:18:38 +0200, "iga" wrote:

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

It's not, even if the Altec's 416 and 515 have very light membranes and s=
how
very little breakup below 800 Hz or so.

Umm, Hmm. More and more subjective

Chad

Hi Patrick !
Try to find someone with Onken enclosures in your
region and listen... I heard a pair of these and was impressed
There are two versions - "normal" 15" and "petit" 12"
Best,

--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop

"Patrick Turner" escribió en el mensaje
...


"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:18:38 +0200, "iga" wrote:

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

It's not, even if the Altec's 416 and 515 have very light membranes and
show
very little breakup below 800 Hz or so.

Whether something is kosher or not is for the rabbis to decide.

It isn't for me to, and I sometimes eat parts of a pig.
My intestines are not religious, and take nourishment from whatever I eat.


But I am a heathenistically retired ex-catholic, and a cathode follower at
that.

Anyway, just what you get with any given 15", 12", 8" or any other size
speaker
isn't always known, universally experienced, universally or simplistically
valid for all sizes, so why do folks condemn anyone who wants a woofer to
go
from 20Hz to 500 Hz?

I quite like the 1969 Tannoy 15" dual concentric in 6 Cu.Ft ported boxes.
A friend has a pair which sound quite beautiful driven with 300B SET.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:
Someone asked me for a pair of large woofers in separate
enclosures using 1.5" of structural plywood.
JBL make a large range, but I don't think their 15" top range with 800
watt capability
is what I neeed, since I only want to use about 2 watts max.

Anyone have any clues?

Patrick Turner.



Probably the best 15" ever made try zalytron.com they might still have
some at a discounted price - there is no equal JBL or otherwise

Focal Audiom 15 VX2

I can e-mail you a scan of the spec sheet if you like

iga wrote:

Hi Patrick !
Try to find someone with Onken enclosures in your
region and listen... I heard a pair of these and was impressed
There are two versions - "normal" 15" and "petit" 12"
Best,

I have never heard of Onken; I doubt anyone in my small town
of 320,000 souls has a pair.

Anyway, I am only in the quoting stage for my possible client.
Most quotes I prepare don't lead anywhere because when ppl are faced with the
real costs
they get shy about it all, even after saying too me thay have plenty of money,
or their wife, daughter, usually a woman, says she will kick up one hell of a
stink.....

The world is full of tyre kickers, a car salesman would tell you.

The Peerless 12" XLS option is looking like the best option, only
aud $240 approx each, and probably two are less than 1/2 the cost of 15"
anything
from JBL, and bass performance would be OK up to 500Hz.
I won't be using a 2235 JBL since they are not available new.
Peerless box size needed would be only 170L. I guess some increase in power
sensitivity
would acrue from having two speakers mounted close in the same enclosure.

Two in series would be about 12 ohms, or if in parallel about 3ohms,
and for that option I would use 1 : 0.7 matching tranny which would bring up the

input Z to 6 ohms.

Patrick Turner.








--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop

"Patrick Turner" escribió en el mensaje
...


"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 23:18:38 +0200, "iga" wrote:

I was told that 16" woofer crossed at 500 Hz is not kosher
in terms of hi-fi...

It's not, even if the Altec's 416 and 515 have very light membranes and
show
very little breakup below 800 Hz or so.

Whether something is kosher or not is for the rabbis to decide.

It isn't for me to, and I sometimes eat parts of a pig.
My intestines are not religious, and take nourishment from whatever I eat.


But I am a heathenistically retired ex-catholic, and a cathode follower at
that.

Anyway, just what you get with any given 15", 12", 8" or any other size
speaker
isn't always known, universally experienced, universally or simplistically
valid for all sizes, so why do folks condemn anyone who wants a woofer to
go
from 20Hz to 500 Hz?

I quite like the 1969 Tannoy 15" dual concentric in 6 Cu.Ft ported boxes.
A friend has a pair which sound quite beautiful driven with 300B SET.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner" escribió en el mensaje
...


iga wrote:

Hi Patrick !
Try to find someone with Onken enclosures in your
region and listen... I heard a pair of these and was impressed
There are two versions - "normal" 15" and "petit" 12"
Best,

I have never heard of Onken; I doubt anyone in my small town
of 320,000 souls has a pair.


Just ask, and you'll see... Onken was VERY popular design.
I saw a pair in 20m^2 apartment in Moscow's suburb, so go figure..
best,

--
Igor
http://www.arrakis.es/~igapop

Anyway, I am only in the quoting stage for my possible client.
Most quotes I prepare don't lead anywhere because when ppl are faced with
the
real costs
they get shy about it all, even after saying too me thay have plenty of
money,
or their wife, daughter, usually a woman, says she will kick up one hell
of a
stink.....

..

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:37:32 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Anyway, just what you get with any given 15", 12", 8" or any other size speaker
isn't always known, universally experienced, universally or simplistically
valid for all sizes, so why do folks condemn anyone who wants a woofer to go
from 20Hz to 500 Hz?

It's well known: basic physics at work!

Just what you get with any speaker depends how the speaker
is used. Many large dia speakers have a rising acoustic output as R rises,
often 3dB/octave, so one has to tailor the crossover or the amp input
to conform with the wanted response.
The best speaker driver makers design most hi-fi drivers so they may be used with a
simple
passive Xover with a simple CL or LC filter which yields a flat pass band.
Drivers not able to produce this flat pass band are much harder to use when we try
to
make a crossover, but believe me its possible.
Some large old fashioned bass speakers have appalling response variations above
whatever slightly linear region, and this can be seen when one looks at the response

sheets of many JBL and other woofers.
But most are capable of some fairly simple eq-ing to get a flat response from
say 30 to 300, maybe even out to 500, but since the series of
peaks and troughs in the response are so great above about 1k, one has to apply
a lot of attenuation to stop the peaks appearing at too high a level as say
2 kHz, in the middle of the midrange speaker band. This problem
muddies sound quite a lot, and takes the natural sizzle off massed strings.

I have some old Foster 12" in a pair of speakers which have curvilinear paper cones
and these were horrid when i crossed them over at 1 kHz.

But then I used an LCL filter, -3dB at 300 Hz, over damped, then placed R+C across
the
second L to make a trap at 500Hz, and a following series R+C+L to make a damped trap
at 1 kHz,
and this gave about -60d phase shift at 300Hz, -3dB,
then by 400Hz the roll off was 5th order, with response at 1 k at -20 dB, a couple
of ripples
after that before the response rolled right away to negligible levels.
When I added the resonant traps to the LCL filter the sound improved dramatically.
The two small 5" Vifa paper mids then were able to sing without interference from
the woofer.
The bass is very nice though.

Using 8" SEAS aluminium coned woofers was a lot easier,
and a simple over damped LC filter was all that was needed because the speakers
are flat from about 50Hz to 1k, then roll off naturally, before a couple of high Q
peaks at 5k and 7k.
These are attenuated by the C component of the filter very adequately.

Trying to use such speakers as bass + midrange would be a big mistake inho.

I really have not heard any metal coned midranges that don't sound like
excited kitchen frying pans.

The SEAS 5" with clear polypropylene cones sound far better to my ears.

None of the SEAS range I have tried need mid band response sloping
to gain a flat mid band.

I don't doubt you have a good understanding of the physics.
I am sure the dudes at SEAS also have a good idea, and I know Peerless
make some quite nice drivers.
Some of the cheaper asian made paper coned speakers which I tried a few years back
were quite difficult to make crossovers for, and when I finally got them about
as good as possible without using 59 parts for each speaker's crossover,
I found the next batch of speakers using better SEAS drivers were easier to get
right
and sounded clearer, so the asian made elcheapos now gather dust.
One can only build good speakers by a process of leap frogging the quality upwards,
so that each pair you make is better than the pair you made a year ago.
After several tries, transmission lines, or anything made with
$5 drivers were going to be too hard to get right, I settled for ported bass
enclosures
with Fb below 35Hz, and using the SEAS range of speakers. But ScanSpeak drivers are
now available from the
same importer for Peerless, and so getting drivers is easier.
The ScanSpeak drivers do cost an enormous amount though.

I am toying with the idea for a pair of line arrays, which sound like an interesting

way to make a speaker.

Meanwhile, of 4 ppl who are/were into mid/treble horns, two out of 4 have given up,
one guy may get there, but I haven't heard his, and the remaining one
might finally get some real music when he gets me to finish the 2A3 amps for the
treble horns, and I get his active tubed ARC crossover working.
The altec multicellular 500-7k horn sounded ok to me, the first horn
I have ever liked at all.

Anyway, I am sure kept busy with all these concerns.

Patrick Turner.

NGS wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

Someone asked me for a pair of large woofers in separate
enclosures using 1.5" of structural plywood.
JBL make a large range, but I don't think their 15" top range with 800
watt capability
is what I neeed, since I only want to use about 2 watts max.

Anyone have any clues?

Patrick Turner.



Probably the best 15" ever made try zalytron.com they might still have
some at a discounted price - there is no equal JBL or otherwise

Focal Audiom 15 VX2

I can e-mail you a scan of the spec sheet if you like

I posted the spec sheet here

http://img249.echo.cx/img249/5323/fo...xandvx26qv.jpg

Someone just mentioned Onken - Focal has a box design for an Onken
vented system if anyone is interested I can post that too.

NGS wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:
Someone asked me for a pair of large woofers in separate
enclosures using 1.5" of structural plywood.
JBL make a large range, but I don't think their 15" top range with 800
watt capability
is what I neeed, since I only want to use about 2 watts max.

Anyone have any clues?

Patrick Turner.



Probably the best 15" ever made try zalytron.com they might still have
some at a discounted price - there is no equal JBL or otherwise

They say

" Do you long for the good old days when drivers were really affordable? Do
you find that you are
spending less time building speakers because you just can't afford good
quality drivers? We we have
the answer! We are assembling a list of vintage OEM and production drivers
at prices that haven't
been seen for years. Check out the Access, Axon, Audax Audiom, Focal,
Morel,PHL,and Vintage
Seas pages and look for the drivers marked on sale. We have new Car Audio
drivers on sale too."




Focal Audiom 15 VX2

That isn't listed on the Focal range they make.

15K871 is the only 15" listed, and its USD $620, or about aud $1,000
including
an airfare, so the two Peerless I have in mind at aud $480 would be a better
deal surely.

I didn't see too many woofers I liked.

But they have some line arrays...

""Line Arrays
Axon 812 Array This new array is a true line array. It uses 12 T-1S tweeters
per side along with 8 6S1
woofers per. Hey tube lovers this 98dB at 2.83v efficient system never drops
below 7 ohms
impedance. This should be a great set of seakers for 2A3 amps. Complete
details

Parts $780. Boxes Call for pricing""

97 dB/W speakers!!!!!!

This far better than many speakers of 89 dB today, so
SET amp ppl would be very happy, and of course the thd/imd
of a line array working at 0.01 watts in each driver would be extremely low,
and lower
than any single driver..


My next speakers will be line arrays.






I can e-mail you a scan of the spec sheet if you like

Unless it has a response graph, I am not sure it would help,
and I am not sure it is available cheaply and easily.....
I am in Oz....

But thanks very much,

Patrick Turner.

NGS wrote:

NGS wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

Someone asked me for a pair of large woofers in separate
enclosures using 1.5" of structural plywood.
JBL make a large range, but I don't think their 15" top range with 800
watt capability
is what I neeed, since I only want to use about 2 watts max.

Anyone have any clues?

Patrick Turner.



Probably the best 15" ever made try zalytron.com they might still have
some at a discounted price - there is no equal JBL or otherwise

Focal Audiom 15 VX2

I can e-mail you a scan of the spec sheet if you like

I posted the spec sheet here

http://img249.echo.cx/img249/5323/fo...xandvx26qv.jpg

With a ported box of 220L and Fb = 22Hz, it will
get -4dB at 20Hz if there is shaping filter to roll off the flat 3dB slope
between 30 and 100, before applying a filter to roll it off at 500Hz, with a
very steep
slope by 1kHz.

Patrick Turner



Someone just mentioned Onken - Focal has a box design for an Onken
vented system if anyone is interested I can post that too.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:08:07 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 02:37:32 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Anyway, just what you get with any given 15", 12", 8" or any other size speaker
isn't always known, universally experienced, universally or simplistically
valid for all sizes, so why do folks condemn anyone who wants a woofer to go
from 20Hz to 500 Hz?

It's well known: basic physics at work!

Just what you get with any speaker depends how the speaker
is used.

No, it depends on the basic quality of the driver.

Many large dia speakers have a rising acoustic output as R rises,
often 3dB/octave, so one has to tailor the crossover or the amp input
to conform with the wanted response.

Actually, as anyone who understands the subject is well aware, *all*
drivers have such a rising response, while still in pistonic mode. The
point we're trying to make, and which you seem totally unable to
comprehend, is that pistonic mode for the kind of drivers you're
referencing, breaks up around 2-300Hz at best.

I really have not heard any metal coned midranges that don't sound like
excited kitchen frying pans.

OK, living in the third world as you do, that's credible. Doesn't make
it a law of physics, of course................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

http://img249.echo.cx/img249/5323/fo...xandvx26qv.jpg


With a ported box of 220L and Fb = 22Hz, it will
get -4dB at 20Hz if there is shaping filter to roll off the flat 3dB slope
between 30 and 100, before applying a filter to roll it off at 500Hz, with a
very steep
slope by 1kHz.

Patrick Turner

I suppose that's was too big a box? I don't understand the reasoning
behind line array? Granted much more efficient but if you start with
lesser quality drivers than a high performance two way, how can it
ultimately sound superior? Distortion is that big a factor?

NGS wrote:

http://img249.echo.cx/img249/5323/fo...xandvx26qv.jpg


With a ported box of 220L and Fb = 22Hz, it will
get -4dB at 20Hz if there is shaping filter to roll off the flat 3dB slope
between 30 and 100, before applying a filter to roll it off at 500Hz, with a
very steep
slope by 1kHz.

Patrick Turner

I suppose that's was too big a box?

The guy who wants the 15" woofers says box size is unimportant.


I don't understand the reasoning
behind line array?

Nor do I until I build a rough prototype and measure it all.


Granted much more efficient but if you start with
lesser quality drivers than a high performance two way, how can it
ultimately sound superior?

Firstly, I'm the one interested in a line array for myself.
The distortion with 12 speakers in a line array is never going to be anoying
no matter what the speakers are since even with almost any speaker I never use
more tha a watt or two.
I already have plenty of bass speakers; the line array only has to cope with above
250 Hz.


Distortion is that big a factor?

Its one factor, but with tube amps the less power one uses, the less distortion
one gets.
I would like my curiosity to be satisfied, so its worth a day to drill some holes
in a plank,
and install some drivers and see how they go.

Patrick Turner.

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...



**It should, but Patrick is incapable of separating his hatred for me
(because I challenge his ideas) and common sense. He will ignore me
and
my
suggestions.

I do not ignore you Trevor.

**Sure you do. I asked several pertinent, reasonable, rational questions.
You ignored me.

I'm not ignoring an arsole like yourself.

Do yourself a favour, and STFU.

**How nice.




Unlike people with an open mind who come to this group to talk about
tube
usage
and speakers for tube amps, you come with a closed mind, and ****
on anyone who dares to use a triode for an amplifier.

**More lies from you Patrick. Triodes make EXCELLENT amplification
devices.
Low distortion, wide bandwidth and low ouput impedance. Trouble is, that
they are not suitable for SE use. In PP, they're bloody excellent. I do
not
"**** on anyone who dars to use a triode for an amplifier". I just state
facts. SET amplifiers are VASTLY inferior to a PP amp using the same
tubes.
Understand yet?

I see you just dropped large pile of **** onto SE triode amps.

**The truth can be uncomfortable.

Even though you hang out in Hurstville in Sydney, the people of the world
far away can smell your droppings.

Sure I understand.

I understand you deny what you are while a foot is stuck in your mouth.

You **** all over the many people who use SET amps in preference to
anything
PP.

**No. I just note that, despite repeated requests, you fail to provide any
evidence of the superiority of SET amps over PP. Refresh my memory, Patrick:
What does the RDH say about the inferiority of PP over SE designs?


So how about you just **** OFF OUT OF THIS NEWS GROUP!!!

**No.



Trevor Wilson is a Dunderhead Extraordinaire when it comes to tube
understanding

and as soon as things get technical in any amplifier discussions, he is
incapable of rational discussions.

**LOL! If that is the case, why do you steadfastly refuse to answer direct,
reasonable, rational questions? Here's one for you:

What does the RDH say about the inferiority of PP designs over SE ones?


He has repeatedly attacked anyone and everyone for years over the issue of
SET
amplifiers,
and here he goes again.

**No. SE designs are inferior to PP ones. That is all. It is your own
personal delusion, which skews these comments into a personal attack.


There is ample record in the Google records of the news groups to
indicate what my tolerant and open minded point of view is about SET amps,
and I don't want to spend any time repeating myself.

**"Tolerant and open minded"? Dream on. You just view SE designs as a way to
make a Buck. Nothing more. Tell me:

What does the RDH say about the inferiority of PP designs over SE ones?


But our trevor just likes to talk on a news group, any news group,
even though he is never going to build any tube amps, and
secretly thinks tubes are ****.

**Despite what I have ACTUALLY written, you continually lies and obfuscate.
Be very careful Patrick. Google will reveal EXACTLY what I have written on
the subject. And now, for the record, I will paraphrase some of those words:

One of the finest amplifiers I have ever measured/listen to was a tube amp.
An Audio Research VT100. Additionally, one of the finest preamps I have ever
measured/listened to was a tube product. The Conrad Johnson Premier 16.
Either of these products was the equal of some of the finest SS products I
have heard. Properly implemented, tubes are capable of exemplary sound
reproduction. SET designs are not part of that implementation.



Triodes are used in many preamps and power amps
and there is no need to condemn them as inferior.

**And I don't do so. Triodes are an excellent amplification device. They
just work a whole lot better in PP.



I know what is inferior; it is Trevor Wilson.

**More personal attacks. Very good Patrick. Do try to stay on topic.



Now you will always be hated for ****ing and ****ting all around the
place
while insisting your opinions are just the facts.

**What does RDH4 say about PP vs. SE? Where does it say that PP is
inferior
to SE? Please quote the page number.

I am doubtful that you can read either.


**You STILL refuse to answer that question. I wonder why? Hey, Patrick, I
have an idea! Just for fun, why don't you TRY to hold a reasonable, rational
discussion (whilst answering my questions), rather than just insulting
people? Just a thought.





I guess you'll ignore that question too.

Go try to sell pork in some other synagogue.

**Yep. I was right.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Fabio Berutti wrote:

I'd give a try to these ones:

http://www.fostexinternational.com/d...W-Series.shtml

There's a full range of products, none made of Unobtainium, and a
full
.PDF
datasheet available for downloading

The FW405 looks like a sensible choice.
Its response graph shows 101 dB at 1.4kHz, 96dB at 400Hz, 93dB at
60Hz,
and
84dB at 30 Hz, and 82 dB at 20Hz.
Its Fs is 20Hz, and its Qts is 0.34, so it looks suitable.
I will have to enter all the T&S data into my WINISD to see how she
tunes
up
with a ported box.
The response is a straight line between 60Hz and 1.4 khz.,
so there is 8 dB roll off below 1.4 khz

**YIKES! It is easy to stuff up a speaker system, by hand. To REALLY
stuff
up, you need a computer. Computers and computer aided speaker design
is a
great way to go, as long as you ask the right questions. Tell us what
your
WINISD shows for a (say) 45o OFF-axis response from that woofer.

A client has 15" woofers, and Altec horns. He does not listen 45d off
axis.

**How about 30o or 15o?

He carefully set up his listening seat to be on axis.

Don't try to place words and meanings into the thread to justify
an eroneous point of view, or suggest you know more about
the happy co-operation between me and my client.

You know SFA, that's what you know.

**I know enough to NOT try to use a 380mm driver up to 500Hz in a decent hi
fi system.





I measured the response and it is OK up to 7 kHz.

**No, it is not. The sound would be horrific.

You were not present during the day where my client and I set the
the speakers up.

**I don't need to be.


Don't make a fool of yourself any more than you already have
by suggesting that you know more about a listening test
where you were not present.

We do have the intelligence to discern if a system with 7 kHz BW
is OK or not.
The rest of the missing BW will make it better of course, and this is
obvious to
all
but you......



He is getting other horns to fill in the 7k to 20k

WINISD doesn't show us everything about any driver, but i have found it
useful
for the box match at LF; for the upper bass and midrange
the only way to make sure the response is ok is to build it and trim it
all by
careful in-house measuring and calculated /tested filter apps.

I am a hands-on engineer. I don't take too much notice of what a
computer
tells
me.

.

When you
examine that response, you may begin to understand why you cannot use
a
380mm bass driver up to 500Hz.

Quite a few ppl do use 380mm woofers.

**Sure. They're deluded.

Er, you are the one who is deluded.




You sure as Hell wouldn't let it get anywhere
near 1kHz.

No intention to do so

**Really? What kind of filter are you using? 100dB/octave?

At this point folks, what Trevor is asking is irrelevant.

**Your ignorance is pitifully obvious, at this point.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au