Site Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Please review the site Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy at your convenience. Rules, TOS, Privacy
Get familiar with the reaction system: Introducing the Reaction System
About the only project I have time to get done for Iowa...
...is another iteration of the reliable old Cabrini. In this case, the changes warrant not calling it the Cabrini any more, but I probably will anyways. I am thinking "Cabrini SM", short for "studio monitor" of course.
Woofers are "Drok" brand, a company that essentially sticker-engineered generic drivers and puts them out on Ebay and Amazon. They also have a wide range of audio electronics.
Woofers are "Drok" brand, a company that essentially sticker-engineered generic drivers and puts them out on Ebay and Amazon. They also have a wide range of audio electronics.
Fs = 54.60 Hz
Re = 3.64 ohms[dc]
Le = 228.00 uH
L2 = 421.96 uH
R2 = 15.94 ohms
Qt = 0.51
Qes = 0.60
Qms = 3.41
Mms = 16.40 grams
Rms = 1.649932 kg/s
Cms = 0.000518 m/N
Vas = 12.04 liters
Sd= 128.68 cm^2
Bl = 5.849851 Tm
ETA = 0.31 %
Lp(2.83V/1m) = 90.51 dB
Added Mass Method:
Added mass = 25.00 grams
Diameter= 12.80 cm
The other driver measured pretty close to the same. I was pleasantly surprised at the T/S parameters - I was fully expecting them to exhibit a much higher Qts.
Here are ported/sealed models using the Cabrini cabinet (0.5 cubic feet, added 0.5 ohm series resistance):
Sealed F3/6/10 of 72/56/43. That is pretty close to the original Cabrini woofer albeit at a much lowed Q. In fact, this models at pretty close to the "ideal" 0.707 Q.
Vented F3/6/10 of 56/47/39. That is a decent if not great extension, definitely low enough to enjoy a lot of different content:
The impedance curve indicates a minimal cone breakup, I had difficulty getting the driver to bottom out which tells me the soft parts are reasonably appropriately sized, and the inductance is actually pretty low - despite the rising impedance. I am guessing it should compete with any number of other affordable 6.5" drivers out there.
It is otherwise a bread and butter driver. The cone is attractive woven fiber, hard poly dustcap, foam gasket, basic stamped frame. It has stiffening ridges formed into the spokes of the basket - something a lot of inexpensive stamped drivers lack. 25mm voice coil vs the GRS 30mm, but the spider is larger. Vented out the back, so at least a modicum of attention to keeping the voice coil from starting a cabinet fire. Rubber surround. Lots and lots of mechanical throw. Loose suspension compared to the GRS. Overall, until I measure and listen, appears to be a definite upgrade over the GRS.
As far as the tweeter goes, I am debating right now between something easily available like the Vifa BC25TG, Dayton waveguide thing (which would fit with my 'studio monitor' theme), or something a little harder to find, or even already NLA. I have a pair of NOS Northcreek tweeters that would probably work stupendous (and allow me to cross nice and low). I also have a pair of these weird things:
Ebay find, you can usually pick them up on Ebay for around $30/pr. Audipur branded. These are very enticing to use, just to carry the "studio monitor" theme forward. All the studio guys in this area are on a ribbon kick these days, plus it is also yellow.
Virtually any tweeter I choose will require some modification to the cabinet. The GRS tweeter uses a very non-standard 103mm faceplate, so it is juuuuuuust a touch too small for standard tweeters. Will require some sandpaper work regardless. The planar tweeter pictured above is actually around 101mm, so would require modification of a different kind.
I hope to get these cobbled up and done this week.
The other driver measured pretty close to the same. I was pleasantly surprised at the T/S parameters - I was fully expecting them to exhibit a much higher Qts.
Here are ported/sealed models using the Cabrini cabinet (0.5 cubic feet, added 0.5 ohm series resistance):
Sealed F3/6/10 of 72/56/43. That is pretty close to the original Cabrini woofer albeit at a much lowed Q. In fact, this models at pretty close to the "ideal" 0.707 Q.
Vented F3/6/10 of 56/47/39. That is a decent if not great extension, definitely low enough to enjoy a lot of different content:
The impedance curve indicates a minimal cone breakup, I had difficulty getting the driver to bottom out which tells me the soft parts are reasonably appropriately sized, and the inductance is actually pretty low - despite the rising impedance. I am guessing it should compete with any number of other affordable 6.5" drivers out there.
It is otherwise a bread and butter driver. The cone is attractive woven fiber, hard poly dustcap, foam gasket, basic stamped frame. It has stiffening ridges formed into the spokes of the basket - something a lot of inexpensive stamped drivers lack. 25mm voice coil vs the GRS 30mm, but the spider is larger. Vented out the back, so at least a modicum of attention to keeping the voice coil from starting a cabinet fire. Rubber surround. Lots and lots of mechanical throw. Loose suspension compared to the GRS. Overall, until I measure and listen, appears to be a definite upgrade over the GRS.
As far as the tweeter goes, I am debating right now between something easily available like the Vifa BC25TG, Dayton waveguide thing (which would fit with my 'studio monitor' theme), or something a little harder to find, or even already NLA. I have a pair of NOS Northcreek tweeters that would probably work stupendous (and allow me to cross nice and low). I also have a pair of these weird things:
Ebay find, you can usually pick them up on Ebay for around $30/pr. Audipur branded. These are very enticing to use, just to carry the "studio monitor" theme forward. All the studio guys in this area are on a ribbon kick these days, plus it is also yellow.
Virtually any tweeter I choose will require some modification to the cabinet. The GRS tweeter uses a very non-standard 103mm faceplate, so it is juuuuuuust a touch too small for standard tweeters. Will require some sandpaper work regardless. The planar tweeter pictured above is actually around 101mm, so would require modification of a different kind.
I hope to get these cobbled up and done this week.
I have a signature.
Comments