T/S parameters for vintage CTS 8x10 drivers? - Page 4

kringle77 · #61 10-01-2012, 07:02 PM

Well thats just the thing. He says that he has a good stock of them but, thats a relative thing. He advertised them for a short while, maybe a year ago but I can't find them on his page now either. They are an option when he builds 8x10 cabs and thats really what they were intended for. I don't imagine there are a pile of them. The sound is the most important quality. As far as weight, it only matters if you are going to build a lighter weight cab as well. Im having LDS build me a sealed 8x10 and will be using either webers or these, and possibley a guitar driver if I need more top end but, I don't think that will be the case. If I decide to go with the neo's, I'd buy enough to have the 8x10 and a few spares because the rumor mill says that eminence won't be doing neo anymore and have next to nothing in stock. And, Im pretty sure that there is no recone kit for these. In that case, the webers would be the best choice, assuming that they have the sound. Same weight on both.

beans-on-toast · #62 10-01-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kringle77

I can't get the picture with the specs to post.

Your thumbnail is a .png file. If you can bring it up on your computer and save it as a .jpg, you might have better luck posting it.

The proposed tests with these speakers is really interesting.

JimmyM · #63 10-01-2012, 07:05 PM

Neos sell too well, even with the price hike. Plus more mines in different countries are slated to be up and running soon. I think while there might be shortages along the way, I don't see them having to wait too long to get a cheaper supply of it. Of course, what do I know?

kringle77 · #64 10-01-2012, 07:06 PM

I'd also like to point out that apparently eminence can put out a true cts clone anytime they want with any type of magnet. A builder just needs to put in a big enough order. Why someone else hasn't done this before now or why they voiced the low end in the B810 differently is beyond me. It seems like with all the vintage love going on right now, a smart company would be building a lighter weight cab and using 4.5lb cts clones into cool looking vintage style cabs and making a pile of money.

kringle77 · #65 10-01-2012, 07:12 PM

neo pic

kringle77 · #66 10-01-2012, 07:15 PM

As you can see, the frequency response is almost exactly the same as the B810, and probably the CTS. But, when modeled in a 25 liter enclosure, the low end is different.

JimmyM · #67 10-01-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kringle77

As you can see, the frequency response is almost exactly the same as the B810, and probably the CTS. But, when modeled in a 25 liter enclosure, the low end is different.

Well getting your hands on them is the important thing. The cabs do act upon the speakers for sure.

kringle77 · #68 10-02-2012, 03:51 PM

It looks like my webers are showing up tomorow. Im betting it will be thursday though. My fliptop neo's didn't get shipped yet so I probably won't have those until friday. But, by the end of the weekend I should have a rough but fair comparison.

astack · #69 10-02-2012, 10:19 PM

Finally got to playing with these T/S parameters. Thanks for the work pulling this data out of the works, man.

Some interesting things I found:
From past threads, I've been really interested in the 10FE200... At 1 cf per, it's VERY boomy. Need closer to twice the box volume per driver (or more) compared to the CTS (1 cf+/- looks like what you're describing) for a similar "shape" but even then it's shifted from an 80Hz f3 to 60Hz. Not quite as nice for the "slotting" thing. Kind of a bummer in that regard. But 60Hz is still a pretty good compromise and for a lot of guys would be preferable.

I also compared it to the 15PR400 (which I actually own). Check this out: @ 1.1 cf per and fb @ 25Hz, it's a dead match to the CTS. Only catch I can see is to get that low a tuning without chuffing, you'd need FEET of port or equivalent. Otherwise, power handling, group delay and all that that ported cabs have to deal with are better than more "optimal" alignments (AFAIK).

Question: What do you think the CTS driver specs to for high freq range? 4, 5, 6k? Kringle, do you think that lil' dip and peak in the Fliptops data sheet are good/bad/don't matter as much as breakup stuff you can't measure?

Looking forward to your impressions on the new drivers.

JimmyM · #70 10-02-2012, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astack

Question: What do you think the CTS driver specs to for high freq range? 4, 5, 6k? Kringle, do you think that lil' dip and peak in the Fliptops data sheet are good/bad/don't matter as much as breakup stuff you can't measure?

The SVT speakers have all been traditionally 5k, including the CTS's. As for those dips and peaks that show up on raw charts, I've seen examples of the boxes smoothing them out once out in a cab. Don't know how these speakers will do, but my CTS's certainly don't sound all jaggedy-edgy in the 810

kringle77 · #71 10-03-2012, 04:24 AM

Those sharp thin spikes are usually breakup mods which give the speaker it's growl or distortion. Smoother response speakers like the faital 10fe200 end up sounding cleaner. Not what I want. The dip isn't my favorite thing in a speaker but, with multiples, that frequency range is additive and fills in ......I think. The webers will be here tomorow. The fliptops maybe friday or saturday.

kringle77 · #72 10-03-2012, 08:46 AM

Maybe it's just me but, pictures of the old 70's 8x10 look alittle smaller to me than the modern version. Are they the same size, or is the vintage alittle smaller?

coreyfyfe · #73 10-03-2012, 09:05 AM

The dimensions are almost identical.

Vintage - 26 W x 48.25 H x 15.875 D

Current 810E - 26 W x 48 H x 16D

Edit - though now that I'm looking closer at that service manual (the first link) the head appears to be a post-75 which would mean it's a tilt back cab.

kringle77 · #74 10-03-2012, 09:31 AM

Thanks corey. I may have seen pictures with a wide v4 head on an 8x10 cab that made it look smaller.

beans-on-toast · #75 10-03-2012, 09:42 AM

My notes for the 810 flat back say: 46 1/2" high, 26" wide, 16" deep

With 3/4" ply, the internal chamber size is about: 10 3/4" high, 24 5/8" wide, 12 5/8" deep

There is a setback of the baffle of about 2" from the front needed to fit in the front grille frame and hardware. It works out that the volume per speaker is about 0.968 cubic feet not subtracting the speaker volume. Ted Weber told me that the optimal cabinet dimension for his speaker should be one cubic foot so the numbers concur. For the B810 in a sealed enclosure, I believe that the recommended target volume is between 0.5 and 1.3 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot being optimal but I'd want to verify that.

Cabinet measurements tend to vary depending on who is using the ruler.

The size of the later tilt back cabs was increased to compensate for the triangular volumes that were lost in the top and bottom chambers.

kringle77 · #76 10-03-2012, 09:53 AM

I've been after weber for a very long time to get specs for their 10fl and I got an e-mail today saying that they had their engineer on it. I've been sending them an e-mail a week "reminding" them.

ThisBass · #77 10-03-2012, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kringle77

Here is the CTS vs the B810. Notice the 2.75db bump at 125hz on the B810 and the extra low end. This is what makes it sound boomy to me.

Tools like the Eminence Box Designer calculate different responses.

I took for the simulation QL=15 and Fill=typical.

B810:
F3=77Hz
+1.6dB @145Hz

CTS:
F3=85Hz
+0.8dB @180Hz

kringle77 · #78 10-03-2012, 07:00 PM

I don't know what ql=15 is but, trying heavy stuffing. I've heard both of these drivers in real life and they don't sound like what your simulation is describing. They do sound like the results I got using the simple winisd program though. Webers are arriving tomorow. No word on the fliptops so, Bruce must be very behind schedule.

ThisBass · #79 10-03-2012, 07:37 PM

+3dB @ 125 Hz is not enough to give the cab a boomy sound.

That means, if the cab sounds much to boomy cause of +3dB @ 125 Hz it sounds similarly boomy with +1.5dB @ 125 Hz.

Take a 1/3 Octave band EQ and give +3dB @ 120 Hz and hear the difference.
If it sounds too boomy at all it does not matter whether the eq is +3dB or +1.5dB or flat @ 125Hz.

If you are looking for cabs with tighter (orr less) low end you need:
1) cabs with higher F3 to avoid the low end
or
2) cabs with 2.5" voice coil and die casting frame. These are PA cabs normally but they provide best and very tight low end.
Deltalite 2510 should do this even in sealed cabs.

It's long time ago when I played a SVT clone.
The speakers was from craaft, these are similar compared to EV.

The sound was very tight and fast, nothing like boom sound like my original 70's svt did.

I can not imagine to get a similar sound with any of all the svt clone cabs on the market.
And if I ever try to bring this sound back I'm sure I have too search for something very different, something like professional PA-series cabs can do it.

kringle77 · #80 10-03-2012, 08:50 PM

Im not going to debate this too much. I can only report what I hear and compare that to what winisd is telling me. I've got a pair of 2510-II drivers and they don't have much low end in a sealed cab. An alpha 10 puts out more. Ported, yeah the 2510's kick ass. Those are great fullrange drivers for bass in my opinion. I'd love to hear that clone you are talking about. Must have been pretty heavy. Regaurding the B810 driver, the cab plans that eminence suggests model pretty close to how the cts/berg/fliptops model in the same enclosure but, in real life the low end is way different and the B810's sound boomy. Hence, the connection I made with the big 125hz bump on winisd and boomy sound. Then again, beta 10's model the same as the bergs/fliptops/cts but they actually don't have as much low end in real use. So, it's not an exact thing.