- Mar 8, 2011
- 12,232
- 51,187
- Disclosures
- Authorized greenboy designs builder/Owner of BNA Audio
Hah! Well, in the name of due diligence I think you should look at everything available
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Which Fitzmaurice Cab for my Needs?
- Thread starter Bobo Fret
- Start date
Hah! Well, in the name of due diligence I think you should look at everything available
Try to see if you can audition the cabs mentioned if some TB members in your area are willing to let you try theirs out. The Jack cabs (at least the Jack 10 that I own) do not sound like direct radiator cabs and have a bit of that horn coloration. You have to hear it for yourself to see if it will work with your application. If you do not need the ability of the cabs to be small yet put out a lot of SPLs, then the other cabs may be a better bet as they will sound more familiar. I don't really dig the Jack 10 for low volume practicing but it does shine at gig volumes.
+1....
Or a 12/6/1 with the 3-way crossover. They are both VERY flat response. I designed and built my own 3-way before the "official" design was complete for my 15/6/1. It's a lot like a big studio monitor now, just massively powerful on top of that.
None of the BFM designs are truly flat response, but the Jack 12 is a great bass cab, nonetheless.
- Dec 21, 2007
- 15,222
- 45,014
- Disclosures
- Lark in the Morning Instructional Videos; Audix Microphones
Is flat your goal? It's not a bad goal, but it's not everyone's goal.
The low mid bump in the BFM's is a lovely thing to me.
The BFM's will be much more efficient with your 50 watts - it's one of their other strong points.
The low mid bump in the BFM's is a lovely thing to me.
The BFM's will be much more efficient with your 50 watts - it's one of their other strong points.
I may be mistaken, but I think the Big E's are designed for more wattage than you're going to be using. The vortex system they employ gets more efficient as more power is applied, so they may be less efficient at lower wattage. I would recommend PM'ing Mike Arnopol though for the real scoop. Or posting in the Big E thread and getting responses there.
Good luck!
Liam
Yup, flat's the goal.
Looks like a Jack cab can be built on the cheap DIY. Might try it just for the hell of it at some point.
But flat response out of the gate is the goal at this time.
Looks like a Jack cab can be built on the cheap DIY. Might try it just for the hell of it at some point.
But flat response out of the gate is the goal at this time.
lelandcrooks
Commercial User
Yeah - I remember the first time we did mushrooms - good times.
A GC25 sitting next to a popular 1x12 horn with a comp horn kept up in total output. That's 2 5" drivers. And it sounded like the finest audiophile grade speakers. Made the 1x12 sound like a tin box.
I know you're completely skeptical Foz. Do you really think I'd risk my reputation on the net on something that was just fluff and bunnies?
Yeah!
Yes - I am.
Susceptibility to falsification is the soul of a scientific idea... are the claims made about your BigE product such?
If so, then I suspect for the sales price of one of your cabs, you could obtain and publish measurements from an accredited laboratory that would settle a number of challenges to well established laws of Physics that are raised by your product claims.
Yall should do that.
Yes - I believe that that is exactly what you have done.
You should stop doing that.
You are attempting to conflate your love for the way these speakers sound to proof that they have escaped the bounds of known science.
That aint right - it aint even wrong.
As stated above I am confident you are selling nice speakers in your BigE line.
I am even more confident that contrary to your claims, BigE speakers are indeed:
i) Subject to power compression such that in normal operating conditions the overall efficiency of the transducer decreases as voltage increases and heat accumulates; and
ii) their output is subject to the inverse square law [intensity of the signal is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source]; and
iii) their output causes the excitation of the modal properties of room reverberation; and
iv) when objects are encountered in the propagation path of their output, acoustic reflection, shadowing and diffraction ensue.
I truly regret that you have put yourself in a position where either falsifying the above propositions or retracting a long list of claims about your product is a necessity in order for you to maintain your "reputation on the net". None of this was my idea - quite the opposite in fact.
"da,da,...da,da....da,da...go to the show......dum,dum,dum,dum, da,da , da, da, da, da .....space cadet glow....
bum bum bum bum.......
Perhaps folks should use their ears, all the while realizing the limits of said ears, before making such absolute statements in either direction. Yes, any sound propagation is subject to it's environment. By the same token, brains are funny things when it comes to sound...they are easily fooled. Brains are not microphones and microphones are not brains....so who's right?...........
bum bum bum bum.......
Perhaps folks should use their ears, all the while realizing the limits of said ears, before making such absolute statements in either direction. Yes, any sound propagation is subject to it's environment. By the same token, brains are funny things when it comes to sound...they are easily fooled. Brains are not microphones and microphones are not brains....so who's right?...........
lelandcrooks
Commercial User
Indeed.
This is what separates the wheat from the chaff, my friend.
I thought you'd dropped off the face of the earth my friend.
lelandcrooks
Commercial User
lelandcrooks
Commercial User
And we will. It's not as cheap as you think. Measurement techniques are getting much closer to reflecting what we are hearing. Steve and Tom have diligently worked on these techniques. Trying various accepted methods of measuring to see what the results are. Some of them, such as dropoff, certainly are straightforward. Others, not so much.
I don't think this claim has been made, at least not by me. They do exhibit power compression, but it takes longer to get there, cooling is better than most cab designs.
We have confirmed this ourselves. The problem is we did it. They are subject to the inverse square law, it just appears to be line array dropoff, out to a certain distance. Until it goes to outside testing nobody's going to believe us.
See above. They do interact, just differently. Duke LeJeune is doing the high end home audio. He has a subwoofer system called the Swarm which is designed to smooth room modes in the bass region. 4 cabs. You know how that works. He says a single MVW cab does what his swarm does.
I'm went back to a full time employed gig as system programmer... long hours, little free time, 6am start, but I have TB access on the other system to follow the community.I thought you'd dropped off the face of the earth my friend.
The BFM cabs are designed with efficiency in mind.
They are not flat, nor do they portray this on TV.
The short horn gives a nice mid-bass boost, over a narrow range of no more than an octave.
Those who like the D410XLT probably like the Jack for the same reasons.
One thing Bill does faithfully, is provide basic measurements of all his inventions.
I have yet to see this with ANY of the others, who substitute hype for charts.
I give much credit and complete respect to Tom Danley, who does 100w at 10 meter measurements and publishes the results.
This gives real-world performance that is easily compared using the same (simple) technique.
I suspect those who do not provide measurements do this because they will have their @sses handed to them in comparison.
oy vay
Actually, the smaller Big E cabs would work well for what you're doing. Speaking of measurements--if any wish to venture over to the Dark Side (the Big E thread) you will see measurements of a MAS 85 (8x5) and a Thunderchild TC115. We did this because the TC is a known entity for being likely the flattest bass speaker on the planet. The 85 measured within 2 db of the TC. Duke looked at the graph and said that he trusted its accuracy because he saw the frequency peaks and dips that he knew were in his measurements. Duke also said that he thought the 85 had a bit better curve.
Other cabs in the Big E line don't measure as flat, but a 45 would be the equivalent of a "super" 12 with a very flat response.The efficiency would be around that of a 97db speaker. I've driven one with a class d 65 watt home hifi amp and was getting pretty impressive volume.
One other thing--if you're looking for efficiency obviously a BFM is the winner here. Now this is not a criticism---just a statement of fact. That efficiency is great but it's not nearly as efficient in the area where we use most of our power---the area below 250 hz. So in terms of efficiency,the Jack, the Big E 45 as well as the various Greenboy and Thunderchild cabs should all be in the same ballpark.
I think that the fearlessf112 and Thunderchild TC112 are great cabs for your purposes, too.
Actually, the smaller Big E cabs would work well for what you're doing. Speaking of measurements--if any wish to venture over to the Dark Side (the Big E thread) you will see measurements of a MAS 85 (8x5) and a Thunderchild TC115. We did this because the TC is a known entity for being likely the flattest bass speaker on the planet. The 85 measured within 2 db of the TC. Duke looked at the graph and said that he trusted its accuracy because he saw the frequency peaks and dips that he knew were in his measurements. Duke also said that he thought the 85 had a bit better curve.
Other cabs in the Big E line don't measure as flat, but a 45 would be the equivalent of a "super" 12 with a very flat response.The efficiency would be around that of a 97db speaker. I've driven one with a class d 65 watt home hifi amp and was getting pretty impressive volume.
One other thing--if you're looking for efficiency obviously a BFM is the winner here. Now this is not a criticism---just a statement of fact. That efficiency is great but it's not nearly as efficient in the area where we use most of our power---the area below 250 hz. So in terms of efficiency,the Jack, the Big E 45 as well as the various Greenboy and Thunderchild cabs should all be in the same ballpark.
I think that the fearlessf112 and Thunderchild TC112 are great cabs for your purposes, too.
- Nov 24, 2008
- 4,343
- 7,163
- Disclosures
- Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
Yes, I say this based on in-room measurements. I wasn't really focusing on the low end, then I looked at the data at that end of the graph, and it was comparable to what I get with a distributed four-piece subwoofer system.
Leland, obviously I'm not as far along as you and Mike, but I'll be sticking my neck out just as much in the high-end home audio and studio worlds.
I understand that people with a strong background in science are highly skeptical, and really can't blame them, but one thing we learn from the history of scientific inquiry is that truth does not stop at the boundaries of the current body of knowledge.
