The biggest debate in the history of humankind -Tannoy crossovers original vs new.

[Macca]

Cheers, guys. I'll get to these posts properly later. Bit busy just now.

However, Denzil, I believe that they're 220 litres. I'll get the dimensions for you later. Yes, you could say that they're 'rather chunky' One of the reasons I think the Lockwood Major cabs sound so good with 15" Tannoy DCs is their wide-baffle approach.

Not exactly 'room friendly' in size for your average UK lounge (but then they were never meant to be), but to my ears, their wide-baffles seem to allow the internal 15" drivers to 'breathe' more, and this manifests itself in the sheer scale and power of the bass delivery - o.

It's a result of baffle step response. The wider the baffle the lower the frequency of cancellation at the edges.

[Marco]

Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean

In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width

Marco.

[Denzil]

Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean

In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width

Marco.

As for me, I definitely had width restrictions because of where my speakers are placed in the room. It's a fairly large room (20 x 30 ft) but the only place where my system could go is in a alcove of the room as you will see in the photos. However, while building the cabinets I was seeing various debates about Tannoy's needing wide baffles. However, there's something which really baffles me (pun intended). If Tannoy's actually do need wide baffles, why are the "TANNOY KINGDOM ROYAL'S" so narrow ? There's obviously no economic consideration when it comes to that level and it's their flagship speaker.

Denzil

[sailor]

Hi Denzil,

Baffle Step Compensation is catered for in the XO design and it robs a few dB of sensitivity. For the low output single ended triode fans, a wide baffle is preferred as less or no BSC is necessary.

Loosing 3 dB's to BSC is equivalent to halving you amps power.

[sailor]

Forgot to mention that the trade off for the manufacturer is to sacrifice a few dB's of sensitivity for a smaller footprint speaker and ultimately more attractive design from a marketing point of view.

Seems its the wives who mostly wear the trousers

My good friend says he definitely wears the trousers in the house, only that he has to ask her which ones to wear

[Denzil]

Yeah, could be. You've heard them, so you know what I mean

In that respect, if I were designing cabs for 15" DCs, from scratch, and 'room imposition', as it were, wasn't an issue, I'd always go with fat-assed baffles. As I always tell her, never mind the length, feel the width

Marco.

[Denzil]

Hi Denzil,

Baffle Step Compensation is catered for in the XO design and it robs a few dB of sensitivity. For the low output single ended triode fans, a wide baffle is preferred as less or no BSC is necessary.

Loosing 3 dB's to BSC is equivalent to halving you amps power.

So is it just a matter of loosing a few DBs ? Just power or does it translate into some areas of quality ? If you had an amp with adequate power, would it not matter ?

[Denzil]

Forgot to mention that the trade off for the manufacturer is to sacrifice a few dB's of sensitivity for a smaller footprint speaker and ultimately more attractive design from a marketing point of view.

Seems its the wives who mostly wear the trousers

My good friend says he definitely wears the trousers in the house, only that he has to ask her which ones to wear

Hahaha

What about husbands who can afford speakers like the "FOCAL GRANDE UTOPIA EM EVO LOUDSPEAKER" which cost $ 260000 a pair. I'm sure they can afford many wives with many trousers and many different speakers in various different homes but even these speakers have very narrow baffles.
Also, the link which I posted earlier, this one

http://www.44bx.com/tannoy/mods.html

This is a design recommended by Tannoy and the footprint is large. Yet it appears to have a narrow baffle and is much deeper than it is wide. So I'm still confused

Regards,

Denzil
PS. I've read somewhere about narrow and deep (rather than wide) speaker cabinets having better imaging. Not sure if there's any substance to that.

[Macca]

So is it just a matter of loosing a few DBs ? Just power or does it translate into some areas of quality ? If you had an amp with adequate power, would it not matter ?

No it wouldn't matter. But when Tannoy designed the original cabs watts were very expensive. As Charlie mentioned to get that 3dB back you need double the power. No big deal now but back in the days before transistors, and for a while after transistor amps appeared, it was.

[Macca]

PS. I've read somewhere about narrow and deep (rather than wide) speaker cabinets having better imaging. Not sure if there's any substance to that.

Yes there is. Which is why you have some designs (e.g some KEFs & B&Ws) where the bass cab is big and wide but mid- range and tweeter are mounted on a much smaller unit above. Every speaker design is a trade off of compromises. Tannoy make up for it by being dual concentric point source so what you lose on the swings you make up on the roundabout.