I suppose we did get a little sidetracked on WAF, but for most builders with partners high WAF is needed to justify the spending, so although not the most important part of the design, I do feel it has great relevance.
But a well executed 3-way will be a great asset in building experience and it opens many doors for gaining insights into the design process, also we will have much input from experienced designers; which we can then transpose to our own future designs.
I think that sometimes we tend to get carried away with building the "Ultimate" system, forgetting that ultimate systems deserve and need dedicated listening rooms and almost unlimited funds, therefore having a maximum budget makes us think more about the choices.
Just my $0.02
I suppose we did get a little sidetracked on WAF, but for most builders with partners high WAF is needed to justify the spending, so although not the most important part of the design, I do feel it has great relevance.
But a well executed 3-way will be a great asset in building experience and it opens many doors for gaining insights into the design process, also we will have much input from experienced designers; which we can then transpose to our own future designs.
I think that sometimes we tend to get carried away with building the "Ultimate" system, forgetting that ultimate systems deserve and need dedicated listening rooms and almost unlimited funds, therefore having a maximum budget makes us think more about the choices.
Just my $0.02
Agree MoonDog55. This should be a fun project. I for one am looking forward to further progress. A single 10" driver is a good start for a first group project in terms of fitting the majority of users IMO.
Hi Tinitus, I don't think WAF was the highest priority, it was just something that came into consideration.
I think the philosophy behind this thread is to design an accessible project which people who want to step up from the usual 2 way to something a little more challenging, can try as a first (learning) project. Something that won't break the bank, and will appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It is not meant to be the be all and end all of Three way projects. It would IMO be more targeted at the less experienced DIYer who wants to step up to the next level in complexity, but certainly if the end result is very good, there is nothing stopping the more experienced people building a set either. Having at least some degree of WAF I think is important for a wide appeal, as though some of us might be able to get away with a couple of 200L cabinets (I know would struggle to pull that off) the majority of us couldn't.. I think that something between 70 and 100L is doable from a WAF point of view.
Tony.
I think the philosophy behind this thread is to design an accessible project which people who want to step up from the usual 2 way to something a little more challenging, can try as a first (learning) project. Something that won't break the bank, and will appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It is not meant to be the be all and end all of Three way projects. It would IMO be more targeted at the less experienced DIYer who wants to step up to the next level in complexity, but certainly if the end result is very good, there is nothing stopping the more experienced people building a set either
. Having at least some degree of WAF I think is important for a wide appeal, as though some of us might be able to get away with a couple of 200L cabinets (I know would struggle to pull that off) the majority of us couldn't.. I think that something between 70 and 100L is doable from a WAF point of view. Tony.
Hi Tinitus, I don't think WAF was the highest priority, it was just something that came into consideration.
I think the philosophy behind this thread is to design an accessible project which people who want to step up from the usual 2 way to something a little more challenging, can try as a first (learning) project. Something that won't break the bank, and will appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It is not meant to be the be all and end all of Three way projects. It would IMO be more targeted at the less experienced DIYer who wants to step up to the next level in complexity, but certainly if the end result is very good, there is nothing stopping the more experienced people building a set either
Tony.
i think you have summed up what i would be looking for from such a project. I am still at the early stages of my understanding of loudspeaker design but am hopeing to learn alot along the way, and have something that is a step up from my Diyaudio reference 2 way that i am currenlty useing.
mark
Ok, thats fair
Me too could think of several good reasons making this project worth it
I hope you are aware of the difficulties in making a 3way work
Does anyone have the tools and experience to take inbox measurements of drivers
To learn how to measure, and do simulations, could be one part of this learning process
Me too could think of several good reasons making this project worth it
I hope you are aware of the difficulties in making a 3way work
Does anyone have the tools and experience to take inbox measurements of drivers
To learn how to measure, and do simulations, could be one part of this learning process
A single 10" in a TL is fine.
a) I figured the cost and difficulty of making a TL box might push the project outside the abilities of some of the DIYaudioers. But if most of us are ahppy with making a TL then 1 x10" in a TL box will work well.
b) As Andre has pointed out below, 2 x 10" will have a sensitivity of 99db (as against my assumed sensitivity of 91-92 db after baffle step compensation)
Is this after baffle step compensation? The spec sheet gives a nominal sensitivity of 90.5db, if you look at the FR curve (SEAS claims their curve is taken in a 28 liter sealed box) the sensitivity is below 90db (under 300Hz). Add 2 woofers pushes that to 96db. factor in baffle step compesation and it should have been 91-92db at most. Have I missed something?
Have the drivers been selected yet? I'm too lazy to read through page after page to find out.
To me, reference means the benchmark to which others can be compared. This would be a very good pair of speakers.
So far the drivers most have agreed on are SEAS 26RFX or RE4X, MCA15RCY and 27TDFC or TFFC.
The object of this project is as a reference for diyaudioers. Using better or more exotic drivers (Seas-Excel, Illuminator-Revelator, RAAL, PHL, etc..) might push this project outside the skills, abilities and finances of most diyaudioers.
Besides this Ultimate systems demand better XO and cabinetry skills than most of us have.
This system is just a fun project. If any diyaudioer wants to build a 3way or 2 way there are dozens of projects, kits and designs available on the net. One result of this project should be something we diyaudioers can call our own. Ofcourse help from the pros (Lynn, Planet10, etc..) is more than welcome but the idea is that the ownership of this project will be diyaudio and not any one person - kinda like open source software.
Don't read me wrong
I believe the cost of the individual drivers doesn't determine the quality of the overall system, their implementation does. Marrying three good, well suited drivers with the right cab and crossover is what makes it sing.
My "reference" 3-way uses relatively low cost drivers - Seas woofer, Vifa mid and Scanspeak tweeter.
99db with two 10" hifi woofers ? that is surely a typo
Anyway, if many people build this design there may be a good chance of fine improvements over some years
Over there may be several versions wit different xo
The advantage is all have excact same basic design
I think a lot depends on the design and choise of drivers
Not so much in terms of sound quality, but more like which drivers appeal to most people, making them want to build it
To have the advantage of ongoing improvements you need experienced people on board, and they build this design only if drivers are good quality, and not too expencive
Seems you may be going in the right direction
Jensen-
ScanSpeak 3-
W26 Classic
Anyway, if many people build this design there may be a good chance of fine improvements over some years
Over there may be several versions wit different xo
The advantage is all have excact same basic design
I think a lot depends on the design and choise of drivers
Not so much in terms of sound quality, but more like which drivers appeal to most people, making them want to build it
To have the advantage of ongoing improvements you need experienced people on board, and they build this design only if drivers are good quality, and not too expencive
Seems you may be going in the right direction
Jensen-
ScanSpeak 3-
W26 Classic
Attachments
Last edited:
We will want and need help from anyone who is willing and able. Pros are more than welcome to chip in.
Exactly. Kinda like open source software.
Also the lessons learnt may eventually give us courage to work on a "Excel" version.
Such changes would be easy with a modular box design
And it would make more room fore easy physical phase allignment, where even very small adjustments can make a huge difference
Which again could make different xo designs more effective
You could say it multiplies the possibilities by a large margin
Last edited:
You are right, that is what WinISD have shown, it should add 6dB? I see WinISD calculate the SPL a bit higher than shown on the spec sheet, wonder why.
Yes something like the JM Lab Alto Utopia, Vandersteen 3A, B&W 800D, etc... can be also an option.
However if the TL is indeed the final choice a single cabinet will allow for the longest TL length.
Modular boxes and outboard cross-overs is a damn good idea, why didn't I suggest it.
Why don't we start with a standardized outboard crossover box? we could decide on a size and then work out 3 separate boards BASS BANDPASS & TREBLE and perhaps have some-one do a circuit board.
A multi purpose board, suitable for first/ second and third order XO's
Just a thought.
Why don't we start with a standardized outboard crossover box? we could decide on a size and then work out 3 separate boards BASS BANDPASS & TREBLE and perhaps have some-one do a circuit board.
A multi purpose board, suitable for first/ second and third order XO's
Just a thought.
I think I have to disagree with the outboard x-o idea. I did it once and found it was a pita, extra wires, etc etc, especially for a 3-way !!
What I have found that it is quite useful, is to design the cabinet so either the x-o can be accessed behind a hinged door, or removable panel, in a separate compartment, or the x-o is built onto a separate board that slides into a separate coompartment.
Either way the x-o can be tinkered with the drivers and cabinet intact, and drivers don't need to be unscrewed to access the x-o.. and you don't have an extra box hanging off the speaker.
Last edited:
A single cabinet would be my choice. As far as physical alignment, a slanted baffle could make this a reality and add visual interest to the face of the speaker without a lot of extra work.
This is a great idea. If not mounted to the removable board or or not, it could allow access to the xover in much easier fashion. Out board xover could be an option still for anyone so inclined.
hehehe I suggested both in post number two
It is the route I'm going down, but my passive crossover is only going to be a two way as the bass crossover is going to be active.. Hopefully I won't run into the pita aspect as Andy has stated.. though now that I've read his excellent suggestion I might just have to incorporate that Idea into my bass boxes (yet to be redesigned) which will be the stands for the MTM's... I'm starting to visualise it already... two sets of terminals on the back of the main woofer box (one from the woofers amp and one from the MTM's amp) with two additional terminal pairs on the top (close to where the back of the MTM's will sit) of the bass cabinet... then there will be two short runs from the top of the bass cabinet to the speaker terminals on the backs of the MTM's...
Tony.
The curve shown on the spec sheet already show baffle step.
Somehow when I simulate these drivers, it show a higher 1W SPL than given in the spec sheet?