First time here, so Im looking for some opinions. I have built some boxes in the past, but like most dummies, I just built it without much thought. Im planning on building a soundbar at full range. I want to know if my plan will work and what one should I go with. Either build will have two hook ups in the back, since this is coming directly from the tv, and it has a left and right set up. The first idea I had was L/C/R, and the other is just L/R.
For speakers, I plan to use Hivi B3N’s and do a combination of parallel and series wiring. Hopefully I did it right.
For the L/C/R, I was going to port the L/R and seal the middle. For the L/R, I was going to give each half 1 port. For tuning purposes, I chose 60Hz, no real reason, but was kinda following this build http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/236212-homemade-soundbar-stand-zvox-beater.html
Thank in advance for any help you guys can provide.
For speakers, I plan to use Hivi B3N’s and do a combination of parallel and series wiring. Hopefully I did it right.
For the L/C/R, I was going to port the L/R and seal the middle. For the L/R, I was going to give each half 1 port. For tuning purposes, I chose 60Hz, no real reason, but was kinda following this build http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/236212-homemade-soundbar-stand-zvox-beater.html
Thank in advance for any help you guys can provide.
Hello Fair. i think a soundbar build is an excellent gateway to DIY.......but even when working with fullrange drivers, there's some basic principles you still need to follow.
Now you're pictures.........what you DON'T want to do is put two fullrange drivers side by side working the same passband. You'll end up with destructive comb filtering at the higher frequencies making vocal intelligence terrible. You'd be FAR better served with three drivers...one each for left, right and center.........and in lies the inherent problem with fullrange drivers......SPL and power handling limits as well as low frequency response limits.
In speaker design, it's always a tradeoff and you have to manage them as the designer. So how do we/you combat the SPL/Bass limitations? Examining commercial offerings shows that it's pretty easy....just add a subwoofer. There's the power of DIY that allows you to design, build and integrate a subwoofer that fits your needs/space. I wouldn't ask ANY or these small format fullrangers to go below 200hz.....and even that's pushing it. Another tradeoff as now your limited to a subwoofer within close proximity or two subs.....which is the far better option of two smaller subwoofer placed close by. The small internal volume limits of a soundbar are actually a plus if you don't have unreasonable expectations. You can make a soundbar thats really thin, wide, long...whatever fits your space......just avoid the pitfall of looking for low frequency extension from it.
On another note, there's now FAR better options for fullrange drivers than the HiVi you proposed. Check out the Vifa TC9 or the offerings form Fountek. If you use less drivers as i mentioned, you'll have saved enough for three Fountek FR88's or 89's.......which would be my first choice by far. When crossed over to a subwoofer(s) and relieved of LF handling, these little drivers can get staggeringly loud!
Hope this helps your quest......enjoy.
Now you're pictures.........what you DON'T want to do is put two fullrange drivers side by side working the same passband. You'll end up with destructive comb filtering at the higher frequencies making vocal intelligence terrible. You'd be FAR better served with three drivers...one each for left, right and center.........and in lies the inherent problem with fullrange drivers......SPL and power handling limits as well as low frequency response limits.
In speaker design, it's always a tradeoff and you have to manage them as the designer. So how do we/you combat the SPL/Bass limitations? Examining commercial offerings shows that it's pretty easy....just add a subwoofer. There's the power of DIY that allows you to design, build and integrate a subwoofer that fits your needs/space. I wouldn't ask ANY or these small format fullrangers to go below 200hz.....and even that's pushing it. Another tradeoff as now your limited to a subwoofer within close proximity or two subs.....which is the far better option of two smaller subwoofer placed close by. The small internal volume limits of a soundbar are actually a plus if you don't have unreasonable expectations. You can make a soundbar thats really thin, wide, long...whatever fits your space......just avoid the pitfall of looking for low frequency extension from it.
On another note, there's now FAR better options for fullrange drivers than the HiVi you proposed. Check out the Vifa TC9 or the offerings form Fountek. If you use less drivers as i mentioned, you'll have saved enough for three Fountek FR88's or 89's.......which would be my first choice by far. When crossed over to a subwoofer(s) and relieved of LF handling, these little drivers can get staggeringly loud!
Hope this helps your quest......enjoy.
in the case mentioned above (Alpair 6P throughout) , a pair of small storage compartments were incorporated between the 3 small enclosures for the front row 3 - wall mounted with aluminum Z-clips
the dual drivers are SDX7 woofers - also wall mounted
Attachments
Since this isnt hooked up to an amp, and the tv really just puts out a L/R (witch is 2 hook ups). Should I make one box mtm or make 2 boxes mtm (which they would make one big box with a baffle). And what size speakers would you recommend? I know this is going to be a great soundbar, just looking to improve the tv
chrisb you mentioned recently that you had tried to make 2 channel audio work with movies and abandoned that approach eventually. Is there a thread where the problem is worked through? I'm no fan of rear channel monkey business but I can see three channel, especially since the original RCA (I think) stereo included a center track, so it's old school enough to appeal to an old man.
Thanks
Thanks
well first of all, I think one needs to differentiate between attempts at "realistic" reproduction of music - how many discrete channels are required to attain that would be a whole other conversation - some might opine that 3 for domestic purposes was an arbitrary figure based on available technology at the time - anyone remember the "Quadraphonic wars" some 20 or so years later? - some audio formats die for a combination of any number of good reasons (pre-recorded Elcassettes, anyone?) 
- and for what to me is the agreed upon contrived artifice of the "home cinema experience" - again the question "how many channels - what's it up to now, 12.4 or some such silliness ?" (oops, did I digress again?)
good luck with that distinction
Basically, what I found with 2 channel for movies was that by and large the soundtrack mixing was based on coupling visual images with precise location of audio - whether for dialogue or sound "effects" , and that even in small to moderate sized rooms, 3 discrete speakers in the front row did a much more convincing job of anchoring to the visual image than 2 with a phantom centre . I certainly would have preferred that not be the case, but once I heard multi channel "cinema" done reasonably half-a$$ed, there was no going back.
After using this system to test drive a lot of other speakers over the past 2 yrs, I've come to the conclusion that the centre is the most important channel, with consistent voicing across the front row following close behind.
Proper placement and EQ/level setting - now almost child's play (or should I say "seniors' proof" ?) with the likes of Audyssey, etc - makes for a much more seamless envelope, even with very modest speakers in smallish rooms.
FWIW, I find the rear /surround "monkey business" most convincing when you don't think it's contributing and toggle it off - it's like the video resolution dropped back down to 480, and who wants that?
- and for what to me is the agreed upon contrived artifice of the "home cinema experience" - again the question "how many channels - what's it up to now, 12.4 or some such silliness ?" (oops, did I digress again?)good luck with that distinction
Basically, what I found with 2 channel for movies was that by and large the soundtrack mixing was based on coupling visual images with precise location of audio - whether for dialogue or sound "effects" , and that even in small to moderate sized rooms, 3 discrete speakers in the front row did a much more convincing job of anchoring to the visual image than 2 with a phantom centre . I certainly would have preferred that not be the case, but once I heard multi channel "cinema" done reasonably half-a$$ed, there was no going back.
After using this system to test drive a lot of other speakers over the past 2 yrs, I've come to the conclusion that the centre is the most important channel, with consistent voicing across the front row following close behind.
Proper placement and EQ/level setting - now almost child's play (or should I say "seniors' proof" ?
) with the likes of Audyssey, etc - makes for a much more seamless envelope, even with very modest speakers in smallish rooms.FWIW, I find the rear /surround "monkey business" most convincing when you don't think it's contributing and toggle it off - it's like the video resolution dropped back down to 480, and who wants that?
Last edited:
I find a center channel to be a must for movies. Without to center channel I find myself always turning up the volume to hear dialog. Even without a surround sound receiver a center channel can be added by using a passive matrix that sums common signal from the right and left channels into a center channel.
So to be clear, I can just turn down the rear channels? I'd rather go 3.3 than 5.1, since audio is way below story and directing/acting priority wise at my house. A bit of ambience is OK but I think Marshall McLuhan would find the diminishing role of the imagination in the 21st century to be troubling. Remember when it was determined that TV watching actually stimulated the brain, because the image was so rough that the grey cells had to work at deciphering it? Well now the screen is more vivid than reality. Spooky.
Short answer is yes you can turn down any of the surrounds (by current count that could be as many as 4 channels)
The DSP surround processor of every HT receiver I've set up ( 5 different models by now) allows you to turn off the center and surround channels, as well as selection of mains as either large or small. Some even allow allocation of unused amp channels for passive bi-amping of front mains - a feature I used on a pair of older B&Ws to great effect.
If you use the mic and auto calibrate routine to set levels and compensate for distance, you can later manually adjust the levels of any to suit your requirements. Unfortunately, with all the units I've used, (2@Marantz, 2@Denon, 1@Onkyo), those adjustments are not easy on the fly, but require drilling down several layers of onscreen menus, and setting with test tones not live signal.
As thedoc noted, and I struggled to avoid myself, but resistance was futile, for the vast majority of program material mixed for surround processing, the center is in fact the most important channel in the front row. Unfortunately more often than not available space compromises enclosure size, hence the proliferation of too many poorly designed horizontal MTM designs.
The DSP surround processor of every HT receiver I've set up ( 5 different models by now) allows you to turn off the center and surround channels, as well as selection of mains as either large or small. Some even allow allocation of unused amp channels for passive bi-amping of front mains - a feature I used on a pair of older B&Ws to great effect.
If you use the mic and auto calibrate routine to set levels and compensate for distance, you can later manually adjust the levels of any to suit your requirements. Unfortunately, with all the units I've used, (2@Marantz, 2@Denon, 1@Onkyo), those adjustments are not easy on the fly, but require drilling down several layers of onscreen menus, and setting with test tones not live signal.
As thedoc noted, and I struggled to avoid myself, but resistance was futile
, for the vast majority of program material mixed for surround processing, the center is in fact the most important channel in the front row. Unfortunately more often than not available space compromises enclosure size, hence the proliferation of too many poorly designed horizontal MTM designs.OK I'll plan for 5 channels plus as many subs as I can fit in, starting with 2 10s in the 60s Fisher console I got for free. Sorry to go AK on you but I do have a bunch of old stuff, as I am myself old, and in the way of where this forum would rather go, which is new stuff. I just can't handle people like me, so I hang around here, where the cool new stuff dudes are, not at AK. My bad.
I think this quote from Walter Murch in the forward to Chion's Audio-Vision is fitting “The danger of present-day cinema is that it can crush its subjects by its very ability to represent them; it
doesn't possess the built-in escape valves of ambiguity that…radio drama, and black-and-white silent film automatically have simply by virtue of their sensory incompleteness—an incompleteness that engages the imagination of the viewer as compensation”
Im also planning on building a soundbar. In order to lowest possible inteferences full-range. Maybe as additional option two-way for more acoustical power and force in the heights. The most important question therefore is the right choice for the transducers resp. chassis drivers.
An optional subwoofer is already present, thus the -6db frequency must be not below 80 Hz (vented enclosure with large port, i. e. Boom-Box alignment
I will realize - go to
http://roehrenklingklang.de/images/Small.pdf)
I would prefer the Fane Studio 5M - go to
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...io-5m-5fr-use-commercial-studio-monitors.html
Unfortunately this model with excellent sound quality - also in the upper frequency range - is obsolete and the currently available successor with carbon membran is an appropriate replacement, but isn't good enough for full range application.
Other options I know, which sound quality is closest to FANE's Studio 5M are follow drivers:
1) Fostex FE83EN
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/FE83En.pdf
2) Fostex FE103N
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/FE103En.pdf
Supravox 135-LB
3) 135 LB SUPRAVOX
Visaton F8 SC
http://www.visaton.de/de/chassis_zubehoer/breitband/f8sc_8.html
The 9oo series from PHL-Audio could be also good, unfortunately there aren't to find any measuring results like freuency response etc.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...rs-900-series-who-have-heard-new-devices.html
Are there other modells, which I should prefer?
Thanks for your advices.
Last edited:
this Eminence driver looks interesting:
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/Pro_5W_8.pdf
seems to be similar to FANE's Studio 5HPM at least in the upper range
http://www.faneinternational.com/downloads/Fane Studio 5HPM DS030513.pdf
http://www.eminence.com/pdf/Pro_5W_8.pdf
seems to be similar to FANE's Studio 5HPM at least in the upper range
http://www.faneinternational.com/downloads/Fane Studio 5HPM DS030513.pdf
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.