no one agreed so I guess I was wrongThere is a gazillion if ways to do the poll. Just go ahead and do what you think is best, it will work out somehow.
(again) I just didn't want anyone to feel we ignored the suggestions, since everyone is on the same page here we can keep the ball rolling
Option 01: >90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 40-45HZ.
Option 02: >90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 40-45HZ.
Option 03: <90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 30-35HZ.
Option 04: <90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 30-35HZ.
Option 05: >90db - >60 Liter Tower/Floor standing F3 of 40-45HZ.
Option 06: >90db - <60 Liter Tower/Floor standing F3 of 40-45HZ.
Option 07: <90db - >60 Liter Tower/Floor standing F3 of 30-35HZ.
Option 08: <90db - <60 Liter Tower/Floor standing F3 of 30-35HZ.
Option 09: >95db - <150 Liter Tower/Floor standing F3 of 35-40HZ.
There is a gazillion if ways to do the poll. Just go ahead and do what you think is best, it will work out somehow.
It is nice to see all the contributions, IMHO it is ok if the end results is not what I expected this is an open source contribution to forum and I think that more people will be involved once we start it
after mods reopened the poll we still have people voting If were going all-in, (haven't read through enough of the posts) I'd like to add a feature of using a concrete enclosure.
I am in the process of building a fancy set of fabric covered Tritrix speex and then move up to the Solstice. The Solstice have all the specs I could adore aside of using a concrete enclosure. I work in construction and have lots of experience in designing and implementing stuff. I've built furniture and all sorts. It would actually be fairly easy to build an enclosure with a 5 sided concrete box and MDF faceplate. You can toss all the ideas and complexity of bracing out the window when using concrete, and, if one designs and builds the form correctly, it can be used over and over again. No need for building enclosures over and over. Pour and set, attach CNC faceplate.
As far as drivers and configurations, I would require the ability to handle 250wrms, something akin to the Solstice kit from Parts Express. Eventually I would like my system to be arranged 3.1, so consideration there. I would not be bothered to design a multitude of cabinets etc, even ones that I wouldn't use.
I am in the process of building a fancy set of fabric covered Tritrix speex and then move up to the Solstice. The Solstice have all the specs I could adore aside of using a concrete enclosure. I work in construction and have lots of experience in designing and implementing stuff. I've built furniture and all sorts. It would actually be fairly easy to build an enclosure with a 5 sided concrete box and MDF faceplate. You can toss all the ideas and complexity of bracing out the window when using concrete, and, if one designs and builds the form correctly, it can be used over and over again. No need for building enclosures over and over. Pour and set, attach CNC faceplate.
As far as drivers and configurations, I would require the ability to handle 250wrms, something akin to the Solstice kit from Parts Express. Eventually I would like my system to be arranged 3.1, so consideration there. I would not be bothered to design a multitude of cabinets etc, even ones that I wouldn't use.
To be honest, my involvement will depend on the type of speaker we're going to make. If it's a design that is interesting enough to me (and maybe even suits my own needs), I might be all in.
I do have a few simulation software tools (AJ Horn, BoxSim, and recently downloaded Vituix CAD), but I am pretty sure others are better at running good simulations that I am. I believe Paul Vancluysen wrote something along these lines, but I can find that post.
I could provide some general design ideas.
I could actually build a prototype once there there is a design that looks ok in computer simulations (box+drivers+filters).
I could throw in some money to buy parts, but others would have to sponsor a large part of the costs (someone mentioned he/she could help with getting funds, but again I can't find that post anymore).
I could run measurements (electronic and acoustic).
I could tweak the prototype.
I could help with the documentation once the design is finalized.
Apart from that, I do like the waveguide idea (simply because waveguides do good things, and I'd like to learn about these). There is a lot of good information and designs in this thread, and I guess we could get some great input from those guys.
I use Leap EnclosureShop and CrossoverShop for most of the simulations.
It is possible to simulate the complete speaker with driver models in a cabinet model. SPL, impedance, power, off axis response, closed box and basreflex system,...
There are some limitations:
- a wave guide cannot be modelled in Leap. But if there is a SPL measurement on IEC baffle or in the cabinet of the tweeter with the waveguide, a driver model with waveguide can be made. The power response can be simulated to check the waveguide impact on the power curve. Off axis responses with waveguide cannot be simulated in Leap, they have to be measured with the waveguide in the cabinet.
Maybe others have some tools to simulate the waveguide response... I don't have (at this moment).
- for the cabinet modelling there is a limitation too. Every plane of each cabinet panel has to stay out of the cabinet. For example a bass horn cannot be modelled. For most of the cabinet shapes a model can be made.
That is also the reason a waveguide cannot be modelled because its shape goes to the inside direction of the speaker.
If the speaker concept is not too complex, a complete design with X-over can be simulated. Leap gives good results, but you have to know the weak points. For a feasibilty/concept study it is ideal IMO.
I already designed several speakers in this way and the measurements were very close to the simulations.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Thanks for mentioning the Acoustic Elegance woofers. I actually have two DIY designs in the works that would probably qualify as the 3way classic high end if anyone is interested. The first is a 3way TD15H, TD6M, and Mundorf AMT29CM1.1-R. The second is similar but uses the TD18H+, TD8M, and AMT29CM1.1-R. Both would be vented designs tuned in the 20's. The TD6M and TD8M were really designed to bridge this gap between our woofers and some of the high end ribbons/AMT's. While the ribbons/AMT's are efficient and can handle a good amount of power, they really can't be used in 2way systems unless it is with smaller drivers below. Going to a 3way design provides far more headroom.
I don't see a lot of point in guessing on crossover designs. Any time I do a design I want data measured in the actual cabinet that would be used. For either of these designs I could throw together a test cabinet and measure response and impedance curves for the drivers in the actual cabinets.
I would use the Umik-1 from MiniDSP and Room EQ Wizard for response curves, and the DATS V2 from PE for impedance measurments. Both cheap and easy options that others can easily duplicated. Passive Xover design can then be done in Xsim which is free. Testing, measuring, and verifying results should be very straight forward.
If there is any interest in all of this, please let me know.
John
Ok, so we got enough hands to get it started. Just need a general direction to march in.
Once we get the two designs (smallest and largest most popular goals) that people want, we just start the hunt for suitable drivers, how much to allow for xo parts? If we spend 700$ on drivers, is 300$ enough for caps'n'coils? It was 1000$ for drivers and xo parts sans cabinet material?
Once we get the two designs (smallest and largest most popular goals) that people want, we just start the hunt for suitable drivers, how much to allow for xo parts? If we spend 700$ on drivers, is 300$ enough for caps'n'coils? It was 1000$ for drivers and xo parts sans cabinet material?
Hi John,
For this group project, at first the concept will be defined, like cabinet size, F3 value, sensitivity, etc… to find an agreement on that.
Later on the complete design with crossover will be investigated.
Of course measurements in the cabinet have to be done. For my own projects all drivers are measured on IEC baffle and driver models for simulation made with that data. For the concept study the data sheet of the drivers is used.
The measurement of the drivers in the actual cabinet still have to be done of course, but they are very similar with the simulations.
Paul
I am generally ok with this aproach, but:
* I don't understand the logic behind Options 01 and 02. Why would you make a speaker larger than 60L if you can make the same thing with less than 60L? (same question for Options 05 and 06)
* Why is there no analogue of Option 09 for the Classic?
Why two designs? Maybe I missed something...
Once the concept is defined, next step is cabinet shape and driver choice, I also think so.
And simulate some examples with first X-over (type to be agreed). So we can better estimate the minimal cost for the X-over.
You'r right Mbrennwa. I have changed some F3 values in the list, I think it is more realistic then.
Option 01: >90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 35-40HZ.
Option 02: >90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 40-45HZ.
Option 03: <90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 30-35HZ.
Option 04: <90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 35-40HZ.
same for flour stander
It was just a personal suggestion on my part, to include both the largest AND the smallest most popular design goals, in order to reach a bigger crowd with the end results.
We can not do all of them, but 1 extra design does not put much extra strain on the design process, and might make people more likely to vote if they have a good chance of getting something that fits their personal goals.
Aatto: Well, <150 liters is certainly >60 liters... Do not know how far you want to stretch that.
If you write a spec instead of asking questions it can evolve, sharpen up and the design of a speaker will have started. People can comment on what they like and don't like. If people wanting to put in time designing are sufficiently unhappy about a particular aspect it prevents them getting involved then that is the time to start a second design.
A speaker needs a theme to get people pulling in the same direction. For example, a speaker for "weak" amplifiers has been mentioned. This is a theme because it drives the design in particular directions. If those "weak" amplifiers are ACA or valve amplifiers then an appropriate design should follow the thought processes that lead to the choice of such an amplifier. This means more than an easy load and high sensitivity. It means designing the crossover to work with a high output impedance amplifier, choosing drivers and configurations that have the same type of appeal such as wideband drivers and horns, modestly weighting technical performance,... For example the Arpeggio speaker. Personally I have zero interest in such designs but others have a strong interest. This spread of interest is good and enrichening but mixing people with such different design approaches in the same group is unlikely to be successful.
However, if the "weak" amplifier is a budget AV receiver then that would suggest a different design: modest cost, reasonable but not high sensitivity, avoiding "4 ohm" load and seeking to maximise technical performance within the budget. Such a design may well interest me but I doubt it would hold much interest for a ACA/valve enthusiast.
Another theme was a "monkey coffin" but does this mean a passive crossover version of a modern studio monitor, an old fashioned studio monitor, an old fashioned domestic speaker,...
Andy: I do not understand what you are implying. I may have misunderstood something, but it was my understanding that cost per speaker should not exceed 1000$, I was merely asking if this was just for drivers and xo parts, and if cabinet material is in adittion to this limit.
Further, it is also my understanding that Aatto will edit the poll so we can finally know what should be the general design goals, IE: format (floorstander or monkey coffin), sensitivity and size.
(I personally do not agree with any promises of low frequency extension as that should be up to the design team to decide within the other limits given, but that does not matter much)
Several have voiced an opinion that it should be a 8ohm design regardless, because it is more compatible with the unending list of various amplifier types and variations of each.
The general public will decide what the design goals shall be, through the poll.
It is already decided it shall be a 3way design with over 500$ budget, so 1000$ was suggested as the top limit per speaker. I see it's a close race with the 3 way under 500$ limit, so if people are up for it and the biggest and smallest victor of the next poll can be designed and built, it should be fine to make for instance the smallest design have the 500$ limit, and the largest box could have a 1000$ limit.
I can not speak for anyone else, but so far a lot of things have been decided, it's just that these things take time and there are a lot of considerations to make.
If you had a point to bring up, I did not get it.
Further, it is also my understanding that Aatto will edit the poll so we can finally know what should be the general design goals, IE: format (floorstander or monkey coffin), sensitivity and size.
(I personally do not agree with any promises of low frequency extension as that should be up to the design team to decide within the other limits given, but that does not matter much)
Several have voiced an opinion that it should be a 8ohm design regardless, because it is more compatible with the unending list of various amplifier types and variations of each.
The general public will decide what the design goals shall be, through the poll.
It is already decided it shall be a 3way design with over 500$ budget, so 1000$ was suggested as the top limit per speaker. I see it's a close race with the 3 way under 500$ limit, so if people are up for it and the biggest and smallest victor of the next poll can be designed and built, it should be fine to make for instance the smallest design have the 500$ limit, and the largest box could have a 1000$ limit.
I can not speak for anyone else, but so far a lot of things have been decided, it's just that these things take time and there are a lot of considerations to make.
If you had a point to bring up, I did not get it.
Last edited:
It may well be me that doesn't get it. This thread has run for nearly 5 weeks and looks due to run for a few more with people chatting about a group speaker design but without getting on with one or two. It baffles me given several people appear to want to take part in one.
It may be more helpful if I keep my confusion to myself and just watch.
It might be helpful to add some words describing each one instead of just the numbers, like:
Option 01: >90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 35-40HZ (loud, large, low)
Option 02: >90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 40-45HZ (loud, smaller, not as low)
Option 03: <90db - >60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 30-35HZ. (not as loud, large, very low)
Option 04: <90db - <60 Liter Classic Design F3 of 35-40HZ. (not as loud, smaller, low)
For me as a newbie who is interested in building these speakers some day, that helps me understand the essential trade-offs in the engineering, that I can't have small, loud, and very low all at the same time.
-Neil N0FN
Andy:
In these 5 weeks we already know:
1. the project will be a 3-way with a driver-X-over cost between 500 and 1000 $
2. there will come a poll with 4 options w.r.t. cabinet size, sensitivity and F3 for floor stander and classic design each.
Parameters you have to know before you can simulate or built a speaker suitable for this group.
Once the poll result is defined drivers and cabinet shape can be chosen.
After that you can make a full specification and design like your are proposing.
At this moment it is too much work to make a design example for each option.
I don't understand you, how can you make 1 design, if you don't know anything of what a group wants.
The Arpeggio design doc (very good doc b.t.w) you are mentioning is also written after the speaker was built (very probably).
We also will make such doc, but now it is too early for that...
Paul
In these 5 weeks we already know:
1. the project will be a 3-way with a driver-X-over cost between 500 and 1000 $
2. there will come a poll with 4 options w.r.t. cabinet size, sensitivity and F3 for floor stander and classic design each.
Parameters you have to know before you can simulate or built a speaker suitable for this group.
Once the poll result is defined drivers and cabinet shape can be chosen.
After that you can make a full specification and design like your are proposing.
At this moment it is too much work to make a design example for each option.
I don't understand you, how can you make 1 design, if you don't know anything of what a group wants.
The Arpeggio design doc (very good doc b.t.w) you are mentioning is also written after the speaker was built (very probably).
We also will make such doc, but now it is too early for that...
Paul
I think we're all a bit confused, there are a lot of posts, people do not have time to fine-read everything properly, and it's easy to miss a few of the more important posts through a bunchload of what may seem to be uninteresting walls of text at first.
To top it off, there's also the, once again, unevitable differences in sentence building and nuances of wording that are certain to elude the ocassional speedreader, that for some reason may have accumulated enough passing interest to skim through most of it.
We are a global conglomerate of highly different individuals that happen to have interests that seem to coincide with what diyaudio has to offer, and I do suspect that most of us really are Fanatics in some way or other. Differences in wording and opinion should be expected.
Edit:
Good point drneilmb !
To top it off, there's also the, once again, unevitable differences in sentence building and nuances of wording that are certain to elude the ocassional speedreader, that for some reason may have accumulated enough passing interest to skim through most of it.
We are a global conglomerate of highly different individuals that happen to have interests that seem to coincide with what diyaudio has to offer, and I do suspect that most of us really are Fanatics in some way or other. Differences in wording and opinion should be expected.
Edit:
Good point drneilmb !
- Status
- Not open for further replies.