fi-guy
I think you are making things too difficult on your self. There is only so much research you can do and then a decision has to be made. Know matter what kit you decide on you'll always get some people that loved them, to all the way down to people that thought they were terrible. More positive reviews can generally indicate a good kit. Unfortunately in the diy world you can't always hear the product until you've actually built it. The kit you choose to build will hopefully be approved by your ears.
The other important aspect in all this crazy world of audio, is the room you are going to have your setup. A poor environmental setup can kill the aureal experience very quickly.
Another thing I have learned, not to offend anybody, is that graphs aren't everything. I had a pair of expensive speakers that had a graph that showed table top frequency response from about to 25Hz to 20Khz. To my ears my ARdiys sound much better. If achieving a perfect linear frequency response was the magic to great sounding speakers, then most commercial speakers would sound wonderful. They have the technology and research capabilities to achieve perfect measurements.
Hopefully your build will be successful. It is wonderful to kick back and enjoy music on a nice sounding system that your ears approve of. Especially if don't have to spend an arm and a leg.
cheers and good luck
PS Here is link to pictures of my ARdiys (mains, center and surrounds) and also a great sounding Tempest sub. MCH
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=182304
I think you are making things too difficult on your self. There is only so much research you can do and then a decision has to be made. Know matter what kit you decide on you'll always get some people that loved them, to all the way down to people that thought they were terrible. More positive reviews can generally indicate a good kit. Unfortunately in the diy world you can't always hear the product until you've actually built it. The kit you choose to build will hopefully be approved by your ears.
The other important aspect in all this crazy world of audio, is the room you are going to have your setup. A poor environmental setup can kill the aureal experience very quickly.
Another thing I have learned, not to offend anybody, is that graphs aren't everything. I had a pair of expensive speakers that had a graph that showed table top frequency response from about to 25Hz to 20Khz. To my ears my ARdiys sound much better. If achieving a perfect linear frequency response was the magic to great sounding speakers, then most commercial speakers would sound wonderful. They have the technology and research capabilities to achieve perfect measurements.
Hopefully your build will be successful. It is wonderful to kick back and enjoy music on a nice sounding system that your ears approve of. Especially if don't have to spend an arm and a leg.
cheers and good luck
PS Here is link to pictures of my ARdiys (mains, center and surrounds) and also a great sounding Tempest sub. MCH
http://gallery.audioreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=182304
absolutely Mah-velous! Did you simply maintain the internal volume with those mains. Is the stand permanently installed?
If your woodworking equates to the NATIONAL LEAGUE, I'm in the little league!
Thanks MCH. I thoroughly enjoyed your pics from AR.com. I guess for $175 in parts & drivers it's worth a first try. If I screw it up at least I didn't muck up $100 drivers.
I'm now surrendered to just doing it.
It's probably just like making a list of the Top-10 Restaurants under $15/meal. There's probably no one you know who has tried all the items, in all the menus, of all the restaurants in your locale.
If your woodworking equates to the NATIONAL LEAGUE, I'm in the little league!
Thanks MCH. I thoroughly enjoyed your pics from AR.com. I guess for $175 in parts & drivers it's worth a first try. If I screw it up at least I didn't muck up $100 drivers.
I'm now surrendered to just doing it.
It's probably just like making a list of the Top-10 Restaurants under $15/meal. There's probably no one you know who has tried all the items, in all the menus, of all the restaurants in your locale.
Thx. I'm blushing.
The internal volumes are as close as I could get them to the specs. The center MTM is 2 chambers of the required volume.
I've made a pair for my son that are in a horseshoe shape. I lacquered them a glossy black. They came out quite nice.
This is what I love about diys. You can create your own enclosure designs. I've drawn up plans for another unusual design that I may create soon.
I made all my regular box enclosures (not the ones in pics) out of 1" MDF and put a 1/4" plywood veneer facing. I did set of 5 for my nephew in oak. I stained them black. The oak graining gave them a very nice finished look. I think the wall thickness is probably a benefit, I could be wrong though. When finished (the box style) the speakers weigh over 40lbs.
My personal enclosures (the pics) are a series of MDF rings glued together. That translates into a lot of cutting. The rear surrounds have some rings and bent sides. The center MTM is glued rings. It definetely got my old brain working to put this all together. But I am very pleased with the results.
But then, I love woodworking. I'm constantly making furniture of some kind (beds, tables, cabinets etc.)
Have fun with your build.
The internal volumes are as close as I could get them to the specs. The center MTM is 2 chambers of the required volume.
I've made a pair for my son that are in a horseshoe shape. I lacquered them a glossy black. They came out quite nice.
This is what I love about diys. You can create your own enclosure designs. I've drawn up plans for another unusual design that I may create soon.
I made all my regular box enclosures (not the ones in pics) out of 1" MDF and put a 1/4" plywood veneer facing. I did set of 5 for my nephew in oak. I stained them black. The oak graining gave them a very nice finished look. I think the wall thickness is probably a benefit, I could be wrong though. When finished (the box style) the speakers weigh over 40lbs.
My personal enclosures (the pics) are a series of MDF rings glued together. That translates into a lot of cutting. The rear surrounds have some rings and bent sides. The center MTM is glued rings. It definetely got my old brain working to put this all together. But I am very pleased with the results.
But then, I love woodworking. I'm constantly making furniture of some kind (beds, tables, cabinets etc.)
Have fun with your build.
Zaph i comented on the ar's in another thread and you posed some info on the ar's looking at your weg site it's abvous that you have more experiance with diy audio than i do, i like to learn and i kind of agree with what you said that most people that like the ar's it's becous the have only heard retail stuff from the avrage store like me but i'm ready for you to prove me wrong so i'm ready for another project but like to stick with same drivers since i'm building a HT system, i was thinking of doing the peecreek but with the usher 9950 with the idea that if it sounds better than i will be able to covert the ar's to the peecreek's, what do you think of this design or should i go a differanty rout thanks
fi-guy
You've got the right idea by sitting down and drawing up rough sketches on what you want your cabs to look like. The web can be great source of inspiration. Once you have a rough idea on what you want, start refining it. Once I'm at the final stages of my plans I do a scale drawing to give me an idea of what the proportions will finally look like. Then I go into details of different areas: plan out material cuts to get the maximum use, assembly procedure etc. I find the more I spend at this stage, the easier the build will be and more successful. I've solved many potential problems at the planning stage and realised problems that would have occurred in the build.
This is how I approach all my projects. In fact this process is very creative to me and I love the challenge of problem solving. The build is the extension of this process.
Now if I only had a shop like Norm of the Yankee Workshop I'd be in heaven.
Well I'm off to the workshop, to create some more 'designer sawdust'.
You've got the right idea by sitting down and drawing up rough sketches on what you want your cabs to look like. The web can be great source of inspiration. Once you have a rough idea on what you want, start refining it. Once I'm at the final stages of my plans I do a scale drawing to give me an idea of what the proportions will finally look like. Then I go into details of different areas: plan out material cuts to get the maximum use, assembly procedure etc. I find the more I spend at this stage, the easier the build will be and more successful. I've solved many potential problems at the planning stage and realised problems that would have occurred in the build.
This is how I approach all my projects. In fact this process is very creative to me and I love the challenge of problem solving. The build is the extension of this process.
Now if I only had a shop like Norm of the Yankee Workshop I'd be in heaven.
Well I'm off to the workshop, to create some more 'designer sawdust'.
rj11c said:
I'd like to introduce you to a new concept:
.
That is a period. I find it hard to understand your message but I can certainly recommend that you start with the PeeCreek instead of the AR system. I've heard both, (though not at the same time however) and the PeeCreek is a large improvement. In fact the North Creek tweeter is a huge improvement in performance over the Peerless. For those who already have the AR.com kit, I recommend scrapping the tweeter and crossover, then upgrading to the PeeCreek and/or the Usher version.
MCH: those are beautiful enclosures. But I also must add that in general it is not wise to build an enclosure different from the design you are using unless you redesign the crossover to deal with the vastly different diffraction effects. With the AR.com kit however it probably doesn't matter much because this crossover is already a very bad design and a different enclosure probably can't make things worse. Maybe your new enclosures actually help the situation, who knows.
****With the AR.com kit however it probably doesn't matter much because this crossover is already a very bad design and a different enclosure probably can't make things worse. Maybe your new enclosures actually help the situation, who knows.
****
I can only attribute your statements to being a young person. When you're young you feel your opinions are the center of the universe. When you become more seasoned you realize how little you know. 'A wise man has more questions than answers.'
One thing I do know, I enjoy my system tremendously. Is it the best out there, probably not.
I think it is quite obvious by now, that you apparently disapprove of the ARdiys. I personally think they are great build for the budget. Is your opinion more valid than mine? It really doesn't matter in the great scheme of life.
Time to kick back and listen to my music. I'm sure there are people that disapprove of my taste of music also. But that is life.
cheers
PS I'm not trying to be offensive. Actually I find it amusing.
****
I can only attribute your statements to being a young person. When you're young you feel your opinions are the center of the universe. When you become more seasoned you realize how little you know. 'A wise man has more questions than answers.'
One thing I do know, I enjoy my system tremendously. Is it the best out there, probably not.
I think it is quite obvious by now, that you apparently disapprove of the ARdiys. I personally think they are great build for the budget. Is your opinion more valid than mine? It really doesn't matter in the great scheme of life.
Time to kick back and listen to my music. I'm sure there are people that disapprove of my taste of music also. But that is life.
cheers
PS I'm not trying to be offensive. Actually I find it amusing.
Interesting thread
I've had the privilege of building both the PeeCreek and the AR.com DIY, with the latest crossover design.
I can guarantee that response chart that was posted in this thread from the GR-Research website is very much out dated and that this issue has in fact been been corrected. The speaker measures quite well now...but who cares? FR plots only tell you so much. How many of us buy speakers to listen to frequency sweeps and sine waves? How many of us have CD's or LP's with songs on them that play back only 1 frequency at a time?
I personally wonder how many tests it took Danny to find the least attractive plot possible in order to make his "upgrade" seem more pleasing...no bias there...Whose to say he didn't get a woofer or tweeter out of spec?
I don't understand the reasoning in arguing over this speaker and that speaker design. I happen to enjoy both.
There are a few noticeable differences I have noticed.
Imaging: The PeeCreek has a very focused, razor sharp imaging that I hear in many speakers these days. It's very localized and very focused. It's really quite impressive, as the speakers "disappear" and sound seems to come from the perfect center. On the other hand, I've spent much of my life as a musician, around bands, live performances, etc, and I've never heard a voice, or instrument's sound emanate from a razor sharp fixed point in space.
Soundstage: The AR.com DIY has a much wider and deeper soundstage, more airy, and really draws you in. The imaging is good, a bit less precisely focused, and IMO more realistic.
(this is the biggest trade-off in my opinion, the bigger soundstage vs. the fixed point imaging....pick your poison).
Bass: Not a big difference...You really need a sub for both.
Midrange: This is what's so surprising...the midranges are slightly different. The PeeCreek seems to need require more power or volume to make it sound as good as it can...I suppose it is less efficient, but it seems a bit choked up. I don't know if it's the smaller cabinet or what, but there's definitely more snap, attack, whatever in the ar.com's...especially noticeable with acoustic instruments.
Highs: I'm really shocked that anyone here would dare suggest that the North Creek D25 tweeter is somehow better than the 812687 Peerless. I don't find either all that spectacular, but the D25 isnt' better than the 812687, not a chance, unless your less sensitive to high frequencies...the PeeCreek has as much detail in my estimation, but it can be a little fatiguing after awhile. I blame that goofy North Creek tweeter for this. I think the proof of this is the fact that it only took builders, and Wayne J, a few months to realize this design was much improved by adding an Usher or Morel tweeter to the mix.
After building both, I decided to replace my Studio 40's (v.2) and 4 Studio 20's (v.2) with the ar.com diy's. I honestly prefer the ar.com to the PeeCreek. I can't really say anything bad about the PeeCreek because it's a great design, I suspect personal preference may play a huge roll in this. To be honest, I like the PeeCreek AND the ar.com DIY better than the Studio's. You'll need a good sub though.
There's on element of the PeeCreek I do like...the pre-fab cabinets from Parts Express are as nice as they come...much better than the Madisound or Speaker City ones...This makes the PeeCreek very attractive to builders with no tools.
I'm looking to replace the D25 in my PeeCreeks with either the Usher or Morel tweeter...I'd very much welcome any comments from people who have heard either of these tweeters as I can't decide, and haven't heard either yet.
For people wondering which speaker to build....be very wary of someone telling you this or that is that much better...if there were truths like this in audio, there'd only be 1 speaker company and everybody would have the same speakers.
Lots of good designs out there, no reason to start flame wars over them.
I've had the privilege of building both the PeeCreek and the AR.com DIY, with the latest crossover design.
I can guarantee that response chart that was posted in this thread from the GR-Research website is very much out dated and that this issue has in fact been been corrected. The speaker measures quite well now...but who cares? FR plots only tell you so much. How many of us buy speakers to listen to frequency sweeps and sine waves? How many of us have CD's or LP's with songs on them that play back only 1 frequency at a time?
I personally wonder how many tests it took Danny to find the least attractive plot possible in order to make his "upgrade" seem more pleasing...no bias there...Whose to say he didn't get a woofer or tweeter out of spec?
I don't understand the reasoning in arguing over this speaker and that speaker design. I happen to enjoy both.
There are a few noticeable differences I have noticed.
Imaging: The PeeCreek has a very focused, razor sharp imaging that I hear in many speakers these days. It's very localized and very focused. It's really quite impressive, as the speakers "disappear" and sound seems to come from the perfect center. On the other hand, I've spent much of my life as a musician, around bands, live performances, etc, and I've never heard a voice, or instrument's sound emanate from a razor sharp fixed point in space.
Soundstage: The AR.com DIY has a much wider and deeper soundstage, more airy, and really draws you in. The imaging is good, a bit less precisely focused, and IMO more realistic.
(this is the biggest trade-off in my opinion, the bigger soundstage vs. the fixed point imaging....pick your poison).
Bass: Not a big difference...You really need a sub for both.
Midrange: This is what's so surprising...the midranges are slightly different. The PeeCreek seems to need require more power or volume to make it sound as good as it can...I suppose it is less efficient, but it seems a bit choked up. I don't know if it's the smaller cabinet or what, but there's definitely more snap, attack, whatever in the ar.com's...especially noticeable with acoustic instruments.
Highs: I'm really shocked that anyone here would dare suggest that the North Creek D25 tweeter is somehow better than the 812687 Peerless. I don't find either all that spectacular, but the D25 isnt' better than the 812687, not a chance, unless your less sensitive to high frequencies...the PeeCreek has as much detail in my estimation, but it can be a little fatiguing after awhile. I blame that goofy North Creek tweeter for this. I think the proof of this is the fact that it only took builders, and Wayne J, a few months to realize this design was much improved by adding an Usher or Morel tweeter to the mix.
After building both, I decided to replace my Studio 40's (v.2) and 4 Studio 20's (v.2) with the ar.com diy's. I honestly prefer the ar.com to the PeeCreek. I can't really say anything bad about the PeeCreek because it's a great design, I suspect personal preference may play a huge roll in this. To be honest, I like the PeeCreek AND the ar.com DIY better than the Studio's. You'll need a good sub though.
There's on element of the PeeCreek I do like...the pre-fab cabinets from Parts Express are as nice as they come...much better than the Madisound or Speaker City ones...This makes the PeeCreek very attractive to builders with no tools.
I'm looking to replace the D25 in my PeeCreeks with either the Usher or Morel tweeter...I'd very much welcome any comments from people who have heard either of these tweeters as I can't decide, and haven't heard either yet.
For people wondering which speaker to build....be very wary of someone telling you this or that is that much better...if there were truths like this in audio, there'd only be 1 speaker company and everybody would have the same speakers.
Lots of good designs out there, no reason to start flame wars over them.
Re: Interesting thread
Agreed. On the other hand, there's lots of bad designs out there, but there's still no reason to start a flame war over it. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to try helping people. Inevitably, I run into someone whose feelings and ego are hurt and a war starts. Then my experience is questioned, and I'm generally declared as having an attitude problem.
If anyone wants more opinions about the AR.com kit, ask Dennis Murphy. I recall him testing one a while back and posting about it on Madisound. His post might still be there though the Madisound forum is down for upgrades at the moment. He had the same thoughts about it's sound that I did. He's a guy of retirement age who has much more design experience under his belt than I do.
This ends my participation in this thread. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves about how great the ar.com kit is.
Ken C said:
Agreed. On the other hand, there's lots of bad designs out there, but there's still no reason to start a flame war over it. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to try helping people. Inevitably, I run into someone whose feelings and ego are hurt and a war starts. Then my experience is questioned, and I'm generally declared as having an attitude problem.
If anyone wants more opinions about the AR.com kit, ask Dennis Murphy. I recall him testing one a while back and posting about it on Madisound. His post might still be there though the Madisound forum is down for upgrades at the moment. He had the same thoughts about it's sound that I did. He's a guy of retirement age who has much more design experience under his belt than I do.
This ends my participation in this thread. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves about how great the ar.com kit is.
Hey Ken
Did you really let go of your STUDIOs??? Really?
I appreciate the candor. Many are afraid to mentioning any Brand/Model references in fear of launching a nuclear strike from, say, the likes of PARADIGM Fanatics. Not to mention a flash of egos by listing credentials for the wrong reasons.
Ahhh. The Paradigm Studio 20s (V2) -- which, so far, I still prefer over the V3's. Hey, that's me. What other ones did you demo before settling on Studios back then? I just want to know for the reason of establishing a possibility of our similarities in taste.
To let go of the Paradigms, over a DIY (in this price range, of course) is bolder than I'm capable of. Perhaps, I don't know what I don't know.
Also, do you have a schematic for the GR Research Crossover?
Did you really let go of your STUDIOs??? Really?
I appreciate the candor. Many are afraid to mentioning any Brand/Model references in fear of launching a nuclear strike from, say, the likes of PARADIGM Fanatics. Not to mention a flash of egos by listing credentials for the wrong reasons.
Ahhh. The Paradigm Studio 20s (V2) -- which, so far, I still prefer over the V3's. Hey, that's me. What other ones did you demo before settling on Studios back then? I just want to know for the reason of establishing a possibility of our similarities in taste.
To let go of the Paradigms, over a DIY (in this price range, of course) is bolder than I'm capable of. Perhaps, I don't know what I don't know.
Also, do you have a schematic for the GR Research Crossover?
Fi-guy, I'm sure even people here who aren't big fans of the Ar.com DIY's will at least vouch for their ability to trounce commercial speakers costing more money.
When I bought the 20's and 40's I was also looking at Totem Arro's, some Energy Veritas (can't remember model), and some lower end Dynaudio's but mostly I was deciding whether or not to go with Monitor 7's or 9's. I decided instead to build my home theater in stages with better speakers than to buy them all at once...worked out.
I'm not going to sit here and say the PeeCreeks or Ar.com's blow the Studio 20's out of the water - they don't - but to me they both have a bit more realistic presentation. They obviously don't peform as well in the bass as the 40's, but I use these strictly for home theater/multi-channel audio with a DIY sub I have...so the bass wasn't an issue. My main system is a floorstanding Vifa/Seas combo...much nicer sound than the ar.com's but a good chunk more money at the same time, and I needed alot of help with the crossover.
Most DIY kits I've seen in the $300-$400 range are pretty good and can easily compete with $800 -$1000 speakers. Personal tastes might influence your ultimate opinion, I'm sure some people just don't jive with certain designs. If you're debating whether or not to build your own (assuming you have the tools and can cut MDF) or buy a commercial brand, your money will go alot further with DIY.
Just my opinion.
When I bought the 20's and 40's I was also looking at Totem Arro's, some Energy Veritas (can't remember model), and some lower end Dynaudio's but mostly I was deciding whether or not to go with Monitor 7's or 9's. I decided instead to build my home theater in stages with better speakers than to buy them all at once...worked out.
I'm not going to sit here and say the PeeCreeks or Ar.com's blow the Studio 20's out of the water - they don't - but to me they both have a bit more realistic presentation. They obviously don't peform as well in the bass as the 40's, but I use these strictly for home theater/multi-channel audio with a DIY sub I have...so the bass wasn't an issue. My main system is a floorstanding Vifa/Seas combo...much nicer sound than the ar.com's but a good chunk more money at the same time, and I needed alot of help with the crossover.
Most DIY kits I've seen in the $300-$400 range are pretty good and can easily compete with $800 -$1000 speakers. Personal tastes might influence your ultimate opinion, I'm sure some people just don't jive with certain designs. If you're debating whether or not to build your own (assuming you have the tools and can cut MDF) or buy a commercial brand, your money will go alot further with DIY.
Just my opinion.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.