I waited a bit to see where the thread will go.
Since there was quite a bit of progress in hi-fi world, why would you want to build something classic ? Horn loaded seems to big and there aren't a lot people that love horns. I do but if this is to be a massively made loudspeaker, let's make it technically up to date or it will be one more three-way on the pan: not better or worse but just exist.
My suggestion would be three-way with waveguide loaded tweeter and 5" midrange. Two woofers 8"-10" per cabinet. Stand mount closed cabinet, woofers mounted to the sides and coupled to each other. Coupling would diminish cabinet resonances. I think that Peerless has some interesting units for closed cabinets. On the front side we could use Seas L15 (alu cone - for cheaper variant) and Seas W15 (Mg cone for expensive one). They have very similar frequency response and should be crossed over at 1.7KHz or so. Nowadays there are bunch of tweeters ranging 50$-75$ that can be loaded in Visaton WG148R waveguide - Seas, SB, ScanSpeak.
I've made a two way with L15 and waveguide loaded Morel tweeter in Visaton WG148R and i know it is doable - the end result is acoustically remarkable with what is considered mid quality components.My initial plan was to make MTM but i've been thinking a lot about woofers on the sides of the cabinets. Points of crossover could be 200/300Hz and somewhere bellow 2KHz for mid/hi. Given that midrange of that sort is made as a midwoofer, it'll have good power handling as a midrange, tweeter is very well protected with waveguide, and we have two woofers. I'd aim F3 at 40-45Hz for closed cabinet. That'll do for the ones with the smaller rooms. Anyone who feels that 2x8" or 2x10" isn't enough, can use a sub. But it would be good closed cabinet three way that has controlled directivity and good power handling with low distortion.
All this is doable passive and will only be easier DSP controlled. Kef Blade II and Kii Three are proof of it.
Other option includes coaxial 5" units instead separate 5" midrange and tweeter. I'm using newer 5" coaxials from Kef.
My point is that if classic three-way is all that minds in this place can come up with, maybe there is no need for it because it already exist for not much money.
Since there was quite a bit of progress in hi-fi world, why would you want to build something classic ? Horn loaded seems to big and there aren't a lot people that love horns. I do but if this is to be a massively made loudspeaker, let's make it technically up to date or it will be one more three-way on the pan: not better or worse but just exist.
My suggestion would be three-way with waveguide loaded tweeter and 5" midrange. Two woofers 8"-10" per cabinet. Stand mount closed cabinet, woofers mounted to the sides and coupled to each other. Coupling would diminish cabinet resonances. I think that Peerless has some interesting units for closed cabinets. On the front side we could use Seas L15 (alu cone - for cheaper variant) and Seas W15 (Mg cone for expensive one). They have very similar frequency response and should be crossed over at 1.7KHz or so. Nowadays there are bunch of tweeters ranging 50$-75$ that can be loaded in Visaton WG148R waveguide - Seas, SB, ScanSpeak.
I've made a two way with L15 and waveguide loaded Morel tweeter in Visaton WG148R and i know it is doable - the end result is acoustically remarkable with what is considered mid quality components.My initial plan was to make MTM but i've been thinking a lot about woofers on the sides of the cabinets. Points of crossover could be 200/300Hz and somewhere bellow 2KHz for mid/hi. Given that midrange of that sort is made as a midwoofer, it'll have good power handling as a midrange, tweeter is very well protected with waveguide, and we have two woofers. I'd aim F3 at 40-45Hz for closed cabinet. That'll do for the ones with the smaller rooms. Anyone who feels that 2x8" or 2x10" isn't enough, can use a sub. But it would be good closed cabinet three way that has controlled directivity and good power handling with low distortion.
All this is doable passive and will only be easier DSP controlled. Kef Blade II and Kii Three are proof of it.
Other option includes coaxial 5" units instead separate 5" midrange and tweeter. I'm using newer 5" coaxials from Kef.
My point is that if classic three-way is all that minds in this place can come up with, maybe there is no need for it because it already exist for not much money.
Last edited:
WW-MTM-WW narrow enclosure
I though this would have looked exciting in any audiophiles' home. For the woofers I had in mind the Tang Band's TB W5-1138 smf, each in a 10 litre vented cabinet could practically achieve very respectful low end performance, F3/F6/F10 in the 30 Hz zone, without any electronic aids.
I though this would have looked exciting in any audiophiles' home. For the woofers I had in mind the Tang Band's TB W5-1138 smf, each in a 10 litre vented cabinet could practically achieve very respectful low end performance, F3/F6/F10 in the 30 Hz zone, without any electronic aids.
Attachments
I like the wave guide idea, it gives it a different feature than most of the designs out there
well, if you look at it that way, whatever we can think of, there are thousands of designs already exist... you name it, full range, 2 way, 3 way...
the goal is to try to come up with a design that has something to offer.
I couldn't agree more - it is exactly what i'm saying. Lets design something that has something more to offer from loudspeakers that we can already buy.
I'm really into hifi and i can't remember more than 2 standmount 3way loudspeakers that employ 2 side-mounted woofers and have waveguide loaded tweeter with low crossover point to midrange... But that's nothing new by itself and wasn't my point. I'm not implying that we should be new and special/newer.seen.before at all cost. I was talking about little more thinking through and using good solutions that people have come up with during last 3-4 decades.
Classic three way in square coffin cabinet has a bunch of compromises and should be the thing of past. My suggestion wasn't much different than what others suggested - i'm talking about thinking it over about configuration and other details. Everybody can make square tower 3-way with 2x8", midrange and a tweeter. Why wouldn't we do it better by applying some intelligent solutions that proved successful in practice. If we know, for instance, that tapering midrange chamber does great job - why would we make it square ? If we know that tweeter in waveguide behaves much better than that tweeter mounted on the front baffle, why wouldn't we use waveguide ? If we know that rounded or beveled edges lessens diffraction, why wouldn't we do it ? If we know there is force cancellation between opposite mounted woofers that makes heavy bracing obsolete, why wouldn't we mount them that way ?
Last edited:
Thank you Zvu for the input, I thought we were all on the same page, Classic 3 way does not mean "Classic three way in square coffin cabinet ..." it means a classic LF+MF+HF (woofer+mid+tweeter) configuration compare to a horn loaded speaker. it does not mean no coupled woofer or no wave guide no TL ... just to be clear any 3 way configuration is open to discussion.
Why did you suggest these? An 8 inch driver seems a bit odd as a midrange driver in a home/hifi loudspeaker. Also, its 97 dB sensitivity seems like a big waste compared to the 91 dB tweeter.
I don't disagree. I would like a tweeter I can cross low and has decent directivity match to the large mid. Do you have recommendation? I chose the 8" mid because I have heard it and really like the way it sounds. I could try one of the 6" B&C mids which should match directivity with the tweeter better. I figure with wide baffle and low placement I should have minimal baffle step losses on the woofer, so probably 92-94db.
This is not what is next if you genuinely want a group design and make project for a speaker rather than chat around one. You need to write a spec drawing on the glimmer of consensus that was growing before you asked for more chat. That spec needs to be discussed and tweaked. During this you will lose some people but others will become more committed if the objectives look good to them. Try to avoid a spec which is OK for many but good for nobody (design by committee).alright we know what we are aiming for now, what is next ? the 3 way configuration ? Drivers ? please send your suggestions
Talking about particular drivers at this stage rather than types of drivers is counter productive. Who are we designing this speaker for? Someone relatively new to DIY or someone experienced. If the latter why should they build this speaker rather than their own? What is the budget? The case for reasonably priced drivers has been stated by quite a few but is there a case for expensive drivers in this type of group project? If not, use the spec to remove them from the discussion. Etc...
Thanks for the input, I certainly have my own suggestions for drivers, but it would be nice to have more experienced guys to participate more, rather than just waiting for the next guy, closed to 200 people vote and again it would be nice to see more suggestions.
the price range (or Budget) is voted as you can see, no exotic wallet killer drivers but also will have the performance in mind rather than price, and this project will not be for new DIYers since there are plenty of designs to start from and having a repetitive one is wasting time. the goal was and is to come up with something that has something to offer so you will have a reason to build it.
I m sorry but i feel like i m repeating myself over and over.
I like that tweeter with wave guide idea from Zvu, it would be nice if he can give us more info on that.
Last edited:
6L6's posts got me thinking, as I read the signature, although I'm a huge fan of this idea and hope a design comes together for sale in the store but if we really want speaker building to take off on here we need someone that has a gift for doing build guides to do them for speakers.
I love building things but I definitely gravitate towards builds that have good documentation and threads with ongoing support. I don't have the knowledge or math skills to figure out a lot of the little specifics myself.
The threads like "DIY web pages" are a great idea but the external web pages die and the links become useless. Plus there is no ongoing support on those whereas on the build guides there are Q&A about changes as parts become discontinued.
Maybe speakers have too many variables and desired outcomes to spawn build guides that would be used over and over; which may be why this thread is going in so many directions at once.
I love building things but I definitely gravitate towards builds that have good documentation and threads with ongoing support. I don't have the knowledge or math skills to figure out a lot of the little specifics myself.
The threads like "DIY web pages" are a great idea but the external web pages die and the links become useless. Plus there is no ongoing support on those whereas on the build guides there are Q&A about changes as parts become discontinued.
Maybe speakers have too many variables and desired outcomes to spawn build guides that would be used over and over; which may be why this thread is going in so many directions at once.
It's going many directions at once because my idea of the perfect speaker isn't the same as your idea of that speaker nor is it like his perfect speaker. You're seeing peoples hopes and dreams, which is cool.
So in this stage ideas need to be discussed and bandied about to see what ideas seem good. That's fine.
As for ongoing support, that's not much of an issue if a set design can be made. There's not a lot in a speaker, really, and as things change so can the documentation. It's actually easiest of somebody would sell a kit, as that would incentivize somebody to handle standardization.
In my mind all the things you bring up are fairly easy to overcome. The killer is cabinets. They are big and heavy, even if flat-packed. So shipping will always be an issue. (I.E., $$) The other way to go is use an existing cabinet from Parts Express or something and have a custom baffle. That said, even this isn't insurmountable, just requires some thought.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.