I don't doubt that you're right, I am really looking for the published design type, but I'm having trouble trying to find information just through google, and I don't have the knowledge yet of where to look, let alone whether a source is actually credible once I've found it.
haha, that sub design is insane! I would love to build a huge floor-ceiling set of speakers one day (a literal wall of sound haha), but I think anything on such a grand scale is a little overkill for a studio where most of the monitoring is done at 83 db SPL.
I'll keep searching the net looking for nearfield designs, and look further into the suggestions you've already made. If anyone out there has built or knows someone who has built a set of successful near fields, please let me know.
A last question: in DIY audio electronics, people often make clones of certain pieces of gear by finding the original schematics and building their own circuits based on those. Does no-one do anything similar when it comes to speakers? To my mind, if someone took apart a decent set of monitors, made cabinet measurements and other notes, then you could easily build a replica from buying drivers as spares etc?
Regards
Why not try and get hold of a pair of Yamaha ns-1000 monitors, I use them in my main system and they tick all the boxes, cetaintly revealing prehaps the most revealing speaker design ever made, infact when you plug them in they will properly reveal everything in your system as subpar, brilliant for showing up the shortcomings in the chain.
Are those discontinued? The reasoning behind me not hunting down an old pair of NS-10's are simply because 10 years down the line from them stopping production, it's going to get really hard to find replacements when I need to. Theirs HS-50M's look interesting though. They seem to have been designed to take over from the NS-10's.
I must admit that the more I look at those two JBL 18"s, the more tempted I get to incorporate them into some mad 3 way full range design, at least 6 feet tall, at least 12 times as loud as they need to be and weighing at least a metric ton, haha.
Hi,
Speaker City USA sells speakers, drivers, audiophile loud: Usher 701 7" Two Way Speaker Kit - Each
I have not heard these speakers, perhaps someone else who has can comment. But they appear to be what you are looking for, the designer is well know, they are the right price $650 pair, they are described as having monitor like qualities, the kit appears to be comprhensive so minimal risk should be involved.
If you want referance speakers that will be usable straight after they are built without spending a long time learning how to develop speakers, I would advise something of this stype.
Or in the UK if you are ok to build your own cabinets you could got for;
https://www.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/ca...d=741&osCsid=428e23a2b97c2d1eef756d52139a2519
If you need more bass then consider using a sub woofer as well. You could purchase this at a later date if you found it was needed.
Depending on what you are mixing, most modern music is mixed without much enegy in the deep bass anyway as it destroys cheap speakers.
Regards,
Andrew
Speaker City USA sells speakers, drivers, audiophile loud: Usher 701 7" Two Way Speaker Kit - Each
I have not heard these speakers, perhaps someone else who has can comment. But they appear to be what you are looking for, the designer is well know, they are the right price $650 pair, they are described as having monitor like qualities, the kit appears to be comprhensive so minimal risk should be involved.
If you want referance speakers that will be usable straight after they are built without spending a long time learning how to develop speakers, I would advise something of this stype.
Or in the UK if you are ok to build your own cabinets you could got for;
https://www.wilmslow-audio.co.uk/ca...d=741&osCsid=428e23a2b97c2d1eef756d52139a2519
If you need more bass then consider using a sub woofer as well. You could purchase this at a later date if you found it was needed.
Depending on what you are mixing, most modern music is mixed without much enegy in the deep bass anyway as it destroys cheap speakers.
Regards,
Andrew
Last edited:
Oh, sure. you'll find examples right here on this forum. Search for "clone" in the loudspeaker forums. The biggest hurtle there is the crossover. Usually the design is not published or known. And that is a BIG part of how the speaker sounds.
Keep looking, you'll find it!
That type of filter is called a bi-quad because its transfer function is the ratio of two quadratics, if you are going to study electrical engineering you will learn about this soon enough, they are also known as second order shelving equalisers.
What it does is to replace the natural second order roll of of a driver with the one suitable for the crossover frequency you want, these a rarely the same.
This coupled with another second order filter gives you a text book L-R characteristic.
Many of the high priced self powered monitor systems sold use these types of filters.
rcw.
What it does is to replace the natural second order roll of of a driver with the one suitable for the crossover frequency you want, these a rarely the same.
This coupled with another second order filter gives you a text book L-R characteristic.
Many of the high priced self powered monitor systems sold use these types of filters.
rcw.
Hi guys,
thanks ever so much for all the useful information - I've been doing hours of online researching around a lot of the things people have mentioned in this thread. As predicted, the more clued up I get on the subject, the more I realize that I'm not very clued up at all.
I think that the people trying to deter me away from this as a first project are right - I don't have enough experience, and even if I do a dot-to-dot kit, I still wouldn't be able to evaluate it intelligently, and I cannot afford to do anything grand right now.
Instead, I have decided that I should instead focus on some smaller warm up projects. Here's what I have in mind:
Does this sound like wise(r) thinking?
Regards
thanks ever so much for all the useful information - I've been doing hours of online researching around a lot of the things people have mentioned in this thread. As predicted, the more clued up I get on the subject, the more I realize that I'm not very clued up at all.
I think that the people trying to deter me away from this as a first project are right - I don't have enough experience, and even if I do a dot-to-dot kit, I still wouldn't be able to evaluate it intelligently, and I cannot afford to do anything grand right now.
Instead, I have decided that I should instead focus on some smaller warm up projects. Here's what I have in mind:
- A pair of Auratone inspired single driver reference monitors (I will use my Mission 701's as mains for now, and use these Killatone's for checking the mix on, similar to how I'd use NS-10(00)'s).
- An amplifier to drive them - Maybe I can find a better project, but this seems good enough, plenty of good testimonies and pre-made PCB's available.
- A monitor controller - a combination of existing and tested DIY modules: a mono switch, a subharmonic filter, a volume control incorporating the K-20 system, multiple ins/outs etc.
Does this sound like wise(r) thinking?
Regards
If you DO want to go partly on the DIY route, you might want to look into these..... www.chipamp.com
Good thinking. But there must be some decent 2- way speaker plans or kits you could use. Just find one that is well reviewed and fits your need.
Ditto the above on the chip amp. Much easier. Also look at www.41hz.com for Tripath chip amps.
Ditto the above on the chip amp. Much easier. Also look at www.41hz.com for Tripath chip amps.
Both of those websites are going into the bookmark folder, thanks.
My reasoning is, those killatones were designed solely for use as near field reference monitors, and have received rave reviews for them. They're not big mains designed to reproduce anything like full frequency audio, but instead are used for checking mixes, more representative of car stereos/home hi-fi's etc. Making a 2 way half-decent set of monitors would be nice and could prove useful for the time being, they will surely end up getting replaced when I find a version/have enough skill to design my own, whereas the little crappy speakers will always have a place on my speaker stands.
As a side note, does anyone know somewhere I might be able to find a qualified review of Mission 701's? They are my current studio monitors, and I really am finding it hard to find an educated opinion on how good they are. I reckon I can overcome their weaknesses if I knew what they were.
My reasoning is, those killatones were designed solely for use as near field reference monitors, and have received rave reviews for them. They're not big mains designed to reproduce anything like full frequency audio, but instead are used for checking mixes, more representative of car stereos/home hi-fi's etc. Making a 2 way half-decent set of monitors would be nice and could prove useful for the time being, they will surely end up getting replaced when I find a version/have enough skill to design my own, whereas the little crappy speakers will always have a place on my speaker stands.
As a side note, does anyone know somewhere I might be able to find a qualified review of Mission 701's? They are my current studio monitors, and I really am finding it hard to find an educated opinion on how good they are. I reckon I can overcome their weaknesses if I knew what they were.
The Adam A7's are regarded as one of the top studio nearfields for under $1200. Also check out the Focal CMS 6.5 monitors. You can't really compare a DIY monitor directly to the Adams because the Adams are made for a studio. They have a built in amplifier for the tweeter and woofer with externally adjustable crossover controls for room EQ, balanced analog input and overload control. To do a direct comparison you would have to build DIY monitors, a four channel amp (four drivers to power), and an adjustable EQ.
With two stereo chip amps and a Behringer cross-over it might not be a bad thought.
With the risk of hijacking the thread.... I am pretty much in exactly the same boat as the OP. Here's a thought though:
I've seen some designs that are very flat between let's say 80/100Hz-20k. Would it make sense to get one of those designs and work with them knowing that they're accurate within about 2.5dB only in that range and that the low-end is under-represented, THEN, add a sub to that configuration and hopefully manage to extend the range with the same "tolerance" down to 20Hz? That way the two-way initial box could be bi-amped, and then with the separate sub added later it would in effect be a tri-amped three-way full range system.
To me that seems like a reasonable approach for us newbies....
Any thoughts?
You will never achieve +/- 3dB 20-100hz accuracy in room. Room nodes will take care fo that for you.
The only way I can think of to come close (and take this with a pinch of salt or two) would be to have several (3+) subwoofers scattered about the room (see the work of Geddes on this topic). This should help with the room nodes, then you can use EQ to level out any peaks at the listening position.
BUT: In practice, it's not necessary - some would go as far as to say that bass flat to 20hz sounds wrong anyway. I'd suggest just a normal stereo sub setup for monitoring, and checking your mix on a good set of headphones every now and again.
The only way I can think of to come close (and take this with a pinch of salt or two) would be to have several (3+) subwoofers scattered about the room (see the work of Geddes on this topic). This should help with the room nodes, then you can use EQ to level out any peaks at the listening position.
BUT: In practice, it's not necessary - some would go as far as to say that bass flat to 20hz sounds wrong anyway. I'd suggest just a normal stereo sub setup for monitoring, and checking your mix on a good set of headphones every now and again.
Thanks for your reply seekerr,
I understand that the room will affect the "measured response". But that's true for any speaker. When I mentioned "within 2.5 dB", I was really referring to the measured response of individual speaker designs, not what one speaker design would "yield on average in average rooms", for lack of better terminology. Basically what I'm getting at is that if no speaker will ever achieve even +/- 3 dB in a room, then the issue isn't achieving that, but a speaker being as "neutral" as possible - i.e it's a non-issue. (By the way: a 6 dB margin of error is HUGE in a pro studio situation and I honestly don't think it's unreasonable to get better in room-response than that... but as I said, I don't think it's "relevant" depending on ones view on the matter).
And yes, definitely a sub/channel setup. The issue of whether or not it sounds "wrong" having frequencies down at 20Hz is also a bit of a moot point. Before the playback equipment we audio engineers have several other pieces of equipment and we could easily choose to not play back any audio in that range, if that sounds weird. And a lot of the time engineers choose to cut out everything under a certain range for most instruments anyways, simply because we can't predict what it sounds like because we either don't have that range available in our monitoring chain, or, because we don't trust others to have it properly set up.
Checking on good headphones I think goes without saying, as is listening back to more than one monitor system.
I understand that the room will affect the "measured response". But that's true for any speaker. When I mentioned "within 2.5 dB", I was really referring to the measured response of individual speaker designs, not what one speaker design would "yield on average in average rooms", for lack of better terminology. Basically what I'm getting at is that if no speaker will ever achieve even +/- 3 dB in a room, then the issue isn't achieving that, but a speaker being as "neutral" as possible - i.e it's a non-issue. (By the way: a 6 dB margin of error is HUGE in a pro studio situation and I honestly don't think it's unreasonable to get better in room-response than that... but as I said, I don't think it's "relevant" depending on ones view on the matter).
And yes, definitely a sub/channel setup. The issue of whether or not it sounds "wrong" having frequencies down at 20Hz is also a bit of a moot point. Before the playback equipment we audio engineers have several other pieces of equipment and we could easily choose to not play back any audio in that range, if that sounds weird. And a lot of the time engineers choose to cut out everything under a certain range for most instruments anyways, simply because we can't predict what it sounds like because we either don't have that range available in our monitoring chain, or, because we don't trust others to have it properly set up.
Checking on good headphones I think goes without saying, as is listening back to more than one monitor system.
I don't think I understand your logic. If no speaker will acheive even +/- 3 dB in your room, then you should treat your room to give as flat a response as possible, not getting speakers as flat as possible. If you take a selection of studio monitors, and measure their frequency responses, they will have a much flatter response then if you took a selection of rooms and measured their frequency responses. I'd recommend you read this.
Treating my room (using DIY methods, total coss <£250) has made the single largest difference on the way I mix/record/master music. It has made a much larger change then any piece of gear upgrade.
Given that the OP wants nearfield monitors and the response that he wants, I think this is the best route to go. Concentrate on the nearfields down to the 60-70hz area and fill the lower 1+ octave with a sub, tuned to match the level of the nearfields. This should open up a few more possibilities of simpler DIY speakers to be used as nearfields. Probably cheaper as well. Parts alone for a Zaph ZD5 are over $800.00.
But, here's the thing. By the time you spend the $$ and the effort on going the DIY route for a setup like this, you would probably be better off (and cheaper) getting the Adams. With the possible exception being getting a set of passive monitors that fit what you want and DIYing the amps with a Gainclone of whatever flavor you like. Figure about $170-$200 for a dual mono Gainclone and I'm sure that would be less than what you would give for the difference between passive and active monitors.
Remember also that it isn't so much how flat of response the monitors are BUT that you really know what they sound like. Once you learn YOUR monitors, then you will know what to do with your mixes to get them to sound good overall.
Last edited:
Huh?
1) Yes, obviously the room needs to be treated. I think that goes without saying. Omitting that information doesn't mean that one doesn't think it's necessary (in case that's what you thought my opinion was)
2) The question then becomes in regards to making a speaker in and by itself as "neutral" or "flat" as possible: Is that a) a disadvantage, b) an advantage, or c) of no consequence? (assuming limited or no knowledge of the room at the time of speaker design/choice)
It seems to me that if your room has certain properties, and without knowing them in advance, the best option is to get a speaker that by design is as neutral as possible. If not, one risks reinforcing the problems of the room. This doesn't solve the problems of the room obviously, but at least the risk of exacerbating them is reduced. Or is that logic wrong?
None of the above really negates my point though, it merely reinforces your point that room treatment is essential - something I agree with.
I think it really comes down to whether or not one can evaluate a design of a speaker in and by itself, or if it is impossible since one always must take the room into account (when looking at these particular parameters).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.