A speaker that needs more power to "open up" generally means it has tonal imbalance issues, and the change in perception with SPL is due to the fletcher munsen curves... (depending on what SPL you play at you push the perceived response closer to flat)
In the context of a speaker designed to be deliberately listened to at quite a low SPL it may be necessary to make some deliberate changes to the frequency response away from flat for the best perceived results.
Hi,
Yes for real with a few not so obvious caveats.
Max bass output levels depend on cone area x excursion for sealed.
The Scanspeak driver has very good clean excursion capability for
its size, near the best available.
Porting adds more SPL capability, effectively quadrupling the driver
size around Fvent and ~ doubling driver area above that point.
So basically for a 5" in a box you have a speaker that will go louder
in the bass than most other 5" options, a lot louder in most cases.
Zaph states that for both sealed and vented excursion limiting
occurs around 50Hz at 30W drive. Compare that to :
Zaph|Audio - ZMV5 - MCM / Vifa 5" System
which can only handle around 6W at 75Hz.
The last thing to note is the ZD5 is a low efficiency speaker,
and that is one reason why it can handle a fair amount of
power in the bass. The speaker itself with 70W drive will
simply not go very loud*, but within that limited overall
dynamic range it will be comparatively a bass monster,
producing an extended and notably clean bass end.
(I recommend the 30Hz tuning option).
rgds, sreten.
*This in the case for for all small speakers, maximum
volume is inevitably limited. However it should be noted
the ZD5 will go loud for a small speaker with its bass
capability. Higher efficiency small speakers can go
louder overall, but without the bass end capability.
Last edited:
ive recently bought some mission woofers for this exact purpose, albeit to form a budget small volume 2way. The cp134s are good for a f3 of around 70hz in 7 litre vented, and the cp168s are good for f3 of about 80 in a sealed volume of maybe 8 litres. I have been very shocked by their performance value. The 168s in particular roll off rather smoothly and conveniantly at around 2k by the sounds of it.
apologies, wrong context, i thought volume in the dimensional sense. On the correct train of thought, ive had very good experience with visaton al130 5inch woofers, good xmax, low senitvity, high enough volume for most in a smallish room. How they compare to the scanspeaks sreten mentions, i do not kmnow however. They are loud enough to annoy the street with music, and yet i only use my a1 amp, 25wpc. They are also a good candidate in my opinion with fs of 42hz in my pair, and vented f3 around the same point.
Member
Joined 2009
Yes, the dispersion pattern is important in a small room. The room treatment is even more important; aim for a real LEDE room IMHO; I like lots of absorption in the front half and sides, and lots of dispersion in the back.
Why go for super-efficient speakers you will never strain? Well, it might get you into a cleaner type of amp for one thing.
But personally, whoever mentioned engineering "compromises" had it right; it's all about trade-offs. And efficiency definitely isn't absolutley required for low levels like it is for high. You can do so many things that are impossible in a bigger louder room. For one, you can EQ like mad withotu straining the amps or drivers. EQ makes incredible demands on amp and speakers. And/or you can get a 1-way or 2-way system to sound much better quiet than a 4,5,or 6-way loud. You can use great speaker tricks like isobaric loading to make medium-size bozes with very very high WAF sound like boxes twice the size, and you won't have to care about the poor efficiency. Electrostatics and some planar dynamics just don't get loud enough for me, but you might just love some. You might really fall in love with Martin Logans that just don't cut if for me, and aim for something like that. I have a bunch of Newform Ribbons that sound great and go pretty low but only at low volumes; they're not so linear as power increases (they compress). But if you got their big ribbons (actually narrow planar dynamics), at low volumes you could mate them to some broad-range 10s or 12s, and with a lot of EQ it could come out great. At higher power I have to cross them over higher but their real talent is low-level midrange. But if you make a modular 2-way now, with seperate ribbons and bass boxes, you can always add some midrane boxes later to raise the output if you move.
But if you go isobaric, my advice is to make sure it's still big enough that the 1/2 size payoff is really signficant. At least you can afford the additional drivers.
Why go for super-efficient speakers you will never strain? Well, it might get you into a cleaner type of amp for one thing.
But personally, whoever mentioned engineering "compromises" had it right; it's all about trade-offs. And efficiency definitely isn't absolutley required for low levels like it is for high. You can do so many things that are impossible in a bigger louder room. For one, you can EQ like mad withotu straining the amps or drivers. EQ makes incredible demands on amp and speakers. And/or you can get a 1-way or 2-way system to sound much better quiet than a 4,5,or 6-way loud. You can use great speaker tricks like isobaric loading to make medium-size bozes with very very high WAF sound like boxes twice the size, and you won't have to care about the poor efficiency. Electrostatics and some planar dynamics just don't get loud enough for me, but you might just love some. You might really fall in love with Martin Logans that just don't cut if for me, and aim for something like that. I have a bunch of Newform Ribbons that sound great and go pretty low but only at low volumes; they're not so linear as power increases (they compress). But if you got their big ribbons (actually narrow planar dynamics), at low volumes you could mate them to some broad-range 10s or 12s, and with a lot of EQ it could come out great. At higher power I have to cross them over higher but their real talent is low-level midrange. But if you make a modular 2-way now, with seperate ribbons and bass boxes, you can always add some midrane boxes later to raise the output if you move.
But if you go isobaric, my advice is to make sure it's still big enough that the 1/2 size payoff is really signficant. At least you can afford the additional drivers.
I think that's about right, except for #1. And #1 can be right, depending on speaker placement symmetry and nature of the sidewalls. But if the speakers are asymmetrical as to the sidewalls, and/or the walls are very different in design (say, one is glass and the other drywall), then broad midrange directivity is a curse rather than a blessing.
However, one other thing to consider is that a higher-directivity speaker may allow louder levels at the listening position for a given amount of sound leakage, because the direct sound will be more focused towards the listening position while the overall energy in the room remains about the same as a speaker with wider directivity. Of course, one can't get much in the way of directivity control from a narrow floorstander anyway...
Also, I think (assuming one isn't using a dynamic loudness compensation program such as Dolby Volume's "modeler" component or Audyssey DynamicEQ) a fourth thing should be added: a fairly substantial rise in the upper bass, say from 200Hz up, perhaps from a closed box of fairly high Q. (Think LS3/5a here.) That will make them sound perceptually more balanced.
The problem with that is that they will then sound excessively bass-heavy at higher SPL, so IMO using a part with one of the two above-mentioned loudness compensation software packages and designing the speaker for relatively flat bass is a better idea than designing the speaker to sound balanced at low volumes.
Last edited:
Actually I don't think Nr1 can ever be right.
There are a number of ways to measure intelligibility (alcons, Speech Transmission Index etc) and they do vary in the how they are calculated but they all have one thing in common: The more reflected sound there is compared to direct sound the lower the intelligibility will be.
There have been some studies (I'm thinking Toole, but don't have them in front of me) that show early reflections can actually be a good thing for intelligibility, if memory serves. (Though I may be remembering something wrong.)
That said, discussing directivity without context (i.e. the room in which the speakers will be placed) is pointless IMO. Sure, the mid(woofer) and tweeter must be matched in directivity in the crossover region (by constraining the tweeter's directivity) but the optimal pattern thrown is IMO very dependent on the symmetry of the setup and differences in the sidewalls.
That said, discussing directivity without context (i.e. the room in which the speakers will be placed) is pointless IMO. Sure, the mid(woofer) and tweeter must be matched in directivity in the crossover region (by constraining the tweeter's directivity) but the optimal pattern thrown is IMO very dependent on the symmetry of the setup and differences in the sidewalls.
Once upon a time, our preamps had something called a "loudness" control.
This allows some level of eq to compensate for the difference in our hearing at different levels restoring balance at low levels. One might consider such a thing. They are very easy to build. It is a far better solution than trying to build a bad speaker with eq adapted to only very low levels. I really don't care to hear any purest arguments that any eq is bad. As we don't have that feature, just a little adjustment of standard tone controls do just fine to balance background level music. It just relies on you to know how much.
They're back.
Lots of modern gear already has sophisticated, dynamic loudness compensation built-in.
See, e.g.
Dolby Volume's "modeler" component (at 3-4)
Audyssey Dynamic EQ
These are Very Useful Things for low-volume listening.
Yup. Most of those problems are easily mitigated by reducing the power amp's voltage gain and using balanced connections. There is an inverse correlation between a dynamic driver's moving mass and it's sensitivity---since SPL is created by accelleration less inertia means more SPL at a given drive level---which is probably where the idea that high sensitivity is good for low SPL comes from.
As one poster's touched on, low moving mass is a property of electrostats. That's also the case for magnetostats. Either 'stat type has lower moving mass than a dynamic driver (there may also be some benefit from the drive from the stators being more uniform than the voice coil but I haven't seen any low level cone/dome/membrane measurements that would confirm or deny this). My experience is the difference between 'stats and dynamic drivers is mainly audible in the tweeter range (~2+kHz) with a lesser benefit in the midrange (~200Hz-2kHz). For bass (~200Hz and under) the design tradeoffs tend to favor cone drivers.
full disclosure: my money's where my mouth is on this one
Are we talking about intelligibility vis a vis large rooms?
There's a difference between reverberant sound and early lateral reflections in small rooms. And there's differences further among those lateral reflections based on time of arrival.
Last edited:
If you can arrange your furniture to take advantage of corner speakers you would be able to obtain: 1) wasting less usable room area than from typical small box speakers pushed several feet into the room; 2) great full range sound; 3) high efficiency boosted by corner gain; 4) a wide listening area; 5) great speaker components that will last a lifetime, even after you move and build different cabinets; 6) a great cabinet top to put photos, gifts, or a plant ;-)
I would not build a corner horn, just a corner speaker.
There are corner cabinets for the GPA 604 coaxial.
You can purchase a great 15" woofer + 10" midbass + 90x40 constant directivity horn tweeter. (my USA favorites: Lambda TD15S + Lambda TD10M + aluminum 90x40 CD horn with 1" B&C DE250 compression driver)
Attachments
Last edited:
Ehm .....
I need a little utility car
you know , gasoline is high on price
I mostly use it from home to work , so city route...
But I like it well done ,and pretty ,'cos sometimes my wife takes it to
meet her friends for bridge ...
Also , seldom I carry all the family , me ,my spousal and two babies , to the house in the country.
What do you suggest ??
Take a HUMMER !!
I need a little utility car
you know , gasoline is high on price
I mostly use it from home to work , so city route...
But I like it well done ,and pretty ,'cos sometimes my wife takes it to
meet her friends for bridge ...
Also , seldom I carry all the family , me ,my spousal and two babies , to the house in the country.
What do you suggest ??
Take a HUMMER !!
Building a high efficiency speaker is like getting a great driving, safe family car like a Mercedes R350 far below dealer cost that gets 100 miles/gallon and will last for 50 years without repair.
GO GREEN! ….. Build high efficiency speakers and use low power amps!
Spend money on your family. Build speakers that your family will enjoy for 50 years.
Attachments
Thanks again, everyone. Great stuff.
Loudness is definitely back! I’m planning to use something like Behringer DEQ2496 to compensate for Fletcher-Munson. What I meant by “balanced sound at low levels” was not loudness-sound, but rather that the detailing is there. My current speakers are messy and dull at low SPL: the sound is there but music is not.
And thanks especially for all the tips on acoustic treatment. We just moved in few months ago and there are things that I can, should and will do about acoustics. High directivity in speakers would be a good thing, though, as there is only so much I can do about the room.
As for electrostats, I love the sound but the size is just unacceptable for our apartment. Also they usually are super directional; I somehow don’t feel comfortable with that. But at low volumes, I think they work best.
LineSource: we just might be able arrange furniture to accommodate those 604’s in corner cabinets (I can’t believe I’m seriously considering this Could they work in a tall cabinet, square-ish footprint with front baffle angled (toed in) say 10 degrees (or does it have to be 45 deg)? I would have to get a new amp though, and I do like the one I have (Unison Research Unico Primo).
sreten: thanks for elaborating on the ZD5’s. Personally I like Scanspeak sound a lot, and Zaph is definitely on top of my list.
cyclecamper: not sure if I followed you, did you mean: 10” or 12” FR’s for bass and midrange, Newform Ribbons for timbre. Built as four separate speakers, without xover, each wired separately (bi-wire?), and using EQ/room-corrector to flatten frequency response? That sounds like a good idea. But designing a xover, ground up, would be far too complicated for me.
Cheers, everyone
Loudness is definitely back! I’m planning to use something like Behringer DEQ2496 to compensate for Fletcher-Munson. What I meant by “balanced sound at low levels” was not loudness-sound, but rather that the detailing is there. My current speakers are messy and dull at low SPL: the sound is there but music is not.
And thanks especially for all the tips on acoustic treatment. We just moved in few months ago and there are things that I can, should and will do about acoustics. High directivity in speakers would be a good thing, though, as there is only so much I can do about the room.
As for electrostats, I love the sound but the size is just unacceptable for our apartment. Also they usually are super directional; I somehow don’t feel comfortable with that. But at low volumes, I think they work best.
LineSource: we just might be able arrange furniture to accommodate those 604’s in corner cabinets (I can’t believe I’m seriously considering this
Could they work in a tall cabinet, square-ish footprint with front baffle angled (toed in) say 10 degrees (or does it have to be 45 deg)? I would have to get a new amp though, and I do like the one I have (Unison Research Unico Primo).sreten: thanks for elaborating on the ZD5’s. Personally I like Scanspeak sound a lot, and Zaph is definitely on top of my list.
cyclecamper: not sure if I followed you, did you mean: 10” or 12” FR’s for bass and midrange, Newform Ribbons for timbre. Built as four separate speakers, without xover, each wired separately (bi-wire?), and using EQ/room-corrector to flatten frequency response? That sounds like a good idea. But designing a xover, ground up, would be far too complicated for me.
Cheers, everyone
late to the party, and a query.
maybe a moot point or query here, but...is it not a contradiction to use a small, inefficient driver to reproduce nuances at low listening levels? Efficent speakers arent my cuppa, or at least im not experienced with them, but i would consider an expander with variable rati o
maybe a moot point or query here, but...is it not a contradiction to use a small, inefficient driver to reproduce nuances at low listening levels? Efficent speakers arent my cuppa, or at least im not experienced with them, but i would consider an expander with variable rati o
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.