I got some great information out of the first thread I posted here, but I'm thinking I need to step back and evaluate my goals.
I'm currently building a small basement music studio (13 feet by 17 feet by 6.5 feet high, masonry walls, open-joist ceiling stuffed with fiberglass), which will naturally include a monitoring system. At this point, I'm still convinced I can build something better for cheaper than buying it. The problem, of course, is that speaker design is so exact and complicated that it could be it's own university degree.
Right now, I'm favoring most a system using full-range speakers. The reason for this has to do with the critical midrange - that range of frequencies between 200hz and about 2khz that holds the majority of musical information. If at all possible, I'd like to avoid crossing over anywhere in that range, except nearly every two-way design I've run across on the web does exactly that.
So, my thinking is, at the moment, to find a good, smallish full-range that covers 200-18khz nice and smoothly, and then cross over at 150-200hz or so to let a woofer fill in the bass. Also, I plan to soffit-mount these monitors, so they will for all intents and purposes have an infinite baffle. These baffles will be aimed in toward the mix position at 30 degrees, relative to the back wall, thus forming a 60-60-60 triangle between both speakers and the listener.
What would be cool is if I could find drivers that would mount right into the wall, no enclosure. The area behind the baffles could be stuffed with fiberglass to accommodate this. I would most likely do a modular design, with the drivers themselves mounted on a piece of MDF, which then plugs into the wall.
So, my question to all of you is, am I onto something, am I off my rocker, or should I stop trying to play a big boy's game and go back to my tinker toys?
As an aside, I'm experienced with electronics and design, and am currently an engineering student, so you don't have to dumb things down for me too much.
Thank you all for your time.
I'm currently building a small basement music studio (13 feet by 17 feet by 6.5 feet high, masonry walls, open-joist ceiling stuffed with fiberglass), which will naturally include a monitoring system. At this point, I'm still convinced I can build something better for cheaper than buying it. The problem, of course, is that speaker design is so exact and complicated that it could be it's own university degree.
Right now, I'm favoring most a system using full-range speakers. The reason for this has to do with the critical midrange - that range of frequencies between 200hz and about 2khz that holds the majority of musical information. If at all possible, I'd like to avoid crossing over anywhere in that range, except nearly every two-way design I've run across on the web does exactly that.
So, my thinking is, at the moment, to find a good, smallish full-range that covers 200-18khz nice and smoothly, and then cross over at 150-200hz or so to let a woofer fill in the bass. Also, I plan to soffit-mount these monitors, so they will for all intents and purposes have an infinite baffle. These baffles will be aimed in toward the mix position at 30 degrees, relative to the back wall, thus forming a 60-60-60 triangle between both speakers and the listener.
What would be cool is if I could find drivers that would mount right into the wall, no enclosure. The area behind the baffles could be stuffed with fiberglass to accommodate this. I would most likely do a modular design, with the drivers themselves mounted on a piece of MDF, which then plugs into the wall.
So, my question to all of you is, am I onto something, am I off my rocker, or should I stop trying to play a big boy's game and go back to my tinker toys?
As an aside, I'm experienced with electronics and design, and am currently an engineering student, so you don't have to dumb things down for me too much.
Thank you all for your time.
I think you are onto something. Setting the monitors into a masonry wall will provide a solid bafle, less colouration in the critical midrange. There are plenty of drivers that will work in less than a cubic foot of enclosure. There is an advantage in pushing the system resonance up a bit in that application.
Look for something with a higher efficiency, they tend to be better on transients, and it wouldn't hurt to port the enclosures. That will provide less cone movement when bass gets in, even though it will be down a fair bit.
I haven't heard them, but from what I have read the Fostex range should have something suitable. The drivers for a foldback system would also be suitable. JBL comes to mind.
Think about brick enclosures for the bass, placed under the uppers. I would start with JBL there.
Look for something with a higher efficiency, they tend to be better on transients, and it wouldn't hurt to port the enclosures. That will provide less cone movement when bass gets in, even though it will be down a fair bit.
I haven't heard them, but from what I have read the Fostex range should have something suitable. The drivers for a foldback system would also be suitable. JBL comes to mind.
Think about brick enclosures for the bass, placed under the uppers. I would start with JBL there.
Hrm, I guess I could've been clearer. The soffits won't be masonry. That's just what the walls of the basement happen to be made out of. The soffit will most likely be gypsum board and 2x4s, like any other wall.
Although the idea of making brick soffits is intriguing.
I've posted this pic before, but this is an idea of what I have in mind:
http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=basementstudiohf1.jpg
(Ignore the fact that I drew the speakers as MTM for the moment. Also, the side treatments are not going to look like that. I really need to update this drawing.)
Thank you!
Although the idea of making brick soffits is intriguing.
I've posted this pic before, but this is an idea of what I have in mind:
http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=basementstudiohf1.jpg
(Ignore the fact that I drew the speakers as MTM for the moment.
Also, the side treatments are not going to look like that. I really need to update this drawing.)Thank you!
Of course, frequency response is only part of the picture for critical listening. Transient response and damping is a large part as well. I've noticed that most speaker makers don't even publish those waterfall graphs that show that kind of information.
As far as I can tell, paper cones with a big magnet are my best bet. At least, that's what I've been able to divine from what little is out there.
As far as I can tell, paper cones with a big magnet are my best bet. At least, that's what I've been able to divine from what little is out there.
The FR125 don't have as magical a midrange as the similar size Fostex, but do have a very flat FR (where the Fostex -- at least unmodified -- are a bit more challenged), and work well in a sealed enclosure (should be smaller than what you have illustrated (10-13L)), and are quite tolerent of amplifier sonics (but do prefer a nice SS PP amp -- ie most of them).
The FR125 is somewhat limited efficiency & level wise but if you are going to cut them off at the bottom that will go a long wasy to ameriolating that issue.
dave
The FR125 is somewhat limited efficiency & level wise but if you are going to cut them off at the bottom that will go a long wasy to ameriolating that issue.
dave
Thanks! Actually, I don't think level will be much of an issue, since this is such a small room to begin with. I'll likely be bi-amping a full-range with a woofer using an active crossover. I'm just out to get the most accurate sound I possibly can, and I just have this suspicion that the right full-ranger can really help me there.
As for a cabinet, well, mounting raw drivers right into the wall would be nice and easy, but if I have to hang a cabinet behind the soffit, I will. That's not a problem.
As for a cabinet, well, mounting raw drivers right into the wall would be nice and easy, but if I have to hang a cabinet behind the soffit, I will. That's not a problem.
With this sort of configuration you have several issues..
1. Acoustic Resistance w/ insulation.. Generally not a good idea with paper drivers unless the material is at least 5 inches away from the driver. Increasingly harder/thicker materials seem to be less effected by this.
2. Flat on-axis response.. The driver you use here should be flat on axis with a good off-axis response.
3. Absoprtion with the reflection between the drivers, particularly for higher freq.s. Obviously here you have shown an absorber behind your monitor. Note that it may NOT be advantageous to have absorption panels to the out"sides" of the speaker.
Now issue #1 suggests a non-paper driver UNLESS you can deal effectivly with the insulation batting. IF not I'd suggest looking at a woven driver like carbon fiber of glass fiber OR a doped paper design. This suggestion "bridges the gap" subjectivly between a paper driver and something like a aluminum/magnesium driver, while still providing a driver less sensetive to acoustic resistance.
#2 is FAR more limiting.. flat on axis designs are tough to come by..
Most expensive to least expensive:
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/scanspeak/12m_4631g00e.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/audax/hm100c0.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/seas/h1262.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/vifa/mg10md09-08e.pdf
At least from the graphs here the least expensive (the vifa) is actually the most linear..
Now there is no way to say which driver will have the best subjective response in this application, but its likely that the Scan Speak has an "edge" here (at a MUCH higher cost). Still, I'd bet that the vifa is pretty good.
There are of course other drivers like the HiVi B3S and the Aura NS3, but these are decidedly less efficient (Tangbands seem to straddle the eff. topic between the two types of drivers, BUT are often a bit less linear than their graphs would imply). (Note that the expensive drivers from Jordan and Bandor are more like the paper drivers, so they are not included because of their "sensetivity" to acoustic resistance.)
IF it were me - I'd prob. pick the Vifa driver for this application OR a good coaxial driver with an appropriate crossover (..but that costs considerably more).
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?cart_id=5248678.3480&pid=1961
http://www.bmspro.info/photos/bmspro_info/BMS_5CN140.pdf
http://profesional.beyma.com/ENGLISH/producto.php
the 8BX
http://www.radianaudio.com/products/ceiling/8_ceiling.php?viewT=ceiling&viewC=8_ceiling
Of these the easiest would be the seas - its more linear. The most difficult would prob. be the radian, BUT it quite possible would provide the best sound. (..give and take and all that.)
For simplicity sake then the Vifa is a "no-brainer", and probably the best overall choice for this application.
1. Acoustic Resistance w/ insulation.. Generally not a good idea with paper drivers unless the material is at least 5 inches away from the driver. Increasingly harder/thicker materials seem to be less effected by this.
2. Flat on-axis response.. The driver you use here should be flat on axis with a good off-axis response.
3. Absoprtion with the reflection between the drivers, particularly for higher freq.s. Obviously here you have shown an absorber behind your monitor. Note that it may NOT be advantageous to have absorption panels to the out"sides" of the speaker.
Now issue #1 suggests a non-paper driver UNLESS you can deal effectivly with the insulation batting. IF not I'd suggest looking at a woven driver like carbon fiber of glass fiber OR a doped paper design. This suggestion "bridges the gap" subjectivly between a paper driver and something like a aluminum/magnesium driver, while still providing a driver less sensetive to acoustic resistance.
#2 is FAR more limiting.. flat on axis designs are tough to come by..
Most expensive to least expensive:
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/scanspeak/12m_4631g00e.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/audax/hm100c0.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/seas/h1262.pdf
http://www.madisound.com/pdf/vifa/mg10md09-08e.pdf
At least from the graphs here the least expensive (the vifa) is actually the most linear..
Now there is no way to say which driver will have the best subjective response in this application, but its likely that the Scan Speak has an "edge" here (at a MUCH higher cost). Still, I'd bet that the vifa is pretty good.
There are of course other drivers like the HiVi B3S and the Aura NS3, but these are decidedly less efficient (Tangbands seem to straddle the eff. topic between the two types of drivers, BUT are often a bit less linear than their graphs would imply). (Note that the expensive drivers from Jordan and Bandor are more like the paper drivers, so they are not included because of their "sensetivity" to acoustic resistance.)
IF it were me - I'd prob. pick the Vifa driver for this application OR a good coaxial driver with an appropriate crossover (..but that costs considerably more).
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?cart_id=5248678.3480&pid=1961
http://www.bmspro.info/photos/bmspro_info/BMS_5CN140.pdf
http://profesional.beyma.com/ENGLISH/producto.php
the 8BX
http://www.radianaudio.com/products/ceiling/8_ceiling.php?viewT=ceiling&viewC=8_ceiling
Of these the easiest would be the seas - its more linear. The most difficult would prob. be the radian, BUT it quite possible would provide the best sound. (..give and take and all that.)
For simplicity sake then the Vifa is a "no-brainer", and probably the best overall choice for this application.
ScottG said:
Well, I could definitely go ahead and hang an enclosure off the back of the soffits. I'm going to draw up really quick, if I can, how I planned to build the speakers and then mount them into the wall.
It certainly does look like it would fit the bill, except for, again, not being able to look at how it handles transients.
Thank you for the help.
How about this for some questions:
1) What would you do for "no compromise" monitoring in the room I described?
2) Since we know compromises will have to be made, which ones would you make?
I'm putting a lot of emphasis on a) keeping any crossover points out of the 200-2k range, b) flat response over said range, and c) good transient response and damping. It seems to me that anything else beyond those is then open for compromise.
Again, I'm not asking for someone to do the work for me. I just want to know if I'm on the right track.
A big thank you to everyone for the help.
1) What would you do for "no compromise" monitoring in the room I described?
2) Since we know compromises will have to be made, which ones would you make?
I'm putting a lot of emphasis on a) keeping any crossover points out of the 200-2k range, b) flat response over said range, and c) good transient response and damping. It seems to me that anything else beyond those is then open for compromise.
Again, I'm not asking for someone to do the work for me. I just want to know if I'm on the right track.
A big thank you to everyone for the help.
How about the Visaton B200? I've never heard them, but there is great love for them in open baffles (dipoles). Their Qt of .73 means they don't make tons of bass in an OB, but would make them close to ideal in an IB. Bass should be something like -3 dB at 40 Hz anechoic, with room gain they should go deeper. I'd worry more about having too much bass than about needing a sub.
The trend with the B200 seems to be to use a simple HF shelf (parallel resistor and coil) to bring the highs above 1kHz down a few dB, but efficiency should still be over 90dB/1 watt. See this thread.
They really should have a BIG enclosure volume to keep the system Q as low as possible, more than just the space between two studs. The angled baffles you propose might do it. Maybe some form of aperiodic loading could reduce the total volume needed?
I should add that I have no experience with this kind of setup or the Visaton, and that my opinions should probably be regarded as those of a raving lunatic. Still, I'd love to see how it would work.
Bill
The trend with the B200 seems to be to use a simple HF shelf (parallel resistor and coil) to bring the highs above 1kHz down a few dB, but efficiency should still be over 90dB/1 watt. See this thread.
They really should have a BIG enclosure volume to keep the system Q as low as possible, more than just the space between two studs. The angled baffles you propose might do it. Maybe some form of aperiodic loading could reduce the total volume needed?
I should add that I have no experience with this kind of setup or the Visaton, and that my opinions should probably be regarded as those of a raving lunatic. Still, I'd love to see how it would work.
Bill
Well, there's nothing that says I can't do things the opposite way, and cross over once at 15k or so to cover the high frequencies. That might be easier, actually, since I could build a simpler amp for that.
EDIT: Oooh, I just had an idea! And that Visaton just might be the thing for it!
I could cross over at about 5k, which would give me two octaves from there to 20k. Two octaves below 5k would be 1250hz. If I can find a tweeter that can extend that low (maybe, maybe not), I can use a straight 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley active crossover and get phase coherence without needing to worry about natural roll-off.
That is, if I understood all of this stuff correctly.
EDIT 2: Actually, if I can trust the curve for the Visaton on their spec sheet, I can probably cross over up higher, say around 6k. That would make finding a tweeter easier.
EDIT: Oooh, I just had an idea! And that Visaton just might be the thing for it!
I could cross over at about 5k, which would give me two octaves from there to 20k. Two octaves below 5k would be 1250hz. If I can find a tweeter that can extend that low (maybe, maybe not), I can use a straight 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley active crossover and get phase coherence without needing to worry about natural roll-off.
That is, if I understood all of this stuff correctly.
EDIT 2: Actually, if I can trust the curve for the Visaton on their spec sheet, I can probably cross over up higher, say around 6k. That would make finding a tweeter easier.
None of the plastic cone or carbon fiber cones i've heard do midrange as well as a good paper cone. Vifa had a couple non-paper drivers they called midranges that people used as full-ranges -- they were good, but not as good as the drivers we have been discussing. I've not seen a carbon fiber full range, so i'm not sure where that suggestion came from. Aluminum cone Jordans could be on the list for consideration but are a lot more money (the one example i heard was not very good, but was known to have had extreme thermal stress). The Neophone looks interesting but i've not had a chance to exercise mine yet.
That said, judicial treatment of a paper cone can very often improve its performance -- in particular its transmission of enery reflected off the back of the cabinet walls. Since you are making the cabinet, you can minimize this to start with (i was going to suggest 2x6 as framing studs for this part.
The Fostex & the FR125 both kill the Aura NS3 & the HiVi. They are good for what they do, but lack dynamics.
That said, judicial treatment of a paper cone can very often improve its performance -- in particular its transmission of enery reflected off the back of the cabinet walls. Since you are making the cabinet, you can minimize this to start with (i was going to suggest 2x6 as framing studs for this part.
The Fostex & the FR125 both kill the Aura NS3 & the HiVi. They are good for what they do, but lack dynamics.
Consul said:
Pick a killer full-range (like the Fostex FE108eS or FE168eS) and actively XO to woofers on the bottom and a really good tweeter on the top (but somewhere above 5k -- higher would be better) -- something like one of the better Fostex horns or a nice true ribbon. That upper XO could be done passively as a compromise.
dave
lousymusician said:
That would be an interesting -- and a perfectly valid choice. They need phase plugs to get the highs right, but mounted in the BIG box defined by your soffits, would likely not need help in the bottom.
They seem flat and even when i listen to them, i don't hear the rising response seen in the factory measures.
They are pushing into another price league ($130/pr for modded Fostex FE126e/127e, $150/pr for FR125s, $400/pr for modded B200s -- all CAD$). Of them all the FR125 measures flattest.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.