Well, after a lot of reading and looking at well-known projects, I think I am going to attempt the Modula MTs with the Seas 27TDFC/H1189 tweeter (seen here, http://htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=13154&page=1&pp=35).
I am building these with the intention of putting them in a small living room in a condo (which I don't own yet) so I'm sure they will have more than enough output. I will be using them for music (various types from jazz to R&B/Hip-Hop to instrumental), and the occasional movie.
What I wanted to know is has anybody made these floor-standing? I really prefer the look of narrow floor-standing speakers and would like to attempt to build these that way. I know that changing baffle width can effect the way speakers sound, but I haven't been able to find anything about baffle height.
I also wanted to know if there will be any effect if I port them through the front as apposed to the rear. I figure this way I would be able to have them close to the wall (which might be desired in a small room).
Also, will changing the enclosure depth be an issue? I was hoping I could use the extra hight to allow for some changes in dimension, while keeping the volume the same.
Thanks!
I am building these with the intention of putting them in a small living room in a condo (which I don't own yet) so I'm sure they will have more than enough output. I will be using them for music (various types from jazz to R&B/Hip-Hop to instrumental), and the occasional movie.
What I wanted to know is has anybody made these floor-standing? I really prefer the look of narrow floor-standing speakers and would like to attempt to build these that way. I know that changing baffle width can effect the way speakers sound, but I haven't been able to find anything about baffle height.
I also wanted to know if there will be any effect if I port them through the front as apposed to the rear. I figure this way I would be able to have them close to the wall (which might be desired in a small room).
Also, will changing the enclosure depth be an issue? I was hoping I could use the extra hight to allow for some changes in dimension, while keeping the volume the same.
Thanks!
http://www.geocities.com/woove99/Spkrbldg/RS180_2way/RS180_2way.htm
Hi,
The above has a simpler crossover. You can check the effect of a long
baffle in the baffle simulator - compare it to one sized as above.
Depth you can change around and note you can angle them to reduce height, e.g. :
Around 20L internal volume, tuned to around 35Hz I'd say.
Near rear wall use is a no-no, so go with rear porting.
/sreten.
Hi,
The above has a simpler crossover. You can check the effect of a long
baffle in the baffle simulator - compare it to one sized as above.
Depth you can change around and note you can angle them to reduce height, e.g. :
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Around 20L internal volume, tuned to around 35Hz I'd say.
Near rear wall use is a no-no, so go with rear porting.
/sreten.As you may have noticed in the comparison in my design page, their difference should be minimal (this FR comparison should be very accurate regardless of their actual measured responses). Some people may believe that the breakups of the RS180 need to be suppressed more. But honestly, I don't hear any bad highs. They're clean sounding speakers and very enjoyable.
For a floorstander, I suggested a baffle width and a cabinet volume in my page. The baffle width can be as narrow as 8", which I used for my sealed design. Then choose a good height for you and calculate a depth that gives the desired volume. An option to consider is to make some closed room at the cabinet's bottom for sand filling.
There will be some baffle gain due to the extended baffle, but I didn't put much BSC in the design. So, the current XO should work fine.
As sreten said, speaker placement too close to walls is not recommended. If you have no other option but to place them very close to walls, consider the reduced BSC option suggested in my page. In this case, front porting can also be useful. Front porting will have some effect on the midrange, but if you cover the cabinet's inside walls well with damping materials and the port has some distance from the woofer, the effect will be minimal and won't be audible.
These speakers will have enough output when used in a small room for music only listening, unless you listen to full orchestral music at a concert level.
If you want better dynamics, Natalie P can be another choice. You can make it a floorstander, too. If you want better, cleaner sounding speakers in a narrow floorstander, consider my Usher 8945P 2-way. It can also be in a tall, 8" wide cabinet because I don't use full BSC in my design.
For a floorstander, I suggested a baffle width and a cabinet volume in my page. The baffle width can be as narrow as 8", which I used for my sealed design. Then choose a good height for you and calculate a depth that gives the desired volume. An option to consider is to make some closed room at the cabinet's bottom for sand filling.
There will be some baffle gain due to the extended baffle, but I didn't put much BSC in the design. So, the current XO should work fine.
As sreten said, speaker placement too close to walls is not recommended. If you have no other option but to place them very close to walls, consider the reduced BSC option suggested in my page. In this case, front porting can also be useful. Front porting will have some effect on the midrange, but if you cover the cabinet's inside walls well with damping materials and the port has some distance from the woofer, the effect will be minimal and won't be audible.
These speakers will have enough output when used in a small room for music only listening, unless you listen to full orchestral music at a concert level.
If you want better dynamics, Natalie P can be another choice. You can make it a floorstander, too. If you want better, cleaner sounding speakers in a narrow floorstander, consider my Usher 8945P 2-way. It can also be in a tall, 8" wide cabinet because I don't use full BSC in my design.
peter_m said:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Hi,
Simple answer is not much, and I prefer the Jay_WJ (originally Zaph)
( http://www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker17.html )
filter approach as it it easier to tune than a series filter. Very high
suppression of the top-end bass-mid unit response does not change
the effect of that areas response on distortion and basically its the
actual (low) c/o point that is the most important factor to distortion.
/sreten.Hi,
No i have not heard them, just commenting on the c/o design.
The tweeters ? one is metal the other fabric ......
price versus performance both very good ......
http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/compare.html
/sreten.
No i have not heard them, just commenting on the c/o design.
The tweeters ? one is metal the other fabric ......
price versus performance both very good ......
http://www.zaphaudio.com/tweetermishmash/compare.html
/sreten.For the comparison of the Modula MT and my RS180 design, you don't actually need any measurements. They are basically LR4 design, and frequency responses are very close to each other as shown in the above graph. Note that this comparison uses identical individual driver frequency responses for both designs. So the comparison can be meaninfully interpreted no matter what kind of driver FRs are used (as long as they are identical across both designs).
Thus I don't see any reason for them sounding very different.
As for the TDFC vs TBFC, the TBFC has a bit lower distortion numbers (Also see Mark K's measurements). Otherwise, they are both excellent tweeters.
Thus I don't see any reason for them sounding very different.
As for the TDFC vs TBFC, the TBFC has a bit lower distortion numbers (Also see Mark K's measurements). Otherwise, they are both excellent tweeters.
I might try the reduced BSC option, since ideally I will be placing the speakers flush with the TV, which should be no more than about 2' from the back wall (so the rear of the speakers will be ~ 1' from back wall).
If porting from the front, how far from the midrange would you place the port? Is there a certain distance the port needs to be from the bottom of the enclosure (and the floor) as well? I've seen some floor standing speakers with the port way down near the floor...
As this is my first project I don't want to introduce too many complications, but I still like to customize things a bit to suit my taste and needs. Plus I find you always learn more when you tinker around with things as opposed to following instructions word-for-word...
Hope I'm being realistic with these ideas and not setting myself up for failure
Thanks again for your help guys.
Not trying to be difficult but...
With this setup, using Modula MTs (rear ported also), the speakers appear to be pretty close to the back wall, and there's the TV stand between them along with that glass cabinet.
My question is, would this be an example where reduced Baffle Step Compensation should be used?
If the builder of these is on here (Dan, I think...), you did a great job. I think they look awesome.
This sounds like a really good idea, I think I'll try to incorporate this somehow. It should really help deaden these things (and keep them from accidentally tipping over). I was thinking I may have to create an empty "chamber" at the bottom to get the correct volume anyways.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
With this setup, using Modula MTs (rear ported also), the speakers appear to be pretty close to the back wall, and there's the TV stand between them along with that glass cabinet.
My question is, would this be an example where reduced Baffle Step Compensation should be used?
If the builder of these is on here (Dan, I think...), you did a great job. I think they look awesome.
This sounds like a really good idea, I think I'll try to incorporate this somehow. It should really help deaden these things (and keep them from accidentally tipping over). I was thinking I may have to create an empty "chamber" at the bottom to get the correct volume anyways.
gee_boi said:
I suppose so. But if you can afford, I suggest trying both versions. It will take only three more components per speaker. Two resistors cost a few bucks and the additional inductor will cost $10 or so. During the test, you can use aligator clips or simply lightly solder the components without twisting wire leads.
As for the port position, it can be close to the floor, maybe a foot away. A port closer to the floor will produce more boundary gain, resulting in stronger bass.
Brandon,
This is not to offend you, but I really want to know what you mean by "more meaningful" info.
Does the Modula provide reduced BSC option (other than no BSC)? Is it easy to voice it to one's taste?
I do think what I suggested in the above for his need is very reasonable. What "more meaningful" info would htguide give?
This is not to offend you, but I really want to know what you mean by "more meaningful" info.
Does the Modula provide reduced BSC option (other than no BSC)? Is it easy to voice it to one's taste?
I do think what I suggested in the above for his need is very reasonable. What "more meaningful" info would htguide give?
No offense taken Jay. By more meaningful I mean that since the OP is interested in variations of the design, such as reduced BSC, then asking the actual designer, Jon Marsh, at htguide would be better since he can explain how these variations were intended to perform.
BTW the OP should take a look at your ER18 MTM design. Seems very nicely done. You really should build one and let use know how it sounds.
BTW the OP should take a look at your ER18 MTM design. Seems very nicely done. You really should build one and let use know how it sounds.
He is on business.
I have a pair of Modula MTs and I really like them. I used the 27TDFC tweeter and I am quite pleased.
And Jay's xover is hardly much simpler than Jon's (10 components vs 13). I found the Modula xover to be very easy to assemble.
So, I'd go for the "real thing".
I think the Modula's are impressive all around, for the money. I play Rock, Alternative, Jazz, Classical/Opera, and even a little bit of hip hop and they handle all them well.
[quote[How bad do they sound with poor recordings compared to paper drivers?[/quote]
They are pretty revealing, so truly poor recordings will sound like poor recordings on them. You'll want to listen to better recordings more and more (as if you didn't before).
I've heard good things about both. I am happy I went with the TDFC though. No regrets.
Absolutely.
WillD said:
Assuming that the same kinds of components (e.g., Dayton standard MPP caps and Jantzen coils) are used, actual cost difference per speaker is at least $16.
You're right, not much difference. But if someone wants to go multi-channel with these, the difference can be significant.
Both designs are "real!!!"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.