Like Doug said, if you want to build something original try building something a little cheaper first, just for the experience.
I tried to build my ultimate speaker on my third speaker build and I still made mistakes, misunderstood some of the principles and miscalculated in sections, regardless of how much care I took with the design. I reckon I've modified or completely re-built the crossovers two dozen times before I eventually had the speakers sounding how I wanted them to. When you spend a lot of money on the drivers, you want it to be perfect. So you tweak – this way leads to madness. Then estrangement and divorce and poverty and sleeping on the street inside your nicely built but not-exactly-right speakers!
If you've got a few years to sort out your ultimate speaker, first have a go at building something with cheaper drivers. Fiddle with them, measure them, adjust them and learn – it's a fun process when you don't have so much of you tied up in a set of speakers.
Just a thought.
AJ
I tried to build my ultimate speaker on my third speaker build and I still made mistakes, misunderstood some of the principles and miscalculated in sections, regardless of how much care I took with the design. I reckon I've modified or completely re-built the crossovers two dozen times before I eventually had the speakers sounding how I wanted them to. When you spend a lot of money on the drivers, you want it to be perfect. So you tweak – this way leads to madness. Then estrangement and divorce and poverty and sleeping on the street inside your nicely built but not-exactly-right speakers!
If you've got a few years to sort out your ultimate speaker, first have a go at building something with cheaper drivers. Fiddle with them, measure them, adjust them and learn – it's a fun process when you don't have so much of you tied up in a set of speakers.
Just a thought.
AJ
My advice -
Buy some cheap particle board and crap speakers from Radio Shack. Mess around making ugly speakers in boxes. Either repeat with another cabinet size, or shape the next weekend. Eventually try out making some horns, and/or movable internal parts that you can easily shift around. Take mental notes on what changes made what sound difference - or better yet, actually take notes.
Anyone that tells you different is full of it, or has only built a speaker based on someone elses design, and now, most likely an expert in that design, has all the answers and the ONLY way to do it.
Anyone in pro-audio, and this means about 90% of people you talk to, will tell you the ONLY way to do something right... From setting up a live sound system, how to place mics, why digital recording is crap compared to 1/2" multi-track where you added bias for headroom, to - building speakers. Anything the ONLY people tell you can be filed as a possible solution. Obviously it has worked for them in some respect... But don't take it as the truth.
PS - I started building speakers when I was 15. Subwoofers for cars of course. The local pro-shop had their pro making crap subs out of expensive gear. I took a few of his boxes, threw them in the trash, made particle boxes based on what would fit in the range of the manufacturers sealed box spec, and can happily say that a friend got grounded because he cracked the window of his hatchback with a double 12" box I built him.... and that was long before I got to do the same thing with a single 18" in a Chevy Tahoe....
I wrote this to someone earlier today:
I have a pretty simple belief about audio in general - There are probably a 1000 great ways to from A - Z, all producing great results. I know a few. I prefer to utilize my way, but am totally comfortable doing it in some other way. I can honestly say that as long as they both get the results needed, whoever needs to be right - for whatever personal/psychological reason - then they are right. A big portion of what I do is ego-management. (Summarizing - Why argue about how to load the dishwasher as long as the dishes get cleaned?)
Buy some cheap particle board and crap speakers from Radio Shack. Mess around making ugly speakers in boxes. Either repeat with another cabinet size, or shape the next weekend. Eventually try out making some horns, and/or movable internal parts that you can easily shift around. Take mental notes on what changes made what sound difference - or better yet, actually take notes.
Anyone that tells you different is full of it, or has only built a speaker based on someone elses design, and now, most likely an expert in that design, has all the answers and the ONLY way to do it.
Anyone in pro-audio, and this means about 90% of people you talk to, will tell you the ONLY way to do something right... From setting up a live sound system, how to place mics, why digital recording is crap compared to 1/2" multi-track where you added bias for headroom, to - building speakers. Anything the ONLY people tell you can be filed as a possible solution. Obviously it has worked for them in some respect... But don't take it as the truth.
PS - I started building speakers when I was 15. Subwoofers for cars of course. The local pro-shop had their pro making crap subs out of expensive gear. I took a few of his boxes, threw them in the trash, made particle boxes based on what would fit in the range of the manufacturers sealed box spec, and can happily say that a friend got grounded because he cracked the window of his hatchback with a double 12" box I built him.... and that was long before I got to do the same thing with a single 18" in a Chevy Tahoe....
I wrote this to someone earlier today:
I have a pretty simple belief about audio in general - There are probably a 1000 great ways to from A - Z, all producing great results. I know a few. I prefer to utilize my way, but am totally comfortable doing it in some other way. I can honestly say that as long as they both get the results needed, whoever needs to be right - for whatever personal/psychological reason - then they are right. A big portion of what I do is ego-management. (Summarizing - Why argue about how to load the dishwasher as long as the dishes get cleaned?)
Last edited:
Also - Why anyone would toss-off a bunch of tech'd out, hi-fi nonsense to someone who wants to build a SOUND SYSTEM? 99% of what I just read only pertains to people without TV's, a listening room that might not have windows because it would taint the sound, and know as much about 1995 French Cabernet as they do OB and single driver reproduction. I should add that - whenever you read in the news that in late summer, people in France are dying like fly's due to a heat wave, make note of the year. The Champagne and Cabernet will be exceptional in 10 years.
That's true of course. I'm not a fan of anything.
According to me
all that has good specs is actually good And good is 24bit-96 and 192 khz, 8 and 16 track 1 inch tapes and good vinyls...
- That's where the good sound comes from...
But analog is not that bad at all!
I must point that I very much agree with Silverprl1 and BobEllis.
And I am a Behringer advocate - has good enough specs for low enough price and actually fulfills what is written in the spec sheet.
Apart from all that, I must point that a single 12 inch bass is definitely not enough
Much better option is a pair of cheaper 15 inchers... - They would just have the cone area to effortlessly reproduce the energy of a bass drum.Lately I go to live performances... Oh the sound of the drums and the sound of a good brass section... no words to describe... Glen Miller Orchestra in a good concert hall - marvelous!
But recently I lived through a ground shacking audiophilic experience
It consisted of a four person restaurant gypsy orchestra and a 24 inch handheld Bass drum
- in a relatively small room...
And a illustration of a gypsy band:
Believe me, sometimes they are a great musicians!
Now, anyone who has been trapped in a small space together with a gypsy band armed with 24 inch drum, a Clarinet, a Guitar and an Accordion, would know that our audiophile sound reproducing systems are so far from reality, that they couldn't be further...
A handheld bass drum has two sides - treble and bass (low and mid) - the bass side has very rich sound, but anyway not that rich and complicated...
The mid side is something from another planet!
Very high energy, extremely complicated sound... - I have never heard anything coming out of a speaker to even come close to that kind of sound... - in any aspect!From what I have read a Bass drum has weight of the membrane about 60 grams, x-max about 3 to 6 mm and SD of 2920 cm2... what is unknown is the power of the punch (motor strength) and suspension compliance...
So we're talking about 3505 cm3 displacement per cycle with unknown waterfall characteristics and unknown power and QTS...
So an ultimate system would be constructed towards the aim of real life sound... and there must be the respective prerequisites present in order to succeed...
Hey Everybody
How about if we all just offer our own advice without criticizing eachother's? I don't know that anybody is claiming to be an expert on anything or that there is only one way to go etc; we're speaking from our own experience and associated wisdom.
There's room enough here for everyone's input - just let the OP soak it all in and make his own decisions.
Variety is the spice of life; I haven't read any bad advice here.
Peace.
How about if we all just offer our own advice without criticizing eachother's? I don't know that anybody is claiming to be an expert on anything or that there is only one way to go etc; we're speaking from our own experience and associated wisdom.
There's room enough here for everyone's input - just let the OP soak it all in and make his own decisions.
Variety is the spice of life; I haven't read any bad advice here.
Peace.
In my book it's been a lively exchange of opinions here. People who aren't at least somewhat passionate aren't going to post. Question with boldness, without personal attacks. Seems to be working.
As Dave suggested early on, there are probably at least as many definitions of a dream build as there are posters. I've got several want to try dream systems in various stages of progress.
The OP has chosen quality drivers and given himself enough time to learn what works for him. Once he's paid for an adjustable active crossover (of whatever flavor) and amps, experiments just cost some MDF, glue and time. Drivers in individual enclosures, to experiment with physical alignment, great idea. Individual baffles to try time aligned dipoles are an option, too.
Now, what will we suggest building given the drivers mentioned? Sealed bass and dipole mid is probably where I'd start.
As Dave suggested early on, there are probably at least as many definitions of a dream build as there are posters. I've got several want to try dream systems in various stages of progress.
The OP has chosen quality drivers and given himself enough time to learn what works for him. Once he's paid for an adjustable active crossover (of whatever flavor) and amps, experiments just cost some MDF, glue and time. Drivers in individual enclosures, to experiment with physical alignment, great idea. Individual baffles to try time aligned dipoles are an option, too.
Now, what will we suggest building given the drivers mentioned? Sealed bass and dipole mid is probably where I'd start.
Just as an example: not necessarily a dream system, but certainly a statement project: 2 Alpair 7eN + 4 SDX7 eN per side, active using the crossover capability built into pure vinyl (if my ancient iMac G5 can keep up). Because the XO will be <250 Hz, drivers will be essentially co-located (1.4 wl > 1/3 m).
dave
PS: i won't use MDF, as i feel it is not a suitable speaker panel material
I've used the air circ tweeters and while they are excellent, there are less expensive tweeters that come very close in performance. Check out the SEAS line if you wanna save a few bucks.
Check out the Zaph Audio site. He has extensive test results from many, many drivers. One of his builds, sold by Madisound, is the ZRT (Zaph Revelator Tower and uses exactly the components you mention, the 7" slit paper Revalator, with the 6600.
I use miniDSPs rather than Behringer. The software is wonderful.
Maybe something like that: https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=35_158&products_id=8775
But on OB instead of horn and combined with the bass section of this: OB9
With this bass driver Eminence Deltalite II 2515 Neo 15" Driver | Parts-Express.com
Or even better - with two 15 Eminence per side
- after all that speaker is only 790mm (31.1 in) tall... an extra 15 woofer would make it 1171 mm (46.1 in) tall - much more appropriate height for a dream speaker... IMHO (me greedy eye )
The low pass section can remain the same or be adapted for two woofers and the high pass section can be adapted to the Fostex with some forum help...
Or for some added extra dream/ultimate flavor (and cone excursion headroom for the Fostex) you can add a 8 or 10 in midbass for the 100-350 hz range...
But on OB instead of horn and combined with the bass section of this: OB9
With this bass driver Eminence Deltalite II 2515 Neo 15" Driver | Parts-Express.com
Or even better - with two 15 Eminence per side
- after all that speaker is only 790mm (31.1 in) tall... an extra 15 woofer would make it 1171 mm (46.1 in) tall - much more appropriate height for a dream speaker... IMHO (me greedy eye )The low pass section can remain the same or be adapted for two woofers and the high pass section can be adapted to the Fostex with some forum help...
Or for some added extra dream/ultimate flavor (and cone excursion headroom for the Fostex) you can add a 8 or 10 in midbass for the 100-350 hz range...
Last edited:
Hi
My two cents:
If you are going passive with a traditional crossover, then use an existing design.
If you are going active with an electronic crossover, and an amp per driver (or stereo pair), then I do not see how you can go wrong, providing that your boxes/cabinets are the right size, and vented optimally. Electronic crossovers are so versatile, that you are bound to get a good result after a few adjustments.
The Behringer DCX2496 is excellent value, but not high end like the Scanspeak drivers. There are companies that can modify the DCX, or you can do it yourself. Then you would need a six channel volume control (for 3 way). Digital input is the way forward (CD, Music Streamer, or USB converter). With the mods, the DCX makes a high quality DAC. If you need to use an analogue source, then use the analogue input (ADC). This can be upgraded too. The mods are not cheap, but you can do them bit by bit.
My two cents:
If you are going passive with a traditional crossover, then use an existing design.
If you are going active with an electronic crossover, and an amp per driver (or stereo pair), then I do not see how you can go wrong, providing that your boxes/cabinets are the right size, and vented optimally. Electronic crossovers are so versatile, that you are bound to get a good result after a few adjustments.
The Behringer DCX2496 is excellent value, but not high end like the Scanspeak drivers. There are companies that can modify the DCX, or you can do it yourself. Then you would need a six channel volume control (for 3 way). Digital input is the way forward (CD, Music Streamer, or USB converter). With the mods, the DCX makes a high quality DAC. If you need to use an analogue source, then use the analogue input (ADC). This can be upgraded too. The mods are not cheap, but you can do them bit by bit.
Thanks so much everyone for the constructive feedback. Would using the Scan Speak 18W8531G Revelator woofer with the 6600 be a decent idea? I feel like the Revelator woofer is also preforming mid duties as well. I am worried about sound getting muddy because of this.
I would really like a separate DAC outside of the behringer setup, I am open to other suggestions too. Do you guys feel that the 13W7 is a proper sub for this setup?
Another thing - I want to do closed box, no ports. Is there any suggested links for a popular sealed cabinet calculator? Another thing I'm REALLY stuck on is how I will make these cabinets adjustable(forward and back, POSSIBLY up and down), by introducing this option I'm introducing more hardware which may introduce cabinet resonance. (eek) I'm almost debating on just stacking them on top of eachother... that seems kind of ghetto doesn't it?
I would really like a separate DAC outside of the behringer setup, I am open to other suggestions too. Do you guys feel that the 13W7 is a proper sub for this setup?
Another thing - I want to do closed box, no ports. Is there any suggested links for a popular sealed cabinet calculator? Another thing I'm REALLY stuck on is how I will make these cabinets adjustable(forward and back, POSSIBLY up and down), by introducing this option I'm introducing more hardware which may introduce cabinet resonance. (eek) I'm almost debating on just stacking them on top of eachother... that seems kind of ghetto doesn't it?
It should be straightforward to get the volumes correct.
You cannot make a cabinet larger easily. But you can add sandbags or wooden block to make it smaller simply enough.
If using a Behringer, why do you want an extra DAC? You would be adding a whole extra set of ADC > DAC degradation. The DXC is potentially an excellent DAC if the power supply is tweaked, and the outputs changed to transformers. See behringermods (UK). I think that there is somewhere in the US that does the same.
Behringer Mods Home
Also DIY:
http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/menu_en.php
Jan Didden audio diy and other human frailties place
I don't know whether you can keep the DCX is the digital domain with digital outputs. If you can, then you can use the DAC of your choice afterwards, but then you would need three DACs (stereo pairs).
You cannot make a cabinet larger easily. But you can add sandbags or wooden block to make it smaller simply enough.
If using a Behringer, why do you want an extra DAC? You would be adding a whole extra set of ADC > DAC degradation. The DXC is potentially an excellent DAC if the power supply is tweaked, and the outputs changed to transformers. See behringermods (UK). I think that there is somewhere in the US that does the same.
Behringer Mods Home
Also DIY:
http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/menu_en.php
Jan Didden audio diy and other human frailties place
I don't know whether you can keep the DCX is the digital domain with digital outputs. If you can, then you can use the DAC of your choice afterwards, but then you would need three DACs (stereo pairs).
Oh wow, thanks for the Behringer links, How would I integrate my DEQ into this setup?
What about these -
ScanSpeak Illuminator D3004/6620-00 Tweeter
Scan-Speak Illuminator 18WU/8741T 7" Woofer, 8 ohm
JL Audio 13W7 Sub
Now... here comes a question.. This setup has no mid driver. But according to graphs i may not need one with the selected tweeter and woofer.
Tweeter
https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8521
Woofer
https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8496
Can anyone make comments on this?
What about these -
ScanSpeak Illuminator D3004/6620-00 Tweeter
Scan-Speak Illuminator 18WU/8741T 7" Woofer, 8 ohm
JL Audio 13W7 Sub
Now... here comes a question.. This setup has no mid driver. But according to graphs i may not need one with the selected tweeter and woofer.
Tweeter
https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8521
Woofer
https://www.madisound.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8496
Can anyone make comments on this?
Allright, what does that JL Audio 13W7AE Subwoofers - Car Audio Subwoofers welding machine fed short circuit have to do with a super sophisticated and expensive Scanspeac drivers?
2x1.5 ohm imp and Re 2.4 ohm when in series... when in parallel Re is 0.6 ohm?!?
I'm a fan of technology, but my advice is that you should listen to an old tube radio - a big one and preferably stereo and evem more preferably with 4 speakers in the same box - left and right full range + LF driver + super tweeter.
And you should listen to a vinyl through speakers with acordeon surround... listen to the drums...
Today there are better amplifiers and better drivers than before, BUT not every modern driver is better than the ones from the past!
What you'll hear from and old radio and from a turntable played from big speakers with acordeon paper surround will not be the ultimate fidelity, BUT it will be highly realistic
A cheap way to get an Idea of what is really good speakers is to make a pair of MJK H-frames with GW1858 an OB's with 4-5 inch Fostex on top - that will cost you little more than one single Scanspeak driver and will give you about 98++ percent of what the best sound should be! The remaining less than 2% come at a price of several thausand dollars...
So my second very strong advice is: Build the MJK H-frame+OB and then decide what you need... + and it makes very good friends with the Behringer DCX, so it will be even cheaper to you as you won't spend on passive crossover components - that way the pair comes to you for around 350$
2x1.5 ohm imp and Re 2.4 ohm when in series... when in parallel Re is 0.6 ohm?!?
I'm a fan of technology, but my advice is that you should listen to an old tube radio - a big one and preferably stereo and evem more preferably with 4 speakers in the same box - left and right full range + LF driver + super tweeter.
And you should listen to a vinyl through speakers with acordeon surround... listen to the drums...
Today there are better amplifiers and better drivers than before, BUT not every modern driver is better than the ones from the past!
What you'll hear from and old radio and from a turntable played from big speakers with acordeon paper surround will not be the ultimate fidelity, BUT it will be highly realistic
A cheap way to get an Idea of what is really good speakers is to make a pair of MJK H-frames with GW1858 an OB's with 4-5 inch Fostex on top - that will cost you little more than one single Scanspeak driver and will give you about 98++ percent of what the best sound should be! The remaining less than 2% come at a price of several thausand dollars...
So my second very strong advice is: Build the MJK H-frame+OB and then decide what you need... + and it makes very good friends with the Behringer DCX, so it will be even cheaper to you as you won't spend on passive crossover components
- that way the pair comes to you for around 350$
Last edited:
Since you are using top quality drivers, I would spend a bit more, and include a dedicated midrange. A 3 way system should always outperform a 2 way. I am not going to build any more two ways. A 3 way tower would be more flexible for future use also.
Use the Behringer for Tweet, Mid, and Woofer. Let the subwoofer's plate amp eq the lowest bass. With a 3 way, you may decide not to use subwoofers. You could certainly get away with just one, as sound is not directional at the bottom octaves.
The DEQ is a good toy, very flexible. I have one. If you want to use one as well as the DCX2496, then just use the digital inputs and outputs, so that the signal is not degraded by excessive conversions. Like the DCX, the DEQ has a noisy SMPS power supply that you should upgrade when you have the chance.
Don't forget that you will need a six channel volume control, and three stereo amps.
6 channel volume control
This is quite a lot of gear to get hold of. Loads more than if you go passive, but you would be guarranteed to get a result that would be tailor made to your ears (and listening room).
Before you go ahead, you should consider spending a bit less on one of the very best three way passive designs:
Jensen-
One source, one amp, one pair of speakers (no sub required unless for films maybe). Fewer wires, and power switches - No fuss. Even the wife would be able to work it.
There is no getting away from the sheer adaptablity of an active system though.
Use the Behringer for Tweet, Mid, and Woofer. Let the subwoofer's plate amp eq the lowest bass. With a 3 way, you may decide not to use subwoofers. You could certainly get away with just one, as sound is not directional at the bottom octaves.
The DEQ is a good toy, very flexible. I have one. If you want to use one as well as the DCX2496, then just use the digital inputs and outputs, so that the signal is not degraded by excessive conversions. Like the DCX, the DEQ has a noisy SMPS power supply that you should upgrade when you have the chance.
Don't forget that you will need a six channel volume control, and three stereo amps.
6 channel volume control
This is quite a lot of gear to get hold of. Loads more than if you go passive, but you would be guarranteed to get a result that would be tailor made to your ears (and listening room).
Before you go ahead, you should consider spending a bit less on one of the very best three way passive designs:
Jensen-
One source, one amp, one pair of speakers (no sub required unless for films maybe). Fewer wires, and power switches - No fuss. Even the wife would be able to work it.
There is no getting away from the sheer adaptablity of an active system though.
Except that all too often the XO gets in the way. If you can move XO points below 300 Hz and above 5kHz you have a better chance. And given an XO below 300 Hz, it is often cheaper (and usually better) to do it active. And with the leading FR rivaling some VERY good tweeters, one has to question the need of that.
And we end up with an active FAST system....
dave
No problem for a system with extended range main driver such as 300 hz to 5-8 khz to have 2 drivers below 300 hz and two more above 5 or 8 khz...
Planet10, what is "FAST"?
Anyway, the phase problem is a very big problem...
Even if we use active crossover, and even if all amps are fed with phase coherent signal, and even if all acoustic centers lie on one and the same perimeter, there will be only one place in space that the phase will be correct...
On the drawing all blue lines are r's and thus are all of equal length...
Even if we have in mind the phase shift of every crossover and align all acoustical centers to be at the same distance + the respective distance of wavelength/degrees, then again the alignment will be valid only for one single point in space... - very hopeless situation...
Probably an ultimate system would have design that overcomes that shortcoming?
Close mounted omni-directional mid-bass, extended range driver and tweeter?
Maximally equal paths at all places in front of the speaker can be achieved through design pictured in the second drawing - mid bass and extended range omni-directional and a HF driver in the reflector in between. - A proper sizing can give very small path length deviations in many positions and thus bugger listening area. But even in that case, we will have to design a crossover that produces some frombefore desired phase shift...
What do the mainstream manufacturers do? They put the crossover to the tweeter around 2 khz and then 90% of the audible frequencies are emited from a point source - no phase issues here... except for the issue that a tweeter has nothing to do that low...
Planet10, what is "FAST"?
Anyway, the phase problem is a very big problem...
Even if we use active crossover, and even if all amps are fed with phase coherent signal, and even if all acoustic centers lie on one and the same perimeter, there will be only one place in space that the phase will be correct...
On the drawing all blue lines are r's and thus are all of equal length...
Even if we have in mind the phase shift of every crossover and align all acoustical centers to be at the same distance + the respective distance of wavelength/degrees, then again the alignment will be valid only for one single point in space... - very hopeless situation...
Probably an ultimate system would have design that overcomes that shortcoming?
Close mounted omni-directional mid-bass, extended range driver and tweeter?
Maximally equal paths at all places in front of the speaker can be achieved through design pictured in the second drawing - mid bass and extended range omni-directional and a HF driver in the reflector in between. - A proper sizing can give very small path length deviations in many positions and thus bugger listening area. But even in that case, we will have to design a crossover that produces some frombefore desired phase shift...
What do the mainstream manufacturers do? They put the crossover to the tweeter around 2 khz and then 90% of the audible frequencies are emited from a point source - no phase issues here... except for the issue that a tweeter has nothing to do that low...
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.