I took part in the 2-way and 3-way ref speaker threads. The 2-way was a reference point speaker that was economical to build, honest, sounded good, with easy to find drivers and a good beginning for the DIYer who could experiment and learn plus it gave builders something to compare to when doing future builds. I came up with 2 enclosures and several low count crossovers. Many were built and seemed to be well liked even with the limited bass output. However, the drivers were eventually discontinued. Of course there were and are many designs that blew these away but that was not the point of the thread or the design.
The 3-way budget ref never took off after the drivers were chosen and I did a sample enclosure design. Nobody followed up with a final crossover design or did an actual build as far as I know. This was understandable as the cost was far greater than the 2-way design and required commitment of time and money.
One thing that did come out of these threads is finding drivers that were easily available world wide, good bang for buck and were going to be available long term which cuts out a lot of choices. Usually these threads require a couple of builders and designers to run with them for the duration which is a big ask.
Luckily there are countless well documented designs out there and many are available in kit form. In this forum there are plenty of comments available on a lot of these these designs which helps DIYers make a decent choice.
I'l be watching this thread with interest to see how it pans out.
The 3-way budget ref never took off after the drivers were chosen and I did a sample enclosure design. Nobody followed up with a final crossover design or did an actual build as far as I know. This was understandable as the cost was far greater than the 2-way design and required commitment of time and money.
One thing that did come out of these threads is finding drivers that were easily available world wide, good bang for buck and were going to be available long term which cuts out a lot of choices. Usually these threads require a couple of builders and designers to run with them for the duration which is a big ask.
Luckily there are countless well documented designs out there and many are available in kit form. In this forum there are plenty of comments available on a lot of these these designs which helps DIYers make a decent choice.
I'l be watching this thread with interest to see how it pans out.
It is not going anywhere because the objectives and type of speaker has not been defined and the OP is not saying no to keep things on track. So what type of speaker should be designed that addresses a need? I am not going to take a lead but one suggestion might be a "proper" entry level high fidelity speaker. Not a quirky one but one that follows engineering and acoustical good practice which can be justified. I am aware of almost no examples and yet one might expect this to be a popular category for people starting the hobby (whatever its strengths a small 2 way is not a high fidelity speaker).
Looks can be important for some but it seems a rather fluffy basis for a collaborative DIY project. Strong visuals like some of TGs recent efforts can be both a significant plus and a significant minus. Personally I wouldn't tolerate something that looked like that in my living space.
I am not familiar with Von Schweikert speakers but glancing at their web site they look like good DIY speakers using DIY available drivers. I don't know how close that is to the truth but if it is not far off then cloning might be more like copying and given the prices being asked would we want to go there? They also use expensive drivers which will limit the numbers able to build them. But the configuration of the speakers looks right for home high fidelity unless the crossovers use quirky slopes?
I am not familiar with Von Schweikert speakers but glancing at their web site they look like good DIY speakers using DIY available drivers. I don't know how close that is to the truth but if it is not far off then cloning might be more like copying and given the prices being asked would we want to go there? They also use expensive drivers which will limit the numbers able to build them. But the configuration of the speakers looks right for home high fidelity unless the crossovers use quirky slopes?
Although it is out of sequence I will put forward something concrete to talk around.
A high fidelity speaker requires clean output above about 50 Hz and this dictates something like a 12" woofer to handle transients. 2 x 8" can be a more domestically acceptable alternative. High fidelity deep bass requires distributed subs and room control and cannot be delivered by the mains. A case can be made for the mains to do something reasonable with deep bass on their own or in support of subs but not high fidelity on their own.
The size of the woofers dictates a proper efficient midrange driver (or two midwoofers).
The tweeter would normally require a waveguide to match the directivity of the midwoofer and reduce the beam width at higher frequencies.
An example might be something like a tower speaker with 2 x Dayton RS225-8 woofers, Scan 15M/4624G00 midrange and SEAS 27TBCD/GB-DXT tweeter with waveguide. Reasonably priced standard range drivers in a configuration that works well. Of course the choices will likely need tweaking a bit as the design progresses.
Is this the type of design the OP or someone wants to pickup, own and run with? If not, what and why? This is important so that experienced people can know whether to contribute or not without being required to wade through 100 pages of waffle and then guess.
A high fidelity speaker requires clean output above about 50 Hz and this dictates something like a 12" woofer to handle transients. 2 x 8" can be a more domestically acceptable alternative. High fidelity deep bass requires distributed subs and room control and cannot be delivered by the mains. A case can be made for the mains to do something reasonable with deep bass on their own or in support of subs but not high fidelity on their own.
The size of the woofers dictates a proper efficient midrange driver (or two midwoofers).
The tweeter would normally require a waveguide to match the directivity of the midwoofer and reduce the beam width at higher frequencies.
An example might be something like a tower speaker with 2 x Dayton RS225-8 woofers, Scan 15M/4624G00 midrange and SEAS 27TBCD/GB-DXT tweeter with waveguide. Reasonably priced standard range drivers in a configuration that works well. Of course the choices will likely need tweaking a bit as the design progresses.
Is this the type of design the OP or someone wants to pickup, own and run with? If not, what and why? This is important so that experienced people can know whether to contribute or not without being required to wade through 100 pages of waffle and then guess.
Perhaps something that creates a visual of the "customer demand space"...
You see some customer needs blacked out in the customer demand matrix at top, and that's because everyone wants those product characteristics, so there really isn't much to gain in terms of arguing over those areas--"just do it" but "keep the overall product and development costs as low as possible in those areas" since those are in the realm of customers saying "this is something that I shouldn't have to tell you".
I think that there could easily be more than one solution based on the customer segments shown (and more customer segments might be yet to be identified with their own unique needs). Note that the four axes (lower cost, easy to buy, easy to use, and greater benefits) usually are the most significant indicators of ultimate product success--the bigger the polar plot shaded area, the higher the probability of product success as measured in sales or units produced/consumed.
I'd recommend looking at the possibility of serving only a couple of customer segments with a really good product (your choice of which customer segments you're going to serve and which ones that you're not going to), and let another product configuration that would serve other customer segments. I'd recommend breaking those two/three designs into separate threads.
Chris
You see some customer needs blacked out in the customer demand matrix at top, and that's because everyone wants those product characteristics, so there really isn't much to gain in terms of arguing over those areas--"just do it" but "keep the overall product and development costs as low as possible in those areas" since those are in the realm of customers saying "this is something that I shouldn't have to tell you".
I think that there could easily be more than one solution based on the customer segments shown (and more customer segments might be yet to be identified with their own unique needs). Note that the four axes (lower cost, easy to buy, easy to use, and greater benefits) usually are the most significant indicators of ultimate product success--the bigger the polar plot shaded area, the higher the probability of product success as measured in sales or units produced/consumed.
I'd recommend looking at the possibility of serving only a couple of customer segments with a really good product (your choice of which customer segments you're going to serve and which ones that you're not going to), and let another product configuration that would serve other customer segments. I'd recommend breaking those two/three designs into separate threads.
Chris
Attachments
Last edited:
Something like a modern interpretation of the original basszilla would be great e.g. using something like a Faital 15pr400 as a "base' for an FR driver using a not-too-complicated crossover to give great dynamics and efficiency in a reasonably sized and priced and package (just the thing to go on the end of my new mofos in other words)
One more follow-up comment:
If everyone that posts just wants something for their own specific needs, and those needs aren't generally desired by a wide customer base, you've got a problem that you'll likely not resolve ultimately into a real product. You've got to collectively think like the typical consumer, not like "I want everyone to like what I presently want/like, and I don't care what everyone else might want"...
YMMV.
Chris
If everyone that posts just wants something for their own specific needs, and those needs aren't generally desired by a wide customer base, you've got a problem that you'll likely not resolve ultimately into a real product. You've got to collectively think like the typical consumer, not like "I want everyone to like what I presently want/like, and I don't care what everyone else might want"...
YMMV.
Chris
Maybe a poll of these 7 characteristics would be timely to help define what the readership is most interested in.
It would be better if we could rank each characteristic rather than choosing only one, but any statistic would be better than assumptions.
True. We need an ionic speaker.
Actually..... an ionic speaker or an electrostatic kit. These represent stuff you would have a great deal of trouble sourcing except by means of a group purchase.
Otherwise, hard to see the benefits of a collective movement. It's just more "tribalism" which we certainly do not need anywhere is the world oday.
B.
PS Maybe I could add one of my interests: a quality driver with a super-low resonance (like 10 Hz) that could be installed in smallish sealed boxes like the AR of olden tymes. Not sure you could find one anywhere off-the-shelf
Actually..... an ionic speaker or an electrostatic kit. These represent stuff you would have a great deal of trouble sourcing except by means of a group purchase.
Otherwise, hard to see the benefits of a collective movement. It's just more "tribalism" which we certainly do not need anywhere is the world oday.
B.
PS Maybe I could add one of my interests: a quality driver with a super-low resonance (like 10 Hz) that could be installed in smallish sealed boxes like the AR of olden tymes. Not sure you could find one anywhere off-the-shelf
Last edited:
You have Joachim Gerhard selling a most wonderful cabinet and the plans for the Sonics Anima - a speaker that won the hearts of many mixing engineers, not to mention Stereophile reviews and so. It sold for 2600USD, you can get it now for much less. And it was so successful that its later iteration sold for 6K with the same drivers and same enclosure, just made out of bamboo. Does not get better than this, my very humble opinion though. The LXmini as well is stunning but no one cares about these, we always want something else. Anything from the Planet10 designs can be a speaker for a lifetime if you spend time with it.
There are tons of well designed and proven designs. I have built many of them and I always struggled with the look of the boxes, woodworking is an entirely crazy hobby that I will leave for retirement.
So may I propose something radical? Give the speaker community something to help the speakers look better. Some type of photo polymer instead of veneer like the one that Dali is using? Or even a Corian type of material that will make it easy to make boxes? You will save tons of speakers from dying, hundreds of thousands of drivers from killing, that will help our hobby, not a new kit...
Or the CBT24, for example the one by Jim Griffin - that is something that deserves more attention, that is radically new and has advantages we have not had till now.
+1 I suspect that we are going to need a number of sub threads, possibly each with a Poll to get any traction on this at all. The current thread is ok for getting the discussion going, but is too broad to ever reach any sort of concensus. I'll harp back to the three way thread. That was very narrow in scope compared to the current thread, and it took ages to even start to hone in on a possible design.
I think eventually if something does come of this it will be a number of different projects filling different needs.
Tony,
there are so many parameters that a poll is the only way to proceed. For example:
2 way/ 3way more?
minimum efficency
cost
complexity of woodwork, size etc
design, ie mtm, open baffle, ribbons, sealed, passive radiators, size etc
There are other parameters as well. If there is no consensus up front then it may not go well.
2 way/ 3way more?
minimum efficency
cost
complexity of woodwork, size etc
design, ie mtm, open baffle, ribbons, sealed, passive radiators, size etc
There are other parameters as well. If there is no consensus up front then it may not go well.
A standmount / monitor sized speaker (probably 2way) would be good as a first option, as it would be more universally useful to people (from students in dorm rooms to hifi enthusiasts), and easier for beginner wood workers too. The cabinet construction difficulty would be an important factor. PCBs for the crossover could be made to further ease construction. I agree that a simple, affordable, but good sounding speaker to get people started is the most important factor.
Perhaps that can be the base concept and then an interesting twist can be added? Perhaps using multiple IKEA Blanda bowls for each driver enclosure? Perhaps an innovative phase coherent crossover? Maybe omnidirectional? Maybe open baffle, but with a passive crossover rather than digital?
Perhaps that can be the base concept and then an interesting twist can be added? Perhaps using multiple IKEA Blanda bowls for each driver enclosure? Perhaps an innovative phase coherent crossover? Maybe omnidirectional? Maybe open baffle, but with a passive crossover rather than digital?
Last edited:
My, my. Did we get up on the wrong side of the bed today?
I really think you have misjudged the intent of my post. I was not trashing the idea of "DIYaudio speaker projects" or trying to suggest that there be only one "uber alles" loudspeaker project attempted. It just struck me that unless you narrow down the scope for such an effort you cannot really expect to achieve your goal. Like amplifiers, loudspeakers can be many different things and not everyone will be interested in the same project concept.
My point was just that you need to come up with a list of design goals for DIYaudio project #1, #2, #3, and so on. Whom ever is skilled at designing loudspeakers that fit the description of each project can contribute to that project. For example there may be one DIYer who really knows how to make a great closed box mini-monitor with a passive crossover but has no clue about designing an open baffle system with an active crossover. Etc. Everyone has their sweet spot or comfort zone. I think that a POLL would be a great way to get input and rank what type of loudspeaker project should be done first, second, third, etc...
I was hoping that my post would generate some discussion about WHAT should be the first project attempted as a group effort DIYaudio loudspeaker. And then what should be the second, etc. But I guess it missed the mark. You are welcome to go back and re-read my post and revisit this idea. I think it is a good one. I never intended to dis-incentivize anything, just to focus the efforts into productive paths.
Last edited:
A low cost BIG Classic studio monitor
Classic studio monitors are BIG.
18" woofer + (10" -12") midwoofer + 1' CD_horn.
Troels Gavensen now loves BIG. @ $2500 in drivers
Carefull selection can find 3 good quality drivers for ~$400.
Passive and DSP crossover options.
To aid cabinet construction, a CNC file and a table saw cutsheet would be available.
----------idea 2------
Use the power of this audio community for a group purchase of hard to obtain SEOS-24 or Klipsch K402 horn, and maybe BMS 4594Nd, as part of a large modern horn project.
Classic studio monitors are BIG.
18" woofer + (10" -12") midwoofer + 1' CD_horn.
Troels Gavensen now loves BIG. @ $2500 in drivers
Carefull selection can find 3 good quality drivers for ~$400.
Passive and DSP crossover options.
To aid cabinet construction, a CNC file and a table saw cutsheet would be available.
----------idea 2------
Use the power of this audio community for a group purchase of hard to obtain SEOS-24 or Klipsch K402 horn, and maybe BMS 4594Nd, as part of a large modern horn project.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.