I tried the Hi-Vi 3" (single worked better than two, though less output) as satellites along with the tangband 8" subwoofer. I used Zaph's crossover design for the Hi-Vi-3's. I had to make a few adjustments since remember we're talking about putting this 3" into a small cube. Mine is 4"x4"x4".
In short:
400Hz and up is very impressive, the Hi-Vi 3" is an amazing bargain. Great transparent midrange and treble with electrostatic-like speed.
80Hz and below is also very good from the tangband 8" sub. A very good sub for small ported enclosures. I can cross it over higher than 80Hz but I don't want it to be directional.
100-400Hz is boomy and distorted. Sounds like a balloon being rubbed the wrong way. On many songs the experience was spoiled by this boominess in this region.
So it improved upon the Bose and it still has the characteristic Bose sound. Basically a Bose with better clarity in the mids and treble. So I declare the project a failure and the BOSE CLONE challenge is passed on to the rest of you...
Edit: Hi-Vi is good to 300Hz rather than the 400Hz I mentioned. But it remains that it is crap below this line, causing a lot of problems.
In short:
400Hz and up is very impressive, the Hi-Vi 3" is an amazing bargain. Great transparent midrange and treble with electrostatic-like speed.
80Hz and below is also very good from the tangband 8" sub. A very good sub for small ported enclosures. I can cross it over higher than 80Hz but I don't want it to be directional.
100-400Hz is boomy and distorted. Sounds like a balloon being rubbed the wrong way. On many songs the experience was spoiled by this boominess in this region.
So it improved upon the Bose and it still has the characteristic Bose sound. Basically a Bose with better clarity in the mids and treble. So I declare the project a failure and the BOSE CLONE challenge is passed on to the rest of you...
Edit: Hi-Vi is good to 300Hz rather than the 400Hz I mentioned. But it remains that it is crap below this line, causing a lot of problems.
Ok, I haven`t read all the pages in this thread, so with the possibility that they have been suggested before:
Go get her some Gallo Nucleus Micro`s. They are still a compromise over bigger boxes, but she WILL love them. And for your own piece of mind; they aren`t Bose
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Go get her some Gallo Nucleus Micro`s. They are still a compromise over bigger boxes, but she WILL love them. And for your own piece of mind; they aren`t Bose
The key to getting good sound from small speakers is in the electrical design parameters. You'll also need to remember that in 'small' rooms (Where the FSroom>=20Hz.) large speakers are required for better sound. Small speakers have high amounts of dispersion and in frequencies beyond their operating range, high distortions. This is key to the design of the system. Also, remember that you are able to design the system FOR the room it is intended for and I highly recommend determining suckouts, spikes, etc.
Personally and from experience, I'd recommend, just as others have, to use small drivers but in parallel. This will severly limit the amount of excursion that takes place and thus reducing distortions immediately. I also recommend active cross-overs, phase correction, and any acceptable amounts of equalization. This can be done affordably with some Burr-Brown op-amps and some LMXXXX kits from www.chipamp.com. As for enclosures, I'd only use OB baffles as the clarity and correctness outweighs any defficiency in dynamics.
As far as bass drivers go, you can opt for a large driver that requires a small enclosure (~30L.) and provide it with ample amplification. I wouldn't worry about going very low as ~50-60Hz Fc is good enough and sometimes preferred for the casual listener.
I know I'm late....give me freaking bone!
Recommended driver
Personally and from experience, I'd recommend, just as others have, to use small drivers but in parallel. This will severly limit the amount of excursion that takes place and thus reducing distortions immediately. I also recommend active cross-overs, phase correction, and any acceptable amounts of equalization. This can be done affordably with some Burr-Brown op-amps and some LMXXXX kits from www.chipamp.com. As for enclosures, I'd only use OB baffles as the clarity and correctness outweighs any defficiency in dynamics.
As far as bass drivers go, you can opt for a large driver that requires a small enclosure (~30L.) and provide it with ample amplification. I wouldn't worry about going very low as ~50-60Hz Fc is good enough and sometimes preferred for the casual listener.
I know I'm late....give me freaking bone!
Recommended driver
JohnnyB: I think the whole question needs to be turned up side down. Why should the "Bose-size" be the thing to beat?
Throughout this thread it has become clear that a much better sound can be acchieved if just a little bigger box size can be tolerated. The extremely small Bose enclosures has to endure a whole lot of compromizes, and while they look good, the sound proportionally worse. The simply has to, at that size and with the solutions chosen.
The answer then has to be: do not choose to do the same wrongs as Bose. Choose to do the rights Bose didnt`t
Throughout this thread it has become clear that a much better sound can be acchieved if just a little bigger box size can be tolerated. The extremely small Bose enclosures has to endure a whole lot of compromizes, and while they look good, the sound proportionally worse. The simply has to, at that size and with the solutions chosen.
The answer then has to be: do not choose to do the same wrongs as Bose. Choose to do the rights Bose didnt`t
What Bose-size Really Means
Bose-size means that the subwoofer (if you can call the typical Bose 5.5-inch driver a subwoofer) will not cover much below 50 Hz and extend up to 200 Hz or so. Also Bose-size means the satellites roll-off below 300 Hz so the 200-300 Hz area is not covered with their sub/sat systems. And don't count on any treble above 13 kHz or so. You can read about the only test data that I have seen published (plots and summary table originally printed in the August 1999 Sound and Vision magazine) on a Bose sub/sat system at the link.
Bose Speaker Details
Most people with any clue should realize what is missing.
Jim
Bose-size means that the subwoofer (if you can call the typical Bose 5.5-inch driver a subwoofer) will not cover much below 50 Hz and extend up to 200 Hz or so. Also Bose-size means the satellites roll-off below 300 Hz so the 200-300 Hz area is not covered with their sub/sat systems. And don't count on any treble above 13 kHz or so. You can read about the only test data that I have seen published (plots and summary table originally printed in the August 1999 Sound and Vision magazine) on a Bose sub/sat system at the link.
Bose Speaker Details
Most people with any clue should realize what is missing.
Jim
Think about it, the consumer demand for something small and stylish grows every year. Imagine creating something and competing directly to Bose. The only reason people buy Bose is because they love the tiny little speakers that take up no space in their house and allow them room for other things.
Obviously its difficult to achieve sound out of something so small, but its difficult to say in order to beat it, you have to go bigger. I'm a big-time Bose-hater, but its difficult to say to a consumer "they're bad quality because they're so small". To them, it's a compromise.
Here is an article that posts the specifications of the lifestyle system.
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
I would also like to mention that the satellites are 0.4 litres.
Obviously its difficult to achieve sound out of something so small, but its difficult to say in order to beat it, you have to go bigger. I'm a big-time Bose-hater, but its difficult to say to a consumer "they're bad quality because they're so small". To them, it's a compromise.
Here is an article that posts the specifications of the lifestyle system.
http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html
I would also like to mention that the satellites are 0.4 litres.
The Ciare 65mm drivers look like Bose killers to me. Vas 0.5/0.7l sensitivity 88/90dB power handling 10W.
You find them in "Breitbandlautsprecher", "Übersichtstabelle" at
http://www.spectrumaudio.de
You find them in "Breitbandlautsprecher", "Übersichtstabelle" at
http://www.spectrumaudio.de
I completely agree with bose(o), this intellexual article is worth nothing
"Smaller subwoofers move faster and thus have tighter bass response for improved clarity and accuracy, but larger subwoofers can reproduce lower frequencies and at louder volumes"
"Do the math folks, this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's only ~66% of the actual recording being played back to you!"
no kidding, they move faster
... and somebody should teach him that you can't count hertz like apples as it is a logarithmic scale... anyway the full article, is written on a very agressive and pedantic tone ... the least you hope in theses cases is that the knowledge of the writer is up to his
as said before it is silly to consider using EXACTLY the same volume as bose. They are physical limitations, and my guess is that for this size you can't do anything more than marginally better, even with top of the notch drivers and design, and moreover, that would be stupid.
you can design "lifestyle" products with using 1 litres speakers instead of 0.4, people aren't THAT silly. moreover, you can use the improved sound quality as compared to bose as a marketing argument, if we are into this kind of debate ... still, they would be tiny speakers, and would aim the same target than BOSE does !
now here is how i would do it :
1. provided you want to save space and you want the better sound quality, the crossover choice is obvious, you want to go all active. It means that you can handle all the crossovers AND amps in a very small box. Also as you want lots of juice to power the subwoofer, you go using digital amps, that are proven good quality and dissipate little heat.
2. provided you want better cabinetry than bose, but you don't want to use MDF as it would bigger the sattelite too much, you could use satellites done out of aluminium, damped with a sort of bitumen. here you want to find the right compromise between thickness and damping.
3.here we comes to the choice of drivers. You want to find the 3" driver ( as it is i think the only size to consider, 2" is too small to fill enough mid bass, and 4" is too big provided you want to stay near the bose size) that is having the maximum excursion, with the maximum bandwith and least distortion, and a very low VAS. For that task, the Aurasound NS3-193-8A that zaph tested to have the best midbass distortion of a whole range of 3" drivers. It is having near full range operation also.
It is comfortable in a sealed box of 1 liter with a Q of 1. also you could put it in a .3 liter box and then use a linkwitz transform to get back his f3 to 100 hz and his Q to a reasonable value, but i personally think that it is a lot of efforts to spare 0.5 liters
4. Here we comes to the subwoofer, there you have a lot of possibilities. If you want small volume along with quality deep bass, you are gonna be annoyed by the vent in ported system, that will be either too small and then generate port noise, either too long for your box.
I would personnaly go for two Tangband W6-1139SG in a 5-8 liters sealed box, with a linkwitz transform aimed at 30hz and an 4th order highpass around 20hz. this way you have an F3 of around 35hz, and a subwoofer that is able to handle around 80w of power before going out of excursion, generating 104db/1meter... all this is theory of course. But if you go this way you want to have a very dead + stiff = heavy box.
this solution relies heavily on active equalisation. I would say , you could even add one of these small dayton tweeters on each satelites if you are not happy with high end, but then you would need an active crossover + amp more for each satellite.
In the end you have a very good system, very expensive on the electronic side, but i believe it is the only way to beat bose in theses ridiculous allowed spaces
but if you go the simple way, if you use 5 satelites of 1 liter,natural rolloff at 100hz, ported subwoofer with just one active filter doing the transition to the satellites ... 6 amps,and here you go
"Smaller subwoofers move faster and thus have tighter bass response for improved clarity and accuracy, but larger subwoofers can reproduce lower frequencies and at louder volumes"
"Do the math folks, this Bose system only produces 13,176 of the 19,980 Hertz in the audible sound spectrum. That's only ~66% of the actual recording being played back to you!"
no kidding, they move faster
... and somebody should teach him that you can't count hertz like apples as it is a logarithmic scale... anyway the full article, is written on a very agressive and pedantic tone ... the least you hope in theses cases is that the knowledge of the writer is up to hisas said before it is silly to consider using EXACTLY the same volume as bose. They are physical limitations, and my guess is that for this size you can't do anything more than marginally better, even with top of the notch drivers and design, and moreover, that would be stupid.
you can design "lifestyle" products with using 1 litres speakers instead of 0.4, people aren't THAT silly. moreover, you can use the improved sound quality as compared to bose as a marketing argument, if we are into this kind of debate ... still, they would be tiny speakers, and would aim the same target than BOSE does !
now here is how i would do it :
1. provided you want to save space and you want the better sound quality, the crossover choice is obvious, you want to go all active. It means that you can handle all the crossovers AND amps in a very small box. Also as you want lots of juice to power the subwoofer, you go using digital amps, that are proven good quality and dissipate little heat.
2. provided you want better cabinetry than bose, but you don't want to use MDF as it would bigger the sattelite too much, you could use satellites done out of aluminium, damped with a sort of bitumen. here you want to find the right compromise between thickness and damping.
3.here we comes to the choice of drivers. You want to find the 3" driver ( as it is i think the only size to consider, 2" is too small to fill enough mid bass, and 4" is too big provided you want to stay near the bose size) that is having the maximum excursion, with the maximum bandwith and least distortion, and a very low VAS. For that task, the Aurasound NS3-193-8A that zaph tested to have the best midbass distortion of a whole range of 3" drivers. It is having near full range operation also.
It is comfortable in a sealed box of 1 liter with a Q of 1. also you could put it in a .3 liter box and then use a linkwitz transform to get back his f3 to 100 hz and his Q to a reasonable value, but i personally think that it is a lot of efforts to spare 0.5 liters
4. Here we comes to the subwoofer, there you have a lot of possibilities. If you want small volume along with quality deep bass, you are gonna be annoyed by the vent in ported system, that will be either too small and then generate port noise, either too long for your box.
I would personnaly go for two Tangband W6-1139SG in a 5-8 liters sealed box, with a linkwitz transform aimed at 30hz and an 4th order highpass around 20hz. this way you have an F3 of around 35hz, and a subwoofer that is able to handle around 80w of power before going out of excursion, generating 104db/1meter... all this is theory of course. But if you go this way you want to have a very dead + stiff = heavy box.
this solution relies heavily on active equalisation. I would say , you could even add one of these small dayton tweeters on each satelites if you are not happy with high end, but then you would need an active crossover + amp more for each satellite.
In the end you have a very good system, very expensive on the electronic side, but i believe it is the only way to beat bose in theses ridiculous allowed spaces
but if you go the simple way, if you use 5 satelites of 1 liter,natural rolloff at 100hz, ported subwoofer with just one active filter doing the transition to the satellites ... 6 amps,and here you go
I also invite you guys to "hit up" a store that carries the Bose so that you can fimiliarize yourself with the system. I'm not saying to 'listen' or to 'hear' it, just check it out. And, let's say we're trying to beat up on the BEST Bose Acoustimass system.
Anyway, the Bose subwoofer is NOT small. In fact, it is HUGE and weighs a tonne. I went on the Bose site to pick up the actual size of their best acoustimass' module.
"Acoustimass module • 16 1/3"H x 8 1/8"W x 29 1/8"D • (41.5 x 20.7 x 74 cm) • 45 lbs. (20.5 kg) " This is the AM16 which is 6.1 and the AM10 (5.1) is "Acoustimass module • 16 1/3"H x 8 1/8"W x 25 1/3"D • (41.5 x 20.7 x 64.3 cm) • 35 lbs. (15.9 kg)" Pretty much what I'm trying to say, is that almost ANY half decently sized woofer will meet the size guideline. One could design it to be thin like the Bose acoustimass module too and, this may make for a "sleeker" system.
I am quite interested in this project now and I'm thinking that I'll change up my current project. It's quite a challenge and that's exactly what I like!
Also, I have four Altec Lansing drivers that measure quite well in a small OB. I could consider using these.
Anyway, the Bose subwoofer is NOT small. In fact, it is HUGE and weighs a tonne. I went on the Bose site to pick up the actual size of their best acoustimass' module.
"Acoustimass module • 16 1/3"H x 8 1/8"W x 29 1/8"D • (41.5 x 20.7 x 74 cm) • 45 lbs. (20.5 kg) " This is the AM16 which is 6.1 and the AM10 (5.1) is "Acoustimass module • 16 1/3"H x 8 1/8"W x 25 1/3"D • (41.5 x 20.7 x 64.3 cm) • 35 lbs. (15.9 kg)" Pretty much what I'm trying to say, is that almost ANY half decently sized woofer will meet the size guideline. One could design it to be thin like the Bose acoustimass module too and, this may make for a "sleeker" system.
I am quite interested in this project now and I'm thinking that I'll change up my current project. It's quite a challenge and that's exactly what I like!
Also, I have four Altec Lansing drivers that measure quite well in a small OB. I could consider using these.
Attachments
Never mind, I Google'd it and found:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe....spectrumaudio.de/breit/ciare/ciarePA065.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe....spectrumaudio.de/breit/ciare/ciarePA065.html
get this speaker in a .4 liter enclosure, with it's 1mm xmax and 154hz fs, and your gonna have a system as crappy as bose, no matter what you do...
it could be the new line of thinkin', "design a system as crappy as bose for more money"
anyway i already talked too much for too little return
it could be the new line of thinkin', "design a system as crappy as bose for more money"
anyway i already talked too much for too little return
synergy said:
My thoughts exactly. I have a system running which is 2 litres per enclosure and seems to operate fine to 120Hz, with declining output from there to 80Hz. It should be possible to get the size down even further. Enclosure is a ceramic pot, which has a 70s feel to it. More so when the baffle gets the black leatherette treatment.
Colin
Attachments
i did actually consider the idea of using 6mm mdf braced in the corners with triangular shaped pieces then some form of cross bracing to give rigidity
it would be testing to construct right i know, but doing that would actually allow you to use the speaker itself as the baffle
something i'm not sure as to whether or not has been noted in this thread is that you can creat the illusion of a small box simply by having a small baffle you can then extend backwards to get the desired volume
a high gloss mirror like finish also helps with the small size illusion by reflecting it's surroundings making it almost disappear
it would be testing to construct right i know, but doing that would actually allow you to use the speaker itself as the baffle
something i'm not sure as to whether or not has been noted in this thread is that you can creat the illusion of a small box simply by having a small baffle you can then extend backwards to get the desired volume
a high gloss mirror like finish also helps with the small size illusion by reflecting it's surroundings making it almost disappear
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.