What to build after Clone 2.5?

[zdr]

I have built ProAc clone 2.5 few weeks ago, as my first speaker project. I was hoping to get a speaker better than my ProAc Studio 125, and something close to D25.

After hours of all possible tweaks and changes (and total of 600 euros spent) I ended up with crossover 6.1, coated drivers and very carefully built cabinet. The result - a speaker worth exactly that much - 600 eur. Long way from D25 (don't know about original response 2.5) and somewhat below Studio 125, which I can sell now for about 900 eur second hand.

I went ahead, opened my factory built Studio 125 and I was amazed - lousy woven cored inductors, cheap electrolytes and wired resistors mounted on PCB. No felt damping on the walls, just cheap styrofoam. Goes without saying that interconnects were quite thin and cheap looking. And all that jumping all over my Clone, carefully made of quite good XO components and materials.

Being somewhat put off by this experience, I need some encouragement to move to new project I need to know if someone has built something after ProAc Clone and ended up with significantly better speaker, and what speaker that was. I am kind of tired of sparkling reviews without reference. "Amazing bass. incredible transparency..." - compared to what?

[tktran303]

Hi,

Before we give some recommendations for future projects, can you tell us some things about how your 2.5 clones sound, compared to your Studio 125?

I also have experience with the Studio 125. It was in fact this speaker that turned me onto the Response 2.5 and it's clone. To be honest, I think they sound more similar than different. The most obvious difference is that compared to the Studio 125, the 2.5/clone sounds like a larger speaker, with wider soundstage and more sense of space. The tonal balance is more or less the same.

As for crossover, as the clone project is now finalised, there's only two crossovers that can be recommended.

1) The original crossover- which I believe Al. M uses. For those who have heard the original Response 2.5, this will get you to closest to the original sound. I believe this is your best bet if you like the Studio 125 sound.



The other is Troels' final recommended crossover:


This is for those people who want to extract the most neutral performance from the ScanSpeak drivers. It deviates from the original sound, but has some merits of its own.

The third option is to use the 1.1" 9500 tweeter and revised filter network for the "2.95". This is most suitable for people who find the treble of the clone offensive or fatiguing.

[zdr]

Studio 125 has: wider soundstage, more detail, fuller and warmer mids, higher sensitivity. I can simply hear more things when Studio 125 is playing. I remember when I was auditioning Studio 125 in the shop, it devastated everything else in it's class with voice reproduction. I remember hearing D25 as the only one that was better in every way, with lower bass extension (but also with 5000 eur price tag).

I was thinking that maybe Clone's cabinet is overstuffed (3cm Sonofil, on top of 4mm bitumen felt pads from Intertechnik), but haven't tried to experiment because the box is sealed.

Second potential problem could be XO that is too tightly built and placed directly behind midwoofer (with Sonofil in between), but after seeing 125's cheap XO, it does make me wonder.

I used v1 crossover from Troels site and now I am on 6.1, with Damar coatings on midwoofer and tweeter.

I am running both with Vincent SV-236 hybrid amp and Original CD2008SE, connected with 5.5m CAT5 cable.

[rabbitz]

Originally posted by zdr

Being somewhat put off by this experience, I need some encouragement to move to new project I need to know if someone has built something after ProAc Clone and ended up with significantly better speaker, and what speaker that was. I am kind of tired of sparkling reviews without reference. "Amazing bass. incredible transparency..." - compared to what?

Design your own.

Don't be ambitious to start with like speakers for the computer etc.... then progress. You never know what you'll achieve.

Go from builder to designer as it's more fun (and frustrating).

[rkreim]

i would like to recomend these speakers as i have just built them
and i am very pleased with them
http://hem.bredband.net/b227650/galtis/galtisstart.htm

[zdr]

They look interesting, probably based on Scan Speak Reference Plus kit. I like the not-too-overdone XO.

http://www.audiocomponents.nl/speake...ref-plus_4.htm

[tktran303]

Studio 125 has: wider soundstage, more detail, fuller and warmer mids, higher sensitivity. I can simply hear more things when Studio 125 is playing.

I remember hearing D25 as the only one that was better in every way, with lower bass extension

Hmmm. Something is wrong here.

Apart from the lower sensitivity, you could substitute the word 'D25' with 2.5 in what you have written. That is, the Response 2.5 and clone that I heard, IS better in every way, especially in the bass extension.

I don't mean to sound prissy, but have you double, triple checked your crossover?All other It is fairly elaborate, and easy to miswiring is common (I think we've all done it at some point in our speakerbuilding adventures)

Is the DCR of the big indcuctors correct? (0.2 to 0.3 ohms?)
All other crossover parts correct specfication?

With the cabinet construction- have you followed the specifications closely?

Did you follow Troel's cabinet design or Al M's. It's best to stick with one or the other. As soon as you mix or match you are introducing other variables that may (or may not) give good results. But the real problem troubleshooting will be difficult if you've mixed and matched. If this is the case, then you are left to experiemtn with trial and error.

You say your speakers are sealed. I hope you meant that the cabinets are closed up, not that it is a sealed cabinet. This speaker must be ported, and to me sounds "shut in" and thin if the vent is blocked off or the cabinet is closed. What are the vent dimenions? This is not too critical, but it is possible to hit the correct 38Hz tuning point with either Al and Troel's recommended port dimensions. In room bass response is affected by room size and other factors, hence subjective performance may be affected speaker placement (different distance from front wall, distance from side walls).

Overstuffing is a common issue, because there are too many variables and issues with sourcing the correct type. Do you have the correct density (200 g/m^2) of Dacron? Remember to keep the port clear, and there is to be no stuffing on the front baffle. If in doubt, experiment and remove stuffing.

[zdr]

1) dimension of the cabinet is original one with 2cm increased depth only, to 225+24+18= 267. Front baffle is 24mm thick with unchanged dimensions, back and everything else is 18mm. No damping on front. Don't think this can affect resolution and imaging.

2) XO must be OK by now, and all inductors are with DCR<0.2 (only 1.8mh is cored). This is already a second version. Mox 10W, Audyn Cap. It's all mounted on biwire port, so it is a bit tight construction, but no inductor's axes are crossed, paralleled or aligned

3) I did not use Dacron, but Sonofil. Audiocomponents' representative advised that this is the similar density material (quite light and fluffy). It's difficult to experiment now with this through the midwoofer hole box walls are glued.

4) port is 76mm internal diameter, 140mm long and completely free.

[kevyjo]

I might be horribly arrogant sounding here, but It sounds to me like there is something wrong with the ProAc 2.5 or studio 125's basic design. Reading the reviews, even those who love them admit to having to tweak them and change equipment, etc, to tame their "revealing" nature. I think the problem is falling in love with the "sound" of a loudspeaker. I have done this too, but then i realized that a really great loudspeaker has no "sound", it simply is a faithful slave to the rest of the system. Other two ways I've heard sound very exiting and impressive in comparison, but that is the prob. When a speaker sounds more exiting and impressive than reality, listening fatigue is soon to follow.
I must admit, they are SEXY looking speakers, I love the elegance of the tall, slim, floorstanding two way. My signet 280BL's are ugly and blocky looking in comparison, but they are sonically beautiful (and VERY well made inside, heavy bracing, very well made crossover). I could have gotten the floorstanding 280ex version of them with wood veneer, and regret not doing that.
Anyway, I think the secrets to the full range two-way are drivers with flat, broad frequency responses and a very simple siries crossover. In all honesty, I don't know if the signets use the series crossover, but im 99% sure because of the sonic characteristics. I would describe the sound as totally coherent, transparent, emotionally envoving and dynamic. I know i said that they come close to sounding "like nothing at all", they will easily show any change in other equipment, but I think tend to show the strenghts of the equipment more than the weaknesses. In other words, you could hook them up to 15W tubs, 1000W pass labs monoblocks, or a cheap reciever, and they will be forgiving of the cheap stuff, but transparent to the good stuff. And they were only $600.00.
So as far as your prob, I would suggest looking at something like the "cygnet" kit from madisound, or a design with Seas good standard drivers and poly or paper 6.5 or 8" woofers. There seems like there could be a few combinations that would work well, and be soooo much cheaper than the 2.5 clone, and less fatiguing to listen to.

[zdr]

Well, if the speaker is going to keep me low on excitement by hiding "unecessary" details, I'd say no thanks - I prefer a heart atack. Sorry if I missed the point On a serious note, there is something in your story - my clones are kinda laid back, maybe that's the way they are made to be. But lack of detail really hearts my feelings. I wonder, is there anyone outhere who likes the lack of transparency and detail? (Or is it maybe that lower sensitivity that is fooling me...hmm)

What I was hoping for here is maybe some personal experience from people that built Clone and something else (better, worse or just different). I chose Clone because it's supposed to be simple, cheap enough for first project and should have resembled something I heard and owned. I don't have the b***s to go for >1k euro project without any idea what I will end up with.

Oh yes - that time in the shop two years ago when I listened to Studio 125, D25, Sonus Faber, B&W and others, I asked them to plug in JMLAB Utopia, just for fun. Guess what? I was not impressed (just so you know what kind of wirdo you are dealing with here

One interesting thing - I tried different spike configurations for Clone and Studio125. Clone just ignores whatever I put under and sings it's own (I have installed 36mm plate underneath), but Studio goes to life with spikes. Damping of the S125 is very light, without felt and with 2cm polyester foam - Clone on the other hand is heavily damped with 4mm bitumen pads and 30mm Sonofil.

I am tempted now to build new Clone box (almost?) to Troels specs which I will damp more lightly and keep open for experiments. One MDF board costs 20 eur only (with free cutting) so it can be done fairly quickly. I just might be one of those guys who like their boxes less dead.