I'm an active home recordist, and have tinkered
a little bit with speaker building, fixing up
some old speakers for my friends. I've decided
to get more ambitious and try my luck at
building some nearfield monitors. I've
auditioned many of the popular nearfields in my
local music stores, and found that most of them
tend to have their own "designer" sound, and
aren't really neutral. Many of them are lacking
in deep bass as well. The ones that did impress
me, such as the better Tannoys and Dynaudios,
cost more than I'm interested in spending.
To get started I read Ray Alden's "Advanced
Speaker Systems", and found it entertaining.
I'm looking to make an acoustic suspension
speaker, and checked out his explaination of
how the system Qtc affects the transient and
bass response. Not knowing if I perfer better
transients over flatter response, I designed
a speaker cabinet that I can stack flat boards
inside, so that I can adjust the internal
volume. I'm using an 8" woofer, so my test
cabinet has an internal volume of 1 cubic foot,
and I should be able to adjust it down to less
than half that. I'm making the front baffel
replaceable, so that I can use it with other
driver combinations down the road. Hopefully,
my ears will be able to tell me what the best
cabinet volume for my woofers will be, as
opposed to choosing a cabinet volume based on
mathematic calculations.
For my drivers, I picked out an 8" carbon fiber
woofer from MCM electronics, catalog #55-1550,
and ordered a pair of the Dynavox D2801XL
tweeters from them as well. Just to test out
the drivers in my cabinet, I will be using an
off the shelf crossover, 12db/oct at 3500 Hz.
I may need some guidance on a better crossover
a little later. I'm also not opposed to using
different drivers, if I'm not happy with what
I hear.
Well, I was just hoping that some of you may be
able to critique my project and driver
selection. I'm going to start assembling my
test cabinet later tonight.
a little bit with speaker building, fixing up
some old speakers for my friends. I've decided
to get more ambitious and try my luck at
building some nearfield monitors. I've
auditioned many of the popular nearfields in my
local music stores, and found that most of them
tend to have their own "designer" sound, and
aren't really neutral. Many of them are lacking
in deep bass as well. The ones that did impress
me, such as the better Tannoys and Dynaudios,
cost more than I'm interested in spending.
To get started I read Ray Alden's "Advanced
Speaker Systems", and found it entertaining.
I'm looking to make an acoustic suspension
speaker, and checked out his explaination of
how the system Qtc affects the transient and
bass response. Not knowing if I perfer better
transients over flatter response, I designed
a speaker cabinet that I can stack flat boards
inside, so that I can adjust the internal
volume. I'm using an 8" woofer, so my test
cabinet has an internal volume of 1 cubic foot,
and I should be able to adjust it down to less
than half that. I'm making the front baffel
replaceable, so that I can use it with other
driver combinations down the road. Hopefully,
my ears will be able to tell me what the best
cabinet volume for my woofers will be, as
opposed to choosing a cabinet volume based on
mathematic calculations.
For my drivers, I picked out an 8" carbon fiber
woofer from MCM electronics, catalog #55-1550,
and ordered a pair of the Dynavox D2801XL
tweeters from them as well. Just to test out
the drivers in my cabinet, I will be using an
off the shelf crossover, 12db/oct at 3500 Hz.
I may need some guidance on a better crossover
a little later. I'm also not opposed to using
different drivers, if I'm not happy with what
I hear.
Well, I was just hoping that some of you may be
able to critique my project and driver
selection. I'm going to start assembling my
test cabinet later tonight.
crossover
I feel that if you use an 8 inch bass/mid range driver , you should crossover earlier - possibly 2000 Hz. That is because I find that many 8 inch drivers are not very good going higher than that. You could use a 3 order crossover for the tweeter to protect it when you crossover at a lower frequency. But there are no hard and fast rules and you can just rig up the system and see how it sounds.
Don't forget that drive units take several days - if not weeks - to break in and sound consistent and generally better than when they are new. So I would guess you have two to three months of listening to do before you can come to any reasonable conclusion about the system you have now. You can tweak along the way of course !
Cheers.
I feel that if you use an 8 inch bass/mid range driver , you should crossover earlier - possibly 2000 Hz. That is because I find that many 8 inch drivers are not very good going higher than that. You could use a 3 order crossover for the tweeter to protect it when you crossover at a lower frequency. But there are no hard and fast rules and you can just rig up the system and see how it sounds.
Don't forget that drive units take several days - if not weeks - to break in and sound consistent and generally better than when they are new. So I would guess you have two to three months of listening to do before you can come to any reasonable conclusion about the system you have now. You can tweak along the way of course !
Cheers.
Precise tool
http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_124972_1594crx.aspx
Notice how CLOSE the tweeter and woofer are placed,
to get sound coming from one point
DynAudio Audience 42 has gotten Great Reviews!tbla said:
http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_124972_1594crx.aspx
Notice how CLOSE the tweeter and woofer are placed,
to get sound coming from one point
Attachments
neutral recording studio sound.......
just doesn't exist.
A good monitor doesn't have to be neutral, it has to be an average of what you called 'designer sounds'.
Main reason is that what you recorded should sound 'nice and pleasing' on a transistor radio, a walkman, a mainstream car radio, an average hifi installation and a $100,000 high-end stuff.
Indeed, depending on the kind of music you're recording, popular music is more important to sound good on lower-end stuff (some bass- and treble-boost), classical and acoustical music should be more high-endish (neutral, flat).
If you got the best speakers on this planet, I guess you recordings will (and could) not be appriciated by many people, just because they will not be able to hear it the way you did.
One other important thing monitors need to be: analitical. Just to show you everything is right on it where it should be AND in the right proportion.
just doesn't exist.
A good monitor doesn't have to be neutral, it has to be an average of what you called 'designer sounds'.
Main reason is that what you recorded should sound 'nice and pleasing' on a transistor radio, a walkman, a mainstream car radio, an average hifi installation and a $100,000 high-end stuff.
Indeed, depending on the kind of music you're recording, popular music is more important to sound good on lower-end stuff (some bass- and treble-boost), classical and acoustical music should be more high-endish (neutral, flat).
If you got the best speakers on this planet, I guess you recordings will (and could) not be appriciated by many people, just because they will not be able to hear it the way you did.
One other important thing monitors need to be: analitical. Just to show you everything is right on it where it should be AND in the right proportion.
The thing about near-field monitors is that they are near-field. It is very hard to get a tweeter & a midbass to integrate when you are sitting close to it. So i will suggest another approach. A woofer + a mid tweeter. There are now quite a few very good little fullrange drivers that you could use as a midtweeter with an XO somewhere betwen 100 & 250 Hz, then add a woofer/sub below that (you could use your existing 8"). Ideally this would be bi-amped. There are TagBands, HiVi, Fostex, and of course the Jordan JX92.
Here is a thread on some interesting 1.5 ways w 3" TagBands.
dave
Here is a thread on some interesting 1.5 ways w 3" TagBands.
dave
There was an interesting powered near field monitor shootout at http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/0B7FAE7ED3205D3C86256AE100044F41
All 10 monitors examined are two way bi-amped (internal amps) and use 8" woofers.
Might want to read what Rip had to say. Even if you want to make your own it might be helpful to take a look at some commercially available speakers designed specifically for this purpose.
Phil
All 10 monitors examined are two way bi-amped (internal amps) and use 8" woofers.
Might want to read what Rip had to say. Even if you want to make your own it might be helpful to take a look at some commercially available speakers designed specifically for this purpose.
Phil
haldor said:
Interesting article.
Actually he says 8 out of 10 use 8", the roland he specs as a 6 and the Tannoy he doesn't say (Tannoy has a 6 & an 8 dual-concentric).
I wonder how the Fostex NF1 would fare in his comparison.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
Hi Dave,
You're right about only 8 of 10 using 8" woofers. It's been a while since I read the article and I was paraphrasing from the introduction.
I have listened to the Mackie's and they are excellent sounding speakers. Very smooth, extended bass response. I am still trying to track down someplace I can hear the Dynaudio's. I have a pair of the Yamaha MP5 (5" woofer, 1" dome tweeter) bi-amped, powered monitors. They are decent sounding speakers with a lot of mid-range punch (Rip was right on the money about that), but they lack bass response. Well what do you expect for $450.
Actually I was just as interested in what Rip had to say about the qualities that make a monitor useful as I was in his opinions about the performance of each speaker. I thought it was a fair and insightful review.
Phil
You're right about only 8 of 10 using 8" woofers. It's been a while since I read the article and I was paraphrasing from the introduction.
I have listened to the Mackie's and they are excellent sounding speakers. Very smooth, extended bass response. I am still trying to track down someplace I can hear the Dynaudio's. I have a pair of the Yamaha MP5 (5" woofer, 1" dome tweeter) bi-amped, powered monitors. They are decent sounding speakers with a lot of mid-range punch (Rip was right on the money about that), but they lack bass response. Well what do you expect for $450.
Actually I was just as interested in what Rip had to say about the qualities that make a monitor useful as I was in his opinions about the performance of each speaker. I thought it was a fair and insightful review.
Phil
Re: DynAudio again!
Actually the model tested was the Dynaudio BM6A. It scored a 10 on sound quality but received an A- on the overall score. The Mackie received the highest overall score.
Here is a picture of the Dynaudio (I hope).
halojoy said:
Looks to me, a Dynaudio came out as their test-favourite.
What did I tell you
DynAudio Audience 42, I said
Actually the model tested was the Dynaudio BM6A. It scored a 10 on sound quality but received an A- on the overall score. The Mackie received the highest overall score.
Here is a picture of the Dynaudio (I hope).
Attachments
The recording studio I have just finished building all the cabinetry for, has just bought a pair of 12" Tannoy Monitor Golds on my recommendation and are very pleased with them.
Because they are very much an analogue studio, with loads of valve kit, along with the odd Roland Space Echo, and Wem Copicat, It was a commercial decision for them to buy accurate, yet approriate speakers for monitoring. The Tannoys are very defined, accurate, due to the concentric design, but have the sound that the clients and their producers/management want to hear.
However, they also have a pair of really cheap and nasty speakers taken from a boom box that can be used to simulate the listening enviroment of most broadcast music, which is a really good idea, and dead cheap to implement.
Because they are very much an analogue studio, with loads of valve kit, along with the odd Roland Space Echo, and Wem Copicat, It was a commercial decision for them to buy accurate, yet approriate speakers for monitoring. The Tannoys are very defined, accurate, due to the concentric design, but have the sound that the clients and their producers/management want to hear.
However, they also have a pair of really cheap and nasty speakers taken from a boom box that can be used to simulate the listening enviroment of most broadcast music, which is a really good idea, and dead cheap to implement.
from what i understand most near field monitors mate a 8" with a 1" yet most audiophile monitor type speakers mate a 6" with a 1". why?
the 6" might integrate better (lighter cone)?
there are plenty of 6" that cna handle 100W+ and for a monitor does one really need 100W. after all you are about 6 ft from the speaker at most i would assume monitors that are placed this close would make do with 4-5" midwoofers equallised to boost the bass end. the smaller drivers would have better integration with the tweeter, beam less, and manage with lower order slopes.
BTW halojoy, I have tried chamfering the woofer so that the tweeter is as close to the woofer center but this construction is diffcult with heavymatrix type bracing. i find that at 10 feet + it is not too bad if teh woofer and tweeter are 1" apart so one can add bracing between the drivers.
the 6" might integrate better (lighter cone)?
there are plenty of 6" that cna handle 100W+ and for a monitor does one really need 100W. after all you are about 6 ft from the speaker at most i would assume monitors that are placed this close would make do with 4-5" midwoofers equallised to boost the bass end. the smaller drivers would have better integration with the tweeter, beam less, and manage with lower order slopes.
BTW halojoy, I have tried chamfering the woofer so that the tweeter is as close to the woofer center but this construction is diffcult with heavymatrix type bracing. i find that at 10 feet + it is not too bad if teh woofer and tweeter are 1" apart so one can add bracing between the drivers.
I apreciate all of the responses, and don't
mind if a few people are skeptical. First off,
I'm building these speakers for my personal
home studio. If I was running a comercial studio
with paying clients, it would be essential to
have an industry standard pair of nearfields,
that people are familiar with. Some producers
will even bring their own pair of nearfields to
a studio, if they don't like what the studio
has, but most people will not want to record
in a studio if they don't like or trust the
monitors.
I understand the importance of mixes having
to sound good on a variety of playback systems.
In my studio I have a pair of the Radio Shack
Minimus 7s, and a small pair of two way JBL
bookshelf speakers powered by a vintage Kenwood
receiver. I check my mixes on these speakers to
get an aproximation of how they will perform
on consumer playback systems. For my main
monitors, I'm using a pair of Altec 604s, in
their origional grey hammertone cabinets,
powered by a McIntosh amp. I feel this gives
me an industry proven monitor system. I would
like to compliment these with a pair of
nearfields, but it seems I would have to spend
upwards of $800 to get something that I would
be pleased with.
I started putting together my home studio about
two years ago. It's a long term project, because
aquiring all the equipment takes a lot of money.
I've been very careful with my equipment
selections, because I'm not going to be able to
make good recordings if I skimp on qulity. I'm
using a computer based 24 bit multitrack
recording system, and have also purchased very
high quality microphones and preamplifiers, along
with a variety of dynamics and effects processors.
Now, I'm nearly finished with my purchasing.
In order to have full use of all of my equipment,
I have to install it into rack mounted cabinets,
and wire it into patch panels. I'm going to be
building my own rackmount cabinets, so the
speaker building is also going to help me
improve my carpentry skills as well.
In my opinion, the most important qualities for
a studio monitor should be reliability and
accuracy. Also important to me, is that making
recordings requires a lot of close critical
linstening, which is much different than casual
music listening. I've found monitors that have
hyped designer sounds, are good for revealing
certain flaws in recordings, but after several
hours of critical listening, the hyped sounds
start to batter my ears. Listener fatigue is the
one pitfall I want to avoid most. I feel I can
best achieve this by selecting components that
are most pleasing to my ears.
Since all nearfield monitors tend to sound a
little different, it generally takes some time
for an engineer to get aclimated to them when
using them for the first time. This process
generally involves listening back to refernce
recordings, to get an idea how a good mix will
sound on the new speakers. Afterwards some test
recordings will be made with the monitors, to
see how well the mixes made with those speakers
will translate onto other stereo systems.
I'm confident that I can be successful in my
venture, although I do expect it to be a trial
and error proccess.
mind if a few people are skeptical. First off,
I'm building these speakers for my personal
home studio. If I was running a comercial studio
with paying clients, it would be essential to
have an industry standard pair of nearfields,
that people are familiar with. Some producers
will even bring their own pair of nearfields to
a studio, if they don't like what the studio
has, but most people will not want to record
in a studio if they don't like or trust the
monitors.
I understand the importance of mixes having
to sound good on a variety of playback systems.
In my studio I have a pair of the Radio Shack
Minimus 7s, and a small pair of two way JBL
bookshelf speakers powered by a vintage Kenwood
receiver. I check my mixes on these speakers to
get an aproximation of how they will perform
on consumer playback systems. For my main
monitors, I'm using a pair of Altec 604s, in
their origional grey hammertone cabinets,
powered by a McIntosh amp. I feel this gives
me an industry proven monitor system. I would
like to compliment these with a pair of
nearfields, but it seems I would have to spend
upwards of $800 to get something that I would
be pleased with.
I started putting together my home studio about
two years ago. It's a long term project, because
aquiring all the equipment takes a lot of money.
I've been very careful with my equipment
selections, because I'm not going to be able to
make good recordings if I skimp on qulity. I'm
using a computer based 24 bit multitrack
recording system, and have also purchased very
high quality microphones and preamplifiers, along
with a variety of dynamics and effects processors.
Now, I'm nearly finished with my purchasing.
In order to have full use of all of my equipment,
I have to install it into rack mounted cabinets,
and wire it into patch panels. I'm going to be
building my own rackmount cabinets, so the
speaker building is also going to help me
improve my carpentry skills as well.
In my opinion, the most important qualities for
a studio monitor should be reliability and
accuracy. Also important to me, is that making
recordings requires a lot of close critical
linstening, which is much different than casual
music listening. I've found monitors that have
hyped designer sounds, are good for revealing
certain flaws in recordings, but after several
hours of critical listening, the hyped sounds
start to batter my ears. Listener fatigue is the
one pitfall I want to avoid most. I feel I can
best achieve this by selecting components that
are most pleasing to my ears.
Since all nearfield monitors tend to sound a
little different, it generally takes some time
for an engineer to get aclimated to them when
using them for the first time. This process
generally involves listening back to refernce
recordings, to get an idea how a good mix will
sound on the new speakers. Afterwards some test
recordings will be made with the monitors, to
see how well the mixes made with those speakers
will translate onto other stereo systems.
I'm confident that I can be successful in my
venture, although I do expect it to be a trial
and error proccess.
***In my opinion, the most important qualities for
a studio monitor should be reliability and
accuracy***
***Listener fatigue is the
one pitfall I want to avoid most***
don't spend a fortune on your recording equipment and then
buy som "plastic-monitors"
i say : go for the atc speakers and get the biggest you can afford....!
good luck
a studio monitor should be reliability and
accuracy***
***Listener fatigue is the
one pitfall I want to avoid most***
don't spend a fortune on your recording equipment and then
buy som "plastic-monitors"
i say : go for the atc speakers and get the biggest you can afford....!
good luck
Adire
Have you checked out Adire? www.adireaudio.com
I live in Seattle and last Friday I went down to Adire to check them out. Dan was _really_ nice and demoed the HE12.1 for me. The listening conditions were not optimal (sitting on the floor of an empty warehouse), but I was impressed nontheless. Also, these were the sealed option, and I think I would go vented with them. I'm actually thinking about building the 10.1s (vented) for a friend and the demo pair were out on loan, but I will get to try those in a good room next week. These are dual concentric monitor speakers, and are the closest thing I have come across to a "poor man's Tannoy" (I love my DMT-8s). The 10" kit is only $299/pr for everything but the wood!
Dan tells me that the 10.1s as well as the dome tweeter Kit81 and Kit281 are installed in several local recording studios and colleges as nearfields.
A kit might be a good middle ground between pure DIY and professionally manufactured monitors as far as results are concerned.
Also don't overlook a used set of Tannoys, I scored mine on the cheap at a hifi store and I will NEVER get rid of them.
Have you checked out Adire? www.adireaudio.com
I live in Seattle and last Friday I went down to Adire to check them out. Dan was _really_ nice and demoed the HE12.1 for me. The listening conditions were not optimal (sitting on the floor of an empty warehouse), but I was impressed nontheless. Also, these were the sealed option, and I think I would go vented with them. I'm actually thinking about building the 10.1s (vented) for a friend and the demo pair were out on loan, but I will get to try those in a good room next week. These are dual concentric monitor speakers, and are the closest thing I have come across to a "poor man's Tannoy" (I love my DMT-8s). The 10" kit is only $299/pr for everything but the wood!
Dan tells me that the 10.1s as well as the dome tweeter Kit81 and Kit281 are installed in several local recording studios and colleges as nearfields.
A kit might be a good middle ground between pure DIY and professionally manufactured monitors as far as results are concerned.
Also don't overlook a used set of Tannoys, I scored mine on the cheap at a hifi store and I will NEVER get rid of them.
one more thing
I forgot:
I got to hear the Rava subwoofer which has a "warm yet controlled" sound and is pretty much ideal for the average person's home theater system IMO. Good looking too.
On the high end of the low end spectrum, the prototype Tumult sub driver had me picking my jaw off the floor. This thing is absofrickinglutely amazing with linear excursion that surpasses anything out there. Someday it will be mine!
I forgot:
I got to hear the Rava subwoofer which has a "warm yet controlled" sound and is pretty much ideal for the average person's home theater system IMO. Good looking too.
On the high end of the low end spectrum, the prototype Tumult sub driver had me picking my jaw off the floor. This thing is absofrickinglutely amazing with linear excursion that surpasses anything out there. Someday it will be mine!
planet10
Fs 125 Hz is very low for 3"
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=W3871S
Those 3" used in the 1.5way system looks interestingplanet10 said:
Fs 125 Hz is very low for 3"
http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=W3871S
Attachments
Those TagBands look very tempting. It bet they
would be pretty good to pair with my woofer
in the test box, so I can see how the woofer
performs at different crossover frequencies.
The cabinet construction has been a little
tricky. Mitering four sides of a box and getting
all the corners to fit squarely is not so easy.
I'm using a 10" Delta table saw, that's in the
factory where I work, but I'm doing the gluing
and assembly at home. I started by making my
boards a little oversized just to see how things
would fit. When I got the pieces home, and put
them in my framing clamps, I found my 45 degree
angle was a little off, and the boards were not
quite square. I went back, and checked the rake
on the saw with a carpenter's square. I found
that normally it's off by one or two degrees,
unless you clamp it down very carefully. I also
made a template, so that I can get the saw blade
at a perfect 45 degree angle. I trimed a little
of each side off the boards, to square them up,
then cut them down to the final dimensions.
The final results were good enough for my
prototype cabinet, but I'll have to get better
at this for my finished boxes.
I'll get the front and back panels cut before
the weekend. The stackable boards that I made
are cut to the inside dimension of the box,
and fit snugly, but are easy enough to slide
in and out. Since the front baffle board will
be replaceable, it will be easy for me to play
around with different drivers. Hopefully I'll be
doing some sound checks early next week.
would be pretty good to pair with my woofer
in the test box, so I can see how the woofer
performs at different crossover frequencies.
The cabinet construction has been a little
tricky. Mitering four sides of a box and getting
all the corners to fit squarely is not so easy.
I'm using a 10" Delta table saw, that's in the
factory where I work, but I'm doing the gluing
and assembly at home. I started by making my
boards a little oversized just to see how things
would fit. When I got the pieces home, and put
them in my framing clamps, I found my 45 degree
angle was a little off, and the boards were not
quite square. I went back, and checked the rake
on the saw with a carpenter's square. I found
that normally it's off by one or two degrees,
unless you clamp it down very carefully. I also
made a template, so that I can get the saw blade
at a perfect 45 degree angle. I trimed a little
of each side off the boards, to square them up,
then cut them down to the final dimensions.
The final results were good enough for my
prototype cabinet, but I'll have to get better
at this for my finished boxes.
I'll get the front and back panels cut before
the weekend. The stackable boards that I made
are cut to the inside dimension of the box,
and fit snugly, but are easy enough to slide
in and out. Since the front baffle board will
be replaceable, it will be easy for me to play
around with different drivers. Hopefully I'll be
doing some sound checks early next week.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.