Hi folks,
As some of you may heve noticed, I have posted replies and had threads, where I asked about duggestions for making DIY speakers.
Everybody suggests me to make my first project from a well tried kit. However, I can't seem to find a suitable kit, using drivers that I have access to.
Thus, I would like to know what kind of measuring tools it takes to make it right.
Driver info's are available from the manufacturers (data sheets),
filter calculation programs are available on-line, and I am aware of problems such as baffle step and port calculations.
Furthermore, I have access to audio-band analysis hardware and measuring mic's from Brüel & Kjær. If needs be, I can also get access to ons of those rooms with no reflections (accoustic damping on all surfaces). (BTW: Is that what is called an anechoic chamber?)
My thought was to build a 2-way, ported, TMM configuration, crossing at about 2kHz. Maybe a 2.5 way?
I'd like to use the Peerless HDS164 mid-bass, and probably VIFA DX25 or XT25.
Have I missed any development tools, or other pitfalls?
Hoping for feed-back
Jennice
As some of you may heve noticed, I have posted replies and had threads, where I asked about duggestions for making DIY speakers.
Everybody suggests me to make my first project from a well tried kit. However, I can't seem to find a suitable kit, using drivers that I have access to.
Thus, I would like to know what kind of measuring tools it takes to make it right.
Driver info's are available from the manufacturers (data sheets),
filter calculation programs are available on-line, and I am aware of problems such as baffle step and port calculations.
Furthermore, I have access to audio-band analysis hardware and measuring mic's from Brüel & Kjær. If needs be, I can also get access to ons of those rooms with no reflections (accoustic damping on all surfaces). (BTW: Is that what is called an anechoic chamber?)
My thought was to build a 2-way, ported, TMM configuration, crossing at about 2kHz. Maybe a 2.5 way?
I'd like to use the Peerless HDS164 mid-bass, and probably VIFA DX25 or XT25.
Have I missed any development tools, or other pitfalls?
Hoping for feed-back
Jennice
Pitfall one- don't trust anything from manufacturers' data sheets for design purposes. You need to measure yourself with your particular drivers.
Pitfall two- you need to measure in your boxes.
Pitfall three- you need to look at on-axis AND off-axis. And you need to know relative driver acoustic center offsets.
Pitfall four- you need to measure impedances.
Pitfall five- you can't use simple crossover calculators unless your drivers are perfect resistor loads. They aren't.
Pitfall six- you have to take into account power handling and distortion, especially for the sort of low crossover frequency you're proposing.
Pitfall two- you need to measure in your boxes.
Pitfall three- you need to look at on-axis AND off-axis. And you need to know relative driver acoustic center offsets.
Pitfall four- you need to measure impedances.
Pitfall five- you can't use simple crossover calculators unless your drivers are perfect resistor loads. They aren't.
Pitfall six- you have to take into account power handling and distortion, especially for the sort of low crossover frequency you're proposing.
Thanks for your feedback 
You refer to T/S paramaters, right?
I can try to cross over before the woofer begins to show too much on/off axis difference, but other than that???
By accoustic centre offsets, I suppose you mean an angled baffle so the voice coils are aligned? (the closest thing to the real centre without getting really advanced?)
They're part of the manual driver measurements, suppose. I "read" you as saying that I cannot rely on the data sheet impedance of the unit, especially at x-over frequency?
I do have access to a 4 channel amp. Would an active x-over be a benefit regardless of design?
I suppose that you refer to the power handling of the tweeter (?). This is why I am thinking 2nd order or higher for filter, and a tweeter with fairly large cone area. Am I having the correct considerations, or is it something else?
Thanks-
Jennice
SY said:
You refer to T/S paramaters, right?
Repeating those measurements, or are you referring to something else? Overall frequency response of the system, using the first X-over attempt, is one of my plans.
I can try to cross over before the woofer begins to show too much on/off axis difference, but other than that???
By accoustic centre offsets, I suppose you mean an angled baffle so the voice coils are aligned? (the closest thing to the real centre without getting really advanced?)
They're part of the manual driver measurements, suppose. I "read" you as saying that I cannot rely on the data sheet impedance of the unit, especially at x-over frequency?
Are you suggesting some other tool, or the need for plain trial-and-error in the X-over? I know that an active X-over would make things easier and simpler to try/modify as components are cheaper.
I do have access to a 4 channel amp. Would an active x-over be a benefit regardless of design?
I suppose that you refer to the power handling of the tweeter (?). This is why I am thinking 2nd order or higher for filter, and a tweeter with fairly large cone area. Am I having the correct considerations, or is it something else?
Thanks-
Jennice
And impedance. And frequency response.
It's useful to know the frequency response of the raw driver in the proposed box before designing the crossover.
This is a matter of deciding ahead of time what you want the dispersion to look like (there are several schools of thought here), then seeing if your design meets your goals.
Angled baffles are one way of compensating for acoustic center offsets. There are other ways, too, but if you don't know what that offest is, you can't design the crossover properly. If you calculate the crossover assuming zero offset, you'll have some nasty surprises in the final frequency response. But if you include the offset in the crossover design, you may find that you don't need to do anything like baffle angling. This is yet another reason why simple crossover calculators are inadequate- you need some actual speaker CAD software (I use an ancient, creaky DOS-based program, CALSOD).
You may as well trust a politician as trust a data sheet impedance curve. Every once in a while, they tell the truth, but it's so rare that it's remarkable when it happens.
Active crossovers and multiamping are a matter of debate. I come down firmly on the "yes" side. Watts are cheap and easy these days. I haven't had the opportunity to use the new digital crossover systems, but I would absolutely do that if I were crazy enough to do another multi-way speaker design.
That's part of it. So's the tweeter resonance frequency. And the motor design.
Hey Jens,
SY is right, and especially with the Peerless woofers, you might as well measure them yourself than believe the datasheet specs. They're good drivers, but the specs are probaly considerably off. This would go for any driver out there. I just had a look at several FR plots of the DX tweeter from different sources, and both show a more severe HF rolloff than the datasheet would lead you to believe. That's why I just changed my mind to use MG tweeters instead (the ones with the 630Hz Fs).
To be more on topic, I have to say that to obtain proper driver measurements, you would need an anechoic chamber. While it is true that driver impedance does give sime indication of peaks and dips of FR, the less severe ones don't seem to show up.
Dmitriy
SY is right, and especially with the Peerless woofers, you might as well measure them yourself than believe the datasheet specs. They're good drivers, but the specs are probaly considerably off. This would go for any driver out there. I just had a look at several FR plots of the DX tweeter from different sources, and both show a more severe HF rolloff than the datasheet would lead you to believe. That's why I just changed my mind to use MG tweeters instead (the ones with the 630Hz Fs).
To be more on topic, I have to say that to obtain proper driver measurements, you would need an anechoic chamber. While it is true that driver impedance does give sime indication of peaks and dips of FR, the less severe ones don't seem to show up.
Dmitriy
Jennice,
There's enough online resouces to copy someone else's proven project without buying a kit. If you want to start from scratch and are willing to do the extra measurement work, it is possible and you don't need a special chamber to do it. To me in room measurements are much better than what they sound like in a chamber anyway, since that's where you are going to listen to them.
Keep in mind that your ears are the most sensitive instruments available. Once you get your drivers, break them in first. Then give them a listen using test tones and music using an EQ to hear what they do at different frequencies on and off axis. Measure them as well, to graphically see what you heard. Then determine your crossover.
Building speakers is a special blend of art and science, and if you apply only the science you may end up with speakers that don't sound good to you even though they may be perfect graphically.
There's enough online resouces to copy someone else's proven project without buying a kit. If you want to start from scratch and are willing to do the extra measurement work, it is possible and you don't need a special chamber to do it. To me in room measurements are much better than what they sound like in a chamber anyway, since that's where you are going to listen to them.
Keep in mind that your ears are the most sensitive instruments available. Once you get your drivers, break them in first. Then give them a listen using test tones and music using an EQ to hear what they do at different frequencies on and off axis. Measure them as well, to graphically see what you heard. Then determine your crossover.
Building speakers is a special blend of art and science, and if you apply only the science you may end up with speakers that don't sound good to you even though they may be perfect graphically.
reply for testing items,
I just read about the "jig" for testing. It looks simple, and probably reliable.
This link, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12989
Look through the posts, and follow the ones about the "jig", and the ones about the freeware software.
You asked for testing needs. Looks like here's a step above!
I'm glad to see so much high grade interest in this forum.
Thanks again all,
Greg
I just read about the "jig" for testing. It looks simple, and probably reliable.
This link, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12989
Look through the posts, and follow the ones about the "jig", and the ones about the freeware software.
You asked for testing needs. Looks like here's a step above!
I'm glad to see so much high grade interest in this forum.
Thanks again all,
Greg
Hi Jennice,
Less technical - more philosophical.
Would I be able to DIY decently? YES, in my experience the most important and most forgotten part of DIY is the D, for Do it!
Doing it adds a whole new dimension to the hobby, you could spend a lifetime on here formulating the best DIY, but your priorities and expectations would then quickly be re-arranged by actually doing it.
IMO a more pertinent question is WHY DIY? Challenge, sound quality, individual looking boxes, higher SQ than you can afford commercially, speakers tailored to your music/room, etc, etc. These are all good reasons for DIY. I think it would be helpful to decide what your priorities are for your DIY, and what you want to get from it, before starting.
You could build a technically very good pair of speakers, following all the very good advice offered thus far. Only to find you don't like how they sound because they are voiced wrongly for you/your type of music. This is where kit manufacturers with listening rooms come into their own. You can determine very quickly if the type of voicing chosen by the designer and certain drive unit manufacturers, suits your personal taste or not. This in essence, is the crux of speaker design, there's no right or wrong, just differences according to taste, at any given price/quality point.
Some personal observations about speaker design which may/may not, be interesting to you:
It's almost impossible to have one pair of speakers to suit a wide range of musical tastes. It's far easier and cheaper to have one target musical style for your design.
All the commercial speakers that stick in the memory for one reason or other tend to have been years in the development process.
Actively driven, high SPL, wide bandwidth monsters tend to get a lot more "wow" factor from the non-hi-fi types.
Drivers with a nice gentle roll-off (usually expensive) are easier to integrate into your design. Sometimes it's worth offseting the cost of the extra X-over components and time, against more expensive drivers to start with.
Above all - Have fun.
Less technical - more philosophical.
Would I be able to DIY decently? YES, in my experience the most important and most forgotten part of DIY is the D, for Do it!
Doing it adds a whole new dimension to the hobby, you could spend a lifetime on here formulating the best DIY, but your priorities and expectations would then quickly be re-arranged by actually doing it.
IMO a more pertinent question is WHY DIY? Challenge, sound quality, individual looking boxes, higher SQ than you can afford commercially, speakers tailored to your music/room, etc, etc. These are all good reasons for DIY. I think it would be helpful to decide what your priorities are for your DIY, and what you want to get from it, before starting.
You could build a technically very good pair of speakers, following all the very good advice offered thus far. Only to find you don't like how they sound because they are voiced wrongly for you/your type of music. This is where kit manufacturers with listening rooms come into their own. You can determine very quickly if the type of voicing chosen by the designer and certain drive unit manufacturers, suits your personal taste or not. This in essence, is the crux of speaker design, there's no right or wrong, just differences according to taste, at any given price/quality point.
Some personal observations about speaker design which may/may not, be interesting to you:
It's almost impossible to have one pair of speakers to suit a wide range of musical tastes. It's far easier and cheaper to have one target musical style for your design.
All the commercial speakers that stick in the memory for one reason or other tend to have been years in the development process.
Actively driven, high SPL, wide bandwidth monsters tend to get a lot more "wow" factor from the non-hi-fi types.
Drivers with a nice gentle roll-off (usually expensive) are easier to integrate into your design. Sometimes it's worth offseting the cost of the extra X-over components and time, against more expensive drivers to start with.
Above all - Have fun.
Mark,
Thank you for your "alternative", yet interesting post.
In terms of sound quality, do you think I could get better sound for the money by investing my own labour time, rather than buying some complete speaker? The shops have to earn a living, but so do the shops that sell DIY parts. This makes me wonder, if I'm just giving the money to someone else, in stead of saving the money. after all, manufacturers have the financial advantage of quantity.
On another note... What do you think of the drivers I suggested in my original post?
Thanks for the input
Jennice
Thank you for your "alternative", yet interesting post.
In terms of sound quality, do you think I could get better sound for the money by investing my own labour time, rather than buying some complete speaker? The shops have to earn a living, but so do the shops that sell DIY parts. This makes me wonder, if I'm just giving the money to someone else, in stead of saving the money. after all, manufacturers have the financial advantage of quantity.
On another note... What do you think of the drivers I suggested in my original post?
Thanks for the input
Jennice
Jennice said:
For ME, Yes. I looked at speakers in Hi-fi shops upto 2000 UKP to find the sound i was after. At this point i decided things were getting silly, so turned to kit manufacturers. I got MOST of the attributes i was looking for in a speaker kit for 550 UKP, (not all, that's why I mention having a target musical style). There is an approach to speaker kits which consists of putting very expensive drivers in simple cabinets. This works for ME, certainly the weakness’ of this approach are benign to MY ears and the benefits enormous. The neutral balance adopted by most kit manufacurers is another advantage for me, over the "boom 'n' tiss" offered by many commercial offreings.
OTOH, there is a school of thought that suggests musical magic is made by the perfect integration between two drivers, *almost* regardless of the driver's inherent quality. Small speakers that are in production for many years, tend to get this aspect of musical reproduction more right than most. Probably those same speakers that took years to develop in the first place!
EDIT: I was going to suggest a couple of great little 2-ways that are great at this IMO (at the risk of getting flamed). However, single driver speakers really lead the way in this respect, so are a good reference, although generally flawed in other ways. I'm even thinking of getting a single driver speaker as an integration reference for my 2/3-way designs.
/EDIT
Sorry i can't be more forthcoming, maybe it would be useful if you suggested a few commercial speakers that "float your boat", or not, as the case may be. Or, start with bargain basement drivers, in a common design on DIYAudio, and tell us what extra attributes you are looking for.
Jennice said:
I will leave it to other, MUCH more experienced members to comment on the relative quality of the drivers you have mentioned. There's nothing inherently wrong with either unit though. This guy, Benny Glass , in Antwerp is happy to share his opinion about different DIY drivers though, he's quite positive about the new Peerless range. There are more tips in the actual pricelist.
Good luck.
Seems like a few people are doing their best to scare you off Jennice. From what you describe, it appears you have far more resources at your disposal than many other DIYers.
If you are a passion for music, a desire to learn, time on your hands and don't mind getting them dirty, then I see no reason why you can't build yourself a great pair of speakers. Remember it's as much about the music as it is about learning and enjoying the journey.
There will be some initial investment in tools, materials and books. It's a bit daunting at first, but the satisfaction of building your own one-of-a-kind speakers and hearing music through them is immense.
Personally I'm not really into kits, because that leaves the fun part of design in someone elses hands, but if you're a little afraid to jump in head first , this may be an alternative.
I suggest you build yourself a couple of small 2 ways to start with, using, say, Vifa drivers and see how you go. Later, if you get more ambitious, you can build a big pair of MTMs, 3 ways, or transmission lines, and use your 2-ways as surround units.
And remember there are infinite resources on the net, and software available that makes it easier than ever.
Cheers
David
www.geocities.com/gattiweb
If you are a passion for music, a desire to learn, time on your hands and don't mind getting them dirty, then I see no reason why you can't build yourself a great pair of speakers. Remember it's as much about the music as it is about learning and enjoying the journey.
There will be some initial investment in tools, materials and books. It's a bit daunting at first, but the satisfaction of building your own one-of-a-kind speakers and hearing music through them is immense.
Personally I'm not really into kits, because that leaves the fun part of design in someone elses hands, but if you're a little afraid to jump in head first , this may be an alternative.
I suggest you build yourself a couple of small 2 ways to start with, using, say, Vifa drivers and see how you go. Later, if you get more ambitious, you can build a big pair of MTMs, 3 ways, or transmission lines, and use your 2-ways as surround units.
And remember there are infinite resources on the net, and software available that makes it easier than ever.
Cheers
David
www.geocities.com/gattiweb
Hi David and Mark,
I agree... It seemed that people tried to tell me my ideas are deemed to fail.
Yet, why would so many be discussing DIY speaker projects if it is next to impossible to make anything decent? That question kept nagging me, as I couldn't find an answer to it.
It's interesting to hear what sort of quality/price range is possible with trained DIY. However, my target would be a pair of speakers, probably a tweeter and two bass/mid's (2-way), in the range of UKP 200 per speaker.
I don't have "the JIG" (yet?) as I don't have a soundcard with enough output power to drive it. I understand that it needs some power from the sound card. I have an old SoundBlaster 16 PCI available, if that's suitable.
The other gear I have access to, includes microes and a measurement system: http://www.bksv.com/pdf/Bu0228.pdf
Thus, my idea was to build the speaker, as I imagine it to be, but keep an access to the cross-over. Then I'd apply a noise signal, and measure the spectrum. Based on this spectrum (and my ears), I'd adjust the values of the x-over.
Would that work?
Jennice
I agree... It seemed that people tried to tell me my ideas are deemed to fail.
Yet, why would so many be discussing DIY speaker projects if it is next to impossible to make anything decent? That question kept nagging me, as I couldn't find an answer to it.
It's interesting to hear what sort of quality/price range is possible with trained DIY. However, my target would be a pair of speakers, probably a tweeter and two bass/mid's (2-way), in the range of UKP 200 per speaker.
I don't have "the JIG" (yet?) as I don't have a soundcard with enough output power to drive it. I understand that it needs some power from the sound card. I have an old SoundBlaster 16 PCI available, if that's suitable.
The other gear I have access to, includes microes and a measurement system: http://www.bksv.com/pdf/Bu0228.pdf
Thus, my idea was to build the speaker, as I imagine it to be, but keep an access to the cross-over. Then I'd apply a noise signal, and measure the spectrum. Based on this spectrum (and my ears), I'd adjust the values of the x-over.
Would that work?
Jennice
The only problem with that plan is that good crossover parts aren't very cheap, so don't plan on buying a variety and trying different values until you get the right one.
Building, then measuring to determine the XO components to buy will work.
For 400 UKP you can build much better than a "decent" pair of speakers. You should check out Planet10's site and see what Dave builds for next to nothing.
Building, then measuring to determine the XO components to buy will work.
For 400 UKP you can build much better than a "decent" pair of speakers. You should check out Planet10's site and see what Dave builds for next to nothing.
Jennice said:
First, because speaker DIY is fun and challenging. If you design your own speaker for the first time and your objective is merely to have the best possible speaker out of available budget, forget it. Even with those advance hardwares and softwares you won't make anything decent.
But if you don't really need the fun and challenges, then build somebody else's works that had been proven. Lot's of hours, experiences and tools have been invested in good designs. And you don't need to invest another work to get the result.
johninCR said:
That's the positive side of speaker DIY
I was recently wondering the same thing. After lots of reading I ended up building something using a radio shack fullrange (fostex 103 type) and a 12 in driver I salvage from an older speaker with a simple inductor on the woofer. It sounds better then I ever expected a home build with 50 bucks worth of parts could ever sound.
It was a great way to learn and since there are lots of interesting designs for drivers like this I am finding lots of opportunities to experiment with various cabinet types and electrical wiring.
Full range driver are, IMHO, an excellent way to jump in without getting overwhelmed with complex crossover issues. They're cheap (well some are anyway), well documented, and sound good. You can always add more drivers to fill out the extreme ends if you want to experiment with crossovers.
The important thing from my point of view is do something simple and cheap that will get you excited about what can be done, and then tacke a more complicated project. There are tons of projects that will fit the bill
It was a great way to learn and since there are lots of interesting designs for drivers like this I am finding lots of opportunities to experiment with various cabinet types and electrical wiring.
Full range driver are, IMHO, an excellent way to jump in without getting overwhelmed with complex crossover issues. They're cheap (well some are anyway), well documented, and sound good. You can always add more drivers to fill out the extreme ends if you want to experiment with crossovers.
The important thing from my point of view is do something simple and cheap that will get you excited about what can be done, and then tacke a more complicated project. There are tons of projects that will fit the bill
Hi Jennice,
David recommended starting with a 2-way, i'd second that, you can always add an extra driver later.
The link you gave looks like a industrial data measurement system. Probably overkill, ruler flat F response is not essential. It appears to be only measuring in the F domain, for that lots of people here use Speaker Workshop by Audua. I use dazy web labs tms1, myself (no logic in that, just because!). These all need a decent mic, like Linkwitz modded panasonic module or a B&K if you have one to hand !!
IF..... the B&K equipment you linked measures in the time domain too, and you have access to an an anechoic chamber, then you're a long way ahead of most of us already!
Eric Wallin's JIG is a popular jig for measuring driver T/S parameters, there is another one with a built in power amp too, sorry; i can't find the link at the mo'
Rod Elliott's article about passive X-overs may be interesting to you, if you haven't already seen it.
David recommended starting with a 2-way, i'd second that, you can always add an extra driver later.
The link you gave looks like a industrial data measurement system. Probably overkill, ruler flat F response is not essential. It appears to be only measuring in the F domain, for that lots of people here use Speaker Workshop by Audua. I use dazy web labs tms1, myself (no logic in that, just because!). These all need a decent mic, like Linkwitz modded panasonic module or a B&K if you have one to hand !!
IF..... the B&K equipment you linked measures in the time domain too, and you have access to an an anechoic chamber, then you're a long way ahead of most of us already!
Eric Wallin's JIG is a popular jig for measuring driver T/S parameters, there is another one with a built in power amp too, sorry; i can't find the link at the mo'
Rod Elliott's article about passive X-overs may be interesting to you, if you haven't already seen it.
Mark25 said:
Yes, I'm thinking of a 2-way, probably with parallelled woofers - maybe of smallish size, to keep the baffle less wide, yet have the speaker move some air for bass.
This brings up (yet) another question... isn't it possible (and preferrable) to match the baffle step response with the cross-over frequency?
Yes, I do have access to an anechoic chamber, but I do wonder about it's use, since the speaker will never be used in such a chamber. Another thread somewhere mentiones this issue also.
Yes, the PULSE measurment system is industrial grade
...and it can be made to use time records.
Why, by the way, is this needed, when I really need the frequency-depencency of each driver? I don't intend to monitor it long enough for it to cook it's voice coil.
Yes, I also have a 3Hz - 50kHz mic at hand, although the measurement assembly I normally have access to, has a 25kHz BW.
Then again, I can probably borrow the 200kHz versions in the week-ends if needs be. (speaking of over-kill). It's not always that exciting, but at times it does help to work at B&K.
One of my thoughts was to use a white noise generator, a power amp, and series resistor, to get a response spectrum of each driver. This is basically what Rod talks about with his sweeps, isn't it? (To obtain driver parameter knowledge).
Another thought of mine is also mentioned by a fellow DIY'er in some thread elsewhere: The parameters we measure are on a non-broken-in driver. The thread stated somewhere, that once the driver was broken in, the specs got rather close to the manufacturers specs (within 2%), whereas they're way off when the speaker is new. So if I'm not going to rely on specs, I should break the drivers in, right? (letting them play noise for a number of hours).
Enough new questions for now... time to find my bed and call it a day. Tomorrow is a new day full of opportunities and duties at the QA office. Hopefully I'll get the task of breaking stuff again!
Well, officially, it's called QA testing according to standard test schemes, but if the designers haven't done their job well enough, it get's really fun!
Imagine... getting paid for breaking stuff!
Generally, the better the inherent driver quality, the nearer they end up to their advertised T/S specs, when run-in.
User Vikash has some interesting stuff about running in the Audax AP100Z0 on his site. http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/index.asp, it's also covered in the thread Maplins close-out on AP100Z0 but that's about 55 pages long or so........
Sorry i wasn't clear about the time thing, I meant the ability to measure the phase output of a driver. A drivers o/p changes in phase with F, driver physical position and X-over slopes also effect phase. This becomes important when you are summing the outputs of two drivers. There's some info on Rod's site here but as usual it's all thoeretical. For the beginner (like me) it's hard to determine the audable effect of these factors, weight them if you like. I guess that's where experience comes in. I'll stop now, before i dig myself into an even bigger hole............and mention something like; dispersion patterns.
User Vikash has some interesting stuff about running in the Audax AP100Z0 on his site. http://www.vikash.info/audio/audax/index.asp, it's also covered in the thread Maplins close-out on AP100Z0 but that's about 55 pages long or so........
Sorry i wasn't clear about the time thing, I meant the ability to measure the phase output of a driver. A drivers o/p changes in phase with F, driver physical position and X-over slopes also effect phase. This becomes important when you are summing the outputs of two drivers. There's some info on Rod's site here but as usual it's all thoeretical. For the beginner (like me) it's hard to determine the audable effect of these factors, weight them if you like. I guess that's where experience comes in. I'll stop now, before i dig myself into an even bigger hole............and mention something like; dispersion patterns.
Mark,
I don't intend to hold anything against you, in case my project shouldn't be successful. I appreciate any input, and any suggestions/advice I can get, but there's only one person to hold responsible for my project and progress - and that's ME
I'm trying to find as much material and info on this subject as possible, before getting out the wallet, but nhere's nobody else than me to weigh in the arguments and suggestions before deciding if/what to build.
Jennice
I don't intend to hold anything against you, in case my project shouldn't be successful. I appreciate any input, and any suggestions/advice I can get, but there's only one person to hold responsible for my project and progress - and that's ME
I'm trying to find as much material and info on this subject as possible, before getting out the wallet, but nhere's nobody else than me to weigh in the arguments and suggestions before deciding if/what to build.
Jennice
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.