That is also a good suggestion, I think it would be best to XO at about 80Hz to a 6.5" woofer/mid and 2kHz to a good tweeter. The only problem is building a 80Hz passive XO, for 300Hz it is quite large already. For that I think it would be best to bi-amp with an active XO at 80Hz and passive XO at 2kHz.
The W16EX or W18EX will also make very good midrange drivers if you don't XO too high, there is just something in the magnesium cones that talk to me.
The only issue with Magnesium cones is that you will need to use extremely good electronics or else they will not sound their best and will, IMO, be less than a great seaker system for the majority of the users. The Nextel or the paper coned Seas drivers would make much more sense in a speaker that I thought was the thrust of the project. "Extremely good cost effective reference". Just my thoughts on the project
I used to be a part time reseller and ran an online loudspeaker component business for several years. Helped to lower costs of my own projects as well as provide lower prices for builders in Oz. It was non profit and the markup was only to cover my costs. It worked out at 1.6% profit which is a tad over non profit.
Was a shame when your site went away, but I can appreciate the time it must have taken away from family etc... for as you say close enough to no profit. Are all your designs still hosted somewhere, I remember they were hosted by someone else for awhile, but I don't know if they are still available somewhere.
The only issue with Magnesium cones is that you will need to use extremely good electronics or else they will not sound their best and will, IMO, be less than a great seaker system for the majority of the users. The Nextel or the paper coned Seas drivers would make much more sense in a speaker that I thought was the thrust of the project. "Extremely good cost effective reference". Just my thoughts on the project
Yes, my reply was to Navin talking about an Excel version. I guess if one spend that much on drivers, the rest of the system will be good also.
The object is to make a speaker that as many DIYers can build which means keeping costs down to sane levels. Once this speaker is done an Excel version (with maybe an Excel midrange) might be attempted and later even a HT/AV version which would then involve using an Excel Midbass instead of a midrange.
Navin ; you've nailed it down to the important point, it is a learning project I suppose.
I'm glad to see you on board
Regards
Ted
I think that credit should go to Andre Visser who nailed down a set of drivers that compliment each other in post 89.
Personally I'd like to see the 26RFX and 27TFFC to go with the MCA15RCY but the design can be done to accomodate the the 27TDFC and 26RE4X as well.
This speaker will be a learning curve for many. One reason why a 2 x 10" sealed version might be the one easiest to build (sealed boxes are most tolerant of build/design deviations).
Cost of this combo from hasaudio's website (NZ dollars)
2 x 26RFX = $430
1 x MCA15 = $100
1 x 27TFFC = $60
---------------
$590 each side for drivers alone.
$100 for XO
$200 for cabinet
-------
$900 each speaker
Step1 : Finalise drivers (mostly done)
Step 2: Finalise Cabinet (some have suggested ported and TL versions) and XO details
Step 3: Work with diyaudio friendly resellers to offer this as a kit (a la Ariel) for a limited time.
Once this is done I would like to see an Excel version though I dont know how many diyaudioers will be able to build this Excel version. Here again (when we come to this crossroad) there will be a debate on Nextel vs Magnesium. I have no experience with either.
Last edited:
Ofcourse this price can be reduced. Ofcourse the more kits sold, the better the discount, but the prices above are full retail. Minus the 12.5% for gst on that(intl customers donot need to pay gst) and a further discount(depending on number of kits). XO's can be arranged also. Aswell as cabinets, but that may take a while. I have a friend who is a kitchen maker and has access to a cnc machine. But shipping that weight would be fairly pricey I would imagine. Sorry I havent been adding to this thread. I am extremely busy at the moment, been away in aus(family member has just passed away). But nonetheless I will try and make the kits as cheap as possible for you all.
Ofcourse this price can be reduced. Ofcourse the more kits sold, the better the discount, but the prices above are full retail. Minus the 12.5% for gst on that(intl customers donot need to pay gst) and a further discount(depending on number of kits). XO's can be arranged also. Aswell as cabinets, but that may take a while. I have a friend who is a kitchen maker and has access to a cnc machine. But shipping that weight would be fairly pricey I would imagine. Sorry I havent been adding to this thread. I am extremely busy at the moment, been away in aus(family member has just passed away). But nonetheless I will try and make the kits as cheap as possible for you all.
Hey sorry about your loss.
I did not mean to put you on the spot by quoting prices from your website. It is just that there are many from down under who are contributing to this thread. It would make most sense for US based diyaudioers to work with a US based supplier, EU based diyaudioers to work with a EU based supplier etc.. otherwise shipping costs will ammount to a lot.
Madiound for example retails the drivers at $150, 68, and 39 each. Drivers for a 2 x 10" system would then cost $407/each. Going by the cost of their MD38 cabinet the cabinets for these speakers might cost US$300 each (the smaller MD38T cab costs $200 each) add the cost of the crossover and we might be looking at a per speaker cost of US$800.
Europe Audio prices for the drivers are Euro 28 (27TFFC), 59 (MCA15), and 102.5 (26RFX) each. Hence drivers for a 2 x 10" system would cost Euro 292/each. I dont know if Europe-audio does cabinets (maybe Wilmslow can be an option then) but in effect EU based members would be payig about Euro 600 per speaker (cabinet and crossover).
For customers who are in far flung places but who have access to local cabinerty a set of cabinet plans may be a better option.
All this is obviously relavent only if we do get madisound and company (other resellers) to work with us. For this to happen we need to present a group of about 50 pairs (I think that would be critical mass for help in making these kids worthwhile).
I have never been associated with the audio industry or ever been associated with it so my assumptions might be completely wrong.
WHy not you can do that. THose who have access to a speaker cabinet might be able to modify it to work (another reason to consider sealed box - so much easier to work with). I see only 3 aspects that have to be considered.
1. Vb - Box volume should be so that the box volume (for the 10" woofers) is about the same recommended by the final design.
2. baffle step - the XO design on diyaudio will assume a particular box width and hence baffle step will be a function of this. If you are using a box that has a baffle width other than the one proposed by diyaudio you might find a bit ore or less upper midrange in your response (baffle step for most normal sized boxes affects the 100-2k range most). THere are many tutorials on baffle step on the internet.
3. the midrange box. If you are using an exisitng box the midrange box might be diffuclt to fabricate. the midrange we are using a cone midrange and it's rear would have to protected from the back wave of the 10" woofers.
There might be other issues but I still feel that with judicious re-design and a bit of luck a commercial speaker box might be found suitable. For the rest of us we can build our boxes from scratch or order them from a friendly re-seller.
The reason why I have chosen the 27TDFC was because its SPL at 1W are the closest to the MCA15RCY, I don't like resistors in series with a speaker to adjust SPL.
The only thing that I don't like about a sealed box for a woofer is the early roll of, if used with an active XO, one could EQ the LF a bit. With passive speakers, I believe TL or ported boxes are better, provided it is done correctly.
Further, if two woofers are preferred, do we connect them in parallel? That will increase the SPL so we will have to look for woofers with lower efficiency.
Last edited:
Dan from Darcher Audio kindly hosted it for a while. I eventually told him to delete it as due to health reasons I could no longer support any questions and enquiries.
If you want a copy of the site and design info, let me know as I can send you the site information on a CDRom.
Agreed on all 3 points. However...
a. why do you not like a series resistor? Is it that bad? The difference is about 1-1.5db.
b. sealed boxes do roll off earlier but for those who have to place the speaker near the rear wall (WAF considerations) the boundary reenforcement compensates. Otherwise a TL with a single woofer might be an option too.
c. with 2 woofers the increase sensitivity would compesate for baffle step no? baffle step with a 330cm wide baffle the baffle step will start at about 1000Hz and be about -6db at 100Hz. The woofers are expected to cover upto 300Hz over which the baffle step loss will be 4-6db. With 2 woofers in parallel the sensitivity will be about equal.
One of the sources for inspiration (the Zaph ZDT 3.5) shows that the levels of the drivers can be adjusted to taste by adjusting a few component values. In the SEAS DIYaudio speaker above the midrange will not need any boost, the tweeter level can be cut by using a 1-2ohm resistor in series and the woofer level can be adjsuted by adjusting the series inductor. Besides if we are going 3.5 way by using different inductor values for the 2 woofers you can tune the bass response.
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZDT3.5.html
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/mark21.htm
http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/8543.htm
Last edited:
You can of course discuss for a very long time on what makes a driver great or not. But as every driver will need something different in XO, box design etc. to diliver the best result, you'll have to base the choice on measurement data, and listening experience from different finished projects, and commercial speakers that employ the drivers in question.
I have had my eys on Seas for a long time, thinking they diliver great value and high quality.
In last issue of Hobby HiFi (German magazine) ther was a test og 4" low to mid drivers. (Very good magazine even if your German is a bit rusty )
The Seas CA12RCY, which is very similar to the suggested MCA15RCY, among many other drivers.
I think the measurement results where quite good, but nt outstanding at all.
Among all the drivers I think the Peerless HDS PPB 4-25/08 was among the best, if not the best!
Especially the distortion measurements done at 90 db was better than both ScanSpeak 12MU4731T00, Seas Excel W12CY003, Seas CA12RCY and the two Eton 4 units!!
You can order the magazine here but it is not available as dowload
I've attached a sneak view of the Peerles and Seas Prestige here
I would clearly go for the Peerless driver. I have actually seen a lot fo such measurements on Peerless drivers also the larger ones, and they all measure very good, so I'm sure that if you go for a 5" or a 6" these will also be very good value for money
I have had my eys on Seas for a long time, thinking they diliver great value and high quality.
In last issue of Hobby HiFi (German magazine) ther was a test og 4" low to mid drivers. (Very good magazine even if your German is a bit rusty
)The Seas CA12RCY, which is very similar to the suggested MCA15RCY, among many other drivers.
I think the measurement results where quite good, but nt outstanding at all.
Among all the drivers I think the Peerless HDS PPB 4-25/08 was among the best, if not the best!
Especially the distortion measurements done at 90 db was better than both ScanSpeak 12MU4731T00, Seas Excel W12CY003, Seas CA12RCY and the two Eton 4 units!!
You can order the magazine here but it is not available as dowload
I've attached a sneak view of the Peerles and Seas Prestige here
I would clearly go for the Peerless driver. I have actually seen a lot fo such measurements on Peerless drivers also the larger ones, and they all measure very good, so I'm sure that if you go for a 5" or a 6" these will also be very good value for money
Attachments
All this is obviously relavent only if we do get madisound and company (other resellers) to work with us. For this to happen we need to present a group of about 50 pairs (I think that would be critical mass for help in making these kids worthwhile).
I have never been associated with the audio industry or ever been associated with it so my assumptions might be completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well Im happy to look after the au/nz side of this build. I will ofcourse make it my endevour to match any competitors price etc. Premade Cabinets I can buy from intertechnik in germany, and they too have a very good DIY speaker magazine that comes out once a month with great plans and ideas.
I have never been associated with the audio industry or ever been associated with it so my assumptions might be completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
Well Im happy to look after the au/nz side of this build. I will ofcourse make it my endevour to match any competitors price etc. Premade Cabinets I can buy from intertechnik in germany, and they too have a very good DIY speaker magazine that comes out once a month with great plans and ideas.
The addition of a 2nd woofer is going to raise the cost substantially and the benefit, will be limited, IMO. I would prefer to maximize the standard three way and if that means slightly less low end response, so be it. The cost savings that the extra woofer would be will allow better xover components to be used or simply a cost savings. A TL box is a great alternative and one that I would agree that has merit and add some additional interest as a DIY project.
Also why not pick one of Troels three way designs, as that would remove a somewhat of an unknown from this equation and possibly allow us to generate more interest worldwide. I have never heard any of his designs, but they seem to be very well received. If this path is chosen, then an alternate xover could be develeped to satisfy those that want a ground up build (well almost).
Construction details are well documented and again we have a basis that is somewhat proven to start from.
Last edited:
Hey that is a great offer, may I share? I have some of your site saved here on my hard disc but if I could I'd appreciate a copy too, where do you want me to send the money for the disc and postage??
( Don't do this for free- disc mailers cost money )
Regards
Ted
a. Series resistors have a negative effect on DF, it also sort of defies the use of good quality cables.
b. I do like the idea of a single driver in a TL.
c. Two parallel RE4X woofers will give you about 99dB in a sealed box, that is almost 10dB higher than the mid. TL simulation show about 93.5dB with a single RFX, about 4dB higher than the mid.
Personally I wouldnt feel very comfortable talking about GB before there actually was a carefully tested and working proto present
I suppose there could be some advantage of having a small group of people working on the same design, checking each other
Is there a design goal, different from all else out there, to justify such design
So far I see only low budget as a design goal
Sorry if I sound negative, Im not
Just still seem to miss the point of it
I would say a design with a 12" woofer on its own would make perfect sense, as there are very few out there
But to have high WAF factor as highest priority seems pointless to me
Anyway, a 10" wont have much WAF factor either
I suppose there could be some advantage of having a small group of people working on the same design, checking each other
Is there a design goal, different from all else out there, to justify such design
So far I see only low budget as a design goal
Sorry if I sound negative, Im not
Just still seem to miss the point of it
I would say a design with a 12" woofer on its own would make perfect sense, as there are very few out there
But to have high WAF factor as highest priority seems pointless to me
Anyway, a 10" wont have much WAF factor either
Last edited: