Background: about a month ago, I decided I was no longer happy with my small Genelec nearfield monitors 6010A. The sound of them is fine for what they are, but they lacked some finesse, and some low end. The latter could of course have been solved with a genelec subwoofer, but I am totally infected with the DIY virus, so the idea was quickly born: let's build something that is not a lot bigger, but sounds a lot better, and something that is passive. I have looked at a lot of options:
a two way system (these Xenums by a DIY audio member Wolfteeth were very tempting)
or radials (Seas has some very interesting drivers).
Eventually decided on a small 3" full range satellite with a subwoofer. At least the building of the satellites could be relatively straight forward, which is nice for newbees like us. We choose the Audience for their very flat frequency response and very enthusiastic reviews. We also got great feedback and response from them, so it felt like a safe and good choice.
A few days ago these (see attachment) beautiful drivers arrived. So the building can finally commence!
Since our almost totally beginner status, the first questions arise right away:
1. In WinISD, Z is asked. Would that be nominal or minimum or peak?
2. Again WinISD, re is asked, where can I find that value?
Audience adviced small enclosures (14cm x 14cm x 18cm, W x D x H) with a 3,5" passive radiator. Which raises the questions:
3. Is a passive radiator for a 2.1 design a good idea, and if not, will we have to enlarge the enclosures?
4. With this small enclosures, what would be the thickness of wood to use?
And questions on a more general level:
5. Should the enclosures be flat/square, or with rounded edges. And why?
6. Since the drivers are pretty ugly (sorry) can we hide them some way without interfering with the sound?
7. My home tv setup speakers are driven by an Audiosector premium chipamp kit. But these audience are 16 ohm. So what kind of amp should we build to drive them? For pretty low levels, since they will be about a meter form the ears...
As you can see.. quite a lot of questions... I am sure that with your help we can make this a success... so I am looking forward to your input! Thanks a lot in advance
Erik & Jorgen
a two way system (these Xenums by a DIY audio member Wolfteeth were very tempting)
or radials (Seas has some very interesting drivers).
Eventually decided on a small 3" full range satellite with a subwoofer. At least the building of the satellites could be relatively straight forward, which is nice for newbees like us. We choose the Audience for their very flat frequency response and very enthusiastic reviews. We also got great feedback and response from them, so it felt like a safe and good choice.
A few days ago these (see attachment) beautiful drivers arrived. So the building can finally commence!
Since our almost totally beginner status, the first questions arise right away:
1. In WinISD, Z is asked. Would that be nominal or minimum or peak?
2. Again WinISD, re is asked, where can I find that value?
Audience adviced small enclosures (14cm x 14cm x 18cm, W x D x H) with a 3,5" passive radiator. Which raises the questions:
3. Is a passive radiator for a 2.1 design a good idea, and if not, will we have to enlarge the enclosures?
4. With this small enclosures, what would be the thickness of wood to use?
And questions on a more general level:
5. Should the enclosures be flat/square, or with rounded edges. And why?
6. Since the drivers are pretty ugly (sorry) can we hide them some way without interfering with the sound?
7. My home tv setup speakers are driven by an Audiosector premium chipamp kit. But these audience are 16 ohm. So what kind of amp should we build to drive them? For pretty low levels, since they will be about a meter form the ears...
As you can see.. quite a lot of questions... I am sure that with your help we can make this a success... so I am looking forward to your input! Thanks a lot in advance
Erik & Jorgen
Attachments
2.) re is DC Resistance I think (DCR)
5.) Rounded edges (at least on the sides) are preferred due to reduction of diffraction effects, which usually create a ripple at ~1kHz depending on the width of the baffle. If you wish you can leave the top/bottom edges square if you wish for more aesthetic look, though there will be slightly more diffraction.
6.) Be creative with how you attach a grill cloth - if you make a frame that sticks out from the baffle surface you may have more diffraction effects, but you can try attaching it flush...make sure you leave enough room for the cone to move in and out without hitting the grill cloth! XD You could also try a rounded frame...
idk if you like silver drivers or not, but the Fountek fr88ex also has a very flat full range response and low distortion (on this page: Zaph|Audio). There are specs/graphs in the "comparison application". It only has 3mm of usable excursion, however since you are using a sub and nearfield it would be ok. Then again, I haven't seen an Audience A3 DIY build yet, should be interesting! 🙂
5.) Rounded edges (at least on the sides) are preferred due to reduction of diffraction effects, which usually create a ripple at ~1kHz depending on the width of the baffle. If you wish you can leave the top/bottom edges square if you wish for more aesthetic look, though there will be slightly more diffraction.
6.) Be creative with how you attach a grill cloth - if you make a frame that sticks out from the baffle surface you may have more diffraction effects, but you can try attaching it flush...make sure you leave enough room for the cone to move in and out without hitting the grill cloth! XD You could also try a rounded frame...
idk if you like silver drivers or not, but the Fountek fr88ex also has a very flat full range response and low distortion (on this page: Zaph|Audio). There are specs/graphs in the "comparison application". It only has 3mm of usable excursion, however since you are using a sub and nearfield it would be ok. Then again, I haven't seen an Audience A3 DIY build yet, should be interesting! 🙂
Listening to the beta's... a horror story with a happy end...
And the building began! To start with, we decided to build two beta test versions:
1. A 1.1 liter closed enclosure (12x10x14cm) with a QTC of about .7
2. A 2 liter passive radiator enclosure (14x18x14cm) as recommended by Audience
In the first picture you can see them side by side next to my laptop. The right pair is somewhat turned to see the passive radiator on the side (I was not sure if I had enough space to place it at the back, in retrospect, I did). The nice thing about building these small speakers is the cost of wood: the wood (mdf 12mm) for both sets set me back a respectable 4,35 euro, including sawing costs. Try to build a Vifa Basis for that! They are also pretty quick to assemble. We used these binding posts, and that was pretty stupid with 12mm wood. That's what beta versions are for. We used no bracing, and for now, no filling.
The interesting part occurred when I wanted to connect the driver to the posts. As you can partly see on the picture in my first post, there is a red wire connected to the plus pin running to the other side of the driver. There it is connected to the negative pin of a second pair of connectors. This connection is in place at both drivers from one box, but absent on both drivers from the second box... hmmm...
To confuse me even more, impedance over the connected pins was 12 Ohm, and logically, each set of not connected connectors of the other driver measured 6 Ohm. From a mathematical point of view fine, but in no way related to the 16 ohm from the specs. I emailed this to Audience and expect an answer by Monday. For comparing purposes, I wired the second pair the same way.
Then, the listening could begin. The smaller boxes were finished first and we decided to test them at Jorgens house. There we were faced with a horrible disappointment. Absolutely nothing sounded even remotely nice. Oh, that is not true. A cd fom Dead Moon, produced in mono sounded fairly ok. Apart from the fact that these guys can't play, sing, write, keep tempo or tune their instruments. But that was still more pleasurable to listen to than anything else we tried. One of my favourite tracks to listen to is Suzan Vega's Marlene on the wall. All of a sudden, the track seemed remixed by the acoustic guitar player, convinced that his performance was so great it should be twice as loud as the rest of the record. Suzan herself was hardly audible, and in the cases she was, she suddenly had a speaking disorder that could only have been caused by her drinking two liters of wodka (the kind my gf's father brews himself in his shed in Gromadka, Poland) an having had one of her front teeth broken. In general, everything sounded harsh, and unfriendly in what I would call MidHigh-High. And the lack of low end was not helping. The hopeful thing was that the level of detail in other frequencies and stereo imaging (except the notorious Dead Moon) were impressive.
When we connected my subwoofer (20 liters closed box, 10" Dayton RS 210 HF4), some things got a little bit better. The added low end seemed to soften up some of the hard edges. On other tracks, things got a lot worse with the sub woofer, with my favourite game from the cardigans as a miracle: the bass played a completely different song there. Seriously. It did not match in anyway the rest of the song. Spooky.
At home, after a good night sleep, I redid the test in my own environment. What a difference! The small speakers still do not produce a lot of low end, obviously. But Suzan is sober, had her teeth fixed and the guitar player knows his place. On more bass heavy tracks, you do not feel the bass, but you still hear the sub bass is there... What stayed is the detail, the stereo image. Wow... and those are only the small closed versions.
The bigger, passive radiator versions do not disappoint. Obviously a lot warmer, even better detail, beautiful stereo image. A bit more volume as well. And surprise: for the first time I am listening to speakers that make the Stone Roses sound as they should. Listening to, and judging speakers is a weird process, as I am noticing while writing this post. Opinions change when listening longer and getting deaf or getting used to sounds. Overall, as a first step, I am very positive.
So where does the difference in experience between the two places come from? Amp was the same. Cables the same. Songs the same. At Jorgen's, we used a cd player, at home I am using my Iphone with Spotify. So what remains is the room and the placement. Jorgen's room is large. And high. And one side completely glass. The left side of the room is about a meter higher than the right side. The speakers were placed on top of his high B&W speakers about 40cm from the wall. we were sitting at a few meters.
As you can see on the attached picture of the speakers, at my place they are on a table. About a meter apart. A meter behind me are books on shelves, floor to ceiling. Can this difference I heard be caused by those circumstances?
I am a bit unclear however about how to proceed from here. There is definitely still a few issues that need to be addressed. What Sub woofer, with what enclosure, with what filter? I also keep thinking that the speakers sound slightly harsh still in the high mid (or is that me projecting the visual spike at 9khz in the PDF file from post 1 to my ears?). Is the gainclone the right amp for speakers like this, it seems all a bit "in my face"?
If anyone made it through this post, I am looking forward to hear your comments and input!
Cheers
Erik
And the building began! To start with, we decided to build two beta test versions:
1. A 1.1 liter closed enclosure (12x10x14cm) with a QTC of about .7
2. A 2 liter passive radiator enclosure (14x18x14cm) as recommended by Audience
In the first picture you can see them side by side next to my laptop. The right pair is somewhat turned to see the passive radiator on the side (I was not sure if I had enough space to place it at the back, in retrospect, I did). The nice thing about building these small speakers is the cost of wood: the wood (mdf 12mm) for both sets set me back a respectable 4,35 euro, including sawing costs. Try to build a Vifa Basis for that! They are also pretty quick to assemble. We used these binding posts, and that was pretty stupid with 12mm wood. That's what beta versions are for. We used no bracing, and for now, no filling.
The interesting part occurred when I wanted to connect the driver to the posts. As you can partly see on the picture in my first post, there is a red wire connected to the plus pin running to the other side of the driver. There it is connected to the negative pin of a second pair of connectors. This connection is in place at both drivers from one box, but absent on both drivers from the second box... hmmm...
To confuse me even more, impedance over the connected pins was 12 Ohm, and logically, each set of not connected connectors of the other driver measured 6 Ohm. From a mathematical point of view fine, but in no way related to the 16 ohm from the specs. I emailed this to Audience and expect an answer by Monday. For comparing purposes, I wired the second pair the same way.
Then, the listening could begin. The smaller boxes were finished first and we decided to test them at Jorgens house. There we were faced with a horrible disappointment. Absolutely nothing sounded even remotely nice. Oh, that is not true. A cd fom Dead Moon, produced in mono sounded fairly ok. Apart from the fact that these guys can't play, sing, write, keep tempo or tune their instruments. But that was still more pleasurable to listen to than anything else we tried. One of my favourite tracks to listen to is Suzan Vega's Marlene on the wall. All of a sudden, the track seemed remixed by the acoustic guitar player, convinced that his performance was so great it should be twice as loud as the rest of the record. Suzan herself was hardly audible, and in the cases she was, she suddenly had a speaking disorder that could only have been caused by her drinking two liters of wodka (the kind my gf's father brews himself in his shed in Gromadka, Poland) an having had one of her front teeth broken. In general, everything sounded harsh, and unfriendly in what I would call MidHigh-High. And the lack of low end was not helping. The hopeful thing was that the level of detail in other frequencies and stereo imaging (except the notorious Dead Moon) were impressive.
When we connected my subwoofer (20 liters closed box, 10" Dayton RS 210 HF4), some things got a little bit better. The added low end seemed to soften up some of the hard edges. On other tracks, things got a lot worse with the sub woofer, with my favourite game from the cardigans as a miracle: the bass played a completely different song there. Seriously. It did not match in anyway the rest of the song. Spooky.
At home, after a good night sleep, I redid the test in my own environment. What a difference! The small speakers still do not produce a lot of low end, obviously. But Suzan is sober, had her teeth fixed and the guitar player knows his place. On more bass heavy tracks, you do not feel the bass, but you still hear the sub bass is there... What stayed is the detail, the stereo image. Wow... and those are only the small closed versions.
The bigger, passive radiator versions do not disappoint. Obviously a lot warmer, even better detail, beautiful stereo image. A bit more volume as well. And surprise: for the first time I am listening to speakers that make the Stone Roses sound as they should. Listening to, and judging speakers is a weird process, as I am noticing while writing this post. Opinions change when listening longer and getting deaf or getting used to sounds. Overall, as a first step, I am very positive.
So where does the difference in experience between the two places come from? Amp was the same. Cables the same. Songs the same. At Jorgen's, we used a cd player, at home I am using my Iphone with Spotify. So what remains is the room and the placement. Jorgen's room is large. And high. And one side completely glass. The left side of the room is about a meter higher than the right side. The speakers were placed on top of his high B&W speakers about 40cm from the wall. we were sitting at a few meters.
As you can see on the attached picture of the speakers, at my place they are on a table. About a meter apart. A meter behind me are books on shelves, floor to ceiling. Can this difference I heard be caused by those circumstances?
I am a bit unclear however about how to proceed from here. There is definitely still a few issues that need to be addressed. What Sub woofer, with what enclosure, with what filter? I also keep thinking that the speakers sound slightly harsh still in the high mid (or is that me projecting the visual spike at 9khz in the PDF file from post 1 to my ears?). Is the gainclone the right amp for speakers like this, it seems all a bit "in my face"?
If anyone made it through this post, I am looking forward to hear your comments and input!
Cheers
Erik
Attachments
Last edited:
The A3 was designed to be used in multiples. Certainly all of the Audience designs are used in multiples. The rising treble is offset/cancelled to some degree by the corresponding driver(s). There has been a lot said of the detrimental effects of stacking the drivers (ie, comb filtering), but there has been credible testimonial feedback that combing is not that audible.
This does not mean you have to use more than one driver per cabinet, but you probably need some eq'ing to tame the rising top end. However, since you appear to have 2 pair of drivers you could run them together and see if the top end "softens." Or you could try and highpass the smaller pair of speakers at around 1kHz or so. Audience has a 2+2 design, which you might make a mini version of too, but you would probably need another pair of passive radiators.
Also, try run one pair 90 degrees to the other pair or one pair directly behind the other.
I would wait until you resolve the above prior to adding a subwoofer.
This does not mean you have to use more than one driver per cabinet, but you probably need some eq'ing to tame the rising top end. However, since you appear to have 2 pair of drivers you could run them together and see if the top end "softens." Or you could try and highpass the smaller pair of speakers at around 1kHz or so. Audience has a 2+2 design, which you might make a mini version of too, but you would probably need another pair of passive radiators.
Also, try run one pair 90 degrees to the other pair or one pair directly behind the other.
I would wait until you resolve the above prior to adding a subwoofer.
How do you compare them now to your Genelecs? Genelec's typical monitor sound may not be for everyone yet their speakers are very well engineered in all details, so it can't be easy to surpass them in truthfulness with an FR speaker.
Interesting thoughts. I happen to know Audience might be working on a 1 driver with PR unit... so it should be doable. I will try to get a amp with two sets of speaker connections today to try some of your suggestions. Also, a friend of mine has more or less offered (I asked and he did not disagree) to help with the tuning. He works at a pretty big radio station, so he should have the ears, room and equipment to help us out! Could rounding of the edges of the enclosures and "sinking" the drivers into the wood help with those issues?
That would be a sound idea if I still had them, but I needed the funds....
I can compare them however to my Anthony Gallo Nucleus speakers:
The difference is huge. The Gallos are of couse meant to be use with a subwoofer... so the low en of the A3 pr is unbelievably better. At first listen the Gallo's top end is a bit smoother. After a while however, it seems that is due to lack of mid high rather than a "better" high end. The stereo imaging of the A3 is also in a complete different class. For that I always use the song day is done by Johan. A lot of stereo panning of the instruments, but also a lot of "room" sound on drums... The Gallo's are fine, but when I close my eyes when listening to the A3s, I am actually IN the room.
It still feels that after I find the right tweaks the A3's will be awesome, their potential is already shining through!
Those Nucleus speakers seem to be designer objects. Nothing wrong with that.
However a decent monitor like those that Genelec produces should offer a quite flat response. I can understand that a fr unit will give better imaging, but as a monitor they typically don't have the flat response you want for that usage.
However a decent monitor like those that Genelec produces should offer a quite flat response. I can understand that a fr unit will give better imaging, but as a monitor they typically don't have the flat response you want for that usage.
Last edited:
Yes they are beauties, aren't they? 🙂 It is indeed not really a fair comparison. I think we could have a very long discussion on the use of dedicated brand monitors or more high end-ish speakers. So looking for where we agree is that monitors should be as flat and neutral as possible... that is why I chose the audience driver... one of these days I will compare them in a studio with some "real" nearfields. I will keep you posted!
It has been a while... but that does not mean I have not been working on the audience monitors, on the contrary. First of all, I build a version with the radiator on the back, rounded edges and the driver sunk in the front panel. See attachment 1.
Although they sound a lot better than the first version... I was not happy with the final results yet. The high mids still sounded too harsh. After a lot of research, I decided to reduce the internal reflections by making the internal walls non parallel. Took a while to come up with a simple solution: turn the inside of the walls into a poffertjes pan / bee hive. See attachment 2. So I took the speakers apart, and started having fun with the drill press and a specially bought tool. This way, the internal volume grows somewhat, and there are no parallel surfaces any more on the inside. That already helped a lot. In treh experimenting mood, I started adding Dr Baileys Longhair... Although it lost just a little bit of low end, it again really smoothed out the mids even more.
I also tried out adding a notch filter to tame the peak at 9k. It was designed by a member of this forum Vamid for one of his audience A3 single driver designs. I think however that I made a little mistake putting it together.. because the result is also a enormous loss of bass and mid lows... so still working on that.
The next step what I will do is having the speakers measured at Speaker & Co in Holland, to see what the real frequency response of the speakers is. With that graph I can see if more filtering would be required. I am even considering adding a mini DSP with a parametric eq to adjust for peaks in the freq response or room influences.
Eventually, these speakers should be able to sound great if you look at Audience's own single A3 speaker The One
I am still very open for suggestions and ideas, and will keep you guys posted!
Cheers
Erik
Although they sound a lot better than the first version... I was not happy with the final results yet. The high mids still sounded too harsh. After a lot of research, I decided to reduce the internal reflections by making the internal walls non parallel. Took a while to come up with a simple solution: turn the inside of the walls into a poffertjes pan / bee hive. See attachment 2. So I took the speakers apart, and started having fun with the drill press and a specially bought tool. This way, the internal volume grows somewhat, and there are no parallel surfaces any more on the inside. That already helped a lot. In treh experimenting mood, I started adding Dr Baileys Longhair... Although it lost just a little bit of low end, it again really smoothed out the mids even more.
I also tried out adding a notch filter to tame the peak at 9k. It was designed by a member of this forum Vamid for one of his audience A3 single driver designs. I think however that I made a little mistake putting it together.. because the result is also a enormous loss of bass and mid lows... so still working on that.
The next step what I will do is having the speakers measured at Speaker & Co in Holland, to see what the real frequency response of the speakers is. With that graph I can see if more filtering would be required. I am even considering adding a mini DSP with a parametric eq to adjust for peaks in the freq response or room influences.
Eventually, these speakers should be able to sound great if you look at Audience's own single A3 speaker The One
I am still very open for suggestions and ideas, and will keep you guys posted!
Cheers
Erik
Attachments
Erik, what frequencies do mean by "high mids" sounding harsh? If you have a sound pressure meter and test cd (ie, Stereophile, etc.) you can measure more or less the offensive peak(s), albeit a bit tedious. A notch may not be enough and you may need a bsc type correction to flatten the response. Or simply listen off axis.
A "high mids" notch should not affect the bass output. Do you have a picture of the notch you built and how you hooked it up to the driver? I'm sure one of us would be able to tell if it is wired correctly.
Regarding internal reflections, I'm not sure that your modification actually reduces them. Perhaps, more in breaking up standing waves. Stuffing would have more of an effect, though I've not had much luck in stuffing cabinets. The effect was to dull or mute the sound. I've had much greater success in damping the walls by lining them with deflex and/or corrugated acoustic foam.
Just thought of something. Try hanging 2-3 of pieces of cloth (t-shirt type material) directly behind driver and see if that might help the internal reflections. Try one piece first then add another, if needed, an inch further back and so on.
A "high mids" notch should not affect the bass output. Do you have a picture of the notch you built and how you hooked it up to the driver? I'm sure one of us would be able to tell if it is wired correctly.
Regarding internal reflections, I'm not sure that your modification actually reduces them. Perhaps, more in breaking up standing waves. Stuffing would have more of an effect, though I've not had much luck in stuffing cabinets. The effect was to dull or mute the sound. I've had much greater success in damping the walls by lining them with deflex and/or corrugated acoustic foam.
Just thought of something. Try hanging 2-3 of pieces of cloth (t-shirt type material) directly behind driver and see if that might help the internal reflections. Try one piece first then add another, if needed, an inch further back and so on.
Last edited:
First off, stuff the cabinets - otherwise there may be reflections which pass through the cone. If the box volume is large enough, you can introduce an irregular shape (a triangle of wood) fixed to the back wall, which will scatter reflections.
Second, although I don't have the A3 I have found a similar brightness using a single Jordan 2" driver. Doubling them up (two per enclosure) gives added warmth and weight to the sound, which makes them seem less bright. As you have two enclosures, try stacking them and playing them a mono test track and see how it sounds.
(It's worth making up a mono test CD of favourite tracks. I find it much easier to assess a loudspeaker in mono and since the mono button has become extinct, a test CD compiled in something like Audacity is a real boon.)
Second, although I don't have the A3 I have found a similar brightness using a single Jordan 2" driver. Doubling them up (two per enclosure) gives added warmth and weight to the sound, which makes them seem less bright. As you have two enclosures, try stacking them and playing them a mono test track and see how it sounds.
(It's worth making up a mono test CD of favourite tracks. I find it much easier to assess a loudspeaker in mono and since the mono button has become extinct, a test CD compiled in something like Audacity is a real boon.)
Last edited:
Hi Colin & Ultrakaz
Thanks both for your comments. First I was wondering a bit why both of you were talking about stuffing the cabinets... and then I reread my post and noticed I was not particularly clear in that! I have stuffed them with longhair sheep wool, about 40 grams per enclosure. Which makes them pretty full. The reason I tried the notch filter is that I had it laying around anyway form when I was not drilling the holes on the inside, they sounded pretty horrible then. But the combination of the stuffing and the holes construction on the inside makes an enormous difference! The stuffing made them a bit more dull... but seriously, that is exactly what they needed. For now I will stop experimenting with enclosure, and have them measured well. With those results I will start working on the final tweaks. But tnx a lot for your comments, appriciated!
Right now I am playing "man fi cool" by Roots Manuva, and my table is shaking with the low frequencies... nice!
Thanks both for your comments. First I was wondering a bit why both of you were talking about stuffing the cabinets... and then I reread my post and noticed I was not particularly clear in that! I have stuffed them with longhair sheep wool, about 40 grams per enclosure. Which makes them pretty full. The reason I tried the notch filter is that I had it laying around anyway form when I was not drilling the holes on the inside, they sounded pretty horrible then. But the combination of the stuffing and the holes construction on the inside makes an enormous difference! The stuffing made them a bit more dull... but seriously, that is exactly what they needed. For now I will stop experimenting with enclosure, and have them measured well. With those results I will start working on the final tweaks. But tnx a lot for your comments, appriciated!
Right now I am playing "man fi cool" by Roots Manuva, and my table is shaking with the low frequencies... nice!
I had the speakers measured yesterday.. these are the results:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
erikb, thanks for posting those measurements. I'm assuming that the notch filter was not in the circuit(?), but that the "long hair" stuffing was? The measurement looks really good and suggests a very listenable speaker. Actually, very impressive for a single 3" driver.
So, after listening to them for awhile, what are your impressions; strengths and things that may need to be improved?
So, after listening to them for awhile, what are your impressions; strengths and things that may need to be improved?
exactly, notch filter was out, long hair wool was in...
It is a bit too soon for me to do more or less final judgements... but I have some thoughts:
- there is definitely more bass in the speakers than coming out at the moment. If i just turn the bass control on my old testing amp a little bit up, there is lots more bass without any distortion. Especially the 40-100hz range can sound pretty impressive... but, how to get it? One could passively cut everything above 150hz or something, but it already is not a particularly loud loudspeaker. For nearfield monitoring it might work, larger rooms bight be a different story. so maybe actively boosting some low end?> I can also imagine that placing them with their backs near a wall will improve the low ends
- the 9khz peak is not as prominent as it used to be. maybe that is the reason why Vamid's filter was not working right, I will have to look into that. The peak at 20khz looks a bit more worrying to me. But I need a few days of listening before I can actually say something about that.
Altogether, you used the word listenable... That really describes them for me right now... will update soon...
It is a bit too soon for me to do more or less final judgements... but I have some thoughts:
- there is definitely more bass in the speakers than coming out at the moment. If i just turn the bass control on my old testing amp a little bit up, there is lots more bass without any distortion. Especially the 40-100hz range can sound pretty impressive... but, how to get it? One could passively cut everything above 150hz or something, but it already is not a particularly loud loudspeaker. For nearfield monitoring it might work, larger rooms bight be a different story. so maybe actively boosting some low end?> I can also imagine that placing them with their backs near a wall will improve the low ends
- the 9khz peak is not as prominent as it used to be. maybe that is the reason why Vamid's filter was not working right, I will have to look into that. The peak at 20khz looks a bit more worrying to me. But I need a few days of listening before I can actually say something about that.
Altogether, you used the word listenable... That really describes them for me right now... will update soon...
Been listening for a few days now. Nice. Very nice. I just found it very hard to resist to push up the bass on my test amplifier... so this morning I have tried to simulate a cut circuit to restore the bass. From closely analysing the bass roll of on the measurement picture, I decided I wanted to do something about the roll of between 150 - 40 hz. The speaker loses about 10dB in more or less a straight line. The result is band #2 on the IIEQpro. A 2nd order butter high shelf of -7,4 db at 117Hz with a q of 6,5 eventually did the trick. (of course after pushing the whole level again 7.4dB).
This surprised em a bit.I was expecting the frequency to be right in the middle of 40 and 150Hz. But that seemed to boos the subs more and the normal low a bit less. According to my personal taste, it should be about this 117 Hz. This technically boosting of the low end presented a small problem in the 10-30hz however. Although nothing really audible was going on in that area, the driver was moving frantically. Probably caused by the peak of the sub low end between 10 and 20Hz in the original response. I took that out with the band 1 notch filter at 16Hz, with a q of 1,28.
These two filters make a world of difference. The next two ones are a lot more subtle, if at all audible, I will recheck tomorrow.
The third band is a narrow peak of -2.1dB at 8,5k. Hardly or not audible in most tracks, just some female singers sounded a bit better... I will have to recheck that with fresh ears tomorrow.
The fourth band is also inaudible to me, but I really felt I should do something about the break up at 20K.
Summarizing:
1. cut the sub low at 16 hz to take away the rumble
2. cut everything about 7,4dB from 117 Hz up to "boost" the low end
3. cut a narrow 2dB at 8,5k
4. cut the 20k+ area
Cheers
Erik
Edit: cutting most of the frequencies this much does not do wonders for the level. With normal mastered songs I have to quite push my old akai amp at least half way up at near field level. I think however that the a3's are still configured to 16Ohm. It is possible to configure them to 4 ohm right? And that should push the levels a bit right...?
This surprised em a bit.I was expecting the frequency to be right in the middle of 40 and 150Hz. But that seemed to boos the subs more and the normal low a bit less. According to my personal taste, it should be about this 117 Hz. This technically boosting of the low end presented a small problem in the 10-30hz however. Although nothing really audible was going on in that area, the driver was moving frantically. Probably caused by the peak of the sub low end between 10 and 20Hz in the original response. I took that out with the band 1 notch filter at 16Hz, with a q of 1,28.
These two filters make a world of difference. The next two ones are a lot more subtle, if at all audible, I will recheck tomorrow.
The third band is a narrow peak of -2.1dB at 8,5k. Hardly or not audible in most tracks, just some female singers sounded a bit better... I will have to recheck that with fresh ears tomorrow.
The fourth band is also inaudible to me, but I really felt I should do something about the break up at 20K.
Summarizing:
1. cut the sub low at 16 hz to take away the rumble
2. cut everything about 7,4dB from 117 Hz up to "boost" the low end
3. cut a narrow 2dB at 8,5k
4. cut the 20k+ area
Cheers
Erik
Edit: cutting most of the frequencies this much does not do wonders for the level. With normal mastered songs I have to quite push my old akai amp at least half way up at near field level. I think however that the a3's are still configured to 16Ohm. It is possible to configure them to 4 ohm right? And that should push the levels a bit right...?
Attachments
Last edited:
comparing the audience specs with mine measured:
I could be wrong, but mine seems more flat, and for a much longer range! Hurray!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I could be wrong, but mine seems more flat, and for a much longer range! Hurray!
Firstly, experimenting and finding out on your own is the best way to learn. Having said that it is valuable to focus on your objectives. If a flat 20Hz to 20kHz response that plays loudly is most important to you, then a multi driver speaker is what you should be looking at. Eq'ing a 3" single driver flat is like making a pair of headphones.
Given the tradeoffs of eq'ing vs. efficiency, simplicity and purity, the response is about as good as you are going to get from a 3".....
I was looking at the response from the passive radiator and it appears to generate gain all the way up to 5kHz or so. Perhaps, some extra "longhair" wadded up right in front of the PR might reduce the gain from about 200Hz or so. Or if you could create some type of mechanical lowpass outside of the PR that not mess up the amount of stuffing already inside of the cabinet.
Given the tradeoffs of eq'ing vs. efficiency, simplicity and purity, the response is about as good as you are going to get from a 3".....
I was looking at the response from the passive radiator and it appears to generate gain all the way up to 5kHz or so. Perhaps, some extra "longhair" wadded up right in front of the PR might reduce the gain from about 200Hz or so. Or if you could create some type of mechanical lowpass outside of the PR that not mess up the amount of stuffing already inside of the cabinet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.