The above is pretty much spot on.
Hard to say SPL. Right now I am listening to a bit of Tim McGraw at what I think is a good volume and I would think as an educated guess its in the region of 75dB to 80dB. Much louder and the room booms.
I couldn't afford to have my speakers as far as that from the front wall. The fronts of my speakers are currently 2'8" from the wall and that is about my limit.
Listening height is quite low as I tend to slouch into my sofa as it sounds more even down there lol. My current tweeter height is about 36".
Experiments with cabs and port lengths are very feasible for me in terms of construction and supply of material. Knowing what I'm doing in terms of altering response etc I would most certainly need help on.
If someone who knows what they are doing with speaker design is reading this thread and thinking they want a set of speakers exactly like I am after then get designing and I'll build you the cabs!
Hard to say SPL. Right now I am listening to a bit of Tim McGraw at what I think is a good volume and I would think as an educated guess its in the region of 75dB to 80dB. Much louder and the room booms.
I couldn't afford to have my speakers as far as that from the front wall. The fronts of my speakers are currently 2'8" from the wall and that is about my limit.
Listening height is quite low as I tend to slouch into my sofa as it sounds more even down there lol. My current tweeter height is about 36".
Experiments with cabs and port lengths are very feasible for me in terms of construction and supply of material. Knowing what I'm doing in terms of altering response etc I would most certainly need help on.
If someone who knows what they are doing with speaker design is reading this thread and thinking they want a set of speakers exactly like I am after then get designing and I'll build you the cabs!
The open backed Finalists and Statements etc require 18" as a minimum distance from the rear wall to sound good, at least according to the designer. The fronts of you're current speakers are 32" from the rear wall, the Finalists are 15.5" deep, leaving you with 16.5", I am sure you could squeeze out another 1.5".
I've been building loudspeakers for years and have experimented with all sorts of stuff and often I see kits and other designs as having something 'wrong' with them, or I'd rather these speakers had 'x' driver or layout etc. The Finalists and Kairos are two designs that I pretty much see nothing wrong with and wouldn't mind considering for my own personal use. So as jReave said above me, figure out what you'd prefer and build either one or the other.
I've been building loudspeakers for years and have experimented with all sorts of stuff and often I see kits and other designs as having something 'wrong' with them, or I'd rather these speakers had 'x' driver or layout etc. The Finalists and Kairos are two designs that I pretty much see nothing wrong with and wouldn't mind considering for my own personal use. So as jReave said above me, figure out what you'd prefer and build either one or the other.
I think you may need to define what you after a bit more clearly. I thought I knew for a while but things seem to have drifted to the extent 6.5" 2 ways like you current speakers are being recommended.
How will you determine if someone knows what they are doing? Not easy if you are a novice.
I am possibly working on a 2x8" + 5" + 1" design but have not yet made up my mind. I have no interest in designs that cannot meet clean 85dB average SPL in a medium sized rooms. I would aim to have the tweeter at the top and a height of perhaps 1.1-1.2m. Tall designs with WMTMW type arrangements like the Statements are not of current interest. The baffle will have relatively complex curves rather than chamfers and this needs to be reasonably accurately cut the by the CNC machine with only modest hand finishing. If I commit to the design it will take several months before it is in a state to be machined. After it is manufactured it will need to be studied and possibly (well probably!) modified. A new design might not be what you want to get involved with?
For 800 euro, id get a 2 way that can reach 40 hz.
And I would trust only really renown designers like jeff bagby, carmody, joachim gerhard and his kairos version. Or get something in the used market that is renown like a reference 3a mm.
And I would trust only really renown designers like jeff bagby, carmody, joachim gerhard and his kairos version. Or get something in the used market that is renown like a reference 3a mm.
Why? It is hard to argue against a 6.5" midwoofer + 1" tweeter being a good configuration for small cheap speakers but for a DIY price of £800 one can build a bigger speaker with substantially better performance in terms of distortion, SPL, frequency response extension, reduced port issues, etc... There must be some performance parameters that you and others recommending small 2 ways consider significantly better and it would be interesting to know what they are.
I am not disagreeing with you but what is that makes them renowned in your eyes?
Is this the speaker you mean? The measurements would seem to show that it is not a competent design from an engineering perspective. How relevant is this compared to whatever has made you consider them a speaker to recommend?
reference 3a mm is simply a mind blowing speaker. forget the measurments. and the dip at 1khz is not audible.
A 2 way in diy is much easier to do. and there is no decent kits of 3 way imo.
Op, maybe look at pi speakers.. That could be your ticket.
A 2 way in diy is much easier to do. and there is no decent kits of 3 way imo.
Op, maybe look at pi speakers.. That could be your ticket.
Last edited:
You do understand why people looking at the measurements would conclude they are not a competent design in a high fidelity sense? But they misrepresent the input signal in a way that sounds pleasing and that mean they are good? Or do you consider them to be a high fidelity design but the presented measurements have not included what is important?
the sound is pretty flat besides a 5 db bump and a elevated (4db) supertweeter. This is not catastrophic.
Theres a whole side of this forum that listen to fullrange drivers with a 10 db rise on the highs, you should tell everyone they are not competent speakers.
The fact there's no xo on the woofer make the sound very transparent and dynamic.
Theres a whole side of this forum that listen to fullrange drivers with a 10 db rise on the highs, you should tell everyone they are not competent speakers.
The fact there's no xo on the woofer make the sound very transparent and dynamic.
What a load of tripe and what an insult to all the designers of the excellent three way designs/kits out there.
And as to the quality of those filterless 3as, I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot barge pole, except to dismantle and redesign them.
Why do people need telling? Why can't they be competent speakers even if they are not high fidelity speakers? People can be enthusiastic about getting the most from a single driver without having to believe they are high fidelity. Similarly those that are interested in high fidelity can go about it without having to say disparaging things about single driver designs.
I was asking if you considered the speakers you referenced to be good and high fidelity or just good without necessarily being high fidelity. The competence or not of the design in an engineering sense follows from the measurements. This is not really open debate but one could argue that it is not important as you did. But then it is hard to hang on to high fidelity.
Why would you expect that adding the output from cone break would be a good thing? Or is it less of an evil than the distortion introduced by the crossover reducing the woofers output?
lol, you did understood that I audiotioned the reference 3 a this friday, and that they sound definitely better then continuum? Its all good folks, I'm merely stating my experience. but your comment about reference 3a is funny. Lot of hatred toward commercial design in the diy community.
Please name 5 three way kits. Theres really not a lot of three way kits. I really dont insult kits I have never heard, they might be good. I just wouldnt spend 1k to see for myself. All im saying is that theres not a lot of three way kits that has been listened and approve by many listeners. But maybe im wrong, please tell the op the three way kits that have been acclaimed.
Last edited:
No hatred at all, just an objective analysis based on the measurements and the design ethos.
1) a 5dB hump centred around 700Hz.
2) that sharp dip at 1k, likely inaudible but nevertheless it's there.
3) a ragged response above this from cone breakup in the mid/bass.
4) rising treble response.
5) off axis response is a disaster.
If you call that high fidelity then that's up to you.
Zaphs SB12.3.
Zaphs ZDT3.5.
Curt C's Statements.
Curt C's Mini Statements
Curt C's Statement Monitor.
Curt C's Finalists.
Linkwitz Orion.
Linkwitz Phoenix.
Linkwitz LX521.
Paul C's Sunflowers.
Troels three way classic.
These are just the ones that I know quickly off the top of my head that are easy to search and find links to. I have only listed designs that have also been built by others and are known to sound excellent. There are plenty more.
I would go with ged lee speakers, pi speakers or kairos before all this list.
and the reference 3a is just one of the most praise standmount in the world, thats sounds exquisite.
now go analyse all the fullrange drivers, the tannoy red 15 inch that measure poorly and base your opinion on measurments. You do know that many legendary speaker measures poorly? or this you will simply ignore?
Al i know is I was blown away, goosebump in my body with the sound of the reference 3 a. sorry but the well executed continuum didnt make me this.
and the reference 3a is just one of the most praise standmount in the world, thats sounds exquisite.
now go analyse all the fullrange drivers, the tannoy red 15 inch that measure poorly and base your opinion on measurments. You do know that many legendary speaker measures poorly? or this you will simply ignore?
Al i know is I was blown away, goosebump in my body with the sound of the reference 3 a. sorry but the well executed continuum didnt make me this.
Last edited:
Let's try to flesh out how some of the speakers are going to meet some of your criteria now.
Let's start with the LF response.
The 1st graph below is a simulation of the LF gain in your 14' room this time with 70% losses.
The 2nd graph shows the combination of this room gain with the LF responses of the woofers that are in what would seem to be the top choices for speakers so far. The SPL levels are the maximums for each driver (or set of drivers) before xmax is exceeded when they are playing content above about 30Hz. Each one gives you a flat response down to about 30Hz although some go a bit lower. The obvious take-away is that the 2 x 8" drivers will play the loudest and that the single 6.5" driver plays at the lowest SPL's.
Note what xmax refers to - this is the limit at which the coil stays within its magnetic gap or in other words the point at which the signal starts to get distorted when played louder. And each driver will play a little louder than shown, the coils can physically move beyond xmax, just not as cleanly anymore.
Also note that the SPL levels are for 1 speaker at 1m. For 2 speakers add 6dB but for sitting about 9' back subtract another 6-9dB. (In room, especially a small one, the SPL's don't drop off with distance quite as much as theory might suggest, but I don't want to get into that, so 6-9dB should cover it). So the maximum SPL's at your listening position for each driver are going to be at about the levels the graphs show or perhaps just a little bit less.
Now it's up to you to decide what is going to be adequate for you. Clearly, andy has his own personal preferences and so do I but this is about what is going to work for you. Also, try not to confuse quantity with quality here at this point.
Box volumes and tunings are also listed btw. And when I can I like to use real measured TS parameters as apposed to the manufacturers' specs - there is usually at least a small difference. So the Satori and SB drivers all use Zaph's measured data while the Daytons are just the standard ones (but which are usually very reliable).
Another note about room gain. When a woofer has been tuned to be anechoically flat and then it's put into a room like yours, the room gain is likely to produce a "boomy" result, which is what you describe in your current speaker. Just for fun, you might want to try re-tuning it. One method is to fill the vent with straws and then pull them out so they they stick out of the tube. No reason for the tube to be completely inside the speaker for it to work properly. You might try anywhere from 2 to 5" of extra length and see if any of the boominess goes away.
Oh, just in case you didn't know this - you need an increase of 10dB for a sound to be perceived as twice as loud.
Let's start with the LF response.
The 1st graph below is a simulation of the LF gain in your 14' room this time with 70% losses.
The 2nd graph shows the combination of this room gain with the LF responses of the woofers that are in what would seem to be the top choices for speakers so far. The SPL levels are the maximums for each driver (or set of drivers) before xmax is exceeded when they are playing content above about 30Hz. Each one gives you a flat response down to about 30Hz although some go a bit lower. The obvious take-away is that the 2 x 8" drivers will play the loudest and that the single 6.5" driver plays at the lowest SPL's.
Note what xmax refers to - this is the limit at which the coil stays within its magnetic gap or in other words the point at which the signal starts to get distorted when played louder. And each driver will play a little louder than shown, the coils can physically move beyond xmax, just not as cleanly anymore.
Also note that the SPL levels are for 1 speaker at 1m. For 2 speakers add 6dB but for sitting about 9' back subtract another 6-9dB. (In room, especially a small one, the SPL's don't drop off with distance quite as much as theory might suggest, but I don't want to get into that, so 6-9dB should cover it). So the maximum SPL's at your listening position for each driver are going to be at about the levels the graphs show or perhaps just a little bit less.
Now it's up to you to decide what is going to be adequate for you. Clearly, andy has his own personal preferences and so do I but this is about what is going to work for you. Also, try not to confuse quantity with quality here at this point.
Box volumes and tunings are also listed btw. And when I can I like to use real measured TS parameters as apposed to the manufacturers' specs - there is usually at least a small difference. So the Satori and SB drivers all use Zaph's measured data while the Daytons are just the standard ones (but which are usually very reliable).
Another note about room gain. When a woofer has been tuned to be anechoically flat and then it's put into a room like yours, the room gain is likely to produce a "boomy" result, which is what you describe in your current speaker. Just for fun, you might want to try re-tuning it. One method is to fill the vent with straws and then pull them out so they they stick out of the tube. No reason for the tube to be completely inside the speaker for it to work properly. You might try anywhere from 2 to 5" of extra length and see if any of the boominess goes away.
Oh, just in case you didn't know this - you need an increase of 10dB for a sound to be perceived as twice as loud.
Attachments
Last edited:
There are many highly praised loudspeakers out there that measure extremely well. There are many highly praised loudspeakers out there that also measure very poorly. I'd rather take the ones that measure excellently over the ones that don't any day.
A lot of the time the ones that measure poorly, tend to do something specific extremely well and you forgive them for what they lack. Often there are certain types of music that don't sound good on these, or something in the frequency range irritates you.
The large Tannoys, for example, will have an extremely effortless sound, bags of dynamic range, chest thumping bass and a very well controlled directivity in lieu of the concentric tweeter. These qualities will come across even if there are major frequency response aberrations that make the speaker less than neutral.
Well executed loudspeakers tend NOT to blow you away and give you goosebumps because they are neutral. It is a well known fact that loudspeakers that measure flat tend to be quite underwhelming during a short audition. Loudspeakers that have glaring issues however can be rather pleasing as they accentuate certain things that tickle your auditory senses in a good way. In the long term these tend to be rather wearing on the ears. The rising frequency response in the 3a is a good example of this.
The single RS225 seems like a no brainer given the situation. 🙂
Very flat, goes the deepest and works in, what is comparatively, a small box. Also looks like it goes the loudest out of all the single driver systems and probably has the lowest distortion in the bass too.
Wow. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed with the level of response I'm getting here. It really puts into perspective for me just the level of thought and design that goes into a system.
I am keen to give the port tuning idea a go as you suggest. Interesting that you say it doesn't matter if the port sticks out the box - are there any commercial designs that have an adjustable port?
I am keen to give the port tuning idea a go as you suggest. Interesting that you say it doesn't matter if the port sticks out the box - are there any commercial designs that have an adjustable port?
And Id rather buy the one that sounds the best.
Perhaps one should only recommend speaker they have heard? or you think you can already determine the sound of a speaker with measurments?
If you say that the reference 3 a have a rising response, what do you say about the 10-15db rising response of fullrangers?
Form what I see, the ``rising response`` is really only a 5 db peak at 10 khz.
BTW, by looking at headphones FR, One may wonder why one earth the senheiser hd 650 sounds so good. But they do.
Last edited:
Usually it's the ones that measure the best that sound the best in the long term, ie with very extended listening and with all types of music.
Well all of those 3 ways I recommended are designs that measure very well and have been subjectively reviewed by lots of people who love the way they sound.
Only a 5dB peak? that's almost four times the amount of acoustic power. A 5dB rising response by 10kHz sounds way too bright to me and is very tiring in long term listening. I don't typically use full rangers, but of those that I have used, they either need a tweeter or a crossover to tame issues otherwise they aren't pleasant to listen to.
Headphones are a different thing entirely due to the grossly different interface between the ear and the headphone driver itself.
This is getting off topic though, so please keep things in line with the thread.
I am not working to personal preferences I am working to a standard SPL level set by the recording industry to hear the intended tonal balance for a recording. In the film industry this is fully defined but in the music industry it is a bit vague but is around the same level as the film industry. I consider being able to cleanly reproduce this standard SPL level a minimum requirement for high fidelity equipment.
My personal preference is to listen to certain types of music louder than this and others quieter. Sound level also varies with what I am doing and what I feel like.
I think the whole idea of arriving at an industry standard is bogus, regardless of whether it is precisely defined.
I don't listen to movies as loud as the specification would recommend and I listen to music at volume levels quite a bit lower than I watch movies at.
My mother listens to everything very quietly indeed and regardless of what any specification says, it would be pointless for her to buy a system that can go any louder than about 85-90dB on peaks. Yes I am being serious, she listens that quietly, probably an average of 65dB on compressed stuff.
If you know what your listening habits are, there's no point in building a system to meet a specification you know you'll never need to meet.
Having said that there are performance gains to be had by building a system that is capable of very high SPLs, but one should only go this route if they are looking for absolute perfection and have a decent amount of space to put the speakers in.
I don't listen to movies as loud as the specification would recommend and I listen to music at volume levels quite a bit lower than I watch movies at.
My mother listens to everything very quietly indeed and regardless of what any specification says, it would be pointless for her to buy a system that can go any louder than about 85-90dB on peaks. Yes I am being serious, she listens that quietly, probably an average of 65dB on compressed stuff.
If you know what your listening habits are, there's no point in building a system to meet a specification you know you'll never need to meet.
Having said that there are performance gains to be had by building a system that is capable of very high SPLs, but one should only go this route if they are looking for absolute perfection and have a decent amount of space to put the speakers in.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.