Hi, i read this thread with a lot interest. I was on the thread about Troels TL 2 , I asked about building TL2 to replace my DTQWT mkIII, had good advices, but i'm not so sure right now reading about the Mona Kea. I have to say i love my dtqwt but the power handling - no high pass on the 8008 - is a problem for me - like a teenager would do i pushed the volume to high and slightly dammaged a 8008
So i went to the TL2, as an evolution of my dtqwt, i had excellent advices on the other thread, but reading along, and mostly realizing the very high final cost of the TL2, i came to think about the Mona Kea, or even the Menhir L. Do you thing these would be a good evoltion of my dtqwt ? My listening room is 6mx5m and around 4m heigh (that's a big volume) and i listen every sort of music (symphonic, rock, pop, electro..) and like from time to time pushing the volume very high (electro). Right now, i don( want to make bass management with a distinc subwoofer, i want a big (but not so high, no more thant 1m height) speaker with passive crossover. So i thought about the Mona Kea, and why not the Menhir L. And so i'm here, what do you think about them, regarding my dtqwt ? Thx
So i went to the TL2, as an evolution of my dtqwt, i had excellent advices on the other thread, but reading along, and mostly realizing the very high final cost of the TL2, i came to think about the Mona Kea, or even the Menhir L. Do you thing these would be a good evoltion of my dtqwt ? My listening room is 6mx5m and around 4m heigh (that's a big volume) and i listen every sort of music (symphonic, rock, pop, electro..) and like from time to time pushing the volume very high (electro). Right now, i don( want to make bass management with a distinc subwoofer, i want a big (but not so high, no more thant 1m height) speaker with passive crossover. So i thought about the Mona Kea, and why not the Menhir L. And so i'm here, what do you think about them, regarding my dtqwt ? Thx
I honestly cannot recommend the Menhir-L. I also like the concept, but I don't think the design of the x-over is realy good. I also think one or two other things, such as the much too small BR port, are questionable.
That was the reason why I did a speaker like this myself. But it's in a price range below.
The Mona Kea is on a completely different level in terms of sound compared to the menhir.
I'm sorry Tubeglow49, I prefer not to say anything about high-end x-over components. The numerous blind tests in which ALL fans of such things have failed so far speak for themselves.
You can't have heard the Countach at all, because apart from Alex and one builder there is no one who has heard it. It was certainly not the Countach that was presented in Karlsruhe or Bavaria, because the Countach was created during Covid-19 last year.
To draw conclusions about the Mona Kea from this box is simply not possible. The concepts differ very clearly, even if it looks similar at first glance.
I think it's a bit of a shame that inexperienced users everywhere get the impression that the expensive drivers or x-over parts decide about the sound.
Hardly anyone seems to be interested in the fact that the x-over design is actually responsible for 95% of the sound result. Room influence excluded.
If you change just one component value on the best loudspeaker, it sounds terrible. Caps made by virgins in Middle-Earth during a full moon do not help either.
It is also no problem at all to change a loudspeaker from warm to clinical by modifying the x-over design.
That was the reason why I did a speaker like this myself. But it's in a price range below.
The Mona Kea is on a completely different level in terms of sound compared to the menhir.
I'm sorry Tubeglow49, I prefer not to say anything about high-end x-over components. The numerous blind tests in which ALL fans of such things have failed so far speak for themselves.
You can't have heard the Countach at all, because apart from Alex and one builder there is no one who has heard it. It was certainly not the Countach that was presented in Karlsruhe or Bavaria, because the Countach was created during Covid-19 last year.
To draw conclusions about the Mona Kea from this box is simply not possible. The concepts differ very clearly, even if it looks similar at first glance.
I think it's a bit of a shame that inexperienced users everywhere get the impression that the expensive drivers or x-over parts decide about the sound.
Hardly anyone seems to be interested in the fact that the x-over design is actually responsible for 95% of the sound result. Room influence excluded.
If you change just one component value on the best loudspeaker, it sounds terrible. Caps made by virgins in Middle-Earth during a full moon do not help either.
It is also no problem at all to change a loudspeaker from warm to clinical by modifying the x-over design.
@ Rese66
About the dtqwt, you've heard it, you seem to like it, i know it's not an easy question, but how would you compare it to Mona Kea ? Initialy i was thinking about the TL2 as an evolution for me - a better one than my dtqwt - do you think Mono Kea would be another -and cheaper- solution - in this way for me ?
About the dtqwt, you've heard it, you seem to like it, i know it's not an easy question, but how would you compare it to Mona Kea ? Initialy i was thinking about the TL2 as an evolution for me - a better one than my dtqwt - do you think Mono Kea would be another -and cheaper- solution - in this way for me ?
Quote:
"I think it's a bit of a shame that inexperienced users everywhere get the impression that the expensive drivers or x-over parts decide about the sound.
Hardly anyone seems to be interested in the fact that the x-over design is actually responsible for 95% of the sound result. Room influence excluded.
If you change just one component value on the best loudspeaker, it sounds terrible. Caps made by virgins in Middle-Earth during a full moon do not help either.
It is also no problem at all to change a loudspeaker from warm to clinical by modifying the x-over design."
Hi rese, I had to laugh at the reference to "virgins in Middle-Earth". Your point about crossovers is well noted by this inexperienced user. From what i've been reading, it's also possible, up to a point, to adjust the crossover to account for LF likely room responses, e.g distance from walls -oops, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that issue - and I wish i knew how to position emojis in the right place!
"I think it's a bit of a shame that inexperienced users everywhere get the impression that the expensive drivers or x-over parts decide about the sound.
Hardly anyone seems to be interested in the fact that the x-over design is actually responsible for 95% of the sound result. Room influence excluded.
If you change just one component value on the best loudspeaker, it sounds terrible. Caps made by virgins in Middle-Earth during a full moon do not help either.
It is also no problem at all to change a loudspeaker from warm to clinical by modifying the x-over design."
Hi rese, I had to laugh at the reference to "virgins in Middle-Earth". Your point about crossovers is well noted by this inexperienced user. From what i've been reading, it's also possible, up to a point, to adjust the crossover to account for LF likely room responses, e.g distance from walls -oops, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that issue - and I wish i knew how to position emojis in the right place!
Last edited:
Can you please summarise the outline of the design you have settled on?
Issues related to strong reflections off the front wall cancelling with the direct sound are not correctable with EQ or in the crossover. You need to remove them in the design of the speaker or the design of the room.
Issues related to room resonances are partially correctable with EQ but a reasonable-to-good job will require distributed subs, large amounts of passive/active room treatment, directional bass,... and preferably a combination. The quality of the perceived low frequency response in a normal home will be poor (no correction) to modest (EQ on the part of the response that is equalizable) regardless of the quality of the main speaker because the room response dominates.
Issues related to background boundary reinforcement (the amount of "baffle step correction" required in the crossover) are correctable with EQ or in the crossover. Normal adjustments might be in the region of 2-3 dB whereas normal adjustments to room response might be 20-30 dB. They are not in the same ballpark when it comes to perceived sound quality.
Zaph|Audio - SB12.3 3-Way Tower
Zaph|Audio SB12.3 ~ SB Acoustics 12", Dual Midrange, 3-Way
Another fun option, and 92db sensitivity.
Zaph|Audio SB12.3 ~ SB Acoustics 12", Dual Midrange, 3-Way
Another fun option, and 92db sensitivity.
Thanks andy19191 for those comments. Unfortunately, I can't, at this point, summarise, the chosen design, in any detail - partly because it's under development, but also because I don't have the expertise to comment on the crossovers etc.
Dual 61/2 Purifi woofers:
The new 2.5" Satori dome mid range drivers
Bliesma Beryllium tweeters
Either, a large flared port, or passive radiators, depending on which of these solutions works best
Floorstanding cabinet of v. approximately: H. 102cm x W. 22cm x D. 32cm
I guess there are some clues to design objectives in the choice of speakers, particularly the Purifi long throw mid bass woofers; HiFi Compass offers some interesting analysis and evaluation for all three. I had gone to Selah Audio expecting to choose between several, off the shelf dual 7"/8"kits, but the above proposal was suggested as offering a better interface with my room, amp and listening requirements.
Are you comfortable with the extraordinarily high price of these speakers? The drivers alone will cost over €2500 plus boutique passive crossover components, cabinet construction,...
Are you expecting the perceived performance in your room to be better or worse than TG designs considered earlier and the 4 way considered later?
Assuming better can you explain, as you see it, where this will come from? For example, the quality of the individual drivers, the quality of the driver configuration, quality of the crossover, no idea just trust Rick Craig's judgement over those here,...
I am not trying to knock your choice since it is wholly yours to make but more trying to understand it. I am sure you must have picked up that for those who mainly value technical performance and maximising it for a given cost or even maximising technical performance without consideration of cost this is not a choice they would make.
Response to andy19191
(a) 2,100 euros at the last count and at the limits of my budget - the cabinet construction is down to me and the cost of this will be very small. There are plenty of TG designs with costlier drivers than these btw.
(b) No, of course not - How could I make any such judgements in my position? I don't have any comparative expectations with regards to performance of speakers in my room.
(c) Neither am I comparing anyone's judgement with anyone else's. I am absolutely not into such a pointless/magical thinking exercise! TG has given me some objective and invaluable advice which has led me in a different direction. Many of the contributors on this thread, including yourself, have also given freely of their expert advice and opinions and that has steered me too. I am incredibly grateful for all of this in equal measure. I see the evaluative comments that have accrued as incremental, not polarised. I will say that the Purifi's have been a significant factor in my choice because they appear to lend themselves particularly well to smaller cabinet designs. Rick Craig has long been of interest to me because of the number of double woofer (for which read slimmer) DIY speakers he has designed. Like many on diyaudio he is also keenly interested in the 'Purifi's. he designed some well received bookshelves and now we are looking at floor standers. Perhaps I shouldn't mention the 70 or so pages of enthusiastic comments by Purifi builders, on diy, that I referred you to above.
(d) Always difficult, I guess, for those with the competence to design crossovers etc, to understand poor fellows like me! Difficult for me to get my head round an apparent tautology in your final comment. If you are referring to those who like value for money and value technical competence and have the competence to design, then of course they wouldn't choose in the way that I have chosen. Perhaps you are saying that those interested in building kits, or someone else's design have no place on diyaudio; in which case sorry to have intruded!
(a) 2,100 euros at the last count and at the limits of my budget - the cabinet construction is down to me and the cost of this will be very small. There are plenty of TG designs with costlier drivers than these btw.
(b) No, of course not - How could I make any such judgements in my position? I don't have any comparative expectations with regards to performance of speakers in my room.
(c) Neither am I comparing anyone's judgement with anyone else's. I am absolutely not into such a pointless/magical thinking exercise! TG has given me some objective and invaluable advice which has led me in a different direction. Many of the contributors on this thread, including yourself, have also given freely of their expert advice and opinions and that has steered me too. I am incredibly grateful for all of this in equal measure. I see the evaluative comments that have accrued as incremental, not polarised. I will say that the Purifi's have been a significant factor in my choice because they appear to lend themselves particularly well to smaller cabinet designs. Rick Craig has long been of interest to me because of the number of double woofer (for which read slimmer) DIY speakers he has designed. Like many on diyaudio he is also keenly interested in the 'Purifi's. he designed some well received bookshelves and now we are looking at floor standers. Perhaps I shouldn't mention the 70 or so pages of enthusiastic comments by Purifi builders, on diy, that I referred you to above.
(d) Always difficult, I guess, for those with the competence to design crossovers etc, to understand poor fellows like me! Difficult for me to get my head round an apparent tautology in your final comment. If you are referring to those who like value for money and value technical competence and have the competence to design, then of course they wouldn't choose in the way that I have chosen. Perhaps you are saying that those interested in building kits, or someone else's design have no place on diyaudio; in which case sorry to have intruded!
Last edited:
IMO the main strength of the Purifi driver is in small two-way systems.
For a larger system I'd prefer a single (larger) woofer, dedicated midrange and tweeter.
It seems that Rick Craig prefers slim line speakers, using multiple 6 or 7 inch woofers for the floorstanders; largest woofer I see is the 9.5 inch Satori which is actually very marginally larger than a standard 8 inch woofer.
By the way, who will design the crossover?
Top notch drivers alone do not make a high quality loudspeaker....
For a larger system I'd prefer a single (larger) woofer, dedicated midrange and tweeter.
It seems that Rick Craig prefers slim line speakers, using multiple 6 or 7 inch woofers for the floorstanders; largest woofer I see is the 9.5 inch Satori which is actually very marginally larger than a standard 8 inch woofer.
By the way, who will design the crossover?
Top notch drivers alone do not make a high quality loudspeaker....
I did not read your post in context of the rest of the thread so I do not know if my response is relevant. However, look at this post by Speaker Dave about how he corrected for the boundary on a near wall design.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...rinciples-near-wall-speakers.html#post2767632
It’s all about design goals. From a sound quality perspective you would select inwall or onwall two way designs, assisted by four (relative small) subs that deal with the modal issues quite well. Of course you’d need the DSP and separate amps for the subs, as well as a tuned highpass for the main speakers. The in- or onwall design would have been optimized to deal with the front wall reflections. Some of your budget would go into absorbers, diffusors and the like. I think budgetwise you could be in the range you are thinking about.
But if the goal is merely to put a pair of speakers in the room, which would be perfectly valid, you have to settle on the spoken acoustic constraints. I wouldn’t spend too much on fancy drivers and the like in that situation.
But if the goal is merely to put a pair of speakers in the room, which would be perfectly valid, you have to settle on the spoken acoustic constraints. I wouldn’t spend too much on fancy drivers and the like in that situation.
Last edited:
daanve said:
"IMO the main strength of the Purifi driver is in small two-way systems.
For a larger system I'd prefer a single (larger) woofer, dedicated midrange and tweeter.
It seems that Rick Craig prefers slim line speakers, using multiple 6 or 7 inch woofers for the floorstanders; largest woofer I see is the 9.5 inch Satori which is actually very marginally larger than a standard 8 inch woofer.
By the way, who will design the crossover?
Top notch drivers alone do not make a high quality loudspeaker"
Having taken a close look at the analysis and evaluation of these drivers in hificompass.com, my initial impression of these drivers was exactly the same as yours - and theirs. However, implicit in the writer's concluding remarks was an interest in what might be achieved in a taller than bookshelf cabinet, with either a port or passive rads. further reading on this forum suggests that in spite of a wide and smooth FR, such a project is not quite as easy as it looks and that maybe a filler driver would help, hence plenty of interest, currently, in a 3 way
I don't think slender 3 ways represent Rick Craig's preferences, not if you check out the scale of the work he has undertaken to date. However, the fact that this is what you see on the rarely tended and non representative selahaudio website, is probably a reflection of what so many people still opt for in their domestic settings. The fact that he offers a range of double woofer speaker designs on that site is precisely why I went his way, not because of any speculation about the comparative quality of his advice or judgement.
Rick Craig is designing the crossovers; it's what he does. He's most of the way there, having already tried the SBA domes with the Bliemsa's and the Purifi's with a ribbon in the "Purezza" bookshelf design. Obviously, I am sure he will be keen to explore the next step with these drivers, with or without me and I don't find anything wrong with that!
PS You don't say why you would prefer a single woofer, I'm aware that's the current drift, but I'd be interested to know.
"IMO the main strength of the Purifi driver is in small two-way systems.
For a larger system I'd prefer a single (larger) woofer, dedicated midrange and tweeter.
It seems that Rick Craig prefers slim line speakers, using multiple 6 or 7 inch woofers for the floorstanders; largest woofer I see is the 9.5 inch Satori which is actually very marginally larger than a standard 8 inch woofer.
By the way, who will design the crossover?
Top notch drivers alone do not make a high quality loudspeaker"
Having taken a close look at the analysis and evaluation of these drivers in hificompass.com, my initial impression of these drivers was exactly the same as yours - and theirs. However, implicit in the writer's concluding remarks was an interest in what might be achieved in a taller than bookshelf cabinet, with either a port or passive rads. further reading on this forum suggests that in spite of a wide and smooth FR, such a project is not quite as easy as it looks and that maybe a filler driver would help, hence plenty of interest, currently, in a 3 way
I don't think slender 3 ways represent Rick Craig's preferences, not if you check out the scale of the work he has undertaken to date. However, the fact that this is what you see on the rarely tended and non representative selahaudio website, is probably a reflection of what so many people still opt for in their domestic settings. The fact that he offers a range of double woofer speaker designs on that site is precisely why I went his way, not because of any speculation about the comparative quality of his advice or judgement.
Rick Craig is designing the crossovers; it's what he does. He's most of the way there, having already tried the SBA domes with the Bliemsa's and the Purifi's with a ribbon in the "Purezza" bookshelf design. Obviously, I am sure he will be keen to explore the next step with these drivers, with or without me and I don't find anything wrong with that!
PS You don't say why you would prefer a single woofer, I'm aware that's the current drift, but I'd be interested to know.
Last edited:
Many thanks for this link. It surely is relevant and a lot of homework for me, as many will testify.
If you are not set on building TG speakers, may I suggest you look at the Elsinore speakers. They might just be what the doctor ordered.
Without the locations of the listener, the drivers, the wall, the 30 degrees off-axis, the directivity of the woofer, etc... it is not clear to me how the direct and the reflected paths may be summing and cancelling in order to fill in the dip. Not disputing it (multiple drivers are used so it is possible unlike with a single driver) just stating that I cannot see it and the principle is not given in his words. What is clear though is that off-axis the sound in the room will have been raised substantially around 600 Hz and that will be detrimental and audible whatever his protestations to the contrary.
Approaches that work without detriment are to create a cardioid response (complex, expensive and inefficient) or to place the woofer/s close to the wall and the midrange well away from the wall in order to shift the respective dips out of the passband of both drivers. Other than constraining the crossover and the non-standard location of the woofer/s the latter is no more complex or expensive than a conventional 3 way designed for operation away from walls.
The most common approach that works with a modest level of detriment is simply to make the speakers wide and shallow in order to weaken the strength of the reflection. This works just as well for 1 and 2 ways not just 3 ways with a precisely chosen crossover between woofer and midrange.
The Purify is a 4ohm driver with 88db sensitivity.
In a speaker with some BSC you'll be at 85db or less.
That's rather low, so you'll need a very powerful amplifier.
The Purify is more a good driver for active 2-way systems.
I like more higher sensitive speakers,
they work with all kind of amplifiers and I find that they sound more dynamic.
In a speaker with some BSC you'll be at 85db or less.
That's rather low, so you'll need a very powerful amplifier.
The Purify is more a good driver for active 2-way systems.
I like more higher sensitive speakers,
they work with all kind of amplifiers and I find that they sound more dynamic.
danny_66 thanks for this. FWIW my amp is around 90watts NCC220. Rick Craig advised me against his current dual 8" designs because he felt my amp would not be powerful enough.
With my 87 db Epos es 22's, which are somewhat notorious for liking lots of power before they arise from slumber, I play cd at 8:00am for full whack and likewise LP at 9:00 to 9:30 volume control at which point, conversation can be difficult. More typically 7:00 and 8:00 respectively.
Important point about dynamics and I get that.
With my 87 db Epos es 22's, which are somewhat notorious for liking lots of power before they arise from slumber, I play cd at 8:00am for full whack and likewise LP at 9:00 to 9:30 volume control at which point, conversation can be difficult. More typically 7:00 and 8:00 respectively.
Important point about dynamics and I get that.
Last edited: