I disagree about your first statement. A 'good' loudspeaker is able to play anything.
There will be compromise yes ( about extension in freq, level, etc,etc,..) but 'good' loudspeakers usually sounds more 'alike' than differents between them( and often 'boring' from some audiophile perspective).
The real differences comes down to directivity for me ( and ctc distance).
The style you play, your room, can indeed help you to identify where to put compromise in a design but it is valid for a personal approach ( diy something for you) and why it may come as an advice given here on this board.
But for a generalist design i would put limitation in a technical perspective ( spl level achievable, freq extension, directivity... relative to driver choices).
Open baffle could be made closer to a wall but you'll start inducing Early Reflection issues: you'll have ER in a range which will compromise the message reproduced.
For OB there is a limit in minimal distance. If you don't want to respect this then you start to induce distortions. Them being likeable or not is another matter but i'm sure you won't deliberatly put a fuzz box inline with your hifi at design stage no?
Wide baffle are out of fashion because of look in your living room. Bare none.
You doubt about it? Take a look at big commerfial 'mains' studio offer if it is the case...
And often they'll advice to mount them inwall too.
Someone taking the drive wheel. Hmmm. This won't be me.
How i see things there is too much compromise to be done for me in a project like this.
But yes this is what should be done imho: the 'open projects' done here previously ( open Monkey coffin come to mind) have been successfull thanks to that imho ( and the quality of the guys at play of course).
Last edited:
I'm actually quite happy with my small livingroom speakers (Double 6,5" sealed + Seas FU10RB in a slightly hornloaded OB configuration, 1st order filters), and have been contemplating scaling them up.
I would most likely put an 18" on the side in a sealed volume or double 12" on the front, and have the baffle extend over the box to a coaxial like perhaps the Faital 10HX230.
So in-sum that would be a slim-ish closed box for bass with a coaxial mounted as dipole on top.
I would most likely put an 18" on the side in a sealed volume or double 12" on the front, and have the baffle extend over the box to a coaxial like perhaps the Faital 10HX230.
So in-sum that would be a slim-ish closed box for bass with a coaxial mounted as dipole on top.
Yeah, big speakers have very good sound in general, unless ruined by silly mistake in design/implementation. Most of it is just good sounding nice high SPL capability for the full bandwidth, the very basic things puts big smile on the face, even if the xo wasn't perfect fit or the cone material was something not in fashion Even with low volume there can be tactile feel to the sound, total control. Add in controlled dispersion to reduce the room effects for more definition, nice. Not sure if anyone would prefer small speakers other than for looks, fit and cost. Without going to specifics.
Toole and others have published papers on studies that conclude what kind of speakers and measurable properties people prefer, in general, in blind listening situation. Latest publication that lays on top of studies from past and is relevant for home DIY hobbyist is the CTA-2034-A "Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers" which kind of tries to give out how to achieve this good sound found by the studies. It only makes lot of sense to try and design something that have been found to sound good for most people. The most includes audio professionals as well as people from the street I believe, I've seen some short pieces of Tooles work floating around
Even with low volume there can be tactile feel to the sound, total control. Add in controlled dispersion to reduce the room effects for more definition, nice. Not sure if anyone would prefer small speakers other than for looks, fit and cost. Without going to specifics. Toole and others have published papers on studies that conclude what kind of speakers and measurable properties people prefer, in general, in blind listening situation. Latest publication that lays on top of studies from past and is relevant for home DIY hobbyist is the CTA-2034-A "Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers" which kind of tries to give out how to achieve this good sound found by the studies. It only makes lot of sense to try and design something that have been found to sound good for most people. The most includes audio professionals as well as people from the street I believe, I've seen some short pieces of Tooles work floating around
Last edited:
I have no bias one way or the other, a good coax can be a lot of fun, and the 10HX230 is pretty good, it would also be slightly less work to build. No internally separate chambers since the top would be OB, one less hole to make, fewer screws.
I do have a few thoughts about high value 2way projects, but that's not for this thread.
Love my big setup in the cellar.
Edit:
My youngest daughter loves the big speakers, having fun trying my gaming rig. She once said to a proud stereo enthusiast that he had small speakers, think it was a Klipsch RF7.
I do have a few thoughts about high value 2way projects, but that's not for this thread.
Love my big setup in the cellar.
Edit:
My youngest daughter loves the big speakers, having fun trying my gaming rig. She once said to a proud stereo enthusiast that he had small speakers, think it was a Klipsch RF7.
Attachments
Last edited:
What is the first thing that you like about open baffle, because I wonder how this will fit in? Have you built open baffle or are you curious?
Here is parallel thread that talks about stuff I've been trying to say considering having a goal and having system design to make it.
Expensive speaker DIY projects on the internet- wrong road?
Having design goal in general is a must before embarking a design process. Whether it is to make money or to make good enough sound, or looks or what ever. Not having one ends up as failure, bunch of things in the air hardly makes a working system (might fit for some unknown application). There are systems that fit to some particular application and those who don't. Among the ones that fit there is good and bad designs. All cost money and the bad ones are just not worth it.
Figure out the goal, and make as good design as possible to it with the current knowledge and you have it, a good system for the particular application. I'm writing this still stuck on the "reference" title of the topic
What can we do without a goal, or a plan? Discuss on related stuff until some common issues are found and maybe have nice collection of fact and thoughts on the subjects? For example the midrange stuff could be on thing very common to any 3-way design and worthy trying to collect ideas on. Implementable on most systems or what the implication of different concepts (like OB, baffle width, MTM for example) would have on the midrange.
Expensive speaker DIY projects on the internet- wrong road?
Having design goal in general is a must before embarking a design process. Whether it is to make money or to make good enough sound, or looks or what ever. Not having one ends up as failure, bunch of things in the air hardly makes a working system (might fit for some unknown application). There are systems that fit to some particular application and those who don't. Among the ones that fit there is good and bad designs. All cost money and the bad ones are just not worth it.
Figure out the goal, and make as good design as possible to it with the current knowledge and you have it, a good system for the particular application. I'm writing this still stuck on the "reference" title of the topic
What can we do without a goal, or a plan? Discuss on related stuff until some common issues are found and maybe have nice collection of fact and thoughts on the subjects? For example the midrange stuff could be on thing very common to any 3-way design and worthy trying to collect ideas on. Implementable on most systems or what the implication of different concepts (like OB, baffle width, MTM for example) would have on the midrange.
Last edited:
@krivium
I disagree about your first statement. A 'good' loudspeaker is able to play anything.
Where did you read this? I never said that.
What I did say that depending on the music you play, your priority, ... some things are more or less important. If I play only vocals, Im not interested in deep bass or high extended highs. The focus is the mid's.
So Someone can build the best speaker form themself but it doenst mean it is the best for everyone.
All this is part of the learning process. Maybe your music preferences also change during your journey.
We are going of topic again here...many interesting debates but none of them help to kick off the project.
I disagree about your first statement. A 'good' loudspeaker is able to play anything.
Where did you read this? I never said that.
What I did say that depending on the music you play, your priority, ... some things are more or less important. If I play only vocals, Im not interested in deep bass or high extended highs. The focus is the mid's.
So Someone can build the best speaker form themself but it doenst mean it is the best for everyone.
All this is part of the learning process. Maybe your music preferences also change during your journey.
We are going of topic again here...many interesting debates but none of them help to kick off the project.
Last edited:
Yes, a good speaker can do vocals every bit as well than one lacking the extremes but is unnecessarily costly and big for the application! Hence bandwidth as requirement. One could expect music taste to change, and also the industry changes. There were no subs in the oldies. Hence requirement for bandwidth for music system should be sufficiently wide. Perfect 20-20kHz reproduction might be too expensive but relax it a bit and 99% of current stuff and music taste is covered. Basing designs to slowly changing or static stuff like physics of sound and hearing system will get a long lasting enjoyment.
I haven't explicitly said it but building and listening multiple designs using one set of drivers there is gonna be those that one likes better than other, what ever the metric it was (size, cost, looks vs enjoyment of the sound, vocals) but it is ones goal or ideal that the judgement is based on was it made subconsciously or knowingly. Making it knowingly beforehand reduces the need to build all the options imaginable. And that is what is missing to kick a project going, we need only one or possibly few similar to each other.
As the remainder is iterated every iteration should lead towards the goal / ideal until achieved and it is pretty easy to evaluate when progress is made and when not when there is the goal/ideal to judge against. Be it with measurements or without.
I haven't explicitly said it but building and listening multiple designs using one set of drivers there is gonna be those that one likes better than other, what ever the metric it was (size, cost, looks vs enjoyment of the sound, vocals) but it is ones goal or ideal that the judgement is based on was it made subconsciously or knowingly. Making it knowingly beforehand reduces the need to build all the options imaginable. And that is what is missing to kick a project going, we need only one or possibly few similar to each other.
As the remainder is iterated every iteration should lead towards the goal / ideal until achieved and it is pretty easy to evaluate when progress is made and when not when there is the goal/ideal to judge against. Be it with measurements or without.
Last edited:
Agreed. The question is who?[/QUOTE]
I'm curious because I never heard them. I like the sound characteristic some describe. I'm also interested to learn how to overcome some of the shortcoming inhered on the design.
What is a good compromise if OB isn't possible? dipool? Wide baffle? other designs....
Some say wide baffle is out of fashion...
Well I didnt even know they exist in the first place.
And commercially all kinds of hifi speaker are out of fashion now...the business isn't what it was 20-30y ago. Most people buy a small sonos speaker. Simplicity/connectivity is more important then accurate sound nowadays.
Like the revival of the bose speaker.
Hence this project (In my view) with moderate cost a platform where with some adaptions its possible to explore all types of speakers.
The newby, this project is for is already someone interested in hifi and in search of accurate sound. Most will be coming for commercial speakers and want to improve. Like hihijim said...If we could build for $600 and compete with commercials builds in the price bracket $2000-$5000. It will be very appealing for those.
I'm curious because I never heard them. I like the sound characteristic some describe. I'm also interested to learn how to overcome some of the shortcoming inhered on the design.
What is a good compromise if OB isn't possible? dipool? Wide baffle? other designs....
Some say wide baffle is out of fashion...
Well I didnt even know they exist in the first place.
And commercially all kinds of hifi speaker are out of fashion now...the business isn't what it was 20-30y ago. Most people buy a small sonos speaker. Simplicity/connectivity is more important then accurate sound nowadays.
Like the revival of the bose speaker.
Hence this project (In my view) with moderate cost a platform where with some adaptions its possible to explore all types of speakers.
The newby, this project is for is already someone interested in hifi and in search of accurate sound. Most will be coming for commercial speakers and want to improve. Like hihijim said...If we could build for $600 and compete with commercials builds in the price bracket $2000-$5000. It will be very appealing for those.
Last edited:
^^ Yes nobody of my friends or relatives mind about speakers or music reproduction in general. All they want is small and easy and get rid all of the cabling. They are pretty impressive in general with all the psychoacoustic processing and what not, something else than 80's boomboxes. More over they seem to want to talk to the speakers! Or at least the speaker manufactures want to listen the talking..
There is a goal! Can we better the small BT boxes for some reasonable money? Probably not. Maybe there is the chance in the price range mentioned? Anyone know offerings on few thousand dollars that we could try and better? What are the similarities on that price range or is it just the usual variety of differentation try and make a sale in the niche market?
There is a goal! Can we better the small BT boxes for some reasonable money? Probably not. Maybe there is the chance in the price range mentioned? Anyone know offerings on few thousand dollars that we could try and better? What are the similarities on that price range or is it just the usual variety of differentation try and make a sale in the niche market?
MrHifiTunes:This is what i understood from your text but i may have not understood or read too fast ( english is not my native language).
Being a former studio recording engineer i know 'good' loudspeakers are able to play anything and there is no preference involved into that.
But with your clarification i think we agree.
I'm not sure we are going off topic. The link i gave to design criteria should have made you think about the possibility of reuse of a given set of drivers: it'll be very difficult to reuse a set for a three way into a two for example.
Requirements are differents given the xover points won't be located on the same area and the built of drivers won't focus on the same things.
Directivity behavior is key in my view too. Here again a 8" +wg+1" and a 8"+4"+1" will ask for different parameters in the driver choice.
The way i plan things is to first start about requirements of spl/freq extension at listening position. Then the size of box then directivity i want.
From then how to achieve those goals and the technology i'll use ( invariably dsp and multiamp for me).
None of this points have been given and as i stated i won't take the lead in this so... we discuss on ( more or less +/-3db) related stuff.
Being a former studio recording engineer i know 'good' loudspeakers are able to play anything and there is no preference involved into that.
But with your clarification i think we agree.
I'm not sure we are going off topic. The link i gave to design criteria should have made you think about the possibility of reuse of a given set of drivers: it'll be very difficult to reuse a set for a three way into a two for example.
Requirements are differents given the xover points won't be located on the same area and the built of drivers won't focus on the same things.
Directivity behavior is key in my view too. Here again a 8" +wg+1" and a 8"+4"+1" will ask for different parameters in the driver choice.
The way i plan things is to first start about requirements of spl/freq extension at listening position. Then the size of box then directivity i want.
From then how to achieve those goals and the technology i'll use ( invariably dsp and multiamp for me).
None of this points have been given and as i stated i won't take the lead in this so... we discuss on ( more or less +/-3db) related stuff.
Last edited:
@krivium No problem ...English isn't my native tongue either. But I think we are on the same level.
I also know that not all kind of designs will be possible with just 1 set of drivers eg "8+4"+1"
But if chosen correctly I assume we can cover some.
More then 20 pages we go more side ways then forward. Interesting stuff nevertheless but not for take off of this project.
Maybe need to rephrase things?
If we have a 1 set of 3 drivers 8"+ 4" +1"
What designs are possible if chosen wisely?
Those designs are our base designs.
After those base designs...then more critically can be looked at them how to improve them even more. Maybe XO alterations, maybe introducing a waveguide, maybe introducing a second woofer or mid, etc....
But all start with the same set of 3 drivers.
One can then go sideways and make the different designs (if you are interested in 1 or more of them, for sure no one will build all of them) If you have preference for 1 then can go deeper to optimise it.
I also know that not all kind of designs will be possible with just 1 set of drivers eg "8+4"+1"
But if chosen correctly I assume we can cover some.
More then 20 pages we go more side ways then forward. Interesting stuff nevertheless but not for take off of this project.
Maybe need to rephrase things?
If we have a 1 set of 3 drivers 8"+ 4" +1"
What designs are possible if chosen wisely?
Those designs are our base designs.
After those base designs...then more critically can be looked at them how to improve them even more. Maybe XO alterations, maybe introducing a waveguide, maybe introducing a second woofer or mid, etc....
But all start with the same set of 3 drivers.
One can then go sideways and make the different designs (if you are interested in 1 or more of them, for sure no one will build all of them) If you have preference for 1 then can go deeper to optimise it.
Sorry I haven't seen one, other than the soundbar you made. That was a goal, to make a soundbar and a fine one. Maybe I missed a post? Otherwise I get your goal as to have set of drivers that could work on any design to make project on learning what is important and what is not? But that is backwards what a design project would be, which I got feeling andy suggested we would develop the thread towards, make it a design discussion of sorts.
You can already do learning project covering all bases. There are threads on most speaker concepts on the forum already. Certainly enough to get started. Mind the wavelengths to weed the foo out of reality, and think what is important to make good sound and what is just marketing. What are the trade-offs. I have listed some projects that share some drivers between each other so you could get a jump start. I'm not sure we should make those projects again on this thread? See #608
I'm on a wrong thread but can stop posting, I, should, stop, now. Bye for a while
Last edited:
Yes each platform will have its unique crossover design.
My first DIY build was CARRERA. 45 degrees panels. detachable front and back. Front don't have screws. it's detachable from the inside.
some pictures can be seen here : 2-way to bring me to HiFi-heaven....and having fun on the way - forum.zelfbouwaudio.nl
Even had to make the hole for the tweeter smaller, some were surprised it's possible and learned from me how to do it.
2nd build a soundbar with 2 FR drivers and 2 woofers.
Made everything myself. FR drivers are 15 degrees angled, woofers on the side. Each in their own compartment. Calculated the BR port made the XO. Add the 2.1 amp and compartment for the remote so it easy to find it back
Made it all in the bathroom, with limited tools. just bought a router because the person who would make the holes charged me double price of a cheap router.
....
Your previous projects had very good goals and ended up with very good design and as good implementation as possible with bathroom condition. Compartment for remote, thats proper design to me!
Yes crossovers are particular for particular design and build! Crossover ties the thing together and is not directly translatable to other projects unless accuracy is not important. One would even want to optimize xo for each left and right of a stereo pair individually since tolerances in driver manufacturing are wild and the construction might have leaks etc.! Crossovers are important but only for the single concept they are optimized to.
Thinking of crossover as magic bean or separate thing is wrong. It is part of the whole system and implementation of crossover depends on the system not on the fashion. System performance depends on the physical construct mostly, the drivers and structure and their relation to each other and the wavelengths! Xo is there to prepare the signal for the physical construct to reproduce, and combine acoustically back to original in the sweet spot! Only this stage is important with audio quality in mind, the sound at the ear! not sound after the crossover network since there is a lot for the sound to travel before reaching the ear, including all the acoustic domain the ear operates in.
Although fashion sells better making more sold units does not have anything to do with audio quality. Believe me you get best sound by assuming any crossover is possible until it is time to implement one, for a design, to tie it together, to finish the sound the construct is prepared for. Icing on the cake. Why not use any project already built to test out various crossovers on? They might have implemented it in the sake of marketing or cost savings and not optimized for the sound?
There is no best design in category if category means OB or 3-way or transmission line because the quality or correctness or bestness depends on the application!!
How to evaluate what is better than others since the cost size and audio quality betternes vary in context, if it is for bedroom, living room or public auditorium. SPL bandwidth and dispersion for example. So yes, lets discuss the application, the goal, and then we could check out what was best for it. Then there is the requirements, desiding on the construct to meet the requirements, then choosing suitable drivers, building it, measuring, as last step make the the xo. Revisit build and xo if necessary to finish it. Hopefully the whole design does not need revisit. If there was a goal and good design for it then it should not.
Jolly weekend!
Last edited:
@tmuikku
I didnt know I had to go back so much but on post 539 and 566 I gave some input for requirements.
But Like HifiJim said we need a leader. If no one wants to stand up then ....
I better start a new topic then and ask for help(or guide me to some proven designs) to make a wide baffle TL design with eg some ABacoustic drivers or with the drivers I have. But thats my personal take on things.
I didnt know I had to go back so much but on post 539 and 566 I gave some input for requirements.
But Like HifiJim said we need a leader. If no one wants to stand up then ....
I better start a new topic then and ask for help(or guide me to some proven designs) to make a wide baffle TL design with eg some ABacoustic drivers or with the drivers I have. But thats my personal take on things.
I'm on with you on this. I feel this would be about the minimum to reach nice enjoyable sufficiently high SPL. But it is a big setup... doesn't have to be costly though, easily on the 600$ for drivers I say.
There are my ramblings that kind of answer to your posts, for example the #565 hints what kind of project would enable to experiment various configurations of a 3 way concept. For some reason I didn't respons to you directly, perhaps thought to write as per I understood andy point of the thread. I'm not native english either, as you might have noticed
For sure, a specific set of requirements would get better help on dedicated thread. General tip finding proven designs: look for the stars, number of stars and views and posts. I think there are many proven in this regard. Those I mentioned in #608 certainly have had following. There is TL version of the XRK FAST project as well, you should check that out. In general the more exotic alignments are found in the fullrange forum. They do what ever they can to get most out of a single driver. That is not necessary with 3-way speakers and I think that is why there are not many in the multiway forum.
Last edited:
This one more stuck, forgot to comment on
There is no requirements because there is no goal as I've preached. As I understand requirements they are things that absolutely need to be accomplished one way or another on a project. Limitations on the other hand are things that absolutely cannot be left ignored. 600$ price tag is a limitation. SPL capability of 85db(c) at listening spot is a requirement. And at the end, one might realize the requirements and limitations would need to be relaxed a bit to achieve suitable compromise fitting the goal as well as possible.
But, the goal is still missing so there is no point laying out requirements. As krivium gave real example to design monitors for studio use. There are some requirements that need to be filled like the SPL capabiity, bandwidth and dispersion, or perhaps low latency in the signal path. There might be limitations like size and budget and driver selection for example, or old DSP unit that doesn't have FIR capability.
Then it is time to design studio monitors with the requirements and limitations. Design could be 3-way concept or OB concept or something else, what ever fits the bill, fills the requirements and respects the limitations.
Project with goal of "3-way where anything is possible" would have very different requirements, perhaps something like: modular design so that SPL and dispersion and bandwidth and xo can be anything whoever wants to. Limiting to a set of drivers or crossover topology would possibly yield setting where some requirements cannot be met. Here is why I think it is backwards process to choose drivers or x-way concept before defining a goal.
Things can be done purely out of interest but people have different interests and not sure it would play out. There are dedicated threads for dedicated interests already. I think there is no way further as group effort, what you think how this could play out? Maybe point of this thread is to discuss about the 3-way stuff like you and others have suggested since what is the interest for this thread and topic? Just chat around like I've been doing? hell no, hopefully it develops further from here, into a design goal
Last edited: