The BMS looks nice, but is way out of my budget. Looked at the 10C262 but it's OOP and not much cheaper as per TLHP. Once I see how yours pan out, I might get a pair of the 12's for a project I have in mind that could use up the 18s I have in a supporting role.
Otherwise, I like your thinking.
I'm vacillating* between a few options for my surrounds, which have been both coax and 10+1/WG before as well (with a 15" sealed <300Hz) and I'm in two minds as to which way to go this time; 15+8+1/WG or 15+8coax (8HX200) or the smaller 3 way monitor. I'm normally active only but doing either passive would mean 8ch less amplification or about 12RU less space. I have all the parts but for any passive xover bits I might need.
* I change my mind every second day or so.
I'm not surprised my plans are coincident to your view, all you wrote in the past about this ( as well as Pano, Gm, Pooh,...) i verified real life and agreed ( mostly i have my own pov from time to time! 😉 ).
The bms are not cheap yes, but the one i've seen screamed 'quality' to me ( 12c362) and sounded nice too. Better than the 12" Tannoy i have around (and i take as reference ( system1200)) on some area. The compression driver seems better on bms, maybe the 'waveguide' play a role too?
People usually have grief about woofer part not being able to go low enough for two ways: i think otherwise and see the 2/3octave they can produce without flaws as a real plus ( to have a bit of membrane area and low excursion for this so important freq range is desirable to me) and open design to three way ( or more) which is something i like ( i've not heard a lot of 'big' two ways i liked... despite the 'reference loudspeaker' i already mentioned and Kinoshita's RM7 even if there is things i disliked with this particular ones).
I agree pile of processors/amps and the ergonomy issues they bring have to be considered.
I would really like to listen to your system or AllenB's one... in fact to so many systems of so many members... 😉
Silvio please apologize O.T. ( Off Topic).
The bms are not cheap yes, but the one i've seen screamed 'quality' to me ( 12c362) and sounded nice too. Better than the 12" Tannoy i have around (and i take as reference ( system1200)) on some area. The compression driver seems better on bms, maybe the 'waveguide' play a role too?
People usually have grief about woofer part not being able to go low enough for two ways: i think otherwise and see the 2/3octave they can produce without flaws as a real plus ( to have a bit of membrane area and low excursion for this so important freq range is desirable to me) and open design to three way ( or more) which is something i like ( i've not heard a lot of 'big' two ways i liked... despite the 'reference loudspeaker' i already mentioned and Kinoshita's RM7 even if there is things i disliked with this particular ones).
I agree pile of processors/amps and the ergonomy issues they bring have to be considered.
I would really like to listen to your system or AllenB's one... in fact to so many systems of so many members... 😉
Silvio please apologize O.T. ( Off Topic).
Yes to me they are better in the high than the system1200.
The Tannoy seems to go lower and might be a tad 'better' about the woofer part but it is highly subjective and it could be expectation bias from my side, an issue related to box too maybe (tiny wedge in which Bms was used were not optimised for diffraction to say the least) or just 20 years of 'improvements'? The intended application are different too ( no way the Tannoy could compete on absolute spl!) so it's a bit apple to orange comparison in the end but still anecdotal evidence.
I really like the s1200. They are just behind System15Dmt2 in my personal ranking which are second best just behind 'the reference loudspeaker'.
But some Tannoy afficionados will consider the 1200 as sub par ( polyprop cone, seems like heresy ). Maybe they are right, maybe not. I can only relate Tony Maseratti use them and the guy is not your typical homeboy when it comes to mixing.
😉
The Tannoy seems to go lower and might be a tad 'better' about the woofer part but it is highly subjective and it could be expectation bias from my side, an issue related to box too maybe (tiny wedge in which Bms was used were not optimised for diffraction to say the least) or just 20 years of 'improvements'? The intended application are different too ( no way the Tannoy could compete on absolute spl!) so it's a bit apple to orange comparison in the end but still anecdotal evidence.
I really like the s1200. They are just behind System15Dmt2 in my personal ranking which are second best just behind 'the reference loudspeaker'.
But some Tannoy afficionados will consider the 1200 as sub par ( polyprop cone, seems like heresy ). Maybe they are right, maybe not. I can only relate Tony Maseratti use them and the guy is not your typical homeboy when it comes to mixing.
😉
I like the 215 system. Activating someone else's pair got me sort of excommunicated from one of the Tannoy groups years back and was the start of me realising that getting the bass and midbass out of the coax made a big difference.
Analogy: DMT passive to active was like being one spectacle prescription wrong and then getting the correct one.
Those BMSs are going to rattle in the back of my mind until I get a pair now - curses! The 18+12c idea has made it into my notebook so it will happen eventually.
Is your room 30 square feet or 30 square meters? If that is the case then why do you want to build 4 way speakers? 4 way speakers are notoriously hard to get right. Even well designed ones won't sound right in a room that small. We are talking a bedroom here right? Build a two way and add a 10" sub and that will cover you completely. Your 100 and 200 watt amps can drive a set of 2 way speakers easy enough and a passive cross over won't cost you 500 dollars. 4 way speakers generally have 4th order cross overs and a whole lot of additional filtering to compensate for things like phase shift, lobbing, diffraction, vertical dispersion, ringing and looking at your possible speaker choices there is going to be way to much over lap. Seriously, you will be quite surprised at what a quality 2 way set up with a subwoofer can sound like, and at a fraction of the cost. In a room that size a 2 way set of book shelf speakers (8" woofer and a 29mm tweeter) on stands with a 10" subwoofer is going to sound better then any 4 way, period. If you listen to classical music stick to a paper woofer something like the SB Acoustics papyrus and a ring radiator for a tweeter. Go with a passive 2nd or 3rd order Butterworth x-over or a DSP active x-over and a 10" sub with a plate amplifier with built in active x-over and you will be amazed at how good this setup can sound. A 4 way project will be a project that you will be unlikely to ever finish. Just saying. This is good advice and you should probably take it.
As he's not from the US, then 30m2 is most likely and a large 4way is not too large for the room. My current room is about 20m2 and my mains are extremely large, but you wouldn't know if you just listened and didn't look.
Jackaloop, Silivio Novis explained that he wants "audible excellence" in post 83 and is ready to go that extra mile. If he learns the active crossover setup you writing about, the 4 way solution is not that much harder but alot more masculine 
Yes. If I eat soy in front of my speakers, no sound will come out.
Hi,
I don't know if it is 'sonic excellence'.
I mean it is a kind of rendering (amongst others and i would be hard pressed to define an absolute best. To my own preference i can ... but absolute?).
I understand people into classical to not need a lot of acoustic impedance in the two last octave ( it could be argued however...) but once you have drums and listen to other music style then things are differents.
4way hard to do. In passive sure no question. In active and if 'corectly' implemented from the acoustic side of design it is not really different than another pair of loudspeakers: measure, interpret, setup the toys, measure, listen,... rince and repeat until happy.
I don't know if it is 'sonic excellence'.
I mean it is a kind of rendering (amongst others and i would be hard pressed to define an absolute best. To my own preference i can ... but absolute?).
I understand people into classical to not need a lot of acoustic impedance in the two last octave ( it could be argued however...) but once you have drums and listen to other music style then things are differents.
4way hard to do. In passive sure no question. In active and if 'corectly' implemented from the acoustic side of design it is not really different than another pair of loudspeakers: measure, interpret, setup the toys, measure, listen,... rince and repeat until happy.
Last edited:
As it should be, but true men don't eat soy and if your speakers should ever see you eating soy they would loose all respect for you and they will never play for you again. Because in the DIY audio circles there is no such thing as toxic masculinity......Okay enough of that.
You do realize that very few people who attempt to build their very own 4 way speakers for their very first build having no knowledge of the technological aspects of speaker building and likely no knowledge of the wood working end of it either or the tools to do it ever complete the project successfully. But had they chosen to take on a more reasonable project their chances of ending up with something that they could use and enjoy improve exponentially. Just saying.
And you are right... i recently warned someone about everything you said in a thread about a Dunlavy SCVI inspired first project... but one as to take what the OP is looking for into account too.
I mean, after some page of discussion Silvio pointed to jbl 4345 as what he like, if this is what he is looking for no 'small' loudspeakers are going to please him as ime of such loudspeakers this is the high efficiency and big drivers ( large membrane area in low makes a difference) which are sought after.
Of course this will require skills in carpentry/woodwork. But the design is largely documented so i bet he is able to see by himself if he can manage or not this kind of adventure. If not he can still find some help from friend or professional.
Anyway i don't get the 'masculine' part. This is not something i'm after but i like the sound of big loudspeakers and i can tell because those was the tools i used daily in my former job... each one his own.
If this is not what you are after then perfect. I understand it as others do and it is fine.
I mean, after some page of discussion Silvio pointed to jbl 4345 as what he like, if this is what he is looking for no 'small' loudspeakers are going to please him as ime of such loudspeakers this is the high efficiency and big drivers ( large membrane area in low makes a difference) which are sought after.
Of course this will require skills in carpentry/woodwork. But the design is largely documented so i bet he is able to see by himself if he can manage or not this kind of adventure. If not he can still find some help from friend or professional.
Anyway i don't get the 'masculine' part. This is not something i'm after but i like the sound of big loudspeakers and i can tell because those was the tools i used daily in my former job... each one his own.
If this is not what you are after then perfect. I understand it as others do and it is fine.
Last edited:
This recent design from Alexander Gresler is quite masculine, quite well-designed and quite affordable. It almost is a shame the people from D.A.U. don‘t come around here more often. Probably no time, because they are too busy designing and having fun with that…
@krivium, the first three words from markbakk were the link - maybe it didn't show up too well on your browser.
Here it is plain if that helps:
http://www.donhighend.de/?page_id=7616
Here it is plain if that helps:
http://www.donhighend.de/?page_id=7616
Ah ok, those are the group of guys from which is originated the Asathor iirc.
Thank you both. Since i switched back to classic theme ( from dark) the embeded links doesn't show up easily.
Thank you both. Since i switched back to classic theme ( from dark) the embeded links doesn't show up easily.
It was done as an experiment. I deep fried the tofu in lard, but still, they knew...
Not being a commo, I don't recognise that term.
Didn't stop me in the 80s from doing it and it's a hell of a lot easier now.
I like that, but I'd have made it a bit wider so I could fit a 15 on each side.
That's a "trippy" speaker. It's like an acid trip just without the acid. Some Jimmy Hendrix would probably sound really good coming through those speakers.
Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the finish, which compared to some of the guitars I've seen is positively pedestrian.