With electrical compensation., you don't have to know the distance, because once you measure phase it happens automatically. Maybe in the '70s less people used to measure their speakers, because there isn't really a problem.
Today we have a new issue. When people talk about DSP, it has a delay feature and it gets confused with the old time alignment ideas.. but it's no different to passive, I can use the same passive methods with DSP.
A second confusion we have now is USB microphones, because they don't measure time and people have to work out the physical delay, so it gets talked about too much.
I'd like to clarify one of the things this person says, as I disagree with the way it comes across...
You do not have to get phase identical to blend speakers, in fact you can have good cross with an intentional phase shift between the drivers. It is not about 'locking in' imaging. Imaging is more about having a clean and balanced sound field around the speakers.
I spent a few years in the '90s trying to perfect phase alignments to the nearest degree, working on the application of different crossover types and slopes. These things didn't change the fundamental character of what I was hearing. While a crossover is very important part of a speaker, it can only work with the acoustic physical conditions that you provide it with.
… and not losing the tiny bits of information that do a lot to refine the image/soundstage
dave
Btw, he has experimented with different load, also for the mid, but He had not tried yet open back tunel for the mid, nore cardioid. While he has tried variovent type already.
In my limited experience, though I listened many speakers as people here, quality of passive parts matters when you have a good source and drivers with good clearness. While he glue to Jantzen for partnership reasons, the Red Jantzen is among the good one Q/P cap. Audyns are among my favorite one though too much expensive (good choice beginns with the Superior Plus imo).
In my limited experience, though I listened many speakers as people here, quality of passive parts matters when you have a good source and drivers with good clearness. While he glue to Jantzen for partnership reasons, the Red Jantzen is among the good one Q/P cap. Audyns are among my favorite one though too much expensive (good choice beginns with the Superior Plus imo).
My main concern with Troels' designs is that they all use some sort of resonant bass augmentation e.g. ports or transmission lines.
I guess he must tolerate or like bass overhang.
I guess he must tolerate or like bass overhang.
Back to the original question that started this thread.
I ended up building Troels Ekta-25 as seen here. Ekta-25
I haven't had time to test them yet because I got sidetracked building one of Randy Thatcher's Alephs.
I love the DIY experience although some of the challenges can be stressful at times.
I spent approximately the same amount of money on my Ekta's as I would've on the following.
Response D20R
Which would be 'better'? A good deal on a previously enjoyed high end speaker?
Or, the satisfaction of a successful DIY project?
Regards,
Dan
I ended up building Troels Ekta-25 as seen here. Ekta-25
I haven't had time to test them yet because I got sidetracked building one of Randy Thatcher's Alephs.
I love the DIY experience although some of the challenges can be stressful at times.
I spent approximately the same amount of money on my Ekta's as I would've on the following.
Response D20R
Which would be 'better'? A good deal on a previously enjoyed high end speaker?
Or, the satisfaction of a successful DIY project?
Regards,
Dan
Hello, I have carefully read (with google translate) this very interesting discussion thread. I am lover of sound reproduction,
I know how to work with wood, I know how to assemble XO nor the abilities to develop speakers, and I think that many are in my case.
When I wanted to build my first speakers, I searched on the sites of speaker manufacturers. speakers to see what was on offer.
This is how I discovered the SEAS Thor, then while looking for more information I discovered this forum and the “Small Thor MLTL” version. which I made in 2014 and which I still use despite the speakers which are breaking down.
This summer I did some listening in a store to buy an amplifier and a CD player, first, first on the Focal Kanta n2, then the Dynaudio Confidence 20, the B&W 804 and finally the B&W 803: the only ones that I found better than the Thor.
The listening room was not the same, but amplifier + player yes because I bought them.
All this to say that DIY allows access to a range that we could not afford but that it is not easy to find complete plans for achievements and that is why the people like me end up on the T.G. site.
I would like to make new, totally different speakers, high efficiency and large volume (my room is large), Klipsch style and apart from on the T.Gravesen site I did not find a “ready to build ".
Maybe I looked wrong...
I will definitely do the “Faital 3wc-15”, the quality/price ratio will definitely not be as good as the Thor, the speakers have been increased and the Jansen kit is expensive.
I hope that his detractors are not completely right and that his creations are still qualitative, I also tell myself that if it was really bad, the big brands would not sponsor it and would dissociate from it.
If some of you have an opinion on this kit, even theoretical, technical, objective, I am interested.
I know how to work with wood, I know how to assemble XO nor the abilities to develop speakers, and I think that many are in my case.
When I wanted to build my first speakers, I searched on the sites of speaker manufacturers. speakers to see what was on offer.
This is how I discovered the SEAS Thor, then while looking for more information I discovered this forum and the “Small Thor MLTL” version. which I made in 2014 and which I still use despite the speakers which are breaking down.
This summer I did some listening in a store to buy an amplifier and a CD player, first, first on the Focal Kanta n2, then the Dynaudio Confidence 20, the B&W 804 and finally the B&W 803: the only ones that I found better than the Thor.
The listening room was not the same, but amplifier + player yes because I bought them.
All this to say that DIY allows access to a range that we could not afford but that it is not easy to find complete plans for achievements and that is why the people like me end up on the T.G. site.
I would like to make new, totally different speakers, high efficiency and large volume (my room is large), Klipsch style and apart from on the T.Gravesen site I did not find a “ready to build ".
Maybe I looked wrong...
I will definitely do the “Faital 3wc-15”, the quality/price ratio will definitely not be as good as the Thor, the speakers have been increased and the Jansen kit is expensive.
I hope that his detractors are not completely right and that his creations are still qualitative, I also tell myself that if it was really bad, the big brands would not sponsor it and would dissociate from it.
If some of you have an opinion on this kit, even theoretical, technical, objective, I am interested.
I love my Ekta-25. It has no weaknesses or flaws that I can find. The reason I built it? If you're a DIYer and have the skills and budget. There's nothing more satisfying than creating your project!
In my opinion the main reason for the not-so-good price/performance ratio of this kit is the using of butique capacitors. Technically/theroetically what is also strange to me in this construction is the 8" midrange crossing to a (almost)flat faceplate 1" dome at relative high freqency, this probably creates a (large?) horizontal off-axis dip around the xo region. That we don't see on the constructor's website because he didn't published the off-axis responses of the speaker.
Otherwise looks good overall.
I built both the Faital 3WC (the original 12" version, not the 15") and the Ekta mk2. I'm not a professional reviewer or anything but I personally think both are excellent speakers and very enjoyable. I actually have a hard time deciding which is "better", and I swap between them every once in a while.
Attachments
You want to DIY?
You want a step up from SEAS Thor?
You want bigger
You want higher sensitivity?
Designed with up to date methodology and process?
Well documented?
I recommend checking out https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/
You want a step up from SEAS Thor?
You want bigger
You want higher sensitivity?
Designed with up to date methodology and process?
Well documented?
I recommend checking out https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/
Last edited by a moderator:
Great the smaller scan can be head to head , sound better as dinamic at lower volume ?
@xa1976 .
The question is why High efficienty ? Have you a tube amp already that limits your choices ? HF is a little a frrench disease imho (Melaudia, etc).
Why not something different like TG OB 15's ? OB works well in big rooms if you can space the OB from the front baffle away from 1 to 2 m minimum ! And there are for sure better OB here for free !
You can end with a kit less expensive than a Focal or a BW imo if you have wood work skills ?!
look here as well to make yourself an opinion : https://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/speakers.html
You will see HF bass drivers never had a lower F3 than lower efficienty hifi drivers. You have a big room, you choose a 15" so pro driver, maybe thinking it will go lower in bass for thebig room (how big?); so your are not either limited to a small load for it like the 3WC. Now it could be enough too, but I mean size of the driver is meaning nothing relative to your big room. Low efficienty loudspeakers do enough spl in big rooms for your ears before damages but you need to know what you need : listening average level, what is the amp, how far is the usual listening area... Do you need parties sometimes and needs so solid loudspeaker with pro made specs, etc !
When some pro drivers go lower than their natural roll off you more listening the sound of the box load and the room as well, it migth be a problem according your level of expectation.
Have you tried pro loudspeaker in the same or less price range than the brands you already listened to : Neumann, etc ?
The question is why High efficienty ? Have you a tube amp already that limits your choices ? HF is a little a frrench disease imho (Melaudia, etc).
Why not something different like TG OB 15's ? OB works well in big rooms if you can space the OB from the front baffle away from 1 to 2 m minimum ! And there are for sure better OB here for free !
You can end with a kit less expensive than a Focal or a BW imo if you have wood work skills ?!
look here as well to make yourself an opinion : https://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/speakers.html
You will see HF bass drivers never had a lower F3 than lower efficienty hifi drivers. You have a big room, you choose a 15" so pro driver, maybe thinking it will go lower in bass for thebig room (how big?); so your are not either limited to a small load for it like the 3WC. Now it could be enough too, but I mean size of the driver is meaning nothing relative to your big room. Low efficienty loudspeakers do enough spl in big rooms for your ears before damages but you need to know what you need : listening average level, what is the amp, how far is the usual listening area... Do you need parties sometimes and needs so solid loudspeaker with pro made specs, etc !
When some pro drivers go lower than their natural roll off you more listening the sound of the box load and the room as well, it migth be a problem according your level of expectation.
Have you tried pro loudspeaker in the same or less price range than the brands you already listened to : Neumann, etc ?
Last edited:
At the end buying a kit on a higher price range without hearing the speaker before, alsways involves a risk. Even if the hi-fi component is generally very good, the sound perception of a hi-fi component is extremely subjective. What is a slim bass for one person is already too much for another. One person finds the treble to be shrill, another does not. If you cannot hear it before, you do not know what the outcome will be.