I use a pair of 15PR400 from FaitaPro. The sound/tone is a lot like the better drivers of the 60s/70s (Altec, JBL, Pioneer, etc), combined with modern tech.
Hi @gug42,
How it finally ended with the Faital ?
Can't decide if I should cross a little low around 200 hz to a 6.5" or a 8" PA driver to profit from a higher spl (BSC on the mid unit not on the Faital) or higher below 500 hz with the BSC on the Faital 12pr320 so sligthy less spl, maybe more around 90 db at 2.83V and go for a dedicated 4" to 6" midrange...
How it finally ended with the Faital ?
Can't decide if I should cross a little low around 200 hz to a 6.5" or a 8" PA driver to profit from a higher spl (BSC on the mid unit not on the Faital) or higher below 500 hz with the BSC on the Faital 12pr320 so sligthy less spl, maybe more around 90 db at 2.83V and go for a dedicated 4" to 6" midrange...
Last edited:
hello ,
Being quite poor in simulation.
I would like to know what would be the dimension of 2 rectangular ports in 100 liters cabinet for the 12PR320 and the 15PR400.
if i made 2 ports 280mm lenght and 35 mm wide what should be the height?
My second question, if I decide to go sealed cabinet, what would be the best possible woofer and what to expect as F3 with the 15 and 12 Faital
Thank you
Being quite poor in simulation.
I would like to know what would be the dimension of 2 rectangular ports in 100 liters cabinet for the 12PR320 and the 15PR400.
if i made 2 ports 280mm lenght and 35 mm wide what should be the height?
My second question, if I decide to go sealed cabinet, what would be the best possible woofer and what to expect as F3 with the 15 and 12 Faital
Thank you
hi all
I'm planning on building a two-way system with the faital pro 12PR320 and the celestion CDX1-1412 - crossover point at 2000hz with 12db/oct.
Do you have any recommendations here?
Thanks!
I'm planning on building a two-way system with the faital pro 12PR320 and the celestion CDX1-1412 - crossover point at 2000hz with 12db/oct.
Do you have any recommendations here?
Thanks!
@KaffiMann yes I know it's a bit high, but the Celestion tweeter probably can't go much lower. What would the highest possible crossover point be with the faital pro unit in your opinion? With 12db/oct.
What I do not like is the peak around 2500Hz on axis of the 12PR320, could be less of an issue in real life.
Personally I would perhaps try mixing 18dB/oct highpass and 12dB/oct low pass, start experimenting centered xo around 1800Hz and fiddle with the values in VituixCAD to see what happens.
Edit:
Does not seem half bad to me:
Personally I would perhaps try mixing 18dB/oct highpass and 12dB/oct low pass, start experimenting centered xo around 1800Hz and fiddle with the values in VituixCAD to see what happens.
Edit:
Does not seem half bad to me:
Last edited:
Tried fiddling about for a little while, been years since I tried this last time, rusty 'ol me being able to figure this out in 35 minutes should translate to anyone with a bit more time on their hands should be able to demolish my sim in a couple of well invested hours.
The numbers are a slight pain to get 100% juuuust there but it is not an unrealistic sim IMO, by pure coincidence I ended up with an xo centered around 1800Hz. So there you have it.
Edit:
Hope you understand I am not trying to be difficult, would rather you tried finding some solution you can be satisfied with yourself, I do not mind nudging people in the right direction.
Teach a man to fish and all that....
The numbers are a slight pain to get 100% juuuust there but it is not an unrealistic sim IMO, by pure coincidence I ended up with an xo centered around 1800Hz. So there you have it.
Edit:
Hope you understand I am not trying to be difficult, would rather you tried finding some solution you can be satisfied with yourself, I do not mind nudging people in the right direction.
Teach a man to fish and all that....
Last edited:
I use a 12PR310 and JBL 2206 to 1200hz with good results. In fact this week I was ABing the 2206 project with the eighteen sound 6nd430\Wavecor TW30 project and think the 6.5" has a little more detail and vocal articulation but since I listen to rock guitar a lot favor the 2206.
A decent 12" can make it close to your target depending on the horn angle. Mine are around 90 degrees.
A decent 12" can make it close to your target depending on the horn angle. Mine are around 90 degrees.
Thanks both. So from what I understand, doing a crossover at around 1800hz is possible? I'm not a super experiences speaker builder, so I appreciate the help.
Also, how many litres would you recommend for the speaker cabinet?
I'm building a speaker with a rectangular port in wood and a yuichi horn on top (reference photo attached).
Also, how many litres would you recommend for the speaker cabinet?
I'm building a speaker with a rectangular port in wood and a yuichi horn on top (reference photo attached).
In your AB did you mean you tried the 6nd430 instead of the 2206, or did you mean in addition to? The 2206/6nd430/TW30 would be a 3-way. Thanks !
A 100L cabinet with a port of 30 (wide) x6 (high) x 20 (deep) cm would do it with the 12PR320. This is how it sims (taking in account a long thin slot port and lining inside). I simmed this before (but never build it). If you account for port, bracing and so the cabinet will be a bit larger (more like 125L) but you will have to calculate how much it takes in volume inside to know how much you need to add exactly.
Personally I think there are several advantages of placing the port on the front regardless of what type it is, placement is less of an issue as room coupling is slightly reduced, and I find that there is some directivity in lower frequencies that can be very nice to experience, then again that requires a certain quality of sound system as well as specific content.
Some people have the opinion that it does not matter... My counter argument is that they just lack the experience.
Some people have the opinion that it does not matter... My counter argument is that they just lack the experience.
The Open Source Monkey Box developed a box for the PR320 with a volume of around 80L. You can find the documentation here: https://github.com/mbrennwa/osmcdoc/blob/master/osmc_paper.pdf
If you read the thread you will see that they had some problems with the rectangular front port and because of other constraints they decided to put it on the back. Considering you will have a horn on top you might get away with just moving the round port to the front baffle.
If you read the thread you will see that they had some problems with the rectangular front port and because of other constraints they decided to put it on the back. Considering you will have a horn on top you might get away with just moving the round port to the front baffle.
They put it on the back because they did not want to increase the height by some centimetres to solve the problems properly, and then got an unexplainable urge to put the things on stands for some unknown reason, poorly utilized space IMO.
I really don't care much about this design, it is overly complicated and overly expensive, going through all that stuff fiddling with calculations and sims before suddenly deciding to willfully avoid the optimal solution that would make it a better compromise seems like such a waste to me. It went reasonably well with the crossovers and the simulations, felt like I did some decent contributions to prod the project in the right direction. Donated both by name and anonymously more than most.
Have been contemplating making a significantly cheaper alternative for the more resource conscious crowd for a long time, willing souls could participate in the development if it is possible to have a reasonable discussion to reach the most optimal solutions, perhaps it would be wise to have a test project first to get the right communication and chemistry.
If I am to go at it alone that is also a viable yet slower alternative, maybe it is time soon.
Know that I did some sims for a proper tower somewhere, forgot which thread it was.
I really don't care much about this design, it is overly complicated and overly expensive, going through all that stuff fiddling with calculations and sims before suddenly deciding to willfully avoid the optimal solution that would make it a better compromise seems like such a waste to me. It went reasonably well with the crossovers and the simulations, felt like I did some decent contributions to prod the project in the right direction. Donated both by name and anonymously more than most.
Have been contemplating making a significantly cheaper alternative for the more resource conscious crowd for a long time, willing souls could participate in the development if it is possible to have a reasonable discussion to reach the most optimal solutions, perhaps it would be wise to have a test project first to get the right communication and chemistry.
If I am to go at it alone that is also a viable yet slower alternative, maybe it is time soon.
Know that I did some sims for a proper tower somewhere, forgot which thread it was.
I did also quit following the tread, because of that. If you want to build a classic monkey box, that is not the way. The classice examples are more like the old JBL and Kef speakers, who had all the port in front so you can put the speaker in a lot of spaces, also against a wall and so.
Ports on the back require the epeaker to keep distance from the back wall (so you need a big room) because the port output will react with the back wall and change the tuning when to close. It can be the intention to do that, but very often it's not wanted The port up front makes the speaker less room dependent, but it has a the risk that you hear port resonances, so you need to take care of that. And you need a bigger baffle. The classic monkey coffin speaker like the JBL L100 is not a small speaker, but not that huge neighter.
But on port, you can put the port where you want as long as you take in account the influence of the port Best is to keep the port close to the driver so it does not start to act as a quarter wave resonator (Transmission line) and watch how the size of the port affects the sound. The more you deviate from a round port, the more it will have an influence, that can be good or bad (depending on the application and intention).
It can be good to make a variation of it that takes more in account that not many have a big budget or a big space like Kaffimann says. The actual design of the monkey box does not do that.
But in your case, I would put the port in front as you only have one driver in the box, and the other is in a seperate horn. You don't lack space on the front baffle. It's just easier to do right i think and make the speaker more versatile in placing in the room.
Ports on the back require the epeaker to keep distance from the back wall (so you need a big room) because the port output will react with the back wall and change the tuning when to close. It can be the intention to do that, but very often it's not wanted The port up front makes the speaker less room dependent, but it has a the risk that you hear port resonances, so you need to take care of that. And you need a bigger baffle. The classic monkey coffin speaker like the JBL L100 is not a small speaker, but not that huge neighter.
But on port, you can put the port where you want as long as you take in account the influence of the port Best is to keep the port close to the driver so it does not start to act as a quarter wave resonator (Transmission line) and watch how the size of the port affects the sound. The more you deviate from a round port, the more it will have an influence, that can be good or bad (depending on the application and intention).
It can be good to make a variation of it that takes more in account that not many have a big budget or a big space like Kaffimann says. The actual design of the monkey box does not do that.
But in your case, I would put the port in front as you only have one driver in the box, and the other is in a seperate horn. You don't lack space on the front baffle. It's just easier to do right i think and make the speaker more versatile in placing in the room.
Group projects are tough, because everyone has different opinions and requirements and what they have in mind, so group for some particular end results shrinks along the way 🙂
edit.
I was vocal on the port there on osmc thread years back, having just had experience on how to suppress noises from one. Perhaps it wasn't clear what the project priorities are then it endsup being a bad compromise. For example, if it must allow flexible positioning then port on the back is a wrong thing and the whole concept changes. If low cost is more important than audio quality, then port noises could be accepted and so on, as a weird example for importance of priorities. Just be clear on priorities to guide the process. No priorities means no guideline, which has high probability to end up being mixed bag of compromises and not successful project as it's not good for anyone. I don't remember what the priorities were on that if there was any. Well, good luck with next project!🙂
edit.
I was vocal on the port there on osmc thread years back, having just had experience on how to suppress noises from one. Perhaps it wasn't clear what the project priorities are then it endsup being a bad compromise. For example, if it must allow flexible positioning then port on the back is a wrong thing and the whole concept changes. If low cost is more important than audio quality, then port noises could be accepted and so on, as a weird example for importance of priorities. Just be clear on priorities to guide the process. No priorities means no guideline, which has high probability to end up being mixed bag of compromises and not successful project as it's not good for anyone. I don't remember what the priorities were on that if there was any. Well, good luck with next project!🙂
Last edited:
Reasoning a bit, power in DIY is basically that one can do project exactly to their wishes, which means every project for these folk are unique. Another big motivator and group of people is driven by curiosity, "Can I make a speaker? I wanna make loudspeakers, what does it take?" Such person goes to web and looks around and likely finds suitable kit that looks nice and first thing to check is how much it costs.
Thus, I think top priority for a group project is to target the latter group, something that would appeal for a lot of folk and is very reasonable in price, like much less of what Troels Gravesen kits are, because that's likely one of the first DIY speaker kit sites a person finds and gets scared about the price tag. They likely look for cheaper alternatives before committing and possibly find yours.
Instead of one speaker consider making series of kits such as computer desktop small, bookshelf small and a bigger floor standing one. These are simple to understand categories and likely what someone is already looking for. I think that if you have clear goal like this, or something even more clear, the design process becomes more straight forward and hopefully succesfull as group effort if you want to do it that way. Perhaps you already have figured everything out. Anyway, zipping coffee, back to work.
Thus, I think top priority for a group project is to target the latter group, something that would appeal for a lot of folk and is very reasonable in price, like much less of what Troels Gravesen kits are, because that's likely one of the first DIY speaker kit sites a person finds and gets scared about the price tag. They likely look for cheaper alternatives before committing and possibly find yours.
Instead of one speaker consider making series of kits such as computer desktop small, bookshelf small and a bigger floor standing one. These are simple to understand categories and likely what someone is already looking for. I think that if you have clear goal like this, or something even more clear, the design process becomes more straight forward and hopefully succesfull as group effort if you want to do it that way. Perhaps you already have figured everything out. Anyway, zipping coffee, back to work.