FWIW, a big thumbs down from me on SB15NRX. Had the NRX1s in a MTM with HDS tweeter. Don't like the mids. Bland and boring. Some others have said similar about the NRX family. I know some people think they're great. Not me. I guess we all have different ears. My pick would be a Peerless depending on availability.
The problem I have with those peerless is availebilty. It may be availeble now, but it's often not. That is my experience with them. Popular drivers like the SLS12 stay mostly availeble, but many of the midranges mentioned are mostly unavaileble, and only come in small batches to the shops who sell them often out in a few weeks. SB is way more availeble and measures good (but is expensive). I got very good experiences with Faital and Beyma drivers and they are widely availeble all the time and sometimes very cheap to buy, but they seems to be out of fashion here....
I propose a midrange listening test.
Everyone can participate, and will be able to listen to various drivers, and will be able to rank their preferred midrange driver, based on their own experience.
1. The sound recordings of drivers will be resilient to the effects of
A) The room
B) The microphone
2. The sound recordings will be not be made in noise, but made with real music-
A) in free air (for those who like listening to drivers raw)
B) in free air with a filtering applied (to simulate the effects of removing unwanted highs or lows or resonances, like how a crossover might behave)
C) in cabinets (to hear what happens when a driver has a baffle, and is placed inside an enclosure)
There are some downsides.
1. This is not about fashion (best looking driver)
2. Your room will not make a difference.
3. Being a participant only, you cannot be able to choose your own music to listen to other drivers.
This is a major disadvantage.
Being a contributor means that you will be able to choose your own test music.
If you regularly listen to music through the drivers you have, (Eg. before determining suitability for a project), then you are in prime position to benefit from this.
As other people start submitting their own recording of drivers, you will be able to compare your drivers to other drivers.
The goal is that through this shared activity, everybody will be able to listen to different midranges, and choose their most preferred one.
Now I’m sure we will not all agree. but by democratic decision we may be able to choose one or two most popular.
If this sounds interesting to you, and you would like to learn more, please follow this link
Everyone can participate, and will be able to listen to various drivers, and will be able to rank their preferred midrange driver, based on their own experience.
1. The sound recordings of drivers will be resilient to the effects of
A) The room
B) The microphone
2. The sound recordings will be not be made in noise, but made with real music-
A) in free air (for those who like listening to drivers raw)
B) in free air with a filtering applied (to simulate the effects of removing unwanted highs or lows or resonances, like how a crossover might behave)
C) in cabinets (to hear what happens when a driver has a baffle, and is placed inside an enclosure)
There are some downsides.
1. This is not about fashion (best looking driver)
2. Your room will not make a difference.
3. Being a participant only, you cannot be able to choose your own music to listen to other drivers.
This is a major disadvantage.
Being a contributor means that you will be able to choose your own test music.
If you regularly listen to music through the drivers you have, (Eg. before determining suitability for a project), then you are in prime position to benefit from this.
As other people start submitting their own recording of drivers, you will be able to compare your drivers to other drivers.
The goal is that through this shared activity, everybody will be able to listen to different midranges, and choose their most preferred one.
Now I’m sure we will not all agree. but by democratic decision we may be able to choose one or two most popular.
If this sounds interesting to you, and you would like to learn more, please follow this link
I would advise not to make things more complicated than needed. Midrange unit should meet 3 criteria:
Historically, a long term driver availability could be achieved with Visaton brand, but it's not in fashion, perhaps it never was,
and the many contributors have different beliefs what might sound good and have broader appeal.
p.s. Critically important is to design a really good sounding crossover filter. It's the weakest link of all.
- acceptable price range and regional availability
- acceptable FR linearity (build quality)
- easy to filter, lack of resonances
Historically, a long term driver availability could be achieved with Visaton brand, but it's not in fashion, perhaps it never was,
and the many contributors have different beliefs what might sound good and have broader appeal.
p.s. Critically important is to design a really good sounding crossover filter. It's the weakest link of all.
I think it will need much more than some Crossover tweek.
Narrower means woofer on side. And so crossover probably under 120. And so probably not the good mid. Or you need to go 4 ways, or 10 inch for bass driver to fit the slim enclosure.
Well an other speaker ^^.
But maybe this kind of project would have more traction ...
You could be right. I may be thinking wishfully. We'll see how this evolves.
*Narrower/taller doesn't necessarily mean KEF LS60 narrow. Instead of 15-16" wide, I'd go only wide enough to fit the woofer & reduce depth to allow height to rise to ~40" or so.
For sure. And I may try to make a bit the same : sb12mnrx-2 are on on the way, and I have a pair of SB26-STAC on the shelf. The gemma seems to be well reviewed. Putting a pair of 15OB350 that I also have do fit the enclosure. It''s tight but it fits. Going close and active for the woofer with a linkwitz transform and I have a new toy !
Hi,
You have helped already by advising about BSC. And that's fine! 🙂
As far I'm concerned, I think the challenge to make it cheap and pedagogic like you did with the OSMC are great motivations and make it an interresting project. And the other challenge to make it WW avialable is an interresting concept in that times of high intercontinental paranoia and isolation and middle-age foldinback again !
The only thing that perhaps could be frigthen, is a too big box. I'm not sure about that as the 3 ways Classic with a 12" seems to have attraction.
I would have solved that by a poll for also involving the peeps that could be attracted to make it.
It is not clear to me what is needed in most rooms for the bass, the F6 between the 10" & 12" SLS are almost the same. The 12" will have less THD problem, mainly around the Fc. The price of them is the same in Europe, so people perhaps wants "more" at iso wallet !
Note that the Harbeth 40.x has a 7.5" driver for the mid. And a 10"+5"+ sligthy waveguided 1" could have been an interresting concept too and perhaaps more room versatile.
Anyway now we have the SLS-12 candidate as a trade off, the sensivity needed for the midwoof, we have some guidance. If only the FSL-0512R01 was still in stock in US it could have surely shown cheap is feasible, with trade offs good enough.
The drivers discussed as midwood are not all slouch: NE149W-08 (Alixpress is not reliable, but feasible for europeans, some Scanspeak of the Discovery range are the same prices. Too bad some Seas are too expensive everywhere (URNX or ERNX range for the midwoof had been good choices). Some Hivi paper and woowen are interresting too and widely avialable. We need to focus on a short list though : 2 driver max (to have a spare).
Let's go ahead in that direction.
Edit : and please folk, if you are giving a midwoof or tweeter ref, be sure it is avialable both in North America and Europe, check also for Aussie.
Last edited:
It's not because you make a wide baffle design with a big woofer you can't brace it like it should, it's just a total different concept of speaker. The slim tower is done so many times already, so no challenge. The monkey box is not done often anymore, so the challenge is there to make it sound good with modern techniques without loosing the form factor and the typical sound of a big woofer, that no small woofer can do.
The JBL L112 is not better than the orignial L100, it does not keep the drivers in line vertically, so the imaging is totally messed up. That is a big error we should not make and wasn't made in the orignal L100 Century model.
It's more a wide baffle, big woofer, small mid and dome tweeter concept on a flat baffle concept. Not making all the faults that someone in that time may have made. You can brace such a speaker, you can make sure the drivers are in a vertical line and close to each other to avoid lobbing and a messed up image. You can model and study the crossover and box design with all modern means. Just keep the format in mind.
But a lot of the critics always refer to litterally copying the designs of then with all the faults, that is NOT the goal, the goal is to respect the format and layout, but make it as good as we can within that and within budget, with all modern means we have today.
If you want a slim tower speaker you can copy the driver choice (which won't be a smart descision but anyway) and design and build one yourself, or use one of the well known plans that exist. But this tread is about doing things otherwise.
And the fact is heigth is less than a tower is iterresting about the internal modes for the woofer !
Not sure why you feel the need to chide me for my particular interest? Perhaps it's not your intent, but I know full well what this thread is about. My post was in particular response to tktran303's post #715, where he wrote mostly about choices & approaches.
I mentioned targets before. Lets say someone has final measurements using a SBS mid. If I wanted to, I could take a Peerless, and make my own x-over and match it. Show me a gated responses using REW, and I can use it as my target. So I would think that doing so up front would allow multiple drivers that could be used as a mid. No one commented previously, but it seems like it could work.
This is a tweeter response, but it could be done on both ends of a mids response. So for example, the two HDS drivers mentioned have very similar response. A small x-over difference could allow either to be used. So, if one driver is not available, possibly the other is. In addition, some drivers may be available every three or four months, but not every day. How long does the typical DIY builder spend making boxes? Maybe they start the construction, and 3 months later receive the drivers. Personally, I work much faster than that, but my speakers seldom get veneer, or paint until many months of use go by.
This is a tweeter response, but it could be done on both ends of a mids response. So for example, the two HDS drivers mentioned have very similar response. A small x-over difference could allow either to be used. So, if one driver is not available, possibly the other is. In addition, some drivers may be available every three or four months, but not every day. How long does the typical DIY builder spend making boxes? Maybe they start the construction, and 3 months later receive the drivers. Personally, I work much faster than that, but my speakers seldom get veneer, or paint until many months of use go by.
I am not sure that a more precise set of criteria would help.
We could specify a maximum Fs (99 Hz), but this is a judgment call, and why would 98 Hz be acceptable but 101 Hz is not? Similarly we could specify a minimum/maximum Sd (50 cm^2 to 100 cm^2), but again the limits we establish are a matter of judgment, and the exact limits are arbitrary.
Some of the more important measurements (such as odd-order harmonic distortion and IM distortion) are not available for every driver under consideration, and even when they are available, they were measured under differing test conditions. And lets assume we had properly measured distortion data for every driver... What is the acceptable threshold?
In terms of sensitivity, it seems that most 4-5 inch midwoofers have enough sensitivity to keep up with the Peerless woofer after accounting for baffle step.
I suspect I am misunderstanding your position... Perhaps if you could give some examples of the kind of criteria and goals for a midrange driver that you consider appropriate?
j.
There is a list of 8 Peerless 5.25" HDS drivers at products.peerless-audio.com and 5 of them are discontinued.
Available are:
Available are:
- HDS-P830860, ppb, they got that one mislabeled as paper
- HDS-P830933, coated paper
- HDS-P830991, glass fibre
Ne149w-04 is currently available at rumoh eu for 125 eu. 250 for a pair compared to about 80 for a pair of 5fe120 that's a lot. Not sure we will find a solution with this driver. (Audiocomponents did not reply, I will send thème a direct e-mail tomorow if I have not answer)
And if you look also the price they sell the 10' NE and 12" NE, you see they came crazy !
Something like this?
• The Budget Classic 3-way BC3W must be straight forward to make for DIY novices.
• The enclosure must be a simple rectangular box which is easy enough to make on a table.
• The box format should follow the “classic monitor” format, common of the 1970-1980s era.
• The external volume should not be larger than 92L / 3.25 cu ft. (64 x 39 x 37 cm; 25 x 15 1/3 x 145/8 ") => 70L internal volume if using 3/4" stock.
• The BC3W shall be three way loudspeaker.
• The BC3W shall have a sensitivity of >87dB/2.83V and a bass extension F6 40Hz.
• The BC3W shall have have 4 ohm nominal sensitivity, and designed to be used with affordable amplifiers/AV receivers with 100W 4 ohms
• The speaker shall be designed such that the front to the wall should be less than 2 ft to ensure that frequency output is not reduced.
• Keeping part costs low is a moderate-to-high priority. If the right parts that can be found is more attractive, it’s okay to use those parts in the design.
The goal of the project is an attempt to answer the question:
Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, with high SPL and low distortion, with a 3-way, without breaking the bank?"
• The Budget Classic 3-way BC3W must be straight forward to make for DIY novices.
• The enclosure must be a simple rectangular box which is easy enough to make on a table.
• The box format should follow the “classic monitor” format, common of the 1970-1980s era.
• The external volume should not be larger than 92L / 3.25 cu ft. (64 x 39 x 37 cm; 25 x 15 1/3 x 145/8 ") => 70L internal volume if using 3/4" stock.
• The BC3W shall be three way loudspeaker.
• The BC3W shall have a sensitivity of >87dB/2.83V and a bass extension F6 40Hz.
• The BC3W shall have have 4 ohm nominal sensitivity, and designed to be used with affordable amplifiers/AV receivers with 100W 4 ohms
• The speaker shall be designed such that the front to the wall should be less than 2 ft to ensure that frequency output is not reduced.
• Keeping part costs low is a moderate-to-high priority. If the right parts that can be found is more attractive, it’s okay to use those parts in the design.
The goal of the project is an attempt to answer the question:
Is it possible to cover the whole spectrum, with high SPL and low distortion, with a 3-way, without breaking the bank?"
adapted from @mbrennwa 's The Open Source Monkey Coffin Loudspeaker
Last edited: