I'm on a quest for small desktop speakers. Say, around 9" tall and 6" wide. I wish to reach down to around 30hz - yeah, I'm aware most music doesn't really reach that low. I'm inspired by the C-Box 3 from Abacus with an F6 of 35Hz, but reviews say the woofer struggles a lot that low - otherwise I might simply buy them 🙂 Now, before you mention the Iron Law - I don't need efficiency or peak SPL higher than 70dB@1m. I know I'd probably be better off with a separate subwoofer, but that's just boring. The problem is, I'm a noob when it comes to designing speakers. I have assembled some kits and read around a bit here, but that's it. Before I dig any deeper, I would like to know if what I'm after makes any sense.
So TangBang makes some pretty nice micro (sub)woofers like the W4-2089 or W5-1138SMF, the latter being well regarded in Carmody's Isetta build. Looking at some WAW builds here I'm wondering if I could use either of these (or something similar) with a small "full range" driver. Might be a tight fit on a 9" baffle, but mounting slightly flush with the top and bottom panels of the speaker and maybe cutting basket edges should do it. A 9x6x8in box out of 1/2" ply would have 4,7 liters of internal volume, and the TB drivers seem to do OK even with 3 liters sealed, leaving up to ~1 liter total for the FR. This of course would require heavy DSP for a flat response, but I might prefer going active anyway rather than trying my luck with a passive crossover. Anything obvious I'm missing here? Any recommendations on the drivers I should use? Is baffle design a concern in a build like this?
So TangBang makes some pretty nice micro (sub)woofers like the W4-2089 or W5-1138SMF, the latter being well regarded in Carmody's Isetta build. Looking at some WAW builds here I'm wondering if I could use either of these (or something similar) with a small "full range" driver. Might be a tight fit on a 9" baffle, but mounting slightly flush with the top and bottom panels of the speaker and maybe cutting basket edges should do it. A 9x6x8in box out of 1/2" ply would have 4,7 liters of internal volume, and the TB drivers seem to do OK even with 3 liters sealed, leaving up to ~1 liter total for the FR. This of course would require heavy DSP for a flat response, but I might prefer going active anyway rather than trying my luck with a passive crossover. Anything obvious I'm missing here? Any recommendations on the drivers I should use? Is baffle design a concern in a build like this?
That specification seems out of line unless they are grossly inefficient or heavily EQed. Or just heavily massaged by the marketing department.
And it is not a WAW.
A desktop WAW is certainly doable.
First choose a good midTweeter (i suggest a 3”, my favourtes are FF85wk, Alpair 5.2/3, CHN50), there are tons of choice for bass helpers.
Only 4 litres gross volume. You are in for trouble reaching your goal. 1-2 litres for the FR minimum, a partition leaves 2.5-3 litres for a woofer. I might siggest at this time, a helper woofer under the desk.
dave
Abacus do have some measurements published and the few reviews do say that the F6 is accurate - why would they not be heavily EQ'd? I did not mean to imply that they are a WAW.
The Isetta has the FRs in just under 1 liter sealed and for what it's worth, a fair amount of FRs seem to have a VAS around 1 liter. Like I said, those TBs do OK with 3 liters. Like I also said, I'm not interested in a helper 🙂 Thanks for the FR suggestions anyway!
The Isetta has the FRs in just under 1 liter sealed and for what it's worth, a fair amount of FRs seem to have a VAS around 1 liter. Like I said, those TBs do OK with 3 liters. Like I also said, I'm not interested in a helper 🙂 Thanks for the FR suggestions anyway!
Myself?...I'd opt for a KRK "Classic Five" instead of the 990 Euro Abacus. I smell marketing somewhere surrounding the Abacus branding & text describing their products. And of course marketing drives the prices much further than they have the right to be...The KRK monitors I noted are about a third the price.
Building my own five-inch FR version, the enclosure volumes were way way too big according to experimental optimal volume. Only suitable to the larger desks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Building my own five-inch FR version, the enclosure volumes were way way too big according to experimental optimal volume. Only suitable to the larger desks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick...
Last edited by a moderator:
Not a fan of the looks or the dimensions of the KRKs 🙂 Agree on the marketing, but the reviews and the measurements are fairly convincing.
Given the small available volume your best choice, to my mind, would be a nice 4” in a sealed box. EQ the hell out of it. You will limit the ultimate levels but you are nearfield, you are unlikely to run into issues.
A Mark Audio P7HD has a Q of about 0.8 in 4 litres and has F6 in the low 70s, F10 just under 60, 35 Hz is about 18 dB down. EQ from there.
One could have a dynamic EQ, one for regular listening that goes low, and one that compromises bass a bit more and can play louder.
dave
A Mark Audio P7HD has a Q of about 0.8 in 4 litres and has F6 in the low 70s, F10 just under 60, 35 Hz is about 18 dB down. EQ from there.
One could have a dynamic EQ, one for regular listening that goes low, and one that compromises bass a bit more and can play louder.
dave
I got a chance to goof around in a musicians friends studio, the control station had a pair of KRKs for near-field...the sound uncannily accurate...then he brought me into the studio proper, closed the sealed soundproof doors & cued up some more tunes...the far-field "in studio" monitors just plain utterly failed in anything remotely approaching, "High fidelity". He shook his head knowingly in agreement..."yeah, they're garbage, I know".
========================================================================================Rick...
========================================================================================Rick...
Compact box with low frequency extension is probably best with a passive radiator or a sealed box with EQ and a long throw woofer. The desktop use implies a rear wall boundary usually so you will have some help to reach 30Hz. Look for a compact 5in sub driver. Maybe W5-1138SM (10L box vented or 3L box sealed with EQ). Probably around 400Hz to 600Hz is good place to cross and use your favorite 3.5in full range like B80, 10F, 3FE22, RS100, FR88EX, Tang Band W3-xxx.
Do you mean running a full-range as a one-way speaker? Interesting, but surely a two-way is a better compromise? The P7HD does seem to reach fairly deep, though 🤔 Good idea with the dynamic EQ!
Thanks for the suggestions! The W5-1138SM(F) looks great indeed. I guess I'll just have to do some research on the FRs... so many options. I don't mind spending a bit either as the result will still end up significantly cheaper than the C-Box or alternatives 🙂
If you don’t mind spending some $ - the ScanSpeak 10F/8424 or Visaton B80 are both superb. Tops in performance with smoothness and low distortion.
You are severly compromised by the available volume.
This is the sort of thing that i consider a rrally good near field… but it won’t go as low as you are looking to get, that will require some magic (EQ in your case), and ony magic because you should be close enuff that the downsides are outside their use envelope).
These are just under 7x10x7 with a net 2.5 litre enclosure (tapered shape and complex walls make for largish extents fr the volume).
Whether you are using a dedicated midbass or a FR Hoffman’s Iron Law plays a big role here. You have about 4 litres as a restraint. 4 litres is not much and if you have to share it between 2 drivers… note that a typical dome has no required enclosure volume. The Mark Audio drivers have an atypically high xMax and are likely competitive with similar sensitivity midbasses in that sealed volume.
Using a FR in theat volume means that for the budget you can get a better quality driver, do not have the cost of an XO… or the evil that an XO brings (we like WAW because XO evils can greatly be diminished.
You would be using the FR at levels and a proximity where most of “issues” that FRs usually bring will never be encountered.
It is a very capable woofer. In the same volume it does about 10 Hz better but still needs some 10 dB of boost at the low point you want, the difference in power/sensitivity just fall to the TB . It does have a huge xMax, and a larger cone so has considerably more Vd. The question becomes do you need it given you are near field.
But, it looks like it goes up max to about 1Khz, and you do not have any volume for what goes up top, and the XO should really be down more like 250 given that limited top entension so you need even more volume for the midTweeter.
If we skimp on the midTweeter and figure out how to only use up 1 litre for the midTweeter and partition, the TB now needs 12 dB boost, so it is now a wash power wise.
PE wants $50 for the TB, Madisound wants $50 each for the Mark Audios. So the MA is a midTweeter, XO and partition less costly, will absolutely smoke the TB thru the upper bass and midrange and is at least as good as many $50-100 tweeters.
It all comes down to how loud do you need to play them.
dave
W5-1138SM with EQ to be flat to 30Hz would be pretty insensitive / limited.
71.5dB / 1 watt
85dB max (excursion limited)
http://www.loudspeakerdatabase.com/TangBand/W5-1138SM
http://www.baudline.com/erik/bass/xmaxer.html
...which is fine, for the OP's stated needs.
---
A W5 + B80 is 250mm total (or 10 inches), if mounted with their edges abutting. This would be tricky to fit into a the desired 9 inch tall cabinet.
Also: when the LF module is so constrained, a 3.5" FR is overkill. You could go to a much smaller FR driver, and the W5 will still be the weaker link.
This 2" would do the trick:
http://www.loudspeakerdatabase.com/Peerless/NE65W-04
Even if halving the crossover (down to 300Hz), the 2" would still be coasting (with 10dB of capability in reserve) when the W5 was hitting its limits at 30Hz.
I have not tried the SB. It looks a little rough, but intriguing.
I just found that Test Bench (Voice Coil mag) has tested both devices.
The SB has an article online; I have seen it before. The NE65 test is only viewable as a scan of the whole magazine; I only discovered this today.
The NE has pros:
more efficiency (5db more - which seems odd)
Smoother response
No audible breakup ( < 20kHz )
...and cons:
less displacement
heaps more distortion < 1500Hz
It looks like you'd have to keep the Tymphany in the microwatt range (<80dB), when used as a wide band device. Or use it a (robust) tweeter.
So for most people, the SB looks like a much better choice.
I've always used my NE65Ws in a niche application: big front horns (lots of acoustic gain, so I do run them mostly in the microwatt range) ...but even so, I liked them more after I raised the crossover point (from 500Hz to 700Hz, if I recall correctly).
This makes more sense now that I've seen those distortion plots.
The MA seems to do the job indeed, considering how little SPL I need. Based on my simulations, the TB does about 84dB @30Hz while the MA does 73dB, if the TB is given 3 liters and the MA 4 liters. But would the MA struggle playing close to it's limits? I just find it hard to believe it could do the whole range as clean as a decent two-way, but the benefit of no crossovers is there... I don't mind spending the money, though 🙂
Thanks! Yes, I might have to cut down the top and bottom edges of the baskets to fit the drivers. Unfortunately, the W5 + B80 would still require 120mm + 87mm + 3x12mm for the ply panels, totaling 243mm or 9.6 inches without any clearances. Tolerable, but the NE65W for example would save an inch of space. Not sure I understand what you mean with the W5 being limited - do you mean that the FR would have room to play a lot louder? Seems like the SB driver is a better candidate anyway and I wouldn't need to cut it. With clearances of 4mm, I would require 12+4+120+4+12+4+64+4+12 = 236mm = 9.3 inches for the front baffle height - acceptable.
More info on SB65 here
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...parison-of-2in-to-4in-drivers-round-3.277625/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/sb-acoustics-sb65wbac25-4-what-to-do.273211/
One other driver that might be good is FR58EX. Some versions are better than others. Very compact though.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/fr58ex-and-ac130f1-micro-fast-waw.280331/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...parison-of-2in-to-4in-drivers-round-3.277625/
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/sb-acoustics-sb65wbac25-4-what-to-do.273211/
One other driver that might be good is FR58EX. Some versions are better than others. Very compact though.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/fr58ex-and-ac130f1-micro-fast-waw.280331/
