I think that sounds like the way to go moondog. I don't have the monetary constraint, but I already have too many projects, that are not getting done so adding another is not an option (though I would love to do it).
Moving to a 12" might start to blow out the cost somewhat. SB have some nice drivers out now (and they are widely available) and I'd consider them for the woofer and mid, definitely and quite probably the tweeter as well.
Tony.
Moving to a 12" might start to blow out the cost somewhat. SB have some nice drivers out now (and they are widely available) and I'd consider them for the woofer and mid, definitely and quite probably the tweeter as well.
Tony.
Tony I always thought the cheap Peerless SLS woofer 830669 would make an excellent driver for this project, reasonable bass in a reasonably sized sealed box and nice flat response in the XO range
http://www.essentialaudio.com.au/pdf/peerless/Peerless_830669.pdf
http://www.essentialaudio.com.au/pdf/peerless/Peerless_830669.pdf
If you want something like this to work I suspect you need to agree on the objectives first before considering suitable drivers.
Most of the projects discussed here are usually skewed by enthusiasm in one or two directions away from what an impassive balancing of design compromises would produce. Perhaps a good role for a reference design is to set a few bounds on size and cost, set a target of reproducing stereo music at, say, reference SPL in a medium sized room and then to document the design considerations that lead to a 1" tweeter + 4"/5" midrange + 10"/12" woofer being the conventional reference design. I would also suggest picking, say, 2 or 3 alternative drivers from the standard range of established driver manufactures rather than a single "winner".
Most of the projects discussed here are usually skewed by enthusiasm in one or two directions away from what an impassive balancing of design compromises would produce. Perhaps a good role for a reference design is to set a few bounds on size and cost, set a target of reproducing stereo music at, say, reference SPL in a medium sized room and then to document the design considerations that lead to a 1" tweeter + 4"/5" midrange + 10"/12" woofer being the conventional reference design. I would also suggest picking, say, 2 or 3 alternative drivers from the standard range of established driver manufactures rather than a single "winner".
This is reasonable, I think defining the objectives makes compromises much easier. DIYers produce good speakers that can become larger, more expensive, or more over-specced than something that might be capable of producing similar results.
It's only been a few years since this began but waveguides have become more of interest.
It's only been a few years since this began but waveguides have become more of interest.
It is not so much looking at the problem as defining the problem in quantitative terms. In qualitative terms a reference monitor may mean low distortion, loud, full audible spectrum, etc... but this is insufficient to make decisions about what hardware qualifies and what does not.
So how loud? This should follow from picking a representative room size and the required SPL level. The minimum to qualify for reference would have to be at least the standard playback level of around 85dB average + 20dB peaks. There is a case for more to match, say, concert levels.
Frequency range? Flat from 15Hz-25kHz is ideal but needs qualifying to be useful. 30-20kHz could be argued. A +/-3dB tolerance would not qualify for a reference label for many. A +/-1dB tolerance is getting more like it even though a 2dB difference in level is going to be audible.
Reference distortion levels? Tricky. Needs to be met at the maximum required SPL. Perhaps something like less than X% THD at maximum SPL. Possibly a larger value for less than 100Hz. Tying it more closely to perceived distortion is going to have practical difficulties.
Directivity? The ideal directivity does not exist and so a target cannot be defined. Nonetheless we know that sudden changes with frequency are to be avoided in a reference designs.
I then found out that the Visaton drivers are not as available in the USA as the Peerless. Getting commonality was always part of the problem in deciding on a "Reference" I think.
In my own build of the Reference 2-Way I stopped early and added a .5 woofer turning the project into a 2.5 Way speaker for SWMBO [almost finished after 4 years ] that could also be termed part of this exercise.
The cheap Visaton woofer models in a similar fashion to the cheap Peerless except it needs a bigger box. I think the Peerless is a perhaps little smoother in the XO region
All my plots are on the computer that died unfortunately
I was surprised to see this still active. Sadly I don't think it will ever be realized.
The Jazzman are awesome.. They have great extension for the narrow baffle. They image well and cast a big soundstage. Tonally they are pretty neutral.
Subsequently I have seriously upgraded the rest of my system and they continue to reveal more and more. I power them with Rogue 180 monos and they sound lovely.
Here's a link.
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/21047-new-speaker-build/?fromsearch=1
Resuscitating this thread as I’m looking to build a 3 way classic using active crossover.
After reading entire thread in last two days, very keen to keep with middle and tweeter choices as they are.
But looking at different 10” bass options including Faital one as here
Faital-3WC-10
Any advice please. Thanks
After reading entire thread in last two days, very keen to keep with middle and tweeter choices as they are.
But looking at different 10” bass options including Faital one as here
Faital-3WC-10
Any advice please. Thanks
