Partly Pete but using the sealed box roll-off can be a way of determining midrange XO point too. A large enough midrange enclosure and it may perform as if on an open baffle with the limited power handling this iteration gives XO depending of course.
Forgive me if I waffle on a bit.
With a sufficiently large [ deep] mid enclosure you could get a TL tunnel, front to back as in the previously mentioned IMF Super Compact, always looking for a use for all the sewer pipe off-cuts a renovation leaves you with
Forgive me if I waffle on a bit.
With a sufficiently large [ deep] mid enclosure you could get a TL tunnel, front to back as in the previously mentioned IMF Super Compact, always looking for a use for all the sewer pipe off-cuts a renovation leaves you with
Wow, I asked for more discussion, and there has been about 50 posts in the last 24 hours.
However, there has been little discussion on actual requirements, but a lot of discussion on the design process itself and the acoustical basis of “good sound”. Given the lack of consensus on these basics after a week of discussion, I think there is a low probability that we will ever reach a consensus on a set of requirements for a speaker… which means we would be even less likely to agree on an actual design.
I propose we change our approach. Rather than trying to collaborate on a single design, perhaps we should evaluate a multitude of designs.
Perhaps we should have some really basic, high level requirements along with some basic performance goals, and let individual designers offer their solutions.
For instance, imagine a simplified requirement that the total cost of all drivers and waveguides not to exceed $600. That is the only constraint. Performance goals might be smooth flat on-axis response, smooth ER curve, smooth sound power curve, and low frequency extension to the extent possible.
Anyone could post a design concept in VituixCad2 for comments and feedback. The interesting ones will naturally bubble to the top. Those people who want to construct something can pick and choose those designs which seem most interesting to them. Those designs could then be fleshed out in more detail to enable construction, and the feedback and collaboration on those designs should lead to a rigorously vetted system.
I imagine we will get all kinds of interesting designs; OB, 2-way CD horns, cardioid pattern systems, FAST, 2.5 way, 3 way, and many others. For my part, I would plan to start with a 3-way cone-dome TMW floor standing concept.
Thoughts?
However, there has been little discussion on actual requirements, but a lot of discussion on the design process itself and the acoustical basis of “good sound”. Given the lack of consensus on these basics after a week of discussion, I think there is a low probability that we will ever reach a consensus on a set of requirements for a speaker… which means we would be even less likely to agree on an actual design.
I propose we change our approach. Rather than trying to collaborate on a single design, perhaps we should evaluate a multitude of designs.
Perhaps we should have some really basic, high level requirements along with some basic performance goals, and let individual designers offer their solutions.
For instance, imagine a simplified requirement that the total cost of all drivers and waveguides not to exceed $600. That is the only constraint. Performance goals might be smooth flat on-axis response, smooth ER curve, smooth sound power curve, and low frequency extension to the extent possible.
Anyone could post a design concept in VituixCad2 for comments and feedback. The interesting ones will naturally bubble to the top. Those people who want to construct something can pick and choose those designs which seem most interesting to them. Those designs could then be fleshed out in more detail to enable construction, and the feedback and collaboration on those designs should lead to a rigorously vetted system.
I imagine we will get all kinds of interesting designs; OB, 2-way CD horns, cardioid pattern systems, FAST, 2.5 way, 3 way, and many others. For my part, I would plan to start with a 3-way cone-dome TMW floor standing concept.
Thoughts?
I want very good sound in livingroom, but don't want to see the speakers. Smile on the face comes with nice high SPL capability which I believe is above 80db(c) at listening spot. Havent measured and assume reference level of 85db is fine and more is fine 
I want bass I want treble I want good sound so it is say 30-15kHz bandwidth or more if possible, but no less.
Price, size, crossovers and number of ways and other details are not requirements in my case. I just want very good sound. I dont want to look at it so trying to mimize size and make it unobtrusive. Placement is against the wall for same reason as well as keeping the thing out of the way of normal life. Current system is 3way, 15"-8"-1" and it is good but would like it smaller in size, I think there is some over capacity in SPL. I'm not sure if its going to happen, still exploring though. Next development is better waveguide, smaller bass. Gonna try MTM because it looks like a mid ~mid room height could possibly smooth huge dip in the in room response.
I never though 8" bass since it looks like there is not enough SPL capacity. 12" was fun, 15" even more so. I might get back to 12" bass. 4" mid is very possible at some point, because quite frankly the whole system is bigger than I'd like. Doesn't disappear into the room. I'm about to try dome tweeter in a waveguide as well at some point but it is going into a waveguide i think. Also 15" mid with big horn makes a lot of sense but I'm afraid that might be too big as well, don't have suitably big waveguide yet to try out. Most obvious path forward is minimizing and hiding the structure, while keeping the driver sizes function in directivity.
I just love music and listen all the time. There is not much time to sit in dedicated listening spot, but roughly constant directivity and reduced first reflections seem to have yielded very good sound all around the room and even the house! Which is interesting observation. Less very early reflections seem to make the sound better in the other rooms as well. Not sure if this is just my imagination. Would make fun blind listening test!
Can it be done for 600e? Yes I think so, at least the drivers., nothing fancy is required a 15", a 8" and a 1" drivers plus a waveguide. Add chinese 2.1DSP amp system,, not too expensive but I'm not sure still in 600e bracket. Hissy though. Better amps and DSP will cost fortune. Hey, mono makes half the price! subwoofer system is also missing... multiyear multiway project
I want bass I want treble I want good sound so it is say 30-15kHz bandwidth or more if possible, but no less.Price, size, crossovers and number of ways and other details are not requirements in my case. I just want very good sound. I dont want to look at it so trying to mimize size and make it unobtrusive. Placement is against the wall for same reason as well as keeping the thing out of the way of normal life. Current system is 3way, 15"-8"-1" and it is good but would like it smaller in size, I think there is some over capacity in SPL. I'm not sure if its going to happen, still exploring though. Next development is better waveguide, smaller bass. Gonna try MTM because it looks like a mid ~mid room height could possibly smooth huge dip in the in room response.
I never though 8" bass since it looks like there is not enough SPL capacity. 12" was fun, 15" even more so. I might get back to 12" bass. 4" mid is very possible at some point, because quite frankly the whole system is bigger than I'd like. Doesn't disappear into the room. I'm about to try dome tweeter in a waveguide as well at some point but it is going into a waveguide i think. Also 15" mid with big horn makes a lot of sense but I'm afraid that might be too big as well, don't have suitably big waveguide yet to try out. Most obvious path forward is minimizing and hiding the structure, while keeping the driver sizes function in directivity.
I just love music and listen all the time. There is not much time to sit in dedicated listening spot, but roughly constant directivity and reduced first reflections seem to have yielded very good sound all around the room and even the house! Which is interesting observation. Less very early reflections seem to make the sound better in the other rooms as well. Not sure if this is just my imagination. Would make fun blind listening test!
Can it be done for 600e? Yes I think so, at least the drivers., nothing fancy is required a 15", a 8" and a 1" drivers plus a waveguide. Add chinese 2.1DSP amp system,, not too expensive but I'm not sure still in 600e bracket. Hissy though. Better amps and DSP will cost fortune. Hey, mono makes half the price!
subwoofer system is also missing... multiyear multiway project
Last edited:
In retrospect, I have been doing just that what I'm critisizing in posts few pages back:
Designing a system for set of drivers I've had the same drivers for years and been developing the acoustic design for the application. I'm not sure why I would need other drivers of similar size, these have been fine suited. Maybe it is luck, maybe initial guess was right when shopping for drivers before system design. Or maybe it doesn't matter which drivers one uses as long as the size and capability is correct for given system.
I think the sound could be better with "better" drivers. At least the mid has some sound to it, resonance, which is heard also by scratching the cone and lumpy frequency response. I'm EQ:ing it out but still it bothers at least mentally. I've got alternative drivers in the closet but haven't bothered to swap them yet. *
So, thinking of it drivers definitely matter as long as there are problems but after that the system defines the performance. I mean, for 2 way speaker the drivers need to be top notch since the bandwidth for each is a stretch (because of wavelengths and electro-mechanical realities) but for a three way not sure if there is much difference as long as the drivers are chosen roughly for the application, woofer for woofer, mid for mid and tweeter for tweeter with correct diameters that play together as a system. I imagine passive crossover would lay strict requirements for drivers though, at least for level matching.
If anyone wonders what the drivers are, they are old Beyma 15k200, FaitalPro 8pr155 and HF10AK in RCF waveguide. I suspect any drivers with roughly similar specs would work just fine, it would be matter of some EQ tweaks in the DSP. Both 8pr155 and HF10AK need many filters to get smooth response so don't choose these for passive xo. I have 15fh520 woofers in the closet as well, they have more output but require bigger cabinet for similar low extension. Don't need the output so took the smaller cabinet. Could have EQ:d the response for 15fh520 as well but my amp is only 100 china watts. So, in retrospect I've chosen driver for design as well.. should think more before writing. These are almost top shelf drivers but were under 1000e back few years ago and there really is no reason why not to use Tymphany or Celestion or Eminence or any other drivers instead that fit the budget.
* there is multitude of problems that seem to fall also in the ~1kHz +- octave mid driver territory like diffraction, vertical reflections in the room, cabinet wall resonances, cone resonances and what not. Address them all to better the sound, not just swap the driver since most of these happens regardless of driver make and model.
Sorry, back to the topic.
Designing a system for set of drivers
I've had the same drivers for years and been developing the acoustic design for the application. I'm not sure why I would need other drivers of similar size, these have been fine suited. Maybe it is luck, maybe initial guess was right when shopping for drivers before system design. Or maybe it doesn't matter which drivers one uses as long as the size and capability is correct for given system.I think the sound could be better with "better" drivers. At least the mid has some sound to it, resonance, which is heard also by scratching the cone and lumpy frequency response. I'm EQ:ing it out but still it bothers at least mentally. I've got alternative drivers in the closet but haven't bothered to swap them yet. *
So, thinking of it drivers definitely matter as long as there are problems but after that the system defines the performance. I mean, for 2 way speaker the drivers need to be top notch since the bandwidth for each is a stretch (because of wavelengths and electro-mechanical realities) but for a three way not sure if there is much difference as long as the drivers are chosen roughly for the application, woofer for woofer, mid for mid and tweeter for tweeter
with correct diameters that play together as a system. I imagine passive crossover would lay strict requirements for drivers though, at least for level matching.If anyone wonders what the drivers are, they are old Beyma 15k200, FaitalPro 8pr155 and HF10AK in RCF waveguide. I suspect any drivers with roughly similar specs would work just fine, it would be matter of some EQ tweaks in the DSP. Both 8pr155 and HF10AK need many filters to get smooth response so don't choose these for passive xo. I have 15fh520 woofers in the closet as well, they have more output but require bigger cabinet for similar low extension. Don't need the output so took the smaller cabinet. Could have EQ:d the response for 15fh520 as well but my amp is only 100 china watts. So, in retrospect I've chosen driver for design as well..
should think more before writing. These are almost top shelf drivers but were under 1000e back few years ago and there really is no reason why not to use Tymphany or Celestion or Eminence or any other drivers instead that fit the budget. * there is multitude of problems that seem to fall also in the ~1kHz +- octave mid driver territory like diffraction, vertical reflections in the room, cabinet wall resonances, cone resonances and what not. Address them all to better the sound, not just swap the driver since most of these happens regardless of driver make and model.
Sorry, back to the topic.
Last edited:
I fully support the view from HIFIJIM
A lot of discussions about design etc...great to see some interaction and collaboration but we are not there yet.
I tried to answer the questions about design goals but no one mention if it is sufficient or not.
The idea from HifiJim to have only a limitation on the budget sounds good to me.
But I would still add a few. Speaker should preform well in mid size room with listening distance of 2,5-3m. Easy for amplifier eg. min 4,5 ohm. no hard cone for mid's
If we are lucky (and I really hope we are ) we will have a variety of designs.
Making the reflex to a beginner who will read all this after the designs are finished, he will see many interesting designs but all with different drivers. When he decide to built them will cost him 600 each time for drivers. :-(
If we can not agree on 1 set of drivers (which will be ideal in my view) Maybe we can have a limited set of drivers?
For me it will be difficult to purchase the drivers when the designs are still ongoing. I can not buy all of them
maybe some can be chosen from following list.
Tweeter
SS 2608
CAT308 /408
27FFC ; SEAS 27TBFC
with waveguide
CAT378 ; 27TBCD-DXT
MID
Wavecor WF120BD04
Wavecor WF118WA02
Vifa NE149W-04
Vifa NE123W-08
Sbac SB15MFC30-8
Sbac SB12MNRX2-25-4 / Norex
Satori MR13P-8
Morel EM 428D
SS 10F/8414G10
MCA15RCY
MCA12RC
Woofer
Scan-Speak Discovery 22W/8534G00
Scan-Speak Discovery 26W/8534G00
Peerless by Tymphany SLS-P830668
SB Acoustics SB23NRXS45-8
Monacor SPH-220HQ
SEAS Prestige CD22RN4X
SEAS Prestige CA22RNY
Maybe some can be eliminated/added from/to the list. (would be ideal if we can narrow it )
Combined budget for drivers is around $600 ; 600 euro
Every designer needs to say something about
Designs constrains and goals
Driver choose
XO and ways to finetune W-M-T level to taste
on-axis response
ER curve
power curve
low frequency extension
positioning of the speakers (distance from wall, ..) (clearly mentioning front baffle or back of the speaker!)
Box construction and stuffing ...
For each of those items a specific topic is made.
Designs are made in VituixCad
Maybe different topics can be create. One for each type of design?
Reference isn't the best name to use but maybe "Multi-platform speaker" can be used as common name?
For a tower 3-way this becomes eg :
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower serial XO (or deviations are also captured in global topic (eg : Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower)
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower Waveguide
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMWW tower
Multi-platform speaker 3-way MTMW tower
and
Multi-platform speaker 3-way OB
Multi-platform speaker FAST
...
First post of the tread should always contain all information about the final design.
(either link to the #nbr or copy/paste the information)
What do you think about this approach?
A lot of discussions about design etc...great to see some interaction and collaboration but we are not there yet.
I tried to answer the questions about design goals but no one mention if it is sufficient or not.
The idea from HifiJim to have only a limitation on the budget sounds good to me.
But I would still add a few. Speaker should preform well in mid size room with listening distance of 2,5-3m. Easy for amplifier eg. min 4,5 ohm. no hard cone for mid's
If we are lucky (and I really hope we are ) we will have a variety of designs.
Making the reflex to a beginner who will read all this after the designs are finished, he will see many interesting designs but all with different drivers. When he decide to built them will cost him 600 each time for drivers. :-(
If we can not agree on 1 set of drivers (which will be ideal in my view) Maybe we can have a limited set of drivers?
For me it will be difficult to purchase the drivers when the designs are still ongoing. I can not buy all of them
maybe some can be chosen from following list.
Tweeter
SS 2608
CAT308 /408
27FFC ; SEAS 27TBFC
with waveguide
CAT378 ; 27TBCD-DXT
MID
Wavecor WF120BD04
Wavecor WF118WA02
Vifa NE149W-04
Vifa NE123W-08
Sbac SB15MFC30-8
Sbac SB12MNRX2-25-4 / Norex
Satori MR13P-8
Morel EM 428D
SS 10F/8414G10
MCA15RCY
MCA12RC
Woofer
Scan-Speak Discovery 22W/8534G00
Scan-Speak Discovery 26W/8534G00
Peerless by Tymphany SLS-P830668
SB Acoustics SB23NRXS45-8
Monacor SPH-220HQ
SEAS Prestige CD22RN4X
SEAS Prestige CA22RNY
Maybe some can be eliminated/added from/to the list. (would be ideal if we can narrow it
)Combined budget for drivers is around $600 ; 600 euro
Every designer needs to say something about
Designs constrains and goals
Driver choose
XO and ways to finetune W-M-T level to taste
on-axis response
ER curve
power curve
low frequency extension
positioning of the speakers (distance from wall, ..) (clearly mentioning front baffle or back of the speaker!)
Box construction and stuffing ...
For each of those items a specific topic is made.
Designs are made in VituixCad
Maybe different topics can be create. One for each type of design?
Reference isn't the best name to use but maybe "Multi-platform speaker" can be used as common name?
For a tower 3-way this becomes eg :
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower serial XO (or deviations are also captured in global topic (eg : Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower)
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMW tower Waveguide
Multi-platform speaker 3-way TMWW tower
Multi-platform speaker 3-way MTMW tower
and
Multi-platform speaker 3-way OB
Multi-platform speaker FAST
...
First post of the tread should always contain all information about the final design.
(either link to the #nbr or copy/paste the information)
What do you think about this approach?
These are different systems optimal for different situations, for example the open baffle would require special parameters from the bass driver at least? Maybe there are some middle of the road parameters that work on most. The drivers don't need to cost 600$ per project, I think you could get collection of drivers suitable for various project with the money?
Lets see:
For cheap OB project see
Manzanita Fast, fun, Inexpensive OB project
For FAST I suggest checkout 10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
You could use same ~3.5" mid for both of these. And for any 3 way system with direct radiating tweeter. There are plenty of options from cheap TG9 to the ss 10f and anything in between. You could possibly buy few.
The SLS 12 in Manzanita works for bass for a three way system. I guess it would work just fine.
Tweeter is still missing. I've seen the SB acoustics get good rep, either the 1" ADC model or the smaller SB19ST since they seem to have top performance and very affordable. Both would work fine crossed to ~3.5" mid I think. There is also waveguide available for both, see Open source Waveguides for CNC & 3D printing!
Tweeter xo and selection is more of a problem with 2 way speakers I would imagine, since bot drivers are required to work at their extremes, not the case with 3 way speaker with ~3.5" mid. Tweeter needs a pad regardless(?) so I don't think there is much to it crossover wise other than smoother response is easier than lumpy one.
You can buy pair of each driver and build mono prototypes with multiple woofers to evaluate the performance.
I'd buy pair of Peerless SLS 12, Tymphany TG9, SB acoustics SB19ST based on this simple reasoning. I have no experience on these or the alternatives. Add in the rs255 or rs180, dayton ~8" woofers, seem to be top performance as well, very affordable. I'd recon you could build all variations on your list with these drivers, at least in mono if not stereo. I guess you can sell these easily second hand on the local market since they all fit to almost any DIY project.
SLS 12 ~100e, TG9 ~10-20e, SB19 ~20e?, rs255 ~80e? That is about 220e, times two for stereo. There is some money left, which could be used to get the ss 10f mids instead of TG9.
Hope it helps.
Lets see:
For cheap OB project see
Manzanita Fast, fun, Inexpensive OB project
For FAST I suggest checkout 10F/8424 & RS225-8 FAST / WAW Ref Monitor
You could use same ~3.5" mid for both of these. And for any 3 way system with direct radiating tweeter. There are plenty of options from cheap TG9 to the ss 10f and anything in between. You could possibly buy few.
The SLS 12 in Manzanita works for bass for a three way system. I guess it would work just fine.
Tweeter is still missing. I've seen the SB acoustics get good rep, either the 1" ADC model or the smaller SB19ST since they seem to have top performance and very affordable. Both would work fine crossed to ~3.5" mid I think. There is also waveguide available for both, see Open source Waveguides for CNC & 3D printing!
Tweeter xo and selection is more of a problem with 2 way speakers I would imagine, since bot drivers are required to work at their extremes, not the case with 3 way speaker with ~3.5" mid. Tweeter needs a pad regardless(?) so I don't think there is much to it crossover wise other than smoother response is easier than lumpy one.
You can buy pair of each driver and build mono prototypes with multiple woofers to evaluate the performance.
I'd buy pair of Peerless SLS 12, Tymphany TG9, SB acoustics SB19ST based on this simple reasoning. I have no experience on these or the alternatives. Add in the rs255 or rs180, dayton ~8" woofers, seem to be top performance as well, very affordable. I'd recon you could build all variations on your list with these drivers, at least in mono if not stereo. I guess you can sell these easily second hand on the local market since they all fit to almost any DIY project.
SLS 12 ~100e, TG9 ~10-20e, SB19 ~20e?, rs255 ~80e? That is about 220e, times two for stereo. There is some money left, which could be used to get the ss 10f mids instead of TG9.
Hope it helps.
Last edited:
As I see it, there are roughly two people chatting that are likely to build something like the speaker outlined in the OP if things come together for them. Possibly a couple more likely to get involved in the paper design. The rest is mostly chat and/or people that want to get involved with a different speaker.
If someone were to start managing the process of putting together the shared requirements of those that are likely to build the speaker it would increase the chances of reaching critical mass and the project taking off. This means getting decisions made rather than just collecting options. Obviously people will drop out if they don't like the decisions so they need to be closely aligned with what the people that are likely to build the speaker want to do. The rest of us can and should drop out. The person pushing for decisions also needs to be seen to be reasonably neutral or else it will become a group project in name only.
The biggest problem this project appears to have is an absence of theme/vision for a group effort to form around. A reference speaker would have provided this but what is being proposed isn't recognisable as a reference speaker by most. It is an 8" woofer, 4" midrange, budget widely available drivers, SPL limited main speakers for a room (I think),... It could still happen as a group project but this lack of theme/vision is making things difficult and is possibly encouraging people to introduce all sorts of different themes for it.
This seems rather different to a collaborative group project and more like a weaker form of a DIY speaker competition/get-together performed on paper without the listening assessment at the end. The paper based assessment of performance appears rather vague.
However, I am personally very interested in the design and simulation of speakers and the related paper based assessment. I have never used VirtuixCAD2, have only a vague knowledge of it's capabilities, am able to run Windows programs but it is awkward and prefer not to. Can a design use other software or were you intending it to be a requirement to pull things together?
what do you mean by "absence of theme/vision"
What is missing in your view and needs to be sorted out?
First the requirements where vague. I give my input to my best ability asked for feedback...
maybe a list of requirements can be made, so we can fill them in?
Im in favour for 1 set of drives. But some will require specific drivers. eg OB.
but tweet and mid can be re-used I assume.
What is missing in your view and needs to be sorted out?
First the requirements where vague. I give my input to my best ability asked for feedback...
maybe a list of requirements can be made, so we can fill them in?
Im in favour for 1 set of drives. But some will require specific drivers. eg OB.
but tweet and mid can be re-used I assume.
andy, you definitely should take VituixCAD for a walk! You all should, who doesnt already.
Theme and vision is in the physical construct I say, which doesn't differ that much with driver size other than scale it up or down in size since it is all related to wavelengths. But, there is requirements for passive xo, cheapish cost and set of drivers with direct radiating tweeter so one could just build a box like everyone has been doing for ages, not much more options. Although box construction, mid enclosure, roundings / chamfers all make a difference. If you use VCAD to full potential no doubt the xo will be best possible and possible diffraction and resonances spotted easily. Using vcad seems rare still and it would already make the speaker a bit better I suspect. People still do crossovers like they were the magic for sound, and with axial responses only... ignoring 99% of the speaker output to any other direction leaving the whole thing in the woodoo section. All woodoo is removed after full set of measurements seen in capable simulator, it is all before your eyes and fingertips and no prior knowledge required, other than tweak the options and try not to kill the drivers
But to really get to next level the box should not be a box alright, add in waveguide and DSP and you've got something better than all the million other 3 way projects. As soon as any of you start to take full spinorama measurements and really tweak the system output in simulator you'll come to same conclusions I've tried to hint here. Crossover is trivial with VituixCAD and measurements and the response goodness is solely to the measurements = acoustic design of the construct. Use high enough quality drivers. But the construct would be that is not calculated in the project budget? the improvement, or reference quality, is right there.
I see just another box and no reason doing it other than walk through how to approach things, like I've been trying to do here. Meanwhile trying to push viewing things in the order of importance. Alright, enough me me me I'm outta for a while, I've already pushing too many posts. It would be good for future readers to see a VituixCAD project develop, though! so anything goes, I'm on a wrong thread.
Theme and vision is in the physical construct I say, which doesn't differ that much with driver size other than scale it up or down in size since it is all related to wavelengths. But, there is requirements for passive xo, cheapish cost and set of drivers with direct radiating tweeter so one could just build a box like everyone has been doing for ages, not much more options. Although box construction, mid enclosure, roundings / chamfers all make a difference. If you use VCAD to full potential no doubt the xo will be best possible and possible diffraction and resonances spotted easily. Using vcad seems rare still and it would already make the speaker a bit better I suspect. People still do crossovers like they were the magic for sound, and with axial responses only... ignoring 99% of the speaker output to any other direction leaving the whole thing in the woodoo section. All woodoo is removed after full set of measurements seen in capable simulator, it is all before your eyes and fingertips and no prior knowledge required, other than tweak the options and try not to kill the drivers
But to really get to next level the box should not be a box alright, add in waveguide and DSP and you've got something better than all the million other 3 way projects. As soon as any of you start to take full spinorama measurements and really tweak the system output in simulator you'll come to same conclusions I've tried to hint here. Crossover is trivial with VituixCAD and measurements and the response goodness is solely to the measurements = acoustic design of the construct. Use high enough quality drivers. But the construct would be that is not calculated in the project budget? the improvement, or reference quality, is right there.
I see just another box and no reason doing it other than walk through how to approach things, like I've been trying to do here. Meanwhile trying to push viewing things in the order of importance. Alright, enough me me me
I'm outta for a while, I've already pushing too many posts. It would be good for future readers to see a VituixCAD project develop, though! so anything goes, I'm on a wrong thread.
Last edited:
A lack of clear purpose for the speaker that people joining a group project can see, understand and sign up for. In the case of this project it started with a notion of a reference speaker but since what was proposed didn't line up with what many people expected from a reference speaker it didn't provide useful focus but the opposite.
As mentioned above at more length, what is missing is agreement on what to build among those that are going to build and to a lesser extent those that are going to help with the design but not build. The contributions from those chatting who are neither going to build or design are of little importance. Not necessarily zero (or positive) but of little importance.
Hifijim was trying to pull the requirements together but if he moves on someone else will have to pick up the task. It would make most sense if someone intending to build did it.
A list of requirements makes sense for a collaborative project. Maybe that's what this is? For a reference project I'd have thought one or more would offer project proposals or prototypes for consideration, which have a fair and representative sample of wanted technologies, not too esoteric. (Maybe this is just semantics .)
.)
Late to the party as usual.
When I think of a "Reference Speaker" that can work in various listening rooms, has decent WAF, and can cover most of the audible spectrum (40Hz to 16kHz), it usually ends up as some tower. (see images)
Open Baffles are nice, but few of us can live with speakers 2-3m out in the middle of our rooms
Transmission Lines are also great but building them is outside the skill set of amateur carpenters
and so on and so forth.
It is not by accident that we see a plethora of ported box towers today. Many of them (like the two examples above) sound quite lovely too.
These towers fit nicely into any decor (these are from 2012)
My guess would be something along the same lines would find the most takers. 1-2 of us would have to do designing and testing and donate the design to the public domain for everyone else to build via a group buy if possible. I don't see it happening any other way.
In today's internet-enabled era, there can even be some commercial incentives offered to the designers.
When I think of a "Reference Speaker" that can work in various listening rooms, has decent WAF, and can cover most of the audible spectrum (40Hz to 16kHz), it usually ends up as some tower. (see images)
Open Baffles are nice, but few of us can live with speakers 2-3m out in the middle of our rooms
Transmission Lines are also great but building them is outside the skill set of amateur carpenters
and so on and so forth.
It is not by accident that we see a plethora of ported box towers today. Many of them (like the two examples above) sound quite lovely too.
These towers fit nicely into any decor (these are from 2012)
My guess would be something along the same lines would find the most takers. 1-2 of us would have to do designing and testing and donate the design to the public domain for everyone else to build via a group buy if possible. I don't see it happening any other way.
In today's internet-enabled era, there can even be some commercial incentives offered to the designers.
Last edited:
I can see 3 out of 4 but the first gives me this:
{"status":"error","code":404,"message":"Invalid or unsupported image format. Is it a valid image?"}
@andy19191
About the "absence of theme/vision"
I feel I can not not say more then repeat myself. Don't know how I can contribute to make it more clear that what I said before. I ask others views on what i proposed but no-one seems to point out something or guide...
I thought it was already clear that this isn't reference like the best build possible with exotic material.
I proposed to use "multi-platform speaker" If people now read the summary and jump in this at the last post, yes they get the wrong impression. Maybe a new topic should be started but I got the impression that some things needed to be cleared before we start fresh.
@tmuikku
For every type of design you will find a thought out design which has been optimised to the max.
This project would give people the change to explore the different types of design with minimal cost by re-use of the drivers.
Maybe for some specific designs a driver has to change but must be avoided if possible.
@Navin
Building a TL design is something a newby can do. It is as easy as following a ikea instruction. Making a TL is something else, hence this platform.
OB is maybe not your thing, but it doesn't mean that it is something someone else like to explore.
@AllenB
I'm sure this isn't the first "collaborative project". Is there some existing list of requirements?
About the "absence of theme/vision"
I feel I can not not say more then repeat myself. Don't know how I can contribute to make it more clear that what I said before. I ask others views on what i proposed but no-one seems to point out something or guide...
I thought it was already clear that this isn't reference like the best build possible with exotic material.
I proposed to use "multi-platform speaker" If people now read the summary and jump in this at the last post, yes they get the wrong impression. Maybe a new topic should be started but I got the impression that some things needed to be cleared before we start fresh.
@tmuikku
For every type of design you will find a thought out design which has been optimised to the max.
This project would give people the change to explore the different types of design with minimal cost by re-use of the drivers.
Maybe for some specific designs a driver has to change but must be avoided if possible.
@Navin
Building a TL design is something a newby can do. It is as easy as following a ikea instruction. Making a TL is something else, hence this platform.
OB is maybe not your thing, but it doesn't mean that it is something someone else like to explore.
@AllenB
I'm sure this isn't the first "collaborative project". Is there some existing list of requirements?