Here is an example of a project which enables exploration into different drivers and waveguides. It is a modular 3-way project. I have found it very interesting and informative. If we want a project with a goal of experimenting with different layouts and architectures, this thread can be a guide for us.
Modular active 3 way - work in progress
Here is an example of a successful collaborative project. This project benefited from a leader who is very dedicated in terms of time, labor, and money dedicated to the project.
Open Source Monkey Box
If we want a single collaborative design, it will have to be run this way. It will need a leader with the willingness and the authority to make decisions.
With respect, these are design constraints that apply to your situation, and you are free to use them when choosing among the several designs. But I fully expect that some of the design concepts will not follow these rules, and that is fine.
I don’t see that as happening. The driver requirements for an open baffle speaker, vs a FAST or WAF, vs a 3 way cone/dome box are just too different. A cardioid pattern speaker will usually require two woofers. Even the choice of sealed box vs a vented box will often require a different woofer.
Your list of drivers, however, is a pretty good list. It does cover a good portion of the variety which would likely be used in a $600 3 way.
Andy19191 wrote
Yes, I agree. It is not ideal. A good collaboration project needs a good leader, one who is knowledgeable and respected, one who has “skin in the game” and is committed. That is not me, I have other things going on… but I would enjoy participating.
j.
Modular active 3 way - work in progress
Here is an example of a successful collaborative project. This project benefited from a leader who is very dedicated in terms of time, labor, and money dedicated to the project.
Open Source Monkey Box
If we want a single collaborative design, it will have to be run this way. It will need a leader with the willingness and the authority to make decisions.
With respect, these are design constraints that apply to your situation, and you are free to use them when choosing among the several designs. But I fully expect that some of the design concepts will not follow these rules, and that is fine.
I don’t see that as happening. The driver requirements for an open baffle speaker, vs a FAST or WAF, vs a 3 way cone/dome box are just too different. A cardioid pattern speaker will usually require two woofers. Even the choice of sealed box vs a vented box will often require a different woofer.
Your list of drivers, however, is a pretty good list. It does cover a good portion of the variety which would likely be used in a $600 3 way.
Andy19191 wrote
Yes, I agree. It is not ideal. A good collaboration project needs a good leader, one who is knowledgeable and respected, one who has “skin in the game” and is committed. That is not me, I have other things going on… but I would enjoy participating.
j.
Thanks HifiJIM this is useful information we can do something with.
If we can not go for 1 set of drivers (and I assume there are some designs which require specific drivers) it will be difficult to find a knowledgeable and respected leader. The variety is too big no?
Maybe if we settle for 1 set of drivers (still can be a limited set of 1 or 2 tweeters, mid's and woofers) and leave a few designs out of scope because of it?
I think with this set there are already many things possible.
eg
1 dome tweeter
1 waveguide tweeter (tweeter waveguide or waveguide that can be purchased)
1 3-4"mid so MTM is possible
1 4-5"mid
1 8"woofer
1 10"woofer
What can we make with that?
We can give a start condition for each sub project.
set of drivers. Design type (box+XO) etc...
If we can not go for 1 set of drivers (and I assume there are some designs which require specific drivers) it will be difficult to find a knowledgeable and respected leader. The variety is too big no?
Maybe if we settle for 1 set of drivers (still can be a limited set of 1 or 2 tweeters, mid's and woofers) and leave a few designs out of scope because of it?
I think with this set there are already many things possible.
eg
1 dome tweeter
1 waveguide tweeter (tweeter waveguide or waveguide that can be purchased)
1 3-4"mid so MTM is possible
1 4-5"mid
1 8"woofer
1 10"woofer
What can we make with that?
We can give a start condition for each sub project.
set of drivers. Design type (box+XO) etc...
How about assume any driver was available? Hopefully Santa brings them to you in few weeks, for free?
One would have to figure out the goal for what drivers to choose and make a design out of. Designs could be discussed and perhaps alternative drivers suggested.
This would get hands dirty on anyone who is interested. Perhaps there are multiple similar goals or concepts from which one could be picked up for someone to actually build and measure and get finished and confirmed? This would give confidence for anyone to build it as well I think.
One would have to figure out the goal for what drivers to choose and make a design out of. Designs could be discussed and perhaps alternative drivers suggested.This would get hands dirty on anyone who is interested. Perhaps there are multiple similar goals or concepts from which one could be picked up for someone to actually build and measure and get finished and confirmed? This would give confidence for anyone to build it as well I think.
Last edited:
I hope Santa bring many drivers. But he is coming in 3 weeks. Need to know where we land.
Assuming any driver? What is the point of the project then? There are good design out there in all disciplines. For me this project is to provide an easy step for newbies to grow and learn.
Well engineered designs with good explanation on the design decisions and keeping the cost down if one wants to make multiple designs.
Otherwise we repeat what is already done before and it is just a speaker project.
Assuming any driver? What is the point of the project then? There are good design out there in all disciplines. For me this project is to provide an easy step for newbies to grow and learn.
Well engineered designs with good explanation on the design decisions and keeping the cost down if one wants to make multiple designs.
Otherwise we repeat what is already done before and it is just a speaker project.
It has not really been discussed, but there is an assumption that the person building the speaker will have to perform the measurements and then provide that back to the designer(s). This means that in addition to buying drivers and cabinet materials, the builder will need to buy a microphone, a mic stand, a two channel sound card or USB audio interface, and learn to use REW (or ARTA). Once the drivers are mounted in a cabinet, we will need responses measured horizontally every 10 degrees, from 0 to 180.
j.
j.
And vertically, which is just the thing laid on its side and then repeat the horizontal measurement procedure
Assuming any driver is available is kind of the reality. But how would I be able to select drivers since there is so much options and designs? You've gotta have the goal to target the system for!
This is actually the case in reality! The drivers are not too expensive, might be few years saving or lot less for some but in general audio enthusiast seem to save and invest on equipment. Why not save on the most expensive drivers that are usually cheaper than the average hifi shop amplifier if one wants the best possible sound? One could want the least expensive drivers just as well, very good performance on the money spent. Good goals both.
And as hifijim says the process is hard work. To come up with a system, build and measure, redesign for the parts that need it and so on. It helps immensely to think beforehand what you want to achieve. Why would a redesign be needed, was it too expensive or the sound wasn't good enough but why, what is that resonance? Building mono prototypes is the fastest path forward and you could go through the variants listed within a year I suspect, lots of knowledge and manufacturing skills gained.
I wanted to make million projects too but did maybe one or two until realized one has to have a goal where to take a design, the hobby, to. Towards best sound possible (at the home, livingroom)! Wanna have best sound possible for you at your daily premises? there's a good goal! Having certain type of xo or particular driver is not a goal, it is a limitation that makes into a goal. Might be part of some other goal like exploring stuff for learning, which is fine but doesn't require group effort I'm afraid, there are already many many projects available all over the forum.
Well, I always try to remind the hobby should be fun and the fun is in different things for different people. So this post was not actually worth posting... Im still stuck in the topic of this thread.
Assuming any driver is available is kind of the reality. But how would I be able to select drivers since there is so much options and designs? You've gotta have the goal to target the system for!
This is actually the case in reality! The drivers are not too expensive, might be few years saving or lot less for some but in general audio enthusiast seem to save and invest on equipment. Why not save on the most expensive drivers that are usually cheaper than the average hifi shop amplifier if one wants the best possible sound? One could want the least expensive drivers just as well, very good performance on the money spent. Good goals both.
And as hifijim says the process is hard work. To come up with a system, build and measure, redesign for the parts that need it and so on. It helps immensely to think beforehand what you want to achieve. Why would a redesign be needed, was it too expensive or the sound wasn't good enough but why, what is that resonance? Building mono prototypes is the fastest path forward and you could go through the variants listed within a year I suspect, lots of knowledge and manufacturing skills gained.
I wanted to make million projects too but did maybe one or two until realized one has to have a goal where to take a design, the hobby, to. Towards best sound possible (at the home, livingroom)! Wanna have best sound possible for you at your daily premises? there's a good goal! Having certain type of xo or particular driver is not a goal, it is a limitation that makes into a goal. Might be part of some other goal like exploring stuff for learning, which is fine but doesn't require group effort I'm afraid, there are already many many projects available all over the forum.
Well, I always try to remind the hobby should be fun and the fun is in different things for different people. So this post was not actually worth posting... Im still stuck in the topic of this thread.
Last edited:
I don't believe that "everybody" who builds one needs to measure.
While it would be nice to have somebody measure a finished project and post the results all that really is needed is for the finished speaker to sound "Good enough"; I get my wife or my 11YO grand daughter to critique my own builds.
At the risk of displeasing those who want to build a more expensive speaker I think that perhaps a simple box using the low end Peerless drivers was a better option. That way there would be money to spend on different crossovers and "better" XO components so people could decide for themselves if esoteric components made a real difference.
The Peerless woofer 830667 mated to the 830656 might be cheap enough for people to tackle two or three versions
While it would be nice to have somebody measure a finished project and post the results all that really is needed is for the finished speaker to sound "Good enough"; I get my wife or my 11YO grand daughter to critique my own builds.
At the risk of displeasing those who want to build a more expensive speaker I think that perhaps a simple box using the low end Peerless drivers was a better option. That way there would be money to spend on different crossovers and "better" XO components so people could decide for themselves if esoteric components made a real difference.
The Peerless woofer 830667 mated to the 830656 might be cheap enough for people to tackle two or three versions
Now we know your goal! Nice!
If one wants to better something the measuring part is mandatory. It works as a reference what to fix and help to think how to fix it and then evaluate if it got fixed. By bettering I mean previous prototype or for example the previous speakers one had. Sometimes it is a clear what needs to be done, like having more bass if the previous speaker wasn't too big, but often the upgrade comes with some trade-off and the circle is ready. Until measurements confirm there was actual improvement over the previous one, going to right direction.
But as said the hobby should be fun so everyone should do what ever makes the fun! I'm out again, been posting wayy too much today..
ps.
One goal I've forgot to mention is to sell stuff to others. For example the speakers come in all sizes and colors and categories but most of them is made for profit, not for audio quality although many are good enough there is as many not very good. DIY hobby gives opportunity to skip the marketing foo. No transmission lines for me unless it has to be a line and not a box. Or golden binding posts, unless it was to make the neighbor jealous. They are not very important things if going for audio quality, even though everyone is made to believe so.
If one wants to better something the measuring part is mandatory. It works as a reference what to fix and help to think how to fix it and then evaluate if it got fixed. By bettering I mean previous prototype or for example the previous speakers one had. Sometimes it is a clear what needs to be done, like having more bass if the previous speaker wasn't too big, but often the upgrade comes with some trade-off and the circle is ready. Until measurements confirm there was actual improvement over the previous one, going to right direction.
But as said the hobby should be fun so everyone should do what ever makes the fun! I'm out again, been posting wayy too much today..
ps.
One goal I've forgot to mention is to sell stuff to others. For example the speakers come in all sizes and colors and categories but most of them is made for profit, not for audio quality although many are good enough there is as many not very good. DIY hobby gives opportunity to skip the marketing foo. No transmission lines for me unless it has to be a line and not a box. Or golden binding posts, unless it was to make the neighbor jealous. They are not very important things if going for audio quality, even though everyone is made to believe so.
Last edited:
The first person to build a given design will need to measure. That is collaboration part. Until drivers are measured in their cabinet, the design will never progress beyond the initial stage. There is no other way to really get the crossover right.
Now it is true that other people who later want to build the same design will not need to measure... but the first build is a prototype and will need to be measured.
Actually, only the horizontal measurements of the drivers are needed. VituixCad is able to use the horizontal measurements for both the horizontal and vertical simulation. It applies the simulated diffraction response of the cabinet.
Now it is true that other people who later want to build the same design will not need to measure... but the first build is a prototype and will need to be measured.
Actually, only the horizontal measurements of the drivers are needed. VituixCad is able to use the horizontal measurements for both the horizontal and vertical simulation. It applies the simulated diffraction response of the cabinet.
Ah, have you found out it is close enough that way? I mean if the baffle is close enough to symmetric, or at least so that possible error can be approximated then for sure.
Thinking of it more on a 3way monkeycoffin with drivers on the center axis there would be some error on the mid and tweet, mainly diffraction from the other drivers but that might not be too much. Diffraction doesn't affect the crossover work much since there is nothing one can do about diffraction in the crossover. I've been using the Vituix sims to evaluate the acoustic performance over all instead of concentrating just to the xo so feel vertical measurements are important. well I need to reconsider this especially with big stuff and situations where error should be insignificant, would save some time. I think this is easily evaluated by comparing measured vertical and horizontal responses.
edit.
Attached is blast from the past. Normalized measured horizontal and vertical responses of huge (1m scale) asymmetric enclosure with asymmetrically placed midrange. Showing the midrange data only. Well, there is some difference but it is a mess all around so I'd just do better structure and measure again The frontal sector -90 - +90 seems to be roughly the same on both. Not sure how much error would show up in the power and other calculated responses if either was used forboth. This could be easily tested as well, but have to do it some other day and trust your word on it.
What the heck, was only few minutes so don't have to come back to this later Second attachments shows difference if the vertical measurements was removed from the driver.
Thinking of it more on a 3way monkeycoffin with drivers on the center axis there would be some error on the mid and tweet, mainly diffraction from the other drivers but that might not be too much. Diffraction doesn't affect the crossover work much since there is nothing one can do about diffraction in the crossover. I've been using the Vituix sims to evaluate the acoustic performance over all instead of concentrating just to the xo so feel vertical measurements are important. well I need to reconsider this especially with big stuff and situations where error should be insignificant, would save some time. I think this is easily evaluated by comparing measured vertical and horizontal responses.
edit.
Attached is blast from the past. Normalized measured horizontal and vertical responses of huge (1m scale) asymmetric enclosure with asymmetrically placed midrange. Showing the midrange data only. Well, there is some difference but it is a mess all around so I'd just do better structure and measure again
The frontal sector -90 - +90 seems to be roughly the same on both. Not sure how much error would show up in the power and other calculated responses if either was used forboth. This could be easily tested as well, but have to do it some other day and trust your word on it.What the heck, was only few minutes so don't have to come back to this later
Second attachments shows difference if the vertical measurements was removed from the driver.Attachments
Last edited:
I just follow Kimmo's instructions. He says horizontal, from 0 to 180.
I believe what VituixCad does is it uses the simulated baffle response to extract a 2-pi response from all the horizontal measurements... then it applies the simulated baffle response in the vertical direction to approximate the vertical polar responses.
I really believe it is close enough. Afterall, we are using that data to approximate the sound power response and the early reflections response... There are a LOT of assumptions that go into those two calculations, particularly the ER. If I was concerned about errors in the VituixCad process (which I am not), it would be in the simplifying assumptions used to calculate an ER and predicted in-room response. But as I said, I am not concerned.
I believe what VituixCad does is it uses the simulated baffle response to extract a 2-pi response from all the horizontal measurements... then it applies the simulated baffle response in the vertical direction to approximate the vertical polar responses.
I really believe it is close enough. Afterall, we are using that data to approximate the sound power response and the early reflections response... There are a LOT of assumptions that go into those two calculations, particularly the ER. If I was concerned about errors in the VituixCad process (which I am not), it would be in the simplifying assumptions used to calculate an ER and predicted in-room response. But as I said, I am not concerned.
In case this was not seen earlier, just adding this link to the thread on VituixCAD by Kimmosto on htguide.
Kimmosto says/shows the impact of vertical measurement data on simulations here (post no. 269):
VituixCAD v2 - Page 8
In the discussions that follow, FM Reet also gives links to his thread where a procedure for approximating vertical data without measurements is given.
Thanks
Kimmosto says/shows the impact of vertical measurement data on simulations here (post no. 269):
VituixCAD v2 - Page 8
In the discussions that follow, FM Reet also gives links to his thread where a procedure for approximating vertical data without measurements is given.
Thanks
Jim, the fundamental calculations that VC does are plenty accurate.
Sims can produce a good result if you know how to interpret them. For example, moving a driver around on the baffle varies the timing and adjusts the relative angles so that matters like lobing and phase are considered. However, does moving a driver around on the baffle cause VC to re-evaluate the diffraction produced, and involved in the interactions?
I don't see this as a downside, but I notice that some expect perfection and won't talk about it. That's not how it works. In fact it can be beneficial to not overcomplicate these kinds of parameter varying features. After all, when I sketch waves on paper or in CAD, it is simplified but it is extremely helpful.
Sims can produce a good result if you know how to interpret them. For example, moving a driver around on the baffle varies the timing and adjusts the relative angles so that matters like lobing and phase are considered. However, does moving a driver around on the baffle cause VC to re-evaluate the diffraction produced, and involved in the interactions?
I don't see this as a downside, but I notice that some expect perfection and won't talk about it. That's not how it works. In fact it can be beneficial to not overcomplicate these kinds of parameter varying features. After all, when I sketch waves on paper or in CAD, it is simplified but it is extremely helpful.
The crossover for a WW MT vs a WMT would be different. So if there is going to be a multi-platform project each platform would have to have unique crossover designs.
Some TLs (like pipes) are easy to build. The ones I have done (with multiple folds) have been less than easy.
OBs are awesome if you have the room. I have no challenge with OBs except for the room they need.
Agreed. The question is who?
I think so too the error using only horizontal response is not too big. As long as relatively small speaker in question there shouldn't be too much of an error with circular source. Error demonstrated with the directiva data by kimmosto in vineethkumars link is roughly 1dB and quite uniform for the most part. This would yield error only in level, not too much error in the filters otherwise I think. Verifying by measurement and listening this error is easily fixed after the fact if it bothers at all.
Observe how the error flips around the 1-2kHz in the directiva data though. Also my "extreme" case in previous post seems to have most difference here in similar region, around 1kHz.
I don't know if this is a curse or blessing that the stuff is wild roughly around 1kHz, on the midrange. I've observed all the problems I have tried to tackle accumulate on this area. Be it trying to compensate for vertical reflections in the room or cone edge resonances or box issues. Hearing is most accurate there as well. Errors in the simulation data seem to land here.
Maybe the stuff averages out due to all "problems" accumulating on the same range or maybe the secret sauce to better sound is addressing this region as well as possible. Knowing the error at this region would be paramount I think, or just doesn't make any difference because there is just too much to take account?
I think the issues accumulate there just because physical objects are that size, the speaker boxes, the drivers, the head, the wavelengths. Almost all instruments we hear have output there (harmonics at least) not least the vocals. 300Hz is ~1 meter long, 3kHz is ~10cm long. 1kHz is ~30cm long. Drivers from 15" to 3" correspond to frequencies 900-4500Hz. There is going to be crossover somewhere here if any.
Thanks vineethkumar01 the link and tips where to find the stuff! Reets document shows nicely how to generate vertical response for a tweeter in a box that would be quite hard work to measure.
Attachments
Last edited:
Hi,
Or maybe for at least one facet of psychoacoustic this 1khz area is a 'gray area' where we are less sensible?
Sound localization - Wikipedia
Or maybe for at least one facet of psychoacoustic this 1khz area is a 'gray area' where we are less sensible?
Sound localization - Wikipedia
That would make sense, brain has developed to listening the mess around that region and got used to it during the evolution. Maybe small errors here dont matter at all.
Or maybe it is paramount? for the last piece of detail achievable from speaker system. Gives easy time for the brain, a relaxation? I'm going to approach this area from the philosophy perspective. Too much stuff going on to study it all and take account for in a speaker design, at least currently.
Or maybe it is paramount?
for the last piece of detail achievable from speaker system. Gives easy time for the brain, a relaxation? I'm going to approach this area from the philosophy perspective. Too much stuff going on to study it all and take account for in a speaker design, at least currently.
Last edited:
Yes each platform will have its unique crossover design.
My first DIY build was CARRERA. 45 degrees panels. detachable front and back. Front don't have screws. it's detachable from the inside.
some pictures can be seen here : 2-way to bring me to HiFi-heaven....and having fun on the way - forum.zelfbouwaudio.nl
Even had to make the hole for the tweeter smaller, some were surprised it's possible and learned from me how to do it.
2nd build a soundbar with 2 FR drivers and 2 woofers.
Made everything myself. FR drivers are 15 degrees angled, woofers on the side. Each in their own compartment. Calculated the BR port made the XO. Add the 2.1 amp and compartment for the remote so it easy to find it back
Made it all in the bathroom, with limited tools. just bought a router because the person who would make the holes charged me double price of a cheap router.
I'm not afraid to make a complex TL design if it is well documented.
Good sound isn't a goal for me. Every design seeks a good sound. I never read any post where their goal was a bad sound.
But the question is what is a good sound. And this is different for everyone because we play different music, have different rooms, have different ears and have different priorities.
For a newby to find his/her good sound in the big landscape it's easy.
@tmuikku pointed towards a FAST design. There were some soundsamples of different XO used. That is interested for a newby.
But it is only applicable for that design.
Can open baffle not be made so it can stand closer (eg 50-80cm) to the wall?
Maybe it isnt open baffle anymore but dipool design or a hybrid design.
I'm very interested in a wide baffle design ala Troels PMS but not many around. Why?
What missing is someone who can guide this project. If no one stands up then this project is doomed.
Maybe it is better to make an overview of best designs in each category and discuss why they are good and what can be improved to make them even better.
My first DIY build was CARRERA. 45 degrees panels. detachable front and back. Front don't have screws. it's detachable from the inside.
some pictures can be seen here : 2-way to bring me to HiFi-heaven....and having fun on the way - forum.zelfbouwaudio.nl
Even had to make the hole for the tweeter smaller, some were surprised it's possible and learned from me how to do it.
2nd build a soundbar with 2 FR drivers and 2 woofers.
Made everything myself. FR drivers are 15 degrees angled, woofers on the side. Each in their own compartment. Calculated the BR port made the XO. Add the 2.1 amp and compartment for the remote so it easy to find it back
Made it all in the bathroom, with limited tools. just bought a router because the person who would make the holes charged me double price of a cheap router.
I'm not afraid to make a complex TL design if it is well documented.
Good sound isn't a goal for me. Every design seeks a good sound. I never read any post where their goal was a bad sound.
But the question is what is a good sound. And this is different for everyone because we play different music, have different rooms, have different ears and have different priorities.
For a newby to find his/her good sound in the big landscape it's easy.
@tmuikku pointed towards a FAST design. There were some soundsamples of different XO used. That is interested for a newby.
But it is only applicable for that design.
Can open baffle not be made so it can stand closer (eg 50-80cm) to the wall?
Maybe it isnt open baffle anymore but dipool design or a hybrid design.
I'm very interested in a wide baffle design ala Troels PMS but not many around. Why?
What missing is someone who can guide this project. If no one stands up then this project is doomed.
Maybe it is better to make an overview of best designs in each category and discuss why they are good and what can be improved to make them even better.
I don't know too Tmuikku.
I've observed that once you have a dedicated direct radiator driver ( iow a threeway) to this range ( from ~800hz to 4,5khz in my case) you gain in what i would call 'transparency' ( you can 'read' deeper and with more 'accuracy' in the reproduced message).
As i tried to expand the range i know i prefer if i can lower to 650hz and go upper to 6,5khz but you start to introduce other issues related to directivity in the high end ( with the drivers i experimented) and compromise on spl the design can reach too.
Some other food for thoughts for a preliminary design criteria choice ( as drivers choices will more or less dictate the xover points and thus the box volume and shape):
Design-Criteria
I've observed that once you have a dedicated direct radiator driver ( iow a threeway) to this range ( from ~800hz to 4,5khz in my case) you gain in what i would call 'transparency' ( you can 'read' deeper and with more 'accuracy' in the reproduced message).
As i tried to expand the range i know i prefer if i can lower to 650hz and go upper to 6,5khz but you start to introduce other issues related to directivity in the high end ( with the drivers i experimented) and compromise on spl the design can reach too.
Some other food for thoughts for a preliminary design criteria choice ( as drivers choices will more or less dictate the xover points and thus the box volume and shape):
Design-Criteria
Last edited:
Yes, the issues with >4.5khz xo might not matter if this important region is fine. But now you might have so small a driver SPL might be limited if stretching out full decade of bandwidth, unless
There is also possibility to use one driver all the way from the mentioned 650Hz to the top. Compression driver with very good waveguide. The waveguide ends up pretty big and big woofer is reguired as mid below. Or another big waveguide.
Crossing around say 700Hz most probably means at least two more ways below, midwoofer and a sub. In case of full range mains maybe there is woofer and mid woofer, no sub, making three way system. But it is gonna be big. And will have SPL capability, wide bandwidth, high sensitivity for lowest cone movement and amplifier watt requirement.
This is Audio quality with trade-off in size and cost, just like the best speaker possible would have But if application is family living room this might not be best possible for that. Or if goal was to go by easy and cheap.
I think easy and cheap projects, as well as the more ambitious ones would all benefit addressing the mid range. This would be the traditional justification for 3-way speaker as well, possibility for dedicated midrange. Maybe a reference project has the midrange stuff sorted out? This would leave the bass to be experimented (TL!) as well as the tweeter (diamond!). Is there definitive guide for this somewhere? Or just various pieces like I think there must be in D'Appolito MTM papers, or with horn hifi dealers catalogue? What does mr. Toole work say on this? I haven't read them...
There is also possibility to use one driver all the way from the mentioned 650Hz to the top. Compression driver with very good waveguide. The waveguide ends up pretty big and big woofer is reguired as mid below. Or another big waveguide.
Crossing around say 700Hz most probably means at least two more ways below, midwoofer and a sub. In case of full range mains maybe there is woofer and mid woofer, no sub, making three way system. But it is gonna be big. And will have SPL capability, wide bandwidth, high sensitivity for lowest cone movement and amplifier watt requirement.
This is Audio quality with trade-off in size and cost, just like the best speaker possible would have
But if application is family living room this might not be best possible for that. Or if goal was to go by easy and cheap.I think easy and cheap projects, as well as the more ambitious ones would all benefit addressing the mid range. This would be the traditional justification for 3-way speaker as well, possibility for dedicated midrange. Maybe a reference project has the midrange stuff sorted out? This would leave the bass to be experimented (TL!) as well as the tweeter (diamond!). Is there definitive guide for this somewhere? Or just various pieces like I think there must be in D'Appolito MTM papers, or with horn hifi dealers catalogue? What does mr. Toole work say on this? I haven't read them...
Last edited: