multi drivers
previous post mentioned sound stage and I remember a Phillips 5 speaker 3 way kit built in the seventies which had parallel tweeters and parallel mid range 3 inch above a 12 inch woofer. The imagery was something I have never heard since. Things like cymbals were very real. The problem with the speaker apart from getting old was 12 inch covered the male voice and was terrible. I came to site to find recommended drivers as I am also looking at a 3 way or 2 way diy build. I was looking at 3 way Chinese analog op amp acive crossovers on ebay. Fixed at 3000kz and 300 hz.Does anybody have a view on these?
previous post mentioned sound stage and I remember a Phillips 5 speaker 3 way kit built in the seventies which had parallel tweeters and parallel mid range 3 inch above a 12 inch woofer. The imagery was something I have never heard since. Things like cymbals were very real. The problem with the speaker apart from getting old was 12 inch covered the male voice and was terrible. I came to site to find recommended drivers as I am also looking at a 3 way or 2 way diy build. I was looking at 3 way Chinese analog op amp acive crossovers on ebay. Fixed at 3000kz and 300 hz.Does anybody have a view on these?
For what speaker are they? If not made for your speaker they are generic and as such just waste of money. Yes, they pass the sound and divide it for the promiced bands, but the resulting acoustic slopes are what ever they happen to be with your drivers and system. And it is the combined acoustic response of the whole system you listen to, you are not listening the crossover!
If you already have 6 channels of amplification, buy drivers that are flat around and past the xo points, build the speakers so that the construct supports the resulting slopes, yeah can be fine xo. Could be noisy! and expensive as a system, and difficult to come up with so it is very risky, most probably ends up with mediocre sound despite all the effort. You deserve better so I suggest a DIY kit you like, or going into the deep end with measurement mic and all.
You folks have it backwards, just the way marketing folks want it. Consume without thinking too much, demise of the planet. Start thinking what you actually need and if it is any better than what you already have or just different. In which case it is just waste of money and resources.
Sorry, I didn't remember how stuck ppl are for the marketing foo, hence a bit of a rant.
If you already have 6 channels of amplification, buy drivers that are flat around and past the xo points, build the speakers so that the construct supports the resulting slopes, yeah can be fine xo. Could be noisy! and expensive as a system, and difficult to come up with so it is very risky, most probably ends up with mediocre sound despite all the effort. You deserve better so I suggest a DIY kit you like, or going into the deep end with measurement mic and all.
You folks have it backwards, just the way marketing folks want it. Consume without thinking too much, demise of the planet. Start thinking what you actually need and if it is any better than what you already have or just different. In which case it is just waste of money and resources.
Sorry, I didn't remember how stuck ppl are for the marketing foo, hence a bit of a rant.
Last edited:
The Behringer 3-Way crossovers are value for money and I was using them until recently. The downside is needing 6 channels of amplification but that is outside the bounds of the posts intent.
Indeed, I did not do a full baffle step compensation because:
- Woofer is 91dB efficiency, mid is 88dB. Final measurements only show ~3dB more below 250Hz would have been needed for a full BSC.
This is already better in terms of BSC than B1371 for example (92dB Woofer and Mid) - I did not want to add additional losses / components in signal path.
- Thanks to the wide baffle, this baffle step loss occurs quite low, and since this speaker is used by whole family around TV, I did not want to make it too bass-heavy and make the room modes peaks extra bothering.
- For critical listening, room modes are EQed anyway and full BSC can easily be done then. Subjectively, bass goes so low that I don't feel any lack; but as it impacts below 250Hz, it makes thicker male voices and fuller mediums, to be fine-tuned as needed.
@tmuikku
Thanks for the detailed information on #674
I read it 3 times but still don't understand half of it. You talk from your experience and take things for granted, you don't even realise. (which is natural BTW, we all do)
Do you expect that a newby will be able to make all the decisions in a correct way like #Martigane did in post #673?
I don't think so. At least I can not. Even understanding why they are made and which "+" and "-" one chose to accept.
Hence this project.
The designer decide not the "customer". If you buy a car you also say how they have to map the injection-system? No you expect that they made it in their best ability to have "smoothess of driving, power, torch, low gas-consumption etc)
You judge the outcome and decide to buy the car or not (eg you want minimum 100pk for a car of 1500kg)
You talk about some interesting stuff in vituixCad which is hard to understand because it's not touchable...too abstract.
Hence this project. You have a real example a real speaker project.
The design explain how he handle this kind of project. How he start building a speaker. What to consider. How to make evaluations. ect...Show come graphs explain them how to influence them etc...
This is the learning process for the newby. Some other designers can step in an give their view on things. We will have a discussion about the different approach.
But "the designer"makes the design. Alterations can be derived from it but then start their own life. Hence the different set of speakers with the same drivers.
If we have a few designs, a newby can distillate some kind of cookbook/guide which he can later use to make his own design. This way e can grow and gain knowledge.
For instance I used Xsim a few times. I can make a XO with it. But I don't have any real knowledge...I just fiddle around till things fall into place. It is trail and error without any direction....this isn't the way to do things. I already forgot how to adjust the driver offset (Z) Do I need to add it to the tweeter or the woofer? Do I need to add a positive value or negative. I can't remember anymore and in the forest of DIY its difficult to find it again.
Also one should learn an find the appropriate remedy for a problem you like to solve.
Hence this project. The designer can point out a problem area and explain how he tackle it. Show some graphs before and after...the learning process. The newby can ask questions.
But all this I explained already before but no reaction.
The project will be a platform where newbies can gain experience and knowledge which a real project...because it's more fun to learn and make something in the end that you can enjoy doesn't it?
Thanks for the detailed information on #674
I read it 3 times but still don't understand half of it. You talk from your experience and take things for granted, you don't even realise. (which is natural BTW, we all do)
Do you expect that a newby will be able to make all the decisions in a correct way like #Martigane did in post #673?
I don't think so. At least I can not. Even understanding why they are made and which "+" and "-" one chose to accept.
Hence this project.
The designer decide not the "customer". If you buy a car you also say how they have to map the injection-system? No you expect that they made it in their best ability to have "smoothess of driving, power, torch, low gas-consumption etc)
You judge the outcome and decide to buy the car or not (eg you want minimum 100pk for a car of 1500kg)
You talk about some interesting stuff in vituixCad which is hard to understand because it's not touchable...too abstract.
Hence this project. You have a real example a real speaker project.
The design explain how he handle this kind of project. How he start building a speaker. What to consider. How to make evaluations. ect...Show come graphs explain them how to influence them etc...
This is the learning process for the newby. Some other designers can step in an give their view on things. We will have a discussion about the different approach.
But "the designer"makes the design. Alterations can be derived from it but then start their own life. Hence the different set of speakers with the same drivers.
If we have a few designs, a newby can distillate some kind of cookbook/guide which he can later use to make his own design. This way e can grow and gain knowledge.
For instance I used Xsim a few times. I can make a XO with it. But I don't have any real knowledge...I just fiddle around till things fall into place. It is trail and error without any direction....this isn't the way to do things. I already forgot how to adjust the driver offset (Z) Do I need to add it to the tweeter or the woofer? Do I need to add a positive value or negative. I can't remember anymore and in the forest of DIY its difficult to find it again.
Also one should learn an find the appropriate remedy for a problem you like to solve.
Hence this project. The designer can point out a problem area and explain how he tackle it. Show some graphs before and after...the learning process. The newby can ask questions.
But all this I explained already before but no reaction.
The project will be a platform where newbies can gain experience and knowledge which a real project...because it's more fun to learn and make something in the end that you can enjoy doesn't it?
Alright, I'll start a little story what my experience is. It is not much but few important realizations got me to current position with the hobby and I think it could help you and others how to think about the design, especially from position where the knowledge is almost zero how to do things. There is too much details and weird stuff that feel distant like you have found out and it is perfectly normal. I was there too, I was in a position (kids got bigger, a little bit of savings etc.) where I could try and make the very good speakers I only dreamed of, for me, that works in the family living room because I don't have dedicated listening space. This is the reality so I want to make something that works and gets me the good sound I don't know what it might be.
Lets assume we have speakers already and know something about speakers like having built a kit for example? Should I just build another kit? Yes why not, but I want to learn more and I'll make my own since there is the possibility and it should be fun.
How to get started? Well, what is good sound to me? I haven't been into hifi shows so I don't know much about the hifi speakers and never owned any expensive ones, but I've been to live music shows and I have good headphones. I've also played in bands through my life. By the experience I've had so far has left some memories of good sound. Some live shows have such nice impactful sound that I'd like something like that, the sensation, at home!
Alright, what the hell, why is that the live sound is nice? One thing is the wide frequency range the systems are capable of and the other is nice loud sound, maybe a bit too loud, but it is felt by the body as well, tactile feel, unlike headphones. Definitely hings that my then current home system could not do. In addition I have the luxury to know what sound band playing in rehearsals usually produce. Real kick drum and big amps or perhaps a nice acoustic set.
As you already stated it is very abstract 😀 And it stays abstract the whole design until it is time to figure out how to actually build the design. Zero knowledge so far, only realization what I probably need from the speaker system.
Time to figure out some numbers to get started. How loud is nice good loud sound? I have no idea, but googling reference sound level you'll find things about Fletcher Munson Curve and how that and possibly other reasons have led for example movie industry to use the 85db(c) reference level. Now we have some number that is found in the driver datasheets for example! Or how it relates to other sound levels like chainsaw and street noise. Alright, 85db looks reasonable volume. If not live sound SPL but still something that the professionals would use for optimal sound perception.
The other thing was the bandwidth. I remember from school 20-20kHz is about the human hearing capability at youth and decrades getting older. Also knowing that not much happens in music, except some genres and movies, below about 30Hz we could be happy with something like 30Hz - 15kHz bandwidth from the system. Certainly low bass adds very much to the feeling of live shows and we don't want to miss it, neither the highest highs since the kids could enjoy them even if I couldn't.
Ok one of the two important realizations I mentioned earlier has to do with the frequency. Physical size of the sound, wavelength due to (rather constant) speed of sound in the air. This lightning strike has helped on all aspects of speaker design afterwards. It is rather easy to figure out in the head how the sound waves interact with physical objects by thinking through the wavelengths where the phenomenon is happening. On the VituixCAD this is easy to test and observe in loudspeaker context since it is capable of showing ideal drivers acoustic response in ideal space and putting them on an ideal baffle (of any practical size and shape). Wavelengths are the foundation, sound in air, in physical size, the most simplified way to think about stuff in acoustic domain without knowing much of other details. It is the bottom of things since that is what produce record and we listen to, sound through air. Reality, the environment, just adds all kinds of phenomena to the sound like reflections and diffraction, standing waves, what have you. All related to size of the objects either producing sound or being static obstacles to the wavelengths. When something is relatively small to wavelengths it doesn't have much effect and vice versa, small objects don't produce much long wavelengths. Aha, there is relation between size and SPL through the wavelengths, frequency!
Still with me?😀 Lets stay in the acoustic domain for the rest of the post. I don't have much time now, to write. We've now googled about sound waves and how they propagate. I don't know anything about acoustics except some nuggets here and there trying to figure out room acoustics in the past. The important thing is that sound is waves alright. From a point source a circular sound field emerges. If the wave meets a slit there is diffraction pattern, like with the classic double slit experiment with light to realize light consist of waves. If the radiator is a disc instead of point in space, the sound will emerge from all around the disc, infinite amount of point sources in a sense. The disc is a piston moving back and forth transferring pressure to the near by air molecules making them move, and the movement propagates as speed of sound. A transducer. Nice.
Sorry, if I have used wrong term somewhere, I'm not expert, going the easy way forward not going too deep in the physics since we are building loudspeaker not particle accelerator.
Alright, the sound waves propagate to all directions and superimpose with other sound waves they meet at particular location. And transmission and reflection happens when sound meets an obstacle. Some of the sound is transmitted to the obstacle (medium) and some is reflected to the incident angle, like light when you look to a mirror. Due to these simple phenomena a interference pattern emerges assuming steady sound from the source. When and where ever a wave null (low pressure) meets a high point (high pressure) they cancel out at that location or if they travel along they cancel out that direction. This is destructive interference. If two highs meet instead, results even higher pressure and this is constructive interference, they add.
Now think just two point sources out of the many on a transducer, emerging opposite sides of the transducer. The waves propagate to all directions. To forward direction they add constructively (at a certain distance, there is little time before the waves meet as the wave front is circular) but some other directions they start to gradually cancel as distance to each point source changes differently. The other is now further away than the other and interference that happens might be constructive or desctructive or anything in between depending on which phase the waves are at at that position you inspect the situation, a reference point. Depending on wavelength there is low or high propability the waves are at same or opposite phase. I mean if wavelength is raltively long to the distance difference of sound sources the wave seems to be almost at same phase and constructive interference happens to that direction. For sufficiently high frequency, short wavelength in relation to the distance, there is more angles where the waves meet in phase and those where they don't. Intensity (SPL) is strong to directions where emanating waves travel along in phase and lower to directions where they statistically don't match that well. This is what I imagine 😀 I suspect there might be slight error. Well, anyway, as frequency rices the interference pattern due to the two point sources makes a narrowing beam. With long wavelengths the points appears to be closer and closer together and the response is kind of uniform to all directions.
Quite abstract, just trying to imagine what actually happens without going too deep into physics knowledge 😀 Good thing about physics is that is reflects reality at some level and has nothing to do with marketing.
You might now thing what the hell, but this is it! Wait, no its not, we have to then figure out how this mumbo jumbo translates to loudspeaker systems and hearing and enjoyable sound?
For that we don't want to go too deep either. We could go to hifi store and ask about interfence and decibels. They'd probably end up selling you something but this is not what we decided in the few first paragraphs. So we try and find if there is any science behind sound reproduction and listening impressions, and there is! Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, active forum member Earl Geddes and many others I don't know of have done empirical studies on loudspeakers and listening and what people prefer in the reproduction.
But what the good sound is? Must be that that most people prefer! Skimming through the studies some graphs are shown and they get the eye: power response, directivity, in-room response, early reflections, what the hell? Googling around and finding out what are these details I've now saw and there the info is. Simplified, we now have learned that in addition to on axis frequency response the driver datasheets show there is important factor in how the speaker radiates in room. And the in room radiation depends highly on the relation of various wavelengths in relation to the transducers and the structure size around affects. There are many other things in the studies that describe what qualities of sound make preference between the listening test attendees. For example peaks in frequency response have been found distracting, correlation between perception of distortion and THD (or the lack of) and many others. But we don't have to know it all yet, because there is too much information for now. Didn't even read the studies thoroughly. Let stick with the wavelengths since it has been feeling nice simple contact point to stuff so far. We will encounter them at some stage anyway since it seems to be important for good sound!
Turns out there is some common with good sounding speakers measurements, found out in the blind listening studies. And there are graphs that show some of the better ones and some not so good. Luckily, VituixCAD produces similar graphs! Wow, we could now compare the studies to our own work and see how they fare. Is it close to what has been found out to be good, or does it look something else. Why does it look so? What we have to do? How do I use the VituixCAD?? More googlign, reading the manual. Buying some cheap drivers, measurement rig, plywood and of you go into a journey 🙂 No foo, not much knowledge but a clear path, just matter of taking!
If this was worthwhile read to you I could write a continuum for few more steps forward, to where abouts I'm, if interested? The main thing is not to get stuck on details but think the big picture, really think what is it you are facing at. Every time there is something you don't know, learn it, go googling and do experiments. Too deep or too much work? Just buy the kit because this is supposed to be fun and not boring 🙂 I'll warn you I'm not gonna name drop any drivers or xo topologies, I think, because they are details and the details are hard to understand and connect together without the abstract picture of the system, the reproduction and the perception 😀 The thing is, the individual pieces that make a system are not important on their own put mate all pieces together in a system design and you have good system! After all, it is the pressure variation in the air at time and location we perceive.
Hopefully there is not too many typo, I don't have time to edit this! sorry
Lets assume we have speakers already and know something about speakers like having built a kit for example? Should I just build another kit? Yes why not, but I want to learn more and I'll make my own since there is the possibility and it should be fun.
How to get started? Well, what is good sound to me? I haven't been into hifi shows so I don't know much about the hifi speakers and never owned any expensive ones, but I've been to live music shows and I have good headphones. I've also played in bands through my life. By the experience I've had so far has left some memories of good sound. Some live shows have such nice impactful sound that I'd like something like that, the sensation, at home!
Alright, what the hell, why is that the live sound is nice? One thing is the wide frequency range the systems are capable of and the other is nice loud sound, maybe a bit too loud, but it is felt by the body as well, tactile feel, unlike headphones. Definitely hings that my then current home system could not do. In addition I have the luxury to know what sound band playing in rehearsals usually produce. Real kick drum and big amps or perhaps a nice acoustic set.
As you already stated it is very abstract 😀 And it stays abstract the whole design until it is time to figure out how to actually build the design. Zero knowledge so far, only realization what I probably need from the speaker system.
Time to figure out some numbers to get started. How loud is nice good loud sound? I have no idea, but googling reference sound level you'll find things about Fletcher Munson Curve and how that and possibly other reasons have led for example movie industry to use the 85db(c) reference level. Now we have some number that is found in the driver datasheets for example! Or how it relates to other sound levels like chainsaw and street noise. Alright, 85db looks reasonable volume. If not live sound SPL but still something that the professionals would use for optimal sound perception.
The other thing was the bandwidth. I remember from school 20-20kHz is about the human hearing capability at youth and decrades getting older. Also knowing that not much happens in music, except some genres and movies, below about 30Hz we could be happy with something like 30Hz - 15kHz bandwidth from the system. Certainly low bass adds very much to the feeling of live shows and we don't want to miss it, neither the highest highs since the kids could enjoy them even if I couldn't.
Ok one of the two important realizations I mentioned earlier has to do with the frequency. Physical size of the sound, wavelength due to (rather constant) speed of sound in the air. This lightning strike has helped on all aspects of speaker design afterwards. It is rather easy to figure out in the head how the sound waves interact with physical objects by thinking through the wavelengths where the phenomenon is happening. On the VituixCAD this is easy to test and observe in loudspeaker context since it is capable of showing ideal drivers acoustic response in ideal space and putting them on an ideal baffle (of any practical size and shape). Wavelengths are the foundation, sound in air, in physical size, the most simplified way to think about stuff in acoustic domain without knowing much of other details. It is the bottom of things since that is what produce record and we listen to, sound through air. Reality, the environment, just adds all kinds of phenomena to the sound like reflections and diffraction, standing waves, what have you. All related to size of the objects either producing sound or being static obstacles to the wavelengths. When something is relatively small to wavelengths it doesn't have much effect and vice versa, small objects don't produce much long wavelengths. Aha, there is relation between size and SPL through the wavelengths, frequency!
Still with me?😀 Lets stay in the acoustic domain for the rest of the post. I don't have much time now, to write. We've now googled about sound waves and how they propagate. I don't know anything about acoustics except some nuggets here and there trying to figure out room acoustics in the past. The important thing is that sound is waves alright. From a point source a circular sound field emerges. If the wave meets a slit there is diffraction pattern, like with the classic double slit experiment with light to realize light consist of waves. If the radiator is a disc instead of point in space, the sound will emerge from all around the disc, infinite amount of point sources in a sense. The disc is a piston moving back and forth transferring pressure to the near by air molecules making them move, and the movement propagates as speed of sound. A transducer. Nice.
Sorry, if I have used wrong term somewhere, I'm not expert, going the easy way forward not going too deep in the physics since we are building loudspeaker not particle accelerator.
Alright, the sound waves propagate to all directions and superimpose with other sound waves they meet at particular location. And transmission and reflection happens when sound meets an obstacle. Some of the sound is transmitted to the obstacle (medium) and some is reflected to the incident angle, like light when you look to a mirror. Due to these simple phenomena a interference pattern emerges assuming steady sound from the source. When and where ever a wave null (low pressure) meets a high point (high pressure) they cancel out at that location or if they travel along they cancel out that direction. This is destructive interference. If two highs meet instead, results even higher pressure and this is constructive interference, they add.
Now think just two point sources out of the many on a transducer, emerging opposite sides of the transducer. The waves propagate to all directions. To forward direction they add constructively (at a certain distance, there is little time before the waves meet as the wave front is circular) but some other directions they start to gradually cancel as distance to each point source changes differently. The other is now further away than the other and interference that happens might be constructive or desctructive or anything in between depending on which phase the waves are at at that position you inspect the situation, a reference point. Depending on wavelength there is low or high propability the waves are at same or opposite phase. I mean if wavelength is raltively long to the distance difference of sound sources the wave seems to be almost at same phase and constructive interference happens to that direction. For sufficiently high frequency, short wavelength in relation to the distance, there is more angles where the waves meet in phase and those where they don't. Intensity (SPL) is strong to directions where emanating waves travel along in phase and lower to directions where they statistically don't match that well. This is what I imagine 😀 I suspect there might be slight error. Well, anyway, as frequency rices the interference pattern due to the two point sources makes a narrowing beam. With long wavelengths the points appears to be closer and closer together and the response is kind of uniform to all directions.
Quite abstract, just trying to imagine what actually happens without going too deep into physics knowledge 😀 Good thing about physics is that is reflects reality at some level and has nothing to do with marketing.
You might now thing what the hell, but this is it! Wait, no its not, we have to then figure out how this mumbo jumbo translates to loudspeaker systems and hearing and enjoyable sound?
For that we don't want to go too deep either. We could go to hifi store and ask about interfence and decibels. They'd probably end up selling you something but this is not what we decided in the few first paragraphs. So we try and find if there is any science behind sound reproduction and listening impressions, and there is! Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, active forum member Earl Geddes and many others I don't know of have done empirical studies on loudspeakers and listening and what people prefer in the reproduction.
But what the good sound is? Must be that that most people prefer! Skimming through the studies some graphs are shown and they get the eye: power response, directivity, in-room response, early reflections, what the hell? Googling around and finding out what are these details I've now saw and there the info is. Simplified, we now have learned that in addition to on axis frequency response the driver datasheets show there is important factor in how the speaker radiates in room. And the in room radiation depends highly on the relation of various wavelengths in relation to the transducers and the structure size around affects. There are many other things in the studies that describe what qualities of sound make preference between the listening test attendees. For example peaks in frequency response have been found distracting, correlation between perception of distortion and THD (or the lack of) and many others. But we don't have to know it all yet, because there is too much information for now. Didn't even read the studies thoroughly. Let stick with the wavelengths since it has been feeling nice simple contact point to stuff so far. We will encounter them at some stage anyway since it seems to be important for good sound!
Turns out there is some common with good sounding speakers measurements, found out in the blind listening studies. And there are graphs that show some of the better ones and some not so good. Luckily, VituixCAD produces similar graphs! Wow, we could now compare the studies to our own work and see how they fare. Is it close to what has been found out to be good, or does it look something else. Why does it look so? What we have to do? How do I use the VituixCAD?? More googlign, reading the manual. Buying some cheap drivers, measurement rig, plywood and of you go into a journey 🙂 No foo, not much knowledge but a clear path, just matter of taking!
If this was worthwhile read to you I could write a continuum for few more steps forward, to where abouts I'm, if interested? The main thing is not to get stuck on details but think the big picture, really think what is it you are facing at. Every time there is something you don't know, learn it, go googling and do experiments. Too deep or too much work? Just buy the kit because this is supposed to be fun and not boring 🙂 I'll warn you I'm not gonna name drop any drivers or xo topologies, I think, because they are details and the details are hard to understand and connect together without the abstract picture of the system, the reproduction and the perception 😀 The thing is, the individual pieces that make a system are not important on their own put mate all pieces together in a system design and you have good system! After all, it is the pressure variation in the air at time and location we perceive.
Hopefully there is not too many typo, I don't have time to edit this! sorry
Last edited:
Short cut is that you have to think what you need from the speakers, then ask why and how and build from the nuggets you already know. Your needs might be completely different than mine, as evolution of this thread has shown during the years that most have. As you see building from the bottom up is one way to lean the craft and looks like it turns out that for any particular application there is not too many options after all, or maybe there are if best sound is not the highest priority. If it is drivers or size or budget or looks to start with go ahead and build anything from them that you like, you'll gain knowledge and perhaps go with other priorities next time or just be happy with what you got. Have fun! 😉
Last edited:
thanks tmuikku for your input and time you spent here.
I can follow your route. You spent a lot of time on it I assume. Time I don't have and maybe also lack of patience.
A short story of my route to DIY. I've been a long time into hifi. Commercial hifi that is. Good sound reproduction for me is striving to realistic sound. Like feeling that the musicians are in the room. sound is natural and as close as possible to live sound. Sound doesn't have to be over analytical but realistic. Big concert live isn't possible for me because of the room space and moderate listening volumes But sound must be musical,realistic and natural.
As you know many commercial speakers don't have flat response but often V or W shaped.
I wanted to upgrade my commercial speakers but find I had to spent too much before I had some improvement hence starting the DIY route.
I'm reading and studying for around 1y now. I realised that my knowledge wasn't enough to make my own build so I started the CARRERA's.
If I build something now I want to do better then what I have.
But after reading many things I still can not find a way to kick of a project and bring it to a good end. There is something missing.
A project like this would be a good guideline.
What I experience as good sound isn't probably the BEST sound possible.
That's why I like to compare higher and lower order XO. Time alignement, BR, passive radiator, TL, Narrow/wide baffle because it is all different.
I can follow your route. You spent a lot of time on it I assume. Time I don't have and maybe also lack of patience.
A short story of my route to DIY. I've been a long time into hifi. Commercial hifi that is. Good sound reproduction for me is striving to realistic sound. Like feeling that the musicians are in the room. sound is natural and as close as possible to live sound. Sound doesn't have to be over analytical but realistic. Big concert live isn't possible for me because of the room space and moderate listening volumes But sound must be musical,realistic and natural.
As you know many commercial speakers don't have flat response but often V or W shaped.
I wanted to upgrade my commercial speakers but find I had to spent too much before I had some improvement hence starting the DIY route.
I'm reading and studying for around 1y now. I realised that my knowledge wasn't enough to make my own build so I started the CARRERA's.
If I build something now I want to do better then what I have.
But after reading many things I still can not find a way to kick of a project and bring it to a good end. There is something missing.
A project like this would be a good guideline.
What I experience as good sound isn't probably the BEST sound possible.
That's why I like to compare higher and lower order XO. Time alignement, BR, passive radiator, TL, Narrow/wide baffle because it is all different.
Realistic and natural must be in the recording so that it is possible in the reproduction side. And that is what the engineer heard while doing it (through the speakers they had).
Well, another look to realistic and natural reproduction is what I think: enough SPL capability and bandwidth that nothing is taken away. Also, so that nothing is is added especially those that are found audible like resonances. A balanced problem free speaker. And limitation free, because it limits ways to get to problem free speaker. Then the room adds o the sound, and taketh away so you need to take that into account, try and minimize the i fluense of room as much as feasible. Acoustic treatment or lack of could affect how you design the system.
As soon ss you figure out what you need for realistic and natural reproduction from the speaker system anf from the room, and their interplay, it is easy to start a project since you know what you are doing. Its not gonna need magic tricks, only some methodological approach 😉
Well, another look to realistic and natural reproduction is what I think: enough SPL capability and bandwidth that nothing is taken away. Also, so that nothing is is added especially those that are found audible like resonances. A balanced problem free speaker. And limitation free, because it limits ways to get to problem free speaker. Then the room adds o the sound, and taketh away so you need to take that into account, try and minimize the i fluense of room as much as feasible. Acoustic treatment or lack of could affect how you design the system.
As soon ss you figure out what you need for realistic and natural reproduction from the speaker system anf from the room, and their interplay, it is easy to start a project since you know what you are doing. Its not gonna need magic tricks, only some methodological approach 😉
Last edited:
"As soon ss you figure out what you need for realistic and natural reproduction from the speaker system"
This question is very difficult to answer.
Of course the recording needs to be good, but we can not influence that. I also want to enjoy my less ideal recordings. At least I will know that my speakers are capable to bring out the best 🙂
enough SPL? I dont know what to expect from that. I listen mostly around 70db.
bandwidth? I dont expect to have the live experience from a big concert in my room. This will create more problems then add something. I dont have problem to life with this limitation. But the bass that's there should be fast and clean.
The reason for middle of the road drivers (50-150 euro) = lower THD. (150+ for me add more power handling en even further THD reduction)
Paper or PP mid cones for less resonances
Why go wide baflle? BSC is only for the woofer. more SPL for mid...
So i know a few things 🙂 But still this doesnt make a speaker. :-(
This question is very difficult to answer.
Of course the recording needs to be good, but we can not influence that. I also want to enjoy my less ideal recordings. At least I will know that my speakers are capable to bring out the best 🙂
enough SPL? I dont know what to expect from that. I listen mostly around 70db.
bandwidth? I dont expect to have the live experience from a big concert in my room. This will create more problems then add something. I dont have problem to life with this limitation. But the bass that's there should be fast and clean.
The reason for middle of the road drivers (50-150 euro) = lower THD. (150+ for me add more power handling en even further THD reduction)
Paper or PP mid cones for less resonances
Why go wide baflle? BSC is only for the woofer. more SPL for mid...
So i know a few things 🙂 But still this doesnt make a speaker. :-(
Tmuikku You are all over the place, allthough you'r thoughts are wery usefull and mostly valid.
Forget about narrow baffle
Everyone can make roundovers. Use a roundover bit, a wood file, sandpaper, a concrete slab or something.
Go for aperiodic vent. Best of vented and sealed. Hard to find a driver fit for TL(transmission line)BR(bassrefleks), sealed etc.at the same time.
One design goal: Against the wall placement.
A Reference lowpriced, great sounding speaker for comparing other designs.
You'r welcome. Kisses from Denmark.
Forget about narrow baffle
Everyone can make roundovers. Use a roundover bit, a wood file, sandpaper, a concrete slab or something.
Go for aperiodic vent. Best of vented and sealed. Hard to find a driver fit for TL(transmission line)BR(bassrefleks), sealed etc.at the same time.
One design goal: Against the wall placement.
A Reference lowpriced, great sounding speaker for comparing other designs.
You'r welcome. Kisses from Denmark.
^oh yes! but reducing detrimental reflections for typical room should work well on bigger room as well, for same purpose! Assuming very early reflections as the detrimental ones.
I've got cardioid mid, but no time to tell more about it today. Getting to it, its due to wavelenghts why would one come up with such thing, and the other realization I mentioned! 😀
I've got cardioid mid, but no time to tell more about it today. Getting to it, its due to wavelenghts why would one come up with such thing, and the other realization I mentioned! 😀
planning my Ultimate 3way, hopefully last build ever
tweeter : Raal 70-10D or Satori TW29TXN-B-8
mid : Satori MW13TX-8
bass : Morel Ultimo 104 or Satori WO24P-8
XO : estimated around 350Hz dan 3-4kHz
target : perfect timing & linear phase
box : Avalon Time clone
amplification : dsp + multi-amplifier is my 1st choice, as i already have dsp and several amplifier laying around. maybe i can hire someone expert in passive xo design later
I also already have dual-opposed 2x12" sealed subwoofer for below 40Hz and there 2 of them so main focus for woofer is to handle higher cut off to blend with midrange. for sure with either woofer choice above will have low bass extension too
Tweeter : Ribbon vs Dome?
I use cheap plannar ribbon beston rt002 on my OB and Fostex T90A for FAST and reguler dome on my 1st 3way floorstand, but never have any experience with high end ribbon or dome
Woofer : Kevlar vs Paper?
I prefer Morel for it looks (looks like woofer on B&W Signature 800 which cut off 350Hz) and higher power rating, but Satori has lighter cone which might give faster transient (but boring looks just like any other woofer)
any input?
tweeter : Raal 70-10D or Satori TW29TXN-B-8
mid : Satori MW13TX-8
bass : Morel Ultimo 104 or Satori WO24P-8
XO : estimated around 350Hz dan 3-4kHz
target : perfect timing & linear phase
box : Avalon Time clone
amplification : dsp + multi-amplifier is my 1st choice, as i already have dsp and several amplifier laying around. maybe i can hire someone expert in passive xo design later
I also already have dual-opposed 2x12" sealed subwoofer for below 40Hz and there 2 of them so main focus for woofer is to handle higher cut off to blend with midrange. for sure with either woofer choice above will have low bass extension too
Tweeter : Ribbon vs Dome?
I use cheap plannar ribbon beston rt002 on my OB and Fostex T90A for FAST and reguler dome on my 1st 3way floorstand, but never have any experience with high end ribbon or dome
Woofer : Kevlar vs Paper?
I prefer Morel for it looks (looks like woofer on B&W Signature 800 which cut off 350Hz) and higher power rating, but Satori has lighter cone which might give faster transient (but boring looks just like any other woofer)
any input?
Attachments
Last edited:
I was eatings eggs then I landed on this thread
Maybe the best designers could do something with something a little wide band in the mid ?
Something with 500 hz to 5000 hz, with 1.2 center to center spacing with the small neodyn tweeter unit, some are 2.5 cm diameter and there are cool 3" to 4" mids that are very flat and low distorsion for the mid unit :
The SS 10F is flat, especially the 4 ohms unit, the Peereless 4" or 5" Satori style have very low distorsion in that >200 hz range and smooth roll off (mainly the 5")... non limited list. Cone choice to be hard enough for small details but with compromises choice for less break-ups (some polypro ?)
Of course some pure mids ref come in mind as well as the cool already advised everywhere Audax PR17 M (paper version) able of 500 hz to 3000/4000, maybe suitable for a bigger LR12 overlapp with a tweeter ?
If cone surface is a concern, some revelator that climb high ?
The cabinet and wood working being ALWAYS the limiting factor -or a good second-hand is less expensive.- maybe something pyramidal, simplier than Avalon thick angled front bafle... Avalon style is only for the wood workers day job or the kings of saw table like Troels and the 5 speakers-a-year stakanovists with rare skill 😱
I try to do something like that as simple as possible and Harbeth cabinet style cause I'm a perpetual absolute beginner : SB23NBAC, LR12 xo around 500 Hz -> SS 10F8424G00 LR12 4000/5000 hz-> tweeter (non chosed yet as I'm slow on measurement and croosovers passive setuping) like a Fountek Neo CD 3.5 cause the horn for LR12 timing offset; the cool 0.8" peereless neodynium, or a cool Wavecore TW022WA10... Not so fare from a 1.2 wave length CtoC at cut off and a little compromise can be made there in favor to have a wide band mid going up to 5000 hz ? All sealed enclosure circa 28L for the SB23NBAC
Non limited choice... just lurking here. Good enough for a small budget ref speaker or at least the idea of a wide band mid driver ?
Thoughts ?
Maybe the best designers could do something with something a little wide band in the mid ?
Something with 500 hz to 5000 hz, with 1.2 center to center spacing with the small neodyn tweeter unit, some are 2.5 cm diameter and there are cool 3" to 4" mids that are very flat and low distorsion for the mid unit :
The SS 10F is flat, especially the 4 ohms unit, the Peereless 4" or 5" Satori style have very low distorsion in that >200 hz range and smooth roll off (mainly the 5")... non limited list. Cone choice to be hard enough for small details but with compromises choice for less break-ups (some polypro ?)
Of course some pure mids ref come in mind as well as the cool already advised everywhere Audax PR17 M (paper version) able of 500 hz to 3000/4000, maybe suitable for a bigger LR12 overlapp with a tweeter ?
If cone surface is a concern, some revelator that climb high ?
The cabinet and wood working being ALWAYS the limiting factor -or a good second-hand is less expensive.- maybe something pyramidal, simplier than Avalon thick angled front bafle... Avalon style is only for the wood workers day job or the kings of saw table like Troels and the 5 speakers-a-year stakanovists with rare skill 😱
I try to do something like that as simple as possible and Harbeth cabinet style cause I'm a perpetual absolute beginner : SB23NBAC, LR12 xo around 500 Hz -> SS 10F8424G00 LR12 4000/5000 hz-> tweeter (non chosed yet as I'm slow on measurement and croosovers passive setuping) like a Fountek Neo CD 3.5 cause the horn for LR12 timing offset; the cool 0.8" peereless neodynium, or a cool Wavecore TW022WA10... Not so fare from a 1.2 wave length CtoC at cut off and a little compromise can be made there in favor to have a wide band mid going up to 5000 hz ? All sealed enclosure circa 28L for the SB23NBAC
Non limited choice... just lurking here. Good enough for a small budget ref speaker or at least the idea of a wide band mid driver ?
Thoughts ?
Attachments
Last edited:
if too much expensive diy, better to buy yourself a Neumann Active speaker 3 way for 1800 euros per unit : KH320 Neumann Enceintes de Monitoring – Thomann France
can be DSP with mic for room placement !
If non entering in the 8 items list of non commercial loudspeakers then a Ref DIY Loudspeaker classic design SHOULD cost less than a brandnew on shelves to keep its "Ref" name atribute (we may call that The Atribute loudspeaker 😉 )
can be DSP with mic for room placement !
If non entering in the 8 items list of non commercial loudspeakers then a Ref DIY Loudspeaker classic design SHOULD cost less than a brandnew on shelves to keep its "Ref" name atribute (we may call that The Atribute loudspeaker 😉 )
ahaha, with Ikebana style behind ! Although I find a certain South African loudspeakers brand to make cool menhirs shapeds enclosures but not my budget, idem for the BW coquillage loudspeakers... Damned, we are children of Breton's Cabasse, lol ! (french private joke)
Btw, the Dolmen you see on photograph is de l'ardoise hand made de Travassac for roofs, Correze... not my house alas as I'm living in a flat but I populated it with the amp found in public town trash, recaped, works fine, what asking else for Covit plan B druidique shelter 🙂... a diy Harbeth (hard Bet?) little speaker !
Btw, the Dolmen you see on photograph is de l'ardoise hand made de Travassac for roofs, Correze... not my house alas as I'm living in a flat but I populated it with the amp found in public town trash, recaped, works fine, what asking else for Covit plan B druidique shelter 🙂... a diy Harbeth (hard Bet?) little speaker !
Last edited:
This is a very rare example of stone age (Stonehenge?) Amplifier.
Panoramix's potion fueled! You can expect miracle from it! I approve, very impressive. 😀
Cabasse, de l'ardoise...Decidement ils sont partout ces bretons! 😉
Panoramix's potion fueled! You can expect miracle from it! I approve, very impressive. 😀
Cabasse, de l'ardoise...Decidement ils sont partout ces bretons! 😉
Last edited: