Yes that is very much one of my favourite options by this point. Though possibly with smaller but dual and opposed woofers on the sides, rather than one big one on one side.
But... one thing I need to establish is what that kind of driver separation would do in this particular situation, where I'm listening very close up. It must presumably take 'some' distance for the wavefronts of two/three drivers to merge into a single coherent one, even if 1/4 wavelength separation were possible (and it might not be with big roundovers). And facing them at 90 degrees to each other seems likely to make that worse rather than better, though maybe if one achieved 4pi radiation from the woofers, the angle may make no difference (other than perhaps delay)?
I'm not sure if such concerns are even founded, though. Does anyone know how to quantify the distance it takes for two drivers to merge into one coherent wave, and/or how side mounting affects this?
Thanks,
Kev
But... one thing I need to establish is what that kind of driver separation would do in this particular situation, where I'm listening very close up. It must presumably take 'some' distance for the wavefronts of two/three drivers to merge into a single coherent one, even if 1/4 wavelength separation were possible (and it might not be with big roundovers). And facing them at 90 degrees to each other seems likely to make that worse rather than better, though maybe if one achieved 4pi radiation from the woofers, the angle may make no difference (other than perhaps delay)?
I'm not sure if such concerns are even founded, though. Does anyone know how to quantify the distance it takes for two drivers to merge into one coherent wave, and/or how side mounting affects this?
Thanks,
Kev
Easier to sim and observe 90 degree behavior.
Can actually simplify crossover design.
Side mount woofer can be placed up high
near forward edge. So distance very small.
Response Roll Off closer to 450 Hz
So using crossover around 300 Hz or lower
makes everything work out well.
Most of that is determined by the baffle step
of forward facing Driver.
Can actually simplify crossover design.
Side mount woofer can be placed up high
near forward edge. So distance very small.
Response Roll Off closer to 450 Hz
So using crossover around 300 Hz or lower
makes everything work out well.
Most of that is determined by the baffle step
of forward facing Driver.
@Kev06 ,
This link should gives you some views on what to expect,
1/4 wavelength gives immediate summation. The real question is then at which freq to xover. I've implemented 150hz with a 2x 6,5" opposed driver ( box 20cm width) and didn't had any issue. From test i've done i'm sure you could go up to 30cm wide box with 10" or12"and something like 250hz without noticing real issue in real life implementation.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/tachi-coaxial-point-source-bem-modelling.386711/
Planet10's TysenV2 is worth taking a look at too imho.
This link should gives you some views on what to expect,
1/4 wavelength gives immediate summation. The real question is then at which freq to xover. I've implemented 150hz with a 2x 6,5" opposed driver ( box 20cm width) and didn't had any issue. From test i've done i'm sure you could go up to 30cm wide box with 10" or12"and something like 250hz without noticing real issue in real life implementation.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/tachi-coaxial-point-source-bem-modelling.386711/
Planet10's TysenV2 is worth taking a look at too imho.
My "gold standard" to aspire to right now is the 'teardrop' shape. So, kind-of like a ball shape, but with reduced reflections from the virtual wall at the back.
I sometimes scratch my head with horn designs, where I see a lot of painstaking CAD effort went into getting the perfect throat dimensions, but then it's stuck onto a rectangular box with no effort to smooth the exit angles at the mouth.
If it's desktop speaker, it could also smoothly merge with the desk surface, like a mole-hill kind of shape. Then, you kind-of take a step back for practicality, and build what's actually able to be built. A pyramid with flat top could be good approximation, and then sand down the edges.
I sometimes scratch my head with horn designs, where I see a lot of painstaking CAD effort went into getting the perfect throat dimensions, but then it's stuck onto a rectangular box with no effort to smooth the exit angles at the mouth.
If it's desktop speaker, it could also smoothly merge with the desk surface, like a mole-hill kind of shape. Then, you kind-of take a step back for practicality, and build what's actually able to be built. A pyramid with flat top could be good approximation, and then sand down the edges.
"For near-field listening (say ears 24" or 60cm from the driver or so) I'm beginning to wonder if baffle edge/corner diffraction is more important than for longer listening distances; or at least quite important. Partly because there aren't other room reflections (of such great significance) to mask it in our perception, partly because a small distance between driver and baffle edge will be larger in an angular and directional sense, when sitting so close."
That really is very close, which means that on-axis (or better say listening axis) response rules the perceived sound. Also Schröder effet could be lower than at "normal" distance. Even response in left vs. right ear will be different because of different angle and head masking the direct sound!
Also closeness of table surcafe or side walls etc. can make response deviations with first reflections not being masked by other and more late reflections and room modes. Still, many pro monitors are not rounded like Genelecs...
That really is very close, which means that on-axis (or better say listening axis) response rules the perceived sound. Also Schröder effet could be lower than at "normal" distance. Even response in left vs. right ear will be different because of different angle and head masking the direct sound!
Also closeness of table surcafe or side walls etc. can make response deviations with first reflections not being masked by other and more late reflections and room modes. Still, many pro monitors are not rounded like Genelecs...
Rounded or beveled
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/neumann-kh120-ii-monitor-review.46362/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/revel_m126be/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mesanovic_cdm65/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/svs_ultra_bookshelf/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-m040-review-studio-monitor.36535/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/genelec_8331a/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/perlisten_s4b/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...adam-a5x-review-powered-studio-monitor.22860/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ec-8010a-powered-studio-monitor-review.16866/
Sharp (mostly with a waveguide)
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/arendal_1961_bookshelf/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-8v2/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_stage_a130/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/focal_aria_906/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...etot-review-high-end-bookshelf-speaker.29219/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../psb-alpha-p3-review-bookshelf-speaker.27498/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ac-uni-fi-2-0-review-bookshelf-speaker.19216/
etc. Impossible to make a rule which type is better!
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/neumann-kh120-ii-monitor-review.46362/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/revel_m126be/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mesanovic_cdm65/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/svs_ultra_bookshelf/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-m040-review-studio-monitor.36535/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/genelec_8331a/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/perlisten_s4b/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...adam-a5x-review-powered-studio-monitor.22860/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ec-8010a-powered-studio-monitor-review.16866/
Sharp (mostly with a waveguide)
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/arendal_1961_bookshelf/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-8v2/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/jbl_stage_a130/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/focal_aria_906/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...etot-review-high-end-bookshelf-speaker.29219/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../psb-alpha-p3-review-bookshelf-speaker.27498/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ac-uni-fi-2-0-review-bookshelf-speaker.19216/
etc. Impossible to make a rule which type is better!
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...etot-review-high-end-bookshelf-speaker.29219/
I Remember some months ago a thread about those Tube Tot speakers from Wilson.
Nice read.
The stands (2-3000£) are not included in the review, which were mentioned for a whole paragraph , in a link in that thread, probably HiFi news...
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...o-tunetot-mini-monitor-worth-to-clone.399098/
Ulh-ho: standing waves
I Remember some months ago a thread about those Tube Tot speakers from Wilson.
Nice read.
The stands (2-3000£) are not included in the review, which were mentioned for a whole paragraph , in a link in that thread, probably HiFi news...
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...o-tunetot-mini-monitor-worth-to-clone.399098/
Ulh-ho: standing waves
Please remind me.........
Are we talking a tweeter or what size full range driver ?
I will say 6' away is awesome for my little 2-way.
Too bad I'm never that close................
Are we talking a tweeter or what size full range driver ?
I will say 6' away is awesome for my little 2-way.
Too bad I'm never that close................
Last edited:
I've purposely not yet restricted this thread to any particular choice of drivers, since what I choose will be partly based upon the answers to this and other questions.
As of now, I'm 'probably' heading towards an assisted design of some kind, rather than a single driver. Possibly super-tweeter-assisted, but more likely woofer-assisted. Based on what has been suggested above, if I used side mounted woofers the crossover might be reasonably low (e.g. around 250hz or lower), if I use a front mounted woofer perhaps a somewhat higher crossover (just staying within around 1/4-wavelength separation) might allow a smaller widerange.
However at this stage I've not made any final decisions on drivers. There are just natural limits dictated by e.g. wanting a compact front baffle in a desk situation (so things like large low-frequency horns are unlikely).
As of now, I'm 'probably' heading towards an assisted design of some kind, rather than a single driver. Possibly super-tweeter-assisted, but more likely woofer-assisted. Based on what has been suggested above, if I used side mounted woofers the crossover might be reasonably low (e.g. around 250hz or lower), if I use a front mounted woofer perhaps a somewhat higher crossover (just staying within around 1/4-wavelength separation) might allow a smaller widerange.
However at this stage I've not made any final decisions on drivers. There are just natural limits dictated by e.g. wanting a compact front baffle in a desk situation (so things like large low-frequency horns are unlikely).
Juhazi, thanks for your thoughts and all your links! I shall read through them. One can worry too little or too much about these things, so it is useful to have credible reviews to help put things into perspective.
Yes it is very close listening; I rather like this (for some situations, when big room speakers aren't being used, anyway). The low SPL and close proximity both help to make room effects less prominent compared to the direct sound, but still permit the kind of spatial imaging I like and allows enough cues from the room (mostly much later and quieter reflections) to prevent any sense of anechoic deadness. Personal preferences will always vary, but in my particular case I much prefer this as an alternative to using headphones.
Thanks again
Kev
Yes it is very close listening; I rather like this (for some situations, when big room speakers aren't being used, anyway). The low SPL and close proximity both help to make room effects less prominent compared to the direct sound, but still permit the kind of spatial imaging I like and allows enough cues from the room (mostly much later and quieter reflections) to prevent any sense of anechoic deadness. Personal preferences will always vary, but in my particular case I much prefer this as an alternative to using headphones.
Thanks again
Kev
^I've had a similar setup with Tannoy mini monitors (4"+tw) when I didn't have a laptop... Me too preferred it over headphones and stereo imaging was sort of addictive
This guy tested many nearfield monitors http://noaudiophile.com/reviews.php
This guy tested many nearfield monitors http://noaudiophile.com/reviews.php
Thank you, once again.
By coincidence I've also been looking at mini monitors (for their designs, not to buy). One thing that comes quickly across is that they frequently use a tweeter in a shallow waveguide, I'm guessing this might be as much or more to do with reducing speaker edge diffraction than to give a narrow directivity, since most of the guides look fairly wide angle.
I guess a widerange driver would achieve something similar without a waveguide, due to the onset of beaming as frequency increases (if one chose a suitable size of driver). In that case, curved corners would only be especially useful below the frequency where the driver's radiation approaches 180 degrees. And possibly only above wavelengths where the curves remain relatively large in comparison.
Interestingly, monitors mostly (though not always) go with a traditional two-way woofer+tweeter configuration rather than full-range (with or without assistance). Possibly it has a lot to do with SPL requirements (and market familiarity/acceptance) but it does show that this can work. For my very close listening, I'd been wanting crossovers at something like a 1/4-wavelength of the driver separation, and/or above ~6khz or so where we start to lose sensitivity to such things (and of course the same approach helps to avoid crossovers within what is sometimes considered the most critical frequency band). But perhaps that isn't something to get obsessed about, then.
By coincidence I've also been looking at mini monitors (for their designs, not to buy). One thing that comes quickly across is that they frequently use a tweeter in a shallow waveguide, I'm guessing this might be as much or more to do with reducing speaker edge diffraction than to give a narrow directivity, since most of the guides look fairly wide angle.
I guess a widerange driver would achieve something similar without a waveguide, due to the onset of beaming as frequency increases (if one chose a suitable size of driver). In that case, curved corners would only be especially useful below the frequency where the driver's radiation approaches 180 degrees. And possibly only above wavelengths where the curves remain relatively large in comparison.
Interestingly, monitors mostly (though not always) go with a traditional two-way woofer+tweeter configuration rather than full-range (with or without assistance). Possibly it has a lot to do with SPL requirements (and market familiarity/acceptance) but it does show that this can work. For my very close listening, I'd been wanting crossovers at something like a 1/4-wavelength of the driver separation, and/or above ~6khz or so where we start to lose sensitivity to such things (and of course the same approach helps to avoid crossovers within what is sometimes considered the most critical frequency band). But perhaps that isn't something to get obsessed about, then.
Last edited:
Noticed that too.
Waveguide the big trend for small " studio monitors"
Helpful for crossing to a woofer
like 6.5" or 8"
since a much lower crossover frequency
Otherwise if using smaller 3" or 2"
" Mids" you can use a smaller tweet
with no waveguide.
The approach would be if you
want good bass with just a 2way
Some very nice 6.5" woofers these days.
Likely to cross a tweet low enough
Waveguide would be helpful.
when I was doing video and music editing
I was using Altec 3 way home speaker.
Somewhat large for desk top.
But worked fine for me.
Waveguide the big trend for small " studio monitors"
Helpful for crossing to a woofer
like 6.5" or 8"
since a much lower crossover frequency
Otherwise if using smaller 3" or 2"
" Mids" you can use a smaller tweet
with no waveguide.
The approach would be if you
want good bass with just a 2way
Some very nice 6.5" woofers these days.
Likely to cross a tweet low enough
Waveguide would be helpful.
when I was doing video and music editing
I was using Altec 3 way home speaker.
Somewhat large for desk top.
But worked fine for me.
You know, you could get some Jordans or Alpairs, put them in vented enclosures and be done with it.
If later you want more bass you could add a subwoofer.
I’ve used the Jordans before and they are excellent. I gave them to my dad who listens to jazz a lot.
If later you want more bass you could add a subwoofer.
I’ve used the Jordans before and they are excellent. I gave them to my dad who listens to jazz a lot.
Thanks both. Yes many options, which is partly why I was asking more about principles than specific drivers/designs in the OP, to start with. The final result of this may not even use a full range driver, for all i know, but obviously one is forced to choose a forum section whether crossover points are established or not.
My next decision will be whether to go with small stand alone speakers, or much bigger ones combined into a console with the monitor. Driver and crossover decisions will be later, really.
My next decision will be whether to go with small stand alone speakers, or much bigger ones combined into a console with the monitor. Driver and crossover decisions will be later, really.
Yeah, the all-in-one console with monitor might take that appearance
I lean onto the small freestanding cabinet idea
Yes, compact and free-standing is more flexible, and would be more appealing as objects. On the other hand bigger boxes (of course) offer more flexibility in speaker design; and these days there are high-res PC monitors that can actually be viewed quite closely (might even be able to use my reading glasses with them).
There is also a compromise option, by having small speakers and then using space around the monitior for subwoofers. Though I'd want any subs crossed quite low, so they likely wouldn't add a huge amount.
But this is something I can probably only decide for myself, really. Much to weigh up first.
There is also a compromise option, by having small speakers and then using space around the monitior for subwoofers. Though I'd want any subs crossed quite low, so they likely wouldn't add a huge amount.
But this is something I can probably only decide for myself, really. Much to weigh up first.
I'm yet to decide if I'll go that way, but for what its worth my initial vague thoughts were along the lines of a desk-wide box with a PC monitor recessed into the middle of it, to make a flush continuous baffle. The drivers would be recessed into the box as it protrudes either side of the monitor. An (e.g.) 4k 27" monitor should be viewable quite close up, allowing the listening distance (and angular positioning of drives) that I'd like.
In practice, the big box might more sensibly comprise two half boxes that can be moved closer together or further apart to accommodate different monitor widths. And of course they'd have internal divisions (or even transmission lines) etc. as befits the drivers. One could also base it around a curved monitor, which might be useful for close viewing distances and look a bit nicer with a slight toe-in of the drivers. There might even be small subwoofers built in, e.g. side-firing or something.
IMO not as 'nice' as two small independent speakers, and would only be applicable to a desk/monitor setup and scenario. But much more scope for box volume (and all the benefits of that), whilst still being neat and tidy on a desk.
In practice, the big box might more sensibly comprise two half boxes that can be moved closer together or further apart to accommodate different monitor widths. And of course they'd have internal divisions (or even transmission lines) etc. as befits the drivers. One could also base it around a curved monitor, which might be useful for close viewing distances and look a bit nicer with a slight toe-in of the drivers. There might even be small subwoofers built in, e.g. side-firing or something.
IMO not as 'nice' as two small independent speakers, and would only be applicable to a desk/monitor setup and scenario. But much more scope for box volume (and all the benefits of that), whilst still being neat and tidy on a desk.