I just completed my first diy audio project, a down firing 10" subwoofer and I am very pleased with the results. Now I need to replace my mains and would like to go the diy route.
I'm wondering what you all think is the best pair of speakers I could make for $300 or less for the drivers and crossovers? I would like them to have good sensitivity. I tend to like the looks of TMMs(2.5 way) or MTMs. I'm looking for a kit or complete design (I don't want to have to design a crossover). Are there any other proven designs, or kits, out there. I like the look of Wayne's budgets at speakerbuilder.net, the Audax HT MTM's and the main speakers from the P.E. HT kit by Vance Dickason. I will eventually be building surrounds and a center for HT but right now I need new mains.
Any help and/or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated
Thank You,
Eric Y
I'm wondering what you all think is the best pair of speakers I could make for $300 or less for the drivers and crossovers? I would like them to have good sensitivity. I tend to like the looks of TMMs(2.5 way) or MTMs. I'm looking for a kit or complete design (I don't want to have to design a crossover). Are there any other proven designs, or kits, out there. I like the look of Wayne's budgets at speakerbuilder.net, the Audax HT MTM's and the main speakers from the P.E. HT kit by Vance Dickason. I will eventually be building surrounds and a center for HT but right now I need new mains.
Any help and/or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated
Thank You,
Eric Y
Dayton III's
I built a pair of Waynes' Dayton III's and absolutely love 'em. I drive them with a DoZ Class A amp up to about 10W and they do a great job. My experience has been that they seem to image well, have a good soundstage and there's great low end extension. I built 1.25" baffles front and rear for my version and the rest is clad in 1/4" Birch. Very solid.
I built a pair of Waynes' Dayton III's and absolutely love 'em. I drive them with a DoZ Class A amp up to about 10W and they do a great job. My experience has been that they seem to image well, have a good soundstage and there's great low end extension. I built 1.25" baffles front and rear for my version and the rest is clad in 1/4" Birch. Very solid.
Have a look at the TLb, less than $300, easy to build and sensational sound.
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/tlB/index.html
Oz
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/projects/tlB/index.html
Oz
Check out Pi speakers. They are very efficient, and the cheaper ones are very inexpensive. I heard a pair of Pi 2's at an audio fest last fall. They are very impressive for such inexpensive speakers. I'd love to hear their more expensive ones.
http://www.pispeakers.com/
Also consider a simple open baffle. Since you have a good sub, an open baffle doesn't need to be very big seeing as no bass would be reproduced from them. The sound can be very clean. Many vintage full and wide range drivers work good at this. I think a Fostex fullrange driver might be good at this as well. I'm sure there are many other good drivers that would do well in OB as well.
Dave🙂
http://www.pispeakers.com/
Also consider a simple open baffle. Since you have a good sub, an open baffle doesn't need to be very big seeing as no bass would be reproduced from them. The sound can be very clean. Many vintage full and wide range drivers work good at this. I think a Fostex fullrange driver might be good at this as well. I'm sure there are many other good drivers that would do well in OB as well.
Dave🙂
Oz_Audio said:
Haven't built a set of TLb yet ($300 is a BIG budget for me), but have churned out at least a couple bi-poles inspired by the TLb. A way better use of the drivers than an MTM.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
dave
Average amount of drivers?
What is 2.5 way? I have heard of the statistical average family having 2.5 kids, but what does it mean as applied to speakers?Eric Y said:
Re: Average amount of drivers?
2.5 way means a 2 way speaker (MT) but with one way doubled
the classical design is a MTM, with both M having the same crossover
Circlotron said:
2.5 way means a 2 way speaker (MT) but with one way doubled
the classical design is a MTM, with both M having the same crossover
what about working together on an "el cheapo QWTL speaker"?
I've been told many times that the audax speakers are very good for theyr pricerange, and I've read a post here, from Nelson Pass, telling that those are working pretty good with very basics crossovers (a cap for the tweeter, and an inductor for the medium)
this would cost approx 200-250$ par pair
I've been told many times that the audax speakers are very good for theyr pricerange, and I've read a post here, from Nelson Pass, telling that those are working pretty good with very basics crossovers (a cap for the tweeter, and an inductor for the medium)
this would cost approx 200-250$ par pair
Well, the most important thing if you don't want to play with the crossover is to build something that has gone through the ropes of tweaking and various builders/reviews, etc.
By all accounts, the D3 is great value, but for HT in the case where you already have a sub, you could probably do better since great bass should be less of a selling point for you.
I would personally shoot for a design that people think of as great midrange. I'm also one of the people who likes all 5 or 6 HT speakers to be identical, so I would look for a design where the size would be acceptable for a center channel.
By all accounts, the D3 is great value, but for HT in the case where you already have a sub, you could probably do better since great bass should be less of a selling point for you.
I would personally shoot for a design that people think of as great midrange. I'm also one of the people who likes all 5 or 6 HT speakers to be identical, so I would look for a design where the size would be acceptable for a center channel.
After building the DIII's and alot of other designs.I will say for the money the DIII is not bad.
But after building the following all at the same time and listening to them all.
DIII's
MB1 or equal to the AV1 from GR
MT using MCM 1855-480
MT using the 1860 from MCM and the STW1 from Stryke
All good bang for your buck
The MB1 or AV1 has far claener and a better mix of mids over the DIII's.
Not my own words others have said the same.
But for a budget design that will blow your mind.
MT using the 1855 and 480 tweeter also from MCM.Cost $60.00 USD for all parts.
And they tune out at 68hz a good point for sub and the drivers are all shielded.
Al
http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/wrnch2/diyspeakerbuilding/id13.html
But after building the following all at the same time and listening to them all.
DIII's
MB1 or equal to the AV1 from GR
MT using MCM 1855-480
MT using the 1860 from MCM and the STW1 from Stryke
All good bang for your buck
The MB1 or AV1 has far claener and a better mix of mids over the DIII's.
Not my own words others have said the same.
But for a budget design that will blow your mind.
MT using the 1855 and 480 tweeter also from MCM.Cost $60.00 USD for all parts.
And they tune out at 68hz a good point for sub and the drivers are all shielded.
Al
http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/wrnch2/diyspeakerbuilding/id13.html
My understanding of a 2.5 way is that it is a 2 way with 2 woofers, but that one of the woofers only augments the lower base (it is rolled off lower than the other woofer) So the difference is that each woofer has a different crossover.
The 2.5 seems to work well to compensate for baffle step.
I could well be wrong but to me a MTM is a 2 way, A 2.5 way would roll one of the woofers off early, which isn't an MTM anymore, but instead a MT with a "helper" woofer.
As Dave often points out, a 2 way bipole arrangement inherently compensates for baffle step, which is a great help for those of us in DIY-one less tweak to worry about!
The 2.5 seems to work well to compensate for baffle step.
I could well be wrong but to me a MTM is a 2 way, A 2.5 way would roll one of the woofers off early, which isn't an MTM anymore, but instead a MT with a "helper" woofer.
As Dave often points out, a 2 way bipole arrangement inherently compensates for baffle step, which is a great help for those of us in DIY-one less tweak to worry about!
check out partsexpress in their DIY site THERE ARE SEVERAL INTERESTNG AND WELL DOCUMENTED designs there using partsexpress drivers these should be well within your budget and the drivers apperantly aren't too bad either....
tom🙂
tom🙂
Variac said:
Variac has the 2.5 way right. The only issue with a front facing x.5 way is that as the midbass that has the lower XO rolls off it rolls out of phase 90 degrees with the one running up to the tweeter. In an x.5 bipole arrangement this phase roll is in the shadow of the enclosure so the problem mostly goes away. Of course there is always the option of running the back driver all the way up and just using the enclosure shadow for your "XO". This is of course room & driver dependent. (the alphaTL -- pic a couple posts up -- runs this way)
dave
Look at the thor's XOplanet10 said:
the 2 midbass are parallelled to the same filter
PS: what do you think about my idea above?
So the Thor is a 2 way then, because there is just one crossover point, even thought there are two bass drivers
OK, I misuunderstood the 2.5 way
I thought it was only doubling the lower way
but, in fact, it's doubling the lower way's speaker, with another filter
I thought it was only doubling the lower way
but, in fact, it's doubling the lower way's speaker, with another filter
Replacement mains some DIYs for $300
Eric: I have re-entered the world of DIY speakerbuilding about 18months ago. Ran into a DIY by accident while considering upgrading crossovers on some cheaper speakers, I read these reviews and decided to try these. WOW!!! NOW, to be sure, these are clearly NOT the finest speakers I have ever heard. BUT for $300 I will tell you that they are INCREDIBLE. They compare , IMHO, to B&Ws selling for $1000 and more. REALLY musical, great imaging & soundstage, detailed, and MORE. Ed Frias, of EFE Speakers did this as a labor of love for speakerbuilders who might want to try his EFE Technology Speakers. He truly designed a WINNER. They have only gotten better(bass is a bit more extended and more efficient) during the last several months. The only reccomendation would be get them up on 28-30 inch high stands and out from a rear wall at least 20 inches. CHECK THESE OUT!!! You WONT be dissapointed!
http://www.audioreview.com/Main+Speaker/DIY+AudioREVIEW+DIY+Speaker+kit/PRD_125043_1594crx.aspx:
Eric: I have re-entered the world of DIY speakerbuilding about 18months ago. Ran into a DIY by accident while considering upgrading crossovers on some cheaper speakers, I read these reviews and decided to try these. WOW!!! NOW, to be sure, these are clearly NOT the finest speakers I have ever heard. BUT for $300 I will tell you that they are INCREDIBLE. They compare , IMHO, to B&Ws selling for $1000 and more. REALLY musical, great imaging & soundstage, detailed, and MORE. Ed Frias, of EFE Speakers did this as a labor of love for speakerbuilders who might want to try his EFE Technology Speakers. He truly designed a WINNER. They have only gotten better(bass is a bit more extended and more efficient) during the last several months. The only reccomendation would be get them up on 28-30 inch high stands and out from a rear wall at least 20 inches. CHECK THESE OUT!!! You WONT be dissapointed!
http://www.audioreview.com/Main+Speaker/DIY+AudioREVIEW+DIY+Speaker+kit/PRD_125043_1594crx.aspx:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.