Hi folks,
I need a piece of advice with this:
I’d like to build a high quality 3-way speaker for monitoring purposes that can output high sound pressure. (110 db).
Recently I’ve been modifying an old Urei speaker with the addition of a digital crossover and tri-amplification. The experiment went so well that I’m thinking, that perhaps to build a 3-way monitor speaker is not an impossible thing after all. I do not have the knowledge to choose the drivers and design the box, however. I have a few measurement devices and tools that can help. I’m not great building enclosures, but I can try.
So if anybody can help with comments or advice would be great.
The speaker class that I’m approaching is like this Dynaudio baby:
http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=2846&AjrNws=603
A tri-way active monster with crossover points at 300 and 2500 Hz and 1200W of power plus extensive DSP. I think I could handle the electronic part of the project, but for the speaker enclosure and drivers I do not have a clue!
So let me introduce a few reliminary questions:
1-How do you like the proposed design to “clone” (Dynaudio AIR 25 speaker) Any possible flaws or improvement?
2-Can you recommend any drivers? Pity that Dynaudio do not sell the raw drivers anymore. I’ve heard that Vifa or Skan Speak are great, too.
3-Do you remember any related DIY project that could be used as a reference? Not need to re-invent the wheel, right?
Thanks for your time, any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Ric
I need a piece of advice with this:
I’d like to build a high quality 3-way speaker for monitoring purposes that can output high sound pressure. (110 db).
Recently I’ve been modifying an old Urei speaker with the addition of a digital crossover and tri-amplification. The experiment went so well that I’m thinking, that perhaps to build a 3-way monitor speaker is not an impossible thing after all. I do not have the knowledge to choose the drivers and design the box, however. I have a few measurement devices and tools that can help. I’m not great building enclosures, but I can try.
So if anybody can help with comments or advice would be great.
The speaker class that I’m approaching is like this Dynaudio baby:
http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/Default.asp?Id=2846&AjrNws=603
A tri-way active monster with crossover points at 300 and 2500 Hz and 1200W of power plus extensive DSP. I think I could handle the electronic part of the project, but for the speaker enclosure and drivers I do not have a clue!
So let me introduce a few reliminary questions:
1-How do you like the proposed design to “clone” (Dynaudio AIR 25 speaker) Any possible flaws or improvement?
2-Can you recommend any drivers? Pity that Dynaudio do not sell the raw drivers anymore. I’ve heard that Vifa or Skan Speak are great, too.
3-Do you remember any related DIY project that could be used as a reference? Not need to re-invent the wheel, right?
Thanks for your time, any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Ric
Attachments
If you're going for SPL, then you should look at JBL's offerings.
My ideal active monitors would be 2-way, with a 15" 2226 on the bottom (or 6 😀 ) and one of their horns on top. Sealed, vented, not sure.... nice chipamps inside to power the thing.... heh, this could be fun!
Actually, perhaps a better woofer choice would be the 15"er that's at partsexpress right now... the limited run one... it's like $80 less and has higher total displacement.
I really don't think 3-way is necessary if you use a good horn that can get down to 1000hz, but *shrug* some people get bent out of shape about directionality and such.
I'm not an expert in either area but... this sure sounds like a fun project! I'm going to pay attention...
My ideal active monitors would be 2-way, with a 15" 2226 on the bottom (or 6 😀 ) and one of their horns on top. Sealed, vented, not sure.... nice chipamps inside to power the thing.... heh, this could be fun!
Actually, perhaps a better woofer choice would be the 15"er that's at partsexpress right now... the limited run one... it's like $80 less and has higher total displacement.
I really don't think 3-way is necessary if you use a good horn that can get down to 1000hz, but *shrug* some people get bent out of shape about directionality and such.
I'm not an expert in either area but... this sure sounds like a fun project! I'm going to pay attention...
Ricren said:
There's a project that is close to what you are describing, a passive WMTMW design called the PX with supposed superb clarity at high SPL, that Wayne J at speakerbuilder.net will publish soon. The DIY version uses a Vifa ringradiator, Audax mid, and Usher woofer to get the budget to $1K. The commercial version uses Scan Speak ringradiator & woofer plus the Audax mid IIRC, but the design of that one won't be published of course.
I konw that sub!
Tks for the link. Interesting. It was a surprise to realize that they are using the same driver that I used for my subwoofer. Nice driver. Not cheap.
"The 460 mm (18 in) long-throw paper pulp coned woofer comes from RCF in Italy, a company owned by Mackie. The driver is chosen for its extremely high output capability, low distortion and suitable Thiele-Small parameters."
So basically they use a D'apolitto MTMW config with crosover freq points at 130 and 1700 Hz. The woofer is almost used as a subwoofer. They even sell another model without this "sub-woofer".
I heard about Seas driver but that tweeter brand (stage acompany) is new for me. I'll serch for pricing on those units.
cheers
Ric
Vikash said:
Tks for the link. Interesting. It was a surprise to realize that they are using the same driver that I used for my subwoofer. Nice driver. Not cheap.
"The 460 mm (18 in) long-throw paper pulp coned woofer comes from RCF in Italy, a company owned by Mackie. The driver is chosen for its extremely high output capability, low distortion and suitable Thiele-Small parameters."
So basically they use a D'apolitto MTMW config with crosover freq points at 130 and 1700 Hz. The woofer is almost used as a subwoofer. They even sell another model without this "sub-woofer".
I heard about Seas driver but that tweeter brand (stage acompany) is new for me. I'll serch for pricing on those units.
cheers
Ric
Stage Accompany are planar tweeters that handle lots of power, are efficient, and are reputed to sound very very good!
They are used in PA sound systems as well as monitors.
I've heard it's best not to use the horn option
Price? around $600 US each! There had to be one bad point!!
I think they would fit your plans very well
They are used in PA sound systems as well as monitors.
I've heard it's best not to use the horn option
Price? around $600 US each! There had to be one bad point!!
I think they would fit your plans very well
Variac said:
Aja! That will be 3K in tweeters for a 5.1 system. I think I can live with that (barely...). Besides a web search indicates that everybody have a good opinion on this tweeter, plus it can be crossed fairly low (1700-2000 Hz). I remember seeing something similarly shaped on the ADAM monitors. And people really like those boxes.
I do not have prices for the Seas drivers. I'll keep searching.
Ric
A 3-way built around an Audax PR17 (or the PHL spawn) would give you a lot more efficiency than anything mentione so far, and they are no slouch in the Sonics dept.
An active system with the digutal XO really gives you flexibilty wrt drivers... the Stage Accompany is a beauty. AFAIK a spin off is Alcons. But any number of nice high efficiency horn tweetrs exist... thn bass to match. A set of Llambda 15s would be my pick.
dave
An active system with the digutal XO really gives you flexibilty wrt drivers... the Stage Accompany is a beauty. AFAIK a spin off is Alcons. But any number of nice high efficiency horn tweetrs exist... thn bass to match. A set of Llambda 15s would be my pick.
dave
horns are nice. Changes are nice too.
I understand what you mean. Apparently, for efficiency nothing beats a horn. However I already have a pair or monitors with horns on them and I've been using this setup for such a long time, that I feel it's time to try something different.
Ric
Nappylady said:
I understand what you mean. Apparently, for efficiency nothing beats a horn. However I already have a pair or monitors with horns on them and I've been using this setup for such a long time, that I feel it's time to try something different.
Ric
tweeter options
High efficiency horn tweeters? Would you name a couple?
The three front speakers will be installed behind a microperforated screen which- unfortunately -imposes a few artifacts to the sound. I do not like the sound "smearing" that this setup produces, but the central channel MUST be behind the screen, and because it must be matched to the L and R channels, the logical approach is to accommodate all front drivers behind the screen.
In this context does it makes sense to use a more cheaper alternative for the tweeter than the Stage Accompany? My reasoning is that after all, they will be "smeared".
Right or wrong?
Cheers
Ric
planet10 said:
High efficiency horn tweeters? Would you name a couple?
The three front speakers will be installed behind a microperforated screen which- unfortunately -imposes a few artifacts to the sound. I do not like the sound "smearing" that this setup produces, but the central channel MUST be behind the screen, and because it must be matched to the L and R channels, the logical approach is to accommodate all front drivers behind the screen.
In this context does it makes sense to use a more cheaper alternative for the tweeter than the Stage Accompany? My reasoning is that after all, they will be "smeared".
Right or wrong?
Cheers
Ric
Re: tweeter options
I have some quite nice Fosters (that come disguished as Radio Shack Pod Tweeters), Fostex has a wide range, years ago i used some nice Audaxs.
I feel your pain... off & on (currently off) i am helping work on a 3D movie system. 3D doesn't really like to give up the screen real estate required for the holes (and i'm not a big fan of centres to start with) so we are working to eliminate any speakers behind the screen.
Interesting question, i hadn't given it much thot. A horn might be better suited at pushing the HF thru the matrix of holes .... but maybe the concentration of sound might increase distortion... some experimenting might be required.
Also keep in mind that in your situation you may well be able to get away with less expensive (compromising robustness) ribbons becoming widely available.
dave
Ricren said:
I have some quite nice Fosters (that come disguished as Radio Shack Pod Tweeters), Fostex has a wide range, years ago i used some nice Audaxs.
I feel your pain... off & on (currently off) i am helping work on a 3D movie system. 3D doesn't really like to give up the screen real estate required for the holes (and i'm not a big fan of centres to start with) so we are working to eliminate any speakers behind the screen.
Interesting question, i hadn't given it much thot. A horn might be better suited at pushing the HF thru the matrix of holes .... but maybe the concentration of sound might increase distortion... some experimenting might be required.
Also keep in mind that in your situation you may well be able to get away with less expensive (compromising robustness) ribbons becoming widely available.
dave
Yes, some of the Aurum Cantus ribbons might sound even better
than the SA
They are quite efficient and appear to meet the 110db requirement. These are true ribbon, which is different than the SA tweeters. Ribbons have a reputation for fragility, but these appear to be tough enough as long as you use steep fliters- and about half the SA price for the G3
http://www.e-speakers.com/products/ac-ribbons.html
I would sure try to keep the side front speakers outside the screen.
RCF drivers are hard to find now that Mackie took them over.
I haven't checked lately, but their website is a mess.
Maybe things are better now or maybe MAckie isn't going to sell drivers separately.
than the SA
They are quite efficient and appear to meet the 110db requirement. These are true ribbon, which is different than the SA tweeters. Ribbons have a reputation for fragility, but these appear to be tough enough as long as you use steep fliters- and about half the SA price for the G3
http://www.e-speakers.com/products/ac-ribbons.html
I would sure try to keep the side front speakers outside the screen.
RCF drivers are hard to find now that Mackie took them over.
I haven't checked lately, but their website is a mess.
Maybe things are better now or maybe MAckie isn't going to sell drivers separately.
screen pain
Agreed, and this is what I'm currently doing, putting the L&R at the sides of the screen and the Center over it. But Dolby would not certify the room for "mix to pix" if the speakers are not behind the screen.
The screen situation is a real drag. I spent weeks trying different arrangements just to return the monitors to the sides of the screen.
One thing that amazed me was that the quality of the audio passing thru that little holes in the screen is way better than I thought, and you could live with it.... unless.... you compare the speaker behind the screen with it's companion firing in front of the screen. Even thru a 4K Stewart screen the difference is hard to miss.
I bought my RCF before Mackie acquisition, but recently I saw some of those drivers for sale down here.
Ric
Variac said:
Agreed, and this is what I'm currently doing, putting the L&R at the sides of the screen and the Center over it. But Dolby would not certify the room for "mix to pix" if the speakers are not behind the screen.
The screen situation is a real drag. I spent weeks trying different arrangements just to return the monitors to the sides of the screen.
One thing that amazed me was that the quality of the audio passing thru that little holes in the screen is way better than I thought, and you could live with it.... unless.... you compare the speaker behind the screen with it's companion firing in front of the screen. Even thru a 4K Stewart screen the difference is hard to miss.
I bought my RCF before Mackie acquisition, but recently I saw some of those drivers for sale down here.
Ric
Did anyone try to put one speakers on bothe sides (close) of the screen and run the same (centre-channel) signal in both these speakers. If the speakeras are good they would appear as if there was only one in the centre of the screen - no?
/
/
Only for one.
That is true only for people sitting dead center, but for anyone off center that phantom image goes to the drain. In a personal home theater the phantom center kinda works, but for any situation with more people involved, is not good at all, meaning that is very distracting listening to dialoge coming off center.
Ric
TNT said:
That is true only for people sitting dead center, but for anyone off center that phantom image goes to the drain. In a personal home theater the phantom center kinda works, but for any situation with more people involved, is not good at all, meaning that is very distracting listening to dialoge coming off center.
Ric
TNT said:
This is called a virtual centre channel. If you have speakers that image and are seted in a position to let them throw that image, this works, IMHO, better than a real centre channel. The problem is that real cinemas are VERY unlikely to satisfy this criterion.
Maybe things will improve somewhat as the industry transitions to digital projection where there is a real need to move the front row of seats back further (ouch, i hear the screams of the theatre owners -- "less seats to sell")
dave
Variac said:
Another downside to the SA 8535 tweeters is that they are very difficult to mount. The resident expert on the SA tweeters is probably thylantyr. I think you can email him through the diyAudio membership directory.
HTH.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Konnichiwa,
Not much at all. The radiation pattern from this thing wll be pretty awfull. The Drivers will also be rather taxed to deliver high SPL's. This is just an overgrown "High End" speaker.
Treble - good ribbon, maybe Aurum Cantus or Raven, 3" Type for low X-Over frequency, make sure to add a waveguide to limit the otherwise excessive horizontal dispersion.
Midrange - good paper cone driver in MTM with the ribbon, to mind come the Seas CA17RCY which is a followon development from the drivers used in earlier Wilson monitors. With a low enough crossover to the ribbon you might also be able to use Seas Magnesium Cone Units, there are some interesting Drivers in the premium series from Seas.
If the required SPL is really high I might consider doubling up the Cone drivers again and shelving the upper bass and lower mids down on the inner pair and use the second pair to "fill in" (eg shelve the main pair to -6db @ 100Hz and add a second driver pair that are lowpassed first order at 100Hz and set to also be -6db @ 100Hz).
Woofer - Pro-Audio 15" or 18" systems (long throw, serious power handling) as dipole, I'd go for the kind of design used in the Celestion woofer for the SL600 and use that as stand for the MTM "Satellite". I'd aim for a crossover no higher than 125Hz, preferably lower, coverage down to around 30Hz.
Superwoofer (because "Subwoofer" is overused and most "subwoofers" do not in my view qualify as woofers) - the biggest Pro-Long Throw driver you can afford to cover from 30Hz downwards, single mono sub, modest size sealed enclosure and equalised - this one is strictly for 32' & 64' Organ pipes and "ambience".
There was a nice Project at E-Speakers, 21" Cabasse Dipole Woofer, Raven Ribbon and Focal or PHL (forgot) cone midranges.
Sayonara
Ricren said:
Not much at all. The radiation pattern from this thing wll be pretty awfull. The Drivers will also be rather taxed to deliver high SPL's. This is just an overgrown "High End" speaker.
Ricren said:
Treble - good ribbon, maybe Aurum Cantus or Raven, 3" Type for low X-Over frequency, make sure to add a waveguide to limit the otherwise excessive horizontal dispersion.
Midrange - good paper cone driver in MTM with the ribbon, to mind come the Seas CA17RCY which is a followon development from the drivers used in earlier Wilson monitors. With a low enough crossover to the ribbon you might also be able to use Seas Magnesium Cone Units, there are some interesting Drivers in the premium series from Seas.
If the required SPL is really high I might consider doubling up the Cone drivers again and shelving the upper bass and lower mids down on the inner pair and use the second pair to "fill in" (eg shelve the main pair to -6db @ 100Hz and add a second driver pair that are lowpassed first order at 100Hz and set to also be -6db @ 100Hz).
Woofer - Pro-Audio 15" or 18" systems (long throw, serious power handling) as dipole, I'd go for the kind of design used in the Celestion woofer for the SL600 and use that as stand for the MTM "Satellite". I'd aim for a crossover no higher than 125Hz, preferably lower, coverage down to around 30Hz.
Superwoofer (because "Subwoofer" is overused and most "subwoofers" do not in my view qualify as woofers) - the biggest Pro-Long Throw driver you can afford to cover from 30Hz downwards, single mono sub, modest size sealed enclosure and equalised - this one is strictly for 32' & 64' Organ pipes and "ambience".
Ricren said:
There was a nice Project at E-Speakers, 21" Cabasse Dipole Woofer, Raven Ribbon and Focal or PHL (forgot) cone midranges.
Sayonara
eq
For the speakers behind the screen, you could measure with the screen and without the screen using a real-time analyzer and then apply some EQ to correct for the difference. Just a thought.
For the speakers behind the screen, you could measure with the screen and without the screen using a real-time analyzer and then apply some EQ to correct for the difference. Just a thought.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.