Challenge: The perfect system with provided drivers

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I have at my disposal the following Audax driver:

2 x TW025M0
2 x TM025F1
2 x AP210G6
2 x AP170Z0

I have 1 sheet of 2440x1220mm of 19mm birch ply, although I may get another if needed.

I like bass in moderation, but would like the capability of lots of it to show off to friends.

The system must sound like a million dollars! (£3000 will do!)

I am open to try anything (seperate sub etc.) but they must be floorstanding no more than 1.2m high

I like tall, thin, unobtrusive speakers with maybe only two speakers showing (Midbass and tweeter), that don't take up much room.

The challenge is to come up with the a system that matches these requirements...I look forward to hearing your suggestions

wood about 4' x 8' 19mm.

10" wide, 11" deep.

cut wood into 4' long "strips"

4 strips 10" wide (front and back x2)
4 strips 11" wide (sides x 4)

44+40 = 84"

left over 12" x 48"

cut in 6 peices 8x12 these are top, bottom and one internal barrier to brack box in 2 so 170 and 210 drivers are seperated.

you will need other wood to use for bracing.

driver geomtry.
I'd use the 210 for difraction compensation. The 170 and the M0 as a 6" 2 way and the F1 as a rear tweeter. Hence atleast 3 drivers are front facing.

I would then put the 170mm woofer at the top of the box, the M0 tweeter below it and the 210mm woofer below the M0 tweeter.

The 210mm woofer can be bass reflex (based on specs from but you will have to get a port.

a simple XO can do.

a 1st order XO at about 300Hz for the 210
a 2nd order LR XO at 2.5 or 3k for the 170
a 2nd order LR XO at 2.5 or 3k for the M0
and a 1st order XO at 7k or 10k for the F1

this is start. the rest is fine tuning.

Thought I'd better put in my own thoughts...

The 170 and M0 in a TL or TP speaker...About 1m internally and 21cm deep and 16.5 internally (As found in one of Weems books)

A tweeter in the back (Maybe angled firing 45degs up)

Finally an isobaric TL sub to make a coffee table sized sub using the two 210s. This would require the other board though. On the plus side, no speakers would be visible on the sub (the way I like it).

Xover ought to be easy enough. Although tweaking and measuring would be needed
I forgot to upload my graphical representation...
So hear (!) it is...


  • challenge.jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 379
nice drawings. the reason i suggested what i did was...

1. maybe I was mistaken but i thought u wanted to use only 1 board and keep construction simple.

2. bandpass sub is not such a good idea

3. your system will be 3db less sensitive than a 2.5 way system as there is no difraction compensation

4. my initial recomendation was bass reflex. i might give the sme F3 with a slower slope than band pass (I am not sure but you can use any software to see if it is true). Besides F3 is not the only criteria quality of bass and roll off is.

5. you need about 2 cu. ft. total to work a 170 mm in a sealed box and 210mm in a bass relfex box.

yes you see 3 of 4 drivers (the port can be rear firing) but you see only 2 boxes. I have used similar woofers in bandpass and had a lot of trouble.

the woofers I used were 2 Focal 8N515 (Fs 29Hz, Qts 0.24, Vas 87 liters) per channel. each bandpass sub was topped with a 6" 2 way using a Audax HM170Z0 and Morel MDT33. The Audax has very little Xmax so had to XOed at 6db at 150hz or so. The system was a b'day gift (with CD63KI and Harman Kardon 100W 665 amp) for my BIL (wife's bro).

I was going for a WATT - PUPPY look. the system still is confgured that way. it will be reworked into a bass reflex system once i get more time.
I see what you're saying...It seems like a nice setup...I'll have to plot it up on Autocad...My quick drawings are just in Paint so I have no idea if their OK or not!

I said in the first post that I had 1 sheet, although I would get another if needed...

I'm more interested in peoples ideas...'Challenges' always produce great ideas! ;)

BTW: Here is a link to the Weems Design I referred to earlier.

Ah, Here we have our difference...

I haven't got a really nice set of reference speakers...Just some crap homebrew KLS9s with out any stuffing/dampening...Ready made Xover and cheap drivers...Sounds good to me though. This time I want to do a proper job - both in terms of looks and sonically.

When I was v. young - my mum pointed out that it wasn't the driving the radio controlled model car I really liked but putting it together. Now I work for an engineering company - so I guess it follows!

So, whilst I do want something great to listen to and look at - I'd also like something challenging to build to prove to myself that I do have some selfcontrol and not to rush into things!

well a 2.5 way is nice.

i have spent some time working with difraction compensatio using passive components and found that something is lost (of course my expriments are with SS 8546 which are quite revelaing).

a 2.5 way seems simpler but does not offer the cylindircal radiation pattern of a MTM. since your drivers are not identical I eliminated MTM anyway.

Also given the T/S specs of the 210 it looked like a bass reflex design. I have built a few bandpass subs in the past and the only one that partly satisfied me was a 3 chamber 4th order bandpass using 2 Peerless 831727 (per channel) XOed active at 60hz to a Dynaudio Gemini.

I feel that was because the bandpass was working in a very small range Fs-60Hz. Hardly an octave.

Bandpass as well as aperodic loading are great alternatives in certain enviroments (the car or a disco are 2 i can think of).

I am not trying to disuade you but just trying to give you my experiences.

the rear tweeter works to create a sense of space. Thiel used to use this to good effect in the Type C. I find cone tweeters work well for this application.
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.