hello all,
i need new speakers, so i want to ask your opinions about this 2 DIY Kits.
The baffle at the ekta grande looks like a promise for a good soundstage.
The 7741 use the newer illuminator chassis.
Ekta Grande
Ekta-7741
i want to go for passive xover this time, even i own a pair of hypex 123 amps which would reduce the cost.
they are a good tool when its comming about making the xover fast and easy and active speakers are always great,but aside of this really big benefits im not so happy.
My room> 5,22m in lengh and 3,85 in width
the speakers are placed left and right of a lowerboard where a 65" TV is. (yes,not perfect, i know it has an impact on the reflections)
on the ceiling i have 18 pcs 50x 100cm Basotec panels which are 5cm thick.
on the opposite site of the speakers is the couch and above that a 240cmx140m acoustic picture which is filled with 5cm basotec panels.
so the treble is well damped, maybe a little to much 😉
Music, well all kind music except jazz.(classic is really rare, maybe one or 2 times in a year.
what i like on speakers, details and more details, a good seperation between instruments.silent things to hear that get lost on cheap shoutboxes.
my past system was a 4 way active seas excel system. with an 35cm baffle.
So, what do you think are the pro and cons of those 2 Kits ?
i need new speakers, so i want to ask your opinions about this 2 DIY Kits.
The baffle at the ekta grande looks like a promise for a good soundstage.
The 7741 use the newer illuminator chassis.
Ekta Grande
Ekta-7741
i want to go for passive xover this time, even i own a pair of hypex 123 amps which would reduce the cost.
they are a good tool when its comming about making the xover fast and easy and active speakers are always great,but aside of this really big benefits im not so happy.
My room> 5,22m in lengh and 3,85 in width
the speakers are placed left and right of a lowerboard where a 65" TV is. (yes,not perfect, i know it has an impact on the reflections)
on the ceiling i have 18 pcs 50x 100cm Basotec panels which are 5cm thick.
on the opposite site of the speakers is the couch and above that a 240cmx140m acoustic picture which is filled with 5cm basotec panels.
so the treble is well damped, maybe a little to much 😉
Music, well all kind music except jazz.(classic is really rare, maybe one or 2 times in a year.
what i like on speakers, details and more details, a good seperation between instruments.silent things to hear that get lost on cheap shoutboxes.
my past system was a 4 way active seas excel system. with an 35cm baffle.
So, what do you think are the pro and cons of those 2 Kits ?
Last edited:
I wouldn’t place my bets on such an expensive speaker without decent polar measurements. All the same, you can observe that the 7741 might have a DI discontinuity at 5kHz. Which should not surprise one, Troels seems to have picked the HF crossover just below 5kHz and even a 4” mid starts to beam eventually.
So what I see is yet another (expensive!) exercise that might perform well on a lot of aspects, but not on the one we find to be important nowadays. Room interaction. Did you look any further for other designs?
So what I see is yet another (expensive!) exercise that might perform well on a lot of aspects, but not on the one we find to be important nowadays. Room interaction. Did you look any further for other designs?
Ekta Grande XT25, 0-90deg, common mic position measurement with mic distance 1m, at the height between tweeter and the mid. This is measurement of my pair which was my very first diy project.
More details: https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/ektagrandeupg/
More details: https://pkaudio.webnode.cz/ektagrandeupg/
Last edited:
Since you are using FA123, so I guess the major differences are Illuminator and Revelator speakers.
I would go to Illuminator + Be tweeters for personal preference. Illuminator are bit more dynamic to my ears. I'll also choose the front-end-port, since I always place my speakers close to the wall.
I would go to Illuminator + Be tweeters for personal preference. Illuminator are bit more dynamic to my ears. I'll also choose the front-end-port, since I always place my speakers close to the wall.
Worlds apart. What is it with this obsession for expensive parts while real important stuff is neglected? And why would one put a speaker designed for a free position (full baffle step correction, broad dispersion) with the back against a wall? Sorry if I step on toes, don’t want to stop people spending on their dreams. But at least have a hunch there is actually a proven approach.
this is an interresting information i didn't know. tell me more about it. so what kind of speaker form/baffle should be suitable for "back against a wall" ?
to my knowledge (which is basic only) bafflestep correction might be ignored if a speaker is designed for bass roomgain which compensate the step. but for this i need a wide baffle. (the classic 33-35 cm baffle)
but i have to say, i didn't thought about this/such point/s when i looked for kits.
Last edited:
You have to account for two major issues. First: most speaker designs have full baffle step compensation. Find designs that either have been designed for your setup (back against the wall) or have the option in the crossover for reduced baffle step compensation. Of course you also could EQ the system after final setup.
Second: control lateral early reflections (also from the front wall against which the speakers stand). They tend to ‘smear’ the stereo sound field. You can do so by picking systems with controlled or even high directivity. The more serious among us pick full range cardioid or dipole systems to accomplish minimal lateral reflections. But be sure to pay attention to directivity control.
Second: control lateral early reflections (also from the front wall against which the speakers stand). They tend to ‘smear’ the stereo sound field. You can do so by picking systems with controlled or even high directivity. The more serious among us pick full range cardioid or dipole systems to accomplish minimal lateral reflections. But be sure to pay attention to directivity control.
The baffle step compensation and phase alignment can always be post calibrated since OP is going to adapt FA123.
Second: in a relative small room, unless speakers are placed at least 60cm away from any wall, port reflection is going to play a role. In Ekta Grande design, there is indeed a front-port and sealed box design. That is the box option I would choose in the similar situation.
pic from Troels's Ekta Grande page
(somehow, the sealed box ratio in this fig does not match the top finished box in white. In top figures, the white boxes seem taller. maybe the box size is modified to adapt the sealed design?)
Second: in a relative small room, unless speakers are placed at least 60cm away from any wall, port reflection is going to play a role. In Ekta Grande design, there is indeed a front-port and sealed box design. That is the box option I would choose in the similar situation.
pic from Troels's Ekta Grande page
(somehow, the sealed box ratio in this fig does not match the top finished box in white. In top figures, the white boxes seem taller. maybe the box size is modified to adapt the sealed design?)
Last edited:
as far as i read, the ekta grande got an upgrade where he made it 10cm smaller in height (from 120 to 110 cm) and no more rounded enclosure.
this was on user feedback.
thats why this looks different.
port, well as the 7741 port isn't special from lengh im sure it can be put on the front side instead of the back.
it seems both models tend to go down a bit in tweeter region. (grande more then 7741) this would mean i need to correct the tweeter xo as my living room is full of basotec.
this was on user feedback.
thats why this looks different.
port, well as the 7741 port isn't special from lengh im sure it can be put on the front side instead of the back.
it seems both models tend to go down a bit in tweeter region. (grande more then 7741) this would mean i need to correct the tweeter xo as my living room is full of basotec.
Last edited:
Ports have to be quite close to a wall, 10-15cm or so, for them to really change the tuning (lower, because the air in the gap poses an extra load). The rest is boundary gain and comb filtering due to the reflecting wave from the front wall.
As I understand, the OP wants a passive design. All the same, the DSP in the Hypex modules could prove beneficial.
As I understand, the OP wants a passive design. All the same, the DSP in the Hypex modules could prove beneficial.
This is an older thread but I thought I would update it with relevant data since archived discussions often get searched by those digging deeper for information.
My measurements show a fairly uniform off-axis performance of the Ekta 7741. The actual mid-range/ tweeter crossover is in the 4kHz region.
The OP was interested in knowing if there are performance differences between the Scan-Speak Revelator line vs the Illuminator product line? These are use-condition questions and the answer is, it depends. I noticed Troels often mixes together drivers from several Scan-Speak product lines – Discovery, Revelator, Illuminator and Ellipticor when designing Scan-Speak based loudspeakers.
Troels’ kits are often criticized for using costly drivers and crossover components. Looking to other industries, IBM (among others) demonstrated that the quality and reliability of a system is a function of the quality and reliability of its components and sub-systems. I concede that having expensive components does not guarantee best in class performance. On the other hand, there are no silk purses made from sows’ ears.
The premium paid to Jantzen Audio covers their components, their fulfillment value-add and Troels’ design work.
For those DIYers who just want to build one and be done, kits are a great way to go and Troels has done a lot of them.
My measurements show a fairly uniform off-axis performance of the Ekta 7741. The actual mid-range/ tweeter crossover is in the 4kHz region.
The OP was interested in knowing if there are performance differences between the Scan-Speak Revelator line vs the Illuminator product line? These are use-condition questions and the answer is, it depends. I noticed Troels often mixes together drivers from several Scan-Speak product lines – Discovery, Revelator, Illuminator and Ellipticor when designing Scan-Speak based loudspeakers.
Troels’ kits are often criticized for using costly drivers and crossover components. Looking to other industries, IBM (among others) demonstrated that the quality and reliability of a system is a function of the quality and reliability of its components and sub-systems. I concede that having expensive components does not guarantee best in class performance. On the other hand, there are no silk purses made from sows’ ears.
The premium paid to Jantzen Audio covers their components, their fulfillment value-add and Troels’ design work.
For those DIYers who just want to build one and be done, kits are a great way to go and Troels has done a lot of them.
Attachments
With high end speaker prices going through the roof building a kit using good quality parts has never made more sense.
And Troels does not just make expensive kits.For example you can buy the SBA 861 2.5 way crossover kit for 185 Euro plus drivers for about another 200 Euro.
And Troels does not just make expensive kits.For example you can buy the SBA 861 2.5 way crossover kit for 185 Euro plus drivers for about another 200 Euro.
Some of Troels' kits tend to be critized by those with a bit of technical knowledge about speakers for using overly expensive components in combination with modest design. This follows from him being more of an experienced subjectivist that has picked up a few technical things along the way rather an engineer following the relevant engineering principles. However, as far as I am aware, none of his designs could be reasonably described as offering a poor technical performance which isn't necessarily the case for some of his competitors.
For a beginner building one of Troels' designs is likely to be a safe and reasonable place to start. For the same budget there will almost certainly be designs offering a slightly improved technical performance but how would a beginner reliably identify or create such a design? How much value is there in a slightly improved technical performance for a beginner's first build?
In the case of home audio the big question for (sound) quality is what is sufficient for various forms of distortion to become inaudible in use? If a speaker is appropriately designed this often means expensive prestige parts have nothing to offer over well designed standard parts. In the case of well designed prestige parts (by no means all when it comes to home audio hardware) the clean operating range may be a bit wider and the parts may be easier to use in a design.
When it comes to reliability very expensive often doesn't mean better. The problem is that very expensive parts are manufactured in very small numbers with both the design and manufacturing likely being less well sorted compared to cheaper higher volume parts. Low price budget parts often have all sorts of corners cut in order to reduce the cost of design and manufacture and again good quality standard parts may the best option.
Of course hobbyists may want to use expensive prestige parts in their designs because they want "the best" and not what is sufficient. It's hard to argue against for a hobby which neatly brings us back to Troels' designs.
@Lojzek: Are you saying that drivers are commodity parts and you can just choose based on cost and availability? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Please clarify and be verbose in this case.
@andy19191: I’ve read criticism of Troels designs on this forum from people who have never heard nor seen measurements of the design they are critiquing. In most engineering disciplines, no data means no opinion - good or bad. This guy proclaimed the design not very good based on the bill of materials (which was deemed too expensive by someone else ;-).
I’m not sure what overly expensive parts are. I guess BlieSMa, Accuton and Purifi likely fit the description but my understanding is that they offer performance that other drivers do not. If they are used in a way that makes no difference, seems like a design error. Beryllium tweeters are expensive and Troels does make SKUs with these tweeters based on customer requests.
Side Note: SigbergAudio made a comment in another forum that Purifi drivers are targeted at the DIY community because they are too expensive for commercial application. Interesting.
I take you comment of “modest design” to be somewhat less than ideal. KISS is still the overarching engineering principle so simple is preferred. Using drivers that can tolerate a low order network and do not need to be brick walled seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
If your core argument against Troels DIY kits is that they are too expensive, I’m going to challenge that. My finished cost for Troels kit was $3500. I sold my Sonus Faber’s for $3400. It would cost me considerably more to buy a commercial equivalent of the Ekta-7741.
Lastly, I believe most DIYers under estimate the true material cost of their creations. I’ll use forum member Patrick Bateman as a representative example of the typical DIYer. He inventoried his collection of drivers, electrical components, horns, wave guides etc., at many thousands of $. If you add that kind of inventory cost to your latest design, it is much more than what Troels would charge for an in kind kit.
@andy19191: I’ve read criticism of Troels designs on this forum from people who have never heard nor seen measurements of the design they are critiquing. In most engineering disciplines, no data means no opinion - good or bad. This guy proclaimed the design not very good based on the bill of materials (which was deemed too expensive by someone else ;-).
I’m not sure what overly expensive parts are. I guess BlieSMa, Accuton and Purifi likely fit the description but my understanding is that they offer performance that other drivers do not. If they are used in a way that makes no difference, seems like a design error. Beryllium tweeters are expensive and Troels does make SKUs with these tweeters based on customer requests.
Side Note: SigbergAudio made a comment in another forum that Purifi drivers are targeted at the DIY community because they are too expensive for commercial application. Interesting.
I take you comment of “modest design” to be somewhat less than ideal. KISS is still the overarching engineering principle so simple is preferred. Using drivers that can tolerate a low order network and do not need to be brick walled seems like a reasonable trade off to me.
If your core argument against Troels DIY kits is that they are too expensive, I’m going to challenge that. My finished cost for Troels kit was $3500. I sold my Sonus Faber’s for $3400. It would cost me considerably more to buy a commercial equivalent of the Ekta-7741.
Lastly, I believe most DIYers under estimate the true material cost of their creations. I’ll use forum member Patrick Bateman as a representative example of the typical DIYer. He inventoried his collection of drivers, electrical components, horns, wave guides etc., at many thousands of $. If you add that kind of inventory cost to your latest design, it is much more than what Troels would charge for an in kind kit.
The Scan midrange driver in the Grande is very basic in terms of is overall performance. For some reason Scan decided this midrange didn't need their high performance SD motor and it's distortion is awful as a result.
Compare that to the mid in the 7741 and it's a different kettle of fish entirely.
Not to mention the high, Klippel verified, Xmax of the illuminator woofers makes them very good for a bass only application.
I think Troels designs need improvement in terms of how he chooses his crossover points etc but given the choice and cost not a concern 7741 every time.
Compare that to the mid in the 7741 and it's a different kettle of fish entirely.
Not to mention the high, Klippel verified, Xmax of the illuminator woofers makes them very good for a bass only application.
I think Troels designs need improvement in terms of how he chooses his crossover points etc but given the choice and cost not a concern 7741 every time.
All in all his designs aren’t bad. But take the Ekta Grande.
The bass impedance clearly shows internal resonances. A burst decay plot could confirm this.
Ditto for the midrange, although this seems to be minor and it could very well be driver related (the data sheet shows some anomalies too). So I’d be inclined to state there’s room for improvement. And that is a shame, considering the cost and the trouble taken.
As an engineer I can assure that is absolute nonsense. Engineers reason primarily by using engineering principles (applying scientific laws using maths) not measurements. Measurements are used primarily as checks on the reasoning but rarely to directly reason with. People that are not engineers and have little of the relevant engineering knowledge may have to fallback on using measurements if they are unable to talk with an engineer.
Yes a fair few of Troels' parts tend to be poor value for money in terms of technical performance for the price. The price of some of the crossover parts is verging on the silly but audiophiles that place high value on expensive audiophile crossover parts are inevitably going to place little value on (real) engineering.
They offer higher specs in a few parameters compared to a decent standard driver.
If they offer no improvement for the intended use then the speaker is poorer value for money. Note the speaker performs just as well in normal use, possibly a bit better in abnormal use and uses more presigious parts which can be of significant value to nontechnical people. The use of expensive parts only grates for those with engineering sensibilities that would consider a part that is just sufficient to do the job better than a more expensive part that is more than sufficient to do the job. Many hobbyists don't see things this way and why should they?
Beryllium tweeter are a classic example of overly expensive audiophile components. When Scan-Speak first introduced theirs 15 years ago it rapidly became their biggest earner because it was widely perceived as "the best". The high price no doubt played a role. Other manufacturers took note of the high markups and high numbers and piled in. Now you can buy tweeters for silly prices from pretty much all manufacturers.
Tweeters contribute least to the overall sound of a speaker and most people are hard pressed to audibly distinguish a decent soft dome from a decent hard dome despite the significantly different directivities. Not saying one can't just that it is surprisingly subtle given the attention tweeters receive.
They are marketed on high specs which is likely to be more important to DIYers than it is to people buying expensive speakers. They do tend to have a long linear displacement for their size which could serve an engineering purpose where speakers are largely unconstrained by price but are strongly constrained by size.
By modest design I meant the design could be improved by, for example, considering the off-axis response (i.e. what dominates the perceived sound of a good speaker), placing damping where it would be more effective, using active crossovers instead of expensive boutique passive ones,... Not an F but more B-C rather than A. DIY speakers involve more than design with other factors contributing to the overall satisfaction so some perspective can be wise.
A smoother radiation pattern can be obtained by using better design rather than puting up with the issues created by a stepped baffle and pushing drivers outside their operating range. An active crossover would remove all the problems with a stepped baffle and provide more accurate control of the crossover region. Well designed waveguides and shaped baffle can better mix the radiation pattern than a 2nd order passive crossover. It's not a bad way to go about things but it's not a particularly good way either which is why it is almost never used in the design of high technical performance commercial speakers.
??? I made a qualified case for Troels' kits not against.
If you value your Troels designed DIY speaker more than what you consider a commercial equivalent that looks like a win to me. But at the price could it have been improved with a better choice of parts and better design? Many here would say yes.
You are comparing the cost of one speaker against that of many speakers and supporting a hobby interest. It's not a reasonable comparison.