These are the apparently conflicting symptoms that have been keeping this question in the forefront to those who are yet to make the discovery for themselves. Eg.. Can room interaction help to make an otherwise problematic speaker seem to 'disappear'? Are imaging and spaciousness the same thing?
I’m very curious how the amigas measure compared to the pit vipers. The in-room response looked very good. Slightly high distortion on the three ways but I just assumed it was the noise floor.
these aren't pit vipers so I can't comment on that one.
amiga don't really measure that great tbh, and that in room with the 3 way is just at lp, doesn't tell much about off axis performance.
amiga don't really measure that great tbh, and that in room with the 3 way is just at lp, doesn't tell much about off axis performance.
Last edited:
Didn't you first try the Pit Viper XO?
Paul C does say on that page that he built those monkey coffins as primarily party speakers so I'd say bass and volume/SPL were the main priority.
Nothing at all wrong with big boxy speakers.
Paul C does say on that page that he built those monkey coffins as primarily party speakers so I'd say bass and volume/SPL were the main priority.
Nothing at all wrong with big boxy speakers.
Read this for inspiration. Alexander Gresler thought out an enclosure shape that is performing really well and is comparatively easy to build. Not only the outside is smart, the inside also is quite clever.
Things often boil down to a good enclosure design and execution. If you are not willing or unable to do so, accept the compromise.
Things often boil down to a good enclosure design and execution. If you are not willing or unable to do so, accept the compromise.
You can see here why I didn't use the Pit Viper xover. If you go into baffle sim software, take my baffle dimensions and place a driver on it, turns out moving the mid range to the side results in a nearly opposite response of the mid range. I took these on my angle marked lazy susan thing, but it's too small to actually get the cent of the cabinet at the center of the circle. Even so, the polars aren't very good for the tweeter.
Can't say I'm too interested in large speakers in general now largely due to how hard they are to move around. I pulled a muscle moving these big speakers around and that really sucked. They are pretty damn heavy.
I mainly wanted to point out thinking too lightly about the enclosure brings you nothing. And it’s not the box itself, it’s the considerations he writes down that might teach one.
I understand that, I definitely plan on considering enclosure design more in the future. There is plenty I know about optimizing the enclosure and baffle, but I kind of ignored a lot of it because I wanted cool looking ATC style speakers. We can see how that paid off. I have no trouble taking a step back and accepting that I made a bit of a stinker.
The front panel should get some good seal so no air can leak in and out. Maybe put it two times on. Do not screw the front panel too tight after that. See picture.
You have to solve the problem with the frequency response and phasing between bass and midrange.
Your work looks good from a mechanical point of view.
But with classic speakers the crossover design makes the difference between mediocre or superb design.
You have to solve the problem with the frequency response and phasing between bass and midrange.
Your work looks good from a mechanical point of view.
But with classic speakers the crossover design makes the difference between mediocre or superb design.
Attachments
There are no leaks in the baffle, already ruled that out.
To be clear I'm not open to suggestions and have moved on from this project. Not really interested in any more suggestions thanks.
I will no longer be responding to this thread.
To be clear I'm not open to suggestions and have moved on from this project. Not really interested in any more suggestions thanks.
You're basing this off what exactly? I already measured the speakers and implimented my own active filters.
I will no longer be responding to this thread.
A shame that as the thread was starting to become interesting.
I've got to do my own large monkey coffin soon and I'm always leanring.
I've got to do my own large monkey coffin soon and I'm always leanring.
I may return to this project and utilize the box and make a new baffle, but the poor imaging really sealed the deal on my dislike of the current build. The poor and seemingly random suggestions from a few users put me off engagement with the site.
the suggestions on port and bracing are fine but one requires a new baffle or to cap this port and put a new hole elsewhere.
what would one do improve imaging on a speaker with such baffle width? osmc utilized a waveguide but I'm uncertain of people's feedback on sound stage. i do have a larger wg300 I can try the nd25fw sound better than the flat dome d27, but also sounds kinda flat (in a bad way).
what would one do improve imaging on a speaker with such baffle width? osmc utilized a waveguide but I'm uncertain of people's feedback on sound stage. i do have a larger wg300 I can try the nd25fw sound better than the flat dome d27, but also sounds kinda flat (in a bad way).
I don't recall anyone explicitly reporting on imaging; you may ask for impressions in the OSMC thread. I wouldn't think it's all even down to the tweeter.
The Volt itself is very different from your Dayton cone in nearly every way.
The Volt itself is very different from your Dayton cone in nearly every way.
Imaging and soundstage are subjective. We may agree on what they mean but they are not in the typical arsenal of speaker measurements. I've searched the forums and found conflicting hypotheses (not surprisingly). Interesting to this thread I found some who swore narrow baffles were better for imaging and others that swore wider baffles were better. Some other suggestions: crossovers having very good phase alignment. Large roundovers. Very similar SPL levels for left and right speakers.
The RS180 is a better driver than the DC130. I'd guess that the Amiga is simply a higher quality speaker, including imaging and soundstage and not necessarily due to the baffles.
The RS180 is a better driver than the DC130. I'd guess that the Amiga is simply a higher quality speaker, including imaging and soundstage and not necessarily due to the baffles.
The rs180 is certainly a more expensive driver, but I'd love to have something more concrete on why the sound stage has so much more depth. It's not like the dc130 is trying very hard in it's little sealed enclosure high passed above 250. The dc130 3 ways measure more neutral with my filtering as well. I too ran into the same thoughts on the topic online, seems there is little agreement on it.