For most folks, your statement rings true.......BUT........when you're spending upwards of $500 for a single midrange driver, one would assume that you're after perfection. Same holds true for most of the most beloved recordings in history........where the engineer chose a $5k Neumann U87 to capture the best performance and then process it with analog outboard console and gear.................to send that through a DAW with plug ins would make my skin crawl.....
If you're gonna shape a driver into submission with DSP, save the $$$.........a $200 Morel dome will have the same performance value.
Ohhhh, late to the party. @hifijim - the pyramid design is your status?
WO24 is a very nice driver, the paper version is not too expensive. For a free standing speaker ... I would use 4 of them, 2 in front and 2 at the back. Made tests recently with a subwoofer and 2 SB 8" drivers and different positions as a sub stand for LS50s. One chassis at front & high and one low at the back does significant better in the room as both on the front. So distribute LF drivers in space has the chance to fight lambda/4 resonances.
With a more sane approach ;-) a 3.5 concept is a great idea and probably what I will do with my next build in my reference room too (material is here but no time at the moment). I will use the 12"s for my listening but they need to run down to 20Hz. Just for music a pair of WO24 is probably fine.
When you want/need to go low and closed speakers - you need to provide membrane surface, double as you are used too.
WO24 is a very nice driver, the paper version is not too expensive. For a free standing speaker ... I would use 4 of them, 2 in front and 2 at the back. Made tests recently with a subwoofer and 2 SB 8" drivers and different positions as a sub stand for LS50s. One chassis at front & high and one low at the back does significant better in the room as both on the front. So distribute LF drivers in space has the chance to fight lambda/4 resonances.
With a more sane approach ;-) a 3.5 concept is a great idea and probably what I will do with my next build in my reference room too (material is here but no time at the moment). I will use the 12"s for my listening but they need to run down to 20Hz. Just for music a pair of WO24 is probably fine.
When you want/need to go low and closed speakers - you need to provide membrane surface, double as you are used too.
I will not argue with someone who believes that an all analog signal (from microphone to recording to speaker) is the best and highest fidelity. It may be true.
But at this stage of my life, in 2024, there is no way I could assemble all of my music together in pristine analog form... I own about 80 vinyl records, most from the 1970's - 1980's, meaning they are thin flimsy pressings made on worn-out equipment. The record labels were not maintaining or replacing their vinyl pressing equipment at that time because they believed (correctly) that CDs were the future. It took more than 25 years for vinyl sales to rebound. Besides, most of my vinyl records are music that appealed to me as a teenager. For the music I want today, I would be starting from scratch, buying very expensive vinyl pressings, either vintage or modern, and then investing in an expensive turntable/cartridge.... meh, maybe not.
For better or worse, I am committed to 24 bit/96k or 192k FLAC recordings. I buy them at about the same cost as a 16 bit/44.1k CD, and I can hear the difference.
I am also committed, for better or worse, to DSP active crossovers in my speaker designs.
But at this stage of my life, in 2024, there is no way I could assemble all of my music together in pristine analog form... I own about 80 vinyl records, most from the 1970's - 1980's, meaning they are thin flimsy pressings made on worn-out equipment. The record labels were not maintaining or replacing their vinyl pressing equipment at that time because they believed (correctly) that CDs were the future. It took more than 25 years for vinyl sales to rebound. Besides, most of my vinyl records are music that appealed to me as a teenager. For the music I want today, I would be starting from scratch, buying very expensive vinyl pressings, either vintage or modern, and then investing in an expensive turntable/cartridge.... meh, maybe not.
For better or worse, I am committed to 24 bit/96k or 192k FLAC recordings. I buy them at about the same cost as a 16 bit/44.1k CD, and I can hear the difference.
I am also committed, for better or worse, to DSP active crossovers in my speaker designs.
Hi,
I think HifiJim is in between the pro studio needs and the hifi ones as he needs room for the SPL and want no compressed dynamic in the lows.
May I ask about what inputed some about high efficienty pro driver VS hifis ones with lower FS but poor efficienty ?
Their input I short is : the better efficienty of pro driver whatever they has higher Fs, have more subjective energy, life when played at average low home places.
So for illlustration two W2684G00 Discovery has weak motors (89/2.83V at best) and whatever it is +6 dB when two in parrallel, some say ti will stay muddy VS a high efficienty standalone pro driver.
@PKAudio, also noticed a better bass behavior of ScanSpeak for bass when he tested them in 8" or 10" VS the SBACoustics he likes less for that frequencies.
It also not has tested the goodish 12" from SBAcoustics, but that doesn't matter here for the discussion centrede on two 10" drivers per channel. Kwesi answered two 10" wons because more Sd over a single 12" and steroids the hifi driver with more magnett when possible to extend BL.
To help on the confusion, somme testimonied than the high 42 Fs 12PR320 sounded quite clean in the bass vented (Mbrewnna's OSMC design). Just for illlustration, not to talk about 12".
Any thougth about that Hifi VS Pro drivers about efficienty and casual listening level that migth differ between the two family of drivers? Staying in the topic of that thread, please (here we talk about sealed 10"s with possibly EQ for the room in the bass : Linkwitz transform, etc). Also I remember there is no snap if the harmonics transcients are not well hhandled by the upper drivers (but it is okay here as it is phase FIR aligned).
Thanks
"I am committed to 24 bit/96k or 192k FLAC recordings. I buy them at about the same cost as a 16 bit/44.1k CD, and I can hear the difference."
@hifijim , I think it is because of the plate amps and the adc to DAC behavior if you input analog, but I could be wrong. I think a multichannel DACs is the best of two worlds, digital being made by a powerfull unit with isolation to stop the noise with reclocking near the DACs on the clean side. Difference is nigth and day between two DACs to me. Sorry for the off topic. If the plate amps had a Mola Mola motor, you migth hear a great difference all being equal elsewhere, for illustration and staying on Hypex tech.
@hifijim , I think it is because of the plate amps and the adc to DAC behavior if you input analog, but I could be wrong. I think a multichannel DACs is the best of two worlds, digital being made by a powerfull unit with isolation to stop the noise with reclocking near the DACs on the clean side. Difference is nigth and day between two DACs to me. Sorry for the off topic. If the plate amps had a Mola Mola motor, you migth hear a great difference all being equal elsewhere, for illustration and staying on Hypex tech.
Sorry you misunderstood me..........what source material you choose is arbitrary once magnetic tape and a well calibrated machine are out of the equation....which is for nearly all of us........i print high res via Antelope AD converters and a highly accurate clock.........tape isn't worth it and it has a shelf life.
That being said, what happens in playback matters at the speaker output level and whether it linear or non linear eq or filters in the digital domain, these are PHASE shifting applications and they take the source signal back miles from the pristine 24/192 you're feeding it........liken it to looking through a window of ED glass......and then a bug screen.......that's what these processing measures are doing, especially if you're DSP unit isn't processing at 24. And then at that speed, there's inherent latency........and it's audible, clearly.
That's digital processing 20 years ago!
DSP units are not processing at 24 ... they have 32bit floating point. (which is total overkill but hey, when you can do it). Calculation errors ar FAR from any audible noise ground. Like 100dB far. I remember times of the first Behringer Ultragraph - THERE you could hear the filterings and rough resolution.
Filters - you are aware that the behavior of the speaker chassis in it's housing has MASSIVE phase shifting behaviour which goes 1:1 with the frequency response (as long as you stay in linear behaviour of the system - which we do for high performance audio). You NEED phase shifting filters to correct this behaviour, that's what a passive or active crossover does, no matter of analog or digital. When you would do all filters without phase shift (possible in digital) - you would get a HORRIBLE result!
As long as we have a digital source signal - there is no better option as a properly done DSP crossover and getting D/A conversion as late in the chain as possible.
(p.s.: We don't have to discuss audibility of latency, do we?)
Last edited:
I am not really happy with any of the woofer options. Of the four under consideration, only the Scan Speak 26W/8867T meets all of my needs. At $400 per woofer, I would be spending $1600 for the woofers in this project. I don’t mind spending that kind of money to upgrade my primary woofer/subwoofer system, because it is used in many different systems. But I am hesitant to put that kind of money into this one project, for four woofers which will not be used for anything beyond this one project.
My long term plan is to upgrade the existing 12” SB34NRX75-6 woofer cabinets. I want drivers with more displacement, more SPL capability, and lower distortion. I want to build better cabinets with more structural robustness. My wife pointed out that not utilizing the existing 12” woofer cabinets (and their future replacements) for this project seems like a missed opportunity, and I agree.
I am not enthusiastic about the looks of this project, and my wife is even less enthusiastic. I wanted to make the woofers modular so that I could change or upgrade them in the future, but I don’t think that is a feature I would ever use. I now believe that integrating modular woofer cabinets with relatively high 500 Hz crossover to a trapezoidal MT top unit will be difficult. It will be hard to optimize both the aesthetics and the performance.
My original motivation for selecting the 2x10” woofer concept was driven by my desire to have just 3 channels of DSP/amplification, with no reduction in deep bass SPL capability or extension. I thought staying with the 3 channels of Hypex plate amp would be the most simple, straightforward way of achieving my goals. Adding a 4th channel for a subwoofer seemed more complicated.
I am now considering a smaller stand-mount 3-way, similar in size/shape to the LCCAM-10.3 project. LCCAM-10.3 link
This would be a single 9” or 10” woofer, M74A mid, and a tweeter, with notional crossovers at 500 Hz and 3.5 kHz, and crossing to a pair of subs at 100 Hz. I envision a sealed box design, in an approximately 30 liter cabinet. This size/shape format has a lot of performance potential, it is good looking, and it is not overly challenging to build. My existing stand is too tall, so I will need to make a pair of new shorter stands to house a pair of Hypex FA253’s. I will need to add a 4th DSP channel and amplifiers to drive the two SB34NRX75-6 woofer cabinets as subwoofers.
My existing tall stand/FA-253 has been the building block for 3 different systems. This new short-stand will be the building block for a whole new series of projects.
My long term plan is to upgrade the existing 12” SB34NRX75-6 woofer cabinets. I want drivers with more displacement, more SPL capability, and lower distortion. I want to build better cabinets with more structural robustness. My wife pointed out that not utilizing the existing 12” woofer cabinets (and their future replacements) for this project seems like a missed opportunity, and I agree.
I am not enthusiastic about the looks of this project, and my wife is even less enthusiastic. I wanted to make the woofers modular so that I could change or upgrade them in the future, but I don’t think that is a feature I would ever use. I now believe that integrating modular woofer cabinets with relatively high 500 Hz crossover to a trapezoidal MT top unit will be difficult. It will be hard to optimize both the aesthetics and the performance.
My original motivation for selecting the 2x10” woofer concept was driven by my desire to have just 3 channels of DSP/amplification, with no reduction in deep bass SPL capability or extension. I thought staying with the 3 channels of Hypex plate amp would be the most simple, straightforward way of achieving my goals. Adding a 4th channel for a subwoofer seemed more complicated.
I am now considering a smaller stand-mount 3-way, similar in size/shape to the LCCAM-10.3 project. LCCAM-10.3 link
This would be a single 9” or 10” woofer, M74A mid, and a tweeter, with notional crossovers at 500 Hz and 3.5 kHz, and crossing to a pair of subs at 100 Hz. I envision a sealed box design, in an approximately 30 liter cabinet. This size/shape format has a lot of performance potential, it is good looking, and it is not overly challenging to build. My existing stand is too tall, so I will need to make a pair of new shorter stands to house a pair of Hypex FA253’s. I will need to add a 4th DSP channel and amplifiers to drive the two SB34NRX75-6 woofer cabinets as subwoofers.
My existing tall stand/FA-253 has been the building block for 3 different systems. This new short-stand will be the building block for a whole new series of projects.
@hifijim Wow - these are great resources! Tori Amos live sounds great! The remastered rock stuff ... they seem to overdo it as so often. No need for a 2020 guitar wall in these recordings.
Scanspeak vs SB ACoustics. The smaller 17-20cm SBs are not in the league of the top ScanSpeak. In listening comparisons of the SB 10" and SB34NRXL to my SS 8" I heared the SBs more "punchy" and the SS detailed but a little "soft".
But bewahre - a really good listening comparison at low frequencies is very hard to do! The position in the room alone changes more as the difference between chassis in their linear range will be - even 30cm distance. I never did a proper listening comparison - and I would say this happens not very often. (bring the chassis very close together, measure the different room responses and correct for them).
The same with PA drivers. They often don't go as low, produce less resonances in the room -> more tight feeling. But that's just the frequency response.
And we are not talking about a comparison to a 17cm 2way "bass" speaker - these are 2 serious 10" drivers which can produce some SPL pretty easily. So I would not expect too much difference at "normal" levels.
Small HiFi speakers get in compression pretty fast when you rise the level, PA drivers will sound more "easy" and dynamic as these. But I would not say it's the same compared to these big midrange domes.
Scanspeak vs SB ACoustics. The smaller 17-20cm SBs are not in the league of the top ScanSpeak. In listening comparisons of the SB 10" and SB34NRXL to my SS 8" I heared the SBs more "punchy" and the SS detailed but a little "soft".
But bewahre - a really good listening comparison at low frequencies is very hard to do! The position in the room alone changes more as the difference between chassis in their linear range will be - even 30cm distance. I never did a proper listening comparison - and I would say this happens not very often. (bring the chassis very close together, measure the different room responses and correct for them).
The same with PA drivers. They often don't go as low, produce less resonances in the room -> more tight feeling. But that's just the frequency response.
And we are not talking about a comparison to a 17cm 2way "bass" speaker - these are 2 serious 10" drivers which can produce some SPL pretty easily. So I would not expect too much difference at "normal" levels.
Small HiFi speakers get in compression pretty fast when you rise the level, PA drivers will sound more "easy" and dynamic as these. But I would not say it's the same compared to these big midrange domes.
Nope.....there's so many errors in the above that we're too far apart on the issue to understand each other and with that, i'll retire myself from this thread.
I can't help but thinking you should try four of them. Spread nicely and unobtrusively in your room.
What are the features on the woofer needed for this?
If only going to 500hz sealed, maybe the WF275BD01 might join your shortlist. Vance's review https://audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-wavecor-wf275bd01-10-75-home-audio-woofer
I think this is a step in the right direction. If low distortion is your goal and subs will be covering everything below 100 Hz or even 80 Hz and you are matching a woofer to a 3 inch dome at 500 Hz or a little higher and you will be stand mounting then maybe a really good 8 inch driver is the answer.
Why not use PTT8.0X04-NAB-02, it's not cheap but it should make a great 3-way stand mount.
@hifijim ,
live once, spend once ! If you can affoard, yeah go to the Revelator serie and make a benchmark from their best (sttandalone greater size?) over two of their weakest. Maybe Wavecores are possible, but as expensive aand less well known.
I can not affoard, but one said one can be too poor to purchase non quality... twice.
I still think though in our quest the ADC behavior and DAC quality of the plate amp is a trade off. The trade off being a veil (but the good side is a better ruled loudspeaker all in all : DI, power curve choice...). Of course I migth be wrong.
But a good driver spent once is not a loss I meant. (that's why I focussed in the SB34RNXL or two 26W disco I can affoard as good choice.... but ceetainly not as good than the Rev. SS serie)
my two cents.
live once, spend once ! If you can affoard, yeah go to the Revelator serie and make a benchmark from their best (sttandalone greater size?) over two of their weakest. Maybe Wavecores are possible, but as expensive aand less well known.
I can not affoard, but one said one can be too poor to purchase non quality... twice.
I still think though in our quest the ADC behavior and DAC quality of the plate amp is a trade off. The trade off being a veil (but the good side is a better ruled loudspeaker all in all : DI, power curve choice...). Of course I migth be wrong.
But a good driver spent once is not a loss I meant. (that's why I focussed in the SB34RNXL or two 26W disco I can affoard as good choice.... but ceetainly not as good than the Rev. SS serie)
my two cents.
I will look closely at that Wavecor, thanks for the suggestion.
@diyiggy - you may be correct that the Hypex ncore fusion amps impose a veil, a loss of detail. But I am committed to this technology, for better or worse. Many studio monitors and mastering lab speakers use these exact amps, or a very similar technology.
For now, I am discontinuing the prototype activity. I need to do some diffraction simulation to design some new baffle options before I can make a meaningful prototype.
Here is my basic notional concept,
j.
@diyiggy - you may be correct that the Hypex ncore fusion amps impose a veil, a loss of detail. But I am committed to this technology, for better or worse. Many studio monitors and mastering lab speakers use these exact amps, or a very similar technology.
For now, I am discontinuing the prototype activity. I need to do some diffraction simulation to design some new baffle options before I can make a meaningful prototype.
Here is my basic notional concept,
j.
These amps are really the next thing to a wire with gain. The bottleneck in the palte amps is the D/A converter, the power amps are significant better as these.
And still - the over all system dynamics is pretty hard to beat, so they are a good start. Improving from there get's expensive quickly (but is not impossible).
When going the 4-way route - the choice of driver is obvious. Check out PHL 10" drivers!
You need a high sensitivity driver to get at least some of the dynamic range of the 3" dome. So no deep resonance frequency and HiFi coil. PHL also keeps THD low at lower levels and the 10" behaves at 600Hz.
This was the first stage of my concept btw - I always thought I need 4 ways. But with the SB34NRXL I could make it a 3 way again and I also have the chance in my listening room to position the LF drivers so they build a single bass array. Reduced to the max and it works very well.