To answer the OP, the bottleneck is the designer (or DIYer), not the parts available.
Wsveguides have become a big trend and I can understand the modern day obsession with waveguided tweeters, how they can greatly improve the in room power response of a speaker, given the WG is optimized for the driver and crossover point related to the mid or woofer off axis characteristics.
The problem I have with using a WG speaking from an average equipped hobbyist POV, is the designer usually doesn't have the necessary measurment gear and/or knowledge to pull off a predictably successful WG design.
WGs will necessitate a fairly complex passive filter to linearize, both on and off axis, which also has to take relative phase into consideration between the relating drivers integrated together. You'll almost certainly need above average levels of simulation and measurement capabilities to get close using passive filters with a WGed driver and hope the HF driver has sufficient sensitivity in reserve to linearize it in relation to the midrange as well as accounting for the WG's own effect on tweeter FR from multiple angles.
Its therefore much more practical to use DSP on most WGed designs and is in reality the preferred tool to tweak the design to the point it sounds the best it can with the chosen drivers in the actual listening environment. DSP is especially going to be needed if one prefers using the trial and error approach to make it sound as best it can. The only alternative to using DSP is the purchase of a large, expensive pile of passive filter components, hoping the planets will align. It also provides far more flexibility in the long run when eventual changes need (or want) to be made to the neighboring driver or baffle design, among other things.
From the perspective of wanting to keep the speaker's signal path purely in the analog domain, the only other option left is to use active crossover filters. Those are almost certainly going to be out of the reach of most DIY speaker builders based on the complexity required to design an above average performing circuit.
Any extra noise from the amplifier stage forwards will be noticeable on high sensitivity drivers, sometimes even unbearable. This can also be an issue with some cheaper DSP processor designs.
Passive filters don't suffer from self noise, which is a huge benefit, as well as avoiding additional circuitry in the line level signal path. Pre-ringing and latency can also be an issue with DSP. The quality and topology of digital processing is also going to influence the SQ by a large margine, as the midrange price point of most turn key DSP solutions is sparsly populated.
I prefer passive filters mainly because I don't want an additional AD / DA step in my signal chain when playing back purely analog sources. That may sound excessively snobbish, but one of the rare treats I enjoy is listening to purely analog sources. I'm willing to accept the additional cost, complexity and.drawbacks compared to a DSP based system.
Getting back to DSP and its necessary for integrating specific speaker designs using WGs and other FR correcting methods, I summarize with this last point. The use of WGs, horns, arrays, subwoofers and other speaker design topologies straying from the usual 2 or 3 drivers in a box design, DSP is unavoidable if you want the best overall sound possible. Its use outweighs the drawbacks, especially compared to most passive crossover designs. WG use almost certainly is going to need the level of correction only DSP can practically provide. It allows hobbyists speaker designs to compete with the most advanced passive multi way designs. I've learned to embrace the use of DSP, but up until that point I didn't use WGs on dome tweeters due to the necessity of DSP. A well designed WG on a suitable dome tweeter can take a speaker's performance potential to a whole different level. Its just not that simple to design and implement for most DIY speaker designers. Luckily we have people like @augerpro who have done alot of the research for us and taken alot of the guesswork out of successfully implementing WGs on dome tweeters. He has done a huge amount of work on WG designs for alot of popular tweeters currently on the market. He deserves alot of credit for his work.
You can still design a successful speaker without a tweeter WG, but the likelihood of getting high end performance out of it is much greater with a suitable WG. I've heard both great and average sounding 2 way speakers with and without WGs. Usually the presence of a WG reveals a higher level of refinement, engineering and SQ. Many commercial designs don't have WGed drivers and still sound very good. It depends on a few factors whether WGs help or even hurt performance, but most of the time you'll see improvements if the tweeter can benefit from it.
The problem I have with using a WG speaking from an average equipped hobbyist POV, is the designer usually doesn't have the necessary measurment gear and/or knowledge to pull off a predictably successful WG design.
WGs will necessitate a fairly complex passive filter to linearize, both on and off axis, which also has to take relative phase into consideration between the relating drivers integrated together. You'll almost certainly need above average levels of simulation and measurement capabilities to get close using passive filters with a WGed driver and hope the HF driver has sufficient sensitivity in reserve to linearize it in relation to the midrange as well as accounting for the WG's own effect on tweeter FR from multiple angles.
Its therefore much more practical to use DSP on most WGed designs and is in reality the preferred tool to tweak the design to the point it sounds the best it can with the chosen drivers in the actual listening environment. DSP is especially going to be needed if one prefers using the trial and error approach to make it sound as best it can. The only alternative to using DSP is the purchase of a large, expensive pile of passive filter components, hoping the planets will align. It also provides far more flexibility in the long run when eventual changes need (or want) to be made to the neighboring driver or baffle design, among other things.
From the perspective of wanting to keep the speaker's signal path purely in the analog domain, the only other option left is to use active crossover filters. Those are almost certainly going to be out of the reach of most DIY speaker builders based on the complexity required to design an above average performing circuit.
Any extra noise from the amplifier stage forwards will be noticeable on high sensitivity drivers, sometimes even unbearable. This can also be an issue with some cheaper DSP processor designs.
Passive filters don't suffer from self noise, which is a huge benefit, as well as avoiding additional circuitry in the line level signal path. Pre-ringing and latency can also be an issue with DSP. The quality and topology of digital processing is also going to influence the SQ by a large margine, as the midrange price point of most turn key DSP solutions is sparsly populated.
I prefer passive filters mainly because I don't want an additional AD / DA step in my signal chain when playing back purely analog sources. That may sound excessively snobbish, but one of the rare treats I enjoy is listening to purely analog sources. I'm willing to accept the additional cost, complexity and.drawbacks compared to a DSP based system.
Getting back to DSP and its necessary for integrating specific speaker designs using WGs and other FR correcting methods, I summarize with this last point. The use of WGs, horns, arrays, subwoofers and other speaker design topologies straying from the usual 2 or 3 drivers in a box design, DSP is unavoidable if you want the best overall sound possible. Its use outweighs the drawbacks, especially compared to most passive crossover designs. WG use almost certainly is going to need the level of correction only DSP can practically provide. It allows hobbyists speaker designs to compete with the most advanced passive multi way designs. I've learned to embrace the use of DSP, but up until that point I didn't use WGs on dome tweeters due to the necessity of DSP. A well designed WG on a suitable dome tweeter can take a speaker's performance potential to a whole different level. Its just not that simple to design and implement for most DIY speaker designers. Luckily we have people like @augerpro who have done alot of the research for us and taken alot of the guesswork out of successfully implementing WGs on dome tweeters. He has done a huge amount of work on WG designs for alot of popular tweeters currently on the market. He deserves alot of credit for his work.
You can still design a successful speaker without a tweeter WG, but the likelihood of getting high end performance out of it is much greater with a suitable WG. I've heard both great and average sounding 2 way speakers with and without WGs. Usually the presence of a WG reveals a higher level of refinement, engineering and SQ. Many commercial designs don't have WGed drivers and still sound very good. It depends on a few factors whether WGs help or even hurt performance, but most of the time you'll see improvements if the tweeter can benefit from it.
Oops, I have another totally different experience from yours.🙂😕
I find xovers to be the easiest part of DIY loudspeakers....I mean that in dead earnest.
I've no concerns putting any number of them anywhere in the spectrum.
Modern tools for modern times.....acoustically complementary linear-phase xovers. 😉
Hello
Are you limiting this to tweeters or lumping compression drivers in here as well? If you can make a repeatable measurement you can design a crossover for a driver using a waveguide. The compensation circuits are not as difficult as you seem to be portraying them IMHO. On the surface it may look difficult but all you need to do is drop a schematic in a good simulator and just start deleting legs and changing values.
There are also basic circuits that you can build from and once you learn what each section is doing you can figure it out.
You are still limited by your own measurements. Passive or DSP. DSP may be easier and quicker but I wouldn't completely give up on passive compensation circuit. YMMV
That is an opinion not a fact there are plenty of passive waveguide designed speakers out there, There are also bi-amp capable designs that use the passive compensation circuit when bi-amped.
Rob 🙂
Why there are SO MANY different tloudspeakers for different needs, sensitivities/perception, and tastes.
dave
Well, for me DIY is a chance to intergrate years of reading magazines, books, Diyaudio and other forums that has formed my ideas of what is important and then build something that works in my living-room. A very specific product optimized for my point in space. I don´t have to make major compromises to suit all the world!
I actually got into DIY years ago because I got tired of all the voodoo, money asked and exactly this:
....... and because I love to craft/build things.
Also I do not have to take into account WAF! I reserved the right to build giant speakers and have them in the living-room when my wife moved in! I am very well married!
The speakers that I am working at can not be bought in a store! Very big MEH´s to be placed in the corners of my living-room. Unfortunately I have gotten sidetracked by other things in life at the moment that keeps me from working on the MEH´s.
Back in the 80´s and 90´s I was in the "no tone-controls camp" too (believing I could get the "pure" sound that way!!!), but with the availability of modern DSP to optimize the response in room, I increasingly do not understand why it is not more common in use!
Just my two cents
Regards
Steffen
I actually got into DIY years ago because I got tired of all the voodoo, money asked and exactly this:
....... and because I love to craft/build things.
Also I do not have to take into account WAF! I reserved the right to build giant speakers and have them in the living-room when my wife moved in! I am very well married!
The speakers that I am working at can not be bought in a store! Very big MEH´s to be placed in the corners of my living-room. Unfortunately I have gotten sidetracked by other things in life at the moment that keeps me from working on the MEH´s.
Back in the 80´s and 90´s I was in the "no tone-controls camp" too (believing I could get the "pure" sound that way!!!), but with the availability of modern DSP to optimize the response in room, I increasingly do not understand why it is not more common in use!
Just my two cents
Regards
Steffen
Last edited:
This (in response to the above )
Outdoor, it works with a 18V drill battery!
Though I passed the whole afternoon listening to Bluetooth 2.1 with newly conception BIG sub in my room eh eh someone must take the task!
Outdoor, it works with a 18V drill battery!
Real-Life Example: High-End Speakers with Off-the-Shelf Drivers
Comparison Model:
Kroma Atelier Mathilde
MSRP $67,500 USD per pair...
Lets break it down from a DIY perspective.
1. Driver Configuration:
- MTM Configuration with Purifi PTT6.5M04-NAA-07 ($500) X 2 + Purifi tweeter ($500)
- PTT8.0X04-NAB-02 ($750)
- PTT10.0X04-NAB-02 ($1,000)
Total for Pair: $7,000 USD
2. Cabinet Cost:
- Cabinet with High-End Finish (e.g., Aston Martin Vanquish James Bond edition paint): $2,750 per speaker
Total for Pair: $5,500 USD
3. Passive Crossover:
- Lets get silly, High-End Boutique Materials
Total for Pair: $5,000 USD
Total Estimated Retail Cost:
- Drivers: $7,000 USD
- Cabinets: $4,500 USD
- Crossovers: $5,000 USD
Grand Total for Pair: $17,500 USD
Where did the missing $50,000 go?
Quick Analysis:
- Tooling and R&D Costs: Companies must recoup the initial investment in design, engineering, and tooling. This includes extensive research and development, prototyping, and testing. But they are being OEM version directly from Purifi...
- Brand Value and Savoir-Faire: High-end brands often charge a premium for their reputation, craftsmanship, and perceived value. This includes the expertise and experience of the designers and engineers.
- Quality Control and Manufacturing: Ensuring consistent high quality requires rigorous quality control processes, which add to the cost. Its more assembly QC, the real QC was done at the supplier level.
- Marketing and Distribution: High-end audio brands invest heavily in marketing, advertising, and distribution channels to reach their target audience.
- Dealer Margins: Retail prices often include markups from dealers and distributors, which can significantly increase the final price.
- Customer Service and Warranty: Premium products usually come with extensive customer service and warranty support, which adds to the overall cost.
MY Conclusion:
As a DIY enthusiast, I have access to the same high-quality parts and can purchase them even after the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer have added their markups. After accounting for shipping and other expenses, I can still build speakers that are just as good, if not better, for a fraction of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP). This demonstrates the significant value and savings that DIY projects can offer compared to high-end retail products. In all seriousness, I’d rather invest in some measuring tools, buy a new CNC, HVLP painting equipment, and have lots of fun than simply swiping a card and waiting months to get them anyway…IMHO.
If you have good to very good woodworking skills you can match (or come close) most of the high end commercial cabinets. For sure, there are some exceptions.
If you have good to very good crossover design skills then you can match (or come close) or exceed the high end commercial speakers. They use the same acoustic slopes, directivity, etc. that we so. They use resistors, capacitors and inductors just like we do. What surprises me most about Munich high end and Axpona isn't the reports of the amazing crossover work but the reports of quite poor crossover execution.
If you have good to very good crossover design skills then you can match (or come close) or exceed the high end commercial speakers. They use the same acoustic slopes, directivity, etc. that we so. They use resistors, capacitors and inductors just like we do. What surprises me most about Munich high end and Axpona isn't the reports of the amazing crossover work but the reports of quite poor crossover execution.
With all respect their marketing is not focusing on Stereophile.
They are talking to the industry through Voice Coil Journal with driver profiles by Vance Dickason.
https://audioxpress.com/article/tes...udio-6-5-midbass-transducer-from-purifi-audio
Diy hobby people are not loudspeaker transducer engineers, they never were and never will be. Nor are hifi buffs.
The notion of thinking you are is because it’s talked about on the www and forums where false beliefs are borne. Diy as far as loudspeakers go is a kit, an article or a plan that someone at home can follow without difficulty or deep technical understanding.
Back in the 1980-1990 magazines would prepare diy projects for subscribers to build over several months. The diy HiFi World, ETI and other publications did this.
But walking into something like this with the notion that it’s easy because you read a thread on a forum is wrong. It’s like building a diesel engine from scratch. If you don’t know how a driver works you can’t possibly build a loudspeaker from scratch that will deliver any degree of satisfaction.
Throwing dsp crossovers at it isn’t the answer. The only people l am aware of that have used a mini dsp or DEQX have been tinkering with it endlessly for years. I have seen expensive drivers for sale on eBay because they gave it up.
Pretending to know that you know isn’t helping the hobby at all.
This place needs a few validated loudspeakers kits with plans, driver details, schematics, measurements and a carefully written walk through on how to implement it.
Problem solved.
Last edited:
Not sure if you meant to add some qualifications like "most DIY" or the "majority of DIY" but you're statement as-is is simply wrong. I know maybe 2 to 3 people who build kits. Everyone else selects drivers, designs and builds the cabinets, designs the xo, etc.
Point of information: those Kroma speakers have cabinets made of a material similar to Corian.
I’m not defending the RRP but it is relevant to mention that they sound fantastic. No affiliation.
I’m not defending the RRP but it is relevant to mention that they sound fantastic. No affiliation.
Hello Ian
It's certainly not a bad place for a beginner to start. There are numerous kits available, have any been reviewed on their merits? Sooner or later the more adventurous are going to want to start out with their own design. If the kits give them a helpful foundation and the builder enjoys the result so much the better.
Some will just jump in with both feet. There is no substitute for hands on. A kit can get you started but you would need to provide a lot more info than an IKEA instruction sheet or the builder is just putting together a kit with no real learning.
So a walk through for assembly? An in depth explanation of the design why we used these slopes at these crossover points? Both?
Food for thought,
Rob 🙂
I was definitely in the camp that jumped head first into waters far deeper than I am.
Still doing it.
I also admit that a lot of what I do never gets posted about, but mainly because of my limited woodworking and cabinet making skills.
There is no substitute for actually getting down and simply doing it.
That said a simple 2-Way kit can be a great way to get people interested; maybe and especially secondary students if it is incorporated into maths classes. I never paid attention in school because most subjects were either dead boring or totally irrelevant to my preferred career in cooking. Part of me still thinks I wasted 8 to 10 years of my life in primary and secondary school because very few of the lessons stuck
Still doing it.
I also admit that a lot of what I do never gets posted about, but mainly because of my limited woodworking and cabinet making skills.
There is no substitute for actually getting down and simply doing it.
That said a simple 2-Way kit can be a great way to get people interested; maybe and especially secondary students if it is incorporated into maths classes. I never paid attention in school because most subjects were either dead boring or totally irrelevant to my preferred career in cooking. Part of me still thinks I wasted 8 to 10 years of my life in primary and secondary school because very few of the lessons stuck
I couldn't agree more.
And if I may add to that solution active XO systems with 2 or 3-way speakers, driven by multi-channel amps.
I think an active system is much easier to obtain through DIY than for a commercial enterprise to bring to maket at a reasonable price.
And, in my experience, an active XO system can provide an incredible sound quality improvement compared to its passive counterpart.
Not sure about DIY active XOs being cheaper.
I can buy a Behringer 2-Way cheaper than some kits on the market once the cost of the power supply, heat sinks, ancillaries and the case are factored in, but maybe in some cases a fixed frequency tailored to a specific case could be cheaper
Active is certainly better for bass tho and amplifiers can be as cheap or cheaper than some large components
I can buy a Behringer 2-Way cheaper than some kits on the market once the cost of the power supply, heat sinks, ancillaries and the case are factored in, but maybe in some cases a fixed frequency tailored to a specific case could be cheaper
Active is certainly better for bass tho and amplifiers can be as cheap or cheaper than some large components
But at bass frequencies we don't feel the difference much so best bang for the dollar. There is a reason they sell so well and it's not just about the cost. Just don't use them above 300Hz perhaps.
Maybe DIY site should do a fixed XO kit bulk buy?
MiniDSP dint work for me and my Dayton unit still in its box,
Hypex above my pay scale
Some compromise needed according to our budgets
Maybe DIY site should do a fixed XO kit bulk buy?
MiniDSP dint work for me and my Dayton unit still in its box,
Hypex above my pay scale
Some compromise needed according to our budgets