I'm using an Oppo BDP-105. It's very good, but the DEQX is a pretty big step up. One limit of the DEQX is that you really need to use their internal DAC since it is doing an A/D conversion on all inputs and then outputting the D/A conversion to each of the crossover outputs. My only concern with this is lack of MQA support, but if MQA finally takes off (I'm increasingly skeptical), I'm sure there'll be a work-around.
Prior to my discovery of the DEQX, I was looking closely at DAC options. I like what I've heard about Mytek and PS Audio. Both have some very interesting, innovative technologies and rave reviews. I was considering a JL CR1 crossover and a Mytek or PS DAC for my next round of upgrades. Then I discovered the DEQX, which for comparable money to the CR1 and a new DAC adds the speaker and room correction and is a vastly more flexible crossover. It will also likely replace my McIntosh preamp which will offset much of the price. Needless to say, I am pretty intrigued about this device. I am just waiting on getting some finances in order and then I'll move forward.
Prior to my discovery of the DEQX, I was looking closely at DAC options. I like what I've heard about Mytek and PS Audio. Both have some very interesting, innovative technologies and rave reviews. I was considering a JL CR1 crossover and a Mytek or PS DAC for my next round of upgrades. Then I discovered the DEQX, which for comparable money to the CR1 and a new DAC adds the speaker and room correction and is a vastly more flexible crossover. It will also likely replace my McIntosh preamp which will offset much of the price. Needless to say, I am pretty intrigued about this device. I am just waiting on getting some finances in order and then I'll move forward.
Any suggestions on binding posts and internal wiring? I want to keep things on the premium side, however WBT posts are really expensive. Propeller Posts look interesting as well. For internal wiring, I'm thinking about getting bulk Kimber 4TC and using it for both my internal and external wiring throughout. A bit pricey, but highly regarded.
I read one DIY post that he runs wire from the drivers to outside the speaker directly into the hole in the binding post so it makes direct contact with the speaker wire or spade. I found this to be a pretty interesting way to go, it effectively nullifies the impact of the binding post quality -the binding post is really just a clamp. Interesting idea, just need to keep a tight seal on the wires running through the sealed box.
Also, would you all recommend silver soldering all of the crossover and driver connections?
I read one DIY post that he runs wire from the drivers to outside the speaker directly into the hole in the binding post so it makes direct contact with the speaker wire or spade. I found this to be a pretty interesting way to go, it effectively nullifies the impact of the binding post quality -the binding post is really just a clamp. Interesting idea, just need to keep a tight seal on the wires running through the sealed box.
Also, would you all recommend silver soldering all of the crossover and driver connections?
Last edited:
Before dropping a dime on the DEQX-4, may I be do bold as to suggest some options?
Build the kit, as designed and live with it awhile. You may find that a high resolution speaker overexposes the flaws in your favorite recordings if fed by something with state if the art processing.
If you're mainly after bass mode control, I own and strongly recommend the DSPeaker 2.0 which I run with a parallel feed (Toslink optical) from my source before my DAC.
This unassuming gizmo is a fraction of the cost of the DEQX-4 which currently defines the pinnacle of consumer products for this application.
If your intent is to go to a pure active
design, the Linkeitz Lx521 design is World class and no more complicated to build than the other kits.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/LX521_4.htm
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Build the kit, as designed and live with it awhile. You may find that a high resolution speaker overexposes the flaws in your favorite recordings if fed by something with state if the art processing.
If you're mainly after bass mode control, I own and strongly recommend the DSPeaker 2.0 which I run with a parallel feed (Toslink optical) from my source before my DAC.
This unassuming gizmo is a fraction of the cost of the DEQX-4 which currently defines the pinnacle of consumer products for this application.
If your intent is to go to a pure active
design, the Linkeitz Lx521 design is World class and no more complicated to build than the other kits.
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/LX521/LX521_4.htm
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks again for the feedback anji. My main system is pretty substantial, Raidho D1 monitors and a JL f113 sub with all McIntosh gear. It is a terrific system and I have it really well dialed in. The DEQX is intended to take this system to the next level and I plan on using all of it's myriad features. It also has a comprehensive suite of analysis tools which is perfect for my needs. I've heard the DSPeaker at a show and was quite impressed. However, my needs are broader. Check out the newer HDP5, it is fascinating:
DEQX High Definition Audio
The speaker building project is more a new hobby endeavor. I don't expect to surpass the quality of my Raidho's, but that is the reference off which to work. The potential of the DEQX in my speaker building projects just adds to its appeal.
DEQX High Definition Audio
The speaker building project is more a new hobby endeavor. I don't expect to surpass the quality of my Raidho's, but that is the reference off which to work. The potential of the DEQX in my speaker building projects just adds to its appeal.
Interesting article. Great detail about the woofer, not too much about the tweeter. I am also intrigued by the ScanSpeak ring radiator tweeter. That has been used in some great speakers such as early Magicos, Sonus Fabre and Gamut. However the beryllium tweeter in this kit appears to be the pick of the bunch.
I'm also very intrigued by the Accuton ceramic drivers. I've heard some mixed feedback, but mostly raves about speakers that use them such as Marten and Khama. They are really expensive, so maybe for some future designs....
I'm also very intrigued by the Accuton ceramic drivers. I've heard some mixed feedback, but mostly raves about speakers that use them such as Marten and Khama. They are really expensive, so maybe for some future designs....
Cabinet Internal Shape
Hello DIY Community,
Still playing with my speaker design and I think I have a design that I like. It uses the translam baltic birch design that I am set on, but I did away with the curved outer structure, it is just too complicated to build. So I went with an external rectangle box with nicely beveled edges all around which I think will look good. I will stack the sheets from front to back so that the baffle will be the front face and I will not need to mount the drivers into the ply edges or create a separate baffle. The minimum wall thickness at any point is 1.5 inches and I will include multiple cross braces -it will be an extremely rigid box.
It is the inside shape that I am struggling with. I have a good deal of flexibility in terms of shape for the inside, such as the pentagon interior structure in the attached rendering. I've been searching the web and there are few clear answers on interior shapes of sealed enclosures. I can do the pentagon shown, curved arcs, varying dimensions stepping back each layer, or a combination or these to some extent. How critical is the internal shape? Is the primary goal to just avoid parallel surfaces and is this goal better achieved through straight non-parallel surfaces or with curves? Does the direction, front-to-back or top-to-bottom make any difference?
Thanks in advance for any feedback. I'm almost ready to start building!
Hello DIY Community,
Still playing with my speaker design and I think I have a design that I like. It uses the translam baltic birch design that I am set on, but I did away with the curved outer structure, it is just too complicated to build. So I went with an external rectangle box with nicely beveled edges all around which I think will look good. I will stack the sheets from front to back so that the baffle will be the front face and I will not need to mount the drivers into the ply edges or create a separate baffle. The minimum wall thickness at any point is 1.5 inches and I will include multiple cross braces -it will be an extremely rigid box.
It is the inside shape that I am struggling with. I have a good deal of flexibility in terms of shape for the inside, such as the pentagon interior structure in the attached rendering. I've been searching the web and there are few clear answers on interior shapes of sealed enclosures. I can do the pentagon shown, curved arcs, varying dimensions stepping back each layer, or a combination or these to some extent. How critical is the internal shape? Is the primary goal to just avoid parallel surfaces and is this goal better achieved through straight non-parallel surfaces or with curves? Does the direction, front-to-back or top-to-bottom make any difference?
Thanks in advance for any feedback. I'm almost ready to start building!
Attachments
If you have never listened to open dipole speakers then you are missing a great experience. Once heard you will never go back to sealed or ported box speakers.
Many years ago I built an active system based on Seigfried Linkwitz's Phoenix.
Linkwitz Lab - Loudspeaker Design
Currently I have Martin Logan Aeon hybrid electrostatic dipole speakers which are more compact and bear no comparison to box speakers. In fact I have a pair of Monitor Audio bookshelf speakers for the home cinema setup and out of curiosity I swapped the Aeons for them. What a horrible sound - truly boxy, strangulated and muffled in comparison.
So please, forget ALL box speakers and investigate dipole speakers. (No matter how much you spend on the drivers, if they are in a box this will colour the sound)
Ian
Thanks for the feedback Ian. I have actually read a great deal about the Linkwitz Orion. It is a fascinating design and has received many raves. I would love to hear them and perhaps build a pair down the road. I have owned Martin Logan CLX Art 'stats, so I am quite familiar with dipoles -including their challenges. The CLX's were very special but fussy and limited. I think my current Raidho D1's with a carefully integrated JL f113 are superior to the CLXes overall.
This is my first speaker project and I want to start with something more conventional. I'm basing it on a Madisound Scan-Speak Illuminator kit, so the driver selection, crossover, and dimensions are set -I just need to build the box and put it together. I've heard some great monitors that use Scan-Speak drivers and this looks like a good place to start. I just need to finalize the internal dimensions and I think I'll move forward.
This is my first speaker project and I want to start with something more conventional. I'm basing it on a Madisound Scan-Speak Illuminator kit, so the driver selection, crossover, and dimensions are set -I just need to build the box and put it together. I've heard some great monitors that use Scan-Speak drivers and this looks like a good place to start. I just need to finalize the internal dimensions and I think I'll move forward.
batteryman - while they apparently work for you (congrats on that) dipoles and bipoles aren't the perfect solution for everyone - sometimes the realities / vagaries of non-optimal room acoustics get in the way of your dream system.
JR - unless you're sold on the flexibility of shapes and internal contours that the translam approach can deliver, I'd suggest you save yourself the horrendous waste of material and machine time / assembly labour involved. With sufficient bracing, the far more conventional approach of working with (mostly) flat panels can deliver excellent results.
I think one need look no further than Troels' Jenzen-Illuminator for thoroughly documented step by step approach .
edit - exactly which Madisound kit was that?
JR - unless you're sold on the flexibility of shapes and internal contours that the translam approach can deliver, I'd suggest you save yourself the horrendous waste of material and machine time / assembly labour involved. With sufficient bracing, the far more conventional approach of working with (mostly) flat panels can deliver excellent results.
I think one need look no further than Troels' Jenzen-Illuminator for thoroughly documented step by step approach .
edit - exactly which Madisound kit was that?
Last edited:
However, having built his SEAS ER Jenzen, and moving up to the NEXT level (sic), I find his crossover design overly complex and hard to get sounding really good. Three years on and still working on it! And his transmission line stuffing is not right for me, either.
Hi Chris. Yes, I'm pretty set on a baltic birch translam cabinet. I like the like of the exposed plys and I think the cabinet rigidity and internal design flexibility make it well worth it. I'm thinking of using the internal waste material towards the stand structure -still playing with that.
This is the Madisound kit: https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...a-2-way-klang-ton-kit-pair-using-illuminator/
It is top-line Illuminators in a tight, sealed box design, should be a terrific monitor. Depending on how it comes out, I would like to add matching bass cabinets and make it into a full range speaker.
I just need to figure out the best way to do the interior and I'm ready to roll.
Sounds like you've got an interesting project on the drawing board.
Certainly if the budget allows for it, the added flexibility of a stacked lamination, semi elliptical enclosure with at least a couple of layers including bracing struts if deemed necessary, should make for a very solid cabinet. No doubt you've seen some of the very inspiring work by folks like wesayso and other names I can't presently recall.
The only curved enclosures I've built recently were a wide and tall TMM. They were made with a shallow elliptical plywood skeleton, and vacuum bag formed curved rubberply shells veneered in Quarter Cut Sapele - one of my favorites.
The cost of materials to do them in stacked BB ply would have been far beyond the budget, and it would have taken a month of Sundays to sneak in the required CNC time at work. That, and as a matter of personal taste, I don't particularly care for the look of that much exposed ply edge grain.
Certainly if the budget allows for it, the added flexibility of a stacked lamination, semi elliptical enclosure with at least a couple of layers including bracing struts if deemed necessary, should make for a very solid cabinet. No doubt you've seen some of the very inspiring work by folks like wesayso and other names I can't presently recall.
The only curved enclosures I've built recently were a wide and tall TMM. They were made with a shallow elliptical plywood skeleton, and vacuum bag formed curved rubberply shells veneered in Quarter Cut Sapele - one of my favorites.
The cost of materials to do them in stacked BB ply would have been far beyond the budget, and it would have taken a month of Sundays to sneak in the required CNC time at work. That, and as a matter of personal taste, I don't particularly care for the look of that much exposed ply edge grain.
May I ask why you abandoned the vertical stack? It gave you the freedom to have a design that's (theoretically) more diffraction free on the outside.
I can't say I see the merits of the current method of stacking compared to a more conventional approach. I'd even argue that a conventional enclosure would be stiffer.
You're still tempted to beat the Raidho's right?
In my opinion it wouldn't be worth the trouble to stack like in your last design. There's not much you couldn't do/accomplish with a more traditional approach. You'd be better off with a double walled CLD design.
I can't say I see the merits of the current method of stacking compared to a more conventional approach. I'd even argue that a conventional enclosure would be stiffer.
You're still tempted to beat the Raidho's right?
In my opinion it wouldn't be worth the trouble to stack like in your last design. There's not much you couldn't do/accomplish with a more traditional approach. You'd be better off with a double walled CLD design.
So I'm rethinking this (remember, I titled the thread as an inquiry about my sanity!) I've had a few PM conversations with some of our DIY friends and the question of my expectations to make something even remotely comparable to the Raidho's is a strong consideration. There seems to be a consensus that another 2-way monitor will not be very different than the Raidhos and will almost definitely not be better. So to invest the time and funds in the 2-way Scan Speak may not be my best course.
I am an experienced woodworker, so I'm comfortable taking on a complex construction; but I'm not an engineer, so I prefer working off of established designs. In my extensive research, the one established DIY design that has been repeatedly recommended that seems to best fit my goals is the Linkwitz Orion. I have had experience with open speakers like Nolas and I liked them. I also owned Martin Logans. I like the way the Orions look, and the size is good. I also really like the active crossover and multi-amp architecture (I have a few suitible multi-channel amps). Critically, these will indeed be a very different sound than my system and may surpass it in some aspects. The design is very well established, so I just need to follow the plans. The two issues are that they are significantly more costly than my original spec and my room is on the smaller side for them. The depth is fine, but the width is 11' 8" while the Orion spec calls for the room to be at least 12'. Probably close enough...
If any of you have had experience with the Orions, please share them with me. I appreciate the feedback. I'm certainly open to suggestions!
I am an experienced woodworker, so I'm comfortable taking on a complex construction; but I'm not an engineer, so I prefer working off of established designs. In my extensive research, the one established DIY design that has been repeatedly recommended that seems to best fit my goals is the Linkwitz Orion. I have had experience with open speakers like Nolas and I liked them. I also owned Martin Logans. I like the way the Orions look, and the size is good. I also really like the active crossover and multi-amp architecture (I have a few suitible multi-channel amps). Critically, these will indeed be a very different sound than my system and may surpass it in some aspects. The design is very well established, so I just need to follow the plans. The two issues are that they are significantly more costly than my original spec and my room is on the smaller side for them. The depth is fine, but the width is 11' 8" while the Orion spec calls for the room to be at least 12'. Probably close enough...
If any of you have had experience with the Orions, please share them with me. I appreciate the feedback. I'm certainly open to suggestions!
Rather a substantial direction change the Orion would be
And if you're still crazy for contemplating something like this, well so are the denizens of this swamp, so take all the advice given so far and to follow with that in mind.
Exactly!
So you've seen the light after all!
It was about 30years ago when I built Linkwitz's Phoenix and my carpentry skills are minimal so the results did not look good but the sounds more than made up for this. (The Phoenix is a bit less imposing than the Orion, which I don't personally find attractive.)
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had used his pcbs instead of strip board, and of course there is a much wider choice of high quality audio opamps today as well as some excellent chipamps. (I think I used loads of TL072s, whereas today I would use Ti's LME49710)
I'm confident you will never go back to box speakers thereafter.
Ian
Hmm, I kept hearing about the Orion's and missed the LX521. I did not realize they were a newer design and significantly less costly to build. However, they are a bit odd looking and need a ton of space. I read up on them quite a bit and they are nevertheless intriguing. DSP quad amping is kind of cool too...
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.