Please allow me to make this part transparent. In my OP, I was after high efficiency all along. Look at the three PBN speakers I originally chose. All at least 93db efficiency ... supposedly. And IF I were going conventional drivers, I wanted very good ones. That plan was shattered. So I changed horses completely.
I was just about to spend $3500 plus on the M2 clone or Calampos, when someone suggested I look hard at the measurements of the Asathor. Saying it was just as good on paper. I will still use all of my $4000 budget. But on two pairs of speakers instead. It was never about the money. Just trying to get something I would normally not be able to.
dave123's speakers are these ... He is working with me through PMs on the design.He has used horns, and the G1 ribbon with these same speakers, and has xover plans for them. I'm waiting to hear back from him about what he thought of all three examples.
Last edited:
In reading about these, I see the designer has been approached numerous times about a name change. Apparently he likes the Asathor name.
The two tweeters side by side seem a bit awkward to me. What's the purpose for this?
Yes - if that was very good we would see it more often and on high performing brands. I smell diffraction and interference patterns. My guess is SPL...
//
//
It's perhaps moot.
As previously mentioned he is going with (or is that "leaning towards"?) a SINGLE Aurum Cantus G1 (..rather than the two AMT's shown).
I personally think the midbass driver choice isn't a great midrange driver, and will likely require a more steep low-pass filter to integrate properly with the G1. My guess is that this was done to push the output lower in freq. (because side-firing woofers with extended delay don't sound as good the higher in freq. that you go - usually best "blended" below 200 Hz). IF this is correct then you tend to "run-into" more floor-bounce "suck-out" as a result (and then it's a "battle" of moving the crossover point between the woofer and midbass until you get the response you are looking for at the listening position).
As previously mentioned he is going with (or is that "leaning towards"?) a SINGLE Aurum Cantus G1 (..rather than the two AMT's shown).
I personally think the midbass driver choice isn't a great midrange driver, and will likely require a more steep low-pass filter to integrate properly with the G1. My guess is that this was done to push the output lower in freq. (because side-firing woofers with extended delay don't sound as good the higher in freq. that you go - usually best "blended" below 200 Hz). IF this is correct then you tend to "run-into" more floor-bounce "suck-out" as a result (and then it's a "battle" of moving the crossover point between the woofer and midbass until you get the response you are looking for at the listening position).
Last edited:
It’s normally a no-go with tweeters next to each other. The output will be focused in a narrover band, and result in a quite small listening window. Reflections to sidewall will be reduced though. This is normally not an issue, and not often seen. Reducing reflections from floor and ceiling is more common, but requires the tweeters to be over/under each other.
With all due respect. No-one else stepped up with a similar design for a large woofer, preferably front firing, with an 8" midrange, and a really open sounding top end transducer like an ATM or good ribbon.
I already have a horn design to build. I'd prefer a non horn in this design.
dave123 was the only one offering anything similar.
I already have a horn design to build. I'd prefer a non horn in this design.
dave123 was the only one offering anything similar.
Dave123 ain't here talkin with us cause we'd make short work of him...swallow that.
I've been on the net for too long...The crowd here is about the best...collective intelligence is about unstoppable...Some of the comments here have turned you off from doing your own thing...if thats true its a shame.
Building a good set of loudspeakers is easy. There is a bunch of rules to follow but the board is here to hold your hand. Someone needs to hold Dave123 hand but you want to build his bad designs....make that make sense. Actually Dave123 proved that designing loudspeakers is easy with his bad design choices that others are willing to copy.
I repeat, you don't need to copy any ones design to make a simple *** tweeter over a 8" over a 15"....its a cake walk...
Committing to a 3 way....is a design, you can offer yourself....copy the pioneers and design a 3 way....get it?
Or commit to a 2 way....or commit to a 4 way....hardly a reason to commit to someone elses design unless there is something special about it, that can't be had any other way...
I said this to you once before....Choose a tweeter style, lets debate your choice, then move on to the midwoofer, repeat, then move on to the woofer... done. Choose ported or sealed....make the box as big and wide as you dare (unless sealed then we can talk compliance)...stop sweating the small stuff. The board will fill in the blanks. For example...if its a floor stander...place tweeter at ear height of listener...Separate woofer box volume from mid...we can fill you in as you go, just start writing down the bullet points....
I've been on the net for too long...The crowd here is about the best...collective intelligence is about unstoppable...Some of the comments here have turned you off from doing your own thing...if thats true its a shame.
Building a good set of loudspeakers is easy. There is a bunch of rules to follow but the board is here to hold your hand. Someone needs to hold Dave123 hand but you want to build his bad designs....make that make sense. Actually Dave123 proved that designing loudspeakers is easy with his bad design choices that others are willing to copy.
I repeat, you don't need to copy any ones design to make a simple *** tweeter over a 8" over a 15"....its a cake walk...
Committing to a 3 way....is a design, you can offer yourself....copy the pioneers and design a 3 way....get it?
Or commit to a 2 way....or commit to a 4 way....hardly a reason to commit to someone elses design unless there is something special about it, that can't be had any other way...
I said this to you once before....Choose a tweeter style, lets debate your choice, then move on to the midwoofer, repeat, then move on to the woofer... done. Choose ported or sealed....make the box as big and wide as you dare (unless sealed then we can talk compliance)...stop sweating the small stuff. The board will fill in the blanks. For example...if its a floor stander...place tweeter at ear height of listener...Separate woofer box volume from mid...we can fill you in as you go, just start writing down the bullet points....
Last edited:
I bet the side by side tweeters would be good for people who have to place their speakers almost against their side walls. Unless it shrinks the soundstage.
Side by side will always shrink soundstage. Have you looked at troelsgravesen.dk he is a trusted builder.
I like it worded as - narrows the polar...consider ribbon tweeters already have a narrow polar towards the top end to begin with. Duplicate tweeters side by side would exacerbate this...just find a more powerful amt, why make bad choices in the name of efficiency when theres no need...
Last edited:
8 inch midrange is often suboptimal, unless it's a lower midrange (as often with a 4-way design).
IMO you probably would be best off creating your own design with the 2 woofers in parallel that I mentioned previously and perhaps something like a *DIPOLAR line array (open baffle) above those woofers to get the efficiency you are looking for with very wide/deep dispersion.
4 of these per loudspeaker mounted vertically total around 32 inches (wired to net 8 ohms):
GRS PT6816-8 8" Planar Slim Tweeter 8 Ohm
and
8 of these per loudspeaker mounted vertically total around 40 inches (wired to net 8 ohms)
Blocked
..not unlike a much larger version of the Nola loudspeakers seen below.
*though this portion depends on if you have sufficient space for the loudspeaker placement in-room.
Attachments
Last edited:
Guys... First we tell him not to design his own speaker if he does not know what he is doing, so he finds some existing designs hr likes. Then we tell him the dave123 thing is no good, and he'd be better off to design his own speaker. Making him run in circles is not exactly helpful.
Flaxxer: what do you need/want/like? A well thought out list of requirements, priorities and 'no-gos' might be helpful to move forward.
Flaxxer: what do you need/want/like? A well thought out list of requirements, priorities and 'no-gos' might be helpful to move forward.
The asathors will do everything he wants just leave it at that. He isn't going to build a dual tweeter design he's going to build a modified version with his single ribbon. Just let him be.
Yes, in theory, dependent on verifying their behaviour.
If you wonder whether a narrow directivity also narrows the soundstage, no, it doesn't work like that.
An old friend of mine once co-designed this, back in the early nineties. A 15" Beyma in the bottom completed the array of mids and tweeters. Though off axis some comb filtering was present and the design of the crossover wasn't fancy, the advantage of the line source (reducing/spreading floor and ceiling bounce) and the rather wide baffle was clearly audible in normal listening rooms.
If flaxxer doesn't want a horn, it is going to be with direct radiating drivers. Ok, how to make direct radiating design constant directivity (since this relates to the sound in room)? It needs to be omni or dipole.
Ok how to make omni or dipole with enough SPL? Multiple ways, big bass driver(s). How to get omni tweeter? use smallest radiator, 1" can go to ~10kHz, use smaller if want, but no bigger, this rules out the amt. If you want amt, it is fine but is compromise for "acoustic" performance if it is big or long and narrow. Designer has to decide what to sacrifice, hearing might have enough damage so the top octaves dont matter.
Very good sound requires taking compromises that dont affect the design too much, eg. dont sacrifice treble to get bass because you want both. Instead think how to move the sacrifices from audio domain to cost, for example. Actual problem is the physical dimensions, bass needs big stuff, treble small. Hint, a horn transforms the treble from small physical dimensions to big 😉
One more, how to maintain the constant directivity? minimize diffraction, which means least flat baffle possible. Only thing that matters is the acoustic domain in a way, which includes physical dimensions of stuff, the transducers and the structure. Type of the tweeter or mid cone material is very much secondary things you can of course choose after the actual design is done 🙂
Ok how to make omni or dipole with enough SPL? Multiple ways, big bass driver(s). How to get omni tweeter? use smallest radiator, 1" can go to ~10kHz, use smaller if want, but no bigger, this rules out the amt. If you want amt, it is fine but is compromise for "acoustic" performance if it is big or long and narrow. Designer has to decide what to sacrifice, hearing might have enough damage so the top octaves dont matter.
Very good sound requires taking compromises that dont affect the design too much, eg. dont sacrifice treble to get bass because you want both. Instead think how to move the sacrifices from audio domain to cost, for example. Actual problem is the physical dimensions, bass needs big stuff, treble small. Hint, a horn transforms the treble from small physical dimensions to big 😉
One more, how to maintain the constant directivity? minimize diffraction, which means least flat baffle possible. Only thing that matters is the acoustic domain in a way, which includes physical dimensions of stuff, the transducers and the structure. Type of the tweeter or mid cone material is very much secondary things you can of course choose after the actual design is done 🙂
Last edited: