This looks like a nice solution. My guess is that this is the final configuration out the ones you tried?
One thing i can´t accept when im listening on high quality 2 channel sound reproduction, is separate subwoofers in the setup.
And thats why i end up with woofers playing up to 340 hz, becauce they integrates perfect with the midranges.
Think i never heard perfect integrated separate subwoofers in a 2 channel system, even if they had 6-8 subwoofers placed around the listening room.
So for me subwoofers is a watching movies thing.
And thats why i end up with woofers playing up to 340 hz, becauce they integrates perfect with the midranges.
Think i never heard perfect integrated separate subwoofers in a 2 channel system, even if they had 6-8 subwoofers placed around the listening room.
So for me subwoofers is a watching movies thing.
That was my first real diy speaker and it really sounded excellent, but diddent life-like reproduce a large orchestra more then 5-10 minutes before i blow the midranges, and missed some deep fundamental bass.
My favorite midrange Audax hm130z0 and a Audax TW025A28 in a waveguide from Pellegrino in USA.
The crossing was att 250 and 2800 hz.
But the speakers midrange ,had to play at maximum all the time, so sadly i blow them all the time.
And after about 6 blown midranges even if i raised crossing to 300-320 hz, i had to do something.
Tested "big brother" 8 inch Audax hm210z10 with the Audax TW025A28 in a waveguide for a while.
Audax hm130z0 have a 25 mm coil and Audax hm210z10 have 40 mm, so quite big heat-issues differenses.
Also at 99 dB against 92 dB, so more output.
Liked the Audax hm130z0 "a little more", but had to do something because my high listeninglevels.
Audax hm210z10 starts beaming at ca 2-2100 hz and thats to low for Audax TW025A28 with my listeninglevels, so also needed to come up with another tweeter.
Ended up with Mundorf AMT29CM1.1 (after selling my kidney)
And also them could cross the Audax hm210z10 at 1850 hz (12 dB) to the Mundorf.
MTM to give me headroom!
Working on makeing them "more" attractive, but hard with so big speakers.
So last photo with 3 woofers per side is todays setup.
Attachments
I've had quite a bit of experience with the cheaper brother of the Audax Gold dome, made by Audax (then owned by Harman Group) and used in the European JBL Xti-series:
Last edited:
A very priceworty tweeter!
The "Sad story" on my 215 kilo each diy speakers is, i can´t build a better speaker regardless of cost.
Happy New Year to everyone!!!
2025 is ushered in with reflection and silence 😎
(Not quite).
2025 is ushered in with reflection and silence 😎
(Not quite).
This one looks more similar to the gold dome, but is basically the same as the other version:
I bought one for testing. Actually 3. Linear as advertised. Quality very good for the money.
I find they have a harsh edge to them. No sure why, but they are without a doubt a pass for me.
Maybe would sound OK if I run them in like Phil Collins did with his cymbals.
Also have "played" a little with the Peerless_fsl_0512r01_08 using 2 in parallel without a box.
Using only 12 dB LP
Think its real good in the voice-band and "midrange", and i diden´t find them harsh.
At what frequencies did you think it was harsh?
3-4 K ?
I dont remember at what frequencies.
I was myself surprised that I found them somewhat harsh. Not saying they are bad. It showed at higher SPL. Maybe harsh it to harsh and it was more like a edgy sound.
I compared them with ScanSpeak 15W/4424G00 EQ'ed to the same curve. I prefer the Scanspeak in that test.
I was myself surprised that I found them somewhat harsh. Not saying they are bad. It showed at higher SPL. Maybe harsh it to harsh and it was more like a edgy sound.
I compared them with ScanSpeak 15W/4424G00 EQ'ed to the same curve. I prefer the Scanspeak in that test.
Last edited:
You get 6 Peerless_fsl_0512r01 for 1 ScanSpeak also 😉
I found this review by Jonmarsh informative:
"The nomenclature for the Peerless FSL-0512R01-08 is a bit misleading in my opinion, as I would not truly rank it as a full range speaker, in the way that some 75-125mm drivers are capable of operating.
But, its design and performance reflects decisions which make it a very capable and attractive midrange, and easy to work with.
The factory response curve is not truly indicative of its capabilities- a QNF measurement (Quasi Near Field) can be more revealing of the innate driver characteristics with environmental issues minimized. Unfortunately I cannot attach images to this review. However, I measure a response which is within a +/- 1 dB window from about 175Hz to 5 kHz, above which one gets into cone breakup modes, which fortunately do not rise above the baseline response.
Note that polar response out to 50 degrees is quite consistent and tracks closely, depending on baffle diffraction, up to about 2200Hz, diverging rapidly above that, the 50 degree angle being down ~5dB at 3kHz and 10 dB at 4kHz.
At standard reference level for testing, HD2 and HD3 performance are good, around -60dB in the 100-400Hz area, but probably due to lack of "copper in the gap" the HD3 slowly rises, to about -52 dB at 1kHz, and not exceeding that range higher up. HD2, OTOH, drops somewhat, to about -70 dB at 1kHz, and stays close to that range with increasing frequency.
In crossover development, a Duelund approach for a project seemed reasonable for this driver, with a center frequency of 800Hz and an aleph factor of 2.75. Parallel impedance stabilization networks were used for the LF resonance in enclosure, and the HF impedance rise. Very good compliance to the target curve was achieved from 150Hz to 4kHz. The complete system using this driver has not yet been assembled and tested, but this will occur soon, starting with the MF-HF module.
Measurement tools are Røde Fuzzmeasure software, an Earthworks M30 microphone with Motu M4 audio interface, and design software is VituixCAD 2.
If there is a better midrange driver for under 100 euro, I would like to hear about it..."
The distortion signature is thus dominated by HD3 from 1 kHz onwards, which can be perceived as increased 'presence' and, worst case, harsher and edgier sound
"The nomenclature for the Peerless FSL-0512R01-08 is a bit misleading in my opinion, as I would not truly rank it as a full range speaker, in the way that some 75-125mm drivers are capable of operating.
But, its design and performance reflects decisions which make it a very capable and attractive midrange, and easy to work with.
The factory response curve is not truly indicative of its capabilities- a QNF measurement (Quasi Near Field) can be more revealing of the innate driver characteristics with environmental issues minimized. Unfortunately I cannot attach images to this review. However, I measure a response which is within a +/- 1 dB window from about 175Hz to 5 kHz, above which one gets into cone breakup modes, which fortunately do not rise above the baseline response.
Note that polar response out to 50 degrees is quite consistent and tracks closely, depending on baffle diffraction, up to about 2200Hz, diverging rapidly above that, the 50 degree angle being down ~5dB at 3kHz and 10 dB at 4kHz.
At standard reference level for testing, HD2 and HD3 performance are good, around -60dB in the 100-400Hz area, but probably due to lack of "copper in the gap" the HD3 slowly rises, to about -52 dB at 1kHz, and not exceeding that range higher up. HD2, OTOH, drops somewhat, to about -70 dB at 1kHz, and stays close to that range with increasing frequency.
In crossover development, a Duelund approach for a project seemed reasonable for this driver, with a center frequency of 800Hz and an aleph factor of 2.75. Parallel impedance stabilization networks were used for the LF resonance in enclosure, and the HF impedance rise. Very good compliance to the target curve was achieved from 150Hz to 4kHz. The complete system using this driver has not yet been assembled and tested, but this will occur soon, starting with the MF-HF module.
Measurement tools are Røde Fuzzmeasure software, an Earthworks M30 microphone with Motu M4 audio interface, and design software is VituixCAD 2.
If there is a better midrange driver for under 100 euro, I would like to hear about it..."
The distortion signature is thus dominated by HD3 from 1 kHz onwards, which can be perceived as increased 'presence' and, worst case, harsher and edgier sound
Last edited:
Based on my experiences with the Kii Three and SEVEN in which this cheap driver accounts for approximately 60-80% of the spectrum, a hint of harshness was noticeable during a demo of the (nonsensical) Kii Three BXT System at higher output levels.
"What the BXT does, is add real 'quality bass'. The addition of 8 extra woofers, each with a 250 Watt amp and with built-in DACs and DSP."
Those 8 additional woofers are pure overkill and simply pointless imo, since the midrange is still reproduced by a single Peerless FSL-0512R01-08.
The balance is completely lost here.
"A system has a chain-link logic when it's performance is limited by it's weakest subunit, or 'link'. When there is a weak link it is not made stronger by strengthening the other links"
"What the BXT does, is add real 'quality bass'. The addition of 8 extra woofers, each with a 250 Watt amp and with built-in DACs and DSP."
Those 8 additional woofers are pure overkill and simply pointless imo, since the midrange is still reproduced by a single Peerless FSL-0512R01-08.
The balance is completely lost here.
"A system has a chain-link logic when it's performance is limited by it's weakest subunit, or 'link'. When there is a weak link it is not made stronger by strengthening the other links"
Last edited:
The Kii speakers are not high power systems, they are nearfield monitors in the first place, used for mixing and mastering (and very popular for the latter). The hifi part is more an afterthought. The 8 woofers of the BXT are needed to make the cardioid response, where a big part of the signal (the ones that are not cardioid) are cancelled out by other woofers. So you need a lot of power and woofers to get bass volume. Therefor the BXT is not pointless i think. The secret sauce is the advanced dsp programming that makes the speaker neutral and carioid, not expensive esotheric parts (all are off the shelf OEM drivers, Peerless and Seas made).
But if you need high volume, other speakers do it better, that is certainly true. The drivers are just to small for that and it's not made for that. Most that i know who use this speaker use it in a mixing or mastering studio as nearfield monitor (even with BXT extentions) like here (Jerboa Mastering in Gent, Belgium)
But if you need high volume, other speakers do it better, that is certainly true. The drivers are just to small for that and it's not made for that. Most that i know who use this speaker use it in a mixing or mastering studio as nearfield monitor (even with BXT extentions) like here (Jerboa Mastering in Gent, Belgium)
Nice to hear some impressions of the Kii speakers. Maybe also the odd order harmonics of the Seas tweeter play a role in slight forward sound?
I experimented quite a bit with the Peerless FSL-0512R01-08
Even doing/learning some of the mods posted by @Freedom666
Painters tape (Tesa of course) and felt dots at dust cap is maybe all needed to improve that driver. Mounting flat give best dispersion. Ie NOT small WG in front ala kef.
Maybe cut off dust cap and install massive oak phase plug?
I guess also the lack of free ventilation around the driver is not good for best possible performance.
Again really wanted to like this driver. Also think it has its use cases.
I experimented quite a bit with the Peerless FSL-0512R01-08
Even doing/learning some of the mods posted by @Freedom666
Painters tape (Tesa of course) and felt dots at dust cap is maybe all needed to improve that driver. Mounting flat give best dispersion. Ie NOT small WG in front ala kef.
Maybe cut off dust cap and install massive oak phase plug?
I guess also the lack of free ventilation around the driver is not good for best possible performance.
Again really wanted to like this driver. Also think it has its use cases.
This is of course evident from Kii's marketing and Bruno's comments online and in magazines.
The marketing label 'active wave focusing' is attached to the BXT modules
Regarding the 'cardioid part' of the monitors, more or less the same applies to the D&D 8C (Studio).
..."not expensive esotheric parts"...
That's true, because the wholesale price of the mid (~still the main driver of the complete BXT system) is €10.
In that respect, the retail price of that complete BXT system is 'substantial'.
Last edited:
Anyone have any feeling towards or against using a room corner for boost and FR of a sub? The FR of a source placed in a corner has the least nulls, and the boost is high. EQ can fix the FR and you end up with a lot of efficiency and a smooth FR. The more the course is in the corner the stronger the effect. Anyone intentionally fire a subwoofer or the Terminus of a vented sub into a corner for this reason? Anyone not like the results or find the results highly desirable etc??