Hello all,
Im a sound engineer with my own studio. I would like to build my own accurate monitors and I admit I am a complete newbie to this. I have a few criteria and Id like suggestions for components and if my plan is doable for a determined beginner.
Ideally I would like this speaker to have (relatively) low distortion, flat response and perhaps most importantly a good time response with even fast decay times across the spectrum. I would also like it to be a three way coaxial maybe going down to around 25 hz. I would like a digital crossover.
Lastly I would like to carve my own wooden cases for them out of tree trunks - would rounding out the inside of them help reduce distortion. Finally amplification could be built in or run from outside as with passive designs.As well as analogue Id like a digital input so that the digital input arrives as late in the signal chain as possible.
Does this sound feasable or advisable ?
Any suggestions for the crossover, drivers,casing or any aspect of the design much appreciated ! PS - non ported !
Im a sound engineer with my own studio. I would like to build my own accurate monitors and I admit I am a complete newbie to this. I have a few criteria and Id like suggestions for components and if my plan is doable for a determined beginner.
Ideally I would like this speaker to have (relatively) low distortion, flat response and perhaps most importantly a good time response with even fast decay times across the spectrum. I would also like it to be a three way coaxial maybe going down to around 25 hz. I would like a digital crossover.
Lastly I would like to carve my own wooden cases for them out of tree trunks - would rounding out the inside of them help reduce distortion. Finally amplification could be built in or run from outside as with passive designs.As well as analogue Id like a digital input so that the digital input arrives as late in the signal chain as possible.
Does this sound feasable or advisable ?
Any suggestions for the crossover, drivers,casing or any aspect of the design much appreciated ! PS - non ported !
Last edited:
This is a big undertaking for a beginner. I have a prosound based 3-way coaxial setup that I adore but you have to know the details to get the best out of any setup. You'll need measurement capabilities and the knowledge to understand what you're measuring.
In all honesty I would suggest holding off until you gain more knowledge or enlist the help of an experienced diy'er/professional nearby. Maybe just spring for some Tannoy's or Martin's with a sub. Not sure what size and budget you're shooting for.
In all honesty I would suggest holding off until you gain more knowledge or enlist the help of an experienced diy'er/professional nearby. Maybe just spring for some Tannoy's or Martin's with a sub. Not sure what size and budget you're shooting for.
but ! but ! but ! I can measure room responses - I can use programs like REW and take the soundcard out of the equation, I have a very balanced room and I could use use pseudo anechoic measurements and a calibrated measurement mic - I do this all the time for acoustics - basically - not quite anechoic - but basically I can measure harmonic distortion, decay times, frequency response, step etc etc - is there something else I need to be able to measure ? I already have good monitors - building my own is the dream and the only way I can improve I think - what coaxial drivers are you using ?
You should look at the Seas catalogue >IIRC there are 12 cm and 18 cm nom.dia. coaxial speakers. The 12 cm might be good with a 16 cm ( 6") woofer in a classic 3 way with 350/5000 Hz crossover . The big one might even not be needing of a "bass support" and if, a subwoofer of the same size with active crossover- a separate box.
Conclusion: only for strictly little space available problems, but I wouldn't choose a coaxial
BTW what about the Hi-vi "trinity" ? 🙂
Conclusion: only for strictly little space available problems, but I wouldn't choose a coaxial
BTW what about the Hi-vi "trinity" ? 🙂
My suggestion is SEAS KINGROY4 that uses hight-class coaxial and 10" long-throw woofer. The kit doesn't appear on SEAS website now, but American Madisound sells a kit https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...as-kingro4y-king-roy-active-speaker-kit-each/
You can of course use any dsp to and amplifier instead of Hypex 2-way. The woofer works well in small closed box or a BR box.
You can of course use any dsp to and amplifier instead of Hypex 2-way. The woofer works well in small closed box or a BR box.
That design is wayyyy overkill! And it costs a lot -1000 $ each speaker 
For 300 $ I build my 3 way which consists of a Seas L12RCY, an Aurasound NSW2-326-8AT and a Dayton AMT Mini-8 plus a bunch of crossover components ( which in part I already had ) and the cost is for a pair 😉
Going with the "one boxed-all in the box" style is for the common people, not the DIYer...
For 300 $ I build my 3 way which consists of a Seas L12RCY, an Aurasound NSW2-326-8AT and a Dayton AMT Mini-8 plus a bunch of crossover components ( which in part I already had ) and the cost is for a pair 😉
Going with the "one boxed-all in the box" style is for the common people, not the DIYer...
You're not a complete newbie then 😉
What do you use now and what kind of spl do you want to achieve?
I use a Ciare NDCX12-1.4, I would probably use something different for close range. I use my system in a large shop with double 18's per side.
Augustine,
Solid wood enclosures are more resonant than plywood or MDF construction, so are not advisable, especially in a monitor for critical listening.
Resonance is not generally considered a distortion (but will affect frequency response), and speaker harmonic distortion is not affected by the cabinet interior shape.
To advise on driver type requires you to define the SPL desired, the requirements for a near-field monitor could easily be 10 dB less than a far field monitor, and the SPL requirements of a far field monitor could easily vary by 10 dB.
Since you are a sound engineer, you already know a 10 dB variation sounds about twice as loud, and is a power variation of ten times.
Art
High stiffness is usually good not bad for the main structure of a speaker cabinet. Effective damping is usually provided by a dedicated damping material driven by the structure rather than the structure itself. The reason solid wood is not used for speaker cabinets is because a rigid structure will cause the solid wood to crack when it moves. If you allow for the wood to move in the manner of some furniture then the structure becomes less appropriate for a speaker cabinet.
Wow ! Thanks for all the responses - I feel very excited about this project 🙂 This is of course the beginning .....
So to address some of the questions and issues raised -
1. I would like a non ported design and space is not an issue - I dont want a speaker that's trying to break the laws of physics by putting out loads of bass from a small cabinet - Id rather have a bigger speaker/room.
2. I understood because in a coaxial design that as all drivers are putting out sound from one point it means all drivers are in phase with each other and there is better stereo imaging - is this correct ? Perhaps there is now a driver that can successfully put out a flat response from 25hz - 20khz - I know they tried that in the sixties .... probably ludicrously expensive and doesnt work very well. I am open to using experimental drivers if they work though.
3. In terms of spl - for me getting massively loud is not so important as being able to accurately represent the frequency response . I guess you might call what I am trying to build a midfield monitor as I doubt the really small speakers are ever going to give me 25 hz accurately - yet I dont want a PA ! As mentioned an accurate time based response is as important to me as an accurate frequency response - if not more. Despite the assertion that low frequencies are omni directional I would rather not use a woofer but have 2 speakers capable of full range monitoring from around 25 hz.
4. So solid wood might be ok for the cabinets with sufficient damping material but the problem is solid wood may crack and is more resonant ? Would really thick wood (ie tree trunks 8 inches thick on all edges) still have this problem ? How heavy the speaker is doesn't matter to me. Maybe different types of wood are better ?
I kind of want to get away from "monkey coffin" designs - and I love the idea of having my speakers in carved wood. However if its really not recommended then I could use other materials - any in fact. I have access to a 3d router - so I could 3d print almost any shape - I want to get away from the box shape !! However of course the sound is more important than the look - so I will concede to a box shape if its the best option sonically. What other materials could be used to reduce resonance - Im open to experimentation and the findings of recent research.
5. . THe reason I was thinking of a carved round shape (on the inside) to house the speaker is I heard it was better - like the munro eggs. So its frequency response that improves not distortion ... ok tx - still a good idea to have a rounded interior ?
The monitors I have at the moment are PMC tb2s+ and a blue sky system. I have had +/- 5db frequency response from 40 hz to 20,000 hz in my room with the pmcs but have recently lost most fequencies below 60hz on the pmcs for some reason. Then I noticed the vifa drivers in the pmc cost 20 quid and the woofer 30 quid and I thought - these things cost a grand - I can make a better cheaper system myself of die trying 🙂
So to address some of the questions and issues raised -
1. I would like a non ported design and space is not an issue - I dont want a speaker that's trying to break the laws of physics by putting out loads of bass from a small cabinet - Id rather have a bigger speaker/room.
2. I understood because in a coaxial design that as all drivers are putting out sound from one point it means all drivers are in phase with each other and there is better stereo imaging - is this correct ? Perhaps there is now a driver that can successfully put out a flat response from 25hz - 20khz - I know they tried that in the sixties .... probably ludicrously expensive and doesnt work very well. I am open to using experimental drivers if they work though.
3. In terms of spl - for me getting massively loud is not so important as being able to accurately represent the frequency response . I guess you might call what I am trying to build a midfield monitor as I doubt the really small speakers are ever going to give me 25 hz accurately - yet I dont want a PA ! As mentioned an accurate time based response is as important to me as an accurate frequency response - if not more. Despite the assertion that low frequencies are omni directional I would rather not use a woofer but have 2 speakers capable of full range monitoring from around 25 hz.
4. So solid wood might be ok for the cabinets with sufficient damping material but the problem is solid wood may crack and is more resonant ? Would really thick wood (ie tree trunks 8 inches thick on all edges) still have this problem ? How heavy the speaker is doesn't matter to me. Maybe different types of wood are better ?
I kind of want to get away from "monkey coffin" designs - and I love the idea of having my speakers in carved wood. However if its really not recommended then I could use other materials - any in fact. I have access to a 3d router - so I could 3d print almost any shape - I want to get away from the box shape !! However of course the sound is more important than the look - so I will concede to a box shape if its the best option sonically. What other materials could be used to reduce resonance - Im open to experimentation and the findings of recent research.
5. . THe reason I was thinking of a carved round shape (on the inside) to house the speaker is I heard it was better - like the munro eggs. So its frequency response that improves not distortion ... ok tx - still a good idea to have a rounded interior ?
The monitors I have at the moment are PMC tb2s+ and a blue sky system. I have had +/- 5db frequency response from 40 hz to 20,000 hz in my room with the pmcs but have recently lost most fequencies below 60hz on the pmcs for some reason. Then I noticed the vifa drivers in the pmc cost 20 quid and the woofer 30 quid and I thought - these things cost a grand - I can make a better cheaper system myself of die trying 🙂
Last edited:
That design is wayyyy overkill! And it costs a lot -1000 $ each speaker
For 300 $ I build my 3 way which consists of a Seas L12RCY, an Aurasound NSW2-326-8AT and a Dayton AMT Mini-8 plus a bunch of crossover components ( which in part I already had ) and the cost is for a pair 😉
Going with the "one boxed-all in the box" style is for the common people, not the DIYer...
If Im reading it right that would only give me 55 hz at the bottom end though ?
I guess that You have loads of amplifiers available already! How high is your budget?
First choice is the dsp/xo choice, obviously you will use XLR connectors and balanced signal. Lots of choices in pro world (for example LM 26 - Lab.gruppen ) but for amateurs minidsp 4x10HD is the right one!
Seems to me that you have too many open questions still. Please try to focus and stabilize your project more!
Yep thats why Im asking all the questions - I know what I want - 25hz - 20000 hz +/- 3db and excellent time response - still trying to look at the best way to get there. Budget. Like I say - I work proffesionally as a sound engineer - however when it comes to amps I believe there is as much snake oil in the pro world as the hifi world. Lest see what I can do for 1000 pounds - the price of a pair of tb2s.
Those amps both look excellant - certainly mor eproffesional than some of the amps Ive seen in many "proffesional" active monitors. Out of curiosity what are the differences that makes the first one proffesional and the second one amateur in your opinion ?
As a xover/dsp there is also these units although I have no personal experience with them:
Ground Sound
Blue Aran - Professional Sound and Lighting > dBMark > Outboard And Effects
Ground Sound
Blue Aran - Professional Sound and Lighting > dBMark > Outboard And Effects
If size is not an issue and the port or passive radiator will be tuned low at 20Hz or so (i.e. not a small ported 2 way) then the disadvantages of a sealed box is likely to outweigh the advantages.
Coaxial drivers have advantages and disadvantages. Stereo imaging is primarily a function avoiding early reflections which is probably best done by flush mounting and shaping the room to direct what would be early reflections to miss the listener.
If you want high quality sound the last thing you want is a single driver because the large low frequency motion will distort the small high frequency motion. High quality sound is provided by good room acoustics and adequately sized drivers. In practise this means multiple distributed subwoofers, flush mounted 3 ways and a room designed to do the job.
So you want a 2 way with a 12"+ driver to provide 25Hz. It can be done but it will have modest sound quality.
No. Solid wood will crack if it used as the load carrying structure. The comment about damping was because the poster was expecting the solid wood to provide the damping. This is not what is usually done in high performance speakers although can be in more budget designs.
It will crack. The damping is low but the damping in MDF and plywood is also too low to provide effective damping on its own for a high performance speaker cabinet and so it doesn't matter in practise.
Yes.
Yes but they are all worse than wood that is engineered to be stable.
Generally you want different types of enclosures for the different drivers. The type of enclosure being designed to exploit whether the vibration in the structure is mass controlled, stiffness controlled or you have to live with resonances which may want shifting up or down in frequency depending on the approach used to control them. What is good material follows from the design approach.
A round shape generally offers better control of diffraction and the reduction of unwanted early reflections but, depending on the design of the room, it is unlikely to be as good as simply flush mounting.
At one off DIY prices I would expect the parts for a modestly priced active 2 way to be about the same as the price of the fully assembled commercial speaker. If you include the tooling and manufacturing costs it will be more. If you include the time costs it will be vastly more. DIY is not cheap and only makes sense for small speakers if you want to do it.
Where DIY can be more cost effective is for large speakers after the DIYer has mastered the basics or is following the design of someone else that has mastered the basics. Most of us cannot afford £20k speakers but with a bit of knowledge and experience can design and build such speakers for an order of magnitude less money in material costs.
Thanks . Yes I am thinking of building something to last long term - I have a very well treated room - not flush mounted . I appreciate the room is as important as the speaker - but I just want get the best speaker design I can afford for now - I am planning a 3-way at the moment not two way. I am looking to build one of the high end speakers you mention (20k) for DIY prices. I do think it is something I will enjoy doing as well.
On this subject - if the total driver price of a pair passive pmc tb2s is around £100 - and the speakers cost £1350 - where is all the money going ? Surely the cabinet,foam and crossover are not that expensive ?
The main cost is in labour and profit margins for the manufacturer and the retailer rather than parts.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.