You can actually even take it one step further. listening to each driver by itself with it's crossover (obviously)and once again with summed mono music, will let you decipher if it, itself, is doing something wrong. Each should sound somewhat pleasing, or should I say, not grating on the ears.🙂
Last edited:
For me the main goal of these kinds of project is peace of mind. Box resonances adds distortion. Distortion that simply doesnt belong in the reproduction of music. I want to know that what i'm hearing is nothing but what the source signal contains. At least thats my opinion, some people like the added distortion.
I totally agree, I'm not opposed to box noise, it gives a warmth that's ok for back ground listening; but for lying back in the dark listening, a lack of box noise gives superb clarity. When you say " these kind of projects " is there any more on this forum ? I think that our ears ( or brains ) have become accustomed to room acoustics since birth, and can separate them from the music; just like we are accustomed to box noise when listening to music, but it's still a breath of fresh air when it's gone. Also box noise muddies transients and tone.
More often than not, box resonances will appear as sharp peaks of rather significant amplitude compared to the driver output in the 500-1000hz area. That is well above the Schroeder frequency in most rooms, so the room modes is assumed to be evenly spread out. This indicates that it is very likely to be audible.
Augerpro's research on the matter is excellent: A Monster Construction Methods Shootout Thread
Years ago, I got into nearfield critical listening with first acoustic reflection points dealt with and I have never looked back. A two meter equilateral triangle, just far enough away for the sound from all the drivers to blend correctly and arrive at the same time. That takes a huge amount of the room out of the equation.
Last edited:
One thing I brought up earlier that I would like to elaborate on, are the possible positive benefits of completely mechanically isolating the tweeter from the midrange(my case) or midwoofer, which I'm really looking forward to listening to. I do believe that this is an issue that hasn't really been examined(that I know of, anyway). If a midbass has no problem vibrating a big, heavy box wall that is perpendicular to it, just think of the havoc it can wreak on a delicate tweeter membrane located on a parallel surface, just inches away. I hope this has a profound effect on among other things, soundstage depth and microdetail.
Having a tweeter that can go low with no problems will allow even more info to be available in this situation.
Having a tweeter that can go low with no problems will allow even more info to be available in this situation.
Last edited:
This project has taken baffle construction to a new extreme. A six layer CLD for the midrange and on top of that, a tweeter's total mechanical isolation from that CLD damped midrange, so I don't think there are really any direct comparisons that can be made.
Both the tweeter box and mid/bass box are isolated independently from the main enclosure by soft foam gaskets, and held in place by springs. Quite efficient isolation.
Yes, I agree with you, but you must admit that using three layers of rigid aluminum(not wood) with two layers of sorbothane(not soft foam), plus one layer of leather, and one layer of neoprene is a somewhat different approach. along with a lot of other very controlled variables, like an 8th order active crossover with extremely accurate drivers. in order to discern what's really going on, having strict control certain variables is very important
Last edited:
Yes, I'll readily admit that mine in a crude design based mostly on guess work and listening, and has significant weaknesses ( like hindering internal bracing ), but we are trying to achieve the same aim.
The first speaker I ever designed was made from Dupont Corian back in 1994(luckily I had a friend who owned a countertop business who had the tools necessary to work with Corian). It had Vifa mids and Scan-speak tweeters in a D'appolito configuration and was extremely heavy for its size. The front baffle was two inches thick and had vertical and horizontal internal bracing with the top and bottom woofers having their own compartments. It was an attempt at resonance control through mass and bracing and worked very well. My brother bought them from me when I bought my Dunlavy SC-1's which were big on the scene at the time. He still owns them and wont sell them back to me🙁
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-I loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
I used the Dunlavy's with a Velodyne sub
https://www.corian.com/IMG/pdf/performance_properties_of_corian.pdf
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-I loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
I used the Dunlavy's with a Velodyne sub
https://www.corian.com/IMG/pdf/performance_properties_of_corian.pdf
Last edited:
Finally time to do some listening. And tuning. And listening. And measuring. Etc..Etc..
Wow, that was quick. Right off the bat, 2khz on the tweeter is to low. 2.5khz sounds much better for now. The highest I can go is 3khz while maintaining matched dispersion between the mids and highs, so I have lots of room to play with.
Wow, that was quick. Right off the bat, 2khz on the tweeter is to low. 2.5khz sounds much better for now. The highest I can go is 3khz while maintaining matched dispersion between the mids and highs, so I have lots of room to play with.
Attachments
Last edited:
Well recorded violin will expose a tweeter's ability to go low every time, regardless of what the measurements say.
Now Available: Mozart Piano Trios – Daniel Barenboim
Now Available: Mozart Piano Trios – Daniel Barenboim