I think even Dr Toole would agree that for the purposes of design, you can't judge a fullrange system by it's on-axis response.
For best performance, polar measurements would hold the information needed, especially above the range where the fullrange is acting as a point source.
For best performance, polar measurements would hold the information needed, especially above the range where the fullrange is acting as a point source.
Seems you miss the point. The right speaker depends on the app listener. I could not live with your Piccolos.
dave
I'm not sure I said all of that in that sentence. I'd like a dollar for everyone who has used a 0 degree plot with a regular woofer in a multi-way to equalise and play through the breakup region.
The problem, Dave, is that I don't think I have any set of compromises with the Piccolos. At least none that I am aware of or that are detracting from my enjoyment of these speakers. Quite to the contrary. I fully enjoy them.
So my question to you was what exactly is there about the Piccolos that makes you think you couldn't live with them. I would be interested to hear what that is.
That is like asking why you prefer peach pie over apple pie, because I have had both, and apple pie is better...
Why do you like speaker A better than speaker B, since I like speaker B more than A. We all hear things differently, we all have different preferences...
...or more precisely stated, since no speaker is perfect, every speaker system has been designed with compromises and a balance of performance attributes. For my best listening enjoyment, I prefer attributes A, D, J, and Q to be prioritized higher... for someone else, they would prefer attributes B, C, N, R, and Y to be prioritized...
What is the correct term these days for a single driver system? full range? single driver? one-way? I once heard a single-driver system that sounded really good. I know it was a kit, but I don't recall the details. It sounded really good, way better than my biased view would have expected, and it really excelled at some things. It was one of the most magical presentations of a close-mic'd solo violin I have ever heard. I can see how some people would prefer it over any other type system. However, my ear-brain requires a different set of performance attributes to be fully satisfied.
So let's just accept that people will have different preferences, and respect those differences.
j.
Funny the Piccolo is about the same size as my HeilEve and also rear-ported (I assume that's what you have, for bass). Mine happens to use space-age membranes--fiberglass honeycomb and medium-size AMT--please do not underestimate new materials if you haven't compared them with the more common. When I first auditioned the HC (honeycomb) "raw and naked", Monica Huggett's purist authentic-instrument shortneck Amati's texture came through. (I've heard her twice.) HC together with the AMT has a supersaturated fullness reminiscent of the time I saw Barbra Streisand's movie Yentl at one of NY's last RKOs. This is just technology, certainly not the end-all in audio, but in those aspects--texture and fullness--exceed the old stuff that we still love.
I think the SB drivers of the Piccolo are sold here in China (unsure about suffixes) though much more expensive than local brands. I would consider taking up Bagby's challenge at some point, except for one problem: I'm terribly allergic to bass-reflex resonant sound; the woon coming out of the BR port isn't part of the music.
HeilEve is TL. Is there a Piccolo-TL?
wchang,
Just for the record my Piccolos are sealed, not rear ported as you suspect. I built them with a removable back panel in order to be able to change easily from sealed to ported if I wanted to do so. I made some extra back panels and can still easily make the change, but have never felt the need to do so. Could probably get a little lower bass if I ported them, but what I have is fine and more importantly very clean. Not muddy at all.
So it looks like you are still going to try to design a speaker yourself rather than take the suggestions to simply build a proven design by one of the popular experts. Good luck and hope it works out well for you.
Do let us critique your effort before cutting wood. I can’t help with XO but box sim software only deals with the low frequencies
dave
dave
😎 Inexorably, the thread now includes an all-too-quickly dissolved debate on dave's coaxials vs classicalfan's incomparable, unquestionable Piccolos. I should have put money on that!
Re: box software....to do what? Model bass? For what driver?
Re: box software....to do what? Model bass? For what driver?
Actually the debate is really about one-way vs multi-way speakers in general.
I keep using the Piccolos as an example of how good a 2-way speaker can be, but I'm sure that there are other designs that are comparable. The point to really be taken is that a small one-way, with for instance a single 4" driver, just cannot compete with a well designed 2-way to provide a full range of audio output.
And the drivers that Dave keeps referring to are not coaxials. They are simply single cone, small drivers.
Win ISD, free at www.linearteam.org is one of the easiest to use and is recommended by many for working out box size and ports for mid and bass drivers.
You input the driver parameters and can then see the effect of various alignments on your driver(s). However, it doesn't help you with baffle layout unless I've missed something. There are heaps of others and there's a thread on this Forum which lists a large selection.
As with any software, its accuracy and usefulness depends on input: if you just use driver specs rather than measured data, it may not be accurate; some manufacturers' data is good, some can be a bit rubbery.
If you have a particular driver(s) in mind, why not look at projects which use that driver see to how it's used. For example, if you look at a driver like the Peerless 830657, it can be used in a small sealed cabinet or boxes from 15-30 litres, all of which will provide different levels of bass.
NB I chose the wrong 'reply to' post, has confused this post, my apologies.
Geoff
Which is a valid option that some people will prefer. Just like some people will prefer open baffle dipoles. Some will prefer line arrays. Some prefer a tightly controlled directivity designs such as a big 2-way with a 15" woofer + large format horn. Some like Synergy horns. Some like a very low diffraction/minimal baffle design with a separate cabinet for the sealed box woofer, and an active DSP crossover (that would be me).
Some people listen to vinyl through a tube preamp. I prefer 24 bit 192k high resolution files played through a good DAC. I have heard state of the art vinyl playback using high end tube equipment, and it sounded great. But I like my setup better.
My choice of A does not invalidate another guy's choice of B. By choosing A I am not saying he is wrong, I am not disrespecting him, and I am certainly not looking for an argument.