Got to throw my compliments in here, those are very well thought out and well executed, excellent work and great cosmetic appeal. I'm a big fan of non-conventional design, everybody is building boxes, but a few of us are willing to take a chance and experiment with something different.
I applaud you on your design, they look great, and I'll bet they sound great too!
My unconventional SST8’s
http://www.geocities.com/kingdaddykeith/Kingdaddys_SST8_Prototype.html?1016664567380
I applaud you on your design, they look great, and I'll bet they sound great too!
My unconventional SST8’s
http://www.geocities.com/kingdaddykeith/Kingdaddys_SST8_Prototype.html?1016664567380
Attachments
kink daddy the image you attached is not on the link you provided. would love to see the MT and corner woofer under construction.
Pretty fancy looking enclosures.
I hope you put as much effort in the crossover network. These speakers really needed help.
I recently upgrade a pair of those for one of our customers. They had a lot of problems that required a completely different network and a driver flip flop (tweeter on bottom and woofer on top) to solve a polar tilt problem (downward lobbing).
It worked out nicely.
I will have more info on the upgrade in a few days.
For now you can have a look at the measurements that were taken on a pair of these at the Texas DIY 2002 event to get a little bit of an idea of some of the problems.
http://www.gr-research.com/diyevents/mark.htm
I hope you put as much effort in the crossover network. These speakers really needed help.
I recently upgrade a pair of those for one of our customers. They had a lot of problems that required a completely different network and a driver flip flop (tweeter on bottom and woofer on top) to solve a polar tilt problem (downward lobbing).
It worked out nicely.
I will have more info on the upgrade in a few days.
For now you can have a look at the measurements that were taken on a pair of these at the Texas DIY 2002 event to get a little bit of an idea of some of the problems.
http://www.gr-research.com/diyevents/mark.htm
Danny
I don't know much about charts and measurements. But my ears like the sound of these speakers. Anyone that has listened to these at my place were very pleased with what they heard. They were very impressed with the soundstage and the disappearance of the speaker. But that is why there are so many speaker designs out there; there are a lot of different ears to go with them. I think most people that have built the ARdiys were quite pleased with the sound. I highly recommend that design.
I don't know much about charts and measurements. But my ears like the sound of these speakers. Anyone that has listened to these at my place were very pleased with what they heard. They were very impressed with the soundstage and the disappearance of the speaker. But that is why there are so many speaker designs out there; there are a lot of different ears to go with them. I think most people that have built the ARdiys were quite pleased with the sound. I highly recommend that design.
MCH,
i am being sold on a 2.5 way TL in push - push config with the woofers mounted back to back and the magnets connected by some sort of trusss rod. Dave (planet 10) has been proposing this sort of config for some time now. i am letting all information collect in my brain (hopefully it will remain there) while i work on my present system.
I love the tapered look of your system as well as the sloped 2 way posted by king daddy.
yet I am sold on the 2.5 way PP TL because
the 2 driver topology (as compared to a MTM or MTW) on the front baffle will also allow me to compensate for time differences either by sloping the cabinet (tweeter on top) or by putting the tweeter below the woofer and the woofer ar ear level.
The 2.5 way eliminates the baffle step ckt and bypasses the problems associated with large inducters (used in baffle step ckts).
the push - push compensates for the forces on the woofer and reduces distortions realted to mechanical movements.
Now all I am looking is interesting cabinet ideas (such as those posted by MCH and Kingdaddy) that I can use.
Thanks in advance.
i am being sold on a 2.5 way TL in push - push config with the woofers mounted back to back and the magnets connected by some sort of trusss rod. Dave (planet 10) has been proposing this sort of config for some time now. i am letting all information collect in my brain (hopefully it will remain there) while i work on my present system.
I love the tapered look of your system as well as the sloped 2 way posted by king daddy.
yet I am sold on the 2.5 way PP TL because
the 2 driver topology (as compared to a MTM or MTW) on the front baffle will also allow me to compensate for time differences either by sloping the cabinet (tweeter on top) or by putting the tweeter below the woofer and the woofer ar ear level.
The 2.5 way eliminates the baffle step ckt and bypasses the problems associated with large inducters (used in baffle step ckts).
the push - push compensates for the forces on the woofer and reduces distortions realted to mechanical movements.
Now all I am looking is interesting cabinet ideas (such as those posted by MCH and Kingdaddy) that I can use.
Thanks in advance.
Navin;
Sorry I don't have any construction pictures of these TL 2-ways, I do have many more pictures of the finished product but they are all too large to post.
Glad to see Andy chime in here, I was just thinking how much MCH's beautiful speakers look a lot like some of Andy's work, was there some influence here?
I'm working on a pair of Maelstrom subs (340 L tuned to 20Hz) in a somewhat boring Sono-Tube, but I'll do something to make them a little different, and try to post some pictures soon. Also thinking about buying a couple of Ultra-Drive DCX2496 speaker management systems to take the place of my Marchand Active crossover and help integrate the subs into this room which is quite small (14’X14.5’).
Pic of Rear speakers and home made waterfall.
Sorry I don't have any construction pictures of these TL 2-ways, I do have many more pictures of the finished product but they are all too large to post.
Glad to see Andy chime in here, I was just thinking how much MCH's beautiful speakers look a lot like some of Andy's work, was there some influence here?
I'm working on a pair of Maelstrom subs (340 L tuned to 20Hz) in a somewhat boring Sono-Tube, but I'll do something to make them a little different, and try to post some pictures soon. Also thinking about buying a couple of Ultra-Drive DCX2496 speaker management systems to take the place of my Marchand Active crossover and help integrate the subs into this room which is quite small (14’X14.5’).
Pic of Rear speakers and home made waterfall.
Attachments
A quick lesson in measurements...
Well MCM to make it easy enough for all to understand, look at it this way.
Output is measured in decibels and is abbreviated as db.
A 3db dip anywhere in the response is said to be 1/2 as loud and a 3db increase is said to be twice as loud.
So the nearly 9db dip that the speaker has at 3kHz is down to 1/8th of the level that it should be playing or only 12.5% of the volume level it should be.
You are missing a lot of information.
I recently designed an upgrade for these speakers that correct the problems with them.
You can read about it here: http://www.gr-research.com/edspeaker.htm
And if you thought they sounded good before you will really love how they sound now.
Well MCM to make it easy enough for all to understand, look at it this way.
Output is measured in decibels and is abbreviated as db.
A 3db dip anywhere in the response is said to be 1/2 as loud and a 3db increase is said to be twice as loud.
So the nearly 9db dip that the speaker has at 3kHz is down to 1/8th of the level that it should be playing or only 12.5% of the volume level it should be.
You are missing a lot of information.
I recently designed an upgrade for these speakers that correct the problems with them.
You can read about it here: http://www.gr-research.com/edspeaker.htm
And if you thought they sounded good before you will really love how they sound now.
Sorry if I ruffle any feathers; but here is an interesting excerpt from North Creek site, regarding speakers and on paper measurements.
>> It is important to note that the North Creek Borealis (and all North Creek loudspeakers) are designed by ear. It is a relatively simple matter to design and construct a loudspeaker that measures arbitrarily flat, has a very sharp step response and low distortion. More precisely stated, "Using measurement equipment, it is easy to design a speaker that measures well." It is a much more difficult matter to design a loudspeaker that sounds "good", and harder still to design one that sounds "great", especially on an enormous variety of source material.
That pretty sums up my criteria for a good sounding speaker. What does it sound like to me. I find these speaker drivers (Peerless) and the crossover as originally designed by Ed Frias sound great.
No offense intended to anyone. I just like what I'm hearing with my new speakers.
>> It is important to note that the North Creek Borealis (and all North Creek loudspeakers) are designed by ear. It is a relatively simple matter to design and construct a loudspeaker that measures arbitrarily flat, has a very sharp step response and low distortion. More precisely stated, "Using measurement equipment, it is easy to design a speaker that measures well." It is a much more difficult matter to design a loudspeaker that sounds "good", and harder still to design one that sounds "great", especially on an enormous variety of source material.
That pretty sums up my criteria for a good sounding speaker. What does it sound like to me. I find these speaker drivers (Peerless) and the crossover as originally designed by Ed Frias sound great.
No offense intended to anyone. I just like what I'm hearing with my new speakers.
hey i dont have any measuring equipment. i dont have the famous cook book or even have read it. i built my speaker from what i learn here and on the bass list. and tune by ear.
wow ... i wish i would be as good with cabinetbuilding as the guys who posted these pics here *sniff*
Bah i hate myself for not being a master cabinetmaker 🙂
Great work!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Bah i hate myself for not being a master cabinetmaker 🙂
Great work!!!!!!!!!
Cheers
the ear
Good points MCM.
I agree totally.
I feel the ear is the most important tool that I have. I believe if it measures good but sounds bad it is still bad.
But neither I nor North Creek designs a speaker by simply using our ears.
Nearly all design issues are planned out before anything is ever listened to. Driver choice, physical alignment, tuning, electrical and phase issues, and even network typologies are all configured before listening.
Measurements can be used to confirm and identify problems and allow one to more easily correct problems.
North Creek measures everything and publishes or posts all the measurements of each of their speakers allowing anyone to see that their designs are accurate and free of design flaws or problems.
My company does this as well.
But the speaker we are talking abut here has some problems. Polar tilt issues and big suck outs in the response was not configured into the design of that speaker because it sounds good. It in my opinion is simply a design flaw.
Allowing the output level at 3kHz to be pulled down 9 to 12db is not accurate weather you like it or not.
For instance, if you were to listen to some music that had a trumpet in it. The trumpet falls into that range. The trumpet will only be played at a level that has been reduced by 85% to 90% of the level that it should be.
Now if you have never heard that particular piece of music before then you may not know what you are missing and you may not care, but if you have heard it before and you know how it is supposed to sound then there is no way you can enjoy listening to it on those speakers knowing it is not playing certain parts of the music.
No offense, but for some maybe ignorance is bliss.
If you like it that way and good enough is simply good enough, then don't worry about ever making anything any better.
But, for those who seek improvements there is much that can be made.
One of the first things that I have heard back from someone that has the upgraded version is how much better the imaging is now. He said the image has height now and is not just limited to ear level.
Trust me the upgrade did not make them worse in any way and made them better in a lot of ways. Having accuracy and smoothness that they never had before go a long way for one.
Or don't trust me. Find out for yourself. Contact Speaker City and tell them you would like the new upgraded network designed by Danny Richie at GR Research. The parts cost is not expensive at all and I don't make a penny from it either.
Happy listening either way.
Good points MCM.
I agree totally.
I feel the ear is the most important tool that I have. I believe if it measures good but sounds bad it is still bad.
But neither I nor North Creek designs a speaker by simply using our ears.
Nearly all design issues are planned out before anything is ever listened to. Driver choice, physical alignment, tuning, electrical and phase issues, and even network typologies are all configured before listening.
Measurements can be used to confirm and identify problems and allow one to more easily correct problems.
North Creek measures everything and publishes or posts all the measurements of each of their speakers allowing anyone to see that their designs are accurate and free of design flaws or problems.
My company does this as well.
But the speaker we are talking abut here has some problems. Polar tilt issues and big suck outs in the response was not configured into the design of that speaker because it sounds good. It in my opinion is simply a design flaw.
Allowing the output level at 3kHz to be pulled down 9 to 12db is not accurate weather you like it or not.
For instance, if you were to listen to some music that had a trumpet in it. The trumpet falls into that range. The trumpet will only be played at a level that has been reduced by 85% to 90% of the level that it should be.
Now if you have never heard that particular piece of music before then you may not know what you are missing and you may not care, but if you have heard it before and you know how it is supposed to sound then there is no way you can enjoy listening to it on those speakers knowing it is not playing certain parts of the music.
No offense, but for some maybe ignorance is bliss.
If you like it that way and good enough is simply good enough, then don't worry about ever making anything any better.
But, for those who seek improvements there is much that can be made.
One of the first things that I have heard back from someone that has the upgraded version is how much better the imaging is now. He said the image has height now and is not just limited to ear level.
Trust me the upgrade did not make them worse in any way and made them better in a lot of ways. Having accuracy and smoothness that they never had before go a long way for one.
Or don't trust me. Find out for yourself. Contact Speaker City and tell them you would like the new upgraded network designed by Danny Richie at GR Research. The parts cost is not expensive at all and I don't make a penny from it either.
Happy listening either way.
while not disagreeing with measruments or teh need for them.
1. most DIYers like my self build a few sets of speakers over a lifetime. we dont design speakers everyday or every month. software adn measuring equipment is too expensive for just our minimal use. we normally have to rely on some friend in the industry who has LEAP or MLSSA or Clio etc and borrow the system (usually carrying our speakers to the friend's workshop).
2. one method that is employed by some of us who do not have regualr access to measuring equipment is buy drivers that many others ahve used. build XO's based on other's inputs and fine tune by ear.
3. i have found that if i buy drivers that are the best i can afford and are well behaved and then build the XO introducing one component at a time (startig with a simple 1st order 2way) and listening one can design a decent system. yes having access to measuring systems would make the process faster and more accurate but i just dont have that luxury. alternately one must rely on the design skills of other DIYers.
1. most DIYers like my self build a few sets of speakers over a lifetime. we dont design speakers everyday or every month. software adn measuring equipment is too expensive for just our minimal use. we normally have to rely on some friend in the industry who has LEAP or MLSSA or Clio etc and borrow the system (usually carrying our speakers to the friend's workshop).
2. one method that is employed by some of us who do not have regualr access to measuring equipment is buy drivers that many others ahve used. build XO's based on other's inputs and fine tune by ear.
3. i have found that if i buy drivers that are the best i can afford and are well behaved and then build the XO introducing one component at a time (startig with a simple 1st order 2way) and listening one can design a decent system. yes having access to measuring systems would make the process faster and more accurate but i just dont have that luxury. alternately one must rely on the design skills of other DIYers.
Speakers
Very true.
I have many hobbyist bring their designs here to be measured so they can see how well they have done.
This is a good approach.
Drivers that are well behaved and easy to work with go a long way. This is why we sell so many of our own raw drivers.
Many also rely on the skills of professionals that offer commercially available kits.
So it is important for all involved that the design be free of problems like the speaker mentioned here. It is bad for the customer and the designer.
Very true.
I have many hobbyist bring their designs here to be measured so they can see how well they have done.
This is a good approach.
Drivers that are well behaved and easy to work with go a long way. This is why we sell so many of our own raw drivers.
Many also rely on the skills of professionals that offer commercially available kits.
So it is important for all involved that the design be free of problems like the speaker mentioned here. It is bad for the customer and the designer.
Well to me there are far too many variables. A flat frequency response speaker is not the final answer. There are some that feel the only way to a good sound is by using an equalizer to even out all the variables (no matter how good the cross-over design is). What the speaker produces is the third last thing in the long chain of events between the performance of the sound by the performer to the hearing of it in the brain.
But in the end it basically comes down to individual ears receiving sound in their environment and deciding what they hear is good or bad. What I may consider sounds great is not necessarily great sounding to someone else. Audiophile reviewers and critics are a good example of differences of opinions. What about all those ears out there looking for that perfect sound. The endless tweakings and mods. Discussions and arguments on equipment, sound environment, recording issues, recording formats, physics of sound and the delivery system; on and on.
So in the end it does not really matter whether I have the best speakers as measured on paper, the greatest equipment, the perfect listening environment. What is most important, am I satisfied and enjoying what I'm hearing; given the restraints of my budget and listening environment? The answer is YES! My ears are overjoyed.
Hear what you, want to hear. Not what someone else thinks you should hear.
What's a good speaker build? There are thousands out there that feel they have the one.
But in the end it basically comes down to individual ears receiving sound in their environment and deciding what they hear is good or bad. What I may consider sounds great is not necessarily great sounding to someone else. Audiophile reviewers and critics are a good example of differences of opinions. What about all those ears out there looking for that perfect sound. The endless tweakings and mods. Discussions and arguments on equipment, sound environment, recording issues, recording formats, physics of sound and the delivery system; on and on.
So in the end it does not really matter whether I have the best speakers as measured on paper, the greatest equipment, the perfect listening environment. What is most important, am I satisfied and enjoying what I'm hearing; given the restraints of my budget and listening environment? The answer is YES! My ears are overjoyed.
Hear what you, want to hear. Not what someone else thinks you should hear.
What's a good speaker build? There are thousands out there that feel they have the one.
the rolling stone...
that premise - 'hear what you want to hear' - makes critical discussion pointless. why even frequent a forum dedicated to better sound, when you've already made up your mind.
the point of objective measurements is so we have a common reference point for discussion and, most important, improvement. if you're not interested in improvement (especially without reinventing a lot of wheels), well, again that begs the above question. 😉
/andrew - wants some really good wheels
MCH said:
that premise - 'hear what you want to hear' - makes critical discussion pointless. why even frequent a forum dedicated to better sound, when you've already made up your mind.
the point of objective measurements is so we have a common reference point for discussion and, most important, improvement. if you're not interested in improvement (especially without reinventing a lot of wheels), well, again that begs the above question. 😉
/andrew - wants some really good wheels
faustian.
I think you missed the overall gist of my post. I executed a vision. Am very pleased with the visual and sonic outcome. Are they for everyone, of course not. Danny (GR Research) feels he has improved the design to his liking, that's his choice and ears.
If my build has inspired anyone else, great. In the spirit of diy I've just shown here is another possibility for a speaker look. That's it.
I think you missed the overall gist of my post. I executed a vision. Am very pleased with the visual and sonic outcome. Are they for everyone, of course not. Danny (GR Research) feels he has improved the design to his liking, that's his choice and ears.
If my build has inspired anyone else, great. In the spirit of diy I've just shown here is another possibility for a speaker look. That's it.
Danny (GR Research)
For anyone that is interested in trying your cross-over design for the ARdiys, it would be nice if you posted the schematic with the components used and their values. I understand you have a premium design and a budget design; so both would be beneficial (as some cannot afford the expensive components).
thx
For anyone that is interested in trying your cross-over design for the ARdiys, it would be nice if you posted the schematic with the components used and their values. I understand you have a premium design and a budget design; so both would be beneficial (as some cannot afford the expensive components).
thx
- Status
- Not open for further replies.