This is a common situation...design by committee basically never works. There's always an architect that has a vision and takes the ball and goes in his/her own direction--which is what I typically recommend at this point. Attempts at homogenization of design/product goals usually throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I'd strongly recommend picking something that interests you and that is informed by what you've already seen in the polling and the "discussions" that have ensued. Egos always get in the way, and the kitchen only needs one cook.
In terms of recommendations for how to proceed, usually there is some approach that's unique and enticing that the architect sees in a set of design characteristics to pursue (and virtually no one else usually does until the product is finished and working). These usually are near-and-dear to the heart of the architect, and it something that they are going to do anyway at some point in their life. I recommend going in that direction--and don't follow what everyone else has done or what they think that they want (and it's also been my experience these others usually don't want a product the exact way that they say that they do). They want something that they can't have. Find something that they haven't articulated, but they won't be able to live without once you articulate your vision. I'd actually keep that vision to yourself (more or less) until you've refined it a bit, and even then I'd be careful about discussing it--wanting "feedback". You'll always get someone or even a group of people that wants to talk you out of what you really want to do...it's basic human nature, it seems. Do your own thing, and keep it quiet for a while until you begin to see the design falling into place. (You can always ask technical questions about tradeoffs going one way or the other, but I'd keep those to pretty generic discussions and don't tip your hand.)
...and all the above is free of charge, of course...
Chris
howdy neighbor
I would like if any of the senior members lead the project, this is how it supposed to work, and feed back from the members and the polls will help to target more audience,
at first i suggested to some kinda updated (or maybe a bit smaller also) version of basszilla ( the 3 way version not the FAST or WAW one) since it has very good reputation and I like the idea of an open baffle highs and acab for lower freqs, or something like the classic JBL4345 with maybe cheaper and more modern drivers, but I only have one vote here
but however this goes, it is exciting.
Unfortunately each thread can have one poll to my knowledge, so unless it is possible and maybe mods help us we are limited to this poll we are having that s why i tried to include so many options.
I think that there were a few suggestions already about a modular approach, I remember one being a three way with the option of adding sub/subs to convert to four way.
Maybe we should extend that somewhat. If we were to design a three way with separate bass and midrange cabs, provided the midrange cabs were fairly capable on their own, you could give people the option of building a two way first and adding to it later on.
This would also allow one to potentially mix and match from a range of woofer cabs, say a TL, or Vented, or sealed, or horn loaded for instance.
This does mean compromises over a traditional three way, in that the driver used for mid duty would have to be capable of being used for bass duty as well. But it may be a good option for people on a budget, or who don't want to take on too much in one go but still have the flexibility to grow without having to start from scratch again.
Tony.
Maybe we should extend that somewhat. If we were to design a three way with separate bass and midrange cabs, provided the midrange cabs were fairly capable on their own, you could give people the option of building a two way first and adding to it later on.
This would also allow one to potentially mix and match from a range of woofer cabs, say a TL, or Vented, or sealed, or horn loaded for instance.
This does mean compromises over a traditional three way, in that the driver used for mid duty would have to be capable of being used for bass duty as well. But it may be a good option for people on a budget, or who don't want to take on too much in one go but still have the flexibility to grow without having to start from scratch again.
Tony.
Now that the outline of the thread has been relaxed a little, I'm inclined to comment.
I'm not sure there would be such a thing. There are trends on the road to discovery. Some have merits which are worth pursuing but many don't represent a definitive approach in isolation. Sometimes these intermediate level designs are given names to encourage a following and/or promote the learning of techniques.
In my view none of these options represents a reasonable holistic approach to an ultimate speaker design, as much has been predetermined and a multitude of inevitable compromises have been ruled out. The reason for this offering is unclear. It can still result in an excellent speaker but will reduce participation. The choice of two-way etc. is a lesser detail that should be determined systematically during the process of achieving a larger goal.
+1 totaly agree,
I think we need a modular approach and the two way could be an option of the three way
. Concerning the size of the speakers, I'm still thinking of a speaker with 10"+6 or 7"+1" and 65 l (2.2ft3) max for the bass section.
I don't like the idea of mixing 2 and 3-way designs. The charm of a hifi 3-way comes pretty much from the smallish 4-5" midrange and higher xo point. Adding a sub to a full-range 2-way doesn't sound the same, it only adds bass extension and spl capacity.
A stand-mounted 3-way is wasting some potential in bass very often because of the smallish box. I would like to see the classic 3-way as a floorstander with one 12-15" bass or preferably two 10"s with low Fs and capable of clean 30Hz, preferably as sealed. This can be accoplished also in the <500$ category with excellent sound!
A stand-mounted 3-way is wasting some potential in bass very often because of the smallish box. I would like to see the classic 3-way as a floorstander with one 12-15" bass or preferably two 10"s with low Fs and capable of clean 30Hz, preferably as sealed. This can be accoplished also in the <500$ category with excellent sound!
Last edited:
I did such proposal in post #189.
In my example, the idea is to make a 3-way with a 11i + 7i + 1i and extend with two separate woofer cabs with the same 11i woofer to make it 4-way. The woofer cabs can be closed box or ported. The 3-way is closed box for its woofer and midrange.
The advantage of using the same driver for the woofers as the (mid)woofer in the 3-way, is that you can keep the width (and depth) for the woofer cabs. Making a kind of tower for the 4-way and a monitor on a foot for the 3-way.
For this example the 3-way is W x H x D = 36 x 69 x 42 cm without the foot.
The width is 36 cm, because I add 3cm rounding to the front side edges to improve horizontal dispersion.
The woofer cab is W x H x D = 36 x 42 x 42 cm. So for the 4-way with 2 woofers the cab becomes 153 cm high.
The 3-way with its 11i woofer is already a powerful speaker on its own.
The same idea can be used for 10i + 7(or 5)i + 1i or 8i + 5i + 1i. Then the speaker can be smaller.
To start with a 2-way in this concept, probably the cabinet becomes too wide for the 2-way, in the case the woofer cabinet has the same width like in the example.
Paul
What is the reasoning behind a small woofer rather than a 12"?
Why such an unusually high mid/tweeter crossover frequency?
Where in the extension vs sensitivity exchange?
This would need a stand in the home. An extra 8" woofer would improve performance and enable the speaker to stand on the floor.
Choosing a crossover point midrange-tweeter at 5000Hz, will result in a power dip.
In a system with no waveguides and crossing with a high order filter (3rd or 4th order), the maximum crossover point for a 5 inch midrange is around 2 kHz and for a 7 inch about 1.5 kHz.
Of course it is a choice if you make the power response flat or not, but in IMO you get the best results with a flat one.
Paul
Well! I'm no expert, so be honest. Troels webpage has been a reference for me for the last years. I nearly know it by heart. Price point was certainly a factor. All other 3ways were more expensive, specially the one with Audio Technology drivers. That goes beyond 3k dollars. So I build the scanspeak ones, that cost about 900 dollars delivered, crossover components included and damping materials. Just needed wood.
I did a little webpage of my building. In case it helps
What can be improved? As I said, I'm really not an expert, I enjoy the sound, it is soft and detailed, so it works for jazz and classical music very well. It is 88db, so definitely more sensitivity is a must. Bass is good for me (although it needed a long time breakup, i'm talking about a year of normal listening volumes).
That's a reasonable starting point.
I'd suggest to make it such that it is possible to run it with a conventional passive filter or optionally using an active filter+amp setup (at least woofer and mid+high parts). Just think of Papas active filter that is supposed to land in the diyAudio store soon. Add a bunch of Amp Camp Amps, and this will be great fun!
So would you consider an extra 8" driver to gain sensitivity and remove the need for a stand to be a likely worthwhile improvement?
Far from it. You actually bought and built a 3 way design close to what is being discussed. What you liked about the design before and after construction is likely to be valuable information if a collaborative design is to be successful.
You were put off by the high price of premium range drivers and opted for standard range ones. Budget around $1k (US not EU prices) which looks a lot more realistic to me for a 3 way rather than $500 which looks more like a reasonable budget for a 2 way. There is some indication you might be persuaded that the woofer doesn't have enough cone area but it doesn't seem to be strongly felt. Others have also expressed a preference for 8" woofers in fairly large cabinets rather than 20 litres ones where a small size could be one of the main objectives.
Technical considerations are not surprisingly pushing towards what gives the most bang for a modest number of bucks: 1" tweeter, 4/5" midrange and 12" or 2 x 8" woofer but there is little sign of anyone getting enthusiastic about it. More enthusiasm seems to have been expressed for less balanced designs with small woofers, large woofers, wideband drivers, and similar. A technically balanced design is not a requirement but enthusiasm almost certainly is if the project is to be successful. Suggestions to avoid the thread petering out?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.