Open source speaker project?

[andy19191]

But to slight the analog readership and require the remainder to use multiple or multi-channel amps would not be?

Why would anyone feel slighted by digital crossovers being more flexible than passive crossovers? It is a straightforward and undeniable fact. Or is it some kind of emotive post-truth thing unrelated to facts?

I have made my point. Some have disagreed. Perhaps it is best to leave it there.

 

[Aatto]

Why would anyone feel slighted by digital crossovers being more flexible than passive crossovers? It is a straightforward and undeniable fact. Or is it some kind of emotive post-truth thing unrelated to facts?

totally agree,even if everyone vote for passive XO, I m sure coming up with DSP settings wouldn't be difficult.

... Leave room for folks to upgrade or simplify as they see fit- that's why this forum is successful.

There can't be just one single "diyAudio.com speaker", we all know that. If Aatto manages to stay the course and coax a successful design from this exercise, surely there will be more to follow and each will be an opportunity to explore other avenues. There is plenty of room for everyone here.

That's what i was expecting, looks like people are voting toward a high end design which is nice because i m pretty sure sooner or later we will come up with a lower end version of the same speaker (with similar but cheaper drivers) and w a few tweaks we have two versions of same design ! and also i m looking forward for different designs maybe a horn and woofer system like JBL M2. personally i would like to see a FAST system as well, that's why i suggested the Basszilla .

 

[pidesd]

if i may add my grain of salt...

maybe make one (or more?) smaller scale loudspeaker first so that the maximum of persons can build and hear the sound signature and even try different parts without breaking the bank, and then from feedback go bigger/more complicated? In any case, cost vs performance should be highest possible i think.

 

[planet10]

personally i would like to see a FAST system as well, that's why i suggested the Basszilla

Note: We are trying to changeover from the use of FAST to WAW (Woofer Assisted Wideband)

Basszilla is not really a WAW since the FE208 only goes to about 5k and the speaker uses a tweeter.

A WAW is a fullrange with a HP between ≈ 150-450 Hz, with helper woofers below that. There are a huge number of possibilities. This is one of ours (now veneered), and can be used active or with a passive XO.

If we exclude the passive XO, this would be in the <$500 category.

dave

 

[Aatto]

Note: We are trying to changeover from the use of FAST to WAW (Woofer Assisted Wideband)

Basszilla is not really a WAW since the FE208 only goes to about 5k and the speaker uses a tweeter...

I thought the first basszilla was the full range and the biga$$ woofer.

A WAW is a fullrange with a HP between ≈ 150-450 Hz, with helper woofers below that. There are a huge number of possibilities. This is one of ours (now veneered), and can be used active or with a passive XO.
If we exclude the passive XO, this would be in the <$500 category.

dave

so technically it is a 3 way system, ~20-150Hz goes to a woofer, 150-450 goes to HP (HP ?) and above goes to a FR, so since the XO points are lower than a normal "multi-way" it consider as a WAW ?

 

[Aatto]

if i may add my grain of salt...

maybe make one (or more?) smaller scale loudspeaker first so that the maximum of persons can build and hear the sound signature and even try different parts without breaking the bank, and then from feedback go bigger/more complicated? In any case, cost vs performance should be highest possible i think.

there are quite bit of different opinions here, some prefer an smaller version maybe even like a book shelf size ( including me living in an apartment ). but some prefer larger size ones with no compromises since this gonna be a DIYAUDIO speaker and it needs to stand out.
but i think everything should be up to vote.

 

[benb]

One area where I can see passive ruling out a particular driver would be where you have a very sensitive woofer that needs to be "padded down" This is not really doable with a passive setup but easily achieved with an active setup (not necessarily digital).

Tony.

This is the first hint I've seen for a (multi-amped) speaker with analog line-level crossover. It seems all other posts are "passive vs. DSP." I have to wonder, has the magic of DSP killed all interest in line-level analog crossovers?

Just going to multi-amping (separate amplifier per driver) and line-level filtering (whether analog or digital) fixes several passive crossover complications in addition to the above-mentioned variations in driver sensitivity, but it also breaks the classic idea of a loudspeaker as a separate unit from the power amplifier.

Different people may have different preferences, but I'm hoping spelling these things out helps people know why they may want passive (I can still use my power amp as-is) vs. active (my power amp will only run part of the audio band, and I'll need at least one more power amp and extra cables to the speakers, else build several power amp modules into/behind the speaker cabinet, etc).

 

[planet10]

I thought the first basszilla was the full range and the biga$$ woofer.

That is indeed a WAW, but when the whizzer cone FE208 became NLA ≈2000, the newer FE208e∑ was used with a tweeter.

Thanks for that, hadn’t seen that version.

Bottlehead showed something similar. The whizzer cone FEx06En can be put in a sealed box with a plate amp driven woofer covering below 100-125 Hz or so. Similar scheme works with lots of other FRs too.

so technically it is a 3 way system, ~20-150Hz goes to a woofer, 150-450 goes to HP (HP ?) and above goes to a FR, so since the XO points are lower than a normal "multi-way" it consider as a WAW ?

If you are talking about Tysen, the woofers (2xSiler Flute W14) in MLTL reach ~35 Hz and extends up to 250 (active XO), or 450 (passive XO), where the FF85wk takes things to about 25 kHz. Active could cross higher but we didn’t try that.

dave

 

[pidesd]

there are quite bit of different opinions here, some prefer an smaller version maybe even like a book shelf size ( including me living in an apartment ). but some prefer larger size ones with no compromises since this gonna be a DIYAUDIO speaker and it needs to stand out.
but i think everything should be up to vote.

My theory is that a smaller more affordable speaker would be build by more people, and from there, we would get feedback and from what most people think should be upgraded, and then go bigger/costlier/complex more toward that direction.

the poll only informs you about speakers they heard before as reference.

Regardless, what i would suggest is an affordable, say below 500$ bookshelf for the large audience.

AND

a higher end bigger/ more powerful,etc that costs more for the hungry hardcore people

1 speaker would be an endless discussion and be a jack of all trade satisfy too little in my opinion and i might be wrong.

 

[Aatto]

If you are talking about Tysen, the woofers (2xSiler Flute W14) in MLTL reach ~35 Hz and extends up to 250 (active XO), or 450 (passive XO), where the FF85wk takes things to about 25 kHz. Active could cross higher but we didn’t try that.

dave

Nice, thanks for the info, I think the FR+Woofer (FAST or WAW) is the best of two worlds, you got the advantages of a FR and the bass of a true woofer.

 

[pidesd]

Nice, thanks for the info, I think the FR+Woofer (FAST or WAW) is the best of two worlds, you got the advantages of a FR and the bass of a true woofer.

i agree.

I don't have not build many speakers and have not really heard expensive ones, but i can personnally say that my eminence alpha(woofer) paired with an standard audio nirvana 12 inch(FR) crossed at 300 HZ bi-amped, active XO,open baffle, was one of the best audio experience i've personnaly ever witnessed.

 

[Aatto]

I have an idea, why not having same thing in fullrange section ? I mean to start a thread in fullrange section to design an open source and well documented DIYAUDIO WAW design. Someone like Dave is more than experienced enough to start such project, if he has the time of course.

 

[Aatto]

I keep looking at this, that driver looks mesmerizing.

 

[Pano]

So far the poll has the 3-way speaker ahead by 66%. That could shift as time passes, but it looks like a clear indicator now.

 

[andy19191]

Is the next stage a poll on which type of 3 way? Tower, monitor, bookshelf, wide beam, narrow beam, price point, high fidelity, high end,...

 

[CharlieLaub]

Is the next stage a poll on which type of 3 way? Tower, monitor, bookshelf, wide beam, narrow beam, price point, high fidelity, high end,...

Assuming that a 3-way "classic loudspeaker" is the choice, there are lots of aspects that could each use a separate poll:

CROSSOVER:
DSP active crossover
analog active crossover
passive line-level crossover (passive network on inputs of amps)*
passive crossover (passive network on output of amp)
*note - not recommended because you need to tailor the network to the input impedance of the amplifier, and to know the gain of each amp, etc.

CABINET VOLUME:
<20 liters (e.g. NHT classic 3)
20-60 liters (floorstanding 3-way)
>60 liters (approaching monkey coffin, good for max SPL with high eta drivers)

TARGET SYSTEM SENSITIVITY AND NOMINAL IMPEDANCE
<87dB/W, 4 Ohms nominal
<87dB/W, 8 Ohms nominal
88-91dB/W, 4 Ohms nominal
88-91dB/W, 8 Ohms nominal
>92dB/W, 4 Ohms nominal
>92dB/W, 8 Ohms nominal
Note: with a DSP crossover this is primarily dictated by driver choice. Also, note that cabinet volume and target sensitivity are directly related

WOOFER:
8"
twin 8"
10"
twin 10"
twin 12"
15"
twin 15" (JBL everest DD66000 inspired?)
18"

WOOFER LOADING:
closed box
vented/ported box
PR box
transmission line

MIDRANGE:
cone type, 4"-5.25"
cone type, 6"-8"
planar
2" dome
3" dome

TWEETER:
<1" dome
1"-1.25" dome
planar/AMT
CD

PATTERN CONTROL DEVICES:
midrange horn
tweeter horn/waveguide
both

I've omitted some options, like a large midrange horn plus 2" CD, or open baffle systems, as these do not fit the general idea of a "classic 3-way".

Anyway, food for thought.

 

[invaderzim]

I second this.

My theory is that a smaller more affordable speaker would be build by more people, and from there, we would get feedback and from what most people think should be upgraded, and then go bigger/costlier/complex more toward that direction.

the poll only informs you about speakers they heard before as reference.

Regardless, what i would suggest is an affordable, say below 500$ bookshelf for the large audience.

AND

a higher end bigger/ more powerful,etc that costs more for the hungry hardcore people

1 speaker would be an endless discussion and be a jack of all trade satisfy too little in my opinion and i might be wrong.

 

[CharlieLaub]

My theory is that a smaller more affordable speaker would be build by more people, and from there, we would get feedback and from what most people think should be upgraded, and then go bigger/costlier/complex more toward that direction.

I mentioned it in my post above, but something like the NHT "classic 3" (now the "C3"), a small 3-way monitor, might be appealing to your "start small" concept. Specs taken from here:
NHT Classic Three loudspeaker Specifications | Stereophile.com

• Description: Three-way acoustic-suspension bookshelf loudspeaker.
• Drive-units: 0.75" aluminum-dome tweeter, 2" aluminum-dome midrange cone, 6.5" polypropylene-cone woofer.
• Crosssover frequencies: 800Hz (symmetrical 12dB/octave), 3.2kHz (symmetrical 18dB/octave).
• Frequency response: 45Hz-20kHz ±3dB. Sensitivity: 86dB/2.83V. Nominal impedance: 8 ohms.
• Dimensions: 13.75" (350mm) H by 7.5" (190mm) W by 10.375" (265mm) D.
• Weight: 17 lbs (7.7kg).

This is a small 3-way closed-box monitor loudspeaker that has received favorable reviews. Even with a loudspeaker this small, it's prohibitive to provide the cabinet as part of a DIY kit. It's just too heavy. Perhaps members could come up with a cut sheet or CNC file that could be used to locally source the cabinet (or at least on the appropriate continent), perhaps via a group buy.

With such a small cabinet, the crossover could be an external one, with only binding posts or a SPEAKON connector on the back of the cabinet. That would also allow both passive and active crossover options.

Obviously a loudspeaker this small can only provide so much bass extension or SPL. There could be an option for a separate subwoofer, if the DIYer needed more low end in larger spaces.

 

[Cal Weldon]

Remind me why this idea exists?

 

[planet10]

Are you guys putting together a diyAudio.com reference speaker, or as per the OP, a design for the store. For the latter, IMHO a 3-way is going to be too big to handle.

dave