Always going to be an expensive exercise in Australia, will hit $1000au easily just on drivers in the budget range 😢
I'm interested in a budget version too. It's the type of speaker a lot of my non-audiophile music-loving friends would like.
In fact, the Tarkus mentioned early is interesting enough that I tracked down 4 of the Peerless 6.5" mids for that build, to go along with the 4 SLS 10" woofers surplus from another project. The 1" dome tweeter in that design is generic enough that any number of tweeters I have on hand would work. The passive crossover is relatively simple. I'll make a one-box version. The total cost of a pair even in pricey Canada is quite modest. With some semi used & repurposed parts, it should be under $500. 😎
That's maybe the ideal woofer for a budget build. I have a tweeter, and mid in hand that would work, but it would be a small step down from the Tarkus, so why bother. There is a nice sealed box woofer I was looking at, but it's around $240 I think. That takes it too high for a budget design. I have several other options for a budget design, but the box is either big, or lead time is 5 months out. One driver was nice, but was really power hungry / low sensitivity. I have a nice Peerless ten, but it's long since discontinued. Dayton has some nice options, but they are 4 ohms. I got tired of looking.
I gave mikessi and stv permission to do whatever they like in the directory because they were the only two who provided their google ids by contacting me. Everyone should be able to see the files. Everyone should be able to edit the project names file but this was only a small test and I will change the permission back in a while. I suspect we don't want to give the world permission to edit files only those that have joined the group. Subject to debate and revision. Wikis often let anyone contribute.
The current plan subject to revision is for people wishing to centralise project information to cut-and-paste text, tables, drawings and plots from here into the shared folder. The files can then be edited/commented/viewed by people in the group at the discretion of the user adding the file. People join the group by getting their google ids added to the the folder's list of google ids with permission to make changes (currently: me, stv and mikessi).
The folder will need some structure. Subfolders for the tasks being addressed would seem a simple one but open to suggestions.
A project website exists on github along with a repository for scripts and the like. I am still pondering how best to set things up given the unexpected (to me) wish not to use conventional open source project tools. Since we have yet to sort anything out into a form worth publishing I guess there is no rush. As we come to conclusions on what to do about various aspects of the project most information should hopefully be in files in the project folder and the task would be to collect and tidyup rather than write from scratch. Perhaps there will only be a final writeup or none at all if the project peters out. We will see.
The current plan subject to revision is for people wishing to centralise project information to cut-and-paste text, tables, drawings and plots from here into the shared folder. The files can then be edited/commented/viewed by people in the group at the discretion of the user adding the file. People join the group by getting their google ids added to the the folder's list of google ids with permission to make changes (currently: me, stv and mikessi).
The folder will need some structure. Subfolders for the tasks being addressed would seem a simple one but open to suggestions.
A project website exists on github along with a repository for scripts and the like. I am still pondering how best to set things up given the unexpected (to me) wish not to use conventional open source project tools. Since we have yet to sort anything out into a form worth publishing I guess there is no rush. As we come to conclusions on what to do about various aspects of the project most information should hopefully be in files in the project folder and the task would be to collect and tidyup rather than write from scratch. Perhaps there will only be a final writeup or none at all if the project peters out. We will see.
Mikesi,
You could if your SLS are 8 ohms, try a serie push pull with the same internal volume than Tarkus.
If the back is removable like an Harbeth, you can go back to a standalone driver?
Not sure it has interrest though, no spl won or efficienty either.
You could if your SLS are 8 ohms, try a serie push pull with the same internal volume than Tarkus.
If the back is removable like an Harbeth, you can go back to a standalone driver?
Not sure it has interrest though, no spl won or efficienty either.
I think the subject of speakers like the Pit Vipers and Tarkus need addressing and some firm conclusions agreeing.
As mentioned earlier a few years back I was in a group project to design and build a large, loud, low cost speaker like the Pit Vipers. It's a good and popular subject for a group project that I am still interested in though to a lesser extent now due to a likely reduction in living space in the near future. Given the interest here in a minimal cost monkey coffin the time may well be ripe to give it another go by trying to avoid some of the mistakes in the linked thread. Also someone earlier was upset by the term Party Speaker for such a speaker so that is likely best avoided as well. Since it is not a high technical performance midfield monitor it is a different project to the one here. If someone starts a group project for such a speaker I will take an interest and likely contribute a bit.
The Tarkus is a two box design which is simply not the configuration for this project. However, the pros of a two box design in having a replaceable "top" and, hopefully if it can be made to work (by no means certain), passive isolaton of the woofer cabinet from the tweeter/mid cabinet is part of the objectives for this project.
The objective of the main version of this speaker is to match (or get pretty close to matching) the technical peformance of something like the Genelec 1237A which will almost certainly mean waveguides and some careful challenging detailed design. The monkey coffin part is purely cosmetic for a domestic setting. It will not be easy to achieve and will almost certainly require contributions from people with knowledge and experience in different areas to be successful. I think we likely need to agree that having fun having a crack at this is what the project is primarily about. Won't appeal to everyone but I would like to avoid what happened to me with both the previous monkey coffin projects where the project started with something I was interested in but steadily evolved into something I had no interest in for reasons that could and should have been sorted out at the start such as the price of the drivers and the speaker configuration.
Having said that there is clearly signficant interest in a secondary design using a flat baffle and drivers, possibly with integral waveguides, that can be mounted on a flat baffle, suitable for a passive crossover, which surrenders some performance in order to be easier to make and possibly have the look people are seeking. The natural approach is to use the same woofer as the primary design to fit in with the modular approach but perhaps a strong enough case could be made to use a different one? Should the same woofer be part of the spec? Or is being too adamant at such an early stage unwise?
I do think that the use of standard range drivers rather than budget or prestige ones is something that we should be firm about.
Prestige drivers should exclude themselves on grounds of cost which seems fairly straightforward but a few of the smaller branded prestige range midranges with a modest priced tweeter will fit the nominal wide buget of £500-1000. So should we go for a total budget for 3 drivers, a budget for individual drivers, include branded standard ranges and exclude branded prestige ranges?
Budget drivers should exclude themselves by failing to meet a high technical performance. This requires us to specify the technical performance we are after in a precise quantitative manner. Someone mentioned this earlier and I think it is something we should address fairly early on in order to move forward with only a smallish group of drivers that meet the spec.
As mentioned earlier a few years back I was in a group project to design and build a large, loud, low cost speaker like the Pit Vipers. It's a good and popular subject for a group project that I am still interested in though to a lesser extent now due to a likely reduction in living space in the near future. Given the interest here in a minimal cost monkey coffin the time may well be ripe to give it another go by trying to avoid some of the mistakes in the linked thread. Also someone earlier was upset by the term Party Speaker for such a speaker so that is likely best avoided as well. Since it is not a high technical performance midfield monitor it is a different project to the one here. If someone starts a group project for such a speaker I will take an interest and likely contribute a bit.
The Tarkus is a two box design which is simply not the configuration for this project. However, the pros of a two box design in having a replaceable "top" and, hopefully if it can be made to work (by no means certain), passive isolaton of the woofer cabinet from the tweeter/mid cabinet is part of the objectives for this project.
The objective of the main version of this speaker is to match (or get pretty close to matching) the technical peformance of something like the Genelec 1237A which will almost certainly mean waveguides and some careful challenging detailed design. The monkey coffin part is purely cosmetic for a domestic setting. It will not be easy to achieve and will almost certainly require contributions from people with knowledge and experience in different areas to be successful. I think we likely need to agree that having fun having a crack at this is what the project is primarily about. Won't appeal to everyone but I would like to avoid what happened to me with both the previous monkey coffin projects where the project started with something I was interested in but steadily evolved into something I had no interest in for reasons that could and should have been sorted out at the start such as the price of the drivers and the speaker configuration.
Having said that there is clearly signficant interest in a secondary design using a flat baffle and drivers, possibly with integral waveguides, that can be mounted on a flat baffle, suitable for a passive crossover, which surrenders some performance in order to be easier to make and possibly have the look people are seeking. The natural approach is to use the same woofer as the primary design to fit in with the modular approach but perhaps a strong enough case could be made to use a different one? Should the same woofer be part of the spec? Or is being too adamant at such an early stage unwise?
I do think that the use of standard range drivers rather than budget or prestige ones is something that we should be firm about.
Prestige drivers should exclude themselves on grounds of cost which seems fairly straightforward but a few of the smaller branded prestige range midranges with a modest priced tweeter will fit the nominal wide buget of £500-1000. So should we go for a total budget for 3 drivers, a budget for individual drivers, include branded standard ranges and exclude branded prestige ranges?
Budget drivers should exclude themselves by failing to meet a high technical performance. This requires us to specify the technical performance we are after in a precise quantitative manner. Someone mentioned this earlier and I think it is something we should address fairly early on in order to move forward with only a smallish group of drivers that meet the spec.
It's not what i'm after, but i'll do like you do for the cheaper version, i'll contribute where i can. But i'm not going to build this myself. The flat panel monkey coffin is more what i had in mind, but i'll keep that for another time (first finish of the many projects i have going on already). So i stay active (and on topic) and subscribed, but not in the effective build.
I came up with this this morning.
RSS265HF woofer, and Dayton mid, and tweeter. $500 in drivers, if I added it up right. Low sensitivity, but good extension sealed.. This is not an exact sim, but I needed a ballpark idea of how well the woofer might work. I won't go into details here. I might start a new thread. I did convince myself that a budget version was doable.
RSS265HF woofer, and Dayton mid, and tweeter. $500 in drivers, if I added it up right. Low sensitivity, but good extension sealed.. This is not an exact sim, but I needed a ballpark idea of how well the woofer might work. I won't go into details here. I might start a new thread. I did convince myself that a budget version was doable.
Attachments
Perhaps we should ask the question how many potential builders would like to pursuit this design proposal
of a loudspeaker like Genelec 1237A, that Andy has the will to work on (
) ? Retro monitor specs (dimensions, amps, spl...etc)
should be on par with Genelec.
Unknown is the total parts cost, drivers brand/model, etc.
In order to increase the chance of a success, I'd simplify the decision making process in its entirety.
of a loudspeaker like Genelec 1237A, that Andy has the will to work on (
) ? Retro monitor specs (dimensions, amps, spl...etc)should be on par with Genelec.
Unknown is the total parts cost, drivers brand/model, etc.
In order to increase the chance of a success, I'd simplify the decision making process in its entirety.
I believe this means that contributing to the repository requires a Google account. Ouch.
that is very easy to make, and you don't have to use it for something else if you don't want it. You don't have to give much info to create it also as long as you don't use it with a android device.
Just looked up the details. Didn't realize it's USD6000 each.
Guesstimate on cost...
900w total DSP 3-way amps. Closest is Hypex 253 or 503. Pairs run $1424 & $1740 at madisound. No way to match performance w/o DSP.
That plus drivers + custom sturdy good-looking enough waveguide... Maybe $1500. More with CNC WG from AL or hardwood.
It'll cost at least $3000 a pair to get in the ballpark.
My vote is a total budget for all 3 drivers. Let the downstream design process make the cost tradeoffs rather than locking ourselves into a box now. I also believe we should not exclude any driver just based on its name. A driver which meets the performance requirements and is within budget should be one we can consider, even if the name on it brings to mind "boutique" or "audiophile" or "pro sound" or whatever.
j.
Yes unless we allow anyone to edit. The lesser evil? I think most people these days understand the deal with google when it comes to the free stuff. Google will sell any data they can on their systems to advertisers. Surprised me the first time I saw ads for a product I had only mentioned in an email rather than browsing but that's the deal. Also google docs security is not 100%. 10 years or so ago I was away from home acting as an executor for a relative finding and closing various financial accounts. I wrote various letters in google docs on their laptop for them including some to setup transfers to the executors account and then close them. A year or two later on a visit we went into google again and saw that all the letters with an account number in the title had been recently viewed whereas everything else had been last accessed when created. The permissions were checked and did not allow external viewing. No harm done because all the accounts had been closed but it reinforces not using google for anything important.
Whatever, this is an open hobby project where security and feeding advertisers is not much of an issue.
1) I think that a lot of people are interested in a budget 3-way classic that performs better than most of the available DIY designs publicly available at this time.
2) This thread is going to be a step (or two) above such a budget design.
3) If you start a new thread, I think many of the people here will also contribute to that thread. (I probably have most/all of the midranges and tweeters you would consider and can help out as possible.)
That's not the point. The point is that you are asking people to join Google in order to contribute to your project. Many people will not worry much, but some will not contribute because they don't want to be on Google. You're excluding these people out from contributing.
People can contribute here, the google folder or github. Others with google accounts could lend a hand with google folder content. The point of the google folder is to allow those that don't want to learn about github but want to contribute more than posts to the thread to do so. Some who don't like Microsoft may not want to use github for that reason but may be happy with google. Let's see how it goes.
It is a hard problem to resolve. Commonality of tools is always hard. I worked on a team where almost all of our automated processes were in a Linux or Cygwin/bash shell environment. There were some very good engineers who wanted to join our team, and we wanted them, but they did not want to go through the whole Unix/Linux learning process. In the case where there is a philosophical or ideological reason to oppose a tool or operating system, it becomes an even harder problem.
What price point would you consider to be a budget 3-way classic... what driver budget for all 6 drivers? I want to get a sense of peoples cost tolerance ...
I recently completed a passive 3-way (8" woofer) where the cost for 6 drivers was $560. The two passive radiators added another $70.
j.
Last edited: