From a European perspective, two Scan-speaks are € 20 more than the Daytons. I would not even consider using the Dayton over the Scan-speak unless there was some parameter that was more favorable. (For example, I think the Dayton may work well in a box half the size of the SS.)
From a US perspective, two Scan-speaks are € 170 more. For a project that is targeting €500-600 that is huge.
But, I'm not saying to choose based on that, all I was saying was people on both sides of the pond should keep in mind that the prices they observe locally may not be what half the world is facing.
From a US perspective, two Scan-speaks are € 170 more. For a project that is targeting €500-600 that is huge.
But, I'm not saying to choose based on that, all I was saying was people on both sides of the pond should keep in mind that the prices they observe locally may not be what half the world is facing.
Wait a little and Peereles will launch again the NE149W and NE315, choose a pair of DA32TX for the tweets, problem solved (high range of the target budget though). But I digress.
Choose the bas driver, then start from here as already said. (starting from the mid needs more budget headroom)
Choose the bas driver, then start from here as already said. (starting from the mid needs more budget headroom)
May I say: who cares about F6,F10, and mostlly F3?;
Just stick the woofer to the box and live with it!
It doesn't meet your expectations? You failed the design stage
The price of the stand? Which stand? Is it in the project? I saw "rotating 90°" mid-treble baffle in the draft design, so the speaker is freestanding, and in horizontal position the mid-treble baffle should be rotated. I had a pair of infinity RS 4001 that had that feature, for the emit tweeter indeed.
Last edited:
Here's a nice 12" woofer. It's on backorder, and future availability is not guaranteed, but on paper, it looks good to me.
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerless-830669-12-Paper-Cone-SLS-Subwoofer-264-1118?quantity=1
https://www.parts-express.com/Peerless-830669-12-Paper-Cone-SLS-Subwoofer-264-1118?quantity=1
Why fail at the design stage if you can succeed? Picking a woofer to achieve technical goals isn't going to be the problem. Maybe sticking to a target price, but I think the price target is more flexible than the final technical design goals. Being off by €100 isn't going to kill the project. A monkey coffin with an F3 of 65Hz would.
You always migth put any drivers in a box to see the result and enjoy life, that is valid too. But here we talk about ddesign, so targets, hence numbers... to say the least. And all of that for the same proce than luck ! (luck, most of the time is costing more).
Stand = what is needed for a monkey coffin most of the time to get the mid or tweeter at the ears level. In the Pit Viper illustration it is so large than it was not needed, but most or them in the Monkey Coffins litterature have stands.
I was to say to use the magnat trans pulse 1500 as an example but that one is better, just seeing the woofer's basket..
Go to post #37 and scroll the image: what's wrong with it?!
I have no intention for this kind f speakers, but high-efficiency large 3-way is sortof classic... No dome mid and preferably acoustic LR2 xos. BR ok for passive.
How about a poor man's Gravesen design? http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-12-430.htm
But of course mid between W and T! Tweeter could be some other dome or a ribbon/AMT. Xo with reasonable price category parts. Option for active 2/3-way too.
How about a poor man's Gravesen design? http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-12-430.htm
But of course mid between W and T! Tweeter could be some other dome or a ribbon/AMT. Xo with reasonable price category parts. Option for active 2/3-way too.
Meanwhile I found the ideal damping material:
... one a more serious note I would be happy to design and 3d-print (and test?) an eventual port.
... one a more serious note I would be happy to design and 3d-print (and test?) an eventual port.
I keep a list of items to discuss in future posts, and inviting @stv to participate in vent design was on the list...
Some thoughts about the design constraints...
But one thing that Andy mentioned is a rotatable mid-tweeter baffle, like many studio mid-field monitors have. Apparently this allows a speaker to be placed on its side. This feature seems to require an MT baffle which is symmetric horizontal and vertical, such as a square, an octagon, or a circle. We need to keep in mind that if this becomes a requirement, it may constrain the downstream design in ways we don't yet foresee. It also complicates testing because we will need driver polar responses for both configurations.
I am familiar with the various 12" woofers in the price/performance range of this project. As @A4eaudio mentioned, there are probably no more than 10 realistic candidates. If sealed box loading is going to be used, then DSP EQ (i.e. Linkwitz transform) will almost certainly be needed to achieve the desired F3/F6 performance. And pulling on that string of thought a little more, a sealed box with LT eq will usually allow a smaller box, sometimes a much smaller box. It also results in lower headroom in the deep bass for a given driver.
I have been thinking about the removable/swapable midrange tweeter panel, and I think this is feasible. It does complicate the structure a bit, but as long as the end user is OK with visible fasteners, it is quite doable.
But one thing that Andy mentioned is a rotatable mid-tweeter baffle, like many studio mid-field monitors have. Apparently this allows a speaker to be placed on its side. This feature seems to require an MT baffle which is symmetric horizontal and vertical, such as a square, an octagon, or a circle. We need to keep in mind that if this becomes a requirement, it may constrain the downstream design in ways we don't yet foresee. It also complicates testing because we will need driver polar responses for both configurations.
If no edge treatment is going to be applied (like a bevel or radius) then I believe that a waveguide on the tweeter will be very beneficial. The traditional monkey coffin speaker had sharp edges, and if that retro look is what we are shooting for here, it might simplify things to just assume we will be using a waveguide.
By saying "ported or sealed", I believe @andy19191 is specifying that either ported or sealed loading is acceptable, but we are not looking into transmission lines, bandpass boxes, isobaric loading, dipole, cardioid, etc etc... Andy correct me if I am mistaken.
I am familiar with the various 12" woofers in the price/performance range of this project. As @A4eaudio mentioned, there are probably no more than 10 realistic candidates. If sealed box loading is going to be used, then DSP EQ (i.e. Linkwitz transform) will almost certainly be needed to achieve the desired F3/F6 performance. And pulling on that string of thought a little more, a sealed box with LT eq will usually allow a smaller box, sometimes a much smaller box. It also results in lower headroom in the deep bass for a given driver.
... which leads to even more pulling on that thread of thought... If DSP is going to be needed for the sealed box bass EQ, it makes the decision to go with an active crossover an easier decision. Implementing an LT bass EQ with passive components is complicated and sometimes expensive.
Couldn't resist it:
This is what 120 Euro in 70l box can do. Pretty monkey coffin behavior. Red line is SPLmax.