I'm afraid that many first time DIY speaker builders like OP may not like his first speakers, or they just can't tell if they are good or bad. I would guess majority would have mixed feeling about them due to lack of measurement tools, lack of experience and lack of reference speakers.
OP may fall in love his first pair of DIY speakers, but in case they do not fit his taste, those speakers are hard to sell at a reasonable price. My point is if the cost is the primary reason to build speakers, OP may want to keep in mind that DIY is always high-risk high-return thing.
OP may fall in love his first pair of DIY speakers, but in case they do not fit his taste, those speakers are hard to sell at a reasonable price. My point is if the cost is the primary reason to build speakers, OP may want to keep in mind that DIY is always high-risk high-return thing.
This is certainly my case and I understand the risk. Although this isn't my first attempt at DIY. The first was over 10 years ago, I've put a 2-way set of car speakers in a large sealed bookshelf box (because car speakers are easily available in abundance, while any proper home audio speakers have to be ordered from abroad with the accompanying customs and delivery cost/headache). Back then I thought they're OK, but recently I've put them on and realized they're pretty bad - very unbalanced frequency response. It's curious that it didn't stand out to me so much before, but I haven't listened to any truly good speakers since then (only marginally better ones).
You could say that a reference speaker is exactly what I'm seeking to build.
Only to a limited extent. Equalisation can usually reduce the level of summing peaks but usually cannot increase the level of cancelling dips leading to some improvement but not high fidelity. (The usually is because sometimes peaks aren't minimum phase and sometimes dips are depending on how they arise). Usually to fill in dips sound needs to be absorbed in some way. Large pillows and/or resonating panels might do it if there is enough of them but a few DSP controlled subwoofers is normally going to be more effective and acceptable in a living area in the home rather than a dedicated purpose built sound studio
I must have misunderstood something in your previous message. You weren't taking about simply cutting the lower frequencies to prevent activation of the room modes, you're talking about improving bass extension by managing the room modes properly?
Do I understand correctly that you're saying this: even if the main speakers are located in unfortunate spots relative to the MLP, their base extension is not useless because it can be properly integrated in a multi-subwoofer system without having to move the main speakers around, just by moving the extra subwoofer?
I have seen it referred to as source/sink and plane wave bass array. I would expect there to be various other labels in use as well given the way the modern world works.
Using the mains and a single sub will neither create a particularly plane wave or absorb a high proportion at the back wall. Nonetheless it is often a large step in the right direction. A few minutes with the simple simulator in REW can give a feel for the potential.
When you have a handful of subs and an asymmetric room other approaches are likely to be superior but it has it's place.
Yes. A typical room in the home superimposes peaks a dips of tens of dB in size to the output of a speaker. Any genuine notion of high sound quality requires those peaks and dips to be largely removed. This requires the addition of sinks/sources elsewhere in the room (reasoning omitted).
To some extent. If main speakers like large floor standing ported 3 ways can provide sufficient clean SPL at low frequencies then including them in the calculations of how to distribute the sound between the available speakers will almost certainly improve the quality of the response at the listening position. However, for a good response one would generally need to be using more than 1 subwoofer. 3-4 is a more typical number.
The example using 1 subwoofer was more to illustrate that subwoofers can be used as active sound absorbers to substantially improve sound quality rather than to create louder and deeper booming in the common way of (mis?)use. If low frequency sound quality is important to you then look to use multiple subwoofers.
Or even a 1-way. I see a 3-way as a box with XOs at about 50 and 300 Hz.
The number of ways is no indication of overall quality, more ways brings all sort sof integration issues and a more complicated XO. With near-field listening the advantages of a single driver loudspeaker has significant advantages and is not pushed into the areas where they often struggle.
I have seen lots of decent suggestions (we are now in a world where there ar eenuff good designs that the biggest issue becomes choice and analysis paralysis. I always suggest a simplier first project.
I still have more posts to wde thru, but more information from the OP on his needs and tastes.
While here let’s throw out Frugel-Horns, Pensils, and WAWs.
dave
Very, very few speakers meet that LF goal. The top end is more achievable, but often at the expense of some ringing.
Every loudspeaker is a HUGE set of compromises. A 1-way is a compromize because it will tend to struggle at the top & bottom, maximum loudness and ringing often becomes a larger issue. But is has no XO which is a very large positive. A 3-way (given appropriate driver & box) can reach the frequency extremes, but has 3 drivers, usually in significantly disparate physical locations and an XO that almost always screws with the phase/time and impedance response.
Further, on LF extension, you will se eF3 tossed about. Toole has shown it is meaningless to the human ear/brain. Pay attention to F6/F10, F3 is only useful if it is being used as part of an XO. 30-40 Hz is a more realistic target.
Low distortion is important. We usually think of distortion as things added, i prefer to think in terms of information lost or masked.
Geddes has shown that the measures we make of distortion are not very useful in determining how something sounds.
dave
Except that a 2-way with subwoofers is a 3-way. Usually active at the bottom, a good thing to my mind. A good 1-way with woofer support (ie a 2-way with low XO, a WAW) can provide exceptional performance, as you know Matt, living with such.
dave
Not many of the designs i am drawing up. One i am currently working on is a “copy” of a commercial product. I would suggest that properly implemented it will outperform the original by a significant margin.
dave
A very male thing to think ;^)
The speakers i am listening to now are small, and sound really good. Limite don loudness in my big room and the 3.2 watt amp up top.
dave
Except my subwoofers are separate, I crossover at 100Hz, and strategically placed and EQ'd and they're OB, so probably not what you'd call a WAW 😉
It also makes it easier for me to listen nearfield as the speakers are fairly light I can move them around.
I don't see what I can add in the "needs" department, what info could help you give me some advice on choosing a design?
One thing I want to point out is I'm sitting 2.5 meters from each of the speakers (this is when they're pulled out of the front wall and into the room as much as possible). I don't think this is near field?
On the tastes, I like very different music (and movies) and I certainly don't want a speaker that's good at some genres but not so good at others.
Haha. I've heard some very small speakers that are very neutral and quite detailed, and can go loud enough to be uncomfortable in a room larger than my current one (and not in near field!). One example I own is Canton Plus S, of which I have two pairs. They stop at about 80 Hz in the bottom, but give them a sub and they will sing even in a larger room.
A tube amp?
I sold a lot of small Cntons in the day, usually the ones shaped for the back deck of a car.
Amp is a Class A triode EL84 PP based on El Cheapo and using a Scott as a donor.
dave
Amp is a Class A triode EL84 PP based on El Cheapo and using a Scott as a donor.
dave