Hi, I discovered two speakers using the same drivers and crossovers. But different box sizes. Yet they both provide good sound.
They are ADS L810 and L1230. As mentioned above, these speakers have the same drivers and crossovers but different box shapes and sizes. They received many positive reviews. Many audiophiles will know, especially in the US.
How could it be? Does this mean their woofers were designed to perform well in various box tunings?
They are ADS L810 and L1230. As mentioned above, these speakers have the same drivers and crossovers but different box shapes and sizes. They received many positive reviews. Many audiophiles will know, especially in the US.
How could it be? Does this mean their woofers were designed to perform well in various box tunings?
We US residents are not allowed to listen to hifi speakers in stores anymore. Maybe in cities of 10,000,000 population or higher? Not here. I listened to some PA speakers in a store, but it went bankrupt and is now a vacant lot. Bring on the weeds. Best Buy had some Polk full range (one driver) speakers in stock once, but you couldn't listen to them.
Because there is no such thing as one perfect box size for a woofer for every sitiation/needs, it all depends on what's the goal. If they are really the same drivers and only the box size is the difference between them, then they must have slightly different low-frequency response, but probably both are "good"(if they are reported as good), just slightly different.
Hi, Inside dimensions of a box need to be "big" for bass alignment, but the bigger the more modes inside for the passband, the more panel surface area to radiate noise, and front panel area to create directivity/diffraction, which makes secondary sound sources other than the transducer itself and affects how sound is radiated into room. All of which is more or less audible and lends to sound quality.
In general what you have is some sort of compromise between low frequency sensitivity (and system Q) and amount of midrange issues. For least issues one would want the box size very small or very big, small doesn't have bass and big is not practical so what you endup is some box with some issues and some bass 🙂
If going after minimal issues one should always optimize for midrange performance with cost of bass performance, because one can always add more bass boxes to a system, problem solved.
In general what you have is some sort of compromise between low frequency sensitivity (and system Q) and amount of midrange issues. For least issues one would want the box size very small or very big, small doesn't have bass and big is not practical so what you endup is some box with some issues and some bass 🙂
If going after minimal issues one should always optimize for midrange performance with cost of bass performance, because one can always add more bass boxes to a system, problem solved.
Still think it is a good find.
presscot the larger baffle systems you been presenting interest in lately are inspiring.
The earlier posts with multiple domes seemed challenging.
But I imagined a similar design with one mid dome and tweeter.
and using 2x high Qts drivers sealed for bass either 12" or 8"
And there it is the L1230
awesome. Wide baffle superior
Depending on the woofer design some work well in .8 to 1.1 Qts the range of volume be rather wide.
presscot the larger baffle systems you been presenting interest in lately are inspiring.
The earlier posts with multiple domes seemed challenging.
But I imagined a similar design with one mid dome and tweeter.
and using 2x high Qts drivers sealed for bass either 12" or 8"
And there it is the L1230
awesome. Wide baffle superior
Depending on the woofer design some work well in .8 to 1.1 Qts the range of volume be rather wide.
Had to search for this speakers. Are you sure they use the same crossover?
Volumes are maybe not THAT different - the big speaker is shallow and you don't know the internal volume, maybe the tweeter side is not part of the volume?
Smaller speakers often have a bumped low end to sound bigger. For a closed speaker this could be a Q >1 to achieve that. That would be way less volume as a Q of 0,6-0,7.
And I hope they don't use the same crossover ... these baffles are way different. If they do - I would say it's luck how it worked out ;-)
Times where less scientific then in terms of speaker development ;-)
Volumes are maybe not THAT different - the big speaker is shallow and you don't know the internal volume, maybe the tweeter side is not part of the volume?
Smaller speakers often have a bumped low end to sound bigger. For a closed speaker this could be a Q >1 to achieve that. That would be way less volume as a Q of 0,6-0,7.
And I hope they don't use the same crossover ... these baffles are way different. If they do - I would say it's luck how it worked out ;-)
Times where less scientific then in terms of speaker development ;-)
nothing else to change though.
the arrangement is fine.
Dome mid and 3/4 tweeter crossed
were it should be.
With better baffles the crossover actually
needs less compensation.
dome mid or tweet need no sperate chamber.
high Qts woofer need no port or fart line
superior in many ways
the arrangement is fine.
Dome mid and 3/4 tweeter crossed
were it should be.
With better baffles the crossover actually
needs less compensation.
dome mid or tweet need no sperate chamber.
high Qts woofer need no port or fart line
superior in many ways
Last edited:
Theory states that a volume change of 20% has less influence one would expect.
Especially using closed box system.
Depending on the room and maybe different damping inside the two sorts of boxes there will be little audible difference.
And as said here: the bigger the box the more difficult to control the radiation of the surfaces. But those resonances can be pleasing to some ears giving a slight "colour" to the sound.
I once heard a Bose loudspeaker which really had a nice composition of resonances making the loudspeaker sounding more lively and "richer". The walls were thin, little damping inside, paper cone having resonances..... but if done right all this can be fun.
From a hifi standpoint this should not be right but companys try to sell loudspeakers and have to "win" on a first listening test.
Usually loudspeakers with less distortion or no distortion are not able at all to give for an untrained listener an impression of loudness. Less distortion makes the speaker sound "small", "less impressive" and "boring". A small loudspeaker can sound much "bigger" and louder with a lot of distortion.
Only experienced listeners know about the benefits of loudspeakers with very little distortion.
Especially using closed box system.
Depending on the room and maybe different damping inside the two sorts of boxes there will be little audible difference.
And as said here: the bigger the box the more difficult to control the radiation of the surfaces. But those resonances can be pleasing to some ears giving a slight "colour" to the sound.
I once heard a Bose loudspeaker which really had a nice composition of resonances making the loudspeaker sounding more lively and "richer". The walls were thin, little damping inside, paper cone having resonances..... but if done right all this can be fun.
From a hifi standpoint this should not be right but companys try to sell loudspeakers and have to "win" on a first listening test.
Usually loudspeakers with less distortion or no distortion are not able at all to give for an untrained listener an impression of loudness. Less distortion makes the speaker sound "small", "less impressive" and "boring". A small loudspeaker can sound much "bigger" and louder with a lot of distortion.
Only experienced listeners know about the benefits of loudspeakers with very little distortion.