He has listed a bunch of design options and issues to be handled, but he still hasn't defined the problem.
Yeah it is good to remind that some sort of goal, a solution to a problem or just an curiosity driven awesome thingamagadget version 1 vision is needed. If there is no goal, gotta start somewhere just don't expect anything of the outcome.
Toying around with wrong parts and ideas might be helpful if one is determined to learn, a start if one doesn't know yet what ya doing. First hand experience will teach a lot more than reading forums. Might take a year to get the goal right with forum communication, or in the workshop doing experiments. After the workshop year one is much more prepared to actually realize a proper goal. A year in the forums might be just more confusion 😀 For example open baffle speaker can be made with any lumber one finds in the backyard with the old radioshack driver found from the dumpster. Put that in the living room and start asking questions whats wrong, where is the bass? Put a cardboardbox in the back with some pillows, now there is a bit more bass but did something happen to the "airines" or something else, is there any magic in the openbaffle or not? What if I bought a bit more suitable driver, now one realizes money can actually buy a better sound. Curiosity and motivation fed one starts to find right questions and the forum will answer, or the Google. Intuition and insight emerges. Takes some years, at least for me.
Environment of the speakers should be the basis for setting a goal. Reference speakers are a must in my opinion, they will fast forward all the thinking, designing and second guessing part. When you have something that work in the space, one can (try) DIY better one (visually, audibly, what ever better). Otherwise it is just for learning in my opinion, which is all good as well, just don't expect high end and get disappointed when it is not.
Toying around with wrong parts and ideas might be helpful if one is determined to learn, a start if one doesn't know yet what ya doing. First hand experience will teach a lot more than reading forums. Might take a year to get the goal right with forum communication, or in the workshop doing experiments. After the workshop year one is much more prepared to actually realize a proper goal. A year in the forums might be just more confusion 😀 For example open baffle speaker can be made with any lumber one finds in the backyard with the old radioshack driver found from the dumpster. Put that in the living room and start asking questions whats wrong, where is the bass? Put a cardboardbox in the back with some pillows, now there is a bit more bass but did something happen to the "airines" or something else, is there any magic in the openbaffle or not? What if I bought a bit more suitable driver, now one realizes money can actually buy a better sound. Curiosity and motivation fed one starts to find right questions and the forum will answer, or the Google. Intuition and insight emerges. Takes some years, at least for me.
Environment of the speakers should be the basis for setting a goal. Reference speakers are a must in my opinion, they will fast forward all the thinking, designing and second guessing part. When you have something that work in the space, one can (try) DIY better one (visually, audibly, what ever better). Otherwise it is just for learning in my opinion, which is all good as well, just don't expect high end and get disappointed when it is not.
Last edited:
I would add one line in the checklist, to be careful who you listen to. Audiophiles like to present themselves as the experts, and true experts are more or less ignored because their presentation of the matter is simple and people like to complicate things.
Why does there have to be a problem?
I guess if I had to pick one, I would say my problem is a lack of knowledge and topics to research 🙂
In what manner do you mean reference speakers? The Aeris I posted is my general inspiration (reference?), but I would make some changes so I can call them my own.
For sound reference, there aren’t any Legacy showrooms in my state (NH) but I do own a set of older Legacy Focuses that I can use as a SQ reference.
Last edited:
Agreed. I’ve noticed there seems to be much weight put on measurements and the science of things (which largely are very worthwhile topics), but often little said about the actual listening experience and if any measured defects are audible. Maybe that’s just too hard to convey online or maybe people are more confident in their microphone than their ear.
I’ll probably measure mine when I’m done just to make sure there’s no major defects, but beyond that, if they sound good to me then I’ll be happy. 🙂
Overboard,
Many people in here may have made various mistakes that they don't want you to make, which is probably why they place a lot of stress on measurements etc. Further, tastes change. For example, I liked boosted bass and treble when I was younger, but now have understood the value of rich and clear mid-range.
However, irrespective of my age I have always liked the "calibrated sound" at the cinema every single time I listened to them. So it is my very strong opinion that science is always right, and is therefore very important. After all, hearing is also measurement isn't it?
Many people in here may have made various mistakes that they don't want you to make, which is probably why they place a lot of stress on measurements etc. Further, tastes change. For example, I liked boosted bass and treble when I was younger, but now have understood the value of rich and clear mid-range.
However, irrespective of my age I have always liked the "calibrated sound" at the cinema every single time I listened to them. So it is my very strong opinion that science is always right, and is therefore very important. After all, hearing is also measurement isn't it?
Maybe if I use the word 'application' rather than 'problem' it will be better for you to understand. But either way it means the same thing.
Their are very specific aspects of your listening environment that determine the best type of speaker to use. As an example you wouldn't want to put a small 2-way in a very big room with lots of carpeting and drapes and a high ceiling. It would get lost and sound weak. Likewise you wouldn't want to put a 5 driver tower with two large woofers, a midrange, a tweeter, and a super tweeter into a very small bedroom with hard floors and lots of window glass area. It could quickly drive you right out of the room.
And where you sit and what you listen to and how loud you listen are all important in choosing speaker cabinet type, number of drivers, etc. That's what I mean by defining the problem first. It's just good engineering practice to do that and not just grab onto something because you like the way it looks or has some other appeal.
So to repeat from the earlier post, these are some of the things that you need to consider in order to start to define the problem:
Room Size
Room Acoustical Characteristics
Listening Position
Expected/Possible Speaker Locations
Type of Music
Intended SPLs
Last edited:
I wish i could understand this...i always think any one who couldn't get a large speaker in a small room to work, likely just is not using corrective room eq (if polar width was not the issue) and what a waste (if deciding this too big of system) of all that sound quality potential due to low excursion allowed via room gain........
My list likely looks like
Budget
Style/configuration (sealed/vent/open baffle/horn/2way/3way/mtm/full range etc)
Listening distance
Desired Polar width (listening window)
Desired bandwidth
Max spl goal
Size limitations
From there I'd design for lowest possible excursion with an emphasis on midrange driver quality...
Last edited:
Reference is something you compare to, doesn't have to be a "reference" of the industry. It helps if it is something you want to better. Or any good sounding speaker you love, you have to get the DIY model you are going to build as good or better, otherwise just stick to the reference until you have bettered it. At least you know when you are happy with the sound of your DIY effort, if you can listen a proper speaker side by side.
Last edited:
Why would you want to resort to corrective room EQ if you don't have to by matching the speaker size and characteristics to the room to begin with?
Seems to me that EQ is a last resort if absolutely necessary and to be avoided if at all possible.
And what makes you think that you can't get good sound quality with low excursion from a modest size driver when you don't need the same high SPL in a small room as you would in a larger room?
Measuring is quintessential as is listening. Measuring can and will boost design quality. When design quality grows, measuring becomes more important. By listening to results and comparing them to measurements, one can distinguish the important parameters. Luckily for us a lot of work on that part has already been done during the last 100 years. We actually have science called auditory perception.
Listening is great for appraising results. It sucks for doing design work or improving flaws.
Well, statistical analysis shows us marriages hold longer with smaller speakers 😉
(N was rather low when I did my analysis though...)
(N was rather low when I did my analysis though...)
Fast lane to a success ignoring boring audiophiles, get some drivers and build an enclosure, find your x/o parts by measuring, either directly swapping parts or simulating.
But speakers themselves are alway's band passed, meaning they have filters build into them. Even full range speakers, shocking but true.
If they didn't have filters, the frequency response would be ruler flat and that's never the case.
And as speakers are minimum phase devices, at least in their operating window, you can add filters/eq to optimize their frequency response.
My list, in order of importance:
Budget (determines how loud and/or how low you can go)
No resonances, iow flat frequency response in a reflection free environment.
Smooth polar response.
Low diffraction.
I'm hoping classicalfan meant EQ is a last resort for tuning a speaker to a room, which is something i can agree with.
Because in line with what you said, i think it is well known that EQ absolutely can improve drivers' responses. (In fact, it's mandatory best practice before applying xovers imho.)
Also agree with your list of factors...
I once tryed to make this assumption to Dr Geddes (big drivers implies too much energy throwed at some rooms/ despite the fact this is what i use for more than 20years in very different rooms from small to now medium large and i always managed to have something usable), which obviously he sent me back to do my homework.
So i did and never found ANY claims or data in my library (including AES papers) or theory books.
So... i still use 15" and plan to increase membrane area for my next pair. 😀
Yeah, big speaker, small room? No problem at all.
More likely to have a problem the other way around simply due to insufficient SPL across the spectrum.
More likely to have a problem the other way around simply due to insufficient SPL across the spectrum.
I won't say no problem at all as ime big drivers are 'trickyer' to locate in room° but i always had a solution (took a bit more time than with smaller one though, but worth the hassle imho).
Agree about the other way around or you have to be nearfield which is a shame when you have space availlable.
° in EU we often face 'hardshell' rooms with flat and even houses (resonant). Different built techniques than what you typically have in US where rooms are usually bigger and more leaky by built technique. Of course there is exception and im sure in big citys issues could be met too.
Agree about the other way around or you have to be nearfield which is a shame when you have space availlable.
° in EU we often face 'hardshell' rooms with flat and even houses (resonant). Different built techniques than what you typically have in US where rooms are usually bigger and more leaky by built technique. Of course there is exception and im sure in big citys issues could be met too.