A tower design is typically an ML-TL and not a BR.
You have only tousched the subject of box alignment. Typically step 1.
dave
I pay zero attention to this.
In a home hifi power handling is rarely an issue and given that there is no standard for specifying power handling you can only compare across a single manufacturer's data.
dave
Unfortunately, as Geddes shows, distortion measures are largely meaningless to humans. That is not to say that distortion is unimportant (althou i look at it from the aspect of what gets subtracted not what is added (adding “distortion products” to the driver output can mask some of information and thus reduce that drivers ability to reproduce the very small stuff that gives life and “reality” to a voice or instrument and is hugely important for a solid, stable, 3D image/soundstage.
The XO response in conjunction with the drivers, the phase/amplitude, and the physical spacing of the drivers all play a role in the above. I personally do not like XOs p;aced anywhere significantly above the frequency defines by the quarter wave-length of the driver spacing.
dave
Yes, room dominates (5 of the 6 above).
A big advantage diyers have is that we typically know the room we have to deal with.
dave
Except for the carpeting & drapes you describe what i am currently listening too. It sounds really good. Could use a bit more weight down low when turned up a bit (as you would suspect). XO at 250 Hz.
Does not get lost, weak i guess could apply to the need for more weight at louder volumes.
That is a more commin situation where the bas soverloads the room.
dave
Yes, apply any band-aid after you have already tried to use acoustic solution to solve the issue at the source.
The driver(s) are band-pass devices, so inherently have a LP & a HP. The box acts as a filter as well.
dave
Thanks, Dave. I think you and I see eye to eye on a lot of this and we are somewhat at odds with the general approach here. That approach is to put everything together, over do it for the room, overpower it, and then use EQ and other means to bring it back down to where is needs to be.
I don’t like that approach and don’t think it is consistent with good engineering practices. Those require that you fully define the problem you are trying to solve to the best degree possible before considering what a proper solution would be. Many people don’t comprehend or accept that idea. They would rather overkill the problem with some generic solution and then try to tweak it back down to match the problem. That is essentially what EQ and absorbent sound panels and other tweaks do.
I’m not saying that there aren’t times when EQ is required. But when it can be avoided or minimized it should be.
And here is the real kicker. I’ll bet that many of the advocates for EQ here are listening to vinyl. So now they take the nice pure analog signal and force into the digital domain through an ADC in order to apply the EQ, and then convert it back to analog with a DAC. That makes no sense at all to me. Match the speaker to the room and avoid all that digital signal processing if you can.
Hi classicalfan,
You have a very 'classic' 🙂 taste on what sounds good to you.
Vinyl, stay analog, avoid EQ.
It works, twas my formula for over 30 years of my adulthood....if i will ever actually be considered an adult Lol.
I've since moved to digital and FIR processed for various reasons.
My point in this post, is when we are at clear ends of the signal chain (like we both are), such as into 'all analog' vs 'dsp FIR'... ...
..i think we need to state up-front where we are coming from in almost all of our comments, so readers can assess our posts from our foundational viewpoints/prefernces.
Otherwise our perspectives get hard to make sense of sometimes...like in your avoid EQ comment. Make sense?
You have a very 'classic' 🙂 taste on what sounds good to you.
Vinyl, stay analog, avoid EQ.
It works, twas my formula for over 30 years of my adulthood....if i will ever actually be considered an adult Lol.
I've since moved to digital and FIR processed for various reasons.
My point in this post, is when we are at clear ends of the signal chain (like we both are), such as into 'all analog' vs 'dsp FIR'... ...
..i think we need to state up-front where we are coming from in almost all of our comments, so readers can assess our posts from our foundational viewpoints/prefernces.
Otherwise our perspectives get hard to make sense of sometimes...like in your avoid EQ comment. Make sense?
Brute force. Lots & lots of downsides to that. As well as benefits. Compromises everywhere. Not an approach i would take.
When i was learning math i learned to appreciate finesse and elegance in a solution. Not to say i sometimes had to take weird long-winded routes. In a differential equations test, i did not know the “official” approach (not paying much attention in class), so used an obscure topology technique/proofs i had learned in advanced courses. Prof said it was the strangest solution he had ever seen, but it did the job and i got full marks on that question (barely passing overall thou :^)
dave
Well i'm not one of the many that advocate to EQ but i confess i use a 'big' DSP and a pc with AES/EBU card ( iow a pro digital solution) AND a vinyl playback chain ( including tangential arm and MC).
And oh blasphemy, i convert all this 24/96... but not because i can eq or treat the signal ( despite i use regularly Ozone RX in order to get rid of some of the issues from vinyls) but for this reason:
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mus...ts-peaks-data-genres-music-2.html#post6157069
The fact is i choosen the DSP route because i'm not a gifted electronic engineer which master the 'art' of analog passive filter. Ease of use, ease of setup, no components selections to complements drivers behavior, all integrated solution with adc and dac that can compete with the best i've heard ( including Lavry's Gold or Prism ADA even if mine are a step back from them), .... and total coherency with the materials i used to work with, because initially monitors was tools i used at work.
I've got the most respect you can think of for those who master passive filter ( i already stated it and wasn't alone in this ( you know who you are Mark. Oops... 😉 ).
About choice and preference well... it is preference!
There is some quality to 'big' drivers i don't find in smaller one. Same thing with higher efficiency. That said i won't say this is a one size fits all.
I learned a lot from Dave or Scottmoose ( and still does) same goes from a lot of other people too ( too much to name them). That said i don't agree with all from anyone hence i made my own choice, and differ from anyone in some of them...
Does it makes some other approach seems silly to me? Sometimes yes but who am i to judge other choices and or preferences? ( as long as they are driven by science or experience or well...).
There is things to learn from everything, everyone and everyday in my view.
As Joe Cox (RIP) once told: "we have far more in common than which divide us".
Last edited:
classicalfan, if you are thinking that those that are saying you can use a large speaker in a small room are thinking primarily of how much power goes into it.. then I'd ask you to think again.
Then there is the story about the builder that tried a larger cabinet and found that it sounded larger. I'm sure most of us have had that moment, and credit to you for posting further to that experience, rather than simply extrapolating from what you've read.
However I've seen many inconsistent conclusions drawn here and there. The fact that a well designed system can sound as though it doesn't have a size, should go to show that.
Then there is the story about the builder that tried a larger cabinet and found that it sounded larger. I'm sure most of us have had that moment, and credit to you for posting further to that experience, rather than simply extrapolating from what you've read.
However I've seen many inconsistent conclusions drawn here and there. The fact that a well designed system can sound as though it doesn't have a size, should go to show that.
I do not know what you do for a living but I'm an engineer by profession and therefore can't disregard something that is so fundamental. Does 90dB/W exactly tell you how many watts you could apply? Do recall that speakers come in all sizes and power ratings.
In many cases, a 3dB compression has already occurred by the time you reach half the rated power. It is alright if the power is within limits, but the question really is whether you would "pass a design" without checking the same?
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is saying it's irrelevant. I use drivers off my shelf and I don't pay much (specific) attention to power ratings either, until I find it's a problem. Then I either get another driver, or use it differently.
However, from what I understand, the list was meant to check against before finalising anything.
Yes, Sir. I get the point.
Overboard,
You listed 'what do guru think of my design' in your list. I think it is inadapted.
The great thing to present a design in a place like this one is this is open to a group of people, all with their own perspective about things.
It helps to make educated choice to have pro and cons of the compromise to be made.
A Guru usually have definitive answer to this ( justified or not) and usually won't take the time to discuss other oposed view.
You listed 'what do guru think of my design' in your list. I think it is inadapted.
The great thing to present a design in a place like this one is this is open to a group of people, all with their own perspective about things.
It helps to make educated choice to have pro and cons of the compromise to be made.
A Guru usually have definitive answer to this ( justified or not) and usually won't take the time to discuss other oposed view.
I don’t think Geddes wrote that. He has performed research on the appraisal of various kinds of distortion. Stating that distortion is meaningless is a far too general conclusion. And it is not only about appraisal.
I for myself think the hifi adagium that a link in the chain shouldn’t contribute or omit too much still holds. If one thinks otherwise, that’s good for him or her, one’s own taste is as valid as that hifi adagium. But in that case, all this becomes more of a discussion about beer, wine or art methinks.
Google [ geddes distortion ]. Also look up Toole (Geddes references Toole a lot).
IMO better to read research done with blind listening tests than to read marketing or subjective stuff.
Can you soffit mount your speakers?
That trumps a few things in your list.
You can't have baffle step issues or edge diffraction if there are no edges.
e.g. William Cowan's Homepage
IMO these two are more or less important depending on your room and how you listen.
I rent, so soffit mounting is not an option. My listening room is "live" (hard surfaces). I often listen while exercising / moving around.
For me, beaming would be bad.
Wide and even coverage, yet minimal off-axis output, were my goals.
...so I went with a rather big mid-HF horn and a semi OB 18" for midbass. It "throws" lots of sound forward, none to the sides. The horn and LF systems, as much as possible, have the same coverage pattern, so the room (reflected) sound is reasonably even / not awful.
If I listened nearfield, in a dedicated spot in a "dead" room, none of this would matter.
Similarly, my outdoor system (on my bush block) is not optimised for off-axis response, or matching the HF and LF coverage angle. Room effects don't matter when there is no room.
That trumps a few things in your list.
You can't have baffle step issues or edge diffraction if there are no edges.
e.g. William Cowan's Homepage
IMO these two are more or less important depending on your room and how you listen.
I rent, so soffit mounting is not an option. My listening room is "live" (hard surfaces). I often listen while exercising / moving around.
For me, beaming would be bad.
Wide and even coverage, yet minimal off-axis output, were my goals.
...so I went with a rather big mid-HF horn and a semi OB 18" for midbass. It "throws" lots of sound forward, none to the sides. The horn and LF systems, as much as possible, have the same coverage pattern, so the room (reflected) sound is reasonably even / not awful.
If I listened nearfield, in a dedicated spot in a "dead" room, none of this would matter.
Similarly, my outdoor system (on my bush block) is not optimised for off-axis response, or matching the HF and LF coverage angle. Room effects don't matter when there is no room.