wafflesomd,
Thank you for sharing your experience and observations—it’s clear you’ve put considerable time into analyzing and modifying the Pit Vipers, and your technical curiosity and commitment to better sound are commendable.
That said, I’d like to offer a more nuanced perspective in response to your critique—one that takes into account the many complexities involved in speaker design, measurement, and ultimately, listener preference.
First and foremost, speaker voicing is inherently subjective. What sounds “right” or “neutral” to one person may sound dull, bright, recessed, or forward to another. Designers like Paul Carmody often develop their own sonic signature—an intentional voicing based on their personal taste, listening environment, and chosen design philosophy. That isn’t a flaw; it’s part of the artistry of speaker design. The use of specific drivers, crossover slopes, baffle dimensions, and porting are all tuned toward a goal that balances measured performance with listening experience. Changing any one of these elements—let alone multiple—will inherently shift that balance.
Regarding your point about the midbass dip and the differences from Paul's simulation, it’s important to recognize the limitations of simulation tools. Software like XSim and PCD can give highly accurate predictions if the inputs (FRD/ZMA files, acoustic offsets, and driver alignment) are perfectly captured. But in reality, even slight differences in mic placement, box stuffing, cabinet diffraction, or measurement techniques can lead to discrepancies of several dB. It’s not uncommon for DIY builders to see variances in the 3–6 dB range depending on their build precision and measurement setup. A 10 dB midbass null, while definitely significant, could also stem from room interaction or even mic distance—not necessarily an error in the original design.
You mentioned swapping the tweeter and running the system active—which is great if that got you closer to your preferred sound. But it also means the result is no longer representative of the original design. Different tweeters have different sensitivities, dispersion characteristics, and baffle interactions. Naturally, a crossover that was optimized for one dome will not work optimally with another. Likewise, moving the port, changing its diameter and location, or altering cabinet dimensions will affect both tuning frequency and cabinet resonances. These changes may well yield better results for your room and ears, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the original design was poor—just that it wasn’t tailored to your specific use case.
As for the Overnight Sensations and PE’s marketing graphs—while I agree that transparency matters, we also have to remember that the OS is a wildly popular entry-level kit, created over a decade ago, and never intended to be a measurement reference. It was designed as an affordable and great-sounding first build for many hobbyists. And for that purpose, it has succeeded immensely. Expectations should be aligned with that context.
Finally, while you’re right that designing your own speaker is more accessible than ever—thanks to measurement tools, software, and shared knowledge—it’s still far from trivial. A successful design balances dozens of variables: driver compatibility, impedance behavior, power response, lobing, phase alignment, distortion characteristics, cost, and buildability. Many builders fall into the trap of measuring flat on-axis response but overlooking off-axis behavior or crossover phase nulls that only show up in polar plots or summed impedance curves.
So in conclusion: your critiques are not without merit, and your desire for transparency and better design rigor is completely valid. But it’s also important to approach these topics with an understanding that design choices often involve compromise and artistic intent, not just raw data. What you might consider a flaw may have been a deliberate tuning choice. Measurement discrepancies can come from dozens of sources, and sound quality is ultimately personal. That’s why even among commercial speakers, you see such a wide range of tonal balances and voicing philosophies.
Respectfully, I think the best takeaway here is the one you already reached: build, measure, tweak, and share your work. That’s the real beauty of this hobby—learning from others, adding your own twist, and eventually developing your own voice in speaker design.
Looking forward to seeing your Amiga variant when it’s ready!
Thank you for sharing your experience and observations—it’s clear you’ve put considerable time into analyzing and modifying the Pit Vipers, and your technical curiosity and commitment to better sound are commendable.
That said, I’d like to offer a more nuanced perspective in response to your critique—one that takes into account the many complexities involved in speaker design, measurement, and ultimately, listener preference.
First and foremost, speaker voicing is inherently subjective. What sounds “right” or “neutral” to one person may sound dull, bright, recessed, or forward to another. Designers like Paul Carmody often develop their own sonic signature—an intentional voicing based on their personal taste, listening environment, and chosen design philosophy. That isn’t a flaw; it’s part of the artistry of speaker design. The use of specific drivers, crossover slopes, baffle dimensions, and porting are all tuned toward a goal that balances measured performance with listening experience. Changing any one of these elements—let alone multiple—will inherently shift that balance.
Regarding your point about the midbass dip and the differences from Paul's simulation, it’s important to recognize the limitations of simulation tools. Software like XSim and PCD can give highly accurate predictions if the inputs (FRD/ZMA files, acoustic offsets, and driver alignment) are perfectly captured. But in reality, even slight differences in mic placement, box stuffing, cabinet diffraction, or measurement techniques can lead to discrepancies of several dB. It’s not uncommon for DIY builders to see variances in the 3–6 dB range depending on their build precision and measurement setup. A 10 dB midbass null, while definitely significant, could also stem from room interaction or even mic distance—not necessarily an error in the original design.
You mentioned swapping the tweeter and running the system active—which is great if that got you closer to your preferred sound. But it also means the result is no longer representative of the original design. Different tweeters have different sensitivities, dispersion characteristics, and baffle interactions. Naturally, a crossover that was optimized for one dome will not work optimally with another. Likewise, moving the port, changing its diameter and location, or altering cabinet dimensions will affect both tuning frequency and cabinet resonances. These changes may well yield better results for your room and ears, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the original design was poor—just that it wasn’t tailored to your specific use case.
As for the Overnight Sensations and PE’s marketing graphs—while I agree that transparency matters, we also have to remember that the OS is a wildly popular entry-level kit, created over a decade ago, and never intended to be a measurement reference. It was designed as an affordable and great-sounding first build for many hobbyists. And for that purpose, it has succeeded immensely. Expectations should be aligned with that context.
Finally, while you’re right that designing your own speaker is more accessible than ever—thanks to measurement tools, software, and shared knowledge—it’s still far from trivial. A successful design balances dozens of variables: driver compatibility, impedance behavior, power response, lobing, phase alignment, distortion characteristics, cost, and buildability. Many builders fall into the trap of measuring flat on-axis response but overlooking off-axis behavior or crossover phase nulls that only show up in polar plots or summed impedance curves.
So in conclusion: your critiques are not without merit, and your desire for transparency and better design rigor is completely valid. But it’s also important to approach these topics with an understanding that design choices often involve compromise and artistic intent, not just raw data. What you might consider a flaw may have been a deliberate tuning choice. Measurement discrepancies can come from dozens of sources, and sound quality is ultimately personal. That’s why even among commercial speakers, you see such a wide range of tonal balances and voicing philosophies.
Respectfully, I think the best takeaway here is the one you already reached: build, measure, tweak, and share your work. That’s the real beauty of this hobby—learning from others, adding your own twist, and eventually developing your own voice in speaker design.
Looking forward to seeing your Amiga variant when it’s ready!
Last edited by a moderator:
If you enjoy watching building videos, check out Cameron's build log here:
He also measures the pit vipers after completion and gets a much closer measured response to Paul's than yours.
He also measures the pit vipers after completion and gets a much closer measured response to Paul's than yours.
That is awesome, I hope you get a response. I was going to suggest this, as I think a few of the designs he has published were originally commissioned projects.