Me-geithain speakers are coaxials, but they are using dome tweeter front of a woofer. You missed Tannoys from the listsurely coaxials sound great but perhaps there are some aspects that are more important in studio world where coaxials lack? Might be the ~1-3k crossover point one has to use due to the woofer starting to beam, conebreakup issues, dynamic nature of the horn and things like that which can be avoided with a different design like a three way with smaller mid driver. After all studios are more controlled listening environment than homes or live venues where coaxials can be seen.
Hi tmuikku,
I've already been pointed to the Geithain speakers, they seem to perform very good. Never heard them. They're not coaxials, but the construction with the tweeter in front is apparently being engineered well enough to make it a pro.
And yes, a coaxial has problems on his own. Even more, I don't think that ANY driver or speaker is flawless. So other implementation , other problems.
I know studios, have been there recording and mixing. Always had an issue with the sound changing when you move around the mixing desk. Did have the "pleasure" of discovering comb filtering and the likes. I did once had the real pleasure of mixing with a set of Tannoy System 15 DMT. NO issues what so ever.
From that day on, I love Tannoy's.
Now having a small company, developed a PA with satellites that can be lifted with 2 fingers, fits in the boot of your normal car, sounds like heaven and cost ⅓ of commercially available crap. No one believes it works, until they here it. So, can't be done is not an option. With me doing everything different with good results, I wanted to start a Studio Monitoring line. That would also consist of large Main Monitors. Looking at the current market (what we now call our competition, ahum...) I noticed these are insanely expensive, and I do understand the cost of developing. But 60.000 euro's for a monitor set, that holds not more than 2 or 3 grand of hardware... come on. AND, this is DIY land, where people help and challenge each other.
Net result, love coaxials, want a studio monitoring line, want to do it different, there you are: A main monitor, build with off the shelf commercially available products, affordable, coaxial included, LOUD and top notch. Hey, you got to have a goal in your life.
We started with the idea of doing a modern version of the Tannoy DMT, which was a very appreciated Studio Main Monitor way back when.
BTW, the issues with a coaxial you mentioned are exactly what we want to solve, use a coaxial in the right way. Charles has been doing that, making his Tannoy part of a kind of Tannoy FSM by adding a serious LF in a transmission line and use serious amp's. Ooh yeah forgot, I want to do transmission line in the PM-DMT as well.
I did try some time ago to come up with a soft dome MF and a soft dome HF, JEEZ, the crossover by itself started to get more complex by the minute. Also, you would need a serious MF to make it go low, hence EXPENSIVE. acoustic interference between the MF and HT, I had to cut them to peaces and engineer a combined front plate, no that's not a walk in the park, so ditched that setup.
Besides, it looked a copycat of the PMC BB3 more and more by the minute, I would only be able to be proud of kind of successfully copy, what someone else does better. It's different roads here.
So bare with me and see this evolve to a nice config. My target is active, tri-amped, with coaxial and 2x LF for around 800 Euro's per cabinet, that will blow you mind (OK, as a matter of speech).
Pardon me, for belong a bit on the comprehensive side here (I'm always like that)
kind reagrds.
As far as I know, the DMT did use a high pass on the Coaxial. But, indeed, we are moving on and start developing our own, inspired by the DMT concept. It was intended to go it's own way from the start.
Sorry, don't agree with you here, 2 points;
- Soffit mounting helps to avoid LF back-waves to bounce back of the wall and interfere with the original waves produced by the speaker sitting in front of the Wall. It also lifts the low end (6 dB) which make it seem to go lower (in fact, do an uplift of the real low notes) so we experience those more profound in the soundscape. Now putting such a monitor on the floor in front of the wall does not make the speaker sound less by itself, you just miss the effect of the soffit mount. ANY box can be soffit mounted, however a may require some LF EQ'ing / DSP setting changes, as a result of the loudspeaker already being bass heavy. Thin sounding loudspeaker benefit from this concept.
- We ARE aiming to make a Studio Main Monitor, that is INTENDED to be soffit mounted. Not being used in the living room per say, but since they will be active tri-amp-ed WITH a user selectable DSP, they will have a "living room" setting as well.
So, would you build them (or have me build them for you) and use in the living room, just flip the switch.
ANY room should be treated, but that's not always possible.
kind regards.
Which has gone by a bit quit, I can't get much info on them. What I DID notice is, they applied a lens in the coax for the HF driver to avoid beaming. Nice little twitch.
I don't know yet. I did find somewhere a how to put 2 drivers into one TL. The simm software doesn't have the option. As far as I can remember, you had to recall some T/S parameter to make the 2 define as 1 and have the middle between the 2 driver as the centre of one driver in the software.
I have 2 options in mind, where I'll always have 2 separate identical TL's;
- One box, consisting a 2 boxes, or better 2 TL's each have there own concealed space.
- One TL WITH the Coaxial and a second SAME TL WITHOUT the Coax. Like the PMC's
The latter seems more flexible.
While I'm writing, 2 identical TL's??? Maybe 2 DIFFERENT TL's to solve issues we come up with.....
Preferences??
kind regards.
Last edited:
A modern, affordable interpretation should be right up your street then!
Shure is, hop in and make it happen i'd say.
Promised myself to do a Foghorn Leghorn once in a while, just remembered this one, no offence I hope:
" Pay attention, I said pay attention when I’m talking to you son..JEEZ..you gotta be a Magician to keep a boys attention for more than 5 minutes nowadays."
kind regards.
Which has gone by a bit quit, I can't get much info on them. What I DID notice is, they applied a lens in the coax for the HF driver to avoid beaming. Nice little twitch.
Buckinghams are rare beasts but some say the best speaker Tannoy made.
Don't know myself as I've never heard (see above for reason
)Don't think the Faital of yours needs a lense, the dispersion looks very good!
But if you really want to avoid the speakers to sound different from different spots you want to avoid dispersion anomalies ie cross in the horn at the point at which its beam angle matches the cone. For the Faital that would be at around 1.7kHz because when wavelength equals cone diameter they tend to beam at 90deg.
Hi,
WAE your list of main monitor is interesting but it miss some of the 'big name':
Westlake, Kinoshita/Rey audio, Boxer, Exigy, Jbl, Meyer sound come to mind.
They don t all use the Atc mid dome (Kinoshita and Boxer i ve seen/heard use horn loaded TAD 2" CD from 480/600hz up). Meyer Sound and Exigy use 15" (Meyer use motional feedback on the woofer and xover at 800hz to CD/Horn if i remember correctly, Exigy use Tad 15" x-ed to 3" Atc (or Volt's clones) then soft dome tweeter).
About Tannoy's the real serious one from theyr latest studio range is the Dreadnough not the Buckingham! 3x15"... but you need a HUGE room for them (and a huge wallet if you can afford one of the very few (i think less than 10 pair seen birth) that were produced.
About the 3" mid dome i think it had been widely accepted as "The medium" of choice for good (technical) reason and because this is a trend in studio world, as were the Kinoshita's/Tad horn Cd combo in the 80's.
Philip Newell book on recording studio acoustic may be one of the reason the 3" are fashionable since 20 past years as he made an extensive analysis and comparison of possible solution for mid and the ATC was the 'winner' in his view ( not to my ears and i lived with SCM110A for two years as my mains).
An other reason the 3" is so widely used is that they sound 'good' whatever style you play. Tannoy wasn t really a choice for classical music engineers because they think something is missing in them for this style ( or because Tannoy ARE (were) the weapon of choice for rock, pop or electronic). This may have been true for the first iteration, not really with the MK2 in my opinion, but that is me...
Back to the Tannoy, the DMT range is sized for different control room size/use. The 215 is the one for medium sized/big room ( Dreadnough being the largest one for real big rooms). I ve heard them (215) once in an audiophile home some years ago but they wasn t as nice sounding that the dmt15II to me probably because the room wasn t adapted to them (to small!).
Never heard the Dreadnough but there is a pair in a studio not so far away from where i live and i may ask the owner one if i could visit the place for fun of listening and hear the thing! ( and they have an as rare as the Dreadnough console: Flickinger desk! Talk about sound engineer porn! I ve got wet dreams each time i look at this place gear list... lol)
Black Box - Accueil
Except from the very big one i ve heard/worked with almost all the dmt range (the 10" is the other one i never heard) and i do think that the 12" is the minimum size for this principle of coax.
Smaller diameter and this is too much a compromise for my taste in a 2 way (they cross to high and don t have the advantage of large membrane area for low mid as well as too much displacement for the low end reproduction which will compromise high end... usual culprit against coax principle) and a well designed MT may have same quality than coax maybe less compromise for high end artefact.
They may be quite good in a 3 way tough.
WAE your list of main monitor is interesting but it miss some of the 'big name':
Westlake, Kinoshita/Rey audio, Boxer, Exigy, Jbl, Meyer sound come to mind.
They don t all use the Atc mid dome (Kinoshita and Boxer i ve seen/heard use horn loaded TAD 2" CD from 480/600hz up). Meyer Sound and Exigy use 15" (Meyer use motional feedback on the woofer and xover at 800hz to CD/Horn if i remember correctly, Exigy use Tad 15" x-ed to 3" Atc (or Volt's clones) then soft dome tweeter).
About Tannoy's the real serious one from theyr latest studio range is the Dreadnough not the Buckingham! 3x15"... but you need a HUGE room for them (and a huge wallet if you can afford one of the very few (i think less than 10 pair seen birth) that were produced.
About the 3" mid dome i think it had been widely accepted as "The medium" of choice for good (technical) reason and because this is a trend in studio world, as were the Kinoshita's/Tad horn Cd combo in the 80's.
Philip Newell book on recording studio acoustic may be one of the reason the 3" are fashionable since 20 past years as he made an extensive analysis and comparison of possible solution for mid and the ATC was the 'winner' in his view ( not to my ears and i lived with SCM110A for two years as my mains).
An other reason the 3" is so widely used is that they sound 'good' whatever style you play. Tannoy wasn t really a choice for classical music engineers because they think something is missing in them for this style ( or because Tannoy ARE (were) the weapon of choice for rock, pop or electronic). This may have been true for the first iteration, not really with the MK2 in my opinion, but that is me...
Back to the Tannoy, the DMT range is sized for different control room size/use. The 215 is the one for medium sized/big room ( Dreadnough being the largest one for real big rooms). I ve heard them (215) once in an audiophile home some years ago but they wasn t as nice sounding that the dmt15II to me probably because the room wasn t adapted to them (to small!).
Never heard the Dreadnough but there is a pair in a studio not so far away from where i live and i may ask the owner one if i could visit the place for fun of listening and hear the thing! ( and they have an as rare as the Dreadnough console: Flickinger desk! Talk about sound engineer porn! I ve got wet dreams each time i look at this place gear list... lol)
Black Box - Accueil
Except from the very big one i ve heard/worked with almost all the dmt range (the 10" is the other one i never heard) and i do think that the 12" is the minimum size for this principle of coax.
Smaller diameter and this is too much a compromise for my taste in a 2 way (they cross to high and don t have the advantage of large membrane area for low mid as well as too much displacement for the low end reproduction which will compromise high end... usual culprit against coax principle) and a well designed MT may have same quality than coax maybe less compromise for high end artefact.
They may be quite good in a 3 way tough.
Last edited:
Hi Krivium,
Thanks for the informative reply. I will look into the brands you mentioned.
Mind you, I just reported brands I could find easily AND are build and sold TODAY. So no magic from the past. Regarding JBL, I could not find a 3 way Studio Main Monitor they sell right now. They have apperently "changed" there approach / product line (or I am completely off here).
Also, seems you have lots of practical experience in the studio? Would you be so kind to keep an eye on the thread, your input and opinion would be much appreciated.
kind regards.
W're not alone
No, I have not been drinking to much, neither do I lack friends.
I found kind of proof that our concept of design and build a Top Notch product using VERY affordable of the shelf products is VERY much plausible.
I was surfing the web for more info on use of coaxials, their challenges and its solutions, e - voila, I stumbled on a product that is deserving a number of awards in the HiFi world with this concept.
It is and Open Baffle design, using the Eminence Beta 12CX (70 euro) with a Selenium D220Ti HF (40 euro), a almost standard 2-way passive filter (50 euro's or so) and, believe it or not, a Behringer DCX2496 (300 euro) for EQ, phase correction and time alignment of the drivers. The review of this speaker was extremely positive and compared it with HiFi products in the range of 10.000 to 30.000 euro's. With a product that holds 450 euro's of Hardware with the addition of clever DSP tricks.
As said, it already deserved a number of awards. There are larger versions adding 2 x 15 inch and applying a high-pass on the Eminence. The Open Baffle is a bit light on the low side of life so to speak, not that bass heavy as most HiFi speaker these days.
Sounding familiar????
I'm in. We have found a nice track to follow.
kind regards.
No, I have not been drinking to much, neither do I lack friends.
I found kind of proof that our concept of design and build a Top Notch product using VERY affordable of the shelf products is VERY much plausible.
I was surfing the web for more info on use of coaxials, their challenges and its solutions, e - voila, I stumbled on a product that is deserving a number of awards in the HiFi world with this concept.
It is and Open Baffle design, using the Eminence Beta 12CX (70 euro) with a Selenium D220Ti HF (40 euro), a almost standard 2-way passive filter (50 euro's or so) and, believe it or not, a Behringer DCX2496 (300 euro) for EQ, phase correction and time alignment of the drivers. The review of this speaker was extremely positive and compared it with HiFi products in the range of 10.000 to 30.000 euro's. With a product that holds 450 euro's of Hardware with the addition of clever DSP tricks.
As said, it already deserved a number of awards. There are larger versions adding 2 x 15 inch and applying a high-pass on the Eminence. The Open Baffle is a bit light on the low side of life so to speak, not that bass heavy as most HiFi speaker these days.
Sounding familiar????
I'm in. We have found a nice track to follow.
kind regards.
Last edited:
Coax-LF excursion
Just a quicky;
Curious how the Coaxial LF would be moving about in our concept (leave out the lows). I chose 300 Hz, as per the next concept, have the mid-driver (our Coax-LF) drive the "sensitive range" of 300 - 3500 Hz give or take. It's where our ears are at best and, as can be seen in our competition solutions overview (to be extended), is an excepted practice / finding of other DIY-members. It also may prevent the experienced horn-honk-ring as stated by some to be a coaxial no-go, I would think that will sit around 1000 - 2000 Hz. These frequencies are often experienced as fatiguing and overwhelming if applied wrong. The Coaxial horn may sound harsh here, so leave it out...
The picture shows both our current preferences, the Eminence Beta10CX (orange) and the Faital 8HX200 (yellow) in a 6 liter closed box (to sit within the Transmission line) High-passed @ 300 Hz applying 25 Watts resulting around 110dB. The 110 dB is the target SPL since our TL runs about this level with the Hypex 3-amp I intend to use.
It's a whopping 0.4 mm max predicted.
kind regards.
Just a quicky;
Curious how the Coaxial LF would be moving about in our concept (leave out the lows). I chose 300 Hz, as per the next concept, have the mid-driver (our Coax-LF) drive the "sensitive range" of 300 - 3500 Hz give or take. It's where our ears are at best and, as can be seen in our competition solutions overview (to be extended), is an excepted practice / finding of other DIY-members. It also may prevent the experienced horn-honk-ring as stated by some to be a coaxial no-go, I would think that will sit around 1000 - 2000 Hz. These frequencies are often experienced as fatiguing and overwhelming if applied wrong. The Coaxial horn may sound harsh here, so leave it out...
The picture shows both our current preferences, the Eminence Beta10CX (orange) and the Faital 8HX200 (yellow) in a 6 liter closed box (to sit within the Transmission line) High-passed @ 300 Hz applying 25 Watts resulting around 110dB. The 110 dB is the target SPL since our TL runs about this level with the Hypex 3-amp I intend to use.
It's a whopping 0.4 mm max predicted.
kind regards.
Attachments
Found kind of related content that might be of interest. Fulcrum Acoustic Details The Development Of A New Coaxial Driver Design - ProSoundWeb
I don't know anything about fulcrum speakers but the text indicates they try to overcome issues with coaxials.
I don't know anything about fulcrum speakers but the text indicates they try to overcome issues with coaxials.
Hi,
Fulcrum does use some dsp to inject 'inverse artefact' to the signal being reproduced to overcome the shading and issues related to the horn. Exactly what they do i don t know but it seems to be effective ( i never heard one tough, only heard about them by engineers i trust the review/preference).
Fulcrum does use some dsp to inject 'inverse artefact' to the signal being reproduced to overcome the shading and issues related to the horn. Exactly what they do i don t know but it seems to be effective ( i never heard one tough, only heard about them by engineers i trust the review/preference).
Hi Charles,
I do think you are spot on with your comment about fc ( and this is not astonnishing given your experience with coax and in particular Tannoy).
I think Wae is mixing technology requirements between different technology used ( 3" mid/dome tweeters in studio monitors does have different requirements than a horn/cd combo in coax).
Choice of using a coax is for me a convenient way to stay away from dome tweeters (which i does not like anymore) and to stay away from the 2/4k range fc it impose (most of the time, there are exceptions) which imho is in part responsible for the typical 'sound' of this technology choice.
I don t fully agree with the 300 to 4k range, sibillance area neither the membranne area comparaison previously made by Wae too:
_Inteligibility range is considered to be 300/6000hz (easily seen in Fletcher Munson curves),
_Sibilance are more in the 5 to 6k range (vary with male/female),
_Membranne area equivalent is more 2x10" more or less equal a 15", 2x12" an 18" etc,etc,... ( take a look at choice made by B&W in theyr flagship range when they moved away from single 15").
I agree those are details! And this won t change many things anyway because as Charles comments will hold true in the end: 12" coax will impose 1200hz fc by itself in my experience.
One last thing about the 15Dmt, the difference between mark 1 and mark 2 reside in a lowering of fc by some 100/200hz (from 1,3k to 1k/1,1k in the mk2) and some added damping materials in the cab. This doesn t seems a big deal but ime it does make a difference which is audible, mk2 being more refined in the mid to my ears.
Their is a trend with horn loaded cd to think that the 1k range (more or less) is the better compromise to cross as our hearing seems to be less sensitive to artefact in this area and below (2" cd may be crossed as low as 480hz in Warp range (Rey audio/Kinoshita) for example but they rely on the fact they must be inwall mounted -and the horn design is slightly different than the typical Tad horn which is xed over in the 600hz area for example -RM range chez Kinoshita, TAD range of 80's).
I personnaly do think that 3/4k is the most objectionable area to cross and paired with dome it does an idiosynchratic kind of sound.
I do think you are spot on with your comment about fc ( and this is not astonnishing given your experience with coax and in particular Tannoy).
I think Wae is mixing technology requirements between different technology used ( 3" mid/dome tweeters in studio monitors does have different requirements than a horn/cd combo in coax).
Choice of using a coax is for me a convenient way to stay away from dome tweeters (which i does not like anymore) and to stay away from the 2/4k range fc it impose (most of the time, there are exceptions) which imho is in part responsible for the typical 'sound' of this technology choice.
I don t fully agree with the 300 to 4k range, sibillance area neither the membranne area comparaison previously made by Wae too:
_Inteligibility range is considered to be 300/6000hz (easily seen in Fletcher Munson curves),
_Sibilance are more in the 5 to 6k range (vary with male/female),
_Membranne area equivalent is more 2x10" more or less equal a 15", 2x12" an 18" etc,etc,... ( take a look at choice made by B&W in theyr flagship range when they moved away from single 15").
I agree those are details! And this won t change many things anyway because as Charles comments will hold true in the end: 12" coax will impose 1200hz fc by itself in my experience.
One last thing about the 15Dmt, the difference between mark 1 and mark 2 reside in a lowering of fc by some 100/200hz (from 1,3k to 1k/1,1k in the mk2) and some added damping materials in the cab. This doesn t seems a big deal but ime it does make a difference which is audible, mk2 being more refined in the mid to my ears.
Their is a trend with horn loaded cd to think that the 1k range (more or less) is the better compromise to cross as our hearing seems to be less sensitive to artefact in this area and below (2" cd may be crossed as low as 480hz in Warp range (Rey audio/Kinoshita) for example but they rely on the fact they must be inwall mounted -and the horn design is slightly different than the typical Tad horn which is xed over in the 600hz area for example -RM range chez Kinoshita, TAD range of 80's).
I personnaly do think that 3/4k is the most objectionable area to cross and paired with dome it does an idiosynchratic kind of sound.
Last edited:
Thanks krivium, it is nice to be appreciated!
wae sais at some point that he doesn't like it how speakers sound differerent from different spots in the room and as far as I know that effect has two main causes:
1) Comb filtering because mid and tweet are in different place which is obviously not an issue with co-axials.
2) Discontinuities in dispersion hence the need to match it through the crossover region
Personally I've never heard the crossover point with my Tannoys which being 1.2k should be sticking out like a sore thumb according to the 'Don't cross between 300-3k' proponents. And even if there is a small chance of it being audible I believe it would be swamped by the audibility of a discontinuous dispersion pattern.
I don't dislike domes however I think they should be mounted in waveguides. PHL Audio has a few co-axials using domes which have tickled me for a long time but financial troubles (my own and PHLs) have so far stopped me from trying them.
wae sais at some point that he doesn't like it how speakers sound differerent from different spots in the room and as far as I know that effect has two main causes:
1) Comb filtering because mid and tweet are in different place which is obviously not an issue with co-axials.
2) Discontinuities in dispersion hence the need to match it through the crossover region
Personally I've never heard the crossover point with my Tannoys which being 1.2k should be sticking out like a sore thumb according to the 'Don't cross between 300-3k' proponents. And even if there is a small chance of it being audible I believe it would be swamped by the audibility of a discontinuous dispersion pattern.
I don't dislike domes however I think they should be mounted in waveguides. PHL Audio has a few co-axials using domes which have tickled me for a long time but financial troubles (my own and PHLs) have so far stopped me from trying them.
Charles,
Your comments are in line with my own conclusion.
About the dome/ring soft/metal dome in waveguide you may be right (non controlled directivity behavior is one of the 2 main objection i have about them the second one being i find them overly detailed in the very high which isn t natural sounding to me ( and yes i m a believer in the B&K in house curve so it stand true to me even with gradual roll off from 1kz and up).
I do find CD artefacts to be less annoying to me (supposed higher harmonic distortion) and they give a better 'texture' or 'weight' to cymbals in my view ( big chinas sound more real to me for example). Maybe the even order harmonic distortion does add something enjoyable ( triode amplifier like) maybe as i m getting older i can t hear the objectionable distortion anymore ( i m 41 yo, but could still identify 18khz according to the last earing test i ve done) or this is not an issue at all? Who knows? Maybe E. Geddes is right...
Phl yes. Bummer they can t be a trustable source anymore as they have some very nice woofer too (12" 40XX sound great). Never heard their coax tough.
We have Cabasse in France too which produce some very nice coax drivers too. I ve not heard their latest iteration of the principle (threeway concentric with 300 to 20k) but i lived for some month with a Goelette 500 (iirc) which use the first try around the principle (two way 900/20k with a 8" from 60hz to 900hz) and they had very nice quality. But no directivity control there too which is a deal breaker for me (and not digging deep enough in the low end).
Your comments are in line with my own conclusion.
About the dome/ring soft/metal dome in waveguide you may be right (non controlled directivity behavior is one of the 2 main objection i have about them the second one being i find them overly detailed in the very high which isn t natural sounding to me ( and yes i m a believer in the B&K in house curve so it stand true to me even with gradual roll off from 1kz and up).
I do find CD artefacts to be less annoying to me (supposed higher harmonic distortion) and they give a better 'texture' or 'weight' to cymbals in my view ( big chinas sound more real to me for example). Maybe the even order harmonic distortion does add something enjoyable ( triode amplifier like) maybe as i m getting older i can t hear the objectionable distortion anymore ( i m 41 yo, but could still identify 18khz according to the last earing test i ve done) or this is not an issue at all? Who knows? Maybe E. Geddes is right...
Phl yes. Bummer they can t be a trustable source anymore as they have some very nice woofer too (12" 40XX sound great). Never heard their coax tough.
We have Cabasse in France too which produce some very nice coax drivers too. I ve not heard their latest iteration of the principle (threeway concentric with 300 to 20k) but i lived for some month with a Goelette 500 (iirc) which use the first try around the principle (two way 900/20k with a 8" from 60hz to 900hz) and they had very nice quality. But no directivity control there too which is a deal breaker for me (and not digging deep enough in the low end).
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.