Placement is easier with active because you can EQ the boundaries at each speaker location.
If you want to use old style amplifier architecture then you're stuck with passive speakers as a practical matter. Old system architecture forced your hand in that case.
Something to consider from Floyd Toole, Sound Reproduction Chapter 18.4 page 772:
In other words, there's no benefit to shopping a wide selection of amplifiers anymore. That's something people struggled with in the past but is no longer necessary. Technology changed. Which means there's no benefit in hanging on to legacy equipment. I mean, how long do you want to hang on to your VCR when Blockbusters are closing down.
Now, in terms of purchasing commercial active speakers: yes, power cords are a problem. Active speakers are built by the factory with common household plugs. If you buy an active speaker from the store you will need to either have a plug or run an extension cord.
However, this is DIY Audio. That means you can build your own active speakers if you want. Which means you can power them with a power supply and thin gauge VDC lines not too different from plugging in smartphone chargers and running those thin power cords to your speakers. At that point, you can either run a hard wired line level source to your speakers or use Bluetooth. For that matter, you could even power your active speakers with Li-ion batteries if you wanted.
I think resistance to active speakers is that people don't understand how easy they are to build and power.
Or maybe people don't understand what a huge advantage active speakers are. For example, in the past, rich people would put a wall of McIntosh amplifiers and equalizers and 80lb power massagers in their listening room. Today, with active speakers, you can put superior systems in every room of your house for very low cost. You don't need space for a rack full of equipment anymore. Active speaker components will continue to improve while passive equipment continues to stagnate.
Here's another quote from Floyd Toole (Chapter 18)
The old passive architecture plateaued. It got as good as it is ever going to get. But you can easily -- and cheaply -- beat that with active systems.
Given that that is not at all true, shows one of the weaknesses in Floyd’s work.
Ouch. Good way to degrade the quality of the sonics.
There is certainly still a place for passive XOs (althou not needed w a FR), and modern modelers, better/cheaper test kit, and the greater wealth of compotent passive XO designers means that they keep getting better.
Active is often far easier to get close quicker.
dave
A Buschhorn is also worth considering. The original is with Fostex Fe103e. I built a scaled-down version using Tang Band W3-871S, it performs better than I expected for such small dimensions.
The Frugel-Horn family started out as a development on the Buschhorn. The development of the Frugel-Horn Mk3 greatly improved performance over teh Mk1.
The B-Horns are based on theoretical horn design, while (good) modern horns are designed using much more accurate software modelers that have really only been available since about 2000.
The Frugel-Horn Family'
A FH for larger drivers, Joan, is currently in beta.
If you have a particualr driver in mind, and it has not yet been covered email me or Scott and we can see whether it will work. Due to the damping and tapped nature of the FHs they are quite versatile in terms of the driver installed.
dave
The B-Horns are based on theoretical horn design, while (good) modern horns are designed using much more accurate software modelers that have really only been available since about 2000.
The Frugel-Horn Family'
A FH for larger drivers, Joan, is currently in beta.
If you have a particualr driver in mind, and it has not yet been covered email me or Scott and we can see whether it will work. Due to the damping and tapped nature of the FHs they are quite versatile in terms of the driver installed.
dave
Which is predicated on the assumption that it's possible to use active loudspeakers. As I clearly stated, some cannot, unless they either have available power nearby (for integrated types) and / or can accomodate the additional external hardware, relevant wiring etc. Thus a passive loudspeaker can be more straightforward in positioning terms, not for the reasons you think, but for prosaic matter of what can be accomodated.
Which is predicated on the assumption that your opinion is the only valid take. Some people, however, want something different to what you want, and do not share your goals. I'm a commercial loudspeaker designer: in January the company I work for is releasing three new multiway models, each of which will be available in passive and active versions [several variations of each] so I need no explanation as to what is involved in the matter. What I do need to be however, is alive to the fact that different people have different requirements.
Last edited:
I'm thinking you're missing the point here. You should know that not everybody hears the same and not everybody is searching the same kind of sound or setup. DSP and class D amps, the things you refer to have their place, but when the user has an F5 (class A) amp for a reason, that means he does want a different sound. Idem with fullrange drivers. Those are not flat neutral sounding, and that is not the goal. Some people want a coloured sound. That is why i prefer my tube amp over my solid state amps. And with what he has know it's clear that the OP also wants a bit coloured sound.
And second, dsp does colour the sound also, in a subtile way. You hear the digital processing compared ot an analog (active or passive) crossover. Some don't mind, some do. And with modern measurment techniques, simulations and parts you can make great flat response passive crossovers. It has been done before. So don't push your view as the only valid, because it isn't.
However forcefully people express their views I always take them are mere opinion, whoever they are. The longer I spend on this forum the more I discover how wrong a lot of people can be, the experienced ones can often turn out the most blinkered.
So I built the baffles using some 3” Tang brand drivers I had and some 1x12 pine. I swapped out the F5 for my old pioneer amp that has inputs for 4 speakers and was able to compare them. Obviously there was no real bass in the OB sound, and my vintage speakers are decent speakers (Gramps loved his opera), so the comparison wasn’t fair but I did love the OB when I put on Joshua Bell. Not so much for G-Love, but there is no surprise there (no bass). Anyway, I liked that the OB filled the room nicely and I could see building some OB’s with a Sub.
Can someone give me a sense of what the Frugel-Horn would be like. I realize that this isn’t quite the right venue for that, but the comparison to an OB would be valuable for me.
As far as rants go, I get it. People are opinionated. Heck, I’m opinionated. I also know that sound is both science and art. I listen to art through science, but science can also color art, like the lighting in a gallery or the acoustics of a venue. Also, this is a message board. Where would we be without an opinionated rant?
Can someone give me a sense of what the Frugel-Horn would be like. I realize that this isn’t quite the right venue for that, but the comparison to an OB would be valuable for me.
As far as rants go, I get it. People are opinionated. Heck, I’m opinionated. I also know that sound is both science and art. I listen to art through science, but science can also color art, like the lighting in a gallery or the acoustics of a venue. Also, this is a message board. Where would we be without an opinionated rant?
Last edited:
If the picture is accurate, a paper cone 8 crossed to a 3" cone tweeter, XO likely a single bipolar cap. Lots of ways to tweak those for better performance.
Verifying your page request - please wait! - JLA FORUMS
I think that a pair of FH3 with Mark Audio A7.3/7ms , or P7HD or FHXL w A10.3/p, A11ms, Fostex FF165wk would blow you away. The smaller speaker might not have the same bass weight. An 8” sealed in the ~25 litre box should be good there.
Quite a few other drivers can, and have been fitted.
dave
Attachments
Or Frugel-Horn Lite if you want to stretch them to the max. Not as easy to build as a Tabaq (a small Mass Loaded Transmission Line).
dave
Melamst,
You can have a look at this project - should be within your budget. It's not active, but a passive cross-over.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...5-8-fast-waw-ref-monitor-197.html#post6016550
The 10F/8424 drivers are very good but expensive - the XO has been tweaked for more affordable drivers too.
The build is well documented and xrk971 has XO PCBs in case you want to use them. Probably these will rock out more with a Class AB amp, but will work with you F5 clone too assuming you have got a preamp with some gain.
You can have a look at this project - should be within your budget. It's not active, but a passive cross-over.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/ful...5-8-fast-waw-ref-monitor-197.html#post6016550
The 10F/8424 drivers are very good but expensive - the XO has been tweaked for more affordable drivers too.
The build is well documented and xrk971 has XO PCBs in case you want to use them. Probably these will rock out more with a Class AB amp, but will work with you F5 clone too assuming you have got a preamp with some gain.
Last edited:
That RS225 woofer is a great woofer for small cabinets and can get real low. The 10F is great, but a very expensive driver. An smaller mark audio or TB driver could also be used for such a waw combo, like with that small TB driver in an OB like you did.
I did that for someone. Put that driver in a 45L ported cabinet with a slot port of 30x1.8cm and 33.8cm long and you have a small subwoofer tuned to 30Hz, that can be crossovered up high to 500-600Hz without issues. And put that TB driver in OB config above it with a passive crossover so you can use your F5. The RS225 is more efficient (91dB official, a little bit lower in reality) than most of TB's 3" drivers altough, but that can count for BFC if it's not to much. I did it with the W3-316B in OB setup that the new owner already had wich is 88dB efficient and that did fit perfectly with a second order cr at 450Hz.
I did that for someone. Put that driver in a 45L ported cabinet with a slot port of 30x1.8cm and 33.8cm long and you have a small subwoofer tuned to 30Hz, that can be crossovered up high to 500-600Hz without issues. And put that TB driver in OB config above it with a passive crossover so you can use your F5. The RS225 is more efficient (91dB official, a little bit lower in reality) than most of TB's 3" drivers altough, but that can count for BFC if it's not to much. I did it with the W3-316B in OB setup that the new owner already had wich is 88dB efficient and that did fit perfectly with a second order cr at 450Hz.
Naw: I’m using a B1. I need a higher sensitivity design. Thanks, though! It looks like a great design that is thoroughly vetted and would be fun to build.
I jumped on the NP train from the start, built my system backwards because I got excited about all the soldering and figured I’d get to the speakers when I understood more about them, bought a few books on speaker performance, realized that it will take years to understand it all, and am now deciding to reach out for help. Yes, I know I’m missing out on sound.
Planet 10 - yes, those look like the correct speakers.
I took the TB’s from a pair of small enclosures I made for the TV room so I have to put them back, or make better enclosures for them for that room...
Hi there,
I’m Thomas and I’m starting with diy-audio.
I find it pretty hard to find a speaker enclosure for a full range Tang Band W6-2144 driver.
I like the onken enclosures en tried the calculator. But I don’t have the knowledge to transform the data to an enclosure.
Hopefully someone can help me to design a suitable enclosure for the driver. But not to big.
Thank you in advance!
I’m Thomas and I’m starting with diy-audio.
I find it pretty hard to find a speaker enclosure for a full range Tang Band W6-2144 driver.
I like the onken enclosures en tried the calculator. But I don’t have the knowledge to transform the data to an enclosure.
Hopefully someone can help me to design a suitable enclosure for the driver. But not to big.
Thank you in advance!
I have the 10F and prefer the Mark Audio A5.2/3 and the FF85wk.
With the development of small speakers for TVs, computers, and other small kit has led to a much wider selection of small decent drivers.
dave
Thomas,
I don’t know about an Onken, but this driver fits into a 25-50 litre miniOnken (not officially an Onken, it just uses the high aspect ratio vents for better LF performance (quality not extention) and structural strength.
35 litres goes almost as low as the 50 litre, but with a nicer roll-off shape. Should be possible to use the A12pw base enclosure (or any of the other miniOnken flavours). F10 near 30 with the 2 bigger boxes.
25 litre (net) sealed will get you to F10 of 40 Hz.
email if you would like my help for drawings.
dave