Because it sounds bad - believe me. I tried to be in a room with super amounts of damping.... sounds too dull.... and you dont want to live like imprisoned in a rubber cell
Exactly. That's why in an imperfect system, wide baffle tend to sound better than slim speaker. If only the room-related signals are already in the recording and amplified properly by the amplifier and the speaker, then you don't need extra sound from other than the cone alone
I started it... let me leave
Actually it seems like we all kinda agree. It's difficult for me to see where we truly disagree - besides our different ways of coming about the subject.
Lets just go back to the midrange of things and start another thread about DSP possibilities - even though the original premise of comparing most speaker drivers in this thread, was with some kind of EQ.
Actually it seems like we all kinda agree. It's difficult for me to see where we truly disagree - besides our different ways of coming about the subject.
Lets just go back to the midrange of things and start another thread about DSP possibilities - even though the original premise of comparing most speaker drivers in this thread, was with some kind of EQ.
Last edited:
To me, this discussion is very interesting, many informative points have been made. Some are subjective, as they must be because of the nature of hearing and the endless permutation of equipment, room conditions etc etc. Some are objective and known by all, others not. All in all thank you
Now, to my point!
I was thinking about making a speaker design, either a 4 way or a 3 way with powered subs. I have attached a simple picture.
My preference is, lightweight coned PHL drivers, (I have been collecting these for some years), and a Focal Audiom TLR tweeter. Separate boxes for each driver. 2 x 15" drivers for each bass unit isobarik loaded. Low order crossovers. Efficiency will be in the range of 93 to 95DB/w@1m.
I am concerned about the shrouding of the upper drivers. Is this a bad thing or is it in effect a slight horn loading?
Many thanks to all for your constructive thoughts.
Now, to my point!
I was thinking about making a speaker design, either a 4 way or a 3 way with powered subs. I have attached a simple picture.
My preference is, lightweight coned PHL drivers, (I have been collecting these for some years), and a Focal Audiom TLR tweeter. Separate boxes for each driver. 2 x 15" drivers for each bass unit isobarik loaded. Low order crossovers. Efficiency will be in the range of 93 to 95DB/w@1m.
I am concerned about the shrouding of the upper drivers. Is this a bad thing or is it in effect a slight horn loading?
Many thanks to all for your constructive thoughts.
Attachments
Hi, yeah the shrouding would diffract more than flat front and curved front would diffract even less. Also the drivers are not in same plane if tilted, which introduces delay between drivers which might be good or bad regarding crossover design. Focusing is only needed if the speaker is very tall or small so that primary listening axis hits your ear when at intended sweetspot. Typically listening axis is set horizontal at tweeter height or between mid and tweeter and might depend on your crossover topology. Tweeter height is most often between somewhere in 80-100cm height if the listening position is seated.
Many things to consider and visual appeal might be the most important one for you so go for it. If you are aware of possible shortcomings in "audio quality" and are fine with that it will be a successful project for you. Have fun!
Many things to consider and visual appeal might be the most important one for you so go for it. If you are aware of possible shortcomings in "audio quality" and are fine with that it will be a successful project for you. Have fun!
Last edited:
Focal might do it for many reasons: visual, get tweeter to ear height, crossover topology I mention crossovertopology since for example HarshXO seems to tilt the "main beam" down and have nulls above. This is fine if the speaker is tall. Shorter speaker would benefit having the tweeter below mid to get the beam to hit ear and have most of the nulls towards the floor.
Loudspeaker design is full of compromises to choose between. Many things are found and learned and improved with prototyping. For this reason Complex speaker boxes are doomed to be expensive or fail, prototypes are expensive (time and money) and for that reason often skipped But that is fine if one is prepared to accept that the beautiful speaker might not sound as good as it looks without another revision, which potentially looks worse but sounds better.
I mention crossovertopology since for example HarshXO seems to tilt the "main beam" down and have nulls above. This is fine if the speaker is tall. Shorter speaker would benefit having the tweeter below mid to get the beam to hit ear and have most of the nulls towards the floor. Loudspeaker design is full of compromises to choose between. Many things are found and learned and improved with prototyping. For this reason Complex speaker boxes are doomed to be expensive or fail, prototypes are expensive (time and money) and for that reason often skipped
But that is fine if one is prepared to accept that the beautiful speaker might not sound as good as it looks without another revision, which potentially looks worse but sounds better.
Last edited:
Yeah a tradition is another reason to do stuff in a certain way. It just doesn't mean it is better (or worse) than some other way of doing things. Standing in the shoulder of the previous generations is way to move forward and have better products but in HiFi there is a trap rigged by marketing departments so one should be aware that some things might be chosen over personal preferences. I mean sometimes audio or visual aspect is chosen because of more monetary benefit for the company not more performance for the customer.
It is not easy see marketing department decisions without knowledge on the speaker design. Being aware that all loudspeakers are set of compromises chosen by the designer (and possibly tweaked by the marketing folk) is a good start to evaluate if there is something to get influence from. Focal might be one, never looked.
It is not easy see marketing department decisions without knowledge on the speaker design. Being aware that all loudspeakers are set of compromises chosen by the designer (and possibly tweaked by the marketing folk) is a good start to evaluate if there is something to get influence from. Focal might be one, never looked.
Last edited:
Focal might do it for many reasons: visual, get tweeter to ear height, crossover topology
Loudspeaker design is full of compromises to choose between. Many things are found and learned and improved with prototyping. For this reason Complex speaker boxes are doomed to be expensive or fail, prototypes are expensive (time and money) and for that reason often skipped
Sorry, but I don't agree with the statement regarding complex boxes, the vibrations (however well the boxes are made) smear the action of smaller drivers, caused by the larger drivers. One can look at the products of many high end products, though I have always thought this.
Of course you can do a complex box! motivation for complex box is either better looks or performance or both. Better performance, however, is not easily proven before the box is build and measured (simulation is hard and might not be accurate enough). It is just more work to get performance out of complex box and prorotyping shouldn't be overlooked. In this case I was refering to the shrouding (recess) since you asked comments on it. If you want shrouding and get sound and looks in balance prepare to make at least few prototypes. Skip prototyping and the performance is on the luck = good probability to be failure, unless you accept the fact that it is what it happens to be then any performance is acceptable.
Last edited:
Many companies are 'submerging' drivers into baffles, after all, what is a horn loading at the end of the day? I accept that the shape of the recess should be optimised though. The drivers would be "focused" to cross at a theoretical listener seated ear position, the reason that the HF unit is on the top is to (as much as is possible), get better time alignment. Though I realise that 70mm or so makes very little difference, it does protect HF drivers from vibration interaction from the larger Bass/mid unit. As has been said here, all is a compromise.
One such example, though there are many out there, not all driven by the marketing department.
TAD Reference One
Last edited:
I see, and accept your points. I was swayed toward multiple boxes then I touched the side of a well made cabinet whilst it was playing, felt the vibrations and then lightly touched the dome of the tweeter. The vibrations from the box are orders of magnitude larger in my opinion. Subjective I know, but I think valid.
Seems valid point to use separate boxes, to control vibration. I cannot comment how well the plan will work, propably requires few tests to see if there is need to isolate sections to actually reduce vibration?
As an example I'll write some things that come with separating sections into smaller boxes. Cost and complexity is more than with single enclosure but you seem to be fine with that. Size would be another thing that comes to my mind. Single enclosure could provide more volume for a bass driver with smaller outer dimensions. If there is enough air volume for each driver with separate boxes all is fine. Separate boxes could enable easy manufacturing for optimized baffle diffraction for each section but is it worth it to compromise the designed looks to even investigate is up to you. Where to put the crossover/wiring/amp would be another thing to have in mind.
Anyway, million additional questions/consequences arise from one decision/design path (reduce vibration effects) and there might be other more effective ways to reduce the vibration that might have better set of consequences Anyway, it is up to you to decide what the end product should achieve and investigate how to fulfill all requirements without bad trade-offs / unintended consequences. Remember to have fun!
As an example I'll write some things that come with separating sections into smaller boxes. Cost and complexity is more than with single enclosure but you seem to be fine with that. Size would be another thing that comes to my mind. Single enclosure could provide more volume for a bass driver with smaller outer dimensions. If there is enough air volume for each driver with separate boxes all is fine. Separate boxes could enable easy manufacturing for optimized baffle diffraction for each section but is it worth it to compromise the designed looks to even investigate is up to you. Where to put the crossover/wiring/amp would be another thing to have in mind.
Anyway, million additional questions/consequences arise from one decision/design path (reduce vibration effects) and there might be other more effective ways to reduce the vibration that might have better set of consequences
Anyway, it is up to you to decide what the end product should achieve and investigate how to fulfill all requirements without bad trade-offs / unintended consequences. Remember to have fun!
Last edited:
The only way to isolate drivers is to use an elastic suspension, being it air sping or rubber band cords.It works when the 'elastic arrow' gets balanced by the k of the spring and the weight of the thingy to be suspended. Each driver is isolated by the others by the means of the springs.
In order, the things that produce more vibrations is 1) subwoofer;2)woofer;3)midrange
SO the tweeter and the midrange need to be separated from the woofer
In order, the things that produce more vibrations is 1) subwoofer;2)woofer;3)midrange
SO the tweeter and the midrange need to be separated from the woofer
And recently many "dual opposing woofer" designs have popped up in the forums as well as in the commercial speakers. Seems to reduce vibration a lot, never tried but makes sense.
Traditional way is to try to get the box resonances out of band for smaller effect. Sub woofer boxes are made stiff with bracing which makes the resonances high enough to get out of band. Mid boxes might benefit from really floppy walls to get resonances below high pass. Separate boxes for each section would enable this kind of optimization.
Traditional way is to try to get the box resonances out of band for smaller effect. Sub woofer boxes are made stiff with bracing which makes the resonances high enough to get out of band. Mid boxes might benefit from really floppy walls to get resonances below high pass. Separate boxes for each section would enable this kind of optimization.
Last edited: