I'm a previous SC V owner, looking for a LITTLE more bottom end... So a friend ,Chris at Solen,and Neil from Wilmslow audio have come up with a 80x22x30 cabinet 4 way design . Twin JBL 2245 18",twin JBL 2118 8", ATC SM 75-150 and a Scanspeak 9900 in a classic Dunlavy design.the journey is well on it's way!
Attachments
Well it wouldn't have been as time coherent... that was the key point in all of his speakers.
I could understand porting the 15" bass but I wouldn't call this a true tribute.
I'm not trying to put you down or anything, just in the spirit of Dunlavy I'd have opted for time coherency.
Not even implying that you couldn't be on your way to an awesome speaker here...
Just not one that John Dunlavy would have chosen to design or build...
Send me a PM with your email address and I'll send you a copy of John Dunlavy's paper on "Loudspeaker Accuracy" to get an insight of his design philosophy's.
I found it online but can't trace it right now. I have a copy of it on HD. It's a series of jpegs of scanned papers.
I could understand porting the 15" bass but I wouldn't call this a true tribute.
I'm not trying to put you down or anything, just in the spirit of Dunlavy I'd have opted for time coherency.
Not even implying that you couldn't be on your way to an awesome speaker here...
Just not one that John Dunlavy would have chosen to design or build...
Send me a PM with your email address and I'll send you a copy of John Dunlavy's paper on "Loudspeaker Accuracy" to get an insight of his design philosophy's.
I found it online but can't trace it right now. I have a copy of it on HD. It's a series of jpegs of scanned papers.
Last edited:
Those ports will add 10ms of group delay. Not sure why ports are needed on the mids - a sealed or aperiodic sealed TL is best here to reduce GD and give best time alignment. Wesayso has a point about Dunlavy, if anything, time coherency and great step response is what his designs were known for.
I think John just rolled over.
Any more of this heresy and he's going to come and get you.
Listen all....I was a Dunlavy owner and lover of his design, it's z shame he's gone, but for my taste, the sc V was a great speaker in my system,with all the power in the world thrown at them could not produce enough bass for me.My project will not only rock the lights out but will image pretty darn good,be super efficient and be serviceable. My homage to the wmbmtmbw design. If I'm out by 10ms because of porting.. at 100 db+....it won't really matter
I kinda feel responsible for this... Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I'm just a fan of Dunlavy's way of thinking/designing. Like I said before, I do hope you're on your way to your own audio nirvana. Even though Dunlavy wouldn't have chosen that compromise.
My offer still stands if you want to read up.
My offer still stands if you want to read up.
Not trying to slam you here, but honestly the introduction of porting goes against all Dunlavy stood for. Sure, you may end up with a great speaker but one that should not be lumped together with Dunlavy designs. FWIW I would recommend you tune them low and then add a brickwall filter to make the best of what you have, so that the worse of the group delay is kept below where most musical content lies.
OH BOY....so Dunlavy made a great sounding speaker with NO BASS!
So how good a speaker is that???!!!!
My brother has those speakers and he told me once how good the bass was IN HIS CLOSET!!! I am not KIDDING! (This was while music was playing BTW!!!) Not a great selling point to speaker design.
Can you imagine the salesman trying to sell those speakers, "Yeah sir just stand over here and hear how good the bass is, No a little closer over here, no, a little further, right there in the closet! Just listen!" Wow I am amazed!
Don't get me wrong, those things sound great, but music of all SORTS is played with a LOT of LOWS!
So instead of bashing a guy who has owned AND HEARD those speakers...let him try to improve them to his taste!
I for one would NEVER buy a set of Dunlavy speakers!
You know why? They are NOT FULL RANGE speakers...and I know cause I have HEARD THEM...in a house and not in a show room!
I think pretty much the fact that someone was trying to sell the "quality" of this speaker by telling you how good it sounds in the closet, is all you need to say about these speakers!
So how good a speaker is that???!!!!
My brother has those speakers and he told me once how good the bass was IN HIS CLOSET!!! I am not KIDDING! (This was while music was playing BTW!!!) Not a great selling point to speaker design.
Can you imagine the salesman trying to sell those speakers, "Yeah sir just stand over here and hear how good the bass is, No a little closer over here, no, a little further, right there in the closet! Just listen!" Wow I am amazed!
Don't get me wrong, those things sound great, but music of all SORTS is played with a LOT of LOWS!
So instead of bashing a guy who has owned AND HEARD those speakers...let him try to improve them to his taste!
I for one would NEVER buy a set of Dunlavy speakers!
You know why? They are NOT FULL RANGE speakers...and I know cause I have HEARD THEM...in a house and not in a show room!
I think pretty much the fact that someone was trying to sell the "quality" of this speaker by telling you how good it sounds in the closet, is all you need to say about these speakers!
Dunlavys had the ability to excite room modes, ie "bass.". They could do it better than most, because they had big woofers in closed boxes. The problem is, in the bass the speakers play a bit part. It's all about room modes, and a stereo "full range" pair of speakers offers no control of room modes. That's why a truly high fidelity system requires multiple subwoofers.
The subject speaker is nothing like a Dunlavy design. Note that the tweeter isn't recessed with stepped felt. The post makes no mention of 1st order acoustic crossovers, which are at any rate impossible with a vented midbass. That could be a good thing. Dunlavys were IMO the world's biggest headphones. Move your head and the magic goes away. A good reason to design for even power response and not just flat axial response
Also, I think "floobydust" is the word Dunlavy used for wire scammers like Georgie Cardas...
The subject speaker is nothing like a Dunlavy design. Note that the tweeter isn't recessed with stepped felt. The post makes no mention of 1st order acoustic crossovers, which are at any rate impossible with a vented midbass. That could be a good thing. Dunlavys were IMO the world's biggest headphones. Move your head and the magic goes away. A good reason to design for even power response and not just flat axial response
Also, I think "floobydust" is the word Dunlavy used for wire scammers like Georgie Cardas...
Last edited:
I agree with what Pallas said.
IMHO, if you're unhappy with the bass response of Dunlavys speakers, the optimum solution would be the addition of a subwoofer array. Here's why:
Dunlavys used first order crossovers. In order to use these filters, he had to use drivers with very wide bandwidth. For instance, a woofer with a first order lowpass at 125hz will only be down 12dB in the octave where the midrange is playing. IE, due to the use of first order filters, the smoothness and bandwidth of all drivers has to be exceptionally good. Due to this fact, Dunlavy tended to use drivers that weren't terribly efficient. (Heavy damped cones and low efficiency go hand in hand.)
I've got mad respect for Dunlavy, and improving on his designs will not be easy. You can't just throw a bunch of drivers in a box and get the same results; everything he did was for a reason.
IMHO, if you're unhappy with the bass response of Dunlavys speakers, the optimum solution would be the addition of a subwoofer array. Here's why:
Dunlavys used first order crossovers. In order to use these filters, he had to use drivers with very wide bandwidth. For instance, a woofer with a first order lowpass at 125hz will only be down 12dB in the octave where the midrange is playing. IE, due to the use of first order filters, the smoothness and bandwidth of all drivers has to be exceptionally good. Due to this fact, Dunlavy tended to use drivers that weren't terribly efficient. (Heavy damped cones and low efficiency go hand in hand.)
I've got mad respect for Dunlavy, and improving on his designs will not be easy. You can't just throw a bunch of drivers in a box and get the same results; everything he did was for a reason.
Big Dunlavy fan here... auditioned many times but never brought a pair home, read many great articles and interviews on the net over the years.
I think the upper end of this hobby just boils down to two paths:
1) Embrace the complexity of multiple subs or multiple driver line arrays (multiple subs on top of each other
and how to "work the room" with placement and treatment options
2) Go active, miniDSP being much better than many arm chair experts give it credit for.
I did the latter, because I always lusted after the "super speaker" and had many targets of admiration but mostly: Duntech/Dunlavy, Thiel, Linn, Wilson, Focal, Snell and Dynaudio. I didn't want to mess with my room and I didn't want a bunch of subs, if any, so I built a pair of monster speakers and use miniDSP to manage any peaks (nulls are a little movement I suppose but I just haven't found nulls to be a problem in my case) and also eq preferences (I like a little bass kick as well, flat in room does not do it for me)
This is what I did, and I am very happy with the results even though it is still a bit of a work in progress:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/261785-javelin-4-way-digital-active-project.html
I think the OP's project here looks awesome, but I do agree that the design is not any closer to a Dunlavy than it is to any number of extreme floor-standers. I like your mid-dome and tweeter choices and not all that familiar with the rest other than knowing most would agree those JBL drivers are very good.
I think the upper end of this hobby just boils down to two paths:
1) Embrace the complexity of multiple subs or multiple driver line arrays (multiple subs on top of each other
and how to "work the room" with placement and treatment options2) Go active, miniDSP being much better than many arm chair experts give it credit for.
I did the latter, because I always lusted after the "super speaker" and had many targets of admiration but mostly: Duntech/Dunlavy, Thiel, Linn, Wilson, Focal, Snell and Dynaudio. I didn't want to mess with my room and I didn't want a bunch of subs, if any, so I built a pair of monster speakers and use miniDSP to manage any peaks (nulls are a little movement I suppose but I just haven't found nulls to be a problem in my case) and also eq preferences (I like a little bass kick as well, flat in room does not do it for me)
This is what I did, and I am very happy with the results even though it is still a bit of a work in progress:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/261785-javelin-4-way-digital-active-project.html
I think the OP's project here looks awesome, but I do agree that the design is not any closer to a Dunlavy than it is to any number of extreme floor-standers. I like your mid-dome and tweeter choices and not all that familiar with the rest other than knowing most would agree those JBL drivers are very good.
Last edited:
Thanks too all for the input, I come from the belief of big name big $$$ speakers are gospel of audio,then discovering that they use cheap drivers for example the Wilson Maxx's I sold to venture down this diy highway.my recent first completion of a passive atc c6 clone center strengthens my passion for a large floor sander.I agree with the poster about room nodes...I sure had them.and to the poster regarding a 4 way active...I totally agree...it would be the the ultimate way to go. I used to run in competition car audio (which has put a dent in my home audio projects)..
In the end, I'll have a fairly efficient tower, able to run with a large mono....to any level my ears can handle.
In the end, I'll have a fairly efficient tower, able to run with a large mono....to any level my ears can handle.
Finally done my ATC C6 center channel and my tower project.11 months for 3 speakers start to finish. A very cool first attempt at DIY IMHO, thanks to all for input thus far
Attachments
I'm sorry to say that i just discovered why you think SC-V have no bass!?, Car audio competitions
. Those guys are sooooooooo into fake, over exagerated low quality bass... This being said, i am working on a similar project, using dual JBL 2235's in a wmtmw config in ported design . I will follow your project for sure!.- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.