Actually, this one does not really have a specific reference when it comes to the 4way specific area, When it comes to the cab designs i'm surely going to use CNO Grande or similar to that as a startingpoint, since it doesnt look too hard to build, its pretty simple yet not being a wooden box. If I do recall I might have read something about 4ways in one of Troels posts, and Paul from PS-Audio talked abit about a mid-bass coupler mentioning Arnie Nudell's love for them... I believe Troel said it played abit cleaner, but it's quite uncommon designchoice and it could be abit considered wasteful in many implementations. But I picked up on the former.
The member requested not to need larger values. Otherwise I (or someone else) was about to show a correct solution.
Hi! Copying something tested and approved is a good recommendation.
Subjectivity alert on: Troels Gravesen gets mentioned a lot here but what he builds probably doesn't sound much different from what you have right now. I have tried Scan Speak Revelators and they do the opposite of what you are asking for (with regards to the AC/DC reference).
Rethink your cabinet design. It follows the accepted standard for household speakers that don't get you in trouble with your wife and don't make anyone ask questions. That's about it.
If you build from scratch build a prototype with each driver in a separate enclosure that can be moved. Finish your crossover and then time align using a measurement system.
Thoughts on drivers: get a 15" like a Altec/GPA 416, an 8" wide band driver and bullet tweeters, cross at (roundabout) 300Hz and 5k and you will have a lot going.
Subjectivity off.
Subjectivity alert on: Troels Gravesen gets mentioned a lot here but what he builds probably doesn't sound much different from what you have right now. I have tried Scan Speak Revelators and they do the opposite of what you are asking for (with regards to the AC/DC reference).
Rethink your cabinet design. It follows the accepted standard for household speakers that don't get you in trouble with your wife and don't make anyone ask questions. That's about it.
If you build from scratch build a prototype with each driver in a separate enclosure that can be moved. Finish your crossover and then time align using a measurement system.
Thoughts on drivers: get a 15" like a Altec/GPA 416, an 8" wide band driver and bullet tweeters, cross at (roundabout) 300Hz and 5k and you will have a lot going.
Subjectivity off.
Last edited:
Just a quick FWIW, that B&W tend to use, er "minimalist" crossovers. The last ones I heard were some of their high-end 6.5" 2-way standmount speakers, and I wasn't impressed. Boomy bass (port tuned too high, perhaps, or maybe an under-sized box), and there was a HF shelf above about 5kHz.
So, a bit boom-tizz. Initially kinda impressive "so much bass, so much detail!", but bass guitar didn't have the lower-midrange "weight" that it ought to have, and vocals sounded thin.
Pushing them back against a wall would give more weight to the lower-mids, but wouldn't fix the bass.
Talking to the guys at the HiFi shop, B&W speakers tend to follow that trend. Measurements by Stereophile and the like seem to corroborate that.
So, my recommendation would be this: spend £100, get set up with measurement gear. Design a proper crossover for your existing speakers, and see how good you can make them.
Chris
So, a bit boom-tizz. Initially kinda impressive "so much bass, so much detail!", but bass guitar didn't have the lower-midrange "weight" that it ought to have, and vocals sounded thin.
Pushing them back against a wall would give more weight to the lower-mids, but wouldn't fix the bass.
Talking to the guys at the HiFi shop, B&W speakers tend to follow that trend. Measurements by Stereophile and the like seem to corroborate that.
So, my recommendation would be this: spend £100, get set up with measurement gear. Design a proper crossover for your existing speakers, and see how good you can make them.
Chris
So if upgrading your actual crossover by better parts in order to enhance the snap behavior you are lacking is out of equation. I would not go at others pointed out towards a self creation if it's your everyday loudspeaker. I don't believe 4 ways is better than 3 ways. All imho is about the design and crossover quality : design of it of course but also passive parts.
You talked about mid-bass and AC/DC band reference : that's a good point to start for a choice I believe as also the WAF & listening room size and how- much you can stand the loudspeakers out of the rear & side walls.
I will start from this then choose. Imho there is a simple design but which asks 4' to 6' distance from the rear wall : Open Bafle plan design. It's easy to do right if you follow the design of experienced guys : Pano member made one free and not so expensive, Juhazi member a complex hybrid one 3 or 4 ways iirc. T Gravsen has a bigger one 3 ways. That the ideal for the snap you're looking for and which don't need 4 ways. The area we are talking for is something 60/80 hz to 150/200 hz... And here the room is also mainly dictating the behavior (room mode , Helmotzh frequency often around 200 hz in many homes. Open Bafle has an edge here to make bass easier with the room.
The best chance to ake it right is also to think about active/dsp for the bass : easier to tune and less expensive than passive parts that are huge in the low end : coils, caps...
Just my two cents if you want drive the DIY highway. But second hand is also something to consider : less expensive... yeah, less fun too.
As was said above : all is about if you want it for music or also to make a project by yourself.
Last edited:
Most responses have been negative so far so I thought I'd offer a contrary opinion.
It looks to me like your design is most similar to Troels' Illuminator-5 but with just the 1 driver handling the bass duties below about 200Hz instead of 2. Give it a good read if you haven't already. It offers some convincing reasons for your choice of drivers and driver sizes.
Where you differ though is the xo points for the 12MU. It looks to me like you are asking too much from it on the low end and not enough on the top end. Troels picked xo points of 900Hz and 3100 Hz and I would suggest you also start there with that driver.
Might also be a good idea to go active on the biggest driver - have a look at the Hypex units, they'll get rid of some huge and expensive passive xo parts (some that I don't think you've even figured you'll need yet, ie. impedance compensation filter) and give you all kinds of DSP controls to work with in regards to the LF and room interaction and to modify till your heart's content in the mid bass region.
Most good designers will completely sim their efforts first, so include the correct box responses on both the FR and zma files, include baffle diffraction and baffle step loss and include the best estimates of each drivers' acoustic centers. That will give them a more realistic idea whether the drivers will work well together and what the real xo will look like. Without including these in your sims, I don't really trust your results although for the most part, your xo choices look pretty good. Then when the drivers are installed in cabinet, they will measure properly and sim the xo all over again and then fine tune by ear.
So to contradict some of the naysayers, I think your design has merit but whether you can pull it off as a 1st effort is another question entirely. This one ain't gonna be easy at all!
It looks to me like your design is most similar to Troels' Illuminator-5 but with just the 1 driver handling the bass duties below about 200Hz instead of 2. Give it a good read if you haven't already. It offers some convincing reasons for your choice of drivers and driver sizes.
Where you differ though is the xo points for the 12MU. It looks to me like you are asking too much from it on the low end and not enough on the top end. Troels picked xo points of 900Hz and 3100 Hz and I would suggest you also start there with that driver.
Might also be a good idea to go active on the biggest driver - have a look at the Hypex units, they'll get rid of some huge and expensive passive xo parts (some that I don't think you've even figured you'll need yet, ie. impedance compensation filter) and give you all kinds of DSP controls to work with in regards to the LF and room interaction and to modify till your heart's content in the mid bass region.
Most good designers will completely sim their efforts first, so include the correct box responses on both the FR and zma files, include baffle diffraction and baffle step loss and include the best estimates of each drivers' acoustic centers. That will give them a more realistic idea whether the drivers will work well together and what the real xo will look like. Without including these in your sims, I don't really trust your results although for the most part, your xo choices look pretty good. Then when the drivers are installed in cabinet, they will measure properly and sim the xo all over again and then fine tune by ear.
So to contradict some of the naysayers, I think your design has merit but whether you can pull it off as a 1st effort is another question entirely. This one ain't gonna be easy at all!
I believe all the advisers of the No way, even if not an sexy answer have what you said in mind.
There is a Huuuuuuuuu^3ge gap between theory and experience. I believe most of the answers took in mind it was a first build. A 4 ways is REALLY not the way to go even if 100% of the theory is known : a two way maybe. For good reasons, some brillants minds -I'm not, but I see hey are often right- has been there already ! Drivers alone is few in a whole loudspeaker result... oH and I putt my hands in few some speakers already, so I think about the original poster needs seriously
There is a Huuuuuuuuu^3ge gap between theory and experience. I believe most of the answers took in mind it was a first build. A 4 ways is REALLY not the way to go even if 100% of the theory is known : a two way maybe. For good reasons, some brillants minds -I'm not, but I see hey are often right- has been there already ! Drivers alone is few in a whole loudspeaker result... oH and I putt my hands in few some speakers already, so I think about the original poster needs seriously
Hi thanks, appreciate your positivity!
The idea was to, eventually do some more nuanced crossover. Ive planned on measuring in-cab and use those measurments atleast for midrange->tweeter and use that as baffleedge diffraction measurments.
Ill definitly check out the differences in the crossover and it might be so that the 12mu can be pushed higher up, however it seems im going with a 3,5way at this point.
Im thinking the same setup but with dual 22W/8851T00s or possibly 18W/4531G00 ( If i'd go with the 6,5inches it would be very similar to CNO grande though slightly larger in size, winisd gives me 54l at 35hz port tuning while i believe the grande has 42l with 42hz port-tuning)
The 22w sounds tempting too, seems to need 64l cabinet with 21hz tuned, but im just note sure if the 22w would meet the 4,5 inch midrange as nicely as the 18w would.
Another thing im currently thinking about, is that I really like the tweeter at a slightly lower height, I believe troels design has it at close to 105, but in my couch which is quite low my ear level is more closer to 95. So what do you guys think of M T WW setup with midrange on top? That way I dont have to make the cab wider noor deeper in size and the tweeters would be headon earlevel.
Hello, don't want to hurt but your claims are about 100% reading datasheet or seems so.
You think by merging claims without real experience. That's a curent trap in our hobby. Knowledge is a must, but experience matters too. The deepness of your brain will not change that as it's you're first design. I don't want to be cruel, if it looks like, well it's to help, no plot! We are even not sure T. Gravsen makes 100% reliable designs, it's hypes & marketing : to knw you had to experienced in real life, how-much are good enough and so related to your need , Are you buying a certificate of good sound for less? : what you're are doing is conceptual shortcuts. It's a huge methodology mistake - we eventually all made- At the opposit some experiments few but prof. a lot. That's also a trap that stop all the good efforts during the learn and previous experiments.
Up to you, nothing bad with experiments if you have time & monney, it's the best pass exam path if you learnd the courses. Experience & perspectives matter. But if listening and good sound is the main goal as the life id short and at least perhaps shorter we thought - oh the huge blink eyes - well follow the white rabbit... less sexy that the gold coated one but surely more proof.
You think by merging claims without real experience. That's a curent trap in our hobby. Knowledge is a must, but experience matters too. The deepness of your brain will not change that as it's you're first design. I don't want to be cruel, if it looks like, well it's to help, no plot! We are even not sure T. Gravsen makes 100% reliable designs, it's hypes & marketing : to knw you had to experienced in real life, how-much are good enough and so related to your need , Are you buying a certificate of good sound for less? : what you're are doing is conceptual shortcuts. It's a huge methodology mistake - we eventually all made- At the opposit some experiments few but prof. a lot. That's also a trap that stop all the good efforts during the learn and previous experiments.
Up to you, nothing bad with experiments if you have time & monney, it's the best pass exam path if you learnd the courses. Experience & perspectives matter. But if listening and good sound is the main goal as the life id short and at least perhaps shorter we thought - oh the huge blink eyes
- well follow the white rabbit... less sexy that the gold coated one but surely more proof.
Last edited:
Thats more or less why I'm here right now though. I recognize, i have no clue about reality about this although like u say i might have readup on some basic concepts... There has to be a first build to gather the experience right. This thread was in retrospective more a way for me to get going, there is no reason to start with something if my idea fundamentally is garbage.. So i came here for suggestions and improvements! This is probably not the final design, just where my idea started and it may very well change a whole lot as the time goes by.
I don't quite understand what you mean with conceptual shortcuts, could you elaborate?
I don't quite understand what you mean with conceptual shortcuts, could you elaborate?
No I can't elaboarate more if you are not understanding what I meant.
The illustration of the good idea to start from resume what I want you to avoid and you don't understand or don't want to and I resumed in my last post.
Nothing personal really. And again, it's a free world, up to you, but I assure bias is strong . Virtually with Internet you can believe you can make a plane or whatever, but It's a shortcut.
The illustration of the good idea to start from resume what I want you to avoid and you don't understand or don't want to and I resumed in my last post.
Nothing personal really. And again, it's a free world, up to you, but I assure bias is strong . Virtually with Internet you can believe you can make a plane or whatever, but It's a shortcut.
The best place to start from in what you assume is to go out to listen to multiple designs in 3 ways, 4 ways or more... or less Full range + sub, etc. And the room. Try to see if there is a concistency with the ways concept in your listening fresh experiments. Buddy or girldfriend advised for a sort of double ears trade offs.
There is something with Sapiens that push us to make before to think. The good thing is what we are able to load and dataware house the knowledge since writting and share of it. It helps a lot ! I realise everyday my conceptual errors by experienced inputs of others. Of course (off courses?) this advice or simple warning was learnt from real so not theorical...
There is something with Sapiens that push us to make before to think. The good thing is what we are able to load and dataware house the knowledge since writting and share of it. It helps a lot ! I realise everyday my conceptual errors by experienced inputs of others. Of course (off courses?) this advice or simple warning was learnt from real so not theorical...
Last edited:
I apologize but i have a hard time following ur trains of thoughts. Which concepts do you find faulty? The entire reason for me being here right now is exactly what you propose by getting inputs by others. Otherwise i would just have started building it already. Sorry i don't have a clear response since im not really sure what you mean. Basicly you migt have some assumption about this entire project, maybe it might be right or not but I can't defend it since I don't know where u are coming from or what that potential assumption might be coming from.
ah, well, i's not about rethoric, that's you who ask, and I alerted your claims came from (your eyes mainly)... oh the best fancy guys - eventually some of course have it right- . You didn't get it yet.
It's not the concept that is fautly, it's just it's only concept without concrete basement enough : it is just others -not myself, take me out of the equation for your own confort- have the concept + experience. A concept is just nothing without experiment (experience). Free to you to accept or not this alert. Again, nothing bad with experiments. But If you asks, you eventually had answerd. Make your trade offs.
Some answered already without more explanations but lessons learned before : beginning a first projext with a 4 ways IS a bad idea, just based on a concept and not things understood from real. You can not make a prescription not knowing the disease. You started from an assumption and you're constructing a building from that. The building is not the bad idea, the idea is eventualy the area is made of sand and it asks extra knowledge to make it. Hopes it's clearer.
It's not the concept that is fautly, it's just it's only concept without concrete basement enough : it is just others -not myself, take me out of the equation for your own confort- have the concept + experience. A concept is just nothing without experiment (experience). Free to you to accept or not this alert. Again, nothing bad with experiments. But If you asks, you eventually had answerd. Make your trade offs.
Some answered already without more explanations but lessons learned before : beginning a first projext with a 4 ways IS a bad idea, just based on a concept and not things understood from real. You can not make a prescription not knowing the disease. You started from an assumption and you're constructing a building from that. The building is not the bad idea, the idea is eventualy the area is made of sand and it asks extra knowledge to make it. Hopes it's clearer.
Last edited:
Im not sure if I agree, at that point I'd be going with a Kit, because then someone else has done the concept and the experience for me.
I think you might have misunderstood that I am going to measure and do all that jams, maybe at that point i would have realised that the midrange-driver was pushed too low due to distortion as previous post might have implied. I just dont think u need all the details to determine wether an idea is good or bad. Like, say the concept of a baffle, objectivly rounded edges are better, so is having the drivers time-aligned(in terms of easier xover design and fr flatness), same as generally non paralell surfaces, like the italian sonus faber cabinet designs. Im quite familiar with those concepts.. I dont feel like I need to measure a straight cornered baffle vs a round one because I know which one would measure the most consistent compared to the spec-sheet.
I think you might have misunderstood that I am going to measure and do all that jams, maybe at that point i would have realised that the midrange-driver was pushed too low due to distortion as previous post might have implied. I just dont think u need all the details to determine wether an idea is good or bad. Like, say the concept of a baffle, objectivly rounded edges are better, so is having the drivers time-aligned(in terms of easier xover design and fr flatness), same as generally non paralell surfaces, like the italian sonus faber cabinet designs. Im quite familiar with those concepts.. I dont feel like I need to measure a straight cornered baffle vs a round one because I know which one would measure the most consistent compared to the spec-sheet.
well for me sorry, you're starting from too large and should focus or you are driving a full project and do the wheel again. For me the last post is like flooding in a glass: I have to remind you : you ask as a first project. I eventually make short assumption about testimonials because I experienced them before.
Anyway, again nothing wrong, just follow your feeling, was just to help, I can understand advices are not always one wants to hear. Just mine. Do your market, you learn from eperimentation. But sorry, it's just a picture : don't ask if the water is a good fluid for a plane. But if you planed the scratch. Really want you to avoid to start from "your concept as being right from the beginning" because at the end you will finish with a lot of more drivers, cabinets, while nothing wrong with that just time & monney and this is where I alert you : methodology.
Anyway, again nothing wrong, just follow your feeling, was just to help, I can understand advices are not always one wants to hear. Just mine. Do your market, you learn from eperimentation. But sorry, it's just a picture : don't ask if the water is a good fluid for a plane. But if you planed the scratch. Really want you to avoid to start from "your concept as being right from the beginning" because at the end you will finish with a lot of more drivers, cabinets, while nothing wrong with that just time & monney and this is where I alert you : methodology.
Last edited:
I'm still on mine. Everything up 'till now has been a mistake
I agree with the assessment of B&W philosophy. I think it could be modified. I wouldn't use a tweeter pod for one thing. The concept of encouraging maximum diffraction close to the dome has a couple of theoretical advantages, but decide for yourself.
I think it's ok to start this way. It gets you most of the way there anyway. Down the track I'd tend to disagree.
Time aligning is not as important as it seems. More importantly, stepping the baffle is going to support reflections and diffractions. The effects of these cannot be measured as one measures response, so your mileage may vary.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.