Hi guys,
I have some left over 1/2" birch plywood from a cabinet I built and I want to make some small computer speakers.
I am looking for a driver that is smaller than the Hi-Vi B3s preferably. Sound quality isn't a big issue. I just want something that will look cool and function in a near field environment at low volume. Lets assume I can do a digital crossover to a reasonable sub at 150+ hz.
Any cheap drivers out there that I might be able to play with? I will probably power these with an older sony stereo receiver. They need not be loud or perfect.
Thanks!
~Nathaniel
I have some left over 1/2" birch plywood from a cabinet I built and I want to make some small computer speakers.
I am looking for a driver that is smaller than the Hi-Vi B3s preferably. Sound quality isn't a big issue. I just want something that will look cool and function in a near field environment at low volume. Lets assume I can do a digital crossover to a reasonable sub at 150+ hz.
Any cheap drivers out there that I might be able to play with? I will probably power these with an older sony stereo receiver. They need not be loud or perfect.
Thanks!
~Nathaniel
Thank you both for the links.
After reading Zaph's tests it looks like there really aren't "useable" drivers out there under 3". Is there anyway to get decent performance out of the B3S in a small enclosure? I am thinking something along the lines of 1 - 1.5l?
What driver properties would indicate decent performance in a small enclosure?
After reading Zaph's tests it looks like there really aren't "useable" drivers out there under 3". Is there anyway to get decent performance out of the B3S in a small enclosure? I am thinking something along the lines of 1 - 1.5l?
What driver properties would indicate decent performance in a small enclosure?
Zaph's "Hi-Vi B3S single driver system" (http://www.zaphaudio.com/audio-speaker18.html) enclosure is small but more like 3.75 L by my calculations. I quickly modeled the B3S in three sealed enclosures sizes; 1.0 L, 1.5 L and 2.0 L. There are trade-offs in bass extension at these smaller sizes (particularly the 1.0 L and 1.5 L) that may make subwoofer integration even more problematic (Zaph has a very good analysis of this problem in the link above). If I were you I'd stick to the larger box size Zaph uses.
BTW I bought the round flange version, the B3N, from Madisound and they are very attractive, great sounding, and surprisingly small drivers. I think they are a great deal.
BTW I bought the round flange version, the B3N, from Madisound and they are very attractive, great sounding, and surprisingly small drivers. I think they are a great deal.
I am listening to a pair of Zaph's B3S speakers now 
I am really looking to go smaller so that they could go on the desk in my office with a little footprint. I am valuing looks over performance here. I guess I should try some modeling and see what I come up with. The round Hi-Vi's might be a good option.
Too bad the A2S has such poor response. I think I could do something cool with a speaker that size.
I am really looking to go smaller so that they could go on the desk in my office with a little footprint. I am valuing looks over performance here. I guess I should try some modeling and see what I come up with. The round Hi-Vi's might be a good option.
Too bad the A2S has such poor response. I think I could do something cool with a speaker that size.
nanl2053 said:
holdent said:
nanl2053 said:I am listening to a pair of Zaph's B3S speakers now
I am really looking to go smaller so that they could go on the desk in my office with a little footprint. I am valuing looks over performance here. I guess I should try some modeling and see what I come up with. The round Hi-Vi's might be a good option.
Too bad the A2S has such poor response. I think I could do something cool with a speaker that size.
Hi,
Zaph is simply lazy in re-using using those boxes
- they are not designed volumes for the B3S.
Using Zaph measured Vas for the B3S indicates 1.5L will be fine.
Box depth can be reduced, hieght somewhat, keep width the same.
Follow Zaph design and use the near field filter options, you can't do better.
/sreten.
I am thinking of something with this shape. Internal volume of 1.528 Liters accounting for the back of the driver. Zaph's near field filter outside the speaker under the desk.
Not drawn exactly to scale. The baffles external dimensions would be 13.5 x 13.5 cm
Thoughts?
Not drawn exactly to scale. The baffles external dimensions would be 13.5 x 13.5 cm
Thoughts?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Yes, I must confess I stopped trying various volumes after I hit 1.5L which seemed to be reasonable but still not the best that could be achieved. The sims using MJ King's MathCad models give about the same response as the application sreten used. However, when I modeled the B3N I also included 0.5 lbs/ft3 of stuffing.
The Qts of this driver is high (Zaph measured 0.9976) so you should always get a little hump before it rolls off in the bass. A high Qts also suggests an OB application but the Fs is high (Zaph measured 105.308Hz) and distortion at these lower freqs is high -- so you'll need a helper woofer in an OB application. I'm going to try this out using the B3S', Goldwood GW-215/8 15" woofers (cheap!) and Eminence Pro crossovers at 500 Hz. I've got all the parts and lumber and hope to have time this weekend to get them into the baffles.
nanl2053 - I'd suggest that you put the filters inside the cab mounted on the back wall. You have a little extra volume and the components should help break up any standing waves that may develop in your cube-shaped enclosure.
sreten said:
I'm not sure where you are getting all this.
Those boxes were specifically designed and created for the B3S, and represent the absolute smallest I would be willing to use.
I tried 1.5 and even 1 l, and it was horrible. The midbass peaking was so bad the speakers sounded like they were honking, not to mention the onset of bass harmonic distortion moves up as the enclosure gets smaller.
Just a quick question..
Is there anything stopping you from using a slightly larger speaker cabinet? And you constained by space, or were you just looking to keep them small for space savings?
I suggest going a little bit larger with something like the 1.5l based on what the others have said.
Is there anything stopping you from using a slightly larger speaker cabinet? And you constained by space, or were you just looking to keep them small for space savings?
I suggest going a little bit larger with something like the 1.5l based on what the others have said.
Zaph,
I have seen that you are pretty adamant about your enclosure being the smallest possible and I believe you. If you had to point towards a speaker that would perform reasonably in a 1.5L enclosure what would you pick? As I said, this is for sub hi-fi, low volume near field use.
Thanks,
~Nathaniel
I have seen that you are pretty adamant about your enclosure being the smallest possible and I believe you. If you had to point towards a speaker that would perform reasonably in a 1.5L enclosure what would you pick? As I said, this is for sub hi-fi, low volume near field use.
Thanks,
~Nathaniel
No not really. I just want to make some small speakers for the computer in my small office. I have built Zaph's B3S design and I am planning to build his BAMTM's next. I have nothing against large speakers and realize small speakers force sound compromise. I am just looking for a cool / casual afternoon project.
nanl2053 said:
Well, if you just want to make a tiny box and throw a driver in it, the Tangband W2-880 might be your best bet. It's Vas and Qts numbers mean it won't have much of an offensive midbass honk. Don't even bother with any kind of filter. But "perform reasonably" will have different meaning to different folks. To myself, there is nothing that performs reasonably in 1.5L.
It kind of rubs me the wrong way, but I do recognize the need for tiny lo-fi sound solutions. So does Bose for that matter. I've had many requests over the years to create a Bose mini-cube beater, but I'm not really a guy to accept the kind of compromises present in those systems. I could barely get myself to post that B3S design as it's already too much compromise.
Zaph said:
Hi,
Apologies for misrepresenting you, I have mixed up which boxes
were re-used for which project, and you've remove the TB design.
With Vas = 0.8L by definition going much beyond 2.0 L won't help much.
With an active crossover I simply can't see that 1.5L to 2L is not usable.
The difference between 2L and 4L below is not much, in combination
with an active 2nd order filter the differences between the resulting
4th order alignments would less than 1dB. Differences in distortion /
power handling / output need correct interpretation.
Though I accept you would need to c/o somewhat higher for the
smaller boxes, for many people this an acceptable compromise.
/sreten.Attachments
You say that you want a small footprint- is it OK if the speakers get a little taller? This design uses the NS3-193, (which I am personally fairly happy with), in a mass loaded transmission line:
http://www.timn8er.com/Aurasound NS3.htm
It's tall and thin, thereby taking up less desk space. I've used these drivers in a smaller ported box before, and I can tell you that if you don't play them too loudly then you can hear plenty of the music without a subwoofer. What do you think?
http://www.timn8er.com/Aurasound NS3.htm
It's tall and thin, thereby taking up less desk space. I've used these drivers in a smaller ported box before, and I can tell you that if you don't play them too loudly then you can hear plenty of the music without a subwoofer. What do you think?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.