So I am picturing a pair of tall but narrow (approx 25 cm wide?) floor stander with 2 (or 4 would be better) 8 inch woofers covering approx 60 Hz to 800 Hz, then a midrange (you prefer dome mids?) covering approx 800 Hz to 2KHz and then a tweeter from 2K up?
This pair of stereo speakers would crossover to your single SVS sub around 60Hz?
All controlled by DSP?
Edit What drivers have you already got? What drivers do you really want to buy? Are you open to alternatives? Posted this before the above... I am confused as to what you want... Please spell it out, thanks!
This pair of stereo speakers would crossover to your single SVS sub around 60Hz?
All controlled by DSP?
Edit What drivers have you already got? What drivers do you really want to buy? Are you open to alternatives? Posted this before the above... I am confused as to what you want... Please spell it out, thanks!
Not sure what you are looking at. A typical 5" midrange driver (e.g. SEAS, Scan-Speak,...) is 90 dB(ish) efficient with a power handling of a 100-200W(ish). A typical midwoofer will be less capable in terms of clean output and a wideband driver is likely to be both inefficient and have low power handling.
I was referring to the ATC 3" in a waveguide which can work well not a 2" driver.
A 2" could be used as an upper midrange in 4 way but most of the better performing ones are likely to use something a bit bigger. It can be an appropriate size to use in an array but this tends to need a frame to support close packing. If for some reason you want to use a ribbon a 2" can fill-in although there can be issues with the different radiation patterns. It could be used in a small 3 way desktop with a 3/4" tweeter and a 6.5" midwoofer. A 2" is not a common size and a good fit for only a few speaker configurations these days.
It is not about picking drivers out of a catalog. We can come up with some generalized rationale for some generic driver sizes, but the next step is simulation of drivers in a baffle, including the size and shape of the baffle, the distance between the drivers, and the baffle edge profile. This is actually a lot more important than the differences between a "2x8 + 3 + 1" layout versus a "2x8 + 6 + 2 + 1" layout.
Going for tall and slim look (wish I could!) and allowing around 15 liters cabinet volume per bass/mid you could stack 4 of these lovely 8 inch drivers https://www.eighteensound.it/en/products/lf-driver/8-0/16/8nmb420 giving you around 60 liters internal volume (15 liters per driver)
External cabinet dimensions assuming 18 mm plywood (dark stained stranded bamboo ply would look and sound amazing!) would be around 24 cm wide, 90 cm tall and 33 cm deep.
Sim for 4 drivers per cabinet in under 60 liters. Just 50 watts input holds 106 dB at 60 Hz (so a pair of cabinets hold 109 dB) and never exceeds 2.2 mm cone travel, its under 1 mm even at 100 dB in room.
This will allow an easy crossover to your SVS sub.
Also they are sweet all the way up to about 2 KHz although most 8 inch in a narrow baffle will be better crossed over to a mid between 800 Hz to 1,200 Hz.
Add tweeter to taste!
PS If you want to just use two 8 inch per side just take 3dB off per cabinet for the same power input. Also the cone travel will obviously double to reach the same SPL.
External cabinet dimensions assuming 18 mm plywood (dark stained stranded bamboo ply would look and sound amazing!) would be around 24 cm wide, 90 cm tall and 33 cm deep.
Sim for 4 drivers per cabinet in under 60 liters. Just 50 watts input holds 106 dB at 60 Hz (so a pair of cabinets hold 109 dB) and never exceeds 2.2 mm cone travel, its under 1 mm even at 100 dB in room.
This will allow an easy crossover to your SVS sub.
Also they are sweet all the way up to about 2 KHz although most 8 inch in a narrow baffle will be better crossed over to a mid between 800 Hz to 1,200 Hz.
Add tweeter to taste!
PS If you want to just use two 8 inch per side just take 3dB off per cabinet for the same power input. Also the cone travel will obviously double to reach the same SPL.
I think modern driver tech has pretty much eliminated the need for a 4 way unless very high SPL is the goal.
A 3.5 way is the better solution given your drivers and choices…..and I like your idea of the tower better and here’s why……NARROW BAFFLES SOUND BETTER!
…..I’ve been shouting that for an over a decade and it feels good each time I do! Lol
The two 8’s having the same timbre will sound more cohesive than separating the low end into a large woofer as well. Get the .5 coil right ( you might have to unwind it a bit to suit) and with the right box Q?…..well…..it speaks for itself. That ATC mid will really shine on the narrow baffle too.
A buddy of mine did an ISO baric version with 4 cheap 8” woofers (cause he had em) and to this day, I always recall that presentation….it was REALLY good…..articulate, smooth and yet powerful. Deep box though and heeeaaaavvvyyyy.
A 3.5 way is the better solution given your drivers and choices…..and I like your idea of the tower better and here’s why……NARROW BAFFLES SOUND BETTER!
…..I’ve been shouting that for an over a decade and it feels good each time I do! Lol
The two 8’s having the same timbre will sound more cohesive than separating the low end into a large woofer as well. Get the .5 coil right ( you might have to unwind it a bit to suit) and with the right box Q?…..well…..it speaks for itself. That ATC mid will really shine on the narrow baffle too.
A buddy of mine did an ISO baric version with 4 cheap 8” woofers (cause he had em) and to this day, I always recall that presentation….it was REALLY good…..articulate, smooth and yet powerful. Deep box though and heeeaaaavvvyyyy.
Thank you for your advice. Now 4-way has the 3" mid back as one of the choices.
. How do you like/dislike VM527, and what makes you think so?I am not familiar with the ribbons, and so far heard only 2 sonically promising ones. Is it true that the ribbons always require a transformer? That is another factor into my reluctance toward ribbons.
Great points keep coming in. I was just simply thinking that the drivers need to be placed as close as possible to one another. Is there any general guideline for this? I have no idea how this simulation is done.
Thank you for the simulation you did for me. I am not familiar with plywood enclosures. How would you compare it against MDF?
I believe my current speaker's bass volume is 70 liter with a 10" woofer. 30 liter for 2 8" is significantly smaller. Crossover with the sub at 60Hz sounds good. A dumb question: What happens if it's a little larger? Just under-damped?
Thank you for your advice. Though there are some successful and popular implementations of x.5 way speakers, I am reluctant, and afraid of the combing effect coming from the overlapped band. Since I will do active crossover(DSP), I guess there is one less reason to do '.5' way which I think is difficult to tune.
But yes, I like narrow baffles for many reasons. Isobaric enclosures are quite interesting, too. Unfortunately, I haven't listened to one yet. I hope I have a chance soon to get the idea how they sound.
I am afraid there is no link I can look at. BTW, have you evaluated the revelator slitted cones? I wonder how they compared against your choice.
Looking at VM527 and around, I found another, seemingly better alternative, for 4-way midrange - Satori MD-60N, 2.5" dome:
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-2-fullrange/satori-md60n-6-2.5-textile-dome-midrange/
Let me know what you guys think.
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-2-fullrange/satori-md60n-6-2.5-textile-dome-midrange/
Let me know what you guys think.
https://hificompass.com/en/speakers...eld_vas_value[min]=0&field_vas_value[max]=600
You will find the Bliesmas, Scanspeak, Satori, Dynaudio, Accuton, hivi, Tang Band etc. Domes comparatively measured and reviewd there.
Thank you for your advice. Now 4-way has the 3" mid back as one of the choices.
I presume you meant vm752/753 since the vm527 is a 2"?
I think people that would consider paying £1320 for a pair of 3" midrange drivers in support of a speaker DIY hobby interest have such different values to myself I'm not sure my comments will be of much relevance.
Like the ATC 3" it is a decades old design that made more engineering sense when it first appeared compared to where evolution has moved speaker design and manufacturing today. The niche it seems to address is premium audiophile retro designs with basic cabinets and crossovers (e.g. monitor boxes). It is too big to be appropriate for small monitors where a 3" midrange may be a good choice. To make best use of it given it's small cone area and huge motor suggests a large waveguide and sitting a reasonable distance away given the less than ideal distance between tweeter and midrange. It offers good performance (within the limitations of a soft dome) but possibly a touch below the ATC in terms of useable passband, distortion,... although a more considered judgement would require more knowledge than I possess having little interest in either driver. What is not in doubt though is the poor value for money. This is not a ripoff but a reflection of how the very tiny numbers are inefficiently manufactured given the miniscule demand.
A transformer is the straightforward way to handle the low impedance but there are alternatives. Cannot comment on the audiophile appeal of the alternatives since even more than 3" soft domes the appeal of a ribbon is an audiophile one rather than a technical performance one. Just like valve amplifiers, record players, tape machines, etc... the value that some find in things other than technical performance and engineering (real that is rather than "over-engineering") can be substantial and is perfectly valid for a hobby.
There are many threads and articles on ply wood Vs MDF here on DIY plus loads of other sources, the overwhelming conclusion is plywood is significantly superior in every respect, but its expensive... But if you are spending significant $$$ on drivers and electronics the extra $200 or so for your small cabinets is a no brainer, use plywood!
Re making the enclosure volume bigger, yes that reduces the Qtc (total system Q) ie it decreases the damping effect of the sealed air volume on the driver.
Again loads of interesting threads on the best Q... The general conclusion is that 0.5 to 0.7 is optimal. Personally I like to get as close to 0.5 as possible.
With all active /DSP sealed box designs the entire process start to finish is actually very simple, you really only have three variables:
Driver choice / budget
Cabinet volume / budget
System Q.
The first two are mostly dictated by budget and WAF (or target market aesthetic requirements in commercial designs) so its up to you to explain to your significant other why its worth spending $10K on a huge pair of speakers and another $50K to build that new extension...!!!
System Q is basically the result of juggling the driver choice & cabinet volume.
I have added another sim ( I lam a SIM geek!) showing two 8 inch drivers with a Q of 0.56 which = 56.6 liters (coincidence... I think not!
) which = 106 dB with 50 watts input at 1 meter, so a pair of cabinets in room will easily hold 109 dB with a still respectable plus/minus 3.5 mm cone travel.I would still urge you to use 4 eight inch per side as you instantly half all distortion plus get the benefit of a pseudo line array (true line array must be over 90% of floor to ceiling height) bass system ie You will eliminate floor bounce, plus get much more even dispersion (this shows as reduction of peaks / troughs when measuring) and longer "throw" into your room.
This is an important point, especially in larger rooms, not so important in Pro studio near field monitors though:
Line array SPL reduces by just 3 dB per doubling of distance Vs point source reduction of 6dB ... That is actually a huge factor ie at a 4 meter listening position your twin driver bass/mid is reduced from 109 dB at 1 meter to 97 dB at the listening position Vs 103 dB for the 4 driver array... Thats 6 db is the difference between using 50 watts on the 4 driver array VS 200 watts (!) on the twin drivers... This is a massive (50%) reduction in all distortion... Imagine the huge media fan fare if some high end company just patented a new way to reduce all distortion by 50%.... Well we all can do this, just double the Sd... Size matters!!
Cheers
A.
Last edited:
PS
Of all the things to consider "Baffle Step Correction" is the bottom of the list, its just a legacy issue that only plagues passive crossover designs. With modern DSP/Eq/ measurement you can easily and automatically "correct" the response.
Room acoustics, room treatment or the lack of, and where you place your loudspeakers are way, way more important... They have 10 times the impact on sound quality.
Of all the things to consider "Baffle Step Correction" is the bottom of the list, its just a legacy issue that only plagues passive crossover designs. With modern DSP/Eq/ measurement you can easily and automatically "correct" the response.
Room acoustics, room treatment or the lack of, and where you place your loudspeakers are way, way more important... They have 10 times the impact on sound quality.
The Revelator with slitted cones are fantastic. Fritz uses them in his speakers and I've had a chance to talk to him, he feels in some ways he likes them better than the Illuminator. Sorry, let me try my link again. Stepping back, in a 3-way I really feel the most critical component is the midrange, not the tweeter or woofer, so if I spend high end dollars on only one driver it's the mids, which is what I did, but then with the money I saved on Revelator woofers instead of Illuminator woofers I spent the remaining dollars on an Illuminator tweeter with an Air-Circ motor.
Interesting certainly w.r.t. where things are going but tutorials? Everything you need to know? The youtubers know little about the technical side of speakers and, probably wisely, keep away from measurements, technical reasoning, engineering and that sort of thing sticking with assertions, associations and the usual subjective playbook. If you were to take a poll on this forum of the most fancied tweeter, midrange and woofer that is what they have stuck in a box with a flat baffle. The review highlighted they were not on top of how to design a crossover, there are no plots of the radiation pattern, an 8" woofer in a sealed box is insufficient for stereo use as main/midfield studio monitors without subs (subs are visible in some of the pics) and even then is likely borderline with the Dayton driver version (a multichannel setup with 7, 9, 11 or whatever 8" drivers could be fine if setup with understanding).
The price is £5-6.8k a pair depending on options. This is the price of a well engineered and fully supported modern studio monitor like a Neumann KH 420 or Genelec equivalent. Now it's early days and to expect technical performance and support to be on par with the products of large established studio monitor companies is perhaps unreasonable. Indeed they may have little-to-no interest in serving the conventional professional market and are looking to the audiophile market and whatever the prosumer market sector is called (i.e. people with studios in their homes largely looking to youtube and forums for knowledge and guidance).
Will be interesting to know what the OP as a subjective audiophile thinks of the product?
Well Andy, I am sure you are correct and thank you for saving us from wasting our time watching those dumb "You Tubers" as you like to call them.
Whilst I am sure you really are a world class loudspeaker designer (love to see some links to your designs please?) I would like to set the record straight as I know the guys Present Day Productions.
For the record:
(1) They are not "you tubers who know little about the technical side of speakers and, probably wisely, keep away from measurements, technical reasoning, engineering and that sort of thing"
They are a highly successful and experienced team of studio engineers, software designers, live sound engineers and electrical engineers with over 70 years of experience across audio and engineering, including:
Mixing and mastering both stereo and multi channel music and movie content on high end studio gear including their in house flagship reference monitors from ATC and access to any gear they want to compare / test.
They have a 1.2 million studio complex with acoustically designed sound rooms containing over £400,000 worth of high end recording and measuring gear, state of the art microphones and software including Trinnov and one of the UK's leading experts with Rational Acoustics Smaart Live software.
Contrary to your ill founded accusation, I can assure you they know what a "radiation pattern is"
PS, Looking forward to seeing some of your designs.
Whilst I am sure you really are a world class loudspeaker designer (love to see some links to your designs please?) I would like to set the record straight as I know the guys Present Day Productions.
For the record:
(1) They are not "you tubers who know little about the technical side of speakers and, probably wisely, keep away from measurements, technical reasoning, engineering and that sort of thing"
They are a highly successful and experienced team of studio engineers, software designers, live sound engineers and electrical engineers with over 70 years of experience across audio and engineering, including:
Mixing and mastering both stereo and multi channel music and movie content on high end studio gear including their in house flagship reference monitors from ATC and access to any gear they want to compare / test.
They have a 1.2 million studio complex with acoustically designed sound rooms containing over £400,000 worth of high end recording and measuring gear, state of the art microphones and software including Trinnov and one of the UK's leading experts with Rational Acoustics Smaart Live software.
Contrary to your ill founded accusation, I can assure you they know what a "radiation pattern is"
PS, Looking forward to seeing some of your designs.