1/2 scale Focal Grande Utopia clone
Ok not exactly half scale , but a 6’8” tall speaker is a bit much . I could imagine building one roughly around 5’ high, but I’m wondering what kind of issues could you expect to run into with there design? Does this design lend itself to diffraction issues,as they have horizontal edges close to the tweeter and midrange drivers, and gaps in between the separate enclosures , but they seem to make it work .
My idea was to have one 12” woofer ,two 4.5” or larger midranges , a one inch tweeter , and an 8” midbass driver . Essentially setup like the photo ,but with these smaller drivers mentioned. Would having the two midranges at different angles create any major imaging issues ? I have seen them configured like that a few other times.
Obviously I don’t want anything as elaborate as a crank to change the angle of the drivers , but I would make wedges that could be placed between the individual enclosures to get the angle right . Rubber isolated etc , maybe have steel pins that would seat in rubber cups in the enclosure below it . I think the hardest part may be the passive crossover design and getting the response dialed in flat.
I should mention that I would still be using a separate subwoofer regardless of these speakers capabilities
Ok not exactly half scale , but a 6’8” tall speaker is a bit much . I could imagine building one roughly around 5’ high, but I’m wondering what kind of issues could you expect to run into with there design? Does this design lend itself to diffraction issues,as they have horizontal edges close to the tweeter and midrange drivers, and gaps in between the separate enclosures , but they seem to make it work .
My idea was to have one 12” woofer ,two 4.5” or larger midranges , a one inch tweeter , and an 8” midbass driver . Essentially setup like the photo ,but with these smaller drivers mentioned. Would having the two midranges at different angles create any major imaging issues ? I have seen them configured like that a few other times.
Obviously I don’t want anything as elaborate as a crank to change the angle of the drivers , but I would make wedges that could be placed between the individual enclosures to get the angle right . Rubber isolated etc , maybe have steel pins that would seat in rubber cups in the enclosure below it . I think the hardest part may be the passive crossover design and getting the response dialed in flat.
I should mention that I would still be using a separate subwoofer regardless of these speakers capabilities
Attachments
Last edited:
Nice idea! The mid-tweeter section should be squeezed to be minimally compact both vertically and horizontally, to minimize sound beam lobing at crossover freq. Having mids angled doesn't mean anything in their passband.
I would use more curvature in MTM section and skip or fake the lobing on the backside of MTM module. The lower mid up high might make the singer (human voice) to climb on a stool.
Focal Utopia 3-ways are nice too, and worth cloning.
I would use more curvature in MTM section and skip or fake the lobing on the backside of MTM module. The lower mid up high might make the singer (human voice) to climb on a stool.
Focal Utopia 3-ways are nice too, and worth cloning.
I understand what your recommending , but aesthetically I’d like to keep all the enclosures the same width and depth . For height , I will try and keep the drivers as close together as possible .
I guess I will have to study diffraction more . I know you should have the drivers flush mounted in the front baffle . The fronts would be slightly curved,and I don’t know how that effects diffraction.
One thing I’m liking about this design is that it’s modular . If I build something it will be overkill , like 1” walls and 3” front baffle , so having five separate enclosures would be easier to move and set up in sections as opposed to moving a 250 pound speaker all at once .
As an added benefit , if something isn’t working response wise , you could rebuild and redesign a single enclosure to rectify the problem instead of having to build an entire speaker tower all over again .
For the driver alignment,I was going to use a laser to aim each driver at my ear height while sitting on my couch , and build the enclosure around those calculations
Last edited:
One concern I do have is bringing vocals up to high having a midbass driver on top ,as the human voice ranges from 80 hz to 255 hz .
This design may better suited for a music room where your sitting further away .
As you mentioned, as an alternative the smaller Utopia may be a good choice.
I can another issue arising . Seeing as I’m raising the sound stage , my CC won’t be high enough ,as it’s below the flat screen . May make for worse imagining yet .
This design may better suited for a music room where your sitting further away .
As you mentioned, as an alternative the smaller Utopia may be a good choice.
I can another issue arising . Seeing as I’m raising the sound stage , my CC won’t be high enough ,as it’s below the flat screen . May make for worse imagining yet .
Attachments
Hello, I’m in the middle of something similar. Modular with wedges using 15”, 12”, 4” and 1”. Passive xo. 5’-10” x 21” I’m in the third year of four. I planned it slow for a few reasons, cost and time. Lot of hidden cost with something like this... when I got to the upper bass driver it took 3 different drivers until I made a good match. Burnout / the dip is a big factor with this too. Give yourself the time to not be rushed and the freedom to walk away for a while 6+ months. Arnie Newdel (sp?) in an interview, referring to some statement speakers he was working on, that he wanted to finish them because it’s been 12 years. I get it. As for the height of the drivers, I’m about 13 feet away, with only the left speaker on sure the height is noticeable but in stereo that goes away and you get a huge sound stage. I’m still coming up with new ideas on almost every part of the speaker. It can be a little bit maddening. But when you get on to something really great after, for example experiment #314, it can be very rewarding. Don’t solder anything until it’s 100% and enjoy the journey.
Thanks for the posts guys . Sounds like your having fun and learning volumes.
I guess this is why companies spend a lot of money on R&D to get it right .
Well what they think is right .
Do you have any pictures. 🙂
Not yet but I will for sure post pics when they’re finished. Also why people are so protective of the design. So much work to get what is on one piece of paper
With an MTM design you really are supposed to be sitting with the tweeters at ear height. Although a MTM design does offer a small degree of vertical directivity control there really isn't any good reason for going to an MTM, vs MT, unless you absolutely need the sensitivity/extra output that the pair of mid-ranges will give you vs a single.
Of course going TM gives you more freedom with the listening and main design axis so you'll get no argument from me with the idea of going with the smaller speaker.
Of course going TM gives you more freedom with the listening and main design axis so you'll get no argument from me with the idea of going with the smaller speaker.
My concern was , someone had mentioned that in a three way design , that a larger midrange driver would give worse dispersion . Originally I wanted a 6 to 7 inch midrange driver . If you go smaller to improve the midrange frequencies, you would need a midbass driver I’m guessing?
Kind of hard to go from a 12” woofer to a 4” mid and then a tweeter .
I suspect if you crossed over a 12” woofer at 1000hz , that you’d have muddy sounding vocals .
These are the drivers I wanted to use the first time I had the idea for a three way Utopia clone
B1371 Scan-Speak Kit by Peter Noerbaek - Pair
Although I would sooner use two of there 11” revelator series woofers per enclosure than that single 13” .
But have been studying SB drivers as an alternative
Last edited:
That’s certainly understandable. I would have no issues sharing with the world . Well unless I was going to start a company .
My initials are RB, so if I started a company I was thinking “R&B Audio “ would be a catchy name .
I’ll never build speakers for the masses though
I must admit, that the narrow and silvery tweeter-section in Utopias is the eye-catcher. If one takes it away or puts on the top, visual appearance suffers.
I spent almost 3 years with my AINOgradients, first just idea work, then four different mid - tweeter versions (and some trials). Using dsp made it easier and not so costly. First it had MTM section like Utopia Grande. Now with MT using planars and way too much separation, this is better. I have done hundreds of measurements also off-axis hor and vert and I do now that lobing happens and why - but still the sound as heard doesn't change that much, if xo slopes are perfect.
For multi-way home speakers, I and many think that midrange's maximal size is 5" (the radiating area). Then xo around 3-4kHz doesn't do anything spectacular and lower xo can be around 4-500Hz. If one likes very high spl, 6-7" cone MT or double 4" MTM is possible.
I spent almost 3 years with my AINOgradients, first just idea work, then four different mid - tweeter versions (and some trials). Using dsp made it easier and not so costly. First it had MTM section like Utopia Grande. Now with MT using planars and way too much separation, this is better. I have done hundreds of measurements also off-axis hor and vert and I do now that lobing happens and why - but still the sound as heard doesn't change that much, if xo slopes are perfect.
For multi-way home speakers, I and many think that midrange's maximal size is 5" (the radiating area). Then xo around 3-4kHz doesn't do anything spectacular and lower xo can be around 4-500Hz. If one likes very high spl, 6-7" cone MT or double 4" MTM is possible.
Last edited:
Your math does add up for me , as for some reason I can’t see a large driver reproducing midrange frequency’s well either .
So this creates another problem for me , as I’m back to a four way system .
Now my tower is going to be to high for imagining while watching movies .
Guess I need a new house and a dedicated music listening room lol
I can see why they used MTM. With higher order XO it’s easier to make it all work but the ear picks up the separation more. With mtm the mid up has a perceived center point.
12” to 4” is only one of my many challenges. It’s surprising what actually works vs what should work. I didn’t start out thinking a cheaper larger pro driver would be in the mix but it works right here. That’s the best thing about a kit. You know it’s possible to make it all “work” as you said according to them anyway...
I keep siding on the least compromise to fidelity and it’s getting me an unconventional contraption.
12” to 4” is only one of my many challenges. It’s surprising what actually works vs what should work. I didn’t start out thinking a cheaper larger pro driver would be in the mix but it works right here. That’s the best thing about a kit. You know it’s possible to make it all “work” as you said according to them anyway...
I keep siding on the least compromise to fidelity and it’s getting me an unconventional contraption.
I like the way you think . Sounds like a lot of trial and error , not to mention labour lol
- Status
- Not open for further replies.