I just finished these up and thought I would share the results. To my aged ears they sound very nice even witrhout filter. The imaging is exceptional' the tonality good and the apparent detail very good.
Because I wanted some more bass and to flatten the peak in he lower trebble, I whipped up the attached filter in Xsim. The other attached file shows the measured frequency response of the speakers; without the filter in green and with the filter in red.
Now for the part thet I wonder about. With the filter, on some recordings the sound seems more balanced and fuller with a bit more bass, but on other recordings the sound seems more detailed and transparent without the filter.
My guess is that this is because the more elevated trebble in the unfiltered mode is creating the effect, but I wonder if upgrading the filter with better than Dayton Audio components might give me a significant improvement and thus the best of both worlds.
In any event I feel this driver - cabinet combination is a real winner and want to give a big "thank you" to Scottmoose for the cabinet design.
Best,
Jay
Because I wanted some more bass and to flatten the peak in he lower trebble, I whipped up the attached filter in Xsim. The other attached file shows the measured frequency response of the speakers; without the filter in green and with the filter in red.
Now for the part thet I wonder about. With the filter, on some recordings the sound seems more balanced and fuller with a bit more bass, but on other recordings the sound seems more detailed and transparent without the filter.
My guess is that this is because the more elevated trebble in the unfiltered mode is creating the effect, but I wonder if upgrading the filter with better than Dayton Audio components might give me a significant improvement and thus the best of both worlds.
In any event I feel this driver - cabinet combination is a real winner and want to give a big "thank you" to Scottmoose for the cabinet design.
Best,
Jay
Last edited:
Files, I hope.
I didn't close the file attachment window after uploading the files; that is the only thing that didn't conform to the instrutions and I didn't get and excessive size message when i uploaded them from the computer' so I'm trying again now.
I didn't close the file attachment window after uploading the files; that is the only thing that didn't conform to the instrutions and I didn't get and excessive size message when i uploaded them from the computer' so I'm trying again now.
Attachments
Last edited:
Image showing the predicted filter response
The Xsim image above did not include the predicted response since I forgot to adjust the vertical hight of the scale before grabbing the image. i was mainly interested in showing the actual filter in the left half of the image, but im posting this one so folks can see how well the prediction fitted the actual measured response.
The Xsim image above did not include the predicted response since I forgot to adjust the vertical hight of the scale before grabbing the image. i was mainly interested in showing the actual filter in the left half of the image, but im posting this one so folks can see how well the prediction fitted the actual measured response.
Attachments
Well, when I posted the predicted filter response above, Diy Audio merrily deleted the two, more important, previously succesfully posted files I had attached to post 4 beause of my new post being done too soon after my previous one. So I will wait a while and try reposting them in about an hour. Grrrr
Highly doubtful since you're apparently suffering from old age hearing's [lack of] proper tonal balance between lows and highs; IOW the bass is masking the highs somewhat.
In mono, listen with a filter on one, with open fingers 'cupping' your ears to block the lows to hear the highs as good as you're going to, then listen to unfiltered [no hands] to decide if there's enough difference to maybe warrant better components.
But most folks I'm personally aware of [me included] opt for nominally flat to ~2 kHz, rising to ~ +3 dB/12-13 kHz, so might want to experiment with inexpensive components before 'betting the farm' on HQ pio caps, etc..
edit: Been seeing them fine since I got here.
In mono, listen with a filter on one, with open fingers 'cupping' your ears to block the lows to hear the highs as good as you're going to, then listen to unfiltered [no hands] to decide if there's enough difference to maybe warrant better components.
But most folks I'm personally aware of [me included] opt for nominally flat to ~2 kHz, rising to ~ +3 dB/12-13 kHz, so might want to experiment with inexpensive components before 'betting the farm' on HQ pio caps, etc..
edit: Been seeing them fine since I got here.
Last edited:
If you wanna experiment with filters to reduce ripple especially in the treble band, you could have a look at a design called "Sarah" which has won a price at a DIY fest.
https://www.oaudio.de/out/media/3aac7ea456ba5e49f69.pdf
https://www.oaudio.de/out/media/3aac7ea456ba5e49f69.pdf
This filter will make the driver sounds Very Smooth, I am asking a question, will the drivers that sound too smooth makes the sound "boring" after long term listening?
I think it is personal taste at this juncture.
Hi Mike,
Good to hear from you. Yes, it is a big bookshelf or stand mount speaker since it is about 17inches tall. A 15 or 16L cabinet is what the 1611 wants for best performance. I built the Sun Bear cabinet since Scottmoose has excellent design chops, but you could probably get something pretty good using WinIsd and dimensions you like that give you the necessary volume. If you do build sometning and want to try a filter for baffle step correction and to flatten the low treble peak, the one posted above sounds better if the .5 mh inductor is replaced by a .33 mH one.
Best,
Jay
Good to hear from you. Yes, it is a big bookshelf or stand mount speaker since it is about 17inches tall. A 15 or 16L cabinet is what the 1611 wants for best performance. I built the Sun Bear cabinet since Scottmoose has excellent design chops, but you could probably get something pretty good using WinIsd and dimensions you like that give you the necessary volume. If you do build sometning and want to try a filter for baffle step correction and to flatten the low treble peak, the one posted above sounds better if the .5 mh inductor is replaced by a .33 mH one.
Best,
Jay
Last edited:
It is said, Without pictures it didn't happen." So here are the finished speakers. As a point of possible intrest, there is a shot of how I mounted the filter. Because the speakers are 100%lined with felt, the only good attachment point was the side to side brace, so that is where I hot glued it.
Without the filter they were very nice, but a bit lacking in bass and to my ears a tad bright. I am very happy with them now, they are not as detailed as my Mark Audio Ms 11s in their 8.5 L cabinet, but go significantly lower (with the filter), have a tonally balanced sound and also have the great coherence and imaging that comes with the better examples of single driver speakers.
So, if you want to try an affordable single driver speaker that is a bit out of the mainstream, I think you'll be impressed with the TB W5 1611 in Scott's Sun Bear cabinet.
Best,
Jay
Without the filter they were very nice, but a bit lacking in bass and to my ears a tad bright. I am very happy with them now, they are not as detailed as my Mark Audio Ms 11s in their 8.5 L cabinet, but go significantly lower (with the filter), have a tonally balanced sound and also have the great coherence and imaging that comes with the better examples of single driver speakers.
So, if you want to try an affordable single driver speaker that is a bit out of the mainstream, I think you'll be impressed with the TB W5 1611 in Scott's Sun Bear cabinet.
Best,
Jay
