Hello Audio World !!
So we have a bunch of speakers mostly not active that would probably fulfill the req's , but for most folks with low income there should be an option to build a DIY speaker that have no (serious) quirks!
I am referring here to this video :
$1000/pair for all parts except the cab - doable or not? (2WAY or 3WAY)
This is the challenge!
Give me hope Joanna : )))
So we have a bunch of speakers mostly not active that would probably fulfill the req's , but for most folks with low income there should be an option to build a DIY speaker that have no (serious) quirks!
I am referring here to this video :
$1000/pair for all parts except the cab - doable or not? (2WAY or 3WAY)
This is the challenge!
Give me hope Joanna : )))
Every loudspeaker has a considerable number of compromises. Are those the same as quirk’s?
dave
Strange drivers , not longer in production , 3 or 4 inch Markaudio? (they had a bad reputation - consistency problem) But only for nearfield listening?
The 19mm fabric dome SB19 from SB Acoustics is hard to beat (price!) and runs flawlessly from 2000Hz up ....the SB 21 (SDC or RDC) is similar but offaxis radiation is more directional ...
The 19mm fabric dome SB19 from SB Acoustics is hard to beat (price!) and runs flawlessly from 2000Hz up ....the SB 21 (SDC or RDC) is similar but offaxis radiation is more directional ...
A7.3 (4”) is officially NLA but the P7HD is a development on it and works well with the passive (as does A7ms). If you go active (as originally designed) you can use whatever midTweeter meets your particular needs. The woofers are current.
There is a hige amount of unexporder space with this convept (WAW = Woofer Assisted Widerange)
As to consistency i have measure something like a 1000 MAs and compared to other driver brands i have tested are the ,ost consistent.
But you are saying that is a (perceived) quirk. Some would suggest no tweeter is also a compromise. But so is the XO you need to add a tweeter. Not to mention that it is not possible to keep the tweeter within a quarter wavelength centre-to-centre so as to maintain driver coincidence (a coax is also a compromise, and not only the C-C issue [it can dramatically reduce ethe issue).
I chose seemlessness over using a tweeter. The Alpair does a pretty good job pretending it is a tweeter (the 19mm dustcap to blame).
These are definitly not for near-field listening. I listen at about 3m distance.
dave
Kinda small to go that low so probably needs a steep XO. Right where the ear is most sensitive. That is a quirk/compromise. To my mind a serious one.
dave
Last edited:
Yeah, we are not listening to speakers but sound in a room. The better one knows how stuff plays out in their particular situation, the better one can optimize a speaker system for it, for best possible enjoyment. There you go, best for situation, might be something else than you are being sold by marketing dpt.
Bass
A bigger surface area for the woofer would be a good start. I appreciate that there are some really powerful 6.5" woofers out there, but it's also about using a bigger box to help pressurise and displace the air. You could compare a 6.5" in 15L vs 10" in 40L, and even after accounting for the exact same volume swept by the cone, the 10" will tend to have excess SPL in the bass, measured at 1m from the front of the baffle. Partly because of improved boundary gain from making it floor-standing, but the additional 25L displaced by the box also helps. Probably no need for baffle step correction.
If you go for a bigger woofer, you may start worrying about the performance around 1kHz and up, as most 1" tweeters may struggle below about 2kHz. Hence the "woofer-assisted wide-range", or just a big 2-way.
I just took the plunge on making a pair of waveguides for my wide-range tops. Soo glad I did! I carved them out of scrap wood using amateur power tools. I got fed up trying to simulate the best shape, so just eyeballed it with my jig-saw. Then I brought out the angle grinder and things really got outta hand!
There's still a lot of work to put in, like finishing up the boxes and EQ-ing, but just I had to plug them for testing, and they're very more-ish. Early observations:
I was able to do some rough side-by-side comparisons by simply lifting off the wave-guide with the speaker in an up-firing position.
Early measurements show a broad 3-6dB around 700-2000Hz, and double peaks around 10 and 15 kHz, but the temporary rear chamber was completely unpressurised and basically open baffle, so the sensitivity may change.
Listening impressions?
They are really mellow. Without the WG, I immediately noticed how the high frequencies were spreading out and echoing off the walls. I was used to that kind of detailed sibilance, but the WG's seem to have a much more relaxed in-room presence. As I brought my hand near the direct-radiating cone, I could hear the resonances as the sound bounced between my hand and the cone and baffle, but with the WG this was a lot less noticeable, which was very curious.
And to keep the costs down, you just have to put a lot more time into it!
A bigger surface area for the woofer would be a good start. I appreciate that there are some really powerful 6.5" woofers out there, but it's also about using a bigger box to help pressurise and displace the air. You could compare a 6.5" in 15L vs 10" in 40L, and even after accounting for the exact same volume swept by the cone, the 10" will tend to have excess SPL in the bass, measured at 1m from the front of the baffle. Partly because of improved boundary gain from making it floor-standing, but the additional 25L displaced by the box also helps. Probably no need for baffle step correction.
If you go for a bigger woofer, you may start worrying about the performance around 1kHz and up, as most 1" tweeters may struggle below about 2kHz. Hence the "woofer-assisted wide-range", or just a big 2-way.
I just took the plunge on making a pair of waveguides for my wide-range tops. Soo glad I did! I carved them out of scrap wood using amateur power tools. I got fed up trying to simulate the best shape, so just eyeballed it with my jig-saw. Then I brought out the angle grinder and things really got outta hand!
There's still a lot of work to put in, like finishing up the boxes and EQ-ing, but just I had to plug them for testing, and they're very more-ish. Early observations:
I was able to do some rough side-by-side comparisons by simply lifting off the wave-guide with the speaker in an up-firing position.
Early measurements show a broad 3-6dB around 700-2000Hz, and double peaks around 10 and 15 kHz, but the temporary rear chamber was completely unpressurised and basically open baffle, so the sensitivity may change.
Listening impressions?
They are really mellow. Without the WG, I immediately noticed how the high frequencies were spreading out and echoing off the walls. I was used to that kind of detailed sibilance, but the WG's seem to have a much more relaxed in-room presence. As I brought my hand near the direct-radiating cone, I could hear the resonances as the sound bounced between my hand and the cone and baffle, but with the WG this was a lot less noticeable, which was very curious.
And to keep the costs down, you just have to put a lot more time into it!
There is nothing wrong with the SB19 or SB21 tweeters but it seems odd to bring them up in a thread titled Flawless Speakers under $5000.
There aren’t a lot of them around, but under $1000 for the pair, I’d stick to an 8”-1+” plus waveguide design. Don’t go loose on fancy drivers. Do pick the right combo tweeter and waveguide and get a woofer with decent Vd and good midrange behavior (shorting rings). You might have seen these. Very not-so-special, but I think that is quite solid design work.
A year or two back there were some long threads on putting together a group project. I argued for a $750-1000 high fidelity speaker (i.e. sufficient cone area to cleanly reproduce standard levels, smoothly controlled directivity (details open to debate), negligible audible nonlinear distortion at standard levels, standard range drivers, conventional design) but there was little interest. Folk here seem to be attracted to quirky designs which is perhaps understandable given it is hobby. Of course quirky designs don't get widely built.
What about the Frugel-Horn, i would think it considered a bit quirky but estimates put the number of builds so far somewhere north of 1000 pairs. Way north i suspect just given the number of flat-paks shipped.
dave
I had intended to refer to quirky high fidelity/blameless/flawless speakers (i.e. the subject of the thread - I think?) rather than speakers in general. When a high performance for the money speaker has quirks introduced (e.g. boutique driver, performance parameter under or over valued,...) the value for money is reduced and the likely substantial proportion of people that don't buy into the quirk will be put off.
Which is not a bad thing, is it? There was a part of the video that may have said, if I didn't misunderstand, that unless the dispersion is wide it can't throw a wide image.. and I don't agree with this.
The chosen directionality of a loudspeaker is a design choice. It has advantages & disadvantages.
From tightly controlled narrow dispersion (ala Geddes or wesaso’s TwinTowers) to minimize dispersion all the way tru to maximally excite teh room (MBL, Walsh).
dave
From tightly controlled narrow dispersion (ala Geddes or wesaso’s TwinTowers) to minimize dispersion all the way tru to maximally excite teh room (MBL, Walsh).
dave
Last edited: