You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Best DIY Louspeakers.
Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Sorry, there is no need for more than one driver. Anything more just gets in the way of the music.

http://www.planet10-hifi.com/css.html

.

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

I can't see any life below 80 hz on your speakers...how do you manage the bass if I may ask? Or perhaps your design is based on using a subwoofer?

Piturrini
Piturrini's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jul 6 2006 - 3:08am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

DRIVERS

Agudos: Scan Speak - R2904_700000
Medios : Seas, Serie Excel, W18EX001
Graves: Seas, Serie Excel, W26FX-001

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

It looks suspiciously like my ex-wife. Better aerodynamics, though, from what I remember. Looks like she's put some heft on the bottom end, since I last saw her. Does the tweeter sound like an air-raid siren? Yes? That's my baby!

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

I guess that's a sealed "box" woofer cabinet with dipolar midrange and tweeter!

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Arf Arf Arf....

These are a pair of amazing speakers, a 12+ months DIY project that came out not only as a beautiful pair but also as outstanding sounding speakers.

Pitu, the question about the drivers was not intended for you, but for the gent that said one 5" speaker suffices for everything...we know what you've builded allright.

For the curious ones, check out how these babies measures:

http://www.mundohi-fi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6675&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=50

The bass section is roughly a 9' tunnel (opening mouth 10", ending im almost nill point).

The mid section is a 3' long tunnel starting at 5"

I wouldn't call it a neither a box woofer nor a dipolar midrange and tweeter...the mids are sealed, so are the highs...I'd say this really is a design that works, the results are amazing. Sure, it is based on the B&W top of the line cost no object Nautilus Odisea I, but with different drivers and different total volume. I don`t have the details on the exact measure, but Mr. Piturrini here, being the designer/builder and proud (you should be) owner, maybe we get some more specifics.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

If the mids and highs are sealed what is the purpose of the tapered cabinet extensions. Or, is the entire design supposed to mimic the B&W Nautilus? The speaker is quite attractive if very different, B&W excluded.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Where to begin? First, a speaker is always a series of tradeoffs made by the designer(s) and the user(s). Anyone who has spent time around single driver designs knows there is little to nothing significant a frequency response graph can show them. Single range drivers are about coherence of sound and nuance of performance. Neither of those qualities can be defined by what I would consider a standard measurement technique. Yet, for some listeners, these qualities are among the most vital aspects of bringing music to life. Cetainly, if you've listened to a single driver system, you either get it or you don't.

Second, we would have to come to some sort of agreement upon what consitutes a full range speaker (system) before we could discuss whether there is a need for further low frequency extension. Is it necessary to reach to 20Hz anechoic? If so, why not 15Hz? If we consider the low frequency resonance of the HVAC system in some performance halls, where do we stop in our desire to reach the limits of information? 10Hz? 8Hz? Or, if we seldom listen to music which has fundamentals beneath 40Hz (most "popular" music), can we call that sufficient? If no instrument reaches beneath 40Hz, should we worry about what happens at 20Hz? The frequency extremes are the most expensive to capture with credibility, you know. How much are we willing to pay for the difference between 25Hz and 20Hz? Are you willing to sacrifice other qualities merely for on-paper numbers which may seldom be utilized?

Thirdly, let's consider the single driver itself. I'm not certain where you obtained the 85Hz number you quote. The Fs of the raw driver in a semi anechoic chamber is set at 67Hz. That is a full half octave beneath your number. You will have to rely on the stated measurements since most measurements I can access do not graph any response beneath 100Hz due to measurement techniques and discrepancies. Though it would be difficult to make a case for placing a 85dB driver in a horn loaded enclosure to extend the low frequency limit, the enclosure type will obviously affect the bass extension. (http://fullrangedriver.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=topn) This particular driver is finding favor among the DIY set when used in Quarter Wave (semi-transmission line) enclosures which can usefully extend the low frequency limit almost a full octave beyond the Fs of the raw driver. Even in an approximately 0.75 cubic foot simple bass reflex cabinet, the WR125 and FR125 have extension that is easily capable of a -3dB point slightly beneath 60Hz. Put a pair of these in an average sized room and the gain from the position of the speakers can bring the low frequency extension down to about 45Hz. While not "full" range, that should satisfy about 95% of listeners needs 95% of the time. Used in multiples the driver can reach even lower frequencies. (http://www.us.alegriaaudio.com/Aria.htm; I'm not endorsing Tim's designs [other than his request that I audition his speaker] but he has made some very interesting choices with this driver and has gained a reputation among the DIY crowd of having made good products overall.)

Note also the slight "BBC" boost around the 100Hz range of the CSS driver's measurements. As with most small surface area drivers, when used in a typical standmounted design, the bit of extra "oomph" at this frequency range gives the system a sense of covering much deeper bass than it can actually accomplish. This is a "trick" that is finding its way into more and more speakers both large and small, on the commercial front. For example, consider the in-room response of the Wilson Maxx2. David has designed in a very nice +6dB boost around 100Hz. This is in a $45k pair of speakers.

This particular driver also benefits from the peculiar motor design known as XBL2. This gives the driver excellent excursion at low frequencies with very low T.H. and I.M. distortion products. I would much rather trade low distortion over the usable bandwidth for a few Hz extension. You might want to read about my experience with this driver and the Telarc drum used for the recording of "Fanfare for a Common Man". The article is linked on the Planet 10 site. Once again, I am not endorsing nor advertising any particular design here. I actually chose the CSS driver for this thread because I thought their slogan fit the bill.

There are other single driver designs which do reach further into the bass regions. They tend to be more expensive and have larger surface area than the CSS drivers. Which naturally brings about other tradeoffs the designer must consider. The Fostex drivers are probably the best known at this time to most readers. (http://www.quarter-wave.com/Gallery/Gallery.html & http://www.quarter-wave.com/Projects.html & http://www.quarter-wave.com/) However, the Lowther, Jordan and Coral drivers have the reputation for extended frequency response that you seem to indicate you prefer. (http://diyparadise.com/corals.html) This, of course, only covers the dynamic drivers typically used for single driver designs. Various electrostatic and planar systems have frequency extension which should satisfy most listener's needs.

The most important point to make about "full range", single driver designs to make, however, is their ability to offer a sound that is quite unlike virtually any multiple driver loudspeaker system. Swapping nuance for frequency extension is, as I said, a most desireable tradeoff for many listeners. While it is true that relieving most single drivers of their responsibility at the lowest octave will increase their coherence through the upper nine octaves (a typical tradeoff for single driver designs), the listener who values the immediacy of the single driver design often finds it difficult to deal with the intrusion of yet another driver dissimilar to the one doing the yoeman's effort through most of the musical score. The idea of adding a "subwoofer" (particularly one with a typical class D plate amplifier) to a single driver design makes some folk's eyes water. Ask any Quad owner what they think of subwoofers.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/tqwp_e.html

http://ldsg.snippets.org/index.php3

http://www.t-linespeakers.org/

http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_comp/line_up_1.shtml

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:
If the mids and highs are sealed what is the purpose of the tapered cabinet extensions. Or, is the entire design supposed to mimic the B&W Nautilus? The speaker is quite attractive if very different, B&W excluded.

Joe, the mids are sealed within its own enclosure in a 3' tunnel closing down from 5" wich is the unit's diameter(I meant to say this is not a dipolar arrangement) .

The tweeters are sealed allright, that's not a design twist but responds to the unit being sealed by default.

And yes, the entire design is meant to be a clone (although with the owner's own changes to it) to the Nautilus.

Please review the post above yours, I guess it could be rephrased, but the indication of the mouth of the "tunnel" and its lenght should have ringed a bell I guess.

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Sealed only when she was in a bad mood. Which was at least 99% of the time. You should be a marriage counselor, Joe. You seem to understand these things. She looked damned good in red, though!

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:

Single range drivers are about coherence of sound and nuance of performance. Neither of those qualities can be defined by what I would consider a standard measurement technique

The subjective perceptions based on the personal taste cannot be measured.
All the others acoustic behaviors yes.

Any way I show you the responde in room.


Quote:

Even in an approximately 0.75 cubic foot simple bass reflex cabinet, the WR125 and FR125 have extension that is easily capable of a -3dB point slightly beneath 60Hz. Put a pair of these in an average sized room and the gain from the position of the speakers can bring the low frequency extension down to about 45Hz.

It sounds promising. We are going to see it:

Guaoo very impressive response.!!!!!
And....
What about group delay.?

Ohhh AMAZING.

A realy good sounding bass, im sure.

Good Z also.

Similar to this:

You try that it takes this like an seius alternative?....
Is a joke.


Quote:

As with most small surface area drivers, when used in a typical standmounted design, the bit of extra "oomph" at this frequency range gives the system a sense of covering much deeper bass than it can actually accomplish.

Yes but a serious colored bass that depends of the acoustics of the room. Worse that nothing.


Quote:

This gives the driver excellent excursion at low frequencies with very low T.H. and I.M. distortion products.
I would much rather trade low distortion over the usable bandwidth for a few Hz extension.

I would like to see those graphs of distortion.
Similars I suppose to these:


Quote:

Where to begin? First, a speaker is always a series of tradeoffs made by the designer(s) and the user(s).

Where to end?. To me, fullrange system have lot of tradeoffs and some little qualities.

I have listened to several fullranges loudspeakers from Fostex, Supravox, PHY, etc

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:
If the mids and highs are sealed what is the purpose of the tapered cabinet extensions.

Mids are not sealed.
Tapered tube has a open damped end.

Any way not bad result.

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:
Does the tweeter sound like an air-raid siren? Yes? That's my baby!

No actually it sounds wounderfull.

0-15-30-45-60

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

You are calling the bass section a tunnel. This implies an opening at each end ala a transmission line. However, I see no opening at the end opposite the woofer. This would indicate a sealed enclosure ie: acoustic suspension. In any case, it looks beautiful and the graphs indicate the possibility of very good sound. I must applaud the builder/designer for the design and workmanship.

JoeE SP9
JoeE SP9's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: Oct 31 2005 - 6:02pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Is the color Ferrari red?

gkc
gkc's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 24 2006 - 11:51am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

My ex? No. Ink red. As in "balance sheet." When the monthly credit card bills started coming in red envelopes, I covered my fundament with a towel and hit the road.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

You have me at an obvious disadvantage. I have absolutely no idea where you got some of those charts nor what their accuracy or relevance to anything is. Really, most of your charts mean nothing without some clarification. Your measurements beneath 200Hz will need to be compensated for room problems. You don't indicate you've done that. You don't indicate what you've done anywhere.

Did you measure the CSS driver or are we talking about something you consider "similar"? "Similar to" isn't "it" and can be manipulated anyway you prefer. What exactly are we to take away from charts of an unknown system?

" ... a serious colored bass that depends of the acoustics of the room." Guess you'll have to explain two things to me.

1) Which speaker's bass response doesn't rely upon the acoustics of the room?

2) Have you heard this particular driver? If not, how can you call it colored? By looking at mystery charts?

We are speaking of the slight boost the CSS driver exhibits around 100Hz; are we not? This leads me to believe you consider the Wilson to be seriously colored also since it's response is even more exagerated in this area. Do you have an in room graph with absolutley flat response beneath 200Hz? If so, how did you manage that?

You are more than welcome to your opinions and mysterious charts. As I said, when you listen through a single driver system, you either get it or you don't. Single drivers aren't for most people. No one has made any argument to the contrary. If you don't care for the sound of such a design, that's fine. But I would rather have the cohesive sound and nuance of performance that most often comes with a single driver design. If not this one, there are several which I think make wonderful music.

" ... You try that it takes this like an seius alternative?....
Is a joke."

Sorry, that sentence (?) makes no sense.

"If you only look to qualities they can be good ... "

Well, yes, I generally listen for certain "qualities". Once again you seem to wish to debate what I have stated. There are no simple measurements for cohesion and nuance. You seem to admit that. You might try a step response graph; but you've omitted that one. I can only assume your experience with other drivers makes you an expert with this particular design.

I guess I fail to get your point.

marcelo
marcelo's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 1:39pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

First and foremost it seems that some kind of language barrier is performing a class act here.
Those charts are the result of measuring and adjusting those speakers with a multiamp setup through a Behringer Ultracurve DCX2496, not a single driver unit (although the measurements shown are for each driver on these babies).
Those are really good results, in fact, better than many commercial speakers (better than mine anyway).

I wish I could hear those, but reading the forum where the entire process is described, and knowing the people behind the measurements, I can only conclude that those might be one of the best sounding speakers ever. Wich is, on the other hand, a hail to the Nautilus design, the inspiration of these.

Now, as far as single drivers goes, I guess what was intended to say is that these drivers have some individual good qualities, but as a whole, it is a flawed design.

now, I don't think anyone is interested (not on this thread anyway) to debate or argue about the qualities or not of a single speaker design, it was your initial response to the first post that implied no design but single speaker's are any good. You say you have no commercial interests behind this, I'd say you at least have some sort of agenda.

Now it seems to me you are missing the point about this thread. It is not about this creation against the rest of the stablishment. It is simply to represent what can be achieved with DIY projects, and the fact that not only looks (to some at least) stunning and the finish is impeccable, it also sounds good and that can be concluded also from the graphs shown above.
No one said these were the best speakers, nor that if you don't have or build yourself a speaker like these you are missing the holy grial, as opposed to what it seems your message tries to convey.
Brgds from sunny Spain
Marcelo

marcelo
marcelo's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 1:39pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:
You are calling the bass section a tunnel. This implies an opening at each end ala a transmission line. However, I see no opening at the end opposite the woofer. This would indicate a sealed enclosure ie: acoustic suspension. In any case, it looks beautiful and the graphs indicate the possibility of very good sound. I must applaud the builder/designer for the design and workmanship.

You're right Joe, the use of tunnel implied an open end, but in all reality is a closed tunnel that starts at 10" and closes down, some 10'10 (3 meters) shaped as a snail house.
The builder will be thrilled to read your praise words, I myself want to convince him to build another pair for me...but I don't think I'll succeed...it took him too long (about a year or more I understand) to get these done, he won't go through it again...
Ferrari red? I guess so...Piturrini (the builder-owner) might want to confirm this.
brgds, marcelo

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

"Now, as far as single drivers goes, I guess what was intended to say is that these drivers have some individual good qualities, but as a whole, it is a flawed design."

I feel you are reading too much and too little into my posts. And, having little consideration for personal preference.

I have no "agenda" here. Only a preference. Over the last few decades I have seldom found a multi-driver design that manages to accomplish what I hear from a single driver or, at the most, a good two way system. If you, or anyone else for that matter, happen to prefer muli-way crossovers and speaker systems, then you are welcome to your opinion.

I don't listen at ear splitting levels so I have no need for the additional power handling a three way system might offer. But, I do find most three (or more) way systems to be less than cohesive when compared to a simpler design. Particularly a simple design where there will be no crossover components to destroy what is coming into the speaker nor variations in dispersion and tonal balance at the crossover frequencies. Too many steep crossovers have their own problems that tend to bother me personally. Shallow crossovers employed in multi-driver systems have other problems which tend to bother me also. In this short space I have therefore stated a preference for a simple design. Nothing more. However, to make a statement which condemns all single driver systems as "flawed" seems to go beyond a preference and towards an "agenda" of your own.

"Now it seems to me you are missing the point about this thread. It is not about this creation against the rest of the stablishment. It is simply to represent what can be achieved with DIY projects, and the fact that not only looks (to some at least) stunning and the finish is impeccable, it also sounds good and that can be concluded also from the graphs shown above."

There seems to be a serious mistake of looking at measurements and deciding what a speaker will sound like. That is hardly the attitude I would have expected to find in the Stereophile forums. Disparaging or praising a speaker based on charts and graphs seems more like "Stereo Review" and "Consumer Reports" to me. Might I ask how you deduced the quality of the posted speaker? By looking at a computer screen? Might I ask how you came to the conclusion that all single driver designs are flawed? Have you heard them all? In what context?

The measurements shown in Matrixhifi's post of 07/07/06 06:35 AM are not valid measurements of anything that I can identify. The somewhat explicit suggestion is made that the single driver design I pointed to is "similar" to the measurements shown. How can that be? Matrixhifi does not indicate the ability to measure the CSS driver. The only ability he has with the CSS driver is, apparently, to place its TS parameters into a computer modelling program. The results of which indicate what I have said is true. (And, had he gone to the CSS site to get the TS parameters, Matrixhifi should have seen the measurements provided. So why provide something so different from reality? Also, by modelling a simple bass reflex cabinet, he has the ability alter the bass response in almost any fashion he desires by doing no more than changing the port length or diameter. Yet, he proves my statement.) Anyone can link to the CSS driver's web site and see the manufacturer's measurements. There are multiple speaker systems available on the net which employ this driver. Many are mentioned on the Planet 10 site. You can look at their measurements. None of these measurements appear to be "similar" to what Matrixhifi posted. Possibly Matrixhifi took off axis measurements of a single driver system. That would give the disastrous results portrayed here. It would have no bearing on how you might use the speaker, but it would give the results desired.

I have no idea what is considered by Matrixhifi to be "similar" to the CSS driver nor any other single driver system I've mentioned for that matter; Fostex, Jordan, Coral, Lowther, Quad, etc. In the larger scheme of things, Bose could be considered "similar" to Wilson and a 4" coaxial car speaker could be considered "similar" to a Voice of the Theater loudspeaker. How would you react should next month's Stereophile have a speaker review and John Atkinson said he only measured a speaker which was "similar" to the unit under review? Or, what if JA states the speaker has no bass response beneath 80Hz when the information available clearly shows the driver is capable of more than a half octave lower response? I suspect you would feel both cheated and as if someone were intentionally trying to be dishonest with you. That would be an "agenda".

Maybe we should suggest to JA that Sterophile dispense with subjective comments entirely since apparently all we now need to assess a speaker's qualities are measurements "similar" to what we like. He really wouldn't even have to measure anything. Just put in graphs which look good. That should give Sam Tellig more time to spend in Europe. And, leave more room for advertisements. It wouldn't be so much an "agenda" as an adventure when we went to listen to the equipment. Remember Matrixhifi states, "The subjective perceptions based on the personal taste cannot be measured." So why bother with subjective perceptions? Case closed!

Case closed?!

I don't believe I am missing the point of the thread, Marcelo. The heading is "Best DIY speakers". I find it rather overstated that the original post can be declared "best" when that is truly a subjective judgement that no one solitary speaker has met in my lifetime. Maybe I'm just too finicky about such titles. However, that the speaker's self proclaimed ranking is being accepted solely upon measurements provided by the builder is equally audacious. I am not taking anything away from Matrxhifi, if he is the builder. I find DIY a truly satisfying way to enjoy this hobby and feel you learn far more by DIY'ing it than merely plugging in a pair of cables. I would, however, have been more likely to agree with Matrixhifi had he stated this was "The Most Time Consuming DIY Cabinet".

However, the thread is about the "best" DIY project(s). If you feel I've missed the point, you obviously have not prowled through the many links I have provided. My post is about DIY projects. Many of those DIY projects are just as elaborate as the Nautilus clone and I'm certain their designer(s) would also like to have their efforts proclaimed as "Best DIY Speaker" - ever! Single drivers are as much a part of the DIY speaker effort as are horn loaded, bass reflex, quarter wave/transmission line, open baffle, dipole subwoofers, etc. Even more so with SET amplifiers being popular among the DIY crowd who build electronics. Many of those SET builders/users would have the same reaction I did to the Nautilus clone. Too many drivers, too many crossovers. Therefore a thread discussing the benefits of various DIY possibilities would seem perfectly in order. Or, Marcelo, you could begin a new thread specifically for that discussion. But, please, I feel you've missed the pioint of this thread if you think it not about DIY projects. Did we all come here merely to praise a picture?

By the very title of this thread, it is about DIY projects and what might be considered "best" in that arena. That some folks out there don't care for SDFR designs is not something that bothers me. I am quite confident in my assessment of what I hear. When it comes to single driver systems, once again, you either get it or you don't. That is not meant to deprecate nor disparage anyone else's choice. We are free to choose what we like and there is no place for anyone to say what I or anyone else prefer is a "flawed design". Such a statement is arrogance placed upon a flag and waved in your opponent's face! Beyond that, it is quite rude! While I applaud the effort put into the Nautilus clone, I can't say I would consider it "best". Certainly not without hearing it first. Sound quality is what we are judging; isn't it? That my statement suggesting a single driver, full range speaker can offer qualities not found in multi-driver designs upsets some people seems to be the more interesting fact. If for no other reason than effort involved, the single driver system can easily be considered "best" for anyone beginning to contemplate DIY speakers. One baffle and one driver and you too could be on your way, Marcelo.

.

marcelo
marcelo's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 1:39pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Greetings from Spain,

"I feel you are reading too much and too little into my posts. And, having little consideration for personal preference. "

Sorry if I came too hard on you, it wasn

Matrixhifi
Matrixhifi's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 6 2005 - 12:15am
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Let me elaborate just a bit about those measures

All measures were made at the speaker

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.

Yes, there can be a truce, but I will require war reparations. We can negotiate your payments to me anytime you like. One of my first demands is a Mediterranean villa, in a good state of repair and with servants and a working winery. Somewhere along the coast between Barcellona and Bologna will sufice, though my preference is for the Cinque Terre.

First responses can easily engender outrageous remarks. That is often how discussions are best started. If I want that villa, I don't ask for a chocolate bar and a dollar. If I want to discuss DIY speakers, when I see a three way mollusk shell, I suggest anything more than one driver is extreme. Thus, within a few posts, we have come to discuss DIY. It is an interesting field which too many audiophiles know nothing about. I get more excited about a single pair of speakers which have come from someone's garage than a line up of 36 models from a commercial designer. I know the DIY has someone's heart and soul included. It may turn out to be excrement, but it is always worth the listen. (Though those DIY folks can be really scary. Have you seen the pictures of their systems with tube amps on an open chassis? 700 volts riding on a cable sitting out in the open. You know they don't have children in the house. Not any longer, at least.)

Yes, we can begin a thread on SDFR's though I doubt it will come to much. The divide is quite partisan. Somewhat like horns and transmission lines. Behemoths and mini-monitors. I have a friend who owns Quad 63's. He bought them used, so when he tells his story any dealer will probably assume he is a bit on the "frugal" side. He gets frustrated when dealers tend to show no enthusiasm in demonstrating new speakers for him. I've tried to explain it is becuase they realize if he has pined for a single driver Quad 57 or even a 63 for two or three decades, he has made up his mind what sound he prefers. Demonstrating the latest three or four way dynamic driver system will not impress him, no matter how deep the bass nor how loudly it plays. They feel he is a waste of their time.

So, when I say you either get it or you don't, it is hardly a put down of anyone else. It is merely expressing an opinion that some folks are set in their ways. Both for the good and for the bad. We all like to think of ourself as open to new ideas and politically independent. That seldom is the case however. Many of us have convinced ourself we don't like this or that and are unwilling to hear anything which might suggest otherwise. Therefore, there has been a reaction to the idea that SDFR's can produce good music and the statement, "you either get it or you don't", is taken as a put down of other people's taste. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply an acknowledgement that each of us has our own set of preferences and our own dislikes. Sometimes those preferences, and even more likely those dislikes, will cause irrational reactions when they are challenged. If you remain so set in your ways, you become what all grandchildren call "an old fart". I suspect my friend with the Quads is well on his way to farthood.

Marcelo, you do bring up a point which might be worth a new thread. How much weight do you place on the measurements provided by JA? You seem to place a great deal while I look mostly for information which would indicate a problem with the unit mating with other equipment. A speaker which presents a dificult load or a pre amplifier which is not able to drive long cables or other such anomolies. Otherwise, my advice to buyers regarding testing results is there are only four measurements you will need to know about any piece of equipment. Height, width, depth and weight. You need to know if you will have to get a truck to take it home, whether it will fit where you want it to go and whether the stand will support the weight.

Beyond that my take on measurements is they are for designers and not users. Take the product home and listen to it if it fits your bill on those four counts. Obviously you will need to know why the pre amp doesn't sound good driving long cables. But, knowing a particular preamp will not work with your long cables should be the job, first, of the dealer who should sort out those technical matters and, second, something you can determine once you've found the sound less than stellar. You need to know and understand why the pre amp doesn't work electrically. I do not advocate ignorance among the masses but instead appropriate responsibility among the sellers and buyers.

I don't feel measurements do the user much good other than to spot obvious mismatches. The rest should be left to the ears. Do I trust reviewers? Yes, when I feel I understand their preferences. Your example of trusting each other's references seems not to accept the fact that I can understand your preferences without being in agreement with them. And, vice versa. Trust no one blindly. (That is one reason the world is in such a sorry state at present.) Understand as many people as you can and accept what they believe is what they have been taught, even if you think is is a bunch of hooey! Finally, challenge as many people to justify their believes as you see fit to determine whether they really believe what they say they believe or have been led down a path by some unscrupulous group of neo-cons.

Therefore, Marcelo, you trust the measurements while I first turn to the columns without a chart included. You trust someone's measurements while I trust someone's words. Which method is more valid? Do you wish to begin the thread or shall I?

.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Best DIY Louspeakers.


Quote:
... what I say is that if we use in excess the gain of the room to get a deeper bass that is not given by the driver, we
  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading