Diy Monitors - to build or not to build

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So, can someone suggest some plans?
I would love to learn how to design and build some monitors.
How about a group idea?

Butta you are planning to make some moniotrs.
Mackies use Vifa
genelecs use Scanspeak

So, say you are making a clone of one of these and you pick the drivers what would you do next?

And if you build kit do you learn to design a speaker or is it more like
putting together a model?

thanks
Patina

:?
 
Hey Patina,

have you been here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=6

There is some loudspeaker modelling software kicking around on the web, try searching over there.

Here is a link to a guy in the Netherlands who seems to make some rather nice looking speakers (no idea how they sound though!), considering a project similar to one the floorstanders when I get the time and cash....

http://home.hetnet.nl/~geenius/

Hope thats helps....

You could also try Barefoots forum here:

http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=12&sid=7eda3e6cd73b3133b8682e52e735e38d

Cheers Tom
 
Hi PatinaCreme

I sugest you this speaker: http://www.geocities.com/diyproac25/
It is a clone of a very good sounding and expensive speaker, but if you build it yourself it will be relatively cheap.
It uses ScanSpeak speakers that you can buy from Madisound.

chrissugar
 
Butta,

have you a way to explain the sound of your Madisounds comparing to Quested's or Dynaudios?

Tony
 
Thanks everyone for the links! :grin:

I have one back at you:
http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/speak/STEEN.html
The Art of Building a Loudspeaker to the End
by steen Duelund


Anyone care to join me in this 40 page read?
I am sure Iwill have questions.


Thanks again!
Patina
 
Oh boy.
After reading that I understand why everyone keeps telling me to build a kit. I am going to scan the library and see if there is an easier starting point.


:cry:
Patina
 
> After reading that I understand why everyone keeps telling me to build a kit.

A kit is safe.

You can't build a speaker from book-theory. Steen has collected a lot of info together, and some good points, but there is much more to it than that.

You CAN build a perfectly useful speaker without any book. Buy a cone speaker 10" to 4" that looks good. You can stare at curves until you go blind, or thump/scratch cones to get an idea of the sound, but "looks" seem to be about as reliable as any other selection.

To build a sealed box cabinet for any common speaker, calculate a cube with sides 1.1 times the advertised diameter, then build a non-cube with the same internal volume.

(This "1.1 rule" actually gives a Q of about 1, a nice value, for any speaker with efficiency near 1%, which is very typical.)

Example: the Fostex FE-103 is a lovely little 4-inch driver. 1.1 times 4 inches is 4.4 inches on each side of a cube. But if we really build a cube then all the internal reflections are the same length, same frequency. Also a cube does not leave much face-area for a tweeter, which will be our first "frill", at least for anything bigger than 4-inch. So build a non-cube of 4.4*4.4*4.4= 85 cubic inches. A good size might be D*1.0*1.1*1.2 or 4.0"*4.4"*4.8", or D*0.8*1.1*1.5 or 3.2"*4.4"*6". This decision depends more on available space or pre-cut boards than acoustics.

Note that this is internal dimension. You have to figure the outside dimensions and how the 6 panels fit together.

Note that the internal volume is not critical. 20% shift in volume gives about 10% shift of resonance with a complementary shift of peaking, so you don't hear any great difference with large changes in box size. The FE-103 can be happy in 50 cubic inches or 200 cubic inches.

Build the box very tight. Leaks will wheeze and whistle. Use caulk under the rim of the speaker. Always front-mount unless there is a very good reason to back-mount.

Do that with a 4-inch FE-103 and you get smooth on-axis response from 15KHz down to 200Hz. You can't get a heap of bass from a 4-inch, and if you try it will fuzz-up the midrange.

Do that with a 10-inch speaker and you get good bass down to 80Hz, and on-axis response to around 3KHz, but the off-axis response is drooping above 800Hz. A 10-inch makes a very good speaker for a large AM radio: full bass, clear on-axis, or you can sit off-axis and lose treble if reception is bad.

Yes, a cone speaker is a terrible thing to listen to. But nothing else is better. We can argue this point for years: some non-cone speakers have some really wonderful properties. Adapting a cone/dome to work with a horn is a powerful (and costly) technique. But after 80 years and thousands of odd drivers, the plain cone is still what we use almost everywhere.

No single speaker can cover the whole range 20-20KHz, or even 50-15KHz, with uniform directivity and enough power even for a living room. 8-inch to 4-inch speakers cover most of the critical midrange and are very popular. If you go to the larger sizes, 6" and 8", you get respectable bass with beamy droopy treble. A 2-inch speaker covers treble well and wide, but won't even get down to 500Hz well. But an 8" plus a 2" cover most of the audio band OK.

The key problem is how you splice the two sounds together. It is just impossible to make two speakers sound as one. If they overlap, it confuses the ear. If they have different sensitivity where they come together, that stands out.

And filter theory is only a general starting point. Real speaker responses are very complicated and don't act like ideal filters.

What seems to give best result for "reasonable effort" is to find a woofer that is fairly flat to a point like 3K or 6K and then drops off quickly. They build them this way on purpose. Letting speaker limitations be the necessary filter works quite well. This typically means your vital midrange 600-3KHz comes out of the woofer, which is a bad plan, but still perfectly acceptable. It also means you are pushing a big cone about as far as it can go, up to frequencies where it gets a little ratty. But getting a smooth splice anywhere within the vital midrange is very hard to do.

So note where your woofer runs out of steam, and pick a tweeter and filter-capapcitor to cover the rest of the audio band. Don't, like my friend, use a 80Hz-3KHz woofer with a 5KHz+ tweeter: this sounded really queer until I realized he had bought the wrong drivers.

So with a sharp-cutoff woofer, a complementary tweeter w/cap, and a 1.1X box, you can build a pretty decent speaker without any heavy thinking. We did this all the time in college and it usually worked fine.

There is no great magic involved.

In fact quite wacky ideas often work better than they should. Put 16 $2 4" speakers in a box, either 4x4 square or a 1x16 line-array. You get a lot more than $32 of sound. Accurate? No, but fun.

But..... build your own reference monitors? This is like building your own ruler. It is a Precision Tool. You have to become a Real Expert. By the time you have a hope of getting close to what you can buy, your life has been dedicated to speaker-thinking and you have no time for anything else. Get a life, or get on with the life you already picked. If you were put on earth to build monitor speakers, you would already know that and be doing it all the time.
 
PRR: "In fact quite wacky ideas often work better than they should. Put 16 $2 4" speakers in a box, either 4x4 square or a 1x16 line-array. You get a lot more than $32 of sound. Accurate? No, but fun. " Reminds me of the arrays my late father experimented with years ago. They were fun indeed, and sounded pretty good. He used to remark that some cheap drivers worked better than expensive ones.

For serious home installs, when he was in that business for a while, he favored JBL drivers, like the LE8 and some two-way systems with horns and big woofers.

But PRR's warning about getting into speaker design and its all-consuming character is most astute.
 
Hey Butta,

Looks like another goodie to ad to my "please build me soon" list.
Thanks for sharing, :sam:

Tony
 
[quote author="PRR"] ... You can't build a speaker from book-theory. [/quote]

yes you can ... no you can't ... err ... a little knowledge is dangerous.
Speakers seem so simple and yes you can make a good workhorse control room or studio monitor
or
make a great PA speaker
but
to make your pride and joy for main monitoring at your first attempt is just not possible.
Someone my prove me wrong and I don't mean to offend.

... There is no great magic involved.
... just a great deal of care and attention to detail

.. But..... build your own reference monitors? This is like building your own ruler. It is a Precision Tool. You have to become a Real Expert.

and honestly ... there you have it

I feel I have many years experinece in speaker making and I've made some excellent ones at times ... and lots of OK ones.
I still don't have a set that I'm happy with yet !
.... and am look at getting a set from one of my good freinds who has continued the search.

PRR,
that was an excellent post and was an easy read with a lot more knowledge in there than just what was on the surface. People interested in DIY speakers - please read it again.
:thumb:


multiple 4 inch speakers
:green:
fun but
Better Of Somewhere Else
:roll:
no highs no lows must be ----
 
I´m really in for this. Good monitors down here cost a little fortune...
And Butta, thanks for all the comparison info! Good to know from someone who uses the thing.

I guess my wishlist/2do list is getting unreal... :S

cheers!
Fabio
 
Kev,

I hear ya... but is this most related to the necessary woodworking or more because of the electronical part of this?
Design matters too of couse :roll:

The Madisoundenclosure seems a not to difficult built btw
 
I remember a picture of an old Stanley Clarke bass rig where he had a mess of 4" speakers mounted in a plexiglass dome. Might be something to it.

Bear
 
At an AES panel discussion a few years ago, there was a guy who worked with Boulez at IRCAM. He was talking about the early experiments of having musicians interacting with playback from speakers sitting among them, and how Boulez was very dissatisfied with the sound from the speakers, saying they didn't sound like instruments at all.

This guy was tasked with coming up with speakers that behaved more like instruments played by musicians, and ended up developing some dodecahedral speakers with a driver mounted on all but the one bottom face, which was where the supporting stand connected. Apparently this worked enough better that Pierre was satisfied.
 
> was very dissatisfied with the sound from the speakers, saying they didn't sound like instruments at all.

They DON'T!

All reproduced sound is suspension of disbelief. I work with live acoustic musicians, and with speakers. I learn to translate. But they really don't sound the same. In gross ways, not just in ways that another $999 or 15 more drivers would fix.

> musicians interacting with playback from speakers sitting among them

That is not at all what traditional speakers aim at. Real instruments scatter sound all over, but speaker systems generally have very variable and pointy directivity. Which isn't bad. In theater speakers you want to minimize scattering, and in home use you want to smack the guy who paid for the speakers. Even wide-dispersion home 3-ways generally creep up to 90x90 degree (Q=6, not 1 or 2) at the top of each driver's range.

Piano does not come out of an 8-inch hole in a box.

Trumpets do not have the overtone smear of paper. (I was once asked to audition this "wonderful new speaker", playing trumpet: it had the smear of plastic diaphragms instead of paper or cloth diaphragms. Compared to everything else in the store: it did not have the same flaws. Compared to real trumpet, it was just a different flavor of fake.)

But in this business, most of the music-buyers never hear acoustic musicians, or favor music where the reference is "in front of the stage-speakers on a good night". So long as our monitors have roughly similar box-holes and paper-haze as most of the customers, we can do our work. In fact using a decahedron or direct/reflecting speaker would be wrong when mixing for conventional speaker playback.

FWIW: the twelve 5-inch speakers plan is used by at least one acoustic-testing system, as a near-omni source for room testing. But I have also seen a 12" in a cubic-foot box: in large rooms, you can work around its directivity even out at 5KHz where it pencil-beams.
 
Of course that was just an anecdote, not a prescription for better speakers. I doubt that Boulez changed out his home system to a bunch of dodecahedra.

I'm reminded of another gag though. When people talk about how musical their speakers are I'm tempted to say "What? Do they make everything sound like a 'cello?"
 
Has anybody tried to clone the NS-10's
There is a schematic on the web that shows how to improve
the frequency response at the crosssover but I have not found any
plans, components , etc.
 
[quote author="MARTYSOUND"]Has anybody tried to clone the NS-10's[/quote]

Why would you want to do that, when you can go to Radioshack and buy some $10 speakers that will sound just as "good"?

:green:

All joking aside, though... Why would you want to do that, when you can go to Radioshack and buy some $10 speakers that will sound just as "good"?!

Peace,
Al.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top