DIY SDA's for my size room

MillerLiteScott

Many months ago I made this sketch of a SDA speaker that I thought would work well in my size room and offer the d appolito configuration in approximate size of the SDA 2B to 1C range. It is sort of a Morph of the RTA 11t and the SDA 2B.

What do you think?

How hard would it be to convert a 2B crossover to work with an additional stereo driver?

Do you think it would offer any better imaging or/soundstage?

dudeinaroom

You wouldn't have to convert the crossover, just use one from an original sda 2

RuSsMaN

Just buy SDA's man.

heiney9

Have to agree with Russ here...........check that strongly agree. Have you done any research at all on the D'appolito array and what it's benefits are? I'm pretty sure the D-appolitto array would not be the best fit in an SDA designed speaker otherwise Polk would have made a production model with drivers in that config.

There is a very good reason the tweeters are arranged the way they are on the multiple tweeter units, it's called a progressive point source.

There is also a very good reason the single tweeter is positioned where it is on the single tweeter models. The final generation SDA's are probably the pinnicle of the design.

All that beign said give Ken a call and see what he thinks. I don't see how it would improve or even give the same results as an original pair of SDA's.

H9

jakelm

Seems like a good plan to me....

If you build it...the post will come..

MillerLiteScott

Thanks H9.

I really don't have any specific plans to build speakers.

But it just was a thought and I was interested in hearing what the experts had to say about the configuration.

I believe the 3.1tl's have a similar configuration as the RTA 15tl's and as I mentioned above my configuration was a morph of the RTA 11t and SDA 2B. Probably because those were the two sets of speakers that were sitting in front of me.

Maybe if the tweeter was located in the center like the 2B and LSi series it would work, or work better?

I will promise that if my wife makes enough money for me to retire. I will build them.:)

heiney9

MillerLiteScott wrote: »

Thanks H9.

I really don't have any specific plans to build speakers.

But it just was a thought and I was interested in hearing what the experts had to say about the configuration.

I believe the 3.1tl's have a similar configuration as the RTA 15tl's and as I mentioned above my configuration was a morph of the RTA 11t and SDA 2B. Probably because those were the two sets of speakers that were sitting in front of me.

I will promise that if my wife makes enough money for me to retire. I will build them.:)

I'm all for experimenting, but speaker building is a real art form to get things to sound like they are supposed too. I'ts difficult unless you understand how everything affects everything else.

I say go for it if you have the time and resources. But get a real pair of SDA's in the meantime. Don't you already have a pair of 2B's? I think you do

heiney9

I don;t think the 3.1TL was a true D'appolito array. the drivers are arranged similarly. I'd have to study the x-over to be sure.

MillerLiteScott

Yes I have a pair of 2B's. In the next couple of weeks I am going to mod with the 4.1tl upgrade.

I like to build stuff for me every once in a while instead of for somebody else. But everybody else are the ones that keep a roof over my head.

MillerLiteScott

heiney9 wrote: »

I don;t think the 3.1TL was a true D'appolito array. the drivers are arranged similarly. I'd have to study the x-over to be sure.

I agree with you and that is one of the reasons I came up with my idea because it was simpler and based of a proven design. Albeit a modified version with the addition of the dimensional driver. My thinking was also that the extra driver would add to the dynamics and bass while not complicating the crossover with cascading multiple tweeters over the 2B design.

RuSsMaN

The 3.1 is a line array.