Designing Speakers

Early B.

If you could design your own speakers, what features would they have?

I'd like speakers with sensors on them that automatically adjust to the room's acoustics.

What about speakers with an external crossover where you could easily change out caps without soldering to give your system a different sound depending on your mood. Call them, "snap caps."

I also think it would be neat to return to the days of the console with speakers, amp and CDP integrated into a single unit. No need to worry about ICs, PCs, separate components, etc. Use it as a TV rack.

Or how about no speakers at all? It's artwork hanging on the wall that looks like ribbons (mids and highs), but they are tied to in-wall base drivers.

ben62670

You've seen them. I tend to go large. My last ones were actually small.

Face

EB, I like your thinking.

My speakers would have a dual concentric tweeter/woofer, and a second driver for bass.

And speaking of, I have a pair of 6.5" dual concentric tweeters/woofers and 2 pairs of 12" eD subs in my basement, waiting to put in a cabinet. The crossovers will be mounted on the back of the cabs for the time being, in case I need to make adjustments. Depending on how they sound, I may add a ribbon super tweeter.

As for aesthetics, I'm still not sure what I'm going to do. I'd like to try something different though. The only thing I'm sure of so far is, using velvet around the dual concentric driver and super tweeter, just as Tannoy does in their high end speakers.

Systems

Face wrote: »

And speaking of, I have a pair of 6.5" dual concentric tweeters/woofers and 2 pairs of 12" eD subs in my basement, waiting to put in a cabinet.

SEAS H1333 by chance?Nice driver I built a pair of speakers using the older (origina)H489.There are some minor problems resulting from the concentric arrangement but the advantages are many.

Face

The only number I could pull off them resembling the #'s you posted was 1667. I believe they're the same drivers and x-over used in the Saturn S6. Also the same drivers as the Tannoy monitors of that time, but with different crossover components, which I plan on upgrading anyway.

Systems

I could not afford these. http://www.aurumacoustics.com/loudspeaker_system.html
So I built these.

mhardy6647

Stuff like these...

www.fullrangedriver.com
www.t-linespeakers.org
http://www.geocities.com/rbrines1/
http://www.quarter-wave.com/

Serendipity

Invisible speakers, literally. Something that can be implemented in walls but use the wall as a resonator.

Don't know if this is possible, though..

mhardy6647

but use the wall as a resonator

Products like this have been available since at least the early 1960s, and are (still) available today.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-950

Dave38

Early B. wrote: »

If you could design your own speakers, what features would they have?

A speaker that would have a (1)12" Woofer (not side mounted), (1) 12" passive radiator (1 maybe 2) 5 ¼" Dynamic Balance driver(s), (1) Ring Radiator tweeter. 1" MDF wood for the cabinets. A quality cross-over network and recommended power: 100 - 400 watts. Freq. response 25 Hz - 25 Khz. Impedance 4 ohms.

ben62670

Active XO's. The XO is the hardest part of speaker building. You can't just go by the nominal ohms to get the XO right. With an active XO you can change frequency any time you want, and levels. Later if you decide to go passive you can do it after figuring out where you liked it. No caps, inductors, and resistors in the signal path sure is nice.

BTW
NICE JOB GV#27!!!

Face

Yes but, how easy are they to set? You saw the x-over of my Tannoys, how easy would it be to duplicate that?

Systems

ben62670 wrote: »

BTW
NICE JOB GV#27!!!

Thanks Ben, Yeh except for the increase in complexity active xovers have many advantages over passives and in general easier to get good results with.

TroyD

Full range electrostats that will go down to 25hz.

That are about the same size as the ones I currently own.

BDT

ben62670

Actually I have been studying electronic XO's, and have found them to be fairly simple. When I have the design I want completely figured out I will offer them to Polkies real cheap. The heart of a 12db XO is just an op-amp, 2 resistors, 2 capacitors, and a power supply. If the XO is just a 12db, and a set frequency like say 2500hz it is very simple. Dip switches or a very very HQ pot could be employed to make the XO variable within a given frequency range. Some of the active XO's on the market use very low quality parts, and lame power supplies. 24db slopes can be implemented also with another pair of res, caps, and an op-amp. I have actually used car audio XO's with good results, and I know that it can be done much much better with a simplified circuit, and quality polystyrene (styrofoam) caps, and metal film resistors. Also I would like to design some up with different op-amps, and maybe a low voltage tube setup. It would then be a nice tube buffer/active XO.

Face

Which actives would you recommend?

ben62670

Face wrote: »

Which actives would you recommend?

The only ones I have seen that really are Audiophile grade start at $600. I know I can build them much cheaper. At least half the price.

http://www.marchandelec.com/ has a lot of what I am talking about getting into.

Systems

Face wrote: »

Which actives would you recommend?

If you want to experiment with active xovers a good starting point would be this unit.http://www.behringer.com/CX2310/index.cfm?lang=eng It can be had for $90-100 and while it's not a top flight audiophile design many have used it in higher end systems to good effect.

zingo

I've heard good things about that x-over GV#27. Actives is a great way to test and design loud speakers because you can always adjust on the fly without having to make hardware changes like with PCB x-overs.

ben62670

I almost went that route. I was looking hard at the digital XO
http://www.behringer.com/DCX2496/index.cfm?lang=eng
Both would be great for flexibility. I have spent a bit of time looking at diyaudio.com for actives, and they are very popular, but I would like something that isn't mass produced. When you get a do all solution that is very complex with many components mass produced electronics suffer from inferior parts. If they save $20 a unit, and sell 500,000 it just turned into a big loss. Where if you and I build it we can use better caps, resistors, op-amps, and power supplies. I almost bought the Beringer. I mean I had the card out, and ready to go, but they were out of stock.

treitz3

Early B. wrote: »

If you could design your own speakers, what features would they have?

The ability to reproduce as closely as possible the sound that you would hear and feel as if you were actually listening to real sound, no matter what that sound would be.

Speakers that would be enjoyable for listening to a concert with an audience as well as a recording studio with all of the reflections, subtleties, nuances and noises you would experience with each type of venue.

Speakers that would have features such as the highest of natural sounding highs [not just treble] as well as the typical highs most speakers have without being bright or causing one ounce of ear fatigue.

Speakers that incorporated a separately powered, built in spl meter and spectrum analyzer to automatically [when mic placed into the sweet spot, via a separately powered, isolated, and computer controlled x-over] adjust all parameters to a predetermined overall frequency response that was already approved by the listener in an anechoic room, not to a flat response.

Speakers that incorporated a direct sound straight to the sweet spot as well [as the same sounds being broadcast at a 45 degree angle or higher for listening enjoyment around the room whilst not in the sweet spot.

Speakers that had an external crossover with a separate power supply completely isolated from the vibrations from 5 different frequency modules.

Speakers that had 5 aforementioned frequency modules that performed as one, for example;
[Module #1] a 6 tweeter array including ribbons, inverted dome, dome, horn, laser and electrostats with each tweeter array equally balanced to reproduce the certain part of what each particular tweeter type does best to achieve the most realistic reproduction for the top end frequencies.
[Module #2] Longer dual ribbons (each channel) with thicker capstan and a multiple driver array consisting of 3 sizes of mid drivers like, say 4-4 and 1/2" drivers, 4-5" drivers and 6-6" drivers of the highest quality.
[Module #3]8-7" drivers with 3-10" drivers, forward firing, sealed box mid-bass module.
[Module #4]angled 12" drivers (45 degree) side by side in a dipole configuration triple stacked with a passive and active 15" sealed box woofer, bi-ampable bass module.
[Module #5] Dual stereo rotary woofer modules.

All modules, left and right channel only...of course.

Speakers that would require a minimum of six amplifiers [12 monoblocks] whether it be tubes or SS.

Speakers that would change the way recording studios are producing the compressed, overemphasized, overprocessed crap they are producing today.

madmax

I would design a single driver, super high efficiency speaker. Probably a horn design. No xover, no special electronics, just a balls to the wall single driver.

ben62670

madmax wrote: »

I would design a single driver, super high efficiency speaker. Probably a horn design. No xover, no special electronics, just a balls to the wall single driver.

If I had to patience to design a horn loaded cab I would love to try it. Actually I would love to hear someone else's work before a venture like that. XO design would be easier for me than the cabinet unless you had a design to copy.