3 way speaker Q's

whoever is trashing my rep needs to have the common courtesy of atleast signing their name.

ok so how do i know what speakers i can put in does the Equivalent volume of all 3 drivers have to add up to my box volume? or something else? what else do i need to look at when looking for drivers?
an is the a rachio or something on the wattage of the diffrent speakers i should stick to, like should 1 type of driver be a certain more or less watts than 1 of the others going in the box?

reddevil6 said:

ok so how do i know what speakers i can put in does the Equivalent volume of all 3 drivers have to add up to my box volume? or something else? what else do i need to look at when looking for drivers?
an is the a rachio or something on the wattage of the diffrent speakers i should stick to, like should 1 type of driver be a certain more or less watts than 1 of the others going in the box?

Click to expand...

Duuuudddee... forget about that box. There is a whole lot more to it than the volume the driver needs and wattage. Seriously... The odds of finding suitable drivers for the box other than exact replacements is extremely slim.

With your budget, why wouldn't you want to acquire a nice pair of speakers..?

or build them. you could build some sick speakers with your budget.

i can never find anything about the speakers at the shops besides the brand wattage and sometimes. dont know any just speaker shops. or online stores in my country. besides 1 that sells drivers
i live in south australia.

reddevil6 said:

hang on so are yous saying it wont work out if i take these speakers out and try and build a hole new setup in the cabnets?
my best bet would be to buy hole new speakers already built?
my budget is about $1200.

Click to expand...

Hi,

If your budget is $1200, then I would highly recommend looking at some kit speakers. It saves you a lot of trial and error getting things right.

Earl Geddes has some excellent products that might fit the budget in kit form.

The Harper 8 would stretch the budget a little, but would be worth some serious consideration.

Of course there are many other kits available and Madisound would be another source to consider.

Wow, I see you are in Australia. You might search for Parts Express. I can't remember who, but someone in your country is a retailer for their products and they do sell kits.

well let me tell you now that watts has nothing to do with the speakers performance, all it means is how much power can you pump into it before you blow it. even then it all depends. most speakers rated for like 300w or even 150w will not blow in normal usage because that would require unreal listening volumes, so ignore wattage ratings.

Loren42 said:

For vented:
Super Forth-Order Boom Box, Forth-Order Sub-Chebyshev...

Click to expand...

These are "Flat" alignments that exhibit 3rd order roll offs?
3rd order based on what evidence?

Loren42 said:

What is free-space?

Click to expand...

Again, no planes. Full space. Which is how you speakers are spec'd, not 1/2 space as you believed.

Loren42 said:

That argument is just silly.

Click to expand...

What is silly, is not understanding what will happen when a monopole with typical "flat" vented 4pi response is placed in a room.

Loren42 said:

Is your stance that no vented enclosure can sound good?

Click to expand...

To whom? Those demanding fidelity to a double bass, or the market conditioned to the droning slow decay and modal response as indicated in the links? Perfect for loudspeaker sound, explosions, etc.?
"Sound good" is subjective and subject to the demands for fidelity of the listener.

Loren42 said:

Is there a consensus on that?

Click to expand...

No, clearly not.

Loren42 said:

I think Vandersteen uses ports. Wilson Audio is another. Are they junk?

Click to expand...

If they meet the fidelity (and in the case of the Wilson, jewelry) requirements of the buyer, why would they be?

Loren42 said:

The links, thank you, are interesting, but I did not see where they support your argument that a vented enclosure is a poor loudspeaker.

Click to expand...

I made no claim that they are "poor", you did. The links explain the droning slow decay and modal response issues. What you choose as "poor" or "good" is entirely up to you.

Loren42 said:

Maybe it would be good to reiterate exactly what your claim is so I am clear.

Click to expand...

That the market supplies what the market demands. I can't be any clearer on that.

cheers,

AJ

edit: btw, still waiting for the specific "well designed" vented speaker you say I missed. TIA

ports are a trade off just like anything else in the real world, you can't get something for nothing. there is no such thing as a perfect speaker be it ported or sealed because they all have their downfalls. i'm slightly confused about what your getting at but i will say i do notice a difference in ported and sealed subs, sealed ones sound more accurate and seem to not have as many room acoustics problems as ported, i had a KEF PSW2500 sub and it was pretty easy to place, may have had something to do with the fact it's downfiring but i don't know. the sub i recently got is ported and it was very difficult to place and i ended up having to use room treatments to correct some problems that werent there before with the KEF sub (which was sealed) i also notice the ported sub rings slightly at the tuning frequency, it's not really noticable, but it is there. ports have tradeoffs, almost all newer speakers coming out are ported. is it possible for a sealed sub to extend down to 20hz -3dB though without using a very large driver?

AJinFLA said:

These are "Flat" alignments that exhibit 3rd order roll offs?
3rd order based on what evidence?


Again, no planes. Full space. Which is how you speakers are spec'd, not 1/2 space as you believed.


What is silly, is not understanding what will happen when a monopole with typical "flat" vented 4pi response is placed in a room.


To whom? Those demanding fidelity to a double bass, or the market conditioned to the droning slow decay and modal response as indicated in the links? Perfect for loudspeaker sound, explosions, etc.?
"Sound good" is subjective and subject to the demands for fidelity of the listener.

No, clearly not.


If they meet the fidelity (and in the case of the Wilson, jewelry) requirements of the buyer, why would they be?


I made no claim that they are "poor", you did. The links explain the droning slow decay and modal response issues. What you choose as "poor" or "good" is entirely up to you.


That the market supplies what the market demands. I can't be any clearer on that.

cheers,

AJ

edit: btw, still waiting for the specific "well designed" vented speaker you say I missed. TIA

Click to expand...

The supporting evidence for the flat alignments is in Vance Dickason's 7th Edition Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, section 2.50.

As far as measuring space goes, my point was supposed to be measuring in infinite baffle arrangement, not half-space. I misspoke. The rational is that I wanted to get the same set of criteria to measure by. You can use 4∏ space and that is the ideal. It is just very difficult to actually measure a loudspeaker in this way and measure down to 20 Hz reliably.

I want to to separate the room from the measurement, just for the moment, and design a loudspeaker that is flat across the band (and has good off-axis response) as possible. Once I get that dialed in, I would want to turn to the room and correct as much as possible there. As a final effort you can apply EQ to remove remaining offending peaks.

It makes sense to me to get the loudspeaker flat because every room is different. For that matter, just moving the loudspeakers can impact the ay it interacts with the room. If you are going to build a set of speakers and never mover them again, it might make sense to try to compensate for the room by custom designing the loudspeakers' response to fit the room, but even that fails because a bad room's issues are not homogenous throughout the room.

Now, I think that I do not understand your original point. You wrote, "A tragic situation (due in no small part to little/no demand for fidelity to acoustic sounds, but rather booming, droning explosions/"speaker sound"). Classic market supply and demand."

I fully understand market supply and demand. However, what are you stating about vented enclosures? You seem to imply that vented enclosures are just bad, period.

I would agree that a misaligned vented enclosure can posses all of those traits. For that matter, many older loudspeakers did just that before the transition from magic to scientific methods in loudspeaker design. However, I don't think that is necessarily true of a correctly aligned vented enclosure with a good transducer or at least it doesn't have to be.

It's folly to feed your request for citing a good vented loudspeaker because your tastes are subjective. That's for you to determine. Again, it seems that you are implying none exist in your opinion, which is fine with me.

reddivil6, if you're still reading this, check out Krix, Legend, Osbourne, Sonique, etc, all available in your location, offering a plethora of choices in the $1200 range, both consumer, DIY, and pro/cinema type speakers from those on a quick search. As others have mentioned, forget about trying to rebuild your existing speakers. For $1200, your options are wide open.

Wow, the other stuff folks are mentioning is fascinating. I agree w/ AJ, that it is much easier to get musically satisfying results with sealed sub enclosures. The gentler roll-off of sealed designs allows much better in-room performance, at least in my experience. I have a couple systems, both using at least two sealed subs in each setting, and even though their anechoic response starts to roll off in the 30's, in-room I am getting flat response much deeper than that, thanks to room gain and a gentler roll-off. This simply could not be done with ported enclosures that roll off at the same frequency. I think that for a ported sub to match that it would need to be one of the huge, refrigerator sized offerings from SVS or similar, where the deleterious effects of the enclosure occur at frequencies I just don't encounter in music signals, i.e. well below 25hz or so. In fact, I have read that ported enclosures actually have tighter response above their port resonance (the active driver uses the enclosure air as a lever, increasing the work the port is doing while reducing the excursion of the powered driver), in which case they may be better, provided that the negatives associated with the ported enclosure occur below the lowest musical signal. Still, it is typically less expensive to get two sealed boxes than one of the big-boy ported boxes, with their superior ability to address room mode issues, so is a more cost effective route to musical enjoyment.

Hang in there Yep, I for one appreciate your enthusiasm for this hobby, even if you come up with some hair brained conclusions. I think you have most of the tetris pieces floating around in your brain, they just need to fall into the proper, empirically supported locations.

You definitely need a kit if you are going to build your speakers. If you start from scratch you have a huge educational process to go through before you even begin.

There are a number of good kit sites in Australia. Your prices are a lot higher than our, so you likely do need to up your budget a bit.

This site has some good looking kits.

If you can stretch to it, I would imagine this kit would be outstanding.

TLs give you the lowest bass extension, with a non resonant system. They are less colored than even sealed alignments.

it's like i said before, i may not know everything, but trashing my rep and insulting me isn't going to help me learn, i used to cause trouble around here, but im willing to listen now, hopefully others will correct me instead of insult.

Loren42 said:

The supporting evidence for the flat alignments is in Vance Dickason's 7th Edition Loudspeaker Design Cookbook, section 2.50.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the link/visual.
Btw, I've met Vance. Nice guy.

Loren42 said:

As far as measuring space goes, my point was supposed to be measuring in infinite baffle arrangement, not half-space. I misspoke. The rational is that I wanted to get the same set of criteria to measure by. You can use 4∏ space and that is the ideal. It is just very difficult to actually measure a loudspeaker in this way and measure down to 20 Hz reliably.

Click to expand...

You are very confused here. IB is 1/2 space. Perhaps something like this will help you, rather than my repeated explanation of issues.
One last time, when you see specs for FR of loudspeakers in the marketplace, that is the free space (4pi) response.
Where and how it is measured/determined is a separate issue. Got it?

Loren42 said:

I want to to separate the room from the measurement, just for the moment, and design a loudspeaker that is flat across the band (and has good off-axis response) as possible. Once I get that dialed in, I would want to turn to the room and correct as much as possible there. As a final effort you can apply EQ to remove remaining offending peaks.
It makes sense to me to get the loudspeaker flat because every room is different. For that matter, just moving the loudspeakers can impact the ay it interacts with the room. If you are going to build a set of speakers and never mover them again, it might make sense to try to compensate for the room by custom designing the loudspeakers' response to fit the room, but even that fails because a bad room's issues are not homogenous throughout the room.

Click to expand...

You can do that, which is the way 99% is done and suffer the (physical reality of) decay and modal consequences, as pointed out in the links, blaming "bad rooms", over stuffing them with acoustic gauze and bandaids, etc, etc, etc.
Since that sort of design/sound satisfies the market demand, all is set.

Loren42 said:

Now, I think that I do not understand your original point. You wrote, "A tragic situation (due in no small part to little/no demand for fidelity to acoustic sounds, but rather booming, droning explosions/"speaker sound"). Classic market supply and demand."
I fully understand market supply and demand. However, what are you stating about vented enclosures? You seem to imply that vented enclosures are just bad, period.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to misunderstand. Vented enclosures meet the fidelity requirements for the majority of the market. It's physically impossible (as linked, but obviously not understood) for them to meet the fidelity requirements for accurate reproduction of real acoustic sources. Which is an extremely low demand (as a percentage) of the marketplace. Nothing implied. Clearer?

Loren42 said:

I would agree that a misaligned vented enclosure can posses all of those traits. For that matter, many older loudspeakers did just that before the transition from magic to scientific methods in loudspeaker design. However, I don't think that is necessarily true of a correctly aligned vented enclosure with a good transducer or at least it doesn't have to be.

Click to expand...

Again, what specifically, is this "correctly aligned" vented enclosure you speak of, but obfuscate when asked? How does is physically (not anecdotal, I said so "sounds good") circumvent the acoustic (soundwaves) issues linked?

Loren42 said:

It's folly to feed your request for citing a good vented loudspeaker because your tastes are subjective. That's for you to determine. Again, it seems that you are implying none exist in your opinion, which is fine with me.

Click to expand...

What is folly is you stating unequivocally

Lastly, if your opinion of a vented enclosure is that it is not HiFi, then that is because you never heard one that was correctly designed.

Click to expand...

then being completely unable to cite the "correctly designed/aligned" vented design(s) that I "have not heard".
The example(s)?

cheers,

AJ

TLS Guy said:

TLs give you the lowest bass extension, with a non resonant system.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. TL's are resonant systems. Period. Just a varied form of EBS.

TLS Guy said:

They are less colored than even sealed alignments.

Click to expand...

Based on physical, scientific evidence...or pure anecdote?
If the former, let's see it. If the latter, let's not.

AJinFLA said:

Nonsense. TL's are resonant systems. Period. Just a varied form of EBS.


Based on physical, scientific evidence...or pure anecdote?
If the former, let's see it. If the latter, let's not.

Click to expand...

Now it's time to sit back and munch on popcorn.

AJinFLA said:

You are very confused here. IB is 1/2 space. Perhaps something like this will help you, rather than my repeated explanation of issues.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have seen half-space defined as a plane that the loudspeaker sits on and I have seen it defined as a plane that the loudspeaker sits into, flush with the baffle. Obviously, you get two different results.

So, the confusion is one of vocabulary and how/who defines it.

The link you presented is fine with me and I am happy to use that as a reference.

AJinFLA said:

One last time, when you see specs for FR of loudspeakers in the marketplace, that is the free space (4pi) response.
Where and how it is measured/determined is a separate issue. Got it?

Click to expand...

I am aware of that. Where and how is important, too. Enough said.

AJinFLA said:

Again, what specifically, is this "correctly aligned" vented enclosure you speak of, but obfuscate when asked? How does is physically (not anecdotal, I said so "sounds good") circumvent the acoustic (soundwaves) issues linked?

What is folly is you stating unequivocally
then being completely unable to cite the "correctly designed/aligned" vented design(s) that I "have not heard".
The example(s)?

cheers,

AJ

Click to expand...

Your last set of sentences are not very clearly written. If English is a second language for you, I am sorry that I am having trouble with your question/statement.

My best guess is: A correctly aligned vented enclosure is maximally flat, neither artificially boosting nor suppressing the lower end frequency response. If you met Vance, I can only assume you have read or own his book. Chapter two goes into this in detail. The book will do a far better job of explaining it than I will here and there is no sense regurgitating what is already out there in printed form. Read chapter two and if you still don't understand, then I don't what to tell you.

Personally, I think we are splitting atoms here on the details of what is better; vented, sealed, or whatever. They all have their place. If you have a specific point (besides loudspeaker manufactures are market driven), then let's hear it.

Also it isn't helpful when you throw a link to me and the argument's support is buried somewhere in that long link. It would be more helpful if you would cite the exact reference (such as I did) so people don't waste time trying to find the supporting argument. Thanks.

Loren42 said:

Actually, I have seen half-space defined as a plane that the loudspeaker sits on and I have seen it defined as a plane that the loudspeaker sits into, flush with the baffle. Obviously, you get two different results. So, the confusion is one of vocabulary and how/who defines it.

Click to expand...

No. The definitions for all that I speak of, including 1/2 space, are well defined and understood. Your knowledge and comprehension of those well understood definitions is the source of your confusion. Not vocabulary or anything else.

Loren42 said:

The link you presented is fine with me and I am happy to use that as a reference.

Click to expand...

I'm glad it's "fine with you" .
It's excellent idea to understand definitions when conversing with the technically literate. Plus it saves a lot of repetitive typing .

Loren42 said:

I am aware of that...Enough said.

Yes and no, that is actually in half-space

Click to expand...

Hard to determine what you comprehend with the contradictions. Then you are clear now what happens when you put that free space "flat" LF response speaker in room?

Loren42 said:

Your last set of sentences are not very clearly written. If English is a second language for you, I am sorry that I am having trouble with your question/statement.

Click to expand...

My apologies. English is no more a second language for me than science is a first language for you. Your technical literacy would be unchanged regardless of spoken language. Improve that and your comprehension of my english will rise accordingly.

Loren42 said:

My best guess is: A correctly aligned vented enclosure is maximally flat, neither artificially boosting nor suppressing the lower end frequency response.

Click to expand...

Right. And if we listened outdoors, all would be fine. But we (or at least I do) listen in real rooms. So which "properly designed/aligned" vented design, have I missed listening to in a real room?? You still can't answer that question.

Loren42 said:

If you met Vance, I can only assume you have read or own his book. Chapter two goes into this in detail. The book will do a far better job of explaining it than I will here and there is no sense regurgitating what is already out there in printed form. Read chapter two and if you still don't understand, then I don't what to tell you.

Click to expand...

I did not read nor do I own his book. I did read (and retain) enough physics books in school to understand the issues. His books are geared more for folks like yourself. I was hoping you could post either scanned pages or some other tangible proof/physical evidence, of these "fourth order" designs that roll of at 18-20db/oct. Measurements of the real systems being most preferable.

Loren42 said:

Personally, I think we are splitting atoms here on the details of what is better; vented, sealed, or whatever. They all have their place. If you have a specific point (besides loudspeaker manufactures are market driven), then let's hear it.
Also it isn't helpful when you throw a link to me and the argument's support is buried somewhere in that long link. It would be more helpful if you would cite the exact reference (such as I did) so people don't waste time trying to find the supporting argument. Thanks.

Click to expand...

That is what I have consistently and repeatedly said. If these vented designs meet your requirements for fidelity...and your defense of them clearly indicates this...then you're all set. As are most of the market.
The links I provided must be read in their entirety to be understood, but I certainly can't guarantee comprehension. The first dealt with modes and the second with decay. Ask questions if you don't understand, I'll do my best to explain. But if you continue to have difficulties with basics such as 1/2 space, etc. then it may prove futile.

cheers,

AJ

AJinFLA said:

...
cheers,

AJ

Click to expand...

I sent you a PM.