Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Choosing drivers for studio monitor build

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Choosing drivers for studio monitor build

    Hello

    I am looking to build some studio monitors as my first serious speaker project. I have seen the hitmaker MT project, but am very interested in designing some cabinets for fun. I am going to do an active biamped system, building my own amps (I am an electronics engineer by trade).

    The drivers that I have initially selected are
    https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs...4ft-manual.pdf
    https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs...ifications.pdf

    My primary motivations are a relatively flat response (50hz to 20khz), low driver dynamic compression, and low distortion (especially for the tweeter). I am planning on building a ported cab, and dont have any particular size restrictions for these cabinets. I would like to keep the woofers to under 6.5inches, but am open to other options, even though they will not fit on my desk as nicely. :D I am generally sitting in a 2ft window, so off axis response is not as important to me, as these are nearfields. Does anyone have any experience with these drivers, and have feedback or recommendations for other drivers to look at? I would like to keep the drivers to under 500$ for the pair, but I am open to more exotic options, for a point of reference.

    Thanks!

  • #2
    Oh, and I have been reading these articles to help learn, any other recommendations along this line would be mucho appreciated. :D

    https://www.audioxpress.com/assets/u...polito2959.pdf

    http://ampslab.com/blog/wp-content/u...udspeakers.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      A really good book is "SpeakerBuilding 201" by Ray Alden.
      You can model boxes using WinISD ("Pro" version is more capable) from www.linearteam.org .
      Looks like a 0.6cf box tuned to the upper 30s should have an F3 near 40Hz.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
        A really good book is "SpeakerBuilding 201" by Ray Alden.
        You can model boxes using WinISD ("Pro" version is more capable) from www.linearteam.org .
        Looks like a 0.6cf box tuned to the upper 30s should have an F3 near 40Hz.
        cOOL

        iLL CHECK OUT THAT BOOK. yES i ALREADY STARTED MODELLING IN wINisd. shOOTING FOR A CROSSOVER FREQUEMNCY OF 1.2KHZ AND i HAVE MY FIRSAT PORT RESONANCE AT 1.4KHZ, HOPEFULLY THE PORT NOISE WILL NOT BE TOO BAD!

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, crossing below 2x Fs (nearly 800Hz for the 408) is seldom prudent. Did you look at those PDFs you linked? That tweeter's non-linear AND rolling off below 2kHz. I'd shoot for a 2k cross point.

          Comment


          • #6
            With a 3rd order electrical, you might be able to swing a 1.8k xover point, but that is about the lowest you'll get that tweeter to go easily and happily. You might have to comp the Fs to keep it from a nasal character at that point as well. 2k-2.5k is the sweet spot for Morel tweeters, IME.

            As for the mid, you've selected the midrange model, not the woofer model. They are built differently, and supposedly serve better for their projected goals. I have used the TSCW636, and it's a very clean woofer in the midrange with vanishingly low HD results. The xover was not simple however. I damped the breakup and used a tanked and damped 3rd order electrical xover to get there.

            If you've never built a speaker before, these are very good drivers. You just have to know what to do to use them properly. I hope you do your homework.
            Later,
            Wolf
            "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
            "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
            "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
            "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

            *InDIYana event website*

            Photobucket pages:
            http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

            My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
            http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

            Comment


            • #7
              The OP is going to be doing this setup active. With some DSP I'm sure those drivers will play very nice together.

              Wolf - do you think applying a series RLC tank to the woofer for breakup would be a good idea? As for the tweeter, I don't think any damping would be necessary, the resonance won't affect an active roll off rate.

              Brings me to a question for the OP iampoor :
              What are you planning for the active electronics? Will you be using something like a MiniDSP or going with a pro audio style rack unit or something?
              Electronics engineer, woofer enthusiast, and musician.
              Wogg Music

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by iampoor View Post
                Hello

                I am looking to build some studio monitors as my first serious speaker project. I have seen the hitmaker MT project, but am very interested in designing some cabinets for fun. I am going to do an active biamped system, building my own amps (I am an electronics engineer by trade).

                The drivers that I have initially selected are
                https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs...4ft-manual.pdf
                https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs...ifications.pdf

                My primary motivations are a relatively flat response (50hz to 20khz), low driver dynamic compression, and low distortion (especially for the tweeter). I am planning on building a ported cab, and dont have any particular size restrictions for these cabinets. I would like to keep the woofers to under 6.5inches, but am open to other options, even though they will not fit on my desk as nicely. :D I am generally sitting in a 2ft window, so off axis response is not as important to me, as these are nearfields. Does anyone have any experience with these drivers, and have feedback or recommendations for other drivers to look at? I would like to keep the drivers to under 500$ for the pair, but I am open to more exotic options, for a point of reference.

                Thanks!
                Your selected drivers sound like overkill for speakers on a desk, up close. A much more modest woofer that I would suggest is worth considering, is the Peerless 830874. It's a 6.5", and very smooth. There is a 5dB bump at 5k that is not shown on the data sheet. You can easily cross it at 3k if you want. Since you can cross at 3k, that takes a lot of the load off of the tweeter. The Morel mdt39 is very smooth, and a little bit less expensive. The Morel CAT378 might be a good option because the dome will be a little protected from damage by items on your desk. If you want to cross low, it might be better suited.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wogg View Post
                  Wolf - do you think applying a series RLC tank to the woofer for breakup would be a good idea? As for the tweeter, I don't think any damping would be necessary, the resonance won't affect an active roll off rate.
                  If there is no series passive component, then a shunting or series notch will be ineffective. A parallel notch (3 components in parallel, placed in series with driver) would not do anything different than attenuation from a DSP, as that is how they also work. Therefore a tank of the parallel variety would do as the DSP does as well. I actually missed that these would be active. However, if the attenuation method is not effective enough (and sometimes it isn't) and the breakup requires being shorted out, the DSP will not suffice in this manner. I have had drivers (not the Morels) require the energy storage be shorted out before they sounded right, and the attenuation method did not work because the frequency was still passed to the driver where it excited the issue, regardless of attenuation method. Providing a shorting out of the problematic range was allowing the frequency to be sent to ground and not to the driver, and this fixed the problem.

                  YMMV,
                  Wolf

                  "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
                  "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
                  "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
                  "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

                  *InDIYana event website*

                  Photobucket pages:
                  http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

                  My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
                  http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wolf View Post

                    If there is no series passive component, then a shunting or series notch will be ineffective. A parallel notch (3 components in parallel, placed in series with driver) would not do anything different than attenuation from a DSP, as that is how they also work. Therefore a tank of the parallel variety would do as the DSP does as well. I actually missed that these would be active. However, if the attenuation method is not effective enough (and sometimes it isn't) and the breakup requires being shorted out, the DSP will not suffice in this manner. I have had drivers (not the Morels) require the energy storage be shorted out before they sounded right, and the attenuation method did not work because the frequency was still passed to the driver where it excited the issue, regardless of attenuation method. Providing a shorting out of the problematic range was allowing the frequency to be sent to ground and not to the driver, and this fixed the problem.

                    YMMV,
                    Wolf
                    Thanks Wolf! That could be a whole other discussion topic. For this thread, I think the conclusion is that a passive network wouldn't be necessary. It sounds like it would take a pretty intense break up problem to require a passive network to kill that energy in an active system.
                    Electronics engineer, woofer enthusiast, and musician.
                    Wogg Music

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X