Poll: InDIYana 2019 theme selections...

[Wolf]

For those of you chomping at the bit....

I have narrowed down 2019 selections to the listed, and have enlisted a panel of selected attendees from InDIYana 2018 as to their influence and opinions on the matter. It gave me some clarity on the selections before posting them here. Thanks, guys, for the input! It was much appreciated.
First off, let me say I am not trying to have entries sound terrible or worse than average, but I am allowing the monkey to throw a wrench into the game with this certainly being a possibility- however this shakes out. Taking a side-step from this year's approach resembling that of some commercial products, and using a bit of ingenuity from the former Black-Box contest, I came up with a set of ideas I like to call "The Acceptable Flaw" approach.
You likely know what I'm referring to. Commercial companies make products that don't always conform to that of what we call 'acceptable' or even 'optimal'. With this in mind, I've come up with these ideas that exploit a commercial product's problem. Then we have the community of entrants (if they're willing) approach these issues, do them justice to make them sound as they should.

As usual, PR's and purchased waveguides should be included in pricing, and no buyout pricing should be used. Entering the theme/challenge is not a requirement, you can still bring what you want to. I intend to close the poll a week before MWAF 2018, for those that would like to use the Tent Sale discounts in their endeavors. Driver modifications are allowed, but if made, Approximate cost of mod should be added. Please keep cabinet volume under 1.25ft^3 for all that follow, costs vary per category, but no single driver over $125, and utilize a 2-way strategy for all categories. One entry per person, please.

Without further ado, the pending categories to choose from, drum-roll please...

1. "Tweeter Yoga" 8" woofer + dome tweeter. $350/pair for drivers. They're not easy! Many options at this price point. Largest "dome tweeter" I'm aware of is 38mm, so less than that is allowed.
2. "Hole in the lobe" 6.5-7” metal non-ceramic cone midbass with 22mm tweeter. $250/pair. Breakup can be tough! Can the tweeter meet low enough?
3. "Hounding Calisthenics" High Qts woofer (0.7 Qts+, no open back boxes) application; $250/pair. Can you smooth out the bass?
4. "Bare Minimum" Overly minimalist xover. For example; cap on tweeter only. 5 parts or fewer per cab. $300/pair including xover parts. Decent drivers = fewer parts? We’ll see…
5. "Dubious Respectability" Cone tweeter, piezo tweeter, or the ever-commercially-popular Polyamide 13mm tweeter application. Wide-banders as tweeters are not accepted. $250/pair. Xover 2kHz+.
6. "Shortcomings" Overly restricting cost limit, drivers and xover included. $100/pair. It can be done! Use retail price for parts, or web-price if surplus, etc. Drivers from C-Note PE kit are exempt.
7. "Shelved Limits" Use a textbook off the shelf xover + 2 additional L, C, or R component parts. Xover must remain intact; $300/pair xover included.
8. "Stringency" Use a set list of xover components: 1.5mH/0.1mH/0.25mH/15uF/10uF/6.8uF/open on resistors; $200/pair for drivers.

This will be interesting....
Wolf

[KEtheredge87]

Man... this is a hard choice! I voted for the Shortcomings and Bare Minimum options, although all of them sound like a challenge. I've had a few friends ask me about building speakers, so it feels like either of these options could present a high value DIY project at a reasonable entry budget.

Ben, on the Shortcomings, you said the C-Note drivers are exempt. Just being a bit pedantic here... you mean we can't use that combination of drivers, right? No reason to show up with a set of C-notes to this competition... I know the design is popular, but it undermines the point of the exercise (actually make a NEW design).

[wogg]

Shelved Limits... I've always wanted to see what can be done with an off the shelf crossover. This would be very helpful for newbies to publish projects using minimally modified off the shelf parts backed by solid design and test data.

[KEtheredge87]

Shelved Limits... I've always wanted to see what can be done with an off the shelf crossover. This would be very helpful for newbies to publish projects using minimally modified off the shelf parts backed by solid design and test data.

Oooh.... Dang Wogg, that's a good point. We're always throwing premade XO designs under the bus when newbies ask about them. Granted we have valid reasons for it, but maybe a string of projects using these XO designs and exploring the consequences and limitations of them would be a big benefit to the newest initiates to the DIY community.

[xmax]

I have got a lot of crap over textbook filters, people often confuse "textbook" with off the shelf, I like textbook 
for the predictable transfer function, phase and transient response , but they usually end up asymmetrical
with a good width spread.  Off the shelf would be a fun challenge. Please clarify "2 additional L, C, or R component parts"
is this per pair? Can you use all 3? or 2 resistors one cap etc? 

They all sound fun! 

[jhollander]

Wolf, are these all intended to be two-ways?

[Navy Guy]

I like the idea of limiting the number of crossover parts to something low like 5 total. That looks like an interesting challenge in driver selection and box design to me.

[dcibel]

All transfer functions are predictable. In any case, even though I won't be participating I voted for shelved limits, it would be interesting to see people try and fit speakers to a crossover, instead of design a crossover around the speakers.

FWIW, if you click to see who voted for what, it says that multiple people have voted under several categories.

[KEtheredge87]

... FWIW, if you click to see who voted for what, it says that multiple people have voted under several categories.

Yep. I did that, as I wasn't sure if we were restricted to one choice only. Figured I would hedge my bets.

[xmax]

All transfer functions are predictable. In any case, even though I won't be participating I voted for shelved limits, it would be interesting to see people try and fit speakers to a crossover, instead of design a crossover around the speakers.

FWIW, if you click to see who voted for what, it says that multiple people have voted under several categories.

Stephen Butterworth, Friedrich Bessel, Linkwitz, Riley just a bunch of clowns I guess. 

[dcibel]

Math is hard. Those guys aren't clowns, just the goof that made this statement ;)

I just use off the shelf textbook filters designed for a resistor of 8 ohms with
exactly a Fc 3K for both drivers, anybody can do it.

I have got a lot of crap over textbook filters, people often confuse "textbook" with off the shelf

[xmax]

"I just use off the shelf textbook filters designed for a resistor of 8 ohms with
exactly a Fc 3K for both drivers, anybody can do it."

How much time did you waste looking that up? 

Obviously this was a joke. I am guessing my monitors would have not have been mentioned in Mix magazine with
my clients on the cover the last couple issues, if I really did this. You can make fun all you like, hopefully others 
are taking the time to read up on different filter topologies and their advantages. 


 

[KEtheredge87]

Yep. I did that, as I wasn't sure if we were restricted to one choice only. Figured I would hedge my bets.

Wolf Did you want us to vote for only one option? Not sure I can change my recorded votes at this point, but it seems pertinent to ask anyway.

[xmax]

"Tweeter Yoga" Is this 8" and up? There are a lot of drivers under 10"...

"Bare minimum" 5 parts, does this mean 5 crossover parts?

They all sound fun! 

[dcibel]

LOL, it's my signature line, if you took the time to look, copied there when you stated is as I believe it embodies the thought process of the mighty xmax . Don't take me for a fool, I know it's a joke, but alogn the same lines, I also think that a statement about how transfer functions aren't predictable unless they are fall under the defined parameters of LW, BW, etc is also a joke. I'd actually argue that you are making fun here, suggesting that my comment about predicting a transfer function is suggesting that some physicists, mathematicians, etc are clowns. That is just rude and false statements, stop clowning around.