3 Way bookshelf the easy way

[modulardesign]

Heres a three way design using dayton drivers, front baffle has a 10 degree slant

 

[modulardesign]

Good SPL and power handling, besting most popular bookshelf's

 

[DWPress]

Are these already built or is this all sim work?

 

[thewas]

How did you measure to import the frequency responses of the Dayton drivers to Boxsim and the max SPL ones?
For the crossover I would recommend to optimizing it to some E6/E12 capacitor and resistor series values which can be purchased, also for the coils you cannot vary inductivity and resistance separately, the values you got there from the optimizer are not realistic, so some rework needs to be done.

 

[terryforsythe]

On axis frequency response looks pretty good. But, the directivity is rough. You might look at using lower crossover frequencies for the midrange and tweeter, and working at getting them better phase aligned (the vertical directivity is showing phasing issues).

 

[Rednaxela]

Interesting.

Aren't the cabinet dimensions of what looks to be WxHxD 10"x22"x16" a bit eccentric and impractical?

Edit: I mean they're basically narrower and deeper Wharfedale Lintons. Having tried a cardboard box model of the latter in my room to get a feel for their dimensions, my first reaction was not "if only they were narrower and deeper". Of course one data point and YMMV etc.

 

[modulardesign]

Interesting.

Aren't the cabinet dimensions of what looks to be WxHxD 10"x22"x16" a bit eccentric and impractical?

Edit: I mean they're basically narrower and deeper Wharfedale Lintons. Having tried a cardboard box model of the latter in my room to get a feel for their dimensions, my first reaction was not "if only they were narrower and deeper". Of course one data point and YMMV etc.

Have tried smaller box 10x14x12 however without tweaking the crossover more, things are worse

 

[modulardesign]

On axis frequency response looks pretty good. But, the directivity is rough. You might look at using lower crossover frequencies for the midrange and tweeter, and working at getting them better phase aligned (the vertical directivity is showing phasing issues).

maybe you can nudge me in the direction of a few things to try

 

[modulardesign]

How did you measure to import the frequency responses of the Dayton drivers to Boxsim and the max SPL ones?
For the crossover I would recommend to optimizing it to some E6/E12 capacitor and resistor series values which can be purchased, also for the coils you cannot vary inductivity and resistance separately, the values you got there from the optimizer are not realistic, so some rework needs to be done.

The software and file format are quite simple to use and driver data is readily available at parts express. Yes rounding off values is a must however also remember 10% parts maybe used and adjusted if measurements are off

 

[modulardesign]

Are these already built or is this all sim work?

The boxes are ready but no final measurements yet

 

[terryforsythe]

maybe you can nudge me in the direction of a few things to try

If it were me, that is not the driver combination I would use. I would use a midrange/tweeter combination that provides a more consistant horizontal directivity. That midrange is running into some issues above 1.5kHz. But, that is where the tweeter's resonant frequency is, and I probably would not push the tweeter that low. That midrange probably would be best suited for a waveguided tweeter you can crossover around 1.5kHz-1.6kHz.

But, if you already have the drivers, I would try to get the drivers' phases aligned as best as you can. Sometimes I will sacrifice a little bit of the on-axis frequency response to do so if it makes sense. You could try using an impedance compensation network on the tweeter. Basically it is a resistor in series with a capacitor, then you put those in parallel with the inductor of the tweeter filter. If that has a positive impact, then you will need to adjust the values of the capacitor and inductor in the filter based on the new impedance of the tweeter and impedance compensation network.

Also, put in the actual DC resistance of inductors you will be using.

I am assuming that your simulation program also can predict phase and group delay of the individual drivers. If not, I would try modeling the speaker in VituixCAD.

 

[modulardesign]

If it were me, that is not the driver combination I would use. I would use a midrange/tweeter combination that provides a more consistant horizontal directivity. That midrange is running into some issues above 1.5kHz. But, that is where the tweeter's resonant frequency is, and I probably would not push the tweeter that low. That midrange probably would be best suited for a waveguided tweeter you can crossover around 1.5kHz-1.6kHz.

But, if you already have the drivers, I would try to get the drivers' phases aligned as best as you can. Sometimes I will sacrifice a little bit of the on-axis frequency response to do so if it makes sense. You could try using an impedance compensation network on the tweeter. Basically it is a resistor in series with a capacitor, then you put those in parallel with the inductor of the tweeter filter. If that has a positive impact, then you will need to adjust the values of the capacitor and inductor in the filter based on the new impedance of the tweeter and impedance compensation network.

Also, put in the actual DC resistance of inductors you will be using.

I am assuming that your simulation program also can predict phase and group delay of the individual drivers. If not, I would try modeling the speaker in VituixCAD.

Thanks for the nudge, will also explore other midrange and tweeter possibilities that can also plug in into the boxes.

 

[modulardesign]

Also found a wealth of information here

M&K S-150THX Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the vintage Miller & Kreisel (M&K) S-150THX Home Theater Speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1,500 for a pair back in mid 1990s. I don't know how many of you were in home theater back then but the M&K speakers...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL Studio 590 Speaker Review

This is a review, listening test and detailed measurements of the JBL Studio 590. I bought a pair last year on sale for US $800 but costs $999.95 each currently. This is a hefty speaker that even comes with (vibration absorbing) outriggers. I should definitely file for hazard pay for lifting...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL AC25 Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL AC25 "ultra-narrow" 2-way speaker. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $1007.64. I tested it with the grill in place as it is screwed to the front baffle. Still, I wish I had taken it apart before the measurements to get a better...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 Review (bookshelf speaker)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Elac Uni-Fi 2.0 bookshelf speaker. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US US $600 a pair on Amazon including Prime shipping. This review will be abbreviated for reasons that will become apparent later. Here is a shot of the speaker...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Arendal 1723 Speaker Review

This is a review, listening test and measurements of the Arendal 1723 "Monitor" THX rated speaker. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $2,499 for a pair. This is one substantial "bookshelf" speaker! It weighs around 58 pounds. The cabinet simultaneously feels nice and rigid. The...

www.audiosciencereview.com

JBL 4312M II 3-way Studio Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of JBL 4312M II 3-way compact studio monitor (passive speaker). It is on kind loan from a member and I think costs US $1,000 for a pair. Without its ordinary looking grill, the 4312M II definitely has that vintage vibe but with...

www.audiosciencereview.com

GR Research Klipsch RP-600M Upgrade Review (speaker)

This is a review of a Klipsch RP-600M which has been upgraded to a new crossover, binding posts and "No Rez" by GR Research. The kit costs US $244. OK, so there is nothing externally which is different. :) I can't open the unit to show the different bits but here is the back with new binding...

www.audiosciencereview.com

KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the KEF R11 Meta floorstanding speaker. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $3250 each. The R11 Meta is gorgeous looking with high gloss finish and cabinet that has been shrunk as much as possible to basically hug the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Revel F206 Tower Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ, and detailed measurements of the Revel F206 Floor-standing speaker. It is on kind loan from a member (new) and costs US $1347.50 each. Please excuse the mobile phone picture quality and plastics that are still on the speaker. I try to keep products as...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Nubert NuVero 60 Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Nubert NuVero 60 3-way stand-mount speaker. It was kindly sent by a member from Germany and costs €1,650 (US $1780) a pair. I had to take my diffuser out of the lightbox to fit the speaker in there so please pardon the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit tower speaker. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $2499 with a flatpack (pair). I received a fully built one which naturally costs a lot more: Fit and finish is excellent, rivalling commercial...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[thewas]

The software and file format are quite simple to use and driver data is readily available at parts express.

I checked exemplary for one and it has only 0, 15, 30 and 45° measurements which is not enough for a good simulation?

Yes rounding off values is a must however also remember 10% parts maybe used and adjusted if measurements are off

As I wrote before also please don't ignore the real ohmic resistance of the coils which can make a significant difference, I would recommend you to re-simulate it with Visaton ones with similar inductivity which are already included in the software.

 

[a4eaudio]

... and driver data is readily available at parts express....

All of the PE data files are for infinite baffle measurements. Are you simulating the baffle diffraction or just taking the PE data as-is?
You can simulate the baffle and then simulate all of the off-axis angles in VituixCAD, but it won't be nearly as accurate as real measurements.
You can also simulate the low frequency extension of the mid and woofer (and port) and merge that in VituixCAD.

Sorry if you have already done this, but it is not clear from your post.
If you haven't done this, the first link in post #8 HERE might help.

 

[a4eaudio]

...That midrange is running into some issues above 1.5kHz....That midrange probably would be best suited for a waveguided tweeter you can crossover around 1.5kHz-1.6kHz.

I have a feeling what you are seeing is due to using traced data, if I am correct in my post above. But what do you see in post #1 that makes you think this? I am not familiar with Boxsim and without seeing the individual driver measurements or crossover points I didn't look carefully.

I just happened to measure the RS100-8 last night (it is a 3-1/2" full-range driver pretending to be a 4" driver that is typically crossed over around 3-5kHz) so I thought this might be interesting.

be ineter

 

[terryforsythe]

I have a feeling what you are seeing is due to using traced data,

I looked at the specification sheets on the Dayton Audio website: https://www.daytonaudio.com/images/resources/295-352--rs100-8-spec-sheet.pdf

There is a directivity issue that begins probably around 1.6kHz and goes up to around 2.3kHz. In your horizontal contour plot it starts to widen at 1.6kHz, narrows up after 3kHz, then widens again between 4kHz-5kHz. The ear is very sensitive in that frequency range, with highest sensitivity between 2kHz and 5kHz. The tonal balance of the room reflections will not match the on-axis tonal balance. If you have a room with a lot of room treatment it is not that big of a deal. But, if you are in a normally decorated room, it probably will not sound optimal.

Also, if you look at the vertical contour plot, you will need to tilt the speakers back 10-20 degrees as you noted, but the top octave will be a little light. I don't know your age, but if you are over 50 you may not hear that well up there anyway. I don't.

Nonetheless, they are your speakers. If you like those drivers, they work for you, and you are satisfied with the model, don't let my opinion disuade you. What is most important is what you like, not what I like.

 

[a4eaudio]

I looked at the specification sheets on the Dayton Audio website:

Ah, that makes sense. I just didn't see anything in post #1 that clearly showed that.

 

[Heinrich]

Heres a three way design using dayton drivers, front baffle has a 10 degree slant
View attachment 440587
View attachment 440588

View attachment 440589
View attachment 440590
View attachment 440591
View attachment 440592
View attachment 440593

A few questions:
Does this format fit into a real bookshelf?
How did you simulate the "front baffle has a 10 degree slant"?
What if the 1.8mH coil parallel to the tweeter was removed?
What size of a port tunes this to 30Hz?
Is it possible to flip vertical directivity, so that the "eye" of the lobing was below, and the relatively well behaved side is up?

 

[a4eaudio]

A few questions:
...
How did you simulate the "front baffle has a 10 degree slant"?
....

I don't know if/how the original poster did this in Boxsim, but you can enter "tilt" in VituixCAD.