• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Any interest in an ASR community speaker project?

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,360
MLTL takes away all of the portability advantages but could be an interesting choice. I have the Martin King worksheets to simulate but I wouldn't count on the accuracy with such an esoteric driver. Have we seen measurements indicating the linearity of the PR?

Bigger, but MLTL would have a sizable cost advantage. Non-linearity of the PRs could be inferred from tests online to see if its edible, haven't looked.
I've been meaning to play with Leonard Audio's TL tool. Have you tried it? Reportedly much faster to spin quick scenarios (though doesn't properly sim damping the higher pipe resonances) that could be later optimized in more accurate Hornresp or MK's mathcad.

What are your concerns with MK's sims+Purifi? He did a fairly decent job of curve fitting the stuffing properties to the model.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,613
Likes
7,347
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
MLTL takes away all of the portability advantages but could be an interesting choice. I have the Martin King worksheets to simulate but I wouldn't count on the accuracy with such an esoteric driver. Have we seen measurements indicating the linearity of the PR?

My concept was not limited to any box size or alignment, but wanted a solid one to start. @DDF suggested sealed and I wanted vented. I think they are both still viable for different reasons.

A MLTL would be interesting too, but the PR is a clear choice. Am aiming to limit the first design to around .5 cubic foot or so. The PR works well in that size box. Was hoping the new shorter stroke version of the woofer would be cheaper. Two of them in a small tower works does not have the same vent resonance issues as the single driver version has.
 
Last edited:

somebodyelse

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 5, 2018
Messages
3,759
Likes
3,066
It doesn't work ideally ported since it needs a ridiculously large and long port to take full advantage of its design strengths.
You could always use a long port as part of the stand.
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,383
Location
Somerville, MA
My concept was not limited to any box size alignment, but wanted a solid one to start. @DDF suggested sealed and I wanted vented. I think they are both still viable for different reasons.

A MLTL would be interesting too, but the PR is a clear choice. Am aiming to limit the first design to around .5 cubic foot or so. The PR works well in that size box. Was hoping the new shorter stroke version of the woofer would be cheaper. Two of them in a small tower works does not have the same vent resonance issues as the single driver version has.

A small tower would be a good form factor, WW M T or WWT using the crossover topology Jeff Bagby popularized. Same footprint as a bookshelf.
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,383
Location
Somerville, MA
Bigger, but MLTL would have a sizable cost advantage. Non-linearity of the PRs could be inferred from tests online to see if its edible, haven't looked.
I've been meaning to play with Leonard Audio's TL tool. Have you tried it? Reportedly much faster to spin quick scenarios (though doesn't properly sim damping the higher pipe resonances) that could be later optimized in more accurate Hornresp or MK's mathcad.

What are your concerns with MK's sims+Purifi? He did a fairly decent job of curve fitting the stuffing properties to the model.

No logical concerns, really, just that it's a beast of a driver and I fear the unknown. The MK worksheets are nice in that they conceive of a lot of different enclosures as being on a single continuum, with quarter wave, back loaded horn and bass reflex being the basic types. The MLTL might be the best approach (it often is) because it gives you some of the backwave attenuation of a transmission line with the size efficiency of a bass reflex. Bass roll-off slope will be between a TL and a bass reflex I believe. The worksheets also allow for modelling of tapered or expanding paths, the extreme case being a BLH, but the more moderate case being a tapered transmission line.

I'm not an expert (talk to Paul Kittinger) but TL might be a good option for this driver simply because of the amount of air that it moves. The issues you have with port size / air velocity have got to be diminished by the relatively large cross section of a TL labyrinth.

This project might be instructive:
http://projectgallery.parts-express.com/speaker-projects/clarino/

This is an MLTL designed by Paul K which uses two Dayton ES180 esoteric drivers. These are similar to the Purefi in that they have unusually large displacement. 39" tall speaker with a modeled f3 of 34hz. Note that this is a MLTL, so it has a port, but as is often the case it is a small one - 2.5" diameter. A similar design with the Purefi would be pretty cool.
 

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,360
No logical concerns, really....I'm not an expert (talk to Paul Kittinger)

No problem designing my own, know the trade offs/methods. Designed my first in 1981 with a radio shack driver. :)
 

McFly

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
905
Likes
1,877
Location
NZ
Howdie, I added this to the DIY speaker testing thread, but thought it might be of more interest here

I lent ASR member Rick Sykora a hand with a new Purifi-based design that he's been working on. I found it had problems in a sealed box, and I made a recommendation for a tweeter to use. Sharing the design process here.

Box Type
Here I proposed the Purifi in a sealed box, but mentioned "Caveat: I still want to calculate the distortion created by the compression of the air itself in such a small box". Turns out, there's an issue using the Purifi in a sealed box.

If air is compressed too far, it's no longer a linear spring. Even a perfect speaker driver will have distortion from the non linear restoring force of the air in a small box, if pushed too hard.

Linkwitz here estimated the % of second harmonic distortion as =0.014*SD (in cm^2)*driver displacement(in mm)/box volume (in L).

Here's the predicted 2nd harmonic distortion with the Purifi in a sealed box (which by necessity must be small), caused by just the air itself. THD will be higher. I highlighted some measurement points from ASR and compared to the ASR vented proto test results for total HD.

index.php



The sealed distortion will be quite a bit higher than a vented because the parameters of the driver demand such a small box. You could argue about how audible this is, and in the table I show that the distortion won't be too bad when playing >300 Hz alone. OTOH, I've never tested the following theory, but I expect the mids might still distort when played simultaneously with loud bass because the air itself is distorting (Amir doesn't measure this).

The Purifi is all about playing loud with low THD, but it struggles to pull that off in a sealed box because of its unusual TS params.

Tweeter Choice
Rick had initially suggested the SB26STWGC-4. I`ve never used the SB26STWGC-4. On vs off axis looks great and it fits. But that top end is rough and would need at least a few extra components to EQ (mandatory IMO), and space will be tight
index.php



My understanding is that its a waveguide put on the SB26STC (which gets some love). I compared the STC distortion tests here to the drivers below, and the ones below have much better all important higher harmonic distortion performance. The small waveguide doesn't have enough gain (5 dB) to make up the difference. It would really be nice to have distortion measurements of it.

Other good low distortion choices with nice combination of power handling and dispersion that fit, but no waveguide
  • Revel uses a variant of the SB26ADC-000-4, some great distortion numbers here and here 10dB better distortion numbers 1-2k than the DXT. Great price. Troels makes it work off axis here so the lack of waveguide might not be a big deal
  • An oldie but still goodie SB26STAC, MarkK tests and here
  • DA25TX00-08 is promising based on raves in this and this but its faceplate is probably too large for this build
Another choice could be SB26ADC and Augerpro`s free waveguide design here. I checked the CAD file and the 4in would definitely fit, maybe even the 5ìn (more background discussion here and here). The STAC might work in his waveguide as well

The Seas DXT is still a good turn key drop in with a nice balance of tradeoffs (waveguide, but more distortion than SB26). I was surprised to read this diva complaint from a manufacturer, as the driver looks well behaved on IEC baffle.

A ring radiator would really need a waveguide to give it enough power handling to keep up with the Purifi. I took a quick look and found a couple promising turn key combinations
  • DX25TG09-04 and Monocor WG-300 waveguide, tests results here show very nice directivity and great distortion results. But the waveguide is big and might not fit
index.php



  • XT25TG-30 and Monocor WG-300 waveguide, tests results here also show very nice directivivity but the distortion is much higher, the DX25 combo wins
index.php



Visaton also makes a waveguide here, though it`s also big (DIY with XT25 here wasn`t too successful). Mouser and digikey sell it. 617 found it worked best with Dayton RST28F here, haven`t found any drop ins with ring radiators. Alternatively, one of augerpros waveguides here might work for a ring, but it might not. His elliptical waveguides provide more options with small baffles. I looked at the wavecor tweeters here but their distortion results aren`t very impressive

This thread is another option to read through for candidates

SB26ADC-000-4 with or without waveguide looks like a front runner to me. Best way to predict if a waveguide is needed is to take a diffraction modeling program and model the effect of the baffle from 1 to 8 kHz, then combine with the driver IEC measurements from SB, and see if it works without a waveguide. I explain one way to do it here. Its an old write up and there are better free tools around now, but the concepts are the same.
I'm currently working on mating the purifi 6.5 midbass with a SB26ADC. I have 6.5 inch waveguides for the SB from DIYA. At this stage im still at the drawing board for enclosure construction, whether to go bass reflex or passive radiators.
 

Ilkless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
1,771
Likes
3,502
Location
Singapore
Another choice could be SB26ADC and Augerpro`s free waveguide design here. I checked the CAD file and the 4in would definitely fit, maybe even the 5ìn (more background discussion here and here). The STAC might work in his waveguide as well

Speaking of Augerpro waveguides, DIYA user 'jcga' had great success with Bliesma T25B after ironing out some throat issues. His polars look seamless (at least horizontally) with a ~2.2kHz LR4 XO to the PTT6.5. Probably a good starting point if waveguide 2-way is the form it ends up taking.

1609823204560.png
 

Attachments

  • 1609823186242.png
    1609823186242.png
    203.9 KB · Views: 89

McFly

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 12, 2019
Messages
905
Likes
1,877
Location
NZ
Speaking of Augerpro waveguides, DIYA user 'jcga' had great success with Bliesma T25B after ironing out some throat issues. His polars look seamless

Or hers maybe? :p but yes, providing that data is accurate, it is good and i hope to achieve similar success. The sb26adc does have a little 2db hump around 5khz that is noticeably audible, comparatively to the tb25b which measures very flat.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,613
Likes
7,347
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
A small tower would be a good form factor, WW M T or WWT using the crossover topology Jeff Bagby popularized. Same footprint as a bookshelf.

Yes, something like Jeff’s Solstice tower perhaps. Is a MLTL too...

Or borrow the Clarino bass section and add the smaller Purifi with SB26ADC?
 

Lbstyling

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
502
Likes
464
617, I was just helping Rick, its his gig. I think he's leaning 2 way.

Beryllium price is too high. In general I'm for waveguides if done right. There is a place for the robust larger domes though. Some Scans have a peak above 8 khz and they work great on a slanted baffle as a result. The slanted baffle can allow lower crossover orders and better off axis near the bloom if paired correctly with woofers.

The purifi is a head scratcher. They have huge linear throw but trade off sensitivity for low reach. So it has amazing low distortion tech but the TS params are a problem, not so well thought out. It doesn't work sealed as it requires a box so small the air distorts. It doesn't work ideally ported since it needs a ridiculously large and long port to take full advantage of its design strengths. Which leaves passive radiator, and possibly MLTL. Passive radiators add cost to an already costly driver, and whatever suspension non linearities the PR has itself. Be interesting to sim an MLTL for it.

When you say 'ridiculous port', how ridiculous? Slot ports can be very big with ease, you just create a false bottom/back to the cabinet. 150mm long with a 140mm cross section for instance is not hard in a standmount, it's 3 squares of wood more than a sealed box.
 
OP
617

617

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
2,433
Likes
5,383
Location
Somerville, MA
When you say 'ridiculous port', how ridiculous? Slot ports can be very big with ease, you just create a false bottom/back to the cabinet. 150mm long with a 140mm cross section for instance is not hard in a standmount, it's 3 squares of wood more than a sealed box.

It's been a while since I worked on a slot port, but the fact remains that if you want a large cross sectional area, the port needs to be quite long. You are correct that a slot port can be an elegant way to make a large port, but it will diminish the portability of the speaker. A problem with slot ports is that you don't want them to be too skinny in cross section. I've seen recommendations that the h:w ratio be no more than 5:1. In a 8 inch wide speaker with .75 inch walls, that makes the slot 1.3 inches tall, which gives a cross sectional area of 8.5 square inches, which is equivalent to a 3.2 inch diameter port, which of course will be pretty dang long.

So yes it can work but I never seem to like the compromises myself. Makes a lot of sense for big woofers and subs though.
 

MrHifiTunes

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
62
Where is this project going? Long time no update.

It sounded interesting when a closed box 8-4-1 was in the picture.
 

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,613
Likes
7,347
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Those are not 3-way speakers as discussed here.

Actually, Directiva r2 is a 3-way speaker. The initial design called for a bass module with a small monitor, but has morphed into a small 3-way bookshelf for the first prototype.
 
Top Bottom