High output satellite speaker product development poll

[Duke]

I'm in the rather critical "figure out what the people want" stage in the development of a fairly high output satellite speaker using prosound drivers.

The inspiration for what I have in mind is this: A lot of people are already convinced of the benefit of using multiple subwoofers, and I'm one of them (big surprise, since I've been selling a multisub system for almost twenty years). In my opinion a good multisub system outperforms a good pair of main speakers in the bottom two octaves (20-80 Hz ballpark).

So an arguably space-conserving and cost-saving move would be to use speakers which do not have bass extension down into the subwoofer region, but instead are optimized from the outset with subwoofers in mind. Of course this is not the most novel and original idea in the history of loudspeaker design, and hopefully it's not the only trick up my sleeve, but your input would help me make a good initial decision on which direction to go.

Here is a brief preliminary description of the three candidate designs. All would all be roughly the same height (about 48 inches), and price approximately scales with the footprint depth:

1. 93 dB and 8 ohms; -3 dB about 75 Hz; 115 dB without a protective highpass filter; footprint ballpark 17" wide by 9" deep.

2. 96 dB and 8 ohms; -3 dB about 75 Hz; 118 dB without a protective highpass filter; footprint ballpark 17" wide by 11" deep.

3. 100 dB and 8 ohms; -3 dB about 75 Hz; 121 dB without a protective highpass filter; footprint ballpark 17" wide by 15" deep.

Max SPLs with a protective highpass filter are about 4-6 dB higher. Thermal compression will come into play so I'm not confident of exactly where those numbers top out. Also, in an application where there will be strong content south of 20 Hz, like in home theater, a protective highpass filter is recommended.

And of course you can suggest something else, as you may have a better idea than I do.

Thanks!

 

[Sokel]

Whichever of the above (I voted for the bigger ones) , as long as they play full-bodied 100's and kick up there,that's where the vast majority of sat-subs suffer.

Voices are going down to 80's and it's nice to come from one place.
The rest are nuances .

 

[Duke]

Whichever of the above (I voted for the bigger ones) , as long as they play full-bodied 100's and kick up there,that's where the vast majority of sat-subs suffer.

I went back and added information about the max SPL capability, thanks for asking about that. They have enough linear excursion that, in most home-audio applications, a protective highpass filter is optional. If there is going to be substantial loud content south of 20 Hz then a protective highpass filter is a good idea.

Voices are going down to 80's and it's nice to come from one place.
The rest are nuances .

They will be two-way speakers largely inspired by Earl Geddes' work. And I'll probably pay an inordinate amount of attention to the "nuances"... radiation pattern control, room interaction, diffraction, and such.

 

[Duke]

I'd like to thank those who voted in this poll. Obviously it didn't attract much attention, which in and of itself is useful information, indicating that there's not much interest in fairly high-output dedicated satellite speakers.

I'm still open to input from anyone who feels like it.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I somehow never saw this until now. I think high output satellites and multi-subs is a fine idea. If I had the space, I'd still prefer at least modest floorstanders with more reach in the bottom end so you can roll them off nicely as needed. One thing I see with lots of satellites is they are really either near field monitors or mid field monitors. So you need the extra output capability to add subs and use them in a larger room. In smaller rooms I guess it doesn't matter. You don't room for multi subs anyway plus output needed is less.

Just as an example you can use Revel M106s and subs. They do pretty well even into a somewhat larger room. However in that larger room I think you might be better off slightly with some F206s and subs added. However the option to get beefy M106 sized speakers currently isn't really an option.

 

[hex168]

93dB and 4 ohms would be interesting. Works better with the decent-but-cheap chip amps. I was looking at that target for a DIY design but 4 ohm pro woofers are scarce. My thought, after giving up on 4 ohms, was Lavoce DF10.144LK on an EV ELX112 clone, Lavoce WAF123.01 or GRS 12 PT - would have to try both to see if the Lavoce was worth the upcharge, crossover around 1200Hz. Also thinking of a wide but shallow cabinet. My twist would be to upholster it with at least 2" of absorptive material and nice looking acoustically transparent cloth to try to kill diffraction completely down to where the cone starts to beam.

 

[EJ3]

I'd like to thank those who voted in this poll. Obviously it didn't attract much attention, which in and of itself is useful information, indicating that there's not much interest in fairly high-output dedicated satellite speakers.

I'm still open to input from anyone who feels like it.

I did not see the poll until just now. But I would have voted for the bigger ones. And I am interested in the nuances AND the efficiency.

 

[Duke]

I somehow never saw this until now. I think high output satellites and multi-subs is a fine idea. If I had the space, I'd still prefer at least modest floorstanders with more reach in the bottom end so you can roll them off nicely as needed.

I thought about making the satellites with enough low end to "stand alone" fairly well until subs are purchased, but of course there is a penalty in either enclosure size or efficiency or some combination thereof. For instance the 93 dB version could be sized to go down to 50 Hz and thereby deliver a decent kick-drum, but the enclosure would need nearly triple the internal volume.

One thing I see with lots of satellites is they are really either near field monitors or mid field monitors. So you need the extra output capability to add subs and use them in a larger room. In smaller rooms I guess it doesn't matter. You don't room for multi subs anyway plus output needed is less.

I have something different in mind for smaller rooms where subs are not an option. It would be a ballpark 87 dB floor-stander that would go down into the upper 30's.

Just as an example you can use Revel M106s and subs. They do pretty well even into a somewhat larger room. However in that larger room I think you might be better off slightly with some F206s and subs added. However the option to get beefy M106 sized speakers currently isn't really an option.

I'm not even thinking of doing anything near the size of the M106; I just don't see an opportunity for me to do something that compact which offers a worthwhile improvement over what's already being done and done well.

93dB and 4 ohms would be interesting. Works better with the decent-but-cheap chip amps.

What I have in mind would be 8 ohms... but... the woofer is available in a 4-ohm version. So, yeah, that could be done.

I was looking at that target for a DIY design but 4 ohm pro woofers are scarce.

*cough cough Faital cough*

Also thinking of a wide but shallow cabinet.

Yes, if the cabinet is wide enough we can get good directivity down to the Schroeder frequency ballpark. Not saying that's the ultimate of ultimate accomplishments, but I think it would be worthwhile.

My twist would be to upholster it with at least 2" of absorptive material and nice looking acoustically transparent cloth to try to kill diffraction completely down to where the cone starts to beam.

I tried that once back in the 80's using 2" thick eggcrate foam, "borrowing" the idea from Mike Dzurko of DIY supplier Audio Concepts. To my ears the foam seemed to suck the life out of the sound, but in retrospect I think I absorbed too much of the tweeter's off-axis response. If I were to try it again, I'd attach the foam with double-sided tape instead of permanent adhesive so that different foam geometries could be tested.

I am interested in the nuances AND the efficiency.

Me too! Imo THAT end of the spectrum is where there is the most opportunity for me to offer a worthwhile improvement. 100 dB is probably the practical upper limit for what I want to do before the top end of the compression driver can no longer keep up.

 

[hex168]

I did not mention nuance because I assumed you'd get that right!

 

[ryanosaur]

I'd like to thank those who voted in this poll. Obviously it didn't attract much attention, which in and of itself is useful information, indicating that there's not much interest in fairly high-output dedicated satellite speakers.

I'm still open to input from anyone who feels like it.

Somehow I missed this. That’s what I get for skimming, I guess.

Great question. I’ve been rethinking my atmos plans and being inspired by Sigberg have been looking at pro coaxial drivers to build some active “heights” for high wall Top Front and Top Back mounting.

Much as you’ve suggested, and again pulling from Sigberg’s concept, I would target a system that would cross at 100Hz. Beyond that, aiming for higher sensitivity is the other big goal. The single biggest problem I keep coming across is that Atmos placements tend to be further away and most Speakers that could be adapted for such usage as I need tend toward a lower sensitivity which then affects the maximum output of everything else.

Very interested to see where you go with this. I hope you keep sharing about your progress!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Somehow I missed this. That’s what I get for skimming, I guess.

Great question. I’ve been rethinking my atmos plans and being inspired by Sigberg have been looking at pro coaxial drivers to build some active “heights” for high wall Top Front and Top Back mounting.

Much as you’ve suggested, and again pulling from Sigberg’s concept, I would target a system that would cross at 100Hz. Beyond that, aiming for higher sensitivity is the other big goal. The single biggest problem I keep coming across is that Atmos placements tend to be further away and most Speakers that could be adapted for such usage as I need tend toward a lower sensitivity which then affects the maximum output of everything else.

Very interested to see where you go with this. I hope you keep sharing about your progress!

Does anyone have a good handle on what levels those overhead channels have? I know in 5.1 the center is about 6 db higher on average than front left and right and surrounds are a good bit lower being I think on average 10 db less than center.

 

[Duke]

I did not mention nuance because I assumed you'd get that right!

And if I don't... well, that's what marketing departments get paid to fix!!

Somehow I missed this. That’s what I get for skimming, I guess.

Great question. I’ve been rethinking my atmos plans and being inspired by Sigberg have been looking at pro coaxial drivers to build some active “heights” for high wall Top Front and Top Back mounting.

Much as you’ve suggested, and again pulling from Sigberg’s concept, I would target a system that would cross at 100Hz. Beyond that, aiming for higher sensitivity is the other big goal. The single biggest problem I keep coming across is that Atmos placements tend to be further away and most Speakers that could be adapted for such usage as I need tend toward a lower sensitivity which then affects the maximum output of everything else.

Thanks!

Do Atmos speakers need to go down to 100 Hz? That would surprise me. I haven't really investigated Atmos as I'm still working on getting the most out of oldschool two-channel, so I don't know what the requirements for Atmos speakers are.

Faital makes some nice coaxials, and imo the Eminence Beta 10CX is way better than it has any right to be for its price. Eminence sells a passive crossover made for it. My guess is that their crossover is optimized for conventional use, and I would expect a different target curve for an Atmos application because the listening position is so far off-axis (if I understand Atmos configuration correctly), but then like I said I don't know Atmos well.

Very interested to see where you go with this. I hope you keep sharing about your progress!

Thanks! I will probably do a Desperate Dealer thread going into more detail at some point. My approach is somewhat unorthodox in several ways, so I need to make sure my asbestos suit still fits first!

 

[ryanosaur]

Does anyone have a good handle on what levels those overhead channels have? I know in 5.1 the center is about 6 db higher on average than front left and right and surrounds are a good bit lower being I think on average 10 db less than center.

A great question. I don't have an answer. Dolby does say target SPL should be 79-82dB. Also in another of their PDFs, I've seen the standard range of 105dB peak, sustained, being mentioned (but this was geared to professional cinema. Clearly they are still using the +20dB range above "reference."

What I do know from many conversations is that it is usually these Speakers that cause the biggest errors in Room Correction and setting levels. Too often it is the Surrounds, Rears or Atmos Speakers that are limiting other Speaker Trims. Usually this is easily attributed to people looking at small lifestyle solutions to plug and play.
How big of a problem is this truly?... If I'm going to build and install it, I may as well make certain they are capable of playing the full range both in SPL and FR.

And if I don't... well, that's what marketing departments get paid to fix!!



Thanks!

Do Atmos speakers need to go down to 100 Hz? That would surprise me. I haven't really investigated Atmos as I'm still working on getting the most out of oldschool two-channel, so I don't know what the requirements for Atmos speakers are.

Faital makes some nice coaxials, and imo the Eminence Beta 10CX is way better than it has any right to be for its price. Eminence sells a passive crossover made for it. My guess is that their crossover is optimized for conventional use, and I would expect a different target curve for an Atmos application because the listening position is so far off-axis (if I understand Atmos configuration correctly), but then like I said I don't know Atmos well.



Thanks! I will probably do a Desperate Dealer thread going into more detail at some point. My approach is somewhat unorthodox in several ways, so I need to make sure my asbestos suit still fits first!

Similar to what I've stated above, it looks in general that the standard 100Hz cross is still in play for these channels.

I've been looking at the Faital Pro 6" and the Eminence 8" beta. Leaning heavily toward the smaller Faital, though the Eminence line is seriously intriguing.

I have a unique shaped rectangular room with a sloped Clerestory ceiling and a "loft" along one long wall where the ceiling slopes up to, thus standard mounting options are off the table. These will be high-wall mounted, aimed at the LP. Placements are in line with Dolby specification for angle L/R and Up which will maintain proper separation from the Bed Layer Speakers.

 

[Mr. Widget]

And of course you can suggest something else, as you may have a better idea than I do.

Just saw this myself.
Not sure if this will help at all, but it might give you some additional data points to consider.

I had the need for high output compact satellites for my home theater. I also had the need to have vertical speakers for the left and right speakers and a horizontal version for the center channel. Since my speakers are designed to be true point source speakers with an aligned MTM layout and with a user rotatable horn to allow horizontal or vertical placement I was able to use the same speakers in both LR and C locations.

I realize these are active which is not part of your design scope, but perhaps some of these design ideas could be useful for you.

Do Atmos speakers need to go down to 100 Hz? That would surprise me. I haven't really investigated Atmos as I'm still working on getting the most out of oldschool two-channel, so I don't know what the requirements for Atmos speakers are.

By their specs yes, they need to go below 100Hz, but in my experience that is not really that critical.

Details of my speakers.

 

[Duke]

Just saw this myself.
Not sure if this will help at all, but it might give you some additional data points to consider.

I had the need for high output compact satellites for my home theater. I also had the need to have vertical speakers for the left and right speakers and a horizontal version for the center channel. Since my speakers are designed to be true point source speakers with an aligned MTM layout and with a user rotatable horn to allow horizontal or vertical placement I was able to use the same speakers in both LR and C locations.

I realize these are active which is not part of your design scope, but perhaps some of these design ideas could be useful for you.


By their specs yes, they need to go below 100Hz, but in my experience that is not really that critical.

Details of my speakers.

View attachment 436370View attachment 436371View attachment 436372

VERY CREATIVE!!

I have thought about doing an LCR speaker that would be an "MCM" - a coaxial between two woofers, which would result in the center speaker having horizontal dispersion comparable to the left and right speakers over most of the spectrum (and in particular over the parts of the spectrum where this matters most). But KEF is already doing that and doing it well, and Seaton Sound is doing a high-output variation on the theme. It is not clear to me that I could offer a worthwhile improvement.

On the other hand, ime a good time/intensity trading setup in phantom center mode is usually competitive with, and in some ways superior to, using a dedicated center-channel speaker. I say "usually" because if one of the viewers has a significant hearing imbalance (one ear has much worse hearing than the other) then I think a dedicated center-channel speaker is called for.

 

[3ll3d00d]

are you using satellite in the sense of "satellite + subs" (aka LCR which are designed to be crossed to subs) or satellite in the sense of surrounds (or both)?

I'm guessing the former from the rest of the description but thought it worth checking

if it is the former, why does ramping up the output require such a large increase in depth?

I would think you only need that sort of output for home cinema and that tends to mean you want high output and keeping a lid on the depth of the speaker (in order to appeal to the widest possible audience as not everyone has loads of space behind their screen)

 

[Duke]

are you using satellite in the sense of "satellite + subs" (aka LCR which are designed to be crossed to subs) or satellite in the sense of surrounds (or both)?

I'm guessing the former from the rest of the description but thought it worth checking

They are “satellites” in the sense of being left and right speakers for home audio which require subwoofers. They can also be used for home theater. I don't make a dedicated center channel speaker, but theoretically a third such speaker could be hidden behind the screen. (In my experience a good time/intensity trading configuration with purpose-built left and right speakers in “phantom center” mode may not need a dedicated center channel speaker, and may do some things better without the use of a dedicated center channel speaker. And I realize this goes against the conventional wisdom.)

if it is the former, why does ramping up the output require such a large increase in depth?

There is an inevitable trade-off relationship between box size, efficiency, and bass extension. If we keep efficiency the same and extend the bass deeper, the required box size increases. If we keep the bass extension the same and increase the efficiency, the required box size increases. That size increase does not necessarily have to be confined to the depth dimension; it could be shared between the width and depth dimensions. That's actually what I have in mind but did not want to clutter up the poll with too many variables.

I would think you only need that sort of output for home cinema and that tends to mean you want high output and keeping a lid on the depth of the speaker (in order to appeal to the widest possible audience as not everyone has loads of space behind their screen)

Imo there is a correlation between freedom from thermal compression (or thermal modulation to be more precise) and mechanical limitations, and a sense of “liveliness”. So my thinking is actually in terms of high-end home audio, but obviously home theater benefits from these same attributes, and arguably “needs” them moreso than home audio does.

 

[Biblob]

Tbh, I have no idea how to answer your poll. I have no idea how loud I'd want my sattelite speakers to be able to play. And therefore how deep they should be.

For me personally I'd like them as small as possible, where they can play loud enough up to 80hz. After this they'll cross over to a sub.

And I have a very small room so listen up close. So a 5 incher could do the job fine for me

 

[Mr. Widget]

I would think you only need that sort of output for home cinema and that tends to mean you want high output and keeping a lid on the depth of the speaker (in order to appeal to the widest possible audience as not everyone has loads of space behind their screen)

Imo there is a correlation between freedom from thermal compression (or thermal modulation to be more precise) and mechanical limitations, and a sense of “liveliness”. So my thinking is actually in terms of high-end home audio, but obviously home theater benefits from these same attributes, and arguably “needs” them moreso than home audio does.

In my listening with a dedicated 2 channel system and a 5.1.2 surround system, my average SPL with the surround system is likely higher when watching action movies, but I occasionally play my 2 channel system at full concert levels with extremely high SPL peaks. It can be quite satisfying to play a piece of music at levels matching sitting near the front of the stage in a live performance.

One of the requirements for both of my systems is essentially an"unlimited" max SPL capability. To me this means that the system can playback as loud as I could want with no noticeable compression or distortion. There are very few domestic systems with this capability and it comes at a sizable cost.

I guess it is like having a car that can go twice the speed limit. You may never use it, but it is nice to have the headroom when you approach your limits.

 

[ryanosaur]

It’s a shame we don’t abbreviate Time Intensity Trading when we discuss it.