High output satellite speaker product development poll

[Bruce Morgen]

They are “satellites” in the sense of being left and right speakers for home audio

To me the term “satellites” evokes relatively small speakers for surround/ambience applications rather than the main L+R speakers in a 2.0 or 2.1 "entry level" system. FWIW, I think another title would attract more interest, even though the product would be very likely be perfectly fine in either use case category.

 

[Luvchampagne]

I'd be interested in the max spl version. Something like the Arendal 1528 bookshelf without the need to go that deep since you have the dual subs. Will it be active so that the dsp for subs and bookshelf are all controlled together? Or passive and then user will need minidsp or similar to dial it in? Will the subs have a Bluetooth DSP interface like Arendal/SVS?

 

[Salt]

Just scrolled through this an wondered, if max SPL 115 - 121 dB might have been irritating, as it would mean hearing damage in usual home environment. OTOH it gives certainly a perfect headroom for impulsive outbreaks.

 

[Luvchampagne]

A small side step - assuming the max spl version of the bookshelf and 2 subs were dialed in - what level of performance would be expected?
23hz +3db, 106dp spl?
Flat from 26hz to 20khz?
Horizontal directivity?
Vertical directivity?
How would this setup would compare to a full range tower like Salon2?

 

[sigbergaudio]

A small side step - assuming the max spl version of the bookshelf and 2 subs were dialed in - what level of performance would be expected?
23hz +3db, 106dp spl?
Flat from 26hz to 20khz?
Horizontal directivity?
Vertical directivity?
How would this setup would compare to a full range tower like Salon2?

Wouldn't that depend on which subs you paired them with? Beyond that it sounds like Duke is planning something that will be way more powerful than the Salon 2.

 

[Luvchampagne]

Wouldn't that depend on which subs you paired them with? Beyond that it sounds like Duke is planning something that will be way more powerful than the Salon 2.

I was commenting on the original premise which was 3 variations of bookshelf speakers paired with Duke's 2 sub setup.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I was commenting on the original premise which was 3 variations of bookshelf speakers paired with Duke's 2 sub setup.

Okay. I did not get the impression from the initial post that pairing it with his sub setup was a prerequisite, but that being said I am sure he can tell you what it would like if one were to do that.

 

[Duke]

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

Thanks for taking the time to post.

Unfortunately I do not have any ideas for how to make a worthwhile improvement over what other manufacturers are already doing in small loudspeaker designs.

To me the term “satellites” evokes relatively small speakers for surround/ambience applications rather than the main L+R speakers in a 2.0 or 2.1 "entry level" system. FWIW, I think another title would attract more interest, even though the product would be very likely be perfectly fine in either use case category.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I'll try to think of better terminology, and I'm open to suggestions!

I'd be interested in the max spl version. Something like the Arendal 1528 bookshelf without the need to go that deep since you have the dual subs.

The max SPL version would probably go a bit louder than the Adrenal 1528.

Will it be active so that the dsp for subs and bookshelf are all controlled together? Or passive and then user will need minidsp or similar to dial it in? Will the subs have a Bluetooth DSP interface like Arendal/SVS?

Nope, passive. My company is a one-man show and I don't want to sell something that I cannot fix. While I do sell a subwoofer amp with my subwoofer system, it is made by a company that has been in business for decades and has a good warranty and excellent customer service. I don't re-brand it. It's the Dayton Audio SA-1000.

A small side step - assuming the max spl version of the bookshelf and 2 subs were dialed in - what level of performance would be expected?
23hz +3db, 106dp spl?

Max SPL version with suitable subs (far bigger than the ones I normally make) could theoretically get up around 130 dB, though for someone who really wanted to explore 130 dB peaks I'd probably do a few custom things in the crossover for the sake of power handling.

So, yeah, 106 dB is do-able.

Flat from 26hz to 20khz?

The bottom end would of course depend on the subs, and I would not describe the target curve for my "oversized satellites" (<- until I think of a better term) as "flat". I think it is a good idea to minimize the spectral discrepancy between the direct sound and the reflection field, and I understand the conventional wisdom says otherwise, that the ideal is "flat on-axis and downward-sloping off-axis".

Horizontal directivity?
Vertical directivity?

Radiation pattern approximately 80 degrees horizontal and 80 degrees vertical from a bit below the crossover region (800 Hz ballpark) on up. Pattern gradually widening below the crossover region, pretty good directivity down into the Shroeder frequency region.

How would this setup would compare to a full range tower like Salon2?

Well the two approaches are quite different in philosophy. I think overall sound quality (which does not include spatial quality) would be in the same ballpark. I think the Salon 2's would have a wider soundstage, with their wider radiation pattern resulting in fairly strong early same-side wall reflections which increase the apparent source width. I think mine would have a spatial presentation dominated more by the recording itself and less by room interaction. I think mine would have greater dynamic capability, subject of course to subwoofer choice.

I was commenting on the original premise which was 3 variations of bookshelf speakers paired with Duke's 2 sub setup.

Ah, sorry I communicated poorly! The "oversize satellite" speakers I'm envisioning would all be floorstanders. Imo that's often a better use of available real estate for a fairly large speaker because the stand takes up space without making an active contribution.

My subwoofer system, the "Swarm", consists of four 10" passive subs and an amplifier.

Okay. I did not get the impression from the initial post that pairing it with his sub setup was a prerequisite, but that being said I am sure he can tell you what it would like if one were to do that.

You are correct, my subs would not be a prerequisite, and in larger rooms or for very high SPL applications I'd definitely recommend larger subs.

 

[Duke]

Just scrolled through this an wondered, if max SPL 115 - 121 dB might have been irritating, as it would mean hearing damage in usual home environment. OTOH it gives certainly a perfect headroom for impulsive outbreaks.

I suppose it's possible that people think I'm suggesting listening at 115-121 dB (which I'm not). I hadn't thought of that.

I think of it more like, if you have sufficient headroom for peaks, you get the full dynamic contrast on the recording. Whether that matters, and if so how much, is a matter of personal preference. Ime once a system with unrestrained dynamics has been experienced, it starts to matter more than when it was all just theoretical.

 

[3ll3d00d]

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.

for sure but ultimately having 2 variables answered in 1 Q may give misleading results. Just speaking from personal experience, when I designed my speakers then it was comfortable beyond reference at 3m + probably considered expensive (albeit DIY so not that expensive in the scheme of things) + strictly limited depth to ~11" (for screen based reasons). Hence, for this poll, I'd pick one option based on size constraint + another based on output target.

 

[Duke]

for sure but ultimately having 2 variables answered in 1 Q may give misleading results. Just speaking from personal experience, when I designed my speakers then it was comfortable beyond reference at 3m + probably considered expensive (albeit DIY so not that expensive in the scheme of things) + strictly limited depth to ~11" (for screen based reasons). Hence, for this poll, I'd pick one option based on size constraint + another based on output target.

That makes sense.

I've done semi-custom speakers with the dimensions tailored to a specific set of requirements and constraints, so if the constraints include "eleven inches maximum depth" but the SPL requirement is quite high, and assuming the other aspects of my design get a thumbs-up, I'd look into ways to shoe-horn more SPL capability into that much depth.

The poll was to see if there is an obvious "sweet spot" among the size/efficiency combinations for which I've identified promising combinations of drivers, vaguely taking price into consideration. Nope, no obvious sweet spot.