I wouldn't do that. the Sehlin mods were never meant for another driver. You're messing with a great design. I got the HSU TN1 15" subwoofer, just get a subwoofer instead, You would think that a 15" sub would be overkill for these but they're not. This is a good combo. If I had a bigger room I would just use 4 of these speakers and the sub., but 2 speakers sounds really good in my small room
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Hivi 3.1A DIY Speaker With Sehlin Mod Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
flyboy320
New Member
I'm trying to find parts for mod #6, and the only part out of stock locally to me is the 100uF (C5). What I can get is a 33uF and a 68uF and if I put them in parallel then I get 101uF, can I assume this work around would be OK, ie., having the 2 caps in parallel and the value being 101uF and not100uF?
I bought all my parts from parts express, I hardly see any audio shops around me, I wouldn't trust parts from a local shops whom I assume carry low quality parts plus like you said if you're missing parts, you might as well just get it online at the same place, shipping is not that bad and worth it. I didn't use any electrolytic caps on my #6 mod, I went with pretty good parts that cost me about $140 for both speakers, I'm working on my 2nd set of these speakers. you can look up parts express coupons and try to save 15% like I did
flyboy320
New Member
I live in Canada and Parts Express wants about $70 shipping to me (plus duty and brokerage). I'm using solen.ca for parts and they specialize in speaker parts/accessories, etc. Unfortunately I can't get a 100uF cap from them even if it's a non electrolytic type (back ordered for about another month).
I'm no electronics expert but your theory looks solid,
SHDrivesOnTrack
•3y ago
Some information about calculating capacitors in series and parallel.
Connect capacitors in *parallel* to increase the total capacitance. The working voltage of the group will be the smallest wvdc of any single capacitor. e.g. 2x 33uF / 200v caps in parallel = 66uF at 200v.
Connect capacitors in *Series* to increase the voltage, but decrease the capacitance. The total capacitance is: 1/Ct = 1/c1 + 1/c2 + 1/c3. If you have 2 equal capacitors, the formula can be simplified so the total capacitance = 1/2 of a single capacitor. The voltage rating for equal sized capacitors can be simply added together. (but there is a formula for multiple caps of different values). e.g. 2x 120uF / 100V in series is 60uF @ 200v.
Regarding electrolytic / polarized capacitors: You must keep the polarity the same on all the capacitors, but it will work the same as a single polarized capacitor. For parallel capacitors, you hook all the + terminals together and all the - terminals together. For series capacitors, hook each one + to the - on the next one. e.g +(c1)- +(c2)- .
Note however: you can not replace an original non-polar capacitor in the power supply with one that is polarized. Using a series or parallel set of polarized caps will only work if the original part was polarized as well.
For your project, regarding the size of your replacement capacitor. Most of the time, using a capacitor that has a slightly larger capacitance than the original part is ok.
Here is a youtube video about parallel and series capacitors.
source:
SHDrivesOnTrack
•3y ago
Some information about calculating capacitors in series and parallel.
Connect capacitors in *parallel* to increase the total capacitance. The working voltage of the group will be the smallest wvdc of any single capacitor. e.g. 2x 33uF / 200v caps in parallel = 66uF at 200v.
Connect capacitors in *Series* to increase the voltage, but decrease the capacitance. The total capacitance is: 1/Ct = 1/c1 + 1/c2 + 1/c3. If you have 2 equal capacitors, the formula can be simplified so the total capacitance = 1/2 of a single capacitor. The voltage rating for equal sized capacitors can be simply added together. (but there is a formula for multiple caps of different values). e.g. 2x 120uF / 100V in series is 60uF @ 200v.
Regarding electrolytic / polarized capacitors: You must keep the polarity the same on all the capacitors, but it will work the same as a single polarized capacitor. For parallel capacitors, you hook all the + terminals together and all the - terminals together. For series capacitors, hook each one + to the - on the next one. e.g +(c1)- +(c2)- .
Note however: you can not replace an original non-polar capacitor in the power supply with one that is polarized. Using a series or parallel set of polarized caps will only work if the original part was polarized as well.
For your project, regarding the size of your replacement capacitor. Most of the time, using a capacitor that has a slightly larger capacitance than the original part is ok.
Here is a youtube video about parallel and series capacitors.
source:
I currently have lx minis in 5.2.4 with 2 hsu sealed subs. They are amazing for what they are and i love how they sound eqd, but they are a bottleneck in my system when it comes to dynamics. That full range driver is a design flaw in my opinion (if one plans to use these at higher spl levels) Placement is not esthetically ideal and cats like to mess with them, it's time for them to go. They would free up minidsp for adding 2 more subs to the system and 2 hypex 252 amps.
I want to buid hivi's mod 4, and I had questions about port and speaker placement. Since I don't need bass extention, and I plan on placing them with the rear really close to the front wall, can I just plug the port (and with what?) without negatively impacting original sound quality? Has anyone done this and measure them? Or should I just build sealed cabinet to begin with? Any obvious benefits (or drawbacks) of one over the other? From my very limited experience, sealed brings less extention but more power handling (which is exactly what I shoot for). Also, this would be the closest to the wall i have ever placed the speakers, I don't exactly know what to expect from this specific design. I have lx minis around 3' out.
Crossover would be handled by audissey xt32, not sure which filters they use but I have had good results so far with it, especially with multiple subs. What I gathered from @ROOSKIE is that pading would not be necessary if sealed, and I could still cross them around 80-100? You mention "in case of resonances", I have some leftover dynamat, I could line walls with it and wrap the outside of the port in it, would that in theory make this build even less resonant? Or do some other thin dense material?
What about powering them? I have hypex 252 and icepower 125 available. Some of dayton components have <200w rating, on paper it looks like I should stick with 125 to be on the safe side, but Is that a concern in real life? I just occasionally, and for short time, crank this up to 85 on my denon but with lxminis struggling with electronic music I tend to back down quickly. I don't really understand how power handling works after drivers are hooked up to the crossover and all is one unit and what is the limit of this speakler. Can I use 20awg inductor safely instead of 18? I could get larger inductor but I am worried if it wouldn't fit on the board, if someone could chime in on this that would be awesome. PE has only 20 and 14awg inductors, I have no clue if these could easily replace 18awg and be mounted on the board without any hassle.
I would like to buy you a beer @Mudjock I have a huge respect for the work you do, do you have a paypal maybe?
Thanks to everyone who contributerd to this build.
My advice would be to build the box with the port as designed. If you want to then experiment plugging the port it's easy enough to do. I would use something that allows for air flow. Open cell foam or even a rolled sock will do. A solid plugged port restricted cone movement. I didn't like the result. Experiment is key.
The box is well built and using the supplied foam is advised. Using the thin Dynamat on the interior walls should be a positive addition. I glued another layer on the exterior of the box. Adding both mass and ridigidty. I used 5/8" pre-finished plywood glued to the outside MDF. The pre-finished flooring yielded a professional appearance as well. It seems the finishing process is a weak point for most builders and the speaker ends up looking home made, simple, sharp edged box. Appearance does nothing for sound quality but the additional thickness and mass does. So it killed two birds with one stone. (look at photo on post #395) Notice also the front edge is rounded.
Good luck and have fun. The end result is worth the effort!
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Howdy. The 'port resonances' I was referring to are not related to physical vibration of the port or cabinet, the Dynamat is not needed nor will it help. When you tune the box+port it does leak other frequencies for various reasons and it will have standing waves that develop in the port(port pipe resonances) and they can create strong audible impact. Also the port will chuff when it gets over loaded and the slug of air in the port is moving excessively fast.
Since you have subs there is no need for the HiVis to play deep bass. There is no replacement for displacement with bass. High pass them some where between 60-120hrz depending on room, SPL needs and other factors.
Yes, in general a sealed box will have notably less bass efficiency & extension(how much less depends on several factors, especially box size & driver parameters such as QTS) as the port is what is providing nearly all the bass at and near the port tuning frequency. This HiVi box/port combo is currently tuned around 45hrz.
You can plug the port fully and it will not in any way negatively affect the sound in the ranges above bass and lower mid bass. It will of course cause the speaker to have considerably less bass on its own so obviously only use them this way with subs.
Plugging the port would block any midrange port leakages and quell any pipe resonances that a speaker has though I don't think this particular speaker suffers notably from that. Plugging the port does guarantee no port chuffing from overloaded ports, but the ports are extremely unlikely to chuff/overload in the 1st place when the speaker is high passed.
To be clear blocking the port while keeping the driver's box the same size is not what will increase power handling. What will is electronically high passing it around the range described in my previous posts. That will notably increase over-all power handling as it will not be asked to play bass and generate the large cone movements required by a 6" driver to do so. It should also offer a cleaner sound in general from the woofer. The average cone motion will be greatly reduced and it will suffer less from distortion artifacts. (Lower HD, IMD, ect)
If you do want to dig in and modify stuff & plan to listen very loudly and/or in a large space and truly need the highest power handling then you have two options to gain a bit more SPL.
Both options will only make sense in situations where subwoofers are being used & both options are extra work and complexity. While they will add a bit of ultimate max SPL and reduce multitone distortions even more, it is not going to be a lot of meaningful gain. Still maybe worth it at the extreme to gain a couple db of maximum output.
1. build smaller sealed enclosures or modify/make the existing cabinets smaller. Keep the front dimension exactly the same and adjust only the cabinet depth.
This will allow for some extra increased power handling due to the higher control over the woofer the smaller box will provide. In a sealed box woofers have higher power handling when the box is made smaller. Extension and efficiency in the bass will be reduced further in a smaller box, this is not an issue in your case as you are not looking for extension from the HiVis due to the subs doing that part.
The other benefit would be smaller speaker units to place in your space. Making the box about 1/2 the size will increase over-all power handing and thus maximum clean output above 100hrz for a pair by a few db.
Keep in mind in a 0.35cuft small sealed box it even before setting a high pass crossover it will already be about -6db down by 80hrz vs the ported systems response. Adjust your crossover settings to the sub and monitor as needed to get a good acoustic blending.
2. A weird not straightforward option using the existing box as is, you could shorten the port to retune them to 70-80hrz. (buy a 2nd sets of ports and you can simply interchange them if times and use case change in the future)this will shift the area of maximum power handling and lowest cone excursion to the lower midbass. The speaker will handle substantially more power between 65-150hrz this way. There will initially be a big mid-bass peak but your DSP and crossover settings will tame that. Really once tamed the bass peak becomes a huge increase in efficiency. You must always use a proper high-pass with this new tuning or you could easily overdrive the speakers if you were to feed them high levels of power in the region below mid-bass. Retuned like this with a high pass the speakers can output more mid-bass before hitting distortion limits. At least the woofers will, the mids and tweeters still have whatever there SPL limits are so don't go crazy on the dial. It should be possible to gain a handful of db on the maximum output side.
Again, neither option above will gain you that much over simply plugging the ports and high passing the existing system. They are available if you want to deep DIY something & tailor your system to play as loud as it can.
Most folks should just plug the ports completely sealed or not even install them and just close up the box for use with subs crossed between 60-100hrz.
Have a look at the impedance graph
The red line has two peaks in the bass with a dip between them. The dip is the frequency the port is tuned to. This box/port combo in its OEM designed state is tuned between 45-50hrz. At the port tuning frequency the woofer is almost motionless and the port is providing nearly all output. Here is where the a ported speaker driver can handle the most power in the bass region. After the tuning frequency a typical ported systems bass response rapidly falls off.
The two impedance peaks are where the driver is moving the most with little to no contribution from the port and can handle the least amount of power. At and below the peak on the left the ported design becomes unloaded and below that point the woofer can handle almost no power and provide no real meaningful clean output.
A sealed box or free air system will have one impedance peak and that peak is where the system is 'tuned', and the woofer can handle the least power for a given output generally after this point bass falls off notably but far more gradually vs ported and the box typically maintains enough control over the woofer that you can still drive it fairly hard.
The red line has two peaks in the bass with a dip between them. The dip is the frequency the port is tuned to. This box/port combo in its OEM designed state is tuned between 45-50hrz. At the port tuning frequency the woofer is almost motionless and the port is providing nearly all output. Here is where the a ported speaker driver can handle the most power in the bass region. After the tuning frequency a typical ported systems bass response rapidly falls off.
The two impedance peaks are where the driver is moving the most with little to no contribution from the port and can handle the least amount of power. At and below the peak on the left the ported design becomes unloaded and below that point the woofer can handle almost no power and provide no real meaningful clean output.
A sealed box or free air system will have one impedance peak and that is also where the point where the system is 'tuned', generally after this point bass falls off notably but more gradually vs ported.
If using a subwoofer to handle bass.
Plugging the port is specifically to stop the ports air flow and seal the enclosure.
This is done to intentionally restrict the cones movement. The subwoofer is going to be the cone moving all that bass air.
Adding 5/8 inches to each side and over an inch in all to the width and height of the front baffle is not advised as the crossover values should now be adjusted slightly for the new dimensions of the face. You have very likely reduced the overall objective metrics with any notable extra width and height . Hard to say, I do not advise others make this change.
Dynamat. The box doesn't have strong resonance issues. That said I usually use https://www.parts-express.com/Sonic...ing-Material-w-PSA-18-x-24-260-535?quantity=1
This is damping and foam in one product
Adding mass and thickness do not always add up as expected. More is not always better. Generally from the tests I have seen using a variety of materials in a 'sandwich' is a great option along with bracing that follows sound energy distribution/placement principles. Curved inner cabinet walls being typically the best.
@ROOSKIE omg, you just made all the information I had jumbled up in my brain from reading on the topic click into place! Path of least resistance it is, plugging the port and crossing to unload the woofer is what I had in mind and though makes most sense, I just wanted to make sure that wouldn't change anything else in frequency response. I try to make my decisions based on facts and common sense, but some of these things really require a lot of experience and all the trial and error I still haven't done.
I wasn't going to mess with front baffle at all, maybe round it over a bit if I decide to paint. Also didn't want to change volume much, hence dynamat idea. But I know what you mean by sandwiching, dynamat and carpet underlayment is what I did in my car trunk and floors and holy crap did it make a difference. I did have an idea at some point to 3d print "inverted roundover" pieces and put them between all perpendicular surfaces inside the box, not much volume change and make inside somewhat curved, but I have a feeling law of diminished returns hits pretty fast with this build.
I did have another question about front baffle actually. If I recess the mid so it's flush with the surface and just notch it (or tweeter), would that make any improvement in midrange fr? I don't have the kit yet to see if that's even physically possible. Again, lack of experience here, but from what I gathered (and please correct me if I am wrong), driver sticking out from the baffle = secondary diffraction edge = on axis peaks and dips. From reading about open baffle speakers, this can significantly impact high frequency response, less so mids and woofers. I do see relatively jagged fr in graphs for midrange, I know that's probably not audible considering amplitude and music complexity in general. But I still wonder if modification like that could smooth out the response? To be honest, I don't even know if those ripples are there weather the driver is in a baffle or not. I don't mind doing reasonable mods to improve the build but I definitely don't want to do anything that could make it worse.
I wasn't going to mess with front baffle at all, maybe round it over a bit if I decide to paint. Also didn't want to change volume much, hence dynamat idea. But I know what you mean by sandwiching, dynamat and carpet underlayment is what I did in my car trunk and floors and holy crap did it make a difference. I did have an idea at some point to 3d print "inverted roundover" pieces and put them between all perpendicular surfaces inside the box, not much volume change and make inside somewhat curved, but I have a feeling law of diminished returns hits pretty fast with this build.
I did have another question about front baffle actually. If I recess the mid so it's flush with the surface and just notch it (or tweeter), would that make any improvement in midrange fr? I don't have the kit yet to see if that's even physically possible. Again, lack of experience here, but from what I gathered (and please correct me if I am wrong), driver sticking out from the baffle = secondary diffraction edge = on axis peaks and dips. From reading about open baffle speakers, this can significantly impact high frequency response, less so mids and woofers. I do see relatively jagged fr in graphs for midrange, I know that's probably not audible considering amplitude and music complexity in general. But I still wonder if modification like that could smooth out the response? To be honest, I don't even know if those ripples are there weather the driver is in a baffle or not. I don't mind doing reasonable mods to improve the build but I definitely don't want to do anything that could make it worse.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Don't change anything about the way the drivers are mounted or the baffle dimensions unless you have the ability to verify the effects and measure with extremely high accuracy. The passive crossover was meticulously designed with everything exactly where it is.
Most types of changes you are asking about will not benefit the speaker without also making some small adjustment to the crossover.
Home audio is far more precise vs car audio and I am a car audio guy as well.
You can round over the front baffle edges, that will benefit the design a bit but do not make the front face larger. Just round over the existing face. use a fairly large round of about 1" radius, smaller round overs have little to no measurable effect.
Dynamat in a car is different vs building a speaker cabinet. MDF is very good at diffusing vibrations and even moderate cabinet bracing is very effective. It is nothing like the thin stamped steel of a car and no road noise is involved.
To go above and beyond the product I linked to is top quality- nothing is better, line the insides with it. The foam part is open cell and will not negatively affect the internal volume. Actually a certain amount of 'fill' like the foam actually serves to create a situation where the cabinet 'appears' larger to the driver. This effectively negates the air space taken. You have nothing to be concerned about by using it.
The speaker is already well engineered. The next best step in improving it's frequency response would be to learn how to use PEQ and apply it to the anechoic data ASR published above about 400hrz and your in room frequency response below about 400hrz. Go to the Spinorama website to start with and plan to learn what to do next.
Measurements for speaker Hivi 3.1A DIY
www.spinorama.org
Don't change anything about the way the drivers are mounted or the baffle dimensions unless you have the ability to verify the effects and measure with extremely high accuracy. The passive crossover was meticulously designed with everything exactly where it is.
Most types of changes you are asking about will not benefit the speaker without also making some small adjustment to the crossover.
Home audio is far more precise vs car audio and I am a car audio guy as well.
You can round over the front baffle edges, that will benefit the design a bit but do not make the front face larger. Just round over the existing face. use a fairly large round of about 1" radius, smaller round overs have little to no measurable effect.
Dynamat in a car is different vs building a speaker cabinet. MDF is very good at diffusing vibrations and even moderate cabinet bracing is very effective. It is nothing like the thin stamped steel of a car and no road noise is involved.
To go above and beyond the product I linked to is top quality- nothing is better, line the insides with it. The foam part is open cell and will not negatively affect the internal volume. Actually a certain amount of 'fill' like the foam actually serves to create a situation where the cabinet 'appears' larger to the driver. This effectively negates the air space taken. You have nothing to be concerned about by using it.
The speaker is already well engineered. The next best step in improving it's frequency response would be to learn how to use PEQ and apply it to the anechoic data ASR published above about 400hrz and your in room frequency response below about 400hrz. Go to the Spinorama website to start with and plan to learn what to do next.
Measurements for speaker Hivi 3.1A DIY
How do you put a 1" radius on a 3/4" panel?
I understand the concern in principle, but I don’t think it applies here. Internal volume and driver placement are unchanged, and the added 5/8" per side is external mass, not an acoustic re-alignment.
A 1" increase in baffle width shifts baffle step by only a small amount—well below
typical room, placement, and driver-tolerance variability and is not something most designs would require crossover changes for. Increasing baffle height is largely irrelevant unless driver positions change.
What does change objectively is panel behavior: higher mass and stiffness significantly reduce cabinet radiation and delayed energy, which generally improves, not degrades, objective metrics.
Without measurements or diffraction modeling, it’s hard to support the claim that performance was “very likely reduced.” This type of external mass loading is common in higher-end cabinet construction and is typically beneficial.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
It should be fine as each of the cabinet panels is far larger than 3/4". You are working with a box, not a sheet of mdf.
You can add even bigger for more benefit if your design called for it.
For very large round-overs (not this project) one would be to simply use thicker materials. Another way if that is not possible (like with pre-cut cabs)would be to add mdf or ply strips in the inside edges. You can also make fully curved cabs or whatever calls just address this all in the crossover designs.
This design doesn't call for a round over but putting one on should be fine.
I was advocating for folks reading these posts to skip following your advice to change the face dimensions. Just round over the stock box.
- Use 1" radius.
- The face sides being far more important than the top & bottom.
- You can do the top of the face but the bottom is completely optional for sonic benefit.
The minimum round over that is generally accepted as objectively meaningful is 1" radius, more is better including curved cabinet and large 'diamond cut' style facing work.
What you did was probably fun & you like the look(which is cool)but unlikely to have merit objectively.
Driver placement is changed by adding to or subtracting from the face dimensions.
I don't think the variation will be huge but in terms of telling others what to do it will not be an improvement to a very well designed speaker to add to the face size without adjusting the X-over in tandem.
Yes, baffle step is changed a bit and so are all of the zones of edge diffraction. It will measure slightly different and will not be an improvement.
Since you already made the changes don't worry, it probably is not a major negative change but it is unlikely to be something others should follow as a guide and it is not good practice in general. You would surely be upset if a manufacturer did that and did not remeasure and adjust accordingly.
Yes 'mass loading' or making very solid cabinets is usually fine but to assume it is going to be of meaningful benefit just to make things thicker is missing the point.
Plenty of very thick cabs have issues and some not so thick cabs are state of the art (KEF LS50meta is a SOTA cabinet)
I do like that you mixed materials as that generally has been verified to be smart.
That said, I don't think average DIY folks reading this ASR thread and making these speakers should add material to the outside of the cabinet unless they simply want to experiment. It is fine if you did and had fun but don't present it as better objectively out of hand - especially with face dimensional changes. I don't know if you are experienced or newer. Whatever the case there are lots of very, very experienced DIY speaker builders out there & some on this forum. (some recent SOTA tests were ultimately hobbyist folks now turned business people) Also check out some of the DIY builder forums elsewhere.
The cabinets of the speaker do not seem to have any notable issues with cabinet vibrations that have been exposed objectively and if they did you would want to address them of course.
If I was DIY itchy to mod the cabinet construction further and gambling on the best course of action without the ability to objectively verify anything, I would add the 1+1/4" 'Sonic Barrier' to the inside as I mentioned. That material added to the inside requires no adjustment of any kind to the design (it does require an adjustment to what amount of loot is in your wallet though) I have also glued cork to the inside walls of cabinets, that anecdotally works very well and takes up little relative airspace.
I use Sonic Barrier often and like it for piece of mind, that said plenty of superb speakers do not use it or need it. Many many superb speakers have fairly straight foreward cabinet construction while plenty of 'lux' expensive speakers exist out there with excessive and poor designs not matter how great the cabs appear to be made.
Well anyway, I appreciate the convo and always appreciate a fellow DIY enthusiasts take.
Last edited:
a4eaudio
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Coincidentally, I have spent the last two days building a cabinet that will have a 1-inch roundover using 3/4 inch MDF walls.
Just to put it in perspective. The light green is 3/4-inch material with a 1-inch roundover. The blue/teal area is if it were a 3/4-inch roundover. The difference is 1/32" at the joint and a max difference in the middle of about 1/8".
Just wanted to give any potential buyers a heads up about Hivi customer support and quality control, and share my experience.
Bought speakers around new years off of Amazon. Kit is really high quality as far as I can tell, mdf cuts are super precise, crossover parts measure even. After assembling mod 6 crossover I hooked up drivers initially without a cabinet to see if everything works, it did.
Long and painful 2 weeks later (I am never painting anything else in my life, ever again) I put everything together and went to have a listen, didn't feel like measuring yet. Listened to them with my wife, we both agreed voices were waaay off, like there was some weird phase issue going on in the midrange, voices were smeared off to one side. I did everything to eliminate gain, crossover, polarity, cabinet and placement issues and came to the conclusion that midrange drivers are significantly different.
I was still in my Amazon return window (luckily) but I wanted to see if hivi would like to send me replacement drivers so I don't have to request another whole kit from Amazon, I hate waste. Contacted them at [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. No response of any kind, 2 weeks as of now. I consider these speakers not to have warranty at this point, if anything happens outside of the amazon return window, good luck!
Requested replacement from Amazon, measured all 4 midrange drivers I now had, in the same cabinet with all other components being equal and this is what I got. I was able to measure at 7.8ms gate.
(Red) and (blue) are original 2 drivers I got, and what I initially heard was that ugly 5db difference between 1k and 2k. Replacement drivers weren't exactly better matched (black and green). So I decided to keep one original mid, and one replacement (red and black) because they have similar sound signature, even tho there's a bit of difference around 5k but I figured that would be easier to equalize than 1-2k.
I understand this is not a "high end" speaker kit, but that doesn't justify poor quality control and complete absence of customer service. I wouldn't recommend this kit to anyone who isn't willing to build it and measure it within Amazon return window.
I'll post about the build, what i changed and the results I got in another post, just wanted to do buyer's beware for anyone considering this kit.
Bought speakers around new years off of Amazon. Kit is really high quality as far as I can tell, mdf cuts are super precise, crossover parts measure even. After assembling mod 6 crossover I hooked up drivers initially without a cabinet to see if everything works, it did.
Long and painful 2 weeks later (I am never painting anything else in my life, ever again) I put everything together and went to have a listen, didn't feel like measuring yet. Listened to them with my wife, we both agreed voices were waaay off, like there was some weird phase issue going on in the midrange, voices were smeared off to one side. I did everything to eliminate gain, crossover, polarity, cabinet and placement issues and came to the conclusion that midrange drivers are significantly different.
I was still in my Amazon return window (luckily) but I wanted to see if hivi would like to send me replacement drivers so I don't have to request another whole kit from Amazon, I hate waste. Contacted them at [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]. No response of any kind, 2 weeks as of now. I consider these speakers not to have warranty at this point, if anything happens outside of the amazon return window, good luck!
Requested replacement from Amazon, measured all 4 midrange drivers I now had, in the same cabinet with all other components being equal and this is what I got. I was able to measure at 7.8ms gate.
(Red) and (blue) are original 2 drivers I got, and what I initially heard was that ugly 5db difference between 1k and 2k. Replacement drivers weren't exactly better matched (black and green). So I decided to keep one original mid, and one replacement (red and black) because they have similar sound signature, even tho there's a bit of difference around 5k but I figured that would be easier to equalize than 1-2k.
I understand this is not a "high end" speaker kit, but that doesn't justify poor quality control and complete absence of customer service. I wouldn't recommend this kit to anyone who isn't willing to build it and measure it within Amazon return window.
I'll post about the build, what i changed and the results I got in another post, just wanted to do buyer's beware for anyone considering this kit.
I don't doubt poor quality control here, but your response looks to have issues outside of mid tolerances. The large peak at ~6800hz shouldn't be there. I would measure the speakers impedance. It doesn't look like the modder shared the impedance for mod 6 though, but it should resemble mod 5 fairly closely. Since it's in every measurement I would speculate something is off in the xover.
Both tweeters/crossovers measure the same. I used 7ohm instead of 6.8ohm for R1 and I went with 20ga inductor instead of 18ga for L1, same value tho 0.15mh. I don't think parallel inductor dcr increase would cause peaking in there, but this is a bit out of my knowledge area. Impedance mismatch could be the culprit. PE was out of 20ga and I am glad I didn't wait for it to come in stock, I would have been stuck with 2 useless midrange drivers if I did. Besides that, everything else is as specked by Scott. I unwound (if that's a word) L4 to 1.2mh instead of replacing it, followed someone's instructions from earlier in the thread but that's on the woofer circuit, that shouldn't affect the tweeter.
Oh, there's another thing that could have messed with tweeter response. I recessed the midrange to sit flush in the baffle. Could be diffraction artifact, I don't have a way of comparing with original design on the same crossover i have to be sure.
Those are all the things I can think of. Nevertheless, for my purposes, I have no issues with tweeter response. That portion of fr has good directivity and takes equalizer great. If it was a dip, I would be more worried, broad peak like that is easy to deal with. And the amplitude is actually not too high. I got the response to +-1db anechoic post ratbuddyssey hack in denon multieq, but yeah, for someone else building this, I guess stick to the specs if don't have a way of dealing with it after the fact.
Attachments
Measuring the same doesn't mean they're working right, just means whatever issues there are causing the peak means it's in both speakers. The issue with the peak there is that it likely means your filtering isn't working right. A peak here would mean the phase relationship between the drivers is also incorrect, EQ cannot fix this.
I would expect some deviation from what the response should be, but this deviation is great, so much so that some more investigation is warranted. Maybe share the impedance measurements.
What do you expect from customer service? Why is it an issue of poor quality control? You changed the entire crossover using different parts with different values and even modified the baffle. Who knows what went wrong. Then you issue a "buyer beware" blaming them?
After you made all these changes the first thing is to call for replacement parts because THEY must be of poor quality? No accountabilty that it's you who probably screwed it up with all the changes?
I'm sorry you had the problem but maybe, just maybe, if you built the kit as per the directions you wouldn't end up in this mess. I also warned you about the failures of painting cabinets further back in this thread but apparently you didn't take that advice either.
Building speakers is NOT for everyone especially those who don't follow the directions from the manufacturer and then take a completely different, experimental route. Then, when it fails, blame them!
After you made all these changes the first thing is to call for replacement parts because THEY must be of poor quality? No accountabilty that it's you who probably screwed it up with all the changes?
I'm sorry you had the problem but maybe, just maybe, if you built the kit as per the directions you wouldn't end up in this mess. I also warned you about the failures of painting cabinets further back in this thread but apparently you didn't take that advice either.
Building speakers is NOT for everyone especially those who don't follow the directions from the manufacturer and then take a completely different, experimental route. Then, when it fails, blame them!
Wow, you are really missing a point here, please read what I wrote. I am not blaming anyone for mods that I made my friend, I don't mind having constructive discussions about mods I made. That's why we are here, we like thinkering with stuff and learning.
I am blaming manufacturer for sending different midrange drivers. Those measurements are, as you should have noticed if you read my post, all done in the same cabinet, with the same crossover, at the same measuring distance, same microphone, same amplifier same everything. I just swapped midrange drivers between measurements and got different results in the frequency range where those exact drivers play. This should be easy to understand. So yeah, crappy customer service and poor quality control if the drivers are wildly different between each other everything else being equal, and manufacturer doesn't even reply to emails.
I appreciate advice on painting, I knew what I was going into, but didn't count on one can of clearcoat sputtering clear after all the hard work I done before that. They turned out pretty good, 3 coats shellac, 3 coats auto primer, 2 coats white, 3 coats pearl white and 7 coats of clear. Had to go heavy on clear after 2nd can started sputtering so I could have heavy layer i could sand down and reclear. Had to wait 7 days for 2k to cure before sanding. S happens. I wanted rounded edges, that's why painting. Don't have a booth or spray gun so I did best i could with cans. In January in garage without ac, it's been a challenge to say the least.
I wanted to recess mid, i knew there would be issues, not blaming anyone for that but would be nice to know why and how changes affect outcome. Trial and error, measurements, tweaks, rinse repeat, isn't that how we learn? Hell, speaker grill alone is going to mess up fr way more than recessing mid and I am about to that at some point.
I stand behind and have reason for everything I did, they are my speakers at the end of the day. And I stand behind byers beware statement, those drivers would have been different whether I went with original plans and parts or not. And company not replying, yeah, it's bad customer service.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
