• 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!

Top DIY speaker resources / projects of 2023?

After years of building DIY and studying all the stuff needed to even have a chance of making anything that remotely competes with the really good commercial ones - I must say - do it for the fun and hobby... And to put your personal touch and preference on the project.
I wanted a closed cabinet that could integrate well with subwoofers and combine a classic look with modern drivers and a fully active DSP approach.
Nothing like this has been within my reach financially, so I took the journey... And I'm still working on it
;)
But it's definitely getting very good sounding... After more than 20 years of work and fiddling with all the stuff that you need to know and get your hands on, when going this route, and of course I'm biased
:D
 
Every project has a 'wear' time, where you think it sounds great initially. Those whom are experienced even go through this. Then it wears on you and things become irritating or pronounced that take away from the enjoyment. Some take longer to get there than others, speakers and designers both. The initial firing up of a new project is no different than the shot of adrenaline you get from whatever gets you excited- then it wears off and the problems still need fixed.

Newberance Exhuberance comes into play for the green builder, and they typically have nothing else around to compare to their recent new and shiny creation to fault their current elation.
 
Which is why I get out and listen to others DIY and commercial stuff - sometimes bringing my own gear and vice versa - to counter the room + bought a pair of KEF LS50 Meta to test against my creations. Not perfect, but I try ;)
 
That was more a reply to @mikewxyz argument about diyers thinking their projects are golden.
 
That was more a reply to @mikewxyz argument about diyers thinking their projects are golden.
I should have been more clear that I just meant in general. And not directly quoting you, was my attempt to just let it be universal. I could have done better :)
 
I know of what I speak re: DIYers. Here is my latest effort.

 
Troels makes some great looking speakers! Some of my favorites looks wise. Just wish we had objective measurements for them and pref. score.
 
Troels makes some great looking speakers! Some of my favorites looks wise. Just wish we had objective measurements for them and pref. score.
Met him and heard some of his projects. Some sound better or worse than others - IMO - but ain't that to be expected with everyone's projects and all of our different opinions?
His woodworking skills are always great though :D Good guy!
 
I think wide range lists of measurements are a good way to judge both options. Example: The Mechano23, Hi-Vi Swan 3.1 and PE Samba MT DIY all offer very good performance for $400 or less (including cabinets). 5.0+ on the preference scale, 6.4+ with EQ. Then you have commercial offerings like the Jamo S7-15B, Thomann Swissonic A306 and Elac Debut 2.0 B5.2 that seem to match them based on the pref. scores for under $400 also.

I wish we had larger 3-way DIY speakers to test like things from Troels, Parts Express, Jeff Bagby, etc.

The samba mt suck. C notes are still their best kit.
 
How's this for a novel way to make head or tails:-
  1. If spinorama data is not available, put it in the lowest priority on your list. Goodbye sexy-looking electrostatics etc, goodbye ultra-costly-driver kits with ultra-costly crossovers. All the millions of words of sighted-listening worship for exotic kits are just waffle. We know this on ASR.
  2. The only exception to Rule #1 is if the kit has triumphed or held its own in a controlled listening comparison test with speakers that have good spinorama. I am not aware of any exceptions to Rule #1 on the basis of Rule #2. Any takers?
  3. What's left? I know of Directiva, I know of BMR. Any others?
  4. Examine the spinoramas of kits in Rule #3 and push them down to the second rank of priority if they appear to have issues. Erin raised a few issues with the BMR that put it into the second rank for me.
That just leaves Directiva! (subject to more speakers being listed under Rule #2 and Rule #3, per my request).

Simplified enough? ;)

cheers
I am adding another qualifying speaker to list #3 above, the Mechano23, based on the knocked-it-out-of-the-park golfing panther award and review on ASR.

So the list is now:-

Top Rank: Directiva, Mechano23

Second Rank: BMR

Any other DIY speakers that qualify under Rule #2 or Rule #3 above?
 
@Newman: I don’t see why someone would build Directiva for $1415 when you could buy Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX for $1548. You are breaking your own rule about expensive drivers (Purifi) and on top of that, the builder would need some wood finishing skills so not to look too home grown. WAF is a real thing.

I understand that you want to assure the DIYer that the kit is worthwhile from a time, money and sound perspective but I question whether they would come out ahead.
 
Here is a well documented 3-way design that appears popular. This project has similar goals to the ones you have articulated.

 
@Newman: I don’t see why someone would build Directiva for $1415 when you could buy Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX for $1548.
The thread isn’t about the easiest way get performance for $1415 (or any budget).
The thread is about how to choose from the known available DIY options.
You are breaking your own rule about expensive drivers (Purifi)
I have no such rule. I simply said that we don’t seem to have any exotic DIY designs with high-quality independent performance data eg Spinorama or better. And until we do, I suggest ignoring them. When we get such data, we can include them.

That’s why Directiva is in my shortlist. There is no rule about exotica, other than we need to see the quality performance data of the whole speaker.

PS when I wrote ‘exotic’ I mean things like floor to ceiling electrostatics, or multiple giant horns thrusting towards the listener, or field coil full range drivers with whizzer cones in back-loaded horn cabinets, or crossovers with capacitors that cost $400 each. We see all sorts of DIY projects like that, with all sorts of wonderful sighted listening reports…but I suggest putting them all to one side until you see independent Spinoramae. It might be a long wait.
and on top of that, the builder would need some wood finishing skills so not to look too home grown. WAF is a real thing.
Sure, but I have already made points relating to whether you save money. As has kemmler3D, link.
I understand that you want to assure the DIYer that the kit is worthwhile from a time, money and sound perspective but I question whether they would come out ahead.
The thread isn’t about the easiest way get performance for $1415 (or any budget).
The thread is about how to choose from the known available DIY options.

I an trying to help the reader to trim the already long list. You simply made the list one speaker longer.
 
Ok. You’ve confused me why anyone would choose a DIY kit from your shortlist. GM3 started this conversation saying he wanted the “ultimate music performance” for $1k – 2.5k. This is a typical aspiration for a DIYer.

You replied to me that in your view, DIY is not about…. performance or value or design satisfaction. It’s about short-listing kits with spinorama data.

I just finished up a DIY project and spinorama data was the furthest thing from my mind. It would have been nice but you are lucky to have SPL graphs (that you believe). If your problem statement is that it is difficult to choose a DIY kit, I would agree with you there but I don’t see the spinorama data as a must have for a build decision.
 
Perhaps read post #1 again. Paragraph #1: performance is his main focus.

If one wants performance to mean sound quality, and that quality to be present in the sound waves themselves, then Spinorama is the prime determinant of that, other than controlled listening test comparisons.

He continues: "It's just, so many DIY designs out there, how do you make heads or tail? Is there like some sort of ranking resource for available designs?"

I can't think of a better ranking resource for loudspeaker performance than the Spinorama, and controlled listening tests. Those are my criteria #1 and #2. (That's not just my opinion: the best audio science supports this.)

Criterion #2 is exceedingly rare to come across. Criterion #1 is not that common for DIY designs either, but in the absence of #2, it's our best bet.

I hope you are no longer confused.
 
Last edited:
If one wants performance to mean sound quality, and that quality to be present in the sound waves themselves, then Spinorama is the prime determinant of that, other than controlled listening test comparisons.
Spinorama is not a determinant of sound quality. It is an after-the-fact objective measurement that seems to be positively correlated with subjective evaluations of sound quality. It is probably more reliable than trusting Stereophile reviews.

The attributes of the drivers, crossover points, frequency response, phase, levels of distortion, directivity, etc. determine sound quality.

Saying it is a determinant is like saying consumer reports' review of a car determines it's performance. No, the engine, transmission, brakes, etc. determine it's performance.

Considering off axis behavior and directivity are not new and don't require Spinorama. (Disclaimer: I take Spinorama measurements and use VituixCAD for my designs but most people I know don't.)
 
I'm a big DIY fan and follow Rick and haven't seen any reason to purchase a speaker when you can design one based on your criteria however with the recent changes that 617 mentioned things have taken a turn against DIY-ing. I can't ever see the need to DIY again. To many great speakers to choose from that are relatively affordable.

In saying that, as a horn lover and due to the sizes rendering them super expensive I think I can DIY a massive horn and a 15inch in a bass bin for considerably less cost than if I was to purchase it. This would mean I need all measurements for both the CD and the 15 inch in its respective horn or have to take them myself. All this with DSP otherwise no point. In this case I think there is a case to DIY but for a small bookshelf speaker, those days long gone, it was fun but I can't see the purpose for it unless maybe I take the plunge on the directiva.
 
Spinorama is not a determinant of sound quality. It is an after-the-fact objective measurement that seems to be positively correlated with subjective evaluations of sound quality. It is probably more reliable than trusting Stereophile reviews.

The attributes of the drivers, crossover points, frequency response, phase, levels of distortion, directivity, etc. determine sound quality.

Saying it is a determinant is like saying consumer reports' review of a car determines it's performance. No, the engine, transmission, brakes, etc. determine it's performance.

Considering off axis behavior and directivity are not new and don't require Spinorama. (Disclaimer: I take Spinorama measurements and use VituixCAD for my designs but most people I know don't.)
Semantics. Especially considering that half of the things you say are determinants, are measurements!

I could just as readily say “the attributes of the component parts” are not a determinant, only the listener’s controlled listening test impressions determine sound quality (in the sound waves themselves) for that listener.

Semantic circle work.
 
Semantics. Especially considering that half of the things you say are determinants, are measurements!
No. Nothing I listed is a measurement although they can be measured. You could completely design a speaker by ear taking those attributes into account.
 
No. Nothing I listed is a measurement although they can be measured. You could completely design a speaker by ear taking those attributes into account.
I would argue that it's way easier to find specific errors or designing a given loudspeaker by measurements, rather than purely listening.
You might evaluate by listening that something is good or bad. But without measuring, it will never be precise - imo.
Simulation can get you far too... But more complicated designs, definitely prove a challenge for most software.
 
Back
Top Bottom