Possible to DIY the B&W 800 Diamond? - Page 2

The best post of the day goes to....
I was waiting for this.... maybe I can show this thread to my friend who has this unhealthy obsession with B & W and electrostats.

Yes, materials have differences, but not as you describe. It's not the same as an instruments character sound. It's a completely different thing. It's about remaining pistonic and distortion free. The diamond tweeter will be very stiff and very pistonic. How much more than Be or ceramic or even aluminum? Not much. The 3db peak at 10khz will be much more obvious than the slight linear advantage.

Heck, if it matters that much to the cloner, use the Jantzen JDT-1024. Sure it'll soak up $4k worth of the budget, but the rest could be used to easily beat the B&W.

If the material is affecting the sound in an noticeable manner, it should not be used in a driver designed to reproduce music. For a musician working with a guitar amp, distortion is their friend through and through... the point is to use different materials to add pleasing harmonics - aka distortion - to the sound. On purpose. There is no logical reason a speaker designer would choose to do the same (add a specific timbre) to a tone, if the goal is faithful music reproduction i.e. HiFi


Edited by imagic - 1/23/13 at 11:56am

I have tried to make a point that I have no question the 800D can be bested for less money in objective or for a number of subjective ears! Every one seems stuck on beating the 800D, the OP said replicate which means to make an exact copy, even if one takes a little visual and voicing license I still think it is going to be very difficult for any thing like the 2,500 to OP postulated.

BTW I do like the diamonds in the B&W presentation but it is not my favorite HF presentation, that goes to the SS 7100 for a lot less money.

Further I actually like your designs, I played around with one of them late last year, for it to work in my application it needs some BSC work but as built you got quite a bit out of the parts for the money!

I sorta feel like we are at a serious impasse when you call the 800D a joke, this honestly makes me wonder if you have ever heard them. A poor value in strict and DIY terms most probably but nothing close to a joke in pure sound. To further move from the sublime to the ludicrous was your statement that MOST DIYers could crush the 805D. I feel comfortable saying 5% of the true non-professional DIYers could at best, even with an unlimited budget assuming they could not contract out the cabinet design or the XO design.


As to imagic's father he is obviously a very talented scale model woodworker. Having been a scale modeler (not primarily wood though) and a woodworker for most of my life I can comfortably say cloning the 800 cabinets is going to knock out the VAST majority of woodworkers, even those with a high end CNC.

In the end in the spirit of working with ones hands I say prove me wrong. I am happy to admit when I am wrong. I think the 800D can be replicated (

You won't really be able to tell a difference with materials if you're using them well within their linear range, and thoroughly controlling any breakups....

I have tried to make a point that I have no question the 800D can be bested for less money in objective or for a number of subjective ears! Every one seems stuck on beating the 800D, the OP said replicate which means to make an exact copy, even if one takes a little visual and voicing license I still think it is going to be very difficult for any thing like the 2,500 to OP postulated.

BTW I do like the diamonds in the B&W presentation but it is not my favorite HF presentation, that goes to the SS 7100 for a lot less money.

Further I actually like your designs, I played around with one of them late last year, for it to work in my application it needs some BSC work but as built you got quite a bit out of the parts for the money!

I sorta feel like we are at a serious impasse when you call the 800D a joke, this honestly makes me wonder if you have ever heard them. A poor value in strict and DIY terms most probably but nothing close to a joke in pure sound. To further move from the sublime to the ludicrous was your statement that MOST DIYers could crush the 805D. I feel comfortable saying 5% of the true non-professional DIYers could at best, even with an unlimited budget assuming they could not contract out the cabinet design or the XO design.


As to imagic's father he is obviously a very talented scale model woodworker. Having been a scale modeler (not primarily wood though) and a woodworker for most of my life I can comfortably say cloning the 800 cabinets is going to knock out the VAST majority of woodworkers, even those with a high end CNC.

In the end in the spirit of working with ones hands I say prove me wrong. I am happy to admit when I am wrong. I think the 800D can be replicated (

I almost bought 802D's but they really were not loud enough for me. Loved the smooth sound but knew they wouldn't be the right choice for my HT.

Sorry about your father imagic. My dad doesn't even like music! (outside of a bar.)
My dad liked guns and my mom liked sewing; practically textbook-case

A used 802's start at $4800 to $9000. New is $9000 to $12000
Used 800's start at $9000 to $14000. New is $14000 to $24000
Depending on which model, how new, and location.

All 6 sides are made out of only two solid pieces of wood: side and front.
Some sort of bent laminated plywood with an MDF core; held together with glue and bracing; with a veneer (such as rosewood or piano black gloss).

A perfect clone would be difficult, way beyond my skill and resources, but I'm a Software Engineer by profession, not a wood worker so what do I know...
So I would just buy the Real-Deal, or "suffer" with a nasty self-built imitation with a far uglier looking box and drivers, it 'might' sound decent though... only god knows the outcome of a DIY project built with my hands

This assumes there is a discovered and utilized perfect cone material, there is not, each has its advantages and disadvantages. Every cone material has signature colorations it adds to the reproduction. We may come to that engineering point one day but alas we are not there.

PS harmonics does not equal distortion...

It is clear that the general opinion here is I am selling snake oil and certainly I accept the fact that it is certainly possible, the mind can be a terrible thing sometimes. I accept wooden blocks supporting cables and magic markers on CDs are beyond my "audiophile" tolerance but cone material is not. I have never once thought the hard dome vs soft dome tweeter debate was viewed with such a bent toward voodoo. It has always struck me as one of the sane discussion regarding speaker voicing. I always considered that argument to be even less insane than electrolytic vs poly caps even used series.

One last time, I think the 800D can be bested both objectively and for some (many) subjectively for far less money BUT I still say that replicating it both visually and sound wise as the OP suggested is going to be a very difficult project when the budget nature of DIY is used as a backdrop. And though I am on the EASY side of this proposition (sit on the couch and watch) I would love to see someone prove me wrong. If someone goes to the trouble I PROMISE I will travel anywhere in North America to listen to what visually appears to be a 800D clone if they will allow me and be happy to laud them on their effrts if they get anywhere near the sound.

Building a clone is one thing, building a speaker that meets or beats it, something else entirely. You don't need to use the same drivers as B&W, nor do you have to spend anywhere near as much as what the B&W drivers cost to meet or beat what they're capable of. B&W uses proprietary drivers because at that price point they can afford to, while much of the justification for the price is that they are proprietary. For the retail customer who doesn't know better that carries some cachet; for the DIYer who does know better, it doesn't.
What it comes down to is whether one needs to 'clone' an 800D to get equal or better results than an 800D. IME, no, you don't.

Which one was this? I appreciate the feedback.

Ok it's not a joke. I was being tough on it. And I haven't heard them. It's true. I'm basing what I'm saying on data and comparable companents available. Your last part about poor value is really what I mean by a joke. I feel the speaker makes to many compromises at that price range. Take for instance Revel speakers. At least they put the tweeter in a waveguide. There's a few things I expect at this price range, and one of those is a proper tweeter mount. Why use a seriously expensive tweeter and put it in a silly little pod like that? To me that's a joke.

Ok you got me there. I really only meant on the technical side of things excluding wood work. I sure couldn't build an 800D. Nothing close in fact. But even so, I'm still probably wrong when you consider all DIY'ers. Most couldn't pull off the technical aspects of this design. But I will stick to my guns that if a master cab maker built this thing without counting his costs, and someone with the technical chops selected the drivers and carried out a top tier design (likely take about 200 to 400hrs of time) they would have this thing beat. If even for the fact that they could tailor the design to the exact listening environment.

What? my 'small' 803's can overpower my 9 subwoofers, with Lab clones and iTechs.
In fact, it all but deafens me (if I want it to), at least 105db-C at 10ft. But I have it hooked to 8400watts (of which it only uses 'maybe' 600watts x2, I use it more for high-current and high-voltage 'potential' than 'RMS' watts).

An 802 or 800 would basically be the same, except more mid-bass and less overall distortion.

Have you seen any of the videos I've uploaded in the past few days to the DIY area? Are you saying that that quality of sound and SPL level isn't sufficient?
I am happy with the sound of my lowly 803's, and I thought I was being picky...

Sure you can, not mine BTW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re7rfVk-bHA

Bill

I made my decision to buy the JTR's based on the thread activity, reviews and lots of emails to people that had the JTR Triple 12 LF's. Based on everything I could read it seemed that the JTR's would be better suited for that concert experience I was/am looking for. I'm always kicking around different LCR upgrades.....

Thank you, YouTube. Thank you, Bill.

But why would you spend all that time and money trying to replicate the aesthetics of an ugly speaker?

I think soft dome vs. hard dome tweeter is pretty obvious. Since they have different properties they even measure differently. In fact most competant designers who have used the dayton reference tweeters have noted the difference between the aluminum dome and the silk dome tweeter. However once the entire design changes along with the dome material it changes a little.

Example:
"As for whether I prefer the RS28A or RS28F; I prefer the aluminum dome (RS28A). It's a wonderful tweeter, once you raise the top octave a bit with a mild contour filter (C4 + R1). It's super-clean and never sounds splashy or sibilant. However, this may be a matter of personal taste, and some people prefer the sound of silk-dome tweeters because they tend to sound just a bit more "airy." (Some have publicly stated that they prefer the "F" to the "A.") In that case, they should choose the slik version."

But you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference in cone material alone for a subwoofer, for example.

Is that a conclusion supported by a double-blind test?

Here's an article discussing these issues. A well-engineered tweeter should not impart any sort of 'character' - not enough to measure or to matter. With the Dayton tweeters, their 'character' does not specifically correlate to the material used for the dome. I wonder how those 'competent designers' would do if they had to pick their preferred twtter in double-blind testing.

Edited by imagic - 1/23/13 at 1:38pm

The only absolute difference that can be heard viv a vis different cone, diaphragm or dome materials is when you hit them with a stick. Otherwise you can no more tell what these pistons are made of by their sound than can you those in your car engine by the exhaust tone.

Oh my... Here's the sound the diamond dome makes when it breaks. Probably don't want to hit one with a stick

No problem, he is a blu-ray.com member, he did a set of KEF's too. Amazing skill.

Bill

Or a thumb. What was he thinking?

That second statement I agree with 100%.

General responses not directed at djkest

To the discussion regarding double blind tests on driver material I would say it would be a VERY hard test to accomplish since you would have to have two drivers that had a completely equal response curve and I doubt they exist. One may be able to control the variables via electronics but you certainly couldn't use to passive XOs.

I get that I am trying to sell perceived "snake oil" here and I will accept that. My opinion based on years of listening to speakers tells me different driver cone materials trend to different sound properties. I think it is possible to man handle these trends out BUT as a general rule commercial manufacturers do not do this and neither do the majority of DIYers, in the end it is usually not cost effective, just start with a driver that trends close to the sound you desire. Until the day we get a perfect speaker every speaker colors sound and I would go as far as saying the day we do get that speaker there still will be a lot of the audiophile community that would rather listen to music on speakers with slightly colored sound. Being completely honest there are speakers that I prefer over others that I know have a more colored sound, but like odd order distortion and even order distortion some "colors" are more pleasing than others so I will accept more color when it is more pleasing to me than less color of a nature that makes my teeth grate. It seems to me much of the discussion here seems to presuppose there is some speaker who's sound is perfect and speaks the truth as from Veritas own mouth, it just doesn't exist.

Again though intellectually interesting talking about what speaker can or can't be designed to beat the 800D isn't what the OP ask. I see this all over internet forums. It is like when a guy with a 911S2 asks if he can match the look and performance of a 911TTS for 1/4 of the price difference and 50 people post and say you can kill it for 50k less with a supercharger on a ZR6. The Vette won't look anything like a 911TT and won't perform like it even if it bests the TT in every objective metric.

We all know DIY can produce excellent cost effective results but it is also true (just like my woodworking passion) that if you approach DIY not as a simple "kit building" process as some do, which is 100% fine, the time, equipment and parts developing this skill costs more in the long run than simply buying the best speaker you can find initially and being done with it. I could have bought a house full of furniture made by the best craftsman in the country for what I have spent on woodworking, I could have bought a "real" Maloof rocker for what I spent in specialized tools to build the clone I made, not counting wood (anyone priced 12/4 walnut lately?).

The clone posted is indeed EXCELLENT and really goes to my initial point of cost. The 450 hours even at $10 an hour is significant not counting tooling costs or any parts. The skill, tools and dedication to that project requires a skill set and shop that a tiny number of people have.

To Tuxedo, your design is the Karma-8. I started the project for surrounds for my new HT but ran into some building issues at our vacation house so it was shelved until I can get through all the red tape to add on. It sounds REALLY good for the price in the standard baffle when I mocked up the odd baffle size/shape I wanted to use it was clear it would work but needed some work to get back to where it was in the standard configuration.

Out of curiosity, and possibly OT, what designs can you think of that would equal or better the results of the 800D? Curious to see the price points..

I know I am not Bill but my favorite DIY speaker that I have been able to listen to for any amount of time was built by a close friend of mine that died late last year, it was built almost exactly to a Graveson design. True, I have heard quite a few unconventional designs that do some things MUCH better than a "conventional" speaker but overall I always come back to conventional designs when it is a full sum issue. You can see the design here: http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Jenzen-Accu.htm I would take this design over 800D but they aren't cheap to build.

I swear I didn't PLANT this design, but I couldn't help but laugh when I happen to notice the first line of the text, then again I suppose one could argue Troels is a hack but that would be far from my opinion...

Seems to me he only asked what it takes to replicate it. It's kind of open ended. It's natural to say we can exceed it's performance. Why stop at the level of performance B&W has created. I dunno, just seems restricting to say, the OP asked for a clone. I think if he were around anymore he'd be quite ok beating it. It was just a natural path of the conversation. If he wanted exactly the same performance, then yup, it can't be done. At least not easily.

BTW, the Karma 8 is MTG-90's design Thanks for the compliment though



pbc, that question begs the question, what are the goals/objectives?

I'd have to see FRD, polar and waterfall charts to see what it does, they don't seem to be prominently displayed on the BW site. But for twelve grand what do you expect?

1. Provided that you stay away from the drivers' mechanical limits and resonances are kept out of their pass-bands and/or correctly compensated for by the cross-over, the vast majority of a speaker's sound comes from its total polar response where flat on axis with monotonically increasing directivity sounds natural and deviations from that are less likely to sound right.

You're much,much better off with $300 worth of appropriate sized drivers with appropriate cross-over points (Siegfried Linkwitz's Pluto+ works very well) than over $40,000 without (I've heard the field coil Feastrex drivers and they weren't good, even with the bass off-loaded).

2. The B&W 800 diamond does not look good.

To borrow measurements from the Stereophile review

http://www.stereophile.com/content/bampw-800-diamond-loudspeaker

On-axis:



The resonances at 600Hz and 3-3.5Khz may be noticeable, the 10Khz will be if you still have your hearing in the last octave.

Polar response normalized to on-axis response:



Like most cone and dome designs this is inherently defective, crossing the midrange to tweeter where the midrange is acoustically large and mid-range is acoustically small.

The 4-5KHz directivity minima resulting from that may sound harsh (they compensate a bit with an on-axis dip) and will make the speaker unnecessarily room/placement dependent (if you have the right big room and/or side-wall treatments the compensation might work OK). The excess tweeter energy will also contribute to a bright sound regardless of the room.

There's also a CSD plot showing stored energy and impedance plot if anyone cares to follow the link.

3. A large mid-bass crossed to a wave guide with matching directivity at the cross-over point (Gedlee), acoustically small dipole (Krevosky NaO Note II RS), or perhaps a synergy horn (speakers sound both more natural and more alike as they get flat with monotonic directivity so I'm merely speculating on that one) would be my choice to beat that. If you're fond of conventional cone and dome speakers something with a smaller upper midrange and lower cross-over point to the tweeter would work better if the design wasn't otherwise botched.
Edited by Drew Eckhardt - 1/23/13 at 8:00pm

There goes $1500

You could tell from his wrists that he was intentionally putting lots of pressure on it. I'm surprised they are even THAT strong, I always assumed they were like rice-paper-uber-brittle.

WOW, all that work and then he forgets to add the dimpled port on the bottom and didn't make the front and base black (carbon and blue?). So close, yet so far away.
Otherwise a fantastic job. He used original components for everything except the "box" and binding posts. Way more time/effort and money than what I would be willing to commit.
He must have had a local hi-fi shop with one on display to steal all the measurements "from" because the whole thing appears to be to the exact specifications and parameters of the REAL-DEAL!!!

I can't remember where I read it, but I have heard people that had the 800D's and built Statements and it was pretty unanimous that they liked the Statements better. I will try to find this thread again.

Steroephile did their full battery of tests on the 800D a couple of years ago, not sure if it is online, that is assuming you agree with their methodology as I know some do not.

I don't remember any of the specifics from the tests other than the cumulative spectral delay of the cabinet resonance was so good it made me think their was a printing error at first glance.

Tuxedo I apologize for mixing you up! I just had the Karma 8 down in my notebook as the Grinch, I like the name better and riffed it from his youtube video. I swear I have built one of your designs as I remember your alias but alas I don't have my speakers listed with designers in my notebook so I will have to take a longer look. I have just gotten back into waveguide (used to be horn) designs with my renewed interest in HT. Although I personally have yet to see the light re waveguides being the next best thing in 2 channel I preached horns 15 years ago on Audio Review as THE approach to HT. In the end I am a sucker for almost unrealistic imaging so I spent most of my time on small baffled stand mounts. That meant spending a lot of time translating, the Europeans love their standmounts! North Americans with all our spare real estate seem to be more in favor of honking multi-ways. As I alluded to before to each their own "color of color".
Edited by PsychoM3 - 1/23/13 at 6:03pm