or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Tiny desktop, single driver speaker ideas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tiny desktop, single driver speaker ideas

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
I'm looking to stick a full range driver in a small sealed box for desktop use. I really don't care or even want the bass to go too low because I'll be living in an apartment. How low do most normal songs/movies go? I want to make sure I get all of the voices/effects. I'm thinking a Dayton RS100 in about a 4x8x4 in box. Any ideas? Thanks
post #2 of 44
That one has a breakup around 12khz, and hd related peaking in the lower treble. How about this TB?

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=264-828

I could design a contour filter for you based on your enclosure, which will achieve moderately flat response, if you're interested.

You'll at least want some bass to 80hz, which might be possible, I would have to run a model.
post #3 of 44
An excellent way to do desktop IMO. What's your budget?

If SPL is low, use the eq on your computer to flatten response and LT the bass. I've done this myself and love the results. 4" drivers seem to have the best qualities for this application IMO.
post #4 of 44
Thread Starter 
Ah darn, but that one looks good too. Is the contour filter a small circuit to even out the response? Thanks.
post #5 of 44
Thread Starter 
I was thinking around $50/driver max, but obviously the less expensive the better.
post #6 of 44
post #7 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by edlittle View Post

Ah darn, but that one looks good too. Is the contour filter a small circuit to even out the response? Thanks.

Yes. Placing a driver in an enclosure changes multiple aspects of the frequency response, this is in addition to the already less then flat native response. You will get far better results from a $30 driver with a ccustom filter vs s $50 driver thrown into a box.
post #8 of 44
Thread Starter 
What about some kind of open baffle? Like just the front and bottom of an enclosure? If not, could you help me with that contour filter?
post #9 of 44
Ob is a whole other animal. Sure I can hook you up, probably be tonight.
post #10 of 44
That driver is 4.6" od, would a 5" x 8" x 4" box work?
post #11 of 44
Check out the Mark Audio drivers at Madisound. I have the big Alpair12's (the 1st gen) in SuperPensil12 cabinets and really like them. A LOT of people really like the CHR/CHP-70's and they're very reasonably priced: http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/markaudio/

I would think the CHP-70 (uses a paper cone) for near-field desktop use would be best as it'll be a little bit "softer" sounding than the CHR.

I actually used the RS100-4's and 8's in multiple designs, one for desktop powered by a little Lepai LP-2020A+ http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=310-300 and it was a great little setup. Imaged really nicely too with decent bass for desktop use. I did make them ported with a tiny little 1" port.

Scott
post #12 of 44
Thread Starter 
@Jay, then sealed it is, and those dimensions would work.

@skeeter, I actually have the lepai and was going to use that for powering them. Thanks for the suggestion!
post #13 of 44
No offense Jay, but I wouldn't bother with a filter if the guy is hooked up to a computer. Why not just use the graphic eq built into windows. It's not like it has to be more precise than 1db. Speaking from experience, this works really well. And the MA drivers translate into a really good response in a box and being nearfield, not much BSC is needed.
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

No offense Jay, but I wouldn't bother with a filter if the guy is hooked up to a computer. Why not just use the graphic eq built into windows. It's not like it has to be more precise than 1db. Speaking from experience, this works really well. And the MA drivers translate into a really good response in a box and being nearfield, not much BSC is needed.

MA drivers have a HUGE following over at DIYAudio. People particularly love the Alpair7 and 10 but those are much bigger and more costly. I think the CHP would be an awesome speaker for nearfield use. If I could have speakers at my desk at work I'd probably do those.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

No offense Jay, but I wouldn't bother with a filter if the guy is hooked up to a computer. Why not just use the graphic eq built into windows. It's not like it has to be more precise than 1db. Speaking from experience, this works really well. And the MA drivers translate into a really good response in a box and being nearfield, not much BSC is needed.

If he's not measuring before applying eq then it would just be a crap shoot... Also I dont see why having the most accurate response would be discouraged, component cost will be minor?
post #16 of 44
Thread Starter 
I think that I'd like to put in the filter for hardware EQ and also for experience building circuits, as my major is heading in that direction.
post #17 of 44
If you're planning on doing the TB be aware its out of stock til 6/5 at PE.
post #18 of 44
By the same logic, the circuit you'll be giving him is a crap shoot. I'll assume you're going to trace the manufacturer's FR into PCD and design a passive circuit. Instead, do the exact same thing but give him eq settings. On the right had side of PCD, just toggle on the active XO feature and you're done. Easier to build, no insertion losses, no cost, etc. And I'm not discouraging accurate response, I'm saying it'll be just as good, maybe even better than any passive circuit. With the sealed alignment, he can shelf the bass the same way. And if you wanna get fancy, there's some free eq software available that's got user configurable eq for more accuracy.

If the OP prefers a passive solution, that's cool too.
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by edlittle View Post

I think that I'd like to put in the filter for hardware EQ and also for experience building circuits, as my major is heading in that direction.

Posted while posting. Ok cool. And you can always try both this way. IME, using the computer to do the work is the superior way though, fyi.
post #20 of 44
Thread Starter 
I think that I'll try it both ways just to get my hands dirty and if it doesn't work passively I'll go into the computer and mess around.
post #21 of 44
Oh it'll work passively. I just mean the computer eq is more flexible, easily changed, cheaper, no insertion losses, no build complexity, corrects bass as well, and harder to screw up. That's all.
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

By the same logic, the circuit you'll be giving him is a crap shoot. I'll assume you're going to trace the manufacturer's FR into PCD and design a passive circuit. Instead, do the exact same thing but give him eq settings. On the right had side of PCD, just toggle on the active XO feature and you're done. Easier to build, no insertion losses, no cost, etc. And I'm not discouraging accurate response, I'm saying it'll be just as good, maybe even better than any passive circuit. With the sealed alignment, he can shelf the bass the same way. And if you wanna get fancy, there's some free eq software available that's got user configurable eq for more accuracy.

If the OP prefers a passive solution, that's cool too.

Actually there's Zaph IB, impedance, and ts measurements for that driver. Then there's response modeler to account for baffle effects. Far from a crap shoot when there isnt a Z axis requirement for a single driver wink.gif
post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay1 View Post

Actually there's Zaph IB, impedance, and ts measurements for that driver. Then there's response modeler to account for baffle effects. Far from a crap shoot when there isnt a Z axis requirement for a single driver wink.gif

Same thing Jay. Just do it for the active. You're missing the point. I'm aware of response modeller. You said without measuring, computer eq would be a crap shoot. I'm saying it's no different than what you propose to do. I didn't call what you propose a crap shoot. That's what you called mine.

Take the same frd file you would use for the passive, and work up some eq instead.
post #24 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxedocivic View Post

Same thing Jay. Just do it for the active. You're missing the point. I'm aware of response modeller. You said without measuring, computer eq would be a crap shoot. I'm saying it's no different than what you propose to do. I didn't call what you propose a crap shoot. That's what you called mine.

Take the same frd file you would use for the passive, and work up some eq instead.

Well that's fine. The way I originally read it was he should just put a driver in a box and eq to taste.
post #25 of 44
Box is spec'd with 1/2" material, driver is 5" from the bottom (1" above center). Sealed.



The blue line shows the response if you just put this driver in a box, black is with the filter


This is just a simple BSC circuit to flatten things. A much more complicated and expensive circuit could be used to completely flatten the top end, but it isnt really needed with a speaker like this.



If you want more bass you will need to increase the depth to about 9" minimum for enough cabinet volume. If you think there is to much bass, reduce the resistor value, 5 ohm will give you about 2-3 db more treble.
post #26 of 44
Thread Starter 
Na, I'm fine with a that amount of bass. Would I miss anything such as voices, or just deep explosion/some instruments? And I'm assuming that I just wire that like that between the terminals on the drivers and my binding posts? And I'd get the components at radioshack or something?
post #27 of 44
You will miss all of the sub bass region, but no vocals. Yes to the wiring. You would just twist the leads to the inductor and resistor together and place that between the driver and the + terminal, - goes straight to the terminal. You can get the parts from PE, same place as the driver.
post #28 of 44
Here's the parts for the filter

https://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=255-040

https://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=017-10

In case you want to play with having more treble
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=016-5

You can also try hooking up the filter between the speaker terminal and the amp, this will allow you to quickly compare the effects vs no filter, or various amounts of resistance. You can then install it in the box when you're happy.
post #29 of 44
Thread Starter 
Is this all I need? Can I just use some stripped speaker wire for the connection from the driver to the filter and the filter to the terminals? Also, since the TB's are out of stock, any other recommended drivers? Thanks.
post #30 of 44
It's a too bad these got expensive once neo prices went up. They have some fantastic vocals!
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=264-848

And Jed K made various single and dual driver designs with them over at HTguide.

Also, why the filter? The response can be EQ'ed in windows. Windows can also make an HP filter to protect the driver.
Edited by Looneybomber - 5/6/13 at 8:06pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Tiny desktop, single driver speaker ideas