[Grandarf]

If you were to build yourself a pair of 2 way speakers, mainly for two channel audio, what would you rather do?


1) Build a pair of ported tower speakers

2) Build a pair of ported tower speakers with a sub

or 3) Build a pair of sealed tower speakers with a sub?

 

[M NEWMAN]

Depends on the room, music type, amplification and how loud you want it to get. Great examples of every configuration you listed could be made. The better question is, what do "you" want to do, since there's not really a whole lot of difference between any of the types you posted other than amplification/crossover methodology.

 

[bpape]

Exactly. For me it would be:


4) Build a set of monitors and a sub.

 

[Bill Lummus]

TWO subs.


Much better than one.

 

[bpape]

Nice Bill! Thanks for bringing this back into proper perspective.

 

[REWJR]

I do not own an anechoic chamber so therefore i would no try to build my own speakers . If you are looking for best sound for the buck why not compare Canadian brands against cost of building your own .


I would consider tower models and a sub or two as I like deep epic bass.

 

[BruceD]

I chose 2-way tower speakers with a passive radiator (essentially ported), added a sub and an electronic crossover between the towers and sub. This could also accomodate stereo subs if desired.


The key is selecting a crossover frequency (60Hz for me) that was at least an octave above the towers f3 (my towers had an f3 of 32Hz). This essentially takes the towers low frequency acoustic rolloff characteristics out of the crossover equation.


The external electronic crossover uses symmetrical 24dB/octave slopes with a Linkwitz-Riley configuration.


Trying to get a smooth transition between towers and sub is extremely difficult when the acoustic rolloff of the towers gets added to the mix, making a symmetrical low-pass/high-pass filter setup (aka a crossover) difficult to achieve.