Just a question...
I've seen where some people "Custom Build" their soffit's and speaker monitors into them. In other words, instead of trying to put in a prefab'd set of monitors (Genelec, mackie, JBL, etc, etc), I've seen several studios where they build the box (right into the soffit), and put in custom drivers, crossovers, etc.
Any suggestions, recommendations, or cost effectivness to this approach? As well as sounding great.
Thanks,
Aaron
Custom Built Soffit's ?
Moderator: Aaronw
-
Aaronw
- Moderator
- Posts: 1771
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:06 am
- Location: Music City
- Contact:
-
genericperson
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:12 pm
- Location: NYC area USA
-
Chris
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Custom monitors
Aaron.
After listening to and considering many commercially available options, I've now decided to go this very route myself with my monitors-to-be. My studio will be no-compromise in almost every other aspect, and since budget is limited, I'm pretty sure I will get most bang for the buck with a set of 'home made' monitors applying drivers normally used in VERY expensive speakers. As I'm new to speaker building (yes, I am self confident), It'll take LOTS more education before I actually start building, but here's my plan so far:
IMO, the trickiest part of speaker building is the merger of the drivers through the crossover circuitry, especially in three- (or more) -way speakers. I've escaped this problem with a very classy active solution, using a digital xover (Behringer DCX2496) which splits the 24/96 signal from my digital mixer into three stereo signals. The DCX allows for easy trimming of xover freqs and slopes, equalization, plus miniscule time alignment between bands (to compensate for driver alignment if need be). After that, the signals are converted to analog and go to three stereo power amplifiers which drive the treble, mid and bass drivers separately and independently. This way, the amplifiers will have no other circuitry to 'worry' about, only the drivers themselves, resulting in a substantial loss of distortion etc.
Another tricky part is constructing a ported system, especially with a front facing port, which You'll need for soffit mounting. That's why I'll go for a sealed enclosure system.
Here's another reason: speed. A sealed enclosure is much easier to get right for a novice, but it also has generally better transient response. Punch. Well defined bass. Me likes.
I'm also going for a highly damped, dry, unresonating, 'unforgiving' character, which to me is essential for studio monitoring. It isn't as essential to all manufacturers, mind You. Sure, it's great to try Your mixes in an average consumer speaker as well, but make Your crucial choices with proper maximum definition tools is what I say.
One of the compromises commercial speaker manufactures face is that of size, which affects frequency response extention in the bass region. I (like many who consider soffit mounting) can make my speakers very large if need be (and probably will). I'll probably also put the mids and trebles in one box and the bass drivers in separate enclosures right next to them or below to minimise resonance interference.
The drivers I'm currently considering are RAVEN R1 (or R2) for treble and Focal 5W4211 for the mid. I haven't decided on bass drivers yet. The RAVEN is a ribbon tweeter with great FR extending into some 35kHz. The major benefit lies in its transient response, though, since the diaphragm is practically weightless. Distortion is also veeeery low. I might go for a planar tweeter instead of a ribbon, as they're less sensitive but exhibit similar characteristics. The Focal mids have a very flat response in the pass band and I'll probably use two of those in a Mid-Tweeter-Mid (D'appolito) configuration.
The woodwork in itself is equally important. Cabinets have to be right size, rigid and as unresonating as possible, but there's loads of information on this on the web, although You probably won't get away with less than substantial handiness...
I'm guesstimating that my system will cost about (quick conversion from Swedish kroner...) somewhere between €2000 and €4000 (probably the latter), of course not counting the work hours I'll put into it myself. It largely depends on what power amps I'll choose eventually. It is my firm belief that I'll end up with monitors far superior to anything commercially available for the same amount of money.
As far as the actual soffit mounting is concerned, this won't be any different from soffit mounting any other monitor. Remember, the cabinets need to be physically decoupled from the surrounding wall to minimise resonance, so building the speakers straight into the wall would be a rather bad idea IMO (if that's what You mean).
Any thoughts from 'master' barefoot?
/Chris
After listening to and considering many commercially available options, I've now decided to go this very route myself with my monitors-to-be. My studio will be no-compromise in almost every other aspect, and since budget is limited, I'm pretty sure I will get most bang for the buck with a set of 'home made' monitors applying drivers normally used in VERY expensive speakers. As I'm new to speaker building (yes, I am self confident), It'll take LOTS more education before I actually start building, but here's my plan so far:
IMO, the trickiest part of speaker building is the merger of the drivers through the crossover circuitry, especially in three- (or more) -way speakers. I've escaped this problem with a very classy active solution, using a digital xover (Behringer DCX2496) which splits the 24/96 signal from my digital mixer into three stereo signals. The DCX allows for easy trimming of xover freqs and slopes, equalization, plus miniscule time alignment between bands (to compensate for driver alignment if need be). After that, the signals are converted to analog and go to three stereo power amplifiers which drive the treble, mid and bass drivers separately and independently. This way, the amplifiers will have no other circuitry to 'worry' about, only the drivers themselves, resulting in a substantial loss of distortion etc.
Another tricky part is constructing a ported system, especially with a front facing port, which You'll need for soffit mounting. That's why I'll go for a sealed enclosure system.
Here's another reason: speed. A sealed enclosure is much easier to get right for a novice, but it also has generally better transient response. Punch. Well defined bass. Me likes.
I'm also going for a highly damped, dry, unresonating, 'unforgiving' character, which to me is essential for studio monitoring. It isn't as essential to all manufacturers, mind You. Sure, it's great to try Your mixes in an average consumer speaker as well, but make Your crucial choices with proper maximum definition tools is what I say.
One of the compromises commercial speaker manufactures face is that of size, which affects frequency response extention in the bass region. I (like many who consider soffit mounting) can make my speakers very large if need be (and probably will). I'll probably also put the mids and trebles in one box and the bass drivers in separate enclosures right next to them or below to minimise resonance interference.
The drivers I'm currently considering are RAVEN R1 (or R2) for treble and Focal 5W4211 for the mid. I haven't decided on bass drivers yet. The RAVEN is a ribbon tweeter with great FR extending into some 35kHz. The major benefit lies in its transient response, though, since the diaphragm is practically weightless. Distortion is also veeeery low. I might go for a planar tweeter instead of a ribbon, as they're less sensitive but exhibit similar characteristics. The Focal mids have a very flat response in the pass band and I'll probably use two of those in a Mid-Tweeter-Mid (D'appolito) configuration.
The woodwork in itself is equally important. Cabinets have to be right size, rigid and as unresonating as possible, but there's loads of information on this on the web, although You probably won't get away with less than substantial handiness...
I'm guesstimating that my system will cost about (quick conversion from Swedish kroner...) somewhere between €2000 and €4000 (probably the latter), of course not counting the work hours I'll put into it myself. It largely depends on what power amps I'll choose eventually. It is my firm belief that I'll end up with monitors far superior to anything commercially available for the same amount of money.
As far as the actual soffit mounting is concerned, this won't be any different from soffit mounting any other monitor. Remember, the cabinets need to be physically decoupled from the surrounding wall to minimise resonance, so building the speakers straight into the wall would be a rather bad idea IMO (if that's what You mean).
Any thoughts from 'master' barefoot?
/Chris
The truth is out there.
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
I don't recall the designer, but I've even seen a couple studios where they went so far as building concrete soffits with holes specifically cut for the drivers. I believe they were dual 12's (JBL or TAD?) and a TAD wooden horn in a MTM arrangement.
Personally, I'm not a fan of this approach of integrating the soffit with the speaker cabinet. Why would you want to lock yourself and your studio into a particular monitor design? An oversized soffit opening where the baffle can be altered to accommodate various sized speakers is much more flexible and sensible. Then, if you want to build the cabinets out of concrete, by all means - go for it!
As far as building you own monitors, this is a great idea! You can get much more bang for the buck this way. However, if you don't have much experience designing speakers, I would strongly recommend working from well established plans. There is a lot more to it than choosing great components.
Chris,
I looked at the DCX2496 specs and I don't think this will be very good solution. The final acoustic response is a combination of the driver responses and the electrical response. Since the drivers have their own complex roll-offs, the required electrical response is almost never a simple Butterworth, L-R, or other alignment like those available in this unit. What you really need is a unit that can cascade filters with arbitrarily variable f3's and Q's. This is the only way to accurately tailor the resulting acoustic response. I don't know of any commercially available DSP units that can do this yet. If such a unit does become available, I've be one of the first using it!
Thomas
Personally, I'm not a fan of this approach of integrating the soffit with the speaker cabinet. Why would you want to lock yourself and your studio into a particular monitor design? An oversized soffit opening where the baffle can be altered to accommodate various sized speakers is much more flexible and sensible. Then, if you want to build the cabinets out of concrete, by all means - go for it!
As far as building you own monitors, this is a great idea! You can get much more bang for the buck this way. However, if you don't have much experience designing speakers, I would strongly recommend working from well established plans. There is a lot more to it than choosing great components.
Chris,
I looked at the DCX2496 specs and I don't think this will be very good solution. The final acoustic response is a combination of the driver responses and the electrical response. Since the drivers have their own complex roll-offs, the required electrical response is almost never a simple Butterworth, L-R, or other alignment like those available in this unit. What you really need is a unit that can cascade filters with arbitrarily variable f3's and Q's. This is the only way to accurately tailor the resulting acoustic response. I don't know of any commercially available DSP units that can do this yet. If such a unit does become available, I've be one of the first using it!
Thomas
Thomas Barefoot
Barefoot Sound
Barefoot Sound
-
Aaronw
- Moderator
- Posts: 1771
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:06 am
- Location: Music City
- Contact:
Thomas,
You just might have to be the first one to design one...
Can you point me to some links and diagrams of the "oversized" soffit opening and the best approach for construction assembly of the soffits? And also the best way to fill the space for a monitor that is smaller than the soffit?
Thanks,
Aaron
You just might have to be the first one to design one...
Can you point me to some links and diagrams of the "oversized" soffit opening and the best approach for construction assembly of the soffits? And also the best way to fill the space for a monitor that is smaller than the soffit?
Thanks,
Aaron
-
serge instrumental
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: North of Montreal, Quebec
Well I was about thinking about something...barefoot wrote: I looked at the DCX2496 specs and I don't think this will be very good solution. The final acoustic response is a combination of the driver responses and the electrical response. Since the drivers have their own complex roll-offs, the required electrical response is almost never a simple Butterworth, L-R, or other alignment like those available in this unit. What you really need is a unit that can cascade filters with arbitrarily variable f3's and Q's. This is the only way to accurately tailor the resulting acoustic response. I don't know of any commercially available DSP units that can do this yet. If such a unit does become available, I've be one of the first using it!
Thomas
I have a Protools system...
You're talking about cascading filters at certain frequencies and I suppose that means that you need different slopes too???
So by putting a set of filters inside ProTools(no real limit for the purpose)
it could be possible to equalize each driver(using different outs from the interface) separately.
So I could make a setup that is "finely tuned" for my monitors isn't it?
-
serge instrumental
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: North of Montreal, Quebec
-
Chris
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:38 am
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
"What you really need is a unit that can cascade filters with arbitrarily variable f3's and Q's."
Yes... Well, to me it looks like the DCX in fact does this (no?). Crossovers aside, it has the following eq:s available, insertable both on the inputs and each output (number of filters available for each insert depends on what xover slopes are used):
LP 6/12dB/octave
BP Q 0.1 - 10.0
HP 6/12 dB/octave
Cutoff freq is 20 - 20kHz for all. ("Hey! What about 20k - 48k!?!")
Xovers available are:
Butterworth 6 - 48dB/oct
Bessel 12/24dB/oct
LR 12 - 48dB/oct
The manual doesn't specify the exact numbers, but using 48dB slopes obviously reduces the number of filters available. It's not a budget crushing price tag on the DCX though, so one could of course use two in a chain, one purely filtering the stereo input and one splitting the signal + additional filtering. Or maybe even four units - one to split and three to tailor the response of each band.
You still don't think this will be sufficient?
Also, it seems quite possible to me to find drivers with enough overlap in their passbands to evade their inherent roll-offs almost completely, especially with a high order xover slope. The Ravens and Focals i mentioned overlap quite nicely all the way between 2-9kHz for example.
Aaron. Here's the thread with barefoot's soffit solution:
http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=718
Of course, there's lots more in other posts as well. Search and thou shalt find...
/Chris
Yes... Well, to me it looks like the DCX in fact does this (no?). Crossovers aside, it has the following eq:s available, insertable both on the inputs and each output (number of filters available for each insert depends on what xover slopes are used):
LP 6/12dB/octave
BP Q 0.1 - 10.0
HP 6/12 dB/octave
Cutoff freq is 20 - 20kHz for all. ("Hey! What about 20k - 48k!?!")
Xovers available are:
Butterworth 6 - 48dB/oct
Bessel 12/24dB/oct
LR 12 - 48dB/oct
The manual doesn't specify the exact numbers, but using 48dB slopes obviously reduces the number of filters available. It's not a budget crushing price tag on the DCX though, so one could of course use two in a chain, one purely filtering the stereo input and one splitting the signal + additional filtering. Or maybe even four units - one to split and three to tailor the response of each band.
You still don't think this will be sufficient?
Also, it seems quite possible to me to find drivers with enough overlap in their passbands to evade their inherent roll-offs almost completely, especially with a high order xover slope. The Ravens and Focals i mentioned overlap quite nicely all the way between 2-9kHz for example.
Aaron. Here's the thread with barefoot's soffit solution:
http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=718
Of course, there's lots more in other posts as well. Search and thou shalt find...
/Chris
The truth is out there.
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
I didn't see that. Yeah, as long as you can cascade two or more LPs or HPs on a single channel, then it might just work.Chris wrote:Yes... Well, to me it looks like the DCX in fact does this (no?). Crossovers aside, it has the following eq:s available, insertable both on the inputs and each output (number of filters available for each insert depends on what xover slopes are used):
LP 6/12dB/octave
BP Q 0.1 - 10.0
HP 6/12 dB/octave.......
You still don't think this will be sufficient?
Also, it seems quite possible to me to find drivers with enough overlap in their passbands to evade their inherent roll-offs almost completely, especially with a high order xover slope. The Ravens and Focals i mentioned overlap quite nicely all the way between 2-9kHz for example.
A 4th order L-R crossover needs about 1.5 octaves of flat overlap on either side of the crossover. So the standard crossovers probably wont work very well.
Thomas
Last edited by barefoot on Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thomas Barefoot
Barefoot Sound
Barefoot Sound
-
barefoot
- Moderator
- Posts: 554
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 4:49 am
- Location: Portland Oregon
- Contact:
I don't have PT, but I have tried this with VST plugins on my system. Unfortunately, I found none of the filters truly worked as advertised. Even my Waves Masters EQs didn't seem to give exactly the responses I expected from the settings.serge instrumental wrote: Well I was about thinking about something...
I have a Protools system...
You're talking about cascading filters at certain frequencies and I suppose that means that you need different slopes too???
So by putting a set of filters inside ProTools(no real limit for the purpose)
it could be possible to equalize each driver(using different outs from the interface) separately....
Yeah, this is certainly a viable approach, but you need to find accurately tunable filters. Maybe some of the PT plugins are more exacting?
Thomas
Thomas Barefoot
Barefoot Sound
Barefoot Sound
-
serge instrumental
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:03 pm
- Location: North of Montreal, Quebec
Hard to say when you don't have the equipement to measure those EQ settings...
I was just posting some suggestions because of my setup.
I know that FilterBank have really good(transparent) EQ but do they reflect in the real life the display on the computer screen? I really don't know!
But this could be a tweakable solution at least (maybe not!)
The beauty of this setup is total recall.
I was just posting some suggestions because of my setup.
I know that FilterBank have really good(transparent) EQ but do they reflect in the real life the display on the computer screen? I really don't know!
But this could be a tweakable solution at least (maybe not!)
The beauty of this setup is total recall.