# PE Tritrix Build ala 'Beefy'



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Hi, I'm listening to my ht system with music, and not liking the output, nor sound of my, :whistling: in wall/ceiling speakers. I will be able to drive each channel at 100w/165w @ 8ohm/4ohm, respectively; or even 275w @ 4ohm with another amp. I was looking at the PE Tritrix and like it, but would want greater power handling/output. I would like to be able to use it in my ht in the future, but also as my 2 channel music speakers (likely with an 80hz xover and sub).

Do you guys think I could substitute this 5.25" Peerless to obtain my goal? , I'd consider four 5.25" drivers if the build would benefit from the addition. Or, do you think I could use this 6.5" Peerless with a similar build, only a larger(wider) cab? Another question I have is whether the tweeter would handle the increased power since it isn't getting 'beefed up' like the mids. I don't want to get into arrays, etc:nono:

To date, I've only modeled subs, so I'm a bit daunted by the prospect of calculating full-range, but is it the same process for modeling ported mids as in subs in winisd? Seems like one of these would be possible and accomplish my goal(s), but need reassurance/help on which is best.


----------



## StereoClarity (Apr 22, 2008)

If you have everything crossed over at 80hz I think those would be able to handle the power fine with their stock configuration. I really wouldn't see them needing to be beefed up that much. How big is the room?


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

StereoClarity said:


> If you have everything crossed over at 80hz I think those would be able to handle the power fine with their stock configuration. I really wouldn't see them needing to be beefed up that much. How big is the room?


Thanks for the reply. I like my music to fill the house at times:bigsmile: and saw that the stock mids were rated kinda low, the peerless have some specs the same, but not all and seem fairly priced right now.
I really want to avoid building a pair and wishing they could handle/output more as I have a bunch of satellite speakers around the home that can't cut it. Here's the room-hence the reason for the Mal-X:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...-465l-14-5hz-maelstrom-x-sonosub-img_1002.jpg

And the description: Rear right is the 'open' wall to downstairs (~800 ft^2) with a rail that is 16ft from the wall, with the entire first floor open to upstairs. It has three doorways, a walkway, and stairs going down at the front. Actual room is oh, 16'lx14'wx8'h. It acts big.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

As with any speaker the crossover is designed specifically for the drivers in the speaker and simply changing to another driver, even if it is a much better much more expensive driver will just make the speaker sound worse.

What attracted you to the Tritrix kit? Is it the price? Because they are a steal, at that price I want to build a pair myself just for fun sometimes. Anyways if you can afford to spend more you should look at some other DIY projects like the Natalie P or the Dayton TMWW if you want something bigger and louder.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Hey Matt,

Yeah, it caught my attention for a several reasons, including the T-line design- the power handling/spl and bass output were my only concerns, as I'm not sure I want to rely on a sub for a nice 2 channel set. Not sure if dual 5.25"s or 6.5"s, or even an 8" will be needed/enough, yet, I don't want monstrous cabs. What do you think about that? (I'm aware of my:coocoo:-ness :rofl 
In reality, I'd likely be looking for something along the lines you suggested. My wallet is pretty thin, so I'm looking around..do you think I could use the PCD on the page that I linked to build a TMW or MTM. I don't think there is really anything that I can demo around here other than the box store:sad:


----------



## seattle_ice (Jul 12, 2006)

evilskillit said:


> As with any speaker the crossover is designed specifically for the drivers in the speaker and simply changing to another driver, even if it is a much better much more expensive driver will just make the speaker sound worse.



+ 1

Full range speakers are much more complicated design wise than subwoofers. You cant just go changing drivers and think it will sound good. Usually, it will ruin the whole thing. 

What is your budget? There are a lot of designs out there, might find something that will suit you.

Darryn


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

I'm thinking about the budget...can a newb to speaker design build their own speakers with various drivers (that have good documentation) using the aforementioned crossover/design calculators? That is, without becoming a mad scientist?:dumbcrazy:


----------



## seattle_ice (Jul 12, 2006)

ironglen said:


> I'm thinking about the budget...can a newb to speaker design build their own speakers with various drivers (that have good documentation) using the aforementioned crossover/design calculators? That is, without becoming a mad scientist?:dumbcrazy:


This is about the simplest way to design and build your own speakers. Although without really measuring the actual response of the drivers in the baffle, you might not get as close as you think to it being good. But sometimes, it does come out well.

http://www.rjbaudio.com/Audiofiles/FRDtools.html


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

I understand where you are coming from Glen. I have a very thin budget and I found that in that case usually you can't afford to build a really awesome set of 2 channel speakers that will play well full range. I ended up building a pair of microbes from RJB audio, and a cheap sub to go with them. They sound great for the price, the low end was lacking but initially clarity and accuracy of reproduction was my main goal and those speakers achieved that goal. I built a cheap sub to go with them and I have a great little 2.1 set up for not a lot of money.

However I already want something bigger, so now I'm saving up to build a pair of Dayton TMWW, unless I change my mind, heh. If I had spent the money I have on my current setup towards something else I'd be 3/5 of the way there. However starting out with a cheaper easier project allowed me a learning curve and gives me an extra set of speakers to use in another room or sell or give to a friend when all is said and done. 

Having said that, my advice to you is to buy the Tritrix kit and build it per the instructions. You can't beat that price for anything. Use it as a learning experience, see if you like DIY. I guarantee they will not totally disappoint you. If you have caught the bug you will want to build something bigger and better anyways, but while you save up for that next pair you'll have the Tritrix to listen to and show off to friends and family.

I'm actually planning on building a set of Tritrix with the PE kit for use in my living room. Then I do something with the Dayton BRS-1 kit that I am using in there right now. And I still haven't put together my Madisound recession buster kit yet, but I think they'll make great desktop monitors for my PC if and when I get them done.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

That sounds like good advice- but I'm looking at a Zaph MMTMM or MTMMM design, but using parts from this NHT surplus sale using the NPT-11-081-1 5.25" Peerless mids along with a nice tweeter I'll pick up at PE or elsewhere. 
Total cost for a pair ~$200


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Wow there are still parts available from the NHT surplus sale. I meant to get some but figured they were all long since gone by now...

Anyways just remember if you change any driver you have to rework the entire speaker and re-engineer the crossover, otherwise it could come out sounding all sorts of funky.

I have a friend right now who is trying to kludge together some speakers using only text book crossovers and no measurement equipment and every time he puts all his speakers together they're too bright, or too muddy, or just plain sound like poop. Every time he does something to try to correct it something else goes wrong.

Its kind of amusing to watch him fuss with it, but I'm glad I'm not him. Unless you want to drop a few hundred dollars on design software and equipment and then spend a couple of years learning how to use it, you're basically just spending money taking shots in the dark.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

There are many nuances to xovers for optimal sound, but I wonder how it is that many diy'ers use a standard 2 or 3 way from PE and are satisfied? I have no doubt many off the shelf speakers, even pricey ones use a 1st order or low quality xover, and thus those reviewers are pleased with improvement, but so many are satisfied, while very few are unhappy. I'm mildly interested:nerd:

At the prices of these drivers I'm looking at, I am probably going to pick up a few, for either a MMTMM 2 way or TMW, TMMW, or TMWW 3 way. I figure if I build it, it will be there while I tinker with the xover. I may try using xovers from an old 3 way cerwin vega. It looks like a nice 2nd order with steel core inductors and L pads for hi and mid and was used with a large woofer and dual mids, so I expect it to have a nice, wide midrange. If it doesn't work, I'll have to learn how to use a design program:sweat::help:

I haven't decided which design to try. The 2 way would be narrow and use (4) 5.25" drivers while the 3 way would be wider and use either 4" or 5.25" mid(s) along with 8" woofer(s). I may add that the drivers will cost me about the same either way- I've read a bit about 3 ways being superior, albeit more complicated.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

This is the last thing I'll post about making up your own design vs building someone elses.

http://undefinition.googlepages.com/diy-faqs-provendesigns

Also you might check out the dayton 8 mtm if you're looking for something a bit more rockin. Its like the tritrix but uses 8" woffers instead. It has been described as a rockin speaker with plenty of bass.
http://www.angelfire.com/music5/audio0/


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Thanks-I'll look it over:T


----------



## fbov (Aug 28, 2008)

ironglen said:


> There are many nuances to xovers for optimal sound, but I wonder how it is that many diy'ers use a standard 2 or 3 way from PE and are satisfied?


The fact is that no DIYers worth their salt uses standard XO's from PE. That's Matt's point. 

Technology has advanced to the point where we design XOs today using computer models and based on detailed speaker impendence and frequency response data for the drivers we've chosed and in the intended enclosure. Sure, there's tweaking once built, but it's usually a matter of taste, not a major changes in sonic character. 

Read undefinition's blurb and all the FRD stuff first. Your approach is viable, it's just not a good place for a novice to start.

HAve fun,
Frank


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

I can see from the article that I really don't want to waste money and time for mediocity. To be completely clear in what I had in mind, I was looking for a design, say MMTMM, and finding drivers that share the same qualities to substitute (near clones) along with building the design's cabinet and specially designed crossovers as well. I thought the drivers, while different, would be a small compromise when all things were considered. I wouldn't expect identical performance, yet, thought it would be a small difference in light of similar driver specifications. I just wanted to be specific in my idea; I do appreciate your input.

The link you gave for the 8" MTM project (which I like) uses another's crossover from a different project rather than a specifically designed one, no? Did the author use a proven cabinet for all of the selected drivers, not just designing it around the woofers? I ask because I'm seeing so many different aspects that influence the sound to some degree, and his project was a bit vague- guess I'll look on PE and try to find the original tested design, but a link would be appreciated if you find one.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

I understand what you're wanting to do. I was hoping to do the same sort of thing before I really go into the hobby. The problem is very few speakers are "pretty much the same" even if they are the same size, look exactly the same and have some similar paramters.

As for the crossover of the Dayton 8" mtm I beleive what the guy means is that he had "Wayne J from speakerbuilder.net" designed the crossover for this guy. Chances are Wayne J redid the crossover for his 5.5" dayton mtm and changed it to handle the 8" drivers. The design is a bit old so I can't find a lot of solid information on it but chances are you could e-mail the Wayne at speakerbuilder or the guy who build the first set of dayton 8 mtm and ask them for further info if you need some questions answered.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Thanks-I was checking current prices on the parts and the post is indeed dated: prices have increased across the board, especially inductors, so the build list would be maybe $50 higher now Looks more and more like I'll be doing nothing soon:sad:


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Ok, looking and thinkingonder: The tritrix looks like a really good deal at that price and with my sub(s), it will definitely get me by for a while and curb my diy desires:dumbcrazy: So I'm really considering it, again:bigsmile:
Is the tritrix a bit too short for ht use? Seems other towers I saw had the tweeter/mid at about 36" for listening position, while the tritrix is 36" at the tippy-top. For better ht use, would it be better to angle the baffle upward a little?


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Yeah if you want to build something but you've only got a few dollars the Tritrix should be a really good project to hold you over for a while.

As for the height you could just build them taller. It is however important that the internal dimensions stay the same. But you can section off some empty space in the bottom to keep the inside the same but have the tweeter higher so that it is right at ear height.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

That's what I was thinking, but wasn't sure if angling it would be equally suitable. I guess elevating the drivers would be more consistent as far as varying listening distances. Have you seen any unique/impressive cabinet treatments or finishes that left an impression?


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Making the cabinet tilt at an angle is also viable. However making the cabinet taller is a lot easier and works at any distance. If you tilt the cabinet back a certain amount then its off if you're too close or too far.

As for finishes, those are personal preferences. Piano gloss black paint is one of the most impressive and also very labor intensive, you can spend months getting it right. Veneer can be easy and look really nice if you're any good at woodworking. Building them from Baltic Birch and staining them can be easy and look quite nice. Or you can just slap a coat of black latex house paint on em and call em done. Its all up to you, your level of skill and how much time you want to spend. Also if you are good at working with wood veneer would probably be easier for you and look nice. If you've done automotive body work or some other type of high quality painting perhapse a nice gloss paint job would be easier for you.

The speakers I built I sanded smooth, put a couple of coats of flat black spray paint on and then a couple of coats of satin polyurethane on them. They look ok from a few feet away, they really blend in with the background, which is what I was going for, because my craftsmanship was far from perfect, so I want them to attract as little attention as possible. 

My 2 12" subs are still in bare MDF. I don't care to finish them, I'd rather spend my time working on making replacements, or another pair of mains. If I were to finish them tho I'd use truck bed liner or black latex paint, because they're pieces of anyways, heheh.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

lol, thanks for the info. I've never used veneer, but I have an excellent router, so I could try that for a change-otherwise, I'll likely go with black since most everything in our room is black (and it's cheaper).

I have a new idea for elevating the tritrix- I got the idea from this site Really cool stuff here. If you scroll down to the 6th pic, the speaker on the right gave me the idea to build the tritrix with a lower chamber for a side-mounted sub-driver. In this way I can elevate the highs/mids to listening level while both utilizing the space and reinforcing the lows of the tritrix. I can use the left/right channels from my amp for the highs/mids, and drive the lower sub-driver with another 2 channel amp using the sub out (lpf @80hz). The only 'problem' I have is to create enough volume for a sub-driver, I need about 24" of lower cab height, which would make the dome tweeter about 44" off the floor- a bit higher than other mains 

I've seen, so the main questions I have are:

1) whether inverting the tritrix layout would have an effect on sound quality. I ask this because the t-line would then be downward rather than upward facing. Note that no change in the tritrix enclosure would occur other than inverting it.

2) whether such a sealed design must have eq ability to blend with the tritrix above (the 285w/ch amp has separate gain adjustments). I like that by building sealed, I negate the need for a hpf, which simplifies things, I hope.

3) would a small-volume (.9ft^3) sealed 12" be preferable to, say 8" or 10" with the same volume, or would it be overkill. Reason I ask is I had planned on building a couple sonosubs with elemental design E3.12's, but the potential in this is more exciting.:dumbcrazy:


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Heh, I keep having all the same ideas. Using the extra space in the bottom for subs is always an appealing idea. I've considered doing the same thing with many designs. The fact that your receiver has an 80hz low pass output makes this even more appealing since you can just buy one 2 channel amp and drive both subs with it. Every time I have looked into it I had thought I would have to use plate amps, which would make it cost prohibitive for me.

The Dayton HO 10 or 12 would work decently in a 1 cu ft sealed chamber, however I have a better idea. Instead of making the transmission line Tritrix, go to curts web page. http://www.geocities.com/cc00541/Tritrix_pg_1.html And build the bookshelf sized Tritrix, make them either sealed or ported and then you have a much larger area in the bottom of your cabinet for your subwoofer. After all, the transmission line, as far as I know, is just to increase bass output. If you're running subs in the bottom you don't really need that. The smaller bookshelf cabinet, in a sealed or ported orientation should be more than sufficient to play flat down to 80hz. Some people even design bookshelf speakers with bass speakers as the speaker stands. Look at Roman's web site http://rjbaudio.com/projects.html, he has several projects that are bookshel speakers with subs or bassbins as stands.

As long as you keep the internal volume right you can also do something like slope the back wall if you're good enough at woodworking so you get more voulme and depth at the bottom for a bigger, wider sub. Or you could step the thing as you go down the back so the top bookshelf speaker section is 1 depth and the bottom sub section is another depth. Your options are endless.

People here are sub experts, they can make some good sugguestions as to what would be a good way to do the lower portion of the cabinet with the subs, but I would look into the dayton 10 or 12 inch high fidelity line as they are reasonably priced and have yet to disappoint me.

If you end up pulling this off let me know how it goes as I am very interested in how this turns out and may want to follow in your footsteps for my living room speakers.

edit* After looking at Curts notes on the tritrix the thing probably doesn't need porting to play with subs as ported the thing has an f3 of like 50hz so the port would be mostly wasted, but you can do more research and make your own decisions if you end up wanting to go that route instead.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

Thanks for the link-I'll check it out! I already have ED E3.12 12" subs that I had planned to build sonosubs, that I'd power with a samson servo 550 (285w/ch 4ohm), but this may be a better use for me. I had questions about the sub portion, so I posted here I'm only going to do this right, else I'll just do the sonosubs (which btw incorporate a cooool idea). If I could, I'd build the sono with the mid/highs up top, but the sono is 50" high already.


----------



## 1Michael (Nov 2, 2006)

Here is a project I did for $300
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/diy-speakers/18814-budget-8-dayton-classic-mtm-rocks.html


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

That looks great! Did it cost you $300 complete? I'm was thinking I might incorporate a couple 12" subs below since I already have them. The MTM with 8" drivers might be a better idea though, I'll have to think this one through. 

What amp/power are you using with this pair? What exactly are you planning to do with active xovers? I was looking at that possibility as well as I have extra amp channels currently unused and it seems like a good way to allow for growth/improvements. Besides passive xovers have increased in cost (copper inductors!)!


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Yeah, I know nothing about elemental design subs. I don't know if you could get a big enough enclosure under a bookshelf to make them work very well. I could model it for you but plenty of people here are probably already on top of that.

As for putting the Tritrix bookshelf portion on top of a 50" sonosub, you could do it but you'd have to get the angle just right so that they were pointing at your ears when you were on the couch. Then if you moved any thing it would all be off and out of whack. Then there is still the issue that the sound would be coming from a fairly sharp angle to your ears, which may sound odd compared to coming from almost right in front of you, tho it might not make that much difference. I'm sure somewhere the answer to that question exists, you'd just have to find it.

Tho I guess having them that high and angled down towards you is probably no different than having ceiling mounted speakers pointed down at you, which seems to work just fine, I guess you just need the right angle. Good luck in any event. :T

Edit* Yeah Michael, your thread was the one that made me think of the Dayton Classic 8" MTM. I should have directed him to you as well. I just linked some of the build pages I found because they were the first things I could run across.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

evilskillit said:


> Making the cabinet tilt at an angle is also viable. However making the cabinet taller is a lot easier and works at any distance. If you tilt the cabinet back a certain amount then its off if you're too close or too far.


Quick question. This shouldnt matter should it, as your ears dont detect/locate sound in the vertical plain in the same way they do in the horizontal plain. 

I use a pair of Bose 206 speakers up front, but placed vertically to cancel out the effect of the angled driver ( I got a pair of right handed ones, and the price was so good I accepted this fault and worked around it), and I have to say I cant tell any sound is being sent upwards into my room.


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Well tweeters usually sound best when they are pointed straight at your ears. The greater the angle between your ears and the tweeter and the less flat and accurate the frequency response will be, at least in most speakers, and universally after you get more than 10-20% out from a straight shot the frequency response will get all wacky. This is especially important in a 2 channel system. In surround sound systems there are so many different sound sources it probably doesn't matter as much.

This link shows frequency response graphs at varying degrees of off axis listening from the tweeter. 
http://www.nordsp.se/aurus/pm-lob.html

You can see the upper range getting rougher and dropping off more and more the more off axis you get. This will probably cause the highs to sound muffled or muddy compared to listen more straight on.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Thats interesting cheers. I did measure the response of my Bose speakers and they were incredibly flat compared to a few other Ive tried so far, but the kicker is they dont use a tweeter. This might be why they dont go all wacky. Out of interest, does your point apply the same for dome and ribbon tweeters?


----------



## evilskillit (Oct 7, 2008)

Well different speakers have different off axis response. Ribbons usually have a tall narrow sweet spot I think. Domes probably project in a cone. Some speakers that have messed up response straight on benefit from listening off axis, and some really nicely designed speakers don't suffer as badly from listening off axis as much as others. If you are more interested I would sugguest googling it and looking at some people's speaker measurements and see what conclusions you can draw yourself.

Zaph has measured a ton of speakers and I believe posts his measurements from "on center" as well as a few various points off axis. You could go to his page and dig around a bit at http://www.zaphaudio.com/


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

Cheers, I'll do some reading :T


----------

