# Quality vs Cost



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

Something I've been thinking about lately...

With the good bit of time I've looked at DIY subwoofers, you can really outperform just about any commercially built sub out there for the price of a moderately priced commercial sub if you DIY. 

Question is, Would the same thing hold true for other speakers? 

I've listened to some of the better commercially made subwoofers and even the extreme subs ($5000 and up) can be bested in the DIY field for almost pennies on the dollar. Could someone build, say, something compared to the B&W 800 series or maybe even higher end like the Wilson speakers for substantially less money? I don't think I would mind the effort of building speakers like this, but I believe the learning curve would be much higher than that of building your own subwoofer. Is it easy to get a 5.1 or 7.1 system's main speakers to be timbre matched easily? 

Theres a ton of questions that I could go on and on about. Just seems that most DIYers start out on subs and might move on to a 2 channel set of speakers, but fewer have actually jumped up to a full surround system. If I go this route, I would want a fairly large center channel (at least 3 way), floorstanding mains, and dipole surrounds being I listen mostly to movies.


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

I believe that yes, you can build an entire system for less than a reasonable sounding commercial product. You can't beat the price of a "Home Theater in a Box", but you can really stretch your dollar if you are going for decent speakers.

There are two main types of audio DIYers;

1) The mothers of necessity folks.

2) The bleeding edge types.

If you are a member of the first group, you want good sound, but don't want (or can't afford) to pay top dollar, for a good system. The latter group like to build unique systems, build systems that can be made from components that cost less than dinner at Burger King, systems that can destroy small towns using a 3 watt amplifier and the like. The folks in group 2 love to share what they do 'cause thats half the fun.

If you are a group 1 DIYer, your best bet is to find tried and true plans and copy them, as you will get the most consistent results. One of the most challenging part of a full range speaker for the DIYer is designing the xover (at least it is for me) buying drivers and designing/building boxes are fairly simple when compared to the tools, knowledge and experience needed to design a good xover.

As a DIYer, I fall between these two categories, in that I like to play around with the bleeding edge (but don't have the skills to do anything really unique) but in the end I am more of a group 1 type.

Having said all this, I have just built a center channel, and I have the drivers to build four floor standing speakers to match it. My main concern is the xover since this is a completely home grown system.

Paul


----------



## Darren (Apr 20, 2006)

My entire system is DIY including one of my amps. I spent a fraction of the cost of buying comprable commercial speakers. If you are handy and have the motivation you can have an extremely good system in DIY.


----------



## Rodny Alvarez (Apr 25, 2006)

Check out Steve's DIY!! they look pretty good:T 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10443279&&#post10443279


http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=15323


----------



## BoomieMCT (Dec 11, 2006)

Actually, with speakers in the $100 - $200 (each) range I find it is hard to beat some commercial offerings with DIY. Take AV123's x-cs for example. To make the same quality speaker using, say, the Dayton Reference line would cost about $50 for the woofers, $40 for the tweeter and another $40 for the crossover parts. Add in the MDF for the enclosure, binding posts, grills and incidentals and you would be hard pressed to meet the $140 price point.

I think the DIY advantage with speakers comes from
1) Floor standing speakers because of the cost savings on making big enclosures.
2) Crazy specialty products that just aren't made commercially.
3) Speakers with really complicated (obsessive?) crossovers.
4) People who just like to make their own stuff.

As a side note, I have also noticed a huge benefit to making pro-sound equipment DIY.


----------



## Darren (Apr 20, 2006)

www.gr-research.com has many designs, the AV-2 for $300 a pair. The AV-2 will blow away many speakers costing $1000 or more. It all depends on your listening taste etc.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

My comments will probably mirror a lot of what aceinc mentioned..

I think there are several reasons why subs are popular with DIYers. 

Because of their size, they're hard and expensive to store and ship. 
Because they don't sell as many, the economies of scale don't kick in as much and therefore they cost more to produce. On top of that, you have a least two layers of high profit margins (from the both the store and the speaker manufacturer)
Finally, they're relatively easy to build and design. Pick a driver, pick a plate amp, stick the numbers in WinISD and you're ready to go.

Now, to some of the questions that were raised.

Can you design and build a set of speakers that will equal in sonic quality that of a hi-end commercial product? 
IMO, yes​
Is it easy? 
IMO, only if you have some experience/time/money/patience.​
The comment above applies to designing a speaker from the ground up.

Besides finding drivers that mate well together, getting the crossover to work well is supposed to be ridiculously hard. I'm going to be building a new set soon, but I'm going to cheat and go with an active crossover system so I don't have to design a crossover.

That being said, there are several kits out there that are available for the folks with the time and skills to put together a system. For example, in the truly hi-end, the Orion, when put in a big enough room, is supposed to be a religious experience. This is primarily a 2.0 or 2.1 system. I can't remember if he's developed a center channel version. 

A couple of other designs that are supposed to be top notch include the Thor and Odin kits from Seas. They seem to get a lot of accolades. 

If you're looking for other higher end kits, I'd check out the offerings at Zalytron or Madisound. 

Good luck.

JCD


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

I would love to try active xovers, but in HT you need at least 5 channels of xover, 10-15 channels of amplifier, and cables galore.

Paul


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

aceinc said:


> I would love to try active xovers, but in HT you need at least 5 channels of xover, 10-15 channels of amplifier, and cables galore.
> 
> Paul


For a 5.1, I agree, it'd be pricey, but maybe not as bad as you might think. Assuming a 2 channel/driver speaker, you'd need 3 stereo active crossovers and 5 additional channels of an amplification (since you'd have to have 5 for a passive crossover anyway). 

That would be something along the lines of 3x$130 + 2.5x$150 
For an incremental additional cost of $765. Granted, nothing to sneeze at, but not as bad as one might think on first reflection.

Assumptions: The crossover I figured into the above was a Rane AC22 that can handle the hi and low crossover for two speakers. The amp I choose for above is a Behringer A500. Again, it handles 2 channels. Since you would have to use 2.5 for a normal 5 channel system, you'd need only another 2.5 for an active system. Also, additional cabling shouldn't be that bad either -- I'm of the camp that doesn't spend much on my cables, so maybe an extra $100 tops for the extra interconnects and speaker wire.

Again, it's not inexpensive, but it might not be as bad as you think.

JCD


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

Not that bad, but I am building three way speakers, and since I didn't plan for it whilst rebuilding my living room, wiring would be a bear. I too do not buy into the high end cable thing, perhaps it's my unsophisticated aural palate, but I haven't had that particular auditory epiphany.

The good news on the speakers I'm building, active xoverwise, while I'm not using multiple inputs, I am building a separate space for the xover network behind a removable panel. I can open the panel, and add additional binding posts without major speaker surgery.

<Pie-in-the-sky>
What would be interesting for DIYers would be a 2-3 channel plate amplifier with built in xover, and 5 freq parametric equalizer on each channel. That coupled with software like rew that would automatically adjust the freqs on the xover/equalizer, and you could use most any drivers and get decent sound.
</Pie-in-the-sky>

Paul


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

All really good answers. Here's another question...

Do the high end speaker companies make their own drivers most of the time or do they get their drivers from some other place? If so, What are the signs/parameters to look for for good drivers (tweeters, woofers, mid range drivers, etc)? I'm fairly versed in the subwoofer game, and yes, it seems pretty easy now that I've done quite a bit of research on it. 

Does anyone know companies that you can hire to have build drivers to your specs?


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

brandonnash said:


> All really good answers. Here's another question...
> 
> Do the high end speaker companies make their own drivers most of the time or do they get their drivers from some other place? If so, What are the signs/parameters to look for for good drivers (tweeters, woofers, mid range drivers, etc)? I'm fairly versed in the subwoofer game, and yes, it seems pretty easy now that I've done quite a bit of research on it.
> 
> Does anyone know companies that you can hire to have build drivers to your specs?



I'm pretty sure that most of the bigger companies design and build their own drivers. For example, Paradigm does this. Dynaudio at one time used to offer their drivers for DIY'ers, but have stopped this practice (although, you can get them for repairs I think). Usher has some hi-end speakers that I'm pretty sure you can get the drivers for.. so in the end, I think there are some of both. Probably most of the truly hi-end either build their own, or they contract with a company that builds them to meet their specifications. Depending on volume, I'd assume any of the driver manufacturers you can buy drivers directly from would be willing to build to spec -- but, as a small time player, that list is probably REALLY short.

As for the T/S specs of a good vs bad driver -- I think this is a case of there being no good or bad, but just what T/S specs fits the needs of the system you're trying to design/build. I'd argue two drivers with the same T/S specs will not sound the same, so you can't make a "This is bad or this is good" statement, although you can make some generalizations. For example, a driver with a higher Qts will sound "looser" than one with a low Qts.

JCD


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

JCD said:


> As for the T/S specs of a good vs bad driver -- I think this is a case of there being no good or bad, but just what T/S specs fits the needs of the system you're trying to design/build. I'd argue two drivers with the same T/S specs will not sound the same, so you can't make a "This is bad or this is good" statement, although you can make some generalizations. For example, a driver with a higher Qts will sound "looser" than one with a low Qts.


I've literally no experience with diy main speakers, so I'm kind of asking this blindly. There has to be something different with each driver. I know a bit about the T/S specs from subwoofers, wondering what makes one driver better than the other? What makes a $1000 tweeter worth that much?


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

brandonnash said:


> What makes a $1000 tweeter worth that much?



Ahh, now I _think _I understand the question -- I can't list all of the variables, but I can come up with a couple.

Consistency -- even an expensive driver model will have T/S specs that can vary measurably between one driver and another.
The general build and quality of parts will also play into the distortion/sound quality of a driver. The motor assembly of a driver that costs $300/each can reasonably be expected to be better than that of a $30 driver. What will this mean? It's less likely to distort, it can be more consistent over it's frequency band.. and stuff like that.


I do think there is a point where it's "gimme a break". For example, there is a tweeter that is made of diamond. Needless to say, it's prohibitively expensive. I've also heard that it's not as good as many tweeters made from more typical materials costing much much less.

Maybe others can jump in with more specific reasons, but that's all I have right now.

JCD


----------



## aceinc (Oct 24, 2006)

I agree with JCD, price can be representative of quality. 

I also believe that there are quite a number of mid-high level players that build their speakers with off the shelf components. A DIYer with the fortitude to do some research should be able produce a speaker that matches or exceeds the quality of these speakers.

One place that appears to have reasonable data on various drivers is http://www.zaphaudio.com/. He seems to be unbiased and does reasonable testing. One thing you will find in looking at his data is that while price helps in some cases, there are some real bargains for the budget minded.

Paul


----------



## drf (Oct 22, 2006)

I believe B&W use peerless drivers, was a rumour I heard anyway. 

It has been touched on before but I find the best way to explain the quality difference is this:

A 1976 toyota corolla with 140,000 miles on the clock will still drive upto 60Mph, and get you to your destination. But if you spent the extra money on a brand new Mercedes compressor, you will still get to 60Mph but the acceleration will be much smoother all the way. Just like speakers, all speakers will play within their FR but the more expensive ones will be smoother from there lowest freq' to their highest freq'. 

Another analogy I like is chocolate: cadbury's, nestle and lindt all make nice chocolate, but it depends on personal taste as to which one you prefer. The T.S paramters of each brand may not vary that much, but the tone certainly will. 

unless you want a more specific and technical reason in which case I recommend you learn how the driver works and the difference between and underhung and overhung coil, linear magnetic area and coil interraction, to understand how finer engineering can create a driver that plays a larger freq' range smoother.

hope this makes sense,

Dr F


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

Another good resource for the merits of many drivers is LDSG.

Doesn't really explain the reasons for the various drivers being better or worse, but can help in the selection process.

JCD


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

Woodworking skills are ok, but I'm not an artist by any means. I've built dozens of sub boxes for cars, but, they were in cars and not that difficult. Add in that all those that I built were ~10 years ago, I'll have to catch myself up. 

Money is always an issue, but luckily I won't be starting these for some time. I probably won't start these till I start my dedicated theater. Right now I'm happy with my Athenas in my small living room. 

Looking around I really like the way the RBH T-series speakers look. Very large and very clean looking. Anyone got any ideas how to get those going without paying the $7500 a pair for them. I'll be looking for a 7.1 system at that point.


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

1st off, i will say that it is certainly possible to diy speakers better than commercial for substantially less. And for those just getting their feet wet, the hardest part is deciding from the multitude of successful builds.



JCD said:


> the Thor ... kits from Seas. They seem to get a lot of accolades.


I respect Joe a lot... but he blew the design (& the measuring) on the box for the Thor. Scottmoose & i have come up with 3 alternate cabinets that use the existing kit, that give real bass. There is a big long thread on the subject on diyAudio.com (sorry no link, i haven't made enuff posts yet)

dave


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

Paul wrote & asked for the link. I've passed thru the moderation phase and can post them now:

Clarity on the Seas Thor (the big thread): 
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64799

and to quote from one of the fellows who rebuilt his original Thors (1st link below):


> So how does the Small Thor sound – well, can’t do an A/B test as most of A is now in B. But having living with the Original Thors for three years that’s no problem. “Small” sounds the same – well it would but and it’s a BIG BUT it now sounds like I thought the original should have from the word go – I’ve now got BASS. Quite amazing from a smaller box, how low do these things go – dunno – no measuring gear. Who needs it, I’m moving the sub woofer out of the room tomorrow – that’s how much.
> 
> Now the sub will vibrate the settee and you can feel its impact, the “Smalls” can’t do that. But acoustic bass sound true and low, low notes on a piano get there. So for me I’m very happy.
> 
> One strange result is more vocal clarity – which has thrown me a bit? And the sound stage seems more integrates and deeper?? I’ve only done a couple of hours listening so will have to work those out.


Note: the brace coupling the back of the drivers to the sides & back of the box is responsible for the improved vocal clarity (as aside for a quesion in the CSS SDX15 thread)

and a couple threads on specific builds:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99596
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97790
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82160


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

And to save wading thru 500+ posts to find the drawings...

Edit: despite keeping the drawings within the specified limits, i note that they have been resampled & converted to jpgs (which really makes a mess of them). If anyone actually wants to go ahead, mail me & i'll get you the better maps.

dave


----------



## phaseshift (May 29, 2007)

> Do the high end speaker companies make their own drivers most of the time or do they get their drivers from some other place?


The higher end guys may have a few "hang on" transducers so that they can say that they still make drivers, but in general, look for platform products that are good building blocks for the system. Going a step further, you will find that they may very well purchase a midrange driver from X and a tweeter from Y and a woofer from Z because the individual companies have a platform transducer that is close to the design concept. 

Your mainstream guys are typically doing the transducer design and drawings in house, then sending to the CM for development, validation and manufacturing. 




> If so, What are the signs/parameters to look for for good drivers (tweeters, woofers, mid range drivers, etc)?


If you mean build quality, then the first thing to look for is adhesive bonds. Speakers are held together with adhesives and if you can see sloppy bonds, extra adhesive gooping out, gaps etc... Select another driver. The problem is that this is difficult to see on some transducers, particularly tweeters as the bondlines are almost always completely hidden. On a woofer or midrange, it really helps if you can compare 2 or more drivers for consistency of build and better yet, if you can measure them and see how close they are... Even a down and dirty impedance plot is OK as a baseline to see if you will have a pair of potentially well matched drivers or not. 

Parameters are going to be more dependent on your system design. Your post indicates familiarity with subwoofer designs and you can use what you know there in terms of alignments as a foundation for the low end of your system. The upper end is more tricky to me. No matter how many times I do a system, I frequently figure out some trick or new thing that I did not think of before. The problem is that the stuff I work with is the cone geometry, materials and things that the DIY community is not going to have the access to. If you did, you would have nearly unlimited choices which sometimes creates more questions than answers. 

Reading over this post, it probably creates more questions than answers.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

planet10 said:


> And to save wading thru 500+ posts to find the drawings...
> 
> Edit: despite keeping the drawings within the specified limits, i note that they have been resampled & converted to jpgs (which really makes a mess of them). If anyone actually wants to go ahead, mail me & i'll get you the better maps.
> 
> dave


I missed this the first time.. and will someday take a look at the thread on DIYaudio (50pages!!! :scared: ), but can you tell us how the new enclosure is better than the original? Is it mostly a matter of extending the bass output? I see something in one of your posts about improving the clarity of the vocals too..

JCD


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

The gist of the thread is that it was suspected that something was wrong with the bass on the Thor. The measurements Joe had in the article did not agree with the measurements SEAS did in their anechic chamber, and there reports of less than stellar bass were fairly common. 

Sims tended to agree with the SEAS measures -- bass to 100 Hz more or less. A single phrase in the original article pointed out the discrepency. To measure the bass Joe shorted one driver and measured nearfield the other. Then swap & add the 2 together. This is effectly measuring the response of 1 driver in the TL (or the response of 2 drivers in a TL twice as big. Modeling 1 driver in the box yilded a sim very close to the what Joe had measured. Scott & I then went on and designed 3 new boxes using the 9" baffle width restriction (so the original XO was still valid). Subsequent builds showed dramatic improvements in the bass over the original.

The clarity in the midrange side effect was a result of my adding a magnet brace to each of the boxes -- something i do on most of my designs. This couples the driver to more of the mass of the box, both reducing the newtonian motion of the driver and spreading the drivers mechanical reaction energy across all the panels and thereby reducing box noise.

dave


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

DS-21 said:


> As a center channel, almost anything intelligent one can build will be way better than the x-cs. There's just nothing at all good about a toppled MTM center. I'd say, in fact, that the dominance of the wretched toppled-MTM is a sign that speaker manufacturers don't take multichannel seriously, and why so many audiophiles eschew centers entirely.


Here, here... 



> slim MLTL's using an Aura NS3 fullrange driver each and a composite deck post as the cabinet.


I really liked those... i love it when someone turns something novel into a box... the NS3 is my favorite cheapish 3"... going to get some FF85Ks soon thou...

dave


----------



## planet10 (May 27, 2007)

GM probably specced half the ML-TLs out there so that is not surprising 

dave


----------

