your own loudspeaker designs

Who out there has a loudspeaker design that they have built with their own fair hands, or have thoughts on what would be the best design on a 'money no issue' scenario?

 

When trying to build 'the best', money is not the issue, being a good engineer is the hard part and having quality test facilities.

You are best copying an existing competent design like one on http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/

 

Not the answer to my question, but never mind.

 

It's all been done before - it's only making air vibrate after all so use a known well proven and liked design! Big Tannoy and GRF cab!

 

Sorry. Then in answer to your question yes I have a few speakers I have designed and built from the ground up by my own hands. I am most proud of the one I call 'Kensai'. You can read about it here - http://www.audiosmile.co.uk/hifiplus-audiosmile-kensai-review.pdf

Another design that I made earlier is here - https://www.audio-forums.com/as-rediect/showthread.php?t=15953

 

Does the "money no object" apply to speaker design only? I think if I had deep pockets I'd probably incorporate the speakers into the structure of the house. Perhaps build speakers into the walls. A pair of horns would be great.

 

Yes only on speaker design.

 

Thanks Tenson, like the design.

 

Money no object I'd like to experiment with a big scaled-up Quad ESL63 but using digital delay in place of the coils, active crossovers and directly driven plates with no transformers. Would mean directly connecting an OTL tube amp and the whole thing would be potentially lethal - but that's half the fun

 

I think that's 'death no object'.

 

Would these be supplied with a free fire extinguisher?

 

I bet arcing would be something worth seeing!

 

Crossovers?

 

The ESL57 has them and I'd assumed the additional bass panels on the 63 (and modern versions) were fed from a low pass filter.

 

Do electrostatics really need a crossover?

I think Marcus is asking the same question(?).

 

Depends on the design I suppose but if they use multiple driver panels designed for specific tasks as with the Quads, yes they do.

The treble panel in the 57 is a good example - that speaker is effectively a three-way. Two bass panels operating below about 600hz and the mid/treble panel is then divided so that the centre vertical 1" strip of the panel is driven at the highest frequencies.

 

I don't think the 63 and successors have a crossover. The mechanical elements may act as a high pass filter to a certain extent, I can't see the central element doing much at 20 Hz, but I don't think there's an electrical one. One of the major differences between the 57 and the 63.

I prefer the 57. It would be fun to hear it active. Must go down to Koblenz again one day.

 

Quad 63 crossover.

 

What does the ESL 63 crossover actually do (electronic schematics mean nothing to me)? I always thought it was a single driver, FRED (full range electrostatic dipole), so kind of assumed it was a full range crossover-free design like a Lowther, but obviously flatter and more electrostaticy.

Tony.

 

I had always thought that the full range signal was fed to the central panels containing the rings - with the signal fed via delay lines to create the virtual point source.
But there are additional bass only panels that flank this array and i though those were fed via a low pass filter. Never really studied the schematic for the 63 TBH but will now do so.

BTW, landed a load more 70s HFN magazines with lots of Quad reviews and articles, including a really nice 4 page Walker interview and one I've not seen anywhere online (or in the Kessler book). I'll scan it as some point for everyone to enjoy.
Tony, you might want a copy for PFM.

Fascinating to read how Martin Colloms set up a blind test of 8 amplifiers ranging from the then brand new NAD3020, through the also new Quad 44/405 right up to an Exposure Pre/power.
Under blind test - the scores were remarkably similar - what a surprise - and how different to today