- This topic has 105 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
BUILD PLANS: https://bit.ly/audience212
Here is the beginning stages of the Audience 212. The thought process here is to try to design something like the JTR 212 but at a fraction of the cost. The cost of the JTR’s are currently $14,000 a pair (msrp). These I plan to keep these costs under $1,500 a pair (spoiler I came out at $650 a speaker or $1,300 a pair!).
Build Video:
Parts to Use:
(1) SB Audience Rosso 44cdn-pk US: https://bit.ly/3uvehJm UK: https://bit.ly/3Fw8hng
(2) SB Audience Nero 12MWN400D: https://bit.ly/3iLGkPb UK: https://amzn.to/3GzTBoa
(1) SB Audience H250 Horn: US: https://bit.ly/36yz0Ei UK: https://bit.ly/3fqFntZ
(1) Speakon Mount: https://amzn.to/3LuPYSR
(1) Speakon Adapter: https://amzn.to/3IKe2ix or 90 degree adapter: https://amzn.to/36ZhOr2
Here is the woofer being used, the SB Audience Nero-12MWN400D. it has a really nice NEO magnet on the back. One thing I did notice is that there was some glue that dripped on the metal frame. A quick scrape with a utility blade took it off. These also come with gasket material, which is a huge bonus.
Of you didn’t get to see the pictures of the drivers, they can be found here: https://toidsdiyaudio.com/forums/discussion/introducing-the-new-sb-audience/?no_frame=1
-
-
Are you going for a LaVoce horn in this one? That’s the first one I found that seems to be of appropriate size per the cutout.
-
It’s actually the SB Audience H250. I’m really interested to see what it’ll do in this tie of arrangement. I’m a little disappointed. We’ve had so much rain, that is killing my testing.
-
Much better than the LaVoce, less cost and much lower frequency response.
-
I am interested in trying Lavoce sometime. I would like to try out some of their products. Just see what they are all about.
-
-
@Harry72 Honestly, I really like that. In fact, I am pretty much sold on this unless someone can top it. BUt that name really sums it up perfectly! You all are challenged now.
-
-
-
-
Worked on some internal bracing. Tomorrow I’m going to try to get the fronts glued on . Once I double check tuning frequency, I’ll be able to install the drivers and start working on the crossover. I am really excited about this build. It’s coming along really well.
-
-
@schurter it’s a 5.85 cubic foot box before bracing and drivers. I haven’t fully committed on the compression driver, but I’m leaving toward the SB Audience Rosso 44CDN-PK
-
-
Sorry I mistyped. It is about 5.85 cubic feet before bracing and drivers. It should be about 5.5 cubic feet. I’ll know for sure tomorrow once I start testing.
-
-
After doing some measurements, you could do a sealed center approximately 37″ wide. That would cut 21″ off. You can’t really go any smaller due to the driver spacing. You would however want to cross it over between 80-120hz (probably closer to 120Hz.
-
-
-
-
I’d have to double check, but that’s not the problem. 37″ is the least you can make the box just based off driver spacing. So you wouldn’t have anywhere to port it out. Typically a speaker that big you wouldn’t port it out the rear. I guess you could potentially port it out one of the sides, but that would be the only place. Any of those port placements would be problematic for speaker placement especially on a center channel. So unless you want to make it bigger than 37″ you would want to go sealed.
-
-
Excellent! The good thing about this build, is as long as you leave the width (14″) and the driver spacing the same, you can shorten the box anywhere from the designed 58″ down to 37″ (sealed) to fit your requirements. If you shortened the box to something around 4 cubic feet you could still tune it to around 52Hz with an anechoic F3 of 47Hz. Your port height you could shorten as well. You should be able to get away with something like a 44″ tall box. And if you really needed it shorter, you could make it as small as 40″ (ported). After that you would be better off sealed at 37″.
-
Just watched the video and yiu invited me to the forum, thanks. I think 40″ is the sweet spot with these while keeping the ports. It allows a horizontal center as most dont have accoustic screens and also isn’t too overwhelming of you have a smaller room.
For me, my issue is I have to Full Marty’s on their side under screen so the towers have to sit on top of the subs. I planned for an MTM configuration to get the tweeter as close to the middle 3rd of the screen.
I wish I would have learned about this build earlier as I have been waiting for the 1099’s to come back in stock for almost a year and Erich set some aside when he got some last week so I just ordered them.
I have 37″ for my center so these probably would have worked at 40″ with ports as towers and the 37″ sealed center.
These look so awesome that maybe when I am done the 1099’s I will have to build these as
Jeremy Shurter will keep me up to date on his build and that will probably get me even more amped about the purchase. 5 days earlier and I probably would have changed my mind and built shorter versions of these.
With JTR being such a hot brand right now, you should sell a lot of these plans!!
-
-
Very interested in seeing how this build works out. I was wondering on the center, since you are going w JTR style build, couldn’t you do the center similar to the JTR 212HT pictured below? I believe this one is vented out the front but above and below the driver when in horizontal configuration. This would allow narrower width overall, but should still be able to run below a screen. Since the horn is 90×90 dispersion pattern, running it horizontal shouldnt change it much I would think.
-
@69vettedood something like that could definitely work. However, you would want to make the speaker wider then the current design. The current width would not allow for side ports. By increasing the width it would affect the frequency response a little. If you kept the driver spacing the same, the crossover wouldn’t be an issue. It will just affect the baffle step a little and the diffraction. It is definitely something that is possible.
-
@69vettedood I just realized that the 212HT is 40″ tall. WIth that in mind, you should be able to run a port on the top and bottom (versus the sides like the 212HT), while maintaining the same height and not worrying about sacrificing the response. It would be tuned to 52Hz with an F3 of around 48Hz. You wouldn’t be sacrificing much low end at all.
-
-
Here’s some pictures of the inside. I plan to finish these in Exohyde.
-
-
The great thing about this build is the Horn has the same vertical and horizontal dispersion, so there will be no need to flip anything, but the box 😃 It is one of the reasons I wanted to use this horn. It gives a lot more flexibility when placing the speakers.
-
Here’s some pictures of the exohyde applied. I’m really happy with this. I probably only needed about one coat. But it was really hard to see inside my shed. Two coats should be plenty. Having said that, you don’t use very much. So if you wanted to do three or four coats, you could easily do it.
-
Sure does look good. I bet the most reflective parts will now be the drivers. Might actually need some black grills if you really want them to disappear. Waiting to hear your impressions once they are finished and running.
-
@tvor-ceasar yeah they’re turning out really good. The cones are a little reflective, but not bad. I don’t think it’s going to be any type of issue behind an acoustically transparent screen.
P.S. you still have the best comment of the night on the live stream. I still can’t believe people don’t know what a tardis is .
-
Ah, behind the screen. I had the image of them being off to the sides, but now that I look back on the livestream, I get it. Not a problem there.
And as far as the Livestream, I was multitasking, working, lurking, and occasionally responding. When that comment was met with crickets, I did a Picard brow hold. At least Justin came through with Galifrey. But still, one of the most used comedic lines of the 58 year old show! I do believe that Tom Baker used it in his run from ’74-’81, which is more or less when I started watching on PBS (’70’s). (Just for reference)
-
-
@2007_Tbss honestly, I don’t find this to be a dumb question at all. When designing the crossover, I use a 25 watt amplifier. Believe it or not, it provides more than enough power to get these things sounding good. The more power, will help with the Dynamics and the bass region, but overall you are correct, you don’t need much power to power these at all.
Could you use your AVR? Absolutely, as long as it is 4ohm capable. These are a 4 ohm speaker and as such will need an amplifier that can push 4ohm.
-
-
Your Denon is generally rated for 8 ohms, going down as low as 6 ohms.
I don’t know what they use for their outputs, discrete transistors or some sort of amp chip(s), but there’s a little thing that most people don’t know – you can run your amps (whether an AVR, Stereo, Monoblock, etc.) on lower nominal ohm rated speakers AS LONG AS you reduce the power output (volume control) by like percentage. So, going from 8 to 4 ohm, you’d want to only run the amps at 1/2 potential power, preferably a bit less, since you’ll be pulling twice the current than normal. Now, if your amp has over current protection, it may trip. If it’s anything like the old Onkyo’s, if the nominal impedance dipped below 6 ohms, they’d shut off no matter what. And honestly, if these are 6 dB + more efficient than what you have now, you’ll probably never even get that close to using even 1/2 the available power.
*** I found a photo of the amp board and it is using discrete output transistors. This make it a little more robust than a multiamp chip package.
-
Great call @tvor-ceasar ! These speakers are actually pretty easy to drive. So I don’t really think they’re going to have much of an issue on most receivers. Of course they’ll just put it in protect mode if they do. I did go ahead and test this out as a center since I only have one completely built. I am blown away by the clarity. I ended up tuning it a little lower than I was going to originally. The thought process behind that is that it gives you the flexibility of running it full range without having to worry about over excursion of the woofers. However, you may end up using your room EQ or manual eqing the low end the little up to flatten out that bass. Currently I have the center crossed over at 40hz. Now I’m itching to get the second one built… And clean up the living room.
😁
-
Yep, if it pulls too much current, the protect mode will kick in.
…second one, what about the third? Or will it be phantom center?
-
I will do a third matching one eventually. I only have the parts for two right now.
-
These speakers are actually pretty easy to drive. So I don’t really think they’re going to have much of an issue on most receivers. Of course they’ll just put it in protect mode if they do. I did go ahead and test this out as a center since I only have one completely built. I am blown away by the clarity. I ended up tuning it a little lower than I was going to originally. The thought process behind that is that it gives you the flexibility of running it full range without having to worry about over excursion of the woofers. However, you may end up using your room EQ or manual eqing the low end the little up to flatten out that bass. Currently I have the center crossed over at 40hz. Now I’m itching to get the second one built… And clean up the living room.
This is very exciting news , 40hz is very impressive, this could be a killer diy front stage,
When you do your video, could you show how you would eq the low end,
-
-
Just to clarify, these are still PA drivers, so the low end is not going to be very impactful and you are still going to want a subwoofer. The only reason you may want to tune that low is if you want to give them a lot of power and EQ them on the low end. I am still fine tuning them. SO I’ll let you know my honest preference once I am finished. I just don’t want you thinning it is hitting 30-80hz with authority on that type of tune. It isn’t. But it would give flexibility for those that do want to fine tune it themselves.
The parts should be readily available soon. The compression driver is the only thing I am waiting on to be stocked. As soon as that is and I am ready, then the video and plans will be out.
-
Yeah! I’m 100% good with that considering I’m running Polk signature s60 towers right now I’m sure this build will be a whole other level haha. Also I’m running 2 stereo integrity/sundown audio 18s on a behringer inuke3000. Also don’t mind my wall, I’m in the process of building a screen right now for the projector
-
-
I just used an old mattress topper. However you can use an acoustic material for it. The crossover is complete and I really like them. I am still testing out a few more tuning frequencies to see which I prefer. I wanted to break in the woofers to see if their T/S specs changed at all before I did too many tuning changes to the box.
-
-
-
It is just a 1″ topper. Well it is actually 1.25″ but it would be equivalent to most 1″ pads. I worked on the tuning and tuned it to 40hz, which allows me to use some minor eq to get the extension all flat down to 35hz and usable down to 30hz. Without doing any eq, my receiver using audyssey room eq picked it as a 40hz crossover. Meaning that if you are using any room eq, it should do those minor adjustments for you and cross it over low if that is what you desire. And I will say, I really enjoy crossing it over that low.
I didn’t measure the overall sensitivity, but the sensitivity should be the same as a single woofer, which is 98db 1w/1m.
-
This might be a dumb idea as I’m guessing by what you mean by reflective as I’m new to this. But if the plastic on the cone is reflective would spraying a coating on the exterior of the cone help reduce the reflections? Maybe a coating like plastidip that would give it a smooth rubberized finish to dampen the reflection.
-
@JCarp it is not a dumb idea at all. THe only issue you have, is you may change the T/s specs of the driver, making it not behave as it originally was intended. Honestly, I don’t think the cones are an issue at all.
-
First I need to apologize, the video was supposed to be out Today (Sunday). Luckily I caught a huge mistake in the video before it was released. Unfortunately, the build video was not saved properly, which is having me re-edit it. No major issues there. I am trying to get it out this morning, by working all night. If I cannot, it’ll be out no later than Tuesday. I apologize about the delay. Here is a teaser pick in the meantime.
-
-
The video is out! I am trying to get the plans out later tonight.
-
Video looks good. If I may ask, why did you not do the slots for the bracing like you did for the last build?
Also, for the bracing, by reversing the holes like that, you prevent a long stretch inside the enclosure, which can help to break up longer waves reflecting on internal walls. That can reduce wavelengths able to escape through the port at the bottom. At least, that is my understanding.
Looks like a great build!
-
@ajc9988 that is absolutely the thinking of putting the braces the opposite way. I ended up rewording it. Mainly because there’s a huge debate on whether that actually makes a difference. There’s a lot of people that will say since the waves are so long they’ll just defract off of that and continue. Well others disagree and say that it’ll start to help break it up. I’ve never done any testing on whether it actually makes any audible difference. But there’s no reason why not to do that.
-
-
Awesome video!!!
last question
Is there a min distance from the speaker ?
I believe if I build these I’ll be 10-12ft
Will i Still be in the sweet spot
-
That is literally the exact distance I am from them. That should be perfect. I’ve never tried them closer than that, but I don’t see it being an issue. They have a really good soundstage.
-
-
-
I’ll let you know as soon as they’re ready today. I apologize that they weren’t ready in advance. Typically they are, but I have had a crazy last 2 weeks. Either way, my only goal today is to get those plans finished and out.
-
-
-
I don’t have any plans to make a 10″ version. We had talked on here about making the 12″ version smaller (using a different box for it). Maybe that would work for you?
-
-
The Build Plans are now available! https://bit.ly/audience212 Let me know if you have any questions!
-
Just bought the plan’s,
Could window bracing work? 2″ thick add a 4th and have window bracing between as well,
Checking stock on parts
I might make the 40-44″ tall
Sikk Build !!
-
Thanks! I’m really looking forward to seeing your build! You can definitely add more bracing if you’d like. Window bracing would be just fine. The only thing I would recommend is making sure that you have enough room behind the compression driver especially. That goes down pretty deep.
-
-
-
-
Assuming a double front baffle, I don’t see that as an issue. Just keep in mind you may not be able to get any bracing below the compression driver )I also don’t see any issue with this. But if you did want to brace it there, I would suggest two horizontal braces far enough off center it would allow the compression driver to sit in between them.
-
-
-
@Norb there is nothing silly about that questions. I agree with @tvor-ceasar that you are better off going with something like a 2.6 cubic foot or bigger box sealed. That will give you an F3 closer to 92 in room. However you can either use a digital or physical crossover to cross it at 180Hz.
-
-
-
@Norb If you really must know, using the specified drivers, a sealed box around 0.325 Cu.Ft. will get you really close to 180Hz. The Q will be ~1.4, not the greatest for SQ. You’d be better off building a bigger box, lowering the Q and then using a crossover – passive or active – to get to the desired F3. Yes, it’d be much smaller, but It would be a serious challenge to get the required volume (that low) with all the driver/horn depth requirements. Plus you’d then need to put them on something to get the tweeter up to ear height.
Just thinking in the practical realm. If you want to join me in my Don Quixote escapades, then by all means go for it. You always learn best by doing. 😁👍
-
Another question lol,
Front baffle 14″
2nd baffle 16″ , would 3/4″ shim have a effect on the drivers ,
Or is there a spec, just looking for options to build the box
-
I am not sure I understand the question. Sorry. It might be since I am working off a few hours of sleep. But can you clarify?
-
-
-
I understand now. You can do something like that if you want. It won’t hurt it if you just want to make it 16″ either. A few minor things will change (mainly diffraction and baffle step), but nothing that your room eq won’t take care of. Baffle step would only change by around 40hz and that would be a very minimal change in that region (maybe 1db).So that will be up to you. BUt I think if you did a nice 1″ chamfer it would look really nice.
-
-
Another question
Did you use a 2nd or 3rd order BW
Dayton Audio 1.5mH 18 AWG Laminated Iron Core Inductor Crossover Coil is not in stock
Is There another option?
-
-
-
Mad at you….been wanting something like this and I gave up waiting and built 6’s and the 10s now ya come out with these…Wifes going to kill me.
-
-
-
-
I bought the plans today. I understand that it’s pretty new but I’d wish to have more layouts diagrams for the cutouts. I’ll certainly manage but I’ll have to triple check everything.
Also there is no diagram for the speakon connector on the back. Maybe it does not matter too much but I think those little details are missing.
-
I’ll email you later about your other concerns. But as far as to speak on connector goes it can really go anywhere as long as it’s not in the way of a brace. I placed mine behind the compression driver because that’s where I placed the crossover. What if so if you have a specific spot where you want to place the crossover, I would put it near that location.
-
-
That is dependant on a lot of things. But a 500w amplifier in a room setting should never come close to outputting 500w. These speakers are around 99db Efficient, which means you need very little power at all to make them very loud. Having said that I designed them around the assumption that most people wouldn’t be giving these around 300w. They are capable of up to 800w per speaker, assuming you are crossing them over by 40Hz. So part of power handling is up to you and your room.
-
-
@123toid – since you built these which use pro parts and get very loud, have you ever looked at a huge sub to pair with it like this: https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-HTS545HE-4-21-Kraken-High-Excursion-Subwoofer-with-5-Voice-Coil-4-Ohm-295-054
-
@ajc9988 I have thought about it. And maybe someday. But honestly, that is probably way bigger than I would ever need. I have one mx15-22 and with the four 12’s it isn’t necessary to have anything else. Don’t get me wrong, you still want subwoofers with the Audience 212, but since these play full-range (in my room) they help pressurize the room. Which adding that SD, even not at high volumes (compared to the subwoofer) is an incredible increase. I have enjoyed it.
-
Fair enough. This is a sub I have looked at to combine in a PA scenario with the 15″ B&C I’d like to get at some point.
Unfortunately, you can get loud or you can get low, but rarely both. The F3 I have for the design on the Kraken is 40.4Hz with a 3 cu. ft. enclosure (small considering the size of the driver), a 24″ slot port with 2.25″ height, split down the middle (so two ports in reality and what I entered into WinISD) giving 24.45″ length on the port. First port res. of 276.72Hz. The filters I put on are LR at 31.2Hz Highpass and Lowpass LR at 80Hz. That would get you a peak of 123dB@2000W.
-
I think if I were to build something that big, I would end up doing a sealed. Then EQing what my room didn’t give me. Or do a linkwitz transform and end up with an anechoic response like this.
-
-
-
-
Thank you for showing me this. I think they are both good speakers and tuned similarly. I am friends with Ryan who designed the 1099’s. He is very talented and I really enjoy his work. In fact, I am still trying to get him back to designing, so we can come up with a fun design for people. But I am not sure that will happen any time soon (maybe never). But I do love collaborating with people.
-
-
I’m new to the forum, been reading for months and impressed with what everyone is doing here. I realize that it’s been a few months, but I wanted to ask if there was any chance you would consider a version with a crossover tweak for a single 12″, running at 8 ohms, and a box at 3′ or so? Would still be extremely efficient, have a higher wife approval factor (smaller), move the horn closer to ear level, and not dealing with potential comb filtering issues from stacking 2 12s under the horn.
-
@New2DIY probably not using these components. At least, none in the works. But I do have the Soundstage 15, which is very similar. In fact, it is still one of my favorite builds to date.
-
-
I was looking at the parts list on the plans for the Audience 212 and was quite confused when looking at crossover parts. I clicked on 4 ohm resistor and it took me to a 4.7 ohm resistor and when I clicked on 4.7 ohm resistor it took me to a 3 ohm resistor. Are the links taking me to the correct parts for the build or are they labeled wrong? The other links work correctly.
-
Konnor, I am sorry. Parts express ahs been changing their links and it has been messing with the ones in the plans. The values are correct, nto the links. If you send me your email, I’ll send you an updated set of plans with the correct links.
-
-
I’ve been considering the 212’s for an LCR build and was curious how they might compare to Statement II’s or 1099/1299s? Also, I’d be interested in the potential for a matching surround/atmos setup. I love matchy-matchy and kind of hate that all the DIY options seem to be heavy on the LCR (obviously it is by far the most important) but they you are just left to…”you could try <insert unmatched option here>”.
All of that to say would it be best to stick with something like the Cinema 10, or is there a way to design a smaller, surround appropriate “matchy-matchy” option?
-
I am a big fan of the Cinema 10 for any type of surround use. It is literally what I am using in my own theater and wouldn’t go back to anything else. As far as how they would compare to the DIYSG speakers, I can’t say for sure, as I haven’t personally heard them. Having said that, Ryan, the designer of the 1099’s, and I are good friends. And I know without a doubt he is a top notch designer. So if you were interested in either of the builds, I think you would be very happy. Just keep in mind the 1099’s are not designed for bass (really none of them are). They are all designed to be high efficiency and clean sounding. They just do it differently. The SB Audience drivers are probably going to be considered better by most people then the ones used in the 1299’s and 1099’s, but that is about it. In short, most of this will come down to preference of design.
-
-
Is the SB Audience Rosso 44cdn-pk neodynium much better than ferrite version? Ferrit version is about 1/3 cheaper…
-
The Ferrite version has more resonances as shown in the impedance graph. With that typically comes more distortion. Of course, this particular speaker was design around the neo version.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
