diyaudio.

com

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/112904-pencil-inspired-ohm-micro-walsh-tall.html

THE PENCIL: inspired by Ohm Micro Walsh Tall

1st
December
2007,
02:24 PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date: Feb

2005
Location: Near
Copenhagen

THE PENCIL: inspired by Ohm Micro Walsh Tall

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Drivers: Peerless 832873 and Morel MDT-40 (tweeter).
Cross-over is just a 2. order Linkwitz Riley for the tweeter at 6 khz, 1,8 uF in series + 0,39 mH in parallel Because the Peerless is ultralinear and has a natural rolloff at 6 kHz with 12 dB/octave rolloff
The enclosure is 10 liter, 71 cm tall, 12,1 x 12,1 cm internal.
The port (on the back of the speaker) has 5,7 cm, length 10,5 cm.
The "tweeter-protector" on top is just a pencil-holder turned upside down
The costs is about US$ 500/euro 300 total for a pair. It's easy to build, and don't take up much space
(except the sound, which is very spacious
The sound is fantastic - very dynamic, slam-bass, and a very natural soundstage. This is a speaker, where I
don't skip music, but listen to music, I previously wouldn't have - THE PENCIL simply plays MUSIC... Try it,
build it.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Regards, Jesper

1st
December
2007, 03:33
PM

diyAudio
Member

Looks great. I built some speakers firing upwards with a deflector cone above it and a tweeter above that .
Pity I have no pictures . It was made for a friend in the 80's and I guess the unit isn't alive anymore.
Maybe you should have a grille perforated like the tweeter , for the mid/bass also .
Theses kinds of arrangements do give a very spacious sound but if I remember correctly , it didn't give a
rock solid image like some standard speaker arrangements do.
Great job.

Join Date: Jun

2002

__________________
AM

Location: 3RS

1st
December
2007, 03:46
PM
diyAudio Member

Join Date: May

2004

I would have chosen a much lower X-over point, but that is a just my perspective. The MDT-40 is a good
tweeter. I have a pair and my plan is similar but will use the B&O omni reflector approach.
__________________
The freaks stick together, they are a tight old crew

Location: Oregon

1st December 2007, 04:04 PM

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: Edmonton,
Alberta, CANADA

1st December
2007, 04:07
PM

Very nice job! Love the look of the pencil holder.

49 - for the 18th time Similar to this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1176356499

- again!
Perhaps a little of Mamboni Magic or BudP EnABL Voodoo!!! I have found that my Walsh 5
remakes are very nice speakers in respects to being an "omni" directional type of speaker. I find
diyAudio Member
them great for my HT and general listening.
__________________
DIY audio can be expensive but getting to see things go up in smoke - that's
priceless!!!! ..... "whatever - call it brainfart of Mighty ZM"

Join Date: Oct 2006

Location: Near
"Music City"
(Nashville
Tennessee)

1st
December
2007, 05:19
PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005

Quote:
Originally posted by Badge
I would have chosen a much lower X-over point, but that is a just my perspective. The MDT-40 is a
good tweeter. I have a pair and my plan is similar but will use the B&O omni reflector approach.

Yes, the Morel is a very good tweeter. Not very fond of xovers in general, this is the most minimalistic I found
Location:
useful. 6 db/rolloff is - in my opinion - not steep enough in general to protect tweeters properly . The standard
Near
xover-point in the 2-3 kHz range is generally bad, from an listening point of view (our ears are very sensitive in
Copenhagen that area). So to create speakers where the crossoverpoint isn't audible, you'll have to either move upwards in
frequency (as I do) - or down, which makes huge demands for the tweeters in 2-way systems.
But THIS Peerless bass/midrange is exceptional for this kind of speaker - a very wide frequency range, no
peak at the upper frequency, and a natural and fine roll-off... See datasheet here

1st December
2007, 05:25
PM
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Feb

2005
Location: Near
Copenhagen

Quote:
Originally posted by ashok
Theses kinds of arrangements do give a very spacious sound but if I remember correctly , it
didn't give a rock solid image like some standard speaker arrangements do.
You're right - the image is not sharp as "**** in snow", but more "natural" - I'd say it pretty much reflects
the image at an acoustic jazz-concert with no electric amplification.
Regards, Jesper

21st February 2008, 01:52 PM

diyAudio Member

what is damping foam? anyone?

Join Date: Nov 2007

21st February 2008,

04:53 PM
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Any damping foam - I've used foam from a mattress.

BTW, I've changed the x-over. Now it consists of only a 2,7 uF in series with the tweeter. Simpler,
and recommended by ear

Location: Near
Copenhagen

21st February 2008, 05:34 PM

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Nov 2002

Jesper!
Nice speaker!
Could you tell me how you speaker works?
Is the midwoofer radiating upwards or down into the box??
Is it connected in phase or in reversed phase?

Location: Hungary

Greets:
Tyimo

21st
February
2008,
07:04 PM
diyAudio
Member

#11

Hi Tyimo
Well, what I wanted from this speaker - and what I got - is a speaker free of room resonanses, due to the
omnnidirectional setup.

The midwoofer acts really funny - the bass is firing down the enclosure, while the midband is radiating both
Join Date: Feb horisontally and vertically into the room. It's a true lucky punch - it feels like the speaker haven't got an
2005
enclosure (no resonances)
Location: Near The midwoofer as well as the tweeter is connected in phase. I tried to reverse the phase on the tweeter, but
Copenhagen
preferred the in-phase-connection.
I also tried mounting the tweeter face down, but that was no succes, not even with a cone underneath for
spreading purposes.

21st February 2008, 07:13 PM

diyAudio Member

#12

Thanks Jesper!
How did you calculated the box volumen? Like with a normal BR box??

Join Date: Nov 2002

Tyimo

Location: Hungary

21st February
2008, 08:00 PM

#13

diyAudio Member

Yes, I calculated it as normal BR box - guess the bass needs the same volumen, whether it's firing
in or out. I used boxplot for calculation.

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near
Copenhagen

21st

#14

February
2008, 08:16
PM
diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally posted by c2cthomas
Similar to this: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1176356499
Perhaps a little of Mamboni Magic or BudP EnABL Voodoo!!! I have found that my Walsh 5
remakes are very nice speakers in respects to being an "omni" directional type of speaker. I
find them great for my HT and general listening.

Join Date:
Jan 2007
Location:
Sacramento

Great Ideas going on here. It is something I have been thinking about building.
This pic (link) reminds me of the Robot in "Lost in Space".
No offense intended.
Ron
__________________
"If it doesn't work properly, hope it catches on fire"- Nelson Pass @ BA3
"I fired up the prototype. Literally." The Prophet Pass.

21st February 2008, 08:30 PM

diyAudio Member

#15

juspur...nice job, dude!

Join Date: Nov 2007

22nd

#16

February
2008,
04:26 AM
diyAudio
Member

Juspur, love your design and seems well finished. Ahh the pencil case, what a touch!! Looks nice and simple.
Quick question, the foam in the middle of your cabinet how is it attached? Oh and one more, how is the
soundstage with down firing woofer? This is the first time I've seen design like this, yes I am a novice, with down
firing woofer, the advantages? Thanks

Join
Date:
Feb 2007
Location:
seattle
wa

22nd February
2008, 05:22 AM
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: Hungary

#17

Quote:
Yes, I calculated it as normal BR box - guess the bass needs the same volumen, whether it's
firing in or out. I used boxplot for calculation.
Thanks Jesper!
Tyimo

22nd

#18

February
2008,
04:17 PM
diyAudio
Member

looks great! Jesper. simple and quite elegant.

I was going to try similar design, but with 8in beyma woofer. some woofers scream, when run unfiltered(even off
axis) , some don't. I haven't heard too many woofers, but it appears that polycones are the best for using without
crossovers. I suppose mounting woofer upside down should also reduce screaming.

Join Date:
Feb 2006
Location:
usa
Blog
Entries: 1

23rd February 2008, 11:17 AM

#19

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

23rd February
2008, 11:21
AM
diyAudio Member

#20

Hi Nebojsa
The soundstage is very natural - I tried somehow to explain it in post #11 - but it's simply natural, if you
think of acoustic presentations (jazz bands, symphoni orchesters etc.).

Join Date: Feb 2005 The foam is simply glued with contact-glue on the three contact-sides, and mounted in the enclosure.
Location: Near
Copenhagen

23rd
February
2008, 11:25
AM

#21

diyAudio
Member

Hi MisterTwister
I guess the screaming in some unfiltered midbass'es are at the upper frequencies. Must midbasses have a
peak before roll off. It is a good idea (if you want to run unfiltered), to find a midbass without this peak.
Enjoy

Join Date: Feb

2005
Location: Near
Copenhagen

23rd February 2008,

11:27 AM

#22

diyAudio Member

... And everybody: Thank you for the positive feedback - I'm looking forward to hear from the
next pencil-owner
Enjoy

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

23rd February 2008, 12:39 PM

diyAudio Member

#23

Juspur,
How sensitive is the Pencil to speaker placement...can it go anywhere?
What happens when its close to a wall or corner? thanks!

Join Date: Nov 2007

23rd

#24

February
2008, 05:03
PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005
Location:
Near
Copenhagen

Hi OhioTanner
Well, the pencil can go anywhere - since the port is on the back, moving closer to wall, increases the bass. I
haven't placed them close up to a wall or corner - but general omnidirectional practise states that this kind of
speakers prefer some air around'em. Mine is placed with minimum 30 cm to backwall, 200 cm to sidewalls Minimum, because they are rotated 45 degrees in to the room, like this (to avoid standing waves in general):
Attached Images
speakers.jpg (5.3 KB, 1884 views)

23rd
February
2008,
06:46 PM

#25

49 - for the 18th Quote:

time - again!
Originally posted by Renron
diyAudio
Member
This pic (link) reminds me of the Robot in "Lost in Space".
No offense intended.
Ron

Join Date: Oct

2006

Hi Renron - no offense taken - esp. as I once lived in "Sac-of-tomato's" for like 30 plus years. Prototypes
have a way of being cute and getting to hang around because of it. Providing that you have a spousal unit
that is forgiving and supportive - and believes that I'm a living genus and Lord of Audio! Poor girl - sigh __________________
DIY audio can be expensive but getting to see things go up in smoke - that's priceless!!!! .....
"whatever - call it brainfart of Mighty ZM"

Location: Near
"Music City"
(Nashville
Tennessee)

24th

#26

February
2008, 12:04
AM
diyAudio
Member

Thomas,
Thanks for not being offended, none was meant.
I have now been stuck in "Sac-of-Tomatos" for 10 years, Living at Lake Tahoe for 20 years prior to that.
Shocking!!!!
You must have a very "understanding" wife unit. I had to pleade and cajole mine into letting me build a pair of
"curved small thors" that were "too big" for the living room. Now she accepts the tall sound makers and never
complains. I do like the Pencil design.
Ron
__________________
"If it doesn't work properly, hope it catches on fire"- Nelson Pass @ BA3
"I fired up the prototype. Literally." The Prophet Pass.

Join Date:
Jan 2007
Location:
Sacramento

#27
24th
February
2008,
05:43
PM
diyAudio
Member

Sweet loudspeaker!!!!!
Jusper:

Join
Date:
Nov
2006

That looks like one sweet Microwalsh loudspeaker!!! The choice of woofer is superb - for the money ~$37 the
Nomex cone provides for superb FR with well-controlled rolloff above 6 khz (is that a foam, buytl or neoprene
surround?) obviating the need for 'mamboni' damping of the cone. And the woofer incorporates a shorting ring and
a generous size magnet - very fine choice. I am most tempted to build a pair with your exact choice of premium
drivers (the MDT tweeter is top shelf!); I might opt for an intrinsically rigid/nonresonant cyclindrical cabinet and a
vertical port in the base. But your design is most esthetically pleasing - very nice to look at.
You get useful bass to about 55 Hz? Have you done any FR measurements? I'll wager that the distortion is very
low and the waterfall plot is quite clean and resonant-free.
Congratulations - a job well done.
Have you compared the PENCILs to any other loudspeakers while listening?

24th

#28

February
2008, 07:48
PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005

Hi Mamboni
I think a cylindrical cabinet is far the best - however I couldn't get any decent bass with a vertical port - not even
with the 2 foam-shelves above the port (and the peerless couldn't "see" the port).
Well, the bass seems to extend beyond 55 Hz at full level - 55 hz I should get, according to the calculations. I
guess the two foam-shelves makes the speaker behave like a MLTL.

I haven't measured FR, BUT I've tried playing sinus waves 200 hz, 190, 180... 60, 55, 50, 45, 40 - and it seems
Location:
to be at full level to 45 Hz, whereafter a quick roll-off is happening. 40 hz seems subjectively to be half the
Near
sound level of 45 hz IMO.
Copenhagen
I haven't compared the pencil to other commercial speakers in the building phase - but I've owned KEF IQ3,
KEF RDM2, Marten Design Monk, Quad 11L, Mission 707 among others - and have longer listening sessions
with Martin Logan (various Models) and Vivid Audio 1.5.
Apart from Marten Design Monk, Martin Logan and Vivid Audio, the others are midfi. Monk, Logan and Vivid
are very different, so I can't point at a similar speaker to the pencil - but the pencil makes you play song by
song, without skipping the tracks, which previously was boring, but now has come to life...
The pencil is subjectively in the 2000-2500 $ league, compared to commercial speakers. But I have a feeling
that it can be enhanced even more by swapping capacitor to Mundorf Surpreme or equivalent. At the moment
the x-over is just a single capacitor 2,7 uF in series with the tweeter.

15th
March
2008,
10:04 PM
diyAudio
Member

#29

Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur

Join Date:
Feb 2005

The pencil is subjectively in the 2000-2500 $ league, compared to commercial speakers. But I have a
feeling that it can be enhanced even more by swapping capacitor to Mundorf Surpreme or
equivalent. At the moment the x-over is just a single capacitor 2,7 uF in series with the tweeter.

Location:
Update: The crossover has been updated - it's now just a 2,2 uF capacitor in series with the tweeter. Take a
Near
Copenhagen look at:
http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html
I swapped from Jantzen standard to Silver Supreme, ending with the Obligato caps from
www.diyhifisupply.com. They are outstanding, period. The Pencil is definitely a superior speaker now,
competing in a higher $-league.

16th March 2008, 04:33 PM

#30

diyAudio Member

Hi,

Join Date: Nov 2003

FWIW looking at the diagram in post #1 the damping foam at the top
placed on 2 parallel sides would be more effective placed on any two
adjacent sides. Unless what is meant is all 4 sides, i.e. both parallels.

Location: Brighton UK

/sreten.

16th
March
2008,
05:29 PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005
Location:
Near
Copenhagen

#31

Hi Sreten
I've just today tried filling the upper part of the speaker completely with acoustilux (slightly pressed). The pro's
should be a better impedance response in the bass. From what I've heard so far, a general more clear sound is
achieved - not more detailed, but simply clearer. The pencil should probably be seen as a kind of MLTL.

16th March 2008,

07:04 PM

#32

diyAudio Member

Hej Jusper!
Really nice speaker. I like the sound of the Carlsson speakers. I suppose one get similar sound
from these?

Join Date: Jan 2006

Here is an alternative with a smooth graph, at least on paper!!

Location: Cz Rep.

http://www.monacor.de/typo3/index.ph...ukatid=&brand=
Cheers,
Peter

16th

#33

March
2008,
11:12 PM
diyAudio
Member

Two thoughts:
1) You know, this could be great when loaded as a Transmission line speaker as well . . . the tall shape certainly
lends itself to the alignment, and deeper bass response would be possible . . .

Join Date:
Mar 2007

2) Anyone out there have the testing equipment to test the side-rear-vs-front FR curve of some drivers? While the
posted FR of the Monacor looks most encouraging, I think it is safe to say that the response from the rear (of any
driver) could be considerably different - listening 90 degrees off-axis, from the convex rear of the cone. Perhaps
Location:
better (no dust cap or in-the-cone artifacts), perhaps worse (driver basket and frame diffraction) . . . although
Cleveland, being an omni radiator would help with some of the latter. In this configuration, some drivers may yield a radically
Ohio, USA different response, once past the pistonic range.
Siegfried Linkwitz's Pluto just avoids the concern by firing the driver "face-up" and crossing over at end of piston
range. But I totally prefer the minimalist XO your configuration achieves. I, too, hate the ubiquitous 3K crossover
point.
I had followed the Mamboni thread with interest as well, so I'm certainly NOT doubting Juspur's results at all.
'Just something the community need consider if relying on manufacturer specs for drivers that are currently only
given a "one-sided" test.
-- Mark

17th March 2008,

06:52 AM

#34

diyAudio Member

I have seen the basket on Monacor now. It has much wider legs than the basket of Peerless,
probably not so good maybe...

Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: Cz Rep.

24th
March
2008,
04:56 PM
diyAudio
Member

#35

Juspur,
Did you fill the chamber with acoustilux to the 1st 5cm thick damping foam or did you force it down further?
Would you now suggest using the damping foam at the suggested point and fill the rest of the chamber with
acoustilux material?

Join Date:
Jun 2004
Location:
Chicago Area

24th
March
2008,
06:44 PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005

#36

Quote:
Originally posted by R. Jamm
Juspur,
Did you fill the chamber with acoustilux to the 1st 5cm thick damping foam or did you force it down
further? Would you now suggest using the damping foam at the suggested point and fill the rest of
the chamber with acoustilux material?

Location:
Near
Copenhagen I filled the chamber with acoustilux to the 1st 5cm thick damping, which is what I suggest (that means: nonfilling from the 1st 5cm thick damping and down to the bottom, apart from the 2nd 5 cm thick damping.

25th
March
2008,
03:54 AM

#37

diyAudio
Member

Re: Sweet loudspeaker!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by mamboni
Jusper:

Join Date:
Jan 2004
Location:
Columbus,
OH

That looks like one sweet Microwalsh loudspeaker!!! The choice of woofer is superb - for the money
~$37 the Nomex cone provides for superb FR with well-controlled rolloff above 6 khz (is that a foam,
buytl or neoprene surround?) obviating the need for 'mamboni' damping of the cone. And the woofer
incorporates a shorting ring and a generous size magnet - very fine choice. I am most tempted to build
a pair with your exact choice of premium drivers (the MDT tweeter is top shelf!); I might opt for an
intrinsically rigid/nonresonant cyclindrical cabinet and a vertical port in the base. But your design is
most esthetically pleasing - very nice to look at.
You get useful bass to about 55 Hz? Have you done any FR measurements? I'll wager that the
distortion is very low and the waterfall plot is quite clean and resonant-free.
Congratulations - a job well done.
Have you compared the PENCILs to any other loudspeakers while listening?
Where do you find that woofer for $37?
A vertical port in the base works quite well, actually.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tubamark ...think it is safe to say that the response from the rear (of any driver) could be
considerably different - listening 90 degrees off-axis, from the convex rear of the cone. Perhaps better (no dust
cap or in-the-cone artifacts), perhaps worse (driver basket and frame diffraction) . . . although being an omni
radiator would help with some of the latter. In this configuration, some drivers may yield a radically different
response, once past the pistonic range.
Siegfried Linkwitz's Pluto just avoids the concern by firing the driver "face-up" and crossing over at end of
piston range. But I totally prefer the minimalist XO your configuration achieves. I, too, hate the ubiquitous 3K
crossover point.
I had followed the Mamboni thread with interest as well, so I'm certainly NOT doubting Juspur's results at all.
'Just something the community need consider if relying on manufacturer specs for drivers that are currently
only given a "one-sided" test...[/B]
The "back side" of a woofer most often does measure significantly different, and, as drivers are designed to be
heard from the "front" that is the side that usually measures best.
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

25th
March
2008,
05:04 PM

#38

diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur
... And everybody: Thank you for the positive feedback - I'm looking forward to hear from the next
pencil-owner
Enjoy

Join Date:
Jan 2004

I've been wanting to try that particular driver in a Micro Walsh variant since about 2003, hadn't gotten around to it
yet partially because they're kind of expensive - and - Parts Express discontinued them, so I didn't know if they
would continue to be available. The new Nomex series with the phase plugs don't seem to have nearly as nice of
a freq. response, unfortunately.

I have some old 6.5" Peerless Nomex drivers to do something similar with, but the cabinet volume has to be quite
large with these particular drivers and the response is not quite as smooth.
Location:
Columbus,
__________________
OH
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

26th March 2008,

04:59 AM

#41

diyAudio Member

Hi,
What is your opinion about switching the Morel MDT-40 (tweeter) to one of the following to be used
with the PEERLESS 832873 driver:

Join Date: Jun 2004

Dayton PT2C-8 Planar Tweeter

HiVi RT1C-A Planar Isodynamic Tweeter
Location: Chicago Area HiVi RT2C-A Planar Isodynamic Tweeter
HiVi RT1L Round Planar Tweeter
What effect might they cause and whats your view on each?

26th
March
2008,
08:04 AM

#42

diyAudio
Member

The "HiVi RT1L Round Planar Tweeter" seems very interesting, at 88 dB, the sensitivity matches the woofer.
Furthermore it seems to radiate in every direction.

The other 3 tweeters have sensitivity 93-94 dB, so a few resistors must be added to lower the output from
these tweeters. Besides, traditional planar tweeters has a reputation of limited horisontal radiation = limited
Join Date: Feb sweetspot.
2005
So, in short I guess the "HiVi RT1L Round Planar Tweeter" could be a very good replacement for the Morel
Location: Near tweeter. Note, that the capacitor should be about 4,4 uF if crossover frequence is kept at 9000 Hz. Enjoy
Copenhagen
Link to FR
http://www.swanspeaker.com/product/htm/view.asp?id=226

6th May
2008,
12:33 AM
diyAudio
Member

#43

had a good look...

and these pencils are very nice.
looking for an inexpensive HT surround speaker (need 4 channels) (sides and rears for a 7.1 or 7.0 system
for my daughter's BF).
thinking about subbing some different drivers. We were going to try PVC pipe for an enclosure, and leave
the bottom open while elevating it above the ground for a"vent" (more like a TL than anything else). New
Onkyo 606 reciever to do the processor/amplifier needs.

Join Date: Feb

2004
Location:
Chinook
Country.Alberta

6th May 2008,

02:29 AM

stew
__________________
stew -"A sane man in an insane world appears insane."

#44

frugal-phile(tm)

Re: had a good look...

diyAudio Moderator
Quote:
Originally posted by Nanook
We were going to try PVC pipe for an enclosure, and leave the bottom open while elevating it above
the ground for a"vent" (more like a TL than anything else).
http://www.t-linespeakers.org/FALL/toobz/index.html
dave

Join Date: Oct 2001

Location: Victoria,
BC, NA, Sol III
Blog Entries: 5

6th May 2008, 02:53 AM

#45

diyAudio Member

I should have known to just ask dave...

cause he often has the answers...

Join Date: Feb

2004

stew
__________________
stew -"A sane man in an insane world appears insane."

Location: Chinook
Country.Alberta

31st July
2008, 03:49
PM
diyAudio
Member

#46

Re: THE PENCIL: inspired by Ohm Micro Walsh Tall

Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Join Date: Jan
2004
Location:
Columbus, OH

Click the image to open in full size.

Drivers: Peerless 832873 and Morel MDT-40 (tweeter).
...
The pictures aren't working, could you fix them?
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

31st July 2008, 05:49 PM

#47

diyAudio Member

fixed

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

31st July 2008,

06:21 PM
diyAudio Member

#48

Thanks! Have you gotten a measurement mic yet? You may want to move the tweeter back, for
time alignment.
EDIT: Oh ~ and now that you've had them for a while, updates on listening impressions?

Join
Date:
Jan
2004

__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

Location: Columbus, OH

31st
July
2008,
07:48 PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005

#49

Hi Critofur
No, I haven't measured them yet. But has lived with them for some time now. The crossover is just a 2,2 uF for
the tweeter. I've done quite some listening tests, and ended up with capacitors from obligato, see
http://www.diyhifisupply.com/diyhs_ob_caps.htm.
Why Obligato? Well, I found this shootout: http://www.humblehomemadehifi.com/Cap.html

Location:
That guy is very accurate in his description, and I get the same experiences (having used all the Jantzen
Near
capacitors in the test).
Copenhagen
I have built several other speakers afterwards, but the pencil is still standing in the living room
SPEAKER-CABLE TIP: Check out wires.co.uk. They have a great 2mm Silver-plated copper cable. Find
some PTFE-insolation and WHEUUUVV!

25th

#50

September
2008,
02:00 AM
diyAudio
Member

Juspur,
Great looking speaker pair. I was toying with the idea trudging down the path of designing a pair of DIY omni
speakers , but between you and Mamboni it appears much or all of the groundwork has already been done. I
particularly like the use of quality drivers and your minimalist crossover network. That seems in direct contrast to
my Ohm Walsh 5 speakers which don't appear to use the best of drivers, and have the signal passing through WAY- too many components.
Have you considered building a pair a size or two larger ?
Ohighway

Join Date:
Sep 2008
Location: In
the
woods.....
in Howard
County,
Maryland.

25th
September
2008,
11:12 AM

#51

diyAudio
Member

Hi Ohighway
A friend of mine measured the pencil and other drivers mounted the same way. It seems that some of the
sound (frequencies above approx. 2,5 kHz) is hitting the back of the magnet - when we're talking about the
Peerless I'm using.

Join Date: Feb

2005

As a result, you'll see a rolloff of about 6 db/octave above 2,5 kHz. It's okay - a natural rolloff means that no
crossover parts still isn't necessary for the woofer.

Location: Near
Copenhagen

However, as a result, I've changed the capacitor for the tweeter to a 3,3 uF from Obligato (see
www.diyhifishop.com). So the tweeter now rolls off from 6 kHz with 6 db/octave too.
Now the bad news regarding bigger drivers - if they've got magnets with bigger , they'll absorb more
sound (meaning rolloff at lower frequencies).
On the other hand: if you find drivers with magnets with smaller , higher frequencies will be reproduced by
the driver without rolloff.
The good news regarding drivers - We've got more drivers to chose from, since a rise in frequency above fx
4 kHz won't be a problem due to the rolloff caused by the magnets fysical .

25th

#52

September
2008,
02:10 PM
diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally posted by Ohighway
Juspur,
Great looking speaker pair. I was toying with the idea trudging down the path of designing a pair of DIY
omni speakers , but between you and Mamboni it appears much or all of the groundwork has already
been done. I particularly like the use of quality drivers and your minimalist crossover network. That
seems in direct contrast to my Ohm Walsh 5 speakers which don't appear to use the best of drivers,
and have the signal passing through -WAY- too many components.

Join Date:
Jan 2004
Location:
Columbus,
OH

Have you considered building a pair a size or two larger ?

Ohighway
Every part of the Walsh 5 driver other than the basket is custom designed specifically for that speaker. I don't
think you'll find a pre-made commercial driver that can substitute and give you that kind of low frequency output
while still playing smoothly above 2khz (from the BACK side).
For a smaller speaker like this pencil, yes, there are a few (very few) drivers that work well. Most pre-made
drivers simply won't make a decent "walsh type" speaker.
When I went to the Parts Express DIY event and heard lots of different speakers there, I didn't hear any that I
thought could still sound good after comparing them to a Ohm Walsh 5 - but, they didn't play them loud enough
to hear clearly, so I'm not sure.
I had a pair of Walsh 5 on loan for a couple years, they could play as loud as I could possibly want in a medium
size room and still play clean and clear, and low.
When auditioning a bunch of $1,000 + (up to ~ $20,000) speakers, the only ones I liked better than the Walsh 5
were the Revel Salon Ultimas. But, for something like The Matrix soundtrack, the Ultimas fell flat - I don't
understand why at all and wish I had a chance to borrow some Ultimas at home for a week or two.
Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur
The good news regarding drivers - We've got more drivers to chose from, since a rise in frequency
above fx 4 kHz won't be a problem due to the rolloff caused by the magnets fysical E
More drivers to choose from? Maybe, but, most drivers are simply crap when you try to use them as a "Walsh"
driver.
Also, I bet if you did blind listening tests with different brands of (same value) capacitors, you will not hear a
difference?
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

25th

#53

September
2008,
04:21 PM
diyAudio
Member

Rolloff on pencil?
Hi Juspur, a few questions/comments about the measurements?

Join Date:
Jul 2005

In making these comments I am assuming the measurements were made in the "horizontal Walsh mode" ... I
would really like to know what angle your friend measured from.

Location:
Fairfield,
IA

The basic premise: the magnet/basket "shadow" is probably NOT the reason for the roll-off you are seeing at
2500Hz.
It is probably caused by measuring at an effective angle of about 60 degrees off axis relative to the back of the
woofer cone. Please read on for further clarification.
1) Even with a "small" size profile, the incident angle of the microphone to the speaker cone would have an effect
on the frequency response. Even a 1" tweeter shows substantial changes in FR vs angle, why not a cone that
has a 2" backside?
(Yes its a 5" driver, but in Walsh mode you are looking at about a 2" radiating "dimension" on the cone, for al 360
degrees.)
2) It looks like the Peerless has a "cone angle" of about 30 degrees relative to the horizontal listening plane
when in "Walsh mode"
3) if you want a measurement that compares reliably to the frontal "on axis mode", you would perhaps place the
mic at an angle which is perpendicular to the middle of the back surface of the cone.
This would be about 60 degrees UP from the horizontal listening plane!
4) If you DID measure from the "horizontal"... then it was actually measuring the 60 deg off axis relative to the
back of the cone
Now, what if we compare this theoretical "horizontal Walsh mode" response to the 60 degrees off axis of the front
of the driver?
Lets check the 60 degree FR on the Tymphany site at http://tymphany.com/files/products/pdf/832873.pdf
Hey, look! at 60 degrees off axis, the driver shows a roll-off right around 2500Hz... much like what your friend
measured off the back of the cone.
sounds very similar to the results you quoted from your friends measurements, yes?
OK, some guesses and conclusions:
A) The roll off at 60 degrees measuring angle may be fairly close between front and back of cone. No way of
knowing for sure without comparing at effectively identical angles, but your comments would indicate they
(maybe) are the same?
B) The basket/magnet may cause some reflective peaks and dips in the response, but I dont think there is any
substantial filtering of high frequencies due to this.
C) It would be GREAT if your friend could measure at angles of perpendicular to the back of the cone, and also
30 deg from perpendicular, to see if the curves are fairly similar to the published front cone measurements.
SUGGESTIONS:
D) To get an even better idea of the "actual" roll-off characteristics of the back of the cone, you would want to
average the response curves at Perpendicular, +/-15, +/- 30, +/- 45, +/- 60, +/- 75 and +/- 90 degree angles from
the perpendicular. This would give you something closer to the true average response. And, according to Floyd
Toole, the average response is highly meaningful.
E) If option E is too complicated, try measuring at 45 deg off of perpendicular and maybe at 30 deg off of

perpendicular.
In practice, freq response at these angles usually comes ifairly close to the averaged output.
For a design such as this one, if I could only measure at one angle, I would probably go with 45 as being the one
to use.
F) So, if you could get your friend to run a measurement at 15 degrees ABOVE the horizontal, and another at 30
deg above, the curves from those points would probably get you much closer to the "optimized" curve to use in
your design.
AND.... Before you volunteer me to do this, please bear in mind I travel 90% of the time and have no access to
measuring equipment.
So how about it? Any chance your friend could look at this?
Thanks for posting a fun and effective design.
Best regards, Jack

29th

#54

September
2008, 06:30
PM
diyAudio
Member

Hi Jack
I'm getting the point. If I measure at another angle, I'll get another response.
Hmmm... now there's the problem: With ordinary box-speakers, you simply measure on axis (which often is
related to desired listening height, typically 90-95 cm above ground).

Join Date: Feb

2005
But - the way the pencil is built, we actually measure at (what Jack correctly points out) about 60 degrees off
axis (when we're sitting at typical listening position). But that's how we're placed, related to the driver. It's a bit
Location: Near difficult to explain. Can you catch it?
Copenhagen
So the big question is: do we want to measure the frequency, seen from listening position, or an odd angle
related to the driver?
As said before, I understand what you mean - and yes - I'll try to get my friend to measure the speakers as
you describe (a little patience necessary, however)
I plan to build another identical set of enclosures with the driver + tweeter mounted traditionally (with same xover too). Could be fun with a direct comparison/measuring.
Have a nice day/afternoon/night

29th September
2008, 06:40 PM

#55

diyAudio Member

Quote:
Originally posted by critofur

Join Date: Feb 2005

Also, I bet if you did blind listening tests with different brands of (same value)
capacitors, you will not hear a difference?

Location: Near
Copenhagen

Well, if the brands only includes Mundorf Silver and Obligato, I'm in it for a beer

30th
September
2008, 03:35
AM

#56

diyAudio Member

Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur
Well, if the brands only includes Mundorf Silver and Obligato, I'm in it for a beer

Join Date: Jan

2004
Location:
Columbus, OH

I would include whichever cheap brand non-electrolytic capacitor that is available in the same size.
I have a mix of 1uF, 2.2uF, 3.3uF, 3.9uF, 4.7uF, 10uF, and 20uF that I mix and match to get whatever size
I need.
I've never known of a case where someone could actually (consistantly) hear a difference (without
knowing which one they're listening to, or whether or not they've actually been switched (blind test)).
But knowing they've been changed, is, of course, possible to have a powerful bias even if there isn't
actually a difference.
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

30th

#57

September
2008,
01:50 PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Jul 2005

More Freq response considerations

Hi Juspur,
just a few more comments about the "design axis" for measurements.

Location:
Fairfield,
IA

Dr Floyd Toole performed much research which showed that for natural sounding reproduction the on axis
response must be very flat, AND of equal importance, to design for an "average omnidirectional" response that
is within about 2 dB of the on axis.
This is important for real room performance because for our ears to hear it as "real", the sound waves that are
reflecting in the room need to be very coherent with the on axis response.
In other words, it is important to have the "average power response" and the on axis response both as close to
flat as possible.
HBTW, Dr Tooles research work got him appointed as the head of design for the Harman Group. The designs
which most conform to his recomendations are the ones from Revel, and they are the subject of constant rave
reviews. His conclusions are right on target.
For those of us that do not have anechoic test chambers and the like, it is well to note that in most cases, the
frequency response of the driver at about 45degrees off axis compares fairly closely to the "average
hemispherical power response", so if I had only one frequency response measurement to work with, i would
select the 45 degree as the one which is most likely to predict how neutral the driver will be.
When measured from the front side of the cone at 45deg the Peerless unit you have selected performs very well,
very flat up to about 2.8KHz and then about a 6dB/octave rolloff up to 5KHz where it transitions to a faster rolloff.
If the backside perpendicular response is anywhere close to this, we probably have a serious winner here!
Other comments:
My prediction is you will find that the "direct radiator" version of the Pencil will sound very forward, not nearly as
good as the Pencil.
Why? Well, if you use these drivers "unfiltered" and mounted in a regular box they sound very good off axis...
BUT they can sound very aggressive, shouty and forward on-axis.
This is because the front baffle creates a gradual 6dB on axis lift.
This is not theory, I already built a couple of these using the same Peerless drivers... and unfiltered they sound
very aggressive when front baffle loaded in a small profile box.
To compensate for this many designers use baffle lift compensation or add in parallel a 2nd driver which only
operates in the bass range, but this usually throws the "Dr Toole" parameters out of balance.
Another option is to use two of these in "bi-pole" configuration ... which I also tried, and it sounds superb off axis
and in the room, but it still sounds too forward on axis and on overall balance.
(I ended up applying about a 2 dB shelf filter from about 700Hz using a Behringer DigitalEqualizer, and it sounds
very, vey good, but this requires much more complexity... the Behringer sounds OK in digital mode, but the
analog sections sounds bad... so i use it in digital mode only, with an external DAC... and yes, my system now
sounds really good...)
but what i really want is to use it in minimalist configuration, no filters, no Behringer, no DAC... just a direct triode
amplifier... so, how to do this?
Well, that's where your Pencil idea is just the ticket.
In the case of the Pencil, having the driver mounted in "Walsh mode" brilliantly solves the baffle lift effect.
Yes, the baffle lift still exists, but now instead of having it pointed at the listener, its pointing up at the ceiling!
And as I mentioned, the Peerless sounds really great unfiltered when listening "off axis".
Having it mounted in Walsh mode probably brings much more freedom from that dreaded baffle lift "shoutiness".
It really fits the "DrToole" criteria much better than the direct front radiation mode does.
Given my prior experimentation with this driver, I can predict that it would sound extremely balanced and natural
in the Walsh mode, provided the basket/magnet assembly doesnt create too many nasty aberrations in the
response.
So, I can't wait to get home and find out.... AND, unfortunately, that will have to wait until Christmas. I would love
to do this testing myself, but I am traveling almost all of the time and am far away from my system and my test
equipment.
As you can see, I have more than a passive interest in knowing if the back of the cone response is close to that

of the front !!
If it IS, identical, then we have a truly excellent driver for mounting in "Walsh mode".
Also, to placate all you Walsh purists, I harbor no illusions that this is really close to a Walsh driver, it really is not
the same thing.
However, for this application, the way Juspur integrated it with a tweeter, no filters on the mid-woofer, it is a
brilliant idea.
So, Juspur, having come this far, my suggestions would be that you concentrate on refining what is already an
excellent idea.
I would advise you to not waste your time building the "front radiator" version, I already did and it is seriously
flawed due to the baffle lift.
My suggestions for refining the design:
1) take the perpendicular to the back of the cone as your "optimized frequency response" and integrate the
tweeter with that.
2) Then, start playing with absorptive surfaces on the basket and the magnet to reduce reflections.
3) Then "time-align" the tweeter dome by bringing it close to the center line.
4)Play with crossing the tweeter in at a lower frequency, probably between 3.5Khz to 5KHz
5) Check Martin Kings quarter-wave.com site for ideas to build these as T-lines and maybe extend their bass
response... looks like 35Hz is feasible.
My bet is that this will yield superlative performance. Please let us all know what you find! ( I will really be looking
forward to Christmas this year!)
I have some other ideas for approaches similar to the Pencil, involving cylindrical cabinets and Mass Loaded
Quarter Wave T lines, but those will have to wait until Xmas.... sigh.
Great Thread, please keep it going!

30th
September
2008, 02:00
PM
diyAudio Member

#58

Quote:
Originally posted by critofur
I've never known of a case where someone could actually (consistantly) hear a difference
(without knowing which one they're listening to, or whether or not they've actually been
switched (blind test)).

Join Date: Sep 2008

Location: In the
woods..... in
Howard County,
Maryland.

But knowing they've been changed, is, of course, possible to have a powerful bias even if
there isn't actually a difference.

Amen brother, and that goes beyond capacitors too.....

I have some folks I know who claim HUGE improvements in their system based on changes they make.
EVERY change results in a HUGE improvement according to them. Any time I humbly suggest a blind
test they either pretend not to hear me, or give me "that look".

30th

#59

September
2008, 04:29
PM
diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Feb 2005
Location:
Near
Copenhagen

Well, speaking for my self, not every change is an improvement - I've tried expensive high-end fuses (paid for
) with no improvement - and gosh - I REALLY wanted an improvement. The same with tube dampers positive effect on one amp, negative on another.
So, basically I've learned that THE THING is looking at the equipment as a chain. You can change items, but
it doesn't necessarily improve. Expensive isn't necessarily better.
... And sometimes the improvement is in one field, while degrading occurs another place...
I fully respect if people can/cannot hear changes. The truth is between your own ears, simply

30th September 2008,

04:49 PM

#60

diyAudio Member

Hi Jack
Thank you for the arguments for NOT to build a traditional BR with the peerless'es. You've
saved me for pointless efforts

Join Date: Feb 2005

I'll stick to your "5 point programme" and report the effects on this site. But beware: It'll not
be overnight

Location: Near
Copenhagen

1st
October
2008,
02:44 PM

Regards,
Jesper

#61

diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally posted by Juspur
Well, speaking for my self, not every change is an improvement - ... ...
You can change items, but it doesn't necessarily improve. Expensive isn't necessarily better.
... And sometimes the improvement is in one field, while degrading occurs another place...
Well based on those statements I'd say you're able to retain some objectivity. And that actually allows true
progress.

From what I've personally experienced there are far too few folks in the audio game who are willing to admit
Join Date: Sep that maybe that cash outlay (whether big or small) they just made had no effect on the sound, or even a
detrimental effect. Generally they -swear- it's better, but then one day the items suddenly and mysteriously
2008
disappear from their systems without any explanation.
Location: In
the woods.....
in Howard
County,
Maryland.

5th
October
2008,
05:03 AM
diyAudio
Member

#62

Re: More Freq response considerations

Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Caldwell
...Yes, the baffle lift still exists, but now instead of having it pointed at the listener, its pointing up at
the ceiling!
And as I mentioned, the Peerless sounds really great unfiltered when listening "off axis".
Here's another option that you might like then:
Join Date: Jan
2004
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthr...highlight=duos
Location:
Columbus,
OH

Quote:
Having it mounted in Walsh mode probably brings much more freedom from that dreaded baffle lift
"shoutiness". It really fits the "DrToole" criteria much better than the direct front radiation mode does.
Given my prior experimentation with this driver, I can predict that it would sound extremely balanced and
natural in the Walsh mode, provided the basket/magnet assembly doesnt create too many nasty
aberrations in the response....
The basket on these speakers is great, thin cast metal legs. I doubt you'll find another series of drivers with
better FR from the backside...
Hmm, perhaps then, what Juspur's speaker could use to imrpove it would be a bipole or dipole tweeter?
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

15th
May

#63

2009,
01:46 PM
diyAudio
Member

Walsh Mode FR
I recently measured several drivers mounted in Walsh mode and have a couple of conclusions to share:

Join Date: 1) Front radiator vs Walsch mode

Jan 2009 For Walsch mode. the upper end response seems directly linked to the le inductance of the voice coil.
With a driver working in direct front radiating response, there is a "rising" response due to the rigid piston. To get
this to work as a"flat response" driver, a low pass filter is needed. in practice, many driver designers use the voice
coil inductance to achieve this goal.
BUT, the Walsch mode does NOT seem to exhibit these characteristics, because the "piston" is at a 60 to 90
degree incidence angle. SO, the Le inductance that yields flat response in direct radiator mode, now gives a 1st
order type rolloff at a frequency mostly determined by the Le vs Re of the voice coil.
2) There seems to be some minor "horn load" effect in the midrange area, due to the size and proximity of the
magnet coupling with a shallow cone. This usually seems big enough to require EQ.
Supporting evidence:
- Tried the Walsch mode with the Peerless 6.5" Nomex drivers(Le=1.4mH) and determining they were rolling off
1st order at about 1.2KHz up to 5Khz where the rolloff goes 3rd order.
- Then did the same using Vifa XG18 wood cone drivers 6.5", (Le=0.54mH) they started roling off at about 3.2KHz
- Then did the same with SBacoustics 6.5" (Le=0,15mH) and these go all the way up past 10kHz (albeit with
some major peaking)
All three exhibit some midrange boost from 700Hz to about 2kHz which I am inclined to attribute to partial "horn
load" created by the shallow cones.
BTW the "horn load" would be much less of a problem if we had big tall cones like the original Walsch drivers,
only using modern materials and magnet structures with ultra low inductance like ScanSpeak or the SB Acoustics
drivers.
SO, for "Walsch mode"use of drivers it does appear as if the upper FR is strictly related to the ratio of voice coil
inductance vs the resistance.
Depending on the tweeters used, and on the type of crossover, it appears one could pretty reliably predict the
rolloff of the driver and design that into the filter.
So there you have it, a mystery that seems to be resolved...

#64
20th
May
2009,
03:11
AM

diyAudio Jusper, i'm really inrigued by the simplicity of this design for surround duty in a hifi HT application but with maybe a
Member tad more low end extension and power handling......what do you think of trying the 8" version of the Nomex and
would you suggest the nomex cone or the Poly as the poly doesn't exhibit the peaky response around 6k you
mentioned? For surround duty. i've contemplated a different approach to the tweeters, maybe 4 neo domes each
mounted on the corners sliced at a 45 degree angle with each opposing pair wired out of phase with an adjustable
Join
Lpad of course. When modelling the bass response of the 8" version, i can get solid extension to 35hz in only
Date:
45L.....do you think the Walsh alignment will produce close to the same results? I would like to build these as 12"
Sep
cube towers lined with 10" acrylic cast tube and dampened between the outside wall of the tube and the wood
2008
enclosure.....maybe rigid foam standoffs and then sand fill the voids?

23rd May
2009, 01:56
PM
diyAudio
Member

#65

As far as 8" goes, you'd be hard pressed to find a better woofer for that purpose - either the Nomex or PP.
Remember, the response from the back WILL be different than from the front.
With the 8", you will probably want a tweeter that can crossover as low as 2Khz 2nd order.
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

Join Date: Jan

2004
Location:
Columbus, OH

24th
May
2009,
04:26 AM

#66

diyAudio
Member

8" peerless?
in answer to your recent question about 8" driver in Walsh mode:

Join Date: Given the same internal box volume, the bass response would be identical for Walsh type mounting with the
Jan 2009 magnet out of the box when compared to conventional front firing.... only remember with Walsh style mounting
you are actually getting a little more box volume rather than less.
This WILL make a difference in your bass response if you do not take the volume difference into account.
With a sealed box it's probably not a biggie, but with a vented cabinet, this could change the alignment by a fair
amount, especially if you are using low Q drivers where the box has a small volume.
I second Critofur's comment about not going much beyond 2KHz if you use the Peerless, due to the fairly high
inductance of the voice coil.
Another more expensive choice if you want to cross higher would be the scanspeak 8".... $$$
For tweeters, you might want to look into the ScanSpeak Air Circ tweeter or the Heil type AMT's from Mark &
Daniel....especially if you want an Omni dispersion for the highs you should look into the DM2a with a diffuser....
check my other post "New Heil type driver" on this site for details on how to do this.
Using the DM2a would give you a single driver solution with no beaming or interference effects, and it can be very
successfully crossed in at 2kHz

25th
May
2009,
04:17 AM
diyAudio
Member

#67

More expensive drivers are not nesc. better, particularly for use as a "Walsh" driver.
The Peerless drivers DO have shorting rings, and, pretty smooth response as far as non-polypropylene drivers
go.
Now - some drivers such as some of the ScanSpeak Revelators, maybe some Usher woofers, etc, MAY allow
simpler higher crossovers, may have lower distortion. But, until you're a real expert at this, you won't know what
the back side FR looks like until you measure it. You can count on it always being different than the "front" side
FR measurements.

Join Date:
Jan 2004

Regardless of the woofer's freq. response, I still would generally say you don't want to crossover much above
2Khz, one reason is the distance between the woofer cone and the tweeter.
If you're lucky enough to find a woofer that plays smoothly much above 2 Khz from the backside, I would
certainly TRY listening with the tweeter crossed as high as possible, as a learning experiment, if nothing else.
Perhaps some day there will once again be a driver that works "full range" in the "Walsh" mode.

Location:
Columbus,
Some of those Peerless Nomex woofers are a great value, and I'd have to hear the completed speaker design
OH
side-by-side before I would assume that some other more expensive driver would make a "better" speaker.
For that 8" woofer - don't worry about the difference in bass/volume dispacement between "Walsh" mode and
"conventional" mode mounting - the displacement of the magnet is not going to be that signifigant considering
the VAS of that woofer...
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

#68
25th
May
2009,
04:57
AM
diyAudio Thanx for the replies. I'm gonna start out with just the woofers for now and take some measurements on a
Member horizontal axis as the purpose for these is strictly omni-surround duty. Simple MDF towers for now tuned to 37hz.
We'll see what the response turns up.....i'm hoping to press it to 3.5khz. Considering the proposed 4 corner tweeter
array, this will result in a mild horn loading of the woofer into the enclosure...anyone see a problem with this? BTW
i'm considering the Aurasound NT1's.
Join
Date:
Sep
2008

7th

#69

July
2009,
06:49
AM
diyAudio Once upon a F cabinet
Member
Juspur, I love your design and the engineering that went with it. I wish my cabinet making skills were nearly as good
as yours. One of my first successful Walsh alignment creations came back in '94 out of necessity. I burnt the left
Join
side tweeter in my Ohm F2's and couldn't afford repair, so I made a mounting board out of 3/4" plywood and placed
Date:
Jul 2009 10" Oaktron poly woofers upside down in the original F cabinets and hot glued an ESS Heil monopole "tweeter" to
the top of each one. When you run a pink noise signal you can time align a hi frequency driver very well by listening
to the sound become coherent. I surrounded the backs with glass wool, kinda like wall insulation but much more
dense, inside the original F covers, as I had learned from the F's of potential (and severe) reflection waves, both
destructive and constructive. This did not really solve that issue but smoothed out the midrange substantially. Big
peaks around 2500 Hz using the original ESS x-overs. So I wound some air core inductors (no L pad, did it by
counting windings, ugh.) and used a cap to cross over the heils at approxiately 4200 Hz. They looked a mess,
almost as bad as if you pull apart a current Ohm driver but with the brown covers you couldn't see. So to make it
short, very powerful sound with more transparent highs than the F2's although the mids needed some EQ. I agree
that poly woofers work much better with a walsh alignment and virtually any cone angle will produce a very
coherent sound stage. However, as someone mentioned earlier, not all woofers or mid bass drivers work well this
way! I lucked out. OK,I'm done with this for now. I am running some 3 1/2" drivers this way with some auto tweeters
from Radio Shack into 4 liter polypropylene bottles. I might post a pic or 2 and describe them if ayone is interested
in my $30 baby walsh-like creations. Yes, they do sound very good, actually.

7th July 2009, 11:54 AM

#70

49 - for the 18th time - again! Hi Spikedart - and Welcome to diyAudio!!

diyAudio Member

I see we share common interest in things ESS and Walsh so you might find this thread of
interest.
OHM Acoustics "Walsh F" Speaker remakes

Join Date:
Oct 2006

I used to work for DEC over in Springfield and my Bro still lives in MA so if I get up that way
maybe we can get together for some chowder and compare notes.

Location:
Near "Music City" (Nashville
Tennessee)

__________________
DIY audio can be expensive but getting to see things go up in smoke - that's priceless!!!! .....
"whatever - call it brainfart of Mighty ZM"

27th November 2009, 06:15 PM

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

#71

Hi there
My webhost went down - however the initial pic's are submitted below. Enjoy

27th November 2009, 06:26

PM
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Jan

2007
Location:
Sacramento

#72

Pics look nice, good job!

do you have any that are full size? these don't enlarge and it's impossible to see the
details.
Ron
__________________
"If it doesn't work properly, hope it catches on fire"- Nelson Pass @ BA3
"I fired up the prototype. Literally." The Prophet Pass.

27th November 2009, 06:44 PM

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

#73

Hi Renron
A_men said just the same.
Yes, my webhost suddenly gave up business. I've resubmitted the 4
original pictures to diyaudio, but for some strange reason, they've
been scaled down (making the drawing difficult to see).
Well, I'll try again

27th November 2009, 06:45 PM

diyAudio Member

#74

...It works, great ;-)

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Near Copenhagen

27th
November
2009, 08:57
PM

#75

diyAudio
Member

Well,
that was sure worth the effort! Bravo! What a gorgeous set of pencils. I usually prefer dark wood but those are
stupendous! I really like the pencil because it is so radically different. Very handsome speakers indeed. Did I
mention how good they look?
Ron
__________________
"If it doesn't work properly, hope it catches on fire"- Nelson Pass @ BA3
"I fired up the prototype. Literally." The Prophet Pass.

Join Date: Jan

2007
Location:
Sacramento

27th
November
2009, 09:28
PM
diyAudio Member

#76

Thank you for the kind words. I've been thinking of making a new, totally black set of pencils with slightly
rounded corners off the top plate and moderate curved pencils in time-glass fashion...

Join Date: Feb

2005
Location: Near
Copenhagen

28th
November
2009,
08:50 PM

#77

diyAudio
Member

Join Date:
Jul 2009

Another main driver worth considering?

Having spoken to Dave at DC Gold Audio, he indicates that his initial (not thorough) test of the 7" driver produced
very positive results when walsh aligned. Note the spread cast basket and steep angle of the driver. These are full
range drivers usually meant for aquatic use or for other harsh environments. I do not have the driver specs for
these but I am sure he will provide them if asked. He quotes:
Size - 7", Power handling - 80W cont / 300 W max, Efficiency @ 1W / 1m - 92 db, Freq. +/-3d - 35Hz - 19kHz.
They seem like the ideal test driver for this application. Unfortunately, they are not cheap and if they aren't good
as inverted cones, well I suppose if you have a boat...
Web site= not so hot, the actual driver picture can be found on the home page and you see these on the auction
sites. I don't have nearly $600 on hand at the moment for this project, but hope to at the start of the year. DC Gold
Audio : N7C [N7C] - $ 279.11

28th November 2009,

11:10 PM
diyAudio Member

Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
British
Columbia

#78

The price of the DC Gold N7C drivers is per pair.

Here is some data you might find useful.
I have found that a Zobel consisting of 12 ohms and 3.1uF does a very respectable job of
smoothing the top end.
As a woofer these things are capable of some ridiculous bottom end for their size.
In a two way they can be crossed over much higher than a normal 7"driver thus avoiding a x-over
point in the critical area of 1-3k.
As a full range driver they do very well also, however, for this purpose the N7R is very worth the
extra money.
Attached Images
DC Gold N7C measurement.jpg (471.1 KB, 80 views)

29th
November
2009,
04:49 AM

#79

diyAudio
Member

Is that trace for real?

Quote:
Join Date: Jul
2009

Originally Posted by rastanearian

The price of the DC Gold N7C drivers is per pair.
Here is some data you might find useful.
I have found that a Zobel consisting of 12 ohms and 3.1uF does a very respectable job of smoothing the
top end.
As a woofer these things are capable of some ridiculous bottom end for their size.
In a two way they can be crossed over much higher than a normal 7"driver thus avoiding a x-over point in
the critical area of 1-3k.
As a full range driver they do very well also, however, for this purpose the N7R is very worth the extra
money.
Thanks for the post, I am impressed. The physical driver size (elongated) and wide claimed FR seemed to
indicate the potential. Nice find. Does the Zobel network reduce the efficiency of this driver? I noted the high
R in the trace.

29th

#80

November
2009,
06:51 AM
diyAudio
Member

Juspur,
If you are listening to the back side of the woofer it needs to be wired in reverse or it is playing out of phase. It
would be very easy for you to wire both drivers in reverse where the woofer would be in phase and the tweeter
would be out. This is a common trick to smooth a tweeter in a 1st order x-over arrangement.
My estimation is that with only a 2.7uF cap your x-over point is going to be in the 7.8khz range. I highly
recommend putting a zoebel across the woofer, 8.2uF and 5.6 ohm is a pretty good place to start.

Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
British
Columbia

29th November
2009, 06:56 AM

#81

diyAudio Member

Spikedart,
The zobel is in parallel with the driver so it doesn't really impact efficiency. I have only measured them
electrically, I have not had time for an acoustic measurement.

Join
Date:
May
2009
Location: British
Columbia

10th
June
2010,
03:39 AM
diyAudio
Member

#82

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohighway
...That seems in direct contrast to my Ohm Walsh 5 speakers which don't appear to use the best of
drivers, and have the signal passing through -WAY- too many components...
Appearances can be deceiving then, I guess. I'm not sure which version of W5 drivers you have, but the ones
that I've seen and tested have significant advantages over the Peerless HDS woofers - particularly in terms of
bass output.

Join Date:
Jan 2004

I had some Walsh 5's on loan for about a year, few other speakers I've auditioned could play as cleanly, nearly
that full range at in front of the stage rock-concert level volume. (I used my Onkyo TS-DX787 in "Stereo Direct"
mode, playing CD music such as New World Order by Ministry and Sober by Tool with the volume set at "-0db")

Location:
Columbus, I too have been fixated on the idea of "minimalist crossovers" for years now, without any scientifically tested
basis - just a "gut feeling" that I want a simpler crossover. I haven't seen any testing, anywhere, that supports
OH
audible superiority of simpler crossovers (other than comparing different slopes). Some people prefer LR6, but
general consensus (as much as there is one) seems to concur that LR2 is best due to superior even power
response, when using drivers capable of performing well with those slopes...
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

11th
November
2011, 03:56
PM

#83

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug

2001
Location:
USA,NorthCarolina

Hello,
I recently bought a pair of Peerless 830873's and Vifa D26NC-55-06's. I want to try the The Pencil
design featured here. I know that the tweeter I have is not the Morel MDT-40 or the HiVi RT1L,this is just
what I have on hand. Is this workable?

Last edited by Cambe; 11th November 2011 at 03:58 PM.

14th
November
2011, 07:53
PM

#84

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug

2001

I'm about to build the enclosures can someone help me with making adjustments to port tuning. The
design uses a 57mm diameter port,105mm length. I have 1.5", 2.0 " and 2.5" diameter port material.
Can someone recalculate the port tuning, based on what I have? My computer is a Mac so,I can't use
the normal design software.
Thanks

Location:
USA,NorthCarolina

15th

#85

November
2011,
01:48 AM
diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambe
I'm about to build the enclosures can someone help me with making adjustments to port tuning. The
design uses a 57mm diameter port,105mm length. I have 1.5", 2.0 " and 2.5" diameter port material. Can
someone recalculate the port tuning, based on what I have? My computer is a Mac so,I can't use the normal
design software.
Thanks

Join Date:
Nov 2007
2.5" dia. @ 5.3" long, or 2 x 1.5" dia. @ 4" long for stock tuning. What are the specs on the woof you're using?

15th

#86

November
2011, 01:59
AM
diyAudio
Member

Stock enclosure @ 10 liters is too small and tuned too high for the 830873. A bump at 80Hz and 10dB down
at 55Hz is predicted; certainly not extracting the potential for that particular driver. 16 liters will get you closer
to 10 dB down at 40 or 45Hz...

Join Date: Nov

2007

15th November 2011, 02:02

AM
diyAudio Member

#87

I am just using Juspur's original spec's for "The Pencil" using the same driver the Peerless
830873.

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: USA,NorthCarolina

15th November 2011, 02:08 AM

diyAudio Member

#88

So, 16L looks better.

Now,what dimensions for box and
tuning?

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: USA,NorthCarolina

15th
November
2011,
12:21 PM

#89

diyAudio
Member

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambe
So, 16L looks better.
Now,what dimensions for box and
tuning?

Join Date: Nov

2007

You can do whatever you'd like for dims! But, if the original designer knows something that I don't (such as
actual measured specs), there could be a little trouble brewing here. Let me through this woofer in a better
modeler later on today...

15th November 2011,

02:47 PM
diyAudio Member

#90

You can check the box volume/vent tuning that Troels used, he has published at least one design
w/a Peerless HDS 5.25 woofer.
BTW, that Vifa tweeter should be ok, if you design a decent crossover...

Join
Date:
Jan 2004

__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends

Location:
Columbus, OH

15th
November
2011, 03:53
PM

#91

diyAudio Member

Join Date: Aug

2001

fwater:I really don't know if the original designer knows something we both don't, like actual measured
spec's. I have tried to contact Jusper about this design and so far no response. That is why I am posting
here. Please, do check
another modeler and get back to me.

critofer:Just checked the design featured on Troels website for the Peerless HDSPPB830860. 8.2L, Fb=
58Hz, Port= 40mm (ID) x 70mm or 50mm (ID) x 120mm. Like I said above,I do not have any software to
Location:
use for the enclosure or crossover design. If necessary I will purchase the Morel MDT-40's and use the
USA,NorthCarolina 2.2 uF capacitor crossover Jusper used. However, the price of the MDT-40's
@ $81.00 ea. from Madisound is not what I really want to do if I don't have to
I really appreciate you guys!

16th

#92

November
2011,
12:50 AM
diyAudio
Member

Well, I've sworn off WinISD before because of inconsistent (with other simulators) results, but sometimes it's just
so quick. Hornresp, which I trust, shows good results in 15 liters (-3dB @ 40Hz), but 10 liters is pretty good for
this woofer, too (-3dB @ 50Hz, -10dB @ 40Hz). I say go with the stock enclosure to ease the build. Squeezing out
a few extra Hz with a bigger enclosure might be worth it if yo want to shuffle the cab around a bit.
In 10 and 15 liters, this port gives both tunings.

Join Date:
Nov 2007

16th November
2011, 12:52 AM
diyAudio Member

Join
Date:
Nov
2007

#93

BTW, don't drop the bucks on the Morel units. Your tweets will do just fine. A few different values of
reasonable caps on hand will let you dial it in with a little experimentation.

16th November 2011, 05:32 AM

diyAudio Member

#94

fwater, thank you.

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: USA,NorthCarolina

18th November 2011, 02:29 PM

diyAudio Member

#95

fwater you have Email.

Join Date: Aug 2001

Location: USA,NorthCarolina

25th November 2011, 02:49 PM

diyAudio Member

#96

Hi Cambe:
As requested in your PM: Submitting simulations using your 'Pensil' data:

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: Jacobsmountain

b
Attached Images
Peerless-830873.JPG (367.5 KB, 195 views)

Pensil_ML-TL.JPG (639.7 KB, 196 views)

9th May 2014, 01:31

PM

#97

diyAudio Member

any news on this front? since the other walsh thread was resurrected, a micro walsh could be in
my future...

Join Date: Nov 2007

12th May
2014, 11:10
PM

#98

diyAudio Member Hello,

Are you in Ohio? I moved to Columbus after developing the MicroWalsh series with John at Ohm
Acoustics. I'd be happy to meet with you to talk about speakers, if you'd like.
B.t.w., I'd recommended the slightly larger 1000 model.
__________________
Critofur
http://www.ohmspeakers.com <- all the folks here are my friends
Join Date: Jan
2004
Location:
Columbus, OH