advertisement


PFM Special - a simpler and more affordable DIY loudspeaker design

James

Lord of the Erg\o/s
This has been a long time coming, but I'm often told it's better late than never. At least I've learnt a little bit more about loudspeaker design and hopefully better at it.

At the risk of repeating myself, I should outline what I consider to be the prime criteria for such a loudspeaker. First and foremost, it must be capable of playing music from all genres. This means it needs to have a reasonably wide bandwidth and dynamic range, and capable of generating convincing scale.

Secondly, it must be affordable. But those who know me know I don't do things in halves, so to temper my penchant for the expensive - I have looked long and hard at cost-effective drivers for the job and have come up with this selection of Danish-made Vifa drivers.

2849718-md.jpg


The M26WR-09-08 is a 10-inch woofer that has a paper-pulp cone and a very generous +/- 6.5mm of linear travel. More importantly, this driver is happy to be loaded in a sealed box of only 40L, which should make for a reasonably compact floor-standing design. This driver retails in USA for round $90 each.

The D75MX is a 3-inch dome midrange that will be expected to cover around 500Hz to 3kHz. Unfortunately, there isn't an affordable 10-inch bass driver that can cover mid-frequencies with any real conviction so this has to be a 3-way design. The choice of the D75MX is also a deliberate one because it has an acoustic centre depth that is very close to the matching tweeter so that a vertical baffle can be used without the need to incorporate time-delay to ensure correct crossover summation. This driver retails in USA for around $42.

Last but not least, the D27TG-35-06 is a ferro-fluid cooled tweeter with a usefully low resonance frequency of 650Hz (which means I can probably get away without the need for a resonance trap circuit) that will be used from around 3kHz. It will extend cleanly without break up to beyond 20kHz, which is fantastic performance for a $25 tweeter.

All up, the drivers cost around US$314, which compares more than favourably with the US$1,200 for the E-V drivers.

Thirdly, the PFM-Special must be easy to build. This means a rectangular box with straight edges (OK, maybe a bit of a rounding over) - but no fancy curves, radiused profile or tricky joinery. I'm planning to use 18mm MDF for the main carcass, which will then be clad with 18mm marine ply. Others may choose to use MDF for the outside as well. No need for expensive hardwoods.

Finally, the PFM-Special must be true to the flat-earth listener. It will use acoustic suspension loading principles to produce a tight and tuneful bass. The bass extension won't be as low as a 'Brik, but that should make it more sympathetic to boundary placement whilst not being entirely dependent on it. Will have to suck this one and see what results.

Other design criteria includes ease of drive with minimum impedence phase swings, and I'll endeavour to keep the impedence minima above 5-ohms.

Work on the cabinet will start in earnest when the E-V cabinet is completed. I intend to measure both designs at the same time so that I need to place only one order for XO components.

Stay tuned.

James
 
looks / souds interesting....

what are the estimated approximate costs all up (drivers / crossover / MDF / Ply etc) of Ergo III or V / PFM special?
 
"what are the estimated approximate costs all up (drivers / crossover / MDF / Ply etc) of Ergo III or V / PFM special?"

Mark, if you were to replicate the E-IIIs, it would cost you around NZ$2,000 in parts and material. It cost me considerably more to develop the design. The E-Vs would be closer to NZ$2,800 in parts and material. No doubt I'll be spending more than than in fine-tuning the design. The PFM should cost less than NZ$1K if done right.

"Price of drivers from Wilmslow Audio......£410."

That can't be right, Paul. I got my prices directly from Madisound where I believe AshleyD sourced his drivers from too.

James
 
Hi,
I have some questions:

1. Why three ways design ?
IMHO if you want a cheaper loudspeaker than use two ways with better components and less crossover and phase problems.

2. Ferrofluid tweeters are IMHO sounding less dynamic and open that a good tweeter without ferrofluid.

I have build few dyi loudspeakers, sometimes with very good results, but i think it is so difficult to make a really good ls, than it is easier and maybe even cheaper to buy a really good ls on epay.
But if somebody like to build ls, than no problem and i am curious about this "open source pfm ls", maybe it will be a great ls.

Cheers, Tomek
 
Tomek,

"Why three ways design ?"

Because the only way to get decent bass/sensitivity out of a sealed box is to use large drivers. Large drivers don't do midrange particularly well. I would further contend that not many midbass drivers do a good job of both the midrange and bass. Jack of both trades and master of none.

"if you want a cheaper loudspeaker than use two ways with better components and less crossover and phase problems."

The world is already over-populated with small 2-way loudspeakers. I don't think I'd add much value by designing and building yet another one. Also, the problem with crossovers and phase is a non-issue when designing with measured MLS data and decent CAD software. The compromises with a small 2-way is far greater in my opinion than the challenge offered by a decent 3-way system.

"Ferrofluid tweeters are IMHO sounding less dynamic and open that a good tweeter without ferrofluid"

I use Hiquphon OW1 and OW2s in my more expensive designs, but I also use the ferro-fluid Scan-speak 9500 tweeter in my 2.5-way E-IV. If you heard them, you would think they are anything but undynamic or closed-in. But this is supposed to be a cost-effective design, and specifying a pair of USD175 tweeters is not fair game.

"but i think it is so difficult to make a really good ls, than it is easier and maybe even cheaper to buy a really good ls on epay.
But if somebody like to build ls, than no problem and i am curious about this "open source pfm ls", maybe it will be a great ls."


Designing and building loudspeakers is part science and part art. I have built several pairs now, and I can say that the difficult part is tuning and voicing the design. It just simply takes time and a good understanding of cause and effect. I build my own loudspeakers because I can't find any mass-produced ones that satisfied my desire for a tight and fast bass, good looks and ethereal voicing to melt my cares away at the end of a hard day.

I'm creating the PFM-Special because I'm aware many here lament the sameness from other loudspeaker manufacturers and long for the good old days when the likes of AR, Advent and Allison ruled the roost. It is for these folk that I'm designing these and making the plans available here for those interested in building a pair for themselves.

Simple, really.

James
 
Nice one James,

I've been watching you, Mr Tibbs and Ashley with great interest during tha past year or so, I reckon the PFM special may be just the thing for me.

In the meantime, I'd be seriously interested in anything you might suggest in the way of an affordable after-market crossover for my SBL's ;)

Mike
 
Mike,

"In the meantime, I'd be seriously interested in anything you might suggest in the way of an affordable after-market crossover for my SBL's ;)"

How can you use the word 'seriously' with a wink smiley?

But let's ignore the smiley for a minute and consider the question. You have three pathways to improve upon the SBL PXO. The first is to go with something already offered on the market - Audio 42 springs to mind. Don't know how much they cost or how they sound, but you might be able to buy on approval and return if not satisfied.

Secondly, there is the Naim (S)NAXO route. It is allegedly a significant improvement but my understanding is that the active circuits deliver textbook 3rd order Bessel transfers and that in itself may not yield an even tonal balance. This may not be a concern to those who love what SBLs do well, but I couldn't live with a lack of midband vitality.

Finally, you could get a set of custom-designed passive crossovers for your SBLs based on actual measured data of your raw drivers. This set of filters will shape the acoustic response of your drivers to deliver perfect summation and power response into your room, and take into account any resonance peaks and dips with appropriate contouring circuits. This is essentially what Ron Toolsie did with his DBLs.

"I've been watching you, Mr Tibbs and Ashley with great interest during tha past year or so, I reckon the PFM special may be just the thing for me."

Thanks for the interest. It is heartening to note that this is of value to others.

James
 
I am trying to scrouge up a SBL to do some crossoverless SPL measurements with and have a tailor made passive crossover fabricated to allow a linear and phase coherent response. Anyone willing to send me a single SBL I can do that with?

Later on this week I will also do the same with my pair of Tukans- a great speaker let down considerably by the crossover that is still in circuit (albeit PCB traces only) when it is configured active in the conventional way. What I will do is remove the old x/o completely, wire the 2 pairs of 4mm sockets directly to the drive units and again do the SPLs, and have a premium passive x/o designed.

I expect that a resonably priced Tukan crossover (I'm thinking in the region of 200-300$ here) would be a lifesaver to the herds of Tukan owners there.

Note that although the SBLs and Tukans are given the identical Snaxo, it is exceedingly unlikely that an optimized passive x/o for the tukans would be even similar to one for the SBL.
 
"Price of drivers from Wilmslow Audio......£410."
That can't be right, Paul. I got my prices directly from Madisound where I believe AshleyD sourced his drivers from too.
Paul could well be right, James.

I did source my drivers from Madisound and their service was excellent. Even with the delivery charge (approx $70), VAT (17.5%) and duty (3%) I made a saving over buying in the UK, I'm also fairly sure the drivers arrived quicker from the states than they would have from the UK!

The choice of the D75MX is also a deliberate one because it has an acoustic centre depth that is very close to the matching tweeter so that a vertical baffle can be used without the need to incorporate time-delay to ensure correct crossover summation.
Nice, you've really done your homework there, its in the details.

Ashley
 
James, I checked the specs for the D75 and you won't want to use that down to 500 hz.

Fortunately the M26 is pretty well behaved up to about 1k, so I'd suggest around 900 for that x/o point.

Still, strange choice of mid; I was wondering if you were pandering to your "Old AR" fetish? :)
 
I got my drivers from Wilmslow, but could have saved money getting them from Madisound :(

Mr Tibbs
 
Folks,

Here is what I think the PFM-Special will look like. To make room for the 40L or so required to load the woofer correctly, I've decided that a floorstanding unit is the only way to go. It will stand a smidgen under 940mm in height, be 285mm wide and 320mm deep.

The inner carcass will be fashioned from straight-sided slabs of 18mm MDF and the external cladding will be 18mm marine ply. I happen to have a full sheet of the material so I'll use that. Others might prefer to use MDF on the outside or even solid timber as they wish. The bracing employed will render the cabinet sufficiently rigid that the choice of external cladding would not be a major factor in the voicing. My version will feature mitre joints at the top edges to hide the ply.

The front baffle will be fashioned from a single piece of MDF that covers the full width of the cabinet. Mine will be covered in black leather, partly to provide a nice aesthetic as well as an air-tight(ish) seal for the drivers. The lower third will be solid timber (if I can get the right colour to match the marine ply) or painted MDF.

A separate chamber will be reserved for the passive XO at the bottom of the cabinet (ala E-IV) and this can be filled with clean dry sand to provide ballast and damping if desired. Likewise, the D75MX will have a shallow chamber separated from the bass box to ensure the delicate dome is not modulated by woofer excursion.

2864090-md.jpg


What do you folks think?

James
 
Rusty,

"James, I checked the specs for the D75 and you won't want to use that down to 500 hz."

The 500Hz corner is around -3dB down from the maxima, and that could work with an LR4 cross. The role of the D75 is to fill in between the M26 and D27, and I'll reserve how it will contribute to the whole after I've got my measurement data. It will have to be a compromise between a wider band and steeper slopes or narrower band with shallower slopes. The good thing about the D75 is its flattish impedence resonance peak, which means I can still cross low and take advantage of its natural 1st order rolloff.

"Fortunately the M26 is pretty well behaved up to about 1k, so I'd suggest around 900 for that x/o point."

By 900Hz, beaming would be pretty bad for a 10-incher. But if that is necessary, then so be it. I prefer to keep it as low as I can get away with in the interest of good off-axis performance.

"Still, strange choice of mid; I was wondering if you were pandering to your "Old AR" fetish?"

I just wanted to try something different and see if a dome mid offered anything over a good cone mid. Also, I was concerned with the relative offset associated with a vertical baffle, and this mid seems to fit the bill.

James
 
Mr Tibbs,

"I got my drivers from Wilmslow, but could have saved money getting them from Madisound "

Still got a fantastic pair of loudspeakers for relative peanuts, no?

James
 
James,

It's easy to get hold of good quality veneered (oak, ash etc) MDF that isn't expensive and would be ideal for the outer skin - so long as the two top joints were mitred. A woodworking shop would cut the mitres for a few quid.

Thoughts?

"Still got a fantastic pair of loudspeakers for relative peanuts, no?"

No argument there :)

Mr Tibbs
 
Mr Tibbs,

"It's easy to get hold of good quality veneered (oak, ash etc) MDF that isn't expensive and would be ideal for the outer skin - so long as the two top joints were mitred. A woodworking shop would cut the mitres for a few quid."

With the use of pre-veneered MDF or plywood, I'm not sure how one could get away with the lower third of the baffle not showing its unfinished edges, unless one chose to cover all the way down with leather, use solid timber or had a spare strip of matching veneer to clash the edges.

The other option is to veneer the whole box, in which case it would not matter one iota whether butt or mitre joints are used. That is a choice I will leave for the individual as they see fit. Heck, some might even want to paint their PFM-Special to match their interior decor. :D

James
 
Hi James,
For my taste this looks too BIG.
Maybe it will be possible to make the tweeter and mid ls in a small separate box on a top of the bass box - something like the old b&w 801, i think there where&are some more "two boxes" designs.
It will be little more difficult to build, but the tweeter and mid ls will have a smaller surface around them and dividing mechanically the bass box from the smaller box could also have a positive effect . You now what i mean.
Maybe it will be also possible to change the angle of the small box without moving the big box, and also moving the small box horizontally, so the center of all ls will be in one surface ?
OK, so this was my opinion, i hope some other pfm folks will also have their meaning.

;) Tomek
 
Originally posted by James
Mike,

How can you use the word 'seriously' with a wink smiley?


That was a cheeky hint that you might be able to suggest a circuit diagram/components list for us non-nerds to buy/construct, after all, you appear to know a helluva lot about this subject.

But let's ignore the smiley for a minute and consider the question. You have three pathways to improve upon the SBL PXO. The first is to go with something already offered on the market - Audio 42 springs to mind. Don't know how much they cost or how they sound, but you might be able to buy on approval and return if not satisfied.

I had a look James, Audio 42 are charging over 1K (pounds) for their xover, out of my league I'm afraid, I guess I should have included 'affordable' in my cheeky question.

Secondly, there is the Naim (S)NAXO route. It is allegedly a significant improvement but my understanding is that the active circuits deliver textbook 3rd order Bessel transfers and that in itself may not yield an even tonal balance. This may not be a concern to those who love what SBLs do well, but I couldn't live with a lack of midband vitality.

I've thought about the active route, SBL's actually do 'sing' very well with the Snaxo, but you need to buy that and a second Hicap, so cost is again prohibitive (800 plus). I'm looking for a 200-300 pounds solution with massive performance gains :D

Finally, you could get a set of custom-designed passive crossovers for your SBLs based on actual measured data of your raw drivers. This set of filters will shape the acoustic response of your drivers to deliver perfect summation and power response into your room, and take into account any resonance peaks and dips with appropriate contouring circuits. This is essentially what Ron Toolsie did with his DBLs.

Yes, Ron is also a chap who appears to know his xover's, but with all due respect, Ron appears to be well out of the average wage earners league, fine if you have the money, but only to be wished for if not.

"I've been watching you, Mr Tibbs and Ashley with great interest during tha past year or so, I reckon the PFM special may be just the thing for me."

Thanks for the interest. It is heartening to note that this is of value to others.

You are very welcome sir, and thanks again for sharing all of your hard-earned knowledge and research with us.


Mike
 


advertisement


Back
Top