# Opinions on 3 way featuring BG NEO3, Dayton RS, and Tang Band?



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

I am not new to this forum but new to home audio as a whole. I could have posted this on some home forum but I trust the opinion of the experts around here as much as anyone. I have spent many thousands of dollars on mobile audio, but now the focus has shifted as I've matured . I have always had quality equipment in my cars such as Arc Audio Amplifiers, Eclipse CD Players, Seas Lotus Ref. and Focal Utopia components, Image Dynamics subwoofers, etc.. Anyway, I was looking to build a 3 way tower involving the BG Neo3-PDRW or Dayton PT2C-8 Planar (whichever is better?), the Dayton RS-150S 6", and the Tang Band W8-1363SB 8" subbwoofer.

I went into Best Buy the other day and listened to the new Klipsch VF-36's. I really liked the sound of them. They seemed open and airy, with a nice low end, but figured I could build something better for a lot cheaper. The horn I believe, is what made those speakers. I have heard about the open and airy sound of the planar's and thought that the Neo3 would be good for handling the upper end. I have read rave reviews about the Dayton Reference Series and thought to give them a shot. And I still like authoritative lows, so thought the Tang Band would suffice.

So I guess my question is... Do the experts think these drivers will compliment eachother nicely? And, with the proper crossover do you think these speakers could be better than the Klipsch's I heard the other day? I really want my movies and music to come alive.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced!


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

I think those drivers would work well together (havent looked at graphs yet) but DIY home audio isnt just about picking drivers. Its going to come down to the crossover design/components, enclosure, and room acoustics. That being said, i would recommend doing some premade designs that are available out there such as the ones on PE, madisound, zalytron, zaphaudio, htguide, etc

IMO its much harder to pick drivers they try to make a crossover work with a specific enclosure, especially on your own unless you know what you are doing


----------



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

I have Parts Express designing a crossover for me. Now the question is... How should the enclosure be designed? I wanted to do something like this attached file. I would seperate each speaker, being that I don't know much about enclosure design I figured it would help the speakers not interfere with eachother. How big do you think each individual enclosure should be? Hope this makes sense.


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

While its great that PE is making you crossovers, they only take into account the drivers themselves. The crossover and enclosure go hand in hand and honestly it wont be optimal, you need to take into account the baffle, enclosure, mounting, driver spacing, etc

I know its not what you want to hear but its not that easy. If you are just looking to for something that plays well, then you can take the approach you are taking. 

For enclosures, try downloading WinISD and play around with it to see what kind of responses you can get with what enclosure. But remember this is does not indicate what your final FR will look like


----------



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

OK, so if I send Parts Express my enclosure design would that help optimize things? Or if not, could you help? I know this is kind of a pain, but I really want to get these done by Christmas Eve, for my party. I am in the dark, obviously you know what your doing.

Thanks


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

LOL im honestly a n00b to HT setups so im just giving you advice....im not familiar with how PE designs their crossovers so im not sure, sorry 

That being said i would rather do one of the pre-made designs that are proven to work and sound great. Sorry im not of much help and rained on your idea


----------



## mda185 (Dec 14, 2006)

I haven't posted much on this site but I have been building DIY home speakers for 30 years and have invested several thousand dollars in good measuring equipment and design software. I was in your shoes 30 years ago when I began getting into this hobby. You don't know enough yet to understand why the Parts Express crossover design is not going to equal the quality you get when you buy something like the Klipsch. If you build those speakers with the Parts Express crossover, they will probably sound good to you. My first builds sounded great to me and they were better than most of the low end commercial speakers at the time. But they were far from optimal and it took me many hours of learning, listening, measuring and experimenting to discover how much better I could do. 

If all you want to do is quickly build something that is going to sound good without taking the time to learn how to do it well from an engineering standpoint, then I agree with the other post that recommended building something already designed on the web sites he recommended. You will get a far better result. The designs on the Zaph Audio site are also very good in terms of explaining why he made certain crossover design choices.

If you think this is something that may become a life long hobby, go ahead and use the Parts Express crossover - but also invest in some low cost measuring gear and learn about what you built. See the frequency response peaks and valleys and experiment with placing the speakers in different locations and see how that effects frequency response. Spend time studying what others have done and posted on the Internet. Start tweaking your crossover design from Parts Express and measure what changes. If you are motivated to learn more, this can be a lot of fun.

I want to encourage your desire to build something yourself. It is rewarding and you eventually will build speakers that blow the doors off many commercial designs. I also want you to understand that there are limitations to using off the shelf crossovers from anyone that is only charging what Parts Express charges. To really do better than good commercial designs, takes many man hours and would not be affordable to the casual home speaker builder. It also takes many hours of studying what others have done and reading some of the excellent books on speaker design by experts like Vance Dickinson and Joe D'Appolito. It is a great hobby but it takes time to get really good at it and the journey is an important part of the fun.


----------



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

I really appreciate all of the replies. I believe that this could become a hobby down the road. I am just too busy at the moment to invest a lot of time in it. I am pretty skilled at constructing, but as you know I am at a loss with the rest of it. Is there anybody here that has the time and desire to design a set of towers for me? I have decided to change the Tang Band out for the Dayton SD270-88 10" Sub because of sensitivity and power handling. I don't have a ton of power to throw around. Just 100 watts off of a Yamaha receiver. So if anybody wants to take a crack at it I would greatly appreciate it. I attached a picture of the basic design I want. Thanks to everyone.


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Tough project. Probably not a good idea for a first time DIYer. Nothing against your capabilities, but there's a few problems that do arise in a project like this.

First off, the challenges of using ribbon tweeters is pretty extensive. Next is your choice of the RS150 for a mid. That mid will be VERY difficult to tame by the time it hits a crossover point suitable for most ribbons. In fact, I wouldn't even try it. The cone breakup of the RS150 is going to really hurt your overall response.

So, here's what I would change. Obviously the mid, but I'd go a step further and drop the mid to a 5 1/4" mid. The reduced diaphragm diameter will help with overall system off-axis response in the midrange, around the crossover point. It will allow you to cross a tad bit higher which would be highly recommended for that tweeter. 2000 hz is a bit ambitious. I'd look more in the 2500-3000 hz range for a safer crossover point. 

Since you're planning on using a small sub, you won't have to worry too much about low end extension from your mid. You'll have to figure out what you're willing to trade in this area. More low end extension, and you'll lower overall system efficiency. Less low end extension and give up some non-localization of your subwoofer. It's a trade off. 

Next, with your current design, the irregular baffle is not a great idea. What I'd do is side fire your subwoofers, and keep the front baffle uniform. You'll obviously have to play a bit with enclosure volumes, and find a suitable sub for what you'll have available.

If I were doing this project, and I needed to use speakers available at Parts Express, while still on a budget, this is the mid I'd use. http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=264-873

It'll get you down to 80 hz, cleanly, to maintain non-localization of the subwoofer, and has a clean enough top end to blend well with the BG Neo, without breaking the bank. 

I don't know if you plan on using the available face plates for the BG Neo, but if you do, understand that you're losing off-axis response at the crossover point by doing so. You'll want the two drivers as close together as possible. I'll do some measurements and see what would be an optimal spacing, given you use the TB driver instead of the Dayton (the Dayton is just not a good option for this application).


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Okay, I've done some calculations and this is what I've come up with.

First off, I realized that you've already worked out the side firing of the sub. That's just a much better way to do it, so definitely go with your second drawing.

Next is the Tang Band and the Dayton drivers are the same diameter. So, both will exhibit the spacing issues that would best be avoided. However, I still maintain that the RS150 is just a horrible solution for this project due to the massive cone breakup. 

So, while the Tang Band is a VERY intriguing driver, a probably better, albeit more expensive, option is the Aurum Cantus AC-130. The F1 would be fine, if you're tight on cash. 

Here's how I would build the baffle. First off, the faceplates available at Parts Express are absolutely a no-go for this project. They are just too big. Center to center spacing is critical to this type of design, and is why sooo many ribbon designs have issues. Not critical failures in design, but just too many compromises. 

Now the AC-130 is going to start to beam considerably (lose off-axis response at about 3000 hz. So, we don't want our crossover point above that. Since we've determined that 2500-3000 hz is where we'd want to cross over anyway, we're kind of okay there. Now, in order to prevent any combing between the two drivers we're going to need to keep spacing at a minimum. At 3000 hz, the spacing would need to be 4.52". The B&G Neo is 3.5" long, and the AC-130 is 5.5" wide. That would make CtC spacing AT A MINIMUM of 4.5". So, we're right there. However, it would be next to impossible to wedge those two driver together like that onto a baffle. It also illustrates why the face plates are absolutely out of the question at this point. 

So, here's what I would do to minimize this issue. Rear mount the B&G Neo. It'll take some work to do it right. Rear mount it on a 3/4" piece of MDF, and the round over the edges forward of the driver. This will give somewhat of a waveguide type appearance. If you use a 1/2" round over, you'll end up with a CtC spacing of 5". At 5" combing will occur at 2700 hz. That's pushing it for the B&G, but probably doable with the right crossover. An LR4 would be best where you can drop the crossover point even further, but you'd probably be okay with an LR2 if you give up some power handling. 

You can also see why the truncated frame of the AC-130 would be essential to this project. 

Now there will be ways you can lower the usable response of the Neo3, so you can research and possibly implement one of those. Overall though, the AC-130 would be a great option for this project.

In the end, though, this is not a project that could get done by Christmas Eve. In fact, unless you buy a kit, you're not getting any project done by Christmas. Not with any kind of true quality.


----------



## Mudjock (Jun 20, 2007)

HTGuide Forum - Which RS150 design should I build? I have something that might help you - a crossover designed for the Neo3PDR and the RS-150S-8. Some details and commentary are included in the link above. This will work for you if you use a passive crossover for the MT section and cross actively to a powered woofer (using a plate amp for the woofer). When you add up the costs of crossover components, the powered woofer option actually isn't that much more expensive.

I also did a 3-way using the RS150 and Neo3PDR. I never posted it anywhere because by the time I was finished voicing it, the woofer (TC Sounds TC2+ 10") was no longer available. It was for a friend who wound up moving across the country, so I never have brought it to a diy meet either. If you want a standard 3-way with a passive crossover, I could dig up my design files for that project and simulate an alternate woofer. That should at least get the design into the right ballpark. The idea behind that project was a poor-man's Salk HT-3.


----------



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

I really appreciate everyone's help. This is why I keep coming back to this forum. It is truly the best. 

Just in case you were wondering I have decided to build Jim Hartz' Mini Statements. They don't look too difficult, and have a ribbon tweeter with dual woofers. So that should be enough low end output for me. I just want a tried and true speaker. Here is the link to the speakers, this is a cool site as well. All the plans and parts are listed.

MiniStatements


----------



## azngotskills (Feb 24, 2006)

Smart move man....looking forward to hearing your thoughts after completion


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

Yeah, very smart move. That's a good find for what you're wanting to do. Definitely keep us posted on your progress, and final results.


----------



## Mudjock (Jun 20, 2007)

I've heard the whole Statement series. The Mini Statements are very good - you won't be disappointed.


----------



## THASQGOTME (Jul 6, 2006)

Hey Mudjock, are there any speakers that I might be able to compare to the mini statements sound/price wise?

And what might it cost to purchase something like this from a vendor?


Thanks!


----------



## Mudjock (Jun 20, 2007)

It's all a matter of taste. The Statement series sound is about as good as it gets with female vocals. There is plenty of detail, but a touch of sweetness. The combination of the ribbon tweeter and W4-1337 has a certain magic... The full-blown Statements use dual RS225's, which gives plenty of bass for almost anything except HT special effects. The minis step down to dual RS180's which still give good extension, but may run out of steam in a large room or high spls on bass-heavy content. HTGuide also has a Dayton TMWW, that uses dual RS225's, but with a RS150 mid and RS28 tweeter. These will resolve a lot of detail, but without the sweetness of the Statements. Zaph's ZDT 3.5 (Zaph|Audio) is another design that will save some money versus the other two, but still give you nearly full range, low distortion sound for a reasonable price. 

I'm currently planning a 3-way using the Neo8 and the Neo3 that will probably be somewhat similar to the "Miniliths" (search HTGuide) - but with a different woofer and different cabinet dimensions.

The original builder of the Statements, Jim Holtz, replaced a large pair of line arrays with the Statements and has had no regrets. I would say that the Mini Statments compare to really good $3k-$5k retail speakers. The full Statements approach "cost is no object" sound, but require more space.


----------



## Spasticteapot (Mar 5, 2007)

If you want something rather a lot cheaper than the Statements, Paul Carmody's sunflowers are nice.

Undefinition - DIY - Sunflowers


----------

