I have a chance to get pair of Allison One speakers - in near perfect shape. I auditioned them last night and they sounded extremely good to me - but I am not sure if part of the great sound was the equipment (200 watt Mackintosh system) driving them.

Currently my primary system consists of a pair of AR-10pi's (my favorite speakers!) driven by a Marantz 2285b (sometimes I swap the Marantz out for my Sansui 9090) and a Sony DVP-9000 ES DVD/SACD Player. My impression was that the Allison's might outperform the AR's in the mid-range but the AR's might outperform the Allisions in the low range. The wedged shape of the Allision did seem to disperse the sound very well - really filled the room. Not being able to listen the speakers side by side though - it is extremely difficult to make an honest comparison of the two speakers. I will have to stretch a bit to get these speakers - since the AR-10pi's are my favorites and for me a good base line for comparison - are there any opinions on how these two great speakers measure up to one another? I have a chance to get pair of Allison One speakers - in near perfect shape.

I auditioned them last night and they sounded extremely good to me - but I am not sure if part of the great sound was the equipment (200 watt Mackintosh system) driving them. Currently my primary system consists of a pair of AR-10pi's (my favorite speakers!) driven by a Marantz 2285b (sometimes I swap the Marantz out for my Sansui 9090) and a Sony DVP-9000 ES DVD/SACD Player. My impression was that the Allison's might outperform the AR's in the mid-range but the AR's might outperform the Allisions in the low range. The wedged shape of the Allision did seem to disperse the sound very well - really filled the room. Not being able to listen the speakers side by side though - it is extremely difficult to make an honest comparison of the two speakers. I will have to stretch a bit to get these speakers - since the AR-10pi's are my favorites and for me a good base line for comparison - are there any opinions on how these two great speakers measure up to one another? Hi there I do not own Allison or 10 pi speakers but you are likely a rare member who will.

The 10 pi has been a proven winner and I believe so has the Allison. Roy would not make a bad speaker. If I read you right, you are buying the Allisons. The Bic Mac is a very capable amplifier, super stable.

It might be unfair for you not to own a Big Mac now. How much for the Allison Ones?

If you think the price is reasonable and there nice you will be very pleased with them. You can be anywhere in a room and get fantastic sound, the female voice is sublime ie Billy Holliday etc. With tweeters at ear level and four 10' woofers I'd be surprised if the AR-10pi could keep up, but I admit no side-by-side has been done. I'm trying to restore both a pair of AR-2ax and AR-3 but I'm missing 2-2ax tweeters 2-AR-3 mids and a 12' (its going to take awhile) The Allison's seem to have fewer problems than the AR's as in Pots and Caps.

I have only had to refoamed both my '78 Allison Ones and my original owner '78 Allison Fours (supplies from Simply Speakers). I've owned both (simultaniously). And they are very different speakers. Spent years trying to choose one over the other. The Allison has a very spacious and warm sound to them.

The Ten Pi has a more 'transparent' sound compaired to the Allison. It also has 'tighter' bass and a slightly brighter tonal balance compaired to the Allison. Both are very fine speakers.

Which one is 'better' depends on the room, music 'type' and listener preference. I believe the Allison's has a 'concert hall slope' that's quite suitable for classical music playback. My musical taste leans toward the more popular stuff, so my personal preference is for the AR's. I worked at Boston Acoustics as a loudspeaker designer during the 90's.

My proudest accomplishment being the T1030. That product combined the best attributes of the Allison and the AR 10Pi into one design. I've owned both (simultaiously).

And they are very different speakers. Spent years trying to choose one over the other.

The Allison has a very spacious and warm sound to them. The Ten Pi has a more 'transparent' sound compaired to the Allison. It also has 'tighter' bass and a slightly brighter tonal balance compaired to the Allison. Both are very fine speakers. Which one is 'better' depends on the room, music 'type' and listener preference.

I believe the Allison's has a 'concert hall slope' that's quite suitable for classical music playback. My musical taste leans toward the more popular stuff, so my personal preference is for the AR's. I worked at Boston Acoustics as a loudspeaker designer during the 90's. My proudest accomplishment being the T1030. That product combined the best attributes of the Allison and the AR 10Pi into one design.

Gerry S Hi Gerry Welcome aboard. It is great when one has manufacturing experience to offer the members, thank you. Your insight offers great comfort and knowledge to the members and this site. I have never heard either the 10 pi or Allison ones, but your comments will peak the interest in more than one member, thank you again. I've owned both (simultaniously). And they are very different speakers.

Spent years trying to choose one over the other. The Allison has a very spacious and warm sound to them. The Ten Pi has a more 'transparent' sound compaired to the Allison. It also has 'tighter' bass and a slightly brighter tonal balance compaired to the Allison. I realize this is an old thread, but I have been doing A/B comparisons with the 10-pi's and the Allisons One's and would be interested in further opinions. Since I started this thread, I got a new pair of hearing –aids, which have greatly improved what I am capable of hearing - nothing less than a miracle when it comes to listening to music. I also have more power pushing the speakers – 185 wpc (Marantz 2385) I recently purchased an XRCD called “Test CD 4 – Depth of Image –Timbre – Dynamics” The sound quality of this CD is amazing!

Notes accompany each track with things to listen for. Doing the A/B test between the Allison One’s and the AR10pi’s with this CD – the AR’s clearly win and confirm the opinion I had been forming for some time. While I really like the Ones relaxed sound that seems to fill the room – the 10pi’s put considerable more definition on the different instruments and in fact in some cases things that can be heard in the 10pi’s are simply absent on the One’s. The One’s sound a bit “muddy” compared to the 10pi’s. Does this sound like the One’s may be in need of re-capping?

Is there a simple way of confirming this without test equipment? I realize this is an old thread, but I have been doing A/B comparisons with the 10-pi's and the Allisons One's and would be interested in further opinions. Hi Darrell, The artificial artifact of stereo imaging is what is making you think that the ARs sound clearer. People like imaging, and that is fine, but if you go a concert, you will realize that the pinpoint localization of instruments does largely not exist.

As to the low end response, how do you have the A1s set up? Are they against a wall? How far from the corners are they? The Allison manual, available in the library on this site, gives the proper suggestions for set up. Also, when were the woofers surrounds last replaced?

Refoaming can make a big difference in bass response. I think you got it right in your first post when you said the Ones sounded extremely good.

Hi Darrell, The artificial artifact of stereo imaging is what is making you think that the ARs sound clearer. People like imaging, and that is fine, but if you go a concert, you will realize that the pinpoint localization of instruments does largely not exist. As to the low end response, how do you have the A1s set up? Are they against a wall? How far from the corners are they?

The Allison manual, available in the library on this site, gives the proper suggestions for set up. Also, when were the woofers surrounds last replaced? Refoaming can make a big difference in bass response. I think you got it right in your first post when you said the Ones sounded extremely good. The low end response is not an issue - I believe the woofers were re-roamed within the last year. The speakers are about 6 feet apart, 2-3 inches out from the wall, and at least 5 feet from the nearest corner. They seem to be happy in their placement.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Allion's are wonderful speakers. They have some qualities the 10pi's are lacking. I would love to hear a pair of the Boston Acoustic T1030's that Gerry S designed - combining the best attributes of both speakers would make for the perfect speaker! (See earlier post) My concern is that my Allison's are in need of re-capping. They are old speakers - some of the earlier models made (without the bi-amping capabilities). The caps have had many years in which to degrade.

One of the tests on “Test CD 4” was to listen for two separate guitars playing – on the 10pi’s I could definitely hear two guitars, while on the One’s it sounded like a single guitar. There were other instances where instruments heard on the 10pi’s, were either very difficult to pick out on the one’s or simply not there. I know the 10pi’s are known to be a bit more transparent, but I would like to hear from those who have heard the One’s - should I be hearing more detail in a pair of One’s that are in good working order? What is the test for that you are referring to?

If it is a test for imaging, the A1s may not be able to do that. Your test cd is probaby designed for speakers with a narrow sweet spot. The imaging you refer to breaks down after you leave that limited area. Allisons sound the same and keep a stable image in a much larger area of the room. Allison Ones do not create the unnaturally separated images that many audiophiles admire and mistake for clarity. But people are attracted to imaging, and the perception of clarity it creates in a speaker, real or not, means survival in the audio business.

Roy Allison was aware of this and designed subsequent speakers to image more in this manner such as the CD series, and the IC-10 and IC-20. IC stood for 'image control' where you could control the output so the inner panels would increase its output relative to the outer panels to give the listener more defined stereo images.

Roy Allison also published a modification for the Ones, where the relative output of the inner and outer panels could be changed. If you like imaging, you will probably enjoy the CD 9s or the A3s better than the 1s, 2s, or 4s. IC models are difficult to find. Unless the caps are totally shot, they are probably still within tolerance, even being over thirty-five years old.

I have never measured a bad cap in the six pairs of Allisons I own, but, yes, it is always a good idea to check. As to hearing things on the 10pi's that you don't on the A1s, I imagine you are referring to music you know well and not the test cd. If so, then the question for me would be, 'Which speaker do I enjoy listening to more?' As to hearing things on the 10pi's that you don't on the A1s, I imagine you are referring to music you know well and not the test cd. If so, then the question for me would be, 'Which speaker do I enjoy listening to more?'

The test CD leads you through a series of things to listen to - it was a couple of those items that I could not hear on the Allison’s – somewhat minor things actually. I truly like both the 10pi's and One's - each for different reasons.

I personally give the edge to the 10pi’s, but my wife definitely prefers the One's. Our living room does NOT have a TV – it is our primary listening room with my best gear.

I have re-arranged the room several times to find placement where both the Allison One’s and the AR-10pi’s are happy. Both sets of speakers are keepers.

Update to this thread: So once again I re-arranged the furniture in my quest for the ultimate speaker placement (I must give high praise to my wife for going along with this yet AGAIN). Our living room is somewhat problematic in that it has several large windows and only one interior wall has a long uninterrupted surface. With a lot of head scratching I was able to move a lot (but not all) of the furniture out of the way and place the Allison’s against that wall. They sound considerably better to say the least. The AR-10pi’s now occupy the wall where the Allison’s were - on either side of the fireplace with windows bordering them on the far ends. A little fussing with the environmental controls and the 10pi’s sound great there – they previously were where the Allison’s are now, but had a lot of furniture around them. To my ear the 10pi’s still seem more transparent, a bit brighter, and more precise.

The Allison’s have better definition than they did before and fill the room with warm sound even better than before. I now have a better appreciation of the Allison’s. It seems they are a lot pickier on placement than the 10pi’s. I put on Beethoven’s 9 th (SACD) and did that A/B – the Allison’s won without a doubt. You could feel the full power of the orchestra almost like you were there.

The 10pi’s lacked the power to do the same. I put on Dark Side of the Moon (SACD) and the 10pi’s won without a doubt. The deep bass and pinpoint definition was something the 10pi’s had and the Allison’s did not. Now I am wondering about the AR-LST’s. If I understand correctly they were designed by Roy Allison? With their wedge shape do they disperse the sound and fill the room like the One’s do?

Do they also have any similarities to the AR-3a since the drivers are the same? I have never heard a pair of LST’s. Yes, I 'voiced' the Boston Acoustics T1030 based on living with both the Allison One and AR 10 Pi.

After LITERALLY years (decades?) of trying to decide which of the two I preferred ( AR or Allison), here are my conclusions and how I arrived at them. Roy Allison does not place great emphasis on 'imaging'. His reference is 'live music' of the 'concert hall nature'. I think he believes power reponse is of greater importance than 'first arrival'. He also believes in a high frequency roll-off in the 'far field' to better mimic what's heard in a real concert hall. 1.The AR does not roll-off the high frequencies as much as the Allison.

This is true for both 'first arrival' and 'power response' in the 'far field'. The AR bass response is 'tighter' with it's lower 'Q' (.7?) compared to the Allison's 'warmth' because the Allison's 'Q' is higher (1.0?). Also note that Allison placed great emphasis on eliminating that 'woofer dip' found in his research of loudspeaker bass performance in real rooms. 4.The Allison MUST be placed against a wall to get any bass. Since the Allison is a VERY 'wide dispersion' system, considerable energy is reflected from the wall from which it is placed, arriving with 'first arrival' at the listerner's ear about the same time. Thus, the Allison cannot 'image' as well compaired to more conventional designs (like the AR10Pi).

The Allison One is not all that 'amplifier sensitive' because it's a more '8 ohm' system with a relative 'resistive load'. The AR can go down to about two to three ohms at bass frequencies, AND has a more 'reactive' load presented to the amplifier (you NEED a pretty beefy amp to drive the AR to loud levels). Thus the difference in sound 'quality' between the two. Different philosophies and design goals As to 'imaging', I agree it's NOT present at live performances. BUT, when listening to recordings at home, we LACK the 'visual cues' that allows the listener to 'track' and localize the 'performers'.

In my humble opinion, a speaker that 'images' allows the listerner to have a more 'intimate experience' because MOST recordings ('pop' or 'classical') are made and mixed in a 'small ' studio. That 'studio' better approximates the acoustics of real homes. The AR gives me that 'intimate experience' while the Allison provides a more 'spacious' and 'enveloping' soundfield. IF the 'concert hall sound' is what Is desired and considered 'accurate', I'd go with Allisons. Since my preference is for pop/rock 'studio recordings', my personal choice would be the AR.

If I had the luxury of two dedicated listening rooms. I'd have the AR in one room, the Allison in another. One can have AMAZING results with Allisons just by placing them in 'bi-pole' fashion (facing each other along their respective 'long walls' and the listerner at the 'short wall'. I've achieved amazing 'depth' and 'spaciousness' using this unconventional placement approach. However, the Allison can't replicate that 'transparency' and bass 'tightness' I like about the AR10Pi (no matter what I do with the Allisons). When I designed (voiced) the Boston Acoustics T1030, I tried to 'blend' the 'imaging' and 'transparency' of the AR along with a bit of the 'warmth ' and 'spaciousness' of the Allison. Which of the three is 'better'?

Depends on who's listening, what they are listening to, the acoustics of the room they are listening in, where they place the speakers, where they sit, and whether they are 'casual listeners' or 'audiophiles'. Pretty simply, really!!!!!!! I'm pleased to report I still have a pair of Allison Ones, still in fine shape even after 32 years of use. I briefly (as in weeks) owned a set of Allison Twos but they were stolen in transit on the way to my new home in DC. I bought my current set when they were still fairly new from a guy who just wanted to try something else (Dahlquist, as I recall).

I replaced all four woofers some years ago with replacements from Allison (by then in Kentucky). I still work a little linseed oil into the wood from time to time and the grills are flawless. (No, I'm not working up to a 'For Sale' notice. I'm not planning to part with these.) These boxes put out a 'big' sound-field. They don't image like a premium British or Canadian speaker might, but then one doesn't worry about a 'sweet spot' either. I can sit anywhere, even well off to the side. For years I drove them with a Harman Kardon Citation 19, but now use an Adcom 535 II.

(I just picked up a pair of Marantz MA500 mono-blocks which I'll be testing on them.) Both amps have worked well. I tried some 'premium' cables, but I couldn't sense an improvement over simple 16 gauge speaker wire. So it's a very forgiving speaker. And being situated up against the wall, they don't intrude on room space like most stand-mounted monitors. (Their tops also provide a nice surface for my FADO lamps.) Now, if only I could find a nice set of Allison Fours to serve as surrounds and a CD-6 (or maybe Snell LCR7 due to space considerations) for my center I'd be all set. Gerry - I would love to hear the Boston Acoustics T1030’s.

Are they somewhat rare? A google search will yield info and photos, but I cannot find a pair for sale. From my experience, combining the best of the AR-10pi and the Allison One, would produce the ideal speaker. I think you really summed it up well - the AR’s give you that “intimate experience” while the Allison’s are more “spacious” and “warm”.

I may have to re-arrange the living room yet again to set the Allison’s in the “bi-pole” fashion. Indeed, it would be wonderful to have two listening rooms – one specifically for the Allison’s and one for the 10pi’s. My current speaker arrangement has both sets in the same room, but to the detriment of furniture placement. Rnathans00 - The Allison’s “Big sound-field” is something I have just not experienced with any other speakers (not that I am all that experienced in a variety of speakers). They emit an immense amount of “power”!

When switching back and forth between the 10pi’s and the One’s, the difference can be rather dramatic. For some music, the “power” and “enveloping feeling” of the Allison’s are just the thing –other times the “nuance of detail” coupled with the “very low tight bass” of the 10pi’s are just what’s needed. Like Gerry S. I would give the edge to the AR-10pi’s – but sometimes, depending on my mood and the kind of music, I give the edge to the Allison’s. My wife prefers the Allison’s hands down - which may be why she is so accommodating in my re-arranging of the furniture so many times. I think I will give it a breather though, before I start interjecting hints of another furniture arrangement to place the Allison’s in the “bi-pole” fashion. I gain an immense amount of pleasure listening to both these wonderful speakers! Ftp linksys pub network wmp54g drivers for mac.

What a fortunate dilemma – deciding which is better – the AR-10pi or the Allison One! The AR bass response is 'tighter' with it's lower 'Q' (.7?) compared to the Allison's 'warmth' because the Allison's 'Q' is higher (1.0?).

Rdl Acoustics Speaker Placement For Macbook

Also note that Allison placed great emphasis on eliminating that 'woofer dip' found in his research of loudspeaker bass performance in real rooms. Elimination of the dip would also tend to make the Allison sound warmer.

It's a shame that this effect has been largely ignored by subsequent speaker designers. The early Boston Acoustics speakers (the ones with the wide, shallow baffles - the 200, 150, and 100) took account of it, as did the Snell Type A. Probably lost out because it forces the appearance and placement of the speaker so much. As you note, the Allison One had to be placed against a wall to deliver reasonable bass. Elimination of the dip would also tend to make the Allison sound warmer. It's a shame that this effect has been largely ignored by subsequent speaker designers. The early Boston Acoustics speakers (the ones with the wide, shallow baffles - the 200, 150, and 100) took account of it, as did the Snell Type A.

Probably lost out because it forces the appearance and placement of the speaker so much. As you note, the Allison One had to be placed against a wall to deliver reasonable bass.

Here is my problem with Mr Allison's solution. In theory, filling in that 'dip' should make playback of recordings more 'accurate'.

BUT (and to me, it's a VERY big 'but'), most recordings (classical or otherwise) are mixed in studios where the critical loudspeaker monitors DO have that 'dip'. It's been my experiance that the Allison's sound 'warm' and 'spacious' playing 'orchestrial recordings' but add a degree of 'chestiness' to vocals. I believe (and I'd be very happy if anyone can prove me wrong) that this 'chestiness' is largely due to the 'elimination' of that 'dip'. It's like putting in a non-removable boost of significant magnitude in the original master recording when none was intended by the mix-down engineer during the final EQ'ing and mastering stages just prior to release.

I suppose one can use a very sophisticated equalizer on rhe Allison to remove that 'chestiness' I find on vocals but think it more practical to choose another speaker (like the AR10 pi) which doesn't exhibit such characteristics in the first place. Nor can EQ'ing the Allison's yeild a 'precise' soundstage that I personally find very appealing. OK; call me a 'rudite'! But I Ilke pop and jazz too; not just 'orchestral' music. Thus my preference for the AR 10Pi. I may be wrong, but what I think Gerry S is saying is that the Allisons introduce an emphasis in the 'Allison Dip' frequency range, because studio monitors have the dip, and the recording engineer EQ's it out in the final mastering process.

So you have this recording which is EQ'd to compensate for a non-Allison speaker, then when an Allison plays that recording back, it essentially over-boosts that freq range, leading to, as Gerry put it, vocal 'chestiness.' In any event, for whatever reason, the so-called 'Allison Dip' has never been as objectionable-or even particularly obvious- in actual use with otherwise excellent speakers. When listening to your favorite AR-11 or Aerial or B&W or whatever, rarely, if ever, is the listener's reaction, 'Wow, listen to the suckout in the region centered on 130 Hz or wherever caused by the dimensional relationship of the woofer to nearby room boundaries!' His research may have been technically correct, but it never sounded in practice as dire as his measurements indicated it should-perhaps because, as Gerry S intimates, commercial recordings mastered on non-Allsion speakers already compensate for it. Or maybe the far-field just normalizes everything. That, coupled with the Allison's restrictive placement demands, limited their overall commercial potential. A good-sounding-but niche-product.

Steve F is correct in his interpretations of what I wrote above. He just worded it more eloquently.

And for the record, I have owned many AR speakers. The ones I can remember: AR4x, Ar2ax, AR3a (two pair), and finally the AR10pi. I would have considered the AR 9 (the best AR ever, IMO) except a single AR9 weighed as much as me. Having difficuly just moving 'smaller' AR's AND furniture in just about every room and in every home I lived in; I decided against AR9's because I'd probably hurt myself. Instead, when Mr Allison announced the launching of his first and flagship product, I put myself on the 'waiting list' @ a Cambridge, MA dealer named 'Suffolk Audio'. The serial numbers of my units were #11 & #12.

AT 70 pounds each, I finally installed castors on the Allisons AFTER I inevitably twisted my back moving one of them. As mentioned earlier, I 'lived' with both the 10pi and Allison One in the same enviroment(s) for many, many years. One would NEVER confuse one with the other in a blindfolded A-B test. Not ever owned an AR 9, I did design the x-o for the BA T1030, which was my 'best' achievent because it got a good review @ a magazine I respected.

Ironically, I never personally owned a pair. Just as well, because my back STILL hurts occasionally from that Allison One induced injury. I am a big fan of the Boston T-1030's and was lucky enough to aquire a pair for $200 in mint condition!

Unfortunately they had an accident and are no longer in service and I cannot find another pair! I keep checking E-pay but no one will ship and they are asking more money than what I paid for mine.

I would love to find a pair in the real walnut finish! I just saw a pair on E-pay that said they are in a cherry finish? That's new to me. Those speakers just do everything I want a speaker to do.

Very wide soundstage,Great detail,Very very pleasing vocals with a more in the room type pressence which I love!!! And non shrill highs! Imagine a speaker that sold for only a $1,000 with all those qualities.The only speaker I want above them cost $2,500-3,000 which is a little out of my price range for now,so I will continue to search for another pair. If I am lucky enough to find some,the good part is my out of comission T-1030's still have some good drivers which I could use as back ups!

I have a friend who “loves his speakers”. He should, he designed them himself. It’s not something I would recommend to just anybody. My friend is an engineer by trade, and a person with an uncanny ability to focus and delve deeply into the principles behind the area of loudspeaker design. There were a ton of speaker cabinet design directions he could have gone with, but he settled on some very simple plans that allowed him to do some comprehensive math and acoustic calculations using software made for that very purpose.

Speaker Cabinet Design Basics The first thing to decide before choosing a speaker cabinet design is what frequency range you’re going to achieve (or attempt). The frequency range–particularly the low frequency extension, will guide some basic dimensions related to the speaker cabinet design. H-PAS and other fancy porting solutions aside, the capabilities of the low frequency driver will ultimately interact with the speaker cabinet and affect your low frequency response and tuning.

Rdl Speaker To Line Level

There’s also the question of aesthetics. Do you want a floorstanding tower speaker, or a pair of bookshelves? Are you designing a full-range speaker or a subwoofer? I have yet to see any of my friends tackle a bipole or dipole speaker–and for good reason.

Those are highly advanced designs that incur their own set of difficulties and design challenges. Example: I want to go with a tower design that is ported. Speaker Cabinet Shape Considerations There are some very basic principles involved in calculating standing waves and the effects of a speaker on the enclosure (and vice versa) when you deal with a “perfect” cuboid shape.

Get into a rhombus, however, and now you’re going to need more sophisticated software to understand what might be happening inside the cabinet and how that will affect your speakers. After understanding the basic shape you want to start with, and whether you’ll want to do manual or computer-calculated designing (we recommend using a computer and then checking your work with plenty of listening tests), you then have to determine what other characteristics your speaker will have. Will the box be ported (also called a bass-reflex design)? Where will that port exist (front or back)? Will you opt for an acoustic suspension design (also called a sealed design)?

Each of these considerations needs to take place before proceeding too far down the path of loudspeaker design. We’ll get into the software considerations later in this article. For now, just know that you have some preliminary decisions to make before going too far. Example: I want a trapezoidal top on a ported cuboid base. Crossover Design – Passive, Active, or a Kit A crossover is a typical component in any loudspeaker design, though I have heard of designers custom-making speakers without the use of a crossover. In most cases, however, a crossover is needed to filter what frequencies go to the tweeter or high frequency driver and which go to the low frequency driver. Before you’ll be able to continue with your speaker design, you’ll need to understand whether or not your design will be active or passive.

Chances are that you’ll be using an existing kit if you go with an active design since they are so difficult to design. Some, however, may opt to roll their own passive crossover network–perhaps based on a computer recommendation or an existing kit design. It all depends on how far you want to take or customize your loudspeaker design. Here is a great that can help you if you are interested in designing and building your own crossover.

Example: I’m going to use a passive crossover kit that should do what I need. Speaker Cabinet Design Software The next thing you’re going to inevitably want to investigate is speaker cabinet design software. While you can certainly design a box, do your own math, and add your own drivers, investing in a good piece of speaker design software will do wonders. We can’t list every piece of software here, but these are just some of the more popular ones, or ones we’ve been acquainted with in the past: – AJ Designer speaker design software has the ability to help with bandpass, vented, and sealed subwoofer designs. The software provides an easy to use interface to calculate volumes of the front and rear chambers of the box, calculate box dimensions, determine the resonance frequency, -3 dB points for both the high and low pass filters, port length and diameter, frequency response plot, and power response. – Unibox is more of a sophisticated spreadsheet than a piece of software. It operates under the principle that simplifcation is no longer needed and the full driver-box model can be implemented.

The full driver-box model includes individual control of absorption, leakage and port losses. The software also includes graphs for sound pressure levels produced by port leaks, speaker impedance and step response.

Unibox works for – Boxnotes is software designed to help you design a subwoofer with appropriate dimensions for the goals you have. It accounts for extra volume taken up by your ports, bracing and driver; checks the minimum dimensions required to house your driver; lets you see the effect of changing port parameters; and helps you spot problem resonances and adjust your dimensions. It even prints your cutting list. – Winspeakerz lets you select a woofer for your home theater speaker from the driver database and load it into the software. You then select the type of enclosure you want to simulate (closed, vented or bandpass with a total of 18 different variations). You can then enter different volumes and tunings and run the analysis to analyze the effects. After deciding on the box you can then open the box calculator and have WinSpeakerz suggest your loudspeaker dimensions.

There are a ton more applications, some commercial (, etc) and some freeware or trialware (like this ). If we didn’t include your favorite here, please leave a comment below, and we’ll get it added to the list. When he's not or playing with the latest AV receiver or loudspeaker, Clint enjoys life as a husband, father and avid reader. He has a degree in recording engineering, carries several THX certifications (Technician I and II, THX Video), and is ISF Level II Certified. He has been involved in multimedia and/or online publishing in one form or another for the past 18 years (including being the Editor-in-Chief of Audioholics.com from 2002-2013). In 2008, Clint was invited to be part owner in what was then The Audioholics Store (later to become Audiogurus).

Today, he hopes his efforts at Audiogurus will provide enthusiasts and DIYers with reliable and engaging home theater reviews to help them make better purchasing decisions.