1 | P a g e

Loudspeaker Design and Construction: Aries I

Kevin Gray
FA4740: Transducer theory
May 1, 2014

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents
Loudspeaker Design and Construction: Aries I ......................................................................................... 1
Functional Description ................................................................................................................................... 4
Technical Goals ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Driver Selection ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Woofer evaluation Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................... 8
Tweeter Evaluation Phase 1 ..................................................................................................................... 13
Woofer Evaluation Phase 2 ....................................................................................................................... 17
Tweeter Evaluation Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................... 22
Driver End Selection .................................................................................................................................... 22
Draft ........................................................................................................................................................................ 23
................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Face and Rear Plate Draft................................................................................................................................ 24
Cut Sheet ................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Construction ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Metal Work ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
Test Cast ................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Execution .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Machining ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Wood ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
3 | P a g e

Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Wood Dye ......................................................................................................................................................... 33
As Cast Metal ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Sealing ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Tuning..................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Initial sweeps .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Circuit additions ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Diagrams ........................................................................................................................................................... 35
Final Testing ......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Woofer ............................................................................................................................................................... 43
Tweeter ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Results .................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... 46


4 | P a g e

Functional Description
The functional goal for the speakers I am designing will be stereo desktop hi-fidelity
speakers with the purpose of electronic music composition, mixing, and playback in mind.
These speakers will be used in my bedroom, and not travel much aside from the rare move
between homes. A large sound stage and sense of envelopment will help in making these
speakers take the listener away from their desktop environment, a wide dispersion with
good off-axis response is desirable for this.
The speakers will need to fit on a desktop, so they cant be too large or heavy, but
Im also ready to commit to building a desk suitable should it come down them being too
large for a standard desk. Having cast gray iron panels as part of my speaker design is a
personal aesthetic option, in addition to having the effect of absorbing kinetic and
mechanical energy resulting in less vibration and resonance in the speakers. The front and
back panels will be metal, with the other panels made from wood.
Since the speakers will be used for mixing and composition, Ill want them to meet
AES mixing standards for SPL output and fidelity, with limited distortion coloration.
Looking at these standards and the other aspects mentioned, I have created a pie chart
showing how much impact these factors will
have in my decision making and compromising.



5%
25%
35%
35%
Prioritization
SPL
Size/Weight
Low End
Budget
5 | P a g e

Technical Goals
Since the speakers will need to fit on a desk Ill use my current desk as a source for
desk dimensions, and create a maximum size limit.
My computer monitor measures 21 wide x 5 deep, and my desktop is about 5
wide x 2 deep, and currently half of my desks depth is used for tech space, so about 5 ft
2

(720 in
2
) minus the 105 in
2
my monitor leaves me with 615 in
2
or 312.5 in
2
per speaker,
the space measuring 26 wide x 12 deep max for a single speaker. To calculate the height I
used my average desk height of 2.5 with my head height roughly 1.5 above that, assuming
I want my top drivers to be at most 2 above my head, that limits the height to 1.5 (18) +
2 = 20 max; resulting in a box dimension limitation of 26 wide x 20 tall x 12 deep in
relation to the space. Since my speakers are to be cast at the Michigan Tech foundry, I must
consider their casting limitations. Using a double flask technique, the dimensions of a panel
are limited to 18 x 13 x 5
1
; which fortunately fits within my spatial needs.
The heavy weight of gray iron is worth consideration, if the speakers are too heavy
they cant safely sit on top of the desk. My front and back panels will only be 0.5 thick, this
will save on weight without sacrificing too much resonance and vibration absorption.
Assuming I made the largest panel possible for my space 18x13x0.5 it would weigh
30.42 lbs. per panel.
The SPL output of the speakers will need to meet the requirements of the K-system
of mixing and mastering; fortunately if they meet this requirement the speakers will be
able to handle my personal listening levels adequately, since I never reach above 80 dB for

1
Williamson, Danielle. Interview by Kevin Gray
6 | P a g e

personal listening levels, and I will be roughly half a meter from my speakers when using
them, giving me even more bang for my driver sensitivity. The upper limit of my SPL output
can be calculated by the 83 dB SPL with a headroom of 20 dB for K-20 means my speakers
will need to perform well at 103 dB SPL. While this means the speakers will be able to
perform at levels that can negatively affect hearing, it will be up to the user to use them
wisely. With an SPL output of 103 dB and the knowledge that most drivers are made with a
sensitivity range from 85 to 90 dB, I can estimate I will need at least a 100W amplifier to
give me the extra 20 dB to reach a K-20 level.
My desired frequency response is +/- 1.5 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, this to provide a
flat and accurate response which will allow me to best evaluate a mix, this will include
having a minimal amount of distortion across the spectrum so I wont have to compensate
for it when I listen forward on a track. Having a flat frequency response will help keep a
majority of instruments balanced when I mix, keeping me from over compensating a mix
that could sound great on another system.
The cabinet design is rectangular, for ease of construction and calculation, without
sacrificing sound quality. The front and rear panels will be made of the gray iron. The box
dimensions will be determined by driver selection, minimum width for mounting my
woofer will create a thinner width helping to give the speakers a wider dispersion by
spending less time in half-space from baffle step. The height will be determined by woofer
and tweeter combined mounting height this is solely for mounting purposes. I want my
depth to be larger than the width and height, and will tweak depth to find a suitable volume
within my space limitation.
7 | P a g e

Given my limited physical space and budget I will be using a 2-way system
consisting of a woofer and tweeter. I have started with a broad selection, but have
successfully narrowed down some limiting factors the drivers are expected to meet. Both
woofer and tweeter must stay within my budget, but Ill be giving more financial flexibility
to the woofers, since finding one that behaves how I would like in a sealed box is difficult.
Driver Selection
My dream woofer specs consist of: a low F3, ideally 55 Hz or below; a high Qts,
above 0.5 ideally; roll off at least 1.5 kHz or greater, I have yet to find a tweeter that will let
me go lower than 1.5 kHz on the woofer; a sensitivity of at least 83 dB, met by all drivers;
bonus points if the cone is made from metal and aesthetically pleasing. Tweeter selection
factors Ive had in mind are low frequency reach of about 3 kHz, a flat frequency response
from there up, and the lower the price the better, bonus points rewarded again for
aesthetics/metals.







8 | P a g e

Woofer evaluation Phase 1
Using my ideal driver specifications detailed in the technical description, I have
selected five drivers for each for my tweeter and woofer, totaling in ten drivers to start my
selection process. These drivers will be considered based off of their parameters and
further tested in WinSpeakerz and WinISD should they make it to the beyond the initial
selection phase.
2
HiVi M8N 8" Aluminum/Magnesium Woofer, this driver hits all of my specs rather
well. F3 of about 55 Hz for a box with 0.67 ft
3
, a high frequency roll off around 1.5 kHz, Qts
of 0.45, has a pretty metal cone, and is only $35 per driver. This provides a great starting
point for woofer selection and helps guide what Ill need from my box.


2
M8N Spec Sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/297-446-hi-vi-m8n-specifications-
44414.pdf
9 | P a g e

3
Dayton Audio DA215-8 8" Aluminum Cone Woofer Another metal cone was a good
eye catcher, but the DA215-8 doesnt quite hit the other points as well. The F3 for a 0.32 ft
3

sealed box is 81Hz, hopefully testing with a larger box will get that lower. The Qts is
relatively low at 0.37. The reason it can compete with the M8N is an extended high
frequency roll off of about 2.5 kHz whilst only being $32 per driver. This should provide a
great alternative should I not find a tweeter that works with the M8N.



3
DA215-8 Spec Sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-332-dayton-audio-da215-8-
specifications-46942.pdf
10 | P a g e



Dayton Audio RS180-4 7" Reference Woofer This is my third resort driver mostly
because of the $50 price tag. This woofer has a Qts of 0.5, an F3 of 69 Hz in a sealed 0.42 ft
3

box, a flat frequency response with roll of at about 2 kHz, a sexy black aluminum cone with
phase plug, with the benefit of being an inch smaller in diameter. This looks to be a great
driver for my purposes, but $50 may be out of my budget.
4


4
RS180-4 Spec Sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/295-374-dayton-audio-rs180-4-
specifications-46164.pdf
11 | P a g e


5
Peerless 835026 8" Aluminum Cone HDS Woofer, this woofer provides a beautifully
flat frequency response from 200 1000 Hz, has a decently high Qts of 0.44, an F3 of
around 57 Hz for a box around 0.67 ft
3
and its even made out of metal with a truncated
frame; which could go pretty far in giving my speakers a more narrow profile. The thing
preventing me from pushing these too far along into my design process is the $100 price
tag.





5
Peerless 835026 Spec Sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1100-peerless-835026-
specifications-46566.pdf
12 | P a g e

6
Fountek FW200 8" Aluminum Midwoofer Speaker boasts an impressive frequency
range, 200 2500 Hz is decently flat, which could help with making a smooth crossover.
The F3 is 54 Hz in 1.55 ft
3
sealed box, which is a larger box than Ill likely have, so I can
anticipate a higher F3 from this driver. While being made of pretty aluminum, its a bit over
my current price range at $60 per driver.





6
FW200 spec sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/296-731-fountek-fw200-
specifications.PDF
13 | P a g e

Tweeter Evaluation Phase 1
7
Vifa NE19VTT-04 3/4" Titanium Silk Surround Tweeter I love a lot of things about
this tweeter, a flat frequency response from 1 10 kHz, even off-axis, with a bit of a
boosted 10 kHz+ which would play well with a shelved crossover, beautiful design and use
of titanium. The one thing stopping me from jumping at these tweeters is the $34 price.
Hopefully I can call in some favors, and find a way to save some money so I can afford
these.
8
Visaton DT94-8 0.8" Polycarbonate Dome Tweeter This tweeter seems great, a flat
frequency response from 2 - 10 kHz, but the spec sheet provided seems less than reputable,
and the price is relatively high at $22. I suspect these will play well with my ideal woofers,
and provide a good option.

7
NE19VTT spec Sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1004-vifa-ne19vtt-04-
specifications-46524.pdf
8
DT94-8 spec sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/tech-diagrams/292-556-visaton-9004-
technical-diagram.pdf
14 | P a g e

9
Visaton SC5-8 Shielded 1/2" Polycarbonate Tweeter $10 tweeters that seem to fit
my needs without being too disappointed. They are fairly flat from 2 to 10 kHz, with the
exception of a -4 dB drop from 2 to 3 kHz. While not the most exciting thing to look at they
arent at all ugly, but most of all they are easy on the budget. Not my first choice, but a good
option should I need to cut the tweeter budget.
10
Vifa NE25VTS-04 1" Silk Dome Tweeter. After receiving advice to look at tweeters
at least 1 in size, I followed up with some poking around various models, and found them
harder to locate within my budget. Alas, I found the ne25 from Vifa, which has a +/- 1 dB

9
SC5-8 spec sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/tech-diagrams/292-552-visaton-8005-
technical-diagram-5325.pdf
10
NE25VTS-04 spec sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/264-1034-vifa-ne25vts-04-
specifications-46538.pdf
15 | P a g e

response from 1 10 kHz, and a price of around $35. This tweeter looks like to be a solid
choice, it will give my options for a lower woofer that much more lean.




16 | P a g e

11
The Fountek Neo X 3.0 Ribbon Tweeter is what I found when I neglected my
budget in search of an awesome tweeter. At $165 its well out of my budget, but has a
pretty lovely frequency response from 2 40 kHz, giving me a ton of extra high end clarity.
What this helped to reveal to me is how tweeter price seems to relate more to high
frequency extension. I was upset when the graph provided showed the impressive high
extension, but fails to show the whole slope for the low end cut off.




11
Neo X 3.0 spec sheet http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/fountek-neo-x-30-specifications.PDF
17 | P a g e

Woofer Evaluation Phase 2
Based off the information from the initial woofer selection Ill model each woofer
optimally regardless of my initial design to better understand how the drivers behave in
different boxes, in doing so I can make more educated design decisions now and later. After
this I will compare the comprehensive analysis of the drivers against each other and start
to narrow down my selection.
First will be the M8N from HiVi:

The HiVi speaker gets a smooth low end roll off and an impressive 45 Hz F3 in a
sealed box with a volume of 1.1 ft
3
, and has an impressive Q of 0.7. While the M8N models
low frequencies well, the high end break-up of the driver make it difficult to crossover with
most tweeters. These factors will come into consideration when looking into the potential
of using this driver.



18 | P a g e

Dayton DA215:
After modeling the DA215 a few times it became obvious this driver performs at its
best inside a vented box. This model has 1.1 ft
3
volume, and is tuned to about 40 Hz, I found
this to be a good spot for most of the 8 drivers on my list. An F3 of about 40 Hz, Q of 0.6
this driver looks really good inside a vented box.
Dayton RS180:
This driver was modeled in the same box conditions of the DA215, vented 1.1 ft
3
box
tuned 40 Hz. The F3 of 37 Hz is desirable, and this driver behaved similarly to the RS180 in
19 | P a g e

other models as well, leaving the two Dayton woofers dependent on their upper frequency
differences.
Peerless 835026 8 HDS:
The HDS has an interesting behavior that I am quite fond of; the above chart is from
a vented box of 0.6 ft
3
with tuning of 50 Hz and results in a smooth frequency response and
an F3 of 49 Hz. The Peerless HDS nearly matches Dayton drivers with a significantly lower
box volume, if I was looking to do a vented box, this driver would be a great choice.
Fountek FW200:
20 | P a g e

Using the FW200 in a sealed box with a volume of 1.1 ft
3
I found I was able to get a Q
of 0.9 with an F3 of 51 Hz, and a half dB boost around 100 Hz. For the sealed box design
Im looking at constructing this is pretty ideal.

After removing the Peerless HDS 8 from my selection pool, because of its high cost, I
modeled each of the remaining drivers in a sealed box with measuring 720 in.
3
using
WinISD. The dimensions for the box are based off the minimal mounting needs of an 8
woofer with a 1 tweeter, then using wall thickness estimations to creating an internal
volume. Im looking for a low F3, and the potential to create a small bass boost; otherwise a
flat line is ideal.
The purple horizontal line is the -3 dB line, this is where F3s are met.
The yellow line represents the M8N: F3~49 Hz, no notable boost, flat.
The orange line is the FW200: F3~54 Hz, bass boost around 100 Hz.
The blue line is the RS180: F3~69 Hz, no boost.
The green line is the DA215: F3~67 Hz, no boost.
21 | P a g e

Based on this graph, I can eliminate the RS180 and DA215 from my woofer selection
options, they dont provide much in the way of bass reach for the box I want. This leaves
the M8N and FW200 for further investigation.
A side-by-side comparison will help to narrow down important factors of
each driver, to save space I wont compare statistics that are shared between drivers.
M8N FW200
F3 49 Hz 54 Hz
Bass Boost none ~1 dB around 100Hz
Break up Large spikes Good roll off
Total Q 0.9 1.1
Range Up to 1.2 kHz Up to 2 kHz
Price $35 $60
This chart helps to put the drivers into perspective, and when looking at the
frequency response charts of the two drivers, I found that the FW200 from Fountek will be
the driver I choose for this loudspeaker design.





22 | P a g e

Tweeter Evaluation Phase 2
Tweeter selection will come down to low end reach, flat response, and price so Ill
use those parameters to create a comparative chart of each tweeter, except for the Neo x3.0
since it is already over my budget.
Vifa NE25 Vifa NE19 Visaton SC5 Visaton DT94
Low Reach ~1 kHz ~1 kHz ~2.2 kHz ~2 kHz
Flatness up to 10 kHz +/- 1 dB +/- 1 dB +/-2.5 dB +/- 1.5 dB
Price $35 $35 $10 $22
Looking at this chart, Ive been able to narrow it down to the NE19 and NE25 from
Vifa for their great low end reach without breaking my budget, and beautiful flat frequency
response, even off-axis.
Driver End Selection
After discussing various driver combinations and reviewing the driver selections of
my peers Ive narrowed my driver options down to my final selections: Fountek FW200
woofer, and the ne19vtt tweeter from Vifa. After making estimates on the crossovers the
FW200 and Vifa complement each other quite well, a 3
rd
order crossover at 2 kHz on each
should produce excellent results.
To the right is an initial draft of how I
will design my crossovers.


23 | P a g e


D
r
a
f
t

24 | P a g e



F
a
c
e

a
n
d

R
e
a
r

P
l
a
t
e

D
r
a
f
t

M
a
d
e

o
f

G
r
a
y

I
r
o
n

25 | P a g e

Cut Sheet
This cut sheet was designed without the faceplates, since they will be cast from
molds I made using scrap wood. The dimensions listed are draft dimensions with an added
1/8 to account for the width of the saw blade Ill be using. Fortunately one 4x8 sheet of
plywood will suffice with plenty of spare wood should I make a bad cut or need test wood
for dyes or cutting.
26 | P a g e

Construction
Metal Work
Test Cast
It was important to have a test cast done of my panels early, so I could calculate for
any problems that may come up in the final casting of the panels. My test cast helped me
learn that I wouldnt be able to have my countersinks for my drivers casted accurately and
would have to be machined instead, I also had a chance to get my hands on a similar metal
to what my end product would be. The test casting only yielded one final test piece, since
the sand used in making the molds dried out too fast and broke by the time it came to pour
the metal into them.









27 | P a g e

Pictured below: Two chembond molds ready for pouring. The rectangular molds on top
allow for pouring to be more even and accurate.
Execution
After having a few meetings with the head of the Michigan Technological University
Foundry, Patrick Quimby, we came to the decision to use a chembond
12
sand that would
maintain durability when dry. Once Patrick finished the four molds of the wooden panels I
gave him he found a day to mix and pour the metal into them. Once the metal was melted
and mixed it was transferred to a flask to for the pouring process in which Patrick and his
assistant poured the metal into the molds. The metal was poured in two rounds of two
panels to allow for use of the smaller furnace which holds about 80 lbs. of metal for each
filling, this was used for efficiency since the other furnace holds 360 lbs. of metal and if you
dont make a full batch of metal it can damage the lining of the furnace.
13
Pouring went
smoothly with the exception some spilling metal, and Patrick was able to inform about the
properties of my metal with some piece that had split over and cooled during the pour. The
metal mixture I have is: 92% Iron, 4-5% Carbon, 1-2% Silicon, with traces of Magnesium,
creating a mixture called Grade 20 Gray Iron. Grade 20 Iron has less tensile strength than
a grade 30, but contains more carbon than both grades 10 and 30, allowing for better
absorption of vibrations.


12
Chembond information sheet - http://www.robbins.com.au/useruploads/files/chembond.pdf
13
smaller furnace holds about 80 lbs, of metal . . . Patrick Quimby, Foundry Head at MTU
28 | P a g e


Pictured above: one side of a chembond mold.
Pictured below: two molds ready for pouring. The box on top allows whoever is pouring
the metal to better flow into the mold.

29 | P a g e

Pictured left:
Melting iron in the small furnace before a
pour. The temperature reached up to
3000
o
F.





Patrick and his assistant Carl transferring
the molten Iron into the heated pouring
flask.







Patrick and Carl pouring the first mold.






After cutting off excess metal from my molds and sand blasting them they were
clean and ready for the machining process where they would receive all the holes and
counter sinks they needed.
30 | P a g e

Pictured left:
Above: Sand blasted panels ready for
machining.
Below: Patrick holding my sample Iron
between another Gray Iron sample and a
sample of White Iron. Notice the grain on
my sample, the microstructure is in line
compared to the weaker white and gray
samples which have speckles
14
.








14
Microstructure of sample Patrick Quimby, MTU Foundry Head
31 | P a g e





Machining
I had little interaction with the machining process, since everything was done on a
CNC automated milling
machine (see picture to right).
The machining was done at the
MTU M&M machine shop, and
while behind schedule turned
out beautifully. Unfortunately I
made some miscalculations in
my dimensions, resulting in me
having to grind down extra space for my drivers to fit the metal baffle. This also had the
undesirable side-effect of making what were pretty machined panels into rougher looking
panels.
Pictured to the lower right:
a panel clean off the CNC machine. This
panel would later be roughed up by a
grinder to make space for the drivers.
32 | P a g e

Wood
I had the fortune of getting my wood work done early while my metal was being
machined, and all of my wood work going smoothly. After making my initial cuts and
sanding them down they dry assembled well, and once I got my metal ready for mounting
the boxes were quick to glue
together.
Pictured to the right:
My first box dry assembled.


33 | P a g e

Aesthetics
Wood Dye
After I decided I wanted to do a layered red over blue dye on my wood I set out
testing with my dyes to see what colors I could make, and to gain experience with handling
the Keda wood dyes. Pictured below: my piece of sample wood, dyed.







I ended up dying my wood in the following layers (in order of bottom layer to top):
1 Layer of Black, whole box
3 Layers of Blue, selected designs and speckle
6 layers of Red, whole box

As Cast Metal
I decided to keep my metal as cast, meaning that I did no additional aesthetic work
one I had them functioning. I made this decision because I wanted the metal to stand out as
a key element of the speakers, and subjectively I love the industrial style the metal and
exposed bolt heads provides.
34 | P a g e

Sealing
I chose a clear spray-on enamel coating for both my metal and wood, multiple layers
will not only protect my metal and wood from moisture, but also darkens the color on both.
The enamel has a barely glossy finish, making the wood slightly reflective; additionally it
made the metal surfaces smoother and easier to handle.
Tuning
After building my initial 3
rd
-order crossover I set up a station for tuning and testing.
Due to some file errors I cant show every step of my tuning process, which included over
400 test sweeps and adjustments to my crossovers. I will, however, provide information on
my tuning and learning process.
Initial sweeps
My first sweeps revealed that my tweeter was louder than my woofer by about 4 dB,
and confirmed that I had my bass boost at 100 Hz from my box design. I was able to start
learning about my crossover circuit by replacing and add parts one at a time and testing to
see how it affected my frequency response. I was able to manage the my crossover points,
and with help from Christopher Plummer learn about Zobel networks, high shelf circuits,
and baffle step compensation circuits.
Circuit additions
Both of my woofers and my left tweeter had issues with impedance affecting the
behavior of my circuits, after much frustration I learned about the addition of Zobel
networks to deal with this issue. After adding a Zobel network and getting some of the
35 | P a g e

parts to the best numbers I could manage I was able to fix the impedance and manage my
circuits more accurately.
Baffle step compensation circuits were added to both woofers in order to fix the
issue of baffle step, which causes a dip in frequency response in relation to the size of your
baffle. Adding a compensation circuit helped to flatten out the response in my low end,
which prior to the circuit had a ~5 dB dip around 500 Hz.
After managing my impedance and woofer issues I focused on getting my tweeter
level reduced, and attempting to fix the spikey response from 5 kHz up. I experimented
with L-Pads on the tweeter, but this only lowered it a flat amount and didnt seem to help
and of the spikes and dips in the response. After trying a few combinations of high shelf
filters I found I could lower the level of the tweeter and fix some of my bumpy response,
leading to me using a high shelf on both tweeters.
Diagrams
Below: Circuit diagram for both FW200 woofers.
L1 = 2.0 mH
L2 = 1.1 mH
L3 = 2.2 mH
C1 = 3.9 F
C2 = 5.1 F
R1 = 8
R2 = 10
Below: Circuit diagram for the right ne19vtt tweeter
L1 = 0.3 mH
C1 = 8.8 F
C2 = 10 F
C3 = 3.3 F
R1 = 3


36 | P a g e

Below: Circuit diagram for left ne19vtt tweeter
L1 = 0.3 mH
L2 = 0.08 mH
C1 = 8.8 F
C2 = 10 F
C3 = 3.3 F
C4 = 100 F
R1 = 3
R2 = 2
































37 | P a g e

Final Testing
My final testing set up had my speaker on a platform 10 in from the nearest surface
to eliminate the potential of bounces interfering with the measurements, and used a
ISEMcon EMX-7150 microphone placed one meter away for the first full range tests, and
then 16 away for second full range and off-axis tests, as this better reflects the distance I
will be from my speakers when using them.

Above is the frequency response of the right Aries I at one meter from 10 Hz to 30
kHz. Here you can see the boost around 100 Hz, and some dips at 4.5 kHz and 6 kHz,
created by the grooves that were grinded out around the tweeter. Covering up the grooves
with fabric eliminates these dips, but added a spike; I chose to settle for the dips. From 100
Hz to 20 kHz The Aries I has +/- 4 dB, this is caused by the boost at 2.2 kHz followed by the
dip at 4.5 kHz.

38 | P a g e



This graph shows how my drivers sum and crossover to create the overall frequency
response. The crossover point is just below my initially planned 2 kHz, and crosses with a
little boost from 2-3.5 kHz. Using this graph as a reference, I may lower my woofers
crossover point, or increase the rate at which is rolls off in attempt to lower the 2-3 kHz
boost, although I am very fond of the way the model performs as is.








39 | P a g e






























T
h
i
s

g
r
a
p
h

s
h
o
w
s

m
y

h
a
r
m
o
n
i
c

d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n
,

w
h
i
c
h

f
r
o
m

1
0
0

H
z

-

1
0

k
H
z

s
t
a
y
s

b
e
l
o
w

7
%
,

I

c
a
n

e
x
p
e
c
t

m
i
l
d

d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n

a
r
o
u
n
d

2

3

k
H
z
,

w
h
e
r
e

m
y

w
o
o
f
e
r

s
u
m
s

w
i
t
h

m
y

t
w
e
e
t
e
r
,

a
n
d

i
n

m
y

l
o
w
s

b
e
l
o
w

1
0
0

H
z
.

O
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

t
h
e

s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s

h
a
v
e

l
o
w

d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n
.



40 | P a g e

This graph shows the Aries I step response, the quick attack helps to show how good
my transient response has become. Thanks to having a sealed box and well mounted
drivers I was able to increase my system Q and get the tight transient response I was
looking for.
Above is my integrated step response, showing how my tweeter (green) and woofer
(purple) act to each other relative to time.



41 | P a g e

To the left is a
waterfall plot of
the Aries I. This
graph shows the
frequency
response over
time, in this case
10 milliseconds.
The Aries I does a
good job of
absorbing
frequencies
above 200Hz, but
the boxes natural resonance around 100 Hz is show here lasting past 6 ms.







42 | P a g e

The above chart shows my horizontal off-axis response, these measurements were
done 16 away from the speakers, and at 0
o
(Red), 15
o
(Blue), 30
o
(Green), 45
o
(Yellow),
and 60
o
(purple) off-axis from the center of the Aries I baffle. The consistency of these
responses indicates an accurate horizontal off-axis response, allow the wide dispersion of
the speakers to still carry good, accurate sound; meaning my reflections and envelopment
in the sound space will still have quality to the sound.


43 | P a g e

The graph above shows the left Aries I (Blue) in relation to the right Aries I (Red),
both speakers function very similarly, with the exception of a small dip at 1.3 kHz, this is a
possible measurement anomaly I was unable to re-test.
Woofer
The minimum phase response of my woofer shows that my woofer remains +/- 45
o

in phase until 1 kHz where it starts to slowly roll off and get out of phase.

44 | P a g e


The impulse response of the woofer reinforces the strong transient response of the
Aries I loudspeakers, having a quick spike up followed by a smooth decay.
Tweeter
The minimum phase of my tweeter shows that my tweeter doesnt get within +/-45
o

of difference until about 3 kHz which likely contributes to the distortion around 2 kHz. The
tweeter ends up 90
o
out of phase again around 18 kHz.

45 | P a g e

The impulse response on the ne19vtt tweeter proved to be sharp and responsive,
again helping to keep my transient response clean and crisp.
Results
After fully assembling and listening to my speakers I am happy with how the Aries I
turned out. My favorite music sounds great on them, they have just the right amount of low
end that isnt muddy. The sound stage varies from amp-to-amp, but I find that the speakers
possess a large stereo image regardless of amplifier. Aesthetically the industrial panels
mounted on the maroon/red boxes is exactly my kind of beautiful. While I didnt get as
tight of a frequency response as I wanted, and I went over budget after some unforeseen
foundry costs, I do still love the speakers.





46 | P a g e

Bibliography
Dickason, Vance. 2006. Loudspeaker Design Cookbook. Old Colony Sound Laboratory.
Dura-Bar. n.d. Dura-Bar Tech Brief. Accessed January 17, 2014. http://www.dura-
bar.com/downloads/upload/density.pdf.
Gray, Kevin. 2014. "Notes from Transducer Theory Class." Houghton, 1 14.
. 2014. "SPL preference data." Transducer Lab 1. Houghton, 1 20.
Hi-Vi. n.d. "Manufacturer Spec Sheet." Parts-Express. Accessed 2 9, 2014. http://www.parts-
express.com/pedocs/specs/297-446-hi-vi-m8n-specifications-44414.pdf.
Katz, Bob. n.d. "Digital Domain." Digital Domain, inc. Accessed 1 20, 2014. Digido.com.
Parts Express, various manufacturers. n.d. Parts Express. Accessed February 3, 2014.
http://www.parts-express.com/.
Phillip Newell, Keith Holland. 2007. "Loudspeakers for Music Recording and
Reproduction." In Loudspeakers for Music Recording and Reproduction, by Keith
Holland Phillip Newell. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.
Plummer, Christopher. 2014. "SPL Cheat Sheet." Houghton, 1 20.
Quimby, Patrick, interview by Kevin Gray. 2014. Head of Michigan Technological University
Foundry (March 14).
Sheet, Chemind Product Data. 2008. Chemind Product Data Sheet: Chembond. March 24.
Accessed May 1, 2014.
http://www.robbins.com.au/useruploads/files/chembond.pdf.
Williamson, Danielle, interview by Kevin Gray. 2014. Michigan Technology University
Material Sciences Student (1 20).