Riddle me these, Batman

tajanes

Speaker concept contests are pretty cool, but what’s up with:

Those that place a co$t limit for drivers, but not on crossover components?  

Seems that if it’s a  ‘limited cost contest’, keep it a cost contest, and let designers allocate as they see fit.  If it’s a ‘lets see what you can do with a crossover’ – maybe pick a specific set of cheap drivers…

 

Tweeter required?

Hey, if someone wants to bring a scalpel to a gun fight - say building a 1.5 or 2-way with a small broad/full range (because they subjectively prefer the sound, and the challenge) bring it on… hint: one could simply employ a ~supersonic HP (a 0.1uF cap or smaller, and duct tape) on a $3 tweeter...

  

I do kinda like the ‘only purple’ drivers concept… 

S7910

That's what I liked about the old "Iron Driver" contest - crossovers were included in the cost limit to force designers to make some real choices about the speaker they were building.

For the contest you seem to be referencing, I'm greatly tempted to go over to PE, scrape some drivers off the shallow end of the bargain bin, and brute force them into something listenable. Maybe $30 - $40 in drivers for a TMWW, and as expensive of a XO as I want.

Scalpel to a gunfight? Possibly. But the "Oh crap, that speaker isn't a bad joke." reactions will be priceless.

Dangit, @tajanes, this might be the the perfect use for some previously homeless woofers on my shelf.

Wolf

I don't dictate what drivers to use- ever. It really limits what the entrants can and can't do to where most will be too similar to even sense a difference from project to project.

tajanes

"No buyouts, wide/full-ranges as tweeters..."  oop, never say never... 

Wolf

You misunderstand me. A category never tells you to use a certain driver. Due to category rules, some may be eliminated, but this is not to say you can't use a wide-range as a mid. The buyouts reason screws with the level playing field if they are allowed, and it has always been that way for InDIYana. We would like to keep entries repeatable, as some are picked up as kits from a vendor, and this long term allowance precludes the buyout drivers.

DanP

In general, crossover component quality doesn't make enough difference to be picked out with unfamiliar tracks on unfamiliar speakers in unfamiliar rooms (i.e., the circumstances under which these speakers are judged).  There also isn't much correlation between number of components used vs quality of result, so using a more expensive crossover isn't really an advantage, and most guys wouldn't throw $$$ at a crossover for a speaker that's limited due to the theme anyway.  So to me including crossovers in the total cost isn't much different than not including them, besides the initial offset.  

kenrhodes

Not all of us can get it done with two components. ☺

tajanes

the post was rhetorical

Kornbread

kenrhodes said:

Not all of us can get it done with two components. ☺

   +1

Wolf

tajanes said:

the post was rhetorical

That wasn't all it was.

Ed_Perkins

DanP said:

 So to me including crossovers in the total cost isn't much different than not including them, besides the initial offset.  

My feeling too.  In some ways I like the idea of not including the crossover cost, but in the end it's not a big deal. 

PWRRYD

Wolf said:

tajanes said:

the post was rhetorical

That isn't all I took it as.

There, fixed that for you Ben.

tajanes

simply rhetorical, as in food for thought.

S7910

Wolf said:

I don't dictate what drivers to use- ever.

Wolf said:

You misunderstand me. A category never tells you to use a certain driver. Due to category rules, some may be eliminated, ...

Sorry, Ben. I know it isn't what you intend, but that reads like the goal posts are being moved. Eliminating via rules (eg: no widebanders as tweeters) is still dictating drivers.

I'm not counting cost restrictions or volume/baffle restrictions here as I am fully in favor of those both for logistical reasons, and, as Dan said, most folks don't usually throw a lot of coin at a crossover for a theme build anyways.

I also completely agree with the buyout rule for repeatability as that makes perfect sense for what appears to be the intended outcome for the designs that do well.

Some food for thought, take it as you will ...

jhollander

There are a lot of cool contest ideas, but I think the guy doing the leg work, spending the time, etc. gets to make the rules whatever he wants.  We get to decide if we want to participate. 

Ed_Perkins

jhollander said:

There are a lot of cool contest ideas, but I think the guy doing the leg work, spending the time, etc. gets to make the rules whatever he wants.  We get to decide if we want to participate. 

Well said John.  

tajanes

Completely agree !
Just interested in understanding rational / logic where, in my reading, is (dare I say) fuzzy.  ‘never hurts to ask’ -oh boy

ani_101

ask away, Ben is always ready to provide clarification - sometimes we come up with something that is right on the edge or sometimes over - sometimes he allows it sometimes not. Regardless, if your speakers meets the criteria, good, else, you can always play it for the show and tell, as part of the regular event.

tajanes

It’s fun to have an interesting challenge/design concept.  I’m just a curious folk, and when things simply strike me as a bit odd, such as to reasoning that there would be a cost constraint on one segment of a build, but not on the other segments or overall, I tend to check it out (i.e. there’s probably some logic there that I'm missing)... So whoa Robin, have a snickers..

Guess I’ll just take my lunch tray to another table in the school cafeteria, that one, on the other side of the room, way, way, over there.  And eat alone.  Humiliated…. sob, sob.  Maybe it’s just a color purple allergy...

Should be some interesting solutions to the build.