Dayton RS WMTW Center & TMWW Mains

[kgveteran]

Ssabripo,
I know it sounds odd to model a DIY project after another speaker, but that is what I did. My old paradigms sounded great at low volumes.Once i turned it up the sound went to hell quick.The RS center let me model it after my old paradigms with the help of my trusty Ashly PQ66.I now get the sound i like at unreal levels.The tweaks i made are pretty small too.The BBC dip is now at about -3db (perfect).I did pad down the tweeter with an L-pad, which is no more than a proper series parallel resistor circuit, it keeps the impedence correct, rather than a plain inline resistor.

Example: I was watching "Walk the line" last night.The scenes on stage sound unreal, every scene.The scene in Fulsom prison, I was at reference level and there was not a hint of trouble.it sounded so damn good.I played that scene over and over.I guess it's what ever works for you.For me, I can't imagine ever wanting any more out of my mains in this room.

I recieved in the mail last week a HT magazine and the Revel WTMW center..........is going for.......2,450.00.....................I know my plain ol' gray box isn't the prettiest thing in the world, but when the lights go out, that damn thing sings!


KG

I can't give enough Kudo's :T

[HMenke]

The highs are pretty brightI believe this duplicates kgveteran's initial impression...what type of tweeter were you accustomed to with your old center?

[ssabripo]

Ssabripo,
I know it sounds odd to model a DIY project after another speaker, but that is what I did. My old paradigms sounded great at low volumes.Once i turned it up the sound went to hell quick.The RS center let me model it after my old paradigms with the help of my trusty Ashly PQ66.I now get the sound i like at unreal levels.The tweaks i made are pretty small too.The BBC dip is now at about -3db (perfect).I did pad down the tweeter with an L-pad, which is no more than a proper series parallel resistor circuit, it keeps the impedence correct, rather than a plain inline resistor.
Yeah, I think once the speaker breaks in and I actually try it in the finished cabinet, it will be pretty good. Unlike Subwoofers or even mains, center channels are hard to measure, even subjectively, other than how it sounds. I think once I'm done I will hook it up as one of my mains and do a A/B comparo with my swans and see how it stacks up subjectively.

I was in search of an "Aerial Acoustic CC5" killer, at DIY prices, so the jury is still out.....as long as it sounds better than my current Swan C4, or than the Rockets RSC200 big foot, I'll be happy.

I believe this duplicates kgveteran's initial impression...what type of tweeter were you accustomed to with your old center?
Swan C4 Center, which has Hi-Vi silk dome tweeters.

[HMenke]

Swan C4 Center, which has Hi-Vi silk dome tweeters.That's interesting. kgveteran was also coming off soft dome tweeters...

[oxcartdriver]

In the very first post of this thread the Dennis Murphy RS28s ckt has a 0.50mH inductor with a 4ohm next to it. Does this mean 0.50mH w/ a DC Resistance of 4ohms in this leg?

[kgveteran]

Yeah, I think once the speaker breaks in and I actually try it in the finished cabinet, it will be pretty good. Unlike Subwoofers or even mains, center channels are hard to measure, even subjectively, other than how it sounds. I think once I'm done I will hook it up as one of my mains and do a A/B comparo with my swans and see how it stacks up subjectively.

I was in search of an "Aerial Acoustic CC5" killer, at DIY prices, so the jury is still out.....as long as it sounds better than my current Swan C4, or than the Rockets RSC200 big foot, I'll be happy.


Swan C4 Center, which has Hi-Vi silk dome tweeters.

I think this center will give you what you want if you can find what you like.I had to model my MiniMK3 using TrueRta.Thats where I saw the "BBC" dip.It was very easy to do with an analog PEQ.The padding down the tweeter was by ear.

I tend to panic when doing a new project.It was no different with the RS center. Once i relaxed and thought it through, the answer was pretty simple.What would be cool, was to model a CC5 with pink noise and duplicate the curve.I bet it's the "BBC" dip that is so appealing.

I like the expression,"Coming off of softdomes". Seems to fit.

[HMenke]

kg, I wonder how much your tweeter is padded down? Any idea in dB, using the midrange average as a reference?

I wonder about the impact of the tweeter crossover frequency on the impression of brightness. You used Curt's design, crossing over at 1.5kHz. Could that be pushing the RS28A down where it doesn't really want to go? Dennis is crossing at 2kHz. He's not fully on the tweeter until around 4kHz. It's a little hard to read the scale on Curt's, but it looks like he's already fully on it by only 2kHz.

ssabripo, which crossover design did you go with?

Did either of you use felt around the tweeter? Jon mentioned in his design that that might be important to tame some roughness in the 2kHz region.

[kgveteran]

I'm at half power with the L-pad or 50%.I haven't made any measurements on the L-pad to see what that translates to.It would be as simple as measuring both the shunt and the inline to get the values, but i've been too busy getting back to watching movies after the four months it took to build them.

When movie watching slows down this summer i'll figure it out and get a good read on it.

I think curts was 1.8k on the 28a.The tweeter sounds as it should.I think that if i replaced the L-pad with the same value resistors , that should become part of the XO update....when i get a read on it.

I'd like to get Curts take on the "BBC" curve and if that could become part of the design.In a bigger room that might not be an issue though.

[ssabripo]

couple of coats of sealer and primer done....we start painting tonite...man, what a slooooooooooooooow process this is :oops:

anyways, just mounted the TV on the wall, and we have enough space now for the center!!! :B

[Fryguy]

What's the best way to route wires from the tweeter and mid to the crossovers? Are you guys just drilling a hole, running the wires, and then siliconing it in?

[Fryguy]

Seas TMWW BOM questions/suggestions:

1. Is seas 27TBFC/G the only seas tweeter being used in these designs?
2. Is there any reason to use Mills resistors over eagle?
3. Is using all Solen caps fine/worthwhile?

4. Is using high quality .01mfd bypass caps (like hovland musicaps or audiocap theta) going to make a difference? If yes, which caps should I bypass, in order of importance?

5. What is the difference between Jantzen, sidewinder, steel laminate, and perfect lay (erze @ pe and solen @ madisound) inductors?

Price not being an issue, what is the optimal inductor line up? I'm thinking:

3.0mh: Solen Perfect Lay from Madisound. Is this overkill from the steel laminate suggested? The Jantzen 15awg seems to have a bit too high a resistance on this one.

1.2mh: Erze Perfect Lay 14awg from PE, or Solen Perfect Lay 14awg from Madisound (is there a diff between these 2 perfect lays?). Worth it over the Jantzen 15ga?

1.0mh: Same as 1.2

.4mh: Is stepping up to perfect lay 14ga worth it? DCR going down is a good thing in this case, right?

.33: Same as the 1.0mh, or should I just spend half as much on the 16ga Sidewinder, or is the Jantzen 15ga good here?

.1: Sidewinder 16ga from Madisound


Given that the perfect lays are both the same:

Madisound perfect lay for the 3.0, PE perfect lay for the 1.2, 1.0, .4, and .33, and madisound sidewinder for the .1, maybe going with 18ga perfect lay for the .4 and .33.

Any thoughts?

[Brian Walter]

Fryguy,
I don't have all the answers, but keep in mind that crossover was modeled using the DCR given in the schematic, so any changes from them may change the performance, for the better or worse. I agree that the Jantzen 15 ga air core is a little high DCR for the 3.0 mh, so I would suggest the perfect lay from Madisound or the 15 ga. steel laminate from Madisound. It's a toss up between those two in my mind, as I don't know which is the best compromise, the lower DCR with the steel laminate or the air core vs steel laminate. I suspect the lower DCR might be more noticeable unless you like to play really loud, in which case the steel laminate might get saturated and become audible as well.

I'm also interested in what some others might have to say.

Brian Walter

[MarcG]

OK, I have been following this great thread and it has been invading all my free moments, waking and otherwise..... Can you say a new obsession ?

I have decided to build this center after all my research. I came across three sets of outer cabinet dimensions. If 30w x 12.5h x14d is the final word, how does it impact the driver spacing on the original 26" wide baffle board ? Do the drivers remain close to each other and the width added to each end, or do the woofers get spaced out to stay closer to the outer edges.

This should be a fun project. Hope it turns out better than that kit car I bought 5 years ago.

[Jim Holtz]

Seas TMWW BOM questions/suggestions:

1. Is seas 27TBFC/G the only seas tweeter being used in these designs?
2. Is there any reason to use Mills resistors over eagle?
3. Is using all Solen caps fine/worthwhile?

4. Is using high quality .01mfd bypass caps (like hovland musicaps or audiocap theta) going to make a difference? If yes, which caps should I bypass, in order of importance?

5. What is the difference between Jantzen, sidewinder, steel laminate, and perfect lay (erze @ pe and solen @ madisound) inductors?

Price not being an issue, what is the optimal inductor line up? I'm thinking:

3.0mh: Solen Perfect Lay from Madisound. Is this overkill from the steel laminate suggested? The Jantzen 15awg seems to have a bit too high a resistance on this one.

1.2mh: Erze Perfect Lay 14awg from PE, or Solen Perfect Lay 14awg from Madisound (is there a diff between these 2 perfect lays?). Worth it over the Jantzen 15ga?

1.0mh: Same as 1.2

.4mh: Is stepping up to perfect lay 14ga worth it? DCR going down is a good thing in this case, right?

.33: Same as the 1.0mh, or should I just spend half as much on the 16ga Sidewinder, or is the Jantzen 15ga good here?

.1: Sidewinder 16ga from Madisound


Given that the perfect lays are both the same:

Madisound perfect lay for the 3.0, PE perfect lay for the 1.2, 1.0, .4, and .33, and madisound sidewinder for the .1, maybe going with 18ga perfect lay for the .4 and .33.

Any thoughts?

I've talked to Dennis about the steel laminate inductor Vs. air core on the woofers in the larger values. He said that the lower DCR is better and the steel core laminates would never saturate in this position. I won't use an iron core but feel very comfortable using steel laminate in the woofer crossover. Everywhere else, I use air core. Either Madisound or Jantzen are fine. There are only a handfull of folks that say they can hear a difference in inductors. I can't.

I use Mills in my high end projects and eagle in my budget projects. The PE non inductive wire wounds are also recommended on LDSG. I like Mills but they are pricey. Anywhere that shows a resistor larger than .5 next to an inductor is actually a resistor and should be included in the circuit.

I used Jantzen caps for the 1st time and like them. They are very smooth sounding. They cost very little more than Dayton and less than Solen. I think they're a good workhorse cap. I use Sonicaps in my high end projects.

HTH

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

OK, I have been following this great thread and it has been invading all my free moments, waking and otherwise..... Can you say a new obsession ?

I have decided to build this center after all my research. I came across three sets of outer cabinet dimensions. If 30w x 12.5h x14d is the final word, how does it impact the driver spacing on the original 26" wide baffle board ? Do the drivers remain close to each other and the width added to each end, or do the woofers get spaced out to stay closer to the outer edges.

This should be a fun project. Hope it turns out better than that kit car I bought 5 years ago.

Hi Marc,

A 28" W x 12.5" H x 15" D (1.25" front baffle) would also work fine. The bottom line is to end up with about a total of 63 - 64 liters which will allow the inner RS150 enclosure to take up about 9 liters of the 63 liter total. That works out to about 5 liters internal volume for the RS150 and a net of around 53 liters for the RS225's. You'll end up with a .7 alignment that way. Whether you go 28" or 30" wide shouldn't have any significantly audible impact on the center. Closer to the original 26" is better but nothing to lose sleep over, IMHO.

Jim

[pereze]

Do you know how much the center will cost to build? I know the drivers run about 160, but about how much does the crossover run?

Thanks,
Eric

[Fryguy]

I've talked to Dennis about the steel laminate inductor Vs. air core on the woofers in the larger values. He said that the lower DCR is better and the steel core laminates would never saturate in this position. I won't use an iron core but feel very comfortable using steel laminate in the woofer crossover. Everywhere else, I use air core. Either Madisound or Jantzen are fine. There are only a handfull of folks that say they can hear a difference in inductors. I can't.

I use Mills in my high end projects and eagle in my budget projects. The PE non inductive wire wounds are also recommended on LDSG. I like Mills but they are pricey. Anywhere that shows a resistor larger than .5 next to an inductor is actually a resistor and should be included in the circuit.

I used Jantzen caps for the 1st time and like them. They are very smooth sounding. They cost very little more than Dayton and less than Solen. I think they're a good workhorse cap. I use Sonicaps in my high end projects.

HTH

Jim


What is the DCR of the Steel Laminate? I'm sure being a different core changes things, but is the 14ga perfect lay a lower DCR than the 15ga steel laminate?

And about the real resistor next to the inductor (in the cases of the 1.2, 1.0, and .1) If this is the case wouldn't I want the inductor with the lowest possible DCR? Since it's just in series with a real resistor and would thus add on to the value?

On the 0.4mh inductor, is there a benefit to having a lower than recommended DCR?


http://www.objext.com/fryguy/inductors.xls
Italic are from the original BOMs, Bold are my suggestions for more money.


As for caps, the solens are only ~8 more per speaker, seems worth it to me. I'd like some input though on if .01mfd caps will do anything in the tweeter path?

[ssabripo]

Do you know how much the center will cost to build? I know the drivers run about 160, but about how much does the crossover run?

Thanks,
Eric

search a couple of pages back...there is a BOM (bill of materials). You are looking at roughly $270 in parts, and then you gotta make the cabinet (add another $75-$100 for wood/paint/sandpaper/etc). I say all about less than $400.

[Jim Holtz]

What is the DCR of the Steel Laminate? I'm sure being a different core changes things, but is the 14ga perfect lay a lower DCR than the 15ga steel laminate?

And about the real resistor next to the inductor (in the cases of the 1.2, 1.0, and .1) If this is the case wouldn't I want the inductor with the lowest possible DCR? Since it's just in series with a real resistor and would thus add on to the value?

On the 0.4mh inductor, is there a benefit to having a lower than recommended DCR?


http://www.objext.com/fryguy/inductors.xls
Italic are from the original BOMs, Bold are my suggestions for more money.


As for caps, the solens are only ~8 more per speaker, seems worth it to me. I'd like some input though on if .01mfd caps will do anything in the tweeter path?

Fryguy,

If you follow the recommendations in the BOM you'll be fine. If you want to use different brands, match the DCR on inductors as close as possible without going crazy. Close is good and not a problem per Dennis. The Steel laminate is a recommendation directly from Dennis, not me. If you have questions about technical aspects of the crosover, email him. Dennis is very open and glad to help.

Jon and Thomas advocate using boutique caps for 1/2 the value in combination with standard variety caps. I think everyone has their own thoughts on what they feel is best. A never ending debate actually. There are many varieties of boutique caps. I like Sonicaps for my all out projects but thats my taste and may not match yours. The vast majority of speakers I build get Solens, Dayton or Jantzen. Jantzen are my new favorites based on sound quality and price. YMMV

Jim

[Brian Walter]

Fryguy, you commented "And about the real resistor next to the inductor (in the cases of the 1.2, 1.0, and .1) If this is the case wouldn't I want the inductor with the lowest possible DCR? Since it's just in series with a real resistor and would thus add on to the value?"

I would think that it is just the opposite of what you are thinking. If the inductor is in series with say a 4 ohm resistor and you are debating between an inductor with a 0.3 ohm or 0.5 ohm DCR, you are really comparing 4.3 ohms with 4.5 ohms about a 5% difference. Now on the othe hand, if you don't have a real resistor in series you are comparing 0.3 ohms to 0.5 ohms or about a 70% difference. Granted the inductance plays a part in all of this too, but from a purely resistive standpoint, it would certainly appear to be more important when you don't have a real resistor in series with the inductor.

If money is no object, I would say to go for all 14 ga. perfect lay inductors, except for the 3mh, use 12 ga. for that. And use all Sonicap caps or better, and as per Jon and Thomas, subsitute at least 1/2 of the cap values in the tweeter circuit with metal film caps. If cost is important, pick anywhere between this and the BOM listed and you should be fine. Depending on the rest of your equipment you may or may not be able to hear any difference between these two extremes.

Brian

[pereze]

search a couple of pages back...there is a BOM (bill of materials). You are looking at roughly $270 in parts, and then you gotta make the cabinet (add another $75-$100 for wood/paint/sandpaper/etc). I say all about less than $400.
Thank you very much. I had tried searching, but I am still new and my searching skills were apparently sub-par.

Eric

[Fryguy]

Fryguy, you commented "And about the real resistor next to the inductor (in the cases of the 1.2, 1.0, and .1) If this is the case wouldn't I want the inductor with the lowest possible DCR? Since it's just in series with a real resistor and would thus add on to the value?"

I would think that it is just the opposite of what you are thinking. If the inductor is in series with say a 4 ohm resistor and you are debating between an inductor with a 0.3 ohm or 0.5 ohm DCR, you are really comparing 4.3 ohms with 4.5 ohms about a 5% difference. Now on the othe hand, if you don't have a real resistor in series you are comparing 0.3 ohms to 0.5 ohms or about a 70% difference. Granted the inductance plays a part in all of this too, but from a purely resistive standpoint, it would certainly appear to be more important when you don't have a real resistor in series with the inductor.

If money is no object, I would say to go for all 14 ga. perfect lay inductors, except for the 3mh, use 12 ga. for that. And use all Sonicap caps or better, and as per Jon and Thomas, subsitute at least 1/2 of the cap values in the tweeter circuit with metal film caps. If cost is important, pick anywhere between this and the BOM listed and you should be fine. Depending on the rest of your equipment you may or may not be able to hear any difference between these two extremes.

Brian


I think this is what I'm going to do. And your thoughts are the same as mine about the inductor resistance; I apologize if you misunderstood what I was saying.

[MrCabinetry]

I have up dated the cut list and I have thrown together a very rough layout drawing. The cut list are for a PAIR of towers. Again there is a cutlist for both a 4x4 and a 4x8 sheet.

Due to the fact I have not built the cabinet yet these are estimates. Right now I am swamped at work, only 8 days off since Jan. 1st, so it will be a while before I start building anything. Like Jon always says, this is where the Y part in diy comes in to play.

The drawings should give you a good idea of the brace layouts. The A braces are below the lower woofer and in between the two woofers. The B brace actually forms the bottom of the mid enclosure with the cut outs on the back side to open the rest of the enclosure to the woofers.

Gentlemen,

I wanted to bring to your attention that there is flaw in the math concerning the dimensions.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TowerLayout1.jpg

A past customer e-mailed me as to building these towers for him and this is when I discovered the error. The post number per this thread is # 261 where this design details is posted.

[Dennis H]

Just guessing but you might need to keep the 11.25 dim to allow the drivers to fit. You could make the cabinet taller or adjust the other braces. The critical dimensions (for acoustical reasons) are the location of the tweeter relative to the top and sides. The midrange is centered and fits as close to the tweeter as you can get it without a blowout. Location of the woofers and braces isn't critical as long as they are something like the pic with room for the braces, not getting the braces so close that they block off airflow at the rear of the drivers. By the same token, the through-holes for the midrange and woofers should be chamfered on the backside for better airflow. I'd wan't at least 9" (10" would be better) clear between the woofer braces to allow all that so the dims definitely look screwy.

[MrCabinetry]

Well, being a cabinetmaker/woodworker, some clarification needs to be provided since this design is of someone else and they need to provided their input on the design as to what change or correction needs to occur that will not hinder the performance of the design as intended.

So, it's either:

Hold the 42" OD Height and Hold the 11.25" ID spacing for this brace position which changes the ID spacing for the 2nd to 3rd bracing from 10.3750" to 9.6250"

or

Hold the 11.25" ID for the bracing position relative to the other dimensions as to bracing positions and increase the height from 42" to 42.75".

BTW, the member FryGuy here is the customer and knows that I am quite critical of such details when fabricated cabinetry, especially from another persons designs.

Everything is in the details and I want to be sure that what is build is to what is required to ensure the performancfe of the enclosure as per the design.

[Dennis H]

Well, the guy who drew them isn't a cabinetmaker and he didn't use a CAD program so the drawings aren't to scale. Your own layout will be better structurally and acoustically than his as long as you get the tweeter in the right place. I'd ignore all his dimensions and start from the top with a 42" cabinet. Using the actual OD of the drivers, locate the tweeter. 1/8"-1/4" space between tweeter and mid. 1" space between mid and top woofer. 1" space between top and bottom woofer. Center the braces in the 1" spaces.

Dennis
(Former cabinetmaker)

Edit: okay, I found the "official" baffle layout in post #261. Center the braces between the driver cutouts and you'll be good to go. Driver dimensions are on the Parts Express site if you don't have the drivers in hand.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=5691

[MrCabinetry]

Well, the guy who drew them isn't a cabinetmaker and he didn't use a CAD program so the drawings aren't to scale. Your own layout will be better structurally and acoustically than his as long as you get the tweeter in the right place. I'd ignore all his dimensions and start from the top with a 42" cabinet. Using the actual OD of the drivers, locate the tweeter. 1/8"-1/4" space between tweeter and mid. 1" space between mid and top woofer. 1" space between top and bottom woofer. Center the braces in the 1" spaces.

Dennis
(Former cabinetmaker)

Edit: okay, I found the "official" baffle layout in post #261. Center the braces between the driver cutouts and you'll be good to go. Driver dimensions are on the Parts Express site if you don't have the drivers in hand.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=5691

I was just getting ready to post the same exact design detail for reference.

So, I'm just going to bag the bracing position dims and base their actual positions based on the center point locations for the components relative to the spacing of the bracing itself.

[Dennis H]

Sounds like a plan. PS, don't forget to mirror image the R&L tweeters.

[MrCabinetry]

Sounds like a plan. PS, don't forget to mirror image the R&L tweeters.

Thanks for the reminder.

Just to make life easier on myself, I'm planning on make a router templating jig for this project, that way I can just flip it since the jig will index itself off the grill guide holes for the grill cover guides.

[PMazz]

Aren't we cabinetmakers a picky bunch? :)

Pete

[dawaro]

If I remember right the 11.25" dim for the shelf that makes up the bottom of the mid/tweet enclosure was a measurement to the outside of the cabinet to the top of the brace. Make any sense?

The only critical issue is to keep the driver spacing correct since this is the layout the drivers were in when measured. The enclosure for the mid should net 5 liter or .1765 ft3. As far as the braces they should be between the two woofers and bleow the bottom woofer.

Thanks for checking it though.

If I got everything right it would take the Y out of diy right? :)

[Paul H]

Aren't we cabinetmakers a picky bunch? :)

Pete

Could be worse, could be a picky speaker building cabinetmaker ... never mind ;)

Paul

[MrCabinetry]

Aren't we cabinetmakers a picky bunch? :)

Pete

Well, I had a crusty old woodshop teacher back in HS that really took his teaching to heart and wouldn't cut anyone any slack.... period.

That's when I knew that cabinetmaking/woodworking was what I wanted to do and I just worked and picked things up over the next 25 plus years and now have my own business.

dawaro says:
If I remember right the 11.25" dim for the shelf that makes up the bottom of the mid/tweet enclosure was a measurement to the outside of the cabinet to the top of the brace. Make any sense?

Yes, it makes sense to me now that you have explained it, but, if the question was not posed within the forum to get clarification of the details anyone else would of just thought it as an error and left it at that.

When it comes to cabinetry/ woodworking, there are no stupid questions, not if someone want it done right the first time.

I always check anyone's else's design, plans and blueprints if I am to build from them, I never assume anything is totally correct till I check the math for myself.

[Dennis H]

In case you didn't catch it, Pete's our resident pro cabinetmaker. From the photos I've seen, some on this board would give their firstborn (or at least a body part) for his shop in PA. ;)

[MrCabinetry]

In case you didn't catch it, Pete's our resident pro cabinetmaker. From the photos I've seen, some on this board would give their firstborn (or at least a body part) for his shop in PA. ;)

Well, I would give a body part or two to have more square footage for my shop.

I got all the tools I need and then some, but us cabinet makers always have this desire for more and more tools, even when we don't need them.

I was told long ago: it's not the tools that make the man skillful, but the man with the skill's that can make do with the tools he has. ;)

Also, I'm not here to butt heads with anyone, I was just pointing out a error in someone's math and looking for clarification as to the correct method for the design.

[dawaro]

I always check anyone's else's design, plans and blueprints if I am to build from them, I never assume anything is totally correct till I check the math for myself.
This is by far the best route. I am horrible about explaining the details. In fact I was rather hesitant to even post the plans because of this.

I'm really glad you pointed it out before someone else had a chance to start and mess something up because of mt error. Now if I can only figure out where I left that riddlin bottle...

[PMazz]

In case you didn't catch it, Pete's our resident pro cabinetmaker. From the photos I've seen, some on this board would give their firstborn (or at least a body part) for his shop in PA. ;)

Hey, if you have any extra fingers, they always come in handy (no pun intended). :D


MrCabinetry, The joke was about cabinetmakers in general. I've always been, personally. No offense meant.


Pete

[Jim Holtz]

The enclosure for the mid should net .5 ft3.

Hi David,

I assume you mean 1/2 cubic foot enclosure for the RS150? I'm also assuming sealed for the mid?

The reason I ask is that Rick Craig measured the RS150's for an array design he created and came up with a 5 liter sealed enclosure for an alignment of .7. That's what I used in the WWMT's and it sounds great. I've attached his measurement.

Jim

[dawaro]

Hi David,

I assume you mean 1/2 cubic foot enclosure for the RS150? I'm also assuming sealed for the mid?

The reason I ask is that Rick Craig measured the RS150's for an array design he created and came up with a 5 liter sealed enclosure for an alignment of .7. That's what I used in the WWMT's and it sounds great. I've attached his measurement.

Jim
There I go again. Yes Jim you are correct. I meant 5 liter and not .5 ft3. Man I have been working way too much. It is hard to keep any thought straight. I am starting to understand how Jon feels, I just still can't understand how he does it. Since January I have had a total of 14 days off and it is starting to wear me down...

[Fryguy]

Hi Phil, I'm beginning to wonder if I linked you to the wrong cabinets, or if you might be pulling information from multiple sources (there's more than 1 design in this thread, which makes it difficult to understand what's going on sometimes).

The pictures that you put up in your initial response included a port. The design that I want (and what I am pretty sure I sent you) were for the sealed version.

[Brian Bunge]

The baffle layout is the same regardless of whether you go sealed or ported. But do make sure that you are working from the right cabinet design.

[Jim Holtz]

There I go again. Yes Jim you are correct. I meant 5 liter and not .5 ft3. Man I have been working way too much. It is hard to keep any thought straight. I am starting to understand how Jon feels, I just still can't understand how he does it. Since January I have had a total of 14 days off and it is starting to wear me down...

David,

Good grief! Only 14 days off this year??? I can most certainly understand why you are tired. I hope your bank account is receiving the rewards of your hard labor! :E

BTW, thank you for getting the RS 3-way project going and getting Dennis involved. You did all the hard work. I sneaked in at the end with the H12312 variation. I hope you get time to build these. they are exceptionally nice.

Best regards,

Jim

[MrCabinetry]

The baffle layout is the same regardless of whether you go sealed or ported. But do make sure that you are working from the right cabinet design.

Which I why I registered to the forum to get clarification on the design as to towers Fryguy would like to have fabricated.

The tower design referred to in post #545 is ported.

The tower design (pic) referred to in post #311 is sealed.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TowerDetailPic.jpg

Fryguy stated the dims for the tower(s) @
42" height x 10.75" width x 11.25" depth.

As shown in the picture, this tower design greatly vary's from the tower design shown a few posts earlier and the various tower designs do not correspond to the proper design details and specifications.

Now, given THIS cabinetmakers pervasive need to know specific details for the proper design and fabrication of the towers in question.

I will let Fryguy pick up from this point to ask the questions to gather the correct information as to which tower(s) he wants to which I will be fabricating and delivering to him.

The locations of the components is pretty well established, no need to re-hash those.

[MrCabinetry]

Hi Phil, I'm beginning to wonder if I linked you to the wrong cabinets, or if you might be pulling information from multiple sources (there's more than 1 design in this thread, which makes it difficult to understand what's going on sometimes).

The pictures that you put up in your initial response included a port. The design that I want (and what I am pretty sure I sent you) were for the sealed version.

Fry,

I leave it in your hands to gather the the info as to which towers you want, all that's needed now is the the design details and specifications to the proper ones.

[MrCabinetry]

Hey, if you have any extra fingers, they always come in handy (no pun intended). :D


MrCabinetry, The joke was about cabinetmakers in general. I've always been, personally. No offense meant.


Pete

Pete,

I didn't take it as an offense, most people think that cabinetmakers in general put way to much emphasis into what we do.

I always tell them there more to cabinet making than just cutting and hammering together to pieces of wood.

BTW, where you located in Bucks CO.???

[ThomasW]

Pete's not too hard to find....

Bucks County Woodworking
375 Ivyland Rd Ste 24
Warminster, PA 18974-2235
(215) 672-3199

[dawaro]

OK since there were so many issues with the previous layout drawing for the tower I skipped my big mac lunch, yes I am at work today, and threw together another quick layout for both the sealed and ported veresions.

Look this over and see if everything appears to be correct. If it does I will leave it up.

[Fryguy]

I want the sealed design right? I've got a subwoofer capable of going up to 60hz, so I don't need lots of extension. So no need to port for more extension, right?

[dawaro]

I think the sealed would be a good match for your sub. The sealed version has a design F3 of 48Hz which will be even lower in room. With your sub crossing a 60Hz you will be fine. When Dennis did the xover design he felt the sealed version was much better than the ported. Jim has also had nothing but good this to say about his sealed set.

[MrCabinetry]

Pete's not too hard to find....

Bucks County Woodworking
375 Ivyland Rd Ste 24
Warminster, PA 18974-2235
(215) 672-3199

Well, he's only a stone's throw from me.

I'm in Willow Grove, PA.

Pete, ever been in Woodworker's Haven?

[MrCabinetry]

OK since there were so many issues with the previous layout drawing for the tower I skipped my big mac lunch, yes I am at work today, and threw together another quick layout for both the sealed and ported veresions.

Look this over and see if everything appears to be correct. If it does I will leave it up.

Excellent, exactly what I wanted to know.

Thank you for posting those designs, I've already saved them to my desktop.

One last thing, what are the components - tweeter , mid, sub?

If there is a reference to them in this thread, please provide so I can view the components spec's to get started on the design drafts.

If anyone would like, I will post the designs.

Fry, expect to see the cabinet cad drafts in a few days. As for the components, nail those down per what you e-mailed me so we can get the ball rolling.

Phil

[Fryguy]

Phil:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=235850&postcount=258

Contains a bill of materials for the design

The drivers are

Dayton RS225
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-366&CFID=148019&CFTOKEN=27876621

Dayton RS150
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-362&CFID=148019&CFTOKEN=27876621

Seas 27TBFC/G
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?cart_id=5870218.18595&pid=1005


However hold off before doing work on this, because I might be changing my decision on which towers I'm going with. I'll let you know in a day or so :)

[MrCabinetry]

Phil:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=235850&postcount=258

Contains a bill of materials for the design

The drivers are

Dayton RS225
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-366&CFID=148019&CFTOKEN=27876621

Dayton RS150
http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshowdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=295-362&CFID=148019&CFTOKEN=27876621

Seas 27TBFC/G
http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?cart_id=5870218.18595&pid=1005


However hold off before doing work on this, because I might be changing my decision on which towers I'm going with. I'll let you know in a day or so :)

OK Fry, when your ready to proceed, you'll let me know.

[PMazz]

Well, he's only a stone's throw from me.

I'm in Willow Grove, PA.

Pete, ever been in Woodworker's Haven?

Willow Grove? Hell, that's downright neighborly. We're actually in Ivyland, just behind the post office parking lot on Mearns road. It's the Ivywoods II industrial park.

Never heard of Woodworkers Haven. Any good? Where they at?

Pete

[kgveteran]

I think the sealed would be a good match for your sub. The sealed version has a design F3 of 48Hz which will be even lower in room. With your sub crossing a 60Hz you will be fine. When Dennis did the xover design he felt the sealed version was much better than the ported. Jim has also had nothing but good this to say about his sealed set.

And just imagine I run three centers as mains in the 12" x 12.5" x 26" sealed enclosure, and they are fabulous.

They are dialed in, and.......I wish I had my cabinet guy veneer them :cry:

Here is a pic of his cabinet we are making...after he saw what he could do..it's all history.

[dawaro]

For those that might be interested Curt has finished up his design for the tower.

From his e-mail:
"It turns out to be nearly identical to the CC. I used the CC response as the target for the mains, so hopefully they will have very close voicing.
Let me know what you think of it.
I'll probably post something on the HTG forum on Monday."

[ssabripo]

DONE!

well, the CC is done....a few days of sanding/painting/etc, and although not as perfect as I wanted, I couldn't wait anylonger, so assembled it and it's complete!

first, I wanna thank Curt C for his XO design, and the rest of the fellas for the info...pretty darn good CC! It probably fell a little short of the aerial acoustic CC5 performance level I was aiming for, but it surpassed the Rockets RSC200 "big foot", so hats off to you guys.

second, the sound....very transient, good imaging, and good depth. The tweeter is a bit bright for my tastes on long listening sessions, but I will play with either padding it down, or replacing it with the Seas tweeter at some point. Centers are hard to "test" per se, so I hooked it up as a main, and did some A/B comparos with my Swan Divas....kept up very well, with just a tad brighter highs and slightly less depth perception, but better imaging. All an all, I give it a very solid B+, or even A- if going by the "curve" :B

Third, lessons learned: finishing a speaker surely takes patience and HARD work...geez, cutting and building the box is a breeze in comparison. You guys should definitely spend time putting a XO together cleanly like I did...it really helped the connectivity go so smoothly...not one hickup. Also, I wish I had the patience to do a veneer finish, but oh well...maybe next time! You also have to play with placement and run some sweeps thru RTA or REW...i'm still playing with that.

Finally, to those considering this Center, this is an outstanding center, and it will surely keep up and beat ANY center under $1k.....at a 1/3 of the price! Highly recommended!

some pics...enjoy!

[cjd]

Heh. I suspected things wouldn't change much from the CC. Maybe I should get off my tail and finish that up. ;)

C

[ssabripo]

some additional pics

[MrCabinetry]

Willow Grove? Hell, that's downright neighborly. We're actually in Ivyland, just behind the post office parking lot on Mearns road. It's the Ivywoods II industrial park.

Never heard of Woodworkers Haven. Any good? Where they at?

Pete

Pete,

Woodworker 's Haven is @ County Line Road & James Way in Southampton.

There in that building complex on the corner there.

They have what you would expect for cabinetmakers and woodworkers.

Hand tools, Portable Power Tools, Stationary Tools, Lumber, Venneers and so on. Granted, they ain't Woodworker's Warehouse, but, WW went under and their location their in Rosemont closed down and WoodCraft and Bensalem moved somewhere, so, there the only game in the area for Cabinetmakers and Woodworkers to find what were looking for.

[kgveteran]

Ssabripo,
With an analog PEQ you can get that center to sound like any speaker you want.The best part about that is the dynamics after you dial it in.It will have pretty much limitless dynamics up to 100db. The L-pad is a breeze if needed.Just follow the schematic on the box (from PE ).

Tell me those binding posts don't kill.No more stripped plastic ones anymore.

Great work!

I would bring the center to the edge of the table.You are getting a huge reflection with it back so far in front of the midrange.


KG

[dyazdani]

Looks great, what kind of painting process did you use?

[ssabripo]

Ssabripo,
With an analog PEQ you can get that center to sound like any speaker you want.The best part about that is the dynamics after you dial it in.It will have pretty much limitless dynamics up to 100db. The L-pad is a breeze if needed.Just follow the schematic on the box (from PE ).

Tell me those binding posts don't kill.No more stripped plastic ones anymore.

Great work!

I would bring the center to the edge of the table.You are getting a huge reflection with it back so far in front of the midrange.


KG
Yeah, i think i'm gonna play with it a bit and see what I can do to fully extend its wings...I'm gonna build my own L-pad, but it will be very similar to the PE one if necessary...also contemplating the "baby seas" replacement, but again, we shall see.

the binding posts were money! :T

i listened to it at the edge and didn't notice any difference (I was strictly looking for reflection and imaging issues), and so I moved it back for aesthetic reasons. I'm gonna give it another listen tonite, but it should be similar.

Looks great, what kind of painting process did you use?
pretty simple....sand it down to a smooth surface, then seal it down twice. then use primer, then sand then primer (and third time if necessary). Then sand with 600,1000,1500,2000 paper....then satin black all around....then 0000 steel wool, then satin again. The front face was the hardest, as I wanted to get a piano gloss finish, so I taped the rest of the CC, and then sand it with 0000 wool, and paint, and repeat several times (1 day drying in between). Finally, repeat the process with clear glossy lacquer. the more you do it, and the more effort you put, the better then finish.

[dyazdani]

That's similar to what I did for my sub, except I used gloss black all around rather than satin.

[kgveteran]

Nice part about the PE one is that once yoo get it right, pop it out take a few measurements and then build a fixed one.I'm going to do that this week.

[PMazz]

Pete,

Woodworker 's Haven is @ County Line Road & James Way in Southampton.

There in that building complex on the corner there.

They have what you would expect for cabinetmakers and woodworkers.

Hand tools, Portable Power Tools, Stationary Tools, Lumber, Venneers and so on. Granted, they ain't Woodworker's Warehouse, but, WW went under and their location their in Rosemont closed down and WoodCraft and Bensalem moved somewhere, so, there the only game in the area for Cabinetmakers and Woodworkers to find what were looking for.

Thanks, I'll check it out. Ever go to MLCS? They're on Philmont between Red Lion and 232. Great buys on bits and odds and ends.

Pete

[MrCabinetry]

Thanks, I'll check it out. Ever go to MLCS? They're on Philmont between Red Lion and 232. Great buys on bits and odds and ends.

Pete

Yeah, MLCS is where I go for router bits ans odds and ends as well.

I keep missing out the Woodworkers show in Ft. Washington, I pick up alot of stuff there as well since some of the things sold at those shows are pretty reasonable in price.

Phil

[Curt C]

I've had a few requests for the WWMT version of my Wm/tW design. Not surprisingly it is almost identical to the center channel version, with just a couple of changes. And like the center channel design, since I only had Dennis’s measurements, and no access to the actual speaker, there was obviously no opportunity to do the final voicing of the design. –That I’ll leave up to you. What I did in lieu of the box in hand, was use the center channel response as a target for this design. This won’t guarantee the voicing will be the same, but it will be as close as I can make it from here.

I want to thank Dennis Murphy for graciously providing the measurements, and to Robert for providing me with the data and verifying the veracity of my crossover design. Any questions or comments, please response here, or feel free to email me directly. –Especially if I don’t respond here.

–And those private messages that this forum has… -I never knew they were there! My apologies for those who contacted me and didn’t get a reply. This old dog will learn eventually…

FWIW, in a couple of weeks, I’ll have my own RS driver’d WWMT done. The driver complement is similar to this design with the exception of using the RS180 for a midrange. The enclosures are most decidedly non-rectangular, however…

C

[plincoln]

this are the result of anothe thread...thought I'd post them here to keep things tidy. I believe dawaro is going to update the first post of this thread to point to these for future reference.

here is the ported version of the TMWW:
http://www.cyberfrogs.net/files/3way%20tower%20dennis%20murphy%20ported.png

here is the sealed version of the TMWW
http://www.cyberfrogs.net/files/3way%20tower%20dennis%20murphy%20sealed.png

here is the sealed center channel:
http://www.cyberfrogs.net/files/3way%20tower%20dennis%20murphy%20sealed%20center.png

I'd ask that someone double check these. Some of the dims were tough to make out. Also if someone wants to provide me with the correct counterbore depth, I will update the drawings.

I can provide model files to anyone that wants them. The counterbore for the drivers needs to be double checked since I dont have one in front of me to measure.

Anything else you guys would like to see?

[plincoln]

so i am planning on having the sealed cabinets built for me since I don't really have all the tools right now, and it occured to me that unless I have some sort of removable back panel or front baffle, its going to be a real pain to get the stuffing and wiring done...especially for the mid/tweeter since the opening is so small..

any advice from the pros here?

[MrCabinetry]

plincoln,

I am in the process of doing the same with the cabinet as shown post #565.

Acutally, I finished them up this morning and just putting the finishing touches on then as to dims ans spec's.

Here's a preview of the 3D perspective view:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

I have the design details done as well, just cleaning them up a bit before I post them.

Phil

[dawaro]

Have the builder make the front panel removable. Then once you have the xovers installed and have checked everything you can glue it down.
so i am planning on having the sealed cabinets built for me since I don't really have all the tools right now, and it occured to me that unless I have some sort of removable back panel or front baffle, its going to be a real pain to get the stuffing and wiring done...especially for the mid/tweeter since the opening is so small..

any advice from the pros here?

[plincoln]

Have the builder make the front panel removable. Then once you have the xovers installed and have checked everything you can glue it down.

I might also just have him cut the pieces and i will do the assy.

[MrCabinetry]

I might also just have him cut the pieces and i will do the assy.


You may want to rethink having the enclosure shipped to you in parts.

Reason I say this is MDF expands and contracts more so than say plywood or lumber, meaning that the parts when cut would assemble together easily being that the box would be assembled right then and there.

As opposed to the parts are cut, then laying around waiting to be boxed up to be shipped and then you recieve the parts and then try to assemble them.

During this transition, the parts will expand and contract as different rates and the parts may or may not fit together so precisely requiring you to do some adjusting ( cutting or sanding ) to fit and assemble.

This the very reason why I will not sell and ship any enclosure or speaker cabinet in parts because some machining of those parts may be required to fit and assemble properly.

I did this a few times for customers only to get nasty e-mails or phone calls because the cabinet would not assemble properly.

Just giving you fair warning.

[plincoln]

thanks for the headsup. The cabinet guy is around the corner from me, so there would be no shipping. I'd be curious to know what you would charge for one complete cabinet so that I would have rough idea of what I am getting into..PM me if you like?

[Jim Holtz]

plincoln,

I am in the process of doing the same with the cabinet as shown post #565.

Actually, I finished them up this morning and just putting the finishing touches on then as to dims ans spec's.

Here's a preview of the 3D perspective view:

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

I have the design details done as well, just cleaning them up a bit before I post them.

Phil

;x( Awesome job! I wish my woodworking skills were 1/2 what yours are. :)

I do have one thought since I'm the one who built the original design. The crossover fits best in the very bottom of the cabinet. However with the bottom brace as you show it, the crossover boards won't slip through the holes. I would suggest the center of that one be cut out.

I've had to pull more than one crossover out to redo a simple wiring error more than once so it does need to be accessible.

Best regards,

Jim

[MrCabinetry]

;x( Awesome job! I wish my woodworking skills were 1/2 what yours are. :)

I do have one thought since I'm the one who built the original design. The crossover fits best in the very bottom of the cabinet. However with the bottom brace as you show it, the crossover boards won't slip through the holes. I would suggest the center of that one be cut out.

I've had to pull more than one crossover out to redo a simple wiring error more than once so it does need to be accessible.

Best regards,

Jim

Thanks Jim, I believe by showing the cabinets in a 3D perspective affords being able to see details as to help those relate the parts of the cabinet respective to assembly.

Also, I intend to post up an " exploded " view as well.

Hmmm, glad you mention that little piece of information.

How about this, a removable panel on the back of the cabinet to allow for total access to that bottom section??

[Jim Holtz]

Thanks Jim, I believe by showing the cabinets in a 3D perspective affords being able to see details as to help those relate the parts of the cabinet respective to assembly.

Also, I intend to post up an " exploded " view as well.

Hmmm, glad you mention that little piece of information.

How about this, a removable panel on the back of the cabinet to allow for total access to that bottom section??

A removable panel is awesome and something that I've used myself. Just more work. :W

Since the design is sealed, there does need to be a lip around the inside so a gasket can be placed between the plate and the cabinet.

Jim

[MrCabinetry]

Here's the cabinet design details per the cabinet shown in the lower right hand corner.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetailFin.jpg

All dimensions are correct as I verify them by doing the Math 3 times meaning I check all the dimensions 3 times, if they don't add up within 3 tries, I go back and re-check till the error is discovered and start the process over again till the Math is correct.

The image is blurry to a degree, therefore, I have posted another clearier image to print from here :Tower Cabinet - Clear Print Image (http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/?action=view&current=TwrDetailFin1.jpg)

Other Detail Info:

A, B & C Notations are for reference only pertaining to the Tweeter, Mid and Woofers are to the OD Frame Size that would be recessed and should not be used given that the actual components dims would be used for proper trim and fit mounting on the Front panel.

All Parts as noted for this design are 3/4" MDF.

Phil

[MrCabinetry]

A removable panel is awesome and something that I've used myself. Just more work. :W

Since the design is sealed, there does need to be a lip around the inside so a gasket can be placed between the plate and the cabinet.

Jim

Yeah, but, just alittle more work, it would not be anything major to fabricate.

I'll revise the design details I posted up to reflect the " removable panel " as an optional design detail along with the " lower Brace B " detail.

Phil

[Jim Holtz]

Here's the cabinet design details per the cabinet shown in the lower right hand corner.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetailFin.jpg

All dimensions are correct as I verify them by doing the Math 3 times meaning I check all the dimensions 3 times, if they don't add up within 3 tries, I go back and re-check till the error is discovered and start the process over again till the Math is correct.

The image is blurry to a degree, therefore, I have posted another clearier image to print from here :Tower Cabinet - Clear Print Image (http://s29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/?action=view&current=TwrDetailFin1.jpg)

Other Detail Info:

A, B & C Notations are for reference only pertaining to the Tweeter, Mid and Woofers are to the OD Frame Size that would be recessed and should not be used given that the actual components dims would be used for proper trim and fit mounting on the Front panel.

All Parts as noted for this design are 3/4" MDF.

Phil

Hi Phil,

One last thing and I'll leave you alone. :D I believe you've speced a 1 1/2" thick front baffle. I used a 1/2" + 3/4" front baffle glued together to come up with a total of 1 1/4" thick front front baffle. I also used a 3/4" round over bit on the inside to open it up around the driver basket so it could "breath" a little better. The extra 1/4" of the 1 1/2" thick front only amounts to about 1 1/2 liter which is insignificant in a sealed design. That's only one of the reasons I like sealed. A large margin for error and I can still come up with excellent results. It helps nail benders like me. :W

Great work!

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

Hi Phil,

One last thing and I'll leave you alone. :D I believe you've speced a 1 1/2" thick front baffle. I used a 1/2" + 3/4" front baffle glued together to come up with a total of 1 1/4" thick front front baffle. I also used a 3/4" round over bit on the inside to open it up around the driver basket so it could "breath" a little better. The extra 1/4" of the 1 1/2" thick front only amounts to about 1 1/2 liter which is insignificant in a sealed design. That's only one of the reasons I like sealed. A large margin for error and I can still come up with excellent results. It helps nail benders like me. :W

Great work!

Jim


Opps! I see you're using 3/4" front so disregard what I said about the volume differeces.

Jim

[MrCabinetry]

Hey, your not botherin' me at all.

I'd rather hear constructive input to put a finer point of the design details and spec's.

Only " architect's " get all bent out of shape when someone starts putting their two cents in on design elements, details and specific's and I worked a with a few back in the day.... you can't them people anything, they think nothing is wrong with everything they design or do.

Are your referring to the interior front panel where the cutout's are to use the 1/4" roundover relief?

[Jim Holtz]

Hey, your not botherin' me at all.

I'd rather hear constructive input to put a finer point of the design details and spec's.

Only " architect's " get all bent out of shape when someone starts putting their two cents in on design elements, details and specific's and I worked a with a few back in the day.... you can't them people anything, they think nothing is wrong with everything they design or do.

Are your referring to the interior front panel where the cutout's are to use the 1/4" round over relief?

Phil,

Yes, I use a round over on the inside of the front baffle around the driver cutouts. I use a 3/4" round over since my front baffles are always 1 1/4" - 1 1/2" thick and it shrouds the back of the drivers. With a 3/4" front baffle it shouldn't be nearly as important and there may not be enough material.

Jim

[plincoln]

ideally i'd like to see 2 sheets of 3/4" mdf laminated together like i have shown here in section c-c

http://www.cyberfrogs.net/files/3way%20tower%20dennis%20murphy%20sealed.png

the inner front baffle would be 3/4" shorter on all dims, allowing the outer baffle to be seated flush against the sides.

see here also

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=254432&postcount=592

[marc g]

Decided I really like the CC design. I looked over the thread but could not find a BOM for Dennis Murphy's center channel. I tried to check out the Madisound inductors but they don't list a DCR that I can find. I have my box about done and have gone with an alternate bracing method I believe will work a little better. Will be an "egg crate" for six eggs.

Look forward to my second RS project !

Marc

[plincoln]

yeah. a dennis murphy CC shopping list would be nice to have :)

[Jim Holtz]

Decided I really like the CC design. I looked over the thread but could not find a BOM for Dennis Murphy's center channel. I tried to check out the Madisound inductors but they don't list a DCR that I can find. I have my box about done and have gone with an alternate bracing method I believe will work a little better. Will be an "egg crate" for six eggs.

Look forward to my second RS project !

Marc

Click on the info link in Madisounds catalog for the DCR of the inductors. I'll see if I can get a BOM put together for Dennis's center.

Jim

[Fryguy]

;x( Awesome job! I wish my woodworking skills were 1/2 what yours are. :)

I do have one thought since I'm the one who built the original design. The crossover fits best in the very bottom of the cabinet. However with the bottom brace as you show it, the crossover boards won't slip through the holes. I would suggest the center of that one be cut out.

I've had to pull more than one crossover out to redo a simple wiring error more than once so it does need to be accessible.

Best regards,

Jimgg

Jim, arent you happy I got Phil on board :)

Phil, one issue that I am not sure if it is an issue or not. From looking at the 3d view it seems like the tweeter might not be positioned correctly. It looks like it might be a little bit further away from the mid than the original design calls for. It might just be the way the new picture looks or something, but I figured it is something I would just bring up to make sure :)

Also, a removable rear would be nice for easy access to the crossover. We can just put the binding posts right on this portion as well. Should simplify a lot of the wiring logistics.

Looks good so far though! I just checked out some appartments today and all of the living rooms have suitable locations for these towers :)

Be sure to let me know via email or whatever how you want to work out ordering of parts, as I suspect you may want at least one each of the tweeter/mid/woofer to test fit

[Fryguy]

Also

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6296

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

There seems to be a discrepancy in the mid enclosure. In the first picture it doesn't go all the way to the rear of the enclosure, but in Phil's 3d mockup it does.

[MrCabinetry]

I just knew this was going to get confusing, this is why I always ask questions.

Fry, the cabinet you choose was this one:http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TowerDetailPic.jpg

Here's the sealed cabinet your looking at:
http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6296

The cabinet you picked and all the relentant info you e-mailed to me is not the same cabinet.

The only piece of information that was not part of the e-mail you sent were the actual design details for the cabinet.

Then, this is when I starting asking questions and posted the design details for that one cabinet when I found the math problem with the one bracing not jiving as to position.

So, the question becomes: If the sealed enclosure design in the second pic is not correct to the actual enclosure in the first pic, then which design is correct - My design as specified from all the gathered info or the design dawaro re-drafted that does not correlate to the enclosure you choose?

Also, the exterior dims for the cabinet you choose are 10 3/4" w x 42" h x 13 1/4" D.

OK, not only am I throughly disgusted not to mention alittle peavy'd at this point, but, I'm cool.

It's late, I'm beat, my brain is cheese whiz and I can't think straight.

We'll pick this up tomorrow, but, all the problems would be solved if the design details for the cabinet you choose in the 1st pic were available for clarification.

[JonP]

Great work!

Semi OT: I don't know if anyone has asked it yet, but what are you using to do the 3D models? Have my eye out for affordable but good software...

[Jim Holtz]

Also

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6296

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

There seems to be a discrepancy in the mid enclosure. In the first picture it doesn't go all the way to the rear of the enclosure, but in Phil's 3d mockup it does.

Phil has laid out the cabinet as I created it. Dawaro's layout was for a shallow mid rather than a deeper one as I had done. Either will work but I prefer to have greater depth behind the driver. Phil's layout looks perfect to me.

I haven't checked the exact driver layout but I assume it matches the original front baffle layout that Dawaro created. Darn nice job Phil! :T

I do prefer a bit thicker front baffle but I tend to be over kill on that kind of stuff.

Jim

[plincoln]

Click on the info link in Madisounds catalog for the DCR of the inductors. I'll see if I can get a BOM put together for Dennis's center.

Jim

is there a BOM for the Dennis Murphy RS28 Towers as well?

[MrCabinetry]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TweeterLocationdetail.jpg

Fry,

It's your call.

Use the cabinet you want or just use Dawaro's modified cabinet design?

It's your money, your decision.

[plincoln]

here is Dawaro's modified cabinet design...any one needs the CAD drawings PM me.

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6327&stc=1

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6328&stc=1

http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=6329&stc=1

[dawaro]

here is Dawaro's modified cabinet design...any one needs the CAD drawings PM me.

Man you do good work!

[Dotay]

So there seems to be two different sealed designs that have been posted so far. One of them includes both the tweeter and mid in it's own separate shallow enclosure while the other has only the mid in a deeper enclosure. Does Denis' design require the mid enclosure be deeper than Curt's design? Will it really make much difference when all is said and done?

[plincoln]

So there seems to be two different sealed designs that have been posted so far. One of them includes both the tweeter and mid in it's own separate shallow enclosure while the other has only the mid in a deeper enclosure. Does Denis' design require the mid enclosure be deeper than Curt's design? Will it really make much difference when all is said and done?

i doubt it will have an adverse effects...the tweeter/mid combo is just abit easier to do

[MrCabinetry]

So there seems to be two different sealed designs that have been posted so far. One of them includes both the tweeter and mid in it's own separate shallow enclosure while the other has only the mid in a deeper enclosure. Does Denis' design require the mid enclosure be deeper than Curt's design? Will it really make much difference when all is said and done?

I don't think the differenece's in cabinet design would make that much of a impact in terms of acoustical attenuation for the sealed cabinet.

The only difference really is that the Tweeter in the 1st design is not isolated from the cabinet space which is allowing for that extra bit of volume to be used by the woofer's below.

If the mid speaker requires a set volume requirement to achieve a given acoustical attenuation response and that is achieved by a slight design change maintaining that volume and the tweeter being a sealed component, it should have no effect on the mid.

I just need to know so Fryguy can make an informed decision if the modified tower design darwaro did is just that ---- a modification in design that didn't change the acoustical properties of the 1st cabinet.

Sorry fella's, but being a cabinet maker require's that certain level of accuracy to details be clearly defined if the end result is to be re-created accurately each and every time.

Once I know all that, I can create template's for the various parts and that takes out any minor deviations each time I go to build 1 cabinet or 20 cabinets at a shot.

[plincoln]

I don't think the differenece's in cabinet design would make that much of a impact in terms of acoustical attenuation for the sealed cabinet.

The only difference really is that the Tweeter in the 1st design is not isolated from the cabinet space which is allowing for that extra bit of volume to be used by the woofer's below.

If the mid speaker requires a set volume requirement to achieve a given acoustical attenuation response and that is achieved by a slight design change maintaining that volume and the tweeter being a sealed component, it should have no effect on the mid.

I just need to know so Fryguy can make an informed decision if the modified tower design darwaro did is just that ---- a modification in design that didn't change the acoustical properties of the 1st cabinet.


we are talking about such a small change in volume that it is for all intense purposes negligible. its a sealed design, so changes in volume are much more forgiving and can be compensated by using more/less stuffing.

6 of one .. half dozen of another. I'd build whichever is easier

[MrCabinetry]

we are talking about such a small change in volume that it is for all intense purposes negligible. its a sealed design, so changes in volume are much more forgiving and can be compensated by using more/less stuffing.

6 of one .. half dozen of another. I'd build whichever is easier

LOL, I'm thinking the same " 6 of one .. half dozen of another ".

The only big deal here is that the cabinet Fry wants is not that of the design(s) dawaro re-drafted. That's IT!!!!!!

And, yes, you are absolutely correct.

Changing the acoustical response of the cabinet/speakers is nothing more than adding or subtracting to change volume.

I just want to get the project started so Fryguy can have his cabinets by the end of the month.

[plincoln]

LOL, I'm thinking the same " 6 of one .. half dozen of another ".

The only big deal here is that the cabinet Fry wants is not that of the design(s) dawaro re-drafted. That's IT!!!!!!

And, yes, you are absolutely correct.

Changing the acoustical response of the cabinet/speakers is nothing more than adding or subtracting to change volume.

I just want to get the project started so Fryguy can have his cabinets by the end of the month.

I fully understand :) I will get back to you as soon as I can in regards to your PM

[michael stevene]

mr. cabinetry,
what are you charging for these cabs.?
thanks,
michael stevener

[Dennis H]

More than if he'd just built them the way he wanted instead of coming here and getting confused with conflicting options. ;)

(Advice from a builder who never worked from a set of plans that didn't have errors) ;)

[MrCabinetry]

mr. cabinetry,
what are you charging for these cabs.?
thanks,
michael stevener

Michael,

I just recieved your e-mail and I shot you a reply back.

It is not appropriate to conduct such matters within the context to the forum and I will not do so.

I will not start on the wrong foot as I have done in the past on other forum's when the issue turns to quotes, costs or whatever.

I'm sure the mod's and admin's frown about such posts as well.

All inquiry's as quote's or costs, please do so by pm or e-mail.

Beside's, it's no one's business other than mine and the individual making the inquiry.

[MrCabinetry]

More than if he'd just built them the way he wanted instead of coming here and getting confused with conflicting options. ;)

(Advice from a builder who never worked from a set of plans that didn't have errors) ;)

Dennis, Thank You for the comment.

I could of easily just said " bag it " and do it my way, but, that's not the way I operate or do things considering that the amount of money that the customer is going to spend for the finished product.

I don't need something coming back to bite me in the azz later because one little detail in design screwed the pooch and I hate doing things twice because that means that I'll be paying for it, not the customer.

[dawaro]

The difference is one cabinet is what I laid out and the other is what Jim built.
Jim wanted a deeper mid enclosure for his design.
Both should have the same volume. The target net volume for the mid is 5 liters.

[Fryguy]

So the 3d model that phil put up, and all of the information related to it, is correct?

This is starting to get confusing :)

[MrCabinetry]

If that's the case, then I got one more question and then I'm done.

The tweeter location for the design per all the info to date is that the tweeter is 6 1/8" x 3 1/2" @ center.

In the re-draft I did, the tweeter location is 6 1/8" x 2 7/8" @ center.

In my re-draft, this puts the tweeter on center with the height between the brace and interior top.

Is this 5/8" difference that dramatic of a change to effect acoustical response?

[Dennis H]

Is this 5/8" difference that dramatic of a change to effect acoustical response? Yup, the tweeter location and the baffle width are the only dims that will affect the sound due to baffle diffraction effects.

Not to muddy the waters and this is just me but I'd give the whole volume above the brace to the mid and make the box a bit deeper to get the volume for the woofers. Bigger is better for mid enclosures as long as the crossover point is well above the mid's Fb. Some people even leave the back off the mid enclosure and stuff it lightly to eliminate the "box sound" while still killing the backwave.

[dawaro]

So the 3d model that phil put up, and all of the information related to it, is correct?

This is starting to get confusing :)
The original driver layout is in the first page of the thread. This is what I built and sent to Dennis Murphy for the measurements. It is the enclosure with the shallow mid chamber.
The design that Phil drew up is what Jim Holtz buit for his set. If the driver placement is not the same as the original post it is going to change the response. Will it be a negative or noticable effect? I can't say.

The deeper mid enclosure maybe better but it was not part of the original measured design.

[MrCabinetry]

Alrighty then, those last two responses were all I needed to know.

OK, Fry, this design issue has been covered from every angle I can tell.

All the players have sounded off and it's time to fish or cut bait if you want these cabinets by the end of the month because there's alot that I have to do on my end and yours as well.

[Jim Holtz]

The original driver layout is in the first page of the thread. This is what I built and sent to Dennis Murphy for the measurements. It is the enclosure with the shallow mid chamber.
The design that Phil drew up is what Jim Holtz buit for his set. If the driver placement is not the same as the original post it is going to change the response. Will it be a negative or noticable effect? I can't say.

The deeper mid enclosure maybe better but it was not part of the original measured design.

Hi David,

The driver placement is exactly the same as you laid out and Dennis measured. Rick has always advocated deeper cabinets to minimize reflections, which is the reason I build them that way. I don't argue with success. :D The deeper mid would not affect response in any negative way.

Jim

[Fryguy]

Jim, your deeper cabinets, do they have the same tweeter location on the baffle as the original design?

The only things I care about are:

1. Baffle layout
2. Enclosure volume for the mid and woofers

[Jim Holtz]

Jim, your deeper cabinets, do they have the same tweeter location on the baffle as the original design?

The only things I care about are:

1. Baffle layout
2. Enclosure volume for the mid and woofers

The "deeper" cabinet isn't any deeper than Dawaro's in external dimensions. It's the shape of the mid enclosure. Rather than make it tall and shallow, I made it narrower (both height and width) but extended it to the rear of the main cabinet. Once lined with foam, the sound waves from the back of the midrange driver are better absorbed, IMHO. That eliminates the "boxy coloration" Dennis H. was talking about. At least that's what I'm told. :)

The notches you see in the top and bottom of the mid enclosure are to allow the total volume of the cabinet less the mid enclosure to be used for the dual RS225's. Net volume for each enclosure is about 54 liters for the RS225's and about 6 liters for the RS150. These volumes calculate out to slightly under a .7 alignment which is perfect.

Driver placement and layout are identical to the front baffle layout that Dawaro sent to Dennis Murphy. Trust me, this is and will work just fine. :W

Jim

[Fryguy]

Yes the "deeper" mid is what I was referring to

And your design is what phil has the 3d drawing of? Same baffle layout and everything?

[dawaro]

Hi David,

The driver placement is exactly the same as you laid out and Dennis measured. Rick has always advocated deeper cabinets to minimize reflections, which is the reason I build them that way. I don't argue with success. :D The deeper mid would not affect response in any negative way.

Jim
Actually I meant moving the tweeter 5/8" would affect the response.

[Jim Holtz]

Yes the "deeper" mid is what I was referring to

And your design is what phil has the 3d drawing of? Same baffle layout and everything?

Yes. Either my layout or Dawaro's will work just fine. This is my interpretation of it and I know from experience that it works well. Pick the one you want. :)

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TweeterLocationdetail.jpg

Fry,

It's your call.

Use the cabinet you want or just use Dawaro's modified cabinet design?

It's your money, your decision.

I missed this post. The left drawing labeled correct tweeter location is correct and what I did. The actual cutout for the tweeter allows it to just miss the top of the mid enclosure internally. It works perfect. :T

Jim

[Brian Walter]

Boy, I've been so busy building my own cabinets that I missed all of this. I understand MrCabinetry wanting to make sure that what he builds is correct so that his client doesn't come back at him, but a little variation here and there just isn't going to make that much difference. I agree the front baffel layout should not be changed, but even a 1/2" diffence in width will probably not even be measureable, much less audible.

I like the one comment where someone said that they haven't worked from a set of plans that didn't have an error of some kind in them. I'd like to add to that and say I haven't followed a set of plans yet where I didn't make a mistake which forced me to alter the plans.

The cabinets I'm building seal off the entire area above the RS225's so that it is all available for the midrange, about 1 cuft. My cabinets also have curved sides, but the interior volume for the RS225's is only slightly different from the standard sealed box design. I think I'm closer to 2.0 cuft, net volume. I doubt any of these changes make much difference in the sound. But having said that, I have found in the past that too shallow of a box for the midrange can lead to problems. That's the main reason I went with the larger midrange compartment. As soon as my son shows me how to post pictures, I'll put some up.

Brian Walter

[MrCabinetry]

I would like to clarify that I am not talking about changing anything in regards to the overall dimensions of the cabinet details.

The 5/8" I was referring to is the vertical center location for the tweeter that I posted the last image of showing the correct center location vs the center location that I did in the re-draft details.

I don't make changes to any established design details or specifications, ergo, the reason for all the questions given the difference's of the designs being discussed presently.

Fry wants it to be clear to him, just as myself which design for which cabinet he wants and hopefully the matter is now resolved and can proceed.

I also will be creating a section on my website specific to images being posted given the inqiury's I have been recieving about the cabinets to reduce the amount of clutter.

[dawaro]

Since there have been several request for a BOM for the RS designs I have put one together for both Dennis' and Curt's designs.

Just to make it as easy as possible all the parts are from PE. The caps and resistors are Dayton and inductors are Jantzen excet the 4.7mH which is Erse.
The gauge of inductor is based on the dcr as called for in the design.

These are simply my choices, not the only choices. If you want to use something different feel free.

[marc g]

Thanks for the effort. I'm looking forward to this build.

[oxcartdriver]

dawaro, your Dennis CC design has an inductor L2 (2.0mH, 0.5ohm, 15ga) which was not on the original plan. Was this an update from Dennis?

[plincoln]

Since there have been several request for a BOM for the RS designs I have put one together for both Dennis' and Curt's designs.

Just to make it as easy as possible all the parts are from PE. The caps and resistors are Dayton and inductors are Jantzen excet the 4.7mH which is Erse.
The gauge of inductor is based on the dcr as called for in the design.

These are simply my choices, not the only choices. If you want to use something different feel free.

excellent

[dawaro]

dawaro, your Dennis CC design has an inductor L2 (2.0mH, 0.5ohm, 15ga) which was not on the original plan. Was this an update from Dennis?
Yes it was. The inductor makes a minor improvement in the phase around the xover point.

[Fryguy]

Phil, if the baffle layout is correct, then go ahead and let me know the final design, because if the layout is correct and working, then everything else seems good as well.

[Dougie085]

Do both curts and dennis's bom's use the rs28a? Oh and are those boms for both crossovers for a pair? I'm guessing thats a yes.

[dawaro]

Do both curts and dennis's bom's use the rs28a? Oh and are those boms for both crossovers for a pair? I'm guessing thats a yes.
Yes, both of these are for the RS28A-4.

The BOM for the towers are for a pair, center BOM is for one.

[Dougie085]

Well i modified the BOM to include the dayton drivers and my total is 508.60. Not bad at all for some high end towers if i do say so my self :) much cheaper then the MTMWW's were going to be as well. I think the parts alone for those were close to 1000 bucks.

[Brian Bunge]

Yes, both of these are for the RS28AS-4.

The BOM for the towers are for a pair, center BOM is for one.

I thought that this design used the non-shielded RS28a. So you're saying this uses the RS28AS-4, which is the shielded driver?

[Dougie085]

I believe it does use the non shielded. Thats what i put in my bom.

[dawaro]

I thought that this design used the non-shielded RS28a. So you're saying this uses the RS28AS-4, which is the shielded driver?
I checked the order that I sent to Dennis and you are right Brian. My mistake. I modified the earlier post.

[MrCabinetry]

Phil, if the baffle layout is correct, then go ahead and let me know the final design, because if the layout is correct and working, then everything else seems good as well.

Fry,

I finished up the design detail drawings, checked & re-checked all the specifications, verified all the parts sizes and calculated the total volume for the cabinets and the volume that all the parts displace.

I also included in the design the removable access panel on the lower back of the cabinet for the XO component boards.

Given the size of the images in addition to all the fabrication notes and part sizes list, I am going to posts all this to pages on my website and provide the link reference to those pages, I should have it all said and done for you and anyone esle to view by Monday evening.

EDIT: I would appreciate as well if the related info to the cabinets as to components for XO and speakers were update and references quoted to this post so I may include that information as well, thank you.

Phil

[FlashJim]

Thanks Phil! I can't wait to see it. I have just about talked myself into building this set.

[Fryguy]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

Is this baffle correct? Phil? If so, let's go ahead and get these built, and I'll get some money together :)

[Rudy D]

guys, i built the towers with the port. iIhave two diferent amps; one 100w the other 200w. both are shutting down after a period of time with the towers. Any ideas on why the toweres are shutting down my amps?

[Fryguy]

What amp are you using.

Are you pushing the amp too hard or running it at too low of an ohm load?

[Dougie085]

That would be my guess? if its a receiver especially, or a cheaper amp. Either that or you wired the speakers wrong and are running them at like 1 ohm :)

[Jim Holtz]

guys, i built the towers with the port. iIhave two diferent amps; one 100w the other 200w. both are shutting down after a period of time with the towers. Any ideas on why the toweres are shutting down my amps?

Rudy,

Check your crossover wiring. I'm currently using a 9 year old Onkyo receiver to power the RS 3-ways for background music and run them for hours without breaking a sweat. That includes some cranking it up, BTW. I did several hours of critical listening in my main system (Musical Concepts modified Hafler) when I 1st completed them and they were very easy to drive.

I think you have a crossover wiring problem. Check it out.

HTH

Jim

[Rudy D]

What amp are you using.

Are you pushing the amp too hard or running it at too low of an ohm load?
I should have mentioned it only happens at moderately loud to loud levels. Once the amp shuts down it can be reset. however I have to turn it down a bit for it to run continuously.

[Rudy D]

That would be my guess? if its a receiver especially, or a cheaper amp. Either that or you wired the speakers wrong and are running them at like 1 ohm :)

Im in the process on checkng the speaker wiring at the terminal in back. Although not much else can be done as the XO in in cabinet

[Dougie085]

Pull the drivers and check driver wireing make sure you have them wired correctly. Do you have a MultiMeter? if so turn it to the Ohms setting and place it across the terminals in back and see if you get 4ohms or close to it at least.

[Rudy D]

Rudy,

Check your crossover wiring. I'm currently using a 9 year old Onkyo receiver to power the RS 3-ways for background music and run them for hours without breaking a sweat. That includes some cranking it up, BTW. I did several hours of critical listening in my main system (Musical Concepts modified Hafler) when I 1st completed them and they were very easy to drive.

I think you have a crossover wiring problem. Check it out.

HTH

Jim
Jim if its the Xo it will be dificult to get at now. I did check wiring several times and tested before sealing cab. I'm using a Proceed Dual mono Amp rated at 200+ and the new Outlaw R2150 Reciever, so I dont think its the Amps. Thr Proceed drives my ML Odesseys with no problem. Again, shoutly after I crank it up, the amps shut down. I'm going to make sure the polarites are right at the terminal ends. ( double check)

[Rudy D]

Pull the drivers and check driver wireing make sure you have them wired correctly. Do you have a MultiMeter? if so turn it to the Ohms setting and place it across the terminals in back and see if you get 4ohms or close to it at least.
will do and let you know!

[MrCabinetry]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D.jpg

Is this baffle correct? Phil? If so, let's go ahead and get these built, and I'll get some money together :)

Fry,

I re-draft the design details to reflect the correct front baffle as previously detailed to the original as shown in the image. Also note that the access panel has being added to the design detail.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D-a.jpg

[Brian Walter]

I'm making progress with my sealed cabinets. I'm attempting to post a couple of pictures here, so we'll see if it works.

[Dougie085]

Didnt somone have a finished picture of the TMWW towers? Brian those are sweet! I may have to try that. Did you make cuts in it to bend it? or are you useing multiple layers of bendable ply?

[Jim Holtz]

Jim if its the Xo it will be dificult to get at now. I did check wiring several times and tested before sealing cab. I'm using a Proceed Dual mono Amp rated at 200+ and the new Outlaw R2150 Receiver, so I dont think its the Amps. Thr Proceed drives my ML Odesseys with no problem. Again, shoutly after I crank it up, the amps shut down. I'm going to make sure the polarites are right at the terminal ends. ( double check)

Hi Rudy,

I'm in the same boat as you in that I have the crossover difficult but not impossible to get to. I think you may have a wiring error that is affecting the impedance. I did exactly that on a previous project which would play fine until I cranked it up a bit and the amp would shut down. It also affected sensitivity in that I had to really get on the amp to bring the volume up. Found my mistake and corrected it. Things were great then.

Any of that sound the same as you issue?

Jim

[Jim Holtz]

I'm making progress with my sealed cabinets. I'm attempting to post a couple of pictures here, so we'll see if it works.

Brian,

Those are really pretty! Very, very nice!

Jim

[Fryguy]

Fry,

I re-draft the design details to reflect the correct front baffle as previously detailed to the original as shown in the image. Also note that the access panel has being added to the design detail.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/MrCabinetry/HT%20Cab/TwrDetail3D-a.jpg

Hrmm, I must have missed this before.

Looks like we are good to go then. I'll be emailing you sometime tomorrow (I just took my last final on friday, so this is a weird week for me, running around preparing for graduation).

[Dougie085]

What are you useing to make those cad drawings? And brian you wouldnt be mad if i did that same shape with mine would you :B

[Brian Walter]

Doug, I built up the sides of the inner box using 3/4" mdf that was cut into 3/4" wide strips. Actually the strips were cut to be 3/4" wide on the top or outside of the box and 0.72" wide on the bottom or inside of the box. These strips were glued and nailed one at a time to the basic skeleton. The oak veneer is 1/4" oak plywood (actually about 3/16" thick) which I did have to cut grooves at 1/4" spacing on the back side to allow it to bend around the inner box. All in all, there are about 40 mdf strips and 160 grooves per cabinet. It's been a slow tedious process, but nothing very hard, just time consuming.

No I don't mind if you use the same shape that I did. I've got AutoCAD drawings for the boxes that I could share, but they need a little clean-up before I would want to share them with anyone.

Brian

[Dougie085]

Yea that seems like a lot of work. I think if i do this i'll just use the bendable ply and layer it. I'm trying to model myne with autocad if i get it looking right I'll post them.

[Brian Walter]

Where do you purchase bendable plywood? I know I have seen it somewhere, but I can't recall where. I originally figured I could bend the 1/4" plywood around my 1'-6 3/4" radius, but it wouldn't go without breaking. So rather than waste the material I had on hand I decided to make my own relief cuts on the back. It took about 1/2 hour per side panel to cut the grooves on the back.

For what it's worth, my cabinets are 10 1/4" wide at the front, 5 1/4" at the back and 1'-5 1/8" total depth, front to back. Front is 1 1/2" thick, top, bottom & back are 3/4" thick, and sides are about 1" (3/4" mdf + 1/4" ply). Inside radius for the mdf is 1'-6". I think I'm going to try and find a way to add a stiffner to the top. It'll be hard to do from the inside, but I'm going to try. If I had thought about it before I laminated the sides to the mdf, I could have laminated a layer of 1/4" ply to the top first.

Brian

[FlashJim]

Could someone point me in the right direction? I'm trying to find the pros and cons of each of the crossovers (Dennis' and Curt's).

Of course, the RS225s are out of stock right when I want to order. :roll:

[Dougie085]

Man autocad is hard to figure out. I've been playing with it for about 2 hours now and i cant seem to get an arc to go where i want it. I've got a headache now :) I've also been watching these free autocad tutorials that i found.

I'm not sure about the bendable ply somone else on the forums used it. I think it was Paul somthing or other. I'm kind of wondering if it would be possible to laminate 1/4" MDF together as i think its more flexible possibly. Is there a downside to laminateing MDF?

Yea it sucks that the rs225's are out of stock :) of course im not ready to order right this minute anyways.


Brian please post your cad drawing for these as soon as you can :) I'm done messing with it for now.

[FlashJim]

Yea it sucks that the rs225's are out of stock :) of course im not ready to order right this minute anyways.

I'm in a bit of a time crunch. The wife is out of town for the summer. I want to get all of my toys taken care of before she gets back. :D

[Brian Walter]

Jim, I don't have the answers, but to help out others that may respond, are you talking for the left and right speakers or for the center? The crossovers are different between the L & and CC, but the comparisons may still hold up, I don't know.

[FlashJim]

Jim, I don't have the answers, but to help out others that may respond, are you talking for the left and right speakers or for the center? The crossovers are different between the L & and CC, but the comparisons may still hold up, I don't know.

Valid point. I'll be doing all three at the same time as one project.

[Brian Walter]

Doug, do you have a way to print onto 11" x 17" sheets of paper? If so, I can post scale drawings of the top, bottom and shelf braces for your to print and use as templates. If you don't have a table saw, I wouldn't recommend this design, at least not using the 3/4" strips. 1/8" Masonite or hardboard bends around the forms I used ok, but I don't know about 1/4". I'll try to work on the drawings this evening, if I've got time and post them or link them, I'm not really sure how to do that.

Brian

[FlashJim]

Brian, I LOVE the way the speakers are turning out. Keep posting pics!

Definitly post the templates. I might give it a shot myself down the road.

[Dougie085]

Ok sounds good if you need to you could even email them. But i think to put them on here you have to host them somwhere. And when i get ready to build these i can take it somwhere and have it printed out im sure :) But that would be great either way. And how did you fill in between the strips after you put them together? And in that pic did you just put veneer over the strips?

[Dougie085]

I'm in a bit of a time crunch. The wife is out of town for the summer. I want to get all of my toys taken care of before she gets back. :D

I believe they are getting them in again in a couple weeks. Yea it says 5/19 on the site.

[FlashJim]

I believe they are getting them in again in a couple weeks. Yea it says 5/19 on the site.

I just saw that. Thanks!

[MrCabinetry]

I'm asking this question now for the benefit of those that have or may have an interest in the Tower Cabinet Plans I am presently working on.

Do those interested want any notes and additional scaled up details of certain parts as to the manner which I would create these plans which I will be posting to my site.

I know some people just love figuring these things out for themselves.

[dawaro]

I'm in a bit of a time crunch. The wife is out of town for the summer. I want to get all of my toys taken care of before she gets back. :D
Where in Houston are you located? I am on the outside of the city on the eastside. Who knows, maybe I could lend a hand.

[FlashJim]

I know some people just love figuring these things out for themselves.

Notes are a plus to people like me. This will be my first project. :) Anything to give us newbies a jumpstart would be greatly appreciated.

[FlashJim]

Where in Houston are you located? I am on the outside of the city on the eastside. Who knows, maybe I could lend a hand.

I sent you a PM too, but I'm on the West side near 290 and 6. Copperfield.

[dawaro]

I sent you a PM too, but I'm on the West side near 290 and 6. Copperfield.
I know that area. We were actually at Trader's Village about two weeks ago. If you run into problems on the project let me know!

Do you plan on building the center also? I think I have an extra assembled enclosure in the garage for it with a blank baffle.

[Dougie085]

Well if he doesnt want the extra center enclosure i could take it off your hands :) Even if you wanted I could compensate you some for it.

[dawaro]

Well from my experience shipping the test enclosures to Dennis I can tell you shipping is going to be close to $50...

[Dougie085]

hmm.....50 bucks isnt that bad :B. How heavy is the thing? i shipped a computer and put in 40lbs and it was like 30 bucks through usps. Just would be one less enclosure id have to build :) I'm sure im going to have enough fun with the towers as it is with my plans :B

[FlashJim]

I know that area. We were actually at Trader's Village about two weeks ago. If you run into problems on the project let me know!

Do you plan on building the center also? I think I have an extra assembled enclosure in the garage for it with a blank baffle.

At the very least, I'd love to see it. I'm thinking about doing a shallower center like KG did. It has to has to go into my entertainment center. I actually think 16" would fit though. Did I mention I have to build a new hutch section to fit the new TV? :D

Jim's gonna be a busy boy in June.

[FlashJim]

hmm.....50 bucks isnt that bad :B. How heavy is the thing? i shipped a computer and put in 40lbs and it was like 30 bucks through usps. Just would be one less enclosure id have to build :) I'm sure im going to have enough fun with the towers as it is with my plans :B

If I don't take it, I'd be more than willing to help with the shipping. I get great rates where I work. I've shipped wheels, exhaust systems, you name it. :)

[dawaro]

At the very least, I'd love to see it. I'm thinking about doing a shallower center like KG did. It has to has to go into my entertainment center. I actually think 16" would fit though. Did I mention I have to build a new hutch section to fit the new TV? :D

Jim's gonna be a busy boy in June.
Well you are in luck, checked the garage and it is still there. It isn't much to look at, just a mdf box. As a bonus it is the smaller version like KG built. The front baffle is oversized 1/4" so it cam be trimmed flush once it is veneered.

If you aren't in a hurry I can get it to you here in a couple of weeks. Right now I am working 7 days a week but my project completion target is 6/1.

[ssabripo]

I'm making progress with my sealed cabinets. I'm attempting to post a couple of pictures here, so we'll see if it works.
That's gonna look awesome Brian....great job.

I don't know what your tastes are, but you should seriously consider doing a nice Rosewood veneer job on those speakers, preferably in a piano glossy....that would be so ;x(

I wish I would have been patient enough with my Center and finished it like that, rather than black, but with your curved sides, a nice veneer gloss would look impressive:
http://www.av123.com/images/r1pr_3_med.jpg

[FlashJim]

Well you are in luck, checked the garage and it is still there. It isn't much to look at, just a mdf box. As a bonus it is the smaller version like KG built. The front baffle is oversized 1/4" so it cam be trimmed flush once it is veneered.

If you aren't in a hurry I can get it to you here in a couple of weeks. Right now I am working 7 days a week but my project completion target is 6/1.

No rush. Get your project done. I leave for Atlanta next week and won't be back until after 6/1. I'll order up everything while I'm gone so it'll arrive around the same time I do. This is gonna be a fun summer. :D

[FlashJim]

Beautiful speaker, ssabripo. Yours? I don't think I've ever heard of Onix. Of course, I doubt I've heard of 95% of the speaker brands out there. Most are out of my price range.

[plincoln]

Beautiful speaker, ssabripo. Yours? I don't think I've ever heard of Onix. Of course, I doubt I've heard of 95% of the speaker brands out there. Most are out of my price range.

onix by rocket...av123.com

[FlashJim]

onix by rocket...av123.com

Thanks for the link! Beautiful speakers.

[kgveteran]

When building your WTMW center think about the fact that Revel is getting about $2,400.00 for this one.While i'm sure it is a solid performer, not 6X better.http://www.revelspeakers.com/products/product-overview.asp?ID=26

[kgveteran]

I can't believe how loud I can play WOTW.I know I keep saying it over and over, but these three speakers have exceded my expectations.Now the surrounds.

I am fully weaned off of dipole surrounds.It took about a month.I'll be building three 28a/180's sealed (of course).I just gotta sell off a bunch of speakers to do it :B .

[ssabripo]

I'm on the other side of KG...I'm not loving this center due to its output capabilities, but rather at its clean acoustical signature, its depth perception in voices, and its balanced imaging, all at moderately low levels.....that's what is really keeping me happy!

I had a bad connection, and Chuck came over to lend a 2nd opinion...I took out the mid, saw the loose connection, reattached, and viola! it spread its wings like a champ! Made the swan 3C center look amateurish in comparison.

I've listened to many a Center, and was aiming for the best I've heard: The Aerial Acoustics CC5.....did it match it in performance? almost! I think its there on HT, and 95% there in music...but at nearly a 1/5 of the price, how can I complain!!! :D It certainly beat the crap out of my swan, and out of the Rocket RSC200 "big foot", as well as the B&W 800 center, among others....

pretty badass not-so-little bugger!

[kgveteran]

I'm on the other side of KG...I'm not loving this center due to its output capabilities, but rather at its clean acoustical signature, its depth perception in voices, and its balanced imaging, all at moderately low levels.....that's what is really keeping me happy!

I had a bad connection, and Chuck came over to lend a 2nd opinion...I took out the mid, saw the loose connection, reattached, and viola! it spread its wings like a champ! Made the swan 3C center look amateurish in comparison.

I've listened to many a Center, and was aiming for the best I've heard: The Aerial Acoustics CC5.....did it match it in performance? almost! I think its there on HT, and 95% there in music...but at nearly a 1/5 of the price, how can I complain!!! :D It certainly beat the crap out of my swan, and out of the Rocket RSC200 "big foot", as well as the B&W 800 center, among others....

pretty badass not-so-little bugger!

Check out Morgan Freemans voice on, "March of the penguins". You would'nt believe it.It sounds like he's in the damn speaker.The whole movie is great, but his voice sounds perfect.But, as Sherv said, the output is unreal.At my usual listening level of 85db i have got tons of headroom, tons.

[Rudy D]

Hi Rudy,

I'm in the same boat as you in that I have the crossover difficult but not impossible to get to. I think you may have a wiring error that is affecting the impedance. I did exactly that on a previous project which would play fine until I cranked it up a bit and the amp would shut down. It also affected sensitivity in that I had to really get on the amp to bring the volume up. Found my mistake and corrected it. Things were great then.

Any of that sound the same as you issue?
Jim

Jim,
thanks for your advice. My speakers are fixed. It was a wiring error that I duplicated in both speakers on the woofer XO. My imaging became much more focused. Even the bass became cleaner and tighter. I'm thinking about building the center channel, not quite sure which XO I will use, But right now to busy enjoying the towers. Guys these speakers rock!!!

[Rudy D]

I can't believe how loud I can play WOTW.I know I keep saying it over and over, but these three speakers have exceded my expectations.Now the surrounds.

I am fully weaned off of dipole surrounds.It took about a month.I'll be building three 28a/180's sealed (of course).I just gotta sell off a bunch of speakers to do it :B .
This is so contagious, i feel you man.

[FlashJim]

I'm thinking about building the center channel, not quite sure which XO I will use,

Which one did you use for the towers? I haven't figured out which ones I'll use. I keep looking for posts that talk about the differences.

[cjd]

I peeked but haven't tweaked tower versions of my crossover. :)

I don't think anyone has built them all to be able to compare them.

DO stick with the same designer across the front though, IMHO.

C

[Jim Holtz]

Jim,
thanks for your advice. My speakers are fixed. It was a wiring error that I duplicated in both speakers on the woofer XO. My imaging became much more focused. Even the bass became cleaner and tighter. I'm thinking about building the center channel, not quite sure which XO I will use, But right now to busy enjoying the towers. Guys these speakers rock!!!

Hi Rudy,

Glad I could help. I've been there, done that. :D

One more thing to check and that is to be sure you have reverse polarity on the RS150 mid. Positive lead to the negative side of the woofer and negative lead to the positive side of the woofer. Another mistake I've made repeatedly in the past. :W If the polarity isn't correct, it has a hollow sound in the mids.

Enjoy!

Jim

[dawaro]

Hi Rudy,

Glad I could help. I've been there, done that. :D

One more thing to check and that is to be sure you have reverse polarity on the RS150 mid. Positive lead to the negative side of the woofer and negative lead to the positive side of the woofer. Another mistake I've made repeatedly in the past. :W If the polarity isn't correct, it has a hollow sound in the mids.

Enjoy!

Jim
I could not find a post that mentioned which xover Rudy used so I figured I would mention the polarity on the mid should be reversed if he built Dennis' design, if he built Curt's the woofers should be revered:)

[Jim Holtz]

I could not find a post that mentioned which xover Rudy used so I figured I would mention the polarity on the mid should be reversed if he built Dennis' design, if he built Curt's the woofers should be revered:)

Hi David,

Has Curt posted any tower designs? I couldn't find any with a search.

Jim

[cjd]

Jim, Curt did post his tower revision. He also commented that not much change was needed.

C

[Jim Holtz]

Jim, Curt did post his tower revision. He also commented that not much change was needed.

C

Chris,

You are absolutely correct. I missed it somehow. :oops:

Jim

[Hank]

You guys are doing good work! The disease continues to spread and multiply! :twisted:
:demon:

[Rudy D]

Hi Rudy,

Glad I could help. I've been there, done that. :D

One more thing to check and that is to be sure you have reverse polarity on the RS150 mid. Positive lead to the negative side of the woofer and negative lead to the positive side of the woofer. Another mistake I've made repeatedly in the past. :W If the polarity isn't correct, it has a hollow sound in the mids.

Enjoy!

Jim
Jim,
thanks, that was the first thing I checked.

[Rudy D]

Which one did you use for the towers? I haven't figured out which ones I'll use. I keep looking for posts that talk about the differences.
I made the ported version. and used dawaro's design (XO)

[Rudy D]

I could not find a post that mentioned which xover Rudy used so I figured I would mention the polarity on the mid should be reversed if he built Dennis' design, if he built Curt's the woofers should be revered:)
Yes, I used Dennis design

[Rudy D]

I peeked but haven't tweaked tower versions of my crossover. :)

I don't think anyone has built them all to be able to compare them.

DO stick with the same designer across the front though, IMHO.

C
Agreed! Dennis's it is across the front

[Dougie085]

Would anyone be willing to help out with building an RS 3 Way rear speakers. Like maybe a TMW bookshelf or even a small floor stander. Possible drivers could be the RS28-A,RS150,RS180 could do the RS28-A,RS180,RS225 but might get a little big? I would kind of like full range rears is what im thinking. Let me know what you guys think of the idea?

[Brian Walter]

Why not just build the Moula MT? I'm sure you could build a tower version, if you prefer a tower. Either that or simpy build the MTM, either way, I think you will find that they are close enough to full range for use as rear surround speakers.

[FlashJim]

My DIY journey begins ... I just bought 4 RS28ASs from PE's DOTD. $40 each with a limit of 4.

[Dougie085]

I'd just like my rears to handle down to 30hz is all :) Just thought it would be good to have 3 ways all around. Was just an idea.

[Rudy D]

Jim H,
with your design, would it matter if you went with a 1.50 baffle verses what you did 1.25?

[cjd]

Dougie, I *may* be getting around to doing surrounds that will fit your bill, but not any time soon. ;) Till then, consider something simpler...

C

[Jim Holtz]

Jim H,
with your design, would it matter if you went with a 1.50 baffle verses what you did 1.25?

Rudy,

A 1.5" baffle is just fine. Increase the exterior depth .25" is all. You should keep internal dimensions the same.

I'd also recommend that you either do a 45 degree bevel on the inside of the baffle on the RS150 mounting hole or use a 3/4" round over bit in your router to open it up. The RS225's aren't nearly as critical because the driver basket is much more open but the RS150 needs all the breathing room it can get.

Jim

[dawaro]

Would anyone be willing to help out with building an RS 3 Way rear speakers. Like maybe a TMW bookshelf or even a small floor stander. Possible drivers could be the RS28-A,RS150,RS180 could do the RS28-A,RS180,RS225 but might get a little big? I would kind of like full range rears is what im thinking. Let me know what you guys think of the idea?
RS28/RS180/RS225 might be possible. When I built the test enclosure for Dennis I made it in two pieces so it would be easier to move around. IIRC in the conversations with Dennis during the design he mentioned listening to the design with just the top section which would eliminate the second 225. I will see if I can get in touch with him this weekend and confirm.

[kgveteran]

RS28/RS180/RS225 might be possible. When I built the test enclosure for Dennis I made it in two pieces so it would be easier to move around. IIRC in the conversations with Dennis during the design he mentioned listening to the design with just the top section which would eliminate the second 225. I will see if I can get in touch with him this weekend and confirm.

And I thought it couldn't get any better, full range rears. I was wondering about the 100hz XO I set my system at.I know it's not a problem with the front stage XO at 100hz and that sound redirected to the subs.But, what about redirected 100hz from the rears in descrete surround sound playback.If i did a full range threeway I could XO the rears at 80hz without any of the upper bass getting reploduced by my front stage subwoofers.Any thoughts?

[Dougie085]

My thoughts exactly :) I think it would sound awsome having the rears be able to handle all the rear sound without the sub doing much of anything above 30hz or what not.

[dawaro]

Well Dennis confirmed that I have not completely lost my mind. He has done a single RS225 version but it uses the M130 for the mid and was a contract job for Jim Salk so the xover can not be shared. He is however going to try and get a design put together using the RS150 but it may take a little time. As soon as I hear back from him I will pass it along.

[Dougie085]

Well i think that would be the perfect speaker to match these for surround duty :)

[oxcartdriver]

I'm planning on trying the modula MTM for the rear surrounds. If they don't work out as surrounds then I'll use the modula MTM for a two channel speaker in my home office.

I'm awaiting one coil to complete the CC x-overs, and I just finished the cutting of the Tower cabinets tonight. I'm still dying to hear the sound of the front three. I went with Dennis' x-over and the ported box, with modifications to the bracing for additional cabinet rigidity while keeping the cabinet internal volume the same. I'm planning on cutting the port tube long and trying some tuning experiements with various port tube lengths. The tubes are cheap enough that I wanted to confirm the response in my room/placement.

Target completion: Center May 28, Towers June 10th

[Dotay]

Well i think that would be the perfect speaker to match these for surround duty :)

Why not just build a second set of the WWMT's to use as surrounds? Those would be more perfect :B and they probably really wouldn't be that much more expensive than a WMT. Just a thought. ;)

[Dougie085]

Well was looking for somthing a little smaller :) 4 TMWW's would take up quite a bit of space. But I dont know just contemplateing ideas :B

[cjd]

The concept I've been tossing around would snug WTMW's (with 180's or similar) plus mid and tweet) into the corner between wall and ceiling, since that's what I have to work with in my HT.

C

[ibilisi]

Hey all, I'm thinking about building the WMTW center this summer and I'm also thinking about complimenting that with a R/L pair but I'm undecided on which model to build. I would like "matched" voicing and I'm not worried about massive extension because of my large sub (THunder 12.3 config 12" Sub w 2x15"PR). Modula MTM/ Natalie P or wait for a possible upcoming TMW design all seem to be viable options. Anyone have any experience or thoughts (mainly HT use). Also, I couldn't find specs for a Natalie P bookshelf cabinet, however, I'm guessing the same cabinet size as the Modula would suffice.

Lastly, I am lucky enough to be blessed with a CRT HD TV :confused: and I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the RS28A's magnetic field. I could always add bucking magnets but if the field is minimal, why bother.

Thanks,
G

[Brian Walter]

From my experience, I found that anything over about 6" away from the TV caused no problem, but it will depend alot on your TV. I have 2 Panasonic's, and the effect was very similar with each, but I can't say as far as yours goes. There is a shielded version of the RS28 that can be used in a lot of the designs, but not the Modula MTM design. Pretty much any design that crosses the RS28 over at say 1800hz or higher will probably work using the either the shielded or non-shielded RS28.

[Joe L.]

I've been following this thread for several months now and slowly purchasing parts as I found them on sale at PE in preparation for my own construction of a center and L/R towers. I purchased 6 of the RS-225 woofers when they were on the DOTD sale back a month or so ago.

This past week I saw the sale on the RS28 tweeters (shielded version) and decided saving $10 on each was a good thing and placed another order.

Instead of shipping me the shielded version that was advertised, PE shipped the non-shielded version of the RS28 to me.

Now, I don't need any shielding on any of the speakers in my theater as I have a CRT projector but I have a question for the crossover designers (Dennis especially):

Should I

Keep the non shielded versions as long as the center will not be near a CRT. Consider myself very lucky, the shielded version of the RS28 that was on sale will NOT work with the crossover as designed.
Keep the non-shielded version, EITHER shielded or non-shielded will work as long as the center is not near a CRT (I'm not that lucky after all).
Return the non-shielded version tweeters and ask that PE send the shielded versions I ordered. (if EITHER tweeter would work and someday the speakers might be near a CRT)


The T/S parameters on the PE web-site seem to be quite a bit different:
MODEL : RS28AS-4 (shielded) T/S PARAMETERS
Re 2.85 [ê ]
Fs 759.58 [Hz]
F1 530.89 [Hz]
F2 1188.51 [Hz]
Zm 5.62 [ê]
D 0.00 [mm]
Qms 1.62
Qes 1.67
Qts 0.82
Bl 0.00 [N/A]
L1K 0.65 [mH]
L10K 0.04 [mH]
Ms 0.00 [g]
Vas 0.00 [l]
dBSpl 0.00 [dB]
Cms 0.00 [mm/N]
Ma 0.00 [g]
FsMa 0.00 [Hz]


MODEL : RS28A-4 (non-shielded) T/S PARAMETERS
Re 2.90 [� ]
Fs 590.37 [Hz]
F1 266.07 [Hz]
F2 1188.51 [Hz]
Zm 6.10 [�]
D 0.00 [mm]
Qms 0.86
Qes 0.78
Qts 0.41
Bl 0.00 [N/A]
L1K 0.58 [mH]
L10K 0.04 [mH]
Ms 0.00 [g]
Vas 0.00 [l]
dBSpl 0.00 [dB]
Cms 0.00 [mm/N]
Ma 0.00 [g]
FsMa 0.00 [Hz]

There seem to be some significant T/S differences between the shielded and non-shielded versions of the RS28 tweeter. What audible difference, if any, will I hear in the WTMW center or the TMWW Left/Right designs with the use of the non-shielded tweeter vs. the shielded one?

Would the crossover need to be re-resigned to use the RS28 shielded version tweeters that were on sale this past weekend? (for those who did get the on-sale shielded drivers they ordered)

Thanks in advance...

Joe L.

[cjd]

The design is for the non-shielded version IIRC.

They are not always interchange-able without crossover changes.

So, I think you have the right one.

C

[dawaro]

The design is for the non-shielded version IIRC.

They are not always interchange-able without crossover changes.

So, I think you have the right one.

C
This is correct, the design is for the non-shielded version.

[ibilisi]

In regards to the shielded vs. unshielded - JonMarsh indicates that the shielded v. nonshielded rs28a are interchangible with in a design that has a sufficiently high crossover point. http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=237536&postcount=233
Now the crossovers listed here both cross the rs28a at ~1800 is that right? So it could be ok to use either or am I reading this whole thing wrong?

I think that post is what prompted Brian's initial reply to my shielding question above.

Edit: yes, I'm beating this to death. I'll just use the shielded rs28a in my build because they fit my install, I suspect that any differences in sound will be more a product of my crappy equipment. Plus, I can always replace the tweeters later.

Edit2: I didn't mean this post to be aggressive and/or rude - I'm just trying to reason it all out.

[Joe L.]

In regards to the shielded vs. unshielded - JonMarsh indicates that the shielded v. nonshielded rs28a are interchangible with in a design that has a sufficiently high crossover point. http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=237536&postcount=233
Now the crossovers listed here both cross the rs28a at ~1800 is that right? So it could be ok to use either or am I reading this whole thing wrong?

I think that post is what prompted Brian's initial reply to my shielding question above.

Edit: yes, I'm beating this to death. I'll just use the shielded rs28a in my build because they fit my install, I suspect that any differences in sound will be more a product of my crappy equipment. Plus, I can always replace the tweeters later.You are not the only person who is/was confused... I was also confused... that is what prompted my post. Seems to me that a note addressing this question might be a great addition to the crossover plans on the first page of this thread. If it had specifically said "Non-shielded RS28A" and warned us to not use the shielded version it might have saved us a bit of grief if it would not work in this design.

I just re-read the first hundred or so posts in this thread. They all refer to the tweeter as either "RS28" or "RS28A" and make no mention of shielded or unshielded versions. It is no wonder we were confused. It is real easy to assume the difference is the bucking magnet and that the T/S parameters would be the same... Obviously, that is not the case.

Looking closer it turns out I have 4 non-shielded RS28A's and 1 shielded RS28A. I had planned to build L/R/C and surround speakers using them.

If the two tweeters are interchangable when crossed over at 1800Hz or above, then I'll probably use the shielded version in one of the surround channels where any potential difference in sound will not be as apparent.

If the two tweeters are not interchangable, then I'll need to order another non-shielded tweeter (unless Dennis Murphey is good enough to post the crossover modifications needed to use the shielded RS28A tweeter)

Clearly, I have time before I need to worry and enough non-shielded tweeters to complete the L/R/C set.

Thanks again...

Joe L.

[ThomasW]

If it had specifically said "Non-shielded RS28A" and warned us to not use the shielded version it might have saved us a bit of grief if it would not work in this design.Before being critical of what information was in the original design post, you might consider there was only one version of the tweeter when this design was developed. So references to RS-28 or RS-28A were referring to the only tweeter available.

[Joe L.]

Before being critical of what information was in the original design post, you might consider there was only one version of the tweeter when this design was developed. So references to RS-28 or RS-28A were referring to the only tweeter available.Thomas,
My appologies. I was not aware there was only one version of the RS28 tweeter (unshielded) when this design was developed. I can now understand why it was referred to the way it was.

With that in mind, I'll re-read the remaining 650 or so posts in this thread and look for where they describe the introduction of the shielded version of the RS28A and how it is not a substitute for the non-shielded version. Apparently, I missed it. It was not discussed in the first 100 or so posts.

Editing one of the early posts, where the crossover designs are introduced, to make note of the differences in the two RS28 versions is probably still a good idea, especially since many of us building these are not as familiar with the RS28 history as you. (and not psychic either) This is even more important if the two cannot be interchanged and might save someone (like me) from ordering the wrong driver.

Thanks again for filling in some RS28 history.

Joe L.

[cjd]

Don't let Thomas get to you... and Thomas, don't let these guys get to you.

This is a hobby. Most of the designs were contributed by folks for the fun of it.

I can't find my working files right now to double check, but for the one I put out there, you may only need to change the impedance compensation to use the shielded tweeter. I'll see if I remember to find them and post any changes that might be needed.

In almost every design, unless it is *specified* as a shielded tweeter, it's not. The RS28AS is the shielded variant, RS28A non-shielded.

Worst case though, you may find a dip just above the crossover point of a few dB, though specifics vary with specific implementation. A quick test in some stuff I had handy put it ~3dB down centered on 1800Hz with a slope up to about 3000Hz (steeper on the other side since it follows the steeper roll-off on the RS150S-8). Nothing your ears would likely go crazy over.

C

[Brian Walter]

Joe, I agree with you that which tweeter is used is a little vague, yet based on what Jon has said in the past, I don't think it makes much if any difference which version you use in this particular design. There's probably more variation in sound do to production variation than there is between the basic design diferences, that is if the tweeter is crossed over high enough. Additionally, if you really want the most out of the speakers, you probably need to hand tune each crossover for your particular drivers, room and placement.

Personally, I would like to see an alternate center channel designed using the RS180 instead of the RS225. A CC with a pair of RS225's is a little big to sit on top of my 36" TV, and even though my spouse pretty much lets me do as I want in the family room, she isn't allowing me to replace the TV, yet :-).

Brian

[FlashJim]

Ok, I'm confused. I ordered RS28AS (shielded). According to this post, it's what I needed, right?

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=255104&postcount=646

Am I completely turned around on this? This is what I have in my hands at the moment:

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=275-135

**Edit** While I was busy getting URL's, my questions were answered. :D

[kgveteran]

I used both and hear no difference.I have three of these.My center has the shielded version and the centers as mains use the unshielded (PE ran a special).

During this four month project i got worked up over a few issues that turned out to be no real big deal.They seem big at first, but once the dust settles, they aren't that big.Points well made were the sonic differences in our playback gear will contribute to variences far more that the differences between the two tweeter types :) .

These are growing pains and will soon pass once you get them built and up and running.

I ran "Saving Private Ryan" today ( I had the house to myself ). To commemorate of Memorial Day weekend. These speakers reproduce this soundtrack in spades.I'm sure if i lowered the XO point on the 225's in my processor down to 60hz they would still kick ass.So enjoy the build. :)

[Joe L.]

ThomasW,

Confusion about the RS28 version used in this project is widespread and somewhat justified.

I did a search on the word "shielded" in this thread and there were not many mentions of that term until my initial question, and nothing stating the RS28AS was not a substitute for the RS28A. I really did not see anything that would have kept me from ordering the shielded version of the driver.

In fact, apparently dawaro (the original poster) seems have also contributed to some confusion since the tweeter crossover schematic illustrations in the BOM's (http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpost.php4?p=255104&postcount=646) he recently posted are showing the RS28AS and not the RS28A as the tweeter.
This was compounded with the recent deal-of-the-day sale of the RS28AS for $40.

I'm sure others besides FlashJim and myself ordered the tweeters when they went on sale last week. Nobody chimed in when FlashJim announced his order of 4 RS28AS tweeters to alert him of the difference between the shielded and non-shielded versions. At least I'm in good company with my confusion.

I can't find my working files right now to double check, but for the one I put out there, you may only need to change the impedance compensation to use the shielded tweeter. I'll see if I remember to find them and post any changes that might be needed.
cjd,
Thanks... That would really help. I'm probably not the only person building these because we wanted really great performance in our home theaters. I know it would not sit well with me to know performance was compromised because I had installed the wrong tweeter. If you (or perhaps Dennis Murphy) could ever found time to post any changes needed to use the shielded version (if any) it would be great, especially for those putting the center channel near their CRT based TV.

If it turns out the tweeters are interchangable in Dennis's design that would be great news. ($40 was a decent sale price) If it turns out the tweeters are not interchangable and changes for a modified crossover schematic for the RS28AS not available I'll probably eventually end up ordering another non-shielded tweeter.

Will the $50 I'll need to spend to get another non-shielded RS28A break my budget, delay my retirement, or cause me to miss a car payment? Probably not. But it will give me the peace of mind to know the frequency response is as close to that originally designed as I could get it. With all the effort the designers have put into this project, I would sure feel bad if I used the wrong parts and ended up with a project that didn't live up to its potential.

Joe L.

[cjd]

I just went over my notes - I was in fact originally informed that it was the shielded tweeter... and this goes back to before Dennis got involved. :)

You know what? Build it with the RS28AS. It should not make so much difference as to be overly problematic - I suspect it'll still be within +/-2dB with either tweeter.

If you have a 3rd order electric network on the tweeter, you can try going up a couple uF on the *first* cap - that seems to resolve it on some old work I had relating to this project. That may, in fact, be the only real change needed for any of these.

C

[kgveteran]

I'm not sure if you looked at the tolerances on the XO parts.They range from 2% to 5%.The best I found was the Mills resisters at 1%.The specs on the two tweeters are less than 2.5%.They are better than Solen caps, and those are great sounding caps and rated at 5%.

This center is a work in the progress.I'm glad we are down to differences of less that 2.5%.Thats some pretty good work for a bunch of DIY guys :B .

KG

[dawaro]

The original design was made using the non-sheilded version because that is what was available.

The sheilded design can be substitued in both Curt's & Dennis' designs because of the higher xover point. This has been discussed many times before. Jon's design is off limits to the sheilded due to the lower xover point.

I would like to mention that this is a free design that is being done by people that have jobs, families and lives outside of this. Those posting designs, myself especially should make sure the data is accurate. But in the hustle and bustle of it all typos and mistakes can be made. Before flying off the deep end remember the designs you are getting for free have a lot of someone elses time and money invested in them.

If people have questions try posting the question or sending a PM instead of posting a complaint.

[Joe L.]

The original design was made using the non-shielded version because that is what was available.
For those of us reading this thread now, this was not apparent. I did not know that both tweeters did not get released at the same time by PE. Good that PE decided there was a market for both shielded and non-shielded versions of the tweeter.

The shielded design can be substituted in both Curt's & Dennis' designs because of the higher xover point. This has been discussed many times before. Jon's design is off limits to the shielded due to the lower xover point.
The substitution/use of either is great news. It means I can use the one shielded version of the RS28 in my new center channel and the non-shielded versions in the others. (I plan on following Dennis's crossover design) Now, as I said, I did search back in this thread everywhere the word "shielded" occurred and only saw a recent reference to this. If it has been mentioned many times, perhaps I missed it, or the discussion was in one of the other threads describing other speakers using the RS28, or in private messages.
I would like to mention that this is a free design that is being done by people that have jobs, families and lives outside of this. Those posting designs, myself especially should make sure the data is accurate. But in the hustle and bustle of it all typos and mistakes can be made. Before flying off the deep end remember the designs you are getting for free have a lot of someone else's time and money invested in them.
It was not my intent to "fly off the deep end" or to criticize you in any way, if anything I said seemed that way to you, please accept my apology. I only wanted to clarify an aspect of construction while I have the time and opportunity to return/swap the tweeters I ordered for the correct ones (As I mentioned earlier, I ordered the on-sale shielded tweeters, but the non-shielded versions were shipped to me. I'm sure PE would make the order right if I called)

I know all about DIY designs and the criticism that can occur as I have a set of plans for an antenna I designed that I support for free on the web. (Ham radio related hobby) I spent a fair amount of time on its design and related documentation. Because of my work and its performance it has been duplicated by DIY'ers thousands of times. Just like you, I've shared my work without being compensated, but to feel good about contributing to the hobby. Yes, over the years I too have had folks comment on some aspect of my plans that needed clarification or correction. In most cases the plans were fixed/clarified to make it easier for the next person who used them. It's tough getting everything exactly right so another DIY'er can follow your plans.

I really appreciate the effort by you and the others contributing to the DIY effort. I know you have a family/job/life outside of loudspeaker design and that this design is only available because you have invested a significant amount of your time and effort. For that, I can only say "Thank You!!"

I want the performance in my home theater to be great. Your design will be the second to have a place in my theater; currently I have the Audax HT series speakers and they will be replaced with the Dayton RS series over the course of the coming months. I plan on taking my time, as the Audax HT series allows me to enjoy pretty decent sound even now. I expect the Dayton RS series you and the others have designed to be even better.


If people have questions try posting the question or sending a PM instead of posting a complaint.If the question is one specific to me I'll be certain to PM. Your offer to assist is most generous. Since this was more general, I did post a question titled "Shielded or Unshielded RS28... if not near a CRT, can either be used?", exactly as you suggested.

Thanks again...

Joe L.

[cjd]

FWIW: 1800Hz 4th order (acousic) crossover on my MTM (with the RS150S-8) and I could NOT use the same crossover with the RS28A-S to get really ideally flat response. I had to tweak it. But again, it's not so bad a difference that it's likely problematic - just not perfect. :)

C

[BobEllis]

Brian Bunge and PMazz (and probably others I am not aware of) have built a variety of cabinets for members. Try contacting them.

[jonathanb3478]

About a month ago, I went ahead with the purchase of a good $1.5K worth of tools, and tool accessories, in the hope of constructing my dream speaker enclosures for a pair of well designed, large, full-range floor standing speakers. I am looking to build speakers that end up close to, but not to exceed, 200lbs each. I have a strong bias towards heavy (read: ““insanely over built”) speakers. :D

I will be filling my initial go at my “dream enclosures” with (50lbs of lead shot, and) the Seas brand tweeter version of the TMWW tower designed by Dennis and first mentioned By Jim Holtz in post 258, earlier in this thread. As it has a total BOM cost of ~$500 for the non-economy version (this BOM is attached to post # 261 by Jim Holtz), it leaves me absolutely unable to say no to giving this a shot (in the dark?). I will be using the sealed alignment enclosure volume specifications. I have heard the bass performance of just a single 8” woofer in a good sized sealed enclosure as used in the long since defunct Hales Design Group’s “Concept 2”, and I was sold on the “Concept”. (You should be grateful right now, not hating me for just one lousy pun, lol)


Jim Holtz (and others, but definitely Jim), is this (http://www.htguide.com/forum/attachment.php4?attachmentid=5697) “standard” BOM, from post 261, the same one you used for your go at these? I do hope so. I would love to be able to replicate the performance you ascribe to your pair, using a BOM totaling ~$500, in my initial project. If not, please provide me (everyone?) any differences, in what ever manner you see fit. (Desperately hoping you have a good memory, or a good records keeping system, lol) Thank you so much!!!.

I will be putting this design into my first attempt at my “dream enclosures”. I could go into what qualifies as a “dream enclosure” for me, if any one cares…

But, since no one ever has in the past, I think I will refrain from doing so. :D




However, as I would some helpful comments that would lack any helpful content without sufficient information, I have made a post that has some relevant (I believe) details regarding my intentions. I would ask you all for your comments and suggestions, if you would not mind:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=20454

[ThomasW]

I will be filling my initial go at my “dream enclosures” with (50lbs of lead shot,I'm not a 'tree-hugger' by an any stretch of the imagination, but using lead for anything these days is just bad form...steel shot will work fine...

[Jim Holtz]

Jim Holtz (and others, but definitely Jim), is this “standard” BOM, from post 261, the same one you used for your go at these? I do hope so. I would love to be able to replicate the performance you ascribe to your pair, using a BOM totaling ~$500, in my initial project. If not, please provide me (everyone?) any differences, in what ever manner you see fit. (Desperately hoping you have a good memory, or a good records keeping system, lol) Thank you so much!!!.



Yes, I used the standard BOM so all comments would apply to that BOM. Honestly I would doubt if there are any sonic differences between the two that are audible. I just wanted to use Jantzan caps this time. Very nice BTW.

Jim

[jonathanb3478]

I'm not a 'tree-hugger' by an any stretch of the imagination, but using lead for anything these days is just bad form...steel shot will work fine...

Thanks for the heads-up!


Yes, I used the standard BOM so all comments would apply to that BOM. Honestly I would doubt if there are any sonic differences between the two that are audible. I just wanted to use Jantzan caps this time. Very nice BTW.

Thank you, again, for your response! Why mess with what works, when the only payoff is all of $40? That is not enough to cause me to change anything.



44 views on my "Concept" post, and no comments. :(
Not interesting enough to draw comments, or way too "interesting" (in the old Chinese curse sense of the word)?

[Jim Holtz]

Thanks for the heads-up!




Thank you, again, for your response! Why mess with what works, when the only payoff is all of $40? That is not enough to cause me to change anything.



44 views on my "Concept" post, and no comments. :(
Not interesting enough to draw comments, or way too "interesting" (in the old Chinese curse sense of the word)?

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for on the concept post but here are some thoughts.

The Peridot should be a fine sounding speaker and an excellent project. Rick has created many custom designs for me and they are all excellent.

Your cabinet for the RS 3-ways sounds quite complex but that's OK. You noted that you were going to maintain the internal volume which is also very good. Somewhat larger internal dimension is fine but smaller should be avoided. Tweeters should be at or very near ear height. Your listening height will then determine cabinet height. 37" - 39" tweeter height is normal for most people when seated. YMMV...

I recommend lining the cabinet with NRC rated foam in the RS225 and RS150 enclosures for the best effect. I do a little overkill and also line the cabinet with PE asphalt sheeting and glue the foam to it. Plus I use a fair amount of bracing. Cabinets are dead when I get done. You can spend more money and just buy Blackhole 5, Sonic barrier (both from PE) or Whispermat and accomplish the same thing.

Position your crossover so it can be accessible just in case you need to get to it. ;) Something else that you might want to consider is to parallel two eight ohm resistors in the R2021 position of the RS150 crossover to come up with the 4 ohms rather than just a 4 ohm resistor there. Dennis said that it would carry quite a bit of current under extreme listening conditions and paralleling the resistors would help power handling of the resistor. IMHO, not critical at all but if you like overkill, go for it. :D

HTH

Jim

[jonathanb3478]

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for on the concept post but here are some thoughts.

Well, I want tips/tricks for making 138 template routed panels with out wasting a bunch of time. Any other suggestions, such as your lining suggestions, are also always welcome :D

Your cabinet for the RS 3-ways sounds quite complex but that's OK. You noted that you were going to maintain the internal volume which is also very good. Somewhat larger internal dimension is fine but smaller should be avoided.

If my goal is the lowest possible bass response from a sealed enclosure, would intentionally increasing the volume available to the pair of woofers somewhat, in an attempt to deepen the usable response, screw anything up? If not, how much would be helpful? I do not think I have more than about 3 cu ft that could be made available to the woofers, should it turn out that more than the specified volume would help the deep bass response, with out causing other issues. I do feel a bit too much like I am asking for too much help from people with other things to do, who have done enough already, with this question. If that is the case, just let me know.

Tweeters should be at or very near ear height. Your listening height will then determine cabinet height. 37" - 39" tweeter height is normal for most people when seated. YMMV...

I measured ear height at the listening position at 48.5", some time ago. I refuse to make a speaker with a tweeter that high, as it would never be any good for a more normal listening height. Still have not settled on a compromise height for the tweeter, however. I will not need to, until the front baffles are to be fabricated. This will not be until the speaker enclosures are totally complete, sans attachment of the baffles. This includes veneering, painting, and an application of the protectants over it all. That will be months from now, I would guess.

Also, the tweeter would be almost exactly in the center of the room's 8' height, in this configuration. This could be a bad thing for any room related resonances. That last is just a hunch. Is a central location like that an actual issue?

I recommend lining the cabinet with NRC rated foam in the RS225 and RS150 enclosures for the best effect. I do a little overkill and also line the cabinet with PE asphalt sheeting and glue the foam to it.

I searched for "asphalt" on the Parts Express site, and got nothing like you describe. Is that the wrong "PE"? I had planned to use the "sprayable" lining material, in a gallon size, directly on the interior. I want to be able to make it thicker for problem areas, and thinner for areas which are not as critical. I have no way to spray it on, however. My plan is to brush or roll it on. I have never seen the stuff in person, so do not know if this is a realistic expectation. Plenty of time left to find out, however. :D

I had a desire to a put self adheasive 1oz weights on the center of the interior of each 8"X9" section of the outer enclosure wall, before putting any damping material on any of the sections. I am not certain that it would help, however. What do you think? "More mass, less motion", was the thought behind that desire. It concentrates the additional mass on the part of the panel most likely to be doing the moving, the part furthest from any "brace".

I would put the light foam type (NRC rated, huh? Ok!) on top of all this. Noob question imminent... Does NRC rated type of lining subtract from the internal volume available to the woofers?

Plus I use a fair amount of bracing. Cabinets are dead when I get done.

That is the plan for me, as well. I will not have an exterally facing panel not crossed with a "brace" (a misnomer in my design, as any structural part of the interior is created by the inner contour of each indidual 3/4" panel in the stack used to make that speaker, thus no dedicated "brace" components are needed) which is larger than about 8"X9" in my final design.

Position your crossover so it can be accessible just in case you need to get to it. ;)

I knew I would need to make an allowance for integrated internal volume access for a DIY project. I had not actually thought about any potential solutions yet, though. Now, I find my first inclination is to attach the plastic "cup" with the binding posts to a big enough (thin, but comparatively tall) pannel on the rear centerline of the enclosure. It would be designed to be removable, but remain air tight when attached.

I would start the opening at the bottom of the internal volume, so I could mount the assembled crossover to the bottom of the enclosure interior, and thus be able to fix any mistakes or failures that are ever discovered.

Still need to give it some thought, but the "deadline" to finalize that component is certainly a good ways off.

Something else that you might want to consider is to parallel two eight ohm resistors in the R2021 position of the RS150 crossover to come up with the 4 ohms rather than just a 4 ohm resistor there. Dennis said that it would carry quite a bit of current under extreme listening conditions and paralleling the resistors would help power handling of the resistor. IMHO, not critical at all but if you like overkill, go for it.

Will do. Keep the same wattage rating as the orriginally spec'ed component you have listed in your BOM for each of the replacements, right? To double the effective wattage by using the pair. Or is there more to it than that?



Appreciate any further suggestions/help anyone can give me. 'Specially you, Jim! :T

I ;x( this forum!

[Brian Bunge]

Actually, going with 3ft^3 of internal volume for the dual RS225's would be a good thing. It would have a Qtc around .61 and would give you a more gradual rolloff down low. You should have good extension in room well into the 30's with that.

For the asphalt stuff that Jim mentioned, look for the damping sheets that PE sells. They have the asphalt based ones as well as some vinyl based ones. Just look under the speaker building link on the left and look at the different categories of products they have to find them.

[jonathanb3478]

Actually, going with 3ft^3 of internal volume for the dual RS225's would be a good thing. It would have a Qtc around .61 and would give you a more gradual rolloff down low. You should have good extension in room well into the 30's with that.

Ok, that would be (more of) what I am looking for. What would be the point of diminishing returns on improving LF extension with additional enclosure area. By that I mean that the LF is being extended, but maybe somewhat higher frequencies are starting to go missing or become over emphasized?

Also, I am with Regan on this one:

"Trust, but verify."

Would everyone agree or dissagree that adding anything up to, say 50% more woofer enclosure volume will improve the bottom reach with out getting the rest of the bass region out of whack? What about up to ~33%, as I originally mentioned? Deep bass is good, but more important to me, is a resonably flat response everywhere else.

Just look under the speaker building link on the left and look at the different categories of products they have to find them.

Doh...

Found 'um. Wow, only about $20 per enclosure, if I am guess-timating right. I will be doing that then. No messy cleanup of the liquid stuff. Excellent.



Looking better and better, all the way around...

[chasw98]

I have been reading and rereading this thread for a couple of months now. I helped ssabripo build the center channel and got to hear it. I have decided to build my own set of sealed WWMT's and started today. Even after reading this front to back twice I am sure I will have some questions, so please don't beat me too bad if they have already been answered. All the variations are confusing.. Here is a picture of my start.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/chasw98/RS3ways/DSCN3732.jpg

I decided to rabbet the edges where the outer edges of the cabinet join together and dado where the braces go inside the cabinet. I made appropriate compensation for dimensions so I would retain the same volume as the plans showed.

Chuck 8O :confused: :D

[ThomasW]

Good going Chuck..... :T :T :T

First you're going to have a ton of fun, and second as with your sub you're going to be surprised performance vs investment ratio of your project.... :B

And we'll hold you hand so you don't get lost.... :rofl:

[chasw98]

Thanks, Thomas.
I'll feel all warm and fuzzy now.

[Brian Bunge]

Ok, that would be (more of) what I am looking for. What would be the point of diminishing returns on improving LF extension with additional enclosure area. By that I mean that the LF is being extended, but maybe somewhat higher frequencies are starting to go missing or become over emphasized?

Over the last few years I've sort of decided on my own that a Q of .6 is about the point where the bass extension/enclosure ratio works out best for me. Once you start going much below a Q of .6 the enclosure volume really starts to increase quickly. Whether or not the lower Q is worth the extra volume will depend on each individual's tastes. A Q of .6 is just about perfect for me as it gives me nice clean sound while still having some slam. Someone like Thomas might consider a Q around .5 to be ideal for him and maybe he doesn't mind the enclosure size (not picking on you there Thomas!). So it's just a matter of individual taste.

[Jim Holtz]

Well, I want tips/tricks for making 138 template routed panels with out wasting a bunch of time. Any other suggestions, such as your lining suggestions, are also always welcome :D



If my goal is the lowest possible bass response from a sealed enclosure, would intentionally increasing the volume available to the pair of woofers somewhat, in an attempt to deepen the usable response, screw anything up? If not, how much would be helpful? I do not think I have more than about 3 cu ft that could be made available to the woofers, should it turn out that more than the specified volume would help the deep bass response, with out causing other issues. I do feel a bit too much like I am asking for too much help from people with other things to do, who have done enough already, with this question. If that is the case, just let me know.



I measured ear height at the listening position at 48.5", some time ago. I refuse to make a speaker with a tweeter that high, as it would never be any good for a more normal listening height. Still have not settled on a compromise height for the tweeter, however. I will not need to, until the front baffles are to be fabricated. This will not be until the speaker enclosures are totally complete, sans attachment of the baffles. This includes veneering, painting, and an application of the protectants over it all. That will be months from now, I would guess.

Also, the tweeter would be almost exactly in the center of the room's 8' height, in this configuration. This could be a bad thing for any room related resonances. That last is just a hunch. Is a central location like that an actual issue?



I searched for "asphalt" on the Parts Express site, and got nothing like you describe. Is that the wrong "PE"? I had planned to use the "sprayable" lining material, in a gallon size, directly on the interior. I want to be able to make it thicker for problem areas, and thinner for areas which are not as critical. I have no way to spray it on, however. My plan is to brush or roll it on. I have never seen the stuff in person, so do not know if this is a realistic expectation. Plenty of time left to find out, however. :D

I had a desire to a put self adheasive 1oz weights on the center of the interior of each 8"X9" section of the outer enclosure wall, before putting any damping material on any of the sections. I am not certain that it would help, however. What do you think? "More mass, less motion", was the thought behind that desire. It concentrates the additional mass on the part of the panel most likely to be doing the moving, the part furthest from any "brace".

I would put the light foam type (NRC rated, huh? Ok!) on top of all this. Noob question imminent... Does NRC rated type of lining subtract from the internal volume available to the woofers?



That is the plan for me, as well. I will not have an externally facing panel not crossed with a "brace" (a misnomer in my design, as any structural part of the interior is created by the inner contour of each individual 3/4" panel in the stack used to make that speaker, thus no dedicated "brace" components are needed) which is larger than about 8"X9" in my final design.



I knew I would need to make an allowance for integrated internal volume access for a DIY project. I had not actually thought about any potential solutions yet, though. Now, I find my first inclination is to attach the plastic "cup" with the binding posts to a big enough (thin, but comparatively tall) panel on the rear centerline of the enclosure. It would be designed to be removable, but remain air tight when attached.

I would start the opening at the bottom of the internal volume, so I could mount the assembled crossover to the bottom of the enclosure interior, and thus be able to fix any mistakes or failures that are ever discovered.

Still need to give it some thought, but the "deadline" to finalize that component is certainly a good ways off.



Will do. Keep the same wattage rating as the originally spec'd component you have listed in your BOM for each of the replacements, right? To double the effective wattage by using the pair. Or is there more to it than that?



Appreciate any further suggestions/help anyone can give me. 'Specially you, Jim! :T

I ;x( this forum!


I appreciate your regard for my thoughts but I want to make clear that I'm far from a guru in DIY speaker building. My only claim to fame is the ability to figure out who really are the guru's and build their designs. There are a number of folks on this form that you can take their word as gospel and just do it without worry. Anyway, I'm happy to share my experiences and thoughts but I wanted to make clear that there are many with much, much more experience than I.

OK the disclaimer is out of the way. :)

Here is a link to the NRC rated foam that I mentioned. http://www.foambymail.com/Wedge.html

You can go to Walmart and get open cell mattress pads and accomplish the same thing. I like the 2" wedge foam from Foambymail. You know what you're getting and it's easy to work with. Open cell foam does not take volume from the enclosure size.

Here is a link to the asphalt sheeting that PE sells. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Partnumber=268-020

I linked to the largest size they offer but they also have smaller sizes available.

Brian mirrored my thoughts on cabinet volume. A 3 cubic foot cabinet would be just fine and have great bass. Honestly, I can't hear the differences between a .6 and .7 bass alignment so I try to shoot for somewhere in that area. The lower the alignment up to a .5 the slower the roll off of the bass. It has *nothing* to do with the midrange or high frequencies, only bass roll off.

HTH

Jim

[chasw98]

Just sitting around on Sunday afternoon gluing up 3 ways........

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/chasw98/RS3ways/DSCN3734.jpg http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/chasw98/RS3ways/DSCN3733.jpg