My 5.1 design project

[fbov]

I am looking to upgrade from a 4-channel original-Advent/Advent II HT system with a Polk MTM as a center channel, to something a bit more modern, and hopefully better matched. There are times I'd like to kill the CC speaker, and I don't know if it's the old amp (Dolby PL/I with internal SW amp), declining broadcasting standards, or a mis-match between the Polk and the Advents. The wife will go for one speaker, so I'm using that opening to perhaps build 5.

I post this here because I have the same dilema - how to fit a CC into existing furniture. My first constraint is a 6" vertical height. This drives me to looking at 5" designs, a rare thing on this forum!

The second constraint is personal - I want a matched set of non-identical speakers. Thus I've been looking for designs that:
- use the same tweeter in the mains as in the CC/surrounds
- use similar woofers
- have optimized crossovers that yield similar-quality frequency response

The third constraint is practical; I want to start small, with a CC that I can hide in an entertainment center, move on to surrounds I can hide in the corner before trying for furniture-grade mains. I focus on appearance here because I have no doubt I can build a functional enclosure that, with quality drivers and a proper crossover, will sound good.

I've read through the Mission Accomplished files and find many good reports using Dayton RS-series drivers. The RS28A tweeter is very popular, and I've found it used with a range of RS-series woofer in a variety of designs. Based on this review, here's what I'm thinking.

Mains: Natalie P tower
Natalie P initially caught my eye, partly due to an appreciation for Leon the Professional, part due to a personal preference for 2-way designs. Based on the number of variants, it's a mature, low-risk design that will likely push the limits of wife-acceptance-factor.

Surrounds: Microlith/ported

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=29014

I only find one design using the RS28A with an RS125. It's a 7.1" tall enclosure, so it fails the CC height constraint, but it's a starting point. The risk is that it's not fully optimized. The designer, Javier Huerta, notes some minor XO issues toward the end, and I've asked if he ever finished a promised XO design update, but the thread's been dormant the last 2 months.

Center: Microlith/sealed
Javier specs a 45x18x26 cm enclosure using 3/4" MDF. If I trim an inch off the height, while maintaining internal volume, the dimensions come out to 45x15.25x28.6 cm, including two other changes:
- 1/2" MDF for top and bottom (saves 1/2" height)
- add a center brace like the PE boxes used for Natalie P. to compensate

This brings me back to the start - I am modifying a design to fit a need. Given the overall plan, what do I need to know now to get started? Is this wrong-headed, or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks,
Frank

EDIT by moderator. This thread was split from kjgarrsion's discussion of wall mounting the 3-way NeoDcc

[ThomasW]

Main problem is the demands on a center channel are such that they really need to contain drivers as large as the mains so output levels can be balanced.

With dual 7" in the mains and the tiny RS125's in the center you'll probably be bottoming the RS125's.

The only way I see this as practical would be by using a WWTWW design.

[fbov]

Gee, my first thread ...

I understand your point, and in a different world, I might be able to do a better-matched, high-end LCR set, but it's a small room and I'm kind of working with what I've got. I'm looking for improvement today, and maybe a third NatP with a 2.5 way crossover down the road.

I would naturally have to assign 5" Microlith surrounds and CC as "small" speakers to the AVR. I'm not expecting them to see a lot of bass, or high enough sound levels to warrant quad drivers. I want to make the NatP towers more for their low end than their SPL. They'll never see their full potential in this 5.0 (no sub ...), but I'm hoping that this set will be an upgrade over the sound quality I have now.

Javier's offered to post an updated crossover for his Microlith design that I plan to use in all three smaller MTMs. The CC will have the narrower baffle, but what amounts to in-wall mounting, and an equal-volume but sealed enclosure.

Any thoughts on what differences I should expect to hear as a result?

Thanks,
Frank

[ThomasW]

I would naturally have to assign 5" Microlith surrounds and CC as "small" speakers to the AVR. I'm not expecting them to see a lot of bass, or high enough sound levels to warrant quad drivers. I want to make the NatP towers more for their low end than their SPL. They'll never see their full potential in this 5.0 (no sub ...), but I'm hoping that this set will be an upgrade over the sound quality I have now.

This has little to do with reproducing a bunch of bass or playing loud.

There's a 5 to 1 difference in the amount of air moved when comparing a RS180 vs a RS125. This means it will be difficult if not impossible to match the output of the NatP and the Microliths for the LCR balance.

This mismatch is less of a problem for the rear effects channels.

Depending on the listening position a more realistic option might be to use a 'Phantom' center.

[Blktre]

Im going to throw an idea out there and see what you think....

If you choose a LR speaker design that's known for its imaging and accuracy and properly place those speakers and consider room treatments you might get away with not needing a CC at all. You speak of space constraints and mis-matched drivers in the LCR. The CC is going to get your vocals out there, but choosing a LR design as Ive just explained will and can come close to fooling you that there really is a CC there when actually there isn't. Pretty much what Thomas was saying about the "Phantom" CC. And It most likely would sound better than using un-matched LCR......Just a thought.

[djg]

Another junior member's opinion

I would humbly suggest the Tritrix family of designs. If you are now listening to mismatched commercial speakers, I think you would find these speakers to be a huge improvement. The design is fully documented. The MTM sealed or vented is 6 1/2" high placed horizontal. The transmission line enclosure is 36" high, and impressive in a small way. The MT is perfect for surrounds on stands, not for wall mount.

I built a vented CC, two TL mains, and two MT surrounds, five hundred dollars. I am very happy. I built the version using the 4 ohm mids. You will need a sub.

Considering the budget drivers used, the sound is quite good. Check out the thread in mission accomplished. For perspective, my old system was the Audax system designed by Joseph D'Appolito, and was very highly regarded. I built it many years ago, and the cabinets were not very good looking. The CC was too big for my humble setup. The Tritrix sounds as good to me. Great value.

[djg]

At the risk of severe ridicule...

If you want to strike out on your own, how about the Bose Buster for CC and surrounds, and Lou C's Shtick design for the mains. Shtick has 3 inch HiVis and a Dayton mini tweeter MTM over two 5" Tang Band high excursion woofers. Can't vouch for these, but the Shticks sure look cool. Maybe could get away with no sub. I'm all about cheap.

[fbov]

This has little to do with reproducing a bunch of bass or playing loud.

There's a 5 to 1 difference in the amount of air moved when comparing a RS180 vs a RS125. This means it will be difficult if not impossible to match the output of the NatP and the Microliths for the LCR balance.

This mismatch is less of a problem for the rear effects channels.

Depending on the listening position a more realistic option might be to use a 'Phantom' center.

Tom,
The message I'm getting is that I'm better off figuring out a matched LCR set. My current center is a 5" MTM; maybe the problem is exactly that it can't keep up the 10" Advents. I remeasured the entertainment center. I think I can find a spot for a 9" baffle, but it's close to the power amp. Is this an issue with shielded drivers? I have active ventillation.

As to surrounds, assuming an RS180-based LCR, how much smaller can I go before I'll notice the size difference? What documented designs might be a good match?

And thanks for the re-calibration; I always saw centers as add-on's, a step below surrounds. We'll see how it sounds when they're not!

Frank

[fbov]

Im going to throw an idea out there and see what you think....

...Pretty much what Thomas was saying about the "Phantom" CC. And It most likely would sound better than using un-matched LCR......Just a thought.

Good idea, but using TV speakers was an upgrade from phantom mode. My current 5" MTM at least has some high-end. Now I'm seeking the next level of center quality, and it's turning out to be a far higher quality level than I thought!

Thanks, Frank

[fbov]

I would humbly suggest the Tritrix family of designs.
...
Great value.

Yes, they do look good, but I can't bring myself to use small mains, and the consensus is that a matched LCR set is desirable. Enjoy yours!
Frank

[fbov]

OK, how does this sound?

L/R Mains: a Nat P tower, 9x38x17", after opt-e's design (but conventional port) and at his max volume of 65l. I'll entertain any volume/port alternatives that give better bass; these things aren't that big at this size!

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=19596

Center: a Nat P sealed 1 ft^3 enclosure, 9x20x14.5" so it fits where I need to put it. And here's where I'd like to ask if anyone has done a 2.5-way crossover for a Natalie P. The center will have to be sideways, and if I can reduce lobing, I'd like to. For the life of me I can't find the thread where they talk about 2.5 ways.

Surrounds: Javier's Microliths are still attractive, but so are cdj's RS150's ... I've got time.

Thanks for your responses,
Frank

[Hdale85]

I don't believe the Tritrix's are small speakers. If your looking for a decent center build 1 Modula MT or something and use it standing up. Would be a lot better then using a MTM on its side or at least you won't have the lobing issues and what not that come with using an MTM on its side. Either that or you could build one of the 3 way center designs from the RS 3 Ways or the Modula NeoD CC. They should all match up pretty well. If you want something decent chances are you're going to have to get a new stand, or mount it above the TV/stand? Or build a custom stand :B Building to fit furniture is silly

[djg]

My suggestions were based on your original post, that you were looking for a small CC with 5" drivers in a matched system, and that you have a small room. My Tritrix system will play painfully loud in a 14x20 room, small I would say. I recently built a new sub, and bought a DVD known for its excellent sound and LFE. I played a bit for my girlfriend, she sat on the floor giggling. You should not base your opinion of a certain size speaker on that Polk CC.

What is your budget? Can you read schematics? What woodworking tools do you have access to? Are you willing to buy tools? How big is your room? What do you listen to or watch? Is this the only forum you have been to? How many watts you got?

look at the number of posts by the other people that have responded to your thread. They have years of experience. They give of their time and knowledge to help people like you and me. I have been on this forum about two months. I am still wading through the different designs posted here.

My suggestion, take your time, read up on the designs here, visit the Parts Express project area and forum. If this is your first time building a speaker, the PE projects have an "easy button" to order the correct parts.

Even a modest DIY speaker project will be much better than what you have now.

[fbov]

djg and Dougie085,
The curmudgeon got to me first, but I admit I was leaning his way.

I have a bias toward larger speakers. It started as a kid when all I could afford were cheap drivers and single cap "crossovers." I got the Advents in college, found they had far wider frequency response than my ears, liked how they sounded, and have been happy for the last 30+ years. Over the years, I managed to collect the full set - Advent Loudspeaker, Smaller Advent Loudspeaker, Advent II, all with new/good woofer surrounds.

The problem in my sound field is the center, something I grew up without (I used to have a Dynaco Quadapter, a difference-signal surround processor), but an integral part of HT. I have no problem with the Advents, but I've got a hole in my sound field and Henry Kloss's company never made a speaker to fill it. The epiphany for me in this discussion was an understanding that the center isn't an add-on, it's center stage.

That said, I'm looking for a flat frequency response across my range of hearing that works as a superb stand-alone pair. They must also match a center that sacrifices little in sound quality besides some low bass due to a sealed enclosure. I also admit a bias to 2-way and low cost (I have no budget for this, but I'm doing it anyway), which is what got me interested in NatP's.

I understand the issue with lobing due to sideways WTW, and if it bothers me, I can redo the baffle and crossover to make it WMTW, perhaps the RS180-based Modula NeoD. This is a trade-off, however, as improved sound field uniformity is achieve by sacrificing the goal of common LCR designs, and at added cost.

djg asks about construction capabilities; I've been building telescopes for the last 10 years so boxes aren't a challenge - blending it in with our Mission-style furniture will be. But there's a common aspect to all DIY projects: you can always change what you make, fix what doesn't work, tweak things until you're happy. I've rebuilt my 10" telescope 3x, but now I'm happy. I plan to do the same here.

That said, I do appreciate your suggestions, and they do line up with my initial direction, but I've been detoured (thank you, Tom!). This discussion clarifies what I want as well as my options. That's very helpful!

Thanks,
Frank

[djg]

Separated at birth

My first stereo was a Dynaco SCA80Q that I built along with a Dynaco FM tuner.
I had the original Advents vinyl finish, an AR turntable, and later an Advent cassette deck. Still have the turntable and deck. Are you still using this stuff?

Sounds like you could build anything you want, have at it.

I remember the first speakers I built for my stepdaughter. Little two ways from a local speaker place. I hooked them up and was just amazed at how much better they sounded than my mismatched commercial units, hated to give them up.

BTW, can you still get stuff to grind your own telescope mirrors? Always wanted to do that.

[ThomasW]

Color me confused...

Are you planning on replacing the big Advents with a tower version of the NatP's or is this for a completely different system?

I assume you don't have room for a sub. Is this the reason you were asking about a 'tower' version of the Natp? If this is the case, consider building a 'sub' into the bottom of a tower design. This isn't difficult and you'll get a lot more bass than running a pair of 6.5" drivers down low.

[fbov]

Indeed, Tom that's the plan.
- new center
- matched NatP fronts to replace the Advents
- new ??? surrounds if the Advent II's don't cut it.

Yes, a sub built into the tower is attractive, but beyond my desired scope at this point. It may be a follow-on project, as I'm sure we could find a place for a sub, and I'm curious to hear what the 0.1 channel's actually doing.

Thanks,
Frank

[Hdale85]

I think we're all a bit confused about your desired scope Sounds like your going for an HT setup and in an HT setup your mains can go as low as you can get them but a sub is still going to greatly help no matter what. There are just very low notes in soundtracks.

[ThomasW]

Nothing against Javier's design but it simply doesn't have enough displacement to match the NatPs..

So unless you can create more height for the baffle and use a taller center, you'll need to build something like Darren Kazuma's Cynosure but with the largest drivers that will fit the opening...

[djg]

Check out the different crossover designs for your chosen speaker at www.rjbaudio.com. There is one 2.5 that might work for your center.

[fbov]

My first stereo was a Dynaco SCA80Q
...
BTW, can you still get stuff to grind your own telescope mirrors? Always wanted to do that.

I still have my AR turntable.

stellafane.com has all you could want regarding mirror making.

Frank

[fbov]

Check out the different crossover designs for your chosen speaker at www.rjbaudio.com. There is one 2.5 that might work for your center.

THANK YOU!

I'd seen it, but couldn't remember where, or if it even applied.

[ThomasW]

I'd seen it... or if it even applied.

It probably better than an non-optimized MTM turned on it's side but certainly not better than a specific designed center.

Also it requires 9" of height. If/when you have that height there are lots of options.

[djg]

I believe Frank said he could find 9" for his center.

[ThomasW]

Center: a Nat P sealed 1 ft^3 enclosure, 9x20x14.5" so it fits where I need to put it.

If this is the case you can use the Modula MTM center channel, the NeoDcc, or CJD's MTM .

[fbov]

Tom,
You converted me with your second reply. And if I must match LCR, it'll be with a 9" center, not 5" mains. WAF is lower, so it has to be pretty, but pretty can sound good.

As to MTM issues in CC applications, maybe I can do the experiment. I'm planning on a pair of NatPs anyway, and the 2.5-way concept seems sound. There's not much downside to making both and doing the comparison. I suspect I'll need some help in doing the actual evaluations, but given the response so far, I'm not worried.

I think it's finally time to buy ... or at least do the pricing:
- NatP center
- 2.5-way in the NatP
- 3-way

Frank

[fbov]

Tom,
You've named my two 3-way choices along with another MTM. What's better about cjd's MTM for CC applications?

And, a separate question, how well do amps and speakers do in close proximity, like on the same shelf, assuming no heat rise issues?

Thanks,
Frank

[Hdale85]

Is there a 2.5way crossover for the drivers in the NatP? If not do you know anything about crossover design?

[ThomasW]

What's better about cjd's MTM for CC applications?

From a performance standpoint nothing, the smaller drivers won't play as loud as a design using 6.5" drivers. It's physically shorter and doesn't cost as much.

how well do amps and speakers do in close proximity, like on the same shelf, assuming no heat rise issues?

Not a problem, many companies build amps inside their speaker boxes

Is there a 2.5way crossover for the drivers in the NatP? If not do you know anything about crossover design?

It's posted on Roman's website. Someone built a single box. There is no test data regarding it's real world performance.

[Hdale85]

Oh ok thanks Thomas, never seen it.

[fbov]

I've moved from talk to action - just ordered the parts from PartsExpress (plus one from Madisound) to make one speaker and 3 crossovers. If that sounds odd, let me explain.

I want a new center channel speaker, then new mains to match, then ... who knows. I've settled on an MTM layout, which has issues in horizontal applications. I want to verify those issues, then assess a neat idea Roman Bednarek developed to address them, the 2.5-way crossover.

I now have parts ordered to build one NatP MTM speaker, two NatP XO's and Roman's 2.5-way XO. Initially I'll use the MTM with the NatP XO, horizontally as a center channel. Once it's broken in and I'm familiar with its issues, I'll install the 2.5-way XO and listen for differences. When that time comes, you may hear me asking for help, especially if I don't hear much difference.

Why did I get parts for 2 NatP XO's? So the pair of speakers I make later this year will have XOs from comparable component lots. Unless it's a disaster, I expect the 2.5-way XO will live in the center speaker, if I can live with an MTM there at all.

As to crossover costs, ordering from PE and using Dayton and Jantzen components, NatP's came in at ~$60 each and one of Roman Bednarek's 2.5-way at $86, both + s&h. Looking at the circuits, the 2.5-way has two LF sections, so a 50% cost premium is reasonable. I'll have to do a bit of looking for comparable Modula NeoDcc crossover costs.

Time to make an enclosure; parts are due before the long weekend ...

Frank

[ThomasW]

Problem is Roman's 2.5 way wasn't designed for in-wall use, neither are the standard NatP crossovers.

The reason you need an 'in-wall' design is virtually all speakers are designed to be placed 2' or more out from the wall. And the crossover is adjusted for this particular placement. Taking that same crossover and putting it against or in a wall means the midbass will sound bloated/chesty as a result of the BSC baffle-step-compensation circuitry.

[fbov]

Tom,
Good point, but one I've considered.

To fit the larger speaker, I have to remove the only flat surface near it, so I'm not really in-wall, and I know the rest of the furniture has some effect, so I'm not in the clear, either. It's a hybrid, like most real-world installations, with perhaps a 1" wider baffle, a carpeted floor 8" under it and a TV about 8" above it.

This will be part of the learning (to hear) exercise.

Frank

[Dennis H]

with perhaps a 1" wider baffle, a carpeted floor 8" under it and a TV about 8" above it.

Yikes! The center is 8" from the floor? That's its own huge problem -- people talking on the screen or a singer standing stage center sound like they're talking/singing from their feet. For the best soundstage, you want the tweeter of the center no higher/lower than 12" or so above/below the tweeter of the mains.

[fbov]

I ordered parts from Parts Express on Monday (checked HTGuide as reference), received everything on Wednesday, got the box and crossover done today, and so plugged a single NatP in as my new center channel.

My family's gone for the weekend so I have everything pulled out even with a vertical NatP in front of the TV. It's long-term shelf isn't ready, and this is a fairer assessment, I think you'll all agree.

Initial impressions? When setting relative volume using a pink noise test tone, I did a little fine tuning on the surrounds and I noticed that I didn't notice when the signal moved from center to side. To first order, the pink noise sounds the same in the NatP as in the Advents. That's a big change.

A quick listen to TV through Pro Logic I decode and there's a lot more detail to the center, over a wider frequency range. I was missing a lot. I now need to try some DVDs, which will move the surround decode to an Oppo 980, so I ought to get a better test.

Thanks for steering me into this direction; I surely had underestimated the value of the center channel! Pictures tomorrow, or whenever I pull it apart to finish the box.

Thanks,
Frank

[djg]

That was fast.

[fbov]

When the spirit moves one ...

This is regarding a center channel application using an MTM based on the Natalie P design, using both NatP crossover and a 2.5-way design intended to suppress lobing issues due to the sideways MTM.

Playing with some known sound sources, mainly American Beauty, I'm coming to like the NatP's very much as a center channel speaker. As I noted, they sound very much like my Advent mains, and that's why I like them.

I can't seem to hear the lobing issue with a common woofer crossover, so the 2.5-way crossover has no advantage there. In fact, while I can hear the 2.5-way effect among the three drivers, what I notice is a colored sound field - I can hear the speaker. As the sound field pans, I hear seams between the speakers. With the NatP crossover, the speaker disappears - ther are no seams.

So, at this point
- the NatP MTM sideways is a great solution for me
- I do get a good timbre match with my existing front mains
- I don't hear the lobing effect in my listening room, so
- the 2.5-way crossover sounds worse in my room/system.

Still have to get the pictures up ...

Frank

[fbov]

Finally some pictures ...

The first one's the finished application, albeit with an unfinished box. You can see the tight integration with the TV stand. (Some may say I've ruined a perfectly good speaker, my wife says the same about the TV stand.)

The next is a pic of the NatP crossover, and then a comparison of the parts NatP and 2.5-way parts sitting on the NatP in its testing location, I tried vertical vs. horizontal and both crossovers in a more-ideal sonic arrangement, hoping to hear the differences I'd been warned about. Vertical with NatP was a little better than sideways, but only by a very little and both far preferred to the 2.5-way crossover.

Speaking of which, the last pic is of the 2.5-way. You can see three distinct circuits, and I'd be open to any feedback on what I might have done better in constructing this (and the NatP) crossover.

Next, I need to do some design research. The one thing that can save my WAF on this speaker project is if they look nice, thus the research. I'll keep you all posted.

thanks,
Frank

[fbov]

As luck would have it, kgveteran on another forum offered a pair of ~100l, ~100 lb. subwoofer cabinets to anyone who'd pick them up, and I'm the lucky guy who's 30 miles away and strong enough. They're designed for a 12", but enlarged to fit a 15" surface mounted, and professionally made ... WAF=0 but she's gone again next weekend, so I have some time to hide it.

My overall goal is incremental improvement in my HT set-up using components and designs with capability matching my eventual goal rather than current capability. In this case, that means I'll be using the 0.1 channel amp on my AV receiver (Pioneer, c. 1998 ), but want to build for a 300-500W dedicated amp. And I'll only build one for now ...

Looking at PE's selection of 15" SW, the power range pushes me into a DVC or reference series driver. At that point, there's a clear winner in the price-vs-spec sheet battle in the Titanic MkIII, only $20 more than the RS line with 50% greater Vd, and 1/3 the price of the Audiopulse.

Thus two questions:
- what's the general opinion of the Titanic MkIII?
- are there comparable or better values out there?

I tend to buy form PE due to their HTGuide support, but feel free to steer me in a different direction.

Frank

[augerpro]

Looking good! As far as subs I think the TempestX and ShivaX at diycable.com are well received. I don't know what size box requirements they have though.

On the crossover pics you have the inductors oriented correctly but they are way too close for my comfort. Can you space them out more?

[fbov]

I dont' find a 15" ShivaX at diycable.com, but the Tempest X is certainly a worthy alternative at a very attractive price. The questions then become:
- relative suitability in the 100l enclosures I'm getting
- relative size of an optimized ported box.

I'm playing with Unibox4, and here area some stats

Tempest.....Titanic.....parameter
18.5Hz........24 Hz......Fs
27mm ........20.5mm...Xmax
250l...........100l .......std dsgn sealed box
700l...........300l.......std dsgn ported
32Hz..........39Hz......F3 in 100l sealed box
20.5Hz.......26Hz.......F3 250l ported, 15Hz
13Hz..........25Hz......F3 std dsgn ported, 15Hz

Interesting results, oddly not precisely replicatable, but close. It looks at first, based on Unibox's standard design, as if the Tempest wants a much larger box, but it actually has better low-end extension than the Titanic in any given volume, and gets F3 below 20Hz in the same 250l volume I'm finding the Titanic likes.

Does this sound right?
Frank

[Dennis H]

Sealed subs all need EQ to contour the low end as well as to deal with room modes so the box size doesn't matter all that much within reason. The Titanic is a high-distortion driver. The Tempest-X is a low-distortion driver. Easy choice.

[fbov]

Thanks, Dennis, that's the kind of thing I'm looking for. Not everything's in the spec sheet...
------------------------
EDIT: There is now a Tempest-X headed my way, thanks to the thoughtful input received here - thanks guys!
Frank

[fbov]

No sign of the Tempest X, but I do have a pair of enclosures, thanks to kgveteran.

Parts Express, on the other hand, again delivered in 2 days as promised (only 450 miles, not 2000+ as for the sub.) so I can now add the NatP no-BSC impressions to the list.

No surprise; the low end boominess is gone, and the CC now blends with the Advent mains through the midrange as well as high end. The baby steps continue ...

Frank

[fbov]

This week ...

The Tempest X was on my doorstep when I got home last Monday and it was in the box that night - a perfect fit! This weekend, I finally pulled the AV receiver out and rewired everything, thinking I'd find a powered SW output - no such luck. I just ordered a Bash 500 plate amp from Oaudio to fix that.

I'm thinking maybe a surface mount or recessed surface mount for the amp? I read reports of air leaking through the amp controls, so I want to isolate it from internal air pressure. Surface is easiest, but ugly. Recessed less so, but 2" is a lot of MDF to hog out...

I'm also close to done rendering my mains design - a good idea now that I have the wood - and would like your feedback before I start construction this weekend. The baffle design, in particular, has rased a number of questions that I'll ask when I get the pictures uploaded.

Thanks,
Frank