Site Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Who's Online (5)
- kenrhodes 9:32AM
- rjj45 9:32AM
- Steve_Lee 9:32AM
- technodanvan 9:32AM
- Tom_S 9:32AM
Please review the site Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy at your convenience. Rules, TOS, Privacy
Get familiar with the reaction system: Introducing the Reaction System
Comments
This would be a translam deal. If you got any suggestions im trying to come up with something.
I've considered making a midrange tube with a "skyline" style diffusor panel in it, just for the frequencies that the midrange is responsible for, but that would be really difficult to even estimate, really.
If you could design 2+ "slices" with the same exterior and flip-flopped interior that would work really well. I've seen several people build them like that, it not only looks really cool, but I'm sure it practically kills any and all standing waves inside the enclosure. Looks like you're off to a good start.
I never have understood why Peter does what he does in the xovers. Comping the Fs of a woofer? Why? That's just not necessary 99x out of 100. I can understand comping a mid's fs a bit in a 3-way with shallow slopes, but not like he does.
Yes- Troels is a bit of a shill, ain't he? "Look at how much money I was given to build these!"
Tony is a bit different for sure. I don't always agree with his preferences in terms of his infamous list, but about 7/10 in terms of what caps I've tried, I agree with him. If I hadn't experienced it more than once on different builds- I would likely say they make no difference as well- but then I'd be wrong. However- the extremes he goes to I feel are grossly overstated, and a lot of the time unwarranted, not to mention foolishly expensive. I recently read an article that F/F PIO caps will always fail due to an inferior construction method, and likely sooner than many others- yet- they are all the rage among loudspeaker modifiers just because they are "DWAYLOONT!"
InDIYana Event Website
When we build, hell when a company that actually cares about sound builds a loudspeaker cabinet for that matter, what is looking to be accomplished?
Acoustically, we are looking to make a cabinet that can dampen the rare-wave of the drivers, not resonate to any given frequency and if it does, shuts itself down very quickly and many other things to basically not contribute to the sound.
Visually, it has to fit a theme, room, or just be a work of art...The latter usually causing more issues than it solves in terms of design, measurement, and power response.
UNLESS
A waveuide is built-in to the cabinet, the cabinet tapes to dampen the rear-wave off the woofers, or is purposefully designed to contribute in a positive manner. Unfortunately, this takes extensive research to accomplish properly to avoid the head-in-a-vice vs. fall apart sound stage, and every other issue associated with waveguides that are not always measurable in the frequency domain.
Vivid does this with near perfection, but their speakers do not have a look that appeal to many....At all.
Empirically, where does this leave us. CNC can make complex patterns far easier to cut. However they can create as many problems as they solve as I have recently come to find out and are not always "easy". They have their place in cabinet making, and when getting the shape right for the Diomede, the modeling Roman did was extremely valuable.....Also, damn those drivers fit like a glove!!!!! Using the extremely dense and thick rangerboard would have been a GIANT pain to deal with without it. Repeatability, predictability, and assurance is certainly gained with CNC making is a huge assett to this hobby if one made the investment...Though it does not play to the "My $200 build beats $4000 commercial speaker" argument because the time and investment to get a CNC up and running properly and usefully. a 'matrix' style bracing scheme could be done with CNC which I think could be the largest single advantage of new cabinet technologies.
3DP is hard to justify at any measure... yet. At the end of the day it is plastic. Plastic parts WILL ring. If you dampen them they become large. Inside the cab you say? Now you are looking at ringing inside the cabinet which can cause a delayed reflection on the back of the cone distorting the spectrum of the driver. This MAY NOT be visible on the Z sweeps or Fq, rather on the waterfalls and if you have no other reference for it can easily be missed. I guess the advantage is you can make a speaker, or parts, look very cool. Further there is a cost associated with 3DP...
For me, I am still left with my primary worries during cabinet design. Internal reflections, internal vibrations, panel vibration, diffraction, internal dampening, and panel dampening. I know Wilson gets hate, as well as *some* others, however them, Wilson-Benesch, Vivid, B&W among others have developed proprietary materials (usually a concrete/rubbeized/poly-thingy mix) which have a far greater advantage because they can simplify bracing schemes and cabinet design. Well, simplify the requirement for reflective points internally...anyway...
At the end of the day, more is not always better, and because one 'can' do something regardless of how cool it looks, does not mean it should be done. No matter what, the science cannot be forgotten. Leveraging new technology can be great if done with purpose, and reason that helps to serve and is more advantageous that previously established methods that have been developed, and massaged into useful ways to overcome fact-based problems over the corse of years both efficiently and effectively. Worse, you need to be able to compare the new ideas to to a reference to truly understand if it is better, worse, or the same. Over-engineering has no real point. More complex ways to do the same thing does not make it better, in other words. However, there is much to be gained and learned with these 'new' tools.
The last can of worms is what we have available to us as DIY-ers. I think to fully leverage the advantage from a objective, measurable standpoint we lack many of the measurement tools required. This would take a pretty large investment on our part, and throw us into doing research (i.e. building then testing, measuring and interpreting) vs. building awesome loudspeakers. Its a fine line and much of what *can* be gained we cannot quantify simply because it is beyond the scope of our measurement capabilities.
So in the end, its a careful balance. We all like cool new toys, and cool looking things, however in this hobby, purpose counts and it is all too easy to create as many problems as you can solve...Some of which may not be easily caught by our capabilities to acquire useful data. I want to see where 3DP and CNC go in the hobby, the latter being far more useful as of now, because I think we are at the beginning of both and there are great things to be had long-term.
I
https://www.jfcomponents.com/
https://www.jfcomponents.com/