|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
02-09-2009, 12:25 PM
|
#36 (1) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Regina SK
Posts: 21
|
Thanks for the good news Ryan!
I really happy you desided to make some surrounds. Not to many people are making surround designs with this depth.  Or lack there of.  Im looking at picking up acouple rs28's this week while they are still on a bit of a sale. So theres no turning back now. Ive been really liking this paint the last little while now for speakers. http://www.rustoleum.com/CBGProduct.asp?pid=159 When she drys its hard as hell. cheers |
|
|
|
02-09-2009, 02:00 PM
|
#37 (2) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Sounds great! Having hundreds of people build the designs that CJD and I come up with has never been a goal of mine. My speakers make me happy, and that is enough. But, I must say that it gives me a lot of joy when I hear other people building our designs.
I'll try and post a sketch or drawing of the front baffle so that you can get started. Also for the record, I don't believe there is going to be anything that limits these to surround duty (they aren't dipoles or anything like that). They will likely make excellent front speakers as well. |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2009, 03:18 PM
|
#38 (3) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I edited the first post to have the final box size and then an optional minimum depth size. I went with 6.5" min depth. Should leave about 2.5 inches behind the driver for breathing room and some foam. But man, the box gets needs to be 37" tall to give the woofer 15L (reduced from 18L in mine).
I'm predicting very soon that someone will want a ported version. This doesn't make sense for in-wall, but for on wall, I can see it. But, I couldn't get a decent Unibox model in 5 minutes of trying. Does anyone want to give it a shot? To make it easy for those that don't have the parameters for the RS180-4 in Unibox, I've attached a zipped file that you can import. |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2009, 03:21 PM
|
#39 (4) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Regina SK
Posts: 21
|
Theres no rush here to make you do any more work then you have to right now. I wont be do any building of the cabinates till at least the end of this month, maybe even longer. Well that all depends on how much I come here and post.
Thanks for the build. cheers |
|
|
|
|
02-09-2009, 03:26 PM
|
#40 (5) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Regina SK
Posts: 21
|
All Im looking for is the smallest sized box that I could cossover at 80 - 60hz with no problems.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2009, 10:22 PM
|
#41 (6) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Well, driving home tonight I realized once again I'm that I'm following Jim and his Statements (purely by coincidence, the thought of these were in my head way before he published the Statement Monitors). Jim and Curt use the same woofer vented in the Monitors. So, I took a look at what they had, and they are using a 30L box, with a F3 of 34hz. So, not much bigger than the original sealed! Just increase the depth to 13".
If you're going to use these as on-wall mains, ported might be a good consideration. Of course, there is no reason that you can't port an inwall (front port into the room of course). I just think it would look funny. This is DIY, do whatever you like. |
|
|
|
|
02-16-2009, 06:19 PM
|
#42 (7) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6
|
I like the idea of 6.5" shallow speakers because I'd like to put these into a wall. Do you have a baffle layout or non BSC crossover design for these?
|
|
|
|
|
02-16-2009, 10:14 PM
|
#43 (8) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I have an ugly hand sketch of the baffle. I just haven't found time at home to put it into cad or a decent sketch.
No crossover has been designed yet. The boxes are sitting here waiting until CJD has time to do the measurements. Unfortunately, real life is intruding. I warned everyone I was expecting a May completion date. |
|
|
|
|
03-07-2009, 12:20 PM
|
#44 (9) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I'm not all that great with Sketch-Up (mainly because I put no effort in), but I put together a quick box and baffle layout for anyone interested.
As always, use with a little caution. The space between the RS150 and R28 is very very tight. One of my boxes, there is no wood between the driver edges. One I have about 1/16" of wood between. |
|
|
|
|
03-14-2009, 12:01 PM
|
#45 (10) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Faux progress???
They are on their way up to see CJD for measurements and the crossover. It will probably still be a while before crossovers are posted. But, I must say I really like the size and look of them - at least next to my TV and full-size Khans. I had to move them away from the TV quickly after taking the photo, due to fear my wife might see them and start asking questions.  |
|
|
|
|
03-14-2009, 04:29 PM
|
#46 (11) |
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Regina SK
Posts: 21
|
Excellent news Ryan!
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 01:05 AM
|
#47 (12) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Could the on-walls be mounted to the ceiling so they fire downwards as opposed to across the room? I just put an offer on a house that has a large loft that would be a perfect fit for my front projector HT, but since it's a loft, there are no side walls were the surround would be mounted. I'm a bit hesitant to put four monitors on stands as I can easily see somebody knocking 'em over... but I hate the idea of putting crappy sounding in ceiling speakers in. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 09:15 AM
|
#48 (13) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I don't know. My gut reaction was, "sure, why not?" But then thinking about it more, there would be some trade offs. I think biggest issue would be the listening axis. However, is that a worse problem than some of the commercial ceiling speakers out there? Not sure.
Hopefully CJD will chime in. He has the boxes. I'm hoping to be ordering some crossover parts here soon. |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2009, 08:51 PM
|
#49 (14) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
You'll need to take a bit more care on how much bass you feed them ceiling mounted, but they'll do alright. I'm mounting the RS180's in my surrounds at a 45 degree angle and I did a bunch of number crunching back when I decided on that.
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 12:25 AM
|
#50 (15) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Are you concerned with the drivers sagging?
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 12:26 AM
|
#51 (16) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Would you cross them over to the sub at 80Hz?
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 03:34 AM
|
#52 (17) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
I don't think off axis imaging for surrounds are as critical (especially given how close the drivers are to each other). BTW, what made you decide to go with the WTM design instead of WMT? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 09:44 AM
|
#53 (18) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I don't think driver sag will be an issue. Dan N. is using the RS150 facing downward in his HOSS. He thinks about everything.
If they are constructed sealed, they definitely should be crossed to a sub. Post 4 and 5 briefly discuss the decision to go with a MTW rather than a TMW. Some of the reason was because they may get installed near the ceiling, or two boundaries. The other part of the reason that MTW just looks cooler to me than TWM. |
|
|
|
|
04-05-2009, 05:31 PM
|
#54 (19) |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2009, 09:53 PM
|
#55 (20) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Got some measurements...
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2009, 06:03 PM
|
#56 (21) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Did you hang the speaker in your living room? Pictures?
|
|
|
|
|
04-12-2009, 10:06 PM
|
#57 (22) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
I did hang it, I have no photos. Nor did I get my own speakers measured, so I'll try to snag pics of the ghetto setup when I do that. By the time I had everything set up I had a pretty bad headache settling in and opted for just getting through the measurements. I didn't want to fiddle around with this and that (like trying to get my boxes ready).
C |
|
|
|
|
04-12-2009, 11:02 PM
|
#58 (23) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
I think most people here will be impressed by the way your taking measurements and think you're crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2009, 12:44 PM
|
#59 (24) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
I think I've got it!
Nice nulls with any combination of reversed drivers, which means phase tracks well across the board. The SPL difference PE rated ends up being a wash - I'm not finding a 2dB difference in particulars, only in peaks, so the crossover does not vary. I also have data for a full in-room variant. |
|
|
|
|
04-19-2009, 02:43 PM
|
#60 (25) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Graphs! We need graphs and pictures!
|
|
|
|
|
04-25-2009, 01:51 PM
|
#61 (26) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Here ya go. All 18ga Jantzen inductors for impedance except the 5mH which is a 20ga.
Series resistor on the mid should probably be a higher wattage piece. As usual you can eliminate the small value caps on the mid network at the expense of a bit more grunge in the upper midrange and slightly less phase integration. Oh yeah. Miracle of miracles, the impedance is decidedly above 4ohm! What's wrong with me?! C |
|
|
|
|
04-25-2009, 03:44 PM
|
#62 (27) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Oh yeah. I think I ALSO have a crossover worked up for this now if you want to use this out in your room as opposed to in-wall. Still want to come back and give that an additional once-over ponder so it's not yet published.
C |
|
|
|
|
04-25-2009, 07:54 PM
|
#63 (28) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
Wow. That is a bigger part count than I was expecting. I'll have to put it all into a shopping cart tomorrow and see how it comes out.
Thanks for doing this. We'll have to work out how you you can listen to it and tweak if needed. If you're willing to come down here to return the boxes, I can have a pair of crossovers built and in the wall. I can easily come up there, but you don't have any holes in your walls. PM with your ideas. |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 12:43 AM
|
#64 (29) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 3,817
|
The response graph looks reasonably flat - especially considering that these are using real in-box measurements.
What is with the bump at the Woofer-Mid crossover? Still pretty small. Do you take off axis measurements? Can you post any off axis response graphs? It looks like it is coming in at $115/ea for the crossover. I guess not far off of my estimate of $100/ea. These Dayton RS drivers need to be beaten into submission, and that takes parts.  That is with all 12W Mills resistors and all Dayton Poly caps. Could save ~$10/ea by using Dayton 10W Resistors and another save another $18 by using electrolytic caps in just the woofer. Brings the total down to $88. For surrounds, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to save a few bucks. Maybe I'll build one with all electrolytic caps and the other two with Dayton and see if I can tell the difference... we'll see. The .9mH inductor is out of stock until 5/12/09 (I've heard this before). Is a .9mH 19ga from Madisound acceptable? (also saves a few $$). I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on switching all the inductors to Madisound 19 gauge. The values typically match up well, and would probably save another $10+/ea. I don't need to save money, but there is no reason to waste it. Two Differences: 0.27mh 18ga v. 0.25mH 19 2.7mH 18 ga v. 2.75mH 19 Thoughts on cheaper parts are always welcome. I'll post a real bill of materials tomorrow. Sorry for the too many questions |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 04:15 AM
|
#65 (30) | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
Does this mean you created an additional crossover for those that do not want their WTM in wall or on wall? If so, the flexibility would be great. Question... for LCR duty, if one needed three equal speakers under an FP screen, would you prefer three of these or three of your WMTW LCRs (the ones with the 225's)? I'm guessing three of these would perform better if they do double duty for HT and music but having two sealed 225's would make the WMTW's better for straight HT (more impact but less imaging). |
|
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 12:26 PM
|
#66 (31) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Yeah, I can do fewer parts. I actually had a version really early on with only like 5, but I'm not sure my ears would have been happy.
The large value caps can go electrolytic or electrolytic + poly. I should also figure out what it takes to use a cored inductor for the large value component, since we can make up the impedance shift in the resistor on that leg. At least shave some cost.I'll also run up the data using the Mad parts. 2.75mH may actually be better, but not sure about .27. |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 12:29 PM
|
#67 (32) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Quick note... 2.75mH = better. and .3mH = better than .25mH on the mid leg. Heh. (.27 is better than .25)
More in a few. |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 12:47 PM
|
#68 (33) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
See, you get me into trouble here Ryan. I go fiddle and discover improvements.
The good news: Sourcing inductors from Madisound means a 2.75mH which is a help. I also found two other component values to significantly improve phase tracking such that reverse nulls are -40dB. The sad news is that .27mH on the tweeter is still much wanted for perfection. That said, you can sacrifice a little phase tracking and use a .25mH - if you do this I recommend the initial cap value be 9.5uF or so. It's still -30dB... Terrible, I know. Bit doing so DOES drop impedance below 4ohm.A quick note that should allow for some cost savings: The net impedance target for the parallel inductor on the mid here is about 4.5ohm - you can use iron core or air core, and adjust the series resistor on this leg to suit. |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 01:06 PM
|
#69 (34) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,198
|
Full BSC option
An interesting note here on the measurement side: I had to drop the gate enough that we lost a notch in fidelity, and response below 200Hz falls off as a result. The iron core is preferred here on the mid for its low impedance. This one can be sourced from PE or Madisound on the parts I think. jagman: My preference is always going to be to a vertical driver arrangement in every case over horizontal. That said, this design will have notably less power handling than any dual-woofer setup, so you'll have to balance your power requirements against the design options. |
|
|
|
|
04-26-2009, 01:42 PM
|
#70 (35) | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 68
|
Quote:
That's the same debate going on in my head. Vertical vs horizontal for imaging. Greater flexibility of placement vs better power handling and being able to be crossed over to the sub at a lower frequency (80Hz vs 60Hz). I'm leaning towards the latter because my current system already lacks the feeling of power in the upper bass and the new room is much larger (at least 12,000 cubic feet since the HT will be in a loft and the floor plan is wide open). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
