The table saw tends not to be the problem, I can hold that pretty well, but the rounding on unassembled pieces is very tricky and I have not been able to get this "exactly" right yet. But if I am going to have the pieces rounded then they have to be cut too.
And I am not sure that the pieces can be completely rounded (both sides of the joint) at the $100 point as I did not get a quote on that.
Rounding the corners is why I went to fiberglass in the first place, but that ended up being too expensive. Its not easy to do large radi on wood and elimating it or making a smaller radi seems to me to be going in the wrong direction simply for simplicity in assmebly.
And I am not sure that the pieces can be completely rounded (both sides of the joint) at the $100 point as I did not get a quote on that.
Rounding the corners is why I went to fiberglass in the first place, but that ended up being too expensive. Its not easy to do large radi on wood and elimating it or making a smaller radi seems to me to be going in the wrong direction simply for simplicity in assmebly.
Absolutely...
And when the edge rounding bit takes a little detour, the part goes in the scrap pile.
Basic "pro" style conventional tools should be able to make these parts so that if they were thrown into a bag and shaken, a speaker pops out. The CNC stuff just requires less skilled operators for subsequent runs of the same part. Setup, fixturing and tool selection still required.
I have also had success with folded and mitered corners. Masking tape on the outside edge, then glued and folded into a box. The joints are stronger than the wood.
Isn't pre rounded wood available in the States? I've seen it for kitchen countertops.
On with the show: after extensive use of the sanding tool mounted on my yesterday bough Dremel, base and side parts fit pretty good now so I glued them to the baffle:
The top parts are only used as a brace.
As the sides are too low I decided to look for 3 mm thin wood tomorrow. The other option is again sanding. But as I'm doing all sanding by hand, priority is to reduce any overhang.
Best, Markus
On with the show: after extensive use of the sanding tool mounted on my yesterday bough Dremel, base and side parts fit pretty good now so I glued them to the baffle:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The top parts are only used as a brace.
As the sides are too low I decided to look for 3 mm thin wood tomorrow. The other option is again sanding. But as I'm doing all sanding by hand, priority is to reduce any overhang.
Best, Markus
Shouldn't the baffles be cut from 1" stock?
Rounding the edges of the baffle (along with making the driver cut-outs) could be done on a full-sized template. The template would ensure uniformity and allow larger tolerances for the baffle "blanks". The process of rounding over would set the finish dimensions.
Suggestion: Leave the round-over of the other corners to the user/builder along with the explanation of the benefits for doing so. I assume the area of greatest benefit for the corner round-over is near the baffle...so this can be a sanding operation as it doesn't need to go all the way to the back of the cabinet.
Rounding the edges of the baffle (along with making the driver cut-outs) could be done on a full-sized template. The template would ensure uniformity and allow larger tolerances for the baffle "blanks". The process of rounding over would set the finish dimensions.
Suggestion: Leave the round-over of the other corners to the user/builder along with the explanation of the benefits for doing so. I assume the area of greatest benefit for the corner round-over is near the baffle...so this can be a sanding operation as it doesn't need to go all the way to the back of the cabinet.
"Suggestion: Leave the round-over of the other corners to the user/builder along with the explanation of the benefits for doing so. "
Since the difficulty seems to be related to the radiusing, perhaps this is a good way to go.
After assembly the box could be taken to a cabinet shop, where they could do the roundovers in 5 or 10 min.
Radiusing after gluing up the box would also save sanding, as assembling even perfect panels won't always result in perfectly mating joints.
Another possibility is to make the roundover to less than the full depth so as to maintain the dimension.
This removes the bulk of the material, the remainder of which could be removed by with a roundover sanding tool made from a slice of PVC or somesuch with 1" I.D.
Since the difficulty seems to be related to the radiusing, perhaps this is a good way to go.
After assembly the box could be taken to a cabinet shop, where they could do the roundovers in 5 or 10 min.
Radiusing after gluing up the box would also save sanding, as assembling even perfect panels won't always result in perfectly mating joints.
Another possibility is to make the roundover to less than the full depth so as to maintain the dimension.
This removes the bulk of the material, the remainder of which could be removed by with a roundover sanding tool made from a slice of PVC or somesuch with 1" I.D.
Options
I probably misspoke when I said "option". What I meant was you should consider improving the fit and finish of your kit as an "option" even if you do have to charge more. You state that this area is irrelevant to the final function of the speaker and won't affect the outcome ,and technically, I guess you're right on the short term.
I'm actually on your side on this, even if some of my posts seem contrary; if I hadn't spent a few months and effort 3 years ago on my dipoles, built at a similar cost, and your kits had been available then, I would consider investing in the larger version.
Most of the regulars here on DIY ARE skilled at fabrication techniques, be they electronics, carpentry, etc. I feel you do yourself a disservice by not spending the effort early on to make the "fit and finish" aspects as accurate and precise as you can, even if that effort seems foolish to you.
Perhaps an anecdote will clarify my thinking here. When I started to learn electrochemical processing making microwave plumbing in 1972, I researched all the different plating solutions for gold, and found that 24 karat gold plating had the best properties wrt its electrical and physical properties for rf. Hence, I felt that pure gold baths would produce the best coatings for the various high value parts I was setting up NRAO to do in house. When I used these processes, the coating came out with a dull matte brownish finish, but functionally it was "The Best". After plating several runs of parts, the EE's and machinists came on pretty strong about the inferior plating I was doing vs. commercial vendors. I then switched to a 23.7 karat goldbath with codeposited cobalt as britener, and lo and behold, I could do no wrong, became an instant guru, and developed quite a following, this inspite of the inferior rf conductivity and corrosion resistance of said coatings. IOW they just looked better, and apparently tested better as well (I believe the tests were run more carefully on the shiny stuff, but one will never know).
Enough soap box. It's just human nature that people prefer "eye candy" even if it offers no functional value. I think you'll sell many more kits if you expend the effort early on to "get it right".
Sorry for the long post.
John L.
I probably misspoke when I said "option". What I meant was you should consider improving the fit and finish of your kit as an "option" even if you do have to charge more. You state that this area is irrelevant to the final function of the speaker and won't affect the outcome ,and technically, I guess you're right on the short term.
I'm actually on your side on this, even if some of my posts seem contrary; if I hadn't spent a few months and effort 3 years ago on my dipoles, built at a similar cost, and your kits had been available then, I would consider investing in the larger version.
Most of the regulars here on DIY ARE skilled at fabrication techniques, be they electronics, carpentry, etc. I feel you do yourself a disservice by not spending the effort early on to make the "fit and finish" aspects as accurate and precise as you can, even if that effort seems foolish to you.
Perhaps an anecdote will clarify my thinking here. When I started to learn electrochemical processing making microwave plumbing in 1972, I researched all the different plating solutions for gold, and found that 24 karat gold plating had the best properties wrt its electrical and physical properties for rf. Hence, I felt that pure gold baths would produce the best coatings for the various high value parts I was setting up NRAO to do in house. When I used these processes, the coating came out with a dull matte brownish finish, but functionally it was "The Best". After plating several runs of parts, the EE's and machinists came on pretty strong about the inferior plating I was doing vs. commercial vendors. I then switched to a 23.7 karat goldbath with codeposited cobalt as britener, and lo and behold, I could do no wrong, became an instant guru, and developed quite a following, this inspite of the inferior rf conductivity and corrosion resistance of said coatings. IOW they just looked better, and apparently tested better as well (I believe the tests were run more carefully on the shiny stuff, but one will never know).
Enough soap box. It's just human nature that people prefer "eye candy" even if it offers no functional value. I think you'll sell many more kits if you expend the effort early on to "get it right".
Sorry for the long post.
John L.
Re: Re: Options
parsing my post removes the intent. I would hope you understand that what I'm saying is that, regardless of the functionality, the market wins if someone were to compare a crisply machined flat kit to one with bunged up corners and ill fitting chamfers, etc.
John L.
agent.5 said:
parsing my post removes the intent. I would hope you understand that what I'm saying is that, regardless of the functionality, the market wins if someone were to compare a crisply machined flat kit to one with bunged up corners and ill fitting chamfers, etc.
John L.
Re: Re: Re: Options
John
Thanks for your input, but you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The final product needs to look great, I don't argue with that point. What I am saying is that none of this talk has any effect on the look of the final product - nada. (and absolutely no effect on the sound.) Its all about how much "sanding" and "filling" is required to get there, thats all.
The speakers that I am finishing now will look great and there will be no way for you or anyone else to tell if they were cut by a machine or by hand (I'll post photos). Thats the point. There is nothing about the kit or the fit that prevents the final product from looking anything but spectacular. The final products looks depends solely on the skill of the assembler - as with any kit.
auplater said:
John
Thanks for your input, but you are misunderstanding what I am saying. The final product needs to look great, I don't argue with that point. What I am saying is that none of this talk has any effect on the look of the final product - nada. (and absolutely no effect on the sound.) Its all about how much "sanding" and "filling" is required to get there, thats all.
The speakers that I am finishing now will look great and there will be no way for you or anyone else to tell if they were cut by a machine or by hand (I'll post photos). Thats the point. There is nothing about the kit or the fit that prevents the final product from looking anything but spectacular. The final products looks depends solely on the skill of the assembler - as with any kit.
Regarding a quotation, I can do things much less expensively than most cabinet shops. We have a CNC router here that I use for my needs. Since we build drivers primarily, it sits unused many times. Simply loading a sheet of mdf and starting a program then lets me go back to other things while the machine is cutting for an hour. Most cabinet shops would charge from $120-180 per hour for CNC work, where my machine picking up some extra work to pay the utilities wouldn't be bad at all. If you can send me a drawing of the cabinet, I can easily come up with a quote for you.
It depends on how far you'd like to go on things as well. Obviously if you want every cabinet test assembled and marked with pocket hole screws, this would take longer and be more expensive. We have the cnc, router table, roundover bits up to 1 1/8", etc. Anyway, send me an email to the sales at aespeakers.com address with a drawing and I'll work out a quote for you.
John
It depends on how far you'd like to go on things as well. Obviously if you want every cabinet test assembled and marked with pocket hole screws, this would take longer and be more expensive. We have the cnc, router table, roundover bits up to 1 1/8", etc. Anyway, send me an email to the sales at aespeakers.com address with a drawing and I'll work out a quote for you.
John
Another option for a large radius would be from Anderson International Trading. They have premade MDF quarter rounds.
http://www.aitwood.com/StoreFront.Asp?ItemID=8200&wdesc=MDF Prefit (L)%20Quarter%20Rounds
We use these quite often. I will likely be setting up to make these here even. They're quite simple, just 2 layers of MDF with the profile cut. We have a wood moulding machine now that can do them quite easily. You do have to round o They start at 2" sizes and go up.
John
http://www.aitwood.com/StoreFront.Asp?ItemID=8200&wdesc=MDF Prefit (L)%20Quarter%20Rounds
We use these quite often. I will likely be setting up to make these here even. They're quite simple, just 2 layers of MDF with the profile cut. We have a wood moulding machine now that can do them quite easily. You do have to round o They start at 2" sizes and go up.
John
454Casull said:
In all honesty I don't see an issue. As I said, I had no trouble building them and I am perfectly happy with how they came out. It even appears that Marcus is finding that its not really a problem to get them to fit. Marcus does seem to have gotten a mistake that I was not aware of however, and I don't understand that. But the fit of the top piece that he showed in the begining was exactly how mine fit before I finished and exactly how I would expect it to fit (had he moved the sides up into the top piece as I suggested.).
What Marcus did that I would NOT have done was to glue the base first. I went the other way. I fit everything to the top piece and the baffle and took out as much error as possible there and forced any errors into the bottom piece which is easily corrected since its not seen. (I don't even paint the bottom, I cover it with a foam surface to prevent the speaker from walking off the stands.)
I acknowledge that as long as these parts are cut by hand there will be deviations and mistakes and I have made it clear what the cost of correcting these would be. No one but Marcus has stepped up and said "Yea, raise the price so that the parts fit better". Most people suggest not putting on a radius - to me thats a bad choice.
I would negotiate some kits offer including ready made cabinet options with Parts Express or Madisound. That way I would only make the patented WG runs, sell to them, cut a fat royalty for the design also.
At $1200 retail per 10inch pair they would see opportunity in boasting top end engineering in their product range. If it worked out, the speaker kits would be available, promoted, attractive in ready made cabinets. Next move after the initial year kits and feedback? Make a legend, ca$h it by accessibility later. IF EARLY ADOPTERS SAY ITS GREAT, there is potential. Scaling up, receiving checks, making it popular and accessible. Dynaco thinking in 2008? Maybe a joke.
At $1200 retail per 10inch pair they would see opportunity in boasting top end engineering in their product range. If it worked out, the speaker kits would be available, promoted, attractive in ready made cabinets. Next move after the initial year kits and feedback? Make a legend, ca$h it by accessibility later. IF EARLY ADOPTERS SAY ITS GREAT, there is potential. Scaling up, receiving checks, making it popular and accessible. Dynaco thinking in 2008? Maybe a joke.
I am sorry that Markus is having such a difficult time. To me it is obvious that at $1200 he deserves better.
In all fairness, what he is being told is that
1) Of course, the DIYer needs to have an extra $100 in tools to compensate for the "variation" in materials
2) Of course, the product he paid for has some problems since it was the early model
3) Of course, the cabinet is not great quality, because the "sound" is primary and not the "looks"
4) Of course, it requires "some sanding" to make it look decent
5) Of course the cuts are not precise "at this price"
Every problem encountered points to the consumer and not to the vendor. I don't buy many of these arguments. I can buy stuff at IKEA and get a much better fit and finish for a reduced price.
Poor Markus has put $1200 up front and received a kit of very questionable quality. The response is to criticize him for the problems. If this represents the degree of quality control on the cabinet, can we expect better quality control on the sound?
I guess I am old-fashioned, but this is not right. At $1200 (and with no middleman or distributor) I would be very disappointed.
In all fairness, what he is being told is that
1) Of course, the DIYer needs to have an extra $100 in tools to compensate for the "variation" in materials
2) Of course, the product he paid for has some problems since it was the early model
3) Of course, the cabinet is not great quality, because the "sound" is primary and not the "looks"
4) Of course, it requires "some sanding" to make it look decent
5) Of course the cuts are not precise "at this price"
Every problem encountered points to the consumer and not to the vendor. I don't buy many of these arguments. I can buy stuff at IKEA and get a much better fit and finish for a reduced price.
Poor Markus has put $1200 up front and received a kit of very questionable quality. The response is to criticize him for the problems. If this represents the degree of quality control on the cabinet, can we expect better quality control on the sound?
I guess I am old-fashioned, but this is not right. At $1200 (and with no middleman or distributor) I would be very disappointed.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.