I was using contact adhesive, but it was 'self stick' veneer as that was all I could get at the Rockler store locally. (Yea, I could have ordered some).
I didn't use the dowels but instead peeled the paper back an inch at a time while I rolled out the inch or so that was in contact. (hard foam rubber coated veneer roller). Then I'd peel another inch off. I went slow. Still got bubbles.
Next time / speakers, I will order some and use the iron on technique I think.
I didn't use the dowels but instead peeled the paper back an inch at a time while I rolled out the inch or so that was in contact. (hard foam rubber coated veneer roller). Then I'd peel another inch off. I went slow. Still got bubbles.
Next time / speakers, I will order some and use the iron on technique I think.
Phil those look very pretty.
Ray, yes I did exactly as you have described. The main problems I have had were with regard to the veneer shrinking under the heat of the iron. The veneer is not wide enough to cover all panels and so needs to be joined. Bending over the 19mm roundovers was not a problem as I suspected it may be.
BTW - These are really very very good. Been listening to them over Christmas (No building allowed during the holidays
) and they are almost addictive. Usually I skip through albums listening to specific tracks, but with these I suddenly realise I am at the end of the album, and very soon half a day has gone by. Havn't listened to music like that for ages.
JG, thanks for the tip.
Ray, yes I did exactly as you have described. The main problems I have had were with regard to the veneer shrinking under the heat of the iron. The veneer is not wide enough to cover all panels and so needs to be joined. Bending over the 19mm roundovers was not a problem as I suspected it may be.
BTW - These are really very very good. Been listening to them over Christmas (No building allowed during the holidays
) and they are almost addictive. Usually I skip through albums listening to specific tracks, but with these I suddenly realise I am at the end of the album, and very soon half a day has gone by. Havn't listened to music like that for ages.JG, thanks for the tip.
Small Thor conversion
Hi all, I've probably read every thread on the Thors over the last year and having built them over two years ago I concurr with the observations made. I originally fell in love with the imaging and soundstage depth and got used to the lack of bass weight for a while but I now have tried a couple different steps, ending up with removing all the damping from the back half and closing off half of the port opening to mass load the drivers.
I guess I should get to my question, if I rework the cabs to the small Thor design by removing the interior partition and adding the bracing and port, and adding an extention to the bottom to realize the 48" interior length, will the location of the drivers be close enough to the designed location as to not skew the results too much. The design calls for .25 of total, as proposed they would be .2135 of total length. As I read in one of the posts from Mr King, the use of dual drivers makes their location an approximation anyway.
If this could work I am sure there are many Thor owners, such as myself, out there that would be greatly interested. In my case, my plinth forms the bottom of the enclosure and it is removable making the internals easily accessable. If it's not a reasonable solution then it's time to build new cabs.[and crossovers, but that's a different thread]
Thanks for listening, Bill
Hi all, I've probably read every thread on the Thors over the last year and having built them over two years ago I concurr with the observations made. I originally fell in love with the imaging and soundstage depth and got used to the lack of bass weight for a while but I now have tried a couple different steps, ending up with removing all the damping from the back half and closing off half of the port opening to mass load the drivers.
I guess I should get to my question, if I rework the cabs to the small Thor design by removing the interior partition and adding the bracing and port, and adding an extention to the bottom to realize the 48" interior length, will the location of the drivers be close enough to the designed location as to not skew the results too much. The design calls for .25 of total, as proposed they would be .2135 of total length. As I read in one of the posts from Mr King, the use of dual drivers makes their location an approximation anyway.
If this could work I am sure there are many Thor owners, such as myself, out there that would be greatly interested. In my case, my plinth forms the bottom of the enclosure and it is removable making the internals easily accessable. If it's not a reasonable solution then it's time to build new cabs.[and crossovers, but that's a different thread]
Thanks for listening, Bill
Bill,
IMO....it would benifit you to build the new cabinets, short thor's if space for them is available. Building new cabinets will never leave you thinking, "I wonder if I should have" instead of trying to remake the existing thors into something they were not designed to be. As far as the X-overs go, I would just use them and see if they are acceptable first, this would save you up to $350 that could be used to pay for the new cabinet wood.
I am using the original X-overs with very HQ parts and they sound wonderful. As those at the Burning Amp event will tell you. (even though though they were Grossly underpowered)(clipped)
Good luck and enjoy the woodworking.
Ron
IMO....it would benifit you to build the new cabinets, short thor's if space for them is available. Building new cabinets will never leave you thinking, "I wonder if I should have" instead of trying to remake the existing thors into something they were not designed to be. As far as the X-overs go, I would just use them and see if they are acceptable first, this would save you up to $350 that could be used to pay for the new cabinet wood
.I am using the original X-overs with very HQ parts and they sound wonderful. As those at the Burning Amp event will tell you. (even though though they were Grossly underpowered)(clipped)
Good luck and enjoy the woodworking.
Ron
Thanks for the reply Ron,
My first thought was the Short Thors, but after seeing the plots of the Smalls I think they would fit my listening tastes a little better, and my room isn't very large either. I dont have a HT setup, just stereo, and I have two Peerless subs that I dont use anymore. I think I'm going to try to delve into the design at Mr King's website and try to determine what I can do to save the cabs, not that I'm lazy but they are truly beautiful cabs, fully cherry veneered with 3/4 radius corners, many,many hours of work.
I forgot to thank all the people on this thread that posted their hard work and insight into saving the Thors and the original design goals, especially Scott for the sims.
I'll stay in touch
Bill
My first thought was the Short Thors, but after seeing the plots of the Smalls I think they would fit my listening tastes a little better, and my room isn't very large either. I dont have a HT setup, just stereo, and I have two Peerless subs that I dont use anymore. I think I'm going to try to delve into the design at Mr King's website and try to determine what I can do to save the cabs, not that I'm lazy but they are truly beautiful cabs, fully cherry veneered with 3/4 radius corners, many,many hours of work.
I forgot to thank all the people on this thread that posted their hard work and insight into saving the Thors and the original design goals, especially Scott for the sims.
I'll stay in touch
Bill
Hi Karl,
I've been following that thread and have been in touch with Jim Mitchell. He believes the inadequate baffle step comp. of the original design might be a bigger problem than the cabs shortcomings. Having heard both cab designs your opinion carries a lot of weight, do you think the Small Thors with the new XOs fill out the thinness without the bass becoming bloated?
As suggested by Jim, I am going to try the new XOs with the original cabs before I start any demolition on them.
I'll report back when I've done it, I'm sure a lot of Thor owners would be interested.
Thanks, Bill
I've been following that thread and have been in touch with Jim Mitchell. He believes the inadequate baffle step comp. of the original design might be a bigger problem than the cabs shortcomings. Having heard both cab designs your opinion carries a lot of weight, do you think the Small Thors with the new XOs fill out the thinness without the bass becoming bloated?
As suggested by Jim, I am going to try the new XOs with the original cabs before I start any demolition on them.
I'll report back when I've done it, I'm sure a lot of Thor owners would be interested.
Thanks, Bill
Bill Fuss said:
Bill,
I know they do.
Bass is simply fantastic with the new XOs in the Small Thor box. Midrange is also a clear improvement from the old design.
Yes, it's going to be really interesting to hear your opinion about the new XOs in the old box. What´s your time plan on that project?
Hi all,
Hopefully I'll have the new XOs going by next weekend, just ordered the parts.
Scott, did you catch my proposed mods to convert the old cabs to the Small Thor design? The relocation of the driver center to .21 instead of .25 is my only concern, the internal mods are cake. Whats your opinion?
Thanks, Bill
Hopefully I'll have the new XOs going by next weekend, just ordered the parts.
Scott, did you catch my proposed mods to convert the old cabs to the Small Thor design? The relocation of the driver center to .21 instead of .25 is my only concern, the internal mods are cake. Whats your opinion?
Thanks, Bill