So I'm finally getting around to putting the RS100s in real boxes--infinite baffles(depending on your definition). Suffice to say boxes that nearly Match the Vas(most say more for true IB, but these definitely aren't acoustic suspension). I made some small sound deflecting panels to place inside the boxes. Link to photos here:
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=1
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0
I want to make these boxes sound as good as possible(obviously). So whats my best strategy to place these panels? They are in three different depths with regards to the ribs. Should I place the smallest next to the driver, the largest next to the driver, or randomly placed? I have enough the cover the entire interiors.
Should I attach them with something rigid or something soft to absorb vibration?
And if anyone cares to comment on their prior experiences with aperiodic enclosures, stuffing(fiberglass, wool, acousta stuff, etc...), and other lining materials such as deflex, foam(s), dynamat(and similar products) and how to effectively place them.
My thoughts so far go like this: I may couple the panels I built to the walls of the enclosure with some silicone II and duct seal, or perhaps just some Green Glue. Then place a layer of dynamat-like material on top of the panels toward the center of the box and then perhaps some open cell foam, then some loose box stuffing like r-19 thinned a bit. I know I'm going to do a lot of experimenting before I permanently install anything.
Thanks for your help!
Dan
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=1
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0
I want to make these boxes sound as good as possible(obviously). So whats my best strategy to place these panels? They are in three different depths with regards to the ribs. Should I place the smallest next to the driver, the largest next to the driver, or randomly placed? I have enough the cover the entire interiors.
Should I attach them with something rigid or something soft to absorb vibration?
And if anyone cares to comment on their prior experiences with aperiodic enclosures, stuffing(fiberglass, wool, acousta stuff, etc...), and other lining materials such as deflex, foam(s), dynamat(and similar products) and how to effectively place them.
My thoughts so far go like this: I may couple the panels I built to the walls of the enclosure with some silicone II and duct seal, or perhaps just some Green Glue. Then place a layer of dynamat-like material on top of the panels toward the center of the box and then perhaps some open cell foam, then some loose box stuffing like r-19 thinned a bit. I know I'm going to do a lot of experimenting before I permanently install anything.
Thanks for your help!
Dan
I just ran two 4" bamboo drivers in a qtc .45 (.85ft3 for both).
The box is massively braced and 21" deep (.618 : 1 : 1.618 ratio).
I ran 3/4" damping (black hole #5 clone) from parts express and polyfill also.
I wanted the inside to be like open baffle (lack of back pressure).
Mids are great and zero box coloration.
But running them this way, the f3 was near 165hz........ If I put 2 of them in a 4th order venter, I'd tune at 85hz and have a f3 of 81hz............. And I have a lack of excursion protection (or even lowering distance moved that would help for cleaner mids).
And baffle step makes it -3db @ 500hz...........
Using a 10 band eq I boosted from 500hz down +3 or +4.5db (horribly marked sliders).
But I chose the huge box .
And I planned on help below 200hz..............
If it didn't work, I'd use it in a tmmww (tweeter, twin mid, then a woofer or 2 like Von Schweikert Vr6).
I'm not done with these yet.
So yes you can run a too large box, but be ready or work around there drawbacks..........
Norman
The box is massively braced and 21" deep (.618 : 1 : 1.618 ratio).
I ran 3/4" damping (black hole #5 clone) from parts express and polyfill also.
I wanted the inside to be like open baffle (lack of back pressure).
Mids are great and zero box coloration.
But running them this way, the f3 was near 165hz........ If I put 2 of them in a 4th order venter, I'd tune at 85hz and have a f3 of 81hz............. And I have a lack of excursion protection (or even lowering distance moved that would help for cleaner mids).
And baffle step makes it -3db @ 500hz...........
Using a 10 band eq I boosted from 500hz down +3 or +4.5db (horribly marked sliders).
But I chose the huge box .
And I planned on help below 200hz..............
If it didn't work, I'd use it in a tmmww (tweeter, twin mid, then a woofer or 2 like Von Schweikert Vr6).
I'm not done with these yet.
So yes you can run a too large box, but be ready or work around there drawbacks..........
Norman
Here is a link to the picture...........
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...D=180422547&albumID=1552714&imageID=24436482#
Here is a link to the review of it (what I think)..........
http://fullrangedriver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2214
My buddy said to me today "They did exactly what you wanted them to do" after I said I learned a huge lesson on baffle step.....
He said "All are compromises, you went for an ultra stiff face."
Next box will be 18" wide (making baffle step smooth response in my room, my setup, 22" from the wall).
I really like the sound (of midrange) from a cavernous box.
What led me to making such a large enclosure was I had a Pioneer b20 in a 6ft3 sealed box (qtc .577) that sounded better than a 1.8ft3 box (qtc .707) in the midrange. I assumed it had to do with back pressure spring stuff..............
Good luck on those Dayton reference, many like them......
I've seen opinions given by Planet 10 (I think) or maybe godzilla, all of these drivers have a different sound. What works better or sounds better to you is probably different than what the next fella thinks.................
Will they be as satisfying ?
There usually is no end to this stuff....................
These's always better drivers and different ways to hook them up.
Each setup is its own combination of strengths and weaknesses.
Ideally your setup has weaknesses that don't matter to you, your music, and how loud you listen....................
Norman
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/ind...D=180422547&albumID=1552714&imageID=24436482#
Here is a link to the review of it (what I think)..........
http://fullrangedriver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2214
My buddy said to me today "They did exactly what you wanted them to do" after I said I learned a huge lesson on baffle step.....
He said "All are compromises, you went for an ultra stiff face."
Next box will be 18" wide (making baffle step smooth response in my room, my setup, 22" from the wall).
I really like the sound (of midrange) from a cavernous box.
What led me to making such a large enclosure was I had a Pioneer b20 in a 6ft3 sealed box (qtc .577) that sounded better than a 1.8ft3 box (qtc .707) in the midrange. I assumed it had to do with back pressure spring stuff..............
Good luck on those Dayton reference, many like them......
I've seen opinions given by Planet 10 (I think) or maybe godzilla, all of these drivers have a different sound. What works better or sounds better to you is probably different than what the next fella thinks.................
Will they be as satisfying ?
There usually is no end to this stuff....................
These's always better drivers and different ways to hook them up.
Each setup is its own combination of strengths and weaknesses.
Ideally your setup has weaknesses that don't matter to you, your music, and how loud you listen....................
Norman
Actually I just sent 1st revision of something new to my builder .............
A 4 unit focused array open baffle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It really is an open backed box.....................
24" wide, 19" deep, 24" tall.
Drivers in a vertical row 9.2" from the right.
I get a path length of 38" : 49.31" : 57.8"
or 1 : 1.31 : 1.52 ratio..................
With the min distance front to back of cone, I figure a dip at 357hz then a feq (+3 to +6db) at 178hz........... The drivers mass corner is 200hz (Fs/qts) and naturally rolls off below that.............. And that dip won't be too bad unlike when a driver is in the center of a baffle having equal distances front to back around the left side of the baffle and the right side of the baffle.
And the wide baffle with offset drivers will help with diffraction / baffle step / which is mixed in with the dipole dips / peaks...........
The back will be filled with polyfill or I'll make a foam box 4" thick to enclose the drivers (will be up next to a wall).
I cannot get away with a wider baffle or I would...............
And I'm not expecting it to do much below 200hz.............
I can run an active crossover if I have to...........
Instead I roll in a 12", works well...............
Norman
A 4 unit focused array open baffle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It really is an open backed box.....................
24" wide, 19" deep, 24" tall.
Drivers in a vertical row 9.2" from the right.
I get a path length of 38" : 49.31" : 57.8"
or 1 : 1.31 : 1.52 ratio..................
With the min distance front to back of cone, I figure a dip at 357hz then a feq (+3 to +6db) at 178hz........... The drivers mass corner is 200hz (Fs/qts) and naturally rolls off below that.............. And that dip won't be too bad unlike when a driver is in the center of a baffle having equal distances front to back around the left side of the baffle and the right side of the baffle.
And the wide baffle with offset drivers will help with diffraction / baffle step / which is mixed in with the dipole dips / peaks...........
The back will be filled with polyfill or I'll make a foam box 4" thick to enclose the drivers (will be up next to a wall).
I cannot get away with a wider baffle or I would...............
And I'm not expecting it to do much below 200hz.............
I can run an active crossover if I have to...........
Instead I roll in a 12", works well...............
Norman
I finally got some baffles built for these little devils. Check them out, I think you just might like them.
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=3
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=4
They're made out of PVC to look like wood and leather. They actually look better in person d/t the poor resolution of the shots, but they are all I know how to post on that site.
Dan
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=3
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=4
They're made out of PVC to look like wood and leather. They actually look better in person d/t the poor resolution of the shots, but they are all I know how to post on that site.
Dan
Some permanent links to the baffle pictures:
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10068&pos=3
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10068&pos=4
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10068&pos=3
http://www.hawthorneaudio.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=10068&pos=4
RS100s-8
Just picked up some of these little Daytons and have been running them full range for about a week. I have them in cabinets that really shouldn't work. They are 1.7 cu. ft. boxes with ports tuned to 45hz.
(While the 45hz tuning probably isn't too far off for the RS100S-8 the 8" hole in the baffle where the woofers used to be in the previous project should be detrimental right? Weirdly, they sound better with the gaping holes left open than when I covered them. (?))
My first impressions of them are quite positive. They are a very fast, very detailed and very cohesive driver. The bass isn't ideal-- that is to say, in the imperfect cabinets I'm using, the bass is not very deep (but better than I would have expected from a 3" driver) nor is it very fast. The rising distortion below 200hz translates to slow but tuneful bass-lines. The rest of the audible range, however, is really stunning. Even off axis the top end is quite reasonable and the mid-range is (sorry to be dramatic here, take this with a grain of salt as I've only had them for a week) better than I've had since I got rid of my ESL56's. The real strong point of these drivers is to make music-- cohesive, involving and tuneful.
I need to make better cabinets for these but before do I have a question:
Does anyone have experience with the Jordan drivers? like Vautrin, I was really expecting to order XJ92S's but bought the Daytons on a whim ($26 dollars is quite preferable to $180). The Jordans should have better bass but do they equal or better the Daytons' midrange and top-end? I heard a Jordan-based speaker years ago that used fuzzy-flocked polystyrene foam cabinets but don't really recall how they sounded.
Efficiency isn't really a concern as I have around 60 watts from my home-brew Naim NAP-180 clone. But a little deeper and more accurate bass would be nice as long as it didn't come at the expense of the mid-range clarity and nice top-end I'm getting from the RS100's. If the Jordans are better I want to make a move on them while they are still on sale.
Just picked up some of these little Daytons and have been running them full range for about a week. I have them in cabinets that really shouldn't work. They are 1.7 cu. ft. boxes with ports tuned to 45hz.
(While the 45hz tuning probably isn't too far off for the RS100S-8 the 8" hole in the baffle where the woofers used to be in the previous project should be detrimental right? Weirdly, they sound better with the gaping holes left open than when I covered them. (?))
My first impressions of them are quite positive. They are a very fast, very detailed and very cohesive driver. The bass isn't ideal-- that is to say, in the imperfect cabinets I'm using, the bass is not very deep (but better than I would have expected from a 3" driver) nor is it very fast. The rising distortion below 200hz translates to slow but tuneful bass-lines. The rest of the audible range, however, is really stunning. Even off axis the top end is quite reasonable and the mid-range is (sorry to be dramatic here, take this with a grain of salt as I've only had them for a week) better than I've had since I got rid of my ESL56's. The real strong point of these drivers is to make music-- cohesive, involving and tuneful.
I need to make better cabinets for these but before do I have a question:
Does anyone have experience with the Jordan drivers? like Vautrin, I was really expecting to order XJ92S's but bought the Daytons on a whim ($26 dollars is quite preferable to $180). The Jordans should have better bass but do they equal or better the Daytons' midrange and top-end? I heard a Jordan-based speaker years ago that used fuzzy-flocked polystyrene foam cabinets but don't really recall how they sounded.
Efficiency isn't really a concern as I have around 60 watts from my home-brew Naim NAP-180 clone. But a little deeper and more accurate bass would be nice as long as it didn't come at the expense of the mid-range clarity and nice top-end I'm getting from the RS100's. If the Jordans are better I want to make a move on them while they are still on sale.
mrybczyn said:
Hello Mitch,
What did your designs look like? Did you adapt a known BiB or make your own calculations?
I do think that two or more drivers per speaker might be nice. I would like a tad extra volume before distortion kicks in... but my neighbors probably appreciate the inherent limits. Perhaps for reasons of domesticity I should stick with one driver.
All things considered, there certainly are some things these drivers do VERY well.
Best,
John
I ran the T/S parameters through the BIB spreadsheet. The numbers came out very nicely when rounded, front and side panels are the same size, easy cutting.
I used the 4 ohm versions for more power through Tripath based amps.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1706594#post1706594
I highly recommend it, they are about the same size as the Needles, but nicer sounding, and an easier build!
Cheers,
Mitch
I used the 4 ohm versions for more power through Tripath based amps.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1706594#post1706594
I highly recommend it, they are about the same size as the Needles, but nicer sounding, and an easier build!
Cheers,
Mitch
Attachments
mrybczyn said:
Hi Mitch,
What are the advantages/disadvantages of doing an inverted BiB vs. regular BiB. The port opening would couple with the floor better I suppose but without wading through the 4000+ posts on the BiB thread are there reasons for not going inverted with such a short BiB?
I ran the calculations for the RS100S-8 and have my cuts calculated but the driver position would be affected by the BiB vs I-BiB choice. Too bad the driver can't go smack dab in the middle- that way I could flip it around to try both.
Best,
John
A BIB's design is such that it uses the corner at the ceiling to finish the flair of the horn, without it you don't get as much bass and you get more ripple. In a short BIB inverting it uses the floor instead of the ceiling to do the same thing. With an inverted BIB there is an alternate driver position -- that in the case of the FE127 one i drew up -- is better then the normal position and puts the driver at a better height as far as your ears go.
dave
dave
Thanks Dave, Scott, Mitch for the responses. Very much appreciated.
Hopefully I will have the wood cut this weekend and I will post my results. Another advantage of doing an iBIB for the RS100 is that if one did the regular BIB with a Z of .217*L (as the formula suggests) the driver would be at roughly knee level-- unless of course it was a non-folded line configuration, but I don't think that would be domestically acceptable... though, I haven't asked...
With an inverted design the driver would be very close to the fold in the line (center of driver about 7.5" from the top of the enclosure). I don't mean to make eyes roll here but I don't quite understand: how is the driver able to make use of the beginning portion of the line?
If it's a lot of trouble, don't bother answering. I should really look up the physics of how horns, mass loaded horns and transmission lines work. There is a lot written on them out there.
Cheers,
John
Hopefully I will have the wood cut this weekend and I will post my results. Another advantage of doing an iBIB for the RS100 is that if one did the regular BIB with a Z of .217*L (as the formula suggests) the driver would be at roughly knee level-- unless of course it was a non-folded line configuration, but I don't think that would be domestically acceptable... though, I haven't asked...
With an inverted design the driver would be very close to the fold in the line (center of driver about 7.5" from the top of the enclosure). I don't mean to make eyes roll here but I don't quite understand: how is the driver able to make use of the beginning portion of the line?
If it's a lot of trouble, don't bother answering. I should really look up the physics of how horns, mass loaded horns and transmission lines work. There is a lot written on them out there.
Cheers,
John
This has been bothering me for some time, and I don't understand it either. I've been listening to Feynman's 1961 Caltech physics lectures in the hope of picking up enough understanding of all these wave dynamics, but so far not much luck 
I do recommend the lectures though, great listening.
My best guess is: that the closed, small end of the Transmission Line (tube), acts as a sort of cavity resonator, and amplifies the pressure waves near the tuning frequency, which then travel back up the tube slightly out of phase?
*Purely uneducated speculation. Follow this line of reasoning at your own risk, no warranty implied.
I do recommend the lectures though, great listening. My best guess is: that the closed, small end of the Transmission Line (tube), acts as a sort of cavity resonator, and amplifies the pressure waves near the tuning frequency, which then travel back up the tube slightly out of phase?
*Purely uneducated speculation. Follow this line of reasoning at your own risk, no warranty implied.
force of 1/2 said:
well i used a set in my cyburgs needles just 4 hours ago, and i must say im flabbergasted. i usually listen to electrostatic speakers or magnepans, but for immaging and depth they blew the magnepans away !, ok no earth shattering bass ofcourse but 50 hetz it will reach. planning on mating them with a rel strata II for the low end, now i only have to figure out how to cut of the lows from the dayton's to give them some room for SPL.
At total cost of 100 euro, for filter drivers damping and wood and delivery costs i did not have any comparable speakers
At total cost of 100 euro, for filter drivers damping and wood and delivery costs i did not have any comparable speakers
If you want to separate your highs from your lows, I'll volunteer that I've been pretty happy with my Reckhorn F-1. Cheap, too.
http://www.reckhorn.com/index.php?ln=en&prod=f1
http://www.reckhorn.com/index.php?ln=en&prod=f1
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.