sorry for loading up my thread with my own posts, but i keep coming up with stuff to ask that I cant get a definate through searching
I bought some terminals, and was planning to put them above the mouth on the back. But it seems it would be a much straighter shot to pull the wire through some holes on the inside of the horn, but I hate to have any places where pressure could be leaked.
So is it better to run the wire out of the folds even though its going to be like 8 ft of wire?
[I decided on a normal Cat 5 for the internal wiring after a pretty much exhaustive search]
I bought some terminals, and was planning to put them above the mouth on the back. But it seems it would be a much straighter shot to pull the wire through some holes on the inside of the horn, but I hate to have any places where pressure could be leaked.
So is it better to run the wire out of the folds even though its going to be like 8 ft of wire?
[I decided on a normal Cat 5 for the internal wiring after a pretty much exhaustive search]
ronc said:
I second ron's suggestion of sand - if you build the bottom of the deflector up with several layers of scraps, this can be a great place to use up any MDF offcuts!
Entirely for aesthetic reasons, I installed my terminals in a recess on the bottom angled panel of the mouth, ( maybe Dave has a picture of that?), ran the wire through very small holes in the internal panels, and sealed with hot glue.
As for amount of wire inside the box, my thinking is that when you consider the length and gauge of voice coil conductor, that an extra several feet inside the box (rather than on the other side of the input terminals) is hardly worth the concern, and that physical mass of the terminal post is far more of an issue. i.e. in this case less is more (a la Eichmann )
In our application, with our amps, we tended to prefer the single strands.
The one comparison (not double blind -- when i see a valid DB test methodology for audio i'll start using it) had a set of speaker cables with 4 strands per each conductor (in the original CAT 5 sheaf) vrs single strands laid out in a spaced sorta parallel arrangement. Chris wouldn't let me have my single strands back until he could make himself a pair.
dave
The one comparison (not double blind -- when i see a valid DB test methodology for audio i'll start using it) had a set of speaker cables with 4 strands per each conductor (in the original CAT 5 sheaf) vrs single strands laid out in a spaced sorta parallel arrangement. Chris wouldn't let me have my single strands back until he could make himself a pair.
dave
planet10 said:
I tried the packing tape method, but got frustrated with the results, and went a slightly different route.
Using a strand of 3/8" manila rope, I ran one strands of a single pair in the gap between adjoining fiber bundles of the rope, and covered with flexible mesh.
Of course the conductors are more closely coupled and not randomly spaced as in Dave's ribbon method, so performance may suffer from the increased L & C, but a direct A/B has yet to be made.
well my 4 strands are going to have to do for now. 
Im not much in to wire and all, dont find the diff worth the trouble, so for this set they are going to stay the way they are... I already glued one side on.
I used gorilla glue as opposed to wood glue for this side. As unusual as this may seem I was very afraid of having any spaces where air could go from one partition to the other, and even tho the side SEEMED to go on level I didnt want to risk it.
One side is drying, and it took all my clamps. But I hope to get the other done tonight too, they claim that the gorilla only takes 4 hours to dry.
-greg
Im not much in to wire and all, dont find the diff worth the trouble, so for this set they are going to stay the way they are... I already glued one side on.
I used gorilla glue as opposed to wood glue for this side. As unusual as this may seem I was very afraid of having any spaces where air could go from one partition to the other, and even tho the side SEEMED to go on level I didnt want to risk it.
One side is drying, and it took all my clamps. But I hope to get the other done tonight too, they claim that the gorilla only takes 4 hours to dry.
-greg
Well I took and mounted the drivers, granted the horns are not sanded completely, or the reflectors made, but set against a wall and fed through an old receiver I'm lovin' it. This is the best audio experiance iv had. I will deff be listening to my headphones less now. The drivers still need to be broken in, the enclosures made pretty, and the SBs made, but I LOVE it.
thanks for all the help.
thanks for all the help.
Glad you like them.
The deflector is a necessary as it prevents the wave front from being sent back to the mouth as well as providing the final wave expansion which allows a more spherical front to develop.
The SB will allow a lower diffraction wave launch as well as providing frequency support from the roll off of the horn action.
Combing both will give a flatter FR curve with a lower Fc.
ron
The deflector is a necessary as it prevents the wave front from being sent back to the mouth as well as providing the final wave expansion which allows a more spherical front to develop.
The SB will allow a lower diffraction wave launch as well as providing frequency support from the roll off of the horn action.
Combing both will give a flatter FR curve with a lower Fc.
ron
The debate over breaking in and if it really happens has been a long standing conflict between ppl.
IMO some break in is necessary. < just an opinion, no measurements.
I believe its sometimes, not all cases, that its just getting use to the sound. If you change amps it will sound different, if you change to a higher resistance thinner cable, it will sound different if you change source it can sound different. I notice a difference in the sound between a batt PS NIGC vrs a SMPS even though i cant measure the difference on the scope.
Additions like the deflector and the SB make a very audible change. Tweaking the driver can make a change but to a lesser effect.
You want a numerical value as to the days it takes to "break in", listen to the system every day, without any changes is the chain, for 21 days. There is an actual theory behind this.
ron
IMO some break in is necessary. < just an opinion, no measurements.
I believe its sometimes, not all cases, that its just getting use to the sound. If you change amps it will sound different, if you change to a higher resistance thinner cable, it will sound different if you change source it can sound different. I notice a difference in the sound between a batt PS NIGC vrs a SMPS even though i cant measure the difference on the scope.
Additions like the deflector and the SB make a very audible change. Tweaking the driver can make a change but to a lesser effect.
You want a numerical value as to the days it takes to "break in", listen to the system every day, without any changes is the chain, for 21 days. There is an actual theory behind this.
ron
Vector drawings in metric and/or both metric/imperial ?
Greg,
Just for the record to doulbe-check that I followed this thread right: Did you end up with any deviations from the plans avail on Dave's site (safe maybe the back reflector with 45 degrees side angle and slope, if I understand it correctly) ?
Dave, Ron, Greg (or anybody else that did the build): Can you please, pretty please with sugar on top (*ahem*) re-upoad the plans in vector format, in metric (or both metric/imperial) like e.g. the excelent ones for the Frugal ? The raster images avai, for the A126 are not equally easy to read (at least to me).
TIA,
Florian
Greg,
Just for the record to doulbe-check that I followed this thread right: Did you end up with any deviations from the plans avail on Dave's site (safe maybe the back reflector with 45 degrees side angle and slope, if I understand it correctly) ?
Dave, Ron, Greg (or anybody else that did the build): Can you please, pretty please with sugar on top (*ahem*) re-upoad the plans in vector format, in metric (or both metric/imperial) like e.g. the excelent ones for the Frugal ? The raster images avai, for the A126 are not equally easy to read (at least to me).
TIA,
Florian
I used the pland that were provided in that PDF. On the last page it gives a totaly diffrent picture, with a ginat CC. The CC that I used is the one on the top 5 pages.
I measured adn it seems to be 2.2 liters, and they sound good so Im happy.
My deflectors are only a wedge, with a flat top, no slope. But they gave a really good improvment so Im not too worried.
Hope that helps.
-greg
I measured adn it seems to be 2.2 liters, and they sound good so Im happy.
My deflectors are only a wedge, with a flat top, no slope. But they gave a really good improvment so Im not too worried.
Hope that helps.
-greg
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.