As well as being addressed by an aluminum subbaffle (something we will try eventually (drivers mounted from rear), you can also do as per the suggestion in the EL70 dimensions document.
You could also just avoid MDF. Another discussion on that subject.
dave
The Jaguars are the first speakers I have built using MDF (and probably the last). I like the idea in the first link - obvious when you see it!
Since the Jaguars are already made I will modify them for the ally sub-baffle, but for the Maeshowes I will revert to birch-ply and use the indentation method advised.
Thanks
Alan
I have just found someone in the same town as me who makes and supplies veneers so hopefully this weekend I will having a look at what he has - and learn how to veneer - my first attempts were awful - so I will proctice on the left over MDF!!
No photos at this moment - but I will get the camera out now and take some - pleae note that thay are nude i.e. bare MDF.
The sound? Well initially I would compare to nails on a blackboard! I think that everyone should have a small soundproof room where new bits of kit can be placed to be run in - and only them listened to!
A week in I have to say that I am liking them more and more - the top-end could be a bit brighter (but not much), the mid-band is begining to open up and sound very promising. The bottom end is, at the moment, a little over-blown - again not much - but I have not yet tried any damping in the vents. I cannot compare them directly to my main speakers (Gedlee Abbeys) as they are being stripped prior to either painting or veneering, but in a month or two I should be able to do so.
I have just realised that this is some-way off topic
so I will send you the photos and later comparisons and not post here.progress on these has been slightly delayed due a minor back injury (mine) and scheduling conflict with CNC for production of elliptical MDF supra-baffles for 4 pairs of drivers with which we want to experiment in these boxes
but they certainly are cute even at this stage
Oh, and I've been delinquent on posting pictures of my results...no more
(excuse the camera phone quality please)
On their own.
At home with their brothers.
Sound from these is quite good but response depends largely on the room I believe. It was my sisters' birthday this month so I decided that after I built and tested them I'd give them to her. Listening in my larger room yielded very smooth sound with extremely limited bottom end. However, in my sisters' smaller room these were exceptional.
(excuse the camera phone quality please)
On their own.
At home with their brothers.
Sound from these is quite good but response depends largely on the room I believe. It was my sisters' birthday this month so I decided that after I built and tested them I'd give them to her. Listening in my larger room yielded very smooth sound with extremely limited bottom end. However, in my sisters' smaller room these were exceptional.
Tthe purpose of the "magnet" brace is to provide rigid coupling/ support between the motor assembly (generally the highest mass portion of the driver) and the rear panel, as well as bracing of at least 2 more adjoining panels.
On larger enclosures I like to run this brace vertically the full length of the cabinet (or driver compartment as in attached photo) to couple 4 panels ( front/back/top/bottom), and even include additional side to side bracing.
The trick of course is to cut the magnet brace just exactly tight enough to not stress the driver - this takes some trial and error dry fitting with the driver temporarily installed and before the second side of cabinet is attached.
Attachments
that won't really improve the bracing throughout the rest of the box, and depending on the relative thickness of baffle and driver depth, you may need to relieve the back side of cutout with a 45` bevel
Black Beauty finished
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Well, I ordered 1 pair CHR and 1 pair CHP, to see which one I prefer.
Anyways, I need/want to have the driver at about 1150mm height, and none of the floorstander designs by planet10 or otherwise have the driver placed nearly high enough - they're obviously all intended for people slumped in low to the ground sofas.
Anyways, my plan now is to build a Pensil, but somewhat modified.
I realize there is apparently a new Pensil, which is a lot deeper, but I prefer the sleek skinny one, and it would save me some money in wood.
I'd like to extend the side & back walls downwards by an additional 430mm, adding a front "baffle" to this bottom section, effectively creating a double floor, with a "useless" disconnected chamber at the bottom, which I intend to fill with some heavy material.
Not entirely sure which heavy material, perhaps sand or cat litter, and it will probably be a good idea to add a wider base to the bottom, despite all the weight down there - they are after all very thin, and now even taller than usual (1600mm).
I do have a question, seeing as the CHP Pensil design is mentioned but not actually linked to a construction sketch on the planet10 site - am I right in assuming that this would basically be the same, only it needs to be a few cm longer to account for the slighly lower Fs of the paper cone?
Thanks for hosting the plans, dave, I'm looking forward to these speakers. Is the filter recommended, or just a suggestion if the normal sound doesn't appeal?
I should also clarify - my other option is an mMarS - I think even the old Pensil should outdo that in terms of LF response?
Anyways, I need/want to have the driver at about 1150mm height, and none of the floorstander designs by planet10 or otherwise have the driver placed nearly high enough - they're obviously all intended for people slumped in low to the ground sofas.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Anyways, my plan now is to build a Pensil, but somewhat modified.
I realize there is apparently a new Pensil, which is a lot deeper, but I prefer the sleek skinny one, and it would save me some money in wood.
I'd like to extend the side & back walls downwards by an additional 430mm, adding a front "baffle" to this bottom section, effectively creating a double floor, with a "useless" disconnected chamber at the bottom, which I intend to fill with some heavy material.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Not entirely sure which heavy material, perhaps sand or cat litter, and it will probably be a good idea to add a wider base to the bottom, despite all the weight down there - they are after all very thin, and now even taller than usual (1600mm).
I do have a question, seeing as the CHP Pensil design is mentioned but not actually linked to a construction sketch on the planet10 site - am I right in assuming that this would basically be the same, only it needs to be a few cm longer to account for the slighly lower Fs of the paper cone?
Thanks for hosting the plans, dave, I'm looking forward to these speakers. Is the filter recommended, or just a suggestion if the normal sound doesn't appeal?
I should also clarify - my other option is an mMarS - I think even the old Pensil should outdo that in terms of LF response?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.