It would not be possible to get 12" woofers in the enclosure without making it taller (not a real problem) and wider (problem if I want to keep the design as is). I have four 12" SLS woofers so don't think I didn't consider them. The side panels could be cut at the base of the baffle and mounted on a bridge spaning the wider woofer cabinet, but then it get bulky. And it would net only 3.5 dB greater max SPL.
John,
I've sent an email with a sketchup file to you (music and design email account). After a few tries yahoo registered it as being sent.
Try not to laugh to hard at the result.
Thanks Scott. It's an interesting concept. A little too modern for me. Plus, the curved grill would make stretching cloth over it a bit difficult.
John,
I've sent an email with a sketchup file to you (music and design email account). After a few tries yahoo registered it as being sent.
Try not to laugh to hard at the result..
Wanna see!
Are you sure? It's just a basic model.. The stipulation is that you not share/distribute it - if yes then PM (forum mail) me with your email contact and I'll send it to you.
Your welcome!
I can understand not liking the design. (..a bit of "tacking" can accommodate the grill cloth - it wasn't designed as a "removable" design.)
Your welcome!
I can understand not liking the design. (..a bit of "tacking" can accommodate the grill cloth - it wasn't designed as a "removable" design.)
My point about the grill cloth is that while it could be tensioned vertically any side to side tension would flatten the ark. There would have to be some kind of support behind the cloth, like perforated metal, to maintain the curvature when the cloth was stretched.
Yes, "caving" can be a problem - especially for a longer run like the front (..the more pliable the material, the worse the problem). However certain starching products (fabric stiffener) can "get around this" ..but the result depends on the fabric (and the "stiffener").
Another possibility is layered vertical strips like a vertical blind curtain. If the strips are shear enough it might make for an interesting solution.
(..it's interesting enough that I might alter the model to include this to get an idea of the result.)I should also note that the curved portions are just one aesthetic choice (that I preferred) - you could always go back to a panel-like box shape. Just make sure to get the proportions "right" and make it symmetrical with the rear.
Last edited:
This is where I'm at. The camera flash reveals the grill frame.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Have you made up your mind about rear firing tweeter at that frequency?
In my experience at 2.5khz the rear tweeter is only marginally needed. At 6khz hopefully it's not needed anymore ?
Obviously we have rather different aesthetic preferences.. BUT that's a better picture (showing the intended result to better effect IMO).
Note: I *like* the reveal. It gives depth to the design. At once you can see a monolithic view while also seeing the technology behind it - sort of like a fine watch with part of the mechanics shown.
Suggestion: put your best "pic" forward on your website; i.e. replace the open view version with this new pic.
(..I'd at least get a metallic paint finish for the sub box in the rear (that's currently red) to match the mesh in front though.
)Did you know that Madisound has a metallic fabric they are selling for "grill" cloth? (..not a lot of help structurally, but still interesting):
The Madisound Speaker Store
Last edited:
Obviously we have rather different aesthetic preferences.. BUT that's a better picture (showing the intended result to better effect IMO).
Note: I *like* the reveal. It gives depth to the design. At once you can see a monolithic view while also seeing the technology behind it - sort of like a fine watch with part of the mechanics shown.
Suggestion: put your best "pic" forward on your website; i.e. replace the open view version with this new pic.
(..I'd at least get a metallic paint finish for the sub box in the rear (that's currently red) to match the mesh in front though.
Did you know that Madisound has a metallic fabric they are selling for "grill" cloth? (..not a lot of help structurally, but still interesting):
The Madisound Speaker Store
Already posted that pic.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Linkwitz LX521 which is obviously very similar. One area that I find controversial is the 1st order x-o between the mids. The Note and the Note II are designed with an LR4 acoustic crossover between the mids. since the Note II will be digital I am contemplating offering configuration files for which the mid coupling crossover is 1st order, 2nd order and 4th order. These could all be loaded in the the miniDSP and switched in real time and each individual will be able to report back as to which slopes sound the best. You have to love digital for such flexibility.
There are significant differences in that the new version is all active, digital, and required 4 channels of amplification/speaker vs 2 channels for the original. But the cost saving sort of make sup for that, not to mention that the miniDSP and additional amps are more investments than speaker specific. As for the performance, naturally, bass is less extended with the SLS woofer and there is a few dB reduction is max SPL. But the new midrange configuration is outstanding. I really like the SS Discovery lower midrange, and I don't notice any loss of performance with the Vifa tweeter. I hate to say it's better than the original Note, or even that either Note version is Berte than the NaO II RS, which I have some what of an emotional attachment to, but hands down, the Note II RS performs at a very high level. I get a sense of better dynamics and greater midrange detail that in the original Note. I'm still tweaking the crossovers and spent a good part of the day listening. In case you were not aware, the speaker will be released with, as it stands now, 4 configuration files: My current reference is set up so that each driver is eqed separately to match the target acoustic response (LR4 acoustic crossovers); the second file uses LR4 electrical filters between mids and uppermid/tweeter with a single, panel wide EQ function; third and 4th configurations are similar to the second but with (3) a 2nd order LR electrical filter between mids, or (4) with staggered 1st order electrical filters between the mids. So, you will be able to try several different crossovers and see which you like best. As I have pointed out, I have reservations about the 1st order due to the excursion issues and in my system I believe there are other acoustic issues which arise from wider overlap.
Well there I go getting all verbose again. Bottom line, I don't think anyone who would choose to build the Note II RS will be disappointed. In fact, I think they will be very please and amazed at the level of performance, regardless of cost. Plus, with the 2x8 minidsp crossover there will still be 5 channels of system EQ available to use for custom eq setting. But if you have built the NaO II or original Note and are happy with it I would not be in a rush to make the switch. Consider the differences, the NaO II RS is analog hybrid or all active. The original Note is analog hybrid. The Note II RS is Active digital. Choose your poison.
I have added some additional data to my News page. In particular I have been revisiting the question of the order of the midrange coupling crossover. I have revised the part on excursion for the various implementations of 1st, 2nd and 4th order couplers and present CDS plots for the these cases as well (at the bottom of the page).
It's way to low in sensitivity. The higher Q doesn't do anything for the frequency range over which it operates.