The great thing is every one is right of course. On the one hand you can never make and exact copy for hundreds of reasons. If you want to be pedantic you would even have to know what glue is used in the 'origonal'. On the other hand if you are going to change one thing why not another. You could even change the drivers, the cabinet size, the lining the XO. You could even end up with quad electrostatic - still call it a clone 2.5!
You got to keep this in perspective. There is a limit to what different people are willing to spend and as I mentioned some times all we actualy want is something 'different' and it's not nesessarily going to be better. Do what you can with what you have. I like the options others try who knows some one may hit on the 'perfect' sound!!
It is the sound that is important. Isn't it?
You got to keep this in perspective. There is a limit to what different people are willing to spend and as I mentioned some times all we actualy want is something 'different' and it's not nesessarily going to be better. Do what you can with what you have. I like the options others try who knows some one may hit on the 'perfect' sound!!
It is the sound that is important. Isn't it?
It's good to know that Hungarians are everywhere in the world, QWAD
OK, I do not completely agree with that whether you can call a clone something you modified, replaced drives, changed crossover, etc., but of course you can modify, tweak, make it better if you want.
That is why I have changed the crossover and the next step probably will be the tweeter replacement. My only problem the size difference between the 8513 and the 9500 for example.
Once the box is ready, venered and painted, it's not too nice to work again on it.
Does anyone know a good tweeter in the size or less of the 8513 ?
Zozo
OK, I do not completely agree with that whether you can call a clone something you modified, replaced drives, changed crossover, etc., but of course you can modify, tweak, make it better if you want.
That is why I have changed the crossover and the next step probably will be the tweeter replacement. My only problem the size difference between the 8513 and the 9500 for example.
Once the box is ready, venered and painted, it's not too nice to work again on it.
Does anyone know a good tweeter in the size or less of the 8513 ?
Zozo
I did the tweeter replacement and didn't have any problem with enlarging the tweeter hole. I have a cheap router with a variable rabbeting attachment. I just took off a little at a time until the tweeter just fit. It is actually a tighter fit than the original, as I did it to fit, not to a drawing.
Now that I've finally finished them, after over a year, I'll make a final comment on the sound. I've stated earlier and elsewhere that I'm not totally satisfied with any of the versions. I'll amend that opinion to say that doing the final finish, including glueing the final baffle on, really pulled the sound together.
We spend so much money and time on tweaks, some of which are to stop spurious vibrations, that doing that last step became the final tweak. I guess no amount of screws and clamps dampened the resonance as much as a fully glued baffle. The bass is tighter, voices sound natural, Piano is especially nice. Soundstage is wide and deep. People hear them and their jaws drop.
I left it off because I wanted to tweak, because I wasn't satisfied. I glued it finally when I moved the Xovers to be reachable, but still inside mounted, mostly because my wife just wanted them done.
I've finished them in Australian Lacewood (is it really from Australia?), bookmatched, with a curl grain at the bottom fading into an alligator grain at the top, with a Wenge base. They are gorgeous. I'll post pictures when I get them.
Someday one more tweak will be to replace the caps with Hovland, but I'm happy now, and I'll stay happy for at least a week.
Now that I've finally finished them, after over a year, I'll make a final comment on the sound. I've stated earlier and elsewhere that I'm not totally satisfied with any of the versions. I'll amend that opinion to say that doing the final finish, including glueing the final baffle on, really pulled the sound together.
We spend so much money and time on tweaks, some of which are to stop spurious vibrations, that doing that last step became the final tweak. I guess no amount of screws and clamps dampened the resonance as much as a fully glued baffle. The bass is tighter, voices sound natural, Piano is especially nice. Soundstage is wide and deep. People hear them and their jaws drop.
I left it off because I wanted to tweak, because I wasn't satisfied. I glued it finally when I moved the Xovers to be reachable, but still inside mounted, mostly because my wife just wanted them done.
I've finished them in Australian Lacewood (is it really from Australia?), bookmatched, with a curl grain at the bottom fading into an alligator grain at the top, with a Wenge base. They are gorgeous. I'll post pictures when I get them.
Someday one more tweak will be to replace the caps with Hovland, but I'm happy now, and I'll stay happy for at least a week.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
zacster,
how would you characterise the differences in sound after doing the tweeter replacement?
i'd love to see pictures of your clones. AFAIK, Australian Lacewood really IS a timber from Australia.
"Manufactured from Queensland Silky Oak (not a real Oak.... it's actually an Australian native from the Grevillea family which grows in rainforest areas (any many backyards) in southern Queensland; also known as Lacewood outside Australia)"
http://www.intad.asn.au/materials/wd_hrdother.asp
how would you characterise the differences in sound after doing the tweeter replacement?
i'd love to see pictures of your clones. AFAIK, Australian Lacewood really IS a timber from Australia.
"Manufactured from Queensland Silky Oak (not a real Oak.... it's actually an Australian native from the Grevillea family which grows in rainforest areas (any many backyards) in southern Queensland; also known as Lacewood outside Australia)"
http://www.intad.asn.au/materials/wd_hrdother.asp
With the 8513 tweeter, I found the speakers to be airy, sometimes somewhat nasal, and sibilant. The airiness was a good thing, the nasal quality just showed bad recordings, but the sibilance was what made me change them out.
The 9500 version is a little darker, but more detailed, and overall I find to be a more pleasing sound. I'm using Troels' xover, but the cabs are built to Al M.'s spec.
I'm using an ST-70 amp, Bottlehead Foreplay pre-amp, Rega P3 TT, Toshiba 3960 DVD/CD. See the Audioasylum.com digital forum for info on the toshiba if you're not already familiar with it. $65 USD for a player that sounds good and can be tweaked.
Thanks for the info on the Australian Lacewood. The only things Australian I ever see are lamb, beef (both carried by the local supermarket but not otherwise common), wine, and of course beer.
The 9500 version is a little darker, but more detailed, and overall I find to be a more pleasing sound. I'm using Troels' xover, but the cabs are built to Al M.'s spec.
I'm using an ST-70 amp, Bottlehead Foreplay pre-amp, Rega P3 TT, Toshiba 3960 DVD/CD. See the Audioasylum.com digital forum for info on the toshiba if you're not already familiar with it. $65 USD for a player that sounds good and can be tweaked.
Thanks for the info on the Australian Lacewood. The only things Australian I ever see are lamb, beef (both carried by the local supermarket but not otherwise common), wine, and of course beer.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Ok it's been a few weeks since I've built my pair, so I've had a chance to listen to them in detail.
First off, they are very enjoyable and engaging speakers, and make beautiful music. Guitars, pop, rap, dance music are great.
However they are not the last word in accuracy. Pianos are quite unrealistic, the best way I'd describe it is kind of hollow? Octaves 2-4 seem ok, but the first octave above middle C starts to sound blurred, and it's gets thinner as you get higher.
Although I don't play anymore, I was classically trained in piano as a child. I have a few friends who are musicians (saxophone, violin) who thought "It's not quite right, is it?"
I know it's hard to live without bass, but I've concluded that my next speaker project will use a better midrange driver. Better still, a 3 way.
Luckily I prefer going to concerts rather than listening to the classics on a stereo system, so I'll be keeping my clones.
All in all, a worthwhile first speaker project.
First off, they are very enjoyable and engaging speakers, and make beautiful music. Guitars, pop, rap, dance music are great.
However they are not the last word in accuracy. Pianos are quite unrealistic, the best way I'd describe it is kind of hollow? Octaves 2-4 seem ok, but the first octave above middle C starts to sound blurred, and it's gets thinner as you get higher.
Although I don't play anymore, I was classically trained in piano as a child. I have a few friends who are musicians (saxophone, violin) who thought "It's not quite right, is it?"
I know it's hard to live without bass, but I've concluded that my next speaker project will use a better midrange driver. Better still, a 3 way.
Luckily I prefer going to concerts rather than listening to the classics on a stereo system, so I'll be keeping my clones.
All in all, a worthwhile first speaker project.
I have built to pairs of ProAc 2.5: one with the original tweeter and one with the 95000. Overall I prefr the 95000 as I found the 8513 a bit metallic and sibilant at the beginning.
After more than 400 hours of playing the 8513 became more acceptable. It now has more than 600 and the sound is lovely. It will take quite a bit of time before my clone with the 95000 reaches that many hours.
It also hard to compare between the two because my 95000 is playing on a system which is quite less high end than the other.
With piano, I think that the 95000 is a bit darker and the 8513 a bit livelier which I prefer.
I am in my ninth year of classical piano. I find that no two pianos sound the same. It is difficult to say that this sound is piano sound and that other sound less of a piano sound.
what I found with these clones is that you need a very good recording to bring the best in them.
I have huge foil coils in the crossover. Everybody is astounded by the level of details of these two speakers. On piano, you actually hear the sound of the hammers hitting the string (with the proper recording that is).
One thing I know it takes a hell of a long time to really break these. I would say that 500 hours is really a minimum, as mine keeps improving.
After more than 400 hours of playing the 8513 became more acceptable. It now has more than 600 and the sound is lovely. It will take quite a bit of time before my clone with the 95000 reaches that many hours.
It also hard to compare between the two because my 95000 is playing on a system which is quite less high end than the other.
With piano, I think that the 95000 is a bit darker and the 8513 a bit livelier which I prefer.
I am in my ninth year of classical piano. I find that no two pianos sound the same. It is difficult to say that this sound is piano sound and that other sound less of a piano sound.
what I found with these clones is that you need a very good recording to bring the best in them.
I have huge foil coils in the crossover. Everybody is astounded by the level of details of these two speakers. On piano, you actually hear the sound of the hammers hitting the string (with the proper recording that is).
One thing I know it takes a hell of a long time to really break these. I would say that 500 hours is really a minimum, as mine keeps improving.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Alain,
I have heard comments about the 8535 mid/bass needing a LENGTHY run in time, and I'll admit I sceptical, but I'm crossing my fingers. (and playing them 8 hours a day )
I agree that no 2 pianos sound the same. But I then have never heard any piano that sounds like my clones playing piano. And I certainly wouldn't want to play on a piano that sounded like my clones.
I played CD after CD, thinking that the sound must be due to poor recording/remastering etc. But then I listened to them through my headphones and concluded that it wasn't the recording! It's either the speakers or the room acoustics. Then I moved the speakers to the same room as the piano. Yes less ringing/reverberations but still not the quite right.
I don't own any reference level headphones or studio monitors, but all the headphones I have (Sennheiser MX500, HD25, HD600, Koss KSC35 and Sony MDR-V7506) handily beat my clones in terms of piano tonality and realism. Whether one prefers a lively or dark sound, or a Yamaha or a Ronisch piano, depends on personal taste, but the sound of pianos is unmistakable.
To put it into perspective though, most loudspeakers systems have a hard time competing with real instruments, but I have heard a few that are very close. My partner and I auditioned a large all-Seas floorstander (WMTMW) last December and she certainly couldn't fault them. (my partner has AMEB LMus and AMus certification, and has been playing for 20 years)
I think damping materials comes into play here. Perhaps slight differences in the 8535 woofers? (mine are the shiny coated ones)
I have heard comments about the 8535 mid/bass needing a LENGTHY run in time, and I'll admit I sceptical, but I'm crossing my fingers. (and playing them 8 hours a day
)I agree that no 2 pianos sound the same. But I then have never heard any piano that sounds like my clones playing piano. And I certainly wouldn't want to play on a piano that sounded like my clones.
I played CD after CD, thinking that the sound must be due to poor recording/remastering etc. But then I listened to them through my headphones and concluded that it wasn't the recording! It's either the speakers or the room acoustics. Then I moved the speakers to the same room as the piano. Yes less ringing/reverberations but still not the quite right.
I don't own any reference level headphones or studio monitors, but all the headphones I have (Sennheiser MX500, HD25, HD600, Koss KSC35 and Sony MDR-V7506) handily beat my clones in terms of piano tonality and realism. Whether one prefers a lively or dark sound, or a Yamaha or a Ronisch piano, depends on personal taste, but the sound of pianos is unmistakable.
To put it into perspective though, most loudspeakers systems have a hard time competing with real instruments, but I have heard a few that are very close. My partner and I auditioned a large all-Seas floorstander (WMTMW) last December and she certainly couldn't fault them. (my partner has AMEB LMus and AMus certification, and has been playing for 20 years)
I think damping materials comes into play here. Perhaps slight differences in the 8535 woofers? (mine are the shiny coated ones)
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
Good guess mate, the I-93 in the Vaf showroom!
She was so impressed she promised to buy me a pair as soon as a I finish my university studies. Then I told her how much they cost- I think she regrets having been so hasty
But a promise is a promise right?
hehe.
Nah not just the ATC mid-dome. Something like the ATC SCM20 or bigger actives like SCM50. But ATC speakers are notoriously expensive here in Oz.
She was so impressed she promised to buy me a pair as soon as a I finish my university studies. Then I told her how much they cost- I think she regrets having been so hasty
But a promise is a promise right?
hehe.
Nah not just the ATC mid-dome. Something like the ATC SCM20 or bigger actives like SCM50. But ATC speakers are notoriously expensive here in Oz.
Hi,
I made some serious piano listening yesterday. I do prefer the combination with the 8513 tweeter, but the 95000 still sound good. I must admit that I have removed quite a bit of Dacron in the pair with the 95000. I have more (5cm) in the pair with 8513.
The room with the 95000 is not as good in my opinion and a run them with a NAD receiver. The other pair is playing with a Classe CAP 151 amp. There is obviously no comparison to make. I would still suggest to burn them a good 500 hours. With my first pair, it is the tweeter which really improved with time.
On the other hand, when I made A-B comparisions using the same amp, there was unanimity that the 95000 was far superior.
Good luck with the burning-in. I would also play with the damping material as it can make quite a change with the mid-range.
In the worst of case, you can always refinish the face and go with the 8513.
What is the exact name of that speaker which is so impressive? I would like to listen to it.
I made some serious piano listening yesterday. I do prefer the combination with the 8513 tweeter, but the 95000 still sound good. I must admit that I have removed quite a bit of Dacron in the pair with the 95000. I have more (5cm) in the pair with 8513.
The room with the 95000 is not as good in my opinion and a run them with a NAD receiver. The other pair is playing with a Classe CAP 151 amp. There is obviously no comparison to make. I would still suggest to burn them a good 500 hours. With my first pair, it is the tweeter which really improved with time.
On the other hand, when I made A-B comparisions using the same amp, there was unanimity that the 95000 was far superior.
Good luck with the burning-in. I would also play with the damping material as it can make quite a change with the mid-range.
In the worst of case, you can always refinish the face and go with the 8513.
What is the exact name of that speaker which is so impressive? I would like to listen to it.
Disabled Account
Joined 2003
The speakers I listened to is the Australian built Vaf I-93 The most notable thing was that there was nothing notable!
Just plain natural and effortless music. I think this is common with large, multi-driver highly sensitivity speakers.
I haven't been able to verify, but according to the LDSG, it uses the T25-001 Excel tweeter, 2 x W14CY001 midranges, and 2 x W21EX-001 for bass.
You can see the website for pricing. Click here for currency conversion.
Anyway I think we are being unfairly critical of the clones. Given design constraints of being a moderate sized, reasonable cost 2 way, it's the best full range speaker I've ever encountered. The midrange may be not the best of the best, but still good, and even tolerable to discerning ears. Most people I talk to have no complaints. Sometimes I think maybe I'm imagining things... (otherwise how would my mind (or wallet) justify a larger 3 or 4 way?)
And besides, I can pick out about a dozen faults in my cabinet work, whilst no-one else notices anything. "Sounds great, looks good, you know it's really tiring hearing of your complaints?"
I think I'll stop making comments and just keep listening. They ARE fantastic; all this critique is really for discussion with other clone owners. Prospective clone builders may be turned off what is essentially a very easy and excellent speaker to build. All at moderate cost too.
Besides my comments only refer to MY clones, with MY amps/cdplayers in MY room.
Just plain natural and effortless music. I think this is common with large, multi-driver highly sensitivity speakers.
I haven't been able to verify, but according to the LDSG, it uses the T25-001 Excel tweeter, 2 x W14CY001 midranges, and 2 x W21EX-001 for bass.
You can see the website for pricing. Click here for currency conversion.
Anyway I think we are being unfairly critical of the clones. Given design constraints of being a moderate sized, reasonable cost 2 way, it's the best full range speaker I've ever encountered. The midrange may be not the best of the best, but still good, and even tolerable to discerning ears. Most people I talk to have no complaints. Sometimes I think maybe I'm imagining things... (otherwise how would my mind (or wallet) justify a larger 3 or 4 way?)
And besides, I can pick out about a dozen faults in my cabinet work, whilst no-one else notices anything. "Sounds great, looks good, you know it's really tiring hearing of your complaints?"
I think I'll stop making comments and just keep listening. They ARE fantastic; all this critique is really for discussion with other clone owners. Prospective clone builders may be turned off what is essentially a very easy and excellent speaker to build. All at moderate cost too.
Besides my comments only refer to MY clones, with MY amps/cdplayers in MY room.
Yes. Sounds great and now at least mine look great too. I'm one nice sunny afternoon away from finishing these, but here they are in their current state.
It is Australian lacewood on top with wenge base. The left is unsanded, the right is sanded down to 1000 grit. Neither has a finish on it.
Zac's Clones
The line in the center of the left speaker is the remnant of the veneer tape. That's an SVS subwoofer behind it. I don't use it with the clones for music, just movies.
Behing the right speaker is a box that I broke when veneering it with clamps. This was the pair I built for my friend. I built a new box for him. I'm using it to sample finishes.
I'll post a few more pics at the site when I get a chance.
It is Australian lacewood on top with wenge base. The left is unsanded, the right is sanded down to 1000 grit. Neither has a finish on it.
Zac's Clones
The line in the center of the left speaker is the remnant of the veneer tape. That's an SVS subwoofer behind it. I don't use it with the clones for music, just movies.
Behing the right speaker is a box that I broke when veneering it with clamps. This was the pair I built for my friend. I built a new box for him. I'm using it to sample finishes.
I'll post a few more pics at the site when I get a chance.
Been reading this thread and many other articles regarding 2.5 Clone. Am getting ready to order parts but need some advice. In Troels lengthy paper, he warns about the addition of coating on the membrane of the drivers from Scan Speak. While if my life depended on it, I could probably undertake the mods he outlines, am not really intersted in doing so.
My question then is have any of you built these speakers with the newer coated drivers? If so, what did do? Are there compensations that can be made strictly through modifying the crossover? Does ignoring the coating and building them with one of the preferred crossover versions still result in in a satisfactory result?
Would appreciate any feedback.
My question then is have any of you built these speakers with the newer coated drivers? If so, what did do? Are there compensations that can be made strictly through modifying the crossover? Does ignoring the coating and building them with one of the preferred crossover versions still result in in a satisfactory result?
Would appreciate any feedback.
Hi Christer
If this is your first project I would suggest building to the design from Al's website and seeing how they sound to you. Then make any modifications you feel move the sound towards the sound you like. The coatings on the drivers are to adjust the sound in a way that can't be achieved by cross over mods. The effect is subtle and personally I found more of an effect using different makes of capacitor than in the coating. In fact one of the best features of the Proacs to my ears is their tonal balance which Troels and others try to 'slim' down an make more neutral. So the coating is one move to tame the edge - which many actually like.
Also how you stuff the boxes can make a difference. The suggested use of fibre didn't work for me. I use 25mm foam which makes it sound good.
I did move from the original X over to version 6 with a few changes which I list in an earlier entry.
The great thing is that you can alter the sound to how you like it and don't forget that there is no 'right' sound only the sound that is right for you. This project give you that it is quite easy, cheep and a fine, fine sound. it is one of the best speakers I have listened to when you keep in mind that to get better sound not only costs more to buy but more to drive by way of better source etc.
Look at all the suggestions here and consider who likes the sort of sound you do and try their mods. It worked for me.
Good luck.
If this is your first project I would suggest building to the design from Al's website and seeing how they sound to you. Then make any modifications you feel move the sound towards the sound you like. The coatings on the drivers are to adjust the sound in a way that can't be achieved by cross over mods. The effect is subtle and personally I found more of an effect using different makes of capacitor than in the coating. In fact one of the best features of the Proacs to my ears is their tonal balance which Troels and others try to 'slim' down an make more neutral. So the coating is one move to tame the edge - which many actually like.
Also how you stuff the boxes can make a difference. The suggested use of fibre didn't work for me. I use 25mm foam which makes it sound good.
I did move from the original X over to version 6 with a few changes which I list in an earlier entry.
The great thing is that you can alter the sound to how you like it and don't forget that there is no 'right' sound only the sound that is right for you. This project give you that it is quite easy, cheep and a fine, fine sound. it is one of the best speakers I have listened to when you keep in mind that to get better sound not only costs more to buy but more to drive by way of better source etc.
Look at all the suggestions here and consider who likes the sort of sound you do and try their mods. It worked for me.
Good luck.
Matt,
I guess what I was trying to find out is the degree of difference in result between using the currently available drivers compared to those that Al's design made use of.
Have to admit, not an audiopile. I can certainly tell the good from the bad, but don't agonize over it. This project, as compared to many others out there seems to yield extrodianry results from both modest skills and amounts of money.
Am excited to hear how they turn out. Funny, the woodworking aspect of building the cabinets will be the biggest challenge. Not that building a square cabinet is hard. Making it look good might be for someone who hasn't tried to do so before. Looking forward to it.
That leads to another question. You mention that you have changed the sound damping. Are you just reaching in the woofer opening and pushing the filling around as best you can? Zacster made mention that he finally glued the baffle after messing around with the XO ad nauseum. That of course gave him full access to the cabinet in the mean to make changes to the damping. I am guessing he had not veneered his cabinets, or at least not the baffle. Intuitively, it seems it would be easier to veneer the baffle first, then cut out for the dirvers. OTHOH, I guess you could apply the veneer later, flip over the baffle, cut out the holes using a razor knife and then go back over the rabbet cut with the router later. What was your solution?
I guess what I was trying to find out is the degree of difference in result between using the currently available drivers compared to those that Al's design made use of.
Have to admit, not an audiopile. I can certainly tell the good from the bad, but don't agonize over it. This project, as compared to many others out there seems to yield extrodianry results from both modest skills and amounts of money.
Am excited to hear how they turn out. Funny, the woodworking aspect of building the cabinets will be the biggest challenge. Not that building a square cabinet is hard. Making it look good might be for someone who hasn't tried to do so before. Looking forward to it.
That leads to another question. You mention that you have changed the sound damping. Are you just reaching in the woofer opening and pushing the filling around as best you can? Zacster made mention that he finally glued the baffle after messing around with the XO ad nauseum. That of course gave him full access to the cabinet in the mean to make changes to the damping. I am guessing he had not veneered his cabinets, or at least not the baffle. Intuitively, it seems it would be easier to veneer the baffle first, then cut out for the dirvers. OTHOH, I guess you could apply the veneer later, flip over the baffle, cut out the holes using a razor knife and then go back over the rabbet cut with the router later. What was your solution?
Chris
Every one has their own way of working and I looked hard and long at all the options available. To be honest anything you say would work. Personaly I glued the front, sides and top together but not the base. I put the base in place to ensure it all pulled together square but use the base as access to the inside.
Once dry I sealed the insides and fixed the dead sheet panel. I purchased dead sheets but there are all sorts of options out there. Many advise only damping around 60% of the internal surfaces but NOT the front baffle.
Next I glued the back. They I fixed the plinths to the base and sanded it all down well. I didn’t use a internal brace (but I think you should) and at all the joints I used biscuits. This I think adds strength and made lining up the parts easier, but many don’t use them. I used cramps to hold it all together and the biscuits help stop the joints from sliding which they will tend to do. Others use screws to act as clamps and to hold it all in place. This is fine but you then have to fill all the screw holes so remember to countersink them if you do use them and the screws don’t add any ‘strength’ to the cabinets where as biscuit joints do.
Once sanded down I used ‘time bond’ an impact adhesive which I spread on the veneers (1mm finishing veneer) which had been cut from sheets wide enough so that I didn’t have to join any. I used 3 square meters which gave me enough to cover all external surfaces and make a few mistakes. To minimise the obviousness of the edges I done the left and right sides first then the top then the front and back cutting all overhangs using first a knife to take it back to 3 -5 mm then finishing with a bearing guided flush cutting router bit. The port at the back had been cut before assembly of the box and so I cut the veneer with a knife but didn’t get on well doing that. The holes in the front were cut using a circle cutting jig on my router cutting first the rebate then through the main aperture stopping just short by a mm or so and finishing with a knife.
I made some test cuts to get the hole size correct and the finished result is very good but then my router is a quality machine and worth every penny.
When mounting the veneers onto the box I found that supporting the veneer with strips of wood to stop it sticking in the wrong place was a great help on the long sides and then once arranged in the right alignment I pressed the veneer in contact with the wood using a small block of Ash with a rounded end which acted like and was as good as a veneer ‘hammer’. Working my way down removing the supporting strips as I went, pressing the veneer down firmly, working from the centre towards the edges and making sure the edges were well glued.
That is how I done it but others may have better ways. I think that it will come out well particularly once it is lightly sanded clean and then finished to your tastes.
The base is eventualy screwed together and the fit is tight so no real problem with air leakage and it gives access to the XO which is mounted on the base. It is easy to modify the XO and alter the filling as you please without too much hastle.
As I said I used foam which is just wedged in place - one strip per side top and back with a bit covering the XO at the bottom - proc just role it up and put it in from what I have seen.
Every one has their own way of working and I looked hard and long at all the options available. To be honest anything you say would work. Personaly I glued the front, sides and top together but not the base. I put the base in place to ensure it all pulled together square but use the base as access to the inside.
Once dry I sealed the insides and fixed the dead sheet panel. I purchased dead sheets but there are all sorts of options out there. Many advise only damping around 60% of the internal surfaces but NOT the front baffle.
Next I glued the back. They I fixed the plinths to the base and sanded it all down well. I didn’t use a internal brace (but I think you should) and at all the joints I used biscuits. This I think adds strength and made lining up the parts easier, but many don’t use them. I used cramps to hold it all together and the biscuits help stop the joints from sliding which they will tend to do. Others use screws to act as clamps and to hold it all in place. This is fine but you then have to fill all the screw holes so remember to countersink them if you do use them and the screws don’t add any ‘strength’ to the cabinets where as biscuit joints do.
Once sanded down I used ‘time bond’ an impact adhesive which I spread on the veneers (1mm finishing veneer) which had been cut from sheets wide enough so that I didn’t have to join any. I used 3 square meters which gave me enough to cover all external surfaces and make a few mistakes. To minimise the obviousness of the edges I done the left and right sides first then the top then the front and back cutting all overhangs using first a knife to take it back to 3 -5 mm then finishing with a bearing guided flush cutting router bit. The port at the back had been cut before assembly of the box and so I cut the veneer with a knife but didn’t get on well doing that. The holes in the front were cut using a circle cutting jig on my router cutting first the rebate then through the main aperture stopping just short by a mm or so and finishing with a knife.
I made some test cuts to get the hole size correct and the finished result is very good but then my router is a quality machine and worth every penny.
When mounting the veneers onto the box I found that supporting the veneer with strips of wood to stop it sticking in the wrong place was a great help on the long sides and then once arranged in the right alignment I pressed the veneer in contact with the wood using a small block of Ash with a rounded end which acted like and was as good as a veneer ‘hammer’. Working my way down removing the supporting strips as I went, pressing the veneer down firmly, working from the centre towards the edges and making sure the edges were well glued.
That is how I done it but others may have better ways. I think that it will come out well particularly once it is lightly sanded clean and then finished to your tastes.
The base is eventualy screwed together and the fit is tight so no real problem with air leakage and it gives access to the XO which is mounted on the base. It is easy to modify the XO and alter the filling as you please without too much hastle.
As I said I used foam which is just wedged in place - one strip per side top and back with a bit covering the XO at the bottom - proc just role it up and put it in from what I have seen.
Matt,
Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive post. What sort of router do you have?
As the cabinets are going to be the main time intensive part of this, was thinking of building them first and getting the drivers and xo parts later. Did you measure the holes from your actual drivers, or do you think the published measurements of them by ScanSpeak are close enough?
Thanks for your thoughtful and extensive post. What sort of router do you have?
As the cabinets are going to be the main time intensive part of this, was thinking of building them first and getting the drivers and xo parts later. Did you measure the holes from your actual drivers, or do you think the published measurements of them by ScanSpeak are close enough?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.