Quite a few years ago I rescued three (3) surprisingly well built small cabinet off the curb. They had some very minor blemishes but what an injustice to just abandon them. Unabashedly I confess that to date, I have not done anything with these. I have been contemplating full range higher efficiency for low powered amps but am yet to settle on an enclosure. In the mean time I was wondering if I might be able to fit some decent drivers with minimal crossover if any to put a pair of these cabinets to work. These have sloped baffles and precut holes for the bass and tweeter. The cabinets are made of 3/4" MFD about 14" high, 10" wide, and may be 10" deep--looking at them they are about one 1 cubic feet rear ported. I can post accurate measurements and picture(s) if I see promising replies to this query to help me with driver and/or possibly crossover selection. Speaker building is not my area. These cabinets are really nice and heavy certainly worth your attention and the Muses will reward you for your assistance.
Seraph
Seraph
Thanks for the replies...
I took some measurements tonight. They are 9.75' Wide, 8.5" Deep on top and 14"on the bottom resulting in a 20-degree sloped baffle. Their Height is 15". Tweeter hole is 4.24", woofer 6.75". These measurements result in a 0.6 CF volume considering the 3/4" thickness of the boards. Thanks for pointing that out audiobomber.
When I took the shot I noticed remnants of their past life crossovers and damping material are still present inside the cabinets. What I'd like to do with these is use some nice drivers based on experiences and suggestions of the forum members or ongoing personal research some day! Any help to facilitate the latter is also appreciated.
I took some measurements tonight. They are 9.75' Wide, 8.5" Deep on top and 14"on the bottom resulting in a 20-degree sloped baffle. Their Height is 15". Tweeter hole is 4.24", woofer 6.75". These measurements result in a 0.6 CF volume considering the 3/4" thickness of the boards. Thanks for pointing that out audiobomber.
When I took the shot I noticed remnants of their past life crossovers and damping material are still present inside the cabinets. What I'd like to do with these is use some nice drivers based on experiences and suggestions of the forum members or ongoing personal research some day! Any help to facilitate the latter is also appreciated.
Attachments
Thanks Jeff and Dave for the ideas. The hole diameters reported are actually for the flanges. So I think an FE167 would fit. I wonder if a tweeter could also be fit and crossed over using a single cap. That way the tweeter hole would be occupied or would that be defeating the purpose? I like Dave's idea to just fit a new baffle. I was thinking though that would be a bit of work that the front baffles could also be removed and the cabinets squared up with new vertical baffles which would reduce the volumetric to .48 CF or 13 liters. BTW, these cabinets have rear 1.5" ports as well.
Any more thoughts on any of this?
Any more thoughts on any of this?
Personally, I wouldn't go any further than Dave's idea of adding a front baffle to accommodate a flush mounted driver. If you have to start cutting those cabs, you might as well just build new ones, that way you'll get exactly what you need and they'll sound better too.
If you do choose the FE167 (this is only a suggestion), you won't need a tweeter, so the existing tweeter hole could be filled by a 3" flared port. Just fill in the existing port.
Or, build a new front baffle for the driver/drivers and run the port out the back. This option would allow you to go two-way, with the front baffle having the matching cutouts for specific driver dimensions.
Jeff
If you do choose the FE167 (this is only a suggestion), you won't need a tweeter, so the existing tweeter hole could be filled by a 3" flared port. Just fill in the existing port.
Or, build a new front baffle for the driver/drivers and run the port out the back. This option would allow you to go two-way, with the front baffle having the matching cutouts for specific driver dimensions.
Jeff
Seraph said:
You could use a tweeter to fill in the hole... you could play with hooking it up but i think you may find that it works better without or with a very high XO.
The 1.5" port could possibl=y be reused if it is the right length or longer (depends somewhat on net internal vol after you are done)... in our 15 litre 167 BR we used a 2" port 2.5" long. A 1.5" port would need to be shorter (for the same box volume)
I would leave the sloped front (or just close off the front baffle completely and cut a mounting hole in the back) that is a positive feature.
dave
Attachments
Cheers Jeff and Dave. I am enjoying thinking out of the box!
So far I have decided to give FE 167 a try. I would also like to try the flared out port in the tweeter hole. I did a search and found some on Amazon (!) made by "precision sound products". Should this flared out port be of any specific length?
Also measured the existing port 2 3/4 " long with a 1.5 " diameter. For a 16 liter enclosure it appears to have probably been sized correctly or close. What would be a good material to fill the port and the tweeter hole both temporarily for auditioning and permanently if so decided? I am thinking I might even try Dave's second idea at some point to cut holes in the back of the enclosures.
Best regards
Seraph
So far I have decided to give FE 167 a try. I would also like to try the flared out port in the tweeter hole. I did a search and found some on Amazon (!) made by "precision sound products". Should this flared out port be of any specific length?
Also measured the existing port 2 3/4 " long with a 1.5 " diameter. For a 16 liter enclosure it appears to have probably been sized correctly or close. What would be a good material to fill the port and the tweeter hole both temporarily for auditioning and permanently if so decided? I am thinking I might even try Dave's second idea at some point to cut holes in the back of the enclosures.
Best regards
Seraph
small cabinet..
Dave, I'm a little suprized you didn't suggest a restrictive port. Without it, I end up with the impedence peaks of 60, 66 Ohms respectively using WinISD ProAlpha
the internal dims would be equivalent to 8.25" X 9.75" X 13.5" = approximately .6284 ft^3, requires a 4"port, 15" long to tune to 55Hz.Much smaller and you'd definitely hear a chuf or two from the port. Now, stuff it full of straws and all would be made better....methinks
Dave, I'm a little suprized you didn't suggest a restrictive port. Without it, I end up with the impedence peaks of 60, 66 Ohms respectively using WinISD ProAlpha
the internal dims would be equivalent to 8.25" X 9.75" X 13.5" = approximately .6284 ft^3, requires a 4"port, 15" long to tune to 55Hz.Much smaller and you'd definitely hear a chuf or two from the port. Now, stuff it full of straws and all would be made better....methinks
Nanook, you've got me thinking.
First off your icon has evolved to a congenial looking fellow from a smiling scull overnight--what gives!? You oughta be a wizard, if you can do that!
Second am I reading that this cabinet would be limited in terms of length of the port if it was to be located in the tweeter hole?
The other question I have is the location of the port being on top. Most ports I have seen are located below the driver. Does it matter if the port is above or below the driver?
I would be able to get the required length and diameter if I enlarged the tweeter hole and somehow patched the woofer hole to install a 4" diameter, 15 " long port.
I appreciate everyone's feedback.
First off your icon has evolved to a congenial looking fellow from a smiling scull overnight--what gives!? You oughta be a wizard, if you can do that!
Second am I reading that this cabinet would be limited in terms of length of the port if it was to be located in the tweeter hole?
The other question I have is the location of the port being on top. Most ports I have seen are located below the driver. Does it matter if the port is above or below the driver?
I would be able to get the required length and diameter if I enlarged the tweeter hole and somehow patched the woofer hole to install a 4" diameter, 15 " long port.
I appreciate everyone's feedback.
avatar change
Seraph---well I thought a change might be good. The fellow is Richard Feynman, one of the world's greatest minds ever. (often credited with outting the problem with the exploding shuttle, and the brittle O-rings--although he was the first to admit it wasn't his idea, Nobel laurate, womanizer,actor, musician). A friendlier face to look at. An American scientist of the highest level. I guess I could have used an image of Richard E Taylor, a local guy (from Medicine Hat) who also won a Nobel fro physics..he helped discover sub atomic particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
For a thumnail of his life look here. I had the privillege to personally meet him in 1991 or 1992. A very nice man, who stopped at the local university to give a talk on his way home to Medicine Hat to see his father and some childhood friends. He kicked the local media out of his talk, as they were disrupting the it, and it was given for students anf faculty, not the media.
Where the port is located doesn't really matter much. There are successful designs with the port above the driver, below the driver, on the back , some down-firing.
I would do as others have suggested, glue and screw a new baffle to the existing one (you could cut out the front one, leaving an inch to inch and one half all the way around it. This would allow you to place the driver where ever and the port where ever on the front baffle as you see fit. As far as fullrangers, please consider Dave's ideas, he has quite a bit of personal experience.
Also look at his included image. Placing the fullrangers on the rear, "straight" face and the angled one to the rear, is a good option.
If a smaller diameter port is easier...I'd do it. Or make your own "variovent"--a resistive "plug" with no depth required--this would reduce the impedence peak and possible extend the bass. Not sure if Scanspeak, or whatever they call themselves now stilll make em, but DIY types are easy enough, perhaps not as easy to predict the results. If you can run an impedence curve or can generate one , then a DIY variovent would be pretty easy
Seraph---well I thought a change might be good. The fellow is Richard Feynman, one of the world's greatest minds ever. (often credited with outting the problem with the exploding shuttle, and the brittle O-rings--although he was the first to admit it wasn't his idea, Nobel laurate, womanizer,actor, musician). A friendlier face to look at. An American scientist of the highest level. I guess I could have used an image of Richard E Taylor, a local guy (from Medicine Hat) who also won a Nobel fro physics..he helped discover sub atomic particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
For a thumnail of his life look here. I had the privillege to personally meet him in 1991 or 1992. A very nice man, who stopped at the local university to give a talk on his way home to Medicine Hat to see his father and some childhood friends. He kicked the local media out of his talk, as they were disrupting the it, and it was given for students anf faculty, not the media.
Where the port is located doesn't really matter much. There are successful designs with the port above the driver, below the driver, on the back , some down-firing.
I would do as others have suggested, glue and screw a new baffle to the existing one (you could cut out the front one, leaving an inch to inch and one half all the way around it. This would allow you to place the driver where ever and the port where ever on the front baffle as you see fit. As far as fullrangers, please consider Dave's ideas, he has quite a bit of personal experience.
Also look at his included image. Placing the fullrangers on the rear, "straight" face and the angled one to the rear, is a good option.
If a smaller diameter port is easier...I'd do it. Or make your own "variovent"--a resistive "plug" with no depth required--this would reduce the impedence peak and possible extend the bass. Not sure if Scanspeak, or whatever they call themselves now stilll make em, but DIY types are easy enough, perhaps not as easy to predict the results. If you can run an impedence curve or can generate one , then a DIY variovent would be pretty easy
Thanks Nanook. I am glad I commented about the fellow. The picture struck me as one of a bohemian person. The sun looking tapestry and orangish colored stripes in the background which might be books add to the feel for me. I didn't know what Richard Feynman looked like but I had sure heard of him in school. The link to Richard E Taylor's life is appreciated also and bookmarked. All this is somewhat of a synchronicity for me. I have always been fascinated by quantum physics and just recently visited the Jülich Research Centre and one of their cyclotrons. I too met some very humble and hospitable scientists. The work the centre is doing on the environment stood out for me. It reinforced the importance of our ecosystem in the longevity of our planet...
You and others and have given me things to ponder and contemplate.
I am grateful to all
You and others and have given me things to ponder and contemplate.
I am grateful to all
Placed an order for a pair of FE167's and some ports...
Hopefully won't be getting too much saw dust in the air but would like to systematically try all suggestions in time...
How long for the FE167 to break in?
_______________________________________________
"The time to relax is when you don't have time for it", Anon
Hopefully won't be getting too much saw dust in the air but would like to systematically try all suggestions in time...
How long for the FE167 to break in?
_______________________________________________
"The time to relax is when you don't have time for it", Anon
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.