Building the Nathan 10 - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st August 2008, 06:25 AM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Utah
Here is picture of kind of machine that you would need to have or hire if you wanted to do this in a serious way. It's only a three axis and 2000 year model selling used for 32,000.

I don't honestly know what these guys bill these machines at. I used to work at a machine shop that did high end parts in metal and plastic for medical and aerospace customers. I imagine that woodworkers doing this have to bill at lower rates. But to do the total machining you have to either do a lot of straight line interpolations on the complex radius or get your CAM software to calculate the tools paths for you. Or make a customed curved cutter. I just don't see that a person or shop that has all the resources to do this would be all that cheap.

Most of the straight line programming is pretty easy and could be done in a few hours. But at what billing rate? If you are able to do this job for real easy money perhaps you should lend your assistance to Dr. Geddes.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg router1.jpg (85.9 KB, 1070 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 06:28 AM   #102
agent.5 is offline agent.5  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Quote:
I imagine that woodworkers doing this have to bill at lower rates.
Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about. You are cutting wood, not metal. Plus you are not cutting 4 x 8. All you need is to cut 2x4.

Ask those guys at the CNC forum and not a random guy that "used to be" a wage slave at some joint and that is the highlight of his life.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 06:35 AM   #103
Salas is offline Salas  Greece
diyAudio Chief Moderator
 
Salas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens-Greece
Quote:
[i]You can agree or diagree, accept it or not, but you won't find a speaker like I am selling at the price that I am selling at anywhere. Its just won't happen. [/B]
Its the proprietary technology that you put in them that makes them attractive. So nobody can find a speaker like the one you sell in any price elsewhere anyway.

If they do well, some nice bunch of 100 curved cherry China cabinets and assembled filters from places like
Bennic may give you the ability to offer assembled Nathan 10 pairs in unbeatable prices. That would open the technology to the public better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 06:50 AM   #104
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Utah
Sorry Agent.5,

I didn't understand what you meant and I though you were being a smart alec. You are correct that these little hobby machines routers that can do 2x4 foot surface could cut out the parts. But the problem is that to do it at a cost effective price you have to be able to do it fast enough to be cost effective. These little small routers that use a dremel or small motor cannot remove material fast enough to make parts cost effective. And the motor would burn up in minutes trying to force the motor to work that hard. Then you have to have a person in constant attendance of the machine who is a skilled machinist to watch over it which drives the price up higher because the machine has to be babied through the whole process. And the machine will break down because it is not capable of long heavy production runs.



To cut parts fast requires horsepower, lots of steel for strength and rigidity and high end positioning technology. None of which is cheap. The machine can be left unattended for longer periods of time because it does not need to be babied to get the job done.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 07:02 AM   #105
agent.5 is offline agent.5  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Quote:
To cut parts fast requires horsepower, lots of steel for strength and rigidity and high end positioning technology. None of which is cheap. The machine can be left unattended for longer periods of time because it does not need to be babied to get the job done.

Now you are just making up garbage. What kind of "high end positioning technology" are you dreaming up now? Any "hobby" machine that you hate so much can cut better than what Dr. Gedlee is delivering now.

You also don't need "lots of steel". Any aluminum machine, using generic 80/20 extrusions, is good for 0.05" or less margin of error.

Also, what is this "the machine can be left unattended for longer periods of time" crap? You are cutting wood, a 3/4" MDF and any router that you use is going to cut it in no time.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 08:11 AM   #106
Fosti is offline Fosti  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
Fosti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by pjpoes


...Crossing over a high level or low level signal is, at its essence essentially the same. They are filtering a signal , period. The only difference is really the "wattage" of that signal, and the load impedance presented to the crossover. ...
To get acoustically the same filtering the above last six of your words are essential!

LCR filtering in the low level signal path is possible, but I prefer OP-Amps in that path. Noise is a matter of making a good layout and ground connection concept. Do you really think, that that a handful of more properly implemented OP-Amps needed for the active filtering besides the dozen that is already in the signal path cause a detoriation of the signal?! If so I hope you are not going for a PhD in electrical engineering!

The 18 db/Oct Filter-Network of JBLs LS6332 is surely not cheap, especially considering the work time spent. But what about steeper slopes in passiv networks? And then ad some allpass filters, that you need for the delays, CD-Horn or Waveguide correction, room gain equalization etc. ...all passiv....good luck! Not to forget about the damping factor.........



Quote:
Originally posted by pjpoes


As for the view of the greatest speakers, well I think that is a highly highly debated subject. Is greatest based on number of users, I think that would make the bose wave radio number one. Is it based on number of professional audio users, well that would put the Yamaha NS-10M's at number one last I checked. If its based on opinion, even professional opinion, then again, we have thousands of options that people feel are the best. West Lake Audio and JBL have made some of the finest professional studio monitors I have ever heard, neither of which use active crossovers or biamping in their design. Does that make them the best? Well I think its my opinion, nothing more. Maybe Dr. Geddes makes the best, I haven't heard them yet, but it does seem like some very sound science is behind his designs, so we shall see.
I didn't say 'greatest'!
We don't have to talk about the NS-10M kitchen radion imitator and the shiny fashion Bose misfits! I agree with some good passive JBL designs: I like the 4425, 4430, 4435 as well as the above mentioned LS6332. But designing their passive filter networks was definitely some work, but may it probably be easier and better when going active? And JBL did offer an active crossover for the 44xx's: http://www.jblpro.com/pub/obsolete/5235.pdf

Best regards!
__________________
"... they don't know what they do." - Thats right, quite often!
"... they don't do what they know." - That's right, even more often!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 09:16 AM   #107
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
To the men talking about CNC,

If you look at all of the older Turbosound and A.S.S. boxes, the fit between the pieces is very tight and the build quality is bombproof. They used to use juts in time production methods apparently, a box would get straight off the line at A.S.S. and get painted then sent to Turbo and sold.

To enable the extreme speed and accuracy, they did all of this with overhead routers and jigs, even churning out 21" folded horns. And no, there weren't loads and loads of staff, just less than 20 doing everything.

CNC is slow compared to an OHR, but my conclusion comparing them is that it is good for smaller one machine one man workshops. I to would also recommend one to the good doctor, it's just much easier. It's a nice design that would like a matching cab, imo.


Acoustic Sound Solutions
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 01:18 PM   #108
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by Ed LaFontaine

Do the plans for casework indicate or encourage the installation of additional bracing? A 3/4" baffle will raise some eyebrows.
The box comes with two oak cross braces which I find extremely effective. You could add all the bracing you want, but I don't see the need. The baffle and backpanel - the two largest panels are both contrained layer damped. Add the oak and the box is not a problem.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 01:24 PM   #109
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
The CNC machine that was shown is the exact one that a local shop has who gave me a quote on cutting all the pieces. I've already said that this would push the price up by (about) $100 per speaker. I have not heard a glowing endorsment to doing this as yet.

The problems that Marcus is seeing will improve with time, but will almost certainly not go away all together as long as the parts are cut by hand. I just don't think that $100 per speaker is a good value as long as the volumes are low. IF the volumes get greater then I will have no choice.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2008, 01:54 PM   #110
pjpoes is offline pjpoes  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York
Send a message via AIM to pjpoes
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosti


To get acoustically the same filtering the above last six of your words are essential!

LCR filtering in the low level signal path is possible, but I prefer OP-Amps in that path. Noise is a matter of making a good layout and ground connection concept. Do you really think, that that a handful of more properly implemented OP-Amps needed for the active filtering besides the dozen that is already in the signal path cause a detoriation of the signal?! If so I hope you are not going for a PhD in electrical engineering!

The 18 db/Oct Filter-Network of JBLs LS6332 is surely not cheap, especially considering the work time spent. But what about steeper slopes in passiv networks? And then ad some allpass filters, that you need for the delays, CD-Horn or Waveguide correction, room gain equalization etc. ...all passiv....good luck! Not to forget about the damping factor.........





I didn't say 'greatest'!
We don't have to talk about the NS-10M kitchen radion imitator and the shiny fashion Bose misfits! I agree with some good passive JBL designs: I like the 4425, 4430, 4435 as well as the above mentioned LS6332. But designing their passive filter networks was definitely some work, but may it probably be easier and better when going active? And JBL did offer an active crossover for the 44xx's: http://www.jblpro.com/pub/obsolete/5235.pdf

Best regards!
No I'm getting my PhD in Child Development, but I still disagree with you. Since when do opamps filter? The filtering itself takes place from the resistors and capacitors not the opamps. Opamps are simply used for buffers in such circuits. The major difference you see is that with active crossover inductors are rarely used, but I would call this a cost cutting measure more than anything. A lot of people feel that inductor based RIAA equalization filters sound much better than the normal R-C type (I agree), and I have built active filters using L-R and find them much better sounding.

Much of what you are talking about is only true of digital crossovers. I will easily contend that, at least in theory, they are a wonderful invention. What they can do is quite amazing. Again, for me to be happy, I would need a digital crossover with full control of the poles and slope, or one which I could load predefined transfer functions, as that is my number one problem with most active crossovers. However, my other big problem with them is noise. It isn't that adding opamps adds noise (Though this is a cumulative effect, so yes, adding more will add more noise if done haphazardly.) My problem is that the large majority of the ones I have used have way too much gain for consumer use and too much noise from poorly designed circuits and power supplies. Behrenger has been the worst in my experience, but Rane's digital unit was only a little better. I know I'm not alone in this view as a friend of mine who writes for one of the better known online magazines stopped using his Behrenger for just this reason, even after thousands spent on modifications, he finally decided that better sound with less noise (hiss) could be had without this unit.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2