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.
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.
Attachments
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.
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.
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.
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.
pjpoes said:
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.........
pjpoes said:
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!
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
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
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.
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.
Fosti said:
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.
Given the immense variety of active filter circuits, I dare to disagree. In fact there are only few specific circuit topologies that use unity gain buffers, one of them being a specific class of Sallen-Key filters, another is circuits which use simulated inductors based on buffers and third is simple passive RC or whatever which are buffered for the only reason of unloading their outputs.pjpoes said:
- Klaus
My experience with active filters is consistant with that above, if not worse. They have too much gain for home use and they are very hard to dial in the desired filter shapes because they all seem to use different definitions of Q, etc. All this trouble and in the end you end up with something that sounds the same, at best, but costs many times more than the simple passive network.
But you are talking of those typical generic active crossover boxes, not dedicated specific active filters (that is, developped exactly to spec., generating the right acoustic target in a dedicated active environment, stuff like ie. Mr.Linkwitz and Mr.Kreskovsky are doing), aren't you?
I agree, though, that going active just for the sake of doing so is not going to make better system in terms of cost and perfomance. This probably will only happen if you make use of things you just can't do passively, like servo-loops for bass-speaker, or things that are very hard to do passively, like more exotic transfer characteristics (say, higher order transient perfect x-overs).
- Klaus
I agree, though, that going active just for the sake of doing so is not going to make better system in terms of cost and perfomance. This probably will only happen if you make use of things you just can't do passively, like servo-loops for bass-speaker, or things that are very hard to do passively, like more exotic transfer characteristics (say, higher order transient perfect x-overs).
- Klaus
Earl/All
Silly suggestion but if one cant get 1" stock, what about layering 1/2" stock? Just for the baffle? Or adding 1/4" to the existing 3/4"?
Also, could you not special order 1" stock? Again, just for the baffles to save on cost.
As for cutting, surely your supplier has a free cutting service, I know the majority of sheet material suppliers near me do, from the major diy stores to the individual specialists, and they are all very accurate (IME). Just work out the cuts you want in advance.
If/When I buy, I would likely want the complete kit minus the box (so with the baffle/WG, crossover and drivers)
Nick.
PS: I intend no disrespect and I am still saving for a pair of nathans.
PPS: Early adoptors always experience issues, see pretty much every electronics gadget from the last 20 years from Compact Disc onwards, through iPod batteries etc....
Silly suggestion but if one cant get 1" stock, what about layering 1/2" stock? Just for the baffle? Or adding 1/4" to the existing 3/4"?
Also, could you not special order 1" stock? Again, just for the baffles to save on cost.
As for cutting, surely your supplier has a free cutting service, I know the majority of sheet material suppliers near me do, from the major diy stores to the individual specialists, and they are all very accurate (IME). Just work out the cuts you want in advance.
If/When I buy, I would likely want the complete kit minus the box (so with the baffle/WG, crossover and drivers)
Nick.
PS: I intend no disrespect and I am still saving for a pair of nathans.
PPS: Early adoptors always experience issues, see pretty much every electronics gadget from the last 20 years from Compact Disc onwards, through iPod batteries etc....
The problem now is that the baffle can't change because it is embedded into the mold for the waveguide. Changes makes the mold obsolete and new molds are very expensive. A 1" baffle also surpresses the woofer down another 1/4" which is not the right direction. IMO the way its done now is optimal albeit requires some rework to finish.
I'd prefer people just make their own cabinets if they can. That saves me a lot of non-value-added work. But how will you radius the top?
My wood supplier won't/can't cut accurately. Maybe there are some who will, I'll have to check. That is a very good idea and would save me a lot of trouble. Of course its still hand cut and still prone to tollerancing issues. The only way arround that is CNC, but we've beat that horse to death.
I'd prefer people just make their own cabinets if they can. That saves me a lot of non-value-added work. But how will you radius the top?
My wood supplier won't/can't cut accurately. Maybe there are some who will, I'll have to check. That is a very good idea and would save me a lot of trouble. Of course its still hand cut and still prone to tollerancing issues. The only way arround that is CNC, but we've beat that horse to death.
SNIP!!
But in this case the problems could not just have been avoided, but easily avoided, and there's no MDF warrantee helping Markus out here. Malfunctioning early CDPs/iPods got returned/repaired/replaced. Here, Markus is forced to dremel the parts to fit, and use lots of filler, etc. Let me repeat- DREMEL. He's obviously not set up for correcting the poor woodwork.
And I think Earl is being very rude, his sloppy woodwork and expecting DIYers to "Sand and fill" grossly miscut parts is ludicrous, as is "I can't get MDF in 1". Sure you can. Anybody in the USA can. You're being extremely lazy as far as the cabinet is concerned, probably because you're so proud of your waveguide that it's all you think about. Earl, you owe Markus a big apology, both for your sloppy work and combative attitude, and I'd suggest a 10% refund for his time having to correct your bad work.
For a $1200 kit, one of the most expensive kit speakers on the market, one expects more, especially when this kit absolutely requires a sub.
http://www.occamaudio.com/shop.html
Take a look at the CNC'd parts on this site. They're not $100 extra per for good woodwork, they're $200 TOTAL for the complete MTM4 kit B, which has a bolt-together enclosure with perfect tolerances, and CNC'd front baffle.
Your refusal to own up is frustrating for me as an outsider. Do the right thing, fess up, fix the problems, and give our man Markus some love.
I've done more precise woodwork with battery powered ryobi tools.
Grumpy_Git said:
But in this case the problems could not just have been avoided, but easily avoided, and there's no MDF warrantee helping Markus out here. Malfunctioning early CDPs/iPods got returned/repaired/replaced. Here, Markus is forced to dremel the parts to fit, and use lots of filler, etc. Let me repeat- DREMEL. He's obviously not set up for correcting the poor woodwork.
And I think Earl is being very rude, his sloppy woodwork and expecting DIYers to "Sand and fill" grossly miscut parts is ludicrous, as is "I can't get MDF in 1". Sure you can. Anybody in the USA can. You're being extremely lazy as far as the cabinet is concerned, probably because you're so proud of your waveguide that it's all you think about. Earl, you owe Markus a big apology, both for your sloppy work and combative attitude, and I'd suggest a 10% refund for his time having to correct your bad work.
For a $1200 kit, one of the most expensive kit speakers on the market, one expects more, especially when this kit absolutely requires a sub.
http://www.occamaudio.com/shop.html
Take a look at the CNC'd parts on this site. They're not $100 extra per for good woodwork, they're $200 TOTAL for the complete MTM4 kit B, which has a bolt-together enclosure with perfect tolerances, and CNC'd front baffle.
Your refusal to own up is frustrating for me as an outsider. Do the right thing, fess up, fix the problems, and give our man Markus some love.
I've done more precise woodwork with battery powered ryobi tools.
aubergine said:
Head and shoulders above average, those suggestions.
KSTR said:
The active way is the only way when we talk outdoors reinforcement in the kW range. There, the dissipation of the passive networks is a major reliability issue. Passive is no slouch for quality otherwise. And keeps things simple in one box. Also there are some passive impedance traps and other techniques that are not handy with active.
When you're prototyping then using a digital crossover is much more convenient because it can save you a lot of time. When it comes to the final product like the Nathan 10, a passive crossover is much more convenient to the customer. And it serves the same purpose as the digital one. But there are constellations where going digital integrates better and is therefore cheaper or it's just a necessity (e.g. http://www.fouraudio.de/WaveFieldSynthesis.html).
But back to the Nathan 10:
Good news! Earl offered me to cut new top boards - thank you. It'll take some time because he has to do some paintwork right now. So I'll focus on building the crossover.
Here's a picture what the enclosures currently look like (top boards are not glued and will be replaced):
As for the stands I'll use something like this:
Best, Markus
But back to the Nathan 10:
Good news! Earl offered me to cut new top boards - thank you. It'll take some time because he has to do some paintwork right now. So I'll focus on building the crossover.
Here's a picture what the enclosures currently look like (top boards are not glued and will be replaced):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
As for the stands I'll use something like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Best, Markus
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.