Much earlier in the thread, the question was answered with more detail.
But the short answer.
1/ i'm not a big fan of domes.
2/ the woofers have far more breakup than i could live with (even if i was XOing them at 300-400 Hz)
3/ XO is right where the ear is most sensitive.
The motive to revise the boxes was that the original was giving TLs a bad name.
dave
But the short answer.
1/ i'm not a big fan of domes.
2/ the woofers have far more breakup than i could live with (even if i was XOing them at 300-400 Hz)
3/ XO is right where the ear is most sensitive.
The motive to revise the boxes was that the original was giving TLs a bad name.
dave
Hi All,
Planet10 said what I've been thinking for a while. I've had mine for 5-6 yrs and have had both of Jim's X-overs, the latest being the best to my ears.
These drivers in this type of system are a PITA, very touchy to the extremes.
Yes, I don't believe you would find them satisfying for old big band recordings, they are very unforgiving. I'm sure I would find another combination if I was starting over.
YMMV though.
Best regards, Bill
Planet10 said what I've been thinking for a while. I've had mine for 5-6 yrs and have had both of Jim's X-overs, the latest being the best to my ears.
These drivers in this type of system are a PITA, very touchy to the extremes.
Yes, I don't believe you would find them satisfying for old big band recordings, they are very unforgiving. I'm sure I would find another combination if I was starting over.
YMMV though.
Best regards, Bill
Dave (P10) and Bill F,
I absolutely agree with the fact that these drivers (and crossover Hz location) are extremely unforgiving and touchy. You WILL hear every tiny detail in the recording played through them. This is why they sound better IMO when a tube amp or preamp is in the system. Harmonics.
Dave, I know of your passion to mono driver speakers (Full range drivers) and how smooth they can sound, after listening to the Uber High-End from Nelson Pass at BA 2009 I understand why. Unbelievably clear and 3 dimensional sounding. Truly sounded like the singer was present in the room.
Have you had the opportunity to hear a set of redesigned (yours and Scotts) Small / Short / Fat Thors? I hope you can hear your work first hand.
They are Fantastic speakers despite their difficulties and shortcomings.
Yes, I'm prejudices.
Yes, Many recordings sound like Crab (p), because they are.
Yes the speakers are not very efficient, especially with the new Xovers.
Yes, they are expensive drivers and Xover components.
I'm torn in two directions when asked if I would build them again....... <--->. Probably not. Will I dismantle them? No Way!
Will I build something else to replace them in the future? I dunno.
I have built several other much less expensive speakers which sound amazing for their $$$.
I think bang for buck there are much better designs on the internet.
For now, I'm enjoying mine and don't plan on dismantling them anytime soon.
Ron
I absolutely agree with the fact that these drivers (and crossover Hz location) are extremely unforgiving and touchy. You WILL hear every tiny detail in the recording played through them. This is why they sound better IMO when a tube amp or preamp is in the system. Harmonics.
Dave, I know of your passion to mono driver speakers (Full range drivers) and how smooth they can sound, after listening to the Uber High-End from Nelson Pass at BA 2009 I understand why. Unbelievably clear and 3 dimensional sounding. Truly sounded like the singer was present in the room.
Have you had the opportunity to hear a set of redesigned (yours and Scotts) Small / Short / Fat Thors? I hope you can hear your work first hand.
They are Fantastic speakers despite their difficulties and shortcomings.
Yes, I'm prejudices.
Yes, Many recordings sound like Crab (p), because they are.
Yes the speakers are not very efficient, especially with the new Xovers.
Yes, they are expensive drivers and Xover components.
I'm torn in two directions when asked if I would build them again....... <--->. Probably not. Will I dismantle them? No Way!
Will I build something else to replace them in the future? I dunno.
I have built several other much less expensive speakers which sound amazing for their $$$.
I think bang for buck there are much better designs on the internet.
For now, I'm enjoying mine and don't plan on dismantling them anytime soon.
Ron
Gollee I thought i was imagining this.....Is it? Can it be....Do they
really sound this good?
Dave, Had i found Planet-10 first i would likely agree. I NEEED them drivers.
Anyway i am still young and soon retired. They are a bargain for sure.
For those who have never heard the Thors, they are merciless accurate reproduction with thundering power. They will drive you to simplicity. I cannot stand anything between my DAC and my power amp. I have not yet minimized my speaker cables but they are next. Would i change the XO's ....no way. They are broken in now i suppose and i cannot be sure what changes have transpired. The reproduction of sound is exactly what i want and gives more every day.
Expensive? Not one bit. They will sound great when my kids retire and they
are built to last. Short Thor is the Man! Crank em up!
Now for sure there must be one clear point. Short /Fat /Small Thor is
a worthy product of DIY Audio. You ain't goin to go out and buy these on visa and come home and hook em up. You got to birth em. So far they have not turned to teenagers...
Thanks again to all you fine folks. I can't get enough. Truly a worthy hobby!
really sound this good?
Dave, Had i found Planet-10 first i would likely agree. I NEEED them drivers.
Anyway i am still young and soon retired. They are a bargain for sure.
For those who have never heard the Thors, they are merciless accurate reproduction with thundering power. They will drive you to simplicity. I cannot stand anything between my DAC and my power amp. I have not yet minimized my speaker cables but they are next. Would i change the XO's ....no way. They are broken in now i suppose and i cannot be sure what changes have transpired. The reproduction of sound is exactly what i want and gives more every day.
Expensive? Not one bit. They will sound great when my kids retire and they
are built to last. Short Thor is the Man! Crank em up!
Now for sure there must be one clear point. Short /Fat /Small Thor is
a worthy product of DIY Audio. You ain't goin to go out and buy these on visa and come home and hook em up. You got to birth em. So far they have not turned to teenagers...
Thanks again to all you fine folks. I can't get enough. Truly a worthy hobby!
crossover problem discovered
I discovered the problem with Jim's crossovers. I had the .05 and the .45 inductors swapped. All my fault.
Now that I have them assembled correctly they are a definite improvement over the originals. Bass is much improved, as is the upper midrange. They also sound more dynamic, probably because of the different tonal balance. They have a mellower, more natural sound than the originals which had a very etched harsh upper midrange. The sound is now more "analogue" but still very revealing.
I have a 2.7 ohm resistor in the woofer circuit and I have tried putting an 8 ohm in parallel, which drops it to about 2 ohms total. This reduces the baffle step a bit; maybe too much. I have also played with adding a .47 uf capacitor in parallel with the 5.7 uf cap. This gives vocals a little more texture. Whether that is a good thing seems to depend on the music being played. My inclination right now is to leave it off.
Thanks to Jim for designing this new crossover. I hope no one shies away from it because I assembled it wrong the first time. It is far better than the original.
Now, does anyone have any suggestions for my next project? What else out there is even better?
I discovered the problem with Jim's crossovers. I had the .05 and the .45 inductors swapped. All my fault.
Now that I have them assembled correctly they are a definite improvement over the originals. Bass is much improved, as is the upper midrange. They also sound more dynamic, probably because of the different tonal balance. They have a mellower, more natural sound than the originals which had a very etched harsh upper midrange. The sound is now more "analogue" but still very revealing.
I have a 2.7 ohm resistor in the woofer circuit and I have tried putting an 8 ohm in parallel, which drops it to about 2 ohms total. This reduces the baffle step a bit; maybe too much. I have also played with adding a .47 uf capacitor in parallel with the 5.7 uf cap. This gives vocals a little more texture. Whether that is a good thing seems to depend on the music being played. My inclination right now is to leave it off.
Thanks to Jim for designing this new crossover. I hope no one shies away from it because I assembled it wrong the first time. It is far better than the original.
Now, does anyone have any suggestions for my next project? What else out there is even better?
Hello jimangie1973,
Hope you don't mind answering this but how critical are the guage / resistence values of the inductors in your latest crossover design? How would going from 14 guage to 12 guage change things on the woofer circuit? And how would going from a .45mH inductor to a .50 mH inductor on the tweeter side affect things?
I ask because I want to try out your latest design but I need to possibly order some more parts. I am currently using your first design and think it is far superior to the original design. Considering the improvement your first design made, I have to try your latest design out!
Thanks!
Ken
Hope you don't mind answering this but how critical are the guage / resistence values of the inductors in your latest crossover design? How would going from 14 guage to 12 guage change things on the woofer circuit? And how would going from a .45mH inductor to a .50 mH inductor on the tweeter side affect things?
I ask because I want to try out your latest design but I need to possibly order some more parts. I am currently using your first design and think it is far superior to the original design. Considering the improvement your first design made, I have to try your latest design out!
Thanks!
Ken
Well the 12 gauge inductors will give you a little extra bass boost. I actually run mine with a 12 gauge for the 1.2 mH. Try it and see how you like it.
The .50 inductor on the tweeter circuit will lower the cutoff frequency of the tweeter. It will add presence in the 2 kHz range. Small variations in this have an obvious effect on the sound. What you could do is start out with the .50 mH inductor as is, and unwind 1 or 2 windings at a time until you have the sound you like. It doesn't take many unwindings to go from 0.5 mH to 0.45 mH.
Jim
The .50 inductor on the tweeter circuit will lower the cutoff frequency of the tweeter. It will add presence in the 2 kHz range. Small variations in this have an obvious effect on the sound. What you could do is start out with the .50 mH inductor as is, and unwind 1 or 2 windings at a time until you have the sound you like. It doesn't take many unwindings to go from 0.5 mH to 0.45 mH.
Jim
Thanks!
Thanks for the quick response Jim! I've ordered the parts I need. It will be interesting to compare the new x-over with your original. Tweaking is a huge part of the fun with the Thors (and audio in general).
Out of curiosity, what is it that you like better between the two x-overs?
Also, I don't know a thing about electronics but I was wondering how exactly does changing the guages of the inductors affect the sound? Is it simply the fact that the bigger inductors (larger guage) have lower resistence therefore they let more of the signal get through? Would this not affect the upper band (of the low pass) as well?
And what about the inductor in the hi pass circuit. Does increasing the value (larger inductor) block more of the high frequency from travelling between the + and - sides before the tweeter therefore more of the high frequency signal gets to the tweeter? Conversly, would a smaller inductor allow more of the high frequencies to be shunted to the "-" side before it gets to the tweeter?
Things I think about when laying in bed while trying to get to sleep
Thanks for the quick response Jim! I've ordered the parts I need. It will be interesting to compare the new x-over with your original. Tweaking is a huge part of the fun with the Thors (and audio in general).
Out of curiosity, what is it that you like better between the two x-overs?
Also, I don't know a thing about electronics but I was wondering how exactly does changing the guages of the inductors affect the sound? Is it simply the fact that the bigger inductors (larger guage) have lower resistence therefore they let more of the signal get through? Would this not affect the upper band (of the low pass) as well?
And what about the inductor in the hi pass circuit. Does increasing the value (larger inductor) block more of the high frequency from travelling between the + and - sides before the tweeter therefore more of the high frequency signal gets to the tweeter? Conversly, would a smaller inductor allow more of the high frequencies to be shunted to the "-" side before it gets to the tweeter?
Things I think about when laying in bed while trying to get to sleep
Uhm. Sorry Boom Boom for interupting.
I have a question related to the subject first stated in this thread.
I am building a fat thor. I would like to use one of the revised X-O's instead of my old one from Madisound. Am I correct to believe that the latest revised X-O is for all of the redesigned Thor's. Or better yet the Fat Thor?
I have a question related to the subject first stated in this thread.
I am building a fat thor. I would like to use one of the revised X-O's instead of my old one from Madisound. Am I correct to believe that the latest revised X-O is for all of the redesigned Thor's. Or better yet the Fat Thor?
That's correct. As long as the baffle width is 9-10 inches with MTM driver configuration. The schematic is shown in the linked thread. It's LR4 crossed at 1950 Hz.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/155887-seas-thor-index-threads.html
I've been messing with an LR4 crossed at 1500 Hz. I decided to do this to determine whether the 3rd order nonlinear distortion peak of the W18 at about 1600 Hz was at all audible. I've played around with it quite a bit and I really can't get the 1500 Hz version to sound any better. The 1500 Hz crossover sounds slightly different but whether that's because of the W18 distortion peak, who knows. It's also got more components because the Millenium resonance peak needs to be handled with a parallel RLC notch circuit.
Construction Comments
Hi everyone (my first post!)
Firstly, just want to say, amazing work!! Everyone involved in the upgrading of the original design on the several threads on this site - just shows me how powerful the new world of interconnected friends are. Next, can we please redesign the Toyota Hilux's suspension. Just a joke.
I wanted to build the Thors some years ago but abadoned the project due to the bad reviews... I am 100% back on board and think I will go for the Short Thors.
Looking at some of the photos posted... just a couple of comments for future project managers of their own Thors. I am by no means an expert on speakers, but have had some good involvement in designing systems that reside on vibration ridden platforms - a speaker is an excellent example of this.
Building a speaker from solid wood is a great idea - it looks amazing, and finnishing is very unique and great for lovers of wood. Just be careful since it is not a uniform substance (year rings are denser) that there is no splits or cracks that can produce unwanted vibrations or leaks later on. Also, use a proper tongue and groove overlapping spindle when joining to pieces side by side, and make sure whereever you use glue, that you spread is to each square mm where contact would be made. The glue makes the wood stronger that the orginal structure of the fibere, but gaps can create havoc under stress while vibrating.
Don't use glue that is brittle when dried!!! Oh, and don't use brittle glue. Lastly, dont use glue that is brittle. nuff said.
Rather use grooves to fit the internal braces than any other support: the supports such as quarter rounds not only reduce the volume of the box, but it is not nearly as strong and rigid as a well glued groove. You also run the risk of quarter rounds coming loose and create a nasty rattle.
The same goes for wiring! any losse wires on bare wooden panels can creates unwanted rattles... It might be best to enclose them in rubber/neoprene sleeves and screw them to the walls (every 100mm or so) rather than using glue that could come loose in 5 years.
Buy and borrow as many clamps for the glueing process as you can find. Leave them on for at least 12 hours depending on the glue used.
Plywood for bracing should be checked thoroughly for a uniform bond between layers, especially after drilling a zillion holes into it. And again, your bet is safer with MDF to find a uniform material.
A tip for the bracing. If you want to try a stiffer brace, laminate your own pieces of MDF togehter. You again run the risk of delamination, but if the surface is slightly sanded with a 60/80 grain sandpaper AND you have a proper rigid flat surface and plate to hold the lamination down, (while you park a big car on top) to ensure a proper uniform bond - you can achieve a very ridig MDF ply. I have 2 pieces of 15mm steel plate that I have used for the job in the past. Laminate one layer at a time. I used 4x6mm MDF before and the result was much stiffer than a standard 22mm MDF board.
Now, I have just a few questions to the speaker experts - hope the topics were not discussed before:
1) The holes in the braces... should they be routed to reduce flutter? is this a problem at all? I would like to prevent that to have maximum material for rigidity but I guess there is a better option and would like to know your views.
2) If I flare the port on exit and entrance, how to I compensate/calculate new lenght?
3) Can the distance between the drivers be reduced? I guess not, but I remember the Dynaudios of old brought the centres closer together for what they claimed produced sharper imaging.
4) Can I increase the thickness of the front baffle? If I do this it will create some sort of tube behind the drivers. Will a large flare of the edges help to minimise the effect or is it not worth it at all?
5) The brace volume. You talk about "about 50%" open space after drilling of the holes. How does this effect the volume of the cabinet?? is this any concern? (see my comment on the quarter round braces as well). What is the excact open area % for the brace to which the box was designed?
Thanks for a great piece(s) of work!!!
Theuns
Hi everyone (my first post!)
Firstly, just want to say, amazing work!! Everyone involved in the upgrading of the original design on the several threads on this site - just shows me how powerful the new world of interconnected friends are. Next, can we please redesign the Toyota Hilux's suspension. Just a joke.
I wanted to build the Thors some years ago but abadoned the project due to the bad reviews... I am 100% back on board and think I will go for the Short Thors.
Looking at some of the photos posted... just a couple of comments for future project managers of their own Thors. I am by no means an expert on speakers, but have had some good involvement in designing systems that reside on vibration ridden platforms - a speaker is an excellent example of this.
Building a speaker from solid wood is a great idea - it looks amazing, and finnishing is very unique and great for lovers of wood. Just be careful since it is not a uniform substance (year rings are denser) that there is no splits or cracks that can produce unwanted vibrations or leaks later on. Also, use a proper tongue and groove overlapping spindle when joining to pieces side by side, and make sure whereever you use glue, that you spread is to each square mm where contact would be made. The glue makes the wood stronger that the orginal structure of the fibere, but gaps can create havoc under stress while vibrating.
Don't use glue that is brittle when dried!!! Oh, and don't use brittle glue. Lastly, dont use glue that is brittle.
nuff said.Rather use grooves to fit the internal braces than any other support: the supports such as quarter rounds not only reduce the volume of the box, but it is not nearly as strong and rigid as a well glued groove. You also run the risk of quarter rounds coming loose and create a nasty rattle.
The same goes for wiring! any losse wires on bare wooden panels can creates unwanted rattles... It might be best to enclose them in rubber/neoprene sleeves and screw them to the walls (every 100mm or so) rather than using glue that could come loose in 5 years.
Buy and borrow as many clamps for the glueing process as you can find. Leave them on for at least 12 hours depending on the glue used.
Plywood for bracing should be checked thoroughly for a uniform bond between layers, especially after drilling a zillion holes into it. And again, your bet is safer with MDF to find a uniform material.
A tip for the bracing. If you want to try a stiffer brace, laminate your own pieces of MDF togehter. You again run the risk of delamination, but if the surface is slightly sanded with a 60/80 grain sandpaper AND you have a proper rigid flat surface and plate to hold the lamination down, (while you park a big car on top) to ensure a proper uniform bond - you can achieve a very ridig MDF ply. I have 2 pieces of 15mm steel plate that I have used for the job in the past. Laminate one layer at a time. I used 4x6mm MDF before and the result was much stiffer than a standard 22mm MDF board.
Now, I have just a few questions to the speaker experts - hope the topics were not discussed before:
1) The holes in the braces... should they be routed to reduce flutter? is this a problem at all? I would like to prevent that to have maximum material for rigidity but I guess there is a better option and would like to know your views.
2) If I flare the port on exit and entrance, how to I compensate/calculate new lenght?
3) Can the distance between the drivers be reduced? I guess not, but I remember the Dynaudios of old brought the centres closer together for what they claimed produced sharper imaging.
4) Can I increase the thickness of the front baffle? If I do this it will create some sort of tube behind the drivers. Will a large flare of the edges help to minimise the effect or is it not worth it at all?
5) The brace volume. You talk about "about 50%" open space after drilling of the holes. How does this effect the volume of the cabinet?? is this any concern? (see my comment on the quarter round braces as well). What is the excact open area % for the brace to which the box was designed?
Thanks for a great piece(s) of work!!!
Theuns
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.