Hi guys! I'm starting an awsome project!! I will build my own nautillus-design speakers from some celestion ditton 662 drivers! I will keep all the originals drivers but the passive woofer will be replaced by an active one. And for sure all the way active crossover!!
those monster should weight about 350 pounds and mesure 60``tall, 35``deep and 20``wide
those monster should weight about 350 pounds and mesure 60``tall, 35``deep and 20``wide
okkaayy.. I did not consider this for the moment, but I calculated the cabinet volume for my celestions and my nautilus plan. I'll have proximately 2x the air volume in the nautilus,(the reason I'd put two active woofer instead of an active an a passive.. I'm not very experimented With speaker setting, I understand very well how the nautilus work and why they have this shape.. but I still have so much to learn in audio and electronics, every night I go make my ¨studies¨ on hi-fi, I read a lot on the subject so I can learn more and more but still.. I'm just a 20 year old student in composites materials who recently fall in love with hi fi audio so for the cabinet construction I'll have no problems! but for the rest I'll probably need some advice! lets start with this; what's a driverectomy? is it the speaker's reasonnance??
so for the cabinet construction I'll have no problems! but for the rest I'll probably need some advice! lets start with this; what's a driverectomy? is it the speaker's reasonnance??
You could run the 2 new woofers actively and leave the passive crossover on the mid and tweeter.
If you are set on going active I would recommend a miniDSP and a couple of cheap drivers and small cabinet to play around with rather than mutilating that nice vintage celestion. That way you can read and experiment at the same time. But thats just my opinion.
If you are set on going active I would recommend a miniDSP and a couple of cheap drivers and small cabinet to play around with rather than mutilating that nice vintage celestion. That way you can read and experiment at the same time. But thats just my opinion.
yeahh 1! I was thinking of this to, I would let the passive crossover for tweeter and mid. and don't worry for my ditton 662, the are in perfect shape and every pieces will stay in perfect condition, will make a nice and clean extern box for the passive xover If i want, I will be able to build my celestion like before in 30 min! that's it!
and don't worry for my ditton 662, the are in perfect shape and every pieces will stay in perfect condition, will make a nice and clean extern box for the passive xover If i want, I will be able to build my celestion like before in 30 min! that's it!Why not?
Hi,
Because it does appear to be very misguided. As a "plan"
it really doesn't have anything going for it that I can see.
You can't "nautilise" the bass, midrange or treble.
I've no idea what the actual idea is, but huge 5ft x 3ft x 2ft
boxes for a 12" + ABR seems very wrong. Wny ? What for ?
You can't just chuck in another 12" and dump the ABR
and expect to be able to crossover to the mid easily.
Walk before you can run, or try doing a half marathon.
The ambition level here to me indicates a tenuous grasp
of fundamental loudspeaker design issues / consequences.
The 662's are best left as is, could be tweaked / improved,
but vintage drivers are not a good choice for a new project.
rgds, sreten.
The OP has already stated he'll dismantle so that the boxes can be put back to original condition, so I fail to see any drawbacks. Of course it may not work as expected, but the build will be good fun and he may well learn lots of things by doing. Not everyone learns well from textbooks, some get more from a hands on approach.
Hi,
I know its not a box, its a complex build described as 5ft tall 3ft deep
and nearly 2ft wide, in other words a shedload of work for little purpose.
You won't significantly change the quality of the sound, probably make
it worse by adding a second bass driver and messing up the bass setup.
By all means build it if you want to treat it as a "learning" process,
but IMO its the learning process for the stubborn and fanciful.
I'm not being cynical, just an engineer. Being that requires a good
understanding of the prospect and likely outcome of any project.
I'm all for intelligent modifications, but to be able to say
that, I have to to be able to say that is not a good idea.
There is nothing in this thread that explains why it is a good
idea, what it does, what it fixes, why it makes it any better.
Adding another 12" is just plain stupid, as is stating "active
of course" as though this fixes anything, it doesn't at all.
Regarding modern and far older drivers that is your learning curve.
rgds, sreten.
The 662's are desirable classic loudspeakers and the drivers
go for serious prices, they are not budget butchering fodder.
Last edited:
that's the way I will build them, but with a different design Portal MundoHi-Fi :: Alta Fidelidad
Hi,
It simply won't work well, for basic acoustic engineering reasons.
If you understand "artifice" thats what you seem to want to do.
It might look like a B&W Nautilus but that will be simply as far
as it goes as none of your drivers are suitable for purpose.
It will sound worse than the base speakers you started with.
rgds, sreten.
It simply won't work well, for basic acoustic engineering reasons.
If you understand "artifice" thats what you seem to want to do.
It might look like a B&W Nautilus but that will be simply as far
as it goes as none of your drivers are suitable for purpose.
It will sound worse than the base speakers you started with.
rgds, sreten.
Yes , if it's only for trying the shape , you could (may or...ought to ,possibly ) start
with a two way,making it littler , with ,say , a 7-8" and a tweeter .
It would result in a cleaner design , slim , and probably sounding better .
maybe a kit , as it facilitates everything having the crossover already made .
with a two way,making it littler , with ,say , a 7-8" and a tweeter .
It would result in a cleaner design , slim , and probably sounding better .
maybe a kit , as it facilitates everything having the crossover already made .
Last edited:
I think that what Sreten was trying to tell you, in a more condensed and/or direct form is something like as follows:
The possible advantages of a very elaborate and complicated box design (like the B&W shell), are normally utilized for the very FINE tuning and reduction of a systems distortion characteristics. You seem to be approaching the project with the idea in mind that this "box design" makes up a major part of possible distortion issues. It does not. It's just a spoke in a very complex wheel. Moving that spoke over to your wheel does not keep your wheel round.
The possible advantages of a very elaborate and complicated box design (like the B&W shell), are normally utilized for the very FINE tuning and reduction of a systems distortion characteristics. You seem to be approaching the project with the idea in mind that this "box design" makes up a major part of possible distortion issues. It does not. It's just a spoke in a very complex wheel. Moving that spoke over to your wheel does not keep your wheel round.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.