Hello everybody,I'm a new user but following long since in a "listening" mode ... First of all, forgive me for my first post being rather long but I really need you experts advice, to decide on a couple of questions before starting this project in the best way (it's not exactly cheap!).I'm pretty good in working with wood and other materials (my primary hobby) but still (and I believe I remain) a novice in Audio - related mechanics.So, as per the title, I plan to build a pair of Zaph ZRT (standmount, closed cabinet) for my fair decent hi-fi system (50W P/P EL34 ampli + Rega CD + Thorens).My two options:A. baltic birch plywood, translam construction with a elliptical shape (a la magico mini, but with a flat baffle made of panzerholz and not alluminium).B. classic boxy shape (HDF + panzerhols baffle).And the questions:1. which option is better, as far as the possible outcome?2. my proposal to use panzerholz as baffle material is wise? (I believe so)3. due to extensive bracing, I need to alter project dimension from original design to keep internal volume constant. What's the best way? Increasing height, depth or width (or all of them, proportionally)?4. due to the fact that I intend to make side walls 1" , and to round the edges of the baffle, the overall widht will result approx 1" wider (30 mm). Would this be dertimental to Loudspeaker performance?Many thanks in advance for any help in answering these questions. And for any other suggestions ... I believe it looks clear I'm leaning towards a sort of overkill approach!Thanks again for support (and patience reading this long post).Cheers.
Thanks to quick reply. Sorry for my post being poorly readable. I tried to rewrite but for some reason, when I post it, formatting goes away!To recap:Translam, oval shape, better than standard boxy. Panzerholz good choice for the baffle. Birch plywood better than HDF/MDF. The extra 30mm width baffle (with 1inch rounded edges) won't affect loudspeaker's performance. Q: may the fact that the baffle will remain flat, while the shape of the cabinet will be oval (i.e. the baffle will not follow the ovarall cabinet shape) constitute an issue? Cheers.
Thanx everybody for the quick answers (notwithstanding the poor readability of my post !).
I got the main points but I'm still investigating the costs for CNC routing in case I'll decide to go the translam way. We'll see ...
Just another (maybe) silly question, related to the traditional boxy shape:
I see that Zaph prefers to close the rear of the box and bolt the baffle. Is there any reasons? I mean what about permanently glue the baffle to the box and bolt the rear face to the cabinet? Better, Worse, Same?
Many thanks in advance
C.
I got the main points but I'm still investigating the costs for CNC routing in case I'll decide to go the translam way. We'll see ...
Just another (maybe) silly question, related to the traditional boxy shape:
I see that Zaph prefers to close the rear of the box and bolt the baffle. Is there any reasons? I mean what about permanently glue the baffle to the box and bolt the rear face to the cabinet? Better, Worse, Same?
Many thanks in advance
C.
Hey, thanks. I omitted to say that this was the only reason I could see ...
My question was more oriented to know if there is any change (from a performance point of view) having the baffle bolted (albeit very well bolted) or perfectly solid with the rest of the cabinet (i.e. epoxy glued).
Many thanks!
C
My question was more oriented to know if there is any change (from a performance point of view) having the baffle bolted (albeit very well bolted) or perfectly solid with the rest of the cabinet (i.e. epoxy glued).
Many thanks!
C
In the meantime, I believe I'll go for a traditional construction. Maybe later on I'll make a translam variant. This is roughly what I intend to fabricate. MDF for all the walls and bracing, Panzerholz for the baffle.
The red cylinders are (internally) threaded bronze shafts used to bolt the baffle to the cabinet. I'm not using hurricanes and triangular braces glued to the front of the side walls, but pass through tubes to "clamp" the baffle to the cabinet (counterplate on the back face of rear panel).
Total net volume remains 28L. Cabinet has same width and slightly augmented depth and height.
Any thoughts?
C.
The red cylinders are (internally) threaded bronze shafts used to bolt the baffle to the cabinet. I'm not using hurricanes and triangular braces glued to the front of the side walls, but pass through tubes to "clamp" the baffle to the cabinet (counterplate on the back face of rear panel).
Total net volume remains 28L. Cabinet has same width and slightly augmented depth and height.
Any thoughts?
C.
Attachments
hello,
just in theory.... I'm currently away from my "real" home and therefore from all my ... tools. I will move back next year and I'll start this project, together with a fullrange one.
In the meantime ... I keep on my studies. I'll surely show off my work when I'll start, so you'll see it!
cheers.
just in theory.... I'm currently away from my "real" home and therefore from all my ... tools. I will move back next year and I'll start this project, together with a fullrange one.
In the meantime ... I keep on my studies. I'll surely show off my work when I'll start, so you'll see it!
cheers.
Hi,
The brass rods are an overcomplication compared to battening front
and back for the inset front and rears, they will have little effect.
I'd have one offset to the front vertical internal brace. Joining this
would be two horizontal braces, above and below the bass/mid,
and a further horizontal brace vertically offset from the rear.
More complicated is splitting the vertical brace into two with
3 offset horizontal braces between them, rest same as above.
The idea is basically a very strong rigid central "spine", so the
two vertical braces are closer than they are front and back.
Add one extra horizontal brace for taller thinner cabinets, 2/4/3.
(I think the floorstanding vented ZRT is the best use of the driver).
Avoid any symmetry, break everything up into offset sections,
this will avoid coincident resonances, and as described above
move from more rigid at the front to less rigid at the rear.
Don't shy away from using different thicknesses or materials
for various parts to increase the front to back rigidity ratio.
rgds, sreten.
The brass rods are an overcomplication compared to battening front
and back for the inset front and rears, they will have little effect.
I'd have one offset to the front vertical internal brace. Joining this
would be two horizontal braces, above and below the bass/mid,
and a further horizontal brace vertically offset from the rear.
More complicated is splitting the vertical brace into two with
3 offset horizontal braces between them, rest same as above.
The idea is basically a very strong rigid central "spine", so the
two vertical braces are closer than they are front and back.
Add one extra horizontal brace for taller thinner cabinets, 2/4/3.
(I think the floorstanding vented ZRT is the best use of the driver).
Avoid any symmetry, break everything up into offset sections,
this will avoid coincident resonances, and as described above
move from more rigid at the front to less rigid at the rear.
Don't shy away from using different thicknesses or materials
for various parts to increase the front to back rigidity ratio.
rgds, sreten.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.