David,Would increasing the height and depth so that the same volume existed in the rear chambers offset any negative effects of a reduced width?
I recognise this will change performance, but might be fun to tryWhere would you suggest making the adjustments?
The SynTripP is designed to use with the secondary horn, using it without is a compromise to start with, so reducing the horn width is just a bit more of a compromise ;^).
Increasing the depth would compromise the horn portion the least. Increasing the height would change the port arrangement, if you want the original 81 Hz Fb without a re-design, just add the depth volume reduced from the sides.
Cheers,
Art
Thank's Art...
I thought the secondary horn was an optional bonus
Given I have plenty of depth to mess with... would adding more volume at the back in excess of what I am taking off the sides add more oomph?
PS. Just to be sure we are on the same page, in adding depth I would lengthen the horn so the HF driver sits the same distance off the back wall.
I thought the secondary horn was an optional bonus
Given I have plenty of depth to mess with... would adding more volume at the back in excess of what I am taking off the sides add more oomph?
PS. Just to be sure we are on the same page, in adding depth I would lengthen the horn so the HF driver sits the same distance off the back wall.
The thing that surprised me was how SMALL they are. Not much larger than an 8" two-way. Definitely WAF friendly.
David,Thank's Art...
1)I thought the secondary horn was an optional bonus
2)Given I have plenty of depth to mess with... would adding more volume at the back in excess of what I am taking off the sides add more oomph?
3)PS. Just to be sure we are on the same page, in adding depth I would lengthen the horn so the HF driver sits the same distance off the back wall.
1)Sure, who needs an extra octave of pattern control and the equivalent of twice the power with no power compression ;^)?
2) Somewhat, bigger box, more output, but lower tuning assuming the same port arrangement, so little SPL output change unless the Fb is held the same.
3)Lengthening the horn and reducing the width will reduce the horizontal coverage angle, generally not advisable for a single cabinet per side.
Then again, you have not mentioned your application or low frequency cabinets, so I have no idea what would be optimal for your usage.
Art
Set up is a single sub and top to each side of a stage. Subs are a modded version of xoc1's TH18 (HPF 25hz BW48db, LPF 80hz LR24db)
Current tops are some old customs boxes with a 15" filling in low mids, and some HF drivers doing the rest. Subs, mids and highs are driven by their own amps.
The system is generally in a single small auditorium, it plays outside sometimes but not often. I was thinking that I would use the additional extension on the SynTripP only when outside.
Whether inside or out, to get an even level from front to back requires elevation of the top cabinets well above head level and directing them down at the meat bags present at the back of the coverage area.
XOC1's TH18 is not near high enough to place a top cabinet on top and satisfy that parameter with a SynTripP placed on top.
If you think the SynTripP will work for your application, put a pole cup in the TH18 (laying horizontal or vertical) and put a pole under the SynTripP to elevate it to the proper height for the venue, and make sure the base is large enough to withstand wind and errant crowd effects. A large plinth ratchet strapped to the sub is required for safety.
The secondary extension only adds a few kilos, but the directional control it provides is more important indoors than out.
Have fun,
Good luck!
Art
XOC1's TH18 is not near high enough to place a top cabinet on top and satisfy that parameter with a SynTripP placed on top.
If you think the SynTripP will work for your application, put a pole cup in the TH18 (laying horizontal or vertical) and put a pole under the SynTripP to elevate it to the proper height for the venue, and make sure the base is large enough to withstand wind and errant crowd effects. A large plinth ratchet strapped to the sub is required for safety.
The secondary extension only adds a few kilos, but the directional control it provides is more important indoors than out.
Have fun,
Good luck!
Art
Cool thanks, Art... The XOC1 we built is 115cm high so a little taller than the original I believe but I think you have convinced me we were going for a little too much form over function!
SynTripP on a pole seems the way to go
Looking good
Will you be taking/posting measurements with REW or HOLM Impulse?
Thanks guys.
Maybe in February.
I'm not sure about cost effective. I'm planing to use tube amps, and "cost effective" and "good" is an opposite things there. I have upgraded Behringer DCX2496 and several push-pull and SE tube amps , so I can try.
But I really want to use this Synergy as a passive version that I can feed from one amp.
But I really want to use this Synergy as a passive version that I can feed from one amp.
Last edited:
Good day everyone.
I would first like to say a massive thank you to Weltersys, xrk971, FinBot, Jennygirl, and everyone else that has contributed to this design and discussion with their knowledge and build pictures. I come from an IT networking background, and for me this kind of open source collaboration is exactly what the internet was built for!
I've had a very keen interest in audio for a long time, and have always wanted to build a small PA rig. My technical understanding is still on the beginner side, which is why I've only built proven designs while trying to understand how they work and the design choices made. I've read most of this thread and the design thread and I'm slowly getting to grips with it all.
I'm currently involved in a local burner community group/camp in southern California, and we are looking to replace a small old PA rig with a custom build. We have access to CNC router and a decent workshop, so would prefer to build rather than buy. We are about to start cutting wood for a pair of Josh Ricci's Othorn subwoofers, and would like to try a pair of SynTripP's above them.
Driver wise I saw Jennygirl used the FaitalPro HF144 CD instead of the original Celestion, and I think FinBot used the ferrite version of the original Celestion.
I really liked Jennygirl's use of 3D printing for the cone plugs and throat adapter, and was as such thinking of building on that work and also using the HF144. Would you be able to share if there were any other changes involved in the plans for using this CD (I downloaded the provided 3D print models)
If anyone could share their CAD work I would really appreciate that (I did take a look at the earlier sketchup and PDF, but know they are not complete/accurate). I will likely end up re-drawing everything in my CAD/CAM program of choice anyway, as this helps me getting a better grip on the design.
I will of course share back my progress, but more likely questions Thank you in advance.
Super excited to have some community built sound for our group.
Best regards,
Matthew
I would first like to say a massive thank you to Weltersys, xrk971, FinBot, Jennygirl, and everyone else that has contributed to this design and discussion with their knowledge and build pictures. I come from an IT networking background, and for me this kind of open source collaboration is exactly what the internet was built for!
I've had a very keen interest in audio for a long time, and have always wanted to build a small PA rig. My technical understanding is still on the beginner side, which is why I've only built proven designs while trying to understand how they work and the design choices made. I've read most of this thread and the design thread and I'm slowly getting to grips with it all.
I'm currently involved in a local burner community group/camp in southern California, and we are looking to replace a small old PA rig with a custom build. We have access to CNC router and a decent workshop, so would prefer to build rather than buy. We are about to start cutting wood for a pair of Josh Ricci's Othorn subwoofers, and would like to try a pair of SynTripP's above them.
Driver wise I saw Jennygirl used the FaitalPro HF144 CD instead of the original Celestion, and I think FinBot used the ferrite version of the original Celestion.
I really liked Jennygirl's use of 3D printing for the cone plugs and throat adapter, and was as such thinking of building on that work and also using the HF144. Would you be able to share if there were any other changes involved in the plans for using this CD (I downloaded the provided 3D print models)
If anyone could share their CAD work I would really appreciate that (I did take a look at the earlier sketchup and PDF, but know they are not complete/accurate). I will likely end up re-drawing everything in my CAD/CAM program of choice anyway, as this helps me getting a better grip on the design.
I will of course share back my progress, but more likely questions
Thank you in advance.Super excited to have some community built sound for our group.
Best regards,
Matthew
casting materials ?
Hi there g: Could you post the casting materials (mold and the actual cone filler ) you used in the final construction? Did you use liquid nails (without screws or other mechanical fasteners) to attach the filler to the driver plate? thanks...regards, Michael
Thanks USRFobiwan, but it's not
It's really messy to work with and needs finishing work.
I tried several materials for mold including gypsym, bondo, cement and liquid rubber
Cement, bondo and gypsum are cracked too easy.
So I place under the cone of the woofer "innovative support system" and use cone as the mold
Hi there g: Could you post the casting materials (mold and the actual cone filler ) you used in the final construction? Did you use liquid nails (without screws or other mechanical fasteners) to attach the filler to the driver plate? thanks...regards, Michael
Jennys 3D model used screws. We got the model up to 260cc's which should raise the upper crossover point. I had trouble with my mids reaching over 600hz using a 180cc plug, putting strain on the Compression Driver.
I'm moving to a coaxial compression driver to fix that issue...though i also expect smoother highs with the coax. It does sound awesome with the Celestians, and Phil loaded the extra pair I made with the B&C CD's art recommended.
I'm moving to a coaxial compression driver to fix that issue...though i also expect smoother highs with the coax. It does sound awesome with the Celestians, and Phil loaded the extra pair I made with the B&C CD's art recommended.
Last edited:
PLANS UPDATE:
mjleonard is going to redo the model/plans I made, in Fusion360 (as I'm inexperienced in high end cad) and he will make a test build potentially using cnc to assist with the cutting.
We will be respecting Arts request to have the plans checked before publication, which will take a bit of time to turn around.
In lieu of the modern engineering world using the metric system, the plans will again be in metric.
To be a tad controversial....I know how much work went into getting the box shape to what it is....but I want to propose we change the angles of the horn to be bang on 45 and 90 Degrees. This makes cutting a whole heap easier and less error prone. I am guessing the odd angles of 44.1 etc are a consequence of making 1/8 of an inch increments in panel sizes.
But cutting 44.1 degress....It's hard to work out how to set 4the machines up when swapping between inside and ouside angles.
More advantageous is 45 and 90 permit cheaper off the shelf cutters to be used on a cnc.
There are also a couple of reasons I propose making the rear a bit deeper, increasing volume of the box, which i will go into in a separate post.
Stand by folks!
mjleonard is going to redo the model/plans I made, in Fusion360 (as I'm inexperienced in high end cad) and he will make a test build potentially using cnc to assist with the cutting.
We will be respecting Arts request to have the plans checked before publication, which will take a bit of time to turn around.
In lieu of the modern engineering world using the metric system, the plans will again be in metric.
To be a tad controversial....I know how much work went into getting the box shape to what it is....but I want to propose we change the angles of the horn to be bang on 45 and 90 Degrees. This makes cutting a whole heap easier and less error prone. I am guessing the odd angles of 44.1 etc are a consequence of making 1/8 of an inch increments in panel sizes.
But cutting 44.1 degress....It's hard to work out how to set 4the machines up when swapping between inside and ouside angles.
More advantageous is 45 and 90 permit cheaper off the shelf cutters to be used on a cnc.
There are also a couple of reasons I propose making the rear a bit deeper, increasing volume of the box, which i will go into in a separate post.
Stand by folks!
Last edited:
Hi Folks
I am looking at building this, but with a slight mod. The subs I have are a little narrower than the full 676mm of the original SynTripP and I would like to be able to stack to tops over the subs. To do this I would need to decrease the width down to 610mm.
Would increasing the height and depth so that the same volume existed in the rear chambers offset any negative effects of a reduced width?
I recognise this will change performance, but might be fun to try
You might struggle to get the mids in if you make it narrower. Its already tight.