Re: Elsinore builders in USA
Hi Francois
You should google: "Medium Density Fiberboard" and DO include the quotation marks. If you just google MDF, probably will be an acronym for so many other things (like Medical Dentists Fund).
Also, get in touch with your local lumber yard. Even if they haven't got it, they will be able to tell you. Also search for hardwoods. MDF is also common with kitchen makers and suppliers. I am sure that MDF, the common variety, is available in many places in Chicago.
Don't know of anybody in Chicago has Elsinores yet.
Joe R.
Francois G said:
Hi Francois
You should google: "Medium Density Fiberboard" and DO include the quotation marks. If you just google MDF, probably will be an acronym for so many other things (like Medical Dentists Fund).
Also, get in touch with your local lumber yard. Even if they haven't got it, they will be able to tell you. Also search for hardwoods. MDF is also common with kitchen makers and suppliers. I am sure that MDF, the common variety, is available in many places in Chicago.
Don't know of anybody in Chicago has Elsinores yet.
Joe R.
Re: Re: Elsinore builders in USA
Hey Joe,
I'm not in Chicago, but I'm pretty close at about 60 mi away. I'm planning on starting a build of my own pair of Elsinores within the next year or so (a new amp is first). The entire process will be documented and I'm sure you will be receiving many emails from me as I get ready to start that project. Thank you in advance for all the time you have put into this awesome design!
-Justin
Joe Rasmussen said:
Hey Joe,
I'm not in Chicago, but I'm pretty close at about 60 mi away. I'm planning on starting a build of my own pair of Elsinores within the next year or so (a new amp is first). The entire process will be documented and I'm sure you will be receiving many emails from me as I get ready to start that project. Thank you in advance for all the time you have put into this awesome design!
-Justin
Re: Re: Re: Elsinore builders in USA
Of course, you are using imperial and we are metric. So yours would be 1 inch MDF = 25.4mm. You will just have to make allowance for that extra 0.4mm per 25mm - the final box will still be very close and a mm here and there is not going to affect the overall design.
IMPORTANT: Try kitchen makers, they use thicker MDF, especially for bench tops and such. If they don't have, ask if they can order in. Also, will it be 1" or 25mm? I'd like to know so info can be passed on - on the website.
Thanks Justin. It occurs you are going to have the same issue as Francois - you will be using 1 inch MDF?
I have an idea. If I create English Imperial page in my CAD program, then copy and paste from the original Metric page, then it should convert the measurements.
But these measurements will likely be in decimal, for example 9 1/10 inch will become 9.1" - not fractions but decimal. When ordering the MDF cut, do they accept decimal inches or only fraction? Another example 4 1/5" will be 4.2" - that one is easy but others might be something like 9.3" 0r 9.35" - can they dial that into their cutting machine? Only you guys can find that out by maybe giving them a call. I would like to know as well as I can add the necessary info on the website as well as imperial drawings for those who can only get 1" and 0.75" (19mm) MDF.
I'll let you know if the CAD idea works.
Joe R.
Francois G said:
Of course, you are using imperial and we are metric. So yours would be 1 inch MDF = 25.4mm. You will just have to make allowance for that extra 0.4mm per 25mm - the final box will still be very close and a mm here and there is not going to affect the overall design.
IMPORTANT: Try kitchen makers, they use thicker MDF, especially for bench tops and such. If they don't have, ask if they can order in. Also, will it be 1" or 25mm? I'd like to know so info can be passed on - on the website.
despotic931 said:
Thanks Justin. It occurs you are going to have the same issue as Francois - you will be using 1 inch MDF?
I have an idea. If I create English Imperial page in my CAD program, then copy and paste from the original Metric page, then it should convert the measurements.
But these measurements will likely be in decimal, for example 9 1/10 inch will become 9.1" - not fractions but decimal. When ordering the MDF cut, do they accept decimal inches or only fraction? Another example 4 1/5" will be 4.2" - that one is easy but others might be something like 9.3" 0r 9.35" - can they dial that into their cutting machine? Only you guys can find that out by maybe giving them a call. I would like to know as well as I can add the necessary info on the website as well as imperial drawings for those who can only get 1" and 0.75" (19mm) MDF.
I'll let you know if the CAD idea works.
Joe R.
I had planned on gluing two layers of 1/2" MDF together as augerpro had said for rigidity's sake anyways, unless I do stumble upon some 1" somewhere (I may have a local source, I have to look into it).
Joe, what CAD program are you using? And as far as decimals vs. fractions goes I will be doing all the cutting myself so it doesn't really matter. I wish I had I source for the 25mm MDF as I am more than comfortable working with the metric system. I'll make some calls though and see what I can find out. Whatever I can do to help you out Joe, since you've already done so much work for us!
-Justin
Joe, what CAD program are you using? And as far as decimals vs. fractions goes I will be doing all the cutting myself so it doesn't really matter. I wish I had I source for the 25mm MDF as I am more than comfortable working with the metric system. I'll make some calls though and see what I can find out. Whatever I can do to help you out Joe, since you've already done so much work for us!
-Justin
augerpro said:
That is not a bad idea at all, in fact there may well be an added benefit. There is a theory called "restrained layer damping" and while this is not exactly it, the gluing of layers does help to inhibit flexing of the panel.
despotic931 said:
Again, not a bad idea, I see layering as an advantage.
Re CAD, I use TurboCAD 2D V4.1 - it is a few years old (and a legal copy). When you create the page you tell it whether you want to use Imperial or Metric. I choose Metric. But if you create an identical page choosing Imperial, have both pages open, the lasso the contents of the Metric page, choose Copy (Control C), then goto Imperial page and use Paste (Control V) and the contents now appear and all their measurements are changed to Imperial. I tried it and it seems to work quite well. I suppose other CAD programs would behave similarly.
Joe R.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Elsinore builders in USA
Joe,
Thanks for the suggestions re. 1" MDF. I will use the 2 x 1/2" glued if we can't find 1".
Very kind of you to offer a set of imperial drawings, but I think it is easy enough to convert and adjust. ( I believe the US and Myanmar are the only countries still on the imperial system - serves us right to have to do our own conversions!)
Thanks,
Francois
Joe,
Thanks for the suggestions re. 1" MDF. I will use the 2 x 1/2" glued if we can't find 1".
Joe Rasmussen said:
Very kind of you to offer a set of imperial drawings, but I think it is easy enough to convert and adjust. ( I believe the US and Myanmar are the only countries still on the imperial system - serves us right to have to do our own conversions!)
Thanks,
Francois
despotic931 said:
1) I would love to have an index of those who have built the Elsinores and if agreed to, have their rough details listed, including where you are. I do believe there are at least some in the US (and Canada too) who have built them and others definitely contemplating.
Re the Critical Q subs, I have two (stereo rigged) in my listening room and feel little desire to turn them on with the Elsinores running. They are pretty close to a full-range speaker. I have a friend (in Canberra) who has Duntech Crown Princesses, not quite twice the size of the Elsinores. He uses the Duntech Thor subs with the big Duntechs. When I brought the Elsinores with me he was rather incredulous at my claim that they didn't need any subs. He now freely recognises that the Elsinores not only outperformed the big Duntech but also Duntech plus Thor sub. He has since heard the Elsinores many times and does not deny it.
Brad Serhan from Orpheus/Duntech here in Sydney, jokes with me that the Elsinores are baby Duntech Sovereigns - have you seen a pair of Sovereigns... HUGE!!!
But having said all that, it's not just bass extension that is important. It is bass dynamics which ultimately defines bass quality. If two speaker have identical extension in the same room, but one has lower dynamic compression, it will give a genuine impression of having deeper bass. Why do I say genuine when the measured extension is the same? It's very simple, poor dynamics means there is a tendency for the frequency to double up, hence energy at say 30 hertz is diluted and dissipated at 60 Hertz. If it doesn't, it sound deeper because it is. Lower bass compression and better dynamics leads to bass that has better pitch definition and that says it all.
I believe that it only of late that it has become better understood that we are sensitive to distortion in the midrange area centered around 2KHz, that is not new in itself, BUT at low frequencies and increasingly below 100Hz we are very sensitive to dynamic shifts in the same way we are sensitive to midrange distortion. Curtailing these LF dynamics when required, curtails what we perceive as reality. As we go through the day we are at times exposed to enormous uninhibited LF dynamics, like hearing the a door being slammed, a truck rumbling down the road, airplanes (I used to live under a flight path at Tempe near Sydney Mascot Airport). There are heaps of examples and NONE of those real life sounds are compressed. The same applies to live music. Compress LF and it sound less real!
Joe R.
Hello Joe
The Elsinore and Duntech parallelism probably stems from its stepped and felt covered mechanical delay mounting of its HF unit.
I have seen and listened to the Duntech Prince many years ago. Huge speaker. Very effortless too. It was playing in a big space too. I have the impression that it was better grade than later Dunlavy models of its scale.
I have browsed your project link and somewhere I saw that you use extra panels for the mounting of the HF unit in your latest version along with a differentiation of a capacitor value.
How do you keep up with your original (elaborate and thoroughly explained) time behavior, when moving it so forward? Are the units so different in time, or is it something I missed due to my admittedly fast browsing?
As for what is exactly at play with bass dynamics and our aural perceptions, one thing that I know is that our hearing integrates very slowly in the nodal region. There is no direct and reflected sound perception there for instance. And I know that major masking for the mids has its roots in the bass the way that cochlea hair like sensors work.
A huge non compressed speaker will not be perceived as a high pass, the brain will not irksomely work reconstructing fundamentals, and mechanical non strain will not pollute next impulses after huge transient effects with ringing little woofers playing mids too. Such violent forces happen mainly in the upper bass and mid bass in music. The 200-800Hz range is very densely populated in music and if there is no smearing behavior right underneath that range, the feeling is nearer to big real events. Add extension, and you can't beat a large system. No canned thunder exists in nature.
Just some points I wanted to add about bass and big systems.
Regards.
The Elsinore and Duntech parallelism probably stems from its stepped and felt covered mechanical delay mounting of its HF unit.
I have seen and listened to the Duntech Prince many years ago. Huge speaker. Very effortless too. It was playing in a big space too. I have the impression that it was better grade than later Dunlavy models of its scale.
I have browsed your project link and somewhere I saw that you use extra panels for the mounting of the HF unit in your latest version along with a differentiation of a capacitor value.
How do you keep up with your original (elaborate and thoroughly explained) time behavior, when moving it so forward? Are the units so different in time, or is it something I missed due to my admittedly fast browsing?
As for what is exactly at play with bass dynamics and our aural perceptions, one thing that I know is that our hearing integrates very slowly in the nodal region. There is no direct and reflected sound perception there for instance. And I know that major masking for the mids has its roots in the bass the way that cochlea hair like sensors work.
A huge non compressed speaker will not be perceived as a high pass, the brain will not irksomely work reconstructing fundamentals, and mechanical non strain will not pollute next impulses after huge transient effects with ringing little woofers playing mids too. Such violent forces happen mainly in the upper bass and mid bass in music. The 200-800Hz range is very densely populated in music and if there is no smearing behavior right underneath that range, the feeling is nearer to big real events. Add extension, and you can't beat a large system. No canned thunder exists in nature.
Just some points I wanted to add about bass and big systems.
Regards.
Hi Salas
You traverse such a large area, I don't know where to start.
I do have somewhat of a connection, Duntech is still alive here in Sydney. For example, three pairs of Sovereigns have been made in recent times. Indeed, the only person other than John Dunlavy to computer model the Sovereigns is yours truly. Many older Duntechs get returned and are refurbished as the owners want to hang onto them, many run studios.
Because two things, the design evolved and the drivers were largely lined up physically and the modeling indicated near 6dB of summing at the centre of the crossover. It was found that modeling the phase was not all that accurate and so the crossover was stripped and we only concentrated on the phase and sure enough the tweeter's pulse when going positive (since it is wired out of phase lectrically) and lining it up with the positive going midrange showed a significant error. If you want me to put it bluntly - I got it wrong and like other things in life, it is about learning that next time you don't fall for it again.
As it was, I was not entirely unhappy about it. By tweaking the crossover, mainly the single series cap and mounting it on the 25mm part (the sub front panel) and flushmounting it, things lined up nicely.
It also meant we could use felt rather than a waveguide that was rather deep and difficult to treat diffraction with. It also made box construction a bit easier, also converting earlier version was not that difficult with instructions on the website on how to do it. It also coincided closely after the availablity of the HDS tweeter. It all came down to getting things right in the end.
And no, there is no Mk4 in the works and I don't see it happen. But famous last words? Please, do not put me in a straight jacket.
Interesting thoughts and I get your drift. I suppose if you cut off somebody's legs they will notice it.
Joe R.
You traverse such a large area, I don't know where to start.
salas said:
I do have somewhat of a connection, Duntech is still alive here in Sydney. For example, three pairs of Sovereigns have been made in recent times. Indeed, the only person other than John Dunlavy to computer model the Sovereigns is yours truly. Many older Duntechs get returned and are refurbished as the owners want to hang onto them, many run studios.
Because two things, the design evolved and the drivers were largely lined up physically and the modeling indicated near 6dB of summing at the centre of the crossover. It was found that modeling the phase was not all that accurate and so the crossover was stripped and we only concentrated on the phase and sure enough the tweeter's pulse when going positive (since it is wired out of phase lectrically) and lining it up with the positive going midrange showed a significant error. If you want me to put it bluntly - I got it wrong and like other things in life, it is about learning that next time you don't fall for it again.
As it was, I was not entirely unhappy about it. By tweaking the crossover, mainly the single series cap and mounting it on the 25mm part (the sub front panel) and flushmounting it, things lined up nicely.
It also meant we could use felt rather than a waveguide that was rather deep and difficult to treat diffraction with. It also made box construction a bit easier, also converting earlier version was not that difficult with instructions on the website on how to do it. It also coincided closely after the availablity of the HDS tweeter. It all came down to getting things right in the end.
And no, there is no Mk4 in the works and I don't see it happen. But famous last words? Please, do not put me in a straight jacket.
Interesting thoughts and I get your drift. I suppose if you cut off somebody's legs they will notice it.
Joe R.
salas said:
Ditto on the HDS and a smile re the master's apprentice (very similar name to a late 60's rock here in Oz).
I believe that title was taken by Steve Lund of Sonique Loudspeakers www.sonique.com.au. I never actually met Dunlavy face 2 face, but I know of number of his Australian friends and also spent a weekend with John (Jack) Davies in Canberra with some of those same friends. Jack was John's successor at Duntech at a time when Dunlavy still had a financial hand in it. It was the accountant (not the butler this time) who killed Duntech in Adelaide (I was approached for technical advice at the time and was ignored - an ignominy I have to live down). But eventually a friend here in Sydney came to the rescue and bought it and now it's not too far from here and what the future brings, time will tell. But much of the business is in the pro area. Hopefully that will change.
But re Dunlavy's legacy, we all owe him a debt but as Walter Baek-Hansen in Canberra (was a friend of his and formerly Canberra ACT dealer) will tell you, things move along and there is new thinking in the works. The Elsinores represent some of that thinking, for example 1st order crossovers below 1KHz (piston area) should be in phase (electrically) and crossover to the tweeter (we are talking classic 3-way here or 2 1/2 way too) should be out of phase electrically. And yet we can still produce square waves and also highly organised step response where different parts/contributors of the pulse are all going in the same direction at the same time etc. Also, the myth that a vented box cannot produce square waves? It can be done. How Dunlavy would have taken all this in is anybody's guess. But as Walter and Derek Millar (formerly of the ANU - Australian National University) have said to me on a number of occasions, we have tools that he did not have then. We forget that in later life Dunlavy was very handicapped mentally, just at a point when that was an area that just went ahead leaps and bounds. Many people now have tools that are easier and better (IMO) to work with than in his hey day. He did use MELISSA in the 90's, but I find it very unfriendly (current Duntech has latest version - and no, I am not the operator).
Interesting to reminisce about these things.
Joe R.