Easter weekend .... good time to get the top/bottoms onto my version of Dave/Scot's Small Thor design. Sides went on yesterday.
For a couple more pics and "mess-up" log see ... http://www.greenie512.net/greenie512/html/wip.html
Public thanks again to Dave/Scot (Panet10/Scotmoose) for all their time, help and knowledge they share unreservedly with us all.
I'll come back to this thread and post more final pictures later.
Cheers - Phil
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
For a couple more pics and "mess-up" log see ... http://www.greenie512.net/greenie512/html/wip.html
Public thanks again to Dave/Scot (Panet10/Scotmoose) for all their time, help and knowledge they share unreservedly with us all.
I'll come back to this thread and post more final pictures later.
Cheers - Phil
Dam, dam, dam – Dave and Scott you’ve lost me an extra $500 ………. I now have one redundant sub woofer, hey-ho never did like that idea.
So how does the Small Thor sound – well, can’t do an A/B test as most of A is now in B. But having living with the Original Thors for three years that’s no problem. “Small” sounds the same – well it would but and it’s a BIG BUT it now sounds like I thought the original should have from the word go – I’ve now got BASS. Quite amazing from a smaller box, how low do these things go – dunno – no measuring gear. Who needs it, I’m moving the sub woofer out of the room tomorrow – that’s how much.
Now the sub will vibrate the settee and you can feel its impact, the “Smalls” can’t do that. But acoustic bass sound true and low, low notes on a piano get there. So for me I’m very happy.
One strange result is more vocal clarity – which has thrown me a bit? And the sound stage seems more integrates and deeper?? I’ve only done a couple of hours listening so will have to work those out.
Bases are currently loosely fixed, will leave them for a little while until I’m sure I don’t need to get back in before fitting them tight and front edges need rounding over before the whole lot gets veneered.
Thanks again Dave and Scott.
So how does the Small Thor sound – well, can’t do an A/B test as most of A is now in B. But having living with the Original Thors for three years that’s no problem. “Small” sounds the same – well it would but and it’s a BIG BUT it now sounds like I thought the original should have from the word go – I’ve now got BASS. Quite amazing from a smaller box, how low do these things go – dunno – no measuring gear. Who needs it, I’m moving the sub woofer out of the room tomorrow – that’s how much.
Now the sub will vibrate the settee and you can feel its impact, the “Smalls” can’t do that. But acoustic bass sound true and low, low notes on a piano get there. So for me I’m very happy.
One strange result is more vocal clarity – which has thrown me a bit? And the sound stage seems more integrates and deeper?? I’ve only done a couple of hours listening so will have to work those out.
Bases are currently loosely fixed, will leave them for a little while until I’m sure I don’t need to get back in before fitting them tight and front edges need rounding over before the whole lot gets veneered.
Thanks again Dave and Scott.
Attachments
greenie512 said:
That could easily be attributable to the swiss-cheese supporting brace for the mid-basses. The intention is to tie the entire mass of the box to the driver which does 2 things -- it sinks vibrations into the rear of the box instead of leaving it on the front baffle, and it means the drivers move less in space relative to their surroundings -- both contribute to increased downward dynamic range.
dave
That sounds the most likely thing to me. That bracing can make a real difference. Also, damping can play funny tricks on you. A large quantity can contribute to midrange purity, that's for certain, but it's also possible to go overboard & blunt the dynamics. It's subtle, but it's there, and getting the balance right is tricky.
Glad you like them! One suggestion: make the roundovers as large as you possibly can. Lynn Olson commented on this WRT his Ariels, and the wide radii do make an audible improvement.
In-room F10 should be in the low-mid 20Hz regions, with usuable response down to ~30Hz. That's SWAGed of course -depends how big the room is, positioning & the rest of the system etc.
Glad you like them! One suggestion: make the roundovers as large as you possibly can. Lynn Olson commented on this WRT his Ariels, and the wide radii do make an audible improvement.
In-room F10 should be in the low-mid 20Hz regions, with usuable response down to ~30Hz. That's SWAGed of course -depends how big the room is, positioning & the rest of the system etc.
re radii - B. Timmermanns (Hobby HiFi mag) once ran a series of tests on that, using standard 19mm (3/4") panels. Any radius below 19mm proved to be purely cosmetic, with hardly any effect. With thicker panels one could use larger radii with even better results, but router bits are hard to come by and/or cripplingly expensive - in this case a 45° mitre is the best solution. Works OK with 19mm too, if no router is available.
Pit
Pit
Now that'll be interesting - I'll run the sqare edge box for a few weeks to get the sound. Then I'll put a 1" radius round over on the front verticals and see if I can actually hear a difference - will report back on that.
Dave, really glad your front to back bracing has an audible effect on the .drivers - all those holes took ages to drill out.
Cheers - Phil
Dave, really glad your front to back bracing has an audible effect on the .drivers - all those holes took ages to drill out.
Cheers - Phil
Phil,
we are not talking of a difference that will make the Earth move for you, but a difference there is.
Sharp edges perform like an additional source of sound (remember school physics lessons?),repeating what you already got directly from the driver. Unfortunately this "echo" arrives within the time window your brain uses to locate real or stereo generated sources of sound and your brain has to filter it out.
Now your brain is quite clever and can do this (does it all day long in fact), but it's h*lluvalot of work. The resuls are:
a) a certain feeling of unease - your brain tries to tell you "I can't give you an exact acoustic image of what might be dangerous around us - let's get out of here"
b) loss of information. The filtering process has to be done in a hurry, so rather a lot of the finer inner dynamics of a good recording ends up in the dustbin.
Conclusion: an additional half hour in the workshed doesn't cost money (h*ll, it's a hobby!) and it removes one more curtain between you and the music.
Long waffle, but explaining things I only half understand in a language I only half speak...try to get used to it please.
Cheers mate,
Pit
we are not talking of a difference that will make the Earth move for you, but a difference there is.
Sharp edges perform like an additional source of sound (remember school physics lessons?),repeating what you already got directly from the driver. Unfortunately this "echo" arrives within the time window your brain uses to locate real or stereo generated sources of sound and your brain has to filter it out.
Now your brain is quite clever and can do this (does it all day long in fact), but it's h*lluvalot of work. The resuls are:
a) a certain feeling of unease - your brain tries to tell you "I can't give you an exact acoustic image of what might be dangerous around us - let's get out of here"
b) loss of information. The filtering process has to be done in a hurry, so rather a lot of the finer inner dynamics of a good recording ends up in the dustbin.
Conclusion: an additional half hour in the workshed doesn't cost money (h*ll, it's a hobby!) and it removes one more curtain between you and the music.
Long waffle, but explaining things I only half understand in a language I only half speak...try to get used to it please.
Cheers mate,
Pit
Pit – your English is one million times better than my German – yep understand what you say and actually understand half the theory behind it. All I’m saying is it’ll be a nice little experiment to see if I can actually hear/feel/tune-in to those benefits. I can then use this result on future cabinets to make a decision whether it is worth the effort if the speakers are just for my use.
As I wasn’t looking for more than additional bass from the new Smalls I am REALLY happy with the added dynamics introduced with the driver bracing, so if round overs add a teeny-weeny bit more – it’s a win-win solution.
Cheers - Phil
As I wasn’t looking for more than additional bass from the new Smalls I am REALLY happy with the added dynamics introduced with the driver bracing, so if round overs add a teeny-weeny bit more – it’s a win-win solution.
Cheers - Phil
greenie512 said:
You're getting it - and you get more out of your workshed than you'd ever get from any "High End" boutique. As to the added dynamics: they have always been there, they just got silenced. Steep transients are mainly a thing of higher frequencies (Fourrier synthesis), ie very little cone excursion. Now imagine you're playing billiards and at the moment you do your stroke the "recoil" of your queue pushes you back - how much movement would be left to be transmitted to the ball? If there's no billiards table in your favourite pub just translate to darts throwing.
Pit
The Review
After a weeks listening of the “Small Thor” I think I can now comment on the final results.
The main objective of this rebuilt was to get better bass out of the cabinet – success. This unit now sounds like I expected the original TL to perform (but didn’t). I’ve been augmenting the old system with a 10” XLS active subwoofer of various guises and it’s a great unit, tunes in well and really pumps the bass. But all along I’ve never been a great fan of separate subs, obviously it’s the only way to get decent bass with small speakers, smaller full-rangers etc. However for large speakers like the Thor I’d really expect them to generate reasonable levels of bass and the “Small” does that very well. It can not quite get the high level impact of the separate sub but these speakers are for music not HT.
The bass is good enough that I’ve disconnected the subwoofer and I’m thinks of selling it.
Now the real twist in all this is the other audible benefits from this design.
I really like the Seas Excel drivers but I know they are often criticised as being hard and over analytical but with my “warm sounding” Music Fidelity amps and aging ears that has never been a problem for me and the detail these drivers present with a good source is stunning.
In the new “Smalls” this has move up a notch which initially surprised me. However the front to back bracing has “locked” the drivers solid and along with the rest of the bracing this allows the driver to “sing”! Now this was hard to pin down at first but the best way I can describe this is a phrase often used when reviewing decks like the Linn Sondeck “you can hear the silence”. At first you think something is missing from the music but it’s the other way around all the “other stuff” isn’t there and all you can hear is what’s on the recording.
This new clarity make jazz, folk etc sound suburb it’s also makes the speaker truly great for classical recordings, rock and other types still sound excellent as well. The subtle effect of this is the speaker seems to disappear into the sound stage. The sound stage is now deeper so you can position artist front to back and I could never do that before.
Now is this all positive, well there is a subtle negative because all the other “noise/resonance/etc” has been removed you sometimes get the impression the sound isn’t as full as it should be, perhaps even edging towards a “thin” sound. Unfortunately that’s how the CD was produced, put on another well recorded CD and you are blown out of your seat with musicality and detail. So if you want a forgiving speaker – these are not for you.
Final Comment
Well those of you still with the original designed cabinets all I would say is remove all the hardware out of them and burn the boxes, you must build a Small, Short or Fat Thor – it is truly worth the effort.
You are looking at a Convert – a Zelot – a New Fanatic – gawd I just love my new Thors. Thank you, thank you, thank you Scott Lindgren (Scottmoose) for the theory/design work, Dave Dlugos (Planet10) for the great drawings and details and Martin King of all the MathCad models, Scott so aptly uses.
After a weeks listening of the “Small Thor” I think I can now comment on the final results.
The main objective of this rebuilt was to get better bass out of the cabinet – success. This unit now sounds like I expected the original TL to perform (but didn’t). I’ve been augmenting the old system with a 10” XLS active subwoofer of various guises and it’s a great unit, tunes in well and really pumps the bass. But all along I’ve never been a great fan of separate subs, obviously it’s the only way to get decent bass with small speakers, smaller full-rangers etc. However for large speakers like the Thor I’d really expect them to generate reasonable levels of bass and the “Small” does that very well. It can not quite get the high level impact of the separate sub but these speakers are for music not HT.
The bass is good enough that I’ve disconnected the subwoofer and I’m thinks of selling it.
Now the real twist in all this is the other audible benefits from this design.
I really like the Seas Excel drivers but I know they are often criticised as being hard and over analytical but with my “warm sounding” Music Fidelity amps and aging ears that has never been a problem for me and the detail these drivers present with a good source is stunning.
In the new “Smalls” this has move up a notch which initially surprised me. However the front to back bracing has “locked” the drivers solid and along with the rest of the bracing this allows the driver to “sing”! Now this was hard to pin down at first but the best way I can describe this is a phrase often used when reviewing decks like the Linn Sondeck “you can hear the silence”. At first you think something is missing from the music but it’s the other way around all the “other stuff” isn’t there and all you can hear is what’s on the recording.
This new clarity make jazz, folk etc sound suburb it’s also makes the speaker truly great for classical recordings, rock and other types still sound excellent as well. The subtle effect of this is the speaker seems to disappear into the sound stage. The sound stage is now deeper so you can position artist front to back and I could never do that before.
Now is this all positive, well there is a subtle negative because all the other “noise/resonance/etc” has been removed you sometimes get the impression the sound isn’t as full as it should be, perhaps even edging towards a “thin” sound. Unfortunately that’s how the CD was produced, put on another well recorded CD and you are blown out of your seat with musicality and detail. So if you want a forgiving speaker – these are not for you.
Final Comment
Well those of you still with the original designed cabinets all I would say is remove all the hardware out of them and burn the boxes, you must build a Small, Short or Fat Thor – it is truly worth the effort.
You are looking at a Convert – a Zelot – a New Fanatic – gawd I just love my new Thors. Thank you, thank you, thank you Scott Lindgren (Scottmoose) for the theory/design work, Dave Dlugos (Planet10) for the great drawings and details and Martin King of all the MathCad models, Scott so aptly uses.
Thanks for the positive feedback on the MathCad models, I am glad things worked out so well. I did not like the original Thor design right out of the gate and took some abuse for daring to say so on the Madisound forum a few years ago. I have always felt the original design would not produce the amount of bass the drivers were capable of producing.
Martin, Scott & Dave – having revamped the box, have you any comment on the crossover design. I’d quite happily rebuild it with standard parts (non-premium) if I could squeeze any further benefits out of these drivers? I appreciate you did the redesign based on the original xover – so this might be a dead end question.
Cheers - Phil
Cheers - Phil
MJK said:
I had a vaguely bad feeling about the original since the very 1st time i read the article... that we have worked thru the design, identified the original errors & missteps in the testing, made the independent measures line up, come up with a number of alternative designs, and then have positive feedback come back from those who had the faith to go ahead and build them shows that we should never stop questing & questioning.... now we just need to get some measures in so we have the kind of charts & graphs needed to write the follow up article for aXp (ignoring the consideration of whether the would publish it -- it would after all show that Joe is not infallable)
dave
planet10 said:
Dave, I don’t have any measurement gear but I’ve put the word around a couple of people to see if I can borrow a rig but I don’t think they have anything suitable either.
Could you give me a simple (and not too expensive) “shopping” list of reasonable components to set up a measurement rig. Computers I have so I’m assuming its mikes and software, I’d prefer a “kit” where all the parts are meant to work together – which would help a first timer like me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.