Do you know the source ? Because i have had many dac from teac to totaldac ,audio gd aqua hifi etc and i can say it makes huge difference.
I ll try the faital with my amr dp777se wich is a very nice dac but lacks output voltage and at the oposite my craig song solaris which is less rich but so speed extend and control at the top end and bottom...
I ll try the faital with my amr dp777se wich is a very nice dac but lacks output voltage and at the oposite my craig song solaris which is less rich but so speed extend and control at the top end and bottom...
hi´Karucho I believe it was EAR861, It seems to be a great tube poweramp with all the punch and control in the bas ,that one could wish for. And very open even non-aggressiv in the highfrequences. I would really would like one for me, under the tree for Christmas
Good hearing in good company! ... Those 32w, seems to go a long way. I would not mind too much having this fantastic amplifier
Yes, I also think that the source is very important. But the amp can be crucial ...
regards
Of course amp maters...a lot.
All the speakers are at home. I start cutting the wood. But i miss the xover i hesitated to order because the cocid 19. But obviously i still receve things so i ll go for it asap.
My box will be without stand and will mesure finished 86cm High 41 cm large (i ll chanfrin sides to respect the 37,5 cm recomanded) and 30 cm depth.
All the speakers are at home. I start cutting the wood. But i miss the xover i hesitated to order because the cocid 19. But obviously i still receve things so i ll go for it asap.
My box will be without stand and will mesure finished 86cm High 41 cm large (i ll chanfrin sides to respect the 37,5 cm recomanded) and 30 cm depth.
I, like you are planning a narrow depth floorstander by extending the speaker beneath the standard baffle. Not sure about you reasoning re the width of your speaker - I think maybe the external width is what counts, chamfer or not to be within spec - Troels would I'm sure advise. Keeping the same "upper" baffle tends to be non-negotiable with Troels from reading his various notes.
I am planning a speaker just over 3ft high, 1ft + an inch or so deep, width to spec, volumes to spec but upper baffle 5deg tilt back (lower baffle perpendicular) to get midrange centre on line with my 42inch ear to ground height (a little Naim SBL-ish).
I am planning a speaker just over 3ft high, 1ft + an inch or so deep, width to spec, volumes to spec but upper baffle 5deg tilt back (lower baffle perpendicular) to get midrange centre on line with my 42inch ear to ground height (a little Naim SBL-ish).
Last edited:
Sorry my english is not good enought to be sure to understand your meanings.
But. What i can say is that maybe room and position of the speakers maters very very much and amp and dac before too and i think much more than 4cm chanfrain more than preconise.
But maybe i am not totally right ?
Ok, here are the most important rules of the game when changing the box size:
Chamfering does not do much to the acoustics as long as the radius/size of the chamfer is not larger than the wavelengths of the sound. For example, a typical 2 cm chamfer will be relevant for sound with wavelengths of 2 cm and smaller (17 kHz and higher frequencies). To be relevant at midrange (> 3 kHz or so), the chamfer would need to be about about 10cm. For > 1 kHz, they would need to be > 30cm. What does this mean? If you like the look of chamfers, go for it. Don't get obsessed with the acoustics of (small) chamfers.
- Do not change the baffle width by more than about 5%
- Do not change the driver positions on the baffle relative to the top and sides
- Do not change the box volume without thinking. If you do change the box volume, you'll need to adjust the bass-reflex tuning and possibly also the x-over impedance compensation of the woofer impedance peak(s).
Chamfering does not do much to the acoustics as long as the radius/size of the chamfer is not larger than the wavelengths of the sound. For example, a typical 2 cm chamfer will be relevant for sound with wavelengths of 2 cm and smaller (17 kHz and higher frequencies). To be relevant at midrange (> 3 kHz or so), the chamfer would need to be about about 10cm. For > 1 kHz, they would need to be > 30cm. What does this mean? If you like the look of chamfers, go for it. Don't get obsessed with the acoustics of (small) chamfers.
Oliv,
You are totally right I'm sure. The room is the elephant in the room (which itself is the elephant in the room I suppose). You're talking about a quite a small distance. I guess Troels takes a firm line on this because he has to - to avoid way out of spec implementations. You could ask though.
One thing Troels does not I think specify is whether this speaker is intended for away from wall placement. I assume it is looking at the picture in his experimental setup.
You are totally right I'm sure. The room is the elephant in the room (which itself is the elephant in the room I suppose). You're talking about a quite a small distance. I guess Troels takes a firm line on this because he has to - to avoid way out of spec implementations. You could ask though.
One thing Troels does not I think specify is whether this speaker is intended for away from wall placement. I assume it is looking at the picture in his experimental setup.
No, the bottom if fine. I actually asked Troels about this a coupe of days ago, as well as the reduced depth. No problem. His comments conforms to what mbrennwa stated. Also, I asked if the ports behined the bottom of the bass driver could be moved down a bit as they will now be getting a little near the bass driver. Again, no problem.
What is a problem for me is that my usual simple method of construction is to just sandwich top, bottom, baffle, backs and internal braces between the two sides using simple butt joints. Works well for stuff like FH3 or its spawn if you just want a simple build. But, I invested in 12 clamps previously that only open out to 12" ! Problem. Also, I don't have the fantastic table saw to make lovely 45deg bevels like Troels seems to effortlessly achieve. Mine was 500 pounds and it is basically crap. You need a lot of cast iron and trunion bearings for that! That is one slightly exclusive aspect of Troels builds beyond the reach of many you could say. For now, I just need a way to make the boxes. Only a bit bigger than other boxes I have made, but I can see that it raises some new significant construction problems for me!.
What is a problem for me is that my usual simple method of construction is to just sandwich top, bottom, baffle, backs and internal braces between the two sides using simple butt joints. Works well for stuff like FH3 or its spawn if you just want a simple build. But, I invested in 12 clamps previously that only open out to 12" ! Problem. Also, I don't have the fantastic table saw to make lovely 45deg bevels like Troels seems to effortlessly achieve. Mine was 500 pounds and it is basically crap. You need a lot of cast iron and trunion bearings for that! That is one slightly exclusive aspect of Troels builds beyond the reach of many you could say. For now, I just need a way to make the boxes. Only a bit bigger than other boxes I have made, but I can see that it raises some new significant construction problems for me!.
Last edited:
NiceoneCyril,
The method I use to join panels together for boxes this size is utilize ratchet straps. You probably would only need four of them using your assembly method. I like to put a scrap piece of plywood under the ratchet section to prevent denting the work piece. Hope this is helpful to you.
Best,
Rich
The method I use to join panels together for boxes this size is utilize ratchet straps. You probably would only need four of them using your assembly method. I like to put a scrap piece of plywood under the ratchet section to prevent denting the work piece. Hope this is helpful to you.
Best,
Rich
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.