Good speaker. That'd be my first alternative. I'd like to do a WB Thor, but it's not worth the effort: the different Thor variations (The MLTLs, Fat Thor etc) are designed to give the existing driver / crossover kit a decent cabinet. To go WB would mean a new crossover. If someone fancies a joint virtual project, I'll cheerfully do the enclosure, if they can do the crossover.
Scottmoose said:
How would you propose a virtual project? I no longer have the mean to do any cabinet works. I have the equipment but do not have the space to work. The drivers in this project are not too terribly expensive ... only if I could build the cabinet.
I was refering to creating a design for posting on this thread, rather than a physical entity, as Dave did with the Fat Thor, and I did with the ML Fat Thor, and the MLTL & aperiodic version. I can design a WB enclosure for the Seas drivers easily enough, but crossovers are not my speciality, so I can't re-jig that the existing one to account for the wider baffle without help. It should theoretically only need modifications to the baffle step section.
it may sound heretical -- but why not design the WB, examine the response sans xo -- experiment with active shelving designs to optimize and then reverse design to the passive analog.
if you design it, i can build it (as long as it isn't raining).
jack
if you design it, i can build it (as long as it isn't raining).
jack
In that case, the dimensions for one pair of Wide Baffle Thor enclosure will be coming up very soon. This could be interesting.
i was able to get a calibrated mike -- the method I suggest is what Joe d'Appollito stated in the May 02 issue of AX -- and is described in his book.
You and Martin should write and article for AX -- "Rethinking THOR" -- note that one of MJK's "assisted designs" is in the July '06 issue.
You and Martin should write and article for AX -- "Rethinking THOR" -- note that one of MJK's "assisted designs" is in the July '06 issue.
I didn't know one was in there (I don't get AX unfortunately -it costs a packet over here in the UK as it's special order only), but I'm glad to know Martin's sheets and tables et al are getting a bit more exposure finally. I believe Dave is working on an article, or was. I don't have the qualifications to write one myself -I can't see them accepting something from a rank amateur like me.
Reverting to the task in hand, here's my first pass Wide Baffle Thor enclosure. I don't think this looks too shabby. I've gone for the classic type of response here, rolling down slowly, with a bass-shelf to compensate for room-gain. All internal dimensions, as usual.
40in line length.
7.5in deep.
18.5in wide.
Tweeter centre 10.25in down from top.
Port 3in diameter, 5in long, 4in up from the internal bottom (side--firing probably necessary).
Baffle step point should be 228.34Hz, assuming the formula is correct (11,600/width in cm, in this case 50.8). Port noise shouldn't be an issue at all.
Reverting to the task in hand, here's my first pass Wide Baffle Thor enclosure. I don't think this looks too shabby. I've gone for the classic type of response here, rolling down slowly, with a bass-shelf to compensate for room-gain. All internal dimensions, as usual.
40in line length.
7.5in deep.
18.5in wide.
Tweeter centre 10.25in down from top.
Port 3in diameter, 5in long, 4in up from the internal bottom (side--firing probably necessary).
Baffle step point should be 228.34Hz, assuming the formula is correct (11,600/width in cm, in this case 50.8). Port noise shouldn't be an issue at all.
Attachments
It took Bjorn a year to get the article in print, I don't have that kind of patience.
Your in good company Scott, they were really not very interested in my first TL articles when I sent them advance copies.
jackinnj said:
I've done a 1st pass (gathered the salient posts from this thread, and started hammering it into a readable article, but it is not done enuff yet to start passing around (and not terribly high in my queue)
dave
if you do happen to write the article feel free to use any of the stuff (images, expieriences) from my build thread. Not sure it will be worth anything, but hey I owe you guys for the design. Can't say thanks enough to everyone.
the nice thing about the WB design is that the 48x24 inch panels of MDF from Home Depot will do the trick with minimal back-breaking lugging to car.
MJK said:
Ever feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall Martin? Enlightenment will dawn though, of that I'm sure. It takes light a while to penetrate the sand far too many people seem to love shoving their heads under.
Jack -yeah, I did think about pusjing it wider still, to use the maximum 4' width. But the bass starts to get a bit frisky, and the extra width might come in handy if a builder wanted to curve the fornt & rear baffles a bit. WBs have a strange effect in my experience -similar to dipole sound. Certainly worth pursuing anyway I think.
Best
Scott
Theoretical question:
In the Short Thor, since there is no physical "line", is the driver placement in the baffle critical? I understood all the basic tapered line versions benefit from experimenting with driver positions in controlling mid/upper bass ripple, but what about here?
In the Short Thor, since there is no physical "line", is the driver placement in the baffle critical? I understood all the basic tapered line versions benefit from experimenting with driver positions in controlling mid/upper bass ripple, but what about here?
There is a line, it just doesn't happen to be tapered. Driver positions are just as significant in a straight one as a tapered one I'm afraid; I wouldn't move them if I were you.
Does anyone know if any crossover changes would have to be made if a T25CF001 was substituted for the T25CF002........since the difference in price is **HUGE**.....???
While I'm asking questions , might as well ask another :
Has anyone done a straight MLTL design of the Thor like the one done for the Ariel ?
Andrew
Has anyone done a straight MLTL design of the Thor like the one done for the Ariel ?
Andrew
Yes. That's what the Short Thor and Small Thor I came up with are. See page 30 of this thread. Dave has done some wonderful drawings of them, based on the dimensions I provided.
Incidentally: if any existing owners of the original Thor cabinet are reading this; may I suggest you try something? It's easily reversed, and will take you no time at all. Just remove all the stuffing from the last 9in of the line and have a listen. Could you let me know your findings please?
Regards
Scott
Incidentally: if any existing owners of the original Thor cabinet are reading this; may I suggest you try something? It's easily reversed, and will take you no time at all. Just remove all the stuffing from the last 9in of the line and have a listen. Could you let me know your findings please?
Regards
Scott
Yeh I saw those 😀
but I meant the type with no internal "panel" at all , and the "port" at the bottom front.........like the Ariel MLTL.....🙂
but I meant the type with no internal "panel" at all , and the "port" at the bottom front.........like the Ariel MLTL.....🙂
The internal panel isn't a creating a line, that's just an internal bracing panel with lots of holes cut in it -Dave's favourite Swiss-cheese bracing method. Very effective it is too. The Thor MLTLs need more bracing than the Ariel due to the far higher SPLs it can provide, to say nothing of the greater LF energy. The port can be mounted on either the front or rear baffle; whichever you wish. Personally, I'd always go with the front with these; they're going plenty low enough without needing a boost from the rear wall, and the air velocity in the port is well below the mach, so port noise shouldn't be an issue.
Best
Scott
Best
Scott