Re: private email.
Sounds serious...should I contact my attorney? 😀 🙂
I have sent you an email. No problem for you to post any comments here though.
ttan98 said:
Sounds serious...should I contact my attorney? 😀 🙂
I have sent you an email. No problem for you to post any comments here though.
The Fonken Tour
We are going to road case a pair and send them around for listening... each person who gets them is responsible for mailing them to the next fellow. As long as the next fellow is geographically close, and we stay in Canada that shouldn't be much....
Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, then tentatively Calgary are booked so far.
dave
MJL21193 said:
We are going to road case a pair and send them around for listening... each person who gets them is responsible for mailing them to the next fellow. As long as the next fellow is geographically close, and we stay in Canada that shouldn't be much....
Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, then tentatively Calgary are booked so far.
dave
Hi John,
I designed those around 1993 and the midrange is the Focal 5K413S.
Just wondering as I think you said you used automotive bondo for wood filler when you paint speakers. Is there a reason that you prefer this over wood filler? I've used bondo in car restorations and I do find it easy to work with.
Pete B.
I designed those around 1993 and the midrange is the Focal 5K413S.
Just wondering as I think you said you used automotive bondo for wood filler when you paint speakers. Is there a reason that you prefer this over wood filler? I've used bondo in car restorations and I do find it easy to work with.
Pete B.
PB2 said:
Hi Pete,
Nice midrange.
I've heard some Focal mids but have never had the honour of owning any.That's 15 years (hard to believe, time is flying) with no finish? You still use these? They look like my kind of speaker - big bass drivers. Back in the early eighties (my high school days), I briefly had a pair of Realistic Mach 1's. Those were the most amazing speakers, but then everything sounded better back then.
Still, I'd like to get my hands on an early pair in good shape.
PB2 said:
I use Bondo because it cures immediately and doesn't shrink. The only problem with it is that it's so much harder than the MDF, it can telegraph through many layers of paint if you've made a big repair. I avoid using it for this reason. Doing repairs after the box has been primed will minimize this.
If the area to be repaired or filled is small, I use automotive spot putty. This dries fairly quickly, is very easy to sand and doesn't get as hard as Bondo. One drawback is that it does shrink, so more than one application might be needed.
MJL21193 said:
Hi Pete,
Nice midrange.
That's 15 years (hard to believe, time is flying) with no finish? You still use these? They look like my kind of speaker - big bass drivers. Back in the early eighties (my high school days), I briefly had a pair of Realistic Mach 1's. Those were the most amazing speakers, but then everything sounded better back then.
Still, I'd like to get my hands on an early pair in good shape.
Yes, 15 years with no finish ... sort of a long story. I considered them prototypes, and had them in storage for some time. They originally had 10" woofers, but I was not satisfied with the results. The 12"s simulated well and I tried them with impressive results. It's hard to describe the dynamics of this system and I'm completely satisfied with them. They are my best system.
I'd like to finish them, however I'm not up to veneering, piano black might be the way to go ... maybe someday!
I'm not familiar with those RS speakers, I'll try google.
Thanks for the tips on Bondo etc.
Pete B.
PB2 said:
TBH, I find veneer easier to do than the paint. Starting here on my rear surrounds thread, I do some veneer. Results were exceptional, if I do say so myself.
The famous Mach 1? I think they were $199 each in the 1980 RS catalogue. I didn't have a real amp to drive them, but they sounded great anyway.
Attachments
Re: The Fonken Tour
Depending on the timing, I might be interested in this. Do you have a thread started?
planet10 said:
Depending on the timing, I might be interested in this. Do you have a thread started?
MJL21193
I have recently read both your threads, this one and your thread on the amps for your system with interest.
I see that you have reached a point that I did with my own active speaker system, in that the fixed points of crossover do not provide the option to tweek, or experiment easily. For myself I have now purchased a commercial product to replace the DIY active crossover that I built for my system.
A bit about my build for background
My system consists of a two three way speakers and two 15" sub's, all sealed. The three ways consist of the following drivers
Scan Speak 25W 8565-01 bass
Scan Speak 15M4531K00 mid's
Hiquphon OWII tweeters
The active crossover section that I used was from Rod Elliots site (where I found the interest to undertake the project initially) using his P09.
The POC that I used was 80hz, 300hz, 2850hz (4 way)
I cased the active crossover in its own case and built 3 of Rod's amps (6 channels) housed a stereo pairs in 3 cases and a mono block class D amp for the subs in another (I sum the L & R outputs below 80HZ from the active crossover). This made replacing the DIY version of the active crossover simplier, and also provides the option to swap amps easy should I wish. Downside a big unit is required to house it all.
After listening to the system intermintently for just over a year (I work on remote construction sites) I was not 100% satisfied with the sound of the system. Due to my work commitments and not having the time to setup to measure the speaker responses yet, I decided to introduce a Behringer DEQ2496 and at the same time decided on two DCX2496 to replace the DIY active crossover with fixed POC.
The results?
Using the RTA function of the DEQ2496 I established an issue existed with the midrange more than the room response (big dip that took 10db of gain to rectifiy). The EQ (I consider a band aid fix for the time being till I have time to investigate the cause and measure the speakers properly) has rectified this and the sound is greatly improved from before.
With the DCX2496, I have only had time to try a few alternate POC and slopes, and they are currently set at that of my previous fixed crossover, so Rod's crossover is good, so long as the speaker designer / builder (Me) gets his part right.
The options the above equipment offers with regards to DSP and POC and filter types and slopes is extensive and I hope to tweek more next time home.
Having built several amps (other peoples designs), and having plans to build a couple more in the future, due to my recreation time at home being limited I would prefer to spend it on speaker design. This was the appeal to me of the system that I now have, I can change speakers (Active crossover) and amps with ease and as such the purchase of the Behringer equipment.
You may wish to consider the same due to the flexibility, although you may have more time than I currently do to pursue other options, the quality of your work and knowledge is certainly impressive.
Brad
I have recently read both your threads, this one and your thread on the amps for your system with interest.
I see that you have reached a point that I did with my own active speaker system, in that the fixed points of crossover do not provide the option to tweek, or experiment easily. For myself I have now purchased a commercial product to replace the DIY active crossover that I built for my system.
A bit about my build for background
My system consists of a two three way speakers and two 15" sub's, all sealed. The three ways consist of the following drivers
Scan Speak 25W 8565-01 bass
Scan Speak 15M4531K00 mid's
Hiquphon OWII tweeters
The active crossover section that I used was from Rod Elliots site (where I found the interest to undertake the project initially) using his P09.
The POC that I used was 80hz, 300hz, 2850hz (4 way)
I cased the active crossover in its own case and built 3 of Rod's amps (6 channels) housed a stereo pairs in 3 cases and a mono block class D amp for the subs in another (I sum the L & R outputs below 80HZ from the active crossover). This made replacing the DIY version of the active crossover simplier, and also provides the option to swap amps easy should I wish. Downside a big unit is required to house it all.
After listening to the system intermintently for just over a year (I work on remote construction sites) I was not 100% satisfied with the sound of the system. Due to my work commitments and not having the time to setup to measure the speaker responses yet, I decided to introduce a Behringer DEQ2496 and at the same time decided on two DCX2496 to replace the DIY active crossover with fixed POC.
The results?
Using the RTA function of the DEQ2496 I established an issue existed with the midrange more than the room response (big dip that took 10db of gain to rectifiy). The EQ (I consider a band aid fix for the time being till I have time to investigate the cause and measure the speakers properly) has rectified this and the sound is greatly improved from before.
With the DCX2496, I have only had time to try a few alternate POC and slopes, and they are currently set at that of my previous fixed crossover, so Rod's crossover is good, so long as the speaker designer / builder (Me) gets his part right.
The options the above equipment offers with regards to DSP and POC and filter types and slopes is extensive and I hope to tweek more next time home.
Having built several amps (other peoples designs), and having plans to build a couple more in the future, due to my recreation time at home being limited I would prefer to spend it on speaker design. This was the appeal to me of the system that I now have, I can change speakers (Active crossover) and amps with ease and as such the purchase of the Behringer equipment.
You may wish to consider the same due to the flexibility, although you may have more time than I currently do to pursue other options, the quality of your work and knowledge is certainly impressive.
Brad
OzBradW said:
Hi Brad,
Sorry for the late reply. I've taken a self imposed break from the forum for a month - away for a while and busy with work mainly.
I am considering the same route: using the DCX2496. Advice from another member ( ttan98 ) made me seriously look into it. The flexibility would be hard to beat.
I will be building 6 new amps for these speakers, 4 of these will be Patchwork based amps for the woofers and mids. For the tweeters, I'll use class A amps, maybe 2 Kleinschmidt 10A - if these are powerful enough (10 watts).
In the meantime I'm planning a buy for a DCX2496. 🙂
Were you not totally satisfied with the chip amps or just want to tidy things up a bit? Are you going to build 6 monoblocks/3 stereo amps/a 6 channel box? Hadn't really noticed either of these amp designs so will have a good look through, should be really satisfying to use your own design!
Hi John,
nice to see your still perseviering with the design and in the process providing a weath of info on building a 3 way active system.
Now I have some room (completed the move) I am giving serious thought to a 3 way system. Along the the same lines as PB2,s seperate box system as after the last build I'm sick of lugging large lumps of MDF around. Also like the idea of using the Behringer, opens up some interesting possibilities.
Keep up the good work, I'll be back soon as I have a few questions and thoughts.
Got to audio fit this in with apeasing 'Her who has a new house that must be decorated to her ladyships satisfaction', ie its public holiday here and I've got 12 rolls of wallpaper, filler, sanders etc etc HELP!😀
Keep up the good work
Marc (West coast now not East)🙂
nice to see your still perseviering with the design and in the process providing a weath of info on building a 3 way active system.
Now I have some room (completed the move) I am giving serious thought to a 3 way system. Along the the same lines as PB2,s seperate box system as after the last build I'm sick of lugging large lumps of MDF around. Also like the idea of using the Behringer, opens up some interesting possibilities.
Keep up the good work, I'll be back soon as I have a few questions and thoughts.
Got to audio fit this in with apeasing 'Her who has a new house that must be decorated to her ladyships satisfaction', ie its public holiday here and I've got 12 rolls of wallpaper, filler, sanders etc etc HELP!😀
Keep up the good work
Marc (West coast now not East)🙂
Dr.EM said:
Hi Dr.EM,
I'm NEVER totally satisfied with anything.( just ask my exes)😀 😀
The chip amps work fine, just too limited with the way I did it to begin with: having the amp and filter on the same board was the wrong way to go. It would be ok for a production unit, I guess, but not the right approach here.
I have tentative plans for 6 monoblocks. These will be small, with the design being vertical (visualize computer tower) rather than horizontal. Also, I want these to look sharp, with finish that matches the speaker baffles. I have already built one thing in the general image I want (computer case #5) pictured below. This will get it's finish paint in the summer, when it's warm enough to do some spraying outdoors. Sorry for the grainy, krappy photo, but I still don't have a good camera ($camera = $DCX2496 🙂 )
Priorities.
Attachments
Back to it.
I have a problem. The baffles, which are MDF and painted black, are looking a little rough. Gone is the beautiful mirror reflection that I had achieved. Either something happened in the various layers of paint, or the MDF is changing (or has changed and now has stopped) underneath. I have decided to repaint. This time using automotive 2K basecoat and clear.
I'm taking a bit of a risk, but I think the best way to go is to paint on top of the existing. To try to strip off all of that paint would be WAY too difficult.
Ant (Shinobiwan) suggested that one way to avoid the problem would be to choose another colour. Then, if it returns, it wouldn't be visible. The black shows every minor little defect,
So, I find myself with a big decision to make: change the baffle only? or change the baffle and the cabinet also? Then there is always the option of trying the black again, and counting on the superior paint to make the difference.
I post the pic from post #1 of this thread. The inspiration for this build. Maybe this is the best colour scheme?
What do you think?
I have a problem. The baffles, which are MDF and painted black, are looking a little rough. Gone is the beautiful mirror reflection that I had achieved. Either something happened in the various layers of paint, or the MDF is changing (or has changed and now has stopped) underneath. I have decided to repaint. This time using automotive 2K basecoat and clear.
I'm taking a bit of a risk, but I think the best way to go is to paint on top of the existing. To try to strip off all of that paint would be WAY too difficult.
Ant (Shinobiwan) suggested that one way to avoid the problem would be to choose another colour. Then, if it returns, it wouldn't be visible. The black shows every minor little defect,
So, I find myself with a big decision to make: change the baffle only? or change the baffle and the cabinet also? Then there is always the option of trying the black again, and counting on the superior paint to make the difference.
I post the pic from post #1 of this thread. The inspiration for this build. Maybe this is the best colour scheme?
What do you think?
Attachments
Since your going to the trouble of a respray I'd also take the time to make that bit more worth while and go with a new colour scheme. I'd also agree to paint over the existing finish with just some light 200 grit sanding to provide a key for the primer.
Personally I've found black/white and black/silver to be winning combinations. Reds, blue's and other strong colours are quite the statement and you'd need to consider hard if you could leave with these in the long run. I tried quite a few myself but always return to the understated colours for long term enjoyment and classiness.
Might be worth going with a matt black on the enclosure and a gloss finish for the baffle. The two contrasting finishes will add further interest and as a bonus, the matt finish is much more forgiving than gloss so less work and less headaches.
Personally I've found black/white and black/silver to be winning combinations. Reds, blue's and other strong colours are quite the statement and you'd need to consider hard if you could leave with these in the long run. I tried quite a few myself but always return to the understated colours for long term enjoyment and classiness.
Might be worth going with a matt black on the enclosure and a gloss finish for the baffle. The two contrasting finishes will add further interest and as a bonus, the matt finish is much more forgiving than gloss so less work and less headaches.
ShinOBIWAN said:
Hi Ant,
The paint I will be using is the AWX waterborne basecoat/clearcoat from Sherwin Williams. I have already talked to their paint consultant and he says it's fine to use over the existing finish (another SW paint).
This stuff is expensive! - $80 to $180 per quart for the basecoat, depending on colour and $190 for a gallon of clear. Add to this the reducers - $30 for basecoat and $80 for clear. Quite costly, but worth it apparently. Still waterbased, so no nasty fumes.
I'm very seriously considering a deep burgundy for the baffles. I have always been a sucker for this colour (had a Thunderbird a few years back this shade). It goes well with the black of the drivers.
I will be painting the cabinets matte black, as you suggested. I agree, it will give a nice contrast.
MJL21193 said:
John,
Are you aware of these products?
http://www.groundsound.com/dcn23.html
I assume the performance would be better than the DCX2496 and after downloading and experimenting with the software, have decided that this will be the way to go for me.
.frd files for each driver can be loaded into the software and then XO, EQ, notches,delay, step, etc. applied to achieve the desired result.
I plan to build two 3 channel "monoblocks" (if you can have a 3 channel monoblock) for my project.
HYPERTUNE said:
Hi HYPERTUNE,
Thank you for the link. 🙂 Good luck with your project.
No, I didn't know about these. This would be more what I'm looking for, but they are so expensive! For the 2 channel kit it would be ~$850.00 plus transformer and a chassis to put it in. That would be 3 times as much as the Behringer.
I haven't completely ruled out building another analogue active filter - one that can be easily adjusted, such as the one designed by Jens Rasmussen. This was the problem with the original, it's lack of adjustability.
As suggested by another member, the DCX would let me determine the correct xover points and slopes which I could use to develope a dedicated analogue unit. This is more to my liking.
OzMikeH said:
Hi Mike,
🙂
White is definitely NOT my colour.
I am really enthusiastic about getting these painted now. Not usually something that I'm eager to do - redo work that I've already done. In this case, it's a necessary step to maintaining my sanity. Every time I look at the finish, it drives me a little crazier.
I have stopped listening to these speakers for now, having gone back to my older 2-ways with passive cross now driven by 2 of my Patchwork amps. I will not suffer too much while I work on these.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.