The chinese clone has 2 ports 70mm I.D x 135mm long , I don't know if this is the same as the original but I'll guess it is ?🙄
External measurements are :
1244mm high
235mm wide
343mm deep
Appears to be 3/4" thick walls all round with NO internal bracing !
some more photos to follow...
External measurements are :
1244mm high
235mm wide
343mm deep
Appears to be 3/4" thick walls all round with NO internal bracing !
some more photos to follow...
Attachments
Front and rear panels are probably 1", with 3/4" for all other panels.
With this, when I subtract 1" for spikes (somewhere in the Stereophile review or ProAc literature) and cabinet volume works out to be 66L, which is exactly double that of the Response 2.5...
With this, when I subtract 1" for spikes (somewhere in the Stereophile review or ProAc literature) and cabinet volume works out to be 66L, which is exactly double that of the Response 2.5...
well,intresting news.
regarding :
0- external dimensions : 1244mm high
235mm wide
343mm deep
1- i think 1" thick : 3/4" too slim for a speaker like 3.8,or like say tktran303 : "Front and rear panels are probably 1", with 3/4" for all other panels."
2- drive position : we must have the exact measures (this is very important).
someboby must measure.
3- box separation : is better to separe the two cabinet,about my point of view,to have no pertubation effects of a grater box (double).
however if the original has one only box we could respect this,we are making a clone.
4- tuning ports : when a prototype will be built who has a measuring system (for example i have clio) could change the port lenght until have the same impedance curve in bass region of stereophile measurement.
who don't has this possibility could respect the dimensions written by andrew.
-- now the most important thing is to know the point "2".
b.r.
regarding :
0- external dimensions : 1244mm high
235mm wide
343mm deep
1- i think 1" thick : 3/4" too slim for a speaker like 3.8,or like say tktran303 : "Front and rear panels are probably 1", with 3/4" for all other panels."
2- drive position : we must have the exact measures (this is very important).
someboby must measure.
3- box separation : is better to separe the two cabinet,about my point of view,to have no pertubation effects of a grater box (double).
however if the original has one only box we could respect this,we are making a clone.
4- tuning ports : when a prototype will be built who has a measuring system (for example i have clio) could change the port lenght until have the same impedance curve in bass region of stereophile measurement.
who don't has this possibility could respect the dimensions written by andrew.
-- now the most important thing is to know the point "2".
b.r.
ermes,
1. boxycad2e.xls is the nice quick tool to calculate box volumes based on outside dimensions, wall thickness, bracing etc.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/pjay99/boxycad2e.xls
2. agreed- driver placement- this is as critical as the crossover.
3. common enclosures for a pair of identical is ok. No need to build separate enclosures-
Reference:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/commonenclosuretest.html
On the other hand, this box could do with some extra bracing...
4. True. If anyone wants lower more extended bass at the cost of reduced midbass, you could kill two birds with one stone by reducing box volume and lowering bass port tuning.
But that will have effect on perceived midrange. Anyway, I shouldn't digress, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
1. boxycad2e.xls is the nice quick tool to calculate box volumes based on outside dimensions, wall thickness, bracing etc.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/pjay99/boxycad2e.xls
2. agreed- driver placement- this is as critical as the crossover.
3. common enclosures for a pair of identical is ok. No need to build separate enclosures-
Reference:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/commonenclosuretest.html
On the other hand, this box could do with some extra bracing...
4. True. If anyone wants lower more extended bass at the cost of reduced midbass, you could kill two birds with one stone by reducing box volume and lowering bass port tuning.
But that will have effect on perceived midrange. Anyway, I shouldn't digress, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
tktran303 said:
i know that software ,but i use one more powerfull.
every body,respecting the volume,can use different type of wood.
well.
we wait news about this.
excuse me,but i'm not agreed.
at small signals you are right,but at large signal is better to separe boxes.
if i could i would suggest you to try the two solutions,and let me know.
agreed.
b.r.
While I think of it , can anyone suggest a good drawing program for windows that could draw crossovers & cabinets etc.......preferrably a freeware ?........
so I don't have to draw by hand , then scan into PC....
so I don't have to draw by hand , then scan into PC....
andrew01 said:While I think of it , can anyone suggest a good drawing program for windows that could draw crossovers & cabinets etc.......preferrably a freeware ?........
so I don't have to draw by hand , then scan into PC....
hi andrew,
try this http://www.vectorengineer.com/ or search on google about a freeware drawing program.
b.r.
From one of the pictures posted by andrew01 I get these misures:
Assuming 1244mm high (without the plint and spikes),
The tweeter center is 126mm from the top
the woofer 1 center is 304mm from the top
the woofer 2 center is 526mm from the top
I think with at least +/- 1mm error (if my printer is ok 😉 ).
Later I try to predict the orizontal position..
Assuming 1244mm high (without the plint and spikes),
The tweeter center is 126mm from the top
the woofer 1 center is 304mm from the top
the woofer 2 center is 526mm from the top
I think with at least +/- 1mm error (if my printer is ok 😉 ).
Later I try to predict the orizontal position..
ferro20 said:
surely is better to measure on the real speaker,the photos some times are not very closed to reality.
b.r.