You get really close by using the length from half-way from one flare to the other end.
dave
Thanks Dave.
Here is a link with correctionfactor for all possibilities of ports.
vent tuning
Regards
Roland
Here is a link with correctionfactor for all possibilities of ports.
vent tuning
Regards
Roland
I think it has more to do with boundary effect, but of course this is also room related. Even if tweeter height is also a good thing, and getting the tweeter height just right with the ear, then it also becomes more important not to listen to direct on axis with the tweeter or else you will have the tweeter aimed at your ears like a gun. I have always recommended that Elsinores should be placed wider than most people do, but not have them pointed directly at the listener. You must be able to see the insides of the speaker boxes, that should get you around 15 degrees off axis. You can then experiment with toe-in as per your taste. Bright rooms you are likely to need more toe-out and vice versa.
The idea of raising the Elsinores came from my visit to Melbourne Audio Club. Large room, but heavy carpets and drapery plus soft padded chairs. As you got further away and towards the back, the sounded deader and deader. One of the organisers said he had some rough stands in the car, would I like to use them? I said yes and that saved it the day. They were 12" (30cm) and they saved the sound. But it sounded best in the first 4-5 rows where the reception was great and many compliments ensued. At the back it was not as bad as before, but at least a bit better. But all round, a foot was what that large deadish room needed.
When I got back home, I thought I should try it in my room, and getting it 3-4 inches off the floor definitely worked for me.
But I reiterate, this will be room dependent, but I suspect that in most room it will work for the better, just a matter of what height?
Last edited:
How come a better tweeter wasn't used? Is there an option for one ? Or has anybody made and modified the Elsinore to use a state of the art tweeter?
Please not asking for 50 responses saying it's the world's best because if I am not mistaken didn't Joe some time ago purchase B&W Diamond?
Cheers
Please not asking for 50 responses saying it's the world's best because if I am not mistaken didn't Joe some time ago purchase B&W Diamond?
Cheers
I have quite a story to tell about that tweeter.
Have you ever held one of these tweeters in your hand? Most tweeters feel cheap in comparison, this is all metal with double-magnets and heavy. Also, the history of how that tweeter came into existence has a definite Australian connection. Russell Storey of Stones Sound Studio made certain requests that was incorporated which filled our needs perfectly, like a gift, being nominal 8 Ohm and high sensitivity means less heat and lower compression than most. We wanted an 8 Ohm tweeter, not 4 Ohm, but the same (or more) dB-SPL and less heat.
Here are Russell's own words:
Pure copper voice coil, a low inductance motor system, conical felt damped internal cavity chamber and the use of high density reversed Double-Magnets which produces maximum flux density yet lowers the stray magnet field for shielding. The voice coil now uses a new, extremely low viscosity ferro-fluid which aids in keeping the tweeters heat dissipation temperature down, reducing compression and increasing the dynamic program range and maximum power of the unit. The efficiency and detail of this newly developed tweeter outperforms units many times its cost and being specifically matched to our new speakers gives us an amazingly high performance audiophile sound at incredible value.
In fact, this influenced new tweeters that was later made by Scan-Speak.
What happened was unexpected, because it was sold as a Peerless tweeter and at a very competitive price, it was in fact made by Scan-Speak and yet sold as a Peerless tweeter because it was definitely under priced. The Peerless name disguised that. This decision was made by the common parent company D-S-T which also included Vifa, for Scan-Speak to make it. D-S-T was later sold to the Yanks, but Scan-Speak found finance and got itself back into Danish ownership. The Yanks did not own the tooling and design and 'Peerless' disappeared - it now became known as the Scan-Speak D2608 "Discovery" tweeter, the name to separate it from the other pack/range as 'economical' tweeter. It changed how S-S did business.
When it came out initially I ended up recommending the use of this tweeter to several manufacturers, one very well known here in Australia Mike Lenehan of Lenehan Audio.
Same tweeter.
Ask Mike even today if he considers this tweeter second rate and he would tell you that it is one of the greatest tweeters of all time without regard to cost. I too think it is as good as many very expensive tweeters, but I note that these achieve low inductance and reasonable sensitivity by using voice coil resistance below 3 Ohm. No thanks, at double that the "Discovery" tweeter is far more flexible and useful, especially when you want an 8 Ohm speaker! And also less heat in the voice coil (a big thing in the Elsinore plan of things).
Also, that inner bevelled edge near the smallish roll surround, make this tweeter near perfect to design a waveguide for it - and so we did.
Trust me, when mounted to a Waveguide designed specifically for that tweeter, they are literally bolted together (very chunky) into a single unit and then mounted into the cabinet.
That again makes it a different tweeter than it was before.
Right now I don't know of any tweeter that I would want to use or that I know is better.
Yesterday went to a place north of Sydney to hear the comparison between two pairs of speakers, one was a super-high-end selling for $82,000, exquisitely made in Denmark and that screamed quality in every way. They use a state-of-the-art ribbon tweeter and is crossed over at 3KHz, same frequency as the Elsinores.
We were at the house of the owner of these very expensive speakers (they are now for sale) and he had his Elsinore boxes half made. They had been started a few weeks back after he heard my Elsinore when he visited me. But he wanted the opportunity to hear a comparison. And we did.
Four of us, Greg, Steve, Jeff and myself. From low level to high level, the sound just filled up the room. It was unanimous. We all prefered the Elsinores because they made real music - the first was a vocal track and it was so lifelike!
It did things that the ribbon tweeter speaker did not do. There are good technical reasons why. Look closely at the Elsinore crossover and you will find that 1.8uF series caps have a reactance of 30 Ohm at 3KHz. Summing is done at -6dB, the gain of the waveguide is close to another 6dB, so at the crossover the power is near 12 dB down. What this means is a whole bunch of things, but the most important is that the tweeter is current driven as a result for most frequencies under 10KHz. You are now largely in current mode, even if you use a voltage source amplifier. That changes the sound in a very obvious way. To my ears most tweeters sound thin, now there is bone and structure. The tweeter responds to current and not voltage and that changes the sound.
In our comparison above, what we heard is what other Elsinore builders have come to know and love - the never sound artificial, they fill the room with sound in a completely effortless way, they have a tonal balance that pleases all kinds of music and they can go from reproducing small instruments and then able to go full scale with large musical structures, like a full orchestra - and they never sound thin. But at the same time they are also very transparent, but in a way that makes the music so accessible.
The importance of what that tweeter does to make that possible cannot be underestimated. Is there another tweeter out there I would use, regardless of price? No, there just isn't one with that just right attributes around, not that I know of.
So there you are.
Last edited:
HOW COME we also dont use the absolute best STATE OF THE ART 8 woofers as well. also all the worlds best crossover components (which may come at more cost than all the drivers). also why not incorperate a complexe boat tail cabinet with WBT terminals hanging of it. REALLY? the list can go on. I think you have missed the brief of the design. Not forgetting A STATE OF THE ART ( Scanspeak ) tweeter would almost double the cost of this project
Thanks Joe a very thorough answer I guess the 8 ohm requirement is low on my list of priorities as a reformed amplifier collector I pretty much came to the conclusion unless an amp drove a 1 ohm load it sucked : I realise this is one of your design goals
Anyone make the cabinets in nsw or offer flat packs?
What about skipping the passive crossover and using a DEQX seeing as I have one
Cheers
I realise this is one of your design goals Anyone make the cabinets in nsw or offer flat packs?
What about skipping the passive crossover and using a DEQX seeing as I have one
Cheers
Yes totally not what I was asking I am glad you believe in $5000 capacitors but I don't tweeter quality is important to me
That's right on.
After all, this is DIY and making it very expensive would mean less will be built. Basically you can build Elsinores for almost peanuts and yet it competes with speakers that costs crazy money and often sound better.
So the current DIY design will not change.
BUT:
Let's us explore, in fact I already have. The tweeter won't change, for the reasons already given.
What would be possible is to have a "Pro" version of the Elsinores and I have not only explored that, but I even have a driver in mind that has the kind of characteristics required.
This is the Sartori MW16P-8 and quite a lot more expensive:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The price difference is high and Madisound sells them for USD $148 and SB17NRxxx for $58, so they are almost triple the price.
So we can buy them alright, for those who want to use them, but so easy...
I would need to have some boxes made and then go through a massive amount of work. The crossover will look very similar, but only doing it all over again can we know what actual changes are needed. The box will be the same size and the tuning (port) looks OK (the cut-out for the drivers is a bit different). Go back and see the changes between Mk-5 and Mk-5 Elsinore crossovers, this was done by extensive acoustic and electrical measurements in situ, that is in the box. Then the results are captured by Audiomatica Clio-FW1, far-field and near field measurements combined, on axis, 15 degree off axis and 30 degree off axis (trust me we are talking about a huge number of measurements). Finally it ends up in SoundEasy where we 'build' the crossover and see just how different it needs to be. Only then do we make the physical crossover and tests it as well as listen to it.
Keep in mind, all this will be done for nothing for those few who wants to go down that way and they get all this for free while I am out of pocket and not to mention the time. And the use of equipment that has thousands of dollars worth of investment and getting nothing back on that too.
The Earthworks M30 Measurement Microphone.
So what is possible may not always be so easily possible, if you know what I mean?
Will it be done one day? Maybe, but will it be that much better than what we have? Perhaps. But the key to the sound of the Elsinores will be the same as before:
They are designed to react to the current of the amplifier rather than the voltage, they suppress reactive current in the amplifier and right now no commercial speakers are doing this.
So when the amplifier produces square waves on the voltage side, the amplifier also produces current square waves. Not theory, I have measurements that Elsinores does this. If you cannot achieve this, the amplifier is producing reactive current - and I have made the point, and more people are listening than before, that we listen to to current of the amplifier rather than the voltage of the amplifier. This applies to motor driven cone speakers, electrostatic speakers actually do the opposite, they ignore the current and responds to voltage only. One is a current device, the other is a voltage device - so this comes down to what is the best way to deal with a very tricky incompatibility. The Elsinore suggests a way to do just that.
Last edited:
IMPORTANT:
Taking a closer look, it now clear that the use of the alternative MFC driver (SB17MFC35-8) needs two minor changes to the Crossover to optimise things. The changes will be shown below.
Without these changes the Elsinores will still work, but the changes recommended gives a smoother and with slightly less brightness in the upper midrange and lower treble, that then matches what we already have with the NRXC driver.
To keep things simple, from now on we shall refer to the two variations a EL-6 (NRCX) using SB17NRXC35-8 drivers and EL-6 (MFC) using SB17MFC35-8 drivers. Clearly the tweeter remains the same.
With the changes recommended, I have been listening to EL-6 (MFC) version and I can assure everybody that it works just as well as the NRXC driver. I am very pleased and I will be keeping mine working with the MFC drivers. The difference in sound is so small as to be inconsequential - the replacement drivers is NOT a downgrade. So please feel secure in going ahead as the MFC driver will continue to be made.
OLD NRXC:
NEW MFC:
In both diagrams the components that are different have been encircled. For the MFC version the L4 0.47mH is changed to 1.0mH and R3 was 9R must be reduced to 7R5 because of the effect of the inductor change has made to the load impedance.
I cannot hear any downsides with the new MFC driver, the sound is remarkably close with either driver. So if you have had any doubts, please dispel them.
I will include the RTA measurement below, keep in mind that the below peaks and troughs are room modes and they change where you are in the room and is normal. Above 1KHz the room modes gradually become less and note how smooth the response becomes. This in fact is better than the NRXC.
The response below 1KHz is basically the same for both NRXC and MFC versions.
Now for an earlier post:
I have a similar preference towards fibre cones, yet I am not hearing any such polycone tonal signature, I also think that some use polycones with speakers that are voiced for voices. I don't voice speakers, not in my mind, I just want to get the best sound and you get that from a flat power response that tails a little away at HF, low distortion and getting the 'stich' between the drivers right.
So we are all go!
.
Taking a closer look, it now clear that the use of the alternative MFC driver (SB17MFC35-8) needs two minor changes to the Crossover to optimise things. The changes will be shown below.
Without these changes the Elsinores will still work, but the changes recommended gives a smoother and with slightly less brightness in the upper midrange and lower treble, that then matches what we already have with the NRXC driver.
To keep things simple, from now on we shall refer to the two variations a EL-6 (NRCX) using SB17NRXC35-8 drivers and EL-6 (MFC) using SB17MFC35-8 drivers. Clearly the tweeter remains the same.
With the changes recommended, I have been listening to EL-6 (MFC) version and I can assure everybody that it works just as well as the NRXC driver. I am very pleased and I will be keeping mine working with the MFC drivers. The difference in sound is so small as to be inconsequential - the replacement drivers is NOT a downgrade. So please feel secure in going ahead as the MFC driver will continue to be made.
OLD NRXC:
NEW MFC:
In both diagrams the components that are different have been encircled. For the MFC version the L4 0.47mH is changed to 1.0mH and R3 was 9R must be reduced to 7R5 because of the effect of the inductor change has made to the load impedance.
I cannot hear any downsides with the new MFC driver, the sound is remarkably close with either driver. So if you have had any doubts, please dispel them.
I will include the RTA measurement below, keep in mind that the below peaks and troughs are room modes and they change where you are in the room and is normal. Above 1KHz the room modes gradually become less and note how smooth the response becomes. This in fact is better than the NRXC.
The response below 1KHz is basically the same for both NRXC and MFC versions.
Now for an earlier post:
I have a similar preference towards fibre cones, yet I am not hearing any such polycone tonal signature, I also think that some use polycones with speakers that are voiced for voices. I don't voice speakers, not in my mind, I just want to get the best sound and you get that from a flat power response that tails a little away at HF, low distortion and getting the 'stich' between the drivers right.
So we are all go!
.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Folks:
Sorry for the belated input, but I've also experimented with raising my Elsinores off the ground. schubert (above) helped me with the initial tests, and the results were encouraging. I ended up having a pair of 3.5" (about 90 mm) tall stands custom made by Sound Anchors; they were relatively inexpensive and very well made. The difference isn't huge -- the Elsinores now sound just a tad more coherent -- but I'm happy with the outcome.
Regards,
Scott
Joe,
I am having the same problem. What is strange that in the reply window (if you scroll down) it displays correctly. In any case, I just went to your website to see the revisions.
Thanks for the optimized MFC version. Glad I held off my crossover part order. Got to build the cabinets first.
David
I did at 1st, but looked for the specific picture URL — those came in and the post was fine afer that.
dave
Attachments
I think I found another way, type it as a URL and /URL, but then manually change to IMG version.
No, that didn't work either. It links it to another server. That means I cannot update the Crossover Gif file and always keep it up to date. I just added a note about not Bi-Amping, it is showing on my website, but that edit will not be shown if the old one is on another server.
Why the problem now, in post #2491 it worked OK?
Last edited:
Great, I was in fact thinking of your earlier post and hoped you would see it in time. Happy building.
My mk3's are sitting on the crossover boxes with the same foot print.
With equipment feet underneath, this works well for me
-Dan
Last edited:
I have attached the images here and put them into your post.Seems to be an http: vs https: problem.