Hello guys, a friend of me wants a pair of Totem Arro Clone. I am not sure about all the details but maybe you can help me.
The things that I know are:
-Modified Peerless tweeter (aluminium faceplate ).
-Custom-made Peerless woofer
-2.4Khz Linkwitz-Reiley crossover
-They put veneer outside and...inside!
-You can check: http://www.totemacoustic.com/NewFiles/arro.html#Anchor-44867
I am thinking about using the Peerless tweeter #812687 and the Peerless woofer #850488. I am not sure about the crossover parts. For sure they use bypass oil capacitor.
Do you think the drivers are correct? Are they superior or inferior of the one used in the real thing?
Any comments are welcome.
The things that I know are:
-Modified Peerless tweeter (aluminium faceplate ).
-Custom-made Peerless woofer
-2.4Khz Linkwitz-Reiley crossover
-They put veneer outside and...inside!
-You can check: http://www.totemacoustic.com/NewFiles/arro.html#Anchor-44867
I am thinking about using the Peerless tweeter #812687 and the Peerless woofer #850488. I am not sure about the crossover parts. For sure they use bypass oil capacitor.
Do you think the drivers are correct? Are they superior or inferior of the one used in the real thing?
Any comments are welcome.
I always liked the cosmetics and idea of the Arro. I have given some thot to doing something in the same vien, but adding another midbass (probably hidden on the back). The pair of Arros i heard weren't all that special on limited listening.
The Peerless mid-bass they use is as you say custom, so the DIY version might be similar -- it might not. And as soon as you change the drivers, the XO follows.
dave
The Peerless mid-bass they use is as you say custom, so the DIY version might be similar -- it might not. And as soon as you change the drivers, the XO follows.
dave
I totally agree. After a quick look to the frequency response of the two drivers, it seems that I can begin with the same 2.4Khz value and fine tune with some listening.
as long as you are going this route why not start from the begining.
in teh 14cm range I like the SS 8530 - 9900 combo. Yes the 9900 is about 6db more sens. than a 8530. factor in difraction and you have a bigger difference. however I think Daves suggestion of a woofer in the back might make sense besides it might help compensate some difraction loss too giving you 3-6db more sensitivity.
the Peerless CSX 14cm woofer would be my second choice.
in teh 14cm range I like the SS 8530 - 9900 combo. Yes the 9900 is about 6db more sens. than a 8530. factor in difraction and you have a bigger difference. however I think Daves suggestion of a woofer in the back might make sense besides it might help compensate some difraction loss too giving you 3-6db more sensitivity.
the Peerless CSX 14cm woofer would be my second choice.
few pictures
Any idea of what kind of damping material they have put inside (like white paint)?
Also, Totem may use lock-miter joint. This is a picture of one of their box:
Any idea of what kind of damping material they have put inside (like white paint)?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Also, Totem may use lock-miter joint. This is a picture of one of their box:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Re: few pictures
Might be one of those borosilicate stiffening compounds. Anything you can apply to the box material that creates a layer of material with an indistinct edge that stiffens the outer layer can have a significant effect of the material stiffness. Epoxy, fiberglass resin, varathane.
dave
François said:
Might be one of those borosilicate stiffening compounds. Anything you can apply to the box material that creates a layer of material with an indistinct edge that stiffens the outer layer can have a significant effect of the material stiffness. Epoxy, fiberglass resin, varathane.
dave
nice photos might use these to impove my boxes too.
fiberglass resin? what about fiberglass resin that includes fiberglasss matting or rovings?
fiberglass resin? what about fiberglass resin that includes fiberglasss matting or rovings?
navin said:
better yet
4th paragraph down in jcarr's comment (check out the links at the bottom of his post too)
dave
I am wondering if I can find a similar stuff at my local hardware store.
I will also try to search for a router bit similar to the lock-miter design.
I will also try to search for a router bit similar to the lock-miter design.
few more picture
for interested people...
The crossover:
The building:
Inside view of the shop:
for interested people...
The crossover:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The building:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Inside view of the shop:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
jcarr:
Similar in concept, yes, but for maximum total stiffness, you really want high tensile strength from the laminate and a good amount of distance (cross-section) between the laminate layers. Still, plastic laminate is probably better than nothing.
Dave, where do a find an answer to my fiberglass question in this?
Should I even mess with fiberglass or should I "forgedaboudit".
Thanks.
Similar in concept, yes, but for maximum total stiffness, you really want high tensile strength from the laminate and a good amount of distance (cross-section) between the laminate layers. Still, plastic laminate is probably better than nothing.
Dave, where do a find an answer to my fiberglass question in this?
Should I even mess with fiberglass or should I "forgedaboudit".
Thanks.
My purpose in sending you to that comment was to encourage you to try the fiberglass layer.
Did you just see that movie?
dave
Did you just see that movie?
dave
navin said:
"forgedaboudit"
made famous by the movie Hugh Grant as the auction house guy turned fake mofia guy because he had fallen in love with the mafiosa daughter (can't remember the movies name)
dave
Ok guys, you can laugh a bit on me...
Let say, my box volume is x litre.
Bracing takes a part of the box volume
Port takes a part of the box volume
Speaker cone, magnet, etc take part of the box volume.
To be more crazy: wires and crossover take part of the box volume (
).
Port volume is easy to compute: V=pi*r^2*h
Bracing volume is more complex but still possible.
Finally, the most difficult thing is evaluating or computing the volume of the speaker. Do you have any idea how to do that except putting the back of the speaker in the water?
Usually, I don't take these variables into account, but this time I want to be exact (this is my engineer side that is talking).
thanks
Let say, my box volume is x litre.
Bracing takes a part of the box volume
Port takes a part of the box volume
Speaker cone, magnet, etc take part of the box volume.
To be more crazy: wires and crossover take part of the box volume (
).Port volume is easy to compute: V=pi*r^2*h
Bracing volume is more complex but still possible.
Finally, the most difficult thing is evaluating or computing the volume of the speaker. Do you have any idea how to do that except putting the back of the speaker in the water?
Usually, I don't take these variables into account, but this time I want to be exact (this is my engineer side that is talking).
thanks
you really want to know...
dump all of the above in a plastic bag. dump plastic bag into bucket full to brim of water. measure water displaced.
dump all of the above in a plastic bag. dump plastic bag into bucket full to brim of water. measure water displaced.
yeah saw that movie but when i was in brooklyn (1982-1986) we used "forgedaboudit" all the time.
Still me...
Hey guys, I found two drivers: Peerless 850100 and Peerless 850102. Both seems very similar but the '100 give me a better frequency response. The '100 give me also a 8.9 litre box so I am a little bit suspicious for a 4.5 inches driver. What are your opinions about this simulation? Do you think the '100 is too nice to be true (48.5Hz@-3dB for the '100 compared to 66.3Hz@-3db for the '102) ?
Hey guys, I found two drivers: Peerless 850100 and Peerless 850102. Both seems very similar but the '100 give me a better frequency response. The '100 give me also a 8.9 litre box so I am a little bit suspicious for a 4.5 inches driver. What are your opinions about this simulation? Do you think the '100 is too nice to be true (48.5Hz@-3dB for the '100 compared to 66.3Hz@-3db for the '102) ?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Re: Still me...
It may well go that low at low signal levels, but will be excursion limited pretty early.
That the driver with the higher Fs, and with a Q more suited to an ML-TQWT is the one that goes lower in a vented box i find kind of fishy.
Does it give up something at the top of its range to go so low?
dave
It may well go that low at low signal levels, but will be excursion limited pretty early.
That the driver with the higher Fs, and with a Q more suited to an ML-TQWT is the one that goes lower in a vented box i find kind of fishy.
Does it give up something at the top of its range to go so low?
dave
I'd prefer the 102 because...
lower Fs
higher Bl (I assume the Mms of both is the same)
Dave is right about Qts too. very high Qts is not too good.
lower Fs
higher Bl (I assume the Mms of both is the same)
Dave is right about Qts too. very high Qts is not too good.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.