Come on Gedlee. You don't know? You are very smart on this subject, and will argue will anyone on the most abstract ideas about sound, and how we perceive sound, and all speaker related stuff. You know this stuff well. But when someone asks you about adding a port to a speaker, you are not sure, or don't know? You have said in the past that your kits would go lower in the bass with a port, but went without one because it integrated better with subs. Even the early Summas were ported!
This is the "diy" site. That is what we do. We like to do it ourselves. Just be happy sba may buy a kit from you, although he may change it a bit. I doubt he would be the first.
Tom
tomcat9 said:
But isn't this exactly the point! If I don't know something, no matter how simple it is, I just say so. I had not tried any of my speakers ported for the reasons that I state. Why should I say that I did? That would be a lie wouldn't it? I never said that it was "too hard" for me to do, only that I hadn't done it and therefor couldn't comment. Whats your problem with that?
Of course they could be ported, I just wouldn't recommend it.
I have experienced minor phase issues with porting
Small, yes, but not completely insignificant
But subs may not be any different
Everything has a price in this life
I still believe that EQing the main woofer would be a more sensible approach, fore quality listening, but I havent tried it yet
Small, yes, but not completely insignificant
But subs may not be any different
Everything has a price in this life
I still believe that EQing the main woofer would be a more sensible approach, fore quality listening, but I havent tried it yet
gedlee,
Seems to me that if you designed a vented option for your speakers then you would be making your system more versatile.
There's a chorus of voices saying the multiple-sub approach is the optimum way to go, and I don't doubt that. But the subs and a surround receiver would add about 50% of the kit cost to my total.
It has been said that the Nathans are a little "thin" without any subs. And Noah posted plots showing a LF improvement with venting. Why then would it be "ill advised" to vent if you're not able to use subs?
Seems to me that if you designed a vented option for your speakers then you would be making your system more versatile.
There's a chorus of voices saying the multiple-sub approach is the optimum way to go, and I don't doubt that. But the subs and a surround receiver would add about 50% of the kit cost to my total.
It has been said that the Nathans are a little "thin" without any subs. And Noah posted plots showing a LF improvement with venting. Why then would it be "ill advised" to vent if you're not able to use subs?
sba said:
The point is that it is "ill advised" to not use multiple subs and if you do use multiple subs then ported mains is "ill advised". If you decide that "ill advised" or not you are not going to have subs then ported is a good option. I just cannot afford to carry dual designs in the product line so I have to stick with closed box.
The customer is free to use ports or not and it's been shown here what they can do and what size they need to be. Its just not viable for me to make two different styles as the ported would not be a big seller. Most people will opt for subs. In fact this is the first time that this has come up because everyone that I have sold to thus far uses multiple subs.
I'd be happy to make any of the speakers ported for an assembled pair or give someone the port specs if they want, but I just can't see my carrying two different designs in stock as it just doesn't make sense.
Indeed! The additional ventilation, etc, are all benefits, and one can always stuff or even plug a port to get the balance of venting/aperiodic/sealed that works best in their system.
Also, a slot vent the width of the enclosure gives you a very quiet panel (1 anyway), for those of us who think that earl's enclosure simplicity is a little extreme
Also, a slot vent the width of the enclosure gives you a very quiet panel (1 anyway), for those of us who think that earl's enclosure simplicity is a little extreme
Re: Blame it on a bad moon
Those issues were about the quality of the parts, not the quality of the design, and there was only the one guy (Markus), if you recal. That's not a lot of complaints given the numbers that I have sent out. And even he ended up quite content. I have not had a single person complain that the design was lacking in any way. Mike Galusha opted to reinforce the cabinets himself, but admitted that he didn't know if this made any difference.
Ed LaFontaine said:
Those issues were about the quality of the parts, not the quality of the design, and there was only the one guy (Markus), if you recal. That's not a lot of complaints given the numbers that I have sent out. And even he ended up quite content. I have not had a single person complain that the design was lacking in any way. Mike Galusha opted to reinforce the cabinets himself, but admitted that he didn't know if this made any difference.
Re: Re: Re: Blame it on a bad moon
I don't have any problem with the end user beefing up the enclosure if thats what they want to do. But I don't see the point of doing this across the board when there is no evidence that there is a problem. I build stronger cabinets on request of the customer, but of course, as with all modifications it comes at a price.
My goal has been to make the best value design - best performance at the lowest price. I've won't claimed that the design is ideal in terms of performance in that nothing more can be done to improve it. I only claim that performance enhancements at this point would be small while costing progressively more - they have reached the point of diminishing returns. To an engineer this is the optimum point. To any particular customer that may not be the case.
I am documenting the "upgrades" that people recommend and I will put them in the manual as possible "upgrades" that the end user can do if they like. Mike's were some and I will show how to add more Constrained Layer Damping (there already is some) if so desired. Bypass caps and higher grade caps and inductors can be added either by the end user or I will in assembled kits. I'm even going to include how to port them should that be desired and what effect it will have. There are many "upgrades" possible, but I just don't see the advantage of doing them all when I have deemed them to be marginal when compared to the cost.
mike galusha said:
I suspect it did but since I did this while building the cabinets I can't say for sure. That said I am very happy with the end results.
I don't have any problem with the end user beefing up the enclosure if thats what they want to do. But I don't see the point of doing this across the board when there is no evidence that there is a problem. I build stronger cabinets on request of the customer, but of course, as with all modifications it comes at a price.
My goal has been to make the best value design - best performance at the lowest price. I've won't claimed that the design is ideal in terms of performance in that nothing more can be done to improve it. I only claim that performance enhancements at this point would be small while costing progressively more - they have reached the point of diminishing returns. To an engineer this is the optimum point. To any particular customer that may not be the case.
I am documenting the "upgrades" that people recommend and I will put them in the manual as possible "upgrades" that the end user can do if they like. Mike's were some and I will show how to add more Constrained Layer Damping (there already is some) if so desired. Bypass caps and higher grade caps and inductors can be added either by the end user or I will in assembled kits. I'm even going to include how to port them should that be desired and what effect it will have. There are many "upgrades" possible, but I just don't see the advantage of doing them all when I have deemed them to be marginal when compared to the cost.
I would give the suggestion to take the time to make a real manual. One that does not have disclaimers on half the pictures that "I am doing it wrong here" or "this is not that" etc. Also email the manual to people that ordered the kit without them asking for it.
Also if you call it a kit make it a kit. Include EVERYTHING but paint. It makes no sense that you leave out the gaskets for the drivers and the back plate. The Nathan is a $1400 kit that you leave out $1.00 worth of parts? Why would you do that?
I am sure the end product is going to be fantastic and I am excited to get started but these small things really add up.
These kits are not cheap at $1550 w/shipping. Based on all the good reviews and science behind them I bought them. I just hate that the whole process has screamed halfassed.
Also if you call it a kit make it a kit. Include EVERYTHING but paint. It makes no sense that you leave out the gaskets for the drivers and the back plate. The Nathan is a $1400 kit that you leave out $1.00 worth of parts? Why would you do that?
I am sure the end product is going to be fantastic and I am excited to get started but these small things really add up.
These kits are not cheap at $1550 w/shipping. Based on all the good reviews and science behind them I bought them. I just hate that the whole process has screamed halfassed.
Well thats pretty blunt!
I apologize that you are not happy with the kits, but the web site is clear that some materials are not provided. There is always more that one could add and do and I may one day add the gaskets for the back (I do intend to and usually do supply the gasket material for the drivers, I'm sorry if I missed yours.)
This entire thing is a one man show and I have no prior experince with shipping and receiving, quality control, writting manuals, etc. as well as precious little time to do such things. I am so backlogged on product that I feel it more important to get the product out than get every last detail right - thats basically the choice.
"Halfassed" is pretty harsh given what you are getting for that amount of money and the $1.00 of missing parts that you are complaining about. Maybe if sales continue to be OK I'll get some help and these issues will go away, but your certainly not helping that any.
I apologize that you are not happy with the kits, but the web site is clear that some materials are not provided. There is always more that one could add and do and I may one day add the gaskets for the back (I do intend to and usually do supply the gasket material for the drivers, I'm sorry if I missed yours.)
This entire thing is a one man show and I have no prior experince with shipping and receiving, quality control, writting manuals, etc. as well as precious little time to do such things. I am so backlogged on product that I feel it more important to get the product out than get every last detail right - thats basically the choice.
"Halfassed" is pretty harsh given what you are getting for that amount of money and the $1.00 of missing parts that you are complaining about. Maybe if sales continue to be OK I'll get some help and these issues will go away, but your certainly not helping that any.
I'm with Tony on this one. I've built numerous kits, many electronic kits and there was always something missing with every single one of them. I just called the manufacturer and let them know. They mailed them to me. Prices varied considerably. That is to say, kits that are $300 and those that are $1500 had parts missing. Now, because I have so many parts, I don't have to call as often!
Quality control with respect to kits will always be an issue in my opinion. If the retailer is willing to supply the parts afterwards without fuss, I have no issue.
And just to list the fellas who have had parts missing, several of which y'all will recognize:
North Creek Music
Welborne Labs
K&K Audio
Hagerman Technology
Peter Daniel of Audiosector
Greg Ball's SKA designs
I don't get upset about it anymore cause the quality of the product when fully built far exceeds some of the sweat equity involved in procuring all the right parts. And clearly exceeds retail products as well.
One listen is all it takes to make you forget, and this goes 100 fold for Earl's designs. Hopefully, someday, he'll be able to hire help cause his forte & passion is clearly in the engineering which he enjoys. 
Anand.
Quality control with respect to kits will always be an issue in my opinion. If the retailer is willing to supply the parts afterwards without fuss, I have no issue.
And just to list the fellas who have had parts missing, several of which y'all will recognize:
North Creek Music
Welborne Labs
K&K Audio
Hagerman Technology
Peter Daniel of Audiosector
Greg Ball's SKA designs
I don't get upset about it anymore cause the quality of the product when fully built far exceeds some of the sweat equity involved in procuring all the right parts. And clearly exceeds retail products as well.
One listen is all it takes to make you forget, and this goes 100 fold for Earl's designs. Hopefully, someday, he'll be able to hire help cause his forte & passion is clearly in the engineering which he enjoys.
Anand.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.