The "Elsinore Project" Thread

tktran303 said:


They correlate very well with Zaph's, which is always reassuring.

The 810921 sure looks like a winner, across the board.

Although the low end of the XT25 leaves a little to be desired, above 3Khz it looks cleaner than the DX25. The limited dispersion can be an advantage, or disadvantage, depending on your design goals.

Have you run similar comparisons with the Peerless midwoofers?


Correlation is quite good, indeed.

You are right, if you had a 3KHz LR4 hi-pass, then use XT25, but the Elsinores are initially 1st order and then just under 1500 Hertz dive into 4-5th order, then DX25 has an advantage.

Because tweeters are closed backs they are a lot easier to do these tests, but woofers and especially midwoofers are a greater challenge. You are now measuring the box as well as some of the internal energy wants to break back through the cone. This is why computer modeling should always be done in the intended (actual) box. I have seen 1dB added midrange output.

But I have a 42L box that is fairly well damped and midrange breakthrough is low. I don't have any PPB drivers here but I have measured the Nomex that I now prefer over PPB, the extra dB is now a plus with Nomex that was not so good with XT & DX.

Peerless 6.5" Nomex 830875:

HDS_830875_Multi.gif


Joe R.
 
augerpro said:
Joe R. I was wondering if you could share a bit of info on your test setup. Things like mic distance, baffle qualities, room treatment (if any). I've started doing my own HD measurements and I'm trying to develop a good method and environment so i trust my results.

I use ClioWin V7.03 and gated Sinusoidal. The mic distance is 125mm on axis. The weakness in the measurement is that this is not an IEC baffle but rather smaller rectangular. Does not bother me much as we are not looking closely at frequency response but HD much lower than that. It's easy to do/set up and the results speak for themselves.

Besides, 125mm is probably the optimum distance to do this type of measurement, whereas it certainly is not for frequency response, so why be bothered too much?

Environment is not a problem as the gating is set to 1.5ms, but the auto-delay feature of ClioWin adjust this to less than 1ms. Make sure that you have no near reflective surfaces.

Joe R.
 
Just add to that last reply: The setup is calibrated to give 90dB @ 1 Metre for 1 Watt (2.83V). But if you note that on the dBSPL scale on the left of graphs, I adjust output to 100dB, that means the mic is actually seeing (hearing) 100dB, and so would you if you put your ear in the same position as the mic. It is LOUD and thus environmental noise is not just reduced by gating but also by sheer SPL.

Joe R.
 
augerpro said:
Thanks Joe that was very helpful! I can't gate sweeps with SE so right now I'm trying to get rid of reflections. But I'm confident I can get solid measurements eventually.

I have SE but don't use the acquisition part of it (no sound card used) and use ClioWin for that as it is a specific tool for that purpose. I use SE for modeling though.

Whatever method you use you will still need a quiet environment and attempt to exploit it - make best use of it - and come up with a method that does the job.

BTW, Zaph also uses SE, so it is doable. Is there anything on his website that describes how he did it. I seem to recall there is an article there 'I use SE' or somesuch.

This is it: http://www.zaphaudio.com/setup.html

Joe R.
 
Zaph doesn't have anything specific about his setup or method. Although he did write a little bit about his baffle in his last blog. I've posted questions concerning setup before at htguide and the SE user group hoping he'd answer, but no luck. In fact I get very little info from other SE users at the user group so it's kind of tough for someone new to loudspeaker design and the SE software to make progress. So, again, thanks Joe for your help!

Edit: I was refering to setup and method for distortion and other nonlinear testing above, not regular FR.
 
augerpro said:
Zaph doesn't have anything specific about his setup or method. Although he did write a little bit about his baffle in his last blog. I've posted questions concerning setup before at htguide and the SE user group hoping he'd answer, but no luck. In fact I get very little info from other SE users at the user group so it's kind of tough for someone new to loudspeaker design and the SE software to make progress. So, again, thanks Joe for your help!

Edit: I was refering to setup and method for distortion and other nonlinear testing above, not regular FR.


How long ago did you post at the SE user group?
 
I've been posting there since last fall. You are probably the most active user there and for that I thank you! But if you don't answer or don't know the answer I haven't had as much help as I would have expected. I don't mean to bash Bohdan or anyone else. Maybe my questions were dumb. But it's a bit of a letdown nontheless.

Anyway enough that. I don't want to hijack this thread :whazzat:
 
augerpro said:
Zaph doesn't have anything specific about his setup or method. Although he did write a little bit about his baffle in his last blog. I've posted questions concerning setup before at htguide and the SE user group hoping he'd answer, but no luck. In fact I get very little info from other SE users at the user group so it's kind of tough for someone new to loudspeaker design and the SE software to make progress. So, again, thanks Joe for your help!

Edit: I was refering to setup and method for distortion and other nonlinear testing above, not regular FR.

I think that issue was answered a few weeks ago, and there seemed to be some error in Zaph's setup for a certain portion of that part of the data, but I can't recall which right now. You just need to unplug the ref input channel. Otherwise same as normal FR. The new distortion tools are very useful for many purposes. If you have any other questions about this just post in the SE user group again.
 
I want to bring this back!
I'm ALMOST ready to give these a listen to. I have the components, the boxes, and the crossover i just need to assemble.

i have a quick question...my port is almost half the size of the original design...how will this affect the sound? i don't have the tools to make the hole bigger...will the sound suffer?

thanks!
 
Ex-Moderator R.I.P.
Joined 2005
Yes, basically it wont work .... more specific its hard to say without having more information

Half size ... is that half diameter or half the areal .... if its half diameter it will be too small

Also remember when you change port size, the length also changes

Remember its 4 drivers - a port of ø90 x 80mm may not be much, as it is
 
PoorSound said:
Finished the project. i'm absolutely blown away. these things sound INCREDIBLE. I hope more people use this design


Good to hear. It may indeed encourage others to build them. It's a BIG system with a BIG sound. Makes most of the conservative two-ways sound less than inspiring.

Re the port: Can you tell me the exact inner diameter and I should be able to indicate the correct length.

It is not that it won't work with a smaller diameter port, but the max power before onset of port related problems is lessened. The max power may be reduced by as much as 2-4 times. So if you use a twenty watt amp (in a not too big room that is easily enough) then the smaller port would be acceptable, but only acceptable.

Let me know.

One other thing: With so many drivers plus crossover, it is easy to make a wiring mistake, especially not getting ALL drivers in correct phase. Have you DOUBLE-checked and TRIPLE-checked? You want to make sure you get the max performance after all that effort.

Joe R.
 
hey Joe

Just checked out the website, see you did some updates! my comment is on there too!

now that i've completed the project, just have a couple more questions.
is the material on the diffraction wedge important? mine right now is just bare MDF. should i be covering it?
also, i noticed the peices of foam you put on the top on bottom. is this important too? should i try this? what material did you use?
 
PoorSound said:
hey Joe

Just checked out the website, see you did some updates! my comment is on there too!

now that i've completed the project, just have a couple more questions. is the material on the diffraction wedge important? mine right now is just bare MDF. should i be covering it? also, i noticed the peices of foam you put on the top on bottom. is this important too? should i try this? what material did you use?


My apologies, I should have asked first. I liked it because that comment was so spontaneous! OK?

It's the SHAPE that is important, but I like the idea of using thin absorbent felt here and cover it. I admit I didn't run tests on it. It's easy enough to get from craft stores (you have those?) and apply with a bit of glue. Re the foam, with the Peerless tweeter there is a bit of a suckout around 6KHz. Use foam of reasonable density or felt in about the same position, that fixes it.

There will be more updates on the websites either later today and next few days, to reflect the emphasis on the new Mk2 status. In about a week latest it should be done.

Joe R.
 
Yeah its absolutely OK!
its the least i can do considering all the work you did for us DIYers to use your design.

Now i'm back for some more help! haha
I would like to build a center channel to match. I was looking at the already built cabinets on Parts Express. You can get MTM boxes, which i would turn sideways and set on my TV. I would like to use the same woofers and tweeter in the center, but need to know which size box i should get. I can get a 1.0 CU FT or 0.75 CU FT. Which would be more acceptable?
Also, would it be easy to design a crossover to timbre match with the elsinores?

Later on, i would also like to build rear speakers to have a complete matching system. As of now, i have Paradigm mini monitors in the back.

Thanks!