Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kirby meets Toid Speaker Build and Dsign

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Wolf View Post
    You will likely not be able to run the RS180 in either a 0.22 sealed or even 0.49 vented box and approximate this project. The boxes are closer to 1ft^3, and the RS drivers are better vented if you want any kind of bass extension. I would disagree with your assumptions on how a sealed box will perform. 88Hz will not be enough extension, IMO.

    Nick has laid out the sizes and parts for the xover already, so you can find that info yourself.

    This is not Scott's project, and to ask him to redesign it is not a question he would have the info for.

    And lastly- It is in bad form to ask a designer to redesign a project from the ground up just because you want to change the design to your liking. It will no longer be what the designer has built, and it will be on you if you change anything and dislike the results. I think it would benefit you to read Paul Carmody's FAQ:
    https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy
    Just read the FAQs in the column on the right.

    Later,
    Wolf
    Hello Wolf, The 0.22 cuft and 0.49 cuft are numbers given by tech support at PE. Pls see the attached snapshot of email response. On further querying PE clarified that a sealed enclosure is louder etc. It was by chance I came across the Amiga kit on PE website and realised that the woofer is same as the design I wanted to build. And then I came across this thread again by chance on Sunday. I saw that Nick had mentioned to consider the Amiga enclosure design..., which is approx 1.07 cuft .. and was surprised that this is more than twice what PE support suggested, 0.49 cuft. (based on Bassbox 6 Pro). Well, now I guess I will need to seek further clarification from PE support.
    Excuse if my query sounded wrong.. I have taken note of this. (My intention was to request afresh for a x-over for a sealed enclosure design with the same two drivers. Please note that we in India do not have options or avenues to experiment on drivers and return (get refund etc) like you all have there in US. Anyways, I see that Nick as well as you recommend that these drivers are better vented)
    Thanks for the pointer to Paul Carmody's DIY site.
    Best!
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Rajeev Agarwal View Post

      Hello Wolf,I have taken note of this. (My intention was to request afresh for a x-over for a sealed enclosure design with the same two drivers. Please note that we in India do not have options or avenues to experiment on drivers and return (get refund etc) like you all have there in US. Anyways, I see that Nick as well as you recommend that these drivers are better vented)
      Thanks for the pointer to Paul Carmody's DIY site.
      Best!
      It is not problem. There can be a lot of confusion around different types of boxes, sizes, etc. I chose a bigger size due tot eh fact, that I wanted to get a lower F3. In this way, you can get taht woofer to play in the 30 hz range. Which for movies, especially, is a nice spot to be at. Of course, I planned this to be full-range. At least as best as you can get with two drivers. Parts Express will always offer recommended enclosures. What you will find out, that people who design enclosures often do their own testing to make a box that fits their design goals. In this case, a larger box nets a lower frequency response. If you are familiar with WinISD, it is a great free program that will help you decide on box design if you were to design your own speakers. I even teach the very basics of the program from importing a driver to the basics of what to look for when designing a box (ie excursions, air velocity, etc). The best part for you, is it converts everything to metric, so you don't have to convert it yourself. Don't hesitate to ask questions. We all have to learn. It is the only way to get started.
      All about Speaker Design YouTube Channel

      Comment


      • #48
        Thanks Nick! That was reassuring. I shall try the free software you suggested.
        Best..

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Wolf View Post
          You will likely not be able to run the RS180 in either a 0.22 sealed or even 0.49 vented box and approximate this project. The boxes are closer to 1ft^3, and the RS drivers are better vented if you want any kind of bass extension. I would disagree with your assumptions on how a sealed box will perform. 88Hz will not be enough extension, IMO.

          Nick has laid out the sizes and parts for the xover already, so you can find that info yourself.

          This is not Scott's project, and to ask him to redesign it is not a question he would have the info for.

          And lastly- It is in bad form to ask a designer to redesign a project from the ground up just because you want to change the design to your liking. It will no longer be what the designer has built, and it will be on you if you change anything and dislike the results. I think it would benefit you to read Paul Carmody's FAQ:
          https://sites.google.com/site/undefinition/diy
          Just read the FAQs in the column on the right.

          Later,
          Wolf
          Wolf would be correct; I cannot, and will not, redesign someone else's design. To do so would be arrogant and disrespectful on my part towards Paul.

          Cheers,
          Scott
          All views and opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of Parts Express.

          Void where prohibited. Batteries not included. All sales final.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Rajeev Agarwal View Post


            Excuse if my query sounded wrong.. I have taken note of this. (My intention was to request afresh for a x-over for a sealed enclosure design with the same two drivers. Please note that we in India do not have options or avenues to experiment on drivers and return (get refund etc) like you all have there in US. Anyways, I see that Nick as well as you recommend that these drivers are better vented)
            Thanks for the pointer to Paul Carmody's DIY site.
            Best!
            You won't have to make any crossover changes to the Amigas if the only change you are making is to use sealed cabinets instead of ported. With regards to the cabinet, you should ensure that your cabinet width is the same as the original design and that the driver layout and spacing on the front baffle is the same as the original design. If those stay the same, no crossover changes will be needed.

            My one question is if your setup will include a sub? The RS180 as you have seen doesn't play nearly as low in the smaller sealed enclosure. With an F3 (-3db point) at 88hz, you are missing a lot of the lower frequencies found in music. A low E on a bass guitar is around 40 hz as an example.

            One of the strong points of the Amiga design, or rather the RS180 itself, is its ability to play low in a reasonable sized ported enclosure. My point is that unless there is a really compelling reason (i.e. space constraints) then you would be better served with those drivers to use it in the enclosure size that Paul or Nick have used here.

            Regardless, good luck!

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by [email protected] View Post

              Wolf would be correct; I cannot, and will not, redesign someone else's design. To do so would be arrogant and disrespectful on my part towards Paul.

              Cheers,
              Scott
              ...or 'Nick' in this case....
              Wolf
              "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
              "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
              "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
              "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

              *InDIYana event website*

              Photobucket pages:
              http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

              My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
              http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by scottvalentin View Post

                You won't have to make any crossover changes to the Amigas if the only change you are making is to use sealed cabinets instead of ported. With regards to the cabinet, you should ensure that your cabinet width is the same as the original design and that the driver layout and spacing on the front baffle is the same as the original design. If those stay the same, no crossover changes will be needed.

                My one question is if your setup will include a sub? The RS180 as you have seen doesn't play nearly as low in the smaller sealed enclosure. With an F3 (-3db point) at 88hz, you are missing a lot of the lower frequencies found in music. A low E on a bass guitar is around 40 hz as an example.

                One of the strong points of the Amiga design, or rather the RS180 itself, is its ability to play low in a reasonable sized ported enclosure. My point is that unless there is a really compelling reason (i.e. space constraints) then you would be better served with those drivers to use it in the enclosure size that Paul or Nick have used here.

                Regardless, good luck!
                Something to note as well, that the Amigas (on pauls very informative free site) have two different crossover options depending on what tweeter is available. If memory serves me correctly the kit on PE the crossover may be based on the discontinued tweeter version but supply the new tweeter. I spent months looking and trying to see how to basically turn these towers into a pseudo bookshelf hifi unit and just couldn't do it as i was completely changing the box design (as discussed above), i ended up doing something really cheap like re purposing something i had lying around...

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Wolf View Post

                  ...or 'Nick' in this case....
                  Wolf
                  Well, yeah, Nick too.

                  All views and opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect those of Parts Express.

                  Void where prohibited. Batteries not included. All sales final.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Altoid View Post
                    While at MWAF, Kirby and I got to really meet each other and decided that we wanted to collaborate on a project. Inspired by Kerry Armes beautiful design and [email protected] simple crossover, I decided to get to work. I wanted to keep it as simple as possible so anyone could end up making them. I also wanted them to be fullrange, so I worked hard to get as close to the 30hz on the low end as I could. I ended up using the RS180S-8 and the RST28F-4 as the tweeter. I crossed it over at 1800hz. The tweeter got a 3rd order crossover and the Woofer got a second order. I thought i would need a zobel, but ended up not needing it. So this is the final result. I will post some build pictures and some finished pictures in the next day or two as well as a diagram to the crossover. For now, I will leave you with the video that talks about the design goals and crossover.



                    Here is the crossover I originally designed. This is the one found in the video:



                    After talking it over with Wolf from tech talk there was some discussion on how the speakers might benefit from eliminating more of the cone breakup. With this in mind, this simulation shows this crossover design. Keep in mind, that this is theoretical and neither of us have tested it. However, it might be worth your time to try it out. I plan to, when life calms down a little more, I just haven't had time to yet. For the price, it would be worth just getting the extra parts and testing it yourself. The parts in general are very inexpensive.

                    Thanks, Nick!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Nick- that is not what I suggested. The 2 components should be in series, and placed across the woofer. What you have there won't do much.
                      Later,
                      Wolf
                      "Wolf, you shall now be known as "King of the Zip ties." -Pete00t
                      "Wolf and speakers equivalent to Picasso and 'Blue'" -dantheman
                      "He is a true ambassador for this forum and speaker DIY in general." -Ed Froste
                      "We're all in this together, so keep your stick on the ice!" - Red Green aka Steve Smith

                      *InDIYana event website*

                      Photobucket pages:
                      http://photobucket.com/Wolf-Speakers_and_more

                      My blog/writeups/thoughts here at PE:
                      http://techtalk.parts-express.com/blog.php?u=4102

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by scottvalentin View Post

                        You won't have to make any crossover changes to the Amigas if the only change you are making is to use sealed cabinets instead of ported. With regards to the cabinet, you should ensure that your cabinet width is the same as the original design and that the driver layout and spacing on the front baffle is the same as the original design. If those stay the same, no crossover changes will be needed.

                        My one question is if your setup will include a sub? The RS180 as you have seen doesn't play nearly as low in the smaller sealed enclosure. With an F3 (-3db point) at 88hz, you are missing a lot of the lower frequencies found in music. A low E on a bass guitar is around 40 hz as an example.

                        One of the strong points of the Amiga design, or rather the RS180 itself, is its ability to play low in a reasonable sized ported enclosure. My point is that unless there is a really compelling reason (i.e. space constraints) then you would be better served with those drivers to use it in the enclosure size that Paul or Nick have used here.

                        Regardless, good luck!
                        scottvalentin Thanks, for the clarity. Yes, I got the same response from PE-Support that no change to the cross-over (from Nick's design) is required, if I opt to go for a sealed enclosure, and not ported.
                        Yes, I have planned to build a DIY sub too once I make the pair of 'bookshelves'.
                        My main reasons for a 'sealed enclosure' are: a. Sealed will give a louder, crisper and tighter sound (SPL); b. Will be easier and simpler to make; c. My very first DIY speaker wayback in 1987 was as sealed box, and it sounded great. This will be my second DIY after 31 years, and I thought to keep it simple.
                        I noted your advice to go for ported design and enclosure size. Thanks.
                        By the way, PE-support re-confirmed that the optimum ported-enclosure volume for the RS180 is 0.49 cuft. And, for sealed it is 0.22 cuft. When I asked them if I could increase the sealed volume to say 0.4 cuft (a respectable sized box- internal dimensions 12" x 8 " x 7"), he said it was okay and the maximum I could go. However, he added - 0.22 is better. So, I'm really unable to understand how come Paul Carmody went for a 1.07 cuft volume? Do you have any thoughts on this? Or on anything else I've mentioned here?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Rajeev Agarwal View Post

                          scottvalentin Thanks, for the clarity. Yes, I got the same response from PE-Support that no change to the cross-over (from Nick's design) is required, if I opt to go for a sealed enclosure, and not ported.
                          Yes, I have planned to build a DIY sub too once I make the pair of 'bookshelves'.
                          My main reasons for a 'sealed enclosure' are: a. Sealed will give a louder, crisper and tighter sound (SPL); b. Will be easier and simpler to make; c. My very first DIY speaker wayback in 1987 was as sealed box, and it sounded great. This will be my second DIY after 31 years, and I thought to keep it simple.
                          I noted your advice to go for ported design and enclosure size. Thanks.
                          By the way, PE-support re-confirmed that the optimum ported-enclosure volume for the RS180 is 0.49 cuft. And, for sealed it is 0.22 cuft. When I asked them if I could increase the sealed volume to say 0.4 cuft (a respectable sized box- internal dimensions 12" x 8 " x 7"), he said it was okay and the maximum I could go. However, he added - 0.22 is better. So, I'm really unable to understand how come Paul Carmody went for a 1.07 cuft volume? Do you have any thoughts on this? Or on anything else I've mentioned here?
                          Hi Rajeev,
                          Thanks for those notes. I do want to correct you on your first reason for going sealed - "Sealed will give a louder, crisper and tighter sound (SPL)" It will not below a certain frequency and will be equal above that frequency. "TIghter" is not something sealed does and ported doesn't, billfitzmaurice has lots of knowledge on this myth (amongst many here). But the fact is that sealed is NOT "tighter". Room placement and room modes/interactions are what will make bass boomy or tight (or incorrect box size/tuning in the case of ported enclosures). Ported done right will not be "looser" than sealed.

                          As for box sizes and sealed vs. ported, take a look at the following:

                          Sealed 6 litres (.22cu ft)
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Rs180-4 sealed 6 litre.JPG
Views:	2
Size:	177.5 KB
ID:	1392174

                          This shows an F3 of 61.4 hz

                          Sealed 12 litres (.4 cu ft)
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Rs180-4 sealed 12 litre.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	178.8 KB
ID:	1392173

                          F3 of 55 hz.

                          Now - ported in 1 cu foot or 30 litres (like Paul's Amiga)

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	RS180-4 ported 30 litres.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	204.4 KB
ID:	1392171

                          F3 of 32 Hz.

                          So, Paul's goal was bass extension, and the RS-180 does it very well in a larger ported enclosure Please disregard the port size/diameters in this one, I was lazy and didn't change those

                          All that said, the sealed .44 cu foot looks not bad, the 6 litre is OK and not too far off the 12 litre, but again, you are missing the main strength of the RS180 which is its ability to play low in a moderately sized enclosure.

                          Also, if you don't know, this is a free spreadsheet called Unibox, just google it and you can play around with different sizes and tunings to see for yourself.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by scottvalentin View Post

                            Hi Rajeev,
                            Thanks for those notes. I do want to correct you on your first reason for going sealed - "Sealed will give a louder, crisper and tighter sound (SPL)" It will not below a certain frequency and will be equal above that frequency. "TIghter" is not something sealed does and ported doesn't, billfitzmaurice has lots of knowledge on this myth (amongst many here). But the fact is that sealed is NOT "tighter". Room placement and room modes/interactions are what will make bass boomy or tight (or incorrect box size/tuning in the case of ported enclosures). Ported done right will not be "looser" than sealed.

                            As for box sizes and sealed vs. ported, take a look at the following:

                            Sealed 6 litres (.22cu ft)
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Rs180-4 sealed 6 litre.JPG
Views:	2
Size:	177.5 KB
ID:	1392174

                            This shows an F3 of 61.4 hz

                            Sealed 12 litres (.4 cu ft)
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Rs180-4 sealed 12 litre.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	178.8 KB
ID:	1392173

                            F3 of 55 hz.

                            Now - ported in 1 cu foot or 30 litres (like Paul's Amiga)

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	RS180-4 ported 30 litres.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	204.4 KB
ID:	1392171

                            F3 of 32 Hz.

                            So, Paul's goal was bass extension, and the RS-180 does it very well in a larger ported enclosure Please disregard the port size/diameters in this one, I was lazy and didn't change those

                            All that said, the sealed .44 cu foot looks not bad, the 6 litre is OK and not too far off the 12 litre, but again, you are missing the main strength of the RS180 which is its ability to play low in a moderately sized enclosure.

                            Also, if you don't know, this is a free spreadsheet called Unibox, just google it and you can play around with different sizes and tunings to see for yourself.
                            scottvalentin Thanks a lot for the corrections, advice and the comparisons. It's great help and reassuring. I now feel, may as well go for the ported design.. I' apprehensive about getting the port dimensions perfect. Anyways, lemme see. Hope the Unibox is available for Mac too (I use a Mac, not a PC). Will search for it. Nick had suggested another free program - WinISD.., which is not available for Mac when I tried once. I shall update here once I make these speakers.
                            Best Wishes

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Rajeev Agarwal View Post

                              scottvalentin Thanks a lot for the corrections, advice and the comparisons. It's great help and reassuring. I now feel, may as well go for the ported design.. I' apprehensive about getting the port dimensions perfect. Anyways, lemme see. Hope the Unibox is available for Mac too (I use a Mac, not a PC). Will search for it. Nick had suggested another free program - WinISD.., which is not available for Mac when I tried once. I shall update here once I make these speakers.
                              Best Wishes
                              Good luck on the build!! For the port, the two concerns are the box tuning and the diameter as it relates to port velocity. All you want is a diameter that is first, easily obtainable (i.e. PVC pipe or the Precision Port offerings) and a diameter that is large enough to keep port velocity in check at the maximum volume you expect to listen at. To make it easy, just use Paul's port dimensions and diameters. Unibox will model the velocity as well if you need to diverge from Paul's model. If Mac does Excel, Unibox should work fine.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X