Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flex Your PCD Mettle:

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

  • djg
    commented on 's reply
    Cabs are 15 3/4" wide, baffles would then be 14 1/4" wide with a raised 3/4" edge. Everyone's right about a raised edge, I built for a vintage look. I have lots of "proper" speakers. Those Pioneer cabs were $25 and they still worked. I could have put a flush baffle in but I didn't. There they are.

    I bet they have more Craigslist resale value as is.

  • djg
    commented on 's reply
    Vintage cabs for vintage ears.

  • sheeple
    commented on 's reply
    Shure, I wouldn't inlude them in my build (although there were plenty of high end JBLs/Klipschs with those outstanding edges. And also Zilch wrote, he couldn't really hear the effect and wasn't even quite shure, whether the visible meassurement shifts where caused by the foam or the wood edges). I'm interested to keep the baffle dimensions the "same", so the crossover works.

    It is not obvious to me what is the width I need to orient to: https://www.parts-express.com/pedocs...nual-43166.pdf
    Width of inset panel (to be calculated), width between outstanding edges (15,523"), width total with outstanding edged (16,907"), maybe even adding their depth to baffle width?

  • fpitas
    replied
    Originally posted by sheeple View Post
    hey djg,
    thanks for your experience! how wide is your cab?
    I thought there would be a math-based truth about that, though. Like, with OB people, baffle width is also extended into depth, does this also apply to infinite baffles like a box? then, the protuding edges of the dayton cabinet would actually add to the baffle width, not the othern way. I don't know, someone who knows the mathematical foundation probably does.
    If you're talking about the outstanding edges around the old trap box, those aren't a real good idea for hi-fi. You'll get gobs of diffraction off them. There's a reason quality speakers for home use don't do that anymore. For Pro use, indestructibility is a big consideration.

    Leave a comment:


  • sheeple
    replied
    hey djg,
    thanks for your experience! how wide is your cab?
    I thought there would be a math-based truth about that, though. Like, with OB people, baffle width is also extended into depth, does this also apply to infinite baffles like a box? then, the protuding edges of the dayton cabinet would actually add to the baffle width, not the othern way. I don't know, someone who knows the mathematical foundation probably does.

    Leave a comment:


  • djg
    commented on 's reply
    DC300 standard econowave in old Pioneer cabs about the same size as NLA trap cab. Sound fine to me.

    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/fo...dard-econowave
    Last edited by djg; 11-05-2020, 10:20 PM.

  • sheeple
    replied
    Another question, maybe to Pete:
    If I build myself a cabinet and want to stick to the Dayton trap-cab dimensions so to not mess up with baffle step: What is the baffle width I ought to choose? Because the front panel is inset and it's maximum width should be reasonably less than the total width at the frontend of the side panels, which is either 15,523 " (inner) or 16,907 " (outer).

    Leave a comment:


  • Remy.Alexander
    replied
    Originally posted by Pete Schumacher View Post
    Re: Flex Your PCD Mettle:



    I took those individual curves and applied the offsets based on the PCD summed and measured summed response. I set the woofer forward of the tweeter by 60mm and the woofer .125 meter below center and the tweeter .125 meter above center.

    L2 = 4.5mH .3 Ohm
    C2 = 12uF

    C9 = 5.6uF
    R10 = 4.7 Ohm
    R16 = 2.7 Ohm

    The forward lobe looks very good, especially moving toward and above the tweeter position. the overlay is 45 deg above center point.

    I know this is older but is the "shortened list" here for the slandered version?

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Last pics, for real this time.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_205551.jpg
Views:	271
Size:	750.0 KB
ID:	1444880 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_205613.jpg
Views:	268
Size:	633.4 KB
ID:	1444881 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_205713.jpg
Views:	268
Size:	729.3 KB
ID:	1444882 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_205805.jpg
Views:	275
Size:	480.4 KB
ID:	1444883

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    I'm super tired, been working all day.
    Just also noticed that the B52 flange is 1/4" wider and nearly a 1/4" taller.
    And the bolt holes do not line up.
    This goes along with it being more heavy-duty than the OEM QSC product.

    Pics...
    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_205523.jpg Views:	0 Size:	676.3 KB ID:	1444874 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_205503.jpg Views:	0 Size:	806.5 KB ID:	1444875 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_205516.jpg Views:	0 Size:	762.2 KB ID:	1444876 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_205540.jpg Views:	0 Size:	745.2 KB ID:	1444877 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_205511.jpg Views:	0 Size:	745.2 KB ID:	1444878

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Last set of pics.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201857.jpg
Views:	272
Size:	494.8 KB
ID:	1444867 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_202019.jpg
Views:	272
Size:	495.9 KB
ID:	1444868 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_202014.jpg
Views:	269
Size:	479.9 KB
ID:	1444869 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201902.jpg
Views:	269
Size:	404.6 KB
ID:	1444870

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Third round of pics.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201735.jpg
Views:	270
Size:	579.0 KB
ID:	1444861 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201740.jpg
Views:	272
Size:	448.5 KB
ID:	1444862 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201827.jpg
Views:	269
Size:	408.8 KB
ID:	1444863 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201743.jpg
Views:	270
Size:	474.1 KB
ID:	1444864 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201820.jpg
Views:	270
Size:	604.5 KB
ID:	1444865 Third round of pics.

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Second round of pics.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201701.jpg
Views:	280
Size:	423.1 KB
ID:	1444855 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201708.jpg
Views:	275
Size:	477.5 KB
ID:	1444856 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201724.jpg
Views:	274
Size:	248.9 KB
ID:	1444857 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201714.jpg
Views:	271
Size:	515.0 KB
ID:	1444858 Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20200625_201633.jpg
Views:	268
Size:	371.9 KB
ID:	1444859

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Hey guys, I now have the QSC 152i "clone" in my possession.
    The B-52 PHRN-1014
    Part # 299-2303
    https://www.parts-express.com/b-52-p...t-on--299-2303

    I bought one in case I ever want to add a center channel to my two Econowave Deluxe that use original 152i's.
    Now I'm thinking of replacing my original 152i's with B52's!

    Not only does it clone the original super inexpensive price (~$13 right now) but it sure looks exactly like my oem QSC 152i's that I have.
    At least in shape.

    The B52 is heavier, more sturdy, thicker material and generally looks more handsome, if I can call a waveguide that..
    Pictures to follow.
    Oh, and the B52 is 1/8" taller due to the 1/8" thicker flange.
    Which is nice.
    This makes the flange a true 1/4" thick so we can use 3/4" baffle and a 1/4" rabbetted cut to flush mount the B52 and match up with Zilch's original 1/2" baffle with rear-mount woofer.

    I have a UMIK mic being delivered next week.
    Has anyone compared the two horns together?
    The original 152i vs the B52?
    If not, then if someone can walk me through testing them, I'd be happy to post the results.
    It's been a few years since I've used REW but I'm sure I'll pick it up quick enough.
    I have never used it to measure response like Zilch did though. I just used it for measuring at the listening position.

    Click the pictures to see larger size.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_201450.jpg Views:	0 Size:	506.8 KB ID:	1444849 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_201602.jpg Views:	0 Size:	511.0 KB ID:	1444850 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_201615.jpg Views:	0 Size:	478.0 KB ID:	1444851 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_201623.jpg Views:	0 Size:	354.4 KB ID:	1444852 Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_20200625_201619.jpg Views:	0 Size:	364.2 KB ID:	1444853

    Leave a comment:


  • CZ Eddie
    replied
    Originally posted by djg View Post

    With all due respect, your post describes 5/8" length screws, but you link 3/4" length screws. I don't think they will work very well. Here's how I rear mounted a 12" woofer.

    http://techtalk.parts-express.com/fo...dard-econowave
    Thanks for pointing out my typo.
    I really like what you did but I am going a different direction.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X