Dumpster Dog'slarge enclosures dimensions

[nepaeric]

These are the dimensions of Jim Davenport's (aka "Dumpster Dog") cabinets. We were told they are a pair of early Advents, but we're not sure.

External dimensions:
(O.D.) 25-1/2"H X 13-1/2"W, 11"D
There is a slightly recessed front driver baffle and rear baffle, which are set in by about 3/8" (approximately)

Internal dimensions: 24" X 12" X 8-1/2" (exact)
My calculations suggest this pair of enclosures displaces about 1.42 cubic feet each.

The cabinet is constructed of 3/4" MDF on all panels except the driver baffle on the front, which is 1" thick. The recessed driver mount hole is cut for a 10" woofer and routed for flush mounting. the tweeter hole is directly above the woofer and cut out about 3" in diameter. There is only about 4" between the top of the woofer and uppermost part of the baffle, making this awkward for a lot of 3 way designs.

You may recall him finding these in the garbage on the night before heavy pickup collection day in the neighborhood.

He is looking for an inexpensive solution to rebuild these into a nice, functional pair of main speakers on a budget.

A 2-way design would be easier, due to the existing driver hole arrangement, but difficult locating suitable drivers for low cost, so we're receptive to a 3-way design, which is not impossible, as well.

I gave him an old Marantz 2235 stereo receiver I had laying around in the garage I rarely use, except to play a little music now and then through an old pair of worn out Realistic Minimus 7's. Now it's not the best Marantz out there, but a start for him, and not bad by comparison to some modern stereo recievers.

He is currently powering a pair of junky, dual cone, GM car speakers in his living room, which makes no sense, and would obviously like to do much better than this. Thank you for any help.

Warm Regards,
Eric

[Wolf]

> These are the dimensions of Jim Davenport's
> (aka "Dumpster Dog") cabinets. We
> were told they are a pair of early Advents,
> but we're not sure.

> External dimensions:
> (O.D.) 25-1/2"H X 13-1/2"W,
> 11"D
> There is a slightly recessed front driver
> baffle and rear baffle, which are set in by
> about 3/8" (approximately)

> Internal dimensions: 24" X 12" X
> 8-1/2" (exact)
> My calculations suggest this pair of
> enclosures displaces about 1.42 cubic feet
> each.

> The cabinet is constructed of 3/4" MDF
> on all panels except the driver baffle on
> the front, which is 1" thick. The
> recessed driver mount hole is cut for a
> 10" woofer and routed for flush
> mounting. the tweeter hole is directly above
> the woofer and cut out about 3" in
> diameter. There is only about 4"
> between the top of the woofer and uppermost
> part of the baffle, making this awkward for
> a lot of 3 way designs.

> You may recall him finding these in the
> garbage on the night before heavy pickup
> collection day in the neighborhood.

> He is looking for an inexpensive solution to
> rebuild these into a nice, functional pair
> of main speakers on a budget.

> A 2-way design would be easier, due to the
> existing driver hole arrangement, but
> difficult locating suitable drivers for low
> cost, so we're receptive to a 3-way design,
> which is not impossible, as well.

> I gave him an old Marantz 2235 stereo
> receiver I had laying around in the garage I
> rarely use, except to play a little music
> now and then through an old pair of worn out
> Realistic Minimus 7's. Now it's not the best
> Marantz out there, but a start for him, and
> not bad by comparison to some modern stereo
> recievers.

> He is currently powering a pair of junky,
> dual cone, GM car speakers in his living
> room, which makes no sense, and would
> obviously like to do much better than this.
> Thank you for any help.

> Warm Regards,
> Eric

Does this qualify for the 10" 2-way you are contemplating?
Later,
Wolf

[Max_Andrews]

Provided Link: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~msa286/eminencexo2.gif


10" 2-way is not going to be cheap. Mine uses an eminence legend 10" driver and the seas tdfc. The crossover is fairly part-heavy as well, I think the whole thing is about $275

Pete's has a similar XO, maybe slightly more complex, and I think it used the RS28 tweeter and a peerless 10" driver, also not cheap.

Hmm maybe the 10" classic, a cheap ND20, and a small tang band driver could work?

Here's my two way crossover anyways, off to look at TB drivers now

[Max_Andrews]

It seems to have it's own baffle step compensation sort of engineered into it, so that's a major crossover money saver. I'll whip up an xo tomorrow and see what comes of it...
<A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315</A>

[Max_Andrews]

dayton 10" classic, $24 each:
<A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315</A>

Hivi B3n, $10 each:
<A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=297-428">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=297-428</A>

Dayton ND16FA 5/8" neo, $6 each:
<A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=275-025">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=275-025</A>

That's $80 total for all speakers. If we can do some XO optimization could be around $115 total, which is as cheap as it's gonna get, and free shipping right?

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Does this qualify for the 10" 2-way you
> are contemplating?
> Later,
> Wolf

Their budget is a little tighter than would allow for the woofer and tweeter I had in mind.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> dayton 10" classic, $24 each:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315</A>
> Hivi B3n, $10 each:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=297-428">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=297-428</A>
> Dayton ND16FA 5/8" neo, $6 each:
>
> <A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=275-025">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=275-025</A>
> That's $80 total for all speakers. If we
> can do some XO optimization could be around
> $115 total, which is as cheap as it's gonna
> get, and free shipping right?

The sensitivity of the B3N won't pair well with the classic 10. It's way too low.

He'd be better off doing a two-way with the 10" woofer and a small full-range TB driver that has a mid 80s sensitivity.

[Chris Roemer]

> These are the dimensions of Jim Davenport's
> (aka "Dumpster Dog") cabinets. We
> were told they are a pair of early Advents,
> but we're not sure.

The original ADVENT loudspeaker (which was unofficially called the "Large Advent" after the "Smaller ADVENT Loudspeaker" was released, had these dimensions:

25-5/8" H x 14-1/4"W x 11-1/2"D
The height looks close, the depth isn't too far off, but I'd say the width is a "no match". The fronts of the ADVENTs were a masonite board velcroed to 6 small wooded blocks hot glued to the front baffle. The backs were not set in, but flush.

> External dimensions:
> (O.D.) 25-1/2"H X 13-1/2"W,
> 11"D
> There is a slightly recessed front driver
> baffle and rear baffle, which are set in by
> about 3/8" (approximately)

> Internal dimensions: 24" X 12" X
> 8-1/2" (exact)
> My calculations suggest this pair of
> enclosures displaces about 1.42 cubic feet
> each.

> The cabinet is constructed of 3/4" MDF
> on all panels except the driver baffle on
> the front, which is 1" thick. The
> recessed driver mount hole is cut for a
> 10" woofer and routed for flush
> mounting. the tweeter hole is directly above
> the woofer and cut out about 3" in
> diameter. There is only about 4"
> between the top of the woofer and uppermost
> part of the baffle, making this awkward for
> a lot of 3 way designs.

> You may recall him finding these in the
> garbage on the night before heavy pickup
> collection day in the neighborhood.

> He is looking for an inexpensive solution to
> rebuild these into a nice, functional pair
> of main speakers on a budget.

> A 2-way design would be easier, due to the
> existing driver hole arrangement, but
> difficult locating suitable drivers for low
> cost, so we're receptive to a 3-way design,
> which is not impossible, as well.

> I gave him an old Marantz 2235 stereo
> receiver I had laying around in the garage I
> rarely use, except to play a little music
> now and then through an old pair of worn out
> Realistic Minimus 7's. Now it's not the best
> Marantz out there, but a start for him, and
> not bad by comparison to some modern stereo
> recievers.

> He is currently powering a pair of junky,
> dual cone, GM car speakers in his living
> room, which makes no sense, and would
> obviously like to do much better than this.
> Thank you for any help.

> Warm Regards,
> Eric

[Chris Roemer]

> The original ADVENT loudspeaker (which was
> unofficially called the "Large
> Advent" after the "Smaller ADVENT
> Loudspeaker" was released, had these
> dimensions:

> 25-5/8" H x 14-1/4"W x
> 11-1/2"D
> The height looks close, the depth isn't too
> far off, but I'd say the width is a "no
> match". The fronts of the ADVENTs were
> a masonite board velcroed to 6 small wooded
> blocks hot glued to the front baffle. The
> backs were not set in, but flush.

You CAN force a 2-way out of the 10" classic (-315) and the silky (-070). Let me know if you're interested, and I'll post my XO (if I can find it). IMO he'd be much further off to plug the 10" driver hole and recut to make a vented 8" 2-way, as the Dayton 10" in a sealed box this small has disappointing bass.

[neildavis]

1) Are you close to the DC area?
2) Can you measure some oddball drivers?

I've got some spare drivers stashed away in the attic, but it would take me too long to package them up for shipment (been there, done that; no time this year). If you could pick up in Northern Virginia (Reston) you are welcome to them. I've got some 10" "acoustic suspension" drivers from an old Lowrey organ that are made by Rola. I've got a number of 5" mids from different sources. I've got some PE silk tweeters plus some of those Radio Shack ribbon tweeters. No specs tho...

[Scott L]

Was just now lookin at the specs. $30.00 for a woofer used to be expensive, now-a-days it's a bargain. A pair of those in a 4.25 cu ft enclosure, along with a decent mid, a silkie or a neo will produce some mighty fine sounds.
The trick would be the crossover, and there some members of this board that can do majic. Not me, I'm not a crossover person.

Honest bass to 30 with a pair of these for $60 a side is really REAL GOOD (vented)

> <A HREF="http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315">http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showd...number=295-315</A>

[dthomas]

> These are the dimensions of Jim Davenport's
> (aka "Dumpster Dog") cabinets. We
> were told they are a pair of early Advents,
> but we're not sure.

> External dimensions:
> (O.D.) 25-1/2"H X 13-1/2"W,
> 11"D
> There is a slightly recessed front driver
> baffle and rear baffle, which are set in by
> about 3/8" (approximately)

> Internal dimensions: 24" X 12" X
> 8-1/2" (exact)
> My calculations suggest this pair of
> enclosures displaces about 1.42 cubic feet
> each.

> The cabinet is constructed of 3/4" MDF
> on all panels except the driver baffle on
> the front, which is 1" thick. The
> recessed driver mount hole is cut for a
> 10" woofer and routed for flush
> mounting. the tweeter hole is directly above
> the woofer and cut out about 3" in
> diameter. There is only about 4"
> between the top of the woofer and uppermost
> part of the baffle, making this awkward for
> a lot of 3 way designs.

> You may recall him finding these in the
> garbage on the night before heavy pickup
> collection day in the neighborhood.

> He is looking for an inexpensive solution to
> rebuild these into a nice, functional pair
> of main speakers on a budget.

> A 2-way design would be easier, due to the
> existing driver hole arrangement, but
> difficult locating suitable drivers for low
> cost, so we're receptive to a 3-way design,
> which is not impossible, as well.

> I gave him an old Marantz 2235 stereo
> receiver I had laying around in the garage I
> rarely use, except to play a little music
> now and then through an old pair of worn out
> Realistic Minimus 7's. Now it's not the best
> Marantz out there, but a start for him, and
> not bad by comparison to some modern stereo
> recievers.

> He is currently powering a pair of junky,
> dual cone, GM car speakers in his living
> room, which makes no sense, and would
> obviously like to do much better than this.
> Thank you for any help.

> Warm Regards,
> Eric

Why not put a RS225-4 woofer in that cab. THey are on sale for $35. That marantz reciever will do about 55 watts per channel into 4 ohms before clipping. Cross it to a Seas 27TBFC or 27TDFC around 1500Hz. Less than $70 for drivers per side. If you want to hold cost down use electrolytics but that woofer should play in the 40s in that box. You could always upgrade the caps down the road if you wanted.

Dave

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Was just now lookin at the specs. $30.00 for
> a woofer used to be expensive, now-a-days
> it's a bargain. A pair of those in a 4.25 cu
> ft enclosure, along with a decent mid, a
> silkie or a neo will produce some mighty
> fine sounds.
> The trick would be the crossover, and there
> some members of this board that can do
> majic. Not me, I'm not a crossover person.

> Honest bass to 30 with a pair of these for
> $60 a side is really REAL GOOD (vented)

I'd like to know why the nearfield and the other response plots differ so much.

But nearly 15% distortion with only 10W input is nothing to get overly excited about.

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> Why not put a RS225-4 woofer in that cab.
> THey are on sale for $35. That marantz
> reciever will do about 55 watts per channel
> into 4 ohms before clipping. Cross it to a
> Seas 27TBFC or 27TDFC around 1500Hz. Less
> than $70 for drivers per side. If you want
> to hold cost down use electrolytics but that
> woofer should play in the 40s in that box.
> You could always upgrade the caps down the
> road if you wanted.

> Dave

The RS225 will not fit the cutout. Some serious baffle mods would be required.

[Scott L]

> I'd like to know why the nearfield and the
> other response plots differ so much.

> But nearly 15% distortion with only 10W
> input is nothing to get overly excited
> about.
................................................
Hi Pete,

Yes, I admit it's my nature to become irrationally exuberant. I didn't look at the distortion graph simply because I didn't know it was there. I'll have to pull up some decent woofers to see the difference. In my cob-webbed memory flawed mind, I remember that 10 watts steady state was really quite a bit. I wonder if my old Heath Kit signal generator still works, as it's been many years now. Oh how I miss my old speaker building days. What I absolutely DO remember is that a pair of 10's per side was my minimum requirement for what I considered decent bass. Much better than a single 12. Of course that was way back then; probably an invalid claim now a days.

[philiparcario]

> The RS225 will not fit the cutout. Some
> serious baffle mods would be required.
If the original baffle is sunk in about an inch the mods are easy. buy a sheet of 1/4 inch mdf cut into four pieces two for each side. use a lot of carpenters glue between each new layer and center the hole for the 8 inch woofer over the hole for the 10 inch woofer. you still keep the original baffle intact just covered. paint the new baffle or use vinyl from pe or even a piece of quarter inch maple plywood from lowes. the mdf and the plywood are only 15 dollars. This lets you use an 8 inch woofer which will match better. also the baffle ends up stronger then ever. phil

[Pete Schumacher ®]

>
> ................................................
> Hi Pete,

> Yes, I admit it's my nature to become
> irrationally exuberant. I didn't look at the
> distortion graph simply because I didn't
> know it was there. I'll have to pull up some
> decent woofers to see the difference. In my
> cob-webbed memory flawed mind, I remember
> that 10 watts steady state was really quite
> a bit. I wonder if my old Heath Kit signal
> generator still works, as it's been many
> years now. Oh how I miss my old speaker
> building days. What I absolutely DO remember
> is that a pair of 10's per side was my
> minimum requirement for what I considered
> decent bass. Much better than a single 12.
> Of course that was way back then; probably
> an invalid claim now a days.

His behemoths using Dual RS270s, Dual RS180s and the RS28 are quite a statement!!!

Surface area usually wins when it comes to bass reproduction. Dual 10s over a single 12 seems pretty obvious. But the RS270 has MUCH better distortion performance than the Classic, however it is much more expensive too.

I'd wager that the single RS270 would have lower distortion than a pair of classics up to the loss of Xmax.

[Max_Andrews]

I was thinking about that, but the classic is already at the same level as the B3n at 500hz where they'd be crossed, since it seems to have it's own baffle step compensating rolloff.

The TB mid/tweet isa possibility, but it would be a lot more directional.

[cjd]

RS150's instead of RS180's might buy a little more headroom. Beyond that it's into things like the Millenium for more excursion, or 4-way territory (and there's room on that baffle to go this way - I'm still pondering it).

Their biggest drawback is they like lotsa volume behind them!

C

[Pete Schumacher ®]

> I was thinking about that, but the classic
> is already at the same level as the B3n at
> 500hz where they'd be crossed, since it
> seems to have it's own baffle step
> compensating rolloff.

> The TB mid/tweet isa possibility, but it
> would be a lot more directional.

Take a look at the differences between the near field plot and the "standard" plot. I don't know if I'd trust either plot until those differences are accounted for.