Imperial Russian Stout Build Thread

[BeeTL]

Those are gorgeous!

[fastbike1]

Thanks. I was really happy about how the beech matched the walnut sapwood. Again Waterlox was the only finish. Didn't tint the walnut at all.

The Black Walnut came from my local Woodcraft. 9" wide by about 90" long, ~$52.

The Beech came from Rosebud Veneer on Ebay. I've bought severel things from him because his prices are typically the lowest I've seen and he often has wide lots so I don't have to splice. Usually raw veneer though. In this case the Beech was 16.5 wide x 108. I think my delivered price was about 75c/ ft sq. It was a bit wavy so I softened and flattened.

I've gotten "eye" Beech (kind of like Birdseye), European Ash, and Anigre for similar prices all with 8" or greater widths.

Stunning! Where did you find the that beautiful piece of Walnut & Figured Beech veneer?

[Wolf]

Those look fantastic!

Very nice looking veneer, and they have a 'showpiece' quality about them.

Well done!
Wolf

[6thplanet]

Bravo man! Nice choice in wood and finish. The Fountek units are cool and priced well for what the are. Good job!!

[fastbike1]

I appreciate all the kind words.

I do want to emphasize that the Founteks really are nice drivers, and Jay has done a great job with the XO.

Paul has used the Fountek Neo in the Speedsters and Jay has used the FW168s in several designs. Meniscus Audio is/are great people.

I really hope that some of the other designers will give them a go.

[r-carpenter]

Certainly a great looking build!
Knowing Founteks capability and J's design skills, this must be a hell of a dynamic, sweet sounding speaker. Hopefully FWs aren't going up in the price any time soon.

[KiwiListener]

Gentle Readers, the Imperial Russian Stouts are making music.

Didn't seem like it would ever happen. Like several others, painting the cab led to several problems and required stripping then veneering the cabs. I am pleased with the final finish, and I learned a ton about some of the construction choices I made.

To recap, a three way Fountek/DX25 design w/ XO by Brewski.
Baffles are Black Walnut, Veneer is Figured German Beech. Waterlox the only finish.

They sound . . . . loud (and great). Inaugural CD: VanHalen, since they seem like rockers. Jay's XO does a great job of separating the duty to the drivers.
Like Jay, I now believe the Fountek FW168 and FW146's to be underappreciated.

I can't thank Jay (Brewski) enough for his design, patience, and encouragement. Best news: All of these drivers are available.

Without further adieu, The Imperials in my highly sophisticated anechoic test chamber.

Superb !! I am a huge fan of figured wood and that walnut is absolutely amazing. It's very rare here in N.Z. Occasionally you come across the odd piece. If they sound as good as they look then you will be getting the best of both worlds, eyecandy and superb sound .
I've just finished the 2-way project, build thread here
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...d.php?t=232183

And looking at these has allready got me thinking about the 3 ways I have in mind. Well done & enjoy

[fastbike1]

I haven't pushed them yet, but they have taken residence in the home theater setup. Parasound 5250 for power so I can show them the stick. I have fairly wide taste in music and so far haven't been disappointed with their performance. Don't expect to be disappointed either. At this point I don't think I'll be doing any tweaking of the XO.

Certainly a great looking build!
Knowing Founteks capability and J's design skills, this must be a hell of a dynamic, sweet sounding speaker. Hopefully FWs aren't going up in the price any time soon.

[scottq]

I haven't pushed them yet, but they have taken residence in the home theater setup. Parasound 5250 for power so I can show them the stick.

Any thoughts on the 5250? Have you compared it to other Parasounds? Just curious how the "new classic" stuff is compared to the old HCA series. 5250 would really help fill my theater needs - have an HCA-855 that can't really keep up with the dual 1500A's bridged on the mains...

[fastbike1]

Haven't compared it to any of the older (or newer) Parasounds. My impression is that the 5250 is more robust. Certainly is by the specs and the tests that I've read have said the specs are accurate/conservative.
Bought it in 07 because I was tired of asking myself if I should upgrade my amp. I don't ask that question anymore. Have no intention of changing. I believe the specs. It will do more than your circuit. 45 amps reserve/chanel 5 channels driven. It never gets hot and I don't think I've ever come close to really pushing it. I have listened to avg 90dB levels for a (short) while on symphonic stuff and get nothing but effortless music.

It's paired w/ a New Classic 7100 which I'm also happy with, but have been thinking of replacing w/ a Halo P7. Could get a bit better bass management I think.

Any thoughts on the 5250? Have you compared it to other Parasounds? Just curious how the "new classic" stuff is compared to the old HCA series. 5250 would really help fill my theater needs - have an HCA-855 that can't really keep up with the dual 1500A's bridged on the mains...

[scottq]

Thanks for the feedback - I know it wasn't exactly on the original topic...

[MarkL]

My nefarious plan of course includes new subs, center, etc for my media room (aka the Fortress of Solitude).

What's your plan for the center?

[fastbike1]

That depends . . . . . . .

I have parts for the ZX Spectrums and Swope CC. The previous nefarious plan was ZX Spectrum mains, Swope CC, Swope TM.

The goodness of the Imperials (long time since I've had 3 ways) have cast that plan in doubt.

Have been rethinking: Levitations for surrounds, Levitation w/ the CC tweak for center. -OR- Sending Jay more beer money and asking how he might tweak the Imperials if it was a sealed configuration similar to the Swope CC.
What to do, what to do?

Don't expect to act on any of this near term. Happy enough as is and have 2 pairs of 2 different subs I'd like to build, plus parts for at least 8 more speaker designs.

What's your plan for the center?

[Brewski]

That depends . . . . . . .

I have parts for the ZX Spectrums and Swope CC. The previous nefarious plan was ZX Spectrum mains, Swope CC, Swope TM.

The goodness of the Imperials (long time since I've had 3 ways) have cast that plan in doubt.

Have been rethinking: Levitations for surrounds, Levitation w/ the CC tweak for center. -OR- Sending Jay more beer money and asking how he might tweak the Imperials if it was a sealed configuration similar to the Swope CC.
What to do, what to do?

Don't expect to act on any of this near term. Happy enough as is and have 2 pairs of 2 different subs I'd like to build, plus parts for at least 8 more speaker designs.

I think levs and lev center would be an option, Roman R-Carpentar's FW146 bookshelves would also be a good option for surrounds. Here's a link to what I opted to go with along with woofer options (DC160 or FW168) for the center. The biggest drawback to to the 835004 is the bottom end since they don't have as much bass as the other options.

Take it easy
Jay

http://techtalk.parts-express.com/sh...d.php?t=225796

[actaman]

Beautiful work! I'm looking forward to attempting a pair of these. Question: how would moving the port to the front affect the sound?

Thanks,

-Steve A.

[Brewski]

You'd be fine with them front ported below the woofers it's how the Ruinations are ported. Best of luck with the build.

Take it easy
Jay

[fastbike1]

Agree on the front port. I put it on the back for primarily cosmetic reasons. There was some really nice grain that I didn't want to interrupt with a large port.

I would offer a caveat if you don't build to the same spec, i.e. 4" port. Modeled velocity w/ that port and tuning was 12 m/s. A 3" port at the same tuning is over 25 m/s. That might get you into chuffing territory because you can (and probably will) be pushing these speakers.
I make my ports so it didn't really matter to me if I used 4" or 3" since the 4" fit w/o needing a bend.

Steve: if yo go ahead and build these, I'll be happy to answer questions.

Larry

[MarkL]

I have a pair of these in my long-term (next year) vision. However, I'd like to build them as a WTMW arrangement rather than the TMWW. Would that arrangement necessitate any xover changes, do ya think? I'd probably also front port.

I'm picturing a faux carbon fiber baffle, which ought to go well with those aluminum cones...

[Brewski]

I'd have to model it but since the tweeter and mid would be shifting where they are on the baffle by 8" down my guess is there would be some small crossover changes needed for the mid high pass and the tweeter. I'd intentionally avoided having the tweeter being equidistant on three measurements to the sides and the top of the baffle in the model for dispersion purposes but I'd need to model what would happen when it was shifted down.

Take it easy
Jay

[fastbike1]

That would make a striking build. Seems to me it would allow, at a minimum, a black painted cab, a veneered cab w/ Ebony stain, or maybe even a black laminate on the cab. One could even go all faux CF, but that might be too much.

Getting carried away, the silver, CF, and some gray might look good. At least it did on my last Ducati.

I'm picturing a faux carbon fiber baffle, which ought to go well with those aluminum cones...