Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DIY LCR passive sound bar

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

  • BOBinGA
    commented on 's reply
    I really didn't like crossing the tweeter that low either, but at 2800hz the tweeter excursion is in the neighborhood of just 0.02 mm at 90db, so I didn't think it would hurt it. I simply could not find a way to mate the woofer and tweeter responses at any other point without a major increase in the XO parts count. After using it for a couple of years now, I haven't noticed any strain on the tweeter, but then I don't play it extremely loud

  • djg
    commented on 's reply
    The S2000 separates built with the DIYSG 1/2" Baltic Birch flat packs are extremely easy to build, even more so if you can get the printed circuit boards for the crossovers. I had that same set two iterations ago of my HT front three, very good sound quality. Sorry about your pets.

  • eavo44
    replied
    Ok…had a little time to think over things. After learning more about impedance and having the S2000’s being recommended…I’m leaning towards them. I have a request in to purchase a single mtm for the center channel so we’ll see if that’s a possibility. Through some unfortunate circumstances…we’re down to a single cat and a dog so the activity on the credenza has calmed down a lot…which has me thinking separate units could be a more straightforward first build. I still like the look of the bar but it’s making the tv feel larger and pulling the mass upwards. If I had more of an expansive wall to work with I’d stick with the bar and run with it. The separates keep the mass lower and will make adjusting the tv on the mount easier along with having speakers that’ll be more flexible for alternate setups. I’ll have time to decide between the 2 as I wait for the parts/kits. I want to build the ochocinco’s as a second build cause I really like the simple woofers being rear mounted. I had ruled them out due to the frame shape but djg reminded me of the rear mount option which looks great! Thanks to everyone for your knowledge and time to help me make a selection for my first build.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • eavo44
    commented on 's reply
    Been out of town for a bit…Thanks for the feedback…I’ll take a look at the ochocinos.

  • djg
    replied
    Re: rear mount. You would want to let the speaker into the baffle from behind with a rebate so that you're dealing with 1/4" to 3/8" distance of the woofer behind the baffle surface, and add a roundover or 45 degree chamfer on the woofer hole edge. Also, you would need to use machine screws and nuts to mount.

    Mr. Bagby used the rear mount on the Continuum because of a complicated woofer shape. DIYSG sold a Continuum enclosure with a more normal front mount woofer with Mr. Bagby's permission.

    BTW, between the Tritrix and Ochocincos, I would choose the Ochocincos because of better quality drivers, in my mind at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • eavo44
    commented on 's reply
    I took a quick look at the woofer and could see what you’re talking about…would definitely look better rear mounted. Thanks for pointing that out. Any issues with rear mounting? Seems like I only see rear mounted on the continuum ll.

  • djg
    replied
    I had a Tritrix 5.1 suite long ago. They really sounded nice, especially for the price. For you, take a close look at the woofer. It is a bit ugly with a thick black cardboard gasket on the front of the frame, more suited to rear mounting, which of course you could do.

    Another 8 ohm suite from cjd, who designed the Abourious, is the Ochocincos, with another ugly woofer you could rear mount. Dayton 4 and 8 ohm ND series woofers are great performers.

    https://www.divine-audio.com/ochocinco/

    Leave a comment:


  • eavo44
    commented on 's reply
    Djg…I get hung up on the symmetry of the design for sure, which is why I lean towards the mtm for the center. It seemed that a few people suggested either a tm or a tmm for the left and right in order to reduce comb filtering from those channels. That approach makes sense to me. I think you can graphically balance a port with a tweeter to create the look of symmetry, but i get the feeling it’s going to feel off but I’ll take a look at it. It seems like a tm for all three channels would be a good performer with several speaker kit options that could work…but I feel this would be the last approach for me. I looked at the tritrix at lunch…could be an option. The tm and mtm are rated at 6 ohms. I did a little reading about impedance and am understanding that a little better. One of the articles I read said that most standard/budget receivers can handle a 6 or 8 ohm speaker.

  • mobius
    commented on 's reply
    For me, it's not the visuals driving the MTM recommendations. First it's because MTM's can handle the bombast of HT better than just a TM. Second it's because they are usually higher in sensitivity which means less is being asked from the amp for equivalent SPL. And because third, the OP's amp of 65W into 8ohms isn't exceptionally high. But much of that depends on the max SPL's required which really hasn't been defined yet.

    Right now I'm thinking the MTM Sopranos, 8ohm and high sensitivity MTM's, either sealed or ported or a combination of both might still be the ticket.

  • mobius
    commented on 's reply
    Yes likewise from me. I thought they were more similar than they are.

    Know of any designs using the T version?

  • djg
    replied
    There are plenty of 8 ohm speakers you could use, but you seem particularly hung up on using a MTM for the center purely for the visuals. I've commented on using the port to visually balance the tweeter. Why don't you cook up a rendering or two with this concept in mind? You're very good at that.

    Tyger 23's Canzonettas. Move that port to the same distance from the woofer as the tweeter, turn it sideways. Paint it black.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	tyger.jpg Views:	0 Size:	86.4 KB ID:	1486165

    Leave a comment:


  • eavo44
    commented on 's reply
    It’s a possibility but I’d rather work with what I have. The HK has performed well so far and replacing it just seems like an added cost. It’s been more difficult than expected to find a speaker kit to fit this project…so maybe upgrading my receiver should be a consideration.

  • eavo44
    commented on 's reply
    Thanks wolf…I didn’t realize that.

  • Wolf
    replied
    The T and standard are different in specifications. These were not designed for the T version.
    Wolf

    Leave a comment:


  • eavo44
    replied
    I took a look at the Abourious bar setup tonight…looks cool. It has a more serious look with the size increase. The truncated frame on the Dayton looks nice! Still not sure if the cabinet is large enough but I’ll dig into that a bit more later. Also going to spend some time looking more deeply into impedance. Click image for larger version  Name:	9F327085-75B1-4E3A-BA75-840856CE3447.jpeg Views:	14 Size:	364.7 KB ID:	1486147
    Last edited by eavo44; 05-12-2022, 12:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X