AudioCircle
Industry Circles => GR Research => Topic started by: Loftprojection on 26 Apr 2007, 02:08 am
-
Last week I went to the audio show in Montreal. I listened to a bunch of kits, some costing more than I can even dream of ever being able to pay for. Sure, a lot of those systems were setup in a less than ideal environment but many manufactures had brought some room treatment apparatus.
So when I got back at home from the show, I sat down and listened to music, thinking, my ho my, doesn't my system sound good. I have Danny's A/V-3 with one sw-12a/pr-12a sub. This is hooked up to an Audio Aero MKII hybrid integrated, an MHDT Paradisea dac and a RWA modded Squeezebox2. IC and speaker cables are all Danny's offerings. My room has absolutely no treatment whatsoever, zippo, nothing. So compared to most systems I saw at the show, my system and speakers should really sound, hum, so so at best! Well not at all. I'm not saying it sounds better then for example the Verity Audio Lohengrin that are worth more the $50k but I'm pretty sure my A/V-3 with sub would easily compete with most speakers I heard from $1000 to $3000 maybe even more.
So those of you who own the A/V-3 with or without the sub, if you compared them to commercial speakers, am I crazy or would you say those A/V-3 are pretty incredible!
-
Btw, how big is your room?
-
Your room and acoustic treatments, or lack thereof, make a HUGE difference in system sound. That's #1. #2 is system synergy. Beyond that, my A/V-3's (given to my daughter as a wedding present last July because she and her fiance asked for a pair of A/V-3's) sound as good as any $2,000 - $5,000 pair of hi-fi shop speakers I've ever heard. My 1.5 cents.
-
I never measured my room but it's about 13 by 15. I've tried but there is no way I will ever be able to put room treatment unless we move or I become single again!
So Hank, if you gave your A/V-3's to your daughter, what did you build or buy for yourself now?
-
Have to agree with you Loft. The only speakers I've listened to at local stores to compare to are some 700 series B&W's, and they weren't even close, and some high end Paradigm speakers, which were comparable, but not quite at the same level...the paradigm's were signature series or something like that, and it was the latest and greatest version of that speaker that was broke in.....I wouldn't trade my AV-3's for any of them.
-
Loft, I've designed a 2-way tower cabinet for Danny's new M165X woof and Al's custom A-C ribbon tweeter, Danny's crossover design. I've been off and on it at my glacial speed for 4 months :oops: (had some real customer orders inbetween). But, yesterday I started veneering the cabinets, so it won't be long now. I've been taking some assembly photos so Al can post them on his web site. I broke in the drivers/crossovers in a test cabinet and the adjective that instantly came to mind was "fast". To me, that translates to "accurate".
-
:banana piano:
-
I am thinking about building a test pair, then building some as per demand as part of a business venture. If you can build a pair for ~$500 finished and loaded, how much would you recommend selling them for (assuming the aesthetics and performance are good)?
-
I would say it would partially depend on the veneer/finish and build quality. If you are a very good craftsman and they turn out looking awesome then anywhere near what $1400-1500.
-
I am thinking about building a test pair, then building some as per demand as part of a business venture. If you can build a pair for ~$500 finished and loaded, how much would you recommend selling them for (assuming the aesthetics and performance are good)?
WLP-
If you can buy the kit for $330, build a solid pair of floor standing cabs with nice finish and assemble them all for $500 then I have an opening for you in my shop :wink:
-
I am thinking about building a test pair, then building some as per demand as part of a business venture. If you can build a pair for ~$500 finished and loaded, how much would you recommend selling them for (assuming the aesthetics and performance are good)?
WLP-
If you can buy the kit for $330, build a solid pair of floor standing cabs with nice finish and assemble them all for $500 then I have an opening for you in my shop :wink:
Well, I figure $350 for parts, $50 for the MDF, $10 for glue, $100 for paint and finish... I already have the clamps, saws, sanders and filler. Seems feasible to me, unless I am missing something important. You realize that I've built all my A/V equipment using 2x4s, scrap plywood, leftover poly, and whatever else is laying around my garage. :D
-
WLP
The problem is that now you have discovered us audiofools here at AC and if you are not careful, in no time, you will be adding a zero onto that $500 speaker budget :lol: You should be able to build the AV-3 kit for yourself for $500 and have a world class speaker :beer:
-
Yeah, I'm kinda screwed.
In another year or two I'll be wondering if I can fit a LS-9 into my attic :thumb:
On the AV-3, cool, I'm glad to hear that. A quick question though: how important is a fancy dampening material like no-rez or blackhole5? It is pretty expensive and seems to border on the snake-oil side of things... :scratch:
Is the stuff legit?
-
No Rez came about from testing done by several companies involving resonance control on MDF. It works wonders. The results are easily heard and felt. It is highly recommended.
-
A quick question though: how important is a fancy dampening material like no-rez or blackhole5? It is pretty expensive and seems to border on the snake-oil side of things...
Is the stuff legit?
Damping is far from snake oil.
Yes, the No Rez is legit. Anything you do to prevent the enclosure from actually resonating and radiating sound waves itself, is a good thing. It's not supposed to be a soundbox, just an enclosure to provide the volume of air needed to the design, whether sealed, or ported. I experimented while building the enclosures for the OB 5's. You can read about my findings in regards to the No Rez here (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=32448.msg298815#msg298815)
Now, I wouldn't even consider not lining a speaker enclosure with it.
OB 5 enclosures lined with NoRez:
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=8129)
The other important factors are cabinet bracing, rigidity, and mass. The more the better. A number of years ago, I visited a showroom where they had 2 speakers of the same model 2 way speaker. One was in a bookshelf version on metal stands (sand and lead shot filled), the other model was the same speaker in a floorstanding version, but with the lower empty portion sand and lead shot filled ( it weighed 90 lbs total ). Both versions were the same overall height.
I thought I was listening to two entirely different speakers. I thought there might be a difference in drivers, or crossovers. There was not. The 90lb floorstanding version clearly sounded better. Better imaging, better bass, better everything. Was it night and day? I wouldn't say so, but it was not subtle at all, however. The improvement was very noticeable.
This led me to an experiment with the small Tannoy nearfield monitors that I have in my recording studio. I built a massive pair of cabinets for them. I maintained the same internal volume, internal dimensions, driver spacing etc. The cabinet was way overbuilt. 1 1/2" thick sides, front and back, and 2 1/4" tops and bottoms. All in MDF.
The original Tannoy enclosures were a combination of MDF, and particle board. The original Tannoys weighed 9 lbs, fully loaded, the modified Tannoys, 32lbs, fully loaded.
I then A/B'ed them in my studio. I set them up side by side on stands and hooked them up, one to each amp output. Because I was feeding them from my mixer, I was able to feed them both the same signal. I fed them a summed stereo signal from my CDP,( both right and left signals, summed in mono) from different channels on the mixer, and panned the channels right and left. This way, I could mute one speaker, while the other played, then do the opposite, and flip back and forth between the two speakers.
Again, the differences were not subtle at all. Same results though, better imaging, better bass (by a long shot), and a much smoother transition between the woofer and tweeter. The modified version also sounds quite a bit clearer. Here is what the two look like. The modded one on the left, the original on the right.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=7655)
You don't need to opt for the No Rez. There are a number of things you could do other than No Rez. You could do a constrained layer of MDF/Sand/MDF, or concrete. You could make the cabinets out of marble, or even concrete themselves. There are other substitute to these more drastic methods. The No Rez is a simple one. Just cut to size, peel and stick. No muss, no fuss. :green:
Bracing is the other simple, and very important method of improving the enclosure.
Cheers
-
Ah, you sold me :thumb:
Thanks for clearing up everything for me. Sometimes you can never really tell with products online. Dayglow, do you use additional R-9 style (loose) insulation in addition to the no-rez? Your cabs look awesome, maybe it is the 2" thick walls that do it. ;) Really high quality.
I've been modeling up some plans, just need to finish up the school year and get started!
WLP
-
Dayglow, et al....
A little OT but still applicable.....I'm curious to know how a cld constructed cabinet with a lossy layer of something like "ice & water shield" or some sort of tar sheet might compare with a normal cabinet using a product like NoRez or BH5. If you had to choose one over the other, ruling out labor and $ as a deciding factor, which way would you go and why?
To bring this back on topic, I think it is due to these types of discussions that we can, with a bit of elbow grease, realize much better sound from a (AV-3) kit than we can from a commercial speaker with a much higher price tag. I personally find it very difficult to answer a question like Re: A/V-3 - in which price bracket should they be competing!
It's apples to oranges. As Dayglow mentioned, there is alot that can be done to customize a speaker cabinet when you DIY....
-
Chris
Having been one that had some influence on the Danny doing a new product (No REZ) I can share a few things on this.
Below is just a small pile of the materials I tested for 2 issues with cabinets.
Acoustic absorption for internal absorption.
Plus a damping factor to line the cabinets.
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/Insulationtestpile.JPG)
The pile show the BH5 and the BH4 ( no top layer)
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/InsulationtestBh5.JPG)
First off the top layer on the foam is acoustic absorbant and should not be used.
One issue with all the products it the top layer that was marketed for years is a loss of absorption do not use any material with a layer on the foam.If you have a product with this remove it if you can by peeling it off .Tricky but it can done.Or if it is one one side of the foam place this to the cabinet wall leaving the open foam to the drivers.
Now the damping or vibration damping as some call it.
Really to do any justice the material has to be absorbent and store the energy from the resonant walls (lack of bracing is the biggest fault)
This is a trail and error in the process of getting products made with different barriers, as well as different thickness of the barrier.
What we found was the 3/16" of barrier with 1" of foam works the best for internal absorption for waves and the 3/16" did a very good job of vibration control for the walls.
The only issue was the weight of this product.
We sent samples to Danny of this which was used in the AV1RS shown on the GR site.
A 2X4 sheet weight was over 15lbs :duh:
So the product that works great for lining a cabinet which is very week in bracing in the first place ,weights a lot to ship and cost was a factor just to get the product in stock as well to the consumers.
Next was to just use a foam with a thinner barrier which Danny has done :thumb:
Now as for tiles ect to use in replacement of the No REZ.
Using floor tiles with a PSA backing similar to the No REZ can be done as well.
When using the tiles the trick is to use a tile with a strong PSA glue.
To check this peel back a corner of the paper and push your finger into the tile and pull it back to see which is the most sticky.
I will say not all the time are the more expensive tiles made with a strong PSA.The tile made be made with a higher quality of product but they will use a cheaper PSA and will not stick.The trick once you have your .40cent tiles (for vibration damping) is to make sure the cabinet walls are clean of dust.I blow them off then wipe them with a damp cloth to make sure the dust is off completely.
The best thing with the PSA tiles is the tiles are THICK.
Now cut the tiles line the walls and make sure they bond.
Now for acoustic absorption we use a 1" foam with a layer we have made but really any 1" foam will do a good job.
Nothing beats a thick cabinet and well braced cabinet.If you brace every 6" yes we do or close to that you can use a 1" foam and have great results.
Below is the last product we tested with a piece of BH5.Notice how thick the barrier is on the mic.(you can not read the mic but this shows the thickness difference)
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/InsulationtestBHRAW.JPG)
Before
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/Insidetallsub.JPG)
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/Tallsubcabs.JPG)
After
(http://members.shaw.ca/awooley/pictures/Tallsubsfinished.JPG)
380lb sub cabinets tuned to 14hz :green:
-
Christof,
I haven't done any comparitive testing. To find out for sure, you would at bare minimun need to make similarly sized test pieces of MDF, apply the various materials to the test pieces, then using some sort of contact driver attached to the MDF, feed it a signal at it's resonant frequency, and probably with an accelerometer find out how well the different materials attenuate the excitation of the MDF. I think that a proper test would be something along the lines of that.
I have a friend in the acoustics business. I've done some project management for him, and have some exposure to the techniques and materials they use to overcome sound transmission problems. One product that I came across and have used in industrial and residential applications is Symar. It works really well as a sound transmission barrier and resonace damper. Better than you would think. Here is some info on it here (http://www.nrtna.com/).
Another trick I've tried is 12" X12" Armstrong industrial floor tile. The stuff you can get at the Home Depot in the peel and stick variety. There is a slightly thicker version ( about 2.5 mm)that is not peel and stick. I used this in my prototype AV/3's. I used contact cement to stick it on. I cut them to size with an old blade on my table saw. These tiles are very cheap, and add a lot of mass.
If you had to choose one over the other, ruling out labor and $ as a deciding factor, which way would you go and why?
Again, this was a while back, so I can't tell you with any certaintly if the materials you mention, or if the floor tile trick would attenuate more than the damping layer on the NoRez. However, if you really wanted to raise the performance a bit more, you could do the tile trick first, then add the NoRez. The NoRez has the foam already attached that you need in order to control standing waves inside the enclosure. That would be your biggest "bang for the buck" and kills two birds with one stone. The tile thing is not as easy to work with or apply, but it does add a considerable amount of mass.
Dayglow, do you use additional R-9 style (loose) insulation in addition to the no-rez?
Yes, but we typically use polyfill instead of fiberglass. This is not a method of resonance control, but a tuning method for the waves reflecting inside the cabinet. I'm not an expert in this regard, so I'll refrain from trying to explain any further.
Hmmmm.....Actually, now I'm inspired to do some experimenting with damping. I wish I had the time to do it now, but unfortunately I don't. I have some of the floor tile, I have some of the Symar, and I have some of the NoRez. I might have access to an accelerometer, I have a sinewave generator, but am missing a contact driver. I'll post my findings when I eventually give this a try.
Actually, I've been thinking as I've been typing this, that when I build my OB 7's, that I'll do just as I'm suggesting to you. I'll first apply the floor tile, then do the NoRez on top of the tile to the insides. Bonus. :green:
All these little things that we discuss, bracing, damping, capacitor upgrades, bypass caps, wiring etc....are all incremental methods of optimizing performance. Of course you need a good foundation in the speaker design itself (drivers, crossover design). But, as I've learned over the last few years, you really do yield substantial performance gains from proper implementation. The enclosure is a big deal. I have to admit, that I was surprised to find out, to what degree the enclosure can affect the performance of a speaker.
I would be amiss, if I didn't mention another simple way of vastly improving the sound of whatever speakers you may be listening to. Room treatment!!!
At bare minimum, absortive panels at first reflection points. Then absorption in corners. Bass trapping in corners is a big deal. Diffusion is something that has worked well for me as well. A lot of this stuff you can DIY, and achieve good results. If you overlook this, you are severly limiting what true potential your speaker (and system) has.
I'll stress this. You can thank me later. :wink:
You feel like you've upgraded to a better speaker by these simple room modifications. The more care you take, the better the gains. What can you expect? Better imaging, clarity, less fatiguing. Bass trapping really tightens up bass. Without the bass ringing in the room, you get better imaging and clarity from the mids and highs.
To bring this back on topic, I think it is due to these types of discussions that we can, with a bit of elbow grease, realize much better sound from a (AV-3) kit than we can from a commercial speaker with a much higher price tag.
I totally agree.
Cheers :thumb:
-
AL & Dayglow
Thanks for the info. I'm not too sure about the floor tiles :scratch: but it's worth a try I guess. My understanding is that the acoustical energy needs to be converted to heat via friction in order to reduce the energy. Floor tiles are probably effective but the effected bandwidth is probably pretty narrow. The added mass would lower the res Hz of the cab....this is just a guess. Physics tells us that it is important to have a lossy layer, such as a viscous material like tar, to convert the energy to heat but where is the idea location? Perhapse it be best to use a lossy layer in multiple locations such as: mdf->lossy layer->mdf->foam->lossy layer->foam? Thinking over this a bit I am posed with another problem, how the heck would I cut the mdf/tar/mdf without botching up my table saw :wink:
-
My understanding is that the acoustical energy needs to be converted to heat via friction in order to reduce the energy.
That's been my understanding as well, as the most effective way.
Thinking over this a bit I am posed with another problem, how the heck would I cut the mdf/tar/mdf without botching up my table saw
Easy. Composite panel construction. For example, two 3/8" MDF skins, separated by a frame sandwiched around the perimeter of the panels say of a 1/4" thick MDF cut into 1" strips. You fill the area inside the built up frame with your tar of choice, then glue the other skin on. The frame glues the two skins together, the tar is the damping between the field portions of the panels. You've now encapsulated the tar, and can cut the panel without cutting into the tar. Ta Da! :green:
Cheers
-
I don't think he means liquid tar - he probably means roofing tar paper.
Here's another thought: I recently sent Danny a test cabinet and one of his comments was that he rapped on a side and it sounded really dead - he asked me what I used. First, I used the Parts Express damping layer material. They have 2 versions: mineral-filled asphalt polymer (p/n 268-020 for example); also a mineral-filled viscoelastic polymer that they claim is twice as effective (p/n 268-035 for example). They're both peel-and-stick. I stick that on the MDF (clean it like Al said), then on top of that, I stick the PE 1" thick acoustic foam, p/n 260-525, also peel-and-stick. No-Rez might be better - I haven't compared. I'll be interested in your test results, Dayglow.
-
Hank,
Thanks for the info.
If you re-read Cristoff's latest post, he did in fact mean liquid tar. He also mentioned ice& water shield, which I believe is a tar paper.
The liquid damping method should be the most effective method. Much like harmonic dampers on crankshafts of high performance engines. They are (as far as my most recent knowledge on the subject) by far the most effective at damping harmonic vibrations. I believe this would hold true in a constrained layer method for speaker cabinets as well.
I believe I've read that natural silicone, has very good harmonic damping properties as well.
I have a colleague that has a vibration and sound control business. They are very well established, and respected as one of the leading experts in the field. They do stuff all the way up to tuned mass dampers for skyscrapers. I'm gonna pick his brain one of these days again, on the subject.
I don't know why it hadn't occurred to me before, to consider this method. But that's the beauty of AC. Two heads are always better than one. :green:
I'm toying with design ideas for a new subwoofer enclosure, to get away from just a plain ol' rectangular box. I was thinking of having built in ballast tanks for sand/lead shot. But now that I think about it, the tar thing would probably be even more effective at adding both mass, and having the most effective damping properties as well.
I checked out the Parts Express stuff you listed. Interesting. I think one of those might well be very similar, if not the same stuff as the Symar I mentioned earlier.
If I actually get around to doing a controlled test, I'd like to try as many samples of dampening materials, as I could get my hands on.
Cheers
-
Hey guys, the best fill material to use between layers of MDF is sand.
-
If you re-read Cristoff's latest post, he did in fact mean liquid tar. He also mentioned ice& water shield, which I believe is a tar paper.
I guess I was refering to either. The ice and water shield is sort of a combination of both. It has a platic membrane on one side which is not sticky and the other side is a sticky rubber tar type stuff which gets very sticky (not runny) when it heats up. The sticky side will stick to MDF with no problem, especially if the mdf has a seal coat of shellac applied first. I'm going to play with it a bit on with a pair of cabinets I'm building and see how it turns out.
I suppose there are as many ways to creat constrained layer damping as there are to drink a beer or skin a cat, if thats your style. If the inner box is coupled to the outer box via rigid mechanical fasteners like bolts, screw, mdf (solid corners) or anything other than the "lossy layer", there will be an avenue for the energy to escape because the the layers are not truely independent. I think to realize the most from CLD there should be nothing but a "lossy layer" between the inner and outer box. :scratch:
There has been much discussion about CLD at DIY Audio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=d30ba10f566803e12eb39555d24d3727&threadid=98346&perpage=10&highlight=&pagenumber=2). I'm kinda curious about Green Glue (http://www.greengluecompany.com/index.php) used between two layers of 1/2" mdf. Wilson Audio published a white paper on their CLD experimentation and it seems that a very thin adhesive layer between two identical rigid layers (MDF) worked best for them. It makes sense after reading the Wilson paper that a thick "lossy layer" will allow the inner panel to be set into motion and have a slow "decay" time, if you could call it that.
I'm toying with design ideas for a new subwoofer enclosure, to get away from just a plain ol' rectangular box. I was thinking of having built in ballast tanks for sand/lead shot. But now that I think about it, the tar thing would probably be even more effective at adding both mass, and having the most effective damping properties as well.
Here is an unorthidox subwoofer (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=282&pos=30) I did, following Bucky Fullers "Dymaxion model" stating that as the number of sides of an enclosed shape increases, approaching spherical geometery, the enclosure should become inherently stronger and thus be able to be made more lightweight ie. geodesic domes..... I cannot imagine how to build this using CLD but if it could be pulled off it would one dead horse.
c-
-
Hey Dayglow,
If you're looking for damping to test, have you heard about Wispermat 1 or 2. Check out silentsource.com, can't remember if you have to order a minimum amount. I'll probably use the 1 on my new OB's, unless floor tile and foam is just as good. Or maybe the PE stuff.
-
The Wispermat material is just about worthless. Read the info page on the No Rez to learn why. It is the same type of material as Sonic Barrier.
http://www.gr-research.com/components/no_rez.shtm
-
even the wispermat 1? Looks like it's just a damping layer then foam. The wispermat 2 I thought was just like blackhole.
-
even the wispermat 1? Looks like it's just a damping layer then foam. The wispermat 2 I thought was just like blackhole.
Take a good look at the pictures. You will see that they are nothing more than a thin sheet of foam, then a barrier layer, then a with the WM2, a thicker sheet of foam on top. It is just a suspended piece of vinyl. There are no damping layers. Nothing but a foam layer touches the walls of the cabinet. If the enclosure wall is excited at its resonance then foam pad with suspended barrier has little effect on it. The cabinet wall can resonant independently of the barrier.
Blackhole 5 and No Rez both have a heavy composite damping layer that is stuck directly onto the cabinet wall to minimize and control the panel resonance.
-
Oh, I thought wm1 was like no-rez, Vinyl damping layer (1lb. per sq. ft) that attaches the the wood, then 1 inch foam layer on top. Whats your thoughts on floor tile and foam? I know I shouldn't cheap out, but my budget is tight, specialy considering that I'll probably be ordering 8 of the xbl's when they're in and either save my current 130's for suround speaks or sell them.
quote from whispermat.
Whispermat1 combines a single barrier layer with a single layer of Hushcloth® acoustical foam. When the barrier is applied to sheet metal, plastic, or wood, the foam is exposed to absorb airborne noise.
The barrier functions both to contain sound, and acting as a mass damper, eliminates structural vibration.
-
On the topic of resonance control, I'm building a custom metal stand for my audio gear. The stand pictured below is constructed out of 2" x 2" square tube for the uprights, and 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" square for the crossmembers, all .100" wall thickness cold rolled steel.
All the tubes were drilled and sand filled. Cross members included. The difference in ringing prior to sand filling, and after, is tremendous. Again, I experimented with tapping the tubes with various hammers of different weights, and materials. The sand is a big deal.
Just for fun, a couple of people told me that expanding uerethane foam (the same kind you buy at the Home Depot for air leaks) works well for damping. So I tried that with some spare tube. It actually does work really well at preventing the tube from ringing like a bell.
The other difference noted with this experiment, was that when the stand was flipped 90 deg. on it's side and you were to bang on the legs. The stand actually resonates like a tuning fork. You can actually see it oscillating. After sand filling, the oscillation is greatly diminished, and the duration is much shorter as well. Of course the mass of the sand will do this, while the foam could not.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=10257)
Just to give you an idea on how much mass sand adds. The stand prior to sand filling weighed 50 lbs. After sand filling, 80lbs. An easy, cheap, and very effective method of mass loading and damping.
I'll definitely be doing it in the future for my new subwoofer enclosure. :green:
I'm also experimenting with constrained layer damping for the shelves for this unit. I'll give an update on that when I finish those experiments. :thumb:
Cheers
-
So I'm looking at building my first set of "real" speakers and am ordering the AV-3 kit. A few things:
>For a first-time build should I go with the sonocap upgrade? I am running mid-level electronics using mostly CD quality music (plus some high bit-rate MP3s). No HT, just music using Dolby PLII or stereo presentation.
>What should I use for dampening/mass loading? I want to keep construction fairly straightforward and inexpensive, but also have good quality.
>Any additional tips for me about the AV-3?
I am going to finish the enclosure in a gloss black paint, using lacquer. I have access to a spray room and gun, but I am not sure what type of lacquer to get for a gun. I think that the black paint will be from a can, since that is pretty cheap and I have had good results thus far.
Thanks for the help!
-
You are a lucky guy to be starting into quality audio with the AV-3's :thumb:. They are going to be hard to beat for quite a while. I think that most folks buy the upgraded kit. If you are going to paint the cabinet, there are lots of threads that cover the problems. Keeping the seams invisible is the main one.
-
For a first-time build should I go with the sonocap upgrade? I am running mid-level electronics using mostly CD quality music (plus some high bit-rate MP3s). No HT, just music using Dolby PLII or stereo presentation.
Clearly it will sound better with the Sonicaps, and that added performance does come with a price. Whether the performance is worth the price is something each person has to decide.
What should I use for dampening/mass loading?
No Rez.
am going to finish the enclosure in a gloss black paint, using lacquer.
If so then it will be important that you cut all of you exterior walls with a 45 degree angle so that the seam will be on the rounded edge and easy to hide. Otherwise it is nearly impossible to keep the seams from showing through.
-
For a first-time build should I go with the sonocap upgrade?
I would recommend that you do. The reason is quite simply, that when you discover how well the AV/3's perform with the lower grade parts, you will not stop wondering how much better they could sound, with the premium parts. It's human nature. Then you will purchase the more expensive parts, and have nothing to do with the parts that you'll be replacing. Those parts that you initially saved money, are now just sitting there unused.
I would also recommend bypassing all the caps with Sonicap Gen I or Gen II's. It'll only add a couple of more bucks to the kit. Bypassing is an easy hot rodding option.
>What should I use for dampening/mass loading? I want to keep construction fairly straightforward and inexpensive, but also have good quality
I'll again echo that the NoRez works really well. The other methods (like floor tile) will work as well for mass loading and damping, but you would then need to add something on top of that to control internal resonances. The NoRez does both, and is peel and stick. The adhesive really works well. After 24 hrs, there just about no getting it off. Cuts easily with a knife. No muss, no fuss. :green:
I am going to finish the enclosure in a gloss black paint, using lacquer. I have access to a spray room and gun, but I am not sure what type of lacquer to get for a gun. I think that the black paint will be from a can, since that is pretty cheap and I have had good results thus far.
The advice to mitre the edges will yield you the best results, but certainly much harder to do.
As far as lacquers, it depends on how far you want to go. If this is just a quicky DIY speaker, just to get your feet wet in DIY, then use whatever types are readily available where you happen to have access to a spray booth and guns. Use what they use.
You can run into compatibilty problems when you use multiple products from different manufacturers on the same project. Some problems don't show up right away, but later on down the road, and can be nearly impossible to rectify. You must start over. :duh: So beware of that. The most durable lacquers are of the post catalyzed variety. You must spray these in a booth only, and must wear a respirator. These paint systems are not friendly to your health otherwise.
Read around the GR Research and RAW Acoustics forums, there are plenty of threads where DIY'ers have asked similar advice regarding how to veneer and finish speakers.
Have fun, and don't forget to post pictures.
Good luck! :thumb:
Cheers
-
I went straight with the upgraded kit and Blackhole. This was my first ever DIY project and I figured that I would put a lot of effort to it so didn't want to take any chance on the potential for sound quality. I'm sure the base kit is probably very good sounding but if you plan on keeping your speakers for a long time then I guess the few dollars more are well worth it. I've had my A/V-3 for close to a year now and I haven't been thinking about upgrading my speakers since then, I really love the sound they produce, even more since I added the SW-12a sub. Have fun with your project.
-
I am going to finish the enclosure in a gloss black paint, using lacquer. I have access to a spray room and gun, but I am not sure what type of lacquer to get for a gun.
I also started my AV-3 project by thinking to use paint instead of veneer, mainly because I had no idea how to work with veneer, and the extra cost of veneer was significant. Now I'm so relieved I went with veneer. My raw cabinets ended up with a number of dings, screwholes and uneven seams. I patched and sanded these as best I could with wood filler, but I shudder to think what these things would have looked like without veneer to cover up my mistakes. If you have a WAF, you'll need to consider that, IMO.
-
I also went with veneer for the same reasons mentioned above...the cost was higher because the paper backed veneer isn't cheap...but they would have looked like crap if I would have just tried to paint them. Also do the sonicap upgrade and the NoRez as Danny recomends over the BH for these speakers.
-
Wood is beautiful. Awesome, gorgeous wood grain is available to us thanks to veneer technology. I would never paint, except for speaker bases. I had a local customer who wanted a 5 speaker system (2 towers, i center and two surrounds. He had a strict budget, so veneer was out of the question. Rather than paint them, I coverred them in the PE vinyl that looks like black-dyed ash. I didn't have to mess with paint and the customer was thrilled with his speakers. The lowest cost wood veneer tends to be oak, cherry and maple.
Yes, do the max A/V-3's and you'll have speakers rivalling any audio showroom's $1,500 - $3,000 speakers.
-
Sorry I couldn't reply sooner, I've been out of town for a while.
Anyway, I am glad to see all these replies, it is getting me pumped up for this project!
I will go for the Sonocap upgrade, it seems like a no-brainer now.
I'll figure out the dampening issues later, after I do some more research. No-rez sounds like the answer but it is more expensive than the drivers. :scratch: Convenience may win me over in the end though..
As for the finish, I am quickly realizing that painting may bring tons of troubles, and I would like these to look as professional as possible. I am (relatively) new to veneers and would appreciate any help as far as suppliers, techniques and types. I want whatever veneer I choose to be fairly easy to work with and not require tons of toxic chemicals. Can you guys help me here?
Thanks!
-
Pretender, a lot of us use Tape Ease as a veneer source:
http://www.tapeease.com/10_mil_%20veneer.htm
I have always used contact cement on paper-backed veneer and never had a problem with it. If you are afraid of it because the fumes are strong and volatile, then try Al Wooley's recommendation, which I just tried on my new tower design:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=27065.0
I recommend you select and buy a sheet of paper-backed veneer, cut off a piece and glue it to a piece of scrap MDF to gain confidence.
Have fun :thumb:
-
As for the finish, I am quickly realizing that painting may bring tons of troubles, and I would like these to look as professional as possible. I am (relatively) new to veneers and would appreciate any help as far as suppliers, techniques and types. I want whatever veneer I choose to be fairly easy to work with and not require tons of toxic chemicals. Can you guys help me here?
To achieve a really good paint grade finish, your cabinetry has to be flawless before you even begin finishing. Even then it is still more difficult to do than a veneer, with finish. You'll more likely achieve a more pleasing result if you go the veneer route.
Good move on the Sonicaps, you'll never regret it. I would recommend the NoRez for the AV/3's. With the alternating stepped bracing in that speaker, the easy cutting and peel and stick application makes it a pretty quick process and works well.
Cheers
-
How many 4x8 sheets of veneer are needed to cover a pair of AV-3s?
----
Also, and this is a crazy question, but would sheet metal work as a veneer? I can get some high-grade aluminum and steel sheet metal for much less than veneer, and I think that I could work it into something cool. The gauges are .019", .025", .032, .040, ... .125 If I went this route, or combined metal with veneer, what thickness gauge would yield the best results?
-
I was able to cover mine with 1 sheet.
Kevin
-
How many 4x8 sheets of veneer are needed to cover a pair of AV-3s?
You need 2 pieces about 40" W x 42" tall to wrap a pair of speakers. Plus 2 pieces about 8" W x 12" L to do the tops. If you want a matched pair, you need two buy two sheets of veneer that are sequenced (identical to each other in grain matches).
Also, and this is a crazy question, but would sheet metal work as a veneer? I can get some high-grade aluminum and steel sheet metal for much less than veneer, and I think that I could work it into something cool. The gauges are .019", .025", .032, .040, ... .125 If I went this route, or combined metal with veneer, what thickness gauge would yield the best results?
Not practical, but it could be done. Of the two options, aluminum is softer, and can be cut with standard woodworking tooling (carbide, High Speed Steel etc..). Sheet metal is ferrous, and cannot be cut with standard shop tools.
Cheers
-
Cool, I was looking at the mill finished aluminum (http://"http://www.bbsheetmetal.com/sheet-metal-sheets/mill-finished-aluminum-sheets.html") to add some accents and style. Couple the metal with some light veneer, like oak, and I think it would look pretty good. Anyway, I would need to do some experimenting first.
-
You could do the enclosure in the aluminum, with a separate baffle that is finished in either veneer or paint and attach it to the box.
That could look pretty cool. :green:
Cheers
-
Oakwoodveneer.com is where I got my veneer. Nice thing about them is you can see sample pictures of each variety.
-
Look at formwood.com
On the specials page there is some good deals.
Danny got the veneer for the RMAF pair of OB7 from here.
Some sheets as low as $20.00.
http://www.formwood.com/specials.php (http://www.formwood.com/specials.php)
-
Alright, I whipped out my handy 3D rendering software (Google SketchUp) and created a virtual AV-3 to test some designs on. This picture has the aluminum on the bottom section with gloss black for the top and base.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/221/525035166_126360c6ea.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/240/525035170_fb495a1c6e.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/525035172_83c4468f53.jpg)
Look alright?
-
Look alright?
I think awesome would describe it better! :D
-
Yeah, cool. Nice and different. Go for it.