Hooray! Finally a place of your own

Al Garay · « **on:** 4 Jan 2003, 12:29 am »

Congratulations Dave. Jack and I had requested your own forum and now you finally have one.

Al

Jay S · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 Jan 2003, 12:52 am »

This is great. What I find interesting about Ellis speakers is the attention given to the cabinet and the XO (particularly the latter!). Welcome to AC!

EProvenzano · « **Reply #2 on:** 4 Jan 2003, 02:15 am »

How's this for SUPERB cabinets....
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?action=gallery;area=browse;album=15
These put a smile on my face every time I listen and look.
EP

droliver · « **Reply #3 on:** 4 Jan 2003, 02:35 am »

Wow! Those are the walnut, right? I'm looking forward to some floorstanding desighns with that kind of work

EProvenzano · « **Reply #4 on:** 4 Jan 2003, 02:55 am »

Yes those are walnut. Dave crafted these cabinets and I was lucky enough to drive to his home in Montana to pick them up (glad I didn't entrust these to a courier).
If you think they look good in pictures, you should see them in person...twice as nice IMO. The solid wood baffles are very deep and rich looking. Depending on the angle you're viewing them at, they present different tones and grain character. Very seductive.
These are finished in clear laquer and polished to a mirror shine.
EP

droliver · « **Reply #5 on:** 4 Jan 2003, 09:49 pm »

lucky guy!

Marbles- I think the "modular" look you propose is too bulky aesthetically & would distract from the clean lines of Dave Ellis' cabinet work - this complaint comes from a plastic surgeon in training mind you

. I asked him last year about his plans for a floorstanding unit & he said he was considering one with a fairly modest footprint (I was envisioning something in my head like the Opera Pavaroti speakers http://www.operaloudspeakers.com/). A large Walnut cabinet with Dave's work would be devastating if it came to fruition. Sounds like he may be getting too successful & busy with his 1801 that it may be hard to expand his line without farming out some of the work or getting into it full time. It's refeshing to hear a nice guy having such a success story

jackman · « **Reply #6 on:** 6 Jan 2003, 04:01 am »

Very cool pix of those walnut Ellis 1801's!!! Mine were made before Dave started his new finishing process. They get lots of compliments but do not have the sex appeal of those! The new finish is more like fine furniture or something in a museum. I believe it takes Dave a very long time to achieve that type of finish. I'm not aware of a speaker manufacturer anywhere that is capable of doing that kind of work.

Have been experimenting with new cables and room placement along with the Smart DIo and Cal Audio transport. Sounds much better. Cables are Wax on loan from Rup the Kid. They sound very good, so I guess I'll have to do a review soon.

Regarding the bass on the 1801's, I agree that they could use a little more in the low end department. One thing I learned is that they do not like to be placed far away from rear walls. That was probably the reason they sounded so bass shy at Marble's house and at Audiojerry's place. I have them much closer to my rear wall in my listening room and they sound absolutely magic. The combination of the new wires, digital front end, and placement has made a great impact. Need to do some scientific-style testing in which I only test one variable at a time to determine individual impact of each piece. Audiojerry does a great job of methodically testing each piece. I have been too busy listening to music to accomplish this task. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Danny Richie was kind enough to loan me a very cool power cable. I replaced the stock cable on my amp and was very impressed with the sound. I was expecting more bass or at least more powerful bass. I believe the cable has smoothed out the entire range of my system. Highs sound smoother, and bass seems tighter. Will do some A/B's this week, after I have a chance to clear up the outlet to allow me to switch plugs easily. My current setup does not allow for this type of change.

Now for the important stuff...

Listening to:
**** Lucinda Williams first, self-titled album. Absolutely, one of my all time favorites.
**** Lucinda Williams "Sweet Old World". Can't get it out of my CD player. My wife now officially hates this record because she is sick of it. Lucinda is absolutely perfect in every way on this record. People gush about other female singers and some probably shy away from her stuff because they fear that she is "Country", but they could not be more wrong. I don't know what you would call this stuff, but I don't let that stop me from loving it completely. Do yourself a favor. Get these records and play them a couple of times before you make up your mind.

I have her later recordings (Essense and the Grammy winner, Car Wheels on a Gravel Road) and like them, however they do not compare (IMO) to these early recordings. I know this sounds like a music review, but I wish people could hear my Ellis on these recordings. They have never sounded better!

Jman

EProvenzano · « **Reply #7 on:** 6 Jan 2003, 04:58 am »

Thanks Jack. Yes I'm a proud owner of these 1801's. Even if I out grow them (prolly in many years) I will surely keep them for a second system or hand them down to my kids.
I recently played around with the room placement of my 1801's and I can also attest that the placement in relation to the back wall is suprisingly important. Also, I do not have my OW1 padded with any resistor. Dave supplied me with a 1 ohm resistor to play with but I never found the need to use it. My room is a bit on the dark side and explains why I'm not having the issues that some people are talking about. Never the less, the resistors are easy to put in series with the OW1 and anyone can customize the sound to their likeing. Not unlike, the L-pads on the back's of the VMPS speakers.
Since I've incorproated my stereo SCC300's they've done a fine job at seemingly filling in the mid-bass. I know this is strange because I've crossed the subs over at 40hz but my system is presenting a more balanced sound....in my room IMO.
BR,
EP

jackman · « **Reply #8 on:** 6 Jan 2003, 05:10 am »

Very cool! My father and I should have the SCC 300 done this week so I hope to have some feedback. Too much stuff going on and I've been without a computer for a couple days. At least one that is fast enough to be fun! I'm back in action.

I don't have the tweeters padded either. I listened to the speakers in room that was less than ideal for their design. It was hardwood floored and had an open rear wall. Hey, it was at Marbles' place! Very nice place by the way. At the time I attributed the lack of midbass and the brightness to the Bent preamp and wires, but realistically it was most likely the room. My room is much better suited for these speakers. Your finish is absolutely stunning. Dave was telling me the amount of work that goes into getting that finish. This kind of craftsmanship is not found in modern day business. It's very refreshing to deal with such a dedicated, honest and humble person as Dave.

Congratulations on such beautiful speakers! I like mine but yours look really amazing. I understand the walnut used on our speakers is the same type used on fancy gun-stocks. I think one of Dave's previous hobbies was making gun stocks or at least working with them.

Adios,
J

David Ellis · « **Reply #9 on:** 6 Jan 2003, 11:41 pm »

The short answer about a more bass and a woofer is - Yes. I'll offer some explanation.

First Issue:

Cone stress and the need for an extremely stiff cone does NOT happen for a cone operating at low frequencies. I know this remark flies in opposition to some common paradigms, but it is true. Three gentlemen much smarter than me have confirmed my thinking (Joe D', Sigfried Linkwitz., John Paulsen and Jeff Glowacki) during a visit to CES in 2002. Joe D actually explained the phenomena to me, and the other two gentlemen verified. I must give credit where credit is due.

Joe D' mentioned that the Usher 10" driver was quite exceptional. After some conversation I understood the reason why. The Usher 10"is a simple doped paper cone. Intuitively this is quite plain and certainly not special. Nonetheless, Joe D' said it was very good. I found this rather strange. I asked him if the soft paper cone caused some loss of resolution due to its lack of cone stiffness. His further explanation made very good sense. He asserted that low frequency reproduction activity for the cone is quite slow, and exerts little stress on the cone. The cone does indeed move a long way back and forth, but this activity happens very slow. Higher frequencies are a different story. At higher frequencies a very stiff diaphram is preferred because of the extremely fast transitions. A cone wiggling/moving at 2000hz is either very stiff, or very floppy. This is where a very stiff (commonly metal or ceramic) cone will perform exceptionally well.

The onset of cone wiggle is dependent upon cone stiffness and the operating frequency. The ultimate objective is a solid piston throughout the operating range of a cone. This is why Joe D' thought the 10" Usher was good. It is crossed quite low.

So, the use a metal cone when crossing low is foolish. A good doped paper cone will be equally pistonic. If crossing a woofer high, then sure, a metal cone is smart. It will remain a piston at high hz. It will create some crossover difficulties, but ya' can't have your cake and eat it too.

Second Issue: Ported versus sealed - dampening

There is some very good science about driver application and dampening. Such theory is very valid and suggests that a driver in a ported cabinet will have proportionally less dampening (more air-spring) due to the ported cabinet. The Qtc of a common ported cabient is 1. The sealed cabinet will commonly have less air spring, and the same driver dampening. The same concept can be applied to automotive springs and shock absorbers. Less cabinet spring in the sealed cabient means that the Qtc of an ideal sealed cabinet will be lower. There is some discussion about what Qtc is best, but a sealed Qtc of .6 to .7 is considered good by many. A smaller sealed cabinet will offer a stiffer spring and a higher Qtc will result. This Qtc might be .8 or .9. A slightly larger sealed cabinet will have an even lower spring force, and proportionally higher dampening.= and result in a low Qtc aligment. .707 is considered an average Qtc. Qtc numbers above this are considered high "Q". Qtc numbers below this are considered low "Q". The low "Q" sealed alignment seems somewhat coveted by the knowledgable.

However, I don't think this is the major consideration for a ported or sealed woofer. There are surely many midwoofers in a ported alignment that sound very good. The SS8545 is generally considered to be the king of bass for a midwoofer. I agree. The bass from this woofer in a ported alignment is extremely good.

Building a woofer for a sealed cabinet requires some other NON-Marketable characteristics. The hz depth that any woofer will play is determined by the resonance frequency Fs and the Qts. Drivers with a lower Fs will play lower. Drivers with a HIGHER Qts will play lower. A driver for a sealed cabient must have a higher Qts. Qts values above .4 are generally viable for a sealed cabinet. Obtaining this happens through a lower Bl (force) factor. Unfortunately a lower Bl factor also translates into less sensitivity. This is obviously less marketable. So, the cost for a woofer in a sealed cabinet is generally a couple db of sensitivity. The common consumer would surely never accept this. There is also some focus on the Qts of the driver, and I will agree that a lower Qts drivers do sound tighter. The unfortunate downside is that low Qts drivers don't play deep bass. Again, ya' can't have yer' cake and eat it too.

Soo, which alignmet is better?... Don't answer yet. Wait... there is more! Remember the Ronco Glass Froster? I ain't done yet.

Third issue: The rolloff

I believe the very most important woofer asset is the ability of a woofer to match the in-room response. This is because woofers are used in rooms. At about 40 hz in a normal size room there is room coupling that WILL occur. At 50hz in a small room there is room coupling that WILL occur. The degree of room coupling depends on the size of the room and the wall construction. I'll assume that coupling in an average room starts in the high 30's and extends downward. At 20hz there is 5-8db of room lift.

First, I need to address the issue of and octave. An octave is a doubling of frequency. 20-40hz is 1 octave. 40-80hz is 1 octave. 80-160hz is 1 octave. 20-160hz is 3 octaves

A ported woofer wil roll off at 24db/octave after the advertised f3. This means that when the 1801 starts the roll off at 38-40hz that it is approximately 24db down at 20hz. Since the room lift is only 5-8db, the signal remains 16-19db down. It will NOT be audible at 20hz. Heck, it'll barely be audible at 30hz.

A sealed woofer in a Qtc cabinet of .707 will roll off at 12db/octave. If the woofer begins to roll off at 37hz it will be about 10 db down at 20hz.

A sealed woofer in a low Q alignement will roll off slightly slower. A sealed woofer in a Qtc cabinet of about .6 will roll of at about 10db/octave. If it starts to roll off at 39hz at 38hz will roll off at 9db down at 20hz.

Based on the information above, it'll probably seem quite apparant what woofer I plan to use. This project will matriculate sometime next fall.

The downside to this is the very large cabinet. It isn't possible to accomplish this in a monitor/base setup for the 1801. Some quick calculations reveal that a 3.5 - 4 cubic foot cabinet with 1 1/2" thick walls + bracing will be friggin huge! This will not be acceptable in the living room for any respectable housewife.

I could use a lessor driver in a smaller cabinet, but really don't want to make compromises in any other direction. Also, the intended driver sounds.... well.... I'll let other folks comment on the sound quality of the SCC300.

Fair warning though. The cabinet takes me a very long time to build, is extremely heavy. The crossover componets will also be very large, and the completed speaeker won't be cheap.

There are other issues too, but my comments above encompass the major issues regarding the decision of a woofer.

Please let me know if you have further questions. I'll do my best to address them.

Dave

jackman · « **Reply #10 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 01:18 am »

Great commentary Dave. This is (IMO) what separates you from much of the "snake oil" that is all too common in this industry.

I look forward to your continued contribution to this site.

Jack

jackman · « **Reply #11 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 01:44 am »

Marbles,
I have a SCC300 and am going to build a large sealed sub. Have the wood and the amp, but haven't had the time to get together with my father and slap it together. You can ask Therandman, Audiojerry and Rup (I think Rup saw it), this driver is a total monster. It's a twelve inch driver but the motor structure is huge and it is as solid as an armored car. The pictures on the Soniccraft website do not do it justice. I think it sells for $150 and is worth every penny. I hope to get the cabinet built this week...

You can check on Soniccraft.com for details.

Jack

jackman · « **Reply #12 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 02:10 am »

That picture does not do it justice. That thing is a total beast. Jeff G. says it can be crossed over as high as 300 hz.

J

EProvenzano · « **Reply #13 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 02:14 am »

I'm not much for writing reviews but if anyone has any interest in my experience and opinion of the SCC300 subs I've built, please fire away. I think it would be tough to beat the SCC300, musically, as it matches all the strong qualities of the 1801 IMO.

I'm also looking forward to reading Jeff's comments on the XM-9 in his setup.

As always Dave, a great post, and your integrity shines through IMO.

Al Garay · « **Reply #14 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 03:14 am »

EP,

I do want more details. I recall you were going to use sealed 3.5 cubic feet each with the driver forward firing. Is this right?

I appreciate brief description of the construction: did you use 3/4" MDF all around? Any plywood? What about the braces?

Did you use the Apex Senior for plate amp?

How are you crossing them over to the 1801's? Using active x-over? I think you were going to run the 1801's full range...

Thanks,

Al

Al Garay · « **Reply #15 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 04:52 am »

I went back re-read the thread I started in HD about subwoofer matching with 1801s. It provides most of the details I was looking for... Just so I don't forget again, here is the link:
http://www.harmonicdiscord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9055

When the time comes, I will try a 4.0 cubic foot internal cabinet for the SCC300. Sealed. Just don't know how thick the walls need to be, 1" or 1.5", and whether all MDF or MDF with void-free plywood sandwich.

Al

EProvenzano · « **Reply #16 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 06:32 am »

Hi Al,
Thanks for posting the link to the HD discussion. It gives most of my project details.
I would like to add though, the mod to the Parts Express amp was mandatory for me to successfully run the 1801's full range with the SCC300's. The standard 2nd order xo was not removing all the necessary signal above 40hz. I was finding the bass to be a bit bloated (not quite boomy) at times. Stumped at this, I decided to plug the port on the 1801 to hear the changes. The bloat was reduced. Since the xo on the PE amp was already set to minimum (40hz) I needed to live with the 1801's sealed, or mod the PE xo. I decided to do the mod. The mod was a learning experience and a bit frustrating at times but worth the effort in the end. Again with the xo set to minimum (40hz) the bloat is completely gone. The 4th order filter was just the ticket. Until I can experiment with active xo's I'm very happy with the integration I'm hearing. I do have some room nasties that I need to deal with but that's another story.
BR,
EP

Nikko · « **Reply #17 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 04:17 pm »

EP...how much polyfill did you put in your subs? Behind the brace in my cabinet I have it stuffed pretty densely. In front of the brace, and behind the driver, I have stuffed very loosely, with about a 3-4" gab between the SCC300 and the foam. Would you suggest more? What are the effects of using more or less polyfill in the cabinet?

bubba966 · « **Reply #18 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 06:23 pm »

Quote from: EProvenzano

I needed to live with the 1801's sealed, or mod the PE xo. I decided to do the mod.

Is there some nasty downside to leaving the 1801's sealed?

EProvenzano · « **Reply #19 on:** 7 Jan 2003, 08:22 pm »

Jeff,
Re. Stuffing. I packed my cabinets as much as possible without interfering with the back of the driver or the plate amp. I also left a couple of inches behind the driver and infront of the amp. The objective of stuffing is to allow the driver to see a bigger cabinet volume than it really is and subsequently gives deeper extension (I don't know the theory behind this, maybe Dave can expand a bit). I've read on the MAD board that over stuffing can cause the response to go the other way but I couldn't find a reference for how much is too much? I always thought that adding stuffing would add more resistive load on the driver and subsequently reduce extension, but I know this is not so. Maybe this is what happens when you over-stuff?
Any wayz, I decided to use a little more than the recommended 1/2 pound/ft^3. After adding up all the lil bags that I used I calculated 3/4lb/ft^3. I added a little more fill near the walls and corners and left it more fluffed in the middle. This is only a starting point for me. I will need to do some comparisons later. I think the trade offs will be small so I'll need to be very very bored before I start removing stuffing

.
I have read some where that Dave uses a particular technique when stuffing the 1801's so I'm sure he can offer more theory.

Re Plugging the 1801 port. Really, I only plugged the port to confirm what I was hearing was too much overlap at the xo point. I did not intentend to leave the 1801 sealed. I decided before testing that Dave and Dennis put many hours into the design of the 1801. I didn't want to diverge from the intended design by sealing the cabinet.
Also, I'm not aware of any "nasties" that may occur from sealing a ported design. The roll off will surely change and this may or may not present room issues and/or sub integration problems.
I'm learning all this from my recent trial and error testing with the SCC300, PE plate amp and 1801's. My experience is very limited so I'm hoping that more people will chime in with added advise.

BR,
EP