(Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 7691 times.

GVR

Hey guys, to start discussions here again and to give Dave support in difficult times, I would like everyone to start posting (alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. For the ones who like, we can ask eachother for feedback.

You can post photo's and CAD drawings.


I'll start with post 2... :thumb:

Gerard

GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #1 on: 18 Aug 2009, 07:00 pm »
So here we go. These are some CAD drawings of my first specification 1801C's. Fairly simple but more to be continued...


Gerard












GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #2 on: 18 Aug 2009, 07:14 pm »
After spec 1. Came spec. 2.... Quickly skipped by myself....

Gerard




GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #3 on: 18 Aug 2009, 07:22 pm »
And one of my personal favorite design variations.... A slit front baffle. IMO that looks really nice.

Gerard




GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #4 on: 18 Aug 2009, 07:33 pm »
I'm still working on spec 3 with oval internal chamber. But I'm still doing basic calculations for that.

Who's next....


Gerard


(Oh yeah, sorry for the people connected by phone line...I'm posting a lot of data)

JoshK

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #5 on: 18 Aug 2009, 08:47 pm »
Great CAD skills.  I know jack about CAD.


TomW16

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #6 on: 19 Aug 2009, 12:48 am »
I know jack about CAD too.  Below is my CAD wannabe file (done with Excel).

Cheers,
Tom


David Ellis

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1044
    • http://www.ellisaudio.com
Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #7 on: 19 Aug 2009, 02:26 pm »
Wow!!

Awesome drawings!  I wish this work was easy, but that degree in Mechanical Engineering was meant for someone else.  I loved the physics, but the Calculus was too painful.

I have a few tenets that I could contribute to this discussion.  I have conveyed these things in various discussions in the past, but a cohesive blog seems appropriate.  I will address crossover experimentation, general cabinet impact (structure, baffle and volume), and implementing a bass module.  My comments come from personal experience and feedback from various peers & customers over the years.

Caveat - I would like to initially convey that my comments herein should not be taken as empirical fact based on exhaustive research using the scientific method.  My comments are based on experience and exposure to audience of listeners, their comments, and whether those comments "fit" within a reasonable body of knowledge.

Crossover experimentation - I discourage this.  However, I did have 1 customer who completely changed the crossover and went to a very shallow slope with the 1801 drivers.  He was emphatic that his crossover sounded better, but was unwilling to provide any measurements of the new crossover.  I will allow that some folks might like a "different" sound and certainly the sound of many commercial speakers with whacky crossovers ( example: http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=marble.html ) illicit $$ from various customers, it is my belief that most folks (i.e. me @ 10 years ago) have relatively untrained ears. 

I am going get slightly off topic on my soap-box a for a few paragraphs.  It is my belief & experience that quality control among driver manufacturers and a lack of concern at the speaker factory are responsible for profound speaker problems that go largely unchecked.  Unfortunately, those people able to check them and provide public feedback chose to avoid possible litigation.  Dennis Murphy is a Gov't regulator in Washington D.C. and is able to publish these measurement graphs without fear of reprisal.  I thought about publishing some defamatory remarks several years ago, but my wife told me "NO".  She had business law and fully understands the reasons for litigation.  I wish to avoid this. 

Anyhow, quality control is PROFOUNDLY SIGNIFICANT!  Driver parameters DO change - even with most of the very best (and most expensive) drivers. 

I... hesitate to do this but... I am going to "toot my own horn" - mostly.  About 8 years ago when I initially chatted with Oskar Wroending about his Hiquphon tweeters, I asked Oskar, "Why do your tweeters sound so good??  I fully expected that Oskar would convey some ?trick? about a fancy piece of copper in the motor of his speakers. 

Instead, Oskar consumed @15 minutes addressing the importance of quality control in his tweeters and the very simple tedious processes that result in a well built product.  Yes, 15 MINUTES!  And, oh, yeah, then there is the multi hand-coated tweeter dome on all Hiquphon tweeters.  For those who know and understand building a consistently great product is primarily rooted in quality control.  There are certainly some engineering aspects present, but enduring high quality is rooted in quality control during manufacture.

I need to get back on task?Where was I?.oh yeah, please don?t mess with the crossover.

But please do mess with the cabinet.  There are a variety of things that can be done in the realm of good experimentation with the cabinet.

Slightly bigger might be preferable ? perhaps 28-30 liters.  The bass will be deeper but not as tight.  Simply tune the port by ear.  A shorter port will be appropriate with a larger cabinet.  Shorter will provide more boom.  Longer will be leaner.

A larger round over on the edge of the baffle over is better.  The difference between ?? radius round over and a sharp corner is not audible.  The impact of a 1 ?? radius is very audible and I highly recommend this.  If you can go bigger - great!

Concrete will likely sound better.  One of my customers built concrete 1801 cabinets using the Faraday sound concrete brew.  Then he compared them in a good setting to a pair of wood 1801 speakers.  There were two pair of 1801 speakers present.  The consensus was that the concrete speakers sounded better.  Unfortunately, the FaradaySound website is gone.  Eventually I will expeiriment with concrete ? despite the fact that concrete has profoundly low WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor).

Keeping the baffle dimensions similar is a good idea, but they really don?t have to be exactly the same as the initial design. 

I don?t have them, but some folks have implemented subwoofer modules under their 1801 speakers.  They use 1 module under each speaker.  This can work reasonably well.  Unfortunately, I can?t comment on the specifics, but perhaps Tom is able.

Tom?

TomW16

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #8 on: 20 Aug 2009, 12:59 am »
Regarding the subwoofer under the 1801s, let me first state that I don't think that the 1801s require a subwoofer for music unless your playing something like pipe organ music.  And the 1801s might be a tad overkill in the quality department for a home theater environment where added bass would be useful. 

When I first built the 1801s (without any subwoofers) I was blown away by the improved clarity and imaging that these speakers possess.  I remember someone stating that they bridged the gap between box speakers and electrostatics and I tend to agree.  I think that Dave's driver and crossover matching (quality control) is part of the magic that the 1801s provide.

Being a DIY guy, (which is what attracted me to the 1801s in the first place), I wondered if the 1801s could be improved upon by adding a subwoofer, which would not only add bass but could theoretically improve the clarity of the W18 woofer by removing bass duties.  I tend to subscribe to the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle and the thought of running the signal through a plate amp for the sub and then to the speaker seemed counter intuitive to better clarity.  I also agree with Dave that unless you know what you are doing, don't mess with the crossover.

So I was stuck with no crossover design skills and not wanting to use an inferior plate amp for crossover duties.  That's when I emailed the original crossover designer, Dennis Murphy, and ran the idea of adding a woofer and making them a 3-way.  Much to my delighted surprise, Dennis Murphy, who was so generous with his time and talent, offered to design a new crossover for the woofer that he suggested, which is no longer in production.  My speakers are, therefore, not really 1801s on top of subs but really 3-way speakers with a custom crossover.

So what do you get with added (sub) woofers?  You do get additional bass capability.  I don't know that you get additional midrange clarity but it didn't get any worse for me, which was key.  Mostly you get "machismo" with the additional woofers. 

I am very pleased with my speakers but without Dennis's crossover help, I don't think I would have gone with additional woofers based on my priorities. 

I have not heard the 1801C's but based on the previous 1801 versions, I can only imagine how good they must sound. 

Quote
I don?t have them, but some folks have implemented subwoofer modules under their 1801 speakers.  They use 1 module under each speaker.  This can work reasonably well.  Unfortunately, I can?t comment on the specifics, but perhaps Tom is able.

Tom?

GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #9 on: 20 Aug 2009, 01:32 pm »
Hi Tom. First of all a big  :thumb: for your 3-way. Those look really nice. Real craftmanship and given Dennis Murphy did the x-over design they must sound astonishing. That drawing looks excellent. Didn't know that could be done with Excel...

I am also researching a 3-way or a 2.2. The 2.2 would mean a sealed top cabinet and for each speaker a separte subwoofer. The benefit of the 2 subs vs. 3-way would be not having to redesing the x-over. As you and Dave stated in your posts, the x-over design is an extremely difficult theme and preferably not tempered with. I have no experience what so ever with x-over desing so I know my place... :D

The reason I would opt for a 3-way/2.2 is that I have moved into a house with a living room area of aprox 50m2. As you would expect dynamics were a lot less and low frequencies were gone. Just too much room to be filled. So I opted to go from standmounted to floorstanders with a bigger internal volume to get some extra f3. Being very satisfied with my 1801A's I decided to upgrade to the 1801C's. I needed to build new cabinets so why not build a whole new speaker.

The overall design of a speaker is very important to me. So there is part of the difficulty as beautifull shapes are often very difficult or nearly impossible to produce. That is often a problem with young engineers... Haha.

A solution to overcome this problem is the modulair build approach as seen for example here: http://www.collier.be/ and http://www.ebelholztechnik.de/galerien/Nexus.html. This way complex internal and external shapes can be made which otherwise would have been impossible to produce. All because of the milling technique. It is more expensive to produce the woodwork of the speaker but assembly is a breaze. If your desing and calculations are correct of course...

Have you guys have had any experience with this way of speaker building?


Gerard

GVR

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #10 on: 20 Aug 2009, 02:15 pm »
These are the predecessors...

Gerard




WGH

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #11 on: 20 Aug 2009, 03:16 pm »
Unfortunately, the FaradaySound website is gone. 

Gone but not forgotten, unfortunately the site archive doesn't have any info about speaker construction.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.FaradaySound.co.uk

TomW16

Re: (Alternative) 1801A/B/C designs. Photo's and/or CAD...
« Reply #12 on: 20 Aug 2009, 08:02 pm »
Quote
Hi Tom. First of all a big   for your 3-way. Those look really nice. Real craftmanship and given Dennis Murphy did the x-over design they must sound astonishing. That drawing looks excellent. Didn't know that could be done with Excel...

Thanks Gerrard.  I use Excel like electronic grid paper and try to draw things to scale.  I find that if you reduce the column width to "2" in Excel, it looks like grid paper.

Quote
The reason I would opt for a 3-way/2.2 is that I have moved into a house with a living room area of aprox 50m2. As you would expect dynamics were a lot less and low frequencies were gone. Just too much room to be filled. So I opted to go from standmounted to floorstanders with a bigger internal volume to get some extra f3. Being very satisfied with my 1801A's I decided to upgrade to the 1801C's. I needed to build new cabinets so why not build a whole new speaker.


You are very fortunate to have the 1801C's  :thumb:  Large rooms also benefit from less room interaction so it sounds like a spectacular combination.  If you would like to simply add additional bass capability, you could simply run the 1801C's full range and suppliment the bass frequencies with a subwoofer or two so that no crossover modications would be required.  One advantage of this combination is that the 1801C's and subwoofer(s) could be placed in optimal locations for thier frequency duties.  The disadvantage is that you must use the phase and crossover frequency controls to integrate the subwoofer(s) with the main speakers.  If you want a true 3-way speaker a new crossover is involved and from my experience with Dennis Murphy, it's not simply a tweaked crossover change but a complete redesign.

Quote
Have you guys have had any experience with this way of speaker building?

I have seen this approach to speaker building but have not tried it myself.  In fact Jim Salk just built his flagship HT4 speakers in this manner. 

Cheers,
Tom