[TRADERXFAN]

Well, I think Danny backhandedly answered that by saying the price point it would compete at vs a retail product ( <$1,000).  His components are the "best" up to a price point, but in a high value/$ ratio sense.  -but that estimation could very well change once he actually has the design...

[ebag4]

Well, I think Danny backhandedly answered that by saying the price point it would compete at vs a retail product ( <$1,000). 

Good catch Traderxfan, I missed that the first time, thanks.

Ed

[Danny Richie]

I have measured and tested three different M&D stand mounted speakers. I feel like they are more of a work in progress and can't really recommend them. They had some break up issues in the woofers response that was not addressed, some roughness in frequency response, really low sensitivity, and really low impedance (less than 3 ohms). Parts quality used in the network was not to good either.

The BE-718 will be tough for me or anyone else to top in a stand mounted mini-monitor design. However these two new kits would use the same high quality parts used in the BE-718, and with these drivers it will certainly be very good.

[Hank]

Well, depending on the discount, as the TCU guy in "Tin Cup" said:  "I'm in!"

[Matt__P]

I think I'd like to be "in" as well. I notice CSS still has some assembled Criterions for available for $500. those would be about about the same price as these when its all said and done correct?
What would be the major differences in sound?
Thanks,
matt

[Danny Richie]

Criterions for available for $500. those would be about the same price as these when its all said and done correct?

I didn't know he still had any of those. That's a good deal, and yes the price point of what we are talking about would fall into that range.

What would be the major differences in sound?

Well, neither of these two new models have been designed yet, so there is nothing but speculation.

[Danny Richie]

Well I got the PE boxes in.

I ordered a pair of each and of coarse they sent one of each. I haven't ordered anything from them in a long time and I see some things just don't change.

The MDF is really soft (like compressed cardboard) and typical of a lot of what I see coming out of China. At least it is thick and well braced. The thing I hate about the brace is that they ran it in the same direction as the front baffle so it creates a surface reflection issue right behind the woofer. The guy that came up with that needs to be hit in the head with them. I'll line it with No Rez and hide some of it then try to cover the rest with damping material.

That brace also minimizes the floor space for a crossover but I think it can be worked around.

The grill has a flat edge to the inside and will cause quite a bit of surface reflection. I wonder if they ever thought to radius the inside edge to minimize diffraction? Probably not. Oh well, they can always be used without the grills.

There is also no gasket around the front baffle so I'll either need to make one or Silicon it together after the holes are cut. Siliconing it will not be a problem but it won't be removable afterwards.

Keep your fingers crossed though and I might can make these things work. At least the price is good.

[Hank]

Danny, get some of the new PE driver gasket - it's like the gasket foam tape at HD and Lowes, but actually better.  For those cabinets, I suggest a length of aluminum channel (HD/Lowes) epoxied to the inside sides and back (off center) - completely different stiffness than MDF or plywood and you might be pleasantly surprised - then get rid of that misplaced factory brace.
Regarding PE, I can tell you that the majority of the orders I have placed/tried to place over the past year have had "stock outs". 
But, PE is still a good source, so I'll get over it.

[phoenix_rising]

Well I got the PE boxes in.

I ordered a pair of each and of coarse they sent one of each. I haven't ordered anything from them in a long time and I see some things just don't change.

The MDF is really soft (like compressed cardboard) and typical of a lot of what I see coming out of China. At least it is thick and well braced. The thing I hate about the brace is that they ran it in the same direction as the front baffle so it creates a surface reflection issue right behind the woofer. The guy that came up with that needs to be hit in the head with them. I'll line it with No Rez and hide some of it then try to cover the rest with damping material.

That brace also minimizes the floor space for a crossover but I think it can be worked around.

The grill has a flat edge to the inside and will cause quite a bit of surface reflection. I wonder if they ever thought to radius the inside edge to minimize diffraction? Probably not. Oh well, they can always be used without the grills.

There is also no gasket around the front baffle so I'll either need to make one or Silicon it together after the holes are cut. Siliconing it will not be a problem but it won't be removable afterwards.

Keep your fingers crossed though and I might can make these things work. At least the price is good.

Hi Danny,

For those that want to build their own boxes will it be possible to get some box dimensions so we can build our own ?

Phoenix

[Danny Richie]

Yea, I already have box plans drawn for the one using the M-130X.

For the one using the M-165X I only have front baffle drawings so far.

E-mail me and I can send them to you.

[Danny Richie]

Okay, I cut the center out of the brace with a jig saw and used a die grinder with a radius bit to round off the edges. What sticks out now can just be covered by the No Rez.

The back of the smaller box was just wide enough for the 2" flared port. It looks like it was meant to be there.

They also pre-drilled binding post holes and used a 3/4 center spacing between them. I'll need to increase the diameter of the holes and then the Vampire binding posts should fit right in without too much of a problem.

These might just work.

[Danny Richie]

Okay here is a new bummer.

PE's boxes listed as .38 cubic feet are actually .314 cubic feet.

PE's boxes listed as .5 cubic feet are actually only .376 cubic feet.

Maybe the same guy that came up with the air volume is the same guy that put that brace down the middle of them. 

I will still try the M-130X ported in the smaller box but it will have a little bass lift in the lower end before it drops off. It really needs to be in the larger box and ported.

I am also going to still try the M-165X woofer in the larger box but sealed. It is a bit small for it and will cause it to be -3db down by 72Hz, but it still might sound pretty good. We'll see.

[Hank]

That is a heck of a discrepancy with the .5 cabinet!  What gives, PE??

[Danny Richie]

Yea, I just ordered another pair of those ".5 cubic foot boxes" so that I could get the .376 cubic feet needed for an M-130 and passed the info about the box discrepancy over to their tech department. All I got was that he would pass the info on and an underlying I really don't care attitude. I'd be willing to bet you won't see a correction any time too soon.

[gitarretyp]

Danny, how are you calculating the box volumes? Based on the dimensions given on the PE site and assuming the brace has roughly half its volume removed, i get spot on .5 ft^3. I don't mean to stir any pots, i only ask this out of curiosity.

I think the brace running vertically is more for convenience of driver placement, so users won't need to cut the braces.

[Danny Richie]

With the brace running the way it is it will cause an early reflection point right behind the woofer regardless of the woofer used.

I took actual measurements of the inside of the box. I then used Bass Box to calculate the box volume of a truncated pyramid

Even by their own posted measurements the height of the box (internally) is 12.5". Depth is 10.5" (keep in mind that the front baffle is 1" thick). Then subtract out the thickness of the brace minus its holes which is about half and it is a 3/4" thick brace. So now you have a depth of 10.125". The width at the rear is 3.5" The rear tapering reduces the cabinet width to thinner walls by the end of it. Then you have a width at the front of 7" across the front. That is .377 cubic feet by their own numbers.

Let's say that it has the same height and depth but no taper at all. It is the same width all the way down the length of the box. 12.5" tall, 10.125" deep and 7" wide. That would make it .513 cubic feet (W x H x D and divide by 1728).

[gitarretyp]

I think the brace is a compromise of convenience over quality --the purpose of the boxes in the first place.

Sorry, i didn't realize you were using the tapered boxes. Now that i look at those, they're definitely wrong. They have the same baffle dimensions but taper to the rear. That certainly needs updating and seems to be the case across all of the tapered cabinets.

[Danny Richie]

I think the brace is a compromise of convenience over quality --the purpose of the boxes in the first place.

Agreed. Besides a few quick slices out of the middle of it and most of it as gone. The No Rez will hide the rest of it. You then still get the structural support of the frame of the brace all the way around it too. So it will work.

Sorry, i didn't realize you were using the tapered boxes. Now that i look at those, they're definitely wrong. They have the same baffle dimensions but taper to the rear. That certainly needs updating and seems to be the case across all of the tapered cabinets.

Yep!

[AUDFILE74]

Okay here is a new bummer.

PE's boxes listed as .38 cubic feet are actually .314 cubic feet.

PE's boxes listed as .5 cubic feet are actually only .376 cubic feet.

Maybe the same guy that came up with the air volume is the same guy that put that brace down the middle of them. 

I will still try the M-130X ported in the smaller box but it will have a little bass lift in the lower end before it drops off. It really needs to be in the larger box and ported.

I am also going to still try the M-165X woofer in the larger box but sealed. It is a bit small for it and will cause it to be -3db down by 72Hz, but it still might sound pretty good. We'll see.

       


 hey Danny , technically basing the design off of the .50 co.ft. curved back enclosure ,and the M130X, could be a good thing because it automatically compensates for the combined displacements (though small ) caused by the  M130X , the passive network,port size plus it WOULD give a flatter response. i get the feeling the .75 cu. ft. will be the money shot , with a little fine tuning. i was also thinking why not dremelwork or maybe hit it with a 4to 5 inch holesaw to make a bigger hole into the the brace so that the back wave can be dealt with easier? lastly, i was wondering if you would say go with 100 or 200 watts on this setup?

[Danny Richie]

The M-130X woofer could really use a .4 to .45 cubic foot enclosure so even the lager one is a little on the small size. I'll tune it a little lower though and see what it comes out like.

You are going to do much damage to the brace with a Dremel tool or a hole cut saw. The jig saw made quick work of it and removed the problem area.

Amplification is not going to be that much of an issue with these. 100 watts of real power will be plenty.