Fun First Project - your thoughts

AUDFILE74 · « **Reply #40 on:** 17 Mar 2008, 09:59 pm »

so from what you are saying, the .75 cu.ft. curved back will probably end up as the best enclosure to go with. i'm calling this project tax refund . bush is buyng me some speakers!, lol

AUDFILE74 · « **Reply #41 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 12:11 am »

on a hunch , i went to take a look at madisound and found these: http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=178_155_395&products_id=1683. these cabinets seem like a bettermatch over all. take a look at this and tell me what y'all think. it cost a little more but it solves the backwave and airspace issues because it has horizontal bracing that is adjustable and there is plenty of room for the passive network in there as well. so the m165x or the 130x can be used

Hank · « **Reply #42 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 12:06 pm »

That Madisound looks like a nice little tower. It's about the size of my RAV-6 towers, so should make for an optimized M165X TM, or maybe a M130x MTM?

Matt__P · « **Reply #43 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 01:29 pm »

i thought the goal was a mini monitor using the PE curved cabinets?? Is this project moving in a different direction?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #44 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 02:03 pm »

Quote

i thought the goal was a mini monitor using the PE curved cabinets?? Is this project moving in a different direction?

No, it's still on that track. The Madisound cabinets were just a suggestion.

Matt__P · « **Reply #45 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 02:27 pm »

ok so if I'm ordering the curved cabinets I want to get the ones listed at .50 cubic ft and they'll have an actual volume of .375 cubic ft. suitable for this project?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #46 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 02:34 pm »

AUDFILE74 · « **Reply #47 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 08:50 pm »

Quote from: Matt__P on 18 Mar 2008, 01:29 pm

i thought the goal was a mini monitor using the PE curved cabinets?? Is this project moving in a different direction?

i'm sorry matt, i was only making a suggestion. when i read about the volume discrepency , i went and looked at the madisound enclosure :

"on a hunch , i went to take a look at madisound and found these: http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=178_155_395&products_id=1683. these cabinets seem like a bettermatch over all. take a look at this and tell me what y'all think. it cost a little more but it solves the backwave and airspace issues because it has horizontal bracing that is adjustable and there is plenty of room for the passive network in there as well. so the m165x or the 130x can be used"

once again, i'm sorry for miscommunicating

ebag4 · « **Reply #48 on:** 18 Mar 2008, 08:53 pm »

Those cabinets are 38 liters, or 1.35 cubic feet.

These are .5 cubic ft. http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=178_155_394&products_id=725

AUDFILE74 · « **Reply #49 on:** 19 Mar 2008, 01:33 am »

yes you are correct ebag, however if you look at the page for the madis i suggested when i posted, you'll notice that you can change the airspace to best suit the attempted design in this case .50 cu.ft. . the other benefit is the height. no need to go and spend extra on stands. aa

yoder · « **Reply #50 on:** 27 Mar 2008, 06:32 pm »

Could an x-ls cabinet work as an alternative to the PE cabinet? External dims are 13.5 H x 8.5 W x 12.125 D. With 3/4 MDF, internal comes out to just over .5 cu ft. I haven’t looked inside for bracing yet.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #51 on:** 27 Mar 2008, 08:40 pm »

Quote

Could an x-ls cabinet work as an alternative to the PE cabinet? External dims are 13.5 H x 8.5 W x 12.125 D. With 3/4 MDF, internal comes out to just over .5 cu ft. I haven’t looked inside for bracing yet.

First off, no it won't work. The center of the woofer is 8.5" from the top of the box. This doesn't leave enough room for the large diameter Neo 3 driver.

It will need to be at least 14" tall and have the woofer located near the bottom of the box.

It is a well braced box, BTW.

That is also a pretty good speaker already. You might consider just upgrading it with caps and a sheet of No Rez.

yoder · « **Reply #52 on:** 28 Mar 2008, 03:42 am »

I was thinking of doing the tweeter and Ninja crossover upgrade, but thought this might have been an interesting alternative. I may take your advice and see where sonicaps and no-rez takes them first.

I would still like to try this project and have a pair of rs150's as well. They are also a nice speaker in their own right, but I only have room for so many speakers and also paid less for them than the PE cabinets. The x-ls's are nice and rs250's I have are even nicer, but it seems that these speakers have the potential to be even better, especially for a studio monitor setup I'm trying to do. Thanks to Robert and Danny for getting this project going!

Danny Richie · « **Reply #53 on:** 17 Apr 2008, 10:06 pm »

Hey guys,

I had some custom versions of the Neo3pdr arrive today. They have extra large back cups. I'll be trying them out tomorrow as soon as I can. They should work really well in these new designs.

The one with the standard back cup is to the right.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #54 on:** 18 Apr 2008, 08:02 pm »

Hey, these Neo 3 pdr's with the deep back cup measure really nicely. They play a little lower and have a smoother roll off.

I already measured and tested a network using it and the M-165X. It made a beautiful response.

phoenix_rising · « **Reply #55 on:** 19 Apr 2008, 04:21 am »

Quote from: Danny on 18 Apr 2008, 08:02 pm

Hey, these Neo 3 pdr's with the deep back cup measure really nicely. They play a little lower and have a smoother roll off.

I already measured and tested a network using it and the M-165X. It made a beautiful response.

Hi Danny,

Is the 165 version going to be ported or sealed or are you going to have both designs available ?

Phoenix

Danny Richie · « **Reply #56 on:** 19 Apr 2008, 01:48 pm »

The version that I am doing using the larger of the two PE cabinets will have to be sealed as it is not near larger enough to port. However, it can be built into a larger floor standing speaker that is ported.

Then I am going to use the same box but port it using the M-130X.

I am thinking that I will offer both of these models with all Mills resistors, foil inductors, and Sonicaps.

I will then offer a lower cost version using PE's smaller box, ported, and using the standard M-130, Erse poly caps, Lynk resistors, and foil inductors. It will be a more budget version.

I need to come up with names for these things too. Maybe you guys can help me with that.

FredT300B · « **Reply #57 on:** 20 Apr 2008, 09:17 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 15 Mar 2008, 05:18 pm

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.

Danny, the discrepancy between the advertised volume and the measured volume may not be as great as you calculated. I can't do a calculation for the .38 and .5 cu ft boxes because the only enclosures I have are the .75 cu ft. In any event the best way to know for sure is to fill them with water, then pour it out into a bucket (whose weight you have measured in advance) and weigh the bucket of water. Then, since the weight of water is a known quantity you can easily calculate the exact internal volume.

Just kidding. The reason I'm more optimistic about the internal volume is because of the actual shape of the sides. The 0.75 cu ft enclosure is 17"H, 14.5"D, and 10"W (at the front) tapering to 4.5" wide at the back. However, the enclosure isn't a trapezoid, so you can't take the average of the front and back widths and get a valid number. The 10" wide front tapers to 9.25" width halfway to the back of the enclosure, quite a bit wider than the 7.25" which would be the average width of a straight-sided trapezoid that's 10" at the front and 4.5" at the back.

Anyway, I calculated the volume of the 0.75 cu ft enclosure by mathematically dividing it into separate front & back sectionsand assuming each is a trapezoid, then calculating the internal volume of each separately considering the baffle is 1" thick and the other panels are 3/4" thick. I got 785 cu in for the front section and 544 cu in for the back section, which totals to 1,329. Finally, I subtracted out the volume of the center brace, which is 3/4" thick by 8.1"W by 15.5"H. Assuming half this volume is the actual brace and half is the cutouts I get about 50 cu in. So the final number is 1,279 cu in, or 0.74 cu ft. This increases very slightly if you cut out all of the center section of the brace.

I suspect the discrepancy for the smaller enclosures is greater than I found with the 0.75, but hopefully it isn't so great as to make them marginal for the project you're working on, especially the vented option.

pbrstreetgang · « **Reply #58 on:** 20 Apr 2008, 10:00 pm »

Fred, Why not use sand and measure the volume when poured into a square box?

Also Danny will these new spec Neos be considered for a upgrade to the OB series? Would any crossover values need to be changed?

Zero the Hero · « **Reply #59 on:** 21 Apr 2008, 12:52 am »

Quote from: Danny on 19 Apr 2008, 01:48 pm

The version that I am doing using the larger of the two PE cabinets will have to be sealed as it is not near larger enough to port. However, it can be built into a larger floor standing speaker that is ported.

Then I am going to use the same box but port it using the M-130X.

I am thinking that I will offer both of these models with all Mills resistors, foil inductors, and Sonicaps.

I will then offer a lower cost version using PE's smaller box, ported, and using the standard M-130, Erse poly caps, Lynk resistors, and foil inductors. It will be a more budget version.

I need to come up with names for these things too. Maybe you guys can help me with that.

you know, I really wanted to try some different brand drivers for my next kit but you're making it very difficult! That modded Neo 3/M130x kit I think has my name all over it, although I want to make my own cabs. Spent too much money on tools and clamps to start buying pre-made boxes....