foxkat

Jay, Great information. I'll keep it in my faves, and when I finally get some material to work with, I'll start the design and will likely order a small bottle of all three consistencies. I do have several grades of stone tumbling compound and glass polish in powder, Titanium oxide, Cerium Oxide, and a commercial compound called RareOx 90, a super-fine brown powder nearly the consistency of Talcum powder, which I got from a glass polisher among others. I'd bet they would work fine, but I wouldn't chance it unless I did some sample testing first. I may try them before ordering the Novus plastic stuff. I do know how the RareOx performs, since I had a scuff on my side window of a former car of mine where a pipe had fallen against it. It looked like the glass had been frosted. I used the RareOx powder in a water-paste and rubbed (and rubbed, and rubbed)...after about an hour, the scuff was completely undetectible. Amazing stuff. I felt like my arm was going to fall off, but I didn't have to look at that scratch anymore. I guess I could have saved a lot of calories and pain if I had used a buffing wheel on a Dremel, but I wasn't thinking at the time. I now know better. Still, I was quite impressed. More recently I found out about a compound made specifically for hand polishing of glass, called Cerox 1670. From what I've been told, it's like 3X easier to use when hand polishing versus RareOx 90. One thing about those compounds is they are expensive. Another one which is supposed to be much less expensive and work nearly as well as RareOx 90 is Quest 90, though I haven't tried it so I don't know how good it is.

Dtel, Yeah, I saw one in 3" thich Acrylic for a 1,900 gallon tank! I was watching it to see what it sold for but lost track of it. I don't remember if it was on Craigslist or eBay, but it was 9' tall! I Think it may have come out of a doctor's office or perhaps a public aquarium or something like that, but I don't remember the particulars. Thanks for the info. I am keeping my eye out for someone who might be unloading 1" thick sheet Acrylic on Craigslist cheap, and I'm going to ****** it up. Even if it's in a used tank, I can always cut it down and use the material again.

Dear Trey, Thanks so much for clearing up many of the hypothesis surrounding this cabinet. There was speculation that superglue may have been used, but my experience had been som frosting that would have taken away from the clear beauty. I agree completely that the pressures and vibrations would likely rip the seams apart since superglue is really a superficial surface adhesive, though it does create a super-thin weld in some materials, and really is not an epoxy. Since you chimed in, my question (and anyone can chime in here, as I know there are some out there, but none I've seen with a 15" driver); Could such a cabinet be crafted from the same materials that would withstand the volumes and pressures of air, and resonances and vibrations created in this cabinet?

Jeremy, I have looked hard at that photo in high resolution and magnified, and I can only find limited places where mechanical fasteners were used; Screws visible to me were those used to hold the power supply and amplifier on the divider panel internally in the middle, those used to hold the actual driver and passive radiator speakers into the holes, those used to hold the rear amplifier control faceplate on, and (although barely visible on that cabinet, but can also be seen better on the cabinet above it) the feet. There are the 4 holes in the front to accept the cover posts and the one in the center on the bottom front for the LED. I see no screws there to hold the front cabinet wall on (the passive radiator face), nor do I see any fasteners along any of the visible seams. I do see on the rear panel to the far left, what appears to be fasteners visible in the back left seam, but I believe that is a prismatic optical transmission (internal reflection) of the holes for screws immediately adjacent to that spot on the right, the ones holding the rear driver in place. Note, they are on the same horizontal plane. You can even see part of the curvature of the round 15" speaker frame in the reflection in the seam as well, most notably just above the top screw hole reflection. Futher, the screws holding the rear amp panel near the bottom also appear to be reflected in the left rear seam. Any holes would appear frosted since they were likely rough drilled and tapped (and not polished clear), and those look like frosted white holes, not silver or black fasteners. If you follow all the seams, there are only clear areas until you reach places where that optical transmission takes place due to nearby objects. An example is the seam at the bottom along the left side. You can see things in the convention hall on the ceiling being reflected off the bottom edge, such as the overhead lights. I can see no fasteners along any of the most visible seams, such as the top and bottom seams along the left, and most remarkably the internal seam between the center divider and the left cabinet wall, as well as along the bottom seam for the front panel. Unfortunately we can't see the bottom seams for either the internal divider or the rear panel due to the gray foam insulation on the bottom internally. On the center divider specifically, you can see both the entire edge where it is glued or welded to the left panel, and can also see straight through that center divider from top to bottom on the left edge where it meets the inside face of the left panel. There are clearly no screws or other obstructions to view either going inward from the outside, or from the inside into the outside left panel. I admit could be mistaken, but I believe we could only be sure if we examined it up close or heard from the team that assembled it. Still, it is an impressive cabinet none the less, and an entire line of cabinets like that would be something to marvel at. Who wants to go into business with me making and selling them? (seriously!!) Phil

Jay, I have no doubt you are right, and why would they have a pic of it on their corporate site, unless they designed/manufactured it themselves, especially since that's their specialty. I will know more tomorrow - that is if the company is still in business after this ridiculous credit crunch we are having in the USA! Keep your fingers crossed! Phil PS, thanks for the Wikipedia link. I will check it out (as well as the site mentioned).

Dear Brac, I would bet you are completely correct that people would/have use(d) Cyanoacrylate adhesives on Acrylic panels. I also agree completely that the "Superglue" class of Cyanoacrylate adhesives would work, especially since they are an Acrylic based adhesive. Since base material (the Acrylic panel) and adhesive both use the same main component, Acrylic, with the proper solvent they would yield a quasi-weld resulting in a high-strength bond. It could turn out to be the bonding agent they used in that demonstration speaker cabinet. They sure work quickly and with little if any preparation, and their bonds are incredibly strong when used on the right materials. One small concern I have, based on my experience using these glues relates to the area immediately surrounding the direct application area, especially in plastics which are transparent. Whether it's the Superglue itself or the solvent(s) used I am not sure, but they tend to create a white "fogging" area along the edges of the applied glue. This fogging would likely detract from the asthetic appearance of the clear Acrylic. Now, whether that fogging could be polished out once the bond is cured remains to be seen. Also, considering the upfront expense of the raw Acrylic material, and the "instant" bonding effect of such adhesives (leaving virtually no room for error), I would be somewhat fearful of using them in a project such as this one. Certainly, the lack of room for error could be mitigated by using a jig in the assembly process, but that adds substantially to the cost and (more importantly) time, as the jig needs to be designed and manufactured as well. In contrast, a longer setting time allows some manipulation of various panels into a cooperative alignment, and then once clamped, the curing can take place uninterrupted. Superglues also do seem to make the base material of some types of plastics being fused somewhat brittle immediately around the bond as well. I have found that when used on non-clear plastics, if the part breaks again, it often does so immediately adjacent to the original fracture, which implies the bond is actually stronger than the original base material. This may simply be an effect of the area immediately around the actual fracture having already been stressed to near the breaking point, or even the inclusion of microscopic fractures making it the next most likely point of failure. It also seems to be more prevalent in more flexible plastics. If you have ever deliberately bent some plastics to the point of failure, you will often notice the areas around the break turning a white-ish haze as they are bent beyond the elastic limits. It may be that weakened area that results in future failures. In those cases, I tend to go with epoxies instead as they give the area around the break added strength if the those areas adjacent to the break are coated with epoxy as well. Case in point, part of the damage my sub suffered in shipping through UPS was that one of the dark brown/black posts for the front cover snapped off and had some of that white-ish haze near the break. I first tried Superglue to fuse back into place, but it kept breaking and would leave small fragments of the piece still fused in the original break. I then used epoxy and it has been subjected to plenty of bumps and such by my 5-year old son without subsequent failure. I actually tried to break it with considerable pressure and couldn't. In many applications a good epoxy - in my opinion, often far outshines most any adhesive. Superglues also work well on many materials, but there are plenty of materials they are completely ineffective on. Usually they won't work on porous objects such as wood or uneven surfaces that don't mate perfectly, but even some plastics just come right apart again. Still, a weld is in a class of its own. I am intrigued by the ultrasonic welding mentioned earlier and I still have yet to do exploration into that process, but I am likely to become a big fan. It makes sense that ultrasonic vibration and resulting heat generated would cause the molecules to give up their solid state bond and move into a liquid state on the opposing faces of the parts being joined long enough to allow them to mesh and that once they have restabilized and cooled, it is near a complete bond as having been molded from one continuous pour. I would want to do more research to determine (other than ultrasonic welding), what method of fusing the panels together could be used by someone like myself who doesn't have an extensive fabrication shop at my disposal. Obviously the experts in the manufacture of Acrylics would know what works best, so I will likely start there tomorrow. I'll keep you all posted. Phil

Hey Jeremy, Thanks anyway! I did save the image. Yeah, I agree it looks pretty neat. I would be quite proud to be the owner. That monsterous motor/magnet assembly on the driver is impressive, and the pure size of the cones, along with their signature copper color, are eye-catching to say the least! Still, even the sheer mass of the cabinet in Acrylic, and the thickness of the panels (along with the neat cutouts in the center panel) just demand exploring. I did have to open my 15 to replace a fried power supply on the amplifier (a capacitor exploded and burnt), so I got to see all the internals, and it looks exactly identical - right down to the cutouts, amplifier mounting and all. BTW, Klipsch did right by me, replacing the power supply for a very fair price considering I purchased it second-hand and had no proof of how long ago it was purchased originally. I'd love to get the plans for the cabinet. I am contemplating buying the raw Acrylic in sheets and crafting my own cabinet. I would have to use glue and likely also screws from inside as I don't have access to an ultrasonic welder (credit Jay). If I ever do make one, I'll be sure to send photos. It wouldn't be the first time I went all excessive/compulsive/eccentric on something, so we'll see. Also, the site where I found it as I mentioned before (http://www.image-exhibits.com/custom.asp), does exhibition design creations, and since the photo is clearly an RSW-15 from the volume control side, they must have been involved somehow. They appear to have been involved in the manufacture, or at least in the design being transposed to Acrylic, so I will follow up on that end as well. Phil

Jay, Ultrasonic, huh? Interesting...I wonder how deep the welds go, they appear to be completely fused together with no gaps/air. I would love to have been witness to the construction. Thanks.

Jeremy, I don't know if you got my last reply, but I wanted to follow up. My greatest hope is that I can find the original link to the site where the photo was first displayed, and maybe get to see some of the other ones partially visible on that photo. Second, I am interested in knowing who manufactured the cabinets for Klipsch and whether they are in the business of doing this for others. Third, I'd like to know what something like that would cost. Thanks for your previous response. Phil

Dear Jeremy, That's exactly the photo I was referring to. Do you know where the source for that photo is, in other words, where on the web the original resides? Perhaps you know the show it was presented at and I could find it there. If not, could you email it to me (foxkat@verizon.net)? I have it printed but don't have it in jpg any longer, or at least, can't find it. Perhaps it's named so generically that I wouldn't recognize it, but I have Picasa2 installed on my PC and all photos are indexed and visible. I have searched long and hard and can't find it. Of course, I would love to get my hands on that cabinet. I have a RSW-15 that I bought from an eBay'er. It was shipped via UPS. It was only 4 months old and in pristine condition when he shipped it, but UPS dropped the box (90 lbs) on the back left corner and crushed the cabinet on that corner. It appears that there may have been some ever so slight separation of the cabinet on that corner seam, and I also suspect that therefore, the cabinet is no longer air-tight. Long story short, the shipper had insured it for replacement cost ($1,500), but tried to scam me and UPS by asking me to ship the damaged sub back to him, he'd refund the $950 I paid for the used sub, then submit the claim to UPS for $1,500. UPS also informed me that they didn't want the damaged sub back, so he'd stand to gain about $550 and still get to keep the sub. I wound up keeping the damaged sub and preventing him from submitting the claim. It plays fine as far as I can tell, but unless I had a chance to do a side-by-side with one that wasn't damaged, I'd likely not know the difference. To add insult to injury, our dog (now since deceased), used the sub as a launching pad one day on her way up the steps, instead of starting on step one at the bottom, she decided to shortcut the first few stairs cutting through the railing by jumping onto and then off of the sub onto step 5 to make her way upstairs. Her nails left nasty scratches across the top and down one side of the cabinet in the process. I contacted Klipsch to see if they would sell me just the cabinet, but to no avail. So I am stuck with the scratches and crushed corner.

In the past I have come across a photo of an RSW-15 in a clear acrylic cabinet, obviously on display at a show held in either 2002 or 2003, judging by the "2002 Engineering Showcase Honors" award plaque that is strategically placed ontop of it. In the pic background I can also see at least 2 others, possibly the RWS-12 and perhpas the RSW-10? At the time, I was so impressed by the sheer size and look of it, that I printed it. Since then, I have lost the link to that site or article, and would love to get the digital version of the pic again. Does anyone know where these subwoofer photos are displayed on the web? Also, perhaps even more important to me, does anyone know who manufactures such a beast and if I could get my hands on just the cabinet, or have someone recreate it for me (at a cost somewhat less than the mortgage balance of my home)? I did find this (http://www.image-exhibits.com/custom.asp), and if you look at the bottom right image, it's the same subwoofer but the opposite view and a far lower resolution than the one I found before, and it is just the subwoofer, not the show photo I found. Thanks

Scratchy sounds are usually the result of the speaker coil rubbing against one side of the magnet assembly. It can be a warped coil, or it can be bad rubber surrounds. In the case of a warped (or overdriven and overheated) coil, the only remedy short of replacing the entire speaker, is to have the speaker cone/coil assy. replaced. For a bad surround (check for tears near where the rubber meets the speaker paper or near where it meets the metal frame), and in this case, the surrounds need to be replaced. The scratching in this case is due to the speaker coil becoming out of alignment with the circular slot it rides up and down in. If it's off even only a MM or so, it will allow the speaker coil to rub along the magnet assy. The rubber surrounds, along with making the speaker air-tight, keep the speaker cone "suspended" and centered properly so the coil can move freely in only one direction, along the in/out plane. YOU SHOULD STOP playing it until it's repaired, as the more rubbing, the more damage it does to the coil, till which time the coil is damaged beyond repair.

I bought these speakers used a year and a half ago, and they have been awesome performers, blowing away anything I've had in the past. But alas, time and I have played a poor trick on them, and I have pushed one beyond its ability. Ok, first I discovered that I had a problem with the right channel, as the receiver kept popping the breaker at moderately loud volume levels. I discovered the lower of the two mid-bass drivers was considerably muted, and the upper driver was considerably lower than the other channel, but still quite louder than the sister driver below. When I removed the lower driver from the cabinet, while the audio was playing, I could both feel and hear audio from it, but no where near as loud as it should have been. When I disconnected the terminals on the lower driver, immediately the upper driver came back to life in full fidelity. Just to test, I cranked up the reciever, no protection circuit activation, just sweet, clean music. I spoke with Klipsch tech support to determine if it was a blown driver or a bad crossover. He first suggested trying the suspect driver in the other speaker, but I was uncomfortable with that, since I saw it as a risk of doing damage to a fully functioning speaker. So we agreed that swapping the upper and lower drivers would either prove or disprove the driver as being failed. I fully expected when I removed the upper driver, that I would have an exact match to the lower. Not so, in fact the lower has a large motor (magnet assy.), about as large as a Cantelope in diameter, whereas the upper has a rather small one, more the size of a small Orange. The cones of both drivers appear identical from the face, but are obviously much different. Still, they are all Klipsch. Even stranger to me, is that the larger magnet driver (the bottom one), on the fully functioning speaker seems to produce more of the higher-midrange than the smaller one up top. I would have thought the opposite. Well, it was bad, since now on the top terminals, it was still the quiet one, and the upper driver, now on the lower terminals, was playing like before when it was connected above. To be doubly sure, I disconnected the suspect driver from the top terminals, and as expected, the good driver played loud and clear. Now I am in a dilemma. Do I replace both lower drivers to a matched pair, or just the one that's fouled up? Furthermore, do I upgrade to "better" drivers? Finally, do I replace just the two lowers, if I am doing pairs, or do I replace all 4, and if I do replace the upper drivers, should they be matched to the ones I am replacing, or should they match the lowers? I am concerned that they may have been replaced before, and the cabinets might have been fitted with inappropriate replacement drivers. Does anyone know what drivers were actually spec'd for these speakers. The towers I have, look identical to the ones on the site (http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=126), except that the tuned ports are one large port on mine, not the pair of smaller ones shown in the picture. The specs on the site say: "WOOFER: Two K-1029-KN 8" (20.32cm) Poly carbon graphite cones"... ...which means they are identical drivers, upper and lower. Of course, they may also have gone with a different crossover in different years, and that may be why the drivers are not all 4 identical in my cabinets. The ones I own are model "Epic CF 2 Black Satin". Ok, let's see if anyone will attempt to tackle this. Any help would be appreciated. Phil

OK, First, thanks for the reply. My configuration is as follows: Front; 2 CF-2 towers (http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=126) Center; 1 KLF-C7 (http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=13) Surround; 2 RS-35 (http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=664) Sub; 1 RSW-15 (http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=371) Receiver; 1 Denon ABR-3806 (http://usa.denon.com/ProductDetails/623.asp) The towers are on "A" channel, the center is on center, the surrounds are on "A" surround, and the sub is on pre out "SW" (mono) output, connected with a premium Monster Sub cable, into a Monster "Y" adapter, and then into both channels of the sub. The sub is set to 0 polarity, auto-on set to off, lowpass disabled (LFE mode). Audyssey is the auto-room equalization software that the receiver has built-in, using the included mic to contour the output of all channels to the specific characteristics of the room, with samples taken from the "main" listening position, and 5 other listening positions. As far as using the "Denon's dB and channel control to manipulate the RSW's volume", I don't know how to do that. If you could elaborate, I would appreciate it. The room is nearly perfectly square at 18' (L to R) X 17' (F to R), and has: The right wall has a 4' (w) X 4 3/4' (h) bow window beginning from 2 3/4' from front right corner, 1' from ceiling, 1 3/4' from floor, The front wall behind the system has 2 large 5 1/2' (w) X 4 3/4' (h) bow windows, 2 1/2' feet apart from dead center, 1' from ceiling, 1 3/4' from floor, The left wall has a 5 3/4' (w) X 4 1/2' (h) opening to another room, beginning at waist level, 3 1/4' up from floor, to 1' from ceiling beginning at left rear corner, The rear wall has a 4 1/2' (w) X 3 1/4' (h) opening beginning at same waist level to 1 1/2' from ceiling beginning 1 3/4' from left rear corner, and a full 7 1/4' wide at 1 1/2' from ceiling X 6 1/4' high from floor to 1 1/2' from ceiling from 1 1/2' right of center, to 4 1/4' toward right rear corner, and a continuation of that opening starting at same waist level for the balance of 7 1/4 ' (3' additional), to 1 1/2' from right rear corner (the rear wall). The towers sit on the floor 1' off right and left walls, and 3/4' from front wall, each turned approximately 20 degrees toward center of rear wall. The center sits on the same plane as the towers, at dead center, facing directly rearward, at 4 1/4' above floor level. The surrounds are wall mounted flush at 3" from ceiling on either side, exactly 2' from rear wall, facing directly toward opposite surround speaker. The sub sits on the floor 3/4' from front wall, and 5 1/4' from front right corner, turned approximately 15 degrees toward room center rear, to cancel standing waves. Bass is even throughout the room, no hot-spots. The "main" listening position is dead center rear, exactly 2' from rear wall. If you can follow that, you are either a contractor, or a geek like me. Hopefully that isn't too much info, but if so, simply ignore the unimportant.

I am having trouble getting what I consider to be expected levels of volume from the Sub, when using the Mono output on the receiver, and after incorporation of room acoustics with the Audyssey MultiEQ. I do hear the Sub, and it does respond to increasing the onboard volume control on the side, but it is severely muted. I am perhaps expecting far more than what is considered "flat" response, but when I want Bass, I want Bass. The Audyssey backs off the Sub by -6 db, but even if I bump it back up, or even going the other way to +12 db, it only has a nominal effect. I even went so far as to push up the "Bass" setting on the EQ up to +6 db, and only then did the levels begin to approach what I consider "loud", yet the Sub sounded dead and muddy. Previously, I was using an Onkyo receiver without a dedicated output for the Sub, so I was forced to use the main "A" channels to supply both the front and Sub channels, by connecting them in parallel. This was extremely effective, and I only needed between 0 and perhaps 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 on the Sub's volume control, to get sufficient volume out of the Sub. I then used a Yamaha receiver, which did have a dedicated output, and also with that receiver, I only needed minimal volume settings on the Sub to get room-shaking Bass. I have spoken to both Klipsch, and Denon, and both made the same recommendations for settings on the Sub and the receiver. The sub is using the Left input, internal crossover is switched off, and the setting was placed at 1/2 max for the Audyssey testing. Even if I placed it at nearly off, Audyssey would still set the Sub to -6 db, and it didn't have much effect on the levels of the sound in the Sub either. Any ideas??