bodcaw boy Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 T/S "matches" don't always sound the same. The specs are made up from ratios, and even though the number might be the same, the underlying specs that made up that value can be wildly different, especially total Q! DM hmmmmm................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 26, 2006 Author Share Posted September 26, 2006 so THAT is how one goes together..... berryroy boy Oh! So you didn't know? I'm sure you realized that I went with the 45 degree reflectors unlike your version. I'm all for experimenting...such as the different driver option.....all at a cost. The back end will be slightly different that the real deal although I think the flare will remain the same. Roy, If I decide to RTA this thing outside, should I do it on the ground? 1 watt/1 meter? It would be easier to do on a stand as I don't readily have someone to move the thing around. I have typically RTA'ed speakers in the position they will be played from...in the room with all the reflections. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 T/S "matches" don't always sound the same. The specs are made up from ratios, and even though the number might be the same, the underlying specs that made up that value can be wildly different, especially total Q! DM hmmmmm................ For example, a light cone/suspension/moving mass, etc. and a "mediocre" magnet structure, or a heavier cone/suspension/mm and a very powerful magnet structure could result in the same Qts value, although how it got there is completely different... and so are the sonic results! In the case of the 12" Pioneer, I would start with the suspension/mm part of the equation... Anyone figure out the upper and lower frequency corners on that particular driver? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Good thing Qts isn't the only variable used in determining a driver's behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I don't regard the Pioneer as a T/S match, in other words! We can examine it further, if anyone would like... DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Armando corrected me - the rest of you should be ashamed for letting me get away with the previous version of what I posted! I was an idiot... Here is the corrected version. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodcaw boy Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 T/S "matches" don't always sound the same. The specs are made up from ratios, and even though the number might be the same, the underlying specs that made up that value can be wildly different, especially total Q! DM hmmmmm................ For example, a light cone/suspension/moving mass, etc. and a "mediocre" magnet structure, or a heavier cone/suspension/mm and a very powerful magnet structure could result in the same Qts value, although how it got there is completely different... and so are the sonic results! In the case of the 12" Pioneer, I would start with the suspension/mm part of the equation... Anyone figure out the upper and lower frequency corners on that particular driver? DM that why you use as many parameters as possible, for example, if you considered bl, then it would tell you that a difference was apparrent between the two woofers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Indeed! But that goes without saying. Where are the excursion limits on either of these drivers? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 28, 2006 Author Share Posted September 28, 2006 This an update of what the top view of this build looks like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1101 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 JC, Looks good. I like the flush back instead of "that V groove". A couple of questions. Does the part marked "K" cause any restrictions or narrowing of the horn? Will you have hatches on top AND bottom to access the drivers? I can't wait to hear those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 JC, That DOES look great! You are doing a fine job. Mark1101, part "K" does not restrict the channel cross-section (although it may look that way), it is a waveform reflector. The reflected angle equals the incident angle. You are probably thinking of a radius channel turn - good for low frequencies (i.e., below 200Hz) but not good for maintaining mid-and-upper bass frequencies around bends. Yes, access hatches are needed both top and bottom in order to get at the drivers. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Thanks for the compliments guys. Mark...you will get to hear it. Dana has explained that reflector on a couple of threads that I was involved with. Bruce Edgar explained how that worked in either the Monolith or Show Horn articles....I can't remember. The reflector is the the only legitimate modification I have made to this cabinet vs the real Jubilee. There are some other slight differences that I did on purpose but so minor they wouldn't make a difference in sound. I think the groove on the back is uneccesary. In fact, I considered bringing the speaker wires out the back with my mod but I changed my mind. The wires will come off the top. There will be a top and bottom hatch that will affix with T-nuts. Those T-nuts are growing on me. I am a little embarrased to admit I ordered those Pioneer woofers. Mainly because of their "quality" in general. I'm thinking I don't want to even test them and send them back. When I got the package...I was amazed at the small size of the package and its light weight. I think Bob's tweeters weigh as much. One more thing. I am a little disappointed in you guys for not giving me s%$# over my "acoustic paint" idea. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Well, Gil painted his back chambers, which I thought was pretty funny! (at first glance). Actually, I'd use white because its easier to find a fallen wingut, etc., but as Gil pointed out, painting the interior is actually a good idea because it seals any "missed" airleaks. I've also read of people painting the interior horn channels to reduce viscosity (the tendency of air to "cling" to a surface). In the Jub's the channels get painted black to prevent showing through the grill cloths, I would therefore use a gloss black on that, killing 2 birds with one stone, so to speak. The Pioneers? Who knows - BigDnFay uses the Pioneers with apparent satisfaction. I wanted to point out I'm sure they will sound different from the Kappa-Pros and probably the stock Klipsch, too. We all dream of finding the "sleeper" drivers, cheap and yet astounding, don't we? DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMcD Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Nice work, JWC. For the record: I used black satin and white satin paint. In my view the satin is more forgiving than either flat or glossy. I've generally standardized on these, just to cut down on parts count and matching issues. I don't know why it would be difficult to find a piece of chromed hardware on a satin black surface. I'd think easier than on a white surface. This was really not an issue I'd considered. I did think along the same lines as Dana. The interior of the mouth is better in black to prevent shine though the grill cloth. So why not use black on all interior surfaces. One thing I was half considering was making the mouth of any horn white or silver. Then put in some sort of lighting. That could include some VU bar graph set up or even a color organ. The color organ would be so 1960s "Grrooovy Baaabeee. . . . Growwwl." Smile, Gil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Gil...welcome back. I do plan on using black in the mouth. Infact..the whole thing may be black. At least the visible parts. For Friday night pleasure...here comes some pics. For those trying to visualize this build, you will notice soon how important it is to get the braces on all those panels before mounting the panel. This allow easier build when fitting together odd angles. The braces will serve as a way to screw the panels in place. My braces are there to make the flare just right. I haven't done it yet........so let me see if I'm FOS. The cabinet depth is about 1/16 inch under 24". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Upclose of the back curve with the tail board mounted. Is tailboard the right word to call this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 Topview so far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.