Pictures [message #44441] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 06:45 |
Adrian Mack
Messages: 568 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Sorry that its a crap quality :P You get the idea anyway, for any of those that remember me building these! I was finishing up the bits and pieces today, so I can honestly say the ONLY thing left to do is the finishing :d oh... and casters :p I show only 1 of the towers in the photos, both towers are at the same stage though. I still need to figure out a way to secure the midrange horn while keeping it removable.
|
|
|
Re: Pictures [message #44442 is a reply to message #44441] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 07:36 |
GrantMarshall
Messages: 77 Registered: May 2009
|
Viscount |
|
|
Looks great Adrian. How do you find the soundstage and when comparing are you using the 2 way Pi speaker as a reference?I've been playing with this idea the last few nights and am thinking of putting the midrange in a seperate cabinet on top of the corner horn (Pi 7 model) instead of the middle. 2 cabinets would keep size down and the top box shouldn't be too heavy. I have the high frequency right at the top of the current box which would keep the drivers physically close. Wayne was mentioning you did the math for the 6 inch driver. What dimensions did you end up with? Your midrange looks squarer than Waynes plan. Did you change the dispersion as well? Thanks in advance.
Grant.
|
|
|
Re: Pictures [message #44443 is a reply to message #44442] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 08:28 |
Adrian Mack
Messages: 568 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Hi Grant Thanks for your comments! Actually, I havn't built any of the Pi Speaker models, so I can't compare to that. I started planning this project about a year ago and was deciding between one of the 4 Pi bass reflex models, or going ahead with my own 3-way design employing a midrange horn. I choose to go with a midrange horn for all the common reasons. Anyhow, the driver I used is the Eminence Alpha 6. I did a number of different conical prototypes and also a tractrix prototype. The horn I did is conical, 28.7cm long, 1083cm^2 mouth, 50cm^2 throat, 3L rear chamber. No extra front chamber volume. Dispersion is 60 by 40 deg. It's within +/- 2.5db from 300Hz to 2KHz. Getting the size very small but still covering the bandwidth required with high efficiency was the goal. > I've been playing with this idea the last few nights and am > thinking of putting the midrange in a seperate cabinet on top of > the corner horn (Pi 7 model) instead of the middle. 2 cabinets > would keep size down and the top box shouldn't be too heavy. I > have the high frequency right at the top of the current box which > would keep the drivers physically close. So that would put the HF horn in the middle, yes? I suppose that could be done, if the HF horn is at ear level. Usually the HF horn would be on top, MF horn in middle and LF horn on bottom though, it generally would sound better that way (LF and MF combine with less interferance, and less spread out in time). Picture of final midrange horn. Adrian
|
|
|
|
Re: Pictures [message #44447 is a reply to message #44441] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 15:33 |
ToFo
Messages: 219 Registered: May 2009
|
Master |
|
|
Hello Adrian, Yowzers, I hope your neighbors... er, neighborhood aproves of your taste in music :)Very nice indeed! Thomas
|
|
|
yummy! *salivates* [message #44450 is a reply to message #44441] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 20:14 |
Mike.e
Messages: 471 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Finally! your new cheap-ass cam is better than ur old one thats for sure HAHA Do the batteries lastlong? no digi cams ever last long.my new kodak even uses them in no time,+ u cant transfer the pics if the batteries die even tho USB shud power it :P ul be so pleased when its finally completed :-) then u can start ur 18" horn ;-) im abit worried about constructing mine-as i actualy have NOWHERE To put it,other than in the car.So it would have to live in the CAR HAHAHA Cheers! Mike.e
|
|
|
Re: yummy! *salivates* [message #44452 is a reply to message #44450] |
Thu, 22 April 2004 20:33 |
Adrian Mack
Messages: 568 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Haha, yeah its a lot better. But notice how some of those pictures look bad still - thats because they were at the end of the camera. It holds 26 pictures in high resolution mode. The first 15 pictures I take look really good, and the next 5 or so start looking crap, and the final 5 at the end turns out shit :P All the ones I posted I took near the end of the camera :P (except the one of the JBL 2225 cone, it was near the start - thats why its so much clearer!). I notice it too when I take the pics, the ones near the end take longer - the little 'beep' takes longer to sound meaning its stuffing up the pictures :PIt uses only a single AAA battery and it runs forever. It's THE MOST battery efficient camera I've had! I've taken at least a hundred pics now and I'm still on the same battery. Years ago I had a pencam, even worse than my old Jamcam (thats a warning not to buy a camera where the name of the brand has the word 'cam' in it, it represents crap-quality, haha). The pencam was pretty battery efficient if I remember, it used two AAA batteries. The Jamcam used a 9V, and ate it up within minutes :P Some poorer-brand 9V batteries would die INSTANTLY! I mean, you COULDNT even take a single shot! Alkaline batteries were pretty much a must-have. The new mini-digital camera has a single AAA battery only. It's actually called a "Dicam" - yeah yeah, I know, its got 'cam' in it! Well thats why the pictures near the end of the camera look like shit but the first ones dont :P Maybe it represents quality. 'cam' means overall, something is weird or wrong with it. Pencam starts with P and is further down the alphabet than the J in Jamcam, thats why the Pencam was a lot worse. The D in Dicam is nearer to the start of the alphabet, so it represents better quality, but its got 'cam' in it still so theres something weird with it, on mine it was the first pictures looking better than the last :P Well thats my proven theory anyway, hahaa.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the Lens, Not the Megs [message #44460 is a reply to message #44452] |
Fri, 23 April 2004 07:44 |
GarMan
Messages: 960 Registered: May 2009
|
Illuminati (2nd Degree) |
|
|
Adrian, your resolution is fine. I blew up your photo 400% on the screen and hardly saw any pixles. The photos are fuzzy because of the lens. Everybody's so obsessed with how many MBytes and Mega-Pixels a camera has, but gives no thought about the cheap plastic lens in front of the camera. It goes for film photography too. I've seem guys drop several grand for the top-of-line Nikon F5 or Canon 1n, only to shoot through a $150 lens. Kind of like playing a Walkman through a set of JML Utopias. A couple of things to help you get cleaner photos are: - Don't shoot handheld. Use a tripod or rest the camera on a solid surface. - Only zoom in if you absolutely have to. Those cheap zoom lens are at its worst at maximum zoom. Gar.
|
|
|