So I preordered my 1.8uF Duelund 100v tinned copper caps from Parts Connexion. I played with a Miflex copper cap on an output position of a DAC that I have and have been pleasantly surprised as to how it sounds. In this position I previously had a REL cap... Which are known to be very good. So I am excited to see what happens with the the Duelunds in the tweeter position on the Elsinores.
The Miflex caps I tried on the DAC are built very solid. The outer shell is extremely dense as is the filling. They are very heavy for their size. the pictures do not do them justice. Once you hold them and see them in person, you understand why they are not cheap... They are like pieces of jewlry compared to your typical film capacitor. I assume the Duelunds are the same way.
They do take a while to break in... On the DAC, at first they sounded pretty good. Miflex notes about 150 hour breakin time which seems crazy. I have been able to go back and forth listening to them and the REL caps. After about 20 hours, the sound has really opened up and things are working great. The Miflex are much more refined with a more liquid mid range and a clearer top end. The REL Caps are less liquid with more emphesis on the top end giving the perception of detail... But the Miflex actually have more detail. I have played with a lot of film caps and the differences in sound tends to be very small. However, the copper caps just do something different.
Parts Connexion is ordering the 100v Duelund caps for the Elsinore project. They also talked to Frederick (Founder of Duelund) who heavily suggested the 100v over the 600v. This makes sense as the 100v is both smaller and cheaper...
Here are the sizes for the Duelund Caps:
600v Ø62xH62mm
100v Ø39mmxH62mm
And here is Joe's post talking about the size and fitment:
Joe had mentioned that liked the Duelund but that they were too large to fit on the boards. It looks like since we are going for the 100v, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too. I didn't think to ask if they are radial or axial but never-the-less, even if they are radial with a little creativity, we can still mount them to the PCB.
If you are interested in a pair of caps, contact Chris directly at: cjohnson@partsconnexion.com He said that he can advise the special “pre-order” price…. and lead time. It will be a special price, for Elsinore Project builders.
The Miflex caps I tried on the DAC are built very solid. The outer shell is extremely dense as is the filling. They are very heavy for their size. the pictures do not do them justice. Once you hold them and see them in person, you understand why they are not cheap... They are like pieces of jewlry compared to your typical film capacitor. I assume the Duelunds are the same way.
They do take a while to break in... On the DAC, at first they sounded pretty good. Miflex notes about 150 hour breakin time which seems crazy. I have been able to go back and forth listening to them and the REL caps. After about 20 hours, the sound has really opened up and things are working great. The Miflex are much more refined with a more liquid mid range and a clearer top end. The REL Caps are less liquid with more emphesis on the top end giving the perception of detail... But the Miflex actually have more detail. I have played with a lot of film caps and the differences in sound tends to be very small. However, the copper caps just do something different.
Parts Connexion is ordering the 100v Duelund caps for the Elsinore project. They also talked to Frederick (Founder of Duelund) who heavily suggested the 100v over the 600v. This makes sense as the 100v is both smaller and cheaper...
Here are the sizes for the Duelund Caps:
600v Ø62xH62mm
100v Ø39mmxH62mm
And here is Joe's post talking about the size and fitment:
Joe had mentioned that liked the Duelund but that they were too large to fit on the boards. It looks like since we are going for the 100v, we should be able to have our cake and eat it too. I didn't think to ask if they are radial or axial but never-the-less, even if they are radial with a little creativity, we can still mount them to the PCB.
If you are interested in a pair of caps, contact Chris directly at: cjohnson@partsconnexion.com He said that he can advise the special “pre-order” price…. and lead time. It will be a special price, for Elsinore Project builders.
Nice to know about partsconnexion.com willing to help out. 
Question. I kept seeing 90mm for the port diameter on the port size on the Elsinores. Well, A BOM that I had for the NRXC said 100mm by 100mm. I am wanting to know if I should make a plug that will accomodate the 90mm smaller port. I used a 4" PVC made slightly longer to accomodate for the slightly larger than 100mm diameter. I thought it was odd that the 100mm port just barely fit between the two verticle back braces. I had to finess it in quite a bit.
I can go pick up a couple of these:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Charlot...-Hub-Repair-Coupling-PVC001301000HD/203393300
I can go pick up a couple of these:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Charlot...-Hub-Repair-Coupling-PVC001301000HD/203393300
Mike:
I used this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/326397865398.
Cutting the cardboard tube to suit was easy.
Regards,
Scott
I used this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/326397865398.
Cutting the cardboard tube to suit was easy.
Regards,
Scott
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely. That does look easy.
The repair coupling is pretty much the exact dimensions needed to follow the plans that require the 90 mm pipe.
I would not mind having a removable Port as I read a document recently that talked about tapered ports. Very interesting concept. It is attached. Having the port be easily replaceable with allow for some fun experimentation
The repair coupling is pretty much the exact dimensions needed to follow the plans that require the 90 mm pipe.
I would not mind having a removable Port as I read a document recently that talked about tapered ports. Very interesting concept. It is attached. Having the port be easily replaceable with allow for some fun experimentation
Last edited:
You have spotted a typo, in both instances it should be 86mm and not 96mm. And yes, if a bit larger diameter port is used, the proportionally increase the length.
But on the matter of ports, the PVC pipes available here are 90mm OD and around 86-87mm ID. Over time I have decided to use 100mm length for that ID for all NRX, MFC and ULD versions of the Elsinores. So some of you may have seen 75-80mm elsewhere, but you need not to worry about it.
But I owe an explanation and I knew this it would eventually come up and that I would have to deal with it.
This is also related to something unusual about the Elsinore box design, that is that normally you pick the driver and then design a box for it. A driver is either acceptable or it is not.
The Elsinores started out the normal way too with the original Peerless drivers chosen way back in 2004 and then the box design came from that.
Yes, the Elsinore Project is now more than twenty years old, but the first actual working design appeared early 2006 with Peerless drivers. It got its premiere on diyaudio.com February 2007. Then something happened, new drivers were considered on the basis if they would work with the already existing box design? That was different, but it worked, just find the drivers and we could redesign accordingly. Would they all have the exact same alignment? The answer would be no, so there are differences, subtle as they may be.
Now we come to the fact that the driver Qts, and particularly the electrical Qes, which in turn is in parallel with the mechanical Qms of the driver. But these in turn are in parallel to the box QL (yes, all four are in parallel), and we get a value is far lower than normally lined enclosure, but the Elsinores use a large amount of fill and that bring the QL below 3. Normal is typically 7 and can be as high as 15. This sub 3 (maybe getting close to 2) is common with all the drivers used. It is also the key to what drivers will work even if the don't have the exact same Q damping.
The use of the Purifi ULD drivers as they are a bit more damped than the other SB and Peerless drivers. After much thought, I decided to go for it.
The question was, with a bit more heavily damped drivers like the ULD version, these might benefit from a higher box tuning by reducing the length of the port which is 90mm OD and 86mm ID (inner diameter). But over time, looking further into it, going from a length of 75mm and 100mm the difference was very slight indeed in the 50-100Hz range and this was my greatest worry; it proved largely unfounded. But the ULD higher damping is slightly less curtailed below 50 Hertz, but not much. This has been confirmed by listening by those who have built both MFC (or NRX) and ULD versions.
Bottom line, decreasing the length of the port to 75-80mm did not prove to have any real benefit, so I have stuck with 100mm with all drivers from now on. But if you have already built boxes with slightly short port, I would not lose any sleep over it.
Any comments?
Okay. So I am learning about speakers little by little. So I am going to break a few things down for myself and anybody else who is interested.
Q is how a system responds to energy input. In speaker enclosures, it refers to how much the system "rings" or oscillates before the energy dissipates. In other words how the system dampens these behaviors.
Qes is the electrical damping of the speaker driver.
Qms is the mechanical damping of the speaker driver.
Qts is the combined quality of the Qes (electrical) and Qms (mechanical) of the speaker driver
Ql is basically how well how much sound energy is lost in the speaker box due to air leaks. Lower number equates to a more well sealed box.
I assume the Elsinores being very well sealed even though they are ported is due to how the port interacts with the rest of the enclosure during operation? So what do you mean that they are parallel? is this a frequency response thing?
The fact that 90mmx100mm works for every driver is great as that simplifies things quite a bit. Also, the enclosure design is pretty good even though it is 20 years old. I am impressed with how solid it is. I took the time personally to apply three coats of polyurethane to the inside of the cabinet. The purpose was to seal everything up... However, doing a knock test on a coated and uncoated panels before coating everything, the frequency of the coated side seemed a bit higher.
If the ports simply need to be proportionally larger in diameter and length, then these figures could work out for the USA folks:
90mm pipe
86mm x 100mm
4" PVC"
102mm x 118.6mm (4.68")
3" ABS coupler (if you remove the center stop) See below
88.9mm x 103.37mm
So personally, I am probably tuned a few hz to high with my 4"x100mm port. I just bought a ABS coupler which is 88.9mm diameter on the inside. It has the stop in the center which I can easily sand off. It is also around 85mm long. However, I will glue it to the needed thickness of plywood to lengthen to accommodate the difference.
----------------------
A couple quick thoughts:
With the ports being the same length for all the Elsinore speakers, the speakers should be more upgradable. Simply making a template to accommodate the ULD drivers recess cutout, centering it over the existing holes one by one and routing out the difference, you wouldn't have to build the boxes twice... The difference in depth would be the only challenge. However, I wonder if playing with something like Butyl rubber as a dampening layer to take up the difference could be a fun experiment. I thought of Sorbothane but I think that would be too expensive.
I had a driver with a cracked frame on one of the NRX drivers. I am pretty confident it was my fault. I was able to source another driver. So I replaced all the countersink screws (drywall) with allen head cap screws with rubber washers underneath to make sure that never happens again... Now if you loosen the screws a bit so the seal on the rear of the driver and the rubber washer can dampen the driver, would that be a benefit? I know Laurence Dickey is big on driver dampening.
Screws
Rubber washers
I used 9mm by 4mm but I think 7mm by 3mm could have been better. They would be tight around the shaft of the screw but they would fit in the screw recesses in the driver basket better.
I am also learning that the Elsinores respond very well to room treatment compared to my semi-open baffle speakers that I had before. The Elsinores have a strong personality... So if you have them in a untreated room, you are in for a real treat if you can manage to get some room treatment sorted out. I have GIK panels currently but in the spirit of DIY, I ordered fabric from GIK to build several more using Rockwool safe and sound.
On another note, an experiment I did was to purchase 2.5" puck feet and a .5"x2.5" sorbothane washer from Amazon. At first I simply had the speakers sitting on the puck feet directly on the floor which is oak with a basement underneath. the floor is well constructed but pretty much a large soundboard like similar to that of what you would find on an acoustic guitar. I placed the sorbothane between the pucks and the speakers and the sound transfer through the floor was reduced quite a bit. The amount of bass went down but it tightened up. The mids and highs sound better. Now, I don't think there is a lot of mid and high frequency being transferred through the floor... But I do think the bloom you get from the bass transferring through the floor system clouds these higher frequencies. I would assume this not only reduces the bass frequency transfer but also the harmonics that are created through the floor system. The Elsinores are good at energizing things... So taming this excess energy really makes the presentation that much better. They are awesome out of the gate... So don't feel like all these little tweaks are necessary. BTW, the pucks are from Parts express and the Sorbothane is from Amazon. I don't even have them screwed into the cabinets at the moment. I do have plans to do that soon which involves felt pads as washers and some screws that loosely hold the foot assembly to simply hold it in place when the speaker is moved. However, the sticky surface of the sorbothane keeps things in place pretty well.
feet
Sorbothane
The 70 durometer (how hard the sorbothane is) seems to work very well. I think the 50 durometer would likely work but I think the 30 would be too soft...
I also kind of wonder what placing heavy rubber mats under my rug in my listening space would do to dampen the floor system. Add a bit of mass and dampening characteristics to the room. That may be getting pretty far fetched. Also outside of the scope of the Elsinore project thread.
Q is how a system responds to energy input. In speaker enclosures, it refers to how much the system "rings" or oscillates before the energy dissipates. In other words how the system dampens these behaviors.
Qes is the electrical damping of the speaker driver.
Qms is the mechanical damping of the speaker driver.
Qts is the combined quality of the Qes (electrical) and Qms (mechanical) of the speaker driver
Ql is basically how well how much sound energy is lost in the speaker box due to air leaks. Lower number equates to a more well sealed box.
I assume the Elsinores being very well sealed even though they are ported is due to how the port interacts with the rest of the enclosure during operation? So what do you mean that they are parallel? is this a frequency response thing?
The fact that 90mmx100mm works for every driver is great as that simplifies things quite a bit. Also, the enclosure design is pretty good even though it is 20 years old. I am impressed with how solid it is. I took the time personally to apply three coats of polyurethane to the inside of the cabinet. The purpose was to seal everything up... However, doing a knock test on a coated and uncoated panels before coating everything, the frequency of the coated side seemed a bit higher.
If the ports simply need to be proportionally larger in diameter and length, then these figures could work out for the USA folks:
90mm pipe
86mm x 100mm
4" PVC"
102mm x 118.6mm (4.68")
3" ABS coupler (if you remove the center stop) See below
88.9mm x 103.37mm
So personally, I am probably tuned a few hz to high with my 4"x100mm port. I just bought a ABS coupler which is 88.9mm diameter on the inside. It has the stop in the center which I can easily sand off. It is also around 85mm long. However, I will glue it to the needed thickness of plywood to lengthen to accommodate the difference.
----------------------
A couple quick thoughts:
With the ports being the same length for all the Elsinore speakers, the speakers should be more upgradable. Simply making a template to accommodate the ULD drivers recess cutout, centering it over the existing holes one by one and routing out the difference, you wouldn't have to build the boxes twice... The difference in depth would be the only challenge. However, I wonder if playing with something like Butyl rubber as a dampening layer to take up the difference could be a fun experiment. I thought of Sorbothane but I think that would be too expensive.
I had a driver with a cracked frame on one of the NRX drivers. I am pretty confident it was my fault. I was able to source another driver. So I replaced all the countersink screws (drywall) with allen head cap screws with rubber washers underneath to make sure that never happens again... Now if you loosen the screws a bit so the seal on the rear of the driver and the rubber washer can dampen the driver, would that be a benefit? I know Laurence Dickey is big on driver dampening.
Screws
Rubber washers
I used 9mm by 4mm but I think 7mm by 3mm could have been better. They would be tight around the shaft of the screw but they would fit in the screw recesses in the driver basket better.
I am also learning that the Elsinores respond very well to room treatment compared to my semi-open baffle speakers that I had before. The Elsinores have a strong personality... So if you have them in a untreated room, you are in for a real treat if you can manage to get some room treatment sorted out. I have GIK panels currently but in the spirit of DIY, I ordered fabric from GIK to build several more using Rockwool safe and sound.
On another note, an experiment I did was to purchase 2.5" puck feet and a .5"x2.5" sorbothane washer from Amazon. At first I simply had the speakers sitting on the puck feet directly on the floor which is oak with a basement underneath. the floor is well constructed but pretty much a large soundboard like similar to that of what you would find on an acoustic guitar. I placed the sorbothane between the pucks and the speakers and the sound transfer through the floor was reduced quite a bit. The amount of bass went down but it tightened up. The mids and highs sound better. Now, I don't think there is a lot of mid and high frequency being transferred through the floor... But I do think the bloom you get from the bass transferring through the floor system clouds these higher frequencies. I would assume this not only reduces the bass frequency transfer but also the harmonics that are created through the floor system. The Elsinores are good at energizing things... So taming this excess energy really makes the presentation that much better. They are awesome out of the gate... So don't feel like all these little tweaks are necessary. BTW, the pucks are from Parts express and the Sorbothane is from Amazon. I don't even have them screwed into the cabinets at the moment. I do have plans to do that soon which involves felt pads as washers and some screws that loosely hold the foot assembly to simply hold it in place when the speaker is moved. However, the sticky surface of the sorbothane keeps things in place pretty well.
feet
Sorbothane
The 70 durometer (how hard the sorbothane is) seems to work very well. I think the 50 durometer would likely work but I think the 30 would be too soft...
I also kind of wonder what placing heavy rubber mats under my rug in my listening space would do to dampen the floor system. Add a bit of mass and dampening characteristics to the room. That may be getting pretty far fetched. Also outside of the scope of the Elsinore project thread.
Last edited:
Mike,
You think you can get small slabs of marble/granite and place the speakers on top of those - something like 18" x 18" or 18" x 24", thickness 3/4" - 7/8"?
You think you can get small slabs of marble/granite and place the speakers on top of those - something like 18" x 18" or 18" x 24", thickness 3/4" - 7/8"?
I have seen that idea. I think I have some sitting in the shed so that wouldn't be a difficult experiment.
My Egglestonworks Andras have large, thick slabs of granite (Italian granite, according to their website) adhered to the cabinet sides for resonance control. Those cabinets are decidedly dense; rapping your knuckles on the top of the Andra cabinet makes virtually no sound and is painful. Maybe something similar for the Elsinores?
I imagine marble or granite underneath, if not secured somehow, might adversely affect the sound. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Regards.
I imagine marble or granite underneath, if not secured somehow, might adversely affect the sound. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Regards.
SRMcGee,
Google AI overview says that a square foot of granite with 3/4" thickness weighs 12-14 lbs; so a 18" x 24" piece (3 square feet) would be roughly 36-42 lbs in weight.
The Elsinore cabinets with the drivers and XO installed would be another 45-50 lbs?
With all this weight, I am guessing the stone should be pretty stable. 🙂
Google AI overview says that a square foot of granite with 3/4" thickness weighs 12-14 lbs; so a 18" x 24" piece (3 square feet) would be roughly 36-42 lbs in weight.
The Elsinore cabinets with the drivers and XO installed would be another 45-50 lbs?
With all this weight, I am guessing the stone should be pretty stable. 🙂
Zia:
My Elsinores weigh about 90 lbs apiece and your calculated weight for a granite slab would undoubtedly help unless, I imagine, the two surfaces weren’t bonded together somehow. I had Sound Anchor manufacture custom stands for my Elsinores and the stands came with sticky Sorbothane pucks which grip both stand and speaker. I think that adherence is important. I may be wrong here, but I am doubtful the slab be just as effective if the speaker was able to slide around on top of it. You (and everyone else) may well be better informed than me on this subject, so I’ll defer to the experts.
Regards,
Scott
My Elsinores weigh about 90 lbs apiece and your calculated weight for a granite slab would undoubtedly help unless, I imagine, the two surfaces weren’t bonded together somehow. I had Sound Anchor manufacture custom stands for my Elsinores and the stands came with sticky Sorbothane pucks which grip both stand and speaker. I think that adherence is important. I may be wrong here, but I am doubtful the slab be just as effective if the speaker was able to slide around on top of it. You (and everyone else) may well be better informed than me on this subject, so I’ll defer to the experts.
Regards,
Scott
Scott,
Agree - the speakers should not slide around; hopefully Tom will have a stable base to conduct the experiments.
Agree - the speakers should not slide around; hopefully Tom will have a stable base to conduct the experiments.
You would pr
I used Baltic birch for mine and they seem really solid. Not as solid as granite but the frequency at which the panels ring at is pretty high. It would be pretty hard for the mids and highs to excite the panels. Javad Shadzi did a trick on a speaker cabinet that he was stiffening up. He laminated the inside of the cabinet with floor tile using silicone as an adhesive. A pretty clever idea if you ask me.
Honestly, I am probably not going to set the speakers on granite as I like to be able to swap speakers fairly quickly. I am thinking of making a couple of outriggers out of wood which will likely happen when I get to replacing the port.
They definitely don't. The cabinets are pretty dense.
I used Baltic birch for mine and they seem really solid. Not as solid as granite but the frequency at which the panels ring at is pretty high. It would be pretty hard for the mids and highs to excite the panels. Javad Shadzi did a trick on a speaker cabinet that he was stiffening up. He laminated the inside of the cabinet with floor tile using silicone as an adhesive. A pretty clever idea if you ask me.
Honestly, I am probably not going to set the speakers on granite as I like to be able to swap speakers fairly quickly. I am thinking of making a couple of outriggers out of wood which will likely happen when I get to replacing the port.
They definitely don't. The cabinets are pretty dense.
Just being curious, did you get this info or is it your own summation? Reason I ask is the "rings" part and that there is some kind of uncontrolled oscillations, this is something I would dispute. Damping and Q is quite real, no doubt about it. But ringing? I have seen bass drivers that are poorly designed, especially the suspension, and there I have seen some really bad behaviour that looks like "doubling" and yet the Q of the driver was suitably low. They were just bad drivers.
For example, if there are two that have a Q=1 then becomes Q=0.5 or half.
In Thiele-Small Parameter, the Qts is is combining in parallel the electrical Qes and the mechanical (as in suspension) Qms:
If Qes is 0.4 and Qms is 3, then do the calculation and you get total Q or Qts=0.353 and similarly with the box, the fill is also additional damping in parallel. This is of course a relatively simple explanation. But anybody here is welcome to air their views.
Yes, it does affect the frequency response. But then so does a lot of things.
Last edited:
I've seen that suggested, but ringing is a normal part of resonance and is subject to damping, usually under our control.
Not saying that ringing can't happen. Oh well, maybe we have a different understanding of what ringing in loudspeakers is. At LF, if the right current turns up at the right frequency, the shape of the response can be controlled that way, irrespective of source impedance. It won't be ringing, that's for sure. But does a Q of 0.707 ring less than a Q of 1 - I'd be interested in your answer on that one.
No, just ring was a term that I had read a while back. I think this was more in regards to talking about physics in general. Not specifically speakers.
For example, if there are two that have a Q=1 then becomes Q=0.5 or half.
In Thiele-Small Parameter, the Qts is is combining in parallel the electrical Qes and the mechanical (as in suspension) Qms:
[][/]
If Qes is 0.4 and Qms is 3, then do the calculation and you get total Q or Qts=0.353 and similarly with the box, the fill is also additional damping in parallel. This is of course a relatively simple explanation. But anybody here is welcome to air their views.
Yes, it does affect the frequency response. But then so does a lot of things.
Alright, that makes sense. I get it now. Thanks!
Fair enough. Ringing is a real thing all right, but the Elsinores don't ring. That would be gross LF distortion. But the Q absolutely affects the FR and once measured, pick a frequency, any change in SPL obeys the current through the voice coil. Using this idea you can get a sealed box using a current source and dial in any Q you like - not theoretical, been able to confirm that. The Elsinores are vented but above 30Hz approx the idea of controlling the current is applied to make the source impedance effectively cancelled out. I am still wondering about the fact that no commercial speakers are doing this. But, oh well.