Dear all,
I would like to build this speaker here:
Faital-3WC
Since I am a Newbie, I have a few questions.
1. The wood used should be 20mm Baltic Birch Plywood. However, I checked many shops but this is basically not available here... only alternative is Beech Plywood 20mm. Do you think this can make a severe difference?
2. I would like to buy the crossovers from the page. However, I think the price differences between two similar sets are extreme. Please compare page 1 and 3 here.
http://www.jantzen-audio.com/wp-con...-Way-Classic-All-kit-versions-with-prices.pdf
What do you think, how relevant is this? I mean, about 700€ for a slightly different material? Will I hear this? Is it worth the money?😕
More questions will follow soon I guess... thanks a lot, any help is appreciated 😀
I would like to build this speaker here:
Faital-3WC
Since I am a Newbie, I have a few questions.
1. The wood used should be 20mm Baltic Birch Plywood. However, I checked many shops but this is basically not available here... only alternative is Beech Plywood 20mm. Do you think this can make a severe difference?
2. I would like to buy the crossovers from the page. However, I think the price differences between two similar sets are extreme. Please compare page 1 and 3 here.
http://www.jantzen-audio.com/wp-con...-Way-Classic-All-kit-versions-with-prices.pdf
What do you think, how relevant is this? I mean, about 700€ for a slightly different material? Will I hear this? Is it worth the money?😕
More questions will follow soon I guess... thanks a lot, any help is appreciated 😀
Go Beach? I live in California.
1) The Beech Plywood will not create a noticable change in sound. This design has good cross bracing which reduces cabinet panel resonances. Make accurate cuts, and use ALOT of glue on hidden internal jounts. (Titebond II is popular in USA). Follow Troels absorption material work.
2) Even the lower cost components (Standard Z caps) have proven excellent sound. Around the base crossover ($400/speaker for 3WC) price point, DSP + 1amp/driver becomes cost effictive. There is a $1300 difference between Jantzen standard and best passive parts for a pair of 3WCs.
-----------x
Many diy-builders now purchase one active (DSP+amps) system and use it on several speakers. Do you wonder how a waveguide design would perform in your room acoustics? Want to take your speakers to your kid's school gym?
===========
Do you plan to build a 300mm speaker stand to correctly locate the tweeter-ear position?
Instead of the 300mm stand, have you considered a 300mm HIGHER floor-standing cabinet for deeper bass with improved transients? You would need to change the size/volume of the ports. You could easily put the ports on the front baffle if you plan a near-rearwall placement. With DSP, you could seal + equalize the woofers.
The woodshop capability often sets the design direction.
1) The Beech Plywood will not create a noticable change in sound. This design has good cross bracing which reduces cabinet panel resonances. Make accurate cuts, and use ALOT of glue on hidden internal jounts. (Titebond II is popular in USA). Follow Troels absorption material work.
2) Even the lower cost components (Standard Z caps) have proven excellent sound. Around the base crossover ($400/speaker for 3WC) price point, DSP + 1amp/driver becomes cost effictive. There is a $1300 difference between Jantzen standard and best passive parts for a pair of 3WCs.
-----------x
Many diy-builders now purchase one active (DSP+amps) system and use it on several speakers. Do you wonder how a waveguide design would perform in your room acoustics? Want to take your speakers to your kid's school gym?
===========
Do you plan to build a 300mm speaker stand to correctly locate the tweeter-ear position?
Instead of the 300mm stand, have you considered a 300mm HIGHER floor-standing cabinet for deeper bass with improved transients? You would need to change the size/volume of the ports. You could easily put the ports on the front baffle if you plan a near-rearwall placement. With DSP, you could seal + equalize the woofers.
The woodshop capability often sets the design direction.
the important factor is ply for the damping and wood stability.
Density of both is quite the same. Birch has a little better advantage you perhaps will not hear. The beech gives a neater work.
it's ok imho. just a little too hard for our hifi purpose but the ply is giving a better behavior than raw wood for sound damping. if you can get bambou ply it's better than either.
anyway bitumen pads inside is your friend.
Density of both is quite the same. Birch has a little better advantage you perhaps will not hear. The beech gives a neater work.
it's ok imho. just a little too hard for our hifi purpose but the ply is giving a better behavior than raw wood for sound damping. if you can get bambou ply it's better than either.
anyway bitumen pads inside is your friend.
The Janka scale of hardness puts Beech at 1300, Birch follows very closely at 1260...Both have dulling effects on blades. Both have evenly distributed pores, Beech has uniform swirling patterns, Birch, a more straight of patterning, but Beech is slightly more prone to defects, knots & suffers more from decay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.........
Thanks a lot for this information, that helps a lot!
@LineSource:
Since I have no idea of acoustics, my goal is to follow Troels' building plans religiously to not mess up anything. The idea with the larger box sounds interesting (since I will need the stands otherwise), but then I would need some further information on what to change exactly.
Actually, I delayed the entire project and invested more than 1500€ in my workshop so I can actually have a nice equipment when starting the build so at least the machinery should be adequate... still, I will have to learn a lot!
Regarding the DSP, yes, I discussed this months ago in a few forums and i think his is quite controversial, some love it, others not. I will first build the box and IF this works out I will think about the interior 😉
@LineSource:
Since I have no idea of acoustics, my goal is to follow Troels' building plans religiously to not mess up anything. The idea with the larger box sounds interesting (since I will need the stands otherwise), but then I would need some further information on what to change exactly.
Actually, I delayed the entire project and invested more than 1500€ in my workshop so I can actually have a nice equipment when starting the build so at least the machinery should be adequate... still, I will have to learn a lot!
Regarding the DSP, yes, I discussed this months ago in a few forums and i think his is quite controversial, some love it, others not. I will first build the box and IF this works out I will think about the interior 😉
There is a Fusion plate 3 ways, with 250W x2 + 1 x125 for the tweeter: could cost you less than the caps, but you will have to find the crossover by yourself. There is as well a 125 Watts x3, but I don't know if it'is enough for the 12" ???
Will sounds different for sure but Fusion plates are said neutral and good amp, excellent AK chips for the ADC & DAC ! It's not caps are better or worst, it is about how you want to use your playback source and the nice coloration a designer play with the caps as HumbleHomeMadeHifi or Troels Gravsen. Always trade offs. I'm jealous about your invest for workshop, I wisch I have the monney and mainy a room for that as well 🙂
Be confident from what LineSource is saying, best sketchs up ever, always documented and pedagogic.
Will sounds different for sure but Fusion plates are said neutral and good amp, excellent AK chips for the ADC & DAC ! It's not caps are better or worst, it is about how you want to use your playback source and the nice coloration a designer play with the caps as HumbleHomeMadeHifi or Troels Gravsen. Always trade offs. I'm jealous about your invest for workshop, I wisch I have the monney and mainy a room for that as well 🙂
Be confident from what LineSource is saying, best sketchs up ever, always documented and pedagogic.
Last edited:
One option would be to make the cabinet 300mm taller in order to reduce cabinet depth. SO, you can use the same crossover circuit and the same 5.5" long ports and just move them low on the front baffle.
====
====
#1. You can email Troels Gravensen and tell him you favor adding 300mm in cabinet volume instead of the base, and ask him if he has already studied alternative designs, including new port dimensions and putting the ports near the floor on the new longer front baffle. You could describe your listening room and speaker placement choice.
====
====
Tomorrow we can start a discussion on a modest -2db Extended Bass Shelf woofer alignment
The base is 300mm high. Increasing the 3WC cabinet by 300mm could add about 1cuft of volume. about 1/3 more. With the Faital 12PR320, this extra ported volume creates a modest -2db "extended bass shelf" tuning. Modest -2db EBS in a room with bass gain often produces a flatter TOTAL bass SPL at the listener.
If you plan to place these speakers near rear and/or side walls, A larger volume EBS cabinet "could" produce:
==flatter SPL though the baffle step frequency;
==lower -F3, (3WC has -F3 ~52Hz, a larger cabinet could produce -F3 ~43Hz in most home placements)
You would need to change the ports, but not the crossover circuits.
========
========
O.T. It seems smart to paper design a similar all DSP design before you purchase the 3WC kit and cut wood.
MEASUREMENT...the final Frontier. Today there are complete DSP designs which you can build with little or no measurements. With DSP, if you start with a proven passive design like the 3WC or "The Loudspeaker2" you will always be able to get equal or better sound... BUT you need basic measurement equipment.
Sealed drivers produce the best transient response.
Troels Gravsen may not like such askings because it's time consuming and the kit is not ordered, nore all the monney of the kit is going in his pocket. He advertised about that : shape and filter can not be changed or it is consultant demand.
However if a little widhter is ok with spouse, one may want to use a Faital 15PR400 or 15FH520 with a 42 cm to 45 cm width bafle and tune the BR a little above the Fs, Fb around 45 hz ? Should give better result... maybe ! Do not remember the Vas, imo the FH520 can be sealed : ebp is 93, better for vented but one is living once and Vas is littlier than the lighty PR400 ! In the 1" W3C I believe the cabinet is tuned below the driver Fs... lower bass but not necessarely better sound in theory. the 15" is a nice inexpensive improvment over the 12" for low monney and 5 cm more is not the end of the plate world !
However if a little widhter is ok with spouse, one may want to use a Faital 15PR400 or 15FH520 with a 42 cm to 45 cm width bafle and tune the BR a little above the Fs, Fb around 45 hz ? Should give better result... maybe ! Do not remember the Vas, imo the FH520 can be sealed : ebp is 93, better for vented but one is living once and Vas is littlier than the lighty PR400 ! In the 1" W3C I believe the cabinet is tuned below the driver Fs... lower bass but not necessarely better sound in theory. the 15" is a nice inexpensive improvment over the 12" for low monney and 5 cm more is not the end of the plate world !
I have a question that may not seem right to you.
If I use a cabinet whose front face is identical to the Faital 3WC, with the same volume for the woofer BUT with a closed box of 9 liters instead of 18.9 liters, Will the crossing of the medium change completely, must it recalculates everything where the analog crossover of the Faital can be kept
It certainly not any of these volumes. If you make it sealed for the bass unit only the low end should change. If the low pass filter is high enough, nothing should change for the filter but if it has a notch somewhere near the Fs...sorry do not remember the shematic. The -f3 will be higher as well i.e. less low bass. Any way the volume load has to be calculated with the rigth T&S.
Thanks but :
I'm talking about the closed box of the Medium and not the woofer.
what consequence has the dimension of the closed box of the medium: 9 liters less
I'm talking about the closed box of the Medium and not the woofer.
what consequence has the dimension of the closed box of the medium: 9 liters less
It should change the Q so the low end if I'm correct so the low pass. At iso filter the power response should differ.
yes thank you, so the crossover of the faital will not work.
I simulated in winisd the medium 18 sound 8mnb420 in 18 liters and in 9 liters. indeed the response curve is slightly different but not so much... it will therefore be necessary to move the crossover to 230hz and therefore change the value of the capacitors
I simulated in winisd the medium 18 sound 8mnb420 in 18 liters and in 9 liters. indeed the response curve is slightly different but not so much... it will therefore be necessary to move the crossover to 230hz and therefore change the value of the capacitors
The eyes are not the ears. If you tune in your listening room the bass response in this critical area of the punch snap, o.1 uf difference in the low pass if second order and in the high pass matter for me and then indeed any change will change the equilibrium. It becomes a new design. Someone would argue 0,1 uf is not important...to my ears it is more than the mkp type choice of caps. I am not sure Gravsen works with this precision. He is imho more choosing the cut offs regarding the off shelves standard capacitors values. For instance a high pass with 3 x 20 uF Jantzen sup cap. I do not know if the coils are winded on demand with special L values. It's a trade off if I am rigtht. But all is tunned, box volume as damping feeling. So as he writes on his site...change something and I can not help - i.e. up to you to tune it-. But you seem to know that already. I surmise he chooses a standard 0.7 qtc for the sealed mid but I do not know for real.
thank you for these precisions! if I can adjust the woofer response with activ crossover, I could correct the difference that causes the reduction in the volume of the medium and this curve.
for me the 18 sound 8mnb420 c is in 8 Ohms closed, Qtc = 0.707 in 7.7 L, Qtc = 0.500 in 20 L
for me the 18 sound 8mnb420 c is in 8 Ohms closed, Qtc = 0.707 in 7.7 L, Qtc = 0.500 in 20 L
The Best for me is to use the troel's crossover for the tweeter and the low pass of the medium..and filtre the woofer (sealed) , the high pass of the medium & EQ correction with hyper fusion 2 ways...as on the fusion 3 of troel..
I would like to build some, I have a modified cabinet with the same dimensions (Almost)
Frontpanel: 45x96
Volume for the woofer 115 liters
BUT my closed box for the medium is 10 liters, which will very very slightly modify the behavior of the medium (Winisd)...
This is why I would simply like to filter the passive Tweeter and perhaps the Low pass of the Medium and then filter in active for the woofer (preferably sealed) and the High pass of the medium with correction with a Fusion Hypex
But unfortunately I do not have the necessary knowledge to redo the passive filtering, and measurements are difficult in my apartment
Frontpanel: 45x96
Volume for the woofer 115 liters
BUT my closed box for the medium is 10 liters, which will very very slightly modify the behavior of the medium (Winisd)...
This is why I would simply like to filter the passive Tweeter and perhaps the Low pass of the Medium and then filter in active for the woofer (preferably sealed) and the High pass of the medium with correction with a Fusion Hypex
But unfortunately I do not have the necessary knowledge to redo the passive filtering, and measurements are difficult in my apartment
That's a beautifull cabinet with big enough sides to have smoother external cabinet difraction. Non parralell sides inside but the narrow back panel ! Well done, I'm jealous of the skill 🙂 and it looks nice too to the eyes. I surmise it will perhaps image better or disseaper better than the original. Mais voilà, that also means you need to remake all the crossover (at least adapt it). Are the sided aperture here for cardioid tries & errors ? Vents you can seal after if you want a sealed load ?
I prefer sealed as for the woof well even if some may need a sub due to the less lower F3... let me guess... around F3 = 55/60 hz sealed with the 12" ? You will only by measuring the T&S of the woofer after a little break-up. I am not sure of the precision of the datasheet, I simply do not know, certainly many people that have played with that 12PR320. Also I read the less expensive tweeter on that kit was better than the further more expensive Beryllium unit.
that 115 liters gives which Qtc ? 0.707 ? Maybe better to adapt the Qtc of the mid with the one of the woofer ? Again real life T&S measurement (avoid datasheet if you can).
If you have a mic you can measure the power response and so with the plate amps with its EQ, it should not be too hard just to work on the passive tweeter filter. Try to look for Harmann curve to see what it approximatly should be. There are some technic to measure even in a flat (try to look at Jeff Bagby paper on time alignement measurement but also all the tricks here and there about in room measurement...)
I have not a big experience with filter, only one diy loudspeaker and many recaps of second hands, but there are very knowledgeable people here to help.
looks like a good project 🙂, disearves its own thread imo.
I prefer sealed as for the woof well even if some may need a sub due to the less lower F3... let me guess... around F3 = 55/60 hz sealed with the 12" ? You will only by measuring the T&S of the woofer after a little break-up. I am not sure of the precision of the datasheet, I simply do not know, certainly many people that have played with that 12PR320. Also I read the less expensive tweeter on that kit was better than the further more expensive Beryllium unit.
that 115 liters gives which Qtc ? 0.707 ? Maybe better to adapt the Qtc of the mid with the one of the woofer ? Again real life T&S measurement (avoid datasheet if you can).
If you have a mic you can measure the power response and so with the plate amps with its EQ, it should not be too hard just to work on the passive tweeter filter. Try to look for Harmann curve to see what it approximatly should be. There are some technic to measure even in a flat (try to look at Jeff Bagby paper on time alignement measurement but also all the tricks here and there about in room measurement...)
I have not a big experience with filter, only one diy loudspeaker and many recaps of second hands, but there are very knowledgeable people here to help.
looks like a good project 🙂, disearves its own thread imo.
Thank you !
I have already tried a MiniDsp filter with a 15" + 83 and a dome Tweeter... It was very clean, very natural but extremely tired... and measurements are difficult for me in my appartment
The front panel being exactly the same size as the Faital 3WC-15, by modifying the front panel to place the 3 speakers according to the troel plan, I thought that the passive filter would pass!
So I was thinking of putting the 15PR400 rather than the 12PR320..
For events they are rectangular 3.60x28X16 cm, but I could reduce the Height if I load the 15PR400 in 113 liters
but actually I prefer to close too
on the one hand, like the Troel filter for the Tweeter, the medium is not accessible.. the question does not arise
I have already tried a MiniDsp filter with a 15" + 83 and a dome Tweeter... It was very clean, very natural but extremely tired... and measurements are difficult for me in my appartment
The front panel being exactly the same size as the Faital 3WC-15, by modifying the front panel to place the 3 speakers according to the troel plan, I thought that the passive filter would pass!
So I was thinking of putting the 15PR400 rather than the 12PR320..
For events they are rectangular 3.60x28X16 cm, but I could reduce the Height if I load the 15PR400 in 113 liters
but actually I prefer to close too
on the one hand, like the Troel filter for the Tweeter, the medium is not accessible.. the question does not arise
