Small and/or WAF builds using the Denovo stuff

Discussion in 'DIY Speakers and Subwoofers' started by tuxedocivic, Jun 18, 2012.

  1. Here:


    The phase is not acting nice at 3khz. Everywhere else matches the model exactly, including the reverse null. But 3khz is acting strange. I'm still frustrated after a nights sleep. I tried at least 50 measurements last night with various component changes.
  2. Looks like you might have the z-axis wrong.
  3. I wasn't using minimum phase in the model. I re-did the measurements to see if I can get the sim working right :(

    Thanks Bill
  4. What happens when you disconnect the xover and test the tweeter with only a cap in series to protect it? I had a similar case a couple of years ago - I had switched a cap and inductor :( . Had I checked the raw driver I would have saved a lot of time...........
  5. I took raw measurements of both again to see what's up in the model. The xo is quite complex now. I might try Rev 1 again and see how that goes.
  6. Bump for completing the WAF-2. Have to update the xo schematics is all. Feedback would be appreciated, particularly about my interpretation of the measurements.
  7. What's the sensitivity on WAF2?

    I have plans for that Denovo 654. What do you wager is max flat freq response output with the mini elliptical CD without padding?

  8. I didn't measure system sens., but I measured the woofer sens.


    I'd say the system is about 85db/2.83V/m but a very easy load to drive. The WAF-2.33 might be 87db with less baffle step compensation.

    Hmmm. I didn't measure anything in the WAF-1 to tell me what the sens. of the mini is. It's pretty freaking efficient though. I'd guess after its flattened around 95db. I'll look into it for you. Perhaps I'll measure the WAF-1 active and measure the raw mini's sensitivity while I'm at it.
  9. Thanks TC! I am hoping to put together an economical, slim LCR for people that cannot hide speakers behind an AT screen, with 95dB sensitivity to hit near reference with AVR power. I am thinking dual 16 Ohm 10" woofs to 500-600Hz, single 6.5" mid to 3kHz, and Denovo HF above. WMTW center and WWMT L/Rs.....

    But Line Array/CBT testing to come first, if I ever get the shop squared away....

  10. I remember you suggested this in the Malcolm thread and I thought it was a pretty good idea. I hope you do it. The designs I'm doing here aren't for reference sound levels. Somethings has to give when you only have 15L and $80 to spend :p
  11. YES!!! It finally happened. I was not thrilled with how I posted the WAF-2. So I beat on the cross over all day and something really clicked. Going to be listening to this one for a while with the WAF-1. So far they are really gelling together. Tonally very similar. The WAF-2 being more clear and dynamic. I'm thrilled. Schematic coming soon. 12 parts. Most are cheap. Still fairly complex.
  12. Very nice!

  13. Updated to include a preliminary WAF-2.y using the EOS6.

    I really really like it :D
  14. WAF-2.y is done.

    Now I really gotta move houses. I didn't think I was going to complete that in time. Next up is something larger. 8".
  15. pix? plots
  16. It's there, fourth post.

    I should get more pictures. But all of these builds I'm just throwing together test boxes.

    My first page is getting a little bit convoluted. I may just link to the measurements. There's so much info there. What do you think?
  17. Any chance of a dimensional change on this WAF-1 model? Maybe something a bit more narrow, but taller? If not, that's perfectly okay. You gave it an 8 out of 10 on the ugly scale and I'm wondering if a narrow and taller box might bring that beauty scale up a bit. :D Also, maybe I missed it, but what is the internal volume needed?

    When I was asking people on the PE forum what type of flat packs they wanted, most steered towards narrow and taller versus shorter and fatter. Then again, you could call them the FAT-WAF!

    On the WAF-2, you mentioned .5 cu ft. I've got some .5 cu ft flat packs here that probably aren't going to move very good. Some were made for an Aurasound driver and another was made for the BR-1 speakers from PE. I could have the baffle changed and use the box.

    The dimensions are 8.5" wide versus your 9" wide. And they're 14" tall versus your 15" height. 12.5" deep to get them at .5 cu ft.

    Then again, I like the idea of a smaller cabinet too. Do you have a recommendation for dimensions on the ported box you mentioned? I have a lot of boxes for the Nano Neo and could simply recut the top, bottom, back, brace, baffle, but salvage the sides with dado cuts. they could be about 15" tall and 9.5" deep.

    Or do you have ideas on how to use both designs in the same box volume? I don't know what the WAF-1 is, so maybe they already are at the same internal volume. I'm ready to rock and roll with these designs. :D
  18. Those small dimension changes all sound fine. I'll try and find a chance to measure on those baffle sizes.

    The WAF-1 could go in an 8L sealed or a 15L 42hz ported. Or an 8L ported around 55hz for small yet extended. I'll look at your existing flat pack dimensions when I'm not on my phone and offer some thoughts if needed. Likely ok though.
  19. I'm not too worried if I can or can't use something from the left over flat packs because they will eventually get used either way. It was just a thought.

    Obviously I don't want to take anything away from their performance, so I'll probably just get new boxes made up for these. Do you think a narrow enclosure on the WAF-1 will make them look nicer on your ugly scale rating? :)

    Looking at your WAF-2, you mentioned 15L sealed, recommended 10L ported and could go 7L sealed. It seems like this is your favorite one of the two, so I want to get this box exactly the way you want it. If by some chance the WAF-1 can also be used in the same box with a different baffle, that's just a plus. And because I want to get this the way you want it, do you have a port recommendation, and has that already been calculated in to the net box size of .36 cu ft? Or should I be shooting for .38 or so before port displacement. I realize it's not a super big deal, but I like to be sure so you don't see the end box and wish something was different.
  20. Hey Erich

    I wouldn't flat pack the WAF-1. The thing is, it's actually really really good. But it's so easy to build that it's a good one for someone with a jig saw and a drill. That's all someone needs to make it. For the money it's really is awesome. But it's so easy to build. I also can't see anyway for the 1 and 2 to share a baffle.

    There is a WAF-2.x and a WAF-2.y. The WAF-2 may be a tight fit on a 8.5x14 baffle. Let me check that out before you go and cut new baffles. Using 1/2" will help. I only used 15L because I already had the cab made 15L before using the woofer (different project). I don't have my computer setup right now, but when I get a chance I'll get you a port dimension. Or if someone doesn't mind taking a crack at unibox for me. The DS-175 digs deep ported! Might make a good bedroom speaker without a sub.
  21. The only issue right now with the 'y' version is the number of those EOS-6's I have. I will try to get more in as soon as possible though. I probably only have about 20 of them, but hundreds of all the other items.

    Those particular EOS-6 models were sent along with some other samples I was testing out, so I didn't get many. I'll see if I can get some more with the shipment of compression drivers I have coming.

    There are some new models coming that look similar to the 18-Sound XT120, and in a variety of sizes. The smallest being about 6" wide.

    Personally, I think any design that stands out and sounds great should be put in kit form if it's possible. And the first one you did should be priced very cheap for people that want to just try something out. The boxes would be quite cheap. So if you get time to narrow down the enclosure dimensions, just let me know.

    This upcoming week shouldn't be too busy for me and I'm going to do my best to get as many kits listed on the site as I can. I'm going to shoot for one per day. I need to get in contact with Bwaslo and really work to get his kits all ready to go.
  22. Fair enough. Both the 1 and the 2.x are very good. I think for me, I struggled with the .x. And the xo is a little to complex. Sound wise it's quite nice.

    I'll send you an email once I have some dimensions for you.
  23. So the change in the waveguide made a pretty substantial difference in the overall design of the crossovers? I would have guessed it to be pretty close, but that's coming from someone who hasn't designed a speaker. :D
  24. Yup. The acoustic centers and the acoustic output both change when the waveguide changes. That requires xo changes.

    I plan to listen to them more in a week. Just going through a move and major home renovation right now. I don't even have a stereo setup right now :eek:
  25. Certainly no rush, I can work on soem other kits for now.

Share This Page