or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Large Ported Dayton HO18's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Large Ported Dayton HO18's - Page 23

post #661 of 999
Thread Starter 
I just wanted to let you guys know that I finally got my Marty Sub all dialed in and working properly. Turned out that on my Yamaha RX-V663 I had the sound mode in Standard, what ever that means, but when I switched the sound mode to direct, or straight, and adjusted the delay, it really came alive! I love this sub! It does take a bit to get used to what a good subwoofer with very little distortion sounds like, but, I am highly impressed! I am 90% done with my second Marty Sub, and will probably be purchasing some more drivers for an additional two MartySub. Right now, I have my single MartySub in a large room, but soon I will be moving into a smaller home, and my theater room for that house is only 10.6' by 10.8'. So needless to say, I seriously want to do 4 or more Marty Subs in that room!
post #662 of 999
Quote:
my theater room for that house is only 10.6' by 10.8'. So needless to say, I seriously want to do 4 or more Marty Subs in that room!

eek.gif LMAO... well of course you do. I got to tell you I’m just howling with laughter. biggrin.gif

Seriously though, Congrats on figuring out your problem. cool.gif
post #663 of 999
marty, that is so good to hear. many of us have been following your struggles to get it dialed in and were all hoping that you'd get it figured out. sounds like you have and are enjoying your project. :-)
post #664 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I just wanted to let you guys know that I finally got my Marty Sub all dialed in and working properly. Turned out that on my Yamaha RX-V663 I had the sound mode in Standard, what ever that means, but when I switched the sound mode to direct, or straight, and adjusted the delay, it really came alive! I love this sub! It does take a bit to get used to what a good subwoofer with very little distortion sounds like, but, I am highly impressed! I am 90% done with my second Marty Sub, and will probably be purchasing some more drivers for an additional two MartySub. Right now, I have my single MartySub in a large room, but soon I will be moving into a smaller home, and my theater room for that house is only 10.6' by 10.8'. So needless to say, I seriously want to do 4 or more Marty Subs in that room!

Enjoy!!!!!

biggrin.gif
post #665 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I just wanted to let you guys know that I finally got my Marty Sub all dialed in and working properly. Turned out that on my Yamaha RX-V663 I had the sound mode in Standard, what ever that means, but when I switched the sound mode to direct, or straight, and adjusted the delay, it really came alive! I love this sub! It does take a bit to get used to what a good subwoofer with very little distortion sounds like, but, I am highly impressed! I am 90% done with my second Marty Sub, and will probably be purchasing some more drivers for an additional two MartySub. Right now, I have my single MartySub in a large room, but soon I will be moving into a smaller home, and my theater room for that house is only 10.6' by 10.8'. So needless to say, I seriously want to do 4 or more Marty Subs in that room!

congrats. as someone who has a pair of them running I understand the desire to add 2 more biggrin.gif. I can't fit 2 more in there unfortunately so I'm gonna have to create sonosubs with the same dimensions for the listening area biggrin.gif
post #666 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by atabea View Post


Did I understand you correctly? Four Marty's in a 10 x 10 room? One Marty alone will overpower a room that size. Four will literally break it. Make sure you take out extra home insurance.

lol, for mine at least it's a ranch style 22x12 room with open doors to the the kitchen and alcove. so 4 isn't out of the question. but if Marty is puttting 4 of them in a 10x10 room... 0.0 !!!!!!
post #667 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I just wanted to let you guys know that I finally got my Marty Sub all dialed in and working properly. Turned out that on my Yamaha RX-V663 I had the sound mode in Standard, what ever that means, but when I switched the sound mode to direct, or straight, and adjusted the delay, it really came alive! I love this sub! It does take a bit to get used to what a good subwoofer with very little distortion sounds like, but, I am highly impressed! I am 90% done with my second Marty Sub, and will probably be purchasing some more drivers for an additional two MartySub. Right now, I have my single MartySub in a large room, but soon I will be moving into a smaller home, and my theater room for that house is only 10.6' by 10.8'. So needless to say, I seriously want to do 4 or more Marty Subs in that room!

I know in these parts there is no such thing as too much bass, but FOUR freakin Martys in a 10 x 10 room is insane! One alone is already too much for that room size. Just make sure you take out extra insurance. biggrin.gif
post #668 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by atabea View Post

I know in these parts there is no such thing as too much bass, but FOUR freakin Martys in a 10 x 10 room is insane! One alone is already too much for that room size. Just make sure you take out extra insurance. biggrin.gif
I'm currently working on a room to be a wine cellar that's 10x12 and I can't imagine putting 4 Marty's in that little room. Even one Marty would be pretty insane. I'm contemplating putting 2 in my 19.5 x 18' room and think it'll be overkill.

I'd like to hear his thoughts when he's drone, literally.
post #669 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post

I'm currently working on a room to be a wine cellar that's 10x12 and I can't imagine putting 4 Marty's in that little room. Even one Marty would be pretty insane. I'm contemplating putting 2 in my 19.5 x 18' room and think it'll be overkill.

I'd like to hear his thoughts when he's drone, literally.

If he survives, I too would like to hear his impressions. My room is around 14 x 30, which opens up about half way into an additional area about 15 x 12, and with the addition of my Marty, I have so much headroom that I could easily live with the way things are. When I read that some folks want to have quad Martys in 12 x 12 rooms, I have to wonder if I am missing something. I could, however, see two Martys in your room (351 sq ft vs 100 sq ft) though and that would still be a lot of woofage. I guess I better get on with building the other three I had originally planned.
post #670 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by atabea View Post

If he survives, I too would like to hear his impressions. My room is around 14 x 30, which opens up about half way into an additional area about 15 x 12, and with the addition of my Marty, I have so much headroom that I could easily live with the way things are. When I read that some folks want to have quad Martys in 12 x 12 rooms, I have to wonder if I am missing something. I could, however, see two Martys in your room (351 sq ft vs 100 sq ft) though and that would still be a lot of woofage. I guess I better get on with building the other three I had originally planned.

I have another room with a 2 dual opposed 15's and a Mal-21. Seems sufficient, but these Marty builds are intriguing.
post #671 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgwalsh View Post

I have another room with a 2 dual opposed 15's and a Mal-21. Seems sufficient, but these Marty builds are intriguing.

Damn, pg, you got some serious stuff going on!!
post #672 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalugadp View Post

For the eight longitudinal braces could you install them with small angle brackets. Would take 5 minutes with cordless .

No, the braces really must be glued to the panels to achieve the stiffness needed to prevent panel vibration.

I added a SketchUp drawing to show the proposed bracing layout. See post #657
post #673 of 999
That definitely makes it easier. If the uxl18 buy goes through I will be making a second mini-marty at around 8cuft. Will lose a couple of hz at the bottom but still impressive. I will use your bracing smile.gif
post #674 of 999
Cool!

There are some that suggest avoiding equal spacing to spread the panel modes across a narrow spectrum, vs having all the panels resonating at the same frequency. I suppose you could make a case for this, but I prefer to make the panels stiff enough to move the resonant points well outside the pass band of the speaker, thus eliminating panel resonance altogether.

With subs, this should be possible. cool.gif

Mike
post #675 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhutchins View Post

There are some that suggest avoiding equal spacing to spread the panel modes across a narrow spectrum, vs having all the panels resonating at the same frequency. I suppose you could make a case for this, but I prefer to make the panels stiff enough to move the resonant points well outside the pass band of the speaker, thus eliminating panel resonance altogether. With subs, this should be possible.
Possible, but not with longitudinal spline braces. Inch for inch, pound for pound, they're the least effective bracing method. Panel to panel cross bracing is no less than four times as effective, using 1/4 the material. Like so:



They're not as easy to install, but ease of installation should not be the primary concern.
post #676 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhutchins View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalugadp View Post

For the eight longitudinal braces could you install them with small angle brackets. Would take 5 minutes with cordless .

No, the braces really must be glued to the panels to achieve the stiffness needed to prevent panel vibration.

I added a SketchUp drawing to show the proposed bracing layout. See post #657

Do you own a lumberyard? ;-)

That's about the least efficient use of wood I've ever seen.

Like Bill says cross bracing is far more efficient. I disagree with him about the difficulty thing. I've retrofitted cross braces and benefited from massive increases in cabinet panel stiffness and reduced resonance without a lot of work in my estimation.

Dowels are good, but so are rough 2x2 sticks ripped from whatever solid wood is in the shop and long enough.

Just measure the required length, dry fit them, remove them, butter up the ends with good wood glue, polyurethane, or construction adhesive and gently wedge them into place. If you screw up and get a brace a little short, shims are your friends. Add screws driven from the outside if the cabinets aren't yet finished.
post #677 of 999
Quote:
They're not as easy to install, but ease of installation should not be the primary concern.

I dunno? I've used a different variety of bracing schemes and found the 2 X 2 method fairly easy albeit I don’t do a precise measure. I go a little over and then go back and forth to the table saw shaving a little off at a time. I do like to add a butterfly brace on the back though.
post #678 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Like Bill says cross bracing is far more efficient. I disagree with him about the difficulty thing. I've retrofitted cross braces and benefited from massive increases in cabinet panel stiffness and reduced resonance without a lot of work in my estimation.
Dowels are good, but so are rough 2x2 sticks ripped from whatever solid wood is in the shop and long enough.
Just measure the required length, dry fit them, remove them, butter up the ends with good wood glue, polyurethane, or construction adhesive and gently wedge them into place. If you screw up and get a brace a little short, shims are your friends.
I don't consider that difficult, but the average newbie does, especially compared to the simplicity of spline braces. BTW, 2x2 is massive overkill. 1x1 gives all the strength needed, and a 1x1 is 1/4 the weight, and volume, of a 2x2. When I see 2x2s used it's usually with spacing that's too wide, usually because the user thinks that the size of the brace is what's important, and it's not. The single most important factor is how closely spaced the braces are.
post #679 of 999
I saw a project a while back where the guy went with all cables for bracing. Some of you most likely saw it, that must have been a lot of work! I'll not say more regarding..
post #680 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve nn View Post

I saw a project a while back where the guy went with all cables for bracing. Some of you most likely saw it, that must have been a lot of work!
I don't see that. It would keep the panels from flexing out when the cone is on the in-stroke, but it wouldn't keep them from flexing in when the cone is on the out-stroke.
post #681 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Possible, but not with longitudinal spline braces. Inch for inch, pound for pound, they're the least effective bracing method. Panel to panel cross bracing is no less than four times as effective, using 1/4 the material. Like so:



They're not as easy to install, but ease of installation should not be the primary concern.


I appreciate your input , Bill, and I can't disagree with your statement about the benefits of cross bracing. In terms of spline braces as least effective, well, now I do take issue. There are plenty of engineering examples of beams using a T configuration, most commonly in highway bridges and parking garages. So I doubt that spline bracing, which is a form of T-brace, is as inefficient as you claim. Here are two examples of what I am trying to discourage through this discussion (my apologies to you if this is your build, While the bracing shown is plenty strong, it just uses a lot more wood and adds a lot more weight than is needed):





Also, the repeated baffle brace typically places the thickest material in the corners where it is least required, and the thinnest material in the middle of the panel where it is most required (again my apologies if this is your build):





No Arny, I don't own a lumber yard, but I do have to buy my wood from one, notably Home Depot ("HD"). Intuitively, it would seem that you are right, but if you actually do the math in terms of board feet of lumber, the cross bracing method with 2x2 vs 1x4 splines comes out to be nearly equal. If you look at the cost of 1" dowels at HD, cross bracing with dowels would cost 2-3x more than 1x4 splines. Likewise, 2x2 lumber cost nearly twice as much as 1x4 boards. The cheapest material is 2x4 studs, but making your cross braces out of 2x4 lumber would still cost more than 1x4 splines and would weigh twice as much. The only way to make less expensive cross bracing than 1x4 splines is to rip 2x4's into 2x2's.

But now we are getting into significant woodworking skills. It is not easy to rip cut a 2x4 with a circular saw. Nor is it easy to make a dozen or more precision cuts to get cross braces to perfectly fit between panels. The MartySub was conceived as a minimalist build in terms of woodworking skills, tools and build time. Ripping 2x4 lumber and making a few dozen cuts to exact dimensions is starting to move away from the essence of the MartySub, at least as I understood the project. Having said that, I admit that making a bunch of lap joints, and roundovers and other details of my build was a significant departure from a minimalist build, but all of that is optional for someone with limited circumstances (be it time, money, tools, skills, facilities or some combination) that still wants a kick ass sub that can really dig deep into the teens with lots of output.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with my comments or examples. My goal has been to stimulate discussion and get us all thinking about efficient bracing, and in the case of the MartySub, easy to build as well. I look forward to spring so I can open up the garage and do more building and less talking. . .wink.gif

Mike
post #682 of 999
I started to post the other day ( previous page) but then backed it out. I think your bracing is fine except I would add a couple 2 X 2’s vertical and horizontal in the middle. Dowel would be just fine also.
post #683 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

I don't see that. It would keep the panels from flexing out when the cone is on the in-stroke, but it wouldn't keep them from flexing in when the cone is on the out-stroke.

Buy yet that's what he did. smile.gif not this forum or I would not mention.
post #684 of 999
You could pretension the cables to bow the panels inward to reduce the movement during the negative pressure phase, but it still seems like a half solution... Eventually the wood will stretch and take a set and the benefit of pretensioning would be lost.
post #685 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhutchins View Post

I appreciate your input , Bill, and I can't disagree with your statement about the benefits of cross bracing. In terms of spline braces as least effective, well, now I do take issue. There are plenty of engineering examples of beams using a T configuration, most commonly in highway bridges and parking garages.
A speaker is unique, as the internal air pressure pushes all the panels simultaneously outward or pulls them all simultaneously inward. Panel to panel bracing takes advantage of that fact to give the most rigid possible structure with the least amount of material. The engineering with bridges and garages is completely different, because all of the forces applied go in one direction. The closest thing you'll find to a speaker cabinet is an aircraft, and they use cross bracing wherever possible, both to save weight and because it's the strongest construction method. One builder of my cabs remarked on how similar they were to what he designs at Boeing.
post #686 of 999
I agree about the aircraft comparisons. I have worked on high performance composite aircraft as well as a number of race cars constructed with both composites, aluminum monocoques and tube frame construction. They all work to maximize beam moment of inertia in their designs while absorbing load transients and minimizing weight. While it is true that the structural examples I mentioned are designed to accept loads in one direction, their stiffness is relatively reciprocal regardless whether the force is aligned with gravity or opposite. They all share the common theme of elements in tension and compression and the transfer of loads via a shear web to the opposite surface. Fortunately for us, our loads a small enough that an I-Beam is not needed and it is merely sufficient to increase the overall structure moment of inertia.

As I mentioned above, I agree with you that cross bracing is very efficient , especially in a structure where the panel forces are equal and opposite (unfortunately I was obtuse and used a double negative above...tongue.gif ). In this regard, speakers are quite unique. While reviewing many of the subwoofer projects in the master list, I came across a beautiful cross brace design. Unfortunately, the large radiused I-Beam component was the throw-away part of the stock:




Mike
post #687 of 999
I think I will stick with the way I did it before. Its faster and stronger then bills. Yes I do use more wood ... let me see at least 3 bucks worth. Might bankrupt me arnyk eek.gif
post #688 of 999
Is there a minimarty sub build??? I like the minimalist approach but do not have the room or need for something this big. I am only going to have about 24-28 inches of depth to put in a sub in my HT.
post #689 of 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claybe View Post

Is there a minimarty sub build??? I like the minimalist approach but do not have the room or need for something this big. I am only going to have about 24-28 inches of depth to put in a sub in my HT.
I think its called pocketsub.
post #690 of 999
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Large Ported Dayton HO18's