Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77

Thread: Altec Custom VOTT Somethings

  1. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Drugolf View Post
    So I am strongly considering building the new baffle to house only the 414's and associated ports within the cabinet. Then coming up with an attractive solution on top for the horn. Thouhgts?

    Also, the 414's were rear mounted. Do I want to do the same?
    I too would keep the horn separate & up on top.

    Doing so allows adjustment of the "Z" axis ensuring proper summation in the crossover region ( so says the theory > in practice one needs measurement equipment of some type to check the FR ) .

    Personally I prefer the look of woofers that are counter-sunk and mounted to the front of the baffle ( that's just my own bias mind-you ).

    OTOH, you might not have any choice in how you a-fix those older 414's ( I don't know if they can be mounted any other way but to the back of the baffle board ).



  2. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    Yeah, being able to play with that axis seemed like the smart move. plus the versatility of changing horns etc over time. Will likely keep the crossover out as well of course.

    Wit the new additional available surface area on the baffle, any thoughts on re-orientation of the 414's and ports within the now available larger baffle area? Keep the same design and just slide them up a bit to center them?

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Drugolf View Post
    Yeah, being able to play with that axis seemed like the smart move. plus the versatility of changing horns etc over time. Will likely keep the crossover out as well of course.

    Wit the new additional available surface area on the baffle, any thoughts on re-orientation of the 414's and ports within the now available larger baffle area? Keep the same design and just slide them up a bit to center them?
    I'll ponder all that & offer an opinion later ( before the 24hr editing limit is reached ).


  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Earl K View Post
    I'll ponder all that & offer an opinion later ( before the 24hr editing limit is reached ).

    Well that didn't work as planned .

    I happen to like the existing look ( FWIW ).

    Anyways, the challenge as I see it is making twin twelves look good & balanced (fengshui ) within such a large baffle face.



    You'll get better response transitioning ( in the crossover region ) with the top twelve closer ( within 6" ) of the bottom of the horn.

    Moving the bottom woofer in lock step then creates a huge area underneath ( where the ports can exist, of course ) that needs to be filled with something.

    FWIW, I like the look of the diagonally staggered twelves > so I would keep that look personally.

    One can argue ( endlessly it seems ) about the impact on "imaging" from this staggered type arrangement ( but unless one is willing include & maybe go to an MTM arrangement then I feel the debate is wasted breath ).


  5. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    I will whip up a few versions in AutoCAD and see what they would look like.

  6. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    Still working on the new surrounds. Been too cold to go out in the garage to use the MEK. I just picked up a new heater for out there so maybe I will now be able to make some progress on them. So far they are tough buggers. Getting the old gasket off has been the most difficult one I have ever had the displeasure doing.

    Meanwhile I messed around a bit on AutoCAD with layouts and all for these which in the end will be easy to do in whatever fashion makes the most sense. But upon further study of the Malibu and Carmels that Earl hinted the 414's were used in pairs in originally my guess is that these were used in Carmels except for teh fact that thes are 802D and not the 806. I like the low boy look of the Carmels, but man they take up a lot of space and don't get the horn up into the desired plane. The Malibus make sense and could be dressed up a bit more from a cabinet design standpoint if so desired.

    Will need to study a bit more the design and whatever pros and cons that have been determined about them over time. Like is that cabinet got enough volume? In the end, maybe the Malibu makes sense as a template for a rebuild. (oddly it isn't ported)

  7. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,115
    Yes, ultimately my Carmel’s dimensions were a PITA, which was the driving factor in stripping out the components for re-use.

    I’ve always thought the Malibu was far more elegant and very attractive. If I was any good at woodworking that’s what I would build, only make the cabinet a proper T/S vented box and include some offset for the 811 along the lines of the 846B Valencia.

  8. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    I just purchased a set of Emilar EH-800A horns. What do you think about swapping in these for the 811's? As far as current driver options I have the 802D's (16ohm).

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    Name:  411 x 2 sealed.jpg
Views: 188
Size:  89.2 KB

  10. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,115
    Quote Originally Posted by Drugolf View Post
    I just purchased a set of Emilar EH-800A horns. What do you think about swapping in these for the 811's? As far as current driver options I have the 802D's (16ohm).
    1. I’m not familiar with them.
    2. With the latest GPA driver, I have no problem using the 811.

  11. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Drugolf View Post
    Name:  411 x 2 sealed.jpg
Views: 188
Size:  89.2 KB
    Oops, I posted this in another thread too but probably should go here as a follow-up.

    SO here is my initial Winisd graph for a Malibu configuration box. There are two of the 411A woofers and using the plans it appears that the cabinet volume is 7.5 Cf. I took that down to 6.8 for loss for bracing drivers etc.

    Sealed box. .707 Max Flat amplitude response alignment.

    Does this appear as it should? What is it telling me?

    Truthfully, I can not make either model of woofer ( 411 or 414 ) produce such a shallow curve like you're showing here ( in a 6.8cu' closed box ).

    How about posting the ( .wpr ) file so that others can see what you are up to?

    - Zip it first .


  12. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    not sure what .wpr is, but if you are wanting to see what I ended up with in terms of parameters entered, here is this:
    Name:  411 Parameters.PNG
Views: 188
Size:  17.4 KB
    Name:  411 Parameters adv.PNG
Views: 188
Size:  8.5 KB

  13. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Richmond Hill, Ont.
    Posts
    4,682
    Vas ( for the 411-8a ) is 31.76 cu' ( not litres, like you have entered ).

  14. #59
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    15
    Drugolf,

    As a Malibu owner I read this thread: http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...-Altec-9844-8B

    I was under the impression that the 802 was closer to the 902, or at least is "better" than the 806a.

    Testing the 902/info is detailed in that thread.

  15. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    93
    Ah yes, good catch. Thought I got all those.

    Adjusted accordingly and here is the new graph. Blue is sealed at 6.5 Cf volume. Green is one 4" port .33 long. also adjusted QL to 7.00 from 10.00 Tuning Freq on the green vented line I adjusted to 40 (see I remember Earl).

    Something I need to look into as a side note here pertaining to the Malibu box, it appears the cut-out for the horn is wider than the horn thus leaving a couple narrow openings each side of the horn. Is this then considered the way they vented the speaker within the design?

    Name:  411 Malibu options.jpg
Views: 197
Size:  91.5 KB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Altec VOTT identify
    By retro soulman in forum Lansing Product General Information
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2015, 11:35 PM
  2. DIY Altec VOTT cabinets ?
    By ITcity in forum Lansing Product DIY Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 04:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •