Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share you ideas and experiences.
61.18.170.208
Hi Robert and others,
I have been enjoying my Prometheus MKI kit set for more than 3 years. It is still siting on the prototype baffle/woofer cabinet constructed in accordance with the instruction manual but using glimsy/low quality plywood without finishing.
It is time to upgrade the baffle and woofer enclosure but I have the following questions on the choice in baffle size/shape & woofer configuration.
1. Is there any advantages using a round baffle(like the one for the Apollo) over the rectangular baffle shown in the manual for the fullrange unit? Any plane/dimension for the round baffle?
2. Is separating the bass unit from the main baffle has sonic advantages.
3. I intend to use a slighlightly wider baffle (380mm width. Is it O.K.
4. Is it worthy to upgrade the capacitor for the tweeter? Intend to use either Jupiter or Mundorf supreme for both the 1u cap and the small bypass cap.
Thanks
Follow Ups:
Hi Andy,
1) There is no technical advantage using round baffles, only the special look. The original Apollo baffle design is protected and not available for diy but there is a number of "Apollo look alike" Prometheus out there.
2) When you use a good and stable platter for the baffle the separation of woofers has minor influence in sound.
3)You can make the baffles up to 60cm wide without negative effects.
4)Upgrading the caps is a big step when your electronics is on a high level. There are also new 1 Mf Bastanis caps available which are included in the kits with the Airforce/Gemini tweeters. They are available separately, when you are interested please mail me. The official introduction of these caps will be later this year in springtime.
Answers the other questions from your additional post:
The flare isn`t needed when the baffle thickness is up to around 22mm. Most customers use thicker baffles, here the straight "step" before the wideband may not become too big and you need a flare. Beside the technical aspects the look of flared cut- outs for the widebands is much better.
I don`t recommend smaller cut out diameters for the widebands, there are too much back- reflexions and when the dimension of the cut out becomes smaller than the radiating surface of the cones this results new resonances. Straight partitions, covering the suspension on the sides of the cut out are fine and they doesn`t generate additional problems.
Regards
Robert Bastani
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your advices.
I have two more questions before I can decide on my new baffle cabinet:
1. I intend to use 18mm~20mm thick baffle (limited material choice). I was told that at the opening, I need to keep 10mm thick without flare. Is it correct?
2. I intend to construct a small baffle ("L" shape viewing from side) sitting on the base unit. Will this has adverse effect?
Thanks
Andy
Hi Andy,
the "10mm min. step" before the widebands is integral part of the design, the drivers need it for proper dispersion.
A "short" L- shape baffle is fine, the height of the upper end of the widebands should have ear level at listening position.
Regards
Robert Bastani
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your advices.
Andy
One more question. I remember that the hole at the baffle for the fullrange unit should have tappered/flared edges. How important is this?
I have also read from some place that the spider of the fullrange unit should be covered by the baffle. In this case the diameter of the hole would be smaller than 270mm recommended in the manual. Is this correct?
Thanks
Andy
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: