60 Degree DIY Mid Hi

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Thanks David, as you suggsested & i found it.
that's a big saving on the costing chap🤗.
for any one else that missed it like me it's page 38 post 741
i took a look at the cad file & it is majorly different to Peter's PM 60.
It looks like the PM 90 to me less measurements.
i think it's a no go,
back to the £160 prospect i guess😭.
 

Fabio Sant

New member
Mar 2, 2019
6
0
1
53
Italia
Hi Roger, the cad file is a "universal" version, You need only to modify the horn baffle to switch from PM90 to PM60 project.
 

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Fabio if you look at the 2 drawings you will note major differences to the rear portion of the box allowing tighter arraying less weight amongst a few other things, essentially they are different boxes.
 

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Thanks Carl i've emailed them.
I was also wondering how well they would marry with Ricci's Skram with B&C 21DS115-4 if i go with the B & C 12NDL76
 
Last edited:

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
They won't convert the drawing.
Thank you for the suggestion all the same Carl.
worsed thing is i'm running out of time and need to sort out a pair of boxes soon so it looks like i gotta go waist money on something inferier :rolleyes:
Not the espected outcome from this learning curve Oh well so much for wishfull thinking and wish the best for all who managed this brilliant project.
 

Fabio Sant

New member
Mar 2, 2019
6
0
1
53
Italia
They won't convert the drawing.
Thank you for the suggestion all the same Carl.
worsed thing is i'm running out of time and need to sort out a pair of boxes soon so it looks like i gotta go waist money on something inferier :rolleyes:
Not the espected outcome from this learning curve Oh well so much for wishfull thinking and wish the best for all who managed this brilliant project.
Hi Roger, If you are referring to this pdf
Maybe You can ask sketchup files directly to Don by PM
 

Rhys Edwards

New member
Jul 12, 2018
2
0
1
Australia
Fabio if you look at the 2 drawings you will note major differences to the rear portion of the box allowing tighter arraying less weight amongst a few other things, essentially they are different boxes.
Hi Roger,

I've been keeping track of this thread for a while and as far as i can tell Fabio is correct that the PM90 design including the dwg cad file is essentially the same as this 60 degree version. Earlier on the thread Peter mentions he cuts the corners off after finishing the build for aesthetics and a tiny weight loss and has no functional change on the sound or build process and is not essential.

Re: 60 Degree DIY Mid Hi
Just to be difficult I cut the back corners off the latest version - I makes the box look smaller and much less DIY
Re: 60 Degree DIY Mid Hi
I cut 80mm (back) x 95mm(side) off, then added a bit of 12mm ply over the corner. - it saves about 1kg.

Max who provided the drawings mentions the only change between the design is indeed the waveguide cutout to convert between the two designs.

Mark,
  • The only modification needed to make this box work with the 60 degree horn is a different cutout on the front baffle. The 4594 will still fit, though it will certainly be a tight fit! While not shown in my drawings, this design would also easily support interchangeable horns. I'd probably just add a small outside ring of bracing around the edge of the horn baffle, and use t-nuts or something better to clamp the horn down. Just some ideas.
 

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Rhys I know you are just trying to help however, please go look at the cutting list for both & you will see the 60 box is made up of two parts for the side panels then the top & bottom are also different to the 90's, not something you can cut off later, but built into the box.
please stop referring to suggestions made during the development thread that I too followed rather than the factual drawings with reference to my comments as it could lead to a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the finished product & just repeat the development thread rather than assist me in finding a means of obtaining the type of drawing that will allow me to build the box I am interested in & I have no intentions of trying to redesign this masterpiece.
yes the horns will fit both but the boxes are different.
the 60's sit tighter together when arrayed because of it. look, look, look again carefully at both rear sections, the changes at the trap section make the box just a little smaller, lighter & sexier too, things I am not willing to give up when I provide a service for a paying customer.
if they were the same box the only drawing that would have been needed for the 60's would be the front baffle.

part of what I am working on is to do with the total width of the boxes plus bass besides them sub below, so wavelength frequency and cancelation are all being taken into account when I get so fussy with my choices.
If I intended to use 1 per side then I'd just go with the 90's design but I intend 2 per side plus bass and sub.
but please don't stop making suggestions cause all the above clarification might help others in there choices.
 

Don J Davis

Sophomore
Jan 17, 2011
191
6
18
Orange County, CA
Rhys I know you are just trying to help however, please go look at the cutting list for both & you will see the 60 box is made up of two parts for the side panels then the top & bottom are also different to the 90's, not something you can cut off later, but built into the box.
please stop referring to suggestions made during the development thread that I too followed rather than the factual drawings with reference to my comments as it could lead to a misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the finished product & just repeat the development thread rather than assist me in finding a means of obtaining the type of drawing that will allow me to build the box I am interested in & I have no intentions of trying to redesign this masterpiece.
yes the horns will fit both but the boxes are different.
the 60's sit tighter together when arrayed because of it. look, look, look again carefully at both rear sections, the changes at the trap section make the box just a little smaller, lighter & sexier too, things I am not willing to give up when I provide a service for a paying customer.
if they were the same box the only drawing that would have been needed for the 60's would be the front baffle.

part of what I am working on is to do with the total width of the boxes plus bass besides them sub below, so wavelength frequency and cancelation are all being taken into account when I get so fussy with my choices.
If I intended to use 1 per side then I'd just go with the 90's design but I intend 2 per side plus bass and sub.
but please don't stop making suggestions cause all the above clarification might help others in there choices.
I can't speak for Max's drawing but my 60 deg and 90 boxes are the same size the difference being the cut out for the horn. I chose to cut off the back corners for the reasons Peter did, looks. That small of a cut off doesn't make a big difference for arraying them. You can't make the cut off any bigger or you will hit the 12" drivers. When I built the 60's I actually built the cut off corners into the box as my drawings showed I believe. When I built the 90s I built the boxes square and used a saw to cut off the corners then fitted a panel over the opening. Again Peter's method which was way easier than my first builds.
My boxes where cut and built by hand. My drawings were never set up for CNC like Max's. His drawings took the design to the next level.
Hope this helps.
Don
 

Jim dee

Freshman
Jul 12, 2015
25
1
3
New Zealand.
Any design iteration in the two threads can have the back corners angled.... just cut them off(this was not documented in any of the plans AFAIR)...... it doesn't effect horn length or path continuity ...... Essentially all iterations of the box in the two threads will come to the same great results. To my mind anybody that actually seriously wants to spend the coin and build some of these and has read the threads shouldn't need this spelt out..... it should be understood?
 

Attachments

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Don that does help me to understand how things metamorphosed, and I thank you sir all your help on both projects.
It is Max's new level I seek to attain but not easy without my tooling anymore.

I lost £70,000 in woodwork & metalwork tooling when a neighbouring fire burnt down some of the parade of workshops.
Also lost the PA system, fibreglass 2x15 bass cabs with tops coaxially mounted, community m4's, Servodrive BT7s, processing desks, amps, etc. all gone.
some of it I probably won't get back even with the insurance.
I have decided to go with a completely different design till I get things right for cnc cutting.




Any design iteration in the two threads can have the back corners angled.... just cut them off(this was not documented in any of the plans AFAIR)...... it doesn't effect horn length or path continuity ...... Essentially all iterations of the box in the two threads will come to the same great results. To my mind anybody that actually seriously wants to spend the coin and build some of these and has read the threads shouldn't need this spelt out..... it should be understood?
Really? I should read the thread where ideas developed and changed and ignore the finished drawing like you.
let me spell it out for you.
check page 3 of the pdf...Go look.. No? just want to condescend? ok I'll hand it to you on a plate then.

208929

you could cut off the top and bottom corners yes, but how does that work for cutting the two sides to create the pdf based box in the 60deg thread.
stop being so condescending and actually go look at the 2 drawings. then and only then tell me I don't understand and have more money than sense albeit in different words, and that the boxes are not different at the sides.
tell me the boxes are only different at that baffle and ignore my previous observations with Rhys.
lol--not.
 

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
If there is someone that would be kind enough help me attain CAD files that would be exeptable for CNC please feel free to contact me.
though it might cost me to draught them I intend to make the drawings public in the thread as mentioned to Peter.

P.S. this is what I consider as helpful input

and carl those guys you suggested are all ready to go with it when they have a CAD file, so thank you big time.
In the words of Rock and roll's unforgettable Les Clifford R.I.P. snore loudly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Klinkenborg

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Rhys thanks for the PM, you were looking for the pdf.
try the link marked PM 60 below

PM 60

I believe you could cut off the back corners off top and bottom without issue.
the sides are not cut off but they do change angle towards the back just cutting them off would leave gaping spaces either side of the box as you see in Jim D's picture above.
If you have tooling you could do this to the PM90 or 60's & add a piece there, 90's have a CAD drawing to go with however you could get those sides cnc cut if you have a CAD file with redone sides(If that is the right turn of phrase.
 
Last edited:

Rhys Edwards

New member
Jul 12, 2018
2
0
1
Australia
Roger, actually i was asking for a link to the forum post because i could not remember when that PDF was shared.

Anyway i found it, first page of the thread from 2015 making that version of the design over 4 years old now confirming exactly what i was thinking, that you are really entirely wrong on this and you are looking at a very old early draft.
Also worth noting the PDF you are talking about was drawn & shared by Don J Davis, who just a few posts ago is also telling you that max's version is the current one.

The version that max shared (with cad file already) is indeed several years newer and the current working version as already built by several people without issue. Won't be disagreeing with you on this any more as it seems you may have your mind made up already.
 
Oct 25, 2018
37
2
8
57
Bideford, Devon. UK
and carl those guys you suggested are all ready to go with it when they have a CAD file, so thank you big time.
Glad to hear it Roger; I have known them for many years but have not yet used them - let me know how you get on. They are basically a really friendly and clued-up father-and-son team whose main business is selling CNC routing machines and parts. Good luck.

Cheers, Carl.

PS. If it's any help, I travel the M5/M4/M25/A303 'triangle' so could perhaps assist in delivery to save you a penny.
 

Roger Stapleton

New member
May 7, 2019
29
4
3
London
Thanks again Carl that’s good to know.
Just got to get the angled sides plus top and bottom into the drawing.
Alternatively i go with the PM 90 CAD for CNC and have a local woodwork shop alter it to the same end but with the extra bracing.
Not ideal but possibly a beneficial compromise.
Rhys thank you for pointing out the creation time differences between the drawings as I believed the 60 thread and drawings were the latest.
I noted the differences and benefits and wish i had the skills to add the side, top & bottom differences to the CAD for CNC, even better would be if i had just missed it in the drawing but again thank you for the clarification.
A lot of thought, time & group attention went into this box so i would just like to show it & all involved the respect to get the best iteration of it i can, if possible as a flatpack without the need to alter it.