Tuba 18...oops

[Bbieger]

Hey gang,
I am in the middle of building a tuba18 for a friend of mine since he loved how my tuba HT sounds. At any rate, I am talking som artistic license and building the unit with legs and hardwood banding on the plywood.

The problem is that I goofed up reading my cut list and ended up making the sides of the tuba too small. They are 1-16" too short which I'm not really worried about, but they are 3/4 inch too narrow. If I construct it with the remaining internal baffles all the same size, the width of each "tunnel" or baffle..not sure of the correct name, will be 3/8 narrower.

I'm worried that the proportional increase in size between each successive baffle will be thrown off and it won't sound as good as it should.

I'm I over thinking it? What would you advise? I can't make another pair of sides, I already banded them and mounted the legs to them. Should I just decrease the width of all the internal baffles?

Any help would be appreciated.

[Bbieger]

50 some views and not a single idea?

[Bruce Weldy]

50 some views and not a single idea?

A little better explanation maybe? You've attached the legs to the sides? That sounds like something you attach to the bottom. So, you might not be getting responses because it's a little confusing.

If it is the sides you are talking about - you are saying the the height is 1/16 too short? If so, not a real problem. If the depth of the panel (front to back) is 3/4 too short, then you may have a problem. The design of Bill's boxes are such that the side panels are carved in stone (especially the depth). The width of the cabinet is variable. 1/16 here and there won't make too big a difference - but 3/4 is quite a bit.

Why not just add a 3/4 strip to the back? Cut off the banding, add a strip, then re-band it?

[sine143]

it really is a confusing explanation. pics woudl be helpful.

[Bbieger]

Thanks Bruce. That I what I was afraid of.
The side panels are where the problem lies. The depth (back to front) is where it is 3/4" too short. Sigh. I wish I had realized that the panels were cut to slim before I mounted the legs to them. Because I went with the widest design, I'm out of birch play.

The legs are actually not just mounted at the bottom. They will run full length from the top, and have a curved foot that extends outside the edge of the box. (Read lots of planning 4/4 stock, tedious pattern following router work, and biscuits.

I realize that I am probably coming across as a complete newb, but trust me, this thing will look terrific when I'm done with it. Such is the nature of wood working. It is indeed a subtractive art. Simple mistake not caught early. I'll find someway to correct it. Thanks for the info

[Bbieger]

Bear with me, I'll post pictures in a minute.

[Bbieger]

Here is a picture of the sides that I am talking about. Looking at the front of the sub, the width is fine, the height is only 1/16' too short but the depth of the sub (front to back) is 3/4" too narrow.

As you can see in the photo with the layout lines, I was using the original sizes of the internal parts.. but due to the fact that the panels are too narrow, the passage ways on the outer ring.. would be 3/8" too narrow on each side as the entire side piece is 3/4 too short.

My only thought is to reduce the size of all the internal components that establish the depth of the sub by 3/4"... those would be the horizontal layout lines in the photo.

Make sense?

The last photo is the media cabinet I made for the same friend. Different wood species (curly maple and bubbinga) as opposed to birch and sapelle on the sub. But I wanted to mimic the same style with the curved legs and opposing color woods.

Thanks for any input!!

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

My only thought is to reduce the size of all the internal components that establish the depth of the sub by 3/4"... those would be the horizontal layout lines in the photo.

Since the die is cast that's all you can do.

[Bbieger]

Thanks bill. You think that is going to really be a detriment to how the sub sounds? I realize that it's less than ideal and you can't imagine how angry at myself I am, but at this stage is it realy worth cutting the legs off, going to the hardwood store and starting all over?

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Thanks bill. You think that is going to really be a detriment to how the sub sounds? I realize that it's less than ideal and you can't imagine how angry at myself I am, but at this stage is it realy worth cutting the legs off, going to the hardwood store and starting all over?

Compensate for it by going as wide as you can.

[Bbieger]

Roger that. It's 17" wide, which was the widest recommended for a single driver.

I'll guess we will see

[Bruce Weldy]

Beautiful work....

If it doesn't sound good, just sit and look at it!

[Bill Fitzmaurice]

Roger that. It's 17" wide, which was the widest recommended for a single driver.

I'll guess we will see

If you haven't cut them yet add another inch.

[Tom Smit]

Would you be able to sand the "trim" flat with the panel, and then use part of the "trim" as your panel? I realize that it probably wasn't what you had intended, but, ..... being as it's a piece of art, changes happen along the way.

[Bbieger]

Hey Tom,
That was exactly the plan. The legs are actually flush with the other side of the panel.

I love building these things. I don't get to use my mammoth HOme theater tuba anymore as I moved out. It's huge and ugly as it sits behind the screen. Thinking of building one of the low profile ones and standing it on end in the corner. I don't like boxes though...thinking of how I could construct some kind of spiral out of veneer.