That seems like a confusing way of looking at the problem. I tend to work with physical dimensions and tuning frequency. That seems logical to me. But if that rational works for you ......
The TQWT is more efficient at transmitting bass and damping the standing waves as a result of the larger open end area. The larger open end area will generate an acoustic impedance that has a bigger resistive component so more energy will be extracted from the standing wave and transmitted into the room. The reflections back into the pipe will be lowered so the peaks in the response will be attenuated. If you look in one of the attachments to my alignment tables, you will see a study of TL shape and the output for each. The downside is that the strong pipe output will be difficult to control in the midrange. If you continue to increase the open end area, it will eventually become horn loading.[/QUOTE]
I have never tried this approach. I have not reconfigured my worksheets to simulate this geometry or seriously thought about designing and building such a configuration. I guess it would work but the complexity in design and building a system would be higher.
And whats your view about the Karlson phenomenon ?
http://home.planet.nl/~ulfman/theory.htm
Can be used somehow for TL-s ?
http://home.planet.nl/~ulfman/theory.htm
Can be used somehow for TL-s ?
I also think the GM:s MLTL 48"with jx92s sound really great.
I finished my new speakers few weeks ago, and want to thank the mastermind of this design ,as well as everyone who has built these beautifully sounding speakers and recomended them.
In next days I may try them with BSC.Needed to adjust the tone buttons of amplifier to treble -4db bass +4db in order to make the sound deacent.Also adjusted the toe in as much as possible.
The birch plywood was recomended for the enclosures.Anyway I decided to use the materials easily found from the local store.The walls are made with 16mm MDF and 10mm hardwood glued together,except the back wall that is made with 2x 16mm MDF(there is a picture of them in the full range photo gallery).
At first I was going to make the Konus Essence clones (they look very nice)or mini monitors.Always when listening the bass coming out from these enclosures I'm sure I made the right decision.
Once more.....they sound really great for the money
I finished my new speakers few weeks ago, and want to thank the mastermind of this design ,as well as everyone who has built these beautifully sounding speakers and recomended them.
In next days I may try them with BSC.Needed to adjust the tone buttons of amplifier to treble -4db bass +4db in order to make the sound deacent.Also adjusted the toe in as much as possible.
The birch plywood was recomended for the enclosures.Anyway I decided to use the materials easily found from the local store.The walls are made with 16mm MDF and 10mm hardwood glued together,except the back wall that is made with 2x 16mm MDF(there is a picture of them in the full range photo gallery).
At first I was going to make the Konus Essence clones (they look very nice)or mini monitors.Always when listening the bass coming out from these enclosures I'm sure I made the right decision.
Once more.....they sound really great for the money
At first I was going to make the Konus Essence clones (they look very nice)or mini monitors.Always when listening the bass coming out from these enclosures I'm sure I made the right decision.
Once more.....they sound really great for the money
I think they sound really great full stop! I went to a demo of some very expensive Linn speakers a while ago and they went loud, they were very detailed ... but they didn't have the musical quality of GM's design, in my opinion.
BTW, I've heard the VTL (the Konus prototype) and I think the MLTL gives a richer and more satisfying bass. Experiment with location - using them against or near a wall you may find you don't need BSC.
Colin
PS Hello to GM.
I have thought of trying to add a AC G2Si to my MLTL48 JX92. I probably will try it with Jim Griffins crossover if there's no reason not to. Any reason why I should forget this idea?
I already have two sets of binding posts with them, so I could have the others with the 2-way design and the others with the JX92 only.
I already have two sets of binding posts with them, so I could have the others with the 2-way design and the others with the JX92 only.
I've beefed on elsewhere about the reasons for not adding a tweeter to the JX92 but I guess it's a matter of taste. For example, I thought the Linns i listened to had a very finely etched quality to the HF, extremely detailed but a bit like trying to read in a searchlight. As an experiment, I tried adding a JX53 to my MLTLs. The 53s were crossed at 500Hz, first order, and the JX92 rolled off at the same point. Although the sound was smoother, I felt it lost the depth of imaging and seamlessness of using one unit on its own. A higher order crossover might have had a different result, as I could hear the JX92 three octaves up when I tried it without the 53 but with the LF inductor still in place.
No disrespect intended to anyone here but I sometimes wonder if the hifi industry hasn't distorted our thinking about what we should be able to hear from our speakers, amps, etc. (Discuss, do not write on more than one side of the paper, etc.)
No disrespect intended to anyone here but I sometimes wonder if the hifi industry hasn't distorted our thinking about what we should be able to hear from our speakers, amps, etc. (Discuss, do not write on more than one side of the paper, etc.)
Colin said:
Greets!
I imagine the Linn's are much more accurate, so comparing them to my original (short) ML-TL design would be a more fair comparison. The longer pipe may sound more 'musical' due to its 'coloring' the reproduction, but it's just euphonic distortion, much like what you get from a vintage design tube amp, so powering them with an early '60s RCA SET pre/60W amp recording studio combo should be tantamount to having a morphine drip at your disposal.
GM
Landroval said:
Greets!
It depends on your HF hearing acuity and/or need for a wider listening 'sweet spot' than the Jordan can provide on its own. JG had these at the last Atlanta DIY Meet and unfortunately I missed their audition, but they were the hit of the Meet and from a technical POV, a ~decent driver match.
Only one way to know for sure, so hopefully you'll try it, compare, and report back to us.
GM
GM said:
Hi,
Thanks for advice. Maybe I will.
Basically I feel that the upper end of the JX92 is not clean enough. It doesn't have the sparkle of a real tweeter, nor is it smooth enough for my ears. I'm going to give them a chance to prove me wrong though. I moved them to a bigger room, where I can position them more freely and toe in more.
Colin said:
Greets!
For sure, there's a fine line between great HF reproduction and just plain unreal. This subject is impacted by virtually all of the signal chain and of course our hearing acuity at various times in our lives, general health, etc., so no 'one size fits all' solution unfortunatel, though some solutions come very close IMO.
With XOs in the lower mids and/or 1st order, keeping timing errors low are essential to a coherent soundstage due to our head's transfer function causing us to be more phase sensitive in the ~200-2 kHz BW and amplitude errors higher up, so I believe if you accounted for the XO's effect on these, they would sound as 'seamless' as the JX92S by itself.
WRT any industry influence, be it mass marketing or 'HI-FI', they're just trying to make a living in a highly competitive market, so they pander to the ~80% of the buying public that doesn't want any of the responsibility required to determining what is the best products for their intended app, and since we are amplitude oriented animals both aurally and visually, whatever initially 'grabs' our full, yet fleeting, attention for whatever reason is the 'no-brainer' choice if we can afford it.
GM
Hi GM
Yes, agree that my comparison was very quick and dirty. I'll try again when the new version of the JX53 is available and the crossover can drop to the 150Hz region.
I have used conventional tweeter/bass speakers, including a Scanspeak/Elac TL and whereas they sounded clear and open, they lacked the feel of the JX92, where acoustic music seems to hang in the air between the speakers.
Not so sure about the accuracy of the Linns. It seemed to me that they went too strongly the other direction, but then I'm more of a Naim user and their electronics are renowned for tweaking their response slightly. FWIW, the Linns were set up on a stage, with ideal positioning but I didn't think they imaged particularly well. However, I appreciate they are in a marketplace and know their competition ...
Yes, agree that my comparison was very quick and dirty. I'll try again when the new version of the JX53 is available and the crossover can drop to the 150Hz region.
I have used conventional tweeter/bass speakers, including a Scanspeak/Elac TL and whereas they sounded clear and open, they lacked the feel of the JX92, where acoustic music seems to hang in the air between the speakers.
Not so sure about the accuracy of the Linns. It seemed to me that they went too strongly the other direction, but then I'm more of a Naim user and their electronics are renowned for tweaking their response slightly. FWIW, the Linns were set up on a stage, with ideal positioning but I didn't think they imaged particularly well. However, I appreciate they are in a marketplace and know their competition ...
Greets!
Can't comment on recent Linns, but the '80s models I auditioned were very 'dry' sounding, i.e. very low harmonic distortion, a hallmark of certain aspects of accurate reproduction, though like the vast majority of multi-driver designs they had timing errors that degrade imaging/soundstaging, so in this respect any decent 'FR' driver would clearly best them.
GM
Can't comment on recent Linns, but the '80s models I auditioned were very 'dry' sounding, i.e. very low harmonic distortion, a hallmark of certain aspects of accurate reproduction, though like the vast majority of multi-driver designs they had timing errors that degrade imaging/soundstaging, so in this respect any decent 'FR' driver would clearly best them.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.