Hello there,
Im after a speaker design that is well suited to be being played quietly.
Ive found, in the past, that a lot of speakers only function at their best past a certain volume level, and when the volume is lowered, they simply dont sound as clear.
Im not even keen on higher volume levels, and at the moment have particularly crazy neighbours as well, who are fond of complaining, so im after somthing that will still allow me to hear all the detail within the music, but at a low volume level.
A freind suggested that i may get some good advice here.
Thankyou, Julian
Im after a speaker design that is well suited to be being played quietly.
Ive found, in the past, that a lot of speakers only function at their best past a certain volume level, and when the volume is lowered, they simply dont sound as clear.
Im not even keen on higher volume levels, and at the moment have particularly crazy neighbours as well, who are fond of complaining, so im after somthing that will still allow me to hear all the detail within the music, but at a low volume level.
A freind suggested that i may get some good advice here.
Thankyou, Julian
I'm in the same boat - minus the complaints - and for me the Jordan JX25s is an exceptional low level performer. Mine are currently driven by 3 watts of SET. My only caution would be to consider the cabinet alignment carefully. Jordans are capable of surprisingly deep LF extension in the proper cabinet (think MLTL), which could work against keep the neighbours happy. Perhaps one of the Jim Griffin designs?
Im having dificulty finding anything on the jx25s. JX53 and JX92S i can find...
You mention "MLTL" - I must warn you that im not that familiar with speakers, so...
System is, at present, audiolab 8000q/p amps, arcam delta cd/dac, rega p3.
I realise that amp/speaker pairing is important, and may well not keep with the audiolabs.
Thankyou, Julian
You mention "MLTL" - I must warn you that im not that familiar with speakers, so...
System is, at present, audiolab 8000q/p amps, arcam delta cd/dac, rega p3.
I realise that amp/speaker pairing is important, and may well not keep with the audiolabs.
Thankyou, Julian
Sorry, jx92s. My bad, posted from work, too many phones they ring.
An MLTL is a mass loaded transmission line. Member GM has the most popular and highly regarded designs for that driver on this forum. The driver doesn't dip below 4.5 ohms and should present a fairly innocous load to the Audiolab. One warning, to my ear they start off abrasive with a very long break in and are at all times ruthlessly revealing of the sources ahead of them.
For more mass loaded TL theory detail, check:
www.quarter-wave.com
An MLTL is a mass loaded transmission line. Member GM has the most popular and highly regarded designs for that driver on this forum. The driver doesn't dip below 4.5 ohms and should present a fairly innocous load to the Audiolab. One warning, to my ear they start off abrasive with a very long break in and are at all times ruthlessly revealing of the sources ahead of them.
For more mass loaded TL theory detail, check:
www.quarter-wave.com
Low level listening
I think you’re right about the amp being important. I would think a nice valve amp would sound more detailed at lower listening volumes especially with a fostex 206. I’ve been noticing an interesting phenomenon when listening to sacd disks and that is I’m actually standing up and lowering the volume! I think it has something to do with the clarity of the recordings in super audio, but I seem to be listening to the sacd at half the volume of a cd (the output rating is about the same for cd and sacd). Clarity of the whole setup is important to reduce listening levels in my humble opinion.
I think you’re right about the amp being important. I would think a nice valve amp would sound more detailed at lower listening volumes especially with a fostex 206. I’ve been noticing an interesting phenomenon when listening to sacd disks and that is I’m actually standing up and lowering the volume! I think it has something to do with the clarity of the recordings in super audio, but I seem to be listening to the sacd at half the volume of a cd (the output rating is about the same for cd and sacd). Clarity of the whole setup is important to reduce listening levels in my humble opinion.
I agree with the above.
For a highly detailed, musical presentation at lower volumes, look no further than GM's MLTL. I have now built two pairs, the second with the Aurum Cantus ribbon on the top, and I went the length of using 1" birch ply for the cabinets. It paid immediate dividends. This TL design yields surprising bass response.
I am using a 6 watt battery powered Tripath amp, the ClariT from Red Wine Audio, and this little set up is one of the best I have heard yet. Heard, built, owned plenty. Add a battery powered non oversampling DAC, and the Jordans will love you for it.
For a highly detailed, musical presentation at lower volumes, look no further than GM's MLTL. I have now built two pairs, the second with the Aurum Cantus ribbon on the top, and I went the length of using 1" birch ply for the cabinets. It paid immediate dividends. This TL design yields surprising bass response.
I am using a 6 watt battery powered Tripath amp, the ClariT from Red Wine Audio, and this little set up is one of the best I have heard yet. Heard, built, owned plenty. Add a battery powered non oversampling DAC, and the Jordans will love you for it.
low level detail
If you've got the floor space to achieve boundary loading, I can strongly recommend the Buschorn MKII with any of the FE103 variants ( including the vintage Foster alnicos) or if budget permits the FE108E Sigma. Following close behind would be bipole MLTL design with FE103 or FE127E (don't forget the phase plugs)
From my brief audition on my horns, a GC amp would provide wonderfully tight and extended bass, although definitely not the creamy and transparent midrange of a tube pre/SET amp rig.
The Sigma drivers particularly excel at detail, clean midbass articulation and soundstaging, even at levels below the limits of my cheapie RS digital meter. Much of my late evening mellowing out to KPLU (NPR Jazz/Blues) is done at under 70dB SPL. Of course, without active "loudness compensation" human hearing is not as "linear" as at 90dB, so the bass can't help but sound more "implied" than explict, regardless of the electronics involved.
If you've got the floor space to achieve boundary loading, I can strongly recommend the Buschorn MKII with any of the FE103 variants ( including the vintage Foster alnicos) or if budget permits the FE108E Sigma. Following close behind would be bipole MLTL design with FE103 or FE127E (don't forget the phase plugs)
From my brief audition on my horns, a GC amp would provide wonderfully tight and extended bass, although definitely not the creamy and transparent midrange of a tube pre/SET amp rig.
The Sigma drivers particularly excel at detail, clean midbass articulation and soundstaging, even at levels below the limits of my cheapie RS digital meter. Much of my late evening mellowing out to KPLU (NPR Jazz/Blues) is done at under 70dB SPL. Of course, without active "loudness compensation" human hearing is not as "linear" as at 90dB, so the bass can't help but sound more "implied" than explict, regardless of the electronics involved.
crossing my fingers
Well, while waiting for the FE127's to fully break-in , Dave is helping me optimize the Frugal-phile horn. (aren't you Dave?)
It will certainly be modified enough both geometrically and cosmetically to merit a new name, but we should let the designer decide that.
To answer your question, the challenge will be to achieve both in the same design.
and yes, the B-Horn is quite a sleeper, particularly with the Sigma driver
dmason said:
Well, while waiting for the FE127's to fully break-in , Dave is helping me optimize the Frugal-phile horn. (aren't you Dave?)
It will certainly be modified enough both geometrically and cosmetically to merit a new name, but we should let the designer decide that.
To answer your question, the challenge will be to achieve both in the same design.
and yes, the B-Horn is quite a sleeper, particularly with the Sigma driver
ChrisB,
Dave suggested awhile back the 16cm cone might be compromised in the treble. I have a pair of 168Sigs with loads of mileage on them, they go thru a rather unusually long break in, combined with an even more unusual morphing of the sonic signature, but I can tell you, (as can TC,) that they are in no way compromised, just perhaps not as good as the 108 on up.
My question is this: would a suitably adapted B horn Dim be likely to work with the 168Sig?
Dave suggested awhile back the 16cm cone might be compromised in the treble. I have a pair of 168Sigs with loads of mileage on them, they go thru a rather unusually long break in, combined with an even more unusual morphing of the sonic signature, but I can tell you, (as can TC,) that they are in no way compromised, just perhaps not as good as the 108 on up.
My question is this: would a suitably adapted B horn Dim be likely to work with the 168Sig?
168 SIgma
As I think Davie posted in another thread, the short answer would be "sorta" - i.e. the horn's 3 main parameter's (CC volume/throat size, frequency, length and mouth size) would determine the bass performance.
In other words, you could certainly modify the Buschorn design to "fit" a 168, but you'll never realize the driver's full potential. There are several designs that would work, ( Jericho, Mauhorn, etc).
Unfortunately if you want to get bigger bass from your bass horn, you get a bigger horn, and that's sometimes a hard sell to the wifey.
As for Dave's suggestion that the 16cm might be compromised in the treble, he might have been thinking of the 166 or 167, and I believe we'll soon be expecting feedback on phase-plugs in these.
As I think Davie posted in another thread, the short answer would be "sorta" - i.e. the horn's 3 main parameter's (CC volume/throat size, frequency, length and mouth size) would determine the bass performance.
In other words, you could certainly modify the Buschorn design to "fit" a 168, but you'll never realize the driver's full potential. There are several designs that would work, ( Jericho, Mauhorn, etc).
Unfortunately if you want to get bigger bass from your bass horn, you get a bigger horn, and that's sometimes a hard sell to the wifey.
As for Dave's suggestion that the 16cm might be compromised in the treble, he might have been thinking of the 166 or 167, and I believe we'll soon be expecting feedback on phase-plugs in these.
Re: crossing my fingers
Yes... just need to input the Marshall leach equations into my spreadsheet so that i can optimize the driver end of the horn, then we can work on the details of folding it into the box. I'd also like to use a fudge of Denson's consistent bending math to verify the folds.
The mouth and the broad strokes are in place -- 75 Hz requiring some floor & wall support, in what we hope is not too much of a departure from the WAF of the B-Horn (hopefully the non-rectangular aspects of the box will allow us the extra footprint required to get a reasonably uncompromised horn mouth). The frontal size will remain the same as the B-Horn, and with suitable changes in the compression chamber, i'm hoping it will also be workable for FE103/FE107/FE103A/40-1197 and also the FE126.
The broad strokes will be published (enuff for an adept to build the horn), detailed plans will probably be sold for a modest amount, and since the panel cutting will be on the tricky side, Chris & i wiill consider making flat-packs machined using an NC panel cutter. Fully built boxes will also probably be on the agenda, but would be awkward (and expensive) to ship. The local assembler/finisher model may be the most suitable one... but i get WAY ahead of myself here, 1st we need a working prototype worthy of duplication/development.
dave
chrisb said:
Yes... just need to input the Marshall leach equations into my spreadsheet so that i can optimize the driver end of the horn, then we can work on the details of folding it into the box. I'd also like to use a fudge of Denson's consistent bending math to verify the folds.
The mouth and the broad strokes are in place -- 75 Hz requiring some floor & wall support, in what we hope is not too much of a departure from the WAF of the B-Horn (hopefully the non-rectangular aspects of the box will allow us the extra footprint required to get a reasonably uncompromised horn mouth). The frontal size will remain the same as the B-Horn, and with suitable changes in the compression chamber, i'm hoping it will also be workable for FE103/FE107/FE103A/40-1197 and also the FE126.
The broad strokes will be published (enuff for an adept to build the horn), detailed plans will probably be sold for a modest amount, and since the panel cutting will be on the tricky side, Chris & i wiill consider making flat-packs machined using an NC panel cutter. Fully built boxes will also probably be on the agenda, but would be awkward (and expensive) to ship. The local assembler/finisher model may be the most suitable one... but i get WAY ahead of myself here, 1st we need a working prototype worthy of duplication/development.
dave
Re: 168 SIgma
In an uncompromised horn, the driver can be changed -- within limits -- given suitable back-chamber & throat adjustments. The bass extension is determined by the mouth size pretty much. The B-Horn II being a TL/Horn hybrid (fresh MJK terminology) it is more sensitive to the driver.
Hmmm... just did some back of the napkin math that will have me going back to check some of my detailed math.
dave
chrisb said:
In an uncompromised horn, the driver can be changed -- within limits -- given suitable back-chamber & throat adjustments. The bass extension is determined by the mouth size pretty much. The B-Horn II being a TL/Horn hybrid (fresh MJK terminology) it is more sensitive to the driver.
Hmmm... just did some back of the napkin math that will have me going back to check some of my detailed math.
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.