Hi Hifiers..
I have been listening Manger and Zerobox 109 for some years.
And many says that the woofer should be better and I agree.
Of course, traditional woofer can not make 12 uSec of risetime of MSW, I want to ask you what your candidate is..
Advices on multi ampling with active Xover are welcome.
I am considering 100 Hz Xover and some set-back of MSW behind the woofers.
I cannot hear the other 'tweeter + midrange' systems, even if they are expensive 'high-end'.
I have been listening Manger and Zerobox 109 for some years.
And many says that the woofer should be better and I agree.
Of course, traditional woofer can not make 12 uSec of risetime of MSW, I want to ask you what your candidate is..
Advices on multi ampling with active Xover are welcome.
I am considering 100 Hz Xover and some set-back of MSW behind the woofers.
I cannot hear the other 'tweeter + midrange' systems, even if they are expensive 'high-end'.
I auditioned the Manger some years back and found it to be a puzzling driver system. On one hand it sounded good, on the other hand it sounded decidedly "different" than anything else I have ever listened to.
Something about the way it produces the sound I suspect is different and yields a different subjective quality overall.
Finding a standard woofer that will merge with the Manger I think will be not simple or easy. Perhaps all that you can do is to experiment with different configurations until you find something that is subjectively acceptable.
The "rise time" is irrelevant here, since you'd be using a LP xover, which is the limiting factor in terms of something like "rise time". Nothing hooked to a LP filter will exhibit a fast "rise time" - it can't.
Perhaps something like the LF section of an old Apogee ribbon would fit the bill, since it also had a peculiar overall subjective sound - I found that the "turns" of the printed ribbon did not align perfectly with the magnet structure, so there would be areas of the surface that did not get uniform drive, and perhaps were even out of phase with others. I believe that this accounted for the unique "Apogee" ribbon sound. I also think that there are some out of phase portions of the Manger surface and this accounts in part for its unique sound. So, maybe that would be a viable combination?
Just an idea...
_-_-bear
Something about the way it produces the sound I suspect is different and yields a different subjective quality overall.
Finding a standard woofer that will merge with the Manger I think will be not simple or easy. Perhaps all that you can do is to experiment with different configurations until you find something that is subjectively acceptable.
The "rise time" is irrelevant here, since you'd be using a LP xover, which is the limiting factor in terms of something like "rise time". Nothing hooked to a LP filter will exhibit a fast "rise time" - it can't.
Perhaps something like the LF section of an old Apogee ribbon would fit the bill, since it also had a peculiar overall subjective sound - I found that the "turns" of the printed ribbon did not align perfectly with the magnet structure, so there would be areas of the surface that did not get uniform drive, and perhaps were even out of phase with others. I believe that this accounted for the unique "Apogee" ribbon sound. I also think that there are some out of phase portions of the Manger surface and this accounts in part for its unique sound. So, maybe that would be a viable combination?
Just an idea...
_-_-bear
Hi ,
I love MSW also
I think 100Hz is too low as like the Swing : no midbass even with Subsonice.
A possibility can be an audiotechnology 8" and a lot of work with passive x-over
I am theoricall working in a 2.5 way with 2 x 8" ( not AT) and simulation looks good. My target is 6dB octave filter at 100Hz and 400Hz about
83-84 dB / 2,83 v/ anechoic......... work in progress, only theoricall for now
Cheers,
Paolo
I love MSW also
I think 100Hz is too low as like the Swing : no midbass even with Subsonice.
A possibility can be an audiotechnology 8" and a lot of work with passive x-over
I am theoricall working in a 2.5 way with 2 x 8" ( not AT) and simulation looks good. My target is 6dB octave filter at 100Hz and 400Hz about
83-84 dB / 2,83 v/ anechoic......... work in progress, only theoricall for now
Cheers,
Paolo
Rise time
Thank you all.
Rise time VS LP xover thing... is very helpful. Thank you Bear.
And the 'different' sound is a good thing. If you use MSW for 1 month and you cannot bear other 2 way high-end speaks.
All other speakers sounds like 'shhhhh' noise.
It's too bad, you will lose your hobby. Only MSW.
I don't know any about Apoge and Audio Technology.
I heard that the fast rise time is due to the 'dual voice coil' structure of MSW from Daniela Manger.
So, the woofer with same structure might help.
But, I don't have that ... I will ask for Ms. Manger.
Another option would be active base. Maybe 3rd order.. At 120 Hz..
And Inertial... Would you describe your design? It would be very grateful.
I am waiting other advices.
Thank you all.
Rise time VS LP xover thing... is very helpful. Thank you Bear.
And the 'different' sound is a good thing. If you use MSW for 1 month and you cannot bear other 2 way high-end speaks.
All other speakers sounds like 'shhhhh' noise.
It's too bad, you will lose your hobby. Only MSW.
I don't know any about Apoge and Audio Technology.
I heard that the fast rise time is due to the 'dual voice coil' structure of MSW from Daniela Manger.
So, the woofer with same structure might help.
But, I don't have that ... I will ask for Ms. Manger.
Another option would be active base. Maybe 3rd order.. At 120 Hz..
And Inertial... Would you describe your design? It would be very grateful.
I am waiting other advices.
Hi, Richard
My sistem idea is 2.5 way TMM.
Manger run with about 80microF + LCR trap at the resonance +LR padding on the midhigh zone.
first woofer is crossed at 400Hz 6db oct
second woofer is crossed about80-100Hz in parallel with the first.
very simply but looks good with excellent phase response
cheers
Paolo
My sistem idea is 2.5 way TMM.
Manger run with about 80microF + LCR trap at the resonance +LR padding on the midhigh zone.
first woofer is crossed at 400Hz 6db oct
second woofer is crossed about80-100Hz in parallel with the first.
very simply but looks good with excellent phase response
cheers
Paolo
2.5 Way TMM
Inertial
Your 2.5 way cost much inductors or heavy.
Anyway, is it too confusing?
under 100 Hz : 2 woofers
100 ~ 400 Hz : 1 woofer + MSW
over 400 Hz : MSW...
2 way of Zerobox has many critics on Xover..
You are making more complex.
Will the 2 woofers have similar phase under 100??
Sorry for bothering ..
Inertial
Your 2.5 way cost much inductors
or heavy.Anyway, is it too confusing?
under 100 Hz : 2 woofers
100 ~ 400 Hz : 1 woofer + MSW
over 400 Hz : MSW...
2 way of Zerobox has many critics on Xover..
You are making more complex.
Will the 2 woofers have similar phase under 100??
Sorry for bothering ..
Hi Richard,
Quite correct.
Imho cost is not so important when you have yet purchased a pair of Mangers
Anyway the first woofer can go with "iron inductor" ( about 12 mH)
meanwhile the second must be air type ( 4 mH only).
Yes, the two woofers have near the same phase below 80-100Hz
I partially disagree about the 109 x-over. It is quite simple but it is imo B3(-), not transient perfect type obiouvsly
If you are worried about quality of components in series with MSW you are absolutely right. The cap in series need to be the best you can buy , very expansive
And no my X over have less parts than 109, moreover the series cap for MSW is near Half value of the original
Never bothering when we speak about MSW !
Cheers,
Paolo
Quite correct.
Imho cost is not so important when you have yet purchased a pair of Mangers
Anyway the first woofer can go with "iron inductor" ( about 12 mH)
meanwhile the second must be air type ( 4 mH only).
Yes, the two woofers have near the same phase below 80-100Hz
I partially disagree about the 109 x-over. It is quite simple but it is imo B3(-), not transient perfect type obiouvsly
If you are worried about quality of components in series with MSW you are absolutely right. The cap in series need to be the best you can buy , very expansive
And no my X over have less parts than 109, moreover the series cap for MSW is near Half value of the original
Never bothering when we speak about MSW !
Cheers,
Paolo
my tests many years ago showed that the Mangers will perform best with the very very very largest baffle that you can manage to use!
The response shown in the specs can not be achieved without a baffle the size of the "IEC" baffle that was used for testing...
Richard you can look at the old Apogee ribbon speakers online, just search - there is at least one site that shows the speakers being rebuilt, iirc.
I would not use a 3rd order filter myself, maybe a 4th order or higher.
On my home system that has a ~250Hz. horn on the top, I use a filter that looks like a "brickwall" going to the 15" midbass driver. That is to get rid of almost all the higher harmonics of that driver so that it does not even venture into the region that the horn operates. Yes, this does introduce some phase shift issues but imho this is a better compromise than permitting the midbass driver to "pollute" the output of the horn.
Ymmv.
You might try to build a giant Manger type driver yourself, just for bass and midbass?
Probably what you are hearing from typical 2 way or 3 way speakers compared to the Manger is a type of distortion that is coming mostly from the tweeters. Also you will not hear the sort of differential between sizes, source localization and harmonics found in a typical multiway system with any single "full range" driver, no matter what else is good or bad with it.
You will notice a similar sort of effect with a "full range" ESL loudspeaker.
_-_-bear
The response shown in the specs can not be achieved without a baffle the size of the "IEC" baffle that was used for testing...
Richard you can look at the old Apogee ribbon speakers online, just search - there is at least one site that shows the speakers being rebuilt, iirc.
I would not use a 3rd order filter myself, maybe a 4th order or higher.
On my home system that has a ~250Hz. horn on the top, I use a filter that looks like a "brickwall" going to the 15" midbass driver. That is to get rid of almost all the higher harmonics of that driver so that it does not even venture into the region that the horn operates. Yes, this does introduce some phase shift issues but imho this is a better compromise than permitting the midbass driver to "pollute" the output of the horn.
Ymmv.
You might try to build a giant Manger type driver yourself, just for bass and midbass?
Probably what you are hearing from typical 2 way or 3 way speakers compared to the Manger is a type of distortion that is coming mostly from the tweeters. Also you will not hear the sort of differential between sizes, source localization and harmonics found in a typical multiway system with any single "full range" driver, no matter what else is good or bad with it.
You will notice a similar sort of effect with a "full range" ESL loudspeaker.
_-_-bear
MSW 4 ohm efficiency? Skanning 5H52
Anybody know the efficiency of 4 ohm MSW?
And I think the 91 db of 8 ohm is a little over estimated.
I guess it's about 89 db. What do you guys think?
I am considering MTM center of 4 ohm MSW + 2 X 5H52.
5H52 is 89 db which makes 92 db with 2 units.
And the Xover takes some db,,,, the system would be about 90 db..
I am waiting some expert's opinion..
Thank you..
Anybody know the efficiency of 4 ohm MSW?
And I think the 91 db of 8 ohm is a little over estimated.
I guess it's about 89 db. What do you guys think?
I am considering MTM center of 4 ohm MSW + 2 X 5H52.
5H52 is 89 db which makes 92 db with 2 units.
And the Xover takes some db,,,, the system would be about 90 db..
I am waiting some expert's opinion..
Thank you..
hi all
i,m running a active setup using the mangers for mid/high and eton 12" hexacones for bass in a sealed cab
the mangers work best in my setup using a crossover point between 200hz to 300 hz to the etons
crossing any lower than 180hz to the bass drivers makes the sound too thin
ive found that 300hz with steep 48 db slopes is perfect
i,m using them with a dbx260 which makes it easy to setup usingf the auto eq function
the sound is very impressive and the transition from the bass driver to manger is very good which is partly due to the sealed bass design and the dbx260 auto eq and crossover functions
it would be a nightmare to implement passive though
i,m running a active setup using the mangers for mid/high and eton 12" hexacones for bass in a sealed cab
the mangers work best in my setup using a crossover point between 200hz to 300 hz to the etons
crossing any lower than 180hz to the bass drivers makes the sound too thin
ive found that 300hz with steep 48 db slopes is perfect
i,m using them with a dbx260 which makes it easy to setup usingf the auto eq function
the sound is very impressive and the transition from the bass driver to manger is very good which is partly due to the sealed bass design and the dbx260 auto eq and crossover functions
it would be a nightmare to implement passive though
hi paolo and others
its good to have some time to chat again
id love to post some pics but the speakers still need the cosmetic finnishing work to be done and as there are so many very nice projects here i would feel they are not up to standard yet
yes the digital crossovers do make it very easy and without them i would still be strugling ,i,m very envious of yourself and others who can work out these passive crossovers and produce great sound .
i hope one day to posses the skill to do passive but until then my digital crossover is very nice
its good to have some time to chat again
id love to post some pics but the speakers still need the cosmetic finnishing work to be done and as there are so many very nice projects here i would feel they are not up to standard yet
yes the digital crossovers do make it very easy and without them i would still be strugling ,i,m very envious of yourself and others who can work out these passive crossovers and produce great sound .
i hope one day to posses the skill to do passive but until then my digital crossover is very nice
HI srl5000,
Skill normally is function of time. Patience and perseverance is the rest imho!
I understand your point but real mans are more interested in concepts than aesthetics! And your speaker is sure unconventional and a lot more interesting imho than medium threshold.
I , in particular, am interested if you please can show (or drawing) the EQ for every frequency step you have applied to the manger to obtain
a "flat" response. Mid-bass zone expecially .
Cheers,
Paolo
Skill normally is function of time. Patience and perseverance is the rest imho!
I understand your point but real mans are more interested in concepts than aesthetics! And your speaker is sure unconventional and a lot more interesting imho than medium threshold.
I , in particular, am interested if you please can show (or drawing) the EQ for every frequency step you have applied to the manger to obtain
a "flat" response. Mid-bass zone expecially
.Cheers,
Paolo
hi all
ill take some pics and post them for you
please go easy on me as they are not finnished and need final sanding and finnishing
thanks for the comments paolo i must admit i did try to be different with this project ,ive always been interested in unconventional designs and drivers
i will also post some pics of the eq applied to the system (ill post the pics of the screen of the dbx )
i also apoligize to richard as i dont mean to thread jack as they say
id also like to say to richard and anyone else contemplating using the manger with a bass driver that they will be very happy with the result and to " go for it" it produces a very different sound from the norm that is worth experiancing even if just out of curiousity
regards sheafer
ill take some pics and post them for you
please go easy on me as they are not finnished and need final sanding and finnishing
thanks for the comments paolo i must admit i did try to be different with this project ,ive always been interested in unconventional designs and drivers
i will also post some pics of the eq applied to the system (ill post the pics of the screen of the dbx )
i also apoligize to richard as i dont mean to thread jack as they say
id also like to say to richard and anyone else contemplating using the manger with a bass driver that they will be very happy with the result and to " go for it" it produces a very different sound from the norm that is worth experiancing even if just out of curiousity
regards sheafer
Efficiency..
My first plan is..
4 ohm MSW ... Is it 94 db?.. (91 of 8 ohm + 3 db??)
6 ea of 7.3ohm 6.5" units I have already. They are about 89 db..
It will 4.86 ohm... and efficiency would be around 96 db or something?
And the X over takes 1~ 2 db..
So the system would be around 93 db..
Are the figures right?
Many thanks
My first plan is..
4 ohm MSW ... Is it 94 db?.. (91 of 8 ohm + 3 db??)
6 ea of 7.3ohm 6.5" units I have already. They are about 89 db..
It will 4.86 ohm... and efficiency would be around 96 db or something?
And the X over takes 1~ 2 db..
So the system would be around 93 db..
Are the figures right?
Many thanks
Mmmhhhh,
I remember I saw some measurement from Hobby-hi-fi, I believe,
the MSW 8 ohm was about 85-86dB 2,83v. Not sure howewar.
Because I don't remember the measurement conditions( 2pi or 4 pi)
For that is visible in the Manger website the MSW have a strange rising response toward the low frequencies so you can expect a sort of auto- balancing when you put it on a 10" baffle due to the baffle step effect.
Measuring the unit in box would be the best thing.
If it is correct you can expect the 4 ohm version 88-89dB I suppose.
For the woofer you need add a full BSC of 6 dB so, 89+6=95dB/2,83v. IMO
Cheers,
Paolo
I remember I saw some measurement from Hobby-hi-fi, I believe,
the MSW 8 ohm was about 85-86dB 2,83v. Not sure howewar.
Because I don't remember the measurement conditions( 2pi or 4 pi)
For that is visible in the Manger website the MSW have a strange rising response toward the low frequencies so you can expect a sort of auto- balancing when you put it on a 10" baffle due to the baffle step effect.
Measuring the unit in box would be the best thing.
If it is correct you can expect the 4 ohm version 88-89dB I suppose.
For the woofer you need add a full BSC of 6 dB so, 89+6=95dB/2,83v. IMO
Cheers,
Paolo
The Canadian importer for Manger told me that it was important to cross the bottom off fairly high - I forget exactly what frequency he recommended, but 4-600Hz comes to mind.
This does seem to fit with what is being said here. I see one design with a passive at 400Hz and another with a steep slope active at 300Hz.
Maybe this is a key point in the implementation of the Manger - don't make it try to "do bass".
Just being able to cover the midrange - say, 400 to 3000Hz - with a single quality driver can pay worthwhile dividends, in my experience.
This does seem to fit with what is being said here. I see one design with a passive at 400Hz and another with a steep slope active at 300Hz.
Maybe this is a key point in the implementation of the Manger - don't make it try to "do bass".
Just being able to cover the midrange - say, 400 to 3000Hz - with a single quality driver can pay worthwhile dividends, in my experience.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.