EL166 MTM ML-TL - Page 9

zman01 · 31st March 2012, 05:32 PM

Hi,

Here are initial pics of the EL166MLTL FAST that I am working on. Dave has kindly provided the design, and trust that Scott Lindgren reworked the TL height for this project. Thanks Dave and Scott.

I was supposed to finish this project quite some time back, but a few things like work, A12 Studio Reference Monitors, and Hypex UcD180HG got in the way...

As you see, still haven't been able to get the drivers in. The other cab needs a bit of work on the FR mounting hole. Oh the cabs also need holes for the ports and terminal cups...and braces for the push-push woofers...!

Look forward to trying these out next weekend.

-Zia

goody75 · 6th May 2012, 09:45 PM

I'm finalizing my plans now for the single woofer version of the EL166 ML-TL FAST design. I'm going to make large bookshelf-sized speakers out of these by incorporating a single fold and changing the cross section so it is wider and less deep (while maintaining the same area).

I haven't noticed any comments about stuffing for this design. Does anyone know if this is a speaker that should be stuffed?

Also, with a single fold, the port will naturally be facing rearward unless I add another 90 degree fold near the terminus. There are several TL's that use rear facing ports, does anyone have a guess if it matters with this design which way the port faces? Will I loose some of the bottom end if it faces to the rear? Or make it more sensitive to placement?

planet10 · 6th May 2012, 11:10 PM

I'd do it something like this:

dave

goody75 · 6th May 2012, 11:30 PM

Thanks, Planet10. Do I need to adjust the port width, relative to the original speaker design since the length is going to increase from 4 to almost 7 inches? If that is the case do I just use a BR type port calculation to make the calculation?

planet10 · 7th May 2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goody75

Thanks, Planet10. Do I need to adjust the port width, relative to the original speaker design since the length is going to increase from 4 to almost 7 inches? If that is the case do I just use a BR type port calculation to make the calculation?

Yes.

http://p10hifi.net/FAL/downloads/ChangingPortSize.pdf

dave

goody75 · 9th May 2012, 10:32 PM

Thanks for your help, Dave.

I've been reading about baffle step diffraction over the past several days (when I have time). And the more I learn, the more I am starting to get cold feet about the single woofer design with this pairing due to their matching sensitivity. If I put them in a ~ 12" wide cabinet, the baffle step will be at 380Hz. The EL166 has +5 dB compensation down to 300Hz so not much of an issue until then. BUT from about 300Hz and lower, won't the response be -6dB lower until it rolls off?

For this particular project, I cannot add the 2nd woofer because the increase in required cabinet size. It also seems like blasphemy to put BSC on the FF85wk. So I find myself wondering if I should consider an alternative woofer for this project with higher sensitivity to offset the baffle step loss. Can anyone who has listened to these (Dave), please comment on how noticeable is the baffle step loss? and also if the pure extension helps to offset the dB loss.

Thanks,
Chris

planet10 · 10th May 2012, 01:08 AM

The MTM was carefully balanced wrt levels. you'll lose 3 dB of efficiency. And then consideration of what your amp does when you change impedance.

You may need to pad the mid-tweeter a bit. Depending on placement you may find it works fine. The wk is about a dB less then the k it replaced.

Quote:

the baffle step will be at 380Hz

You may find a little lower works. I usually calculate the BS fs and then work the crossover between that and 0,707 * BS(f3).

dave

jimbro · 28th May 2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zman01

Look forward to trying these out next weekend.

-Zia

Did "next weekend" ever come?

zman01 · 28th May 2012, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbro

Did "next weekend" ever come?

Guess not yet for this particular project

my bad. The post date tells me that nearly 2 months have gone by!

No timebound commitments, but want to complete this real soon!

jimbro · 28th May 2012, 11:28 AM

No sweat. I seldom meet a self imposed deadline. Just keep us posted please. I'm liking it so far!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can anyone help TL or ML-TL for Alpair 10	_henry_	Full Range	3	31st December 2008 06:31 AM
What's the difference between a TL, a ML-TL and a TQWT?	Bricolo	Multi-Way	82	28th August 2008 02:17 PM
ML-TL or ML-TQWT with very low Qt driver	Henkjan	Full Range	6	29th September 2006 02:29 PM
Small box for FE103 - ML TL or ML TQWT?	ChuckT	Full Range	15	28th July 2004 05:56 AM
Mbow1 / Ml Tl	boone	Multi-Way	7	14th January 2004 10:49 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

6th May 2012, 09:45 PM	#82
goody75 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Motown (area)	I'm finalizing my plans now for the single woofer version of the EL166 ML-TL FAST design. I'm going to make large bookshelf-sized speakers out of these by incorporating a single fold and changing the cross section so it is wider and less deep (while maintaining the same area). I haven't noticed any comments about stuffing for this design. Does anyone know if this is a speaker that should be stuffed? Also, with a single fold, the port will naturally be facing rearward unless I add another 90 degree fold near the terminus. There are several TL's that use rear facing ports, does anyone have a guess if it matters with this design which way the port faces? Will I loose some of the bottom end if it faces to the rear? Or make it more sensitive to placement?

6th May 2012, 11:30 PM	#84
goody75 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Motown (area)	Thanks, Planet10. Do I need to adjust the port width, relative to the original speaker design since the length is going to increase from 4 to almost 7 inches? If that is the case do I just use a BR type port calculation to make the calculation?

9th May 2012, 10:32 PM	#86
goody75 diyAudio Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Motown (area)	Thanks for your help, Dave. I've been reading about baffle step diffraction over the past several days (when I have time). And the more I learn, the more I am starting to get cold feet about the single woofer design with this pairing due to their matching sensitivity. If I put them in a ~ 12" wide cabinet, the baffle step will be at 380Hz. The EL166 has +5 dB compensation down to 300Hz so not much of an issue until then. BUT from about 300Hz and lower, won't the response be -6dB lower until it rolls off? For this particular project, I cannot add the 2nd woofer because the increase in required cabinet size. It also seems like blasphemy to put BSC on the FF85wk. So I find myself wondering if I should consider an alternative woofer for this project with higher sensitivity to offset the baffle step loss. Can anyone who has listened to these (Dave), please comment on how noticeable is the baffle step loss? and also if the pure extension helps to offset the dB loss. Thanks, Chris

28th May 2012, 11:28 AM	#90
jimbro diyAudio Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: somewhere in Texas	No sweat. I seldom meet a self imposed deadline. Just keep us posted please. I'm liking it so far!