Hi,
I'm interested in building my first single driver speakers but don't know enough yet to try an original design of my own.
The Jordan JX92s driver seems to be well respected and I like the wide baffle esthetics of the VTL. But from reading this forum, it seems like the GM MLTL-31 may sound better.
I notice that the CSA of the VTL and the GM MLTLs are almost identical. So my question is: can I use the cabinet volume and a port with same length from the MLTL-31, with the cabinet width and depth of the VTL and expect good results?
Also, how critical is the vertical placement of the driver? I like the look of the high driver placement of the VTL.
Thanks so much for such an interesting forum!
Wally
I'm interested in building my first single driver speakers but don't know enough yet to try an original design of my own.
The Jordan JX92s driver seems to be well respected and I like the wide baffle esthetics of the VTL. But from reading this forum, it seems like the GM MLTL-31 may sound better.
I notice that the CSA of the VTL and the GM MLTLs are almost identical. So my question is: can I use the cabinet volume and a port with same length from the MLTL-31, with the cabinet width and depth of the VTL and expect good results?
Also, how critical is the vertical placement of the driver? I like the look of the high driver placement of the VTL.
Thanks so much for such an interesting forum!
Wally
As long as you don't get too radical, an ML-TL is defined by a length, a cross-section, a mass-loaded terminus (ie port), and a driver position, Driver position is very important as it is set to kill the 1st undesirable resonance.
So one could reshape the boxes shape as long as the cross-section remains the same. A wider baffle will push baffle step down in frequency, but a shallow enclosure can suffer from early reflections off the back wall back thru the cone.
dave
So one could reshape the boxes shape as long as the cross-section remains the same. A wider baffle will push baffle step down in frequency, but a shallow enclosure can suffer from early reflections off the back wall back thru the cone.
dave
Good idea. I've wondered about this myself.
You should keep the driver the same distance from the end of the enclosure as on the original MLTL. That's a fundamental part of the design.
But the wider shape of the VTL will help fill out the lower mids and do away with any need for BSC. It will also give you room to place the port horizontal, firing out the side of the cabinet, which may be easier to implement than the down-firing port of the original MLTL design. (My build has stalled whilst I sort this out.)
I have built the standard VTL and didn't notice any problems with back reflections.
You should keep the driver the same distance from the end of the enclosure as on the original MLTL. That's a fundamental part of the design.
But the wider shape of the VTL will help fill out the lower mids and do away with any need for BSC. It will also give you room to place the port horizontal, firing out the side of the cabinet, which may be easier to implement than the down-firing port of the original MLTL design. (My build has stalled whilst I sort this out.)
I have built the standard VTL and didn't notice any problems with back reflections.
Hmm, even though I prefer the 'short' MLTL from a technical POV, reshaping the 'long' one to keep the driver optimum/high enough and the vent short enough seems the better choice overall, especially since the latter is known to require BSC in its original aspect ratio if other than wall/corner loaded, i.e. may require an even wider baffle than being considered whereas most folks who've posted their thoughts claim the former doesn't, so with a wide baffle, odds are it won't need any once properly toe'd in.
GM
GM
I don't know if this is specific to the Jordan but my 167 e is just about ready to come out of the break in box.
I like the short length of the drawing but will continue to extend the
port out the bottom.
This will be my first venture in preparing the cabinet with a router rather than a smaller circle making set up.
But first thigns first. I have test box in preparation made from scraps which will give the general feel of how the 167e sounds.
Test box is 10 in w 4.75 d and 23.5 long.
port cut out is 2 inches.
Driver center is 8.25 from top
I like the short length of the drawing but will continue to extend the
port out the bottom.
This will be my first venture in preparing the cabinet with a router rather than a smaller circle making set up.
But first thigns first. I have test box in preparation made from scraps which will give the general feel of how the 167e sounds.
Test box is 10 in w 4.75 d and 23.5 long.
port cut out is 2 inches.
Driver center is 8.25 from top
I've built a folded VTL (for wall mounting with toe-in) and a folded MTLT 31 (square face) also for wall mounting.
Both sound great but for reasons I don't know the MLTL seems easier to drive and sounds great without needing an amp with tons of headroom. The VTL needs more to wake up.
Maybe some specialists can explain that, or simply the speakers aren't from the same batch (E100HD) and the specs did evolve ?
The VTL had JX92S, then E100HD+ after frying (E100HD+ was crap), then E100HD.
The MLTL is equipped with E100HD.
Both sound great but for reasons I don't know the MLTL seems easier to drive and sounds great without needing an amp with tons of headroom. The VTL needs more to wake up.
Maybe some specialists can explain that, or simply the speakers aren't from the same batch (E100HD) and the specs did evolve ?
The VTL had JX92S, then E100HD+ after frying (E100HD+ was crap), then E100HD.
The MLTL is equipped with E100HD.