zeppelin in the Audio Nirvana

[GM]

Originally posted by human.bin
thank you for the exstensive reply GM: what did you give to your neighbour, the drivers or the remasters?

as a start: having them on two narrow baffles, say 30cm... would they sound good crossed to a simple subwoofer??

would i notice a big difference in tonal balance having a tube amp instead of the t-amp?

didn't anyone made a MLTL already?

You're welcome!

The re-masters. I don't have any use for any of the ANs.

I don't see why not if the 'sub' is a HE wide BW one centered between the stereo pair.

Yes, major difference if a high output impedance SET or even a PP with bass/treble tone controls.

WRT MLTLs, I simmed these for a local awhile back, but he went MIA on me, so don't have a clue if either was built. Regardless, being tuned down around Fs they will need up to 8 ohms of series resistance to flatten them out plus heavily toe'd in 30 deg? to deal with the driver's rising on axis response and with only 1 mm Xmax and maybe a couple of more before audible distortion rears its ugly head, they will have a modest output at best.

Anyway, if you build either I'd appreciate some feedback:

Vb = Vas, Fb = Fs MLTL:

L = 56.5"
WxD (CSA) = ~102.687"^2
zdriver = 20.375"
zport = 54"
dport = 4"
Lport = 3"

Vb = Vas, Fb = Fs MLTL (short):

L = 46.75"
WxD (CSA) = ~124.05"^2
zdriver = 10"
zport = 45.5"
dport = 4"
Lport = 5"

All dims inside (i.d.) and approximate, 0.2 lbs/ft^3 polyfil stuffing density simmed.

GM

[saiot]

hi human.bin,
I'm going to buy a pair of Audio Nirvana Super 8 too, so I'm intrested in your experience and in this tread.

Just a question: before looking for different cabinet plans, why haven't you tried one of the bigger cabinet form http://www.commonsenseaudio.com/ ?

The 1.3 and 2.8 seem quite good

bye

Francesco

[Scottmoose]

Personally, I would say they seem terrible, rather than 'quite good.'

As for the rest -what GM said. Based on the published specs., mass-corner is really too high for a BLH, so you'll either end up with a dip in the FR between the horn's upper corner frequency & the driver's mass-corner, or, if you run the horn up higher, you'll end up with lobing / imaging problems. Small OB or sealed as wide-band units; toe them in or Eq flat & support by dedicated woofers. A BIB would be OK as a temporary measure, or the MLTLs, but you must Eq & toe them in as GM specifies.

Of course, that's assuming the published specs are accurate, which is excessively unlikely. I suspect in reality, they will have substantially less motor-power than is claimed & a somewhat lower mass corner (rather like the FE206E), which might make them more suitable for a BLH.

[human.bin]

scottmosse, i appreciate your opinins (and i like your avatar too) a lot, but i would apreciate them far more the day you'll give them a try... i know lowthers are better, i even think that nowadays i would go for a solo 206 or double horn from frugel site. but they are all i have and plain to buy until i end my studies and get i job.

many i think sail the internet on quite the same boat, that's why i tought this thread could start a resource.


btw, i fell it's my fault not to have tried the 2.8mkII (the bigger one) from commonsense audio. they claim it's a BR, but it probably is a MLTL. i'm building them, possibly this week, i'll let you know.

[Scottmoose]

I was refering to the CSA cabinets, not the drivers, which are pretty decent units, as FR drivers go (I've heard them often enough & can vouch for that). I prefer the Fostex drivers myself, but I'd take the AN's over quite a few of Lowther's offerings, many of which really aren't all that great.

Re the 2.8 box it's a mistuned MLTL. What GM & I were pointing out is that without a high output impedance amplifier, based on the claimed specs., these drivers are not ideal for BLHs or other BR / vented alignments without substantial correction (even a decently designed one, like the two Greg notes above). A BIB or one of those aforementioned MLTLs would get you going though until you could shift to a more optimal useage of the drivers.

[human.bin]

i hope i didn't seem too polemical... but you know when someone come to criticize your babies...

so do you suggest me not to try the CSA 2.8 enclosure than rather use GM simulation? or even do that myself trought MJK worksheets (fell i'm too a newbe to do this)?

[Nelson Pass]

I can vouch for the drivers as well. I have a pair of each, and so far
they represent good performance at a low price.

Of course I'm running them in OB's with a woofer on the smaller ones.

[Scottmoose]

Originally posted by human.bin
i hope i didn't seem too polemical... but you know when someone come to criticize your babies...

Only a misunderstanding WRT what I was criticising (i.e. the CSA cabinets, not the drivers).

so do you suggest me not to try the CSA 2.8 enclosure than rather use GM simulation? or even do that myself trought MJK worksheets (fell i'm too a newbe to do this)?

No no! GM's MLTLs are substantially better than the 2.8, so I'd certainly go with one of those, providing you apply the correction he specifies.

I can vouch for the drivers as well. I have a pair of each, and so far
they represent good performance at a low price.

Of course I'm running them in OB's with a woofer on the smaller ones.

I like the sound of that Nelson.

[human.bin]

@Nelson: when will you share something about the OBs? will you?
thinking of a baffle narrow as possible what frequency do you think i should cross them to a sub? can a sub be used to go up enough? or is it just a silly idea... i surely i can spend money to buy a pair of goldwood drivers... but indeed how cheap can i go for an acceptable solution to drive them, can you give me a price-range idea?

@GM: what exactly do you mean by 'HE wide BW'??

[Scottmoose]

I imagine GM's refering to High Efficiency Wide Bandwidth