Have Clonac 2.5's want to upgrade

[dshortt9]

I love my Proac 2.5 clones but have the itch to build something better after my buddy bought some real 3.8's. Does anyone have a recommendation?

No, he will not let me peek.

[Dave S]

MBOW1 - 3 Way:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=MBOW1_3-WAY.html

I have R2.5 clones and Dennis Murphy's CAOW1. I have tried every version of the XO for the clones along with lots of bracing and damping options. After all this the Proacs get zero use!!!

Dave

[ultrachrome]

With that recommendation, you also might consider the Ellis 1801 which features the OW1 tweeter, an SEAS Excel W18-001 woofer and a Dennis Murphy crossover.

[tktran]

some buddy then...


Have you looked into the handful of designs by Troels Gravesen ?

The TJL remains his favourite box loudspeaker.

But the semi-dipoles are clearly a different class to the ProAc clones altogether.

Recommended.

I'm a ProAclone 2.95 owner and next in line is the NaO

Dave,
Did you try the 9500 tweeter and crossover? Better integration throughout the lower treble region IMHO but overall more even tonal balance when A/B comparisons were made with Al M's clone in his home. Brings the midrange back and not a hint of harshness on the tweeter (my own theory is the relatively high level of harmonic distortion around 750-3Khz from crossing the 8513 3/4" tweeter ~3Khz. A great tweeter but ideally should be used only above 4-5Khz).

Not much you can change with the bass though (a positive or negative depending on how you like it)

Are you planning on the CAOW1-3way?

[dshortt9]

These are all good suggestions, Thanks.

You hit the nail on the head, good as they are the tweeters could be better. I may try the 9500's. The TJL's also look good but I think I will try the 9500's first.

[Dave S]

Not much you can change with the bass though (a positive or negative depending on how you like it)

I tried straws in the ports and a few other things. The bass is just too slow, unless the ports are blocked - then the bass extension is poor and somehow does not match the rest of the freq range. If you like the Proac sound then it's probably best to use the standard XO and "enjoy" the fat bass, sharp treble and the zing in the mid.

Are you planning on the CAOW1-3way?

I would like to hear it (sealed bass - yes indeedeeee) but the 12" wide cab has low WAF

[tktran]

Very interesting. What's the sentivitity like? Did you build a sealed or vented version?

I need a compact speaker for the small room that the clone didn't fare too well in.

In my 20x30' (6x9m) it isn't fantastic either. Not realistic but bearable and even enjoyable (eg. dance music)

But on any *real* music the fat bass is bit too much.

PS.
9500 + Troel's crossover- no zing. The only clone to build IMHO.

[dshortt9]

I have placed a bit of stuffing in the ports and it eliminated the boom without affecting the quality. It is very critical to use just the right amount.
I am using the updated filter with the notch filter and this takes care of most of the problem. If I go with the 9500 it should be to my liking.

Thanks Guys,

Dave

[Dave S]

One more Clonac thought:

I always wondered what this XO (using 9300/9500) would sound like:

http://audiocomponents.nl/speakers/s...ng/event_2.htm

I cannot find anyone who has tried it. I did email Rolf Smulders, the designer, but he just said the bass would go deeper because of the transmission line - not exactly what I was after!

TKTRAN
The CAOW1 are wonderfuly accurate and musical speakers, however they are ported and have full baffle step compensation so they need some breathing space (about 18ins away from the wall in my 18ft X 13 ft room). I do occasionally miss the bottom octave on rock or blues but the other 95% of the time they are superb.
I did compare them to Quad 989s on the end of expensive Naim and EAR kit and they were in no way embarrassed.

Edit: Sensitivity is a bit higher than the R2.5s - I guess about 86dB. They go slightly louder than the 2.5s but tend to shout at high levels.

[tktran]

Dave,

Someone once emailed me the actual frequency response measurements for the ScanSpeak Event, taken from a Hobby Hifi or similar magazine, I think, but I don't know where I put it.

So for fun I decided to model the filters to compare and guess what would happen if you use an Event crossover in a 2.95 box/9500 tweeter. But you should take it with a cupful of salt, because without the actual acoustic responses of the drivers, building the actual crossover and verifying by measurement, not to mention not even building the TL cabinet, I think a comparison based on the filter alone is a quick and dirty guess at best, and potentially misleading at worse (and probably shouldn't even be attempted)

First- the cabinets. All cabinet are around 1m tall. The original 2.5/clone cabinet is 1.02m, whilst Troels and the Event are both exactly 1m. Troels' is an inch narrower than the Event (200mm wide vs 225mm). But if we're comparing to the original 2.5/clone with specified width of 222mm, difference is moot. Woofer location is virtually the same (250mm vs 252 vs 248.5mm down from top).

So dropping the Event low-pass crossoever into the clone cabinet is ok in terms of required baffle step compensation. However it'll reduce sound around 500Hz to 1500 by 1 to 2dB, which will significantly change the character of the midrange. Softer for sure but then there's more energy past 2Khz. Maybe this is perceived as more detail in the mid treble? Hmmm...

Now for the Event high pass filter . AFAIK the 9500 is the virtually the same unit as the 9300 unit except with modified rear chamber allowing slightly lower Fs, and resultant dip at 1.5Khz. They all measure quite similarly(actually the 9300 smoother) with same sensitivity of 90dB/W. I think recall someone saying that the 9500 can be substituted for the other 9300 (or vice versa) with only slight (if any) change required in the the crossover.

So unless I've modelled the Event higpass crossover wrong, the 9300 is voiced 3dB higher than the 2.95's 9500. True, the Event tweeter is centred on the baffle, whilst the 9500 is offset from the centre, but this only should cause some wiggliness in FR. So perhaps the Event will sound brighter than the 2.95.

The other big change is bass tuning. IME even though bass tuning is only around 20-100Hz, it has a big affect on overall perceived sound, especially in the midrange.

The TL Event and ported 2.95's tonal balance would be rather different.