I would like to report my impressions of GM's latest variation of his ML-TL speaker design using the Jordan JX92S. I'll try not to gush or over-embellish. 
All dimensions are internal.
This latest speaker is a 48" triangular cross-section with a 2" port.
When I first listened to these speakers I didn't like them, there was something different about the sound. After several hours of listening and adjusting the stuffing (Acoustistuff) I figured out what was bothering me about the sound.
These speakers go way down low.
I measured the previous versions (original design and trapezoid CS) of the ML-TLs down to ~45Hz. I measured the new 48ers down to ~35Hz. I have never owned speakers that went this low or listened to any that do for any amount of time. The extra 10Hz make a significant difference to the sound IMO.
After getting the stuffing just right (at first they boomed like crazy) I called a few friends over and we settled in for some serious listening. Once again a wide assortment of music was played to help us evaluate the new setup.
At the end of the day everyone agreed the new 48ers were the best of the three ML-TLs built so far. The sound seems richer, warmer and more full. There seems to be 'more' there. I'm convinced I'm hearing more low level information which is adding to or enhancing the sounds I'm hearing but I don't know how to prove it. The 48ers feel more emotional or intimate than the others. A good example was when we were playing Stan Getz's Anniversary cd which was recorded live at the Montmartre Club in Copenhagen. The imaging was holographic and simply spectacular, it felt like we were setting about two tables back from the stage... or maybe it was the wine we were drinking.
Another item, GM told me, "... 48" is long enough to get strong pipe action... The tradeoff with a FR driver is it will audibly modulate the mids/HF, so clarity will suffer somewhat."
Maybe we didn't drive them hard enough although those cones were doing a lot of dancing, but none of us could hear any degredation in clarity. In other words everything sounded beautifly clear and natural to our ears. On the other hand we really didn't know what we were listening for other than 'good' sound.
There was one weakness everyone agreed on. These speakers (and maybe all FRs in general) are superb listening to acoustic, female/male voice, piano/jazz type of music. But they let you down big time listening to loud hard rock/metal music. The punch of loud rock music just isn't there. Rock/metal music sounded anemic on these speakers. But that's ok cause I don't listen to that much rock anyway.
I recommend this design to anyone interested in building an excellent sounding ML-TL!
(All dimensions internal)
Baffle = 11"
Sides = 7.75"
L = 48.0"
XO = 15.45"
Vent = 2" wide x 2.75" long (center of vent is 4" above bottom)
Stuffing = 0.54lb
Enjoy -
Bruce
All dimensions are internal.
This latest speaker is a 48" triangular cross-section with a 2" port.
When I first listened to these speakers I didn't like them, there was something different about the sound. After several hours of listening and adjusting the stuffing (Acoustistuff) I figured out what was bothering me about the sound.
These speakers go way down low.
I measured the previous versions (original design and trapezoid CS) of the ML-TLs down to ~45Hz. I measured the new 48ers down to ~35Hz. I have never owned speakers that went this low or listened to any that do for any amount of time. The extra 10Hz make a significant difference to the sound IMO.
After getting the stuffing just right (at first they boomed like crazy) I called a few friends over and we settled in for some serious listening. Once again a wide assortment of music was played to help us evaluate the new setup.
At the end of the day everyone agreed the new 48ers were the best of the three ML-TLs built so far. The sound seems richer, warmer and more full. There seems to be 'more' there. I'm convinced I'm hearing more low level information which is adding to or enhancing the sounds I'm hearing but I don't know how to prove it. The 48ers feel more emotional or intimate than the others. A good example was when we were playing Stan Getz's Anniversary cd which was recorded live at the Montmartre Club in Copenhagen. The imaging was holographic and simply spectacular, it felt like we were setting about two tables back from the stage... or maybe it was the wine we were drinking.
Another item, GM told me, "... 48" is long enough to get strong pipe action... The tradeoff with a FR driver is it will audibly modulate the mids/HF, so clarity will suffer somewhat."
Maybe we didn't drive them hard enough although those cones were doing a lot of dancing, but none of us could hear any degredation in clarity. In other words everything sounded beautifly clear and natural to our ears. On the other hand we really didn't know what we were listening for other than 'good' sound.
There was one weakness everyone agreed on. These speakers (and maybe all FRs in general) are superb listening to acoustic, female/male voice, piano/jazz type of music. But they let you down big time listening to loud hard rock/metal music. The punch of loud rock music just isn't there. Rock/metal music sounded anemic on these speakers. But that's ok cause I don't listen to that much rock anyway.
I recommend this design to anyone interested in building an excellent sounding ML-TL!
(All dimensions internal)
Baffle = 11"
Sides = 7.75"
L = 48.0"
XO = 15.45"
Vent = 2" wide x 2.75" long (center of vent is 4" above bottom)
Stuffing = 0.54lb
Enjoy -
Bruce
Attachments
About stuffing
A little more info...
The 48ers seem to be much more sensitive to the amount of stuffing added than previous versions of GM's ML-TLs I've built. I've spent a lot more time tweaking the stuffing on these 48" cabinets than any of the others and the pay-off has been worth it.
The low-end is simply wonderful now. Not 'boomy' at all, more 'bouncy'. Not dull but lively. Pleasantly punchy.
One other thing, and I don't know if I'm having sonic hallucinations or not, but to me piano notes, for example, seem to have much greater sustain than I've ever noticed before. The notes sound rounder, more fuller. Overall this cabinet just seems to have a more pleasing sound.
Standard disclaimer... YMMV.
Bruce
A little more info...
The 48ers seem to be much more sensitive to the amount of stuffing added than previous versions of GM's ML-TLs I've built. I've spent a lot more time tweaking the stuffing on these 48" cabinets than any of the others and the pay-off has been worth it.
The low-end is simply wonderful now. Not 'boomy' at all, more 'bouncy'. Not dull but lively. Pleasantly punchy.
One other thing, and I don't know if I'm having sonic hallucinations or not, but to me piano notes, for example, seem to have much greater sustain than I've ever noticed before. The notes sound rounder, more fuller. Overall this cabinet just seems to have a more pleasing sound.
Standard disclaimer... YMMV.
Bruce
abpea,
Is this GM's improved version you were talking about on the following page? I've been holding back on buying the wood, waiting for it to come out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=38755&perpage=10&pagenumber=6
Is this GM's improved version you were talking about on the following page? I've been holding back on buying the wood, waiting for it to come out.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=38755&perpage=10&pagenumber=6
greyhorse,
The thread you reference above is discussing an earlier version, 31" pipe compared to 48" pipe on this latest version.
I have to tell you either one sounds great. The external dimensions for the baffle on the latest version I built is 13"w x 50.25"l which is about 1/3 larger than the cabinet being discussed in the thread you referenced.
If space is a concern go with the smaller one, you won't be sorry.
Bruce
The thread you reference above is discussing an earlier version, 31" pipe compared to 48" pipe on this latest version.
I have to tell you either one sounds great. The external dimensions for the baffle on the latest version I built is 13"w x 50.25"l which is about 1/3 larger than the cabinet being discussed in the thread you referenced.
If space is a concern go with the smaller one, you won't be sorry.
Bruce
abpea said:
Does this apply to the smaller 31" line and the trapezoidal line too. Since you have built all 3 lines which of these would sound best in an HT/AV enviroment. I am hoping to use the same system for HT/AV as well as audio.
I feel the box in the center of the "group shot" or the smaller on on it's left would have the best WAF.
Re: Re: New 48" ML-TL Review
Hello navin,
Yes, same applies to all of the different versions. I think if you want a really big bottom end you're going to end up using a sub in your system for rock music, etc. On the other hand as I mentioned, if you mainly listen to accoustial, live, jazz type of music these speakers will delight you to no end.
The smaller cabinet in the picture is the trapezoidal version. I actually was playing with different ways of mounting that speaker in our tv room to use in our HT setup. And you are right, the smaller one (trapezoidal) has a large WAF. My wife didn't object when we discussed mounting the 'traps' on the wall!!
Bruce
navin said:
Hello navin,
Yes, same applies to all of the different versions. I think if you want a really big bottom end you're going to end up using a sub in your system for rock music, etc. On the other hand as I mentioned, if you mainly listen to accoustial, live, jazz type of music these speakers will delight you to no end.
The smaller cabinet in the picture is the trapezoidal version. I actually was playing with different ways of mounting that speaker in our tv room to use in our HT setup. And you are right, the smaller one (trapezoidal) has a large WAF. My wife didn't object when we discussed mounting the 'traps' on the wall!!
Bruce
Re: Re: Re: New 48" ML-TL Review
Ofcourse I am planning to use Subs. I was hoping to use subs as low as possible but i might be restricted to the fixed XO freq provided by my HT/AVR (Marantz SR7000). Still slam is not only a factor of subs but also the midbass which would be provided for by the JX92. So what I am asking is that if we Xo the JX92 at say 80-100Hz will there be enough slam? for example if we want to hear the slam of a window/door realistically. While a sub would be moving most of the air the overtones would be reporduced by the JX92.
U read my mind. Wall mounting the JX92 is exactly what I am after. My guess is the small one is about 32" tall and the one in the center is 48". right?
I am looking for the exact opposite effect.
1. I dont need to impress my friends with gigantic speakers because my big DV12 based subs already do that.
2. I am looking to have speaker that are as small as possible that do not compromise on sound and are affordable (the JX92 is the upper end of affordability but I guess I save some money in XO and tweeter costs). Ideally I would be looking at a speaker that looks like the Bose Acoustimass system but that is more listenable.
abpea said:Yes, same applies to all of the different versions. I think if you want a really big bottom end you're going to end up using a sub.
The smaller cabinet in the picture is the trapezoidal version. I actually was playing with different ways of mounting that speaker in our tv room to use in our HT setup. And you are right, the smaller one (trapezoidal) has a large WAF. My wife didn't object when we discussed mounting the 'traps' on the wall!!
Bruce
Ofcourse I am planning to use Subs. I was hoping to use subs as low as possible but i might be restricted to the fixed XO freq provided by my HT/AVR (Marantz SR7000). Still slam is not only a factor of subs but also the midbass which would be provided for by the JX92. So what I am asking is that if we Xo the JX92 at say 80-100Hz will there be enough slam? for example if we want to hear the slam of a window/door realistically. While a sub would be moving most of the air the overtones would be reporduced by the JX92.
U read my mind. Wall mounting the JX92 is exactly what I am after. My guess is the small one is about 32" tall and the one in the center is 48". right?
BAM said:
I am looking for the exact opposite effect.
1. I dont need to impress my friends with gigantic speakers because my big DV12 based subs already do that.
2. I am looking to have speaker that are as small as possible that do not compromise on sound and are affordable (the JX92 is the upper end of affordability but I guess I save some money in XO and tweeter costs). Ideally I would be looking at a speaker that looks like the Bose Acoustimass system but that is more listenable.
My experience is limited to only one example, but I've found that an MLTL is hard to match up with a sub. My little system (FE107E) sounds good without a sub, but for some kinds of music noticeably lacking in bass. With the sub, I managed to get the freq response real flat, but there was something about the sound that was mooshy. I plugged the port on the MLTL's with fiber and raised the crossover point on the sub to match the rolloff of the (now) sealed speakers. It was immediately apparent that it sounded much, much better.
Driver Brace
This link previously mentioned: http://melhuish.org/audio/images/press-screw.gif
no longer has this detail. Doe anyone know the how the brace is made? I have read GM's recommendation to include this brace in the construction. Also is felt recommended behind the driver in the trapezoidal and the triangular arrangements, if so, which walls? Thanks
This link previously mentioned: http://melhuish.org/audio/images/press-screw.gif
no longer has this detail. Doe anyone know the how the brace is made? I have read GM's recommendation to include this brace in the construction. Also is felt recommended behind the driver in the trapezoidal and the triangular arrangements, if so, which walls? Thanks
Dave Jones said:
Interesting! I find them as easy to blend to and can use a lower XO point with more acoustic gain, so I'm curious what all you tried.
artus said:
See attached. Theoretically the trapezoidal one will need some on the parallel flat back panel and none for the triangular, but as always, best to do your own listening tests. FWIW, I've found that lining the back and one side of the trapezoidal and one side of the triangular has the best balance of damping/acoustic gain.
GM
Attachments
FWIW, somewhere in all these posts or one of the linked threads there are comments from me that 19mm Baltic Birch, Appleply, or no void marine grade plywood be used and Jay Fisher and friend's subjective opinions on how much better it sounds compared to the MDF prototype he built.
Not being a master woodworker, I have never built a speaker using premium hardwoods, but if the wood is stable and with no voids, splits, etc., then they would be an excellent sounding material to use also.
GM
Not being a master woodworker, I have never built a speaker using premium hardwoods, but if the wood is stable and with no voids, splits, etc., then they would be an excellent sounding material to use also.
GM
Re: Re: Re: Re: New 48" ML-TL Review
I'm going to slap a couple of JX92S's in 1/4 cubic foot closed boxes and run them with a sub. The crossover will be around 80Hz. I'll let you know how it comes out. I expect to be every bit as impressed with the results as DIYers usually are.
Annow... back to your regularly scheduled thread.
navin said:
I'm going to slap a couple of JX92S's in 1/4 cubic foot closed boxes and run them with a sub. The crossover will be around 80Hz. I'll let you know how it comes out. I expect to be every bit as impressed with the results as DIYers usually are.
Annow... back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New 48" ML-TL Review
which sub drivers do you intend to use.
Dave Jones said:I'm going to slap a couple of JX92S's in 1/4 cubic foot closed boxes and run them with a sub. The crossover will be around 80Hz. I'll let you know how it comes out. I expect to be every bit as impressed with the results as DIYers usually are.
which sub drivers do you intend to use.
Hi,
I have done this question to another thread but I'd like to do it again over here.
Are the Jordan (VTL or MLTL) good for 10W tube amp?
Or I need a more efficiency driver?
With what kind of amps are you listening them?
I'm very interested to build them but if they're not so good due to they're low efficiency,I'd like to try something else.
It will be my first FR speaker project.And I'd like to build something that will not disappoint me.
I have done this question to another thread but I'd like to do it again over here.
Are the Jordan (VTL or MLTL) good for 10W tube amp?
Or I need a more efficiency driver?
With what kind of amps are you listening them?
I'm very interested to build them but if they're not so good due to they're low efficiency,I'd like to try something else.
It will be my first FR speaker project.And I'd like to build something that will not disappoint me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.