| DMD |
I thought I'd decided which driver and enclosure to go with as my first project, until I came upon the opinion that full-range-driver designs generally didn't do well with music along the lines of, say, Wagner's Ring.
95% of my listening is acoustic, and most of it is simple, mainly classical/traditional world music and early music; I don't listen to much of the heavy-dynamic-complex sort of thing, but what I do listen to in this category is deeply meaningful to me. I'd love to be able to accommodate everything well in a full-range design.
Comments or suggestions, anyone? |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by DMD
I thought I'd decided which driver and enclosure to go with as my first project, until I came upon the opinion that full-range-driver designs generally didn't do well with music along the lines of, say, Wagner's Ring.
95% of my listening is acoustic, and most of it is simple, mainly classical/traditional world music and early music; I don't listen to much of the heavy-dynamic-complex sort of thing, but what I do listen to in this category is deeply meaningful to me. I'd love to be able to accommodate everything well in a full-range design.
Comments or suggestions, anyone? |
My first recommendation would be systems using the Jordan JX92S if you really want the feel of the concert hall. That is listening levels would not be louder than what you would hear in a concert hall. My definition of concert halls is like those in Europe, old style non-rectagular shaped. |
|
|
| RAndyB |
My musical taste is similar to yours, DMD.
I have a pair of Jordan JX92S. Currently in "open baffles" - each in half a sheet of chipboard. Excellent detail, but not much bass as you can imagine.
The "real" enclosures are still in the garage with the glue just dried. In a few days I can give you more information on how they sound.
As I am nearly 60 years old, my hearing is less than acute at the top end, but I like to hear bass as one would in the concert hall.
Here's hoping.
Regards,
Andy |
|
|
| one1speed |
dmd
if you really want big sound, you have to go with big speakers. i really enjoy full ranger drivers, but they do have their limits. if you listen at lower to moderate levels, full rangers work well. but if you listen louder and to more complex music, then they begin to falter. i find full rangers to excel at acoustic and small jazz groups. an amazing "thereness."
a couple options may be a full ranger with the bottom end rolling off, (say around 200-300hz) with a simple circuit, with a larger, pro sound woofer filling in the bottom. the pro sound woofers are light, quick and match well with the full rangers. you can find some posts here with regards to this. freeing the full ranger of the lower bass notes increases the dynamics and clarity of the full ranger. (a direction i'm serioulsy considering)
the other option would be to go big with horns and a large woofer, ala Pi Speakers. these take more room, but give a big, coherant sound.
full rangers aren't for everyone, but are very satisfying for those who have given them the opportunity. best of luck! |
|
|
| Colin |
Adding to the chorus in favour of the JX92 ...
I've built a pair of GM's 48" MLTLs shown on the Jordan DIY page (www.ejjordan.co.uk/diy) and have been using them for a couple of months now on a range of music, including world, jazz and orchestral. They are wonderful on orchestral and opera (and I'm not a fan of opera), capturing a lot of the warmth and depth of a good performance. Live opera via FM radio is terrific, with a tremendous sense of where everyone is on the stage. The coherence of using a single driver per side really helps pull out the threads of classical music. At the moment, I'm really enjoying the BBC Proms season via these speakers.
I haven't heard the shorter MLTLs but Bruce, who started a thread on this forum, seems to have built most variants and commented that the taller design is warmer sounding and has more bass. I can confirm that they reach the mid-30Hz range and the stereo at those frequencies adds more to the music than I was expecting.
Ted Jordan is a mostly classical music listener, I believe, so these drivers are optimised for that kind of material.
Regarding volume level - I am using them in a 19 feet by 10 feet open plan lounge (it opens into the rest of the house) and have them along one long wall, listening across the width of the room. At this distance, their volume levels are fine for me on orchestral, using a 15 watt Naim amplifier.
So far, the only design I have heard to compete with them have been electrostatics, but these reach deeper into the bass.
Hope these impressions are of use.
Colin |
|
|
| Nelson Pass |
| quote: | Originally posted by DMD
I thought I'd decided which driver and enclosure to go with as my first project, until I came upon the opinion that full-range-driver designs generally didn't do well with music along the lines of, say, Wagner's Ring. |
That is pretty much my experience - Full range drivers are at their
best with simple material, and when you get into the dynamics
and complexity of a full orchestra, they are not as satisfactory
as multi-driver setups. |
|
|
| Dumbass |
What is your budget?
Also, what is the size of your listening environment and what sort of levels do you want?
If you want to be the dude in that old Maxell ad, single driver won't do it unless you get into really nice drivers in large backhorns.
On the other hand, I find my FE207E in simple vented cabs pretty darned good even with "heavy" material. But I live in an apartment and couldn't listen at very high levels even if I wanted to.
I would try to find someone with a single driver setup in your area and audition.
One more question, how skilled are you at woodworking? If so, a backhorn for an 8" driver could give you a lot more punch than a simple vented cabinet. |
|
|
| audiotux |
Hi DMD ,
i like the Baßtuba with the Mangers and Pass-Amplifiers .
See the webpage from Horst Möller :
www.hm-moreart.de
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nelson Pass
That is pretty much my experience - Full range drivers are at their
best with simple material, and when you get into the dynamics
and complexity of a full orchestra, they are not as satisfactory
as multi-driver setups. |
I would agree with this before I started to try out some 3" full range (well not so full) drivers. Some full range drivers of 20 years old did show these limitations. Now these limitation have been reduced significantly at levels one would experience about 10th two 20th row in a European concert hall. Many people like to listen at levels higer than this, then you will reach these limits more frequently. If the resolution of the drivers are not good enough, one would tent to turn up the volume to hear the details, then yes, you will reach these limitation easily. Not all full range drivers are equal.
A recent comparison among some full range drivers show that all soound quite good, better than what I listened to (Jordan Watts) for many years. But the current Jordan drivers just give that little more resolution revealing those details a little better. The sound field is also more coherent. I wish I could explain why through some measured data, but I currently see differences that I'm not able to relate with what I hear yet. Perhaps I need to rethink some of my test method hierarchy. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
Hi DMD ,
i like the Baßtuba with the Mangers and Pass-Amplifiers .
See the webpage from Horst Möller :
www.hm-moreart.de
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
Lots of people like the MANGERS, I had listened to their 103, and for some reason they did sound a bit muffled. I though it might have been due to the humidity here, but MANGER insisted that they feel the surrounding damping material would not attract humidity, so I don't really know what the cause was. The store had more expensive equipment than I. |
|
|
| DMD |
I'll never get over these forums. It's always mind-blowing how many right-there and helpful, experienced people suddenly appear around an important question. I really appreciate it.
I read through the Jordan JX92S/MLTL thread that Colin mentions, ("First Impression: GM's Jordan JX92S MLTL Speaker", started by Bruce about a year ago), and a couple of times I had to laugh out loud because I noticed I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat! (The only reason I can think of that that driver/enclosure evaded me so far is my former preoccupation with very high efficiency, which has relaxed lately. I had this nebulous idea the the Jordans were magnificent but out of the running for some reason, and I never looked into threads that had to do with them).
Andy, is the enclosure you're talking about GM's MLTL, or...?
Re my budget and listening room, um, D------s (it's not easy to address someone with your moniker): Room is small and soft, 14 X 19, with carpets, book/media shelves, curtains, and no furniture other than the sound system and the listening seats. Budget is whatever it takes as low as can be arranged.
Again, I really appreciate this, Everybody,
Don |
|
|
| DMD |
D-----s, I forgot to mention in response to your questions:
Re listening levels, (thanks for the hilarious mental image of that Maxell logo, BTW), I listen at softer than average volume, and it's very quiet here. Our front gate is over half a mile from our front door.
Re my woodworking skills, they are largely "latent"; IOW, I haven't done a lot of woodworking in my life. Everything I have done, though, has gone nicely. I have simple tools, but I do know people with the big, fancy, noisy stuff. I definitely don't think that something like a backhorn is the first step I should take into this field, though - a MLTL sounds about perfect. |
|
|
| RAndyB |
Don,
the enclosures are of Mass Loaded Tapered Quarter Wavelength design. See Peter Millett's site (http://www.pmillett.com/jx92s.htm) for the starting point, and Martin J King's site for his MathCad worksheets.
(www.quarter-wave.com)
Just off to the garage to make progress. Will report to the forum when they are working.
Regards,
Andy |
|
|
| Dumbass |
I think the Jordans might be the ticket. You need something more than flea-watt SET, though, that is for sure.
My moniker is a reference to That 70s Show, I thought it would be funny to log in and have the forum read, "Welcome back, Dumbass!"
Well, the joke's gotten a little old, but here I am.
Dumbass. :(
:D |
|
|
| DMD |
BTW Colin, I was very glad to hear of your experience with 15wpc.
I just finished reading the 48" version spinoff thread, and saw some almost diametric opinions there on appropriate power for the JX92S/MLTL design, some ideas leaning more toward the theoretical/general, and some more toward the experiential/specific. I'd be VERY interested in hearing more from others' direct experience.
My ASL puts out 5wpc in triode and 15wpc in pentode mode. I also have a modified Dynaco ST70 that I can run non-triode at the stock 35wpc if necessary.
Since GM's MLTL design appears on the Jordan site itself, it would seem that there must be quite a number of these speakers out there by now; perhaps the power subject should have its own thread? |
|
|
| Dumbass |
| AFAIK 15 tube watts would be fine. |
|
|
| Andy Bartha |
| Another choice would be the Moth Audio Cicada. Its 94 dB in simple bass reflex box. If you would like to built yourself the plans are available at the Speaker City website |
|
|
| rcdaniel |
Hi DMD
I am facing a similar quandary to you and have come up with two options, based on the suggestions of others I trust (and have similar musical tastes) on several sites. These should provide what you are looking for at a reasonable cost and prevent the desire to upgrade/change after a couple of months (as seems to happen with many full-range advocates).
Supravox 215 RTF64 (ie. non-whizzer) in sealed, ported, TQWT (on Supravox website), or TL enclosure – with a decent helper tweeter (singe cap in series with tweet). These should be good when matched with lowish power SET amps.
Driver Specs: http://www.supravox.fr/haut_parleurs/215_RTF.htm
TQWT design: http://www.supravox.fr/kits/tqwt215rtf.pdf
Use Babelfish to translate: http://babelfish.altavista.com/
US Dist: http://www.supravox.com/
Contact Franck at Supravox Fr (can communicate in English): info@supravox.fr
Hartley 220msg in recommended cabs, with supertweet if you feel necessary (not essential); email Richard for details and current pricing: Audiolab@aol.com These appear to be a unique driver and should be good when matched with tube amps of 8W+ in smaller rooms.
I currently believe that you can get a decently wide frequency response from many smaller full-range drivers. However, I feel that a 'speaker should be able to reproduce music with a semblance of ease and dynamics (in addition to other requirements) to be emotionally satisfying. Accordingly, a minimum of 8” full-range driver is generally needed.
Kind Regards, Ray |
|
|
| Colin |
I used to use a JX52/125 system which was rated about 2-3dB less than the JX92s (possibly even lower when the x/over was taken into account). They worked fine on the 15w Naim Nait but I did feel it was a little constrained by the available power. There is no such feeling with the JX92.
I think people get a little too hung up on power handling/sensitivity. One textbook I have suggests that an orchestra, heard from a good concert hall seat, will reach about 90dB. The Jordans will happily reach that, even allowing for distance from the speakers, driven by the Nait.
I was a bit bothered that I was asking a lot of a little driver but GM's design seems to bring out the best in them. The driver movement decreases as they go below 70Hz and output from the port takes over.
Ted has developed a design for Mark Audio (www.markaudio.com) which uses two JX92s per enclosure, presumably to allow a trade off between bass extension and maximum output.
I think the MLTL design is on the Jordan site for a couple of reasons - partly as a service to GM, who was otherwise having to keep giving the spec, but mostly because it looked like a good design and Jordan wanted to display the best of the DIY enclosures featuring his drivers. Peter Millet's design is also linked on the Jordan site (as are several others) but as he already has an excellent description of it on his website, there was no need to repeat it on the Jordan site.
BTW, the taller MLTL I've built is the triangular enclosure. My boxes look a bit prototype as yet and I'm plotting getting some better-looking ones made (which is why I haven't given them a write up on a thread of its own).
Colin |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | | I think people get a little too hung up on power handling/sensitivity. One textbook I have suggests that an orchestra, heard from a good concert hall seat, will reach about 90dB. The Jordans will happily reach that, even allowing for distance from the speakers, driven by the Nait. |
I remember decades ago at Optimal Enchantment in L.A., when Randy Cooley put on the music to demo the new Vandersteen 2Cs, he surprised everyone in the room with the very low volume. The sound didn't impose itself on the listener at all; the listener had to come to the sound. Everyone suddenly got a notch more quiet and attentive, and thus the "volume" gradually "increased." The experience was actually quite illuminating - obviously I never forgot it!
Great, you made a pair of the triangular speakers. I wonder:
1. Did you build them with an equilateral cross section like the ones at the Jordan site, or isocoles like Bruce's? (I've wondered why Bruce chose that particular proportion, the larger-area baffle perhaps?)
2. By chance did you glue the cabinets together using the mitre, tape, glue, and fold method of "joinery"? I've been fascinated by that no-clamp technique of clamping since I first read about it on the single driver website a couple of years ago (TC's BIB). In that article, Terry Cain speaks of the method's remarkable simplicity (if one has the equipment) and the joints' superlative strength.
Please do take your time getting around to answering these things at your convenience, Colin. You've been so helpful, and I don't want to exploit that helpfulness by asking too many questions. I'm really rather nuts about all this news; the prospect of the JX92S prism-shaped MLTLs in my listening room sounds roundabout like paradise right now.
BTW, being triangular, these already have a built-in high WAF (she is almost a crazy about triangles as I am). |
|
|
| Nardis |
I'd like to join in the praise for GM's 48" MLTL – congratulations GM and many thanks. I built mine in pentagonal columns which look good (or will when they're painted) and sound superb. They have a high WAF too. If you have access to a reasonable table saw, the pentagon is a possibility. The panels are narrow and the front of the baffle only 155mm (just over 6”) wide.
However I have added a Fountek JP3 ribbon, carried over from earlier mini-monitors based on Jim Griffin’s design. I know there are disagreements about the JX92’s top end, but I do find that the ribbon makes a big difference to orchestral strings.
Xover is first order at just over 6k, and I use them against a wall. A friend brought round a Behringer and they measured pretty flat on it, with bass into the mid 30s
I find the design great on small group jazz (my main listening). The bass is fast and my ageing REL Strata won’t quite integrate. I miss the sub on orchestral music, which really needs a bit more weight at the bottom end.
I’m interested in the comments about power. Mine are running off a Leak Stereo 20. I have another Leak and am planning to bi-amp, using one channel of each amp to drive the JX92 and the other to drive the ribbon. It will be interesting to see if this improves the bass weight. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nardis
I'd like to join in the praise for GM's 48" MLTL ?congratulations GM and many thanks. I built mine in pentagonal columns which look good (or will when they're painted) and sound superb. They have a high WAF too. If you have access to a reasonable table saw, the pentagon is a possibility. The panels are narrow and the front of the baffle only 155mm (just over 6? wide.
However I have added a Fountek JP3 ribbon, carried over from earlier mini-monitors based on Jim Griffin’s design. I know there are disagreements about the JX92’s top end, but I do find that the ribbon makes a big difference to orchestral strings.
Xover is first order at just over 6k, and I use them against a wall. A friend brought round a Behringer and they measured pretty flat on it, with bass into the mid 30s
I find the design great on small group jazz (my main listening). The bass is fast and my ageing REL Strata won’t quite integrate. I miss the sub on orchestral music, which really needs a bit more weight at the bottom end.
I’m interested in the comments about power. Mine are running off a Leak Stereo 20. I have another Leak and am planning to bi-amp, using one channel of each amp to drive the JX92 and the other to drive the ribbon. It will be interesting to see if this improves the bass weight. |
There are some good and some bads about adding a tweeter to full range drivers, that's why we see these disagreements. Having played around with full range drivers and listened to them for over 20 years, we came up with a structure that we refer to as the FleXoNotch so that it was easier to tune the response to individual taste. It is posted in this forum and please feel free to use it for personal use if it helps. You will have the flexibility to adjust the balance among the high, mid, and low to different extents. |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| Open baffle speakers are good in reproducing the large space of a big orchestra, but for the big drums you need a sub. Drivers without whizzers reproduce voices slightly better than those with. My absolute favorite would be the Supravox 165 with field coil (€€€). |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
Open baffle speakers are good in reproducing the large space of a big orchestra, but for the big drums you need a sub. Drivers without whizzers reproduce voices slightly better than those with. My absolute favorite would be the Supravox 165 with field coil (€€€). |
Open baffles need to be placed further way from the back wall due to the strong sounds comming out the back. |
|
|
| Jaime |
Originally posted by Nelson Pass
" That is pretty much my experience - Full range drivers are at their
best with simple material, and when you get into the dynamics
and complexity of a full orchestra, they are not as satisfactory
as multi-driver setups".
I believe that Nelson Pass is right, but I do not understand the reason.
I have FE108 horns and they work very well with pianos, guitars, voices, ensambles...... But during the 7th of Beethoven there are parts that do not sound good.
I believe that the driver is very small...!!!
Now, I am constructing new horns with the FE168EZ.
But, If Nelson Pass is right, this it will not solve the problem.
I have seen the Horning Perikles, using a Lowthers wide range and a supertweeter and bass woofer. What happens in this case? There is confusion also?
Best regards.
Jaime |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jaime
Originally posted by Nelson Pass
" That is pretty much my experience - Full range drivers are at their
best with simple material, and when you get into the dynamics
and complexity of a full orchestra, they are not as satisfactory
as multi-driver setups".
I believe that Nelson Pass is right, but I do not understand the reason.
I have FE108 horns and they work very well with pianos, guitars, voices, ensambles...... But during the 7th of Beethoven there are parts that do not sound good.
I believe that the driver is very small...!!!
Now, I am constructing new horns with the FE168EZ.
But, If Nelson Pass is right, this it will not solve the problem.
I have seen the Horning Perikles, using a Lowthers wide range and a supertweeter and bass woofer. What happens in this case? There is confusion also?
Best regards.
Jaime |
There are actually a few issues related with this.
First is the the dynamic range. Do not get this mixed up with sensitivity as normally shown in the specs. If the driver does not have good resolution, then you will tend to turn up the volume to hear the details, what this will cause is you quickly hit the power limits of the driver making the music sound loud but compressed. If the driver has good resolution, then you will not need to turn the volume up so much. In a full orchestra, each instrument is at a lower level. So when you start to turn up the volume, you start reaching the dynamic range limit.
Second is the driver characteristics. If you look at the Foxtex curves. Notice that the impedance curve is not so smooth, and the FR also has some peaks and valleys. The things they don't show is phase of the FR or phase of impedance. Non-smoothness in the impedance curves and FR curves concurrently with the impedance curves will reveal cone resonances and phase shifts. In simple musical instruments, phase will make the instrument sound somewhat different, but not so bad. If you have complicated instruments playing together, the ear can no longer distiguish the individual instruments, and the total music will soound a bit noisy and compressed. |
|
|
| el`Ol |
I believe that the larger part of the problem is that high efficiency speakers are mostly driven by very non-linear triode or MOSFET amps. My Ciares don`t lose their detail resolution in complex material on my Panasonic digital receiver.
I once listened to a fullranger at an Antique Sound Lab single-ended amp that could be switched between triode and pentode mode and the difference was immense in complex orchestra material. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
I believe that the larger part of the problem is that high efficiency speakers are mostly driven by very non-linear triode or MOSFET amps. My Ciares don`t lose their detail resolution in complex material on my Panasonic digital receiver.
I once listened to a fullranger at an Antique Sound Lab single-ended amp that could be switched between triode and pentode mode and the difference was immense in complex orchestra material. |
That may be true, but it would have the same effects regardless full range or multi-way. Wouldn't it? |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
That may be true, but it would have the same effects regardless full range or multi-way. Wouldn't it? |
Yes, we would have to test a high efficiency multi-way system, horns also distort, and there are not so many without horns. |
|
|
| Jaime |
| But Nelson Pass talks about full range (and not horns) comparing with mutiway systems. A very good driver (Fostex F120A for example), would not work well in a complex situation? |
|
|
| one1speed |
Full range drivers can only do so much. After all, we're asking a single cone to do the same work as multi driver set ups. This is why many are now considering rolling of the bottom end, to keep the cone free of the demanding bass frequencies. It is also the advantage of a back loaded horn, as this pressurizes the cone and limits the excursion needed to create the lower freqencies.
At lower volumes, I think you can have a capable system with a full ranger. But, loud and complex aren't the highlight of a full ranger.
If you look at post 6 of this thread, you'll see Nelson basically says you can't expect too much from a full range driver. While the F120a looks to be an amazing speaker, it can't do everything well, but possibly can do more than many others. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jaime
But Nelson Pass talks about full range (and not horns) comparing with mutiway systems. A very good driver (Fostex F120A for example), would not work well in a complex situation? |
If you look at the F120A, what do you see regarding effeciency, cone material, power rating, Xmax.
Then look at the impedance plots and post what you think of those.
There are lots of information behind words of recommendations, and lots of assumptions as well. If you find someone with similar tastes as yours, then take their recommendations, otherwise it is best to learn more detail. |
|
|
| DMD |
| All of the CSS FR125S talk is certainly interesting in this whole regard, in my own case especially with regard to the somewhat surprising behavior with low power amplification. |
|
|
| Colin |
Hi DMD
Apologies for the late reply - I've been away for a while.
The triangular enclosures were glued and screwed. The end results work sonically but weren't quite what I'd anticipated visually. (I put them together on a portable bench in the back porch.) I'll get a pic taken and post it on the thread tomorrow sometime.
Plan B is to either explore a better way of building them (thanks for the Terry Cain reference) or commission a local cabinet builder.
They're worth persisting with as my partner fully approves the shape and has banned me from introducing any more rectangular boxes into the house.
The shape is also good acoustically, of course, as it eleminates reflections and provides the right toe-in. I've built the shape on the Jordan site. I think Bruce went to a wider front design to go some way towards the wide baffle recommended on the Jordan site (e.g. in the VTL design). This supports the lower mid and upper bass quite well. With the triangles operated against a wall, the wall provides the same effect.
Hope this is of use.
Colin |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by DMD
All of the CSS FR125S talk is certainly interesting in this whole regard, in my own case especially with regard to the somewhat surprising behavior with low power amplification. |
It would be nice to get to hear them. When the designs are optimized, paper cones theoretically have less resolution unless there is some treatment to increase the hardness. Metal cones theoretically have better resolution due to less engergy loss during transition of force from the VC to the cone, but many drivers of this kind have high frequency vibration modes unless you can get the material thin enough like the Jordans.
If unsmoothed impedance curves look smooth, generally this means the cone vibration modes are quite tamed. However, signal resolution is not part of standard released test data, so the only way to compare is to listen to two similarly designed systems at the same SPL you normally expect to listen, and compare.
Most people will not provide head on comparisons amond competing products because of conflict in interest. So you will just have to find out for yourself.
I think if you just like a pleasing sound and are budget limited, The FR125S, W3-871S, etc. probably all have good sounds. If you want more detail, the Jordans are probably your best bet. |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
When the designs are optimized, paper cones theoretically have less resolution unless there is some treatment to increase the hardness. Metal cones theoretically have better resolution. |
The best resulution I`ve heard till now is that of the Mangers. And they are everything else but hard and stiff. And the Ciares, which have almost no cone movement at the surrounding have better resolution than small fostexes, where the cone almost completely moves as a whole. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
The best resulution I`ve heard till now is that of the Mangers. And they are everything else but hard and stiff. And the Ciares, which have almost no cone movement at the surrounding have better resolution than small fostexes, where the cone almost completely moves as a whole. |
I have listened to the Manger 103 two way speaker before, and was not impressed. I specifically listened to piano, and it sounded somewhat muffled and compressed. They are not hard or stiff, that is correct. They sound relaxing and forgiving as most paper cone drivers. Do you think I should listen to them again? The MANGER CD is certainly well made.
The Ciares I am not familiar with, perhaps they are used on some commercial speakers I might be able to listen to? |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| The realism presented by the Mangers is dependent very strongly on the used amplifiers. A friend of mine uses them with minimalistic DIY-amps. When I listened to them first they sounded like you describe. But it was like day and night when he speeded up his amps with mica capacitors. My friend believes that with conventional drivers you have undesired cone sound when the rise time of the amp is much shorter than the rise time of the driver, and so most of the commercial amps are designed too slow for the Mangers. |
|
|
| audiotux |
Hi soongsc ,
i like to say it that way , in direct comparisson to the Mangers the other
loudspeakers are bright and boomy !
With the amplifiers of Nelson Pass , there is no other speaker with that
realistic sound .
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
The realism presented by the Mangers is dependent very strongly on the used amplifiers. A friend of mine uses them with minimalistic DIY-amps. When I listened to them first they sounded like you describe. But it was like day and night when he speeded up his amps with mica capacitors. My friend believes that with conventional drivers you have undesired cone sound when the rise time of the amp is much shorter than the rise time of the driver, and so most of the commercial amps are designed too slow for the Mangers. |
With conventional drivers, such cone characteristic shows up in impedance plots if the data is not smoothed. Also with conventional cones, if the material is not hard enough, there will be loss of resolution. So in technical terms, how fast is fast enough for the Mangers? I think most certainly commercial amps could go way beyond 50K :confused:
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
Hi soongsc ,
i like to say it that way , in direct comparisson to the Mangers the other
loudspeakers are bright and boomy !
With the amplifiers of Nelson Pass , there is no other speaker with that
realistic sound .
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
Besides the Pass amps, I wonder what other amps will work well with the Mangers? Pass amps do not show up often in Hi Fi stores here. I agree with you that lots of speakers sound boomy, and bright, but I think. Having just come back from the Hi End Hi Fi show here, I kind of wonder why they call many of these things Hi Fi. I would say since each system had its own hotel room, it would quite represent the average home listening condition. But I didn't see any Mangers there. I wonder why? :confused: |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| I can`t believe my friend`s explaination either, because it also works with 44.1kHz CDs. Does anybody have an idea what the mica really does? |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by el`Ol
I can`t believe my friend`s explaination either, because it also works with 44.1kHz CDs. Does anybody have an idea what the mica really does? |
I somehow recall that mica caps are used at frequencies higher than audio range, more in radios, that was a long time ago when I just started to understand what different capacitors do. So I guess it depends upon what the cap is used for in the design, what value, and what kind of cap was originally used. But this discussion would be off topic. |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | So in technical terms, how fast is fast enough for the Mangers? |
According to Mrs Manger: >150 k
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by phase_accurate
According to Mrs Manger: >150 k
Regards
Charles |
Thanks. :) I'll keep that in mind the next time I listen to them. I certainly hope that the guys that don't believe in nay specs higher than 20K see this, otherwise we're in for another heated discussion.:D |
|
|
| audiotux |
Hi soongsc ,
the most amps will work well , forget the risetime !
but Pass Amps + Mangers are a Dreamteam . Risetime alone for itself
has nothing to do with good sound , also the bandwith alone for itself .
You can hear other capacitors or silver micas with slow or fast amps
or with other speakers , not alone with the Mangers .
Enjoy the music !
Jürgen |
|
|
| audiotux |
to el Ol ,
wegen der Anstiegszeit und der Bandbreite gibt es eine interresante
Erklärung von Andreas Hoffmann auf www.octave.de unter dem
tread octave und manger passt das ? , bezieht sich aber auf alle
Verstärker oder Lautsprecher nicht nur manger allein !
Damit wird ersichtlich dass das mit der Schnelligkeit sehr ungenau
definiert war .
Grüße aus Baden
Jürgen |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
Hi soongsc ,
the most amps will work well , forget the risetime !
but Pass Amps + Mangers are a Dreamteam . Risetime alone for itself
has nothing to do with good sound , also the bandwith alone for itself .
You can hear other capacitors or silver micas with slow or fast amps
or with other speakers , not alone with the Mangers .
Enjoy the music !
J_ógen |
Hi J¨¹rgen
I was really wondering because after reading so many good reviews and looking at the concept, I was excited. But after listening to the Mangers, it did not seem to stand out that much. So the discussion started just to see whether there were anything that could have inhibited their performance. |
|
|
| audiotux |
Hi soongsc ,
like my new name ( no problem only joking )
i stated in direct !! comparison other speakers are bright and boomy or
very boomy ! Have you seen any Jordans , Fostexs , Lowthers ?
at the Hifi Show ? That has nothing to do with the Quality of that
speakers or the Mangers .
Enjoy your music !
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
Hi soongsc ,
like my new name ( no problem only joking )
i stated in direct !! comparison other speakers are bright and boomy or
very boomy ! Have you seen any Jordans , Fostexs , Lowthers ?
at the Hifi Show ? That has nothing to do with the Quality of that
speakers or the Mangers .
Enjoy your music !
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
I saw many speakers that use Fostex, none that are full range or sound very good, no Lowthers, no Jordans. But these manufacturers only produce drivers and no speakers as I recall. Manger actually produces speakers and drivers. Just maybe the importer is not promoting it hard enough. If the drivers were not so expensive, I would have gotton a pair to play around with.
There are actually two technologies that I'd like to experience first hand, one is the Manger, the other is NXT. I use mostly Jordans because ever since I started to work on speakers I understood that the design concept was sound engineering pratices, and those provided the best sound at the time. I still try different drivers if the design information looks promising, but most still lack the detail resolution.
I compare speakers starting with feelings first. Can I feel what the performer is expressing? or do I just hear sound. Do I feel like I'm at the location of the performance? or do I feel the speakers are trying to bring the performer into my room. If I only have a short time to listen, then I pick piano performances that I previously often find well recorded and see if it sounds like a real piano. The reason I pick piano is that most systems do not seem to show realistic piano sound. It's amazing how different same piano performances can sound on different systems.
I once talked with an audio store manager, and he indicated music students are the most difficult people to sell audio equipment to, because no matter what they listen to, it always sounds like boxed music.
Hope to build up some test capability that will identify why speakers or systems do not sound realistic enough. Currently the only thing I can think of is first testing FR at different levels and see what happens. The traditional 1W is too large for small signal, and too small for large signal.:) |
|
|
| poptart |
| quote: | | The reason I pick piano is that most systems do not seem to show realistic piano sound |
This is just a gut feeling, but might it be because piano is a very large instrument? Why would a little speaker give the same impression of size and complicated sound radiation into a room as a real piano? Perhaps the speaker would need to be the same size as the piano for us to be able to close our eyes and really sense it's in front of us. If you close your eyes and walk around you can sense a large obstacle before you walk into it by the sound, but smaller objects you might bump into.
Just an idea :) |
|
|
| Dumbass |
| quote: | Originally posted by poptart
This is just a gut feeling, but might it be because piano is a very large instrument? Why would a little speaker give the same impression of size and complicated sound radiation into a room as a real piano? Perhaps the speaker would need to be the same size as the piano for us to be able to close our eyes and really sense it's in front of us. If you close your eyes and walk around you can sense a large obstacle before you walk into it by the sound, but smaller objects you might bump into.
Just an idea :) |
Perhaps not so much the physical size of a piano, but the fact that it is a percussion instrument, therefore transients might be more difficult to recreate. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dumbass
Perhaps not so much the physical size of a piano, but the fact that it is a percussion instrument, therefore transients might be more difficult to recreate. |
I think that is it.
In addition, the time/phase relationship between the transient and the following resonance characteristics make up the tone of the piano. So if the speaker is not performing right, the transient and resonance do not sound like they are from the same instrument. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by poptart
This is just a gut feeling, but might it be because piano is a very large instrument? Why would a little speaker give the same impression of size and complicated sound radiation into a room as a real piano? Perhaps the speaker would need to be the same size as the piano for us to be able to close our eyes and really sense it's in front of us. If you close your eyes and walk around you can sense a large obstacle before you walk into it by the sound, but smaller objects you might bump into.
Just an idea :) |
Yes, dynamics of the piano is difficult to reproduce, and is also difficult to record. But if you listen to a live performance in a concert hall, the piano does not sound big, but it is clearly different than what is heard on most speakers.
It really takes some time to listen to such live performances and appreciate the skill of the performer to be able to feel the difference. |
|
|
| poptart |
| If you're a long way away from a piano in a hall the piano is like a small source, so I can see how size wouldn't have anything to do with it. I was thinking of the hard to please piano student in an audio store mentioned earlier. If you're sitting at a piano it's very large and different sounds are coming from the top and bottom, wrapping around the piano reflecting/diffracting etc. I don't think a little speaker in your face is ever going to sound like that no matter how good the transient response is. |
|
|
| el`Ol |
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
to el Ol ,
wegen der Anstiegszeit und der Bandbreite gibt es eine interresante
Erklärung von Andreas Hoffmann auf www.octave.de unter dem
tread octave und manger passt das ? , bezieht sich aber auf alle
Verstärker oder Lautsprecher nicht nur manger allein !
Damit wird ersichtlich dass das mit der Schnelligkeit sehr ungenau
definiert war .
Grüße aus Baden
Jürgen |
This article explains that speed of an amplifier is the capability to deliver current at high frequencies. "Fast" transistor amps were easy to blow up, so most of the transistor amps developed today are even "slower" than valve amps. My friend uses Black Devil amps from Experience Electronics, a very risky design from the eighties that has nothing but melting fuses to prevent overpower and a far overdimensioned power supply. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by poptart
If you're a long way away from a piano in a hall the piano is like a small source, so I can see how size wouldn't have anything to do with it. I was thinking of the hard to please piano student in an audio store mentioned earlier. If you're sitting at a piano it's very large and different sounds are coming from the top and bottom, wrapping around the piano reflecting/diffracting etc. I don't think a little speaker in your face is ever going to sound like that no matter how good the transient response is. |
Of course for piano students, if they are just listening from a player's point of view, then they will not hear the right thing because the recording is not done from that point of view. But a speaker should be able to reproduce what the recording engineer is trying to reveal, and also what the performer is trying to let the audience hear. Some of the famous pianists have a few pianos that they choose from before a performance based on the acoustics of the hall. So can it sound the same. From a pure dynamic range point of view, yes! From a linearity point of view, difficult. How much effort do manufactures want to put into acomplishing this? Depends on customer demand. Are there designers out there trying to acomplish this? Yes! I take my hat off to those whom are not afraid to actknowledge the current limitations, and I respect those that really try to improve the performance. |
|
|
| poptart |
| quote: | | Are there designers out there trying to accomplish this? Yes! |
I certainly don't mean to insult anyone who is working on something like that, I should have thought about that before I said it. It's was just a feeling, and I'm just a regular guy with an interest in audio, not a speaker designer. I'm sure experiments must take place with blind folded piano players led to one of two piano benches, one in front of a real piano and one in front of a speaker. I'd still be very surprised if any were fooled by the speaker, but I'd be very interested to read about the experiment and what the "clues" were that let our brains determine what we're listening to.
I know this is off the topic of the thread, sorry. |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
The problem lies not only within the speakers but also the recording.
A piano is quite difficult to record "accuarately" (whatever that means).
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| audiotux |
Hi all ,
nice piano thing , have a link to pianos , amplifiers ,speakers , unsw .
see Jeff Days review of the Evans Audio Disign on www.six moon .com
click on audioreviews , sroll down to audioreviews and you find the review
of the Tom Evans Linear A , go to : the amplifier/speaker interface there it is !
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by poptart
I certainly don't mean to insult anyone who is working on something like that, I should have thought about that before I said it. It's was just a feeling, and I'm just a regular guy with an interest in audio, not a speaker designer. I'm sure experiments must take place with blind folded piano players led to one of two piano benches, one in front of a real piano and one in front of a speaker. I'd still be very surprised if any were fooled by the speaker, but I'd be very interested to read about the experiment and what the "clues" were that let our brains determine what we're listening to.
I know this is off the topic of the thread, sorry. |
I like to have system that produces moving music every time I listen. :o You would be surprised how easily people can get fooled with the right recording and the right system. I have not tried something like that yet, but would be interested in doing so with some of the larger speakers. At close distance, the piano produces some sounds that are "felt" as well as "heard" You really need speakers to move enough air to do that. For smaller speakers, I just settle for what can be heard.
| quote: | Originally posted by phase_accurate
The problem lies not only within the speakers but also the recording.
A piano is quite difficult to record "accuarately" (whatever that means).
Regards
Charles |
Totally agree. most piano performances can get clipped at some of the transient peaks. I don't think recording engineers are going to ask the performer to replay the whole thing just because of this. I once built a test "peak unlimiter" circuit, and the dynamics were such that the piano became more convincing. When I get the time, I will introduce that into my system some day if it does not effect other qualities.
| quote: | Originally posted by audiotux
Hi all ,
nice piano thing , have a link to pianos , amplifiers ,speakers , unsw .
see Jeff Days review of the Evans Audio Disign on www.six moon .com
click on audioreviews , sroll down to audioreviews and you find the review
of the Tom Evans Linear A , go to : the amplifier/speaker interface there it is !
Greetings from Germany
Jürgen |
Did a search on "piano" through that page, the only two places that talked about it was a performer and two different keys the most left and the most right one, and some description of how the speaker produces the sound. Thanks for the link. |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | | My friend uses Black Devil amps from Experience Electronics, a very risky design from the eighties that has nothing but melting fuses to prevent overpower and a far overdimensioned power supply. |
Ah those 80s POW-er amps. Just about melted my own fuses sometimes. :xeye: |
|
|
| Colin |
Re piano reproduction, and backtracking slightly, Carolina Audio (www.carolinaaudio.com) mentions using their version of the Jordan VTL as a monitoring speaker during their local piano competition.
Colin |
|
|
| RAndyB |
I suspect that piano reproduction - like the piccolo - is good at discovering the nasty sharp spikes at several KHz in loudspeaker response. I have just put a couple of piano discs on to reassure myself that the Jordans do not suffer this problem - they don't.
This thread started with a request for loudspeaker designs for orchestral music. By good fortune and not a little planning, I was at the Royal Albert Hall a couple of evenings ago, one of the works on the program was Elgar's Enigma Variations. I use variation 14 as my test track for changes to the audio system so I have a depressingly accurate comparison for it. It seems unlikely that the first very low organ pedal note will ever come from loudspeakers at that volume in the average listening room; however the evening did remind me that the orchestra produces a lot of power in the range 500 Hz downwards, so I shall renew my efforts to implement line-level baffle step correction.
Andy |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by RAndyB
I suspect that piano reproduction - like the piccolo - is good at discovering the nasty sharp spikes at several KHz in loudspeaker response. I have just put a couple of piano discs on to reassure myself that the Jordans do not suffer this problem - they don't.
This thread started with a request for loudspeaker designs for orchestral music. By good fortune and not a little planning, I was at the Royal Albert Hall a couple of evenings ago, one of the works on the program was Elgar's Enigma Variations. I use variation 14 as my test track for changes to the audio system so I have a depressingly accurate comparison for it. It seems unlikely that the first very low organ pedal note will ever come from loudspeakers at that volume in the average listening room; however the evening did remind me that the orchestra produces a lot of power in the range 500 Hz downwards, so I shall renew my efforts to implement line-level baffle step correction.
Andy |
Some people have used this software for baffle edge correction estimation. I think you will find it usefull.
http://www.tolvan.com/edge/
I have a two way design that uses the Jordan JX53 and JX125. The low frequency of the organs will astonish you. I use and organ disk to play on a friends system, a brand name I can't remember, and we quickly found out how faulty some of his drivers were. :D |
|
|
| RAndyB |
soongsc,
thanks for the address, I discovered it a short time ago. The problem is in my expertise in soldering, I think! unless it is a lack of brain cells.
Andy |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | however the evening did remind me that the orchestra produces a lot of power in the range 500 Hz downwards, |
I'd say more than half of the acoustic power from an orchestra is below that !
Have you been to the PROMS ?
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| RAndyB |
Charles,
yes I have been to a BBC Promenade Concert; do I look smug from where you are sitting?
I shall admit to not promenading, I didn't enjoy standing when I was a young man, and now it is even more uncomfortable, anyway my daughter thinks she should sit when being treated by Dad! Perhaps this is too far off topic for Full Range forum, but - I think whoever was playing the Albert Hall Organ (not specifically listed in the program) could not resist pulling out a few more stops than was absolutely necessary; in the coda the organ did not just drown out the strings as expected, it even overwhelmed the brass; must try for an organ recital there sometime, should be rather more exiting even than Huddersfield Town Hall.
I have heard the 50% figure mentioned before, and am inclined to agree. Even with a 6db lift from 1KHz to 50Hz, the balance is a bit thin, although there may be other reasons for this, see below.
Don,
the Jordans do reproduce the sound of an orchestra well enough for my comfort. Referring back to the organ entry in Elgar Enigma 14, with BSC the pedal note does shake the air, the floor, the chair. That sort of lower bass is somewhat too strong in comparison with the double basses, bassoons, lower brass. Even so, the Jordans in these cabinets are, for me, at the price level, an adequate simulation of the concert hall in my 15ft by 12 ft by 9 ft room.
Please do not be persuaded that MDF is a good material for speaker cabinets, especially the large ones needed to make full-range drivers work well. The cabinets are transparent/resonant at an irritating narrow frequency band which I am sure is colouring the treble. Listening to Tallis's Spem in alium points this up rather too well.
Your wife approves of triangles? This design would be acceptable. I am hoping to hear JX92S in some other cabinets soon. After that I shall be able to post a comprehensive report of my project. Mail me direct for the unadorned details if you wish.
Andy |
|
|
| RAndyB |
soongsc,
omitted to let you know in previous post that the BSC is now working, brain cell problem.
It is good to know that I am just stupid and not bad at soldering.
Thanks again,
Andy |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | yes I have been to a BBC Promenade Concert; do I look smug from where you are sitting? |
Not at all since I have been to the ROH Covent Garden two months ago.
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| soongsc |
I haven't been to a live concert for a long time. :bawling: Envy you guys. The hall here are really just not up to par. The last time was either in Czech or Vienna.
I just put together a table top speaker trying out some different drivers that are compatible by analysis. I must say the JX53 really stands out in this category of aroun 3". Other drivers are not putting nearly as good sound field and resolution. Some sound good with pure vocals and background music. The JX53 gives you a sense that a stage exists. All use BSC, components are of same quality (commonly available). I'm going to be trying out different component quality to see what differences I hear.
It's really a pity that the JX125 and JX150 are currently not produced. Certainly hope they come back even better. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by RAndyB
soongsc,
omitted to let you know in previous post that the BSC is now working, brain cell problem.
It is good to know that I am just stupid and not bad at soldering.
Thanks again,
Andy |
Whas this before post #68 or after?
I'm so occupied in other projects that my JX92S are still sitting there. |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | Originally posted by RAndyB
I have heard the 50% figure mentioned before, and am inclined to agree. Even with a 6db lift from 1KHz to 50Hz, the balance is a bit thin, although there may be other reasons for this, see below.
Don,
the Jordans do reproduce the sound of an orchestra well enough for my comfort. Referring back to the organ entry in Elgar Enigma 14, with BSC the pedal note does shake the air, the floor, the chair. That sort of lower bass is somewhat too strong in comparison with the double basses, bassoons, lower brass. Even so, the Jordans in these cabinets are, for me, at the price level, an adequate simulation of the concert hall in my 15ft by 12 ft by 9 ft room.Andy |
Sobering and encouraging—and helpful, needless to say.
| quote: | | Please do not be persuaded that MDF is a good material for speaker cabinets, especially the large ones needed to make full-range drivers work well. The cabinets are transparent/resonant at an irritating narrow frequency band which I am sure is colouring the treble. Listening to Tallis's Spem in alium points this up rather too well.Andy |
Rrright. I have read no less than four statements in the last three days dissuading me.
| quote: | | Your wife approves of triangles? This design would be acceptable. I am hoping to hear JX92S in some other cabinets soon. After that I shall be able to post a comprehensive report of my project. Mail me direct for the unadorned details if you wish.Andy |
Triangles, polygons, prisms, polyhedra...matter of fact we're both inordinately fond of them!
It was good to hear from you; I was about to call to you out there in your garage to ask how it was going. I look forward to hearing more from you and appreciate the invitation. You'll hear from me presently.
Thank you,
Don |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | Originally posted by RAndyB
Charles,
yes I have been to a BBC Promenade Concert; do I look smug from where you are sitting?
Andy |
| quote: | Not at all since I have been to the ROH Covent Garden two months ago.
Regards
Charles |
You don't look smug to me, either; as a born-but-ex-denizen of the California coast who is now perched on a knoll surrounded by 200 acres of woodland which is in turn surrounded by uncountable square miles of corn and bean fields (and a smidgeon more woodland), I would say that both of you look very, very far away. |
|
|
| RAndyB |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
Whas this before post #68 or after?
I'm so occupied in other projects that my JX92S are still sitting there. |
soongsc,
before - post 68 is saying that with BSC the Jordans are all I hoped for when I ordered them.
Regards,
Andy |
|
|
| RAndyB |
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
I haven't been to a live concert for a long time. :bawling: Envy you guys. The hall here are really just not up to par. The last time was either in Czech or Vienna. |
Royal Albert Hall does not have a good reputation for acoustics, but it is:
big;
blessed with a wonderful pipe organ, just refurbished;
close to the hearts of many music lovers.
Probably the best acoustic I have heard in the recent past is Symphony Hall in Birmingham, it even has a double skin and huge movable screens to adjust the reverberation time.
| quote: | Originally posted by soongsc
I must say the JX53 really stands out in this category of aroun 3". Other drivers are not putting nearly as good sound field and resolution. Some sound good with pure vocals and background music. The JX53 gives you a sense that a stage exists. |
(Un)fortunately the speakers in the other room are beginning to break up, so I shall need to replace them, too. This second room, although a similar size, has no room for large cabinets. Sounds like a project just suited to JX53 satellites with a sub, would you not agree? The lady of the house does not yet know of this tentative plan, so I need support here, guys.
Regards,
Andy |
|
|
| RAndyB |
| quote: | Originally posted by phase_accurate
Not at all since I have been to the ROH Covent Garden two months ago.
|
Charles,
If I were more keen on opera I would be jealous.
Andy |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by RAndyB
(Un)fortunately the speakers in the other room are beginning to break up, so I shall need to replace them, too. This second room, although a similar size, has no room for large cabinets. Sounds like a project just suited to JX53 satellites with a sub, would you not agree? The lady of the house does not yet know of this tentative plan, so I need support here, guys.
Regards,
Andy |
I think I'll be able to show some pictures when we are ready. Currently different people get different impressions when they look at it. The box manufacturer says it's like a snail, my daughter says it's like a gold fish if you put it one way and a ghost when you put it another, I think it looks like a drop of water or a sea shell. If we can get it down to 80Hz, it will be good for large portions of music. I think we are going to call it "The Lullaby" or "The Serenade", maybe both will be used or whatever, depending on what is finally decided.
Line arrayed JX53 mounted in-wall might also be good. You will get very good dynamics with those. |
|
|
| soongsc |
| quote: | Originally posted by phase_accurate
Not at all since I have been to the ROH Covent Garden two months ago.
Regards
Charles |
Is that where thay have ballet dancers? The name sounds familar. |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | Originally posted by Colin
I'll get a pic taken and post it on the thread tomorrow sometime.
The shape is also good acoustically, of course, as it eleminates reflections and provides the right toe-in. I've built the shape on the Jordan site. I think Bruce went to a wider front design to go some way towards the wide baffle recommended on the Jordan site (e.g. in the VTL design). This supports the lower mid and upper bass quite well. With the triangles operated against a wall, the wall provides the same effect.
Colin |
Ahoy Colin! Are we going to get to see those pics?
I checked to see whether Bruce's 7.75-7.75-11 cross section might be a right triangle, and essentially it is (7.75 X 1.4142 = 10.96). Since such a cabinet could be built with only two angle cuts that would be of a standard 22.5 degrees, maybe ease of construction was another factor in the choice—but toe-in would also be different in the important one-side-to-the-wall positioning, which brings up something I've been wanting to bring up:
Equilateral cabinets, placed with one edge at the wall and parallel to it, will aim the drivers into the room at a 30 degree angle from the wall. Therefore if the two speakers are about 8 1/2 feet apart, their axes will cross at only about 2 1/2 feet out into the room. Sounds pretty tight for a lot of applications. Such angles should be just right in the application that you've described, though.
Right-triangle cabinets at 8 1/2 feet apart, since they will aim the drivers at 45 degrees, will place the axis crossing at about 3 feet into the room, maybe a little better in more typical arrangements.
BTW the toe-in suggested for the JX53 array system at the Jordan site is 60 degrees, which places the axis-crossing at a distance out from the wall .866 times the distance between the speakers: Speakers 10 feet apart, axis-crossing 8 1/2 feet out. (The equilateral cabinets would achieve that if they were in a corner with one side parallel to the side walls! Is that ridiculous or is it a possibility? Anybody have a comment?)
Thanks Colin and everybody for your help and you helpfulness,
Don |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | Originally posted by DMD
Right-triangle cabinets at 8 1/2 feet apart, since they will aim the drivers at 45 degrees, will place the axis crossing at about 3 feet into the room, maybe a little better in more typical arrangements. |
Oops, that should say about 4 feet (half the distance between the speakers). Sorry! |
|
|
| phase_accurate |
| quote: | | Is that where thay have ballet dancers? The name sounds familar. |
Yes, the Royal Ballet is also performing there.
http://www.royalopera.org
Regarding the Royal Albert Hall:
I have never been there personally (apart from driving by) but a recent article in a German audio mag counted it to the top 12 venues in the world (after the installation of ceiling diffusors to tame the characteristics of the reverb).
Regards
Charles |
|
|
| Colin |
Hi DMD - Thanks for the ahoy. No one mentioned the pics earlier so I hadn't got round to it. Later today.
>Sounds like a project just suited to JX53 satellites with a sub
Worth holding off on that for a month or so. There is a replacement for the JX53 along in late September which has a much lower resonance (70Hz) and is ideal for sat/sub use. I've heard it (briefly) in a 1 litre box and it sounded remarkable.
Colin |
|
|
| Colin |
The triangles in question ... The speaker on the left is a JX53/125 system, a 33 litre sealed bass enclosure and a 3 litre sealed enclosure for the 53. GM's MLTL design goes deeper and is actually less resonant on male vocals - either because of the tuning or due to the triangular cross-section of the cabinet.
As you can see, the triangular cabs are not finished yet - I put them in place to test them and haven't wanted to dismantle them since.
Someone is bound to ask, so ... the JX92 is slightly more brash-sounding than the JX53 system but somehow seems more organic. It's not something I mind because the end result is so enjoyable. The stereo image is much deeper. The JX53 has a little more air and delicacy in the HF.
GM's design seems to bring out the best in the JX92s and the system is one of the most enjoyable I've heard. There are a couple of electrostatics I could live with as replacements but that's about it. |
|
|
| Colin |
Another pic, showing the shape a little better.
The walls are 1" thick so the internal shape is triangular, even though externally they are six-sided. I thought this would make them easier to construct but if anything it may have made them trickier. The next version will be three-sided with the corners rounded and I'll get access to a proper workbench to assemble them on. (I do woodwork to build speakers, not the other way round. All constructional suggestions welcome.)
Incidentally, the walls show very little vibration but there is some in the top panel, which I guess fits with the column resonance aspect of the design. The enclosures are braced just below the driver (you can see the screw hole filler) and the entire top section lightly filled with BAF wadding. I seem to have been lucky in that I've not felt the need to adjust the filling. I may reduce it to see what happens. |
|
|
| Colin |
>BTW the toe-in suggested for the JX53 array system at the Jordan site is 60 degrees
Catching up with this - all the Jordan drivers are designed to cross at the same angle - so that 60 degrees is probably from the side wall. (Needs a picture, I think.) The JX92Ss rising HF response is designed to mimic the effect of the linear array, giving a stable image wherever you move.
Moving the JX92Ss so that they are at a more traditional 45 degrees causes the image to flatten and focus more on the speakers, in my experience. |
|
|
| tcpip |
One aspect of the MLTL columns seems to escape my attention: bracing. If I were to build triangular x-section columns, I'd add triangles inside the column as horizontal braces, and cut holes in them. This would make sense for vented enclosures. However, these braces may give rise to short standing waves between adjacent braces in a TL. Does this cause problems?
What bracing methods do all of you use for the TL columns? |
|
|
| DMD |
| quote: | Originally posted by tcpip
One aspect of the MLTL columns seems to escape my attention: bracing. If I were to build triangular x-section columns, I'd add triangles inside the column as horizontal braces, and cut holes in them. This would make sense for vented enclosures. However, these braces may give rise to short standing waves between adjacent braces in a TL. Does this cause problems?
What bracing methods do all of you use for the TL columns? |
I'm the novice in the group, and this is as much an echoing of the question as it is an answer, but the geometry of the triangular MLTL cabinet gives it such intrinsic stability, perhaps no such bracing is called for. I'd venture that none of the people we've heard from here who have built these cabs have added bracing to them, but of course they'll need to verify that.
OTOH, if you go to page 9 of the 1st main GM JX92S MLTL thread, you'll see a brief discussion of some braces that one person put into the rectangular design. GM suggested wrapping the braces, (you can see the inside of his cab with wrapped braces in this photo that he posted). Everyone seemed to think that airflow would be fine in that arrangement.
Again, you'll need to hear from those with more expertise.
Greetings from the other side of the world, BTW. Where is Mumbal, Dilli ke nazdik? - or am I a thousand miles and about a hundred languages off the mark?
Best of success,
Don |
|
|
| Dumbass |
| quote: | Originally posted by tcpip
What bracing methods do all of you use for the TL columns? |
I recall reading that the walls of a TL don't really experience much pressure, it is the two ends where structural integrity is really required.
The structure itself (long and narrow) makes for panels that aren't likely to vibrate much.
People use cardboard Sonotube for subwoofer TLs, and I haven't read any complaints about panel resonance or what. |
|
|
| Dumbass |
| Colin, those new TLs looks great. That hexagonal shape is very elegant, and I'm sure once you sand and finish them, very nice looking. |
|
|
| DMD |
| Excuse mem Tcpip, I forgot that Colin mentioned that his cabinets were braced just below the drivers (see about 5 posts back). He also mentioned the horizontal-vertical-resonance point brought up in the previous post. |
|
|
| tcpip |
| quote: | Originally posted by DMD
... the geometry of the triangular MLTL cabinet gives it such intrinsic stability, perhaps no such bracing is called for. |
I too thought an equilateral triangle prism of a tall and narrow design may be rigid enough by itself.| quote: | | GM suggested wrapping the braces, (you can see the inside of his cab with wrapped braces |
This was really helpful. Makes me think now...
Thanks a lot for this pointer.
| quote: | | Greetings from the other side of the world, BTW. Where is Mumbal, Dilli ke nazdik? - or am I a thousand miles and about a hundred languages off the mark? |
How did you learn Hindi? :D Have you visited here?
Mumbai is the new politically correct name for Bombay. It's on the Western seaboard of India, in Maharashtra state, and is the biggest centre of economic activity in India. It contributes about 40% of the country's income tax, for instance. :D
I almost suspect that Bombay is more well-known than Delhi, sort of like NYC is better known than WDC. :)
So, yes, you are about thirteen hundred miles off the mark when you mentioned "Dilli ke nazdik", but the language was spot on. :D |
|
|
|
