Hi,
No, for Seas...
I have no idea, just google xlbox.xls (there is also "xlbaffle.xls" BTW), loads of links come up.
Ciao T
No, for Seas...
I have no idea, just google xlbox.xls (there is also "xlbaffle.xls" BTW), loads of links come up.
Ciao T
Focal is no longer selling their tweeters thru retail.
Is there an alternative, from Seas or Scanspeak?
I don't like the Scanspeak carbon fibre woofers, very harsh and breakup in the high mids.
Is there an alternative, from Seas or Scanspeak?
I don't like the Scanspeak carbon fibre woofers, very harsh and breakup in the high mids.
Joachim I'm interested in Focal woofers but in the web you linked I only see that sell only kits not separate only drivers or I have to ask by e-mail?
Folks,
Stereophile has finally posted up the old Wilson Watt 3 / Puppy 2 (sounds like a football score) review, which in part was responsible for my clones a few years later...
Wilson WATT Series 3-Puppy 2 loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
The measurements sections is quite interesting, BTW...
Ciao T
Stereophile has finally posted up the old Wilson Watt 3 / Puppy 2 (sounds like a football score) review, which in part was responsible for my clones a few years later...
Wilson WATT Series 3-Puppy 2 loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
The measurements sections is quite interesting, BTW...
Ciao T
Thanks for the link.
I like to try building the puppies at least from your plans. There must be suitable woofers as they only cover 30-150Hz. I haven't figured out where all the brazes need to go or the cutouts.
I like to try building the puppies at least from your plans. There must be suitable woofers as they only cover 30-150Hz. I haven't figured out where all the brazes need to go or the cutouts.
Yoiks. Who else but a magazine like that would describe measurements like that so positively?
The impedance dips to 1ohm and the tweeter has a resonance around 20kHz!
I think we can do much better diy.
I think we can do much better diy.
Hi,
First, the impedance does not dip to 2 Ohm.
Second, you are missing the point.
Have you heard the Watt 3 / Puppy 2 System? It did some things incredibly well, subjectively, others as well as any studio monitor I heard.
In fact, Watt 3 / Puppy 2 driven by a Kondo/Audio Note Japan Ongaku (211 single ended tube amp) owned by an acquaintance was my first experience of serious "high end" and this system (with the Watt featuring a TC120TDx "re-cone" on the tweeter is still very good and to some degree to me a "touchstone" for sound quality.
In measured terms this system has many characteristics that would seem "poor" and can be improved upon. Yet in strict subjective performance terms there is not a lot of need to improve...
The later versions measure better but to my ears lack the "magic" of the earlier ones, which I put down mainly to the changed Watt Woofer...
So it makes sense to replicate this system DESPITE it's measured shortcomings. The lack of availability of the Seas 6.5" Woofer sadly mostly put's an end to that.
Ciao T
First, the impedance does not dip to 2 Ohm.
Second, you are missing the point.
Have you heard the Watt 3 / Puppy 2 System? It did some things incredibly well, subjectively, others as well as any studio monitor I heard.
In fact, Watt 3 / Puppy 2 driven by a Kondo/Audio Note Japan Ongaku (211 single ended tube amp) owned by an acquaintance was my first experience of serious "high end" and this system (with the Watt featuring a TC120TDx "re-cone" on the tweeter is still very good and to some degree to me a "touchstone" for sound quality.
In measured terms this system has many characteristics that would seem "poor" and can be improved upon. Yet in strict subjective performance terms there is not a lot of need to improve...
The later versions measure better but to my ears lack the "magic" of the earlier ones, which I put down mainly to the changed Watt Woofer...
So it makes sense to replicate this system DESPITE it's measured shortcomings. The lack of availability of the Seas 6.5" Woofer sadly mostly put's an end to that.
Ciao T
Technically, you are correct- it dips to 1.75 ohm. It is interesting that they didn't show the horizontal dispersion, which was one of the reasons that their setup is critical; the crossover work was not particularly inspiring. Driving electronics is, for the same reason, critical- John Curl's setup sounded very nice, but he was using a very high current amp to overcome this design flaw.
I never got the "magic" part, but that's just my subjective opinion. They don't do well the things I look for in a speaker.
Sy,
Could it be that Dave Wilson voiced them with Tube Amp's?
The Ongaku (by virtue of a 16K output transformer) has an output impedance that is high, but not extremely so, at a bit over one ohm, not massively different from some of the more common tube amp's of the time...
With the W3/P2 one can see that this source impedance would cut the midrange around 2.5KHz by around 3dB (classic BBC dip) and the 100Hz peak would be reduced a bit, compared to the in room response shown in the measurements, while the hole between 200 & 500Hz would be filled in.
The result is a speaker with a rather "british" sound, except by far more explosive dynamics than say a BBC monitor...
I did not like my clones that much using Solid State Amp's, but they where awesome with 300B PSE Amplifiers using the 4 Ohm Taps (with around 1R Zout), just maximum loudness was compromised a bit.
I guess that is why you use NHT 3.3's, about whichI would say precisely what you said about the WP's.
Ciao T
Could it be that Dave Wilson voiced them with Tube Amp's?
The Ongaku (by virtue of a 16K output transformer) has an output impedance that is high, but not extremely so, at a bit over one ohm, not massively different from some of the more common tube amp's of the time...
With the W3/P2 one can see that this source impedance would cut the midrange around 2.5KHz by around 3dB (classic BBC dip) and the 100Hz peak would be reduced a bit, compared to the in room response shown in the measurements, while the hole between 200 & 500Hz would be filled in.
The result is a speaker with a rather "british" sound, except by far more explosive dynamics than say a BBC monitor...
I did not like my clones that much using Solid State Amp's, but they where awesome with 300B PSE Amplifiers using the 4 Ohm Taps (with around 1R Zout), just maximum loudness was compromised a bit.
I guess that is why you use NHT 3.3's, about whichI would say precisely what you said about the WP's.
Ciao T
Any suggestion will welcome & helpfull to replace Peerless woofers usign the same or similar crossover designed by Thorsten for the clon?
Hi,
No, nothing out there I think.
Basically, if you want to build them, you need to work out your own X-Over for the drivers you will be using, same for all the others.
Ciao T
No, nothing out there I think.
Basically, if you want to build them, you need to work out your own X-Over for the drivers you will be using, same for all the others.
Ciao T
I have not heard the Watt 3 but the specs show the 2 drivers as time aligned.
Similar speakers with the kevlar TC120K were very detailed, great imaging but with a spitting, harshness driven by SS amps.
I don't know what magic you heard but I did hear the Sashas.
Maybe the CA18RLY can work or a 5" model.
Similar speakers with the kevlar TC120K were very detailed, great imaging but with a spitting, harshness driven by SS amps.
I don't know what magic you heard but I did hear the Sashas.
Maybe the CA18RLY can work or a 5" model.
Hi,
I drove my copies mainly using tube amp's and I used the Titanuim/TiOxide Tweeters which where less spitty.
Efficiency is too low.
Ciao T
I drove my copies mainly using tube amp's and I used the Titanuim/TiOxide Tweeters which where less spitty.
Efficiency is too low.
Ciao T
Looking to substitute Dynaudio 21 W-54 I see AudioTechnology Flex Unit 8I522008SD C-Quenze 23 I 52 20 08 SD with very similar specs:
Resonance frequency - fs: 33 Hz
Equivalent volume - Vas: 70 liter
Qms 1,85
Qes 0,3
Qts 0,26
Nominal impedance - Zn 8 Ohm
DC resistance - re: 6 Ohm
Effective cone area - Sd: 225 cm2
Compliance – Cms: 0,988 mm/N
Mechanical resistance – Rms: 2,64 kg/s
Moving mass – mms: 23,5 g
Inductance 1 KHz – Le: 0,20 mH
Force factor – Bl: 9,96 N/A
Winding height – Hc: 20 mm
Air gap height – Hg: 8 mm
Nominal power – Pn: 180 W
Acceleration factor: 423
Efficiency – SPL: 91 dB
Linear excursion (x-max) 8 mm
Max. excursion (P-P) 32 mm
So the question is: can I use these AudioTechnology instead the Dynaudio 21 W-54?
Resonance frequency - fs: 33 Hz
Equivalent volume - Vas: 70 liter
Qms 1,85
Qes 0,3
Qts 0,26
Nominal impedance - Zn 8 Ohm
DC resistance - re: 6 Ohm
Effective cone area - Sd: 225 cm2
Compliance – Cms: 0,988 mm/N
Mechanical resistance – Rms: 2,64 kg/s
Moving mass – mms: 23,5 g
Inductance 1 KHz – Le: 0,20 mH
Force factor – Bl: 9,96 N/A
Winding height – Hc: 20 mm
Air gap height – Hg: 8 mm
Nominal power – Pn: 180 W
Acceleration factor: 423
Efficiency – SPL: 91 dB
Linear excursion (x-max) 8 mm
Max. excursion (P-P) 32 mm
So the question is: can I use these AudioTechnology instead the Dynaudio 21 W-54?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.