it's a behemoth pro pa cab with two 18's four 10's and a 2 inch throat horn!
read lumbar destroyer!
they generally required 4 to 6 big roadie's to deploy or load back into the truck!
read lumbar destroyer!
they generally required 4 to 6 big roadie's to deploy or load back into the truck!
Last edited:
I was in the FC Lab listening to the Nautaloss system (Crashtest Dummies was playing) and my wife came in to see what was making all this good music. She rarely ever comes in, and she never ever comments on the sound. But this time, she said "these speakers sound really good!" and started dancing to the music. I think these are a winner for sure. 😀
Nautaloss II Build #1
I am starting a dual driver version of the Nautaloss. It will have an angled baffle to provide more stability and improved directionality as a desktop monitor. Going with the black & white theme this time and I am building them in parallel as a pair to start with. Dual drivers should give 91 dB sensitivity at 2.83V and 1 m, with reduced cone excursion for lower THD and higher max SPL.
I am starting a dual driver version of the Nautaloss. It will have an angled baffle to provide more stability and improved directionality as a desktop monitor. Going with the black & white theme this time and I am building them in parallel as a pair to start with. Dual drivers should give 91 dB sensitivity at 2.83V and 1 m, with reduced cone excursion for lower THD and higher max SPL.
Attachments
Last edited:
looking good X! I was wondering about driver placement for your low freq enclosure. Could you place them on the side so you could set it closer to or even hang it on the wall. It could integrate well with some wall mounted Cornu's
Ryan,
Good to hear from you again. One of the key design considerations with the Nautaloss was to prevent reflections from the back wave. If you made an angled deflector directly behind a side mounted driver that can help as well as using lots of open cell foam or thick felt padding. Although the 6.67 in width has a freq of 1khz it may not be an issue as a woofer with a proper low pass filter. But yes, it could be side mounted and hung on wall. You will need a firm mount as the bass will really vibrate.
It's been awhile. Glad to be back.
That makes sense. If the speaker is mounted on the side the reflection would essentially have a 90 degree turn before heading down the path. Defeating the purpose of the enclosure design.
That makes sense. If the speaker is mounted on the side the reflection would essentially have a 90 degree turn before heading down the path. Defeating the purpose of the enclosure design.
Nautaloss II Build #3
The capping operation was a success. I used Titebond on internal joints and white PVA on external joints - should be stronger. The slight back angle makes a clean modern look with retro tailfins. I kind of like the tail fins on the speakers. Debating whether or not to trim them off to follow round contour. Need to cutout holes and mount drivers next. Almost there...
The capping operation was a success. I used Titebond on internal joints and white PVA on external joints - should be stronger. The slight back angle makes a clean modern look with retro tailfins. I kind of like the tail fins on the speakers. Debating whether or not to trim them off to follow round contour. Need to cutout holes and mount drivers next. Almost there...
Attachments
Last edited:
Nautaloss II Build #4 - Build Completed
The Nautaloss II's are now finished. They are fitted with dual Vifa TC9FD's wired in parallel for 4 ohm nominal impedance. Here are some photos and a comparison with the Nautaloss I. Size is 13 in tall in front and 12 in in back, 5 in wide x 9 in deep.
How do they sound? In a word - Awesome! The clarity and imaging are all there but the sound is now effortless and more dynamic. I will measure them later when I have some time but simple listening impressions with some test tracks indicate that they are an improvement.
A great sounding speaker - I would say probably the best speakers I have built so far when combined with the Nautaloss quad driver push-pull sub. 😀
The Nautaloss II's are now finished. They are fitted with dual Vifa TC9FD's wired in parallel for 4 ohm nominal impedance. Here are some photos and a comparison with the Nautaloss I. Size is 13 in tall in front and 12 in in back, 5 in wide x 9 in deep.
How do they sound? In a word - Awesome! The clarity and imaging are all there but the sound is now effortless and more dynamic. I will measure them later when I have some time but simple listening impressions with some test tracks indicate that they are an improvement.
A great sounding speaker - I would say probably the best speakers I have built so far when combined with the Nautaloss quad driver push-pull sub. 😀
Attachments
Those are sharp looking speakers. On first impression I like the combination of interior curves and exterior angles much better on the II's than the more strongly curved originals (but some of the appeal could be the contrasting colours as well).
Any excessive vibration in those (unbraced) extended tips on the top back? (I'm just wondering if that could be an issue in a wooden build.)
Any excessive vibration in those (unbraced) extended tips on the top back? (I'm just wondering if that could be an issue in a wooden build.)
Nautaloss II - Measurements
As I expected from my listening impression, these are excellent sounding *and* they measure very well. I set up the measurement in a similar position in the room that reduced the room-effects as last time. Microphone is UMM-6, distance is 12 in away as before.
This shows the frequency response of Nautaloss II (unit #2) all by itself. 1/8th octave smoothing applied as usual and notice the nice response all the way to 18 kHz. In FC, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the vibration of the tail fins in this measurement. The impulse response is also great.
How does this compare with Nautaloss I? Here is the comparison of the frequency response for Nautaloss II (units 1 & 2) with Nautaloss I. Very similar even response but with improved efficiency as expected.
How does having dual drivers improve the THD? I zoomed into the 20 to 2kHz range so that more detail can be seen here. Units 1 and 2 are both pretty consistent in how they measure even though there were minor construction differences internally. As expected, the THD decreased as the drivers have less cone movement - about -5 dB reduction in THD to an average of -50 dB THD on the absolute scale.
As you can imagine, these sound really good - very even response with nothing added and nothing taken away from the 200 Hz to 18 kHz range. When paired with the Nautaloss sub - it is a fantastic combination.
As I expected from my listening impression, these are excellent sounding *and* they measure very well. I set up the measurement in a similar position in the room that reduced the room-effects as last time. Microphone is UMM-6, distance is 12 in away as before.
This shows the frequency response of Nautaloss II (unit #2) all by itself. 1/8th octave smoothing applied as usual and notice the nice response all the way to 18 kHz. In FC, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the vibration of the tail fins in this measurement. The impulse response is also great.
How does this compare with Nautaloss I? Here is the comparison of the frequency response for Nautaloss II (units 1 & 2) with Nautaloss I. Very similar even response but with improved efficiency as expected.
How does having dual drivers improve the THD? I zoomed into the 20 to 2kHz range so that more detail can be seen here. Units 1 and 2 are both pretty consistent in how they measure even though there were minor construction differences internally. As expected, the THD decreased as the drivers have less cone movement - about -5 dB reduction in THD to an average of -50 dB THD on the absolute scale.
As you can imagine, these sound really good - very even response with nothing added and nothing taken away from the 200 Hz to 18 kHz range. When paired with the Nautaloss sub - it is a fantastic combination.
Attachments
Nautaloss II sound clips
Here are some sound clips of the Nautaloss II and sub. Quality is somewhat degraded in compressing to 192 kbit mp3 but should give a sense of what they sound like.
Here are some sound clips of the Nautaloss II and sub. Quality is somewhat degraded in compressing to 192 kbit mp3 but should give a sense of what they sound like.
I like where this is going 🙂. Next up, a Nautaloss with three drivers? (lol).
But kidding aside. Great to see the distortion improvements and the high extension not suffering much if at all. How is horizontal and vertical response? Horizontal I expect the same from version II as I was. But I am very curious to know how it sounds if you listen off axis in the vertical direction, above/below the two drivers. Wondering if it is already directional with an array of just two.
That little vifa driver keeps surprising. If I had the room for it I would have build the Manzanita Ultra just to try it and for the experience. But then again, that 15" is hard to come by here in Europe.
But kidding aside. Great to see the distortion improvements and the high extension not suffering much if at all. How is horizontal and vertical response? Horizontal I expect the same from version II as I was. But I am very curious to know how it sounds if you listen off axis in the vertical direction, above/below the two drivers. Wondering if it is already directional with an array of just two.
That little vifa driver keeps surprising. If I had the room for it I would have build the Manzanita Ultra just to try it and for the experience. But then again, that 15" is hard to come by here in Europe.
Last edited:
I can't really tell by ear if there is any effect of going up and down - other than the sweet spot seems better when listening seated vs standing up at 2 m away. It will take a microphone measurement to see the finer differences, but by ear, not much of an effect that I can tell. Only 2 drivers probably acts like a 3.5 x 7 in tall driver. The imaging and sound stage is almost identical to the single driver.
I did an A/B comparison of the Nautaloss I vs II and really, the biggest difference is the efficiency with the II being 4x louder. Sound quality is pretty much even once the volumes are compensated. Better imaging and coherence (by just a little) however, goes to Nautaloss I due to being a true point-source speaker. But if you need that extra impact and higher volume levels as a studio monitor, the Nautaloss II can be quite loud. I think both speakers are just fine for this application and confirm the versatility and high quality sound that the TC9FD is capable of. I just ordered a miniDSP and should be able to do a true bi-amp XO and equalization in the future. It should only get better as the baffle step compensation when implemented in the EQ should help tame the 2-5kHz rise.
I did a lot more listening with many different types of music and am giving the overall advantage to the Nautaloss II - it's efficiency and ease of playing music with large dynamic range is better. Classical orchestral pieces and opera sound better on it. Girl and guitar simple music where you want the phantom image of the singer in your room is just a little better with the Nautaloss I. In both cases, use of the Nautaloss sub with similar impulse response is key for the sound to be crisp and well integrated.
xrk971,
Any photos of the Nautaloss I showing the internal bracing? (unstuffed). Or is it just the three braces?
Any photos of the Nautaloss I showing the internal bracing? (unstuffed). Or is it just the three braces?