Back to the LXminish Neo8 + Seas18 pentagon tower.
Rigged up a quick FR test of new GRS Neo3 vs the Neo8 already mounted on pentagon tower. Measuring distance was 2'. Despite factory provided specs to the contrary, the low end difference is not great. With minor EQ, it looks like the Neo3 would provide very similar results in this system w/o change to x/o freq.
Also got the off-axis "lazy Susan" out. Measured the single system at 0, 10, 20, 30 & 50 degrees off axis. Results are better than I would have thought. The average is nearly flat 1~10 kHz.
Rigged up a quick FR test of new GRS Neo3 vs the Neo8 already mounted on pentagon tower. Measuring distance was 2'. Despite factory provided specs to the contrary, the low end difference is not great. With minor EQ, it looks like the Neo3 would provide very similar results in this system w/o change to x/o freq.
Also got the off-axis "lazy Susan" out. Measured the single system at 0, 10, 20, 30 & 50 degrees off axis. Results are better than I would have thought. The average is nearly flat 1~10 kHz.
As for bass guitar, definitely sealed or vented. I'm also a bassist, but by no means a buy a house level player.
As far the neo8 having the same roll off as the 3, wouldn't have guessed that. Might have lower distortion down there, especially at higher volumes? Mine are actual B&G drivers, but from what I've seen the GRS units are just as nice.
As far the neo8 having the same roll off as the 3, wouldn't have guessed that. Might have lower distortion down there, especially at higher volumes? Mine are actual B&G drivers, but from what I've seen the GRS units are just as nice.
I believe the manufacturers spec is based on the tweeter mounted on a baffle. I believe your present design is actually considered as baffleless rather than open baffle. You can try adding some cardboard of 3 to 4 inch to the sides for a quick and dirty experiment. Should be able to lower the frequency response.
Followed your suggestion. Cut out a cardboard baffle for each Neo8 -- not quite 2" on either side, 1.5" below, about 3.5" above. Removed all filters except 48 dB high pass at 200Hz for protection. Level vs earlier sweep isn't matched, but it's close enough to easily see the difference in the shape of the slope. With this amount of baffle (still minimal, but no way I'm going bigger anyway so...), the slope below 800Hz is hardly changed. The boost between 900 and 3k Hz is significant but not sure how useful it is. Just means more PEQ is probably needed to achieve flat response.
At this point, with or without the cardboard baffle (with minor bit of PEQ adjustments between them), the subjective impression is positive. It sounds tonally balanced, with good detail, dynamic. I had 2 visitors in the studio today and both remarked on the good SQ. But...
When I make the switch to my 521-alikes, the improvement in bass depth and transparency is totally obvious, as is the razor sharp detail at the top & the relaxed "you are there" immediacy. No need even for any level setting, the LXminish clone is clearly not in the same league. My expectations for this speaker are likely too high.
I soldier on.
Last edited:
I’m surprised you aren’t getting the *“immediacy”, but every thing else seems about right.
l actually think the 521 sounds over-damped at higher freq.s and don’t like the pin-sharp images, though you should be able to “clean” that up a little with those **RAAL pad.s on the 8’s as I mentioned in the other thread.
Love the 521 from >200 Hz; you just won’t get that from a design like this though.
*do you get that more without the cardboard baffle?
**or something very similar.
l actually think the 521 sounds over-damped at higher freq.s and don’t like the pin-sharp images, though you should be able to “clean” that up a little with those **RAAL pad.s on the 8’s as I mentioned in the other thread.
Love the 521 from >200 Hz; you just won’t get that from a design like this though.
*do you get that more without the cardboard baffle?
**or something very similar.
My 521-ish speakers don't share ANY of the drivers with the original. The tweeter is an Aurum Cantus 2560(??) AMT simply converted to dipole. It sounds great to me. Better than any of the domes I've used so far, including the pricey Seas T25CF002 used in the Linkwitz Orions. Then there's the Scanspeak 10Fs & 22W8434 I used instead of the Seas MU10 & SEAS U22REX/P-SL of the original. The drivers I used were from John K's Nao Note 2 RS, both of which to me sound and measure better. My 521-alikes have no detractors among the 40-50 people who have heard them. I can listen to them all day long.
Yeah, I know. Still I hoped for a closer performance...
Not much change, really but I have to listen more. My impression is that it's a touch less open with the baffle.
I plan to try the Neo3 with a pentagon baffle whose sides measure ~5", instead of the ~6" of the bass pentagon. The Neo3 would be located slightly lower than center. This would be cosmetically interesting, and provide a bit of lift at the lower end of its range. I think I can have it 3D printed with built in brackets to attach to the bass tower so it has a clean look. And I'd get the benefit of the more extended top end, which I found sometimes lacking in the Neo8.
But before all that, I'll try the Neo 3 in simpler ways to ensure I'm not making a useless detour.
OK, much better drivers.
As far as useless detour: properly measure non-linear distortion for them with how they are baffled (if at all), with various input levels. I don’t think they will work well for this design because of the rising distortion at lower frequencies.
You could do what Juhazi did though.
-and in that context (perhaps more as adason has done) if you are trying to make a budget reference design then you could try this one out >7.5 kHz (might require removing some backing though):
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayto...MI8abHiZvGgAMVETjUAR3sSgtFEAQYASABEgL8jvD_BwE
-instead of the 3’s (at less than half the cost of the 3’s).
I rather like this sort of design for mounting:
https://www.ascendo.de/en/system-m5s.html
Last edited:
OK, much better drivers.
Yeah, you might be right. I did a quick measure of the Neo3 some time ago when I got them, and HD definitely rises quicker with declining F than Neo8. Should have got some of the thinner Neo8s...As far as useless detour: properly measure non-linear distortion for them with how they are baffled (if at all), with various input levels. I don’t think they will work well for this design because of the rising distortion at lower frequencies.
Makes it a lot taller & less attractive for my pentagon tower, methinks.You could do what Juhazi did though.
I have a few of those. Got them after my buddy mlee raved about them in his floor-to-ceiling OB monsters. Rapidly rising distortion below about 7 or 8kHz iirc. Although the harmonic components by then are high enough they're probably inaudible to me -- and most folks. I would not bother with back removal -- if crossed that high, there's no real dipole benefit. Maybe a simple cap 1st order high pass starting @10 khz?
Looks way too pricey for a budget build -- and amazingly ugly!
Scott, I'm working on a design that sounds quite good, is pretty cheap, AND meets easy acceptance by the interior decorator. Somehow I can't picture an an extra plastic pipe & L joint fitting the last condition. 😅
I have two really good reasons I think the Neo would benefit from sitting directly over the bass driver. First, as shown by the off axis plots, the radiation of the NEO is almost nothing at 90 deg . In the current position, there will be a woofer cavity resonance, but centered there will be no cavity resonance. Second, the NEO will see equal pressure on both sides from output from the woofer, eliminating any distortion caused by the modulation of the diaphragm. Not sure the degree of significance of these factors.