Thank you very much for the advice, Dave. Thats's an easy test to do, and I'll try that. But what I want to say is that I am very pleased with the bass output from this 13.6 cabinet. The possible bass bump doesn't really seem to bother me.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hey bjuck57 - let's see some photos!
Yes, this driver kind of spoils you for pretty much any other full range driver, it simply has the guts that most everything is missing.
The Boffle version of the box I'm using probably has even more bumpiness in the response but it sounds great. When I put the back on the box it loses most of it's magic. Unfortunately, I don't have a measurement system to see what is actually going on with it.
Yes, this driver kind of spoils you for pretty much any other full range driver, it simply has the guts that most everything is missing.
The Boffle version of the box I'm using probably has even more bumpiness in the response but it sounds great. When I put the back on the box it loses most of it's magic. Unfortunately, I don't have a measurement system to see what is actually going on with it.
Some photos of the 13.6 cabinets
Thank you very much for starting this interesting thread, Bigun. Much appreciated and very good reading! I have followed the thread closely, and it helped me to pull the trigger and order a pair of the AN15s. I first put the drivers in large open baffles, 6x3 ft with wings. The bass output was very adequate in those baffles, but with a different sound to it, a different 'signature', than in the 13.6 boxes. I'm not sure which bass signature I prefer, from the 13.6 boxes or from the ob. However, I had a problem with beaming at higher frequencies in the ob, a problem that I can't detect with the drivers in the 13.6 cabinets. I also had more of a problem with a rising midrange in the ob's, and I used some eq to manage that. I talked about the beaming I heard with David at Commonsense Audio, and he recommended me to build the 5.6 or 13.6 enclosures. Well, the beaming is inaudible to me in the 13.6 cabinets and I like the overall presentation very much. However, there is a certain 'magic' to the ob sound, I like it a lot. I use about 20 degrees toe-in on the 13.6 boxes and my listening position is some 10 feet away from the speakers. I use no eq now, but I seem to enjoy the sound more if I position my head somewhat below the drivers. There is still some rise in the midrange, or it could be that I'm just over-sensitive to those frequencies.
Thank you very much for starting this interesting thread, Bigun. Much appreciated and very good reading! I have followed the thread closely, and it helped me to pull the trigger and order a pair of the AN15s. I first put the drivers in large open baffles, 6x3 ft with wings. The bass output was very adequate in those baffles, but with a different sound to it, a different 'signature', than in the 13.6 boxes. I'm not sure which bass signature I prefer, from the 13.6 boxes or from the ob. However, I had a problem with beaming at higher frequencies in the ob, a problem that I can't detect with the drivers in the 13.6 cabinets. I also had more of a problem with a rising midrange in the ob's, and I used some eq to manage that. I talked about the beaming I heard with David at Commonsense Audio, and he recommended me to build the 5.6 or 13.6 enclosures. Well, the beaming is inaudible to me in the 13.6 cabinets and I like the overall presentation very much. However, there is a certain 'magic' to the ob sound, I like it a lot. I use about 20 degrees toe-in on the 13.6 boxes and my listening position is some 10 feet away from the speakers. I use no eq now, but I seem to enjoy the sound more if I position my head somewhat below the drivers. There is still some rise in the midrange, or it could be that I'm just over-sensitive to those frequencies.
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
wow buck.
Looking at the published freq responses of the 12 vs the 15, the 15 looks a lot smoother.
Norman
Looking at the published freq responses of the 12 vs the 15, the 15 looks a lot smoother.
Norman
I don't think so, cause 15 freq response maded in 20db window vs 12 in 10db window.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
+1 'BIB' rules! 😀
Since I don't play the lottery, I've a near zero chance of ever affording a pristine pair of RCA LC-1As, but hope one day reasonably soon to relocate these components into studio monitor alignments currently in ~20 ft^3 ML-Voigts currently tuned to 16 Hz and drop in some AN 15s [re]tuned to each driver's measured Fs [preferably the AlNiCos if I can sell off enough other stuff to afford them].
https://www.flickr.com/photos/515b/3087269546/in/set-72157612643502174/#
GM
Since I don't play the lottery, I've a near zero chance of ever affording a pristine pair of RCA LC-1As, but hope one day reasonably soon to relocate these components into studio monitor alignments currently in ~20 ft^3 ML-Voigts currently tuned to 16 Hz and drop in some AN 15s [re]tuned to each driver's measured Fs [preferably the AlNiCos if I can sell off enough other stuff to afford them].
https://www.flickr.com/photos/515b/3087269546/in/set-72157612643502174/#
GM
Hartley Boffel
Hi there B: The HartleyBoffel used series of vertical frames about 1"x1" attached to the top/bottom/sides. The felt Boffels were then attached to each frame and had a circular hole in the middle. The holes varied in size and as I recall from mid 50's when I first read of it,were larger the at the driver and progressively got smaller toward the back. I do not remember if the enclosure had a wood back, but I think not. ...regards, Michael
Hi there B: The HartleyBoffel used series of vertical frames about 1"x1" attached to the top/bottom/sides. The felt Boffels were then attached to each frame and had a circular hole in the middle. The holes varied in size and as I recall from mid 50's when I first read of it,were larger the at the driver and progressively got smaller toward the back. I do not remember if the enclosure had a wood back, but I think not. ...regards, Michael
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Hi Michael,
Sorry I missed your post earlier.
Strictly speaking I don't have a Baffle because I didn't make these vertical frames.
More recently I've removed the stuffing and am currently auditioning as an open back box. Too much box to call it an OB. It sounds just amazing - I do feel that the risk I took in buying an expensive driver and building a big box like this has paid off nicely. In fact, I've stopped building speakers since I made this one.
I do notice however that Audio Nirvana have introduced some new drivers - makes me curious.
Sorry I missed your post earlier.
Strictly speaking I don't have a Baffle because I didn't make these vertical frames.
More recently I've removed the stuffing and am currently auditioning as an open back box. Too much box to call it an OB. It sounds just amazing - I do feel that the risk I took in buying an expensive driver and building a big box like this has paid off nicely. In fact, I've stopped building speakers since I made this one.
I do notice however that Audio Nirvana have introduced some new drivers - makes me curious.
Yeah they seem expensive before you buy, but once you hear them, you realise they are a bargain.
No expensive cross over components to worry about like in a multiway, they just work, and extremely well at that.
No expensive cross over components to worry about like in a multiway, they just work, and extremely well at that.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I have a few, and each one does sound different.
In isolation the 15" cast frame with ferrite magnet sounds best out of the ones I own.
I haven't heard the Alnico or Neodymium version of the 15", but the ferrite version is seriously incredible bang for the buck all things considered.
In isolation the 15" cast frame with ferrite magnet sounds best out of the ones I own.
I haven't heard the Alnico or Neodymium version of the 15", but the ferrite version is seriously incredible bang for the buck all things considered.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I have only my 15" super and would love to know your impressions of any of the other AN drivers in comparrison.
The neodymium smaller versions are definitely detailed and "fast" but don't have the full rich midrange and bass extension of the 15". To my ears the 15" has fewer flaws, it just does everything well.
I think in a small room (say a bedroom) a 10" Alnico might come close to how the 15" ferrite sounds. This is just my gut extinct on the matter, I haven't heard any of the Alnico versions.
I think in a small room (say a bedroom) a 10" Alnico might come close to how the 15" ferrite sounds. This is just my gut extinct on the matter, I haven't heard any of the Alnico versions.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I may have to cook up a reason to build again!
The spec sheets for the AlNiCo look interesting, even the 8" drivers have decent bass extension, on papaer at least. The question I have is how to compare the Super (with whizzer and phase plud) with the Classic (treated cloth dust cap)? I worry about poor treble dispersion without the whizzer.
The spec sheets for the AlNiCo look interesting, even the 8" drivers have decent bass extension, on papaer at least. The question I have is how to compare the Super (with whizzer and phase plud) with the Classic (treated cloth dust cap)? I worry about poor treble dispersion without the whizzer.
Last edited: