I too have had good dealings with David Dicks.
My first set of full range drivers were the AN Super 10" They were perfect for a newbie. I liked them so much I was one of the first to purchase the AN Cast Frame Super 10". I feel like the cast frames are quite an improvement over the regular Super 10" Both of these drivers were in a 2.8 BR design listed on his site. I employed the reqular 8" on top which he calls the ambience. This design provided adequate bass with some EQing.
I listened to the Super Cast 10" for over 3 years as my primary system and loved it. I just now got my Medallion II cabinets done so I have replaced my primary system with Lowther DX3s in Medallion II cabinets.
Of course the Lowthers sound great, but the ANs in the BR with the 8" AN on top, actually have more bass.
I read some of you have drivers sitting around. I now have 2 pair of 2.8 BR cabinets I'm not doing anything with. If anybody is interested, I can post some photos.
Allen...
My first set of full range drivers were the AN Super 10" They were perfect for a newbie. I liked them so much I was one of the first to purchase the AN Cast Frame Super 10". I feel like the cast frames are quite an improvement over the regular Super 10" Both of these drivers were in a 2.8 BR design listed on his site. I employed the reqular 8" on top which he calls the ambience. This design provided adequate bass with some EQing.
I listened to the Super Cast 10" for over 3 years as my primary system and loved it. I just now got my Medallion II cabinets done so I have replaced my primary system with Lowther DX3s in Medallion II cabinets.
Of course the Lowthers sound great, but the ANs in the BR with the 8" AN on top, actually have more bass.
I read some of you have drivers sitting around. I now have 2 pair of 2.8 BR cabinets I'm not doing anything with. If anybody is interested, I can post some photos.
Allen...
do they share any of the lowthers traits? they're always likened to affordable lowthers.
The short answer is yes.
The long answer:
Before I was introduced to full range drivers, I was listening to traditional speakers. I would always boost the treble because the music sounded muffled. Then, when I would turn up the volume I would end up blowing the tweeter. This happen more than I care to admit. I started to wonder if I couldn't hear high frequencies. Then, shortly after I got my first set of full range drivers, it occurred to me that it wasn't the lack of high frequency I was looking for. It was clarity. So when I went to the AN Super 10, I was very happy because the clarity had improved over what I was used to.
I was still looking for a better sound though, so I thought I would build a second pair of BR cabinents and try out the AN Cast Super 10". They had just been announced. David told me it was a completly different speaker than the original Super 10". He was right, the clarity improved once again and I was thrilled.
Then came the Lowther DX3s which I originally had in the 2.8 BR cabinet. I hated them. I tried everthing and couldn't get them to sound right. They started collecting dust as I continued to listen the my AN Super Cast 10s in the 2.8 BRs.
Finally I talked to Jon Ver Halen about this and he recommend the Medallion II cabinets. I've been listening to them for about a month now. Wow!
Clarity is another level better then the ANs which is probably the biggest difference. I can't see the clarity improving any more with any speaker. It's awesome. The imaging is probably the same as the ANs which isn't surprising. The dynamic range is better with the Lowthers. Over all, the Lowther is a more natural sounding speaker.
With the ANs I listed to them on axis because them beam. With the Lowthers, I listen to them off axis because they have quite a rise in the mid range at certain frequencies. I also EQ them down a little in the mid range because of this.
I added a subwoofer based on Jon's recommendation and they really sound good now. Since they are so strong in the mid range, a subwoofer really balances them out.
With my setup here are my opinions:
AN
Pros: Cost, size of cabinet, ease of build, bass
Cons: Clarity is good but not great, high frequency beaming
Lowther DX3
Pros: Clarity, Dynamics, Very natural sounding
Cons: Cost, size of cabinet, complicated design build, bass
The best advice I can give is with any setup, you will need to experiment to get the best sound. Use others who have gone before you as a starting point.
My setup:
Source: Windows 7 computer playing FLAC files.
Pre-Amp: TrendsAudio tube pre-amp
Amp: Virtue Audio Two.2 class D amp.
Room: 15x20 carpeted with high ceilings. Speaker 1.5ft off the back and side walls.
Allen...
I haven't heard any of the AN Alinco drivers. I'm curious how they compare.
Anybody that's heard both, care to chime in?
Allen...
Anybody that's heard both, care to chime in?
Allen...
What makes Lowther's sound like Lowther's is the huge hump 5-8kHz. How you handle that hump determines how in-your-face they are. I have successfully used the DX3 in a MLTL. It is strictly for intimate listening. The penalty for decent bass is decreased dynamics. It is definitely not for rockers or Mahler fans. However, with a bit of EQ on the hump, they are still highly detailed, but very listenable for a long session.
Pick your poison.
Bob
Pick your poison.
Bob
The "standard" AN 2.8 BR box porting is also quite bad for as measured AN10 specs. Folks eq bass because the 6"x .75 in "big port" causes a large peak @ ~80Hz w/ steep roll off below. The response flattens nicely with a 4" id x 3" long port. This is one area where David's adament stand about port tubes just doesn't match reality.
With my setup using the 2.8 BR ambience, I used the 2 x 3"id ports with no tubes. The bass using this setup in my room is pretty good.
this is also what has confused me about putting the AN15 or 12 in any of the boxes mentioned on the AN site. from my (amateur) calculations the thing would need a box in the region of about 600ltrs (ported)?
the super 10 i've got a 115ltr BVR proposed on paper that needs checking.
super 12 looks to need a box in the region of 600ltrs (ported) too, in order to avoid it looking like my first box attempts looked on paper. sealed i think was about half the size but still huge.
Last edited:
By modern standards, yes, very large. At that point, I tend to lose interest, since if you can accomodate a cabinet that large, you might as well have a couple of quality 15in HE woofers XO'd to compression mid-tweets from ~500Hz > which covers all the wideband bases, and gives you a heck of a lot more dynamic range.
Quite good. All the things Scott said. It is a 15" HE woofer crossed to a 2" CD on a large tractrix horn. Crossover is 500 Hz LR24.
Still a lot of work to do. But sounds effortless.
It's already telling me a lot about my system. I thought I had a pretty good digital front end: XMOS async board going to a CS4398 with output trafos. But hey, a DL103 on an SL1200 beats the crap out the digital setup.
There are similarities to the ANs, but there are differences also. Similarities would be the same kind of musical, lifelike sound. The horn+woofer combo does have massively lower distortion, no resonances to speak of, smooth HF dispersion, and quite flat above 300 Hz.
Still a lot of work to do. But sounds effortless.
It's already telling me a lot about my system. I thought I had a pretty good digital front end: XMOS async board going to a CS4398 with output trafos. But hey, a DL103 on an SL1200 beats the crap out the digital setup.
There are similarities to the ANs, but there are differences also. Similarities would be the same kind of musical, lifelike sound. The horn+woofer combo does have massively lower distortion, no resonances to speak of, smooth HF dispersion, and quite flat above 300 Hz.
could the 15's be in H frame?
this style appeals to me as it saves a lot of wood work.
if i'm doing a search to read more about this, what is the search string i'm looking for?
Eh? Like everyone, I have my own tastes; I doubt I've ever really mentioned them in detail on forums as it's never seemed all that relevant.
Last edited:
the set up you've mentioned, woofers with horn. i'm not sure what to refer to it as, so my searches haven't given me what i'm looking for.
front horn full range? midrange horn? woofer assisted horn?
Well, I haven't actually given any details, as it's a bit of a pipe-dream from my POV -I don't have the space, or the money, nor is there any chance in the forseeable future that I will have. I'll start thinking about the design properly if I ever reach the happy point of being able to do something about it.
FWIW, I'd (probably) want woofers run sealed, Qtc 0.5 critically damped, probably either LR2, LR4 or a quasi 8th order Cauer-Eliptic to a suitable compression mid-tweet loading a front horn at ~500Hz. For preference, I'd probably be running Altec gear, or an alternative that can match it (that'd be a depressingly short list). Granted, that does make me a little unusual for a Brit, even one with a lot of Norse blood. And then I'd stop. Although I might have a second system with Quad 988s lurking around somewhere. I might not care for most dipoles, but there are exceptions, and I do like quality electrostatics, despite their limitations.
FWIW, I'd (probably) want woofers run sealed, Qtc 0.5 critically damped, probably either LR2, LR4 or a quasi 8th order Cauer-Eliptic to a suitable compression mid-tweet loading a front horn at ~500Hz. For preference, I'd probably be running Altec gear, or an alternative that can match it (that'd be a depressingly short list). Granted, that does make me a little unusual for a Brit, even one with a lot of Norse blood. And then I'd stop. Although I might have a second system with Quad 988s lurking around somewhere. I might not care for most dipoles, but there are exceptions, and I do like quality electrostatics, despite their limitations.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.