Aura NS-18 designs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
M

mclsound

Member
Joined 2007
#1
I was looking into some well proven designs for this bad boy.I will impliment them into a 2ch music system as well as HT.I was originally looking at side-fire fin a 3 piece 2ch speaker.
Anyone try the Aura and what was your impression.
thanks
 
#5
I was told a 5.8 cubic foot -vented to 20hz and you all say sealed.This is why I asked Thanks Sreten and hello again Bjorno.Pallas,I would like to keep it simple.This is for mostly 2ch.I was thinking W,MW.MTM,MW,W and sidefire the 18's.Someone suggested I look into Hypex amps but I have never heard them.These will be big and heavy and will try to build it in 3 pieces(wofer/sub-MB,MTM & woofer/sub.I have all the drivers other than midbass and the 18's(on order)..I have some 8" Volts but find them rather light(great for CC and surrounds)I will use my dual ATC mids and SS 9700(front and rear)tweeter and my AT 12's..the 8" Audio Tech's will cost more than the subs..I can get 10" Volts for a good price(not sure how they will image)
 
#7
mclsound said:
I am looking into a Bryston 10bLR to cross the Aura's around 40-50hz.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Then you need designs that would perform good and extended below and IMO not requiring to much EQ:

Enclosed are suggestions of slot-ported boxes for the Aurasound NS18-992-4A driver where the first shown is 😱 if putting the driver into a 5.8 cubic foot tuned to 20 Hz.

b 🙂

PS: The Hypex DS 4.0 is IMO a very good amp for subs.
 

Attachments

  • Aurasound NS18-992-4A_ported.JPG
    Aurasound NS18-992-4A_ported.JPG
    948.4 KB · Views: 777
#11
mclsound said:
I am having trouble reading the designs.Which is best for music and are they all based on 5.8(ish) volume?
Click to expand...

Hi John,

All the internal volumes for the simulations is noted as the 'System Volume'.

IMO the box with system volume of~392L is the one to choose if targeting a standalone sub.

5.8 cubic foot = ~164L is definitively not suited for an BR or even a closed design(PA use not considered) as can be seen in the simulations.

I recommend a closed design (minimum volume= ~200L= ~7.2 cu.ft; way better is 300L=~10.6 cu.ft) if the intension is to build side firing main speakers.

b🙂
 
#13
10.6ft2/driver is some serious cabinetry.All BB at 1.75inches thick and 2.75 baffle.
I have been given quite a deal on 4-NS18 and can run off a Krell KSA300s(1200w/ch/2ohms) or a FPB600c(2400w/ch/2ohms)..
Would you be saying to put two NS18 into a 21.2ft/2 for side firing.This is a massive box for sure.
 
#14
Hi,

FWIW its hard to describe 300L per driver as way better than using 200L.

I don't like seeing Vbox approaching Vas of the driver. It means the air in
the box is not linearising variations in suspension stiffness as much as it
might, and the higher Qbox of smaller boxes can sound somewhat cleaner.

If size is an issue any volume down from 300L to 200L would be OK.

200L * optimally stuffed (read up on this) would be a good choice.

rgds, sreten.

* Increases in apparent box volume of 20% to 35% material dependent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom