Aurasound NS4 or WR125?

I need skinny L/C/R HT speakers; I'm thinking 4 ea bass/mid per box flanking dual Linnaeum monopoles (I'm trying to get low distortion and a reasonable match in output capability with my 4 new Avalanches)..

The WR125 seems fairly highly regarded, but a search didn't turn up anything on the NS4. NS4 spec's:

http://www.aurasound.com/pdf/ns3-194-4a.pdf

The NS4 models a lot nicer in WinISD than the WR125 and is cheaper, $35 vs. $50.

It's lower Qts allows a ported design with more output, smoother response, and a much smaller box than the WR125's, whose high Qts gives it a bloated response even sealed.

What do you guys think?

Thanks

Noah
 
I can't edit after 30 min, so this...

Wrong link for the NS-4, T/S parameters are:

Model NS4-255-4D
Fs: 57 Hz
DCR: 3.6 ohms
Qms: 6.98
Qes: 0.41
Qts: 0.39
BL: 4.82 T-M
Mms: 7.42 grams
Cms: 1053 uM/N
Vas: 3.78 Liters
SPL: 84dB
Sd: 50.27 sq. cm

I'll be XO'ing at about 1.6 kHz with steep slopes using a Behringer DCX2496, so breakup isn't an issue.

The question is, even though the NS4 looks better on paper, might the WR125 sound better?

It has XBL, but I've gathered that the Aura's underhung coil gives a similarly linear BL curve, and it does have very low distortion (at 1 W at least; one nice thing about the WR125 is the distortion data published for higher power levels).

Thanks again

Noah
 
Don't believe everything WinISD tells you. It's fine to help get a starting point but "real-life" application can be a little different. While WinISD does show a bump for the WR125S once you get the box into a room, my experience has been that it's flattens out nicely. The Aurasound looks like a nice little driver and if your primary goal is to have a very small box it looks like a good choice for the money BUT if you can live with a little larger box and you want higher output levels the WR125S will clearly outperform it, IMO. I think this is one of those cases where you will get what you pay for.
 
Tim,

Thanks for replying.

Is WinISD really as untrustworthy as people say?

It matches pretty closely with some publishedhalf-space responses I've seen.

As far as output, ported Auras are a lot better than sealed WR125's at the low end of the range where they'll like be stressed the most.

The WR125's Qts is nearly double what's recommended for ported, and that's apparent from the awful response shown by WinISD.

Do you really think the reality can be so different?

Thanks

Noah
 
Untrustworthy may be a little strong.
Will you be listening to your speakers in half-space?
I'm not sure I know what you mean by awful response. I've not heard anyone describe the performance of the WR125S with those words. I can model the WR125S in WinISD and it shows me a bump at 100Hz but it's not there when I play the speaker.
 
"Awful" was a bit strong, and I should have qualified it.

For the nice small box (.7 cu ft) that works well with 4 NS4's, the WR125's have a 5 dB hump at over 100 Hz.

I'm very space constrained because of the built-in installation I'm working with.

I guess the truth is that I really want to use the NS4's but so far I've found zero commentary on them.

Thanks
 
I guess the truth is that I really want to use the NS4's but so far I've found zero commentary on them.

Aurasound appears to be a good company and they have decent product. Your project seems solid and since you're dealing with space constrainments I can see why you're looking at the NS4. You'd be taking some risk without someone else's experience but I doubt it's a very big risk.
 

bser

Member
2004-10-04 11:26 pm
I'm just guessing at this but wouldn't the ns4's be very similiar to the ns3's? I've heard several people say that the ns3's are very solid full range performers. I've got 10 of the ns3's in .5 ft^3 boxes for my multiroom sound system on a budget and I'm very pleased with the performance they deliver.